By Steve Urbon
surbon@s-t.com
May 06, 2010 12:00 AM
WAREHAM — An environmental survey of Swifts Beach calls on the town to create a special beach commission to "stop alteration of the wetland resources and the encroachment onto the beach" by private abutters and by invasive species of plants.

The survey, completed in June, has been kept under lock and key by town officials. It was obtained by The Standard-Times this week after the secretary of state's office compelled its release as a public document.

The timing is critical: A proposal to commission a study of the potential uses of Swifts Beach is on the agenda for the Town Meeting that is in progress and will resume Monday.

Swifts Beach, over 5 acres, taken by eminent domain in 2003 from Barbara Deighton Haupt, so far has cost the town roughly $2 million in payments and legal expenses and today sits mostly idle behind a locked, chain-link fence. There are those who want it preserved as conservation land; others want it restored and developed as a recreational area, much as it once was for generations.

The Community Preservation Committee, whose funds were tapped to pay the bulk of the cost of acquiring the property, commissioned the environmental survey by the BSC Group with an eye toward establishing the property as conservation land. But the 27-page report was kept from the public — improperly, in the view of the secretary of state — and the issue has been dormant since last summer, with no word on any progress.

Scott McFaden of the Wildlands Trust, which was working with the town to manage a possible conservation trust, declined to discuss it with The Standard-Times. Norman Hayes, the BSC employee who performed the survey, also declined. Community Preservation Committee Chairwoman Nancy Miller did not return a phone call seeking comment, nor did the town's conservation agent, David Pichette.

The report describes a piece of property that is far from pristine, including an area that was a parking lot for the better part of the 20th century. But the area being surveyed goes well beyond the boundaries of the land taken by eminent domain, and includes all of Swifts Beach from the boat ramp on the east to the far end of Wanquinco Road to the west.

It describes a list of practices that it says should not be permitted and are in violation of wetlands regulations.

Among them are driving on the beaches and "vista cutting" and clear-cutting of vegetation between the beach and many waterfront homes in the neighborhood. It cites private structures, mainly fences, that are illegally encroaching on town-owned property and altering the movement of sand on the beach. It cites private paths through the dunes to the beach that are illegal. And it points out that dog waste left by pets being walked on the beach is severe enough to cause pollution of the water.

To solve all of those problems, the town will need to issue notices of intent to abutters who are in violation, relocate boulders to block vehicles, remove invasive species of plants, ban any cutting of vegetation even if it blocks people's views, and remove concrete platforms, debris and boats that are left on the beach, killing the grass.

Improvements would have to be made to the tidal ditch to control mosquitoes, and the town's bylaws should be changed to impose $40 fines for those who break the rules regarding protection of the beach.

Joe Chiaraluce, the lead signatory on the petition to put Swifts Beach on the Town Meeting agenda, said the report looks to him like "a perfect starting point" for what his proposal seeks to accomplish, which is a comprehensive review of the possibilities for the property.

Depending on the pace of Town Meeting, the matter could come to the floor Monday.

Steve Urbon is senior correspondent of The Standard-Times.

After reading the report, you will immediately understand why the report may be embarrassing to certain people - and thus understand the political motivation behind hiding it from the rest of us. 

But I would also like to know the names of the officials who hid it, refused to produce it when asked for it, and upon what grounds they refused to produce it.  Mr. Urbon, please tell the ENTIRE story of this report, why it was hidden, and by whom.

Flyspeck wrote:

Here's the link to the original story:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … 015/TOWN14

full story....
By Steve Urbon
surbon@s-t.com
September 09, 2009 12:00 AM
Most Viewed Stories
Fairhaven youths' brawl sends 1 to hospitalFour New Bedford students receive $28k scholarships from native sonNew Bedford man arrested in South End drug raidTeaching assistant admits sufficient facts in abuse caseFUN 107's Sharon Fogaren diesWestport selectmen deny Auto Victoria licenseShirley Chase WAREHAM — An environmental survey of Swift's Neck Beach prepared for the Community Preservation Committee this summer continues to be withheld from the public by town officials.

The report, prepared by the engineering firm of BSC Group Inc. of West Yarmouth and Boston, was obtained to help the committee decide the conditions for a conservation restriction on the property, which was once developed. It has been in the hands of the committee for more than a month, and The Standard-Times has been making requests for it, first verbal and finally written.

Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet answered the written request with a two-sentence note: "I received your request for a copy of the report on the Swift's Beach property the town purchased. Unfortunately, because of potential litigation, the report is not available at this time."

The secretary of state's office issues guidelines intended to govern which public records may be withheld from public view.

The guidelines state: "If a records custodian claims an exemption and withholds a record, the records custodian has the burden of showing how the exemption applies to the record and why it should be withheld."

In every other case, this is what Sanguinet did. But when asked to cite the specific exemption he was invoking in the Swift's Beach matter, Sanguinet said Tuesday he could not, even after 20 minutes of examining the state guidelines.

Bob Unger, editor of The Standard-Times and SouthCoast Media Group, said the newspaper will ask the secretary of state to instruct Wareham to release the information to the public.

"On behalf of the citizens of Wareham, we have asked Wareham officials repeatedly to obey the law," Unger said.

Sanguinet said, "If the secretary of state tells me to release it, I will."

The guidelines, which do not address potential litigation but do discuss attorney-client privilege, appear to direct officials specifically to release documents such as the environmental survey.

In a section designed for executive privilege in policy development, an exemption applies to "inter-agent or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to police positions being developed by the agency; but this sub-clause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based."

"Purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are always subject to disclosure," the guidelines state.

The approximately 5-acre Swifts Beach was acquired by the town through eminent domain, prompting years of litigation and an adverse court judgment that ended up costing the town an estimated $2 million. Selectmen Chairman Bruce Sauvageau is an immediate neighbor of the waterfront parcel.

Sanguinet did provide The Standard-Times with several documents requested June 30 and July 1, albeit several weeks beyond the 10-day statutory requirement.

They include the contract with the computer firm hired to conduct the much-discussed "computer audit" starting in May, the contract with the engineering firm studying the Westfield development proposal, a breakdown of legal expenses, minutes of executive sessions starting in 2007 and copies of some town government advertising.

Sanguinet said there was no contract with a planner who worked one day in June, nor is there a letter of resignation, documents also sought by the newspaper.

The planner declined to accept the one day's pay she was given, Sanguinet said Tuesday.

Just some of the major environmental problems at Swifts Beach, taken from the report:

ENCROACHMENTS
4.1
Numerous and continuing encroachments by vehicles entering on the coastal wetland resource areas from Murphy Street and Shore Avenue pulverize the coastal beach, damage the salt marsh, and destroy Geukensia demissa (Ribbed Mussel). Geukensia demissa has been shown to play an important role in facilitating marsh grass growth and overall salt marsh stability in protected salt marsh habitats where mussels are abundant (Bertness 1984). Geukensia demissa is a filter feeder, and as a result of its feeding activity transfers water column nutrients to the sediment surface in fecal material, augmenting the nutrient supply to marsh grasses and increasing marsh grass growth. Mussels also attach to the marsh substrate with strongbyssal threads which bind sediment and prevent erosion and physical disturbance of the seaward edge of marshes with dense mussel populations. Animals that burrow or deposit-fee~ in marsh sediments may also be important determinants of marsh grass growth. Further vehicles (observed ruts) have run over the habitat of Fiddler Crabs. The following information was published by Mark D. Benness in his abstract, "Fiddler Crab Regulation of Spartina altemiflora Production on a New England Salt Marsh." In that abstract Mr. Bertness states, crab burrows were shown to increase soil drainage, soil oxidation, resulting in maintaining S. altemiflora. Their waste product appears to be an imponant determinant of marsh grass growth. Based on .site specific observation of the Fiddler Crab, its imponance to Swifts Beach is obvious.

4.2 Storm Water Drainage
Two storm water point source discharges are occurring at locus dumping storm water collected from adjacent streets directly into the Wareham River. Street flow from Bay View, Swifts Beach Road, Ruggles Street, Roby Street, Beach Street, and Shore Avenue is directed onto the beach carrying with it pollutants consistent with vehicle and pedestrian use. Sheet flow drains the recreational area via an erosion channel directly into the tidal creek and an erosion cut channels street runoff directly into the salt marsh.

4.3 Recreation Impacts
During BSC's site visits, 47 occurrences where recreational users failing to pick up after their dogs were recorded. This fecal material eventually finds its way to the Wareham River. E-coli bacteria, a
primary constituent of animal waste, is a prime cause of coastal pollution and recreational beach closures.
Also documented was the impact of motor vehicles operating on the beach and on intertidal flats which included driving over shellfish habitat. Access to the town beach was from the parking lots at Shore Avenue, Murphy Street and Roby Street.
One way to immediately stop this vehicle trespass is to reposition large at locus boulders strategically to block vehicle access.
Home owners along Roby Street have created pedestrian walkways through the dunes to access the beach. In one instance a split rail fence with landscaping was placed on the Town of Wareham property. One of the plant species planted on town land is Euonymus alatus which is on the Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List and banned from sale, trade and purchase. Numerous dear cutting and vista pruning is ongoing at Swifts Beach. Clear cutting 25' onto the town's property has occurred north of the Shore Avenue parking lot south off Roby

4.4
The public boat ramp off the Shore Avenue parking lot needs to be maintained. This would include the removal of approximately 100 cubic yards of sand to provide increased recreational boating access during the tidal cycle.

Mr. Slager now has one of his well-worn rants about the S-T conspiring with TBW to "distort[ing] the truth" up on his website. 

He defends withholding the report on the bogus "pending litigation" grounds - even though the report only generally discusses encroachments and the need to address them, and pointedly does NOT name any encroaching parties or even describe where on the property such encroachments are taking place. 

That kind of information - whodunnit and where they dunnit - is exactly the kind of bare minimum specificity the Secretary of State requires for a municipality to hide behind the "pending litigation" canard that the interim TA pulled to gundeck the thing for almost a year.  And it is the LACK of any such specificity in the report that led the Secretary of State to deny that argument by those who attempted to hide it. 

And by the way, Mr. Slager, even if true, "nearly complete" negotiations between encroachers and the Town are not the same as "executed consent agreements" where any controversy between parties ends and all possibility of litigation has vanished - you were in such a rush to attack the S-T story that you didn't even bother to maintain consistency in your own arguments.  So I'm not even going to give you a "nice try" for that nonsense, it's so transparently foolish.

Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-05-06 16:46:13)