HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE48_2824 NCC Letter to Concom regarding Geotubes 11_4_19
11.4.19
TO: Members of the Nantucket Conservation Commission and Jeff Carlson
FROM: D. Anne Atherton for the NCC Team
RE: Questions for Discussion re Geotubes
COPY FYI: DEP Officials (Jim Mahala, Nate Corcoran, and Greg DeCesare)
It has come to our attention that there are a number of enforcement-related questions regarding the
900-foot geotube revetment installed under an Emergency Order in the winter of 2013/2014 on the
public beach below the bluff in Sconset. We share these questions with you here and respectfully
request that they be addressed as soon as possible. Enforcement of the permit for this controversial
project, the subject of widespread community concern, should be a priority. [NOTE: The failure of SBPF
to submit two quarterly monitoring reports is being addressed by the Commission on November 6 so it
is not cited in this memorandum.]
1. Is the Commission aware that there is photographic evidence that directly contradicts information
provided by the applicant regarding the “pushed-up” beach sand following September storms? The
Project Manager for the geotube revetment addressed the issue of “pushed-up beach sand” during
Public Comment at the September 25 meeting of the Commission. [See video of meeting at the
beginning.] He told the Commission “there was no pushed-up sand except at the extreme northern end
of the geotubes.” He apparently also provided photos for the Commission of the [to paraphrase] “one
small spot.” [Below is a photo taken by NCC team member Burton Balkind on or about September 11
showing bulldozed beach sand at the north end of geotubes, consistent with the statement made by the
Project Manager.]
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 2
However, photographs taken at the same time indicate that the information provided by the Project
Manager was inaccurate. In addition to the “pushed-up beach sand” at the northern end of the
structure, there were also multiple areas on the eastern (ocean-facing) side of the project where beach
sand had been bulldozed to cover the geotubes. [See below for photos taken by Susan Landmann that
clearly illustrate this fact: one view is to the south, the other to the north.] Why was this information
omitted by the Project Manager?
According to Mr. Carlson, “Excavation outside of installing the geotubes is not part of the permit.” [See
ConCom Minutes, September 11, 2019.] Not only was the work performed NOT permitted, but also the
information provided to the Commission by the representative of the applicant is directly contradicted
by photographic evidence, submitted here for the record.
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 3
2. What has happened to the “scour sheet” at the north end of the geotubes that apparently was
(partially?) dislodged and damaged during the recent storm Dorian? Photos (taken during storm
conditions) clearly show the “scour sheet” being dislodged (and damaged?) by the elements. Was this
situation reported to the Commission? What has been the outcome?
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 4
3. Is the mitigation “sand” recently delivered to the bluff sand or dirt? The Order of Conditions for this
project is very specific in regard to the mitigation sand to be provided. [See attached chart containing
General and Special Conditions from the Amended Order of Conditions relating to the mitigation sand.]
The recent delivery of many tons of sediment to the bluff has raised questions about whether or not the
material introduced into the beach environment meets those requirements.
Simply put: Is this sediment “sand”? Or is it “dirt”? How is the answer to this question determined?
While the material may meet the requirements of a sieve analysis (to ascertain grain size), what testing
is done to determine whether that material is sand rather than dirt? What testing is done to ensure that
the material is “clean” fill? During the permitting for this project, there was much discussion about the
mitigation “sand” required: would the two one-island pits have enough sand to fulfill the mitigation
needs? Where would additional “sand” be obtained? Off-island and offshore were mentioned. At no
time was any reference made to on-island excavation sites other than the two sand pits. Do the sources1
cited in the report submitted by SBPF meet the requirements?
Photo of what has been reported to be the “stockpiling” site for sediment destined for the bluff. It is
located in the area of Spearhead and Arrowhead. Can the applicants confirm this information?
1 Sconset Bluff Sediment Analysis Tracking 2019 Sand Sources (6): Sheep Commons Lane, South Shore
Road, 17/19 Spearhead Road, 21 Derrymore Road, 77 Pocomo Road, 18 Greglan Avenue.
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 5
Photo of “sand” delivery to the bluff. Susan Landmann, the photographer, noted a plastic bottle in the
material being dumped. When she pointed it out, the attendant on site picked it up. Can the applicant
verify that this is “clean fill,” consistent with General Condition #7 in the Amended Order? Why was such
verification omitted by the Project Manager?
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 6
4. Are the harmful impacts of the non-performing returns continuing? The applicant received an
Amended Order from the Commission in November 2018 (a year ago) to address the issue of the
returns. The problem with the returns was to be accomplished by extending the revetment 50 feet at
either end (for a total of 100 feet) and installing newly designed returns to deal with the end scour and
erosion that were occurring. According to the applicants: “This work is required to maintain the stability
of the Coastal Bank and bluff, and to maintain the integrity of the existing geotube bank stabilization
system.” We don’t see any evidence that this work has been done. If not, why not? Will the
acknowledged harmful impacts of the current returns continue through another winter storm season?
Photo below was taken following the recent nor’easters (October) shows ongoing end scour and severe
erosion at the northern end of the revetment.
Questions For Discussion re Geotubes 7
5. Has action been taken in regard to reports of contaminated material being dumped over the bluff in
early June? If this material was NOT intended for the geotubes, then what project/s was it intended for?
While the sand-filled fabric bags placed below the bluff in front of other properties were permitted by
the Town of Nantucket under a different Order of Conditions and license, that Order of Conditions and
license were issued to the same applicant (SBPF).
QUESTIONS RAISED BY DELIVERY OF **MITIGATION SAND**
DATES: FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18 AND 19, 2019 (AND INTO THE NEXT WEEK)
GENERAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS BELOW FROM ORDER OF CONDTIONS (AS AMENDED)
FOR THE CURRENT GEOTUBE PROJECT (85 to 105 BAXTER ROAD) RELATING TO MITIGATION SAND SE48-2824, Date of Issuance 11.28.18
11.4.19
GENERAL CONDITION FROM ORDER OF CONDITIONS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
#7.
Any fill used in connection with this project shall be
clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish,
or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks,
plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes,
refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the
foregoing.
How was the sediment tested to meet the standards contained in
General Condition #7?
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FROM ORDER OF CONDITIONS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
#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 sediment “compatible with existing bank and beach
sediments? If yes, how do we know it is?
Questions Raised by Delivery of Mitigation Sand 2
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FROM ORDER OF CONDITIONS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
#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: [c. and d. only].
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.
Was “sand” delivered to the bluff or was dirt delivered?
Questions Raised by Delivery of Mitigation Sand 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FROM ORDER OF CONDITIONS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
#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.
[Continues through f.]
If the sediment delivered to the bluff on Friday, October 18 and
19 does not meet the Special Conditions related to mitigation
*sand** in this Order, then this would constitute a project failure,
wouldn’t it, consistent with this condition, #34?
#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.
What is the source of this material? Just one source, or a number
of sources? Has a sieve analysis been done on this material? If
yes, when? By whom? Has the Commission reviewed and
approved this material (from each source as compatible) prior to
its delivery as outlined in this Special Condition? Has the
Commission been provided with evidence for its review and
approval? Was there lag time between when/if the sieve analyses
were performed and when the sediment was delivered to the
bluff? If yes, where was the sediment stored? In whose custody
was it? Were precautions taken to safeguard it from any
contamination? If yes, what were they?