SBPF's plans to replicate ocean bottom challenged by island's fishermen

BY PETER B. BRACE INDEPENDENT WRITER

Twenty-eight thousand concrete railroad ties cannot replace the 105 acres of naturally cobbled ocean bottom island fishermen say they will lose to dredging and beach rebuilding in front of Baxter Road.

The concrete railroad ties and the crushed rock - totalling 11,000 tons - would be used to mitigate the eventual loss of 105 acres of habitat where striped bass, bluefish, black sea bass, flounder and other fish feed on crabs, sand eels, sand dabs, juvenile lobster and squid, the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) told around 45 Nantucketers at its second session with the Conservation Commission Monday night.

But, much to the dismay of the commercial, recreational and charter fishermen in attendance, the railroad ties would only "replace" 60 acres of the cobble bottom that SBPF expects the new beach will smother as it migrates eastward.

"One hundred five acres of hard bottom, and you guys are only offering 60 acres back," said commercial striped bass fisherman Doug Smith. "If I caught as many fish as you guys did [during your finfish surveys] I wouldn't have a job for very long. I need to catch a lot of fish to stay in business. My personal feeling tonight is that I'm against this project."

Several fishermen called for a 2:1 ratio of habitat replacement, instead of just over half as proposed, and criticized SBPF's relocation plan for fishing habitat around the island.

"I want to see rock to rock and cobble to cobble put on that bottom," said Bobby DeCosta, captain of the charter fishing boat Albacore. "No offense, guys, you tried your best, but it doesn't really reflect what's there."

DeCosta's point echoed the thoughts of the many fishermen and environmentalists at the meeting who said they knew from endless hours of fishing the area that jumbles of 800-pound railroad ties could not possibly replicate the natural cobble areas. The naturally occurring cobblestone-size rocks sit randomly in clumps about 1,200 feet off the beach and are spread about a half-mile north to a half-mile south of Sankaty Head Lighthouse.

"You're impacting a special kind of habitat that is kind of scattered off the coast by stacking [railroad ties]," said Ernie Steinauer, plant ecologist and property manager for the Massachusetts Audubon Society. "I guess I'm curious as to why you're not trying to re-create the habitat you are impacting instead of creating a new kind of habitat."

UNNATURAL HABITAT

SBPF wants to dredge 2.6 million cubic yards of sand from the ocean floor three miles in front of Sesachacha Pond, using one or two dredge vessels that suck sand into their holds.

When full, the dredge vessels would move close to the shoreline - a threemile stretch of beach between Codfish Park and just north of Sankaty Head Light - and pump the sand on shore. The sand will be built out about 206 feet, forming a new permanent beach. Another beach will be added on top of that for the ocean to erode, all in an effort to halt or at least slow the rate of bluff erosion along Baxter Road.

The concrete railroad tie scheme is one of SBPF's proposals to compensate for the loss of marine life habitat. SBPF's other proposals include: three options for exclusion zones where no work would be done near shore; time-of-year working restrictions; monitoring of the dredge site and the beach; compensating fishermen for lost fishing time and supporting regulatory relief for fishermen. Unfortunately for SBPF, none of those options got the intended reception.

Steve Barrett, a coastal engineer who addressed the impacts of beach rebuilding in presenting the results of SBPF's marine life and habitat surveys, said that he and other engineers are working closely with island fishermen, the Cape Cod Hook Fishermen Association and prospective dredging companies to make the project amenable to all parties. He said the fish species they observed were outside the project area and away from the natural cobble areas, making the railroad ties a reasonable solution.

"We have made what I think is a strong attempt to engage the fishing community and they understood that there is a strong impact on them," said Barrett.

Concrete railroad ties currently form artificial reefs off New Jersey and Florida, Barrett said.

Barrett's research included the use of sea bottom sampling, side-scan sonar, dive surveys, video cobble surveys and photographic surveys during the winter and early spring. From these surveys, he learned that there are not always fish where the fishermen say there are.

"One of the points of this data is that we were catching a lot of fish outside of this project area, Barrett said. "That's not to say that there aren't fish that pass through the project area, because the fish do go up and down the coast, and they probably go through the project area."

Members of the Conservation Commission, along with other audience members, questioned the potential toxicity of the 20-year-old railroad ties, that SBPF said it is getting free from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) because it has no use for them. Their concern is that soot, nitrates, nitrogen and other airborne pollutants that have collected on the ties over the last two decades could wash into the marine environment. Also, as the ties finally break apart, the steel reinforcement cable inside them could become a hazard as well.

"On the railroad ties, we have tested them and there's no toxic materials on them," Barrett said.

The ConCom also pestered SBPF's consulting engineers about the grain size compatibility of the aggregate used in the concrete with that of the sand in the project area. As the concrete ties break down, if their materials are incompatible with the sand in the area, this, too, could cause problems for marine life, but Barrett said the ties are not likely to rapidly disintegrate where SBPF plans to place them.

"Our sense is that the railroad ties will be very long-lasting," said Barrett. "They will be in 20 to 30 feet of depth were they won't be subject to the pounding of surf."

Medium to coarse grain sand is what is on the beach and in the surrounding waters. Compatibility of the sand hauled from the offshore dredge site is vital for the success of the project because if the sand grains do not match those along the shore, they are more likely to wash away and not protect the toe of the bluff from erosion.

SANDY WATER

In a worst case scenario, said Barrett, 520,000 cubic yards of sand from the rebuilt beach could be washed by ocean storms into the waters off the beach, impacting beaches to the north and south of the project area.

Although he said that far less sand is likely to wash away, that, combined with the potential for bluff terracing collapse and the churning up of the near shore by dredge vessel propellers, troubles fishermen and environmentalists because of the increase in turbidity. Turbidity is a measurement of soils and sediments suspended in water. Barrett said turbidity plumes during the project are not expected to exceed 31 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units), a measurement taken with a light beam meter.

"Our turbidity doesn't seem to last long because the sand grains are larger than you might have in an embayment or an inlet, so we don't really expect the turbidity to last that long," said Barrett.

But several fishermen disputed this claim, stating that since the project would run nonstop for 100 to 128 days from May through November, the fish that cannot find their feeding grounds because of clouds of sand in the water may not return to the area. Barrett, however, disagreed.

"I think the natural turbidity level that we've demonstrated is that the species in the area can accommodate that naturally," he said. "They may move away, but they're going to come back. They're used to that, it's what happens in nature."

What does not happen naturally is a massive introduction of sand into a marine environment in which currents will carry sand east of the beach and north and south of the project area should winter storms wash the rebuilt beach away.

Pete Kaizer, captain of the charter fishing boat, Althea K. cited a beach nourishment project in Islip, Long Island, N.Y. that lost 65,000 of its 225,000 cubic yards of sand from two areas of the beach to last April's Patriot's Day nor'easter. Although Kaizer said that this beach nourishment project, completed just before the storm hit, only lasted four days, section supervisor Tom Rogers of the Suffolk County, N.Y. department of public works, countered that only a portion of the project was washed away, and just off the beach into the surf zone. For his part, Kaizer does not believe SBPF's rebuilt beach can survive the nor'easters that pound Nantucket during the winter and early spring.

"I have a real problem with this project as proposed and I applaud the people who are trying to protect their houses," said Kaizer. "Maybe if this project goes in a different direction, then maybe it will work."

The hearing will continue next Monday at 4 p.m.

at the high school. I