State Agency Skeptical Of 'Sconset Bluff Geotube Expansion Proposal

A long-awaited state review of a proposed expansion to the geotube installation along the ‘Sconset Bluff expresses serious skepticism, suggesting that the expansion should be “reevaluated” in part because of the ‘Sconset Beach Preservation Fund’s inability to keep up with previous regulatory mandates.

The review, conducted by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, alleges that an application for the proposed expansion dramatically understates its potential environmental damage, makes impractical claims about how the work will be carried out, fails to consider negative impacts on nearby beaches, and does not sufficiently address problems with the existing geotubes.

“There may be temporary and permanent impacts to resource areas associated with the construction, maintenance, and mitigation that have not been identified,” the report reads in part.

The review states that no monitoring data has been submitted for the geotube installation since 2022.

It is yet another blow to the proposed expansion of the erosion control project, which is already facing lawsuits and an uphill battle to secure necessary approval from voters at Town Meeting this spring.

“Our consultants at Epsilon are addressing comments,” Sconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) representative Meredith Moldenhauer said. “SBPF believes all issues can be adequately addressed in due course, in connection with permitting and during the preconstruction phase.”

On Monday, Moldenhauer told the Current that the existing geotube installation was vandalized, sharing photos and videos that show long, straight, clean cuts along the geotextile fabric. This damage, which Moldenhauer later suggested could endanger the homes along Baxter Road atop the bluff and threaten access to Sankaty lighthouse, further complicates efforts to expand the installation.

“We are currently focusing on the attack on the project and ask for the Nantucket community to stand together and denounce such violence,” Moldenhauer said. “The person or group responsible for cutting the Geotubes has not just hurt the project, but this should be viewed as a crime against the Town, as it significantly increases the risk that Baxter Road will be breached.”

A collaboration between the ‘Sconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) and the town of Nantucket, the 3,000 foot expansion of the existing erosion control project was approved by the Conservation Commission last March after years of debate.

But facing a sharply critical review from the state and serious damage to the existing geotubes, which has caused the installation to partially fail, it’s unclear if the collaborators will be able to secure the support of enough voters this spring to gain the Town Meeting approval they need to go forward. Even before the alleged vandalism and the state review, multiple town leaders had already raised concerns about the proposed expansion.

According to the review, the town and SBPF did not consider the impact of many activities needed to expand the geotubes, including providing construction access along the beach and beach nourishment and vegetation above the geotubes, delivering sediment to the site, and pushing sediment onto the beach.

The application also allegedly underestimates the size of needed sacrificial sand dunes, understates the width of the installation by as much as one-third, and does not provide sufficient detail about how construction and mitigation work will be achieved. The review estimates the total impact of the expansion at over 10 acres.

Wading into a debate that has surrounded the project for years, the office of Coastal Zone Management says that “the project is having downdrift impacts increasing erosion on adjacent properties,” a claim that has become one of the primary reasons for opposition to the geotubes.

The review makes several biting criticisms of SBPF.

“The original proposal for the pilot project stated that the geotubes could be easily removed if the conditions of the permit were not met or if they had adverse impacts. When the enforcement order was issued, the proponents indicated the geotubes could not be easily removed,” the report reads in part, referring to a removal order issued by the Conservation Commission, which SBPF never made serious progress toward following. “Since the geotubes are not temporary structures that can be removed if there are adverse impacts, and the proponents have not been able to keep up with the mitigation sand requirements, expansion of the geotubes should be reevaluated. The shoreline north and south of this area will continue to erode, exacerbating the impacts of the structures.”

Additionally, the report suggests that SBPF should create a plan to provide over 100,000 cubic yards of sand before expansion begins to account for an outstanding deficit built up over a period of years. SBPF representatives previously told the Conservation Commission that if they were required to provide that sand over even a five-year period, the project was “dead.”

The geotube installation has long been controversial. Local advocacy groups, including the Nantucket Land and Water Council and the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy, have long opposed the project, and the Select Board ousted a number of Conservation Commission members critical of the geotubes before securing approval for the expansion. Before approving the expansion, the Conservation Commission had once ordered the removal of the geotubes.

The review also recommends exploring alternatives to geotubes and notes the town’s plan to eventually relocate Baxter Road. Some opponents of the geotubes have championed relocation as an alternative, while supporters have held up the project’s success in forestalling the need for relocation as one of its greatest achievements. Relocation will ultimately cost tens of millions and disrupt the entire neighborhood, though the Select Board has strongly suggested that taxpayer money will eventually be recouped through betterments assessed on Baxter Road homeowners. Betterments were recently used to pay for a similar relocation project on Sheep Pond Road.