Town of Chilmark, MA - Conservation Commission Minutes 05/25/16

Conservation Commission Minutes 05/25/16

FINAL

Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Candy Shweder, Chairman, Joan Malkin, Vice Chairman, Sandy Broyard, Russell Maloney, Maureen Eisner, Pam Goff, Chris Murphy and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also attending were Reid Silva, Jim Malkin, Daniel Padien, Sally Davis, Mark Haley, Warren Doty, Bill Rossi, Alex Elvin, Rich and Sue Regen, Eric Peters and Jay Walsh. Bob Hungerford did not attend.

The meeting came to order at 12:30 PM. Ms. Shweder appointed Alternate Commissioner Russell Maloney as a voting member.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOI SE 12 - 757; REID SILVA FOR TOWN OF CHILMARK; Off Squibnocket Rd. and Squibnocket Farm Rd.; AP 35-1.30, 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, 20, 21, 22, 23: Ms. Shweder opened the continued public hearing at 12:30 PM and mentioned this is the fourth hearing on this application and this is a follow up to the May 18^th hearing. Ms. Shweder summarized the application as the Town would like to do the following managed retreat at Squibnocket Beach caused by natural erosion and the northward migration of the shoreline. Remove the existing stone revetment and Town parking lot; relocate the parking lot farther north along Squibnocket Road and away from the shoreline; restore the current parking lot and revetment areas to their approximate natural state of a low dune -- including re-vegetation; relocate the skiff launch ramp farther west for better access to Squibnocket Pond.

She then confirmed the eligible voters as Sandy, Candy, Joan, Chris, Pam and Russell.

Mr. Silva reviewed a revised site plan dated 5/23/16 and described in detail how the remaining five feet of blue stone revetment would be removed at Money Hill and the existing natural rock, boulders and stone organized in a manner that wraps around Money Hill. The remaining rocks will be loosely-placed and not fitted together. Mr. Silva said the Town will perform this work as part of its project because this is the Town’s leased land. He added an alternative means of protecting the bank at Money Hill was installed several years ago (re-vegetation, soft solution) and failed. Abutter Sue Regen again asked if the Commission would consider a measure to discourage the public from walking over the barrier beach opposite the skiff launch location. The Commission thought this was a good idea. The Commission commented the MVC’s approval decision with no changes was thorough and clear. After much discussion and with no further public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at 12:45 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as shown on the revised site plan dated 5/23/16 with an outline of the following decision and conditions.

Introduction

This project concerns the removal and relocation of a parking lot, the removal of a revetment and roadway and the creation of a skiff launch. The resource areas impacted are: bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), coastal dune, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The precise square footage of resource area affected is stated in the Order of Conditions.

Coincident with the filing of the NOI for this project was the filing of an NOI for a second project by an unrelated entity (SE-759). That project concerns the construction of an access roadway and elevated causeway. The resource areas impacted are: BVW, coastal dune, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Although there are 2 separate NOI’s before the Commission, it is important to note that the two projects are complementary and interdependent. Both applicants advised that the projects would not and could not proceed unless both were approved. The Commission was advised that the applicants have negotiated various arrangements between them and with third parties which impact multiple aspects of both proposals. Accordingly, although the Commission handled these projects separately during the hearing process, its decision takes into consideration aspects of both projects as relevant to protection of the impacted resources.

Performance Standards under the Wetlands Protection Act (“Act”) and the Town’s Wetland Protection Regulations (“Town regulations”) and Discussion (Note: conditions appropriate to mitigate or otherwise accommodate issues raised below are set out under “Conditions”.)

Removal of the revetment, parking lot and roadway, restoration of the habitat and re-establishment of dune with compatible sand– these activities will impact coastal dune, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage resource areas. The Commission finds that:

The site alteration will not impact the ability of waves to remove sand from the dune. In fact, the existing revetment inhibits both this function and the lateral and landward movement of the dune. Removal of the revetment, parking lot and roadway with the restoration and re-establishment of the dune is expected to enable the movement of sediment from the coastal dune to coastal beaches and land subject to tidal action (i.e. normal littoral drift and the landward accretion of sand along the beach).
The proposal calls for the addition of compatible sand to build up the dune. The purpose of the built-up dune area is not to create a dune per se or to establish a long-term barrier to future erosion, but rather to facilitate the establishment of a natural contour to the area by enabling the area to stabilize itself with planted vegetation on the landward side. This is expected to enhance the resource area’s ability to protect the wetland interests and Coastal Pond. This is also expected to decrease the potential for storm or flood damage – at least until the natural process of wind and waves shape the barrier beach environment and enable the area to respond to storms in a way unfettered by manmade structures.
The existing parking lot and roadway are covered with a hard surface “soil-cement”, so there is currently no vegetative cover. The project calls for landscaping with native beach grasses, which will mitigate the existing impaired functionality.
Landscaping (including fencing and a pathway from the parking lot to the beach) will be designed to prevent dune erosion caused by pedestrian and vehicular traffic and minimize disturbance to vegetative cover. The restored dune area will be replanted with native beach grass in an effort to enable stabilization of the area to a more natural form.
The project will not cause the removal of sand from the dune artificially. Only materials placed on the site by man will be removed.
The NHESP has determined the project will not adversely affect the actual resource area habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and it will not result in a prohibited “take” of state-listed rare species.
The proposed sand fill is compatible with the existing beach sand and is appropriate for the formation of a low dune intended to protect the resource area. No fill will be placed over or displace BVW resources.
The project will not have any adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank.

Parking lot relocation – this activity will impact coastal bank, land subject to coastal storm flowage and BVW resource areas. The Commission finds that:

The coastal bank on which the parking lot relocation is proposed is densely vegetated and does not serve as a source of sediment, but as a vertical buffer providing storm damage and flood control. No adverse impact on its ability to continue to perform this function is anticipated as a result of the relocation of the parking lot.
The relocation of the parking lot will have no adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank.
The relocation of the parking lot does not include any coastal engineering structure.
The relocation of the parking lot is designed with appropriate drainage systems to protect ground, surface and salt water from pollution.
The proposal to deal with storm water run-off is adequate to compensate for any reduced permeability of the surface area.
The NHESP has determined the project will not adversely affect the actual resource area habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and it will not result in a prohibited “take” of state-listed rare species.
Although work is proposed in the BVW, any destruction or impairment is de minimis. See further discussion under “Replication”.
Because of the limited extent of the incursion of the work in the BVW, the relocation of the parking lot will not impair the ability of the BVW in the project vicinity to protect the interests of wildlife and wildlife habitat, water supply, flood control, storm damage prevention, pollution prevention, protection of fisheries and shellfish.
Paved vs gravel alternatives for the parking lot both present advantages and disadvantages. On balance, it is not clear that one option is markedly preferable to another in terms of protecting the resource areas. Either surface would be readily removable and would equally disturb the resource area in the event of further managed retreat. See further discussion under “Managed Retreat”. The proposed gravel parking lot is appropriate.
The parking area includes a turnaround. There is a compelling rational for the turnaround area to be paved both in terms of potential erosion with buses turning in the area (and resulting increased maintenance efforts) and handicapped accessibility.
Areas adjacent to the parking lot that will be disturbed during construction will need to be re-vegetated so as to completely and successfully restore and stabilize the area to its original form and volume.

Skiff Launch – this activity will impact barrier beach and BVW resource areas. The Commission finds that:

Currently there is a skiff launch area in BVW, causing more resource disturbance than in the proposed launch area. The current launch area is difficult to access and is often covered with debris from the existing parking lot. The project relocates it with a clearer and separate access with negligible impact on the resource area.
The proposed skiff launch is located on the landward side of a barrier beach which is densely vegetated. It does not serve as a source of sediment, but contributes to storm damage and flood control. Although some removal of vegetation will occur, in the context of the entire coastal bank and adjacent coastal dunes, there will be no adverse impact on the bank’s ability to continue to perform the storm damage and flood control function.
The skiff launch will have no adverse effects on the stability of the barrier beach.
There will be no parking at the launch site and therefore impact due to the minimal vehicular traffic will be negligible.
The proposal to remove the existing organics and fine material before laying gravel on the prepared stable base gravel (as opposed to laying gravel directly on top of the existing ground surface) will result in greater stability of the resource area, less displacement of sediment and organic material into the pond and less rutting, requiring less maintenance and work/intrusion in the resource area.
Although the skiff launch is, in part, to be located in BVW, any destruction or impairment is de minimis—especially when compared to the existing skiff launch. See further discussion under “Replication”.
Because of the limited extent of the incursion of the work in the BVW, the skiff launch will not impair the ability of the BVW in the project vicinity to protect the interests of wildlife and wildlife habitat, water supply, flood control, storm damage prevention, pollution prevention, protection of fisheries and shellfish.

Money Hill Location – this activity will impact coastal bank and coastal dune resource areas. The Commission notes that this aspect of the project was included at the Commission’s request. The fitted bluestone revetment will be removed along with the hard-surface roadway. The existing native, boulders, stones and cobble that match the glacial till will be placed loosely as shown on the site plan. The Commission finds that:

As compared to the existing revetment, the stones will not adversely affect the coastal dune by affecting the ability of waves to remove or deposit sand or sediment from one resource area to another or by interfering with the landward or lateral movement of the dune. In fact, the proposed area will more effectively absorb wave energy to minimize erosion at the site.
The placement of the stones will not cause the removal of any vegetative cover. The only material removed will be the existing revetment rocks. No vegetative planting is considered necessary.
It is not anticipated that stones will cause any modification of the dune form so as to increase the potential for storm or flood damage.
The stones will not interfere with the landward or lateral movement of the dune any more than the existing revetment.
This element of the project will not cause the removal of sand from the dune artificially. Only materials placed on the site by man will be removed.
This element of the project does not include pedestrian walkways, fencing or other similar devices.
The stones will have no adverse effect on the stability of the coastal bank.

Managed Retreat – Overall Benefit of the Projects

The combined projects (SE 12 – 757 and SE 12 – 759) address the Commission’s objective of managed retreat to enhance the protection of coastal wetland resources. Elements of the managed retreat include the removal of revetment, the removal of the hard surface access roadway and parking area and the relocation of the access road and parking lot to upland locations more remote from the coastal bank and coastal beach.

The Commission finds that these project elements, together with the establishment of a dune, will enable restoration of the coastal resources at the project site and adjacent vicinity.

The Commission notes that the revetment was constructed many years ago; that it has had to be repaired and rebuilt on numerous occasions; and that it has had a detrimental effect on (a) the adjacent coastal bank, with significant scouring and erosion at its easternmost end and on (b) the barrier beach and BVW landward of the revetment with the over wash of revetment debris (i.e. pieces of soil cement) in the course of severe storms.

The Commission welcomes the applicants’ initiatives, finding them consistent with its general policy of allowing resource areas to evolve naturally without artificial disturbances.

The Commission understands, however, that the solution proposed is not by its nature permanent, given the constant change the project site has experienced over the years with continuing and often-times significant erosion, the inevitable landward migration of the shoreline and rising sea levels. Further, the Commission accepts the applicant’s statements that it is impossible at this stage to predict the rate of shoreline migration in view of the fact that aspects of the surrounding landscape are being altered and there is no history to judge how it will hold up to storm damage in the future. The Commission is persuaded that it would be appropriate to begin planning for further managed retreat when the mean high water approaches within 40’ of the seaward edge of the parking lot turnaround. The Commission notes that the coastal bank immediately east of the current parking lot/revetment is approximately 40’ landward of MHW, that from present perspectives, 40’ from the southernmost edge of the parking lot would appear to provide ample time for the planning for and ultimate removal of the parking lot structure before the parking lot may perform as a revetment.

Alternatives

The Commission notes that the applicant has investigated a number of alternatives to the project in an effort to meet its (and Squibnocket Farms’) objectives. That investigation process (the details of which are incorporated by reference in the NOI and ENF) involved almost two years of meetings and the review of expert evidence. In addition, the NOI detailed 3 specific alternatives which the applicant considered. The Commission is satisfied that there is no alternative which is either out of the buffer zone or further away from the resource areas which meets the applicants’ objectives. Further, the Commission finds that the applicant’s proposal seeks to minimize wetland impacts.

Replication

Work in a BVW must not destroy or otherwise impair the area. A small area of BVW is proposed to be used for the proposed parking area and a similarly small area of BVW is proposed to be used for the skiff launch. Although the NOI appropriately included a plan for replication of lost/impaired BVW, the Commission regards the total lost/impaired area as de minimis. The Commission hastens to point out that, while 1190 square feet might not ordinarily be viewed as de minimis, the project vicinity includes a large area of BVW encircling the entire eastern end of the pond. The Commission also notes that the project area abuts a significant inland coastal pond and, extending east and west for some considerable distance, coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach, coastal bank and land subject to coastal flooding. Seen in the context of the expanse of these extensive protected resource areas, the lost/impaired BVW is considered de minimis. Further, the Commission finds that the area proposed for replication is itself a protected resource and that under the circumstances; it makes little sense to sacrifice one resource area to replicate another.

Moreover, replication would create unnecessary disturbance to the area (grading, de-vegetation of the existing woody vegetation and then re-vegetation with similar woody wetland vegetation) without the possibility of any assurance that the re-vegetation would survive. Indeed, it is expected that area will be subject to wash overs over time which might affect the ability of the newly replicated area to thrive. Further, the areas already have very similar vegetation (albeit nominally suited to different resource areas) and the change from one type to the next would have minimal impact on the ability of these adjacent wetlands to protect the statutory interests. Other realistic sites in the vicinity were described by the applicant and for the reasons stated in response to the Commission’s questions; the Commission finds that they were even less suited to the resource areas affected by the project.

In the Commission’s view the disturbance caused by replication is not offset by any additional BVW at the project site and, in this case, does not appear to materially advance any interests protected by the Act or the Town’s regulations or otherwise enhance the overall project site resource areas. Accordingly, the Commission will not require replication.

Waiver

Although the resource area performance standards set out in the Act have been satisfied (see above discussion), the Town regulations allow no alteration of a coastal dune, coastal bank or BVW absent a variance. The applicant filed a request for variance during the proceedings. The Commission may only grant a waiver in “rare and unusual cases” (section 5.01(1)).

The Commission finds that:

Squibnocket Beach, the preservation of which is at the heart of the applicant’s project, is one of only 3 beaches in Town available for residents’ use.
No other beach (and associated parking lot) is similarly threatened by erosion.
Unlike private property owner applications, this application is intended for the benefit of the entire Town.
The combined projects include the significant restoration of wetland resources by removing an existing revetment and parking lot (which have, over the years, exacerbated erosion by scouring and the destruction of adjacent wetland resources when debris is washed into them during storms) and by the relocation of the Squibnocket Farms access road.
Absent construction of the access road and causeway, continued access to the 14 residences of Squibnocket Farms might be at least temporarily (and possibly more permanently) disrupted if an alternate access and reliable utility service are not created in the reasonably near term (with obvious consequences for the Squibnocket Farm residents as well as lack of access for emergency vehicles). The Commission understands that this concern is not speculative and that access has been disrupted in the past for several days at a time.
The combined projects (SE 12 – 757 and SE 12 – 759) reflect the extraordinary cooperation of many separate entities to achieve multiple goals benefitting many: vehicular/pedestrian access and to remove (rather than reinforce or enhance) man-made structures from coastal and wetland resources (i.e. managed retreat). Without that cooperation, no single party’s objectives could have been accomplished.

The Commission believes that the project and the applicant’s request for a variance in relation thereto, are sufficiently ‘rare and unusual’.

The Commission may grant a waiver “upon a clear and convincing showing that any proposed work, or its natural and consequential impacts and effects, will not have an adverse effect upon any of the interests protected in the Bylaws.” The Commission finds that no aspect of the project will have any long-term adverse effect on the interests protected by the Bylaws. Furthermore, the beneficial aspects of the project when viewed as a whole and in conjunction with its companion project, more than offset individual minor impacts.

Special Conditions

The applicant must provide a landscaping and landscape maintenance plan to the Commission (or at their direction to the Conservation Agent) for approval approximately 60 days following the completion of the causeway construction (SE 12 – 759). No fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides or pesticides shall be used.
The applicant must file plans with the Commission for a further managed retreat of the affected project components when mean high water reaches the 40’ mark from the southernmost edge of the relocated parking lot turnaround.
The site protection measures as outlined on Site Plan Sheet C1 revised and dated 5/23/16 are appropriate. All erosion control measures shall be installed and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. They will be continually maintained in good condition until the work is completed and the site is restored.
On site conferences shall take place among the Conservation Agent, the engineer and contractor(s) to review this Order and discuss the scope of work and methods before each of the following phases of construction begins.

Project staging
Site preparation – parking retaining wall construction, parking filling, grading, paving
Existing man-made structure removal.
Site restoration—sand nourishment and re-vegetation.
Emergency measures that may be needed due to storm damage during construction.

On-going maintenance of the parking area and skiff launch is allowed provided the maintenance plans are reviewed with the Conservation Commission before work begins.
Symbolic “rope fencing” shall be placed along both sides of the skiff launch and on the ocean side of the roadway opposite the skiff launch to keep vehicles off the resource area.
Should the storm water gravel drainage trench at the parking lot fail to perform or is compromised by storm damage the applicant shall return to the Commission within 30 days with a plan to repair the drainage.

The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed unanimously with six in favor and one abstention (Ms. Eisner who is not eligible to vote).

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOI SE 12 - 759; DANIEL PADIEN FOR SQUIBNOCKET FARM, INC.; off Squibnocket Rd. and Squibnocket Farm Rd.; AP 35-1.30, 17.3, 17.4, 21, 22, 23: Ms. Shweder opened the continued public hearing at 1:20 PM and mentioned this is the fifth hearing on this application and this is a follow up to the May 18th hearing. Ms. Shweder summarized the application as managed retreat of the existing access road to the homeowner’s residences caused by natural erosion and the northward migration of the shoreline. Construct a new access roadway originating at Squibnocket Road to the north and intersecting with Squibnocket Farm Road -- west of the current security gate. A combination of a filled road will with turnouts will lead from Squibnocket Road and Squibnocket Farm Road and intersect with a raised causeway over the wetland resource areas. The raised causeway will be modeled after the current Menemsha drive-on dock. The existing buried utilities running underneath the current Town parking lot will be removed. The new utility lines will run under the new filled road sections and through conduit located on the north side of the concrete deck of the raised causeway. She then confirmed the eligible voters as Sandy, Candy, Joan, Chris, Pam and Russell.

Mr. Padien presented a revised site plan that was hand-dated 5/25/16 with a slightly expanded limit of work perimeter. This is needed to provide space for the causeway construction equipment. The Commission discussed adding a condition that requires Squibnocket Farm, Inc. to provide a separate exit plan for the remaining loose rocks at Money Hill. This plan will be prepared and presented when the time comes to present a plan to relocate the causeway or its two connecting roadways.

The Commission again commented the MVC’s approval decision with no changes was thorough and clear and agreed with the landscape timing. Ms. Broyard and Ms. Goff had to leave the meeting. After much discussion and with no further public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at 1:35 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented with an outline of the following decision and conditions:

Introduction

This project concerns the construction of an access roadway and elevated causeway (together the ‘Project’). The resource areas impacted are: coastal bank, BVW and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The precise square footage of resource area affected is stated in the Order of Conditions.

Coincident with the filing of the NOI for this project was the filing of an NOI for a second project by an unrelated entity (SE-757). That project concerns the removal and relocation of a parking lot, the removal of a revetment and hard-surface roadway and the creation of a skiff launch. The resource areas impacted are: bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), coastal dune, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Although there are 2 separate NOIs before the Commission, it is important to note that the two projects are complementary and interdependent. Both applicants advised that the projects would not and could not proceed unless both were approved. The Commission was advised that the applicants have negotiated various arrangements between them and with third parties which impact multiple aspects of both proposals. Accordingly, although the Commission handled these projects separately during the hearing process, its decision takes into consideration aspects of both projects as relevant to protection of the impacted resources.

The Project will impact BVW, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission finds that:

The coastal bank on which the Project is proposed is densely vegetated and does not serve as a source of sediment, but as a vertical buffer providing storm damage and flood control. No adverse impact on its ability to continue to perform this function is anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project will not have any adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank.
The Project does not include any coastal engineering structure.
The NHESP has determined the project will not adversely affect the actual resource area habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and it will not result in a prohibited “take” of state-listed rare species.
The only permanent destruction or impairment of BVW is limited to 25 square feet as a result of the installation of 32 steel piles. The causeway has been engineered to minimize the area impacted and to allow normal function of the BVW during and after construction. Additional impacts to BVW are limited to trampling which, given the nature of the soils, will not have any long-term effect. The applicant’s shading analysis, which the Commission finds credible, indicates that the height of the causeway and its north-south orientation will avoid adverse shading impacts. The Commission considers any impairment to BVW to be de minimis. See further discussion under “Replication”.
Because of the limited extent of permanent BVW loss/impairment, the Project will not impair the ability of the BVW to protect the interests of wildlife and wildlife habitat, water supply, flood control, storm damage prevention, pollution prevention, protection of fisheries and shellfish.
In view of the fact that the causeway is elevated, the Project will not reduce the ability of the land to absorb and contain floodwaters, or to buffer inland areas from flooding and wave damage.
The proposal to deal with storm water run-off is adequate to compensate for any reduced permeability of the access road.
The pitched runoff system on the paved connector from Squibnocket Road running to the causeway is properly channeled into the planned drainage swale to the east of the connector and toward the Town’s new parking lot.
The run-off system (grassed swale and bio-retention swale) will promote pollutant attenuation and infiltration and therefore protect ground, surface and salt water from pollution.
Areas adjacent to the access roadway that will be disturbed during construction will need to be re-vegetated so as to completely and successfully restore and stabilize the area to its original form and volume.
The Commission finds that the proposed height of the causeway is acceptable when considered in light of the wetland resource protection issues. The height minimizes the slope of the connector roads on both ends of the causeway thus, eliminating the need for structural excavation on the coastal bank. The paved connector roads as proposed add fill and therefore do not require engineered structural solutions. Lowering the causeway would entail additional disturbance due to additional grading and excavation of land subject to coastal storm flowage and BVW to the east. Also, the causeway itself does not rest on a resource area. It has been engineered with pylons so that it does not impede the flow of ocean waters and is designed to withstand potential wash overs. The Commission accepts the Applicant’s evidence that the proposed height will sufficiently protect any underlying vegetation. Requiring a lower causeway is not necessary for protection of the costal and wetlands resources. Further, a lower causeway is likely to have other unintended and adverse consequences.

Managed Retreat – Overall Benefit of the Projects

The combined projects (SE 12 – 757 and SE 12 – 759) address the Commission’s objective of managed retreat to enhance the protection of coastal wetland resources. Elements of the managed retreat are, for the most part, described in the Town’s NOI. However, the relocation of the access roadway to an upland location more remote from the coastal bank and coastal beach is an important element of the managed retreat. Moreover, the low causeway, integral to the overall combined projects, is itself a mitigation measure and overall is an improvement over other possible resource management options as it avoids relocation of necessary access in/on (i.e. at grade) coastal and pond resource areas.

The Commission finds that the combined project elements will enable restoration of the coastal resources at the project site and adjacent vicinity. The Commission welcomes the applicants’ initiatives, finding them consistent with its general policy of allowing resource areas to evolve naturally without artificial disturbances.

The Commission understands, however, that the solution proposed is not by its nature permanent, given the constant change the project site has experienced over the years with continuing and often-times significant erosion, the inevitable landward migration of the shoreline and rising sea levels. Further, the Commission believes that it is impossible at this stage to predict the rate of shoreline migration in view of the fact that aspects of the surrounding landscape are being altered and there is no history to judge how it will hold up to storm damage in the future. The Commission is persuaded that it would be appropriate to begin the 3-phased planning for further managed retreat when the mean high water approaches within 30’ of the western tipping slab connection of the causeway to Squibnocket Farm Road and/or the eastern entrance to the causeway off Squibnocket Rd. The narrative and supporting plan provide sufficient time to return with a further retreat plan that can be executed in a controlled, non-emergency manner.

Alternatives

The alternatives analysis presented in the ENF filing establishes this proposal as the best solution with a de minimus impact on the resources.

Replication

Work in a BVW must not destroy or otherwise impair the area. The only permanent direct disturbance to the BVW is the 25 square feet that are displaced by the steel pilings. (Other impacts are only temporary.) Although the applicant offered to replicate lost BVW, the Commission regards the disturbance to be negligible and that the benefit of removing the current access road which runs through the Town’s existing parking lot offsets any detrimental impact on this resource. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the project vicinity includes a large area of BVW encircling the entire eastern end of the pond, that this area has been increasing in size over the years due to infill from the adjacent coastal bank and dune erosion, and that it is likely to continue to do so. The Commission also notes that the project area abuts a significant coastal pond and, extending east and west for some considerable distance, coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach, coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Seen in the context of the expanse of these extensive protected resource areas, the lost BVW is considered de minimis.

Moreover, to replicate the lost BVW in an area in the approximate vicinity of the loss would require disturbance (grading/excavation to achieve appropriate hydraulic environment), clearing and subsequent re-vegetation. It is anticipated that the replicated area would be short-lived in view of anticipated wash overs at the site.

In the Commission’s view, the disturbance caused by replication is not offset by any additional BVW at the site and, in this case, does not appear to materially advance any interests protected by the Act or the Town’s regulations or otherwise enhance the overall Project site resource areas. Accordingly, the Commission will not require replication.

Waiver

Although the resource area performance standards set out in the Act have been satisfied (see above discussion), the Town regulations allow no alteration of a coastal bank or BVW absent a variance. The Applicant’s NOI included a request for variance. The Commission may only grant a waiver in “rare and unusual cases” (section 5.01(1)).

The Commission finds that:

Squibnocket Beach is one of only 3 beaches in Town available for residents’ use.
No other beach (and associated roadway and parking lot) is similarly threatened by erosion.
The combined projects include the significant restoration of coastal and wetland resources by removing an existing revetment, roadway and parking lot which have, over the years, exacerbated erosion by scouring and the destruction of adjacent coastal resources when debris is washed into them during storms. This proposal eliminates additional storm damage from the previous man-made impacts.
Absent construction of the access road and causeway, continued access to the 14 residences of Squibnocket Farms might be at least temporarily (and possibly more permanently) disrupted if an alternate access and reliable utility service are not created in the reasonably near term (with obvious consequences for the Squibnocket Farm residents as well as lack of access for emergency vehicles). The Commission understands that this concern is not speculative and that access has been disrupted in the past for several days at a time.
The combined projects (SE 12 – 757 and SE 12 – 759) reflect the extraordinary cooperation of many separate entities to achieve multiple goals benefitting many: vehicular/pedestrian access and to remove (rather than reinforce or enhance) man-made structures from coastal and wetland resources (i.e. managed retreat). Without that cooperation, no single party’s objectives could have been accomplished.

The Commission believes that the project and the applicant’s request for a variance in relation thereto, are sufficiently ‘rare and unusual’.

The Commission may grant a waiver “upon a clear and convincing showing that any proposed work, or its natural and consequential impacts and effects, will not have an adverse effect upon any of the interests protected in the Bylaws.” The Commission finds that no aspect of the Project will have any long-term adverse effect on the interests protected by the Bylaws. Furthermore, the beneficial aspects of the project when viewed as a whole and in conjunction with its companion project, more than offset individual minor impacts.

Special Conditions

The expanded limit of work outline as shown on the hand-dated May 25, 2016 site plan MR-1 is approved.
The applicant must provide a landscaping and landscape maintenance plan to the Commission (or at their direction to the Conservation Agent) for approval approximately 60 days following the completion of the causeway construction. No fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides or pesticides shall be used.
The applicant must file plans with the Commission for a further managed retreat of the affected project components when mean high water reaches the previously outlined 30’ mark.
All erosion control measures shall be installed and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. They will be continually maintained in good condition until the work is completed and the site is restored.
On site conferences shall take place among the Conservation Agent, the engineer and contractor(s) to review this Order and discuss the scope of work and methods before each of the following phases of construction begins.

Project staging
Site preparation – heavy equipment staging, access road fill and construction
Steel piling installation, concrete deck installation, utilities removal and new trenching existing man-made structure removal.
Paving
Site restoration.
Emergency measures that may be needed due to storm damage during construction.

On-going maintenance of the causeway deck, access roads and underground utilities is allowed provided the maintenance plans are reviewed with the Conservation Commission before work begins.
On-going maintenance of the causeway side rails, above-ground utilities and steel pile re-coating is allowed without prior approval from the Commission.
The applicant will share the on-going measurement of erosion rates with the Commission.
Should the storm water drainage swale fail to perform or is compromised by storm damage the applicant shall return to the Commission within 30 days with a plan to repair the drainage system.
When further natural erosion and rising sea level conditions dictate the physical relocation of the causeway or either of its access roads, a plan for the complete removal of the remaining rocks, stones and cobble at Money Hill shall also be presented.

The motion was seconded. With no further discussion the motion passed unanimously with four in favor and one abstention (Ms. Eisner who is not an eligible voter).

ADMINISTRATION

The decisions will be singed at the June 1 meeting.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 1, 2016 @ 12:30 PM.

With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.