Date: Jan. 29, 2001
To: Arlington Conservation Commission
Re: Mugar parcel, Rt. 2: Jan. 5, 2001 BSC memo re 100-year flood elevation
From: Aram Hollman
[number omitted] Whittemore St., Arlington, MA 02474-6602
[home phone number omitted] ahollman@aol.com
[work address and email omitted]
Enclosed are my comments on the BSC Group's memo and on the hearing at
which Mr. David Albrecht of Rizzo Associates requested that that the
Conservation Commission delineate the Mugar parcel's 100-year flood elevation as 8.0
feet.
My comments concern both the content of the hearing and the decisions made
as to how to proceed. I am aware that the hearing has been closed; indeed,
my comments concern just that.
Content:
The BSC memo contains two sets of comments. The first set has comments
numbered 1 to 6. The second set has comments numbered 1 to 5.
With regard to the first set of comments, numbered 1 to 6:
1. Based on a single photograph, the comment first suggests that the 1996
flood was a 100-year flood with elevation 6.8, then immediately and
hastily withdraws such a suggestion, saying that the "data is provided as
comparison information only and we have treated it as such."
Both the memo and the subsequent discussion asserted but failed to
substantiate the following claims: That there was a precise definition of
a 100-year flood, that the 1996 flood fit that definition, that the time and
date of the photograph were known with sufficient precision to allow
inferences as to the elevation of the flood, and that the flood peaked at
6.8 feet.
Given the withdrawal of such unsubstantiated assertions, why were they
even made? Was it to imply, without explicitly saying so, that peak flood
elevation is something less than 8.2 feet? Or is there some other
relevant reason?
2. The comment, based on the 1982 topographic plan, suggests that the
lowering of the railroad bed to create a bike path created a path by which
water downstream of Rt. 2 could back up across across the bike path and
across Thorndike Field to reach the Mugar parcel.
Again, the claim is not substantiated. The new path for floodwater is
"potential", not proven. In contrast, the FEMA map shows no such
connection; indeed it indicates that Thorndike Field is not in the 100-year
floodplain, but the 500-year floodplain. "BSC has not seen definitive data regarding
. . . the probability that Alewife Brook floodwaters will top the bike path in
a 100-year storm."
BSC's comment fails to provide any clear evidence whatsoever regarding
actual 100-year flood elevation.
More important, Mr. Albrecht overloked an important issue in asserting
this new flood path. If the alleged flood path did indeed exist, then, with
either the railroad bed or the bike path in place, water slightly more
upstream, where the Rt. 2 exit to Alewife T now crosses over Alewife
Brook, would likewise overtop its banks, back up where the bike path or railroad
bed went under Rt. 2, and from there cross Thorndike Field to the Mugar site.
However, Mr. Albrecht makes no such assertion and there is no record of
such flooding. This suggests that the suggested new path does not exist.
3. This comment suggests that if the previous comment were true, ". . .
the pipe connections across Rt. 2 . . . would not be a factor in determining
the 100-year flood elevation ..." (emphasis added).
The previous comment has not been proven true, so the assertion about the
pipes cannot follow from it. However, it is correct, for a different
reason: During both the 1996 and 1998 storms, flooding overtopped a far higher
point, the low point of Rt. 2 near the Arthur D. Little complex.
4. The comment mentions two other maps that indicate 100-year flood
elevations of 8.1 or 8.0, respectively, then mentions two other sources,
including the FEMA map, which state 100-year flood elevation to be 8.2,
such that "... 8.2 is the default floodplain elevation" per the Wetlands
Protection Act, which the Commission is charged with enforcing.
Again, the BSC memo finds more evidence to support a 100-year flood
elevation of 8.2 than to refute it.
5. Assuming a) no change in topography and b) that removal of railroad bed
ballast created a new path for water to drain to Alewife, "there exists
sufficient evidence to assume the 100-year flood elevation on the Mugar
parcel is less than 8.0."
This is an amazing development in the history of logic. From two
assumptions follow "sufficient evidence" which allows a third assumption! Never mind
that the second assumption is questionable. The only thing that can follow from making
assumptions is a conclusion. Neither evidence nor further assumptions can
follow from earlier assumptions.
In making decisions, the Commission is required to draw conclusions from
sufficient evidence, not to draw assumptions from earlier assumptions.
The memo, perhaps recognizing this, next suggests negotiation. Given an
earlier "assumption" of an elevation less than 8.0, but lacking new Flood
Study, the memo now suggests that the Commission conclude that the
elevation is 8.0, pending a new study.
6. This comment recommends a new flood study. However, during the
hearing, when I suggested that the need for a new floodplain map was one of the few
things that everyone present could agree on, Mr. Albrecht disagreed.
Given that disagreement, perhaps his client would like to abide by the stated
FEMA floodplain elevation for his site, 8.2.
The memo then states, "In summary, BSC considers Rizzo Associates'
approach in requesting that the 100-year floodplain be established at elevation 8.0
to be valid."
Given that the 6 points reviewed either fail to substantiate that claim or
present a preponderance of evidence against it, how can BSC possibly
endorse an elevation of 8.0?
I urge the Commission to delineate the 100-year floodplain on the Mugar
site at 8.2.
Process issues:
There are a number of process issues, regarding what occured at the end of
the hearing, that concern me.
I'm concerned that the Commission appeared uncertain as to how to proceed
and relied excessively upon Ms. Hegemann to advise them. Knowing (as I'm sure
the Commission does) that Ms. Hegemann was the Chair of the Cambridge
Conservation Commission, I'm sure she well knows the rules under which
Conservation Commissions deliberate. However, I believe Ms. Hegemann was
hired to advise the Commission on technical matters, not procedural ones.
I'm concerned that Ms. Hegemann, who I understand was hired by the
Conservation Commission, appeared to be actively working on behalf of the
proponent.
During the hearing, when the Commission was debating how to proceed, I
suggested that continuing the hearing would allow the Commission time to
determine how to proceed, allow Mr. Albrecht time to gather additional
evidence that he had not gathered, and allow members of the public to
submit written comments.
I was extremely disappointed by the response. Ms. Hegemann suggested that
the hearing could be closed, with a vote to follow at the next meeting,
and the Commission voted to follow her advice. Apart from the impropriety of
Ms. Hegemann's advice, with 2 weeks more until the next meeting, the
Commission gave the impression that it was more interested in preventing further
public input than in anything else.
Immediately after Commission vote to close the hearing, member Beckwith
then expressed concern that in doing so, she would be unable to speak with Alan
McClennan about the issue, and suggested that the hearing be reopened to
allow that. Ms. Hegemann assured Ms. Beckwith that she could speak to Mr.
McClennan without having to open the hearing. This further reinforced my
impression that the Commission was excessively selective regarding from
whom it wanted to hear. The commission also granted Mr. Albrecht leeway to
gather his additional evidence.
Sincerely,
Aram Hollman
Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at information@alewife.org