HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 SE48_3115 Nantucket Coastal Conservancy 09_27_18 comments
GEOTUBE
MONITORING
WORKSHEET:
SPECIAL
CONDITIONS,
FINAL
OCC,
ISSUED
SEPTEMBER
2015
In
addition
to
the
General
Conditions
contained
elsewhere
in
this
document,
the
Commission
includes
the
following
Special
Conditions
pursuant
to
the
Town
of
Nantucket
Protection
Bylaw,
Chapter
136:
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
19.
This
order
permits
the
continued
maintenance
of
the
existing
852
±
foot
long
3-‐tier
geotube
structure
along
87-‐105
Baxter
Road
and
the
installation
of
a
fourth
tier
of
geotubes
across
the
existing
system
but
limited
to
the
area
fronting
along
91,
93,
97
and
99
Baxter
Road.
The
applicant
is
also
permitted
to
construct
returns
as
described
in
the
December
19,
2014
Mass
DEP
Superseding
Order
of
Conditions
and
as
farther
modified
in
the
plan
of
record
dated
9/9/2015
and
may
also
plant
vegetation
above
the
geotubes
and
returns,
including
the
filling
of
gullies
and
rivulets
as
approved
by
the
Conservation
Commission
on
February
18,
2015.
This
Order
approves
the
Geotubes
as
a
temporary
installation
for
a
period
of
three
years,
with
the
option
for
the
proponents
to
request
an
extension
of
the
term
for
a
maximum
of
three
additional
years
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
set
out
herein.
NA
Note
that
the
Geotubes
have
been
approved
by
this
Order
as
a
temporary
installation.
20.
Notice
of
work
commencement
shall
be
given
to
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
("NCC"
or
the
"Commission")
and
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
("Department")
at
least
48
hours
prior
to
the
commencement
of
work.
NA
WORKSHEET
2
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
21.
Prior
to
installation
of
the
fourth
tier
of
Geotubes
on
lots
91,
93,
97,
99
and
returns,
SBPF
shall
ascertain
the
width
of
the
beach
seaward
of
the
existing
Geotubes
to
determine
whether
there
is
sufficient
beach
width
landward
of
mean
high
water
(MHW)
to
conduct
activities
associated
with
the
installation
of
the
fourth
tier
and
returns
in
accordance
with
the
proposed
construction
methodology.
In
the
event
the
beach
is
not
sufficiently
wide
to
allow
Geotube
installation
in
accordance
with
the
proposed
construction
methodology,
SBPF
shall
submit
an
alternative
construction
methodology
for
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
and
Department's
review
and
approval.
SBPF
shall
provide
copies
of
such
materials
submitted
to
the
Department
to
NCC.
NA
What
was
the
width
of
the
beach
seaward
of
the
existing
geotubes
and
landward
of
the
mean
high
water
level
prior
to
installation
of
the
geotubes?
22.
Prior
to
installation
of
the
fourth
tier
of
Geotubes
on
lots
91,
93,
97,
99
and
returns,
SBPF
shall
mark
the
MHW
line
with
surveyed
stakes,
obtain
Global
Positioning
System
(GPS)
coordinates
along
the
MHW
line
and
shall
maintain
the
stakes
throughout
the
duration
of
construction.
GPS
coordinates
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
within
2
weeks
of
collection.
NA
Has
the
current
MHW
line
been
compared
with
these
coordinates?
Where
is
the
documentation?
23.
Any
sand
within
the
Geotubes
or
sand
placed
on
top
of
the
fourth
tier
shall
not
be
considered
to
be
part
of
the
mitigation
amount
required
yearly
by
the
project.
NA
WORKSHEET
3
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
24.
The
staked
position
of
the
MHW
line
shall
serve
as
a
limit
of
work
throughout
the
duration
of
construction.
No
work
is
allowed
seaward
of
the
MHW
line
under
this
OOC.
NA
25.
All
sand
used
for
mitigation
or
to
fill
and
cover
the
Geotubes
shall
be
imported
from
an
off-‐site
source
and
shall
be
compatible
with
the
existing
bank
and
beach
sediments.
Is
this
being
monitored?
The
sediment
being
used
for
mitigation
does
not
visibly
resemble
the
sand
on
site,
and
one
can’t
help
wondering
if
it
is
“beach
compatible.”
26.
As
proposed,
the
sand-‐filled
Geotube
returns,
fourth
tier
of
geotubes
and
returns
on
the
fourth
tier
of
geotubes
shall
be
installed
in
a
manner
to
form
closure
between
the
existing
Geotubes
and
the
adjacent
bluff
without
excavation
into
the
coastal
bank.
All
beach
sand
excavated
to
install
the
returns
shall
remain
on
the
beach
and
shall
be
used
to
restore
the
beach
following
construction.
NA
27.
The
ongoing
beach
monitoring/survey
program
currently
conducted
by
the
Woods
Hole
Group
shall
continue.
The
monitoring
program
shall
be
conducted
on
a
quarterly
basis
for
the
first
3
years
in
order
to
timely
identify
beach
impacts
that
may
be
attributable
to
the
Geotubes
and
to
assess
whether
the
mitigation
program
is
adequate.
Beach
profiles
shall
be
taken
on
a
quarterly
basis
along
the
44
proposed
profile
lines.
Beach
profiles
shall
be
taken
from
the
top
of
the
coastal
bank,
coastal
dune
or
Geotube
seaward
to
the
-‐5
foot
MLW
contour.
Beach
profile
data
and
analysis
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
within
30
days
of
completion
of
the
quarterly
survey.
Following
3
years
of
quarterly
surveys,
SBPF
may
request
to
amend
the
Order
of
Conditions
to
alter
the
monitoring
program.
The
“interpretative
statement”
routinely
submitted
by
COWI
in
memorandum
form
with
each
quarterly
report
has
been
stopped.
Why?
This
memorandum
fulfills
the
provision
of
Special
Condition
#27
that
stipulates
an
“analysis”
shall
be
submitted,
along
with
the
profile
data.
WORKSHEET
4
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
28.
As
proposed,
offshore
(bathymetric)
profiles
shall
be
taken
each
spring
and
fall.
GPS
locations
shall
be
taken
along
each
transect
with
the
coordinates
provided.
These
transects
shall
be
reused
for
each
survey
to
cover
the
same
areas.
Offshore
profiles
shall
be
taken
out
to
the
-‐25
foot
to
-‐35
foot
MLW92
contour
or
2,000
to
3,000
feet
offshore,
whichever
is
greater.
The
bathymetric
survey
transects
shall
overlap
the
beach
profiles
(no
gaps)
and
the
tide
gage
used
during
the
survey
shall
be
surveyed
into
the
same
datum
as
the
beach
profiles.
Bathymetry
profile
data
and
analysis
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Department
and
NCC
within
30
days
of
completion
of
the
survey.
Photographs
and/or
video
shall
be
taken
along
the
transects
within
the
project
area
and
the
area
directly
adjacent
to
the
project
area.
The
underwater
video
shall
be
able
to
characterize
the
bottom
sediments,
species
present
and
relative
abundance
including
the
calculating
of
the
percent
cobble
where
appropriate.
WORKSHEET
5
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
29.
An
annual
assessment
report
summarizing
the
beach
and
bathymetric
profile
monitoring
program,
including
habitat
and
substrate
sampling,
and
the
invertebrate
sampling
from
the
approved
protocol
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
each
year.
This
report
shall,
at
a
minimum,
provide
an
analysis
of
beach
changes
including
volumetric
changes
between
surveyed
transects,
assess
location
of
the
top
of
coastal
bank
and
estimate
bank
retreat
over
the
previous
12
months
and
calculate
bank
volume
loss
in
the
project
area
and
300
feet
to
the
north
and
south.
In
addition,
the
report
shall
recommend
any
necessary
changes
to
the
beach
nourishment
program
for
the
Conservation
Commission's
review
and
approval.
The
report
will
also
evaluate
shoreline
change
within
the
area
covered
by
the
quarterly
transects.
30.
This
annual
report
shall
include
presentation
to
the
Commission
at
a
regularly
scheduled
public
meeting
of
the
Commission
to
discuss
the
data
included
and
what
conditions
and
impacts
are
being
seen
as
part
of
the
project.
WORKSHEET
6
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
31.
Post-‐Storm
monitoring
reports
shall
be
submitted
following
all
significant
storms.
A
storm
will
be
considered
"significant"
if
there
are
sustained
winds
over
40
mph
over
at
least
a
6
hour
period
according
to
NOAA's
National
Climate
Data
Center,
Nantucket
Memorial
Airport
station.
The
post-‐storm
monitoring
report
shall
include,
at
a
minimum,
photo-‐documentation
of
the
condition
of
the
Geotubes
and
nourishment
sand
within
the
project
area,
estimate
of
the
volume
of
sand
lost
from
the
sand
template,
estimate
of
the
beach
level
in
front
of
the
Geotubes
to
determine
if
replenishment
is
needed,
estimate
of
volume
of
sand
(if
necessary)
and
schedule
for
delivery,
identification
of
the
location
of
any
exposed
geotextile
or
of
any
repair
required
to
the
geotextile,
and
visual
observation
of
the
ends
of
the
Geotubes
to
determine
if
flanking
is
occurring.
Such
reports
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
as
soon
as
possible
following
all
significant
storms
but
no
later
than
7
days
from
the
end
of
the
storm.
How
many
storm
events
have
met
these
criteria
since
installation?
Should
the
criteria
be
modified?
For
example:
What
was
the
sustained
wind
velocity
and
duration
of
winter
storm
Juno?
WORKSHEET
7
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
32.
Sand
mitigation
shall
be
at
a
rate
of
22
cubic
yards
per
linear
foot
(cy/lf)
per
year
in
accordance
with
the
following
schedule:
a.
Provide
the
required
sand
cover
during
and/or
immediately
following
construction
of
the
fourth
tier
and
returns.
Sand
cover
volume
shall
be
in
accordance
with
the
following
schedule.
b.
Annually
in
April:
Provide
additional
sand
and/or
adjust
the
existing
template
to
obtain
a
minimum
two
foot
cover
over
the
Geotubes
to
protect
them
from
UV
degradation.
The
volume
of
any
sand
placed
in
April
shall
be
recorded
and
counted
towards
the
annual
22
cy/If
requirement.
c.
Annually
in
September-‐November:
Place
an
additional
volume
of
sand,
to
ensure
a
substantial
portion
of
the
sand
template
volume
(10-‐15
cy/If)
is
available
at
the
onset
of
the
winter
storm
season.
Throughout
the
winter,
place
additional
sand
on
an
as-‐needed
basis,
in
accordance
with
the
replenishment
trigger
in
the
Milone
&
MacBroom
November
12,
2013
letter
(i.e.,
if
half
the
vertical
height
of
the
lowest
Geotube
is
exposed,
place
a
minimum
of
2
cy/If).
If
the
balance
of
the
22
cy/lf
volume
is
not
placed
in
its
entirety
before
March
1,
the
balance
of
the
sand
will
be
placed
by
March
31.
d.
Delivery
tickets
from
sand
supplier
shall
be
provided
annually
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
to
document
the
total
volume
of
sand
provided
on
a
yearly
basis.
Is
there
documentation
regarding
length
of
time
geotubes
have
been
exposed?
If
yes,
where
is
it
available?
If
not,
why
not?
WORKSHEET
8
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
33.
If
there
is
not
adequate
space
to
provide
the
entire
mitigation
volume
within
the
project
area
footprint,
then
any
remaining
sand
shall
be
placed
in
a
berm
at
the
toe
of
the
coastal
bank
and
landward
of
MHW
within
300
feet
of
the
ends
of
the
Geotubes
upon
notice
to
the
Commission
demonstrating
that
placement
within
the
project
area
is
not
possible.
Any
additional
sand
placed
outside
of
the
project
area
shall
be
equally
distributed
to
the
areas
north
and
south
of
the
project
area.
WORKSHEET
9
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
34.
Failure
of
SBPF
to
conduct
the
actions
set
out
in
subsections
(a)
to
(f)
herein
shall
constitute
a
project
failure
("failure
criteria")
if
not
performed
within
the
stipulated
timeframes
or
within
such
other
reasonable
periods
of
time
as
determined
by
the
Commission
in
the
event
of
a
delay
in
performance
outside
the
control
of
SBPF,
or
if
there
are
unmitigated
adverse
impacts
from
the
project.
The
"failure
criteria"
include:
a.
Failure
to
provide
the
sand
mitigation
as
required
herein.
b.
Failure
to
conduct
the
shoreline
monitoring
and
post-‐
storm
monitoring
as
required
herein.
c.
Failure
to
repair
and/or
replace
damaged
geotextile
tubes
in
a
timely
manner.
If
repair
or
replacement
cannot
be
accomplished
within
30
days
from
the
date
of
the
damage,
SBPF
shall
notify
the
Department
and
the
NCC
before
30
clays
have
elapsed
and
provide
a
repair
schedule
for
Department
review
and
approval.
d.
Excessive
loss
in
updrift
or
downdrift
beach
cross
section
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
project.
If
the
quarterly
monitoring
program
identifies
excessive
loss
to
the
adjacent
shoreline
(compared
to
historical
data)
that
may
be
attributable
to
the
project,
then
SBPF
shall
provide
notice
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
within
30
clays
of
the
completion
of
the
quarterly
survey.
Upon
such
notice
the
procedures
set
forth
in
the
SOC
for
such
circumstances
shall
apply.
How
being
monitored?
What
is
the
definition
of
“excessive”?
WORKSHEET
10
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
34.
continued
e.
Failure
to
maintain
adequate
beach
width
in
front
of
the
Bank.
If
the
beach
in
the
project
area
erodes
so
that
the
position
of
MHW
migrates
landward
to
the
seaward
edge
of
the
second
tier
of
geotextile
tubes
for
any
two
consecutive
quarterly
surveys,
then
within
30
days
of
completion
of
the
second
quarterly
survey
SBPF
shall
provide
notice
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC.
f.
Failure
to
maintain
a
walkable
beach
in
front
of
the
Geotubes.
It
shall
be
a
failure
if
the
beach
on
the
seaward
side
of
the
coastal
bank
is
not
passable
by
foot
and
has
narrowed
by
a
greater
percentage
in
comparison
to
the
widths
of
nearby
and
adjacent
beaches
up-‐drift
and
clown-‐
drift,
including
those
beaches
in
front
of
other
forms
of
erosion
control,
for
the
majority
of
two
consecutive
quarters,
considering
storms,
tides,
and
similar
conditions.
It
is
understood
that
the
portion
of
the
beach
in
front
of
the
geotubes
is
by
definition
narrower
than
nearby
unprotected
beaches
because
the
geotubes
and
the
sand
template
covers
the
back
of
the
beach.
In
calculating
whether
the
beach
has
narrowed
disproportionately
the
distance
will
be
measured
from
Mean
High
Water
to
the
natural
toe
of
the
bluff
which
in
some
locations
is
buried
behind
the
erosion
protection
system.
Upon
such
a
failure
SBPF,
shall
provide
notice
to
the
Department
and
the
NCC
within
30
clays.
g.
Failure
to
maintain
all
required
insurance,
permits
and
licenses.
h.
Failure
to
meet
reporting
requirements
or
good
faith
effort
to
provide
required
reporting.
How
does
this
condition
relate
to
the
condition
to
maintain
a
walkable
beach
in
front
of
the
geotubes?
How
is
this
being
monitored?
By
whom?
What
is
this
distance?
How
does
it
compare
with
same
measurement
taken
prior
to
installation
of
geotubes?
According
to
this,
the
project
has
“failed,”
in
that
no
reports
have
been
filed
with
the
NCC
regarding
alternative
access
to
Baxter
road,
as
well
as
relocation
of
municipal
infrastructure
every
six
months.
See
Condition
#44.
WORKSHEET
11
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
35.
Should
any
of
the
failure
criteria
be
met,
the
Applicant
shall
schedule
an
appearance
before
the
Conservation
Commission
at
its
next
available
hearing
The
Commission
shall
review
the
failure
and
determine
how
the
Applicant
shall
act
to
address
it.
36.
In
the
event
removal
of
the
Geotubes
is
ordered,
then
the
geotextile
fabric
shall
be
cut,
removed
and
properly
disposed
of.
Following
removal
of
the
geotextile
fabric,
sand
from
the
Geotubes
shall
be
spread
along
the
beach
landward
of
MHW.
SBPF
and
the
Town
shall
maintain
the
escrow
fund
in
place
as
of
the
date
of
this
OOC
to
ensure
the
availability
of
funds
to
pay
for
the
removal
of
the
Geotubes.
Lack
of
adequate
funds
in
the
escrow
account
shall
not
negate
SBPF's
requirement
for
Geotube
removal.
37.
SBPF
shall
be
responsible
for
the
retrieval
and
proper
disposal
of
all
geotextile
products
associated
with
this
project
in
the
event
wave
action
and
erosion
destroys
or
otherwise
causes
damage
to
the
Geotube
system.
38.
This
OOC
approves
the
operation
and
connection
of
the
previously
installed
coastal
bank
drainage
system
on
91
Baxter
Road
in
accordance
with
the
plan
dated
9/9/2015.
WORKSHEET
12
SPECIAL
CONDITION
QUESTIONS
39.
As
proposed,
exposed
areas
on
the
face
of
the
coastal
bank,
other
than
the
upper
5-‐7
feet,
may
be
stabilized
using
biodegradable
erosion
control
blankets
planted
with
beach
grass
and/or
other
indigenous
coastal
vegetation.
The
erosion
control
blankets
and
plantings
shall
be
installed
with
hand
tools
with
workers
repelling
down
the
bank
face.
Work
underway
on
the
face
of
the
bluff
below
93
Baxter
Road
does
not
appear
to
be
in
compliance
with
this
condition.
See
photo,
taken
May
4,
2917.
WORKSHEET
13
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
40.
All
construction
refuse
shall
be
removed
from
the
site
and
disposed
of
in
compliance
with
all
local,
State,
and
Federal
laws
and
regulations.
41.
Approval
for
the
project
is
for
three
years,
with
the
option
to
request
a
three-‐year
extension
upon
expiration
of
the
initial
three-‐year
term.
The
applicant
shall
not
apply
for
a
long
term
or
long
length
expansion
of
the
Project
prior
to
January
1,
2018
and
shall
not
begin
construction
of
such
until
after
September
1,
2018.
The
Applicant
may
apply
for
localized
alterations
to
the
Project
as
may
be
appropriate
based
on
site
conditions,
and
may
apply
for
any
alteration
or
expansion
necessary
to
address
an
emergency
or
imminent
danger.
42.
All
access
for
construction
or
maintenance
vehicles
along
the
beach
to
the
project
area
shall
be
from
the
Hoick's
Hollow
access
to
the
South.
That
access
shall
be
blocked
off
and
maintained
at
all
times
to
prevent
other
vehicles
from
entering
the
beach
area.
The
applicant
shall
get
a
written
sign
off
from
the
Natural
Resources
Coordinator
on
a
bi-‐
weekly
basis
from
April
1st
to
September
15th
to
use
vehicles
on
the
beach.
The
sign-‐off
will
serve
to
confirm
the
presence
or
absence
of
any
protected
species
within
the
project
area
or
route
of
travel
to
and
from
the
project
area.
That
gate
shall
be
repaired
within
48
hours
of
any
damage.
43.
The
use
of
small
vehicles,
such
as
a
beach
buggy,
to
inspect
or
repair
the
Geotubes
and
sand
cover
is
permitted,
provided
the
Natural
Resources
Coordinator
sign-‐off
described
herein
is
obtained.
WORKSHEET
14
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
44.
The
Town
of
Nantucket
as
an
assenting
properly
owner
and
SBPF
as
the
applicant
shall
provide
the
Commission
with
updates
every
six
months
on
the
status
of
the
efforts
to
relocate
alternative
access
and
public
utilities’
infrastructure
at
the
northern
end
of
Baxter
Road.
According
to
this
condition,
there
should
have
been
three
(3)
such
reports
filed
since
the
OCC
was
signed
in
September
2015.
45.
Upon
completion
of
the
initial
construction
of
the
project
as
permitted,
a
partial
Certificate
of
Compliance
shall
be
requested.
A
stamped
as-‐built
plan
and
a
statement
from
a
Professional
Engineer
or
a
Professional
Land
Surveyor
registered
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
certifying
compliance
with
the
plans
and
conditions
of
this
Order
shall
accompany
the
request
for
a
partial
Certificate
of
Compliance.
46.
Upon
relocation
of
Baxter
Road
the
applicant
shall
appear
before
the
Commission
to
discuss
if
the
Geotubes
in
front
of
land
not
containing
pre-‐1978
structures
shall
be
removed
and
returns
installed,
in
keeping
with
those
shown
on
the
plan
of
record,
on
the
remaining
Geotube
structure.
This
shall
take
place
within
90
days
of
the
relocation
of
Baxter
Road.
47.
The
returns
constructed
on
the
fourth
tier
of
Geotubes
shall
be
contained
on
the
parcels
that
are
allowed
to
contain
the
fourth
tier.
48.
Should
the
quarterly
surveys
show
an
accelerated
rate
of
coastal
retreat
within
the
entire
survey
area
SBPF
shall
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
those
impacts
are
not
attributed
to
this
project.
How
to
define
“accelerated”?
WORKSHEET
15
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
49.
The
applicant
shall
be
required
to
provide
a
copy
of
the
required
insurances
by
the
License
Agreement
dated
December
13,
2013
between
the
Town
of
Nantucket,
SBPF,
and
private
property
owners.
50.
Groundwater
levels
within
the
Bordering
Vegetated
Wetlands
adjacent
to
the
drainage
system
and
Baxter
Road
shall
be
taken
at
the
beginning,
middle
and
end
of
the
growing
season
to
determine
if
the
drainage
system
is
having
an
adverse
impact
to
the
vegetated
wetlands.
If
there
is
a
change
in
groundwater
deemed
significant
by
the
Commission
they
may
call
for
the
discontinuation
or
removal
of
the
system.
51.
A
yearly
report
on
the
performance
of
the
drainage
system
is
to
provide
to
the
Commission.
The
report
shall
include
the
area
serviced
by
the
drainage
system,
and
the
maximum
amount
of
water
that
entered
the
system
during
a
storm
event.
Has
this
report
been
filed?
Example,
for
September,
2016,
one
year
following
the
date
of
the
OCC?
52.
A
list
of
all
sand
sources
currently
being
used
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission.
Should
an
additional
source
be
added
or
change
a
sieve
analysis
demonstrating
compatible
material
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission
for
review
and
approval
prior
to
the
installation
of
any
material.
WORKSHEET
16
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
53.
The
ability
of
SBPF
to
conduct
the
actions
set
out
in
subsections
(a)
to
(f)
herein
shall
constitute
a
project
success
("success
criteria")
if
performed
within
the
stipulated
timeframes
or
within
such
other
reasonable
periods
of
time
as
determined
by
the
Commission
in
the
event
of
a
delay
in
performance
outside
the
control
of
SBPF.
The
"success
criteria"
include:
a.
The
ability
to
provide
the
sand
mitigation
as
required
herein.
b.
Completion,
presentation
and
review
of
all
the
shoreline
monitoring
and
post-‐storm
monitoring
as
required
herein.
Successful
repair
and/or
replace
of
damaged
geotextile
tubes
in
a
timely
manner.
c.
No
excessive
loss
in
updrift
or
downdrift
beach
cross
section
that
can
be
attributed
to
the
project.
Including
taking
proper
action
as
directed
by
the
Commission
to
address
any
impacts
shown
by
the
reporting
requirements
herein.
e.
Maintenance
of
adequate
beach
width
in
front
of
the
Bank
as
defined
through
the
reporting
requirements
and
reviewed
by
the
Commission.
f.
Maintenance
of
a
walkable
beach
in
front
of
the
Geotubes
at
high
tide.
It
is
understood
that
the
portion
of
the
beach
in
front
of
the
geotubes
is
by
definition
narrower
than
nearby
unprotected
beaches
because
the
geotubes
and
the
sand
template
covers
t
he
back
of
the
beach.
g.
No
excessive
loss
of
the
area
subject
to
protection
by
the
project.
How
define
“timely
manner”?
It
has
been
observed
that
sections
of
geotubes
have
been
left
uncovered/unrepaired
for
several
successive
days,
weeks.
How
is
this
(maintenance
of
adequate
beach)
being
monitored?
How
is
this
being
monitored?
It
has
been
observed
that
often
there
is
no
walkable
beach
in
front
of
the
geotubes
at
high
tide.
How
define
“area”
subject
to
protection
by
the
project?
Bluff
edge,
bluff
face?
WORKSHEET
17
SPECIAL
CONDITION
2016
ANNUAL
MONITORING
REPORT
QUESTIONS
54.
A
copy
of
the
license
as
approved
by
the
Board
of
Selectmen
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission.
Prior
to
any
extension
or
revision
of
this
project
a
copy
of
the
valid
license
to
allow
the
project
and
the
duration
of
the
license
to
be
long
enough
to
cover
the
project
as
proposed
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission.
55.
All
surveyed
elevations
shall
be
shown
in
the
NAVD
88
datum
plane
to
match
the
datum
of
the
current
FEMA
flood
mapping,
or
a
conversion
factor
shall
be
provided
from
the
published
data
to
the
NAVD
88
datum
plane.
56.
A
summer
sample
of
the
invertebrate
life
within
the
beach
from
three
locations
in
the
project
area,
three
locations
within
the
area
between
the
project
and
the
Hoicks
Hollow
access,
three
samples
to
be
taken
to
the
north
of
Hoick's
Hollow,
and
three
samples
to
be
taken
south
of
Codfish
Park
and
compared
to
determine
impacts
on
the
invertebrate
community
of
the
Coastal
Beach.
The
samples
shall
be
taken
along
the
existing
surveyed
transects
and
locations
of
the
samples
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission.
Prior
to
the
taking
of
the
samples
a
protocol
of
the
sampling
shall
be
provided
to
the
Commission
for
review
and
approval.
57.
All
raw
survey
data
shall
be
made
available
to
the
Commission
and
public.
58.
The
Commission
will
require
an
independent
peer
review
of
the
data
and
reporting.
Any
cost
incurred
by
the
peer
review
shall
be
paid
by
the
applicant.
All
reviewers
shall
be
agreed
upon
by
the
Commission
and
the
applicant.
Has
there
been
any
communication
between
the
applicant
and
the
independent
reviewer?
If
yes,
please
specify.
59.
A
daily
work
log
documenting
all
project
activity
shall
be
filed
with
the
Commission
as
part
of
each
quarterly
report.
May 22, 2017
Mr. Andrew Bennett
Chairman
Nantucket Conservation Commission
3 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket MA 02584
RE: ANNUAL MONITORING REVIEW, BAXTER ROAD TEMPORARY STABILIZATION PROJECT
Dear Chairman Bennett and Members of the Commission:
As concerned citizens and community owners of the public beach below the bluff in Sconset on
which the 900-foot geotube seawall was installed on a temporary, emergency basis in late 2013
and early 2014, we would like to take this opportunity to submit formal comment regarding the
monitoring of the project.1
We do so as the coordinating team of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy (NCC), a non-profit,
grass-roots organization founded in 2012. The mission of the NCC is to protect and preserve
Nantucket’s coastal resources through education, research, and advocacy, ensuring that future
generations have the opportunity to use and enjoy them.
First and foremost, we respectfully request that the Commission hold the applicant accountable
for adhering to the conditions contained in the Order of Conditions (OCC) that was issued in
September of 2015 for this controversial project. As members of the public, we attended the
many months of public hearings on this matter. We are well aware of the full and complete
deliberations that went into the development of the OCC. Our island community, of both year-
round and seasonal residents, looks to you, the regulatory body with jurisdiction regarding this
project, to rigorously enforce the provisions of the permit you issued, as we expect you will.
1 The cover sheet of the original Notice of Intent, “Baxter Road Temporary Stabilization Project NOI Submission,”
appears at the top of this letter.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 2
We also ask, once again, that all parties endeavor to be as truthful as possible. Spin, hyperbole,
dissembling and the like should have no place in the dialogue related to this important matter.
While we understand that the applicant has nothing but positives to say about its seawall,
unfortunately, misstatements continue.
Here is one example: In a letter to the Commission as recently as May 2, 2107, the Siasconset
Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) President made the following statement:
We are pleased that not only is the road still open but from both engineering and
environmental impact points of view the project is working very well. Once installed,
erosion has been stopped and there is no evidence of harm to the neighboring
shorefront areas. [Emphasis added.]2
FACT: Erosion has not stopped within the area of the geotube installation.
The reality is that the statement “erosion has been stopped” is flatly contradicted by the
quarterly reports that have been conducted by the Woods Hole Group on behalf of SBPF, as
well as the accompanying interpretative statements prepared by COWI, another consulting
firm. COWI’s role is “to provide a professional opinion regarding the overall effect, both directly
and indirectly, of the geotube project installed along the beach near Baxter Road in Siasconset,
Massachusetts during the winter of 2013/14.” While the COWI interpretative statement
relating to the most recent 71st Quarterly Report does not seem to be available, the COWI
memoranda for previous quarters indicate that erosion within the project area has continued.
To quote from the COWI Interpretative Statement accompanying the 70th Quarterly Report
(survey dates October 26 and 26, 2016):
The surveyed transects within the geotube installation have generally exhibited
erosion over the past 32 months since the project installation, however this
erosion is within historic trends for the shoreline.” [Emphasis added. See
Attachment.]
It seems to us, as citizens, that any applicant coming before the Commission has an obligation
to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
2 Additional evidence documenting the continuing erosion since the installation of the geotubes (from the top of
the bluff), is evidenced by the condition of the property located at 93 Baxter Road. This is the property that was
cited in the Enforcement Order issued recently for unpermitted work being done on the face of the bluff just
below the structure, supposedly in an attempt to shore up the bluff and save the structure.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 3
As Dr. Robert Young, PhD., PG, Executive Director of the Program for the Study of Developed
Shorelines, a joint venture between Duke and Western Carolina Universities, who submitted
written testimony to the Commission about the proposed geotube installation, has previously
cautioned (to paraphrase): They [the proponents of the seawall] will bury you in data.
And so they have. As laypersons, we will leave it to the experts to comment on the scientific
information that has been provided by the applicant, and, quite frankly, is difficult for us to
comprehend, let alone comment on. We will leave that to the experts.
However, we do have questions. To assist our team in relating the Monitoring Report to the
Special Conditions contained in the final OCC, we created a worksheet that is attached. Note
that we have entered our questions into the worksheet. (Upon reading and studying the Annual
Monitoring Report submitted by the applicant, we also note that there are a number of
significant Special Conditions that were not addressed, despite the fact that the Report is
voluminous. We will reference the most critical of these below.)
THE BEACH: In addition to our questions, our main focus is where it has always been: on the
beach. The science in regard to the use of walls for erosion-control purposes, be they made of
wood, stone, metal or geotextile tubes, is settled: “When placed on an eroding or retreating
beach or bluff, geotubes will cause that beach to narrow and eventually disappear.” [See
Comment Letter, dated November 5, 2013, from Dr. Robert Young to the Nantucket
Conservation Commission.]
With the science in mind, the Commission wisely recognized the importance of ensuring that
the public would be able to access and enjoy its own beach with the geotube seawall in place.
To this end, the OCC contained the conditions for both the failure and success of the project:
Special Condition #34, which articulates specific failure criteria, contains the criterion that the
“failure to maintain a walkable beach in front of the Geotubes;” and Special Condition #53,
which conversely lists success criteria, clearly identifies success as maintaining “a walkable
beach in front of the Geotubes at high tide.”
The maintenance of a “walkable beach” is unequivocal: high tide or low, all seasons of the year.
Unfortunately, the Annual Monitoring Report, which is replete with data and detail, is silent in
regard to this important condition.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 4
The seawall has been in place since the winter of 2014, almost three years ago. During this
period, has a walkable beach been maintained? If so, has it been documented? If yes, where is
the documentation? What changes, if any, have been documented in regard to the width,
profile volume and shoreline position in front of or adjacent to the geotubes?
While the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to the Commission that this provision has,
and is, being met, we, by happenstance, do have photographic evidence that there have been
numerous times when, in fact, there has been no walkable beach in front of the geotubes. Our
volunteer photographer, Susan Landmann, has been able to access the beach at random times
throughout the past months, but only at low tide. She has shot many photos that plainly show
the wrack link up against the second layer of geotubes, an indication that at high tide the waves
reach the second layer (beach level) of geotubes, leaving no walkable beach seaward of the
seawall. Given more time, we could archive and date the photos as evidence, but this is not our
job: the burden is on the proponents, not the owners of the beach.3
CRITICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: In addition to public access to a public beach, another
overall concern relates to Condition #44:
The Town of Nantucket as an assenting properly owner and SBPF as the applicant
shall provide the Commission with updates every six months on the status of the
efforts to relocate alternative access and public utilities’ infrastructure at the
northern end of Baxter Road. [Final Order of Conditions. Emphasis added.]
As you know, this project was installed under an emergency order. The project was specifically
referred to by the Town of Nantucket at the time as the “Baxter Road Temporary Stabilization
Application.” In the application, the Town’s consultants, Milone and MacBroom, acting together
with SBPF in a “public private partnership,” stated that:
Work under this application is specifically proposed as temporary and intended
to provide a minimum but adequate level of protection for the short term while
long term solutions are explored and implemented. [Page 2. Emphasis added.]
3 One of the times that Susan was ever able to come close to the geotubes at what might have been high tide was
in the late winter of 2016. The folder of photos (5) she took during that outing is attached. Both she, and we, were
fearful for her safety.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 5
In fact, SBPF requested that these communications, along with the Notice of Intent filed in
October of 2013, be included in the records of the most current Notice of Intent.4
The temporary status of the project is also memorialized in Special Condition #39 of the current
OCC, issued in September 2015, which states:
This Order approves the Geotubes as a temporary installation for a period of
three years, with the option for the proponents to request an extension of the
term for a maximum of three additional years in accordance with the provisions
set out herein. [Emphasis added.]
Consistent with this intent, the Commission included Special Condition #44 in the OOC so that it
could be kept updated on the progress made by the applicant and the Town in securing
alternate access for the threatened section of Baxter Road, along with the relocation of Town
utilities.
According to the requirements of Special Condition #44, such updates should have been
provided to the Commission, and DEP, by the applicant and the Town every six months. Since
the OCC was signed and went into effect in September of 2015, that would mean that three (3)
such updates should have been filed by March of this year: March, 2016; September, 2016; and
March, 2017. We wrote to the Commission in December of last year inquiring as to the status of
the updates and have not received a response. [See Attachment.]
Further, Special Condition #34, which defines Failure Criteria for the project, states:
Failure of SBPF to conduct the actions set out in subsections (a) to (f) herein shall
constitute a project failure ("failure criteria") if not performed within the stipulated
timeframes or within such other reasonable periods of time as determined by the
Commission in the event of a delay in performance outside the control of SBPF, or if
there are unmitigated adverse impacts from the project. The "failure criteria"
include: h. Failure to meet reporting requirements or good faith effort to provide
required reporting. [Emphasis added.]
4 SBPF formally requested that all materials submitted during the previous Notice of Intent (NOI) review process
(DEP File Number SE48-2610), including materials submitted during the Department of Environmental Protection’s
(DEP’s) Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) review process, be included in the administrative record for the
current NOI, Appendix D., p. 27.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 6
The situation couldn’t be clearer. Unless there are updates of which we are not aware, or
communications to the Commission from the applicant relative to this issue, the applicant has
failed to meet the explicit reporting requirements contained in Special Condition #44. And
further, according to Special Condition #34, this omission meets the standard of a Failure
Criterion, plain and simple. No amount of legalese or semantic gyrations can explain this away.
Our concern in this regard is heightened because the applicant is now making public statements,
as well as written statements to the Commission, that they do not consider the installation
temporary; in fact, they talk openly about wanting to extend the seawall for an addition 3,000+
feet and make it permanent.
This declaration is contrary to previous representation made by the applicant to this Commission,
to the Town of Nantucket, to the State Department of Environmental Protection — and to the
citizens of Nantucket. Given that there is ample evidence provided by the applicant that they
have changed the original purpose of the project (to stabilize Baxter Road, giving the Town and
the residents time to provide alternative access, should it be needed), could this be the reason
they are ignoring Special Condition #44? No matter, they are still obligated to adhere to it, and
their failure to do so constitutes a project failure, as stipulated in Condition #34, h.
The duty of the Commission is to uphold the laws, both local and State, that protect our
wetland resources. Dr. Young has pointed out time and time again that, “Natural beaches are
an endangered species.” Nantucket is fortunate to have miles and miles of open natural
beaches, including the once pristine stretch of beach below the bluff in Sconset. This beach is a
legacy to the people of Nantucket from the Proprietors.
The geotube seawall has already been demonstrated to be environmentally unsustainable.5
Alternative access for the northern section of Baxter Road should be secured, as originally
intended. Once such access is in hand, the methodology should be agreed upon for removing
the geotubes, so that the impacted property owners can begin to develop resiliency strategies,
perhaps with the support of the Town of Nantucket, that will be less environmentally damaging
5 The fact is that, regardless of the amount of mitigation, the natural habitat of the 900 linear feet of beach on
which the seawall has been installed has been destroyed. In addition, the damage to the protected resource areas
(coastal bank and beach), which have become a perpetual construction site, can be documented with continuous
sand delivery (thousands of dump-truck trips) and maintenance activity that must go on for as long as the geotube
seawall is in place. Is monitoring being done on the nearby “soft” structure of sand-filled jute bags to the south of
the seawall? The Commission might consider such monitoring, because the careful monitoring of these side-by-
side installations could be quite informative.
NCC COMMENT LETTER 7
as well as less costly, will have a more certain outcome, and will be properly respectful of the
public beach below the bluff.
Sincerely,
Peter Brace
Barbara Bund
Sunny Daily
Susan Landmann
Susan McFarland
Linda Spery
Liz Trillos
Charley Walters
Mary Wawro
Karen Werner
NCC Coordinating Team
D. Anne Atherton
Administrative Coordinator
ATTACHMENT: COWI INTERPRETATIVE MEMORANDUM, Dated December 16, 2016
ATTACHMENT: LETTER TO THE CHAIR OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Mr. Andrew Bennett,
Dated December 12, 2016
ATTACHMENT: PHOTOS, taken by Susan Landmann, March, 2016.
Since 1994, the Siasconset Beach area has been monitored to track changes in the
beach and adjacent bluff area. The results of the monitoring has been documented
in a series of reports from the Woods Hole Group, the most recent of which is the
Southeast Nantucket Beach Monitoring 70th Survey Report October 2016 (survey
dates of October 26th through 27th, 2016). This is the nineth report issued
following the installation of the bluff protection (geotube) project near Baxter Road
during the winter of 2013/14. The purpose of this memo is to provide a
professional opinion regarding the overall effect, both directly and indirectly, of the
geotube project installed along the beach near Baxter Road in Siasconset,
Massachusetts during the winter of 2013/14.
COWI North America's ("COWI") opinion on the geotube effects is based primari-
ly on our review of the information provided in the 70th Survey Report and an
analysis of historic shoreline positions. From September 2013 to October 2016
(post-geotube installation), the shoreline south of the project site has trended to-
ward some accretion, while the shoreline immediately to the north has trended to-
ward erosion. The surveyed transects within the geotube installation have generally
exhibited erosion over the past 32 months since the project installation, however
this erosion is within historic trends for the shoreline. In addition, the annual period
from October 2015 to October 2016 shows erosion to be the dominant trend over
all of the study area with the majority of transects. This is also true for the time
period August 2016 to October 2016 which included several large storm events,
including Hurricane Hermine. It should be noted that the geotextile tubes at the
base of the bluff are not intended to halt long-term shoreline erosion trends; how-
ever, one of the purposes of the ongoing monitoring program is to ensure that the
existing long-term shoreline trends are not exacerbated by the geotextile tubes.
For the latest survey period (August 2016 to October 2016), all of the project area
transects show some erosion. This quarter appears to have been more energetic
than the previous period with an active fall, with most (42 out of 46) of the
surveyed transects experiencing erosion over the interval.
This site, like many open coast, sandy shorelines, exhibits substantial natural
variation as can be seen to the north and south of the project site. Even with erosion
the dominant long-term trend, the results for the geotube area and immediate
Memorandum
Title: October 2016 Interpretive Statement
Project Number: 210019.2
Date: December 16, 2016
To: Sconset Beach Preservation Fund
From: Joseph Marrone, PE
ADDRESS COWI North America, Inc.
35 Corporate Drive, Ste 1200
Trumbull, CT 06611
TEL 203.268.5007
FAX 203.268.8821
WWW COWI-na.com
2 / 2
.
vicinity are within the historic shoreline change patterns for the site and within
historic shoreline change trends, and as such, are not indicative of negative geotube
impacts on the shoreline based on the currently available information. Future
surveys and monitoring will be required to confirm the ongoing performance/effect
of the geotube system. Variability of past survey results as well as expected
seasonal and other temporal variations provide limitations on the conclusions
reached at this time. Future monitoring efforts will continue to provide additional
data over a longer time period, will continue to capture seasonal variations, and
will allow for more definite assessments of impacts to be completed.
PO Box 2050 · Nantucket MA 02584
December 12, 2016
Mr. Andrew Bennett
Chairman
Nantucket Conservation Commission
Town of Nantucket
ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED
Dear Chairman Bennett and Members of the Commission:
We are writing to you in regard to monitoring and enforcement of the Order of Conditions (OCC), DEP
File #SE 48-2824, issued on September 30, 2015 to the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund for the “Baxter
Road Stabilization Project.”
As you may recall, the OCC contains 59 conditions. While we have overall concerns about what appears
to be a lack of follow-through in regard to a number of these conditions, we would like to call your
attention specifically to Condition #44, which reads as follows:
The Town of Nantucket as an assenting property owner and SBPF as the applicant
shall provide the Commission with updates every six months on the status of the
efforts to relocate alternative access and public utilities’ infrastructure at the
northern end of Baxter Road. [Emphasis added.]
The OCC was issued over a year ago: in this period of time, according to Condition #44, two (2) updates
should have been provided by the applicant and the Town of Nantucket to the Commission in regard to
the relocation of alternative access, as well as public utilities infrastructure, in the area of northern Baxter
Road. According to the OCC, failure to meet this reporting requirement within the stipulated timeframe
shall constitute a project failure. [See OCC, Special Condition #34, section h., page 8.]
Although we have been carefully monitoring the enforcement of the OCC on behalf of the many
concerned citizens who own the public beach on which the project was, in part, constructed, we are
unaware of any such updates being provided to the Commission. If this is indeed the case, we
respectfully request that the Commission take appropriate action at its next scheduled meeting.
On behalf of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy Coordinating Team, including Peter Brace, Barbara
Bund, Sunny Daily, Rita Higgins, Susan Landmann, Susan McFarland, Maureen Phillips, Linda Spery,
Liz Trillos, Charley Walters, Mary Wawro and Karen Werner,
Sincerely,
D. Anne Atherton
COPY: Jim Mahala, DEP and Jim Kelly, Chair, Board of Selectmen
TO:
Members
of
the
Conservation
Commission
and
Administrator
Carlson
FROM:
The
Coordinating
Team
of
the
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
(NCC)
RE:
2017
Annual
Monitoring
of
the
Geotube
Seawall
DATE:
February
21,
2018
COPY:
Members
of
the
Select
Board
We
understand
that
SBPF
has
submitted
the
2017
Annual
Monitoring
Report
for
the
geotube
seawall.
We
also
understand
that
the
third-‐party
expert
has
submitted
his
independent
peer
review
of
the
SBPF
Report.
We
are
not
scientists,
and
we
find
it
difficult,
if
at
times
impossible,
to
fully
comprehend
the
information
contained
in
these
reports,
as
it
is
so
technical.
Therefore,
as
owners
of
the
public
beach
on
which
the
geotube
seawall
sits
and
on
behalf
of
the
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
Nantucket
citizens
who
are
concerned
about
our
coastal
resources,
especially
in
a
time
of
climate
change
and
rising
sea
level,
we
respectfully
ask
the
following
seven
(7)
simple
questions
about
the
performance
of
the
seawall.
You
will
note
that
most
of
them
pertain
to
the
beach,
which
is
of
prime
importance
to
us
and
the
community-‐at-‐large.
Please
advise
as
to
the
most
convenient
way
for
us
to
receive
your
responses.
Perhaps
meeting
in
a
public
information
session
would
be
the
most
helpful.
Thank
you.
·∙
Has
the
beach
seaward
of
the
geotubes
narrowed
since
the
seawall
was
installed?
Lowered?
If
yes
in
either
case,
by
how
much?
·∙
During
the
period
that
the
geotube
seawall
has
been
in
place,
have
there
been
times
when
there
was
NOT
a
walkable
beach
at
high
tide?
If
yes,
how
many
times?
For
how
long?
How
is
this
issue,
which
as
you
know
is
a
condition
of
the
permit,
monitored
and
by
whom?
·∙
Because
exposed
geotubes
act
essentially
as
hard
armoring
and
hard
armoring
destroys
beaches,
how
many
times
and
for
how
long
have
the
geotubes
been
exposed?
How
is
this
issue,
which
as
you
know
is
a
condition
of
the
permit,
monitored
and
by
whom?
·∙
Has
the
geotube
seawall
stopped
erosion?
If
yes,
where?
What
experts
say
yes?
What
experts
say
no?
What
is
the
assessment
of
the
Commission?
·∙
If
erosion
has
continued
and
the
seawall
has
stayed
in
place,
how
long
will
it
be
until
there
is
no
beach
left
in
front
of
the
geotubes?
·∙
What
have
been
the
impacts
on
the
shoreline
outside
the
immediate
area
of
the
geotubes?
·∙
Where
will
SBPF
obtain
the
sand
needed
for
future
replenishment
of
the
current
installation?
At
the
present
rate
required
(a
minimum
of
2000
dump
truck
round
trips
a
year),
how
long
will
the
current
supply
of
available
sand
in
the
two
on-‐island
pits
last?
8.8.18
CORRECTING
THE
RECORD
#1
SBPF
STATEMENT
AT
JULY
25
SELECT
BOARD
(SB)
MEETING:
“The
assertions
that
SBPF
is
not
in
compliance
with
its
Conservation
Commission
permit
are
blatantly
untrue…the
reports
have
been
filed
consistent
with
the
requirements,
and
the
suggestion
that
these
are
not
in
compliance
is
an
unfortunate
misinformation
campaign,”
Steven
Cohen,
SPBF
Attorney.
[Video
of
July
25
SB
meeting,
3:03.
Emphasis
added.]
FACT:
Special
Condition
#44
of
the
Order
of
Conditions
(OOC)
issued
by
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
to
SBPF
states:
“The
Town
of
Nantucket
as
assenting
property
owner
and
SBPF
as
the
applicant
shall
provide
the
Commission
with
updates
every
six
months
on
the
status
of
the
efforts
to
relocate
alternative
access
and
public
utilities
infrastructure
at
the
northern
end
of
Baxter
Road.”
[Emphasis
added.]
According
to
these
requirements,
SBPF
should
have
filed
five
(5)
such
reports
during
the
timeframe
to
date.
The
OCC
was
issued
September
15,
2015.
The
Natural
Resources
Coordinator
for
the
Town
of
Nantucket
was
asked,
on
the
record
and
in
writing,
to
provide
copies
of
each
of
the
six-‐month
updates
filed
by
SBPF
with
the
Commission
relating
to
Special
Condition
#44.
The
response
of
the
Natural
Resources
Coordinator,
on
the
record
and
in
writing,
was,
“Outside
of
the
SBPF
annual
reports
and
the
alternative
access
agreements
being
filed
with
the
Commission
there
have
been
no
other
formal
updates
on
the
alternative
access.”
[Emphasis
added.
See
attached
email
communication
from
Jeff
Carlson,
dated
August
2,
2018.]
This
statement
indicates
that
SBPF
has
not
fulfilled
the
requirements
of
Special
Condition
#44,
which
would
have
required
five
(5)
updates
to-‐date
on
the
status
of
the
efforts
to
relocate
alternative
access
and
public
utilities
infrastructure
at
the
northern
end
of
Baxter
Road.
The
failure
to
meet
Special
Condition
#44
is
one
indication
that
SBPF
is
not
in
compliance
with
its
OOC.
From:Jeff Carlson jcarlson@nantucket-ma.gov
Subject:RE: INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE
Date:August 2, 2018 at 1:09 PM
To:danneatherton@comcast.net,Joanne Dodd jcuppone@nantucket-ma.gov
D.#Anne,
I#apologize#for#the#delay#it#has#been#crazier#than#expected.##That#being#said#outside#of#the#SBPF#annual
reports#and#the#alterna@ve#access#agreements#being#filed#with#the#Commission#there#have#been#no
other#formal#updates#on#the#alterna@ve#access.
#
Thanks,
Jeff$Carlson
Natural$Resources$Coordinator
Town$of$Nantucket
2$Bathing$Beach$Road
Nantucket,$MA$02554
508B228B7230
#
From:#danneatherton@comcast.net#[mailto:danneatherton@comcast.net]#
Sent:#Wednesday,#August#1,#2018#1:07#PM
To:#Joanne#Dodd#<jcuppone@nantucketUma.gov>
Cc:#Jeff#Carlson#<JCarlson@nantucketUma.gov>
Subject:#Re:#INFORMATION#FOR#THE#RECORD,#PLEASE
#
Thank#you#so#much,#Joanne!
#
D.#Anne
#
#
On#Aug#1,#2018,#at#12:26#PM,#Joanne#Dodd#<jcuppone@nantucketUma.gov>#wrote:
#
Hi#Danne,
#
I#got#your#message.#I#spoke#with#Jeff#and#he#will#get#this#to#you#today
#
Thanks
#
Jo
#
From:#danneatherton@comcast.net#[mailto:danneatherton@comcast.net]#
Sent:#Friday,#July#27,#2018#4:19#PM
To:#Jeff#Carlson#<JCarlson@nantucketUma.gov>
Cc:#Joanne#Dodd#<jcuppone@nantucketUma.gov>
Subject:#Fwd:#INFORMATION#FOR#THE#RECORD,#PLEASE
#
JEFF#AND#JOANNE:#PLEASE#CONFIRM#RECEIPT#OF#THIS#EMAIL
#
#
#
Would#like#to#know#that#this#got#through,#as#no#response#has#been#received#from#Jeff,
although#I#thought#he#said#he#would#get#back#to#us#right#away.
#
Please#confirm.
#
If#it’s#too#late#today,#could#you#please#send#the#informa@on#on#Monday,#as#this#is#@meU
sensi@ve.
#
Thank#you.
#
Happy#weekend.
#
D.#Anne
#
#
Begin#forwarded#message:
#
From:0"danneatherton@comcast.net"#<danneatherton@comcast.net>
Subject:0INFORMATION0FOR0THE0RECORD,0PLEASE
Date:0July#26,#2018#at#12:35:52#PM#EDT
To:0"Jeff#Carlson#(JCarlson@nantucketUma.gov)"#<jcarlson@nantucketU
ma.gov>
#
INFORMATION, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD
RE ORDER OF CONDITIONS (OOC), DEP FILE #SE48-2824
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 TO THE SIASCONSET BEACH
PRESERVATION FUND (SBPF)
FOR THE **BAXTER ROAD STABILIZATION PROJECT**
Dear Jeff:
We are trying to determine if the applicant (SBPF) in the above
captioned matter is in compliance with the Order of Conditions,
specifically Special Condition # 44.
Special Condition #44 states: The Town of Nantucket as
assenting property owner and SBPF as the applicant shall
provide the Commission with updates every six months on the
status of the efforts to relocate alternative access and public
utilities infrastructure at the northern end of Baxter Road.
Would you kindly provide us the copies of each of the six-month
Would you kindly provide us the copies of each of the six-month
updates filed with the Commission relating to Special Condition
#44? According to our calculations, the applicant should have
filed five (5) such reports during the timeframe to date.
As you may recall, we brought this matter to your attention in our
letter to the Commission dated December 12, 2016, which is
attached.
Thank you.
D. Anne Atherton
for the
NCC Team
ATTACHMENT
#
#
#
#
#
<image001.jpg>
www.savenantucketbeaches.org
info@savenantucketbeaches.org
PO Box 2050 | Nantucket, MA | 02584
PO Box 2050 · Nantucket MA 02584
December 12, 2016
Mr. Andrew Bennett
Chairman
Nantucket Conservation Commission
Town of Nantucket
ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED
Dear Chairman Bennett and Members of the Commission:
We are writing to you in regard to monitoring and enforcement of the Order of Conditions (OCC), DEP
File #SE 48-2824, issued on September 30, 2015 to the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund for the “Baxter
Road Stabilization Project.”
As you may recall, the OCC contains 59 conditions. While we have overall concerns about what appears
to be a lack of follow-through in regard to a number of these conditions, we would like to call your
attention specifically to Condition #44, which reads as follows:
The Town of Nantucket as an assenting property owner and SBPF as the applicant
shall provide the Commission with updates every six months on the status of the
efforts to relocate alternative access and public utilities’ infrastructure at the
northern end of Baxter Road. [Emphasis added.]
The OCC was issued over a year ago: in this period of time, according to Condition #44, two (2) updates
should have been provided by the applicant and the Town of Nantucket to the Commission in regard to
the relocation of alternative access, as well as public utilities infrastructure, in the area of northern Baxter
Road. According to the OCC, failure to meet this reporting requirement within the stipulated timeframe
shall constitute a project failure. [See OCC, Special Condition #34, section h., page 8.]
Although we have been carefully monitoring the enforcement of the OCC on behalf of the many
concerned citizens who own the public beach on which the project was, in part, constructed, we are
unaware of any such updates being provided to the Commission. If this is indeed the case, we
respectfully request that the Commission take appropriate action at its next scheduled meeting.
On behalf of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy Coordinating Team, including Peter Brace, Barbara
Bund, Sunny Daily, Rita Higgins, Susan Landmann, Susan McFarland, Maureen Phillips, Linda Spery,
Liz Trillos, Charley Walters, Mary Wawro and Karen Werner,
Sincerely,
D. Anne Atherton
COPY: Jim Mahala, DEP and Jim Kelly, Chair, Board of Selectmen
April
27,
2018
TO:
The
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
FROM:
The
NCC
Coordinating
Team
RE:
MAJOR
POST-‐STORM
REPORTS,
MARCH
2018
BAXTER
ROAD
TEMPORARY
STABILIZATION
PROJECT
We
would
like
to
submit,
for
the
record,
photos
of
the
geotube
project
taken
by
Susan
Landmann
on
or
about
the
following
dates
in
the
first
quarter
of
this
year:
January
9,
February
1,
March
6
and
March
20,
2018.
[See
attachment.]
Ms.
Landmann,
who
accessed
the
beach
below
the
bluff
via
the
public
entrance
at
Hoicks
Hollow
or
from
Quidnet
at
times
when
the
Hoicks
Hollow
public
way
was
inaccessible,
took
these
photos
at
random
times.
We
believe
that
this
anecdotal
evidence
graphically
illustrates
two
of
our
ongoing
concerns
about
this
project,
which
is
installed
for
the
most
part
on
public
property:
One,
there
appears
to
be
no
monitoring
of
the
times
when
the
geotubes
are
exposed.
Greg
Berman,
the
independent
reviewer,
has
pointed
out
that
when
the
geotubes
are
exposed
they
function
as
a
coastal
engineering
structure
(CES).
One
can
see
from
these
photos
that
the
geotubes
have
been
exposed
for
significant
periods
of
time
during
the
first
quarter
of
2018.
We
don’t
know
whether
or
not
the
applicant
had
replenished
the
template
covering
the
exposed
geotubes
between
the
dates
when
Ms.
Landmann
took
these
photos.
However,
we
believe
that
the
Commission
should
require
more
careful
monitoring
of
this
condition,
as
the
potential
for
damage
to
downdrift
properties
is
high,
especially
during
storm
events.
Two,
there
appears
to
be
no
monitoring
of
the
times
when
there
is
no
walkable
beach
seaward
of
the
installation,
as
required
by
the
permit.
The
wrack
line,
indicating
the
height
of
the
tide
in
front
of
the
geotubes,
can
be
plainly
discerned
in
the
photos.
The
applicant
is
required
to
maintain
a
walkable
beach
seaward
of
the
project
at
all
times,
even
at
high
tide.
As
depicted
in
these
pictures,
the
beach
is
not
walkable
at
high
tide.
How
can
the
applicants
state
that
they
are
in
compliance
with
this
condition
of
the
permit
when
there
is
no
documentation
to
substantiate
that
claim?
Not
only
is
this
condition
not
being
monitored,
it
is
not
being
met.
We
respectfully
ask
that
the
Commission
take
steps
to
see
that
this
condition
is
enforced.
Thank
you.
ATTACHMENT
(41
pp.)
January
9,
2018
February
1,
2018
March
6,
2018
March
20,
2018
TO:
The
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
FROM:
The
NCC
Coordinating
Team
DATE:
April
27,
2018
RE:
Addendum
to
Public
Comment
re
SBPF
2017
Monitoring
Report
re
Crevice
We
would
like
to
submit,
for
the
record,
photos
of
the
geotube
project
taken
by
Susan
Landmann
on
or
about
the
following
dates:
November
29
and
December
26,
2017.
These
photos
depict
a
crevice,
or
fissure
of
some
kind,
opening
up
behind
the
installation
at
the
north
end
and
the
bluff.
The
crevice
was
of
significant
depth
that
a
person
could
walk
into
it.
Mitigation
sand
was
apparently
added
and
filled
the
crevice
in
late
November,
but
when
Ms.
Landmann
took
photos
in
late
December,
it
had
re-‐opened.
We
don’t
recall
that
this
condition
has
been
referenced
to
date.
Thank
you.
ATTACHMENT
(7
PP.)
November
29,
2017
December
26,
2017