From what I can gather from this report in the Daily News (and it's not hard to gather, given the headline 'Hostile' letter keeps Salisbury's Harrington away from Plum Island ), this Plum Island Foundation really knows how to win friends and influence people.
It seems that the Foundation and a citizens' group last March sent Town Manager Neil Harrington a letter threatening a law suit if Salisbury does not agree to allow sand dredged from the mouth of the river to be deposited on Plum Island.
"We simply cannot grant legitimacy to a meeting organized by a group that ostensibly wants our support at the same time it is threatening to take legal action against us," Harrington wrote to [Plum Island Foundation Vice President Robert] Connors last Friday.
Wow, does this sound at all familiar, people in Ward 5?
Harrington did not attend last week's meeting at PITA Hall on Plum Island, at which the Army Corps of Engineers talked erosion.
Connors responded with this, to Harrington: "Wouldn't the citizens of Salisbury be better served having their town manager attend to learn firsthand of the necessary steps, the possible solutions of erosion control and beach nourishment?" he added.
Again, according to the Daily News, Salisbury and Plum Island had previously agreed to alternate on who gets the sand from the dredging. (Not sure what political entity Plum Island is.) Plum Island got the last load, 10 years ago.
Salisbury had apparently agreed that the next load should go to Plum Island , so I don't see the impetus behind the nastiness. The letter threatening legal action was written by a Boston attorney.
All this is, again, kind of jumping the gun, in that the Army Corps of Engineers has said again and again that they don't do beach replenishment, and that the sand would probably be dumped off shore from Plum Island, as it was 10 years ago.
Jerry Klima, chairman of the Salisbury Selectmen, did attend the meeting, but said his presence should not be construed as an endorsement of the Plum Island Foundation. He said he thought the communities could probably persuade federal officials to give their financial support to beach nourishment projects — but only if they work together.
What, he doesn't think threatening a lawsuit is working together?!
12 comments:
Gillian,
You really should attend the meetings with the Army Corps - beach nourishment is the purpose of the 204-study.
As for the current nastiness, I think it's just continued bad blood between Newbury and the DEP. I think the citizens group is just tweaking to the state/DEP by throwing Executive Order 181 back at them. It was EO 181 that the DEP used to impose development restrictions on the island as part of the W&S project.
"5. Coastal engineering structures shall only be used on barrier beaches to
maintain navigation channels at inlets and then only if mechanisms are
employed to ensure that downdrift beaches are adequately supplied with
sediment."
Given that new point was formed by salisbury beach beaking off and attaching to PI, it's hard to argue PI is not the downdrift beach. CZM officials have admitted as much - but the state has an interest in the sand since it owns salisbury beach. A regional cooperative agreement will be reached eventually for the entire littoral cell which runs from Hampton to Cape Ann.
Well, Bubba, I would attend if I knew anything about the meetings. Why don't YOU tell me, next time there's going to be one?
I don't trust what the Army Corps has to say any more than I trust what Howard Marlowe has to say. The Corps seems to say different things, depending on who they are talking to.
The Corps is partly responsible for the current situation, after all.
Why are they recommending this GeoTube, which apparently does not work?
Anyway, nothing in your comment explains the nasty letter, which was addressed to Neil Harrington, not the DEP!
And furthermore, the part of the beach in question, that needs the sand, from what I can tell was never part of Salisbury, although it's hard to argue it's not "downdrift."
And why wouldn't the state have an interest in preserving its own beach? One could argue, and people have, that ALL of Plum Island shoud be a refuge, or a reservation.
But again, Neil Harrington represents Salisbury, not the state.
I can't believe you are defending this letter!
Gillian,
The meeting was mentioned in the DN so I assumed you knew about it.
So you are taking the word of one scientist Ari found on the internet over an Army Corps coastal engineer in regards to the efficacy of a GeoTube ? Apparently NASA has deployed one - I guess we shouldn't trust them either.
My point was the state has an interest in protecting its beach at the expense of PI. It also seems to forget that it owns part of the PI beach.
I agree that all of PI should be refuge/reservation.
Lastly, I wasn't defending the letter, I was explaning it - there's a big difference. I do not support the letter. The letter also isn't new news and was reported on at the time it was sent. I believe copies were also sent to DEP and others.
Well, some Corps coastal engineer obviously recommended the groins ... so yeah.
I can't find anything, aside from the manufacturer's account, that talks abou the GeoTube NASA deployed. Did it work?
Perhaps Ari's scientist has a material interest in the product he recommends ?
Scientists (objective ones)make recommendations based on the best available information. What next ? Are you going to blame the inventor of the internal combustion engine for not foreseeing global warming and peak oil ?
I'm not sure you comprehend the consequences of just letting nature take its course as you seem to advocate.....
Oh, please, spare me.
Last week I wrote 2 posts about this exact situation happening 32 yrs. ago, and nothing dire happened then.
The only difference is that now there are high-priced homes at stake. If anyone had paid attention to what happens, historically, homes would not be in jeopardy now because they wouldn't be there at all.
Didn't I tell you about the story about the beach across from my grandmother's house in Barbados, the beach that didn't used to be there until the Army Corps of Engineers came along because the U.S. (which had a naval base on the island) wanted a deep-water harbor there? All their studying led to them blasting the reef so the sand would go out to sea and create a harbor. Instead, the sand came in and made a beach. It's a big joke on Barbados.
So no, I'm not a big believer in messing too much with nature, especially when an ocean is involved.
Of coure, if you're wrong, you can simply pack up and leave the problem to your landlord.
32 years ago they repaired the south jetty.
My home has been in its current location for 68 years; And many of us have modest homes. I never figured you for a class warrior.
Do you deliberately misinterpret everything I write??
They know there's a historic cycle of erosion on the beach. But yet, people are allowed to build more homes in the area of risk.
If every house was a modest house, there would be concern, but not this level of alarm, media blitz, and consultants being hired.
And I'm talking about Newbury. I thought you lived in Newburyport, where there ARE restrictions on building near the dunes ...
Gillian,
I'm just trying to understand your position. What's caused the "alarm" is not the size of the houses but that we are now all dependent the water and sewer system and that all of us on the point have to pass through the island center to get to our homes.
There's also an erosion problem in Newburyport as well.
There are development restrictions in both communities. Newbury is actually more restrictive in terms of lot coverage, where unlike Npbt, decks count towards the coverage. The only real difference on the primary dune is that homes can't expand in Nbpt - but since most of them are already at their PIOD limit, it's rather moot.
Yeah but Bubba, I'm not talking about a development restriction. I'm talking about a conservation restriction. If I remember correctly, Newburyport has a restriction of so many hundred feet from the primary dune area.
And despite what Russo and others have blabbed, I asked Brendan O'Regan what risk there was to the water/sewer system, and he said he did not know if there was one - or, rather, he said, "I really couldn't say." Uncharacteristic of him.
The access to your homes part I get, but my point is, there has been an erosion problem there before and somehow it resolved itself w/out building a seawall or anything else. As in, nature has "decided" there should be a barrier island here and there have been cycles of bad erosion but yet the island stays intact.
This has been going on forever, in cycles. I agree the channel needs to be dredged, since it's there.
But check this out; someone posted this link on Tom Salemi's website and it's really interesting: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91586603.
Somewhere in Texas, the beach eroded to such a point that people's actual homes became part of what the state claims as the right of the public to access the beach and Texas told the homeowners to take a hike.
Bubba, I don't have the answers. I'm just saying that this particular problem is partly of human making and some irresponsibility on the part of Newbury. Now they want the government to bail them out, they are making threats - when the town knew from past experience that the erosion is cyclical.
I don't want people to lose their homes, I don't want you or anyone else to be stranded out on the point ... I just want Newbury to stop whining and start finding a real solution. Didn't it say in the DN that it will cost the town $1.4M to construct the Little Village on the river, or whatever it's called?
What's the deal on that? If they can get that, then they can pay for a study, or contribute to the repairs like the Army Corps wants them to ...
Gillian,
There are several layers of "restrictions", FEMA, MA Wetlands, zoning, building codes, local wetlands, etc. The only material difference is that Newbury was allowing new construction on vacant lots on the primary dune which DEP put a stop to. I do not believe there have been any vacant lots developed on the primary dune for several years. Folks on the primary dune in Nbpt can rebuild (on pilings)but not expand.
There are no plans to build a sea wall. The current goal is to provide a temporary soft structure (GeoTube) as a measure to prevent the dune from being breached until the channel gets dredged and the beach (hopefully) nourished.
It resolved itself last time because the jetties were repaired and the channel was dredged regularly.
This problem is not of human making (unless you mean the jetties) - beaches erode whether there are houses on them or not. All of the houses at risk have been there for a long, long time. Has there been bad behavior, absolutely, do homeowners and municipalities need to take more responsibility and behave more prudently, absolutely.
Newbury isn't paying to construct the village - they are being paid. And folks are trying to find a solution. Newbury also expects to contribute towards the repairs.
Something else to consider - I don't own my home - a local bank does - one of which has so much "exposure" that it has stopped lending on the island.
There also seems to be some myth out there that it's only rich McMansion owners who are at risk - but the fact is, those homes are elevated on 30+ foot driven steel pilings - they'll be fine, its us regular folks that will pay the price.
Bubba,
You're right, I mis-remembered about the $1.4 mil.
I wasn't saying there were plans to build a seawall, I just stuck that in there because there was talk of it back in the 70s.
And I'm not 'targeting' rich people. I'm saying that if there weren't all those McMansions, no one would be paying for lobbyists and calling the media. And rubbing people the wrong way in the process. That's not the way to get things done!
And I do want something done out here. I just want it to be the RIGHT something. They seem to be grabbing at straws at this point and alienating people who are part of the solution.
Post a Comment