SWAMPSCOTT — Members of the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee agreed during their last meeting that, as they continue the feasibility study on the pier, they should also bring their focus back to the living reef idea and coastal resiliency.
Over the last couple of months, the consultant on the pier project, McAllister Marine Engineering, carried out one of two planned boring tests to see whether there was bedrock lining the harbor. The results were presented at the meeting last Thursday and revealed that the samples consisted of a sandy upper layer and a layer of clay soils.
“It might have been as the glaciers were retreating, they deposited this clay into there. And that’s what the existing pier is probably set into, this clay layer,” said John McAllister, principal at McAllister Marine Engineering.
Clay is a much softer and finer material, McAllister said.
However, the tests also showed that the soils in the samples were highly corrosive. This information can help in choosing materials for the new pier as they can have a major impact on the life cycle of the structure.
McAllister Marine Engineering also determined that the new pier would have to be at least 14 feet high if not higher, as the old pier experiences a lot of structural pressures with the larger storms and higher sea level rise.
The old pier, constructed out of timber, is getting beyond its design life and though it is still functional it is vulnerable to storms and will eventually fall apart. The design challenge with the new pier will be its placement, as its height won’t look good with the Fish House, according to the committee.
In January, the contractors and the committee had a meeting with various environmental regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and the Coastal Zone Management (CCMS). These regulators expressed a desire to see an updated survey of the eelgrass in the Swampscott Harbor at peak biomass, which is usually reached in the midsummer.
Such a survey would show the location density and health of eelgrass.
“It was pretty clear from the most recent discussion that all of the resource agencies in the state were very much in a protective mode for this particular harbor and this particular set of eelgrass,” said committee member Steven Speranza.
Because the eelgrass mapping won’t take place until midsummer, the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee decided to focus its effort on the living reef. It recognized that mapping of the eelgrass would help with promoting construction of the living reef.
“This isn’t just about throwing up a new pier and having it be useful for a variety of users for a long time, it’s also about figuring out how to protect that coastline that is behind the pier,” said Jay Borkland, a consultant from Apex Companies LLC.
Committee Chair Jackson Schultz agreed that there has been a lot of emphasis on the pier and not enough emphasis with the living reef. He said that the committee has put a lot of effort into the pier feasibility study because they were able to secure the funding for it.
The funding that the committee received from the Seaport Economic Council in the amount of $80,000 for the pier feasibility study expires on June 30. The committee decided to ask for an extension to be able to complete the eelgrass mapping and adjust the timeline of the feasibility study.
Speranza pointed out that bathymetry studies and eelgrass studies that are part of the pier feasibility study will encompass areas that would include the living reef, thus providing the committee with the base information to support a living reef project.
Alan Van Arsdale, member of the committee, expressed the interdependency of the two projects in a passionate statement.
“The pier doesn’t mean anything to the harbor, other than access to the existing area that we have for boats, and doesn’t allow for hardening of the coastline because we’re just going to get battered more and more, and it’s not going to save the Fish House,” said Van Arsdale. “But the living reef is more in terms of the survival of the harbor than anything else.”
