Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130705-SBPF NOI-SummaryRevetment_201404071153534915Summary of the Baxter Road and Sconset Bluff Storm Damage Prevention Project. July 5 2013 Applicant: Applicant is the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund Inc. (SBPF). The application is filed on behalf of and with the consent of the land owners abutting the project, including the Town of Nantucket, which is a land owner and has public infrastructure at risk. Location: The project location is along the eroding face of the Sconset Bluff on the water side of Baxter Road between 51-119 Baxter Road, about 4000 linear feet. Proposal: Applicant is proposing to protect Baxter Road and other public infrastructure and the entire historic residential community along Sconset Bluff from severe storm damage by installing a rock revetment at the toe of the coastal bank. The revetment would consist of a geotextile filter fabric covered in a filter layer of gravel and then very large stones and would be buried about 8 feet below the existing beach level to protect it from scour. The revetment would be approximately 16 feet high above the beach (to elevation +26 Mean Low Water) to protect from a 100-year storm. The revetment will not have any features perpendicular to the bank. Additionally, the upper bank will be planted with native vegetation to stabilize it. An initial sand cover will be placed on the revetment and, based on monitoring, sand mitigation will be provided to the extent necessary and appropriate to avoid impacts to adjacent and downdrift beaches. Reason: After severe erosion and decades of trying alternatives, portions of the road are less than 30 feet from the edge of the Bluff and some homes are less than 10 feet from the edge of the bluff. All of these homes and infrastructure are in imminent danger, some as soon as within one storm season. As recognized by the Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Planning and Economic and Development Commission, these homes, the public infrastructure, and the public access ways are in danger of imminent loss and should be protected responsibly. There is a legal right and responsibility to do so. Purpose: The purpose is to protect dozens of pre-1978 structures on both sides of Baxter Road, as well as the public road and infrastructure within it and public access ways along it. Baxter Road is a public way owned by the Town of Nantucket that provides the only access to the recently relocated Sankaty Head Lighthouse, as well as access for the public, residents, and emergency vehicles to more than 100 homes. Timeline: To accommodate a number of factors, the project is proposed for multi-stage construction. The first phase is the area of the road and homes most in danger, which is between 73 and 119 Baxter Road. Within Phase One there are three sections (along 93-105 Baxter Road , 109-115 Baxter Road and 73-83 Baxter Road) that will be done first because the road or homes are at risk of loss in the 2013/14 storm season. Phase Two will finish any work from Phase One that was not completed before the 2013/14 storm season and will continue the project south to where meaningful bank erosion ends, currently at about 59 Baxter Road. Phase Two is anticipated to be completed before the 2014/15 storm season. Public Benefits: The Project will 1) protect Baxter Road and associated utilities, 2) preserve an entire historic residential community, including a number of architecturally important historic homes, 3) preserve and restore public access ways, 4) preserve and expand the Town’s tax base and private funding sources for this project, 5) save the Town from significant and costly legal obligations, 6) protect and stabilize the bank, 6) stabilize wildlife habitats, and 7) enhance wetlands scenic views. Environmental Balance: The project would have no adverse impacts. The revetment design and proposed sand mitigation would protect adjacent and downdrift beaches. Unlike other options the revetment has no anchors in the bank, no potential debris, no parts that break down, very little maintenance and does not endanger fishing areas. No Viable Alternative Available: SBPF has tried a variety of efforts to curb erosion for over 20 years. While terracing has been the most successful, it is not proving to be a long term solution because it cannot stand up to severe or successive winter storms. Relocation is also not feasible for all of these homes and public infrastructure. Community Support: The urgent need to try to stabilize the bluff to save the imminently endangered homes and infrastructure is recognized by the Town of Nantucket, the NP&EDC, the Sconset Trust, the Sconset Civic Association, the Nantucket Preservation Trust, the Sankaty Golf Club, the Inquirer & Mirror, and many in our community. Legal Compliance : The proposal complies with all State and local regulations and qualifies for all related waivers. State and local law specifically provide for the construction of a revetment in an environmentally balanced way to pre-1978 homes and public infrastructure, as exists on, along, and under Baxter Road. Attached is a comprehensive schedule of pertinent regulations and explanations of compliance. Compliance with State Regulations of Coastal Banks and Coastal Beaches 310 CMR 10.30(3) is complied with because this section of Baxter Road has three dozen pre-1978 structures, all in imminent danger, with a complete row on one or both sides, except for four lots that may be protected as gap or return lots to prevent flanking erosion. The location and design of the revetment, and the proposed sand mitigation are the best available measures to protect adjacent and nearby beaches. There is no feasible alternative that will protect these buildings. Many have already been moved and moving others would not remove the imminent danger. Also, softer forms of erosion protections will not provide long term protection of the bluff during heavy or successive storm actions. Protective native plantings are included. : 310 CMR 10.30(4) does not apply because the Project is proposed under 310 CMR 10.30(3). 310 CMR 10.30(5) does not apply because the construction of new buildings is not proposed. 310 CMR 10.30(6) is complied with because the design stabilizes the bank. 310 CMR 10.30(7) is complied with because the Project is designed to stabilize the existing bank and downdrift beaches will be otherwise protected by the proposed design and mitigation. 310 CMR 10.30(8) is complied with because the Project for initial installation is not within estimated habitat indicated on the most recent NHESP Habitat Map. 310 CMR 10.27(3) does not apply because the Project is proposed under 310 CMR 10.30(3). 310 CMR 10.27(4) does not apply because the Project is located above the of littoral drift zone (i.e., landward of the coastal beach). 310 CMR 10.27(5) is complied with because sand will be compatible with the existing beach. 310 CMR 10.27(6) does not apply because the Project does not include work on a tidal flat. 310 CMR 10.27(7) is complied with because the Project for initial installation is not within estimated habitat indicated on the most recent NHESP Habitat Map. Compliance with Local Regulations of Coastal Banks, Coastal Beaches, and Land Subject to Coastal Flooding Section 2.05 B(1) is complied with because it is to protect an entire historic largely pre-78 community in imminent danger, which necessarily includes some gap lots or vacant lots or post-78 homes, as well as pre-78 structures to which various additions have been made, also to similarly protect substantial pre- 1978 public infrastructure (the road, sewer, water, and other utilities, as well as public access ways to an along the bluff), with no reasonable or feasible alternative available for relocation or alternate long term protection. The Alternatives Analysis shows that softer forms of erosion protections will not provide long : term protection of the bluff during heavy or successive storm actions. The Project does not involve rebuilding any bulkhead or groin. Section 2.05 B(3) is complied with because the Project will not adversely effect bank height, bank stability, wildlife habitat, vegetation, wetland scenic view, or the use of a bank as a sediment source due to design and mitigation. The Project will preserve and stabilize the bank, improve wildlife habitat, enhance the wetland scenic view with added plantings, and not harm adjacent and downdrift beaches. Section 2.05 B(5) is complied with because the Project is a water dependent use and also includes preserving and enhancing recreational trails and beach access. Section 2.05 B(7) does not apply because the Project does not involve construction of any new buildings or other structures at the top of the coastal bank that might require future protection. Section 2.02 B(1) does not apply because there is no work seaward of the mean low water line. Section 2.01 B(7) see Section 2.05 B(1), above. Section 2.01 B(8) is complied with because the Project is water dependent, will improve wildlife habitat, preserve and stabilize the bank without negative impact on adjacent and downdrift beaches, not have any adverse effects on marine fisheries or shellfish beds, enhance storm damage prevention and flood control, and enhance public access to and along the beach. Section 2.02 B(2) is complied with because it is to protect an entire historic largely pre-78 community in imminent danger, which necessarily includes some gap lots or vacant lots or post-78 homes, as well as pre-78 structures to which various additions have been made, with no reasonable or feasible alternative available for relocation or alternate long term protection and because the Alternatives Analysis shows that softer forms of erosion protections will not provide long term protection of the bluff during heavy or successive storm actions. Section 2.02 B(4) is complied with because the Project involves clean fill of compatible type and does not involve placement of sand in any tidal flats. Section 2.02 B(9) is met because the Project has been designed using best available measures to stabilize the coastal bank and protect existing landward structures and public infrastructure while simultaneously avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for potential impacts. Section 2.10 B(1) is complied with because the Project will not reduce the ability of LSCSF to absorb and contain flood waters. The Project will enhance the coastal bank’s function of buffering inland areas and buildings from storm damage. Section 2.10 B(5) is met because the Project has been designed using best available measures to stabilize the coastal bank and protect existing landward structures and public infrastructure while simultaneously avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for potential impacts.