Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-16ConCom Minutes for December 16 2019 adopted Jan 8 2020 CONSERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ' '£ N C j E F 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 ��� ��� ' 3 Ai I' . `� x- ww.nantucket-ma.gov Monday, December 16, 2019 4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room — 4:00 p.m. Commissioners: Ashley Erisman (Chair), Ian Golding (Vice Chair), David LaFleur, Joe Topham, Seth Engelbourg, and Maureen Phillips Called to order at 4:10 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Joanne Dodd, Natural Resources Office Administrator, Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Erisman, Golding, LaFleur, Topham, Engelbourg, Phillips Agenda adopted by unanimous consent I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Public Comment: 1. Rick Atherton — This is about the other coir structure south of the geotubes and involves whether or not you will have to remediate for those projects as well. The first indication of issues about deliveries came with the June delivery. After that, Mr. Carlson reported to the Select Board in July; attached to his memo was a map that highlighted 65 Baxter Road which could be interpreted as noting the end of the deliver. The Select Board asked for a listing of all private projects on Town - owned property; Mr. Carlson put together a list of all private projects on public property to include beach stairs; on that list, there is no reference to coir logs for 59-69 Baxter Road. Cited the License Agreement and Order of Conditions issued for 65-71 Baxter Road, SE48-1602 issued to SBPF. The next licenses agreement issued in 2008 to SBPF for 77-122 Baxter Road SE48-1659; the last is issued for 11-122 Baxter Road. Wants the Commission to be certain who owns what property when an Order of Conditions is issued. 2. D. Anne Atherton, Nantucket Coastal Conservancy — On December 3, we sent a letter to the Commission referencing Special Condition 28 which relates to the underwater surveys; feel SBPF is in violation of this special condition as well. To make the record complete, ConCom should go through a formal finding and should be added to a future agenda. Erisman — That will be on the first agenda in January. B. Orders of Conditions 1. *Sconset Beach Preservation Fund — 87-105 Baxter Road (48 -various) Area SE48-2824 Sitting Erisman, Golding, LaFleur, Topham, Engelbourg, Phillips Recused None Documentation Supporting documents, plans, correspondence, photos, Debris Removal Protocol Applicant Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen LP Representatives Jamie Feeley, Cottage and Castle Public Harvey Young Edie Ray, Coastal Conservancy Barbara Bund Burton Balkind Rita Higgins D. Anne Atherton, Nantucket Coastal Conservancy Discussion (4:11) R.J. Turcott, Nantucket Land Council, Inc. (NCL) Erisman — This discussion relates to nourishment and remediation protocols focusing on Condition 1, debris removal protocol. Cohen — We are proposing protocols going forward to ensure compatible and clean sand going forward. Here we are talking about the immediate removal of debris. We will be presenting protocols for Chemical and biological testing to be reviewed at the Wednesday, December 18 meeting. We've been trying to figure out how to sift through sediment to expose debris without it being exposed to the ocean. The problem is a lot of the ways could take a month or more. Feeley — Presented an outline of the debris removal protocol. Reviewed the proposed process of finding, identifying, and removing debris. The problem is how to keep the geotubes covered. Cohen — We would maintain a log of what was discovered on a daily basis. Erisman — She's concerned about how long it will take to get the material off the template before the Chemical - Biological Testing can be done. Feeley — That would be a good question for environmental folks. If we do a huge nourishment, it will work for a short period of time and we would provide about 10,000 cubic yards of nourishment over a couple of weeks. Erisman — Asked if there is enough clean nourishment available. Feeley — There will be eventually, the question is whether or not it is available now. Cohen — Replenishment is not part of the requirement. We've put more on the template than required. Erisman — We need to know the plan is feasible and the material is available. Page 1 of 3 ConCom Minutes for December 16, 2019, adopted Ian. 8. 2020 Golding — _agrees with T1s. Erisman about having the Testing in place first. Cohen — We can make sure there is morning and afternoon checks to pick up any exposed debris and hold off on pushing material over until the we have Chemical -Biological Testing, if the Commission thinks it's worth it. We don't want the tubes to end up exposed and nourishment isn't being done. We can get back on Wednesday with a better idea on how long the Chemical -Biological Testing will take. Erisman — Someone needs to be out there daily getting the visible stuff off the beach. We can hold off pushing sand off the template until we have the testing. With doing remediation correctly, sometimes it's slower than we like but it's better to do this thoroughly. Asked which protocol is to be discussed, the emailed or submitted at the table. Cohen — The piece submitted at the table is an update. The other protocols take a long time. Erisman — _asked if we can quantify the debris coming out of the template and off the beach. Feeley — We have lots of pictures; asked if daily pictures would suffice as the report There is remediation to be done along the template and would like to be able to do that. Carlson — Part of this is fixing the methodology of what is going on the template. It is within ConCom's purview to clean up the area to avoid the chance of further debris even if it's inadvertent. Cohen — asked what the Commission wants. Erisman — Pictures and the weight of debris. Feeley — There isn't that much on a day-to-day basis. Erisman — We are getting rocks and pebbles in the nourishment sand. Cohen — Some of the stuff is coming from the bluff itself, like rocks and cobble; asked what ConCom wants them to do regarding removing that. During the application hearings, we had a discussion about whether or not we should contribute cobble. Erisman — We want that to go into the littoral system. Carlson — The nourishment material should be bank and beach compatible. Cohen — At this time, cobble and rocks are not required materials. Topham — He thinks the stones and rocks and cobbles should be allowed to go into the system. Erisman — She noticed a lot of questionable stuff out here and wants to know where it's coming from. Golding — We asked the Beach Club to replicate the cobble coming out of the bluff; feels that should be done here as well. Feeley — In his years of working this project, he has seen cobble coming out of the bluff. Engelbourg — There is material being used that doesn't match the bluff and beach. If you are going to push material off the template, it should be the correct sieve size. We should let them get rid of the extra cobble. Golding — When I lived on the Bluff, we used to bring home milk crates frill of cobble, most under 4". He's all for cobble being replicated. Cohen — We can definitely remove all the man-made material and specify the size of rock to be removed or kept. We can get back to the Comm about how to deal with rocks and how long the testing will be before we can start. Erisman —.Asked that there be a named project manager(s) on the log who will be on site every day to document the work being done at the beach. Cohen — We are in the process of pulling together a list of who is responsible for what aspect of the project. Mr. Feeley can identify the check-in points and the qualified managers. Topham — The inspection of the material begins when pit sand goes into the bucket and moves it to the truck_ Feeley — That is how it's been in the past when we were using virgin pits; now we need to recycle sand from projects. Cohen — fir. Feeley can put together a list of managers and where they interact with the sand; pick up, loading, and check-in point. Erisman — Wants someone at the beach as well to ensure the debris is actually leaving the beach. Golding — He's alarmed because Mr. Feeley is saying the sand is being recycled when initially we were told it was coming out of pits. Now we have possible biological contamination and seem to be side-stepping that contamination in the future. If we don't test every truck, we have no way- to guarantee the sand isn't contaminated going forward. Cohen — Recycling sand has become more necessary. We should wait for the testing on the sand in place to determine the level of need for future testing. Feels in most cases there is no need for the testing; in others it might be a good idea. Golding — The question is if it will be honored in the breach; if it isn't coming from a virgin pit site, we need to test it. Topham — That goes for every coastal structure. Whatever SBPF writes up, will be become a standard for the future projects. Golding — Going forward, he'd like to use the Florida DEP testing for wet -sand equivalent. He thinks color is important at this point. Opened to the public for questions at 4:49 p.m. Harvey Young — They were tasked with coming up with a protocol which seems to be push it off the template and clean it up. It should be scooped up and removed. Erisman — Removing the template could cause more damaee if it is contaminated Page 2 of 3 Action Vote A. 1. 2. 4. ConCom Minutes for December 16 2019 adopted Jan. 8 2020 Ray — Concerned gravity and Mother Nat will move some of the questionable stuff off the template and onto the beach then up and down the shoreline; wants the commission to think about that and look for debris outside the specific area. She'd thinks it would be interesting for the stuff to not be thrown away but put in a secure location where the public can view it. She wants to know when they projected they would be out of sand; or if that was a question even considered. Erisman — We definitely discussed sources but didn't have a projection of when the sand would nun out. Phillips — We are dealing with the fact no one was paying attention and specifying where the sand came from; now we have to go back to remediate something that's been going on for a period of time. Going forward we should be more strict and rigorous about the source material on all coastal structure projects. Bund — She submitted information to the Select Board and ConCom about the projections for the need for sand. She was told by a commissioner at the time that wasn't within ConCom's purview. Her documents, which are in the public record, contain her figures on how long the pits can provide sand. Golding — We have no control over what the pit decides to make available. Topham — We've had some large projects which have provided sand. If we have an economic slowdown that impacts excavation for large structures, we need to think about where the sand will come from. LaFleur — When the economy changes, the pit sources change. Erisman — We should focus on the debris removal, even though clean nourishment being available is important. Cohen — We will have further information on Wednesday. BaUdnd — This weekend with the amount of rain we had, the template was mud running into the water carrying debris. Right now, he's not sure of the depth of sand on top of the geotubes; wants to know if that will be moved a few feet at a time until close to the tubes. He can forward videos of the mud to the Commission. He's trying to visualize what the sand on top would look like when it's at the toe of the template. Feeley — We have never gone below 3 feet of cover; we are proposing on going through the sand delivered this evening; the southern end is deeper than the northern end. We push a small amount over a long period of time. Turcotte — He has a couple of recommendations: Action 4 add language to dispose off site to a licensed disposal facility; same for sand screening provision Nr. 7; and the Commission should require additional mitigation be placed to account for material removed from the site on a volume basis. Some of the stones are very large. Higgins — Echoed support for requiring a project supervisor. That should also be considered for future project. If sand is inappropriate for the site, the supervisor at the tip should send it back. Erisman — We need to wait until Wednesday to approve the protocol. Carlson — Suggested keeping the matter open until the next meeting. DA Atherton — Asked when the commission will deal with consequences and penalties. We are getting a lot of questions if there will be fines and what damage has been done. This is a violation that has been described as egregious. Erisman — We have to stay w/in what is allowable; ConCom doesn't have a structure for fines. Golding — Any monetary fine pales in comparison to the cost of remediation. DA Atherton —That needs to be communicated to the community. Carlson — Typically the roll of the Commission is to end the condition and remediate; any penalty can be assessed based upon the totality of the damage. We have to wait for the testing before we know the level of violation. We have to have all facts in place to make the determination on what the penalty will be. Discussion on large debris removal and Chemical -Biological Testing protocol continued for Wednesday. N/A Other Business Approval of Minutes: 12/11/2019: Adopted by unanimous consent. Reports: a. CPC, Topham b. NP&EDC, Phillips Commissioners Comment a. None Administrator/Staff Reports a. He will try to call in with this on Wednesday. Adjourned at 5:13 p.m. by unanimous consent. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 3of3