My View
VOICE FROM BELOW THE BLUFF
By Captain Josh Eldridge

The following My View is in response to the Voices from the Bluff column of Aug. 29 in which Josh Posner was interviewed.

Dear Mr. Posner. You may not remember me. I'm Captain Josh from Monomoy Charters; the "bass fisherman" you recently spoke to on the ferry. I just got in from fishing and got a chance to read your interview in the "Voices from the Bluff" article in this week's Independent. As sad and woefully misled as you believe I and the other fishermen are, I have a few things I would like to say on the issue.

1) In your interview you stated, "I don't know if the current beach nourishment plan will work, but similar efforts succeed in many places on the East Coast." I, and many others, should be afraid of this statement. If SBPF has spent "3 years and millions of dollars" researching this project, shouldn't they be sure that it's actually going to work? The fact that it has worked (purportedly) in other areas of the country should offer no one comfort or confidence. There is no comparison between this project and any other in the country. Nowhere else has a dredging project been attempted on a beach with conditions like these or of this magnitude.

As far as other dredging projects "working" in other places on the East Coast, the only thing that has been proven is that they are a short term solution (at best), controversial and destructive. Thousands of miles of essential fish habitat have been lost forever because of projects like this one. And, Massachusetts state and federal agencies have clearly stated that this project will harm fishing and have a severe detrimental effect on the fishery - this is why SBPF is being forced to work with the fishermen and mitigate the known harms that will happen.

2) The private funding you speak of - is this "forever?" Are you willing to put something in your deed that will bind you and all future owners of the property to continue to fund future dredging to guarantee that the town and people will never be burdened by this project? Oh, and as far as the government goes, are you sure that after the initial nourishment is done if anything happens to your property that you won't be able to collect from FEMA or any other government agency (or was this only the case when SBPF & CP&E were trying to sell sand to Harwichport this summer?)

3) And, as far as moving your house goes, yes, you will have to move it at some point. Luckily for you and some of your neighbors, you made provision for this inevitability a long time ago, by purchasing the lots across the street, on Fairgrounds Road, Palm Beach - wherever. The fact of the matter is that you and your neighbors will not be homeless. It is sad but it is inevitable that your property will sink into the ocean. Save some money, save some time, move it now. Mother Nature will win in the end. Even if the project happens for a while, you will run out of money or you will run out of the "perfect sand." I can understand you and your neighbors want to save your houses. The memories you have are very special to you. There are also many other people that have fond memories of the bluff. Whether it was catching their first fish, their biggest fish, or the one that got away. Are your memories any more important than theirs?

You also mention that "this is a problem threatening a whole community" and "it won't be long before Codfish Park and then 'Sconset Village itself begin to wash away." Funny, when I was just down there this afternoon, I really couldn't tell that the whole village was about to wash away. Codfish Park looked fine to me - actually a lot bigger than I remember it a few years ago. It looked to me that only a handful of houses were at risk. Recently, there was a boy on one of my charters who very proudly pointed out both of his family's ocean side Baxter Road houses. He said, "I don't know what the big deal is. My dad says it will be 30 years before we have a problem." So, to me, and apparently some of your neighbors, the problem seems very isolated.

The shape and size of this project has nothing to do with "saving the village" - it has everything to do with saving the handful of houses that are in danger of falling off the bluff. Disguising this project as a "gift to the town" is insulting and deceitful. The reality is 'Sconset Beach is not, has not, and will never be one of Nantucket's favorite beaches. The water is the coldest on the island, it has one of the worst undertows, and is usually full of red moss and weeds. Even if you were to make it bigger it would still have these issues and never be considered a family friendly beach.

4) As far as your terracing project goes, it needs to be stopped until a decision is made about the dredging project. You mention in your interview that you understand the cleanup "has been done pretty well." It has not. There are still jute bags in the water from the April storm that have spilled foreign sand over the live bottom. The decreased catch this summer is not a mystery. Even worse, fishing equipment that becomes entangled with the bags is often unretrieveable. This forces fishermen to cut off the gear and leave it to "ghost fish" - something that no one who truly cares for the environment wants to happen.

5) As for the cobble bottom, the amount that is there and the amount that you intend to cover is irrelevant. What you and your scientists, three years and millions of dollars still fail to understand is the fact that the cobble in the shallow water is the most important part of the ecosystem (not that the deep water is any less important; it all needs to work together). However, the cobble in the shallows is where the majority of life exists - the plants, the bait, and the predators. It's called a food chain for a reason. Just about any marine biology student can explain to you how important the near shore habitat is. If you upset this natural balance by covering the cobble before you have the mitigation site completed, you will permanently disrupt the natural feeding, spawning, and migratory patterns for all the species that live there.

Your people have told us to "go fish somewhere else." Sounds like a pretty easy thing to do. I dare you and your team of scientists to find an area as large as Sankaty or even Wauwinet (which will also suffer from being down tide of this project), that has all of the same creatures and characteristics of Sankaty Light. We can't find it, and the men who came before us couldn't find it either. Historically, this area has always been the most fertile fishing spot on the island. From the sand tiger shark fishery of the 1900s, to codfish, and now striped bass, this area has always been regarded as prime fish habitat. The ocean and the fish are fragile elements of our environment, and should be guarded at all times, never put in this kind of jeopardy.

The "new" cobble bottom you speak of - let's get this into perspective. This would be like telling an accident victim that his new prosthesis is going to be as good as his old natural leg. He may disagree.

Your claim that new cobble bottom has been created by the erosion is not necessarily true. As the bluff has eroded since the last Ice Age, more cobble is exposed as the sand moves to cover other areas. It is a natural system of exchange. Pumping 2.5 million cubic yards of sand on the bottom will shift the natural balance forever. Your contractors say three years is needed for bottom "recovery". Others not employed by SBPF say as many as ten years. However, all of this is irrelevant if you plan to continue to dredge every three years or as needed. This will mean the bottom will never recover, making all damage permanent and chronic turbidity a reality.

The pipelines the dredge will use will crush everything underneath them, stopping or severely hindering the ability of bottom dwelling invertebrates, such as the American lobster, from migrating. Despite your research findings, the lobsters are there. I am not sure if your scientists really haven't found them or just don't want to?

I know I see holes in SBPF's power point presentation shown at the first round of ConCom hearings that SBPF walked away from, wasting hundreds of man hours. SBPF delayed to "seek solutions with the fishermen" before proceeding. We had one meeting where we were privileged to see more of the same power point presentation we had already seen. You haven't heard a word we've said. We have been given no answers to our questions, or concerns. We now feel that this new round of ConCom hearings will be no different than the first. Your people better be able to sit there and answer the questions this time and not just say, "We'll look into that" or "We don't know." This is a hearing. You are the ones that spent three years and millions of dollars on studies. You should be ready by now. Why don't some of the SBPF members join us this time? We didn't see any of you at the first hearing. Is this not important enough for you to take some time and come join us for the 25 hours of fun?

We haven't spent millions but we've spent our lives trying to figure out what goes on in these waters. If you think that some spotty samples from a few years of data is going to tell you what's going on down there - you're wrong. The fishermen are not convinced that SBPF has really considered other borrow sites and feel that Bass Shoal has been selected for monetary reasons due to its proximity to the beach (not because it offers "the perfect sand"). And, by the way, it's not "borrowing" - it's called taking - when you "borrow" something it means you intend to bring it back.

The fishermen are also concerned about the proposed "mitigation" for this project. You want to use railroad ties to build a reef. Not the best idea I've heard of, but not the worst either. Has any thought been put into how the reef will be built? Has a site (or sites) been picked? Have you started the permitting process or whatever is required to build the reef or are you just going to push a bunch of railroad ties that weren't good enough to use for railroads over the side of a barge and call it "mitigation?" A lot of people have spent years figuring out how to build reefs. We haven't met any of them at the hearings yet. Where are they?

6) The decision to use public property for private use is for the Board of Selectmen. The majority of people I talk to are against this project for one reason or another. Whatever the reason, all permitting for this project, or others, should be halted until the town has a comprehensive coastal management plan in place. It will be nearly impossible for the town to enforce anything in the future if this project is approved. Before that happens, I urge everyone who cares about this island to come to the ConCom hearings scheduled for September 10, 17, 24, and 26 at 4 p.m. at the high school's LGI room. I know it's not fun but this is the only chance you'll have to actually make a difference before this decision is taken away from us and made a state or Federal issue (which is exactly what SBPF wants - to get this issue off the island ASAP).

If you can't make the meetings, please send your letters to the ConCom. (Note: all letters from the first round of hearings must be resubmitted). Let the Selectmen know how you feel. If you see them on the street, getting coffee, let them know. Right now they are only hearing from SBPF. Speak up, speak out. I know it sounds corny but this will be your last chance.

Mr. Posner, with all due respect, you are incorrect. We islanders have been blessed with the generosity of many, not just the wealthy. People donate land, time, money and everything needed to preserve this island's beauty. This was the work of the community. This was not the sole work of the wealthy. The land you speak of has always existed as a natural beauty, not something made out of dead sand and shell that will smell like low tide and destroy one of the greatest natural resources of the island.

From me and mine, to you and yours,

- Captain Josh Eldridge