VOICES FROM THE BLUFF
SBPF Speaks AN INDEPENDENT SERIES
Fred Singer 63 Baxter Road
This week The Nantucket Independent

continues a series of interviews with

members of the Siasconset Beach

Preservation Fund to get behind the

meeting rhetoric and to learn why they

joined the fight to slow erosion of the Bluff in 'Sconset. Each week through early

September, you will read in their words

their reasons for going forward with the

proposed beach nourishment project and their opinions about the environmental

impacts of the erosion control project.

As always, we welcome your comments and letters to the editor.

Email: don@nantucketindependent.com

Where is your house in relation to the Bluff?

"We live in one of the original houses on the bluff that was built roughly around 1895. The historic photos of our home show the original Davis Family with their horses along the bluff walk. Unfortunately that public walk is only half of what it was 20 years ago and ends near our home.

"Since then we are now only the third family to own the house in over a century and we feel a great deal of responsibility to protect what is really a special heritage and home. We were very sensitive in how we renovated the house and we feel the same responsibility towards the bluff and the beach that support it. Protecting this special heritage is a fight worth fighting."

How long have you been a member of SBPF?

"I got involved about three years ago."

Why did you join?

"Our house is on the bluff and we will probably be impacted sometime in the next 20 years, but the longer I have worked on this project the more passionate I am about its importance beyond 'Sconset. Having traveled to dozens of beach communities around the U.S. where beach nourishment is in place, it just seemed so bizarre not to put in place such a straightforward solution in 'Sconset. So many communities have been doing this for years with great success. I really don't understand why it is such a big deal here.

"When I flew in last year, the front cover of the magazine in my airplane seat featured the 'Sconset Bluff Walk. My hope is not just to protect the Bluff Walk, the sewer beds and the lighthouse, but also to be a model for other coastal communities across Massachusetts where they are struggling with huge tourist and economic issues. We have a chance to show them there really is a solution that is environmentally friendly instead of showing them that we have lots of factions that cannot find any common ground."

Respond to the following statement in whatever way you feel is appropriate: You're wasting your money - Mother Nature is going to take your property no matter what.

"I had a very nice man ask me this question last year. I simply asked him do you ever paint your house occasionally? Do you give your children penicillin when they get pneumonia? Would you replant trees after a forest fire? Would you be in favor of protecting endangered species? Since when was sitting helplessly doing nothing when there was an easy solution to a problem the right approach. Nature is constantly eroding everything from our homes, to our bodies, to our beaches. This is one of those statements that sounds good at first glance but is totally inconsistent with nearly every other aspect of our lives, especially here when there is an environmentally safe approach that preserves our habitat and our heritage.

Why isn't moving your house or the houses of those on the ocean side of the Bluff to a new lot inland an option?

"You can move homes but not history. Many of the homes have been there over a century. Why not preserve it? Also when does it stop? It is just a matter of time before the road is unusable. The losses are huge not just for the owners but tens of millions of dollars of lost tax revenues, lost local services to year-round businesses, appropriating lands, lawsuits, building new roads and less investment.

"It is not just a few homes it is nearly 150 homes and eventually Codfish Park. At some point the "Ostrich" strategy of sticking our heads in the sand is not going to work. Do we have to wait until it is a disaster and chaos before we act? We have a reliable solution privately funded that has worked in dozens and dozens of communities across the United States. Why is it not good enough for us?"

The Patriot's Day storm this year proved fairly convincingly that terracing of the bluff is no match for wind and waves is it prudent to stop using this form of bluff stabilization or keep going with it and why?

"What is not said is that the terracing that was installed was not allowed to be permanent, that was the condition of the permit. From an engineering standpoint building a permanent structure is easy (sea walls, rocks). In fact, the problem in 'Sconset is not that it is below sea level and therefore we are keeping water from spilling in (like New Orleans). Rather it is that once or twice a year a big storm crosses the beach and destroys the bluff that is made up of sand and vegetation which supports not only homes but sewer beds. The reality is that 98 percent of the time the ocean and the bluff are fine. This is a much easier engineering problem. Some areas like Montauk have put in more permanent structures, but I would prefer to use sand if we are allowed.

When the terracing components get washed down the bluff, the waves scatter the timbers and jute fiber matting to beaches north of you and pretty much everywhere around the island; what do you have to say to the people who own those beaches?

"I don't like this situation either. Frankly, if we get beach nourishment as the front line this will help it dramatically since sand is what will be moved around but again the terracing that was permitted was by design not permanent. It is not difficult to build structures that don't wash away so if this is an ongoing issue, it is easy to fix."

Much of the opposition to this beach nourishment project is coming from charter and commercial fishermen concerned about losing their livelihood and from wildlife advocates who, along with the fishermen, are worried about how the dredging of sand from the shoal, construction of the new beach and long shore drift of the sand over time will impact shorebirds and their food. What do you say to these people?

"I think they should be asking these questions. We ask these questions ourselves and frankly moved to beach nourishment because we thought it would be the most environmentally friendly for fish and wildlife. The wildlife question is straightforward. Beach nourishment will allow the natural dune grasses to come back and frankly, increase the birdlife that has basically moved away as the beach has deteriorated.

"On the fishing, we are sympathetic with the fishermen who make their living in an occupation, which is arguably the oldest and most famous occupation for the island. Many SBPF members are bass fisherman. There has been much written about the project changing the way of life for fisherman. However, in reality less than five percent of the cobble habitat (fishing habitat) in the project area will be impacted. This information seems to have been overlooked. Furthermore, SBPF has agreed to build new habitat for fish of the same size as those that are damaged in another area of the island.

If the beach nourishment project works, to which parts of the island should it be applied next?

"I think the key point is that once we deploy beach nourishment in 'Sconset paid for by private funds you will have first-hand experience like so many communities across the US to measure its success and how to improve it going forward. Common sense tells me that it will probably be appealing to other places, but let's give it a chance. At some point, we are going to have a very large storm and there will be an outcry to do something right away and we won't have any real data because we could not find common ground. Technology is good enough where there are affordable solutions to manage the situation. Protecting the history of this island is worth the fight."

Is there anything you want to say that I haven't talked about today, anything else on your mind that concerns SBPF and its efforts?

"Many people think that if they do nothing (pursue an "Ostrich Strategy") or just wait, the issue will go away. That is wrong. Firstly, on the erosion side, there will eventually be a giant crisis or storm that will destroy something that will eventually get people to say enough is enough. We will be forced to move without all the time to study the environmental issues as we have in 'Sconset. There are no 100-percent answers in life, but more research has been done in this area on this issue over a longer period of time than most of the decisions I have witnessed. Wouldn't it be better to have this experience of beach nourishment behind us if we face a crisis, totally funded by private donations so we can make wise choices in the future?

Secondly, it took a lot of work to build a coalition because we convinced people that if we followed the guidance and procedures that were in place that a reasonable solution could be approved. We compromised a lot to settle on this solution. The coalition worked by the way, and raised lots of money and got people to back off more extreme projects. What happens if you shut it down and basically tell people that working through the system is a waste of time. The problem and the funds are not going away! So where is the effort going to go? You will be looking at dozens of different projects that won't be as sensitive to the environment, lots of litigation and no coordination. The only people that are going to be sure winners are the lawyers and the special interest groups. Let us put our collective energy towards a positive solution while the coalition is together. The alternative is not pretty or beneficial for Nantucket. Let's show other communities that we can find common ground and work towards solutions as so many communities have across the U.S. on beach nourishment. In the end, we all want to preserve the unique history, wildlife and fisheries of Nantucket. Now is that key moment to

make it happen. I