ALIXS TAKE: DRAWING LINES IN THE SAND I’ll make this short and sweet, although Wednesdays Con Com meeting (11/13) was anything but. Cutting to the chase: the conflicting interests of those living on the Sconset bluff, and those living north and south of Sconset, have not changed throughout these hearings on the advisability of building various revetments to slow down Sconset’s erosion. The only changes are some aspects of the engineering designs. Their overall character remains unaltered. The specific SBPF proposal currently being discussed is for a temporary (5 years) wall of geotextile tubes, from #85 to #107A Baxter Road, paid for by SBPF, with a goal of giving the Town—a co-applicant—sufficient time to relocate the most endangered part of Baxter Road. Sconset has a trump card: SBPF points out that if not permitted, the road will fail—possibly as soon as the next storm—and the Town has no back-up plan. The Town would also be subject to costly litigation, in addition to losing its financial partner. In sum, without the temporary wall, without Sconset funding, everyone’s up the creek. (This comes across to some of us as a threat.) The Quidnet Squam Association (QSA) also has an indisputable concern: if SBPF (or some other body) is allowed to sponsor any kind of hard-armoring revetment, there will be—as with any wall facing the sea under such extremely high-energy conditions—significant adverse impact to other beaches along our coast that depend on the eroding bluff for crucial nourishment. (This comes across to some advocates as frivolous QSA obstruction.) Everyone is passionate: attorney Steve Cohen, for the SBPF, argues that you can’t predict outcomes with 100% certainty, and time to get started was yesterday—a sentiment heartily seconded by professional fishermen Bobby DeCosta (also a Selectman) and Peter Kaizer who describes himself as a “rock” man, meaning one who thinks rock revetments are hands down the best, free of pesky geotextile fabric that can tear off and befoul fish habitat. Dirk Roggeveen, for QSA, argues that this geotextile proposal is a not-so-subtle prelude to the next SBPF proposal—waiting in the wings for a December 8th Con Com revisit—where Cohen could reason: You permitted the shorter Baxter Road geotextile tube proposal, so it follows that this larger, rock revetment application (featuring the multi-ton boulders—or possibly shifting to a slightly less formidable geotextile redesign?) should be permitted for controlling the same conditions along the entire toe of the eroding bluff. “Absolutely not!” retorts an irate Steve Cohen. (We shall see, as soon as December 8th.) Here, summed up, is a sample of last night’s key assertions—for those of you who were snugly at home: Nicolle Burnham of the engineering firm M&M designing the project for the Town, said a contractor has been found since the last meeting who would pump salt water into the geotextile tube slurry mix, rather than the fresh water objected to by the commissioners. She also said that other objections to the project (amount of sand mitigation delivered annually, number of data-collecting transects, etc.) as articulated by coastal expert Jim O’Connell at the prior meeting, were now being addressed—but the figures & data are so “confusing” from diverse sources, one could debate them “forever.” In fact, she said, Jim O’Connell (who’d been brought in to testify by QSA) was so impressive at the last meeting, her team had asked him to consult on the mitigation and monitoring plan. But O’Connell had declined, after talking with Roggeveen—which Nicolle (and Commissioner Glowacki) thought was evidence of more obstruction on the part of QSA. “Why did O’Connell decline?” countered Roggeveen. “O’Connell is against any kind of revetment in this location. He stated they always cause significant adverse impact. Therefore it would violate his principles to participate in this proposal’s redesign.” (My paraphrase). Commissioner Golding worried that “this is a revetment by another name” and wondered again how challenging would be its eventual removal. Commissioner Otkay questioned again whether Town would have liability, and repeated her reservations about the lack of specificity and information in this design. Con Com coordinator Jeff Carlson stated that an escrow account would be established by SBPF to cover removal costs. Trey Ruthven, for the Land Council, expressed strong concerns about how data, once collected, would be analyzed to determine whether nature or revetment was causing emergent problems; he also questioned how large volumes of sand could be adequately mobilized right after a storm, when needed, or even just before one hits, and how end-scouring would be halted or reversed (add on yet more geotextile tubes?). Chairman Steinauer sought answers to how damages to neighbors’ property would be handled and appropriately compensated: What’s gone is gone—if we can’t reliably interpret the data, he said, and property is in fact damaged or destroyed, “the onus is on us. What is fair here?” Ms. Burnham promised, in return, to be open to further discussion of metrics, and assured the commission that her team remained “happily” receptive to whatever conditions the commission might impose. Your humble observer then suggested to the commission that it faced a “Sophie’s Choice.” Responding to Cohen’s dramatic “begging” of the Con Com to get this underway, Ms. Frick said that since, according to O’Connell, Squam, Quidnet and beaches north to Great Point would experience 75% of the “adversity” one can expect from any hard-amoring Sconset revetment, she hopes the Con Com would do its best to impose strict, enforceable standards and protective conditions if (or when) permitting the project to go forward. Peter Kaizer had the last word: In his many years fishing the waters, he had seen wholly unpredictable shifts of sand along the coast, some within weeks. With due respect to O’Connell, he rebutted, we know little about the littoral system—we can’t say that adjacent beaches would be starved or suffer adverse impact. Get over it, was the message. On that note, the meeting adjourned. Oceans and temperatures are rising, tempers too. Alix Nelson-Frick 58 Squam Road
Posted on: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:25:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015