Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130624-SBPF letter to BOS_201404071213435063 Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund 18 Sasapana Road, Nantucket, MA 02554 June 24, 2013 Dear Chairman Atherton and Members of the Board of Selectmen, As you are likely aware, there is a group of citizens that opposes protecting the Sconset bluff. As enclosed (see below), an Alert was distributed on June 23, 2013 that has ten significant misstatements about the matter currently before the Board of Selectmen, namely how to deal with the urgent danger to public access and utilities at Baxter Road. The first inaccuracy is that a revetment would be installed on the beach owned by the Town. Multiple sections of the revetment, including those that would protect the most endangered sections of the Baxter Road, would be installed on private property because the erosion has already swept well inland of the Town land. The second inaccuracy is that the proposed bluff protection is 4000 feet long but only a 500 foot section of Baxter Road is threatened. Baxter Road is currently threatened at the full length of the to-be proposed bluff protection. There is a section of road roughly 550 feet long that is in danger within one storm season and another two sections totaling about 1000 feet in which the houses are in the same imminent danger this year. However, the road is in short term danger at all 4000 feet. The idea that the Town should wait until sections of the road are within one season of being undermined is irresponsible, and fails to take into account that saving the homes along the bluff also has multiple benefits, like saving the town millions by not requiring alternative access/utilities now and repetitively in the future, preserving historic resources and restoring/preserving the tax base and donors to fund the project. The third inaccuracy is that the abutters are demanding that the Town stabilize the bluff or they will sue. Those homeowners who are losing their land to erosion and possibly to Eminent Domain takings have been asserting their legal rights, as anyone would, but that is not the whole picture. The many reasons why the Town is considering a public/private partnership to stabilize the bluff include that doing so could save historic Sconset, could save the tax payers a lot of money, and could increase public access. The forth inaccuracy is that SBPF is seeking to use the “emergency” to skirt the ConCom and the Bylaw moratorium that ends at the end of 2013. SBPF has already stated that the bluff protection should be approved by the ConCom using its regular process, not its emergency process. The moratorium plainly states that it does not apply to actions to protect Town infrastructure; the moratorium cannot be “lifted” where it does not even apply. In fact, the Town Meeting that adopted the moratorium not only specifically excluded acts to address public infrastructure but also amended the Article to specifically allow hard protection in other ways. The implication that the bylaw is not being respected is not true. The fifth inaccuracy is that SBPF is trying to get a ConCom permit forced through in one meeting to meet the construction schedule. It is true that there will not be time to install the bluff protection in the most endangered areas prior to the 2013 storm season if the ConCom does not issue a permit in July, but there is no reason why there could not be multiple hearings in July to deal with the matter. An adjusted hearing process is not unusual for complex projects requiring timely response like this. The sixth inaccuracy is the suggestion that bluff protection harms the beach, the fishery, and adjacent areas. These assertions are based on assumptions about a ConCom permit that has not been applied for and would not likely be issued without mitigation for these issues, nor would we expect the BOS to allow construction without considering and addressing these issues. This is just fear-mongering. It is also worth noting that many of the leading fishermen who opposed our previous beach nourishment project six years ago are supporters of this approach. The seventh inaccuracy is that hard bluff protection is not allowed under state or local law. State law plainly allows for hard armoring of lots with pre-1978 homes, and our local regulations increase that to allow for protecting public infrastructure. That is the case here. Also, hard bluff protection is only the right choice in limited coast circumstances. Further, the Town does not have the same legal obligations where there is not public infrastructure to protect. Therefore, the suggestion of a revetment at every turn does not account for the reality of the individual situations. Nor does it account for the fact that failure to install a revetment at Baxter Road would not preclude a revetment in other places where it might otherwise qualify. Simply, a revetment where it is appropriate and allowed by law, such as at Baxter Road, is not opening the floodgates for more where they would not otherwise be approvable. One has nothing to do with the other. The eighth inaccuracy is that the public access at Hoicks Hollow would be lost if bluff protection is used. The public access there is threatened, but not by bluff protection – the land that the access is on is being lost to erosion! The ninth inaccuracy is that there is a “soft” and more environmentally sensitive erosion control choice that would do the trick, but is not desired because of the cost. First, a revetment can be done in an environmentally balanced way, as should be reviewed and decided at the ConCom. Second, cost is not the issue for changing from soft to hard protection systems; the issue is long term effectiveness. The sand filled bags that are being used now should be replaced with a hard solution because they cannot stand up effectively either to a single unusually extreme storm (e.g. 25 year return frequency) or to closely spaced successive "normal" storms that periodically hit the east end particularly hard over time. At this location, some lots with soft protection systems still lost more than 25 feet as a result of the closely spaced storms during the last storm season. At that rate, Baxter Road could be lost in one season, even with a soft protection system in place. That is why a hard system is needed, not cost. The tenth inaccuracy is that erosion just happens, that it makes Nantucket’s pristine beaches and we should leave it alone. Nantucket has been protecting itself from aspects of nature for generations and should continue to do so. The Jetties keep the harbor from filling with sand – should they be removed? There are numerous revetments and other forms of erosion protection on Nantucket, and numerous island resources that need protection. Nantucket has 82 miles of beaches and nearly all of them are and will remain pristine, but a few spots are going to need protection. In the very near future Nantucket will need to decide if and how it will protect the airport, the waste water treatment plant and sewer beds, the docks and wharfs, the flood-prone historic district, and more. We look forward to discussing the true merits and benefits of preserving Baxter Road with the Board, and we remain confident that the Board and the ConCom will be able and responsible stewards of the public and the environment. Sincerely, Kermit Roosevelt, President June 23, 2013 Dear Friends of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy, The Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) proposes to hard armor the iconic Sconset bluff with a rock revetment 20-feet high running from 53 Baxter Road to Sankaty Lighthouse, a distance of roughly 4000 feet, according to a multi-page document submitted to the Board of Selectmen. The rock revetment will be installed at the toe of the bluff on the beach owned by the Town. Why? Erosion is threatening to undermine a small section — about 500 feet — of Baxter Road near its northern terminus. Should the road be breached, the Town has an obligation to provide access and utilities (water and sewer) to the properties in the affected area. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5c21795cfaaf5871311764822/images/2013_05_30_09.14.02.jpg] Gully Opening at Northern Baxter Road Area A preliminary plan developed by a staff work group to relocate access and infrastructure landward out of harm’s way was met with resistance and threats of litigation by the impacted property owners. Instead, they are demanding that the Town attempt to stabilize the bluff with rocks and are offering “cooperation” and some private funding through a “Public Private Partnership” to help pay for the project. Further, SBPF is requesting that the revetment be installed on an expedited basis, citing a public “emergency.” Such a declaration will, in effect, “lift” the moratorium on erosion-control projects on the Town beach below the bluff that is in place until December 31, 2013. SBPF wants to have the project permitted by our local Conservation Commission at one meeting in July, in order to meet a fall construction schedule. The cost? At $2500 per linear foot (a figure supplied by SBPF), the initial installation of such a structure would be $10 million. With sand replenishment, routinely required by our Conservation Commission, the project would cost $11.6 million for the first year. Sand-replenishment would add an additional $1.6 million annually. Hard armoring Sconset bluff may well have more adverse environmental impacts than the ill-fated SBPF “beach-nourishment” proposal of a few years ago. The Town beach below the bluff would be destroyed. The unique fish-nursery habitat located just off shore on land under the ocean would no longer be supplied with cobble from the bluff. Adjacent areas such as Codfish Park to the south, as well as Sesachacha and Quidnet to the north would be starved for sand. Scouring, or accelerated erosion, would be expected to occur on either ends of the revetment. Moreover, such hard armoring, prohibited by local and State law except with waivers, would set a dangerous precedent. If rocks are okay in Sconset, how about Surfside, Cisco, Madaket, the north shore, Pocomo? [cid:] [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5c21795cfaaf5871311764822/images/ProprietorsBeachSconsetec36e7764 28d.jpeg] Public Way Access at Hoicks Hollow to Beach Below the Bluff a Legacy from the Proprietors to the People of Nantucket It is important to note that there is a more environmentally sensitive “soft” erosion-control solution (long fabric bags filled with sand) that has already been installed at the toe of the bluff in Sconset and has proven to be effective. In fact, work was underway this week. However, this alternative has been rejected by SBPF because it is more costly than rocks. [http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5c21795cfaaf5871311764822/images/SoftToeProtection_6.19.13.jpeg] Soft Toe Protection, Permitted by the Conservation Commission, Being Installed Below the Bluff This Week Where are we in the process? To date, the public has not had an opportunity to speak out on this matter before the Board. The agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, June 26 has under Selectmen’s Reports/Comments, Continued Discussion re Town Infrastructure Threatened by Erosion Including Potential Action on a Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Town and Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund. There are no supporting documents as yet in the packet of information for the meeting. What can we do? First, contact members of the Board of Selectmen. Representatives of SBPF have been lobbying them intensely — and skillfully. They need to hear from concerned citizens, especially those who will be harmed by hard armoring the bluff. Here are their email addresses: Rick Atherton rickatherton@comcast.net<mailto:rickatherton@comcast.net> Bob DeCosta albacor@comcast.net<mailto:albacor@comcast.net> Matt Fee snatural@nantucket.net<mailto:snatural@nantucket.net> Bruce Miller midasack1@comcast.net<mailto:midasack1@comcast.net> Tobias Glidden integrity11@gmail.com<mailto:integrity11@gmail.com> Second, be prepared to attend Wednesday’s meeting, if possible. We need to demonstrate to the Board that there is substantial resistance to hard armoring our natural coastline. We will continue to provide up-to-date information as this situation moves forward. Erosion happens. Erosion makes beaches. The miles and miles of beaches that form our island’s ever- changing, pristine coastline are a precious resource. They need to be protected and preserved. Not engineered. We thank you for your ongoing support. D. Anne Atherton and Mike Gillies Coordinators