Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-9-23Minutes for September 23, 2015, adopted Oct. 21 CONSERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL HEARING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 r www.nantucke t- ma.gov Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:00 P.M. :, t ? V' 10 Surfside Road, NHS, Large Instruction Room Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Andrew Bennett (Vice Chair), Ashley Erisman, DavLaJItaFl�u7f t' sr v LE Ben Champoux, Ian Golding, Joe Topham Called to order at 5:04 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator Attending Members: Steinauer, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Absent Members: Bennett Late Arrivals: None Earlier Departure: None Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Public Comment — None II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Order of Conditions 1. *'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund — 87 -105 Baxter Road (43- 21,22,19,18,17, & 49 -8) SE48 -2824 Sitting Steinauer, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff The draft includes comments from the last meeting; highlighted significant changes from the previous draft. Discussion Steinauer — Asked Mr. Golding about the lot that had the shack on it. Golding — Those were lots 99 & 97 Baxter Road. He had submitted into the file photos of his family house on 99 Baxter Road; that house moved in 2005 and the shed moved on in 2010. Town Counsel hasn't rendered an opinion on that yet. As for 97 Baxter Road, under local bylaws, there is no way 80% of the original structure remains. This is why he sees no reason to permit a fourth geo -tube; in the event of a severe storm it would be better for the sand to becoming off the top rather than waves bouncing off the fourth tier. 93 Baxter Road is the only one that he believes would possible warrant protection. In the packet'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) provided, page 266, the cross section shows the 1St tier to be 22 feet above mean low water or about 17 feet above mean high. The 100 -year storm is at the 10 -foot mark; the tubes provide 12 feet; that doesn't include the revisions this board was asked to consider which would add 3 more feet. He doesn't see how waves, even in a 100 -year storm, could top the tubes and if they did, that would be good for the beach. Champoux — Mean high water is at 15 feet. It is not out of the realm of possibility to get a 15 -foot swell, especially with run -up. Golding — The geo -tube structure is about 15 feet deep; there are no rolling breakers coming in, and between 1970 and 1980, when the Island had numerous 3 -day nor easters, we still didn't have waves coming more than a few feet up the face of the bluff. A compromise would be to protect the single pre -1978 structure. As this is presently structured, it is to give the Town time to relocate the road. Erisman — She agrees that the fourth geo -tube is necessary. If the waves do run up that high, she would prefer to see the sand being taken or coming out of a jute /coir bag to nourish below. We aren't helping the resource areas below this wall. If the waves are running up that high, it means it is running up a hard surface taking no sand with it then hits another hard surface. Steinauer — His big concern with the fourth tube is the availability of sand; the sand sitting on the top wouldn't be available during a storm. It wasn't clear, but he believes they are taking their wave heights from the buoys that are out in the ocean past the rips. There are banks out there that break the waves. LaFleur — We had talked about the fourth tubes on the pre -1978 lots entitled to protection; the fourth geo - tube from the engineers stand point prevents the back wash or the undermining of the back of the tube wall. He believes the engineering is there for that; you re going to get sand off the face at that point. Staff — Condition 23 is "any sand within the geo -tube or sand placed on top of the fourth tier shall not be considered to be part of the mitigation amount required yearly by the project." Perhaps as part of the reporting there should be included a discussion about what sort of activity the fourth tube has seen in the previous year and evaluation of the function of that tier. If after several storms there is no evidence of impact on the fourth or third time, it might be time to reassess the value of that fourth tube. Erisman — Wonders how that would be structured to provide quantifiable data. She doesn't see where this board is getting quantifiable data to make these decisions. Staff — The volume of the template of the geo -tube can be surveyed for a volumetric calculation based upon the shape changes from the installation of the project; that could be further broken down into chunks. Page 1 of 4 Minutes for September 23, 2015, adopted Oct. 21 Erisman — We need to be very specific about how this survey would be conducted. Staff— Condition 31 details when post storm monitoring reports will be submitted and what that report would include. They will have to provide a way to estimate the volume of sand that has left the beach. Erisman — She wants to know how they would be estimating that loss. Steinauer — They should propose a solution that this board then reviews. They should be able to get that to this board before winter. Staff — Could add a condition that requires all protocol reporting be provided to the commission for approval prior to the installation of the fourth tier. Steinauer — It would be interesting to know for future projects whether or not 20 feet is high enough. It is necessary to have the 22 cubic yards (CY) available to the beach. Topham — Asked about the storage of sand on top of the structure. Staff — They have areas where they have to distribute equally to the north and south and they need a place from which to provide that sand. If you are requiring a nourishing component, it has to be evaluated year by year. If there is no loss, the sand has to be made available to the system or have a provision to put no more sand down. Erisman — Condition 11, feels it should be a function of the beach and not just the invertebrates. Staff — He will add "ecosystem" to the end of that. Golding — Reviewed the complexity of the order; noted there is no condition forcing the issue of putting the road in. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is clear that this was there to first abate the emergency and that the Town is supposed to be reporting back to them; they should be asking the Town why this hasn't been done. If this is an emergency, the chances of a 100 -year storm in the next 3 years is pretty remote. Reviewed the damage installation of the process is causing to the beach. Erisman — Asked how it is rendered in the conditions the physical loss of beach resource area. Feels the fact that they are taking up a resource area is something that has to be addressed. Steinauer — The gets complicated because it gets into land under the ocean. Staff — It is part of the number determined to be the mitigation amount of sand; that is not based solely upon bank retreat. If there are other mitigations or conditions needed, now is the time to add them. AS he understands the concern of the board, if mitigation sand is not taken one year, this board would prefer no more sand be added because it might be in an area not currently disturbed by the project area. Steinauer — The reason for 22 CY being put down every year, is because the taking of sand is not consistent; the surplus sand is there to make up for the big storm that takes more. LaFleur — They will be giving us quarterly transects; we will know what's going on, whether or not there is loss. They will put down as needed. Staff — As it is written, "mitigation will be 22 CY per linear foot per year in accordance with the following schedule." It breaks out into shifts with any balance to be placed March 31 and they will have to provide delivery tickets. They have to do a report on volumetric changes along the transects as well as a yearly report in which they have to appear before the board to present those findings. That is the time nourishment would be altered or changed. Topham — He thought it should be written so that if they needed more they would bring more, if they needed less they would bring less. Steinauer — Expressed frustration that this project has been through many hearings with testimonies by many experts and now it is being picked apart without those experts. He understands the concerns but they have been raised. Erisman — We are at a different point; we are preparing to pass an order and need to go through this. Golding — It could be added under Condition 32 that the nourishment amount needs altering due to changes in erosion rates. He feels that would alleviate a lot of the concerns. Steinauer — Suggested that if there is a storm that leaves the tubes bare and they drop, for example, 32 CY of sand to cover them, that 10 extra CY might count against the 22 CY required yearly; that might be a way to help eliminate surplus. Golding — Noted that SBPF doesn't want this to fail; but failure to provide an adequate amount of sand could be entered as a failure criteria. This would be based upon the opinion of independent monitors. Staff— Condition 29 catches that by requiring for a report addressing the volumetric amount of sand loss. That report would include survey and volumetric information. Condition 56 requires that all survey data be made available to the commission and the public. Erisman — She feels the bathymetric profiles should be done twice a year because off -shore profiles are different. Golding — Agrees. The benthic survey addressed under Attachment C, of the September 2 presentation, should also be twice a year in the Fall and Spring. He would also like the conditions to be more specific and was hoping to review other benthic surveys to see what this board should expect. He doesn t recall any experts addressing benthic habitat. Discussion about whether or not it is necessary to have semi - annual bathymetric and benthic surveys. Staff— He will change Condition 28 to read that bathymetric profiles will be taken semi - annually in the Fall and Spring. It goes on to detail the requirements for those reports. For the benthic habitat, he will add a "species presence and relative abundance" along the transects. Page 2 of 4 Minutes for September 23 2015 adopted Oct. 21 Golding — It was a concern of the Nantucket Land Council (NLC) that monitoring be extended as far as Sesachacha Pond. Staff — He will add that. Golding — Asked if this is quite clear in the orders that vacant land is not being protected except under the emergency conditions. He feels it is import that be explicit. Erisman — Asked if there is a way to force the Town to move the road through this application. Staff — The Town is a property owner that signed a notice of intent but not an applicant. That will be discussed at the Board of Selectmen meeting later this day. ConCom can't force the SBPF to build a Town Road. There is an agreement in place between the property owners and the Town to relocate Baxter Road. He believes this board could ask for updates on the relocation of the road, but this board cannot obligate the road to be relocated. Golding — Suggested lack of update reporting on the status of road relocation could be a failure criteria. Staff — He could add that under Letter "H ", failure to meet all necessary reporting. Erisman — Expressed concern about dealing with a perpetual emergency, the road, that is not being properly dealt with. Golding — On Page 9, Nr. 52F, the walkable beach, he would like to add "at high tide." He feels the beaches should be walkable for future generations. Staff — On Page 6, Letter "F" of the failure criteria would also have to be changed. Discussion about the amount of data from surveys and reports which have been filed in connection with this project and how that might be organized to facilitate public review as well as additional incoming data. Staff— Data review should be in front of the board. Golding — Condition 46: addresses removal of the structure in the event of relocation of the road but not from in front of the pre -1978 structures; by not saying all the tubes have to be removed and the pre -1978 structures have to come back, he is concerned this board would be allowing the equivalent of hard armoring because there is no insistence upon use of coir. He would prefer it state that the entire structure has to be removed and the pre -1978 structure need to reapply for new structures. Staff — Suggested striking Condition 46 and dealing with the issue through annual reporting. Alternately could say that if Baxter Road is relocated the applicant will appear before the commission to determine what future action is necessary and include the possible removal of the geo- tubes; that would allow for public input. Steinauer — We've got all this failure criteria and monitoring; if this fails, this board has sufficient reasons for removal of the structure; if it doesn't fail, we've learned something. He believes that DEP would permit hard armoring on this bank for the pre -1978 structures should this board deny this application. Golding — Disagrees citing personnel changes in DEP; stated also that the residents made it clear they don't want hard armoring by 85% at Town Meeting. Read an excerpt from an article, "Ecological Responses to Coastal Armoring on Exposed Sandy Beaches ", by Dugan and Hubbard from Marine Science Institute, University of California. That is why he is asking for examination as to whether or not there is damage being done to the micro- organisms on the beach. Erisman — Agrees, there is the sand coming out of the pit versus the living organisms coming off the bluff. Steinauer — That information would have to be compared to neighboring beaches. In the interval, he doesn't believe they can be made to do it to a beach that has people on it all the time. Golding — Suggested that the beach north of Hoicks Hollow is relatively undisturbed and could be used for comparison. Staff — Suggested also samples could come from the beach at Sesachacha Pond and Low Beach. Condition 55: addresses where samples for the study of invertebrate life would come from; could add two more: one north and one south. Golding — Condition 49: it was brought up in the public meeting whether or not there would be enough money, should SBPF be disbanded, for any contingency. Asked if this condition addresses that concern. Staff — Read the section of the License Agreement between SBPF and the Town which addresses that. The policy is held by SBPF upon which the Town is a co- insurer; it allows for up to a $10 million claim. Town Counsel and the Board of Selectmen (BOS) feel that is a sufficient safe guard by which to enter into that license. Erisman — Failure Criteria B: Asked if the board is comfortable with two consecutive quarterly surveys then 30 days after the 2nd survey not having adequate beach in front. She feels it is a long amount of time. Staff — This board would be noticed after the 1 It quarterly survey and could ask them to come in at that time. Steinauer — Asked in regards to the storm report of 6 hours of 40 MPH sustained winds if that had to be 6 continuous hours or if it is a total number of hours of 40 -MPH winds. Staff — It has to be above 40 MPH for 6 hours. Stated they used to use 50 MPH but was changed after Winter Storm Nemo, which did not qualify because it was over 40 MPH but below 50 MPH. Champoux — Asked if there is anything about the direction of the hit. Staff — His goal, at least for the is, year, is to capture all storms to see what happens. After a year or two if we learn that storms from certain directions aren't having an effect, that can be changed. Erisman — Asked if, in the case of a large rain event, there is monitoring of the drain pipe going in behind the 4t' geo -tube. She believes the board should have data about area contribution: how much water is going through the pipes into the system and if it is undermining the tubes. Page 3 of 4 Minutes for September 23, 2015, adopted Oct. 21 Golding — Suggested that perhaps this board should take a vote on the fourth geo -tube; Ms Erisman's comments sounds like it's a done deal. Champoux — In regards to the pipe, there is probably a flow meter in the pipes and water wouldn't flood into the pipes all at once; it will dissipate out as the pipe is perforated. He thinks it will probably be less harmful than to allow water to run over. Staff — The way it is designed, if water doesn't hit the gravel trench, it doesn't enter the pipe system. Could ask for an evaluation of the design to include catching the heaviest flow and how much water went down the pipe. He can add a condition addressing that but identifying what's happening at the bottom of the pipe will be a problem. Golding — The NLC expressed concern about installing the 4th geo -tubes in such a way that they don't damage the bank; he feels that is a reasonable request. They also ask for quarterly 3rd party reviews of bathymetric profile monitoring; asked if that was not included due to a sense it was excessive. Erisman — More quantifiable data will help in determining whether or not this structure is harmful to the area and that it is properly functioning. Topham — He feels that is a little bit much because he has a hard time believing it would get done four times a year; it can't be done in the winter. LaFleur — Agrees with Mr. Topham. Erisman — If this isn't supported by peer review, asked if that is a failure criteria. Staff — If you require a peer review that finds impacts to be negligible above what is expected or mitigated for, at that point there would be a review and discussion about what action should be taken to mediate the problem. That does not necessarily constitute a failure. What is important is the opportunity to get a peer review; he left it open by stating "if a peer review is required" when requested by the commission. A peer review would require a coastal geologist or structural or coastal engineer who can evaluate invertebrates and look at benthic habitats and how sand moves up and down the coast. Based upon the reports, we need to know which ones (reviewers) to reach out to. Right now there are 60 quarterly reviews on that area; adding six more would slow the review down further. Champoux — Asked who the independent reviewer would be. Staff — Right now the data are looked at by the Woods Hole Group. Condition 56: states that all raw data will be made available so anyone can look at it. Any expert that has been used as part of this submission is attached to the group which hired him /her and it goes back and forth, he's seen it before. A purely independent reviewer needs to be found who has not worked on this project. Discussion about finding an independent peer expert and the frequency of benthic reports. Consensus is that who becomes the independent peer reviewer should be agreed upon by both ConCom and SBPF. Staff— Condition 57: states that the commission can require peer review of the data in reporting and the costs incurred will be paid by the applicant. Asked if anyone wishes a change to the wording of the condition. He will add that all peer reviewers will be agreed upon by the commission and the applicant. Golding — Asked for the inclusion of "independent" before "peer reviewer'. Staff— He will start putting together a list of possible peer reviewers. Even if this were not to pass, other projects might be interested. He will email the corrected draft to commissioners within 24 hours and post on the website. Motion Continued to September 30 by unanimous consent. Vote N/A B. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes: None 2. Reports: None 3. Commissioners Comment: None 4. Administrator /Staff Reports: He will forward Building Code information in regards to handrails on stairs to the commissioners as soon as he gets that information. Motion to Adjourn: 7:04 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4