SBPF Responds To Fishermen On Geotube Concerns

To the editor: The statement circulated on social media in recent days regarding alleged fishing impacts off Sconset Bluff is not supported by verified information and appears to rely on anecdotal accounts rather than documented evidence.

We understand that project opponents want to blame everything on the geotubes and scare people into voting against this project. SBPF takes feedback seriously, but it is hard to ignore the timing. This letter appeared only days before a key Town Meeting vote, after years of the project operating without these concerns being raised in any meaningful way. During that time, we did not hear this allegation raised in testimony or submitted comments.

People have a range of opinions on whether the geotubes are a good thing. But the question of their impact on fishing because supposedly “the near-shore bottom has become covered with sand and no longer sustains life the way it once did” is not really a question. The amount of sand added to the lateral system matches the amount that would have washed away naturally from the bluff in the years before the project was installed. Indeed, some of our most vocal opponents believe we should be adding more sand, not less, which would be directly counter to the fishermen’s letter.

The fishermen’s letter reminds people of the Ask Any Fisherman campaign from 18 years ago, which led to the withdrawal of a very different proposed project: a large beach nourishment effort that would have placed millions of cubic yards of sand all at once on more than a mile of beach, adding as much as 200 feet to the beach’s width. The concern back then was that such a large volume of sand might cover the near-shore ocean bottom that contains important habitat for blues and stripers.

The amount of sand involved in the geotube project is tiny by comparison because it is a different type of coastal engineering system and matches natural erosion volumes. As a direct result of the Ask Any Fisherman comments in 2008, SBPF heard and responded by incorporating underwater video monitoring twice a year as part of the geotube pilot project. That monitoring has shown that the ocean bottom has not changed. Those reports have been filed with the Conservation Commission for the past 12 years, and no comments or issues have been raised by fishermen during any of our annual reports.

If the fishing off Sconset is different than it was in past years, what has caused that? I do not know. It is hard to say. I have been told that a few years ago, Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly, at the urging of the local fishing community, to ask the state to restrict industrial trawlers from working too close to our shore. Their point then was that these large fishing operations were catching bait fish in huge nets, leaving nothing for the stripers and blues to eat. Others point to warming seas or cyclical changes that are difficult to predict or control.

In any event, fishing seems to be changing again, with many more boats off Sconset in the last few years. Knowledgeable people are unsure what has caused the change, but it is simply not reasonable to link it to the geotube project, which releases the same amount of sand that would be washed off the bluff if the project were not there.

SBPF is always willing to engage in responsible discussion. If Article 73 passes, the Conservation Commission order will ensure continued monitoring and public reporting. We welcome the opportunity to work with fishermen and the broader community in a data-driven way.

Meridith Moldenhauer
SBPF representative