Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-8-28Minutes for August 28 2013, adopted Oct. 16 aNta�+ s CONSERVATION COMMISSION 3 ?aN N SPECIAL HEARING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:00 P.M. Community Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki, Leslie Johnson z Called to order at 4:00 p.m. z — Scoff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator, Terry Norton, Town Mg-tessker� Attending Members: Stemmer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Glowacki rrt Absent Members: Golding, Johnson m~,a C> Late Arrivals: None m Earlier Departure: None o Agenda adopted by unanimous consent 3 r*1 t7 z Y I. PUBLIC MEETING o A- Public Comment— Discussion about whether or not to limit the speaker time. rrn a co 11. PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. Sconset Beach Preservation Fund — Baxter Road Area SE48 -2581 Sitting Stemaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Letter dated August 23, 2013from Michael S. Bruno, PhD, PE Dean, School of Engineering and Science, Stevens Institute of Technology. PowerPointO presentation. Applicant Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP — Opening statements. One major Representatives change — cut size by eliminating portion south of 65 Binder Rd & cut out Massachusetts Natural Heritage (audio00:02:41) endangered species area. Another change, realized the two phase program is not feasible. The emergency still exists but the ability to install the revetment this year has been compromised. LIDAR (light detection and ranging) survey has been provided and based upon that analysis the bank retreat has been re- calculated at 3.8 feet per year, yielding a sand mitigate rate of 12.02 linew feet per year; that is measured from the toe to the top of the bluff. Reviewed peer data submitted by Milone & MacBrcom and engaged am own peer review. In response to comments, have added a revetment toe to mitigate scour and beach loss; changed slope to 2.1; increased the average stone size; added a second bedding layer. Reviewed the by -laws from the wetlands protection act in regards to this project. Stated that public access and walkways would be enhanced by this project. Maria Hartnett, Geologist Epsilon Associates Inc. — Reviewed project changes in detail. Using aerial phoms dating back to 1994, have updated and re- calculated the bank retreat rate. Northern half is 3.2 feet a year; the southern half retreat rate (over 10 years) at 4.5 feet per year; weighted average of 3.8 feet per year. Best practice is to base mitigation on bank retreat; also looked at shoreline change rate: shoreline is retreating 3.1 feet per year. Explained how the and mitigation volume rate was calculated. Azure Sleicher, Ocean and Coastal Consultants — Reviewed revetment design changes in detail. Answered questions and responded to comments posed by Milone & MacBroom. Deployment of sacrificial sand breaks down to 6 to 10 trucks making 10 trips a day over 21 to 34 days. Previous questions posed by commissioners answered: settlement of revetment, settlement budget based upon sediment transport rate and direction, grain size summary statistics, escrow fund for revetment removal. Jamie Feeley, Construction Manager Cottage and Castle Inc. — Explained construction methods to include: delivery of the stone and heavy equipment from barges via a "pier" barge to the project area, equipment fueling, revetment installation, and demobilization would be by sea. Reviewed sediment delivery. Addressed Milone & MwBroom comments and questions in regards to construction. Bryan Page 1 of 4 Minutes for August 28 2013 adopted Oct. 16 Commissioner Oktay — For Mr. Ian Golding, asked for more information about different measurements for the 12 cubic Questions/ feet and references to CP&E and the Woods Hole Group calculations for the new retreat rate and how Comments much sediment the coastal bank is contributing. (audio00:52:01) Hartnett — Explained how she made the calculations. Stated that she considers those calculations to be good but not to have the accuracy of our awn calculations or to be as up to date. Steinauer — Stated that ConCom had received a letter from CZM (Coastal Zane Management) which based it on shore -line erosion and came up with 25 or 26 cubic yard per linear foot. Hartnett — Stated how her numbers were calculated and that she wants to make sure it is for the correct time flame and correct area. Steinauer — Asked about the short-term erosion rate from 2012. The project at fast was predicated upon 30 feet of erosion last year. The 10 -year erosion rate was calculated at 3.8feet coming to 38 feet in 10 years; stated that this is not a "three -alarm" erosion rate. Hartnett —Those were spot measurements and not used to create a coastal erosion rate. The point of the rate and mitigation volume is to avoid up -drift and down -drift erosion impact. Cohen — Disagree with the assessment that this is not an emergency. Oktay —Asked about the new average 1994 -2013, wouldn't it be better to 1994 to 2003 for the top. Hartnett— We were trying to get the longest term data possible for the average rate. Oktay —Asked if the erosion rate might have accelerated in the last 10 years. Hartnett — Stated it might he, but this is a dynamic area and might see less erosion this year than last. Karberg — Asked if the 9 -10 per year is mitigation sand only or is it coming out of the bags. Hartnett — That is what they are contribution on average. Bennett — Asked if there was a 20 -year projected maintenance cost. Josh Posner, 77 Baxter Road — The required long -term funding for the single -phase project is more reasonable. A betterment district would need to be approved and in place prior to start of the project. As of yet, have not completely worked out the long -term maintenance cost. Bennett — Asked if a 3`" parry has looked at the bookkeeping part of this to create a per -year maintenance budget. Posner — Property values support the on -going budget; if what is required to be paid is more than the value of the property, it doesn't work. Explained the impact erosion has had on the property values. 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund will accept a condition that states if this doesn't make financial sense and isn't approved at Town meeting and designated a betterment district, the project doesn't get built. Steinauer— Would like to see a condition that explains the removal of the revetment and that the cost will be covered. Cohen — Financial security of installing and maintaining is something that would be a condition of the project and will provide that data. If the commission has no more questions to change the project, can lock down the cost. Oktay — Expressed concern about the barges and anchors and slurries and their affect on the marine environment. Would like to know what the areas where the barges proposed to be brought in. Feeley —That would be finalized for the REP. The pier barge would be the only element that would actually touch the bottom. Can get the information on draft of the pier barge. Oktay — Sounds like the project is going away from the top of the revetment being a walkway. Feeley —The top of the bank will be tightly packed with sand and available as a walkway in the case of high tide. All equipment will be on the beach; it is likely there will be a small crane on the beach in place of a long -reach excavator. A ramp can be constructed to deliver sand from above in the event the middle of the project is unavailable from the beach. Oktay — Grain size analysis indicated quarry sand is more course than the beach sand. Hartnett —Feel the pit analyses are still valid. Cohen — Believe that this island could easily have another sand pit when Reis or Holdgme run dry. Oktay — Asked staff to validate the statement that'Sconset Beach Preservation Fond doesn't need MEPA. Carlson — Will check with Massachusetts Natural Heritage on that. Oktay — Not convinced on the maximum vertical settlement being only 0.6 inches. Hartnett —That model was run by the technical engineer and included all layers of the revetment and wave action. Glowacki — In regards to the standard of evaluating, may be allowed/shall be allowed, using best available practices, would like to have more input on which standard is being applied. Page 2 of 4 Minutes for Atonal 28, 2013. adopted Oct. 16 Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council (NCL) — Reviewed the new information and stated a letter (audio0h25:51) was submitted to the file addressing that information. Stated that despite the new information, NCL's primary concerns remain the same: this cannot be installed without serious impact to the resource areas and there are monitoring protocols that are not clear. Discussion about the appropriate contribution being made on a yearly basis and handling of any changes to that. John Ramsey, Applied Counsel and Research, NCL consultant — There are two erosion rates; the idea that the bank can't accelerate is fault w it has been evident with the northern part of the bank. Project has a wider toe that is taking up more of the beach and is being compromised; it should be part of the mitigation plan. Grain size - calculations indicate the beach sand is getting coarser; mitigation should reflect what is coming off the bank now. Monitoring needs to be set up immediately; down -drift damage can't be reversed. James Walker, 104 Baxter Road West side new lighthouse — Stated the belief that there is no way to predict when the random event of increased erosion will occur. On the Betterment issue, homes north of Bayberry are distressed financially; there is a real economic incentive to participate. The issue of removing rocks, the fishermen would love to have them in the ocean for a habitat. There is a great opportunity for the commission to learn about the growing issue of erosion. Talked about erosion along the beach in front of the sewer beds and the end of the airport and how that would be stopped. Elaborated on the very human side to the loss of homes along the bluff. Comments on the questions of the economics and that those are not easy questions to answer. Asked the commission to think long and hard on how to make this work. Maureen Mahoney, 18 King Street — Spoke to the recreational issues from the viewpoint of an avid walker and saving the Bluff Walk and having access to the beach. Stated the opinion that the commission should approve it or the decision will be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. William Crispin, 18 King Street — (Mahoney's husband) Suggested that a negative decision by this board could send the message that the Town of Nantucket will not support homeowners. Addressed the legal repercussions of a negative decision. Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet/Squam Association (QSA) — Have gotten conclusions but not the data about what is going on along that coast. In regards to the applicant's statement at the last hearing on sediment transport, that we would know downdrift beaches are being affected because the near beach would be affected fast; there is no data to back that statement up. In the CZM letter issued the complex sediment transport of the area is addressed and recommends the Town and applicant use a 3" party to analyze sediment transport. Stated his client has retained an expert in sediment transport to review all the information that has been provided on this and previous applications. It comes down to whether or not this can be mitigated in a way that does not cause damage. Addressed the availability of on- island sand and that the price will increase and the feasibility of long -term maintenance beyond the lifetime of people alive today. State and local permitting is based on lots; property lines are important; stated the belief that each lot should put in a waiver request. If information is not in this file, it is not part of the applications; therefore, information from previous applications should be resubmitmil/moved into this file to be electronically available to not only the public but also experts. Carol Donlon, 36 Exeter Street — During the duration of the project from beginning to end, if a major storm comes up while equipment is on the beach, asked how it would be removed from the beach Feeley — Via Hoicks Hollow or placed back onto the barges Dunton — Asked if there was a comparable projects. Cohen — Presented other revetment projects and those are available on line. Discussion about differences in the mitigation figures between this project and the gabion project. Oktay —Asked Ms Hartnett's professional opinion if that amount of sand and if it will impact the littoral cell. Hartnett — Addressed littoral drift: did look into the 1995 to 2005 budget which was done for the beach nourishment project. In looking at the data, the area is highly dynamic and things change drastically. Didn't feel the old data could provide a solid basis for the mitigation amount. Steinauer— Would like to have the range. A number that would help is how often do serious erosion -rate years happen. Further discussion on changes in littoral drift and affect on the cell and a monitoring program. Marjory Davis, off Hoicks Hollow — Stated the belief that everyone wants to we `Sconset still be here in 70 years. She would like to we it happen and hopes that the project will work and can in the future be used in other areas being drastically affected by erosion. Page 3 of 4 Minutes for August 28, 2013, adopted Oct. 16 Public Amos Hostettler, 58 Baxter Road — Stated that experts have told him that if there is trouble with the continued project, he would be first to know; therefore he is intensely interested in the monitoring program. Stated (audioO2:30:37) the belief that human intervention is going to have to occur. Asked the commission to consider the economic impacts of their decision on all taxpayers of the island. Asked for a favorable response Kyle Latshaw, 113 Baxter Road — Referred to the Scituate revetment and newspaper articles about the project. This project calls for the taking of risk to prevent loss. Discussion about what the commission should be protecting: environment, buildings, and infrastructure. Alix Nelson, 58 Squam Road — It is not that Squam is hostile to the needs of `Sconset, stated the belief that the revetment will impact their beach and their property values. Wants assurance that the project can be truly mitigated to prevent losses in Squam and that their needs are also addressed. Posner — Stated'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund doesn't want to be in an adversarial position. Stated the belief that the project has been put together in such a way as it will work and not hurt other people. Stated that if the revetment is hurting other people to a devastating level, it will be taken down. Staff Update on processes taking place. Received the LIDAR survey and a dated set of the shoreline transects, (audio02:49:37) which have been forwarded to DEP and Town Counsel. The bank is the only resource area that includes the regulation that protects public infrastructure. This project also deals with coastal beach, which includes land under the ocean and points at the protection of buildings; also State law points at the protection of buildings. There are parcels in the project area that are vacant and need to be dealt with individually and should have waivers. Stated that the commission needs to address Performance Standard 3 under Coastal Banks: "All projects shall be restricted to activity as determined by the Commission to have no adverse effect on bank height, bank stability, wildlife habitat, vegetation, wetland scenic view, or the use of a bank as a sediment source." Land Under the Ocean does not address barges, but the commission needs to look what is in that area and the impact on that area. Suggested the applicant provide bathometric reports. A waiver request can't tie all three together but to complete the record, need those waiver requests. Also need to be sure that data submitted is put into the record properly, not just anecdotally. Met with Town Counsel and DEP about the number of properties involved; should have information to share by the next meeting. Will check up on MEPA. Next hearing Cohen — Requested a continuance to September 1 I to allow Michael Bruno, Stevens Institute of Technology, the opportunity to attend. Discussion about scheduling the continuance at the next regularly scheduled meeting when the full board is available. Glowsckt — Would like Mr. Cohen to be at the September 4 meeting when the next hearing is scheduled. Motion Continued without objection, next meeting date to be determined. Vote N/A B. Other Business 1. Reports: None 2. Commissioners Comment: None 3. Administrator /Staff Reports/Enforcements: None Motion to Adjourn: 7:02 Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4