HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 SE48_3115 NCC Questions from meeting 12_3_18
TO:
The
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
FROM:
The
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
Coordinating
Team
RE:
Questions
and
Comments
for
December
3
Public
Hearing
re
Expansion
of
Geotube
Seawall
DATE:
December
3,
2018
Below
are
a
number
of
questions
and
comments
that
we
respectfully
request
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
record
of
these
hearings.
We
would
like
to
reiterate
that
we
are
not
scientists,
but
interested,
and
fairly
informed,
citizens
who
are
concerned
about
the
impacts
of
this
proposal
on
the
public
beach
below
the
bluff,
a
legacy
to
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket
from
the
Proprietors
and
held
in
trust
for
them
by
the
Town
of
Nantucket:
a
historic
beach.
While
we
may
not
possess
the
technical
expertise
of
other
commenters,
we
do
have
common
sense.
w
At
the
outset,
we
would
like
to
point
out
that,
in
signing
the
assent
for
the
NOI
for
the
expansion
of
the
temporary
geotube
seawall,
members
of
the
Select
Board
specifically
stated
that
they
were
making
NO
judgment
on
the
merits
of
the
expansion
proposal.
In
fact,
they
said
they
would
be
looking
to
the
Commission
to
advise
the
Town
in
this
regard.
Unlike
the
previous
NOI
for
the
947-‐foot,
temporary,
emergency
project,
the
Town
is
not
a
co-‐applicant
for
the
expansion.
w
The
current
installation
and
proposed
expansion
adversely
impact
the
wetland
resources
the
Commission
is
charged
to
protect.
Examples
include:
the
destruction
of
the
beach
habitat
on
which
the
seawall
sits
(multiple
acres);
the
cobble
reef
offshore
(deprived
of
glacial
material
to
replenish
it);
the
public’s
use
and
enjoyment
of
the
beach
for
recreational
purposes
(fishing,
walking,
birding);
transformation
of
the
area
into
a
perpetual
construction
site
since
the
required
mitigation,
maintenance,
and
monitoring
must
continue
in
perpetuity;
and
more.
Cobble
Habitat:
As
we
understand,
the
offshore
cobble
habitat
formed
by
the
eroding
bluff
has
created
a
unique
fish
nursery:
a
reef
of
sorts
unlike
any
other
along
the
eastern
seaboard,
according
to
Nantucket
fishermen.
How
has
walling
off
a
section
of
the
bluff
(so
geologically
significant
that
the
eroding
material
has
a
name
of
its
own,
Sankaty
Sand)
with
geotubes
impacted
the
ongoing
formation
and
condition
of
this
fish
nursery,
which,
without
the
geotube
seawall,
would
have
been
naturally
replenished
with
a
variety
of
glacial
material
during
the
past
five
years
since
the
seawall
was
installed?
Has
this
been
monitored?
Mitigated?
What
will
be
the
impact
on
this
cobble
habitat
if
the
seawall
is
tripled
in
length?
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
2
Purpose
of
the
Geotube
Seawall:
We
have
heard
representatives
of
the
applicants,
as
well
as
proponents
of
the
project,
state
publicly
that
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
geotube
seawall,
and
the
proposed
expansion,
is
to
“preserve
the
public
beach.”
[Sic.]
Understanding
as
we
do
the
science
of
how
seawalls
affect
the
beaches
on
which
they
are
built,
can
the
applicants
explain
how
such
a
statement
can
possibly
be
made?
The
Siasconset
Beach
Preservation
Fund
(SBPF)
is
clearly
not
about
preserving
the
beach:
it’s
about
preserving
structures.
Beach
Nourishment:
Why
do
the
SBPF
consultants
refer
to
the
expansion
proposal
as
a
“beach
nourishment”
project
when,
in
fact,
if
left
in
its
natural
state,
the
beach
below
the
bluff
is
not
in
need
of
“nourishment”?
To
quote
Cornelia
Dean,
the
former
Science
Editor
of
the
NY
TIMES
and
author
of
AGAINST
THE
TIDE:
THE
BATTLE
FOR
AMERICA’S
BEACHES
[1999],
as
well
as
a
presenter
on
Nantucket,
“Americans
love
their
beaches.
But
when
storms
threaten,
coastal
construction
—homes
and
businesses
—
takes
precedence
over
the
coastal
environment.
We
rescue
buildings,
even
if
it
means
damaging
the
beach...this
pattern
is
leading
to
the
rapid
degradation
of
our
coast.”
Adverse
Impacts
on
Recreational
Fishing:
Fishing
—
including
surfcasting
and
saltwater
fly-‐
fishing
—
along
this
particular
part
of
Nantucket’s
coastline
has
a
decades-‐old
history,
as
do
birding
and
walking.
In
regard
to
the
current,
947-‐foot
geotube
seawall,
the
Division
of
Marine
Fisheries
(DMF)
stated
in
a
Comment
Letter
to
the
DEP
about
the
947-‐foot
geotube
proposal:
The
existing
geotube
footprint
restricts
shoreline
access
for
seasonal
recreational
fishing
activity.
While
apparently
graded
at
the
north
and
south
ends
to
allow
access
past
the
structure,
shoreline
access
to
this
immediate
section
of
Siasconset
Beach
at
high
tide
is
limited.
[DMF
Comment
Letter
to
DEP,
2014.
Emphasis
added.]
Has
DMF
commented
on
the
current
proposal
that
will
quadruple
the
seawall
in
length?
The
applicants
are
silent
in
this
regard
in
the
NOI,
except
for
this
comment:
Recreation:
The
Project
will
not
adversely
impact
recreational
uses
along
the
beach
or
in
the
water,
as
it
will
be
located
on
the
coastal
bank
and
a
portion
of
the
coastal
beach.
The
Project
will
maintain
public
access
in
front
of
or
on
top
of
the
geotextile
tubes.
[NOI,
page
5-‐12.]
Suggesting
that
public
access
would
be
available
“on
top
of
the
geotextile
tubes”
is,
with
respect,
laughable,
in
addition
to
being
dangerous,
as
has
been
the
case
many
times
since
the
installation
of
the
current
project.
We
believe
that
the
past
five
years
have
demonstrated
that
public
access
along
this
public
beach
has
been
adversely
impacted
for
not
only
for
fishing,
but
for
other
recreational
activities
as
well.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
3
w
If
the
current
seawall
were
working
and
there
had
been
“zero
erosion,”
why
is
there
the
need
to
add
more
man-‐made
materials
to
the
ends?
And
if
there
is
now
a
need
to
add
to
each
end,
won’t
more
have
to
be
added
to
the
ends
over
and
over
again
over
time?
Zero
Erosion:
The
applicants
have
also
made
public
statements,
such
as,
“There
has
been
zero
erosion
in
the
area
being
protected
by
the
geotubes.”
[SBPF
handout
at
Special
Town
Meeting,
October
10,
2018.
See
attached.]
And
yet,
this
statement
is
in
direct
contradiction
to
information
contained
in
the
quarterly
reports
submitted
to
the
Commission
by
the
very
same
applicants.
These
two
findings,
contained
in
the
77th
Quarterly
Report
(dated
September
18,
2018),
the
most
recent,
are
typical:
“The
southern
half
of
the
geotube
project
area,
90.95
to
91.2,
eroded
between
-‐1.7
and
-‐4.3
ft,
while
the
northern
half,
91.35
to
91.9,
accreted
between
0.5
and
1.6
ft.”
[Page
15,
emphasis
added.]
And
this,
“Since
the
geotubes
were
installed
in
September
2013,
26
of
the
34
profiles
have
reduced
sand
volume
throughout
the
monitoring
area.
Within
the
geotube
project
area,
profiles
90.9
to
91.9,
shoreline
retreat
has
been
the
trend,
to
date.”
[Page
19,
emphasis.]
How
do
the
proponents
reconcile
these
seemingly
contradictory
statements?
How
does
such
a
public
statement
by
the
applicant,
“There
has
been
zero
erosion
in
the
area
being
protected
by
the
geotubes,”
affect
the
Commission’s
decision-‐making?
Again,
if
there
has
been
zero
erosion
and
the
current
seawall
is
working,
why
is
there
a
need
to
extend
the
installation
at
both
ends?
Measuring
Effectiveness
of
the
947-‐Foot
Geotube
Seawall:
The
applicants
have
been
quick
to
say
that
the
“geotubes
are
working
great.”
How
is
a
statement
like
this
substantiated?
We
thought
that
the
effectiveness
of
a
coastal
engineering
structure
was
measured,
in
part,
by
how
it
performed
during
weather
events.
Since
weather
events
vary
in
frequency,
duration
and
severity,
how
does
the
Commission
assess
the
effectiveness
of
such
a
structure
like
the
current
“temporary”
947-‐foot
seawall,
especially
in
light
of
what
happened
this
past
winter
when
a
series
of
storms
resulted
in
scouring
at
both
ends
of
the
structure
(especially
on
the
north
end
where
the
tubes
separated
from
the
base
of
the
bluff,
along
with
obvious
flanking),
severely
increased
erosion
in
the
area
of
Hoicks
Hollow
and
the
Sankaty
Beach
Club,
and
the
breaching
of
Sesachacha
Pond
resulting
in
the
over-‐wash
of
Polpis
Road)?
The
Returns:
During
the
regular
permitting
process
in
2014
for
the
947-‐foot
seawall
that
had
been
installed
under
an
Emergency
Certificate,
the
returns
were
a
serious
issue
for
the
Commission.
There
was
testimony
before
the
Commission
that
one
of
the
concerns
about
seawalls
was
that
flanking
(scouring)
would
most
likely
occur
on
either
end.
In
response
to
the
questions
raised
by
the
Commissioners,
the
consultants
for
the
applicants
submitted
additional
information
about
the
returns,
as
well
as
revised
drawings.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
4
The
Commission
was
assured
that
the
proposed
design
would
prevent
scouring
from
occurring.
(In
fact,
Mr.
Posner,
an
SBPF
principal,
said
that
his
property
was
just
south
of
the
seawall
and
that
if
scouring
happened,
his
property
would
be
the
first
to
be
impacted,
because
if
there
were
any
erosion
issues,
they
would
be
apparent
closest
to
the
ends
of
the
installation,
not
downdrift.
He
went
on
to
say
that
he
was
confident
that
this
would
not
happen.)
Now,
five
years
later,
the
applicants
are
applying
for
an
amended
Order
to
address
what
looks
like
severe
scouring
at
either
end
of
the
947-‐foot
seawall,
especially
on
the
northern
end.
The
reality
is
that
this
problem
has
been
ongoing
throughout
the
previous
time
period,
as
shown
in
any
number
of
photographs,
despite
the
assurances
of
the
applicants
and
their
consultants
that
such
a
problem
would
not
occur.
(Why
has
this
issue
only
been
brought
to
the
attention
of
the
Commission
only
recently?)
As
the
science
has
demonstrated,
time
and
time
again,
once
such
a
situation
occurs,
as
it
is
bound
to
do,
the
contiguous
property
owners
have
no
choice
but
to
attempt
to
install
similar
structures
in
front
of
their
properties.
The
problem
is
then
replicated
along
the
shoreline
in
both
directions,
resulting
eventually
in
one
long
seawall.
If
scouring
and
increased
erosion
could
not
be
avoided
with
the
temporary
947-‐foot
structure,
what
can
be
anticipated
happening
with
an
expanded
3,800-‐foot
structure?
w
The
permitting
history
of
the
current
project
is
revealing.
After
two
denials
and
an
appeal
to
the
state,
the
Commission
voted
to
appeal
the
state’s
Superseding
Order.
It
was
only
because
three
members
of
the
Select
Board
refused
to
fund
the
appeal
that
the
ConCom
was
forced
to
settle
and
permit
the
project.
There
were
three
PhD
scientists
on
the
Commission
at
the
time.
We
believe
these
scientists
knew
what
they
were
doing
when
they
voted
to
deny.
Permitting
History:
In
its
presentation
to
the
Commission,
the
applicant
showed
a
slide
that
reviewed
the
“Permitting
History”
of
the
current
947-‐foot
geotube
seawall.
It
is
helpful
for
the
current
Commissioners
to
note
that
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
denied
to
permit
the
project
in
November
2013
under
an
emergency
order
that
was
subsequently
appealed
by
the
applicant
and
overruled
by
the
State.
The
Commission
then
approved
the
emergency
request,
reluctantly,
after
being
told
that
there
was
“no
jute
available
outside
of
India.”
Under
the
regular
permitting
process
that
followed,
the
Commission
voted
again
to
deny
the
project,
after
seven
months
of
hearings.
Upon
appeal
by
the
applicant
to
the
State,
a
superseding
order
was
issued.
The
Commission
voted
a
third
time:
this
time
to
appeal
the
decision
to
Superior
Court.
It
was
only
because
a
majority
of
the
Board
of
Selectmen
refused
to
fund
that
appeal,
that
the
Commission
was
compelled
to
settle
and
finally
voted
to
permit
the
project.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
5
The
point
is
that
that
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
was
consistent
and
steadfast
in
finding
that
the
project,
as
proposed,
would
have
harmful
impacts
and
that
there
were
reasonable
alternatives
to
the
geotubes.
It
would
be
informative
for
the
present
Commission
to
review
the
Denial
Order
of
Conditions
issued
by
the
previous
Commission,
which
was,
in
fact,
for
a
project
virtually
identical
to
the
expansion
proposal,
only
one
quarter
the
size.
Interestingly,
Dr.
Robert
Young,
Director
for
the
Study
of
Developed
Shorelines,
a
joint
venture
of
Duke
and
Western
Carolina
Universities
who
has
been
a
presenter
on
Nantucket
for
a
number
of
erosion
forums,
stated
in
written
testimony
to
the
Commission,
Many
very
bad
coastal
engineering
projects
have
been
permitted
during
emergency
orders,
general
orders,
or
in
other
such
situations.
I
recently
watched
the
construction
of
the
largest
rock
revetment
ever
constructed
to
protect
one
home.
The
structure
was
built
with
almost
no
review
on
Long
Island
following
Hurricane
Sandy.
Local
Town
Trustees
opposed
it,
but
were
powerless
to
stop
it.
The
structure
would
never
have
been
permitted
by
New
York
DEC
during
the
standard
permitting
process.
[Emphasis
added.]
w
Requesting
simple
and
direct
answers,
we
have
repeatedly
asked
important
questions
about
monitoring
and
impacts,
such
as
how
many
days
have
the
geotubes
been
uncovered?
How
many
days
has
the
beach
in
front
of
the
geotubes
been
impassable?
We
have
not
received
specific
answers
that
we
can
understand
to
the
questions.
w
Uncovered
geotubes
act
as
a
hard
structure
and
don’t
provide
sand
to
the
system.
The
current
geotubes
have
been
uncovered
far
too
often,
threatening
downdrift
resource
areas.
Transferring
Risk:
One
doesn’t
have
to
be
a
scientist
to
understand
that,
when
comparing
coir
bags
to
geotubes,
the
risk
with
the
former
is
to
the
property
owner,
while
the
risk
of
the
latter
is
to
others.
Why?
Because
with
coir
bags,
designed
to
open
during
a
storm
event
and
provide
sand
to
the
littoral
drift,
there
are
times
when
it
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
get
down
to
the
beach
to
repair
and
refill
the
bags
before
the
next
storm
event,
as
explained
in
multiple
alternative
analyses
by
the
applicants.
During
these
intervals,
the
bluff
is
at
risk
of
eroding
and
the
toe
is
at
risk
of
slumping
and
causing
damage
above.
However,
when
the
geotubes
become
uncovered
for
whatever
reason,
and
it
is
difficult
or
impossible
for
them
to
be
recovered
with
mitigation
sand
right
away,
it
is
the
downdrift
system
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
6
that
is
at
risk,
rather
than
the
immediate
property
owners.
Why?
Because
the
sand
that
would
normally
be
contributed
to
the
system
is
no
longer
available.
The
risk
is
no
longer
to
the
immediate
property
owners,
but
to
downdrift
areas.
Also,
the
immediate
property
owners
don’t
have
the
same
incentive
to
repair
and/or
re-‐cover
the
geotubes
as
quickly
as
they
would
to
repair
and
refill
the
coir
bags
because
their
properties
are
not
the
ones
in
immediate
danger.
Is
this
fair?
[For
a
detailed
assessment
about
possible
impacts
to
downdrift
areas
to
the
north,
see
Comment
Letter
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
Quidnet
Squam
Association
by
Jim
O’Connell,
Coastal
Geologist.]
As
former
Commissioner,
Dr.
Sarah
Oktay,
has
said
many
times,
the
challenge
in
replicating
how
the
natural
bluff
would
contribute
sediment
to
the
system
involves
not
only
the
amount
of
sand
required,
but
also
the
timing,
having
that
sand
available
when
it
is
needed
by
the
system.
The
applicant
has
NOT
demonstrated
during
the
past
five
years
that
it
can
accomplish
such
replication
through
mitigation.
w
The
present
project
was
permitted
as
a
temporary
project
to
abate
an
emergency.
The
emergency
has
been
abated.
There
are
now
shovel-‐ready
plans
for
alternative
access
to
the
northern
section
of
Baxter
Road.
w
Putting
the
size
of
the
project
into
perspective
is
helpful.
The
expanded
project
is
longer
than
any
we
know
of,
and
the
amount
of
sand
required
each
year
(as
shown
in
the
calculations
submitted
to
the
Select
Board)
is
enormous,
requiring
thousands
of
dump
trucks
on
our
roads,
at
a
cost
of
several
million
dollars
each
year
in
sand
alone.
The
calculations
given
to
the
SB
do
not
attempt
to
quantify
the
substantial
costs
of
repairing
the
wear
and
tear
on
our
roads
caused
by
the
dump
trucks
and
the
impact
on
sand
cost
and
availability
for
other
uses
on
the
island.
Scope
of
Proposal:
How
can
the
Commission,
and
Nantucket
citizens,
put
the
proposal
for
an
almost
3,800-‐foot
long
geotube
seawall
in
perspective?
Have
there
been
any
other
coastal
engineering
structures
(CES)
of
this
size
built
—
or
proposed
to
be
built
—
on
a
previously
unarmored,
natural
beach
in
the
Commonwealth
since
such
structures
were
prohibited
in
1978?
In
New
England?
If
yes,
where?
If
yes,
what
kind
of
mitigation
was
required?
(For
comparison,
the
East
and
West
Jetties,
both
of
which
were
recently
re-‐constructed
by
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
[ACOE],
are
4,100
and
5,360
in
length,
respectively.)
Another
way
to
get
a
sense
of
the
size
of
the
proposed
seawall
is
to
calculate
the
amount
of
mitigation
sand
that
would
be
required,
if
the
same
amount
per
linear
foot
were
to
be
required
each
year
for
the
expansion
as
is
required
for
the
947-‐foot
structure.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
7
Using
the
figures
supplied
by
the
applicants,
and
ignoring
the
rising
cost
of
sand,
the
mitigation
sand
for
the
current
947-‐foot
seawall
amounts
(at
a
minimum)
to
20,834
cubic
yards
annually
which
necessitates
1,042
dump-‐truck
loads
of
sand
be
transported
to
Sconset
and
back
(for
a
total
of
2,084
one-‐way
trips)
at
a
conservatively
estimated
annual
sand
cost
of
$625,020.
The
expanded
seawall
would
require
about
83,600
cubic
yards
of
mitigation
sand,
which
would
necessitate
that
approximately
4,180
dump-‐truck
loads
of
sand
be
transported
to
Sconset
and
back
(for
a
total
of
8,360
one-‐way
trips)
at
a
conservatively
estimated
cost
of
$2,508,000.
(These
figures
do
not
include
the
costs
to
the
Town
of
repairing/maintaining
of
roads
after
the
extra
damage/wear-‐and-‐tear
caused
by
the
heavy
trucks
of
sand.
The
figures
for
the
expansion
do
not
include
the
sand
for
the
initial
construction
or
the
cost
of
that
sand.)
Many
believe
that
this
amount
of
mitigation
is
simply
environmentally
and
financially
unsustainable.
w
We
find
it
ironic
that,
at
a
time
when
coastal
communities
are
adopting
coastal
resiliency
strategies
to
create
undeveloped
waterfront
areas
to
buffer
the
impacts
of
increasing
storm
events,
we
are
seriously
considering
just
the
opposite:
the
hard-‐armoring
of
3,800
linear
feet
of
a
natural
beach
below
a
geologically
significant
eroding
headland.
Undeveloped
Buffer
Areas
Needed
to
Lessen
Storm
Impact:
The
Town
of
Nantucket
is
about
to
hold
a
community
workshop
(endorsed
and
funded
by
a
grant
from
CZM)
on
coastal
resilience
(January
8)
using
materials
developed
by
the
Nature
Conservancy.
One
of
the
tasks
for
the
group
will
be
to
create
a
risk
matrix
for
Nantucket
that
identifies
“maintaining
existing
beaches
and
dunes”
as
one
action
plan
to
increase
resiliency
in
a
time
of
climate
change
and
rising
sea
level.
w
We
recommend
assessment
of
the
proposal
for
expansion
in
two
sections:
north
of
Bayberry
and
south
of
Bayberry.
Differences
between
the
two
areas
include
degree
of
threat
from
erosion,
existence
of
access
points
provided
by
lateral
ways,
and
availability
of
reasonable
alternatives
to
the
installation
of
a
3,800-‐foot
seawall
on
a
public
beach.
Two
Sections:
Why?
First
and
foremost,
because
the
area
south
of
Bayberry
Lane
is
not
presently
threatened
by
erosion.
Also,
there
are
several
reasonable
alternatives
south
of
Bayberry
Lane,
made
possible
by
the
number
of
lateral
ways
that
connect
Sankaty
Road
with
Baxter
Road,
as
well
as
other
factors.
Such
lateral
roads
do
not
exist
north
of
Bayberry
Lane.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
8
North
of
Bayberry
Lane:
(North
of
Bayberry
(73
to
119
Baxter
Road)
is
the
most
threatened
section
and
is
the
location
of
the
current
947-‐foot
seawall,
installed
to
abate
an
emergency
in
winter
2012
and
2014.
The
reason
for
the
temporary
installation
was
to
give
the
Town
time
to
secure
alternative
access
in
the
area,
should
it
be
needed.
As
we
understand,
the
Town
now
has
“shovel
ready”
plans
to
install
this
access
if
necessary,
providing
a
reasonable
alternative
to
the
proposed
geotube
expansion
north
of
Bayberry.
This
alternative
is
one
of
a
number
of
alternatives
that
will
not
have
the
adverse
impacts
of
the
expanded
geotube
seawall.
[See
below
for
further
discussion
of
reasonable
alternatives.]
w
An
analysis
of
the
properties
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road
north
of
Bayberry
Lane
reveals
the
following:
·∙
There
are
21
properties
between
Bayberry
Lane
and
the
Sconset
Trust
property
on
the
north.
·∙
Of
these
21
properties,
10
consist
of
vacant
land,
or
48%
of
the
total
number
of
properties.
·∙
Of
these
21
properties,
11
have
structures
on
them,
or
52%
of
the
total
number
of
properties.
·∙
Of
these
11
structures,
5
do
not
quality
for
pre-‐1978
protection,
or
45%
of
the
total
number
of
structures.
·∙
Of
these
11
structures,
6
do
qualify
for
pre-‐1978
protection,
or
55%
of
the
total
number
of
structures.
·∙
Of
the
11
structures,
8
were
purchased
since
20011,
and
3
were
purchased
prior
to
2001.
·∙
Of
the
3
structures
purchased
prior
to
2001,
2
of
the
owners2
own
vacant
lots
on
the
west
side
of
Baxter
Road.
In
summary,
of
the
11
structures
north
of
Bayberry
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road,
8
have
been
purchased
since
2001,
when
erosion
in
the
area
had
been
well
known
for
some
time.
Of
the
3
structures
purchased
prior
to
2001,
2
are
owned
by
individuals
who
also
own
vacant
lots
on
the
west
side
of
Baxter
Road.
Erosion
has
been
a
fact
of
life
on
Baxter
Road
for
decades.
Why
should
a
3,800-‐foot
stretch
of
natural
beach
habitat
owned
by
the
public
be
degraded
and
destroyed
in
an
attempt
to
provide
“protection”
for
risky
real-‐estate
investments
made
by
private
parties?
(The
assessed
value
of
the
three
Town-‐owned
beach
parcels,
48.6,
48.8
and
49.9,
on
which
the
seawall
will
be
constructed
is
$9,922,200
million.
These
parcels
are
zoned
LUG-‐3.)
1
Of
the
8
structures
purchased
since
2001,
one
(109
Baxter)
was
bought
as
recently
as
November
2016,
according
to
Town
records.
2
Messers
Weymar
and
Posner,
both
SBPF
principals.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
9
w
The
Alternative
Analysis
contained
in
the
NOI
for
the
expansion
project
is
incomplete.
Reasonable
Alternatives
Exist:
As
has
been
pointed
out
many
times,
owners
of
pre-‐1978
structures
do
NOT
have
an
inalienable
right
to
install
hard
armoring
in
front
of
their
properties.
Sea
walls
to
“protect”
pre-‐1978
structures
are
permitted
ONLY
under
certain
conditions.
One
of
these
conditions
is
that
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives.
The
reality
is
that
there
are
a
number
of
reasonable
alternatives
for
the
structures
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road,
both
north
and
south
of
Bayberry.
Unfortunately,
the
Alternative
Analysis
section
in
the
Notice
of
Intent
(NOI)
presented
to
the
Commission
on
behalf
of
the
applicants
for
the
expansion
of
the
seawall
is
woefully
incomplete
and
doesn’t
even
include
some
of
them.3
w
Soft
installations
that
have
been
in
place
for
some
time
have
had
five
additional
years
to
demonstrate
their
effectiveness
side-‐by-‐side
with
the
geotubes,
but
this
matter
has
been
ignored
by
the
applicant.
Soft
Installations:
Soft
erosion-‐control
projects
have
been
in
use
along
the
beach
at
the
toe
of
the
bluff
for
many
years
now.
They
have
proven
to
be
effective.
Yes,
they
do
open,
as
designed,
during
storm
events
to
supply
sand
for
the
littoral
system,
and
they
have
to
be
repaired
and
refilled
afterwards.
It
is
not
always
easy
to
access
the
bluff
to
do
the
needed
repair
following
a
storm.
But
that’s
extremely
similar
to
the
situation
of
having
to
cover
geotubes
with
mitigation
sand
after
a
storm,
as
has
been
demonstrated
during
the
past
five
years:
the
difficulty
of
accessing
the
beach
following
a
storm
event.
However,
in
one
case
(the
sand-‐filled
jute
bags),
the
risk
is
with
the
private
property
being
“protected,”
and
in
the
other
(the
geotube
seawall),
the
risk
is
to
downdrift
properties
and
the
beach.
w
There
are
now
two
(2)
additional
relocation
alternatives:
the
relocation
of
northern
Baxter
Road
and
related
utilities,
if
necessary,
as
the
Town
has
shovel-‐ready
plans
in
hand;
and
the
relocation
of
structures
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road
landward
out
of
harm’s
way
into
a
portion
of
the
60-‐foot
road
layout
owned
by
the
Town,
as
successfully
demonstrated
by
the
property
owner
at
109
Baxter
Road.
The
latter
is
a
reasonable
alternative
for
any
structure
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road
throughout
the
entire
length
of
the
proposed
project.
In
addition,
when
leasing
the
road
layout
for
this
purpose,
the
Town
can
acquire
One
Big
Beach
Easements
for
the
land
below
the
bluff
that
may
be
privately
owned,
as
it
did
with
the
owner
of
109.
3
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
in
an
alternative
analysis
in
a
previous
NOI,
this
time
for
a
rock
revetment
in
the
same
location,
this
applicant
argued
that
“Geotextile
tubes
are
not
well-‐suited
to
a
high
energy
environment
like
Sconset.”
See
NOI,
Baxter
Road
and
Sconset
Bluff
Storm
Damage
Project,
July
2,
2013,
p.
6.
QUESTIONS
AND
COMMENTS
RE
NOI
TO
EXPAND
GEOTUBE
SEAWALL
10
Relocation:
This
alternative
is
clearly
the
most
preferable,
especially
for
the
properties
north
of
Bayberry.
Although
the
applicants
—
who
dismiss
retreat
as
“doing
nothing”
—
continue
to
resist
it
and
do
not
even
include
it
as
an
alternative
in
its
analysis,
it
can
be
a
win-‐win,
especially
for
the
resource
areas
protected
by
local
and
State
laws.
As
Dr.
Young
has
said
many
times
(to
paraphrase),
“Planning
to
move
a
structure
back
out
of
harm’s
way
is
not
doing
nothing.”
What
makes
this
alternative
so
reasonable
now
is
that
Town
of
Nantucket
finally
has
engineering
plans
in
hand
to
relocate
the
northern,
most
threatened,
section
of
Baxter
Road
and
is,
in
fact,
“waiting
for
bidding
documents,”
according
to
the
Town
Manager.
[See
attached.]
This
is
why
the
temporary
947-‐foot
seawall
was
installed
in
the
first
place
five
years
ago:
to
give
the
Town
time
to
develop
plans
to
relocate
Baxter
Road
and
related
infrastructure
and
to
acquire
the
necessary
easements
from
the
property
owners
to
do
so.
In
addition
there
is
the
alternative
to
relocate
the
structure
into
the
road
layout,
for
the
properties
on
which
there
is
no
more
space
to
move
landward.
The
advantages
of
relocation
were
demonstrated
by
the
Trustees
of
the
Sconset
Trust
several
years
ago
when
they
made
the
decision
to
move
the
iconic
Sankaty
Lighthouse
landward
out
of
harm’s
way.
The
project
was
immensely
successful:
a
one-‐time
event,
with
a
known
cost,
little
or
no
environmental
damage,
and,
most
advantageous
of
all,
the
historic
structure
is
safe.
w
Promises
were
made
by
the
applicants
in
2013
that
every
effort
would
be
made
to
restore
the
Bluff
Walk
in
the
area
of
the
current
project.
No
attempt
that
we
know
of
was
ever
made
to
accomplish
this
restoration
during
the
past
five
years.
The
existing
Bluff
Walk
below
its
northern-‐most
point
at
67
Baxter
Road
has
been
stable
for
many
years.
For
additional
information
about
the
Bluff
Walk,
see
the
Report
of
the
Sconset
Foot-‐Path
Public
Access
Subcommittee
of
Roads
and
Right
of
Way
(2010)
to
the
Select
Board.
At
the
time
that
report
was
written
and
adopted
by
the
Board,
the
northern
terminus
of
the
foot-‐path
was
where
it
is
today.
When
the
original
developer
of
the
Baxter
Road
area,
William
J.
Flagg,
laid
out
the
lots
in
the
late
1890s,
he
and
the
Proprietors
agreed
to
not
only
secure
an
easement
for
the
Bluff
Walk
for
the
use
of
the
public
in
perpetuity,
but
also
to
preserve
the
bluff
and
the
beach
below
it
for
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket,
to
be
held
in
trust
by
the
Town,
also
in
perpetuity.
In
this
regard,
the
beach
on
which
the
applicants
propose
to
construct
a
seawall
is
also
historic,
just
as
much
as
the
Bluff
Walk,
the
Sankaty
Lighthouse,
and
some
of
the
original
homes
in
the
area.
Isn’t
it
worthy
of
preservation?
Unlike
the
others,
the
beach
cannot
be
relocated.
ATTACHMENT
(3
PP)