Town joins SBPF to expand geotubes on Sconset Bluff
The eroding Sconset Bluff on the island's east end last week.
Posted Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:00 am
Select Board approves notice of intent for project expansion
(Nov. 11, 2022) A draft of a proposal that the town and Sconset Beach Preservation Fund intend to put before the Conservation Commission flies in the face of recent ConCom correspondence that makes it clear its members are against both expansion of the current project and hard-armoring in general, including geotubes, at the base of Sconset Bluff.
"It's a quagmire," town manager Libby Gibson said. But Gibson also insisted there is hope that things can be hashed out during the ConCom's public hearings on the matter, which could take place by the end of the year.
SBPF president Josh Posner was blunt when discussing the limits of his group's willingness to continue fighting and funding what it sees as an uphill battle.
"We hope that there is still a path to resolving this rather than having it all melt down, which at this point could certainly happen," he said. A major expansion of the geotube project on the Sconset Bluff, from its current length of 900 feet to over 4,000 feet over a multiyear period, was unveiled Friday in a draft of the Notice of Intent for the town's and SBPF's latest, and possibly last, proposal for erosion control on the Sconset Bluff.
"I feel like we're stuck between two entrenched positions," Select Board member Matt Fee said. "I think saying (the ConCom) will listen to it, but it's already decided, isn't appropriate."
A letter the Select Board sent to the ConCom stated the NOI has been a work in progress since January, well before the board received the
ConCom's letter at the end of October, and its intention is to submit it before the Nov. 17 filing deadline.
Select Board chair Jason Bridges said the cost of providing alternative access to Baxter Road, something the town has a municipal responsibility to do if the erosion reaches a certain point, could cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars over a period of years.
"If we have to pay for this it is going to take away from other initiatives, from housing, from other coastal resiliency projects, all kinds of things. It's a big deal," he said.
The possibility that the SBPF's privately-funded erosion control project could significantly delay or even prevent that happening is a risk worth taking, he said.
Town officials have said the ConCom should reconsider its stance, given what's at stake, and given that the town is taking a more active role in the project.
But the ConCom, in its recent letter, also stated its intention to follow through with its removal order of the existing geotubes, which was recently upheld by a Superior Court judge.
The one concession it did offer was that it would be willing to suspend the removal order for up to 60 days.
That concession, however, is dependent on the town/SBPF notice of intent containing no coastal engineering structures, which geotubes are, and no expansion of the project. Both are contained in the newest draft NOI. Not about holding a grudge ConCom chair Ashley Erisman said it's not about holding a grudge, it's about enforcement. The litany of issues the commission has had with SBPF over the years is one of the main reasons the ConCom has stated its plans to stand by the enforcement order, and why she is skeptical of a massive expansion.
"We as a commission spent years trying to keep SBPF in compliance," Erisman said, listing off issues from a road drainage system that she said was not in compliance, to using sand contaminated with construction debris, violating a no-work order, and finally the latest issue of not dumping enough sacrificial sand on the project, which was a failure condition.
"Throughout all those enforcements we were in touch with SBPF, requesting they get back into compliance, and the town," she said. Town taking harder line with SBPF Bridges said the town has devoted resources to help make sure the failures of the past won't be repeated. The latest proposal, a joint effort between the town and SBPF, should give the ConCom more assurance that this time is different, he said.
"I feel for the ConCom, it was not easy trying to work with the SBPF," he said. "I understand that difficulty. But now we have (the coastal engineering firm) Arcadis, we have (coastal resilience coordinator) Vince Murphy who spends 95 percent of his time on this. So, there's oversight now that wasn't there before."
The Select Board is also taking a much harder line with the SBPF and is ready to hold it accountable, he said.
"We're on top of it now," Bridges said. "We weren't years ago, so maybe give them a chance with us being involved versus just holding these old grudges."
Erisman said the costs associated with providing alternative access to Baxter Road are something the town will have to deal with at some point, given that the Arcadis report said the geotubes were slowing the rate of erosion, not preventing it.
There are negative consequences that have resulted from the project, specifically the lack of sacrificial sand being provided by the SBPF, Erisman said.
"The thing with coastal erosion projects is when you're starving the littoral (near-shore) system of sand, there's an environmental consequence. Just because they can't tie it to something like, oh my god, the lighthouse fell in (to the ocean), doesn't mean there aren't consequences occurring."
Erisman said two separate independent reviewers have told the ConCom the growing sand deficit has repercussions.
"Our own independent reviewer has said, I think in two rounds of report reviews, that the growing sand deficit is something to be concerned about and has long-term implications," she said. "So, we are not just winging this on our own. We've also had an independent reviewer looking the whole time saying this lack of sand is very problematic."
Posner said the SBPF acknowledges it has been in violation of its permit due to the lack of sacrificial sand, but that it makes more sense to get the project back into compliance and allow it to expand, given the potential benefits to those involved.
"We've raised over $10 million from people, almost all of which are people who are not getting protected by the geotubes currently," he said.
"They are doing it because there was an understanding, that if it was proven to be effective, not hurting anyone else, it would be expanded to protect other homes. Then you end up with a privately- funded sustainable system that protects the whole length of the road."
Disappointed by ConCom stance Town officials discussed the ConCom's letter at last Wednesday's Select Board meeting.
"This is conditioning what they might accept, and that's very disappointing and very difficult for us as we are developing an NOI that does not meet the Conservation Commission's conditions to suspend the removal order," coastal resilience coordinator Vince Murphy said at that meeting.
Murphy said if the geotubes are removed there would be a risk to the homes and town infrastructure on Baxter Road and could trigger one of the conditions for road relocation that was decided in 2015, costing the town millions of dollars.
"We're now in a precarious position, where if we send in this NOI, we could be having a winter and storm season where this structure is removed in December probably," he said.