VOICES FROM THE BLUFF
SBPF Speaks AN INDEPENDENT SERIES
This week The Nantucket Independent

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent Daniel Lugosh

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.

We encourage and will publish opposing viewpoints in a form of a letter

to the editor, a perspective or an article.

Email: don@nantucketindependent.com

or mail: 15 North Beach St.

Nantucket, Mass., 02554

Daniel Lugosch

85 Baxter Road

Where is your house in relation to the bluff?

"We are on the east side of Baxter Road. Our house is currently about 40 feet from the edge of the bluff."

How long have you been a member of SBPF? "Since 1994."

Why did you join?

"It was natural. We have a home on the bluff and perceived a threat to it and to our community."

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.

"It is simply not true. Mother Nature will only take the Siasconset shore front if we don't take steps to protect it.

"The beach nourishment proposal, which is currently under review, would provide a wide beach. This nourished wide beach would offer protection to the Siasconset shorefront. Beach nourishment is not new, novel or experimental. It has been employed around the world and has been used successfully thousands of times in the United States since the early 1920s. In southern Florida there would be few sand beaches if not for beach nourishment."

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?

"There are no lots available in the vicinity that our house could be moved to. The size of the house and the size of the roads make it impossible for the house to be moved off Baxter Road.

"Our house is 99 years old and we believe it should be preserved not only for the benefit of our family, but also as part of the fabric of Siasconset."

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?

"The answer to this question has several parts and to truly explain it the answer becomes a little technical.

"First, the terracing that was done was built in compliance with the permits issued by the Nantucket Conservation Commission. The terracing consisted of two types of designs. The lower terraces at the beach face, called toe terraces, were sacrificial by design and meant to fail in the face of a major storm. This allowed the sand that they contained to be washed away. We would have preferred a more robust form of toe terrace but we could only build what was allowed.

"The upper terraces were not meant to be sacrificial. They are a variation of a design that has been successfully protecting the Montauk Lighthouse for years now.

"During the Patriot's Day storm, the toe terraces slowly failed as they were designed to do. The longer-than-usual duration of that nor'easter prevented the sacrificial toe terraces from being repaired as quickly as was needed. The toe terraces had been re-built immediate- ly after previous storms. Some of the previous nor'easters had been of greater magnitude but of shorter duration. The failure of the toe terraces undermined the upper terraces. Once the upper terraces were undermined, they eventually collapsed.

"Had the beach nourishment project already been installed with a wide beach, the waves would not have reached the vulnerable toe terraces. They would not have failed leading to the eventual failure of the upper terraces. The fragile toe terraces would work effectively with a widened, nourished beach. The toe terraces that failed were installed prior to beach nourishment to offer some protection to the lighthouse and some of the more vulnerable homes while the permitting process for beach nourishment is completed. Unfortunately the duration of the Patriot's Day storm was great enough to cause a major failure."

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

"No one wanted this to happen. We worked for weeks in an extended cleanup effort that was successful in removing nearly 100 percent of the debris that was created. At the same time we removed all debris that was found, not just the debris from our project. Our loss and subsequent cleanup effort left Nantucket's beaches cleaner than they were before the storm."

Much of the opposition to the 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 is going to impact shorebirds and their food - what do you say to these people?

"Let's speak to the easy part of the question first. The sand is not being dredged from a shoal. Rather, the sand is being dredged from 30 to 50 feet of deep water. The location of the borrow site was selected with consultation with the fishermen and extensive careful scientific study. These studies were fully described first in a draft environmental report and later in a final environmental impact report.

"The only impact on shore birds will be positive.This project will create wildlife habitat along the bluff where there is none today by creating a dune.

"Some of the fishermen say that the project will be harmful because it will re-cover part of the cobblestone bottom along the bluff. This cobblestone bottom provides a fish habitat. There are three answers to this.

"One, less than five percent of this cobble habitat will be impacted. Two, all of the cobble bottom that will be impacted by being re-covered by some sand only exists because of recent erosion. We are proposing to rebuild a small portion of the beach that has been lost to erosion. Before this erosion took place the small area of habitat that will be affected did not exist. It was covered by sand. The restoration of this portion of the previously existing beach will impact a small portion of the cobble bottom. Three, we have committed to provide mitigation for the lost cobble by placing new materials on the bottom to recreate the impacted habitat.

"The other proposal that the fishermen have made is to do the work in the offseason. As boatmen they must know that the sea conditions make that difficult, if not, impractical. The fact that the contractors that do this kind of work will not consider the off-season makes it impossible."

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

"It is up to the town to assess what is the most vulnerable location. Considering that this effort is a 100-percent privately funded demonstration project it would be a loss to the entire community if the beach nourishment did not go forward on a timely basis. This project would show to all how effectively beach nourishment could protect Nantucket's fragile shoreline."

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?

"I think that it is important to keep in mind that our island is largely a deposit of sand and gravel, completely vulnerable to the sea. Today, it is Siasconset that is in peril. With rising sea levels and increasing rates of erosion, failure to seize this opportunity to put a finger in the dike would

leave all of Nantucket more vulnerable." I