YACK on: Beach Nourishment
Grant Sanders
Very few subjects that we have

discussed on YACKon.com have generated quite so much buzz and fervor and gnashing of teeth as the ‘Sconset Beach Preservation Fund project. As of this writing, there have been several discussion threads on the subject, one of which has garnered 475 comments over 32 pages, and has been viewed 10,179 times.

For those of you who are not familiar with the project, here’s a very short explanation of what the SBPF is all about:

Beats me.

Why? Because the darned thing keeps changing. Back in the summertime, the SBPF plan was to erect a series of groins, which are like wooden jetties driven into the beach to hold sand in place. And there was a large tube made out of a plastic textile filled with sand at the bottom of the bluff to act as a “barrier of last resort.” But in October is was announced that the SBPF was taking the groins out of the plan (Which I was rather unhappy about, because it means that sometime in the future when a big storm comes along, I won’t be able to write about the terrible and painful groin injuries all along Baxter Road.) And then last week with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) came out, the big tube filled with sand had been taken out of the plan, too.

From what I can tell now (and forgive me but I have yet to even get a copy of the 1,849-page FEIR) the plan now involves taking 2.6 million cubic yards of sand from a protective shoal (the site of some excellent striper fishing, by the way) and dumping it on the beach to make the beach bigger. And then replacing the sand periodically as it gets washed away.

This process is known as “beach nourishment.” I love that term. Beach nourishment. It sounds so much better than dumping 2.6 million cubic yards of sand and then watching it drift away. As if we’re saying, “Oh, that poor beach is wasting away! Let’s nourish it. That big, fat, gluttonous protective shoal just inside state waters has too much sand, so let’s starve it and nourish the beach.”

Another interesting term that the SBPF people employ is the term they use to describe the shoal from which these 2.6 million cubic yards of sand will be taken. They call it the “borrow site.” Hmmm… “Borrow” implies that they will eventually put all that sand back, but alas, that’s not the case. As a result, I have come to two conclusions. One, the engineers who do this kind of work are experts at coming up with innocuous terms that make the process of dredging and dumping sand sound perfectly harmless. And two, you should never lend your belt sander to someone from Baxter Road.

You may have trouble visualizing how much sand 2.6 million cubic yards of sand actually is, so let me help. The Stop & Shop building could hold a little over 130,000 cubic yards of sand. So, 2.6 million cubic yards of sand equals 19-and-a-half Stop & Shop’s worth. Just picture a hole with a footprint as big as the Stop & Shop and 400 feet deep. That’s how much sand we’re talking about.

If you put a hole the size of 19- and-a-half Stop & Shops in a protective shoal, I wonder how protective it would then be. Not very, I’m guessing. Although I understand that the SBPF plans to protect the shore with a man-made reef of 28,000 concrete railroad ties instead of the sand. Oh, great. Now there’s a concrete railroad somewhere that will need nourishing!

I thought it was rather sneaky of the SBPF organizers to release the FEIR during the holidays when everyone is rushing around making holiday arrangements, eating figgy pudding, decking the halls and flying to the Keys and therefore has just about zero time to read the 1,849-page report and comment by the proposed Jan. 5 comment period deadline. Good thing the Board of Selectmen requested an extension of that deadline to the 22nd. Still, I’ve been having trouble finding the time to get through a 297-page mystery novel that’s been in my bag since September, so I seriously doubt the extension of the comment period will help me out. (Thanks anyway, BOS, keep up the good work.)

I have gone on record in a previous column in this newspaper as being rather skeptical of this SBPF scheme. And that’s what it is, really, make no mistake. A scheme. The ’Sconset Beach Preservation Fund is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, so anyone with a home on the bluff can make a taxdeductible donation to the SBPF, and then the SBPF builds up the beaches and those people with homes on the bluff actually enjoy rising property values instead of falling — literally falling, as in, into the water.

Hey. I just thought of something. My house needs a new roof. Sun, wind and rain are taking their toll. I wish I could form a nonprofit corporation — let’s call it the Fix Grant’s Roof Fund (FGRF) — and then pay the FGRF to fix my roof so I could take a massive tax write-off, get a new roof and essentially be way ahead of the game. We can call it “roof nourishment.” That would be sweet!

I guess that just goes to show you that while people with money are able to engineer some amazingly intricate and clever financial deals, they appear not to have the common sense to move their homes when the ground is literally being eaten away beneath their feet over the course of decades. Um, guys. It’s a bluff. Bluffs are caused by erosion. Don’t tell me you didn’t think of this stuff back in the 70s when there was 50 feet between your house and the edge.

One question arises: Why should we care? Why not just let these folks nourish their Kate Moss-esque beaches? It’s no skin off our noses, right? No one goes there anyway! I guess that’s a valid point. If dredging the borrow site does not affect fishing.

And if removing all of that sand will not have adverse affects on the shoreline. And if dredging up all of that silt does not effect the ecosystem of the surrounding ocean. And if a manmade reef made up of 28,000 concrete railroad ties does not pose a threat to small craft. And if the adjacent townowned beaches are not harmed in any way. And if some of the materials used do not pose a danger or mess for boats or beachgoers. And if the people of Nantucket are not someday asked to fork over our hard-earned cash to keep this nourishment project going. And if the state does not get in the way and usurp control over local boards and officials who watch our collective backs ably.

Yikes. That’s a lot of ifs. Maybe we all should read the FEIR and provide our comments before Jan. 22, just to be sure all of these concerns are addressed. Or perhaps instead of funding the SBPF, we would be better off contributing to the FGRF. Unlike beach nourishment on the east end of this island, nourishing a home with asphalt shingles is a guaranteed and proven measure to protect property from mother nature.

YACK on. I

Grant Sanders is the host of YACK, the Nantucket Online Community at yackon.com and he stands in awe of the power of mother nature as well as people with big bank accounts. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of The Nantucket Independent.