Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-19ConCom Minutes for November 19 2018 adopted Dec. 3 CONSERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov Monday, November 19, 2018 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room — 4:00 p.m. Commissioners: Andrew Bennett (Chair), Ashley Erisman (Vice Chair), Ernie Steinauer, David LaFleur, Ben Champoux, Ian Golding, Joe Topham Called to order at 4:20 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Remote Participation: Per 940 CMR 29.10, Golding is participating remotely due to distance. Absent Members: Steinauer Late Arrivals: None Earlier Departure: Golding Town Counsel: George Pucci, K&P Law P.C. Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Announcements B. Public Comment — None II. A. PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Intent *Sconset Beach Preservation Fund — 59-119 Baxter Road (49&48 -various) Area SE48-3015 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused Documentation Applicant Representatives Public None Supporting documents and plans. Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen LP Dwight Dunk, Epsilon Associates Inc. Les Smith, Coastal Geologist Epsilon Associates Inc Jamie Feeley, Construction Manager Cottage and Castle Inc Josh Posner, 77 Baxter Road, President'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund Arthur D. Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey, Jeanne Dickinson, 49 Baxter Road Burt Balkind, 10A Scotts Way Caroline Osborne, Baxter Road Emily Molden, Nantucket Land Council (NCL) Rick Atherton, Board of Selectmen 3 N J Discussion Cohen — Addressed some questions asked after Mr. Thompson's presentation about littoral drift at the last meeting; the question is whether or not the sand is in the system when it is needed, not if it's being pulled off the template. Dunk — He believes they've responded to all the questions and comments that have come up in the hearings. Reviewed the letter submitted November 16, 2018: available sand volume in front and on the end ramps — 6.2 cubic yards per linear foot (CY/LF) on the front and the end ramps contain about 600 to 1100 CY/LF; bank swallow habitat — per 2017 letter of findings from Dr. Kennedy visual survey before construction and protect the top 5 -feet of bank where active nests are found and construction during non -nesting season; beach invertebrate survey — in accordance with Condition 56, the protocol for the survey was approved and implemented (only 8 macrofaunal species were found); meiophauna can be retained by a 45 millimeter mesh; off -shore benthic habitat — June 2018 off -shore survey shows high volume benthic habitat; mapped priority Piping Plover habitat at the southern limit — not great habitat for ground -nesting birds. Status of homes relative to 1978 date is on the agenda tonight; the state regulations allows coastal engineering structure (CES) for homes that existed at the time the regulations went into effect and any lot that had homes at that time to be protected. Attachment 2 to the letter enumerates the homes eligible for protection on the shore -side of Baxter Road; the gap lots are allowed to be protected for the public infrastructure. The precedent set by the existing project should allow for protection of those homes. Contend all lots in Zone 2 except for 69 & 81 are eligible for protection under the bylaw. All six houses in Zone 4 are eligible for protection; this Zone includes the Bluff Walk. At the last hearing we focused on the littoral drift system: cross -shore sediment transport on and off the beach into/from the nearshore system and long -shore transport. These components of the system add a time lag to the sediment transport; the same washing off the template moves first to the beach then washes out. Relative to the Wetland Protection Act, those tie to land under the ocean, the coastal beach, and coastal bank; Page 1of4 ConCom Minutes for November 19 2018 adopted Dec 3 these are all components of storm -damage prevention. The coastal bank, the bluff is the last line of defense from storm damage; that is a glacial landform and can't be rebuilt by littoral action. In storms that don't reach the template or bluff, there is no impact. In terms of mitigation and maintenance, regulations call for the best available measure; this CES is determined to provide the adequate level of protection and maintaining the sand template is the best available measure. The data provided in the letter dated November 2, 2018 shows no adverse impact from the geo-tube CES. We still believe the adaptive management protocol is the best choice; however, an alternative sand placement the commission could consider is sand placement once a year based upon loss in that year, this approached is offered by Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Lastly, for consideration by the commission, provided draft preliminary findings of facts and special conditions. Bennett — Asked for more detail on the justification for protection of the southem-most lots. Dunk — Table 3 & Table 2 in the 77 Shoreline Report, those areas are profiled 89.2 to 89.8; for the 5 -year period, that shore line has eroded with some seaward movement of the mean -low water line and the volumes and shoreline positions match. Cohen — There is evidence of active erosion but also chose the location because the base of bluff erodes where dunes are lost and those are lost in this location. If we wait for the bank to slump, we lose the natural vegetation and the Bluff Walk. Dunk — We've seen is the loss of coastal dunes in front of this area; that dune provides storm -damage prevention. Champoux — If the rate of erosion is projected to increase at one end and not at other locations, the calculations are based on average over-all erosion; five years from now, we might have a totally different calculation. Dunk — Looking at the best available information. Coastal Zone Management has identified that the existing project is because the nodal point is because sand is moving from those locations; in terms of adaptive management approach, it provides for monitoring what's being lost over a season. Champoux — Asked if there is a cut off to the amount of sand nourishment per linear foot. Dunk — It's based upon the point of the bluff with the highest retreat rate. Adaptive management program allows for changes over time. Cohen — if one year took 30 or more, that would be replaced. Champoux — If we get massive erosion rates, we need to be flexible; it seems you're putting a structure in front of a natural contributor and don't know the impact down -drift. Dunk — The point of the mitigation system is to minimize the effect on down -drift land form. We need to maintain a thickness of sand on the geotubes. Champoux — There seems to be a big gap in what the applicant is saying is appropriate for mitigation and what Applied Coastal is saying. We'd like a more agreed upon. Dunk — With adaptive management, the tank gets filled then topped off as needed. Smith — The adaptive management program is working and is the best available measure in the industry; we are going way beyond the standard by using the actual erosion rates. Cohen — Applied Coastal is coming up with ways to increase the mitigation; we are supplying enough to meet the standard. The required standard under State law is to put X amount of sand on the beach and let it go away. We multiplied the figure by 50% to be more cautious. Now we want to put out 22CY/LF sand and maintain to match nature as much as possible. Advantages are: available, quick to replace, and matches a 100 -year storm. We're proposing a system better than any in the State. Erisman — She's concerned about the project relative to the coastal beach. 67,000 SF of beach will be altered; that's 1.5 acres of beach. Coastal beaches are significant for protection of beaches, storm damage, flood control, fishery habitat, and cycling nutrients. When this system is uncovered, it won't function as a coastal beach. Despite the way cross -shore and long -shore has been described; she sees this as disrupting the function of a coastal beach. Too much beach is being covered and it can't respond. Champoux — There is a condition that requires a walkable beach in front of the CES; in the winter that might go away. In reality, there is always some coastal beach present. Smith — A coastal beach is a changing landform. Part of what mitigation is mimic that changing landform. There will be changes in the beach from season to season; on Nantucket there is less change in the beach than other areas. Regulations require maintenance of the landform. Champoux — Asked if the sand profile makes up for that dynamic. Smith — Yes. Erisman — Cited the Performance Standard to support her concerns. The elevation of the beach has clearly changed. Smith — During a storm event, the water is full of suspended sediment from the swash zone and sandbars; that's how the sediment is moved. DEP have approved the performance standards for these projects; there are a lot of precedent and adjudicated hearings governing how sediment is provided. Dunk — In terms of water quality and sediment in suspension, that water is full of suspended sediment from the existing beach; that is how the sand is moved through the transport mechanisms. Erisman — She asked for more information about Bank Swallows when they are looking for nesting sites and the impact of construction. Page 2 of 4 ConCom Minutes for November 19 2018 adopted Dec. 3 Dunk —The proposed project will not be during the nesting season so as not to impact their nesting activity. Construction will be late summer into the winter; not when they would be looking to nest. The order of conditions requires the tubes to be covered. Cohen — He will provide a letter with the requested information. There are active nests above the existing geo- tubes. Erisman — She's concerned about the use of geo-textiles in an active beach environment; plastic fibers are a new area of study. Asked if there is information about the breakdown of the geo-textiles. Cohen — He can get that information from the manufacturer. Bennett — On concern about the mitigation is that the sediment is out there after a storm. Dunk — The movement of sand off the template is first to the beach where it is stored before wash carries it off shore. The beach is a reservoir of sand for use in a storm event. Erosion of the bluff is episodic; when a chunk of bluff goes, it falls onto the beach until a storm carries off shore. Once in the breaker zone, it is moved along shore. Smith — This is a very dynamic beach. Woods Hole Group (WHG) long-term survey shows the changes and that the project is working. Topham — The twice -a -day high -tide cycle picks up sand on the beach; if there is no sand on the template, there is nothing to be carried into the system. Dunk — Mean high water is about 70 feet from the structure; during most days, that isn't reaching the template. The wave run up during certain storms is what picks up that sand and moves it into the system. Smith — The adaptive management program is providing far more sand than the State requirement. The larger the project, the better it is for the shoreline because there is no one place sticking out. Bennett — The southern part, the returns and deflection off the structure and the dunes beyond the proposed expansion; he's concerned about possible erosion of those dunes beyond the bluff. Dunk — As presented in the NOI, we take the structure down to 55 Baxter Road with the returns but not touch the existing dunes. Smith — We would monitor those return areas; if we need to replace sand, we do that. If it doesn't work, well have to take that section out. Cohen — We want to tweak the current proposal and then carry forward the coir -roll array returns to this project. Bennett — The gap lots, looking at the whole project including the existing structure, the gap lots are about 50% of the area. He questions including a couple of the southern lots. Of about 23 lots, 11 are empty or new construction; he's concerned about that number. He understands not breaking up the structure. Cohen — We're also trying to protect the infrastructure and the Bluff Walk. Topham — Likes that the bluff Walk. Asked what will happen to the existing beach stairs. Feeley — Those will go over the geo-tubes. Dickinson — The north part of Baxter Road is in great peril; each part of this needs to be looked at separately and assessed differently. What happens with detritus that goes into the water and what happens to life and limb if nothing is done? Where the geo-tubes exist, the bluff is much more stable. This needs to be moved forward quickly. Balldnd — Asked about seal habitat. According to the marine mammal protection act, you can't alter the behavior of seals. They are usually 5-15 feet off shore. Asked the proponent to look into this as a factor they might have to mitigate for. Looking at this in the bigger picture, wonders what `Sconset will look like in 15 years; how far will the expansion go. Osborne — We've had a group of seals out there the entire time; they don't seem to be impacted by any storms or the work. We have many different types of birds. She does not understand what the problem is with the State regulation regarding pre -1978 homes and not moving forward. Molden — Provided additional comments prior to the last hearing from Applied Coastal. Still remain concerned that the proposed mitigation will not protect resource area. The argument relies on several assumptions: the timing of over nourishment does matter, sediment might remain in the system but relyi8ng on what was pre -contributed has its limits. The commission will never know how much would have been contributed if the sediment isn't available. There is no real way to monitor how undernourished the system might be in any given year. That is why average volume per year is important. One problem with this design is a large portion of the template isn't available because it's on top of the template so isn't available. The management is being put out for the down -drift resource areas. We have remaining concerns for the proposed volumes for adaptive mitigation. I share Mr. Champoux's concern about the calculation of the erosion rate for the southern portion of the project; that erosion rate used too -long a tern. On the waiver request, she's not aware of the commission granting a waiver for a CES in front of substantially improved, post 1978 house or empty lot. As proposed now, don't feel the applicant has met the burden of no adverse impact. Atherton — This is one of the most substantial CES in the state if not in the nation. California coastal commission would have a staff of 10 or 15 fulltime professional representing the commissioners to help them understand the application. Locally we have a 40B on South Shore Road and the ZBA has asked the Select Board to hire several consultants. You might want to ask for that kind of professional help as well. Cohen — Asked for a continuance to Dec. 3. They'll provide more information but don't intend to make another major filing. Would like to have a Q&A with the commission and discuss conditions. Page 3of4. ConCom Minutes for November 19 2018 adopted Dec 3 Motion Continued to December 3, 2018 by unanimous consent. Vote N/A III. PUBLIC MEETING A. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes 11/05/2018: Held 2. Monitoring Report 3. Enforcement Actions a. None 4. Reports: a. None 5. Commissioners Comment a. None 6. Administrator/Staff Reports a. None Adjourned at 6:05 p.m. by unanimous consent. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4