Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-20 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 CONSERVATION COMMISSION p1+1uckr7 �4 . PUBLIC MEETING 2 Bathing Beach Road yc ,� Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 a :O \* www.nantucket-ma.gov .-, ��A� ©f` Wednesday,November 20,2019 ( : -� 9 4 Fairgrounds Road,Training Room-5:00 p.m. © 4; _- Commissioners: Ashley Erisman (Chair), Ian Golding(Vice Chair),David LaFleur,Joe Topham, C' - .-, 1 Seth Engelbourg,and Maureen Phillips ='7 Called to order at 5:02 p.m. r` 1 Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson,Natural Resources Coordinator;Joanne Dodd,Natural Resources Office Adn stratc ' Terry Norton,Town Minutes Taker C? Attending Members: Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Absent Members: Topham 1 Town Counsel: George Pucci,K&P LLC via phone. Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard 1 I. PUBLIC MEETING I A. Announcements 1 B. Public Comment 1. Brian Madden, LEC Environmental - During a monitoring inspection of a project 10&12 Monomoy Creek Road, noticed some unauthorized pruning activities for which they will be filing an application. We will be coming in with a restoration plan for in December. Staff-We've been out there,and an abutter submitted a report.The landscaper might be available for the hearing. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. *Chuckrow Nominee Trust-25 Quaise Road(26-12)SE48-3241 (Cont.1/22/20) 2. *Ronald&Joan Curhan-44 Meadowview Drive(56-297)SE48-3254 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental 1 Public None iDiscussion(5:06) Madden - This is for sewer hook up to municipal lines; similar to application filed for 42 Meadowview. 1 Resource areas are an isolated pond and isolated vegetated wetland. Based upon location of wetland and A driveway some work will be within the 25-foot buffer,but this is a net benefit with the removal of the septic system. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Golding) (seconded by:Engelbourg) d Vote Carried unanimously 3. Eli Zabar-47 Squam Road(13-22)SE48-3253 (Cont.12/18) 4. *James P.Dalzell-13 Kelley Road(54-96)SE48-3256 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. 1 Representative David M.Haines,Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting Public None Discussion(5:08) Haines -This is to install a sewer forcemain from the house to existing sewer. Wetlands are delineated on the property with more across the street. The existing tank and pump chamber will be removed; the leach field will remain in place. The forcemain will be placed on the uphill side of the driveway and might require 1 temporary dewatering, depending on time of year of work; there is a lot of water in the spring. Dewatering would be pumped into a silt filtration bag, Staff Have everything needed to close. 1 Motion Motion to Close.(made by:LaFleur) (seconded by:Phillips) 1 Vote Carried unanimously 5. *36 Crooked Lane,LLC-36 Crooked Lane(41-330)SE48-3255 11 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Mark Rits,Site Design Engineering Public None 1 Discussion(5:12) Rits-This is for the utility lines trench from Crooked Lane down the driveway to serve both 65 Grove Lane i and this property.The silt fence is still in place and will be maintained. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Phillips) (seconded by:LaFleur) Page 1of7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 3. Bartlett Farm,LLC—39 Bartlett Farm Road(65-16)SE48-3072 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Staff This is the solar array;it is up and operational. Discussion(5:31) Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors—This was permitted within the 50-foot buffer,but everything has been pulled outside the 50.They are ready to get on line with National Grid. Motion Motion to Issue with no ongoing conditions. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously 4. Blackberry Properties,LLC—26 West Chester Street(42.4.3-56)NAN-108 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Staff No on-going conditions Discussion(5:32) Brian Madden, LEC Environmental — This is from 2012 for additions, landscaping, re-establishing the wetland buffer, and restoration of lawn area to wetland. Shrubs are in good health and all work is in substantial compliance. Motion Motion to Issue.(made by:Engelbourg) (seconded by:Phillips) Vote Carried unanimously 5, MLR3,LLC—40 Shawkemo Road(27-4)SE48-1769 6. MLR3,LLC—40 Shawkemo Road(27-4)SE48-1611 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Staff No on-going conditions. Discussion(5:33) Brian Madden, LEC Environmental — Reviewed the work for SE48-1611. During the course of construction,cutting activity took place for which a letter sent;SE48-1769 was filed for that work. Motion Motion to Issue SE48-1769&SE48-1611.(made by:Golding) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously F. Orders of Condition 1. Ronald&Joan Curhan—44 Meadowview Drive(56-297)SE48-3254 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Will add the statement that waivers aren't required. Discussion(5:38) Engelbourg—Suggested adding waivers not required. Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Golding) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously 2. James P.Dalzell—13 Kelley Road(54-96)SE48-3256 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Missed the Waivers comment again;will add they aren't required Discussion(5:40) None Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded by:LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 3. 36 Crooked Lane,LLC—36 Crooked Lane(41-330)SE48-3255 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Straight forward. Discussion(5:41) None Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by:Golding) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously G. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes 11/06/2019:Adopted by unanimous consent. 2. Discussion of SBPF Reporting Failure Criteria—87-105 Baxter Road SE48-2824 Documentation Town Counsel recommendations and Department of Environmental Protection Form 9 Representing Steven Cohen,Cohen&Cohen Law P.C. Dwight Dunk Public D Anne Atherton,Coastal Conservancy Burton Balkind Rick Atherton Discussion(5:42) Erisman—This is to focus on the failure Criteria only. Staff—From Town Counsel recommendation,we will issue out a Department of Environmental Protection Form 9 with some conditions discussed on how to remedy the failure. Paraphrased the findings and conditions. Engelbourg—The addition condition Nr. 1,he would prefer it be worded to include any future meeting of any and all failure criteria. Golding — Based upon an April email, he was surprised at the deliberate decision not to continue the reporting. Pucci — He doesn't know where that idea came from. That isn't an option under the Order of Condition without an amendment. Page 3 of 7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 Cohen—That is something we could do. Carlson—He will add to Condition 3 that a contract for 4 years covering reporting for all monitoring and add Condition 4 requiring a list of responsible parties and file updates. Balkind—Asked for confirmation that the Underwater Survey was done. R Atherton—The order was issued to SBPF and the Town is the license holder,the concern is management structure,which has a broader aspect beyond this project.They have been issued other Orders of Conditions for other projects and licenses from the Town. In Mr. Dunks letter, he refers to the June issue of the sand debris and points out that is a different Order of Conditions.Referenced in coir roll project. Carlson—That order of Order of Conditions wasn't issued to SBPF;other orders have been issued to SBPF, none of which are active. Motion Motion to Approve the enforcement as amended. (made by:Phillips) (seconded by:LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 3. Discussion of SBPF Sieve Analysis Reporting—87-105 Baxter Road SE48-2824 Documentation Sieve Analysis Report, Department of Environmental Protection sediment guidelines, correspondence, Vaillancourt's talking points,coastal conservancy letter. Representing Steven Cohen,Cohen&Cohen Law P.C. Dwight Dunk,Epsilon Public Yvonne Vaillancourt,biologist Burton Balkind D Anne Atherton,Coastal Conservancy RJ Turcotte,Nantucket Land Council(NLC) Discussion(6:25) Carlson — There have been a number of requests about the material being used. Those comments and concerns were sent to the applicant who has responded. Engelbourg — Orders required all material be approved before use and the applicant should come in beforehand.He doesn't think that happened in this case. Carlson—The grain size analysis is done before material goes on the site. Golding—He'd like to thank Coastal Conservancy for providing the letter date November 19. Erisman—She understands soils,but a lot of people don't. She has concerns about potential contamination; after a lot of the soil was recently placed,there was a smell that it was off,not clean. Golding—Asked if we should require chemical analysis. Erisman—She doesn't know if we can require that. Asked if we have to spell out that clean sand means no chemicals. Pucci—You have to go by what your conditions say.You can't go beyond the conditions for sand;if there is reason to have a question about whether the sand complies, you are within your rights to request verification on the source and make up. Carlson — This is something where we've talked about, orders that build on each other moving forward. Looking at this going forward,this is an area that needs improvement or clarification. Golding—Asked if this Order of Conditions could be rescinded and a new one created. Pucci—No,that would go beyond request for compliance. Golding—This Order of Conditions was issued for 3 years with a possible 3-year extension. Carlson—We are currently within the extended 3 years. Golding—Until the initial expires,we have to accept the definition of clean;if we feel its contaminated we can ask for a test for contaminants. Pucci—You have the right to order removal if you believe the conditions for sand is not in compliance;but he doesn't think the Board is at that point yet. If the Board believes the sand isn't in compliance, it should be followed up. Golding—Thinks it be in everyone's interest to test the sand for contaminants. Engelbourg—He was there when they were placing mitigation sand;he didn't notice a smell,but he doesn't want to assume something is clean based upon aesthetic or visual representation. Moving forward,we need to have the definition of clean fill documented. Soil testing is very easy to do;he sees no issue with asking for the mitigation sand to be tested. Phillips — Department of Environmental Protection best management practice states analysis of suspected contaminated soil may be required. Asked if what's in the Order of Conditions subsumes what's in the Department of Environmental Protection best management practices. Carlson — We definitely follow Department of Environmental Protection guidance and rely on the original criteria of having clean grain-size compatible material. Somethings also relate to where the material is coming from and doing research on the excavation location to ensure it wasn't a land fill or contaminated location.The Board can have an open conversation with the application about what defines clean. Engelbourg—We have had ordnance fire and other possible contaminating actions happen on the Island. Cohen—All the material has been tested;there will likely be an opportunity for the Board to have SBPF back before the Board with the extension project.This is more than just an SBPF discussion;there are many parties dumping sand.His clients are not only dumping the sand but are also the abutting property owners;they have a vested interest in the material being clean. Erisman—Asked if they would accept chemical analysis for what's on the ground. Page 5 of 7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 Carlson—Read Condition 25 which addresses mitigation and fill to cover the geotubes.Looking at it now,it is probably substandard but that's how it was written. Engelbourg—We will have to strengthen that language in the future. Turcotte—Going back Ms.Vaillancourt's comments about standard practice,he doesn't think it unreasonable to ask the applicant to do composite samples and indicated the volume and weight of the sample; that is standard practice. Erisman—She agrees that the more standard the requirement, the better. She wants to look deeper into the data submitted to us. Golding—The assumption was fill would be as close as possible to what is coming out of the bluff;he feels it looks more like dirt than sand.The order requires the material be compatible to the bluff. Engelbourg—Unfortunately,all we can look at is grain-size compatibility. Erisman—Asked this be carried forward to the next meeting as an agenda item. 4. Monitoring Report:Pesthouse Pond Engelbourg—He thinks this is interesting and he is going to look more into the submerged plant they found. 5. Reports: a. CRAC,Golding b.NP&EDC,Phillips 6. Commissioners Comment a. Engelbourg—Asked that the SBPF aerial surveys be posted as an item of discussion on the next agenda. Carlson—He will aim for January 8th to allow time to review the report. 7. Administrator/Staff Reports a. Gisela Leinhard—11 Jonathan Way(75-42)SE48-3217:waiver clarification Discussion(7:34) Carlson —We weren't clear when we issued the Order of Conditions for their composting toilet. They got hung up on the waiver for the 100-foot buffer for the leaching facility and the separation from groundwater for the foundation.They want to ensure the permit will include that waiver. RJ Turcotte,NLC—In speaking with Jeff Blackwell,Blackwell&Assoc.,they can't do the composting toilet without that foundation;it needs the space. Motion Motion to include special waiver. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously b.No one has applied for Mr.Steinauer's seat;if anyone is interested,contact the Town offices. c.Wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas;he won't be here on December 18th. d.Handed out the proposed 2020 schedule of meetings. Adjourned at 7:39 p.m.by unanimous consent. Submitted by: Terry L.Norton Page 7 of 7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 Vote Carried unanimously III. PUBLIC MEETING C. Requests for Determination of Applicability 1. Gerasimos John Gianutsos—53&53R Millbrook Road(56-239&240) Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental Public None Discussion(5:14) Madden — Septic upgrade for a failed system; two isolated vegetated wetlands in the north end of the property. Existing leach pit is within the 100-foot buffer and will cleaned out and filled with clean sand per Title 5.Proposed septic tank straddles the 100-foot buffer line. Phillips—Asked if the proposed will provide sufficient capacity into the future. Madden—It is a Title 5 compliant system Staff Recommend Negative 3 for work within the buffer Motion Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by:Golding) (seconded by:Engelbourg) Vote Carried unanimously 2. Barbara Constantine—5 Wamasquid Place(56-113.4) Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative David M.Haines,Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting Public None Discussion(5:17) Haines—Sewer connection.There are wetlands on the other side of road and on the far side of the driveway. All work is greater than 50-feet from resource;might have to temporarily dewater which will be to outside the buffer zone. Staff Recommend Positive 2 confirming the resource area and Negative 3 for work within the buffer. Motion Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded by:Phillips) Vote Carried unanimously D. Minor Modifications 1. Locke—34B Grove Lane(41-433)SE48-2416 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Paul Santos,Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion(5:21) Santos—This is to eliminate a proposed shed and workshop but to add an addition to the existing dwelling with an overall reduction in square footage.Waivers were granted for the original project and are still in place. The yard is very wet,and the existing lawn is considered a wetland. Golding—Asked if it's within the 25-foot setback. Santos—Yes to the east wetlands. There is a mitigation replanting area with the original application;it is on the plans. The addition might have to be put on piers;he can come back with a Minor Modification for the foundation once the plans are drawn up.The waiver had to do within the 50-foot setback. Golding—He doesn't consider this a minor modification.This is an addition within the 50-foot setback. Engelbourg—Technically this fits the minor modification criteria;but considering complexity of site,this is a little more intense than a normal minor modification. Erisman—It's difficult because we don't know what the foundation will be.Asked if the addition includes a bedroom. Santos—He's not sure but it might. Consensus would prefer this be submitted as an amended order. Staff This site is serviced by municipal sewer. Motion Motion to Not Accept the Minor Modification and request an application for an amended order. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded by:Golding) Vote Carried unanimously E. Certificates of Compliance 1. Hardman—51B Madaket Road(41-325.1)SE48-3110(Cont.1/22/20) 2. Ack Pocomo Property Trust—6 Lauretta Lane(14-51)SE48-1391 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips Staff This was for construction of a single-family dwelling outside jurisdiction. Recommend issue with ongoing Conditions 10& 12. Discussion(5:29) None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted and recommended.(made by:Golding) (seconded by:LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously Page 2 of 7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 Golding — If we proceed with the three actions noted, asked if that sets a precedent for not taking more dramatic action in the future. Pucci—The commission should focus on this situation before you at this time and what the correct remedy is, not what could happen in the future. Otherwise it might be considered unfair treatment and takes an approach that appears to have no rational basis. Golding—If in the future other failure criteria is met,would this be included with that as a reason to ask the tubes to be removed. Pucci —The only thing relevant at this time is the Order of Conditions in your jurisdiction. If you end up looking at a cumulative effect of failure, then you are within your right to consider ordering removal of the structure. Engelbourg — That was his justification for amending the language of Condition 1 to include all failure criteria,not just the reporting criteria. Phillips—We are grappling with how this violation came to our attention and how it occurred;there are two different stories on that.That impacts the respect for the orders we issue;we had concerns about whether it was an accidental violation or one which was directed by someone representing the applicant.What Mr.Pucci says makes sense. We have concerns about the information brought to us and the source; that has a larger impact on us. Pucci—That is a serious issue;you can't have a permit holder unilaterally deciding which conditions they will comply with.You don't expect that to happen again;you expect compliance with conditions. Cohen— Stated for the record this is a disgraceful display of assumptions and characterization. There is no evidence of someone misleading the board. For the record, the April email only says the surveys didn't happen. Erisman—We agreed the failure criteria has been met; commissioners are upset but that email isn't up for discussion. Cohen—The missed reporting was inadvertent;the commission should stop characterizing intent to deceive. DA Atherton—Page 4 of Mr.Dunks letter dated Nov. 15 references other missing reports;asked if that was included in this action.It was cited in the letter from the packet from Epsilon.There might be another. Carlson—That wasn't part of this quarterly monitoring report.Those would have been Conditions 79 and 80 with the most current at 81. If you guys feel something is missing or not up to date, the Board can take appropriate action. Phillips—Mr.Dunk's letter references three different things that aren't current at this time. DA Atherton—According the November 15th letter,they aren't current with the bathymetric survey,which is semi-annual,and the underwater video survey. Golding—Asked if the Board can request the email exchange from SBPF about this issue. Their counsel is asserting is was accidental. Pucci—You can ask for it,but they don't have to give it to you. Dunk—The timeline of the email is past tense about surveys that would have occurred in the spring. In the October 21 letter,he wrote that he expected the quarterly report and monitor to be completed.The fact is the illness that impacted Mr.Josh Posner resulted in a delay to making decisions. Thinks the condition requiring an annual contract is a good one to prevent a recurrence.There was no intent to not do the reports. Second, when we were writing this,we were responding to a specific letter.The video surveys were done last month; bathymetric profiles are being done this week. Erisman—This project is big enough,there should be a Number-2 guy. She finds it hard to believe the ball could get dropped like that. Dunk — This is a non-profit organization with one person orchestrating everything with him out of commission,it took others time to get up to speed.There are now more people prepared to pick up any slack. Engelbourg—Asked if there was a 2019 aerial survey. Dunk—It was done in September and has been provided to Mr. Carlson. He is not a surveyor and doesn't have the technical knowledge to respond to any question about that. Carlson—He will forward that to the commissioners. Engelbourg—Wants it on the record he has questions about the aerial survey and the 2019 LIDAR survey, which he can't find. Phillips—Since the issue of the illness was raised and Mr. Posner was the only one working on this and this project will go on for years and the group is non-profit, all that raises a concern about what the future operation of this will look like and getting other people to step up and manage it. She doesn't want to hear excuses especially when there is only one person responsible to ensure things get done. This is a very long structure impacting our coastline for a long time. Dunk—There are now other parties involved in the administrative aspect. Cohen —Appreciates Ms. Phillips concerns. The provision for an annual contract with money in place is a good solution taking the burden off one person and Mr.Carlson. LaFleur—Asked if the Board could get a list of people with their responsibilities. Cohen—That is a common requirement with the Planning Board;we can submit that as part of the order. Phillips—We have a condition that requires a contract for a full year of quarterly reports;suggested requiring that of all monitoring reports so we know in advance the work is guaranteed to be done. Page 4 of 7 ConCom Minutes for November 20,2019,adopted Dec. 18 Dunk—Beach nourishment guidance references 214 CMR 9,the material regulations and sets the protocol for determining material for beach nourishment. If there is no potential for contamination and the material is less than 10% fine, the Department for Environmental Protection will allow it to go forward without testing. However,the type of due diligence or higher fine content requires a chemical test is done. Erisman—Asked who is responsible the due diligence for picking the sand site. Dunk—Cottage and Castle,the contractor.The sand is being tested according to order of conditions before it is accepted;if it doesn't pass that testing,it is rejected.Traditionally we use erosion for the sieve analysis;if the sand doesn't smell clean,it won't be tested for grain size. Cohen—The sand does not go from the source point straight to the bluff;the sand is placed on a storage site between the point of excavation and being put on the site.We can put together protocols to ensure the sand is as clean as possible and submit that to Mr.Carlson. Dunk—Noted that if there is an immediate requirement for sand on the bluff,it might not go to the sand lot first. Phillips—Asked why they want to wait to see what will happen on the appeal. Cohen — The Department of Environmental Protection superseding order might be issued in December or January;that will be a good starting point so waiting makes sense to see what their conditions are. Phillips — The appeal is for our denial of the extension. This is about a project in place; she sees them as different elements.She'd like to see a voluntary agreement to add chemical testing for contaminants on SBPF's part going forward on this project. Cohen—Explained why he feels this and the extension are one, so it makes sense to address chemical testing under that order. Conversely, there is nothing wrong with due diligence now on the soil testing. He wants to talk to the experts and put together a protocol to ensure mitigation sand is clean. Golding—His assumption was the sand was coming from a pit as opposed to a building site;the order wasn't drafted to specify a pit. Pucci—Suggested having it as part of compliance with conditions to make it enforceable. Hopefully they can supply protocols that the Board is comfortable with. Dunk—Whether it comes from a pit or another site on Island,the sand is similar. Golding—There are 6 different striations of sand on Nantucket alone; he's concerned the excavation spoils from building sites are being used.That is a separate issue from taking virgin sand from a pit. Cohen—He's hearing that the Board wants more information ensuring that the sand is clean. He thinks some protocols can be made that are within the requirements. He will prioritize this and try to get this together as soon as possible.What we put together could be used for other projects as well. Carlson—The next meeting is December 18;January 8 is the next meeting after that.He'll post this discussion to continue on the next agenda;it can be moved forward if necessary. Vaillancourt — Presented at the table written talking points on concerns based upon her understanding of information. Based upon the native beach,it appears Mr. Dunk had quite a few test results with a fine above 10%.The soil looks like dirt because of a higher potential of fines;the testing didn't include a composite. She didn't see any reference to the volume or weight used in the analysis. The finer the sand, the more you need, the more it compacts. The precarious state of the management for her is also a concern regarding the quality and size of the sand.The Board should look very carefully at the analyses. Dunk—Ms.Vaillancourt said some samples had greater than 10%fine;those samples were not collected by us; they were selected by the geotechnical engineer for geotechnical analysis from 15 feet below surface. The samples from 0-5 and 5-10 feet show 0%fines. Cohen—For the record,we are currently in the midst of sand deliveries to be in compliance;we don't want to delay those to end up out of compliance. The protocols will be developed concurrently. We can provide Mr. Carlson with information about why we believe the sand being delivered now is clean. Balkind—Asked about the process in place regarding the delivery of sand. Carlson—They still individually log sand deliveries.The testing is done at the point the materials are accepted; sand then goes to the sand lot and finally onto the template. Balkind—Asked that part of the protocol be the testing is done at the source site since there is no tracking of custody. Engelbourg—His concern about the holding area is the initial prospect of contamination and if new sand is quarantined or if there is a way to ensure contamination doesn't take place at the holding site. DA Atherton—She has 3 points. Asked the Board to read the letter from Coastal Conservancy. Some of the concerns in the community are about the quality of the 1000s of tons of sediment being put on the template.It looks like soil,not sand.We would be very supportive of any testing for contaminants.Lastly,sand is becoming hard to come by and we have severe concerns about the sustainability of this project and appropriate mitigation.Appropriation is integral to the project;asked the board to request several years of projected source for sand in advance.In the years of hearings never were local excavation sites mentioned at any of the hearings. Erisman—We know sand is a limited resource;if it meets our criteria,they are allowed to use it. Engelbourg—We have to go off the Order of Conditions,which doesn't specify the source point. There are soil characteristics as well as aesthetic appearance;however,we need to stick to the fines on the grain size and chemical analysis.He's cautious about judging on appearance. Page 6 of 7