AS THE NEW YEAR BEGINS: UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR NANTUCKETS BEACHES — Letter to the Editor in January 2, 2014, I&M: To the Editor: In her letter of Oct. 3, secretary Maeve Bartlett, head of Gov. Deval Patrick’s Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, ruled that Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review was not required in the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund appeal of our Conservation Commission’s denial to permit a 900-foot geotube seawall below the bluff in Sconset on a town-owned beach. The letter contained clear indications that the agency’s policy on the matter would be to override the judgment of our local commission. And so it did. The superseding order of conditions was issued on the Friday before Christmas, three months after a decision was expected. The timing of the ruling, making the 10-day appeal period coincide with the holidays of Christmas and New Year’s, appears to have been clearly calculated. My point of view on this issue is well known to Nantucket citizens who follow the SBPF Baxter Road matter. I am opposed to hard-armoring because it destroys beaches. (Geotubes are hard-armoring). Not only are our island’s beaches an integral part of our coastal environment, they drive our economy. We pride ourselves on trying to make them accessible to all. The fact is that this 900-foot project, denied by our ConCom but now approved by the state, is just a small portion of a massive, mile-long revetment proposed for the Sconset Bluff. The decision by Ms. Bartlett’s department to issue a superseding order to overturn the local decision in this matter sets the precedent for the next phase of the project, approximately an additional 3,000 feet, running from just north of the geotubes, south to mid-Baxter Road. The SBPF and the Sconset Trust, the nonprofit entity that now has custody of the Sankaty Lighthouse, have already stated publicly that the final phase would follow along another 1,000 feet of bluff in front of the lighthouse. The lighthouse was moved out of harm’s way in 2007 and is now located 250 feet back from the eroding edge of the bluff. Going forward, how are state officials going to make distinctions between the initial 900 feet and the additional contiguous sections of hard-armoring being requested? My guess is that, with the precedent set in this appeal, and with what we know will be actions by aggressive lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of their clients, it will make it virtually impossible for the state to say no to hard-armoring in this area. Our state decision-makers need to understand that on Nantucket’s north shore there are already six or seven recently permitted erosion-control installations with varying amounts of robust snow fencing, coir bags and sand mitigation. The purpose of these structures is to make it possible for property owners (all secondhome owners) to keep their view of Nantucket Sound. With the precedent set on the eastern shore in Sconset for hard-armoring, it will only be a matter of time before these property owners convert to geotubes because, while they are expensive, they are less costly in the long run. Already on our north shore, a bit further to the east, sit four grandfathered, hard coastal engineering structures (rocks, bulkheads) in front of houses where there is no beach. And that is the real problem for Nantucket and other coastal communities like ours. Hard-armoring results in the destruction of beaches. The science in this regard is proven. In fact, the best practices of erosion control and storm damage promoted by the commonwealth’s Office of Coastal Zone Management are bio-engineered options that, unlike hard-armoring, work with Mother Nature, not against her, and cause no harm. Several years ago, one of Nantucket’s respected real-estate appraisers suggested that the town move to “take the beaches around our island.” While it seemed outlandish at the time, maybe what we really need is for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to act boldly to take all the beaches, or support the local governments in doing so. If not, and if policy-makers fail to see what is ahead, our beaches will be gone. One principal of the SBPF told me personally that he envisions the Nantucket of the future, given climate change and rising sea levels, much like Bermuda: a rock-ringed island with small bathing coves.This is not my vision. Neither for Nantucket, nor for the commonwealth. Secretary Bartlett’s MEPA letter suggested that she believed some level of “nourishment” should be provided by SBPF. I think of “nourishment” as maintaining dry beach, and distinguish this from “mitigation,” or dumping sand over the side of the bluff to provide sediment to the littoral drift during a storm and thus feed the downdrift beaches. Nowhere in the submissions made by the SBPF, nor during the proceedings before our Conservation Commission, has there been any commitment to maintain the beach.As I understand, this is one of the reasons the Con-Com denied the project. Sadly, we were unable to convince secretary Bartlett and the other decision-makers in the Patrick administration to uphold the decision of our Conservation Commission. I had hoped that, if a superseding order were to be issued, the conditions imposed on the SBPF would be to include an absolute requirement that a specific amount of town-owned dry beach must be consistently maintained between the seaward edge of the geotubes and the high tide line of the Atlantic Ocean. It did not, indicating that the Patrick administration, in its waning days, is willing to forfeit the beaches in the commonwealth to affluent property owners and forceful lawyers. The appeals process related to the DEP decision to overrule our Conservation Commission is far from over. The Board of Selectmen can work in the meantime to preserve and protect town-owned beaches. For example, the licensing agreement between the town and SBPF could include a condition requiring the maintenance of a certain amount of dry beach in front of the geotubes.This is one provision that we should insist upon for as long as the SBPF is allowed to use our town-owned beach for their hard-armoring project. RICK ATHERTON
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:03:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015