VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF
AN INDEPENDENT SERIES
Edie Ray
60 Miacomet Ave.

PETER B. BRACE/The Independent Edie Ray

Editor's note: This week, The Nantucket Independent begins Voices Away from the Bluff, examining the ramifications of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund's beach nourishment proposal. For the next 10 weeks, we will talk to 10 islanders who have concerns and questions about the impacts of the project on their daily lives and the island environment. We encourage letters to the editor sent to don@nantucketindependent.com or to 15 North Beach St., Nantucket, 02554.

Tell us about yourself, your line of work and your connection to Nantucket.

I first came to Nantucket with my parents at the age of three and have summered on island since then. After college, I decided to spend one winter on Nantucket, just to see what it was like. ... I sort of never got around to leaving! That was over 25 years ago.

Over the past years, I have had a variety of jobs including many years as a shorebird monitor, working with protected birds like piping plovers and least terns. I am also a long-time volunteer with the Nantucket Marine Mammal Stranding Team. I am currently employed by the Nantucket Conservation Foundation and want to make it abundantly clear that the following comments are my own and in no way represents those of the NCF.

In general, what are your thoughts about the erosion control methods employed by SBPF in the past and in its current proposal?

The Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) has, in the past, tried a number of erosion control methods, such as dewatering and terracing of the bluff. None of these methods seem to have had the results predicted by SBPF by computer modeling and other means.

From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of dredging sand offshore and pumping it onto a beach to rebuild it (beach nourishment)?

A line from a once popular song comes to mind when thinking about this question. It in part goes "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone." All of us who live on island, especially those who are fortunate enough to be here yearround, annually witness the power of Mother Nature in the form of the storms that for years have eroded Nantucket's coastline, as well as those of coastal communities worldwide. Here, the northeasters crashing along the shoreline can be awe-inspiring indeed!

Everyone who lives on an island does so with the knowledge that erosion is a fact of life. I have great empathy for the long-time homeowners on the 'Sconset Bluff who have been watching their well-loved properties slowly slip away. I also realize the historic value of a number of the homes along the bluff and of the homes in Codfish Park. So we "know what we have" landward of the bluff. We also "know what we have" on the north and south ends of the proposed SBPF project area. We have active nesting habitat for protected piping plovers and least terns.

The real question for me is that we "don't know what we have" seaward of the bluff that will certainly be affected by the offshore dredging and beach renourishment as currently proposed by SBPF.

Scientific exploration and data collection by SBPF at the site has been limited at best, in my opinion. This very limited data collected by the proponents of this project doesn't begin to capture the year-round intricacies of the web of life of the marine mammals, avian life, fish and other organisms that make up this rich resource area.

SBPF has presented models of the effects of offshore dredging and beach renourishment at a variety of venues. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the sparse seasonal data that they have collected can be utilized to produce a realistic year-round model of just what the effects of the proposed project will be on this important resource area. Indeed "...we don't know what we have. ..."

Should the Board of Selectmen approve the use of town-owned land, which will be necessary for the project to go forward?

At this point in time, I do not believe that the Board of Selectmen should approve the use of town-owned land for this project. Beaches, public ways and even the roads of Nantucket will be heavily affected by this project. I don't feel that the real cost to the town in lost tourist revenue during the construction and projected subsequent renourishments of these beaches down the line - as well as possible damage to the town's infrastructure, such as the roadways being used to haul all of the heavy pipes and equipment from town to 'Sconset - have been truly quantified by the town. We also do not have any projection of the amount of possible legal fees that may be incurred by the town to carefully negotiate in advance with SBPF should the project hit a "snag" or worse, go awry and damage other properties.

SBPF is insistent that only private money will be used for the current project and has, on many occasions, assured us that this is their plan for the future as well.

It does seem to me to be risky to assume that this project forever will be privately funded. Once a beach renourishment project has begun it must be repeated at regular intervals to maintain the reconstructed beach. Just look at "successful" beach renourishment projects in such places as Florida.

We also have no projection from SBPF or other sources of how the move- ment of the "sacrificial sand" poured onto the project beach will affect other beaches around the island. Will sandbars be created that will change the wave action on beaches such as Quidnet and Surfside and potentially cause harm to these spots? We just don't know.

The selectmen have a huge decision ahead of them indeed. They will need to decide how to weigh the desires of some Nantucket residents against the potential costs [both in dollars and in natural resources] to the town. This is a decision that could affect Nantucket residents for generations to come. I don't relish them in this quandary.

Where do you draw the line between preservation of public and private property and protection and conservation of natural resources?

I certainly feel that one of the joys of living on Nantucket is being able to enjoy its vast protected conservation holdings and the beaches and sea life that surround the island. To put these resources at risk with a project untested in conditions such as we have here on island is, to me, not a viable option.

How should SBPF modify its proposal to address the projected negative impacts of its beach rebuilding project?

As I am not a scientist, nor an engineer, I really don't feel at all qualified to answer this question. As a layperson, and as stated before, I don't believe that SBPF has conducted sufficient year-round data collection to successfully design this project or to accurately project [via computer modeling or other means] what the negative or positive impacts of the proposed project may in fact be.

If this proposal is approved and harmful effects occur, what should SBPF be prepared to do to remedy the negative impacts?

If the project goes forward as currently proposed and should there be negative impacts, I do believe that the Conservation Commission would have already addressed that possibility in its order of conditions for the project in regards to its area of jurisdiction. The Board of Selectmen, I also believe, would have previously negotiated mitigation for such contingencies as lost revenue to the town, damage to town infrastructure and a plan to recover any such legal fees that may be incurred with SBPF prior to start of the work.

If rebuilding the beach with offshore dredged sand beneath their bluff properties is not the answer, what should the residents of Baxter Road do to protect their property from erosion?

Erosion on Nantucket is not new. It has presumably been occurring long before humans inhabited Nantucket. Any of us who choose to live, buy or build in such high-risk areas such as adjacent to the ocean, in flood plains, or indeed, alongside the San Andreas Fault, must assume some risk as a consequence of our choice. Although science and engineering have advanced to such a degree that many of our problems are "fixable" these days, I do believe in the words of a bumper sticker that I have seen: "Mother Nature bats last."

If the project and its environmental mitigation slows the rate of erosion, creates shorebird habitat, successfully replaces the cobble areas offshore with artificial cobble areas and does not harm the ocean bottom, would you recommend other island shorelines for this erosion control method?

At this point in time, I think that we really need to concentrate our thoughts and concerns on the project that is currently being proposed. After all, this project, as I have previously stated, is an untested science for this dynamic of a northern beach. The proponents of the project have themselves said at several presentations that this project could be used as a model for similar projects in the future. We need to take the time to collect the necessary data to make an informed decision. We desperately need to get this right.

Is there anything more you want to say about SBPF's offshore sand dredging and beach rebuilding proposal?

I only wish to reiterate the importance of finding out what resources we now have, be they marine mammal, avian, fishery related or those involved with the public trust before the green light is given to a project such as that proposed by SBPF that may forever alter them.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to attempt to answer these questions. I hope that the readers of this series will take a minute or two to ponder these questions themselves. I also hope the series might stir your readers to become involved in the process that will affect all of us who live on and love Nantucket