HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE48_2824 NCC COMMENT 2020 Annual Review 05_07_21
FINAL DRAFT/5.7.21
TO: The Nantucket Conservation Commission
FROM: The NCC Team
RE: Comment re 2020 Annual Review of the Geotubes
DATE: May 7, 2021
SE48-2824 HAS FAILED
According to Greg Berman, the Commission’s independent reviewer of the 2020 Annual Review
of the geotubes (as well as to two additional experts), SBPF’s current 947-foot geotube project
has again met the #1 failure criterion for the geotube project by failing to meet the annual
sand-mitigation requirement.
PHOTO: Exposed geotubes. Taken in September 2020 by Susan Landmann.
The Amended Order of Conditions (OOC) for this project is crystal clear in regard to the sand-
mitigation requirement for a reason. The planned effectiveness of this project has always been
predicated on the sand-mitigation requirement. During the original permitting process (in
2015), the mitigation sand — its source, the amount, and its compatibility with the beach sand
— were all major concerns for the Commission. That’s why Special Condition #32 is so specific:
“Sand mitigation shall be at the rate of 22 cubic yards per linear foot per year.” Period.
NCC Comment re 2020 Annual Review of the Geotubes 2
Now, for the second successive annual review of the project, the Commission’s own reviewer
has found that there is an increasing sand deficit. (Apparently this deficit has been extant since
2016.) In fact, Mr. Berman referred to this project (the geotubes), its increasing sand deficit, the
difficulty of finding “good” sand, as well as the cost of sand, in a videotaped public presentation
he gave to the design teams for the ReMain Envision Resilient Nantucket design challenge. [See
attached slide. Note that Mr. Berman’s numbers are not accurate for the current cost of sand
on Nantucket. The actual numbers are considerably higher.]
Since it was installed under an Emergency Order in the winter of 2013-2014, this project has
been highly visible and highly controversial within the Nantucket community. It was permitted
only after pressure was brought on the Conservation Commission as part of a so-called
settlement reached among the parties.
With this information as background, one would expect the applicant to be careful to meet all
of the conditions in the Order. Sadly, that has not been the case. The applicant does not dispute
the existence of the deficit. The applicant did not self-report the deficit to the Commission. The
applicant has not offered any explanation for its failure to meet the sand-mitigation
requirement.
Enough is enough. The citizens of Nantucket, who own the beach on which this project was
installed, look to the Commission to do its duty and uphold the provisions of the Nantucket
Wetland Bylaw and the State Wetlands Protection Act. Enforce the Order of Conditions. We
understand that doing so is not always comfortable or easy. However, the record is
unequivocal. The Commission should find that the project has failed and should proceed
accordingly.
ATTACHMENTS (2):
Slide from Presentation by Greg Berman, Speaker Series, Envision Resilient Nantucket, ReMain Design Challenge, March 31, 2021, “Coastal Policy and Historic Policy.” Mr. Berman’s talk begins at the 31-minute mark.
NCC Comment re 2019 Annual Review Previously Submitted to the Commission, December 30,
2020.
''Good'' sand costs a lot ... if you can find it!
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2014 2015 2016
• -~':!"'' j -)~'?«1 -1 ~ j Typoa!S.ndlemolate ,_ go--+---
t $.t.nd Template SlO 70l 1.000
MHn {mc/~ka~![-+-_M_u {mcfl<.cl l
142 260 -"'"'20'----+-----"u=-o
--+--
___ T_KN_,_ Min {m,/kl )
rvptc•I S.1nd fem late lOO
Sutptct S.nd Template l&O
M<•n {M"'!f&) MH (MPN/l l J
19 511
=2'1=---------=•.s.<1
> 30,000 cy (>lyr)._
Spent $4.5 Million,
but owe another $1 Million
2017 2018 2019 2020
TO: The Nantucket Conservation Commission
FROM: The NCC Team
RE: Comment re 2019 Annual Review of the Geotubes
DATE: December 30, 2020
The information submitted to the Commission related to the 2019 Annual Review of the geotubes is
voluminous, highly scientific, and very technical. We will leave comment in this regard to the experts.
However, one does not have to be an expert to understand the following facts: one, the applicant has
failed to meet the annual sand mitigation requirement, and; two, failure to provide the required sand
mitigation is the first of the failure criteria listed explicitly in the Order of Conditions (OOC) as
amended to constitute a project failure.
• AMOUNT OF MITIGATION SAND REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED
A key point made by the independent reviewer, Mr. Gregory Berman, and not disputed by the
representative for the applicants in his written response to Mr. Berman’s comments, is clear: there has
been an increasing deficit (accumulated over the last five years) in the amount of mitigation sand that
was actually delivered to the project when compared with what the OOC required.
Special Condition #32 of the Amended Order (issued in November 2018) states: Sand mitigation shall be
at the rate of 22 cubic yards per linear foot per year (cy/lf/yr) in accordance with the following
schedule: [followed by a. through d.]. [Page 7, Amended OCC, bold added for emphasis. See attached.]
This condition is unambiguous.
• THE NUMBER ONE FAILURE CRITERION IS FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MITIGATION
Further, Special Condition #34 of the Amended Order states: Failure of SBPF to conduct the actions set
out in subsections (a) to (f) herein shall constitute a project failure ("failure criteria")…The “failure
criteria” include: a. Failure to provide the sand mitigation as required herein. [Followed by b. through
h., page 8, Amended OCC, bold added for emphasis. See attached.]
• THE APPLICANT IS IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF SPECIAL CONDITION #34 AND, THEREFORE, THE
NUMBER ONE FAILURE CRITERION HAS BEEN MET
Based on the information provided by the independent reviewer and undisputed by the applicant, SBPF
is in apparent violation of the Amended Order issued to it in November 2018, specifically in failing to
meet the annual sand mitigation requirement. Ever since previous Commissions began reviewing this
project in the winter of 2013, the issue of sand mitigation has been paramount. The science of seawalls
is settled; when a hard-armoring project blocks the source of sediment, it is imperative that mitigation
be provided to prevent harmful impacts, especially to downdrift properties. The failure of the applicant
to fulfill this fundamental requirement cannot be overlooked by the Commission.
• SPECIAL CONDITION #35 IN AMENDED OCC OUTLINES THE NEXT STEP
Special Condition #35 of the Amended Order outlines the next step in the process: Should any of the
failure criteria be met, the Applicant shall schedule an appearance before the Conservation
Commission at its next available hearing. The Commission shall review the failure and determine how
the Applicant shall act to address it. [Page 9, Amended OCC, bold added for emphasis. See attached.]
transects, assess location of the top of coastal bank and estimate bank retreat over
the previous 12 months and calculate bank volume loss in the project area and 300
feet to the north and south. In addition, the report shall recommend any necessary
changes to the beach nourishment program for the Conservation Commission's
review and approval. The report Will also evaluate shoreline change within the
area covered by the quarterly transects.
30. This armual report shall include presentation to the Commission at a regularly
scheduled public meeting of the Commission to discuss the data included and
what conditions and impacts are being seen as part of the project.
31. Post-Storm monitoring reports shall be submitted following all significant storms.
A storm will be considered "significant" ifthere are sustained winds over 40 mph
over at least a 6 hour period according to NOAA's National Climate Data Center,
Nantucket Memorial Airport station. The post-storm monitoring report shall
include, at a minimum, photo-documentation of the condition of the Geo tubes and
nourishment sand within the project area, estimate of the volume of sand lost from
the sand template, estimate of the beach level in front of the Geotubes to
determine if replenishment is needed, estimate of volume of sand (if necessary)
and schedule for delivery, identification of the location of any exposed geotextile
or of any repair required to the geotextile, and visual observation of the ends of
the Geotubes to determine if flanking is occurring. Such reports shall be
submitted to the Department and the NCC as soon as possible following all
significant stmms but no later than 7 days from the end of the storm.
32. Sand mitigation shall be at a rate of22 cubic yards per linear foot (cy/lf) per year
in accordance with the following schedule:
a. Provide the required sand cover during and/or immediately following
construction of the fourth tier and returns. Sand cover volume shall be in
accordance with the following schedule.
b. Annually in April: Provide additional sand and/or adjust the existing
template to obtain a minimum two foot cover over the Geotubes to protect
them from UV degradation. The volume of any sand placed in April shall
be recorded and counted towards the armual 22 cy/If requirement.
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 of2 cy/If). If the balance of the 22 cy/lfvolume 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 armually to the
Depaiiment and the NCC to document the total volume of sand provided
on a yearly basis.
3 3. If there is not adequate space to provide the entire mitigation volume within the
project area footprint, then any remaining sand shall be placed in a berm at the toe
of the coastal bank and landward ofMHW within 300 feet of the ends of the
Geotubes upon notice to the Commission demonstrating that placement within the
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund-Geotube Project, SE48-2824, 87-105 Baxter Road
7
project area is not possible. Any additional sand placed outside of the project area
shall be equally distributed to the areas north and south of the project area.
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 perfmmed 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 ofSBPF, or ifthere are unmitigated adverse impacts from the project. The
"failure criteria" include:
a. Failure to provide the sand mitigation as required herein.
b. Failure to conduct the shoreline monitoring and post-storm monitoring as
required herein.
c. Failure to repair and/or replace damaged geotextile tubes in a timely
manner. If repair or replacement cannot be accomplished within 3 0 days
from the date of the damage, SBPF shall notify the Department and the
NCC before 30 days have elapsed and provide a repair schedule for
Department review and approval.
d. Excessive loss in updrift or downdrift beach cross section that can be
attributed to the project. If the qua:tierly monitoring program identifies
excessive loss to the adjacent shoreline (compared to historical data) that
may be attributable to the project, then SBPF shall provide notice to the
· Department and the NCC within 30 days of the completion of the
quarterly survey. Upon such notice the procedures set forth in the SOC for
such circumstances shall apply.
e. Failure to maintain adequate beach width in front of the Bank. If the beach
in the project area erodes so that the position of MHW migrates landwai·d
to the seawai·d edge of the second tier of geotextile tubes for any two
consecutive quarterly surveys, then within 30 days of completion of the
second quarterly survey SBPF shall provide notice to the Depa:ttment a:t1d
the NCC.
f. Failure to maintain a walkable beach in front of the Geotubes. It shall be a
failure if the beach on the seawai·d side of the coastal bank is not passable
by foot and has narrowed by a greater percentage in comparison to the
widths of nearby and adjacent beaches up-drift and down-drift, including
those beaches in front of other fonns of erosion control, for the majority of
two consecutive quarters, considering storms, tides, and similar
conditions. It is understood that the portion of the beach in front of the
geotubes is by definition narrower than nearby unprotected beaches
because the geotubes and the sand template covers the back of the beach.
In calculating whether the beach has narrowed disproportionately the
distance will be measured from Mean High Water to the natural toe of the
bluff which in some locations is buried behind the erosion protection
system. Upon such a failure SBPF, shall provide notice to the
Department and the NCC within 30 days.
g. Failure to maintain all required insurance, permits and licenses.
h. Failure to meet reporting requirements or good faith effort to provide
required reporting.
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund-Geotube Project, SE48-2824, 87-105 Baxter Road
8
35. Should any of the failure criteria be met, the Applicant shall schedule an
appearance before the Conservation Commission at its next available hearing.
The Commission shall review the failure and determine how the Applicant shall
act to address it.
36. In the event removal of the Geotubes is ordered, then the geotextile fabric shall be
cut, removed and properly disposed of. Following removal of the geotextile
fabric, sand from the Geotubes shall be spread along the beach landward of
MHW. SBPF and the Town shall maintain the escrow fund in place as of the date
of this OOC to ensure the availability of funds to pay for the removal of the
Geotubes. Lack of adequate funds in the escrow account shall not negate SBPF's
requirement for Geotube removal.
3 7. SBPF shall be responsible for the retrieval and proper disposal of all geotextile
products associated with this project in the event wave action and erosion destroys
or otherwise causes damage to the Geotube system.
38. This OOC approves the operation and connection of the previously installed
coastal bank drainage system on 91 Baxter Road in accordance with the plan
dated 9/9/2015.
39. As proposed, exposed areas on the face of the coastal bank, other than the upper
5-7 feet, may be stabilized using biodegradable erosion control blankets planted
with beach grass and/or other indigenous coastal vegetation. The erosion control
blankets and plantings shall be installed with hand tools with workers repelling
_down the bank face.
40. All construction refuse shall be removed from the site and disposed of in
compliance with all local, State, and Federal laws and regulations.
41. Approval for the project is for three years, with the option to request a three-year
extension upon expiration of the initial three-year te1m. The applicant shall not
apply for a long term or long length expansion of the Project prior to January 1,
2018 and shall not begin construction of such until after September 1, 2018. The
Applicant may apply for localized alterations to the Project as may be appropriate
based on site conditions, and may apply for any alteration or expansion necessary
to address an emergency or imminent danger.
42. All access for construction or maintenance vehicles along the beach to the project
area shall be from the Hoick's Hollow access to the South. That access shall be
blocked off and maintained at all times to prevent other vehicles from entering the
beach area. The applicant shall get a written sign off from the Natural Resources
Coordinator on a bi-weekly basis from April 1st to September 15th to use vehicles
on the beach. The sign-off will serve to confirm the presence or absence of any
protected species within the project area or route of travel to and from the project
area. That gate shall be repaired within 48 hours of any damage.
43. The use of small vehicles, such as a beach buggy, to inspect or repair the
Geotubes and sand cover is permitted, provided the Natural Resources
Coordinator sign-off described herein is obtained.
44. The Town of Nantucket as an assenting property owner and SBPF as the applicant
shall provide the Commission with updates every six months on the status of the
efforts to relocate alternative access and public utilities' infrastructure at the
northern end of Baxter Road.
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund -Geotube Project, SE48-2824, 87-105 Baxter Road
9