RSS Feed
|
|
|||||
|
VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF
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 am, and will always be, a "roundthe pointer" who considers herself very lucky to live on Nantucket year-round. I fell in love with Nantucket while I was in law school and a few years later, fell in love with my husband, a Nantucket native. I have a bachelor of science in chemistry from the Honors College at Southern Connecticut State University and a law degree from Quinnipiac University. I moved to Florida after law school and practiced as a trial attorney for a few years. In need of a career change and because I missed my family and New England, I decided to return home and took a position in pharmaceutical sales for Johnson & Johnson. When I found I would be making Nantucket my permanent home, I ultimately decided to return to the practice of law. I passed the Massachusetts bar and handled real estate transactions. Currently, I am the Director of Marketing & Legal Consultant for the Maury People, a real estate agency on island. I spend my free time fishing, boating and enjoying the island with my husband and our two dachshunds. In general, what are your thoughts about the erosion control methods employed by SBPF in the past and in its current proposal? Well, it's obvious the past methods (the terracing and dewatering projects) have failed or else they wouldn't be proposing this new beach "nourishment" concept. The current proposal to dump 2.6 million cubic yards of sand on the beach is not supported by reliable science and what "science" they have presented is either irrelevant or incomplete. This is not just my opinion. The experts in this field, Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries and the New England Fishery Management Council have all written letters about this project and, each and every one of them asks SBPF to conduct more studies or says that the studies they have completed are unsatisfactory. Even more alarming, they suggest that SBPF is overstating the benefits of this project to the public and deemphasizing its possible harms to the environment and surrounding shoreline. I have sat through all of the ConCom meetings and heard both the ConCom and the public ask intelligent and critical questions at every single meeting and I am floored that the majority of answers we receive are "We're not sure," "We'll have to check on that," or "We'll get back to you." It is frighteningly clear that SBPF has not done its homework. Given the size and scope of this project and the known harms it will bring, I am shocked that SBPF is not more prepared at these meetings. We know they have been working on this project for years and their inability to answer questions makes me wonder … do any of us really know what is going to happen when we dump all of this sand on the beach? Will it really save the houses? If so, for how long, days, weeks, a couple years? Where will all of this sand (that wasn't there before) end up? How will this affect the marine life in our waters? It is beyond troubling that SBPF is relying on sketchy data and computer models to attempt to answer these essential questions. From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of dredging sand offshore and pumping it onto a beach to rebuild it (beach nourishment)? Quite frankly, I don't see any "pros" to beach dredging other than fostering or attempting to save development that either was, or has become, too close to the shore. I've spent a great deal of time in Florida and have walked on these man-made "beaches" myself. They often feel like concrete, are void of any life, and certainly are not beaches where I would go to fish, take a stroll or spend the day. I realize that SBPF and their engineers and experts all look to these Florida beach projects as successes. Well, if your goal is to save condominiums and make more space to build new ones, then they are right. In my book, the success of these projects should not be measured by how many houses are saved. Let's take a look at the shorelines and see if the fish and marine life have returned and are flourishing like they were before the beach was "saved." So, the only potential "pro" I see is a few threatened homes will be saved. This is nothing in comparison to the "cons" this project will have. MEPA and NMF have clearly stated that this project will have vast, detrimental effects on the environment. And, given the fact that the beach will need to be continually "re-nourished" every three to five years, the beach and ocean bottom will never have time to "recover" and "return to normal." It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the result will be no recovery; the marine life will never have a chance to recover or return to the area before the next sand dumping is scheduled. Common sense tells us our beaches and coast will never be the same. People come here to fish, boat and visit for a reason. There is no other place like Nantucket and proposing a project of this magnitude in such a unique and fragile environment is criminal and should be held to the strictest standards of review. I have a great deal of confidence in Mother Nature when it comes to creating and maintaining our shorelines. For years, the shoals have served to protect us from storms and provide an environment teaming with sea life unlike any other area in Southeastern Massachusetts. I think SBPF's dredging project will upset this delicate balance forever. Should the BOS approve the use of town-owned land, which will be necessary for the project to go forward? No. I do not see how this project is good for Nantucketers as a whole. The "public benefits" SBPF claims will result are as dubious as their science. The BOS is designed to represent and protect the interests of Nantucket as a whole. Any decisions to approve the use of town land should further these interests, not just a few private homeowners or a small group of fishermen. This decision should be based on what is truly best for the town. So far, SBPF has failed to show how this project will benefit Nantucketers as a whole. At the most recent hearings, SBPF announced their new mission statement is to save the Village of 'Sconset. We never heard about this village-saving last spring. It wasn't until this new round of ConCom hearings that the project's purpose was described in this manner. Previously, it was described as similar to the homeowners' houses being on fire and they were helplessly standing by. Now, they are saving the village in an effort to make us all think that this project is "good for everyone." Despite their revised purpose, SBPF has failed to present any tangible reasons as to how this project will benefit Nantucket. I hope the Board of Selectmen is considering this project's effect on tourism, the commercial and recreational fishing industries, as well as, the strain it will put on our infrastructure. As I mentioned above, there are too many unanswered questions and questionable science that need to be supplemented before any local entity should allow the proponent to move forward with this project. I fear that SBPF is looking to "fast track" this project and take its fate out of the hands of Nantucketers. This is our last chance to hold SBPF to our rigorous review of this project taking into account all of our unique local concerns. Any hasty decisions on a local level could result in state or federal action that is beyond our control. Where do you draw the line between preservation of public and private property and protection and conservation of natural resources? When our efforts to preserve property will cause inevitable and permanent harm to our natural resources, I draw the line. We can always move or rebuild structures, we cannot recreate complex ocean systems or restore cobble bottom. How should SBPF modify its proposal to address the projected negative impacts of its beach rebuilding project? First, they should spend more time identifying exactly what the environmental and cumulative impacts of this project will be. Without that starting point, it's impossible to determine how and if the negative effects can be remedied. We have been presented with numerous studies and models wrought with incomplete or inconclusive results. SBPF should create a detailed and educated mitigation plan. They have discussed the use of railroad ties to build an artificial reef but presented no details as to how it will be built, who advised them to build it this way, and why/how it will work to remedy the negative impacts. SBPF has asked the local fishermen about where they think an artificial reef should be placed. I have worked with the fishermen and heard their concerns about this project. I know they appreciate the opportunity to provide input about the reef, however, I also know they do not consider themselves "reef experts" and are looking to SBPF to consult with respected and known experts in this field. We haven't heard or seen anything tangible about this reef. We also haven't seen any evidence that permitting for this reef is even underway. If this proposal is approved and harmful effects occur, what should SBPF be prepared to do to remedy the negative impacts? SBPF should be required to post a significant bond so they are solely responsible for: •Removing the sand from the beaches and returning it to the borrow site, •Any lawsuits from neighboring homeowners whose homes may now suffer from erosion as a result of the project where they didn't before, •Any losses suffered by commercial and charter fishermen whose livelihoods are affected, •Initiating and maintaining a beach recovery program that will work to attempt to return the beach as close to its current state as possible, •Compensating the town for damaging its property, •Any fines levied by state and federal agencies for regulatory violations or necessary clean up. 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? I empathize with their situation and certainly respect their desire to save their homes. However, owning a beachfront property comes with many risks, one of which is losing your home to erosion. The erosion of the bluff has been occurring for many years it is not a surprise. If the homeowners have the financial resources to fund this project, they certainly have the ability to move their homes or purchase another. Alternately, if SBPF's offshore sand dredging/beach rebuilding 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. Why, why not? I think the most important word in that question is the first one, if. We have no guarantee that this project will work to save any homes and certainly no guarantee that our natural resources will not suffer as a result. I have sat through all of the ConCom meetings since last spring and haven't heard any sound science or specific examples of past projects that were successful (and when I say successful, I mean BOTH the homes and the environment were saved, not just the homes). Is there anything you want to say that I haven't asked you about today on SBPF's offshore sand dredging and beach rebuilding proposal? I am shocked that a project like this is being proposed on Nantucket. Everything that Nantucket stands for is about preserving what once was. Those before us have worked hard to protect our waters, beaches and shorelines from overdevelopment and misuse. The fact that we are looking to places like Florida as an example of how we should treat our beaches is frightening! Trust me … Florida is not the place to look for lessons on land development. I understand this project might save some historic homes on the bluff, but let's keep this in perspective. Even if this handful of homes are saved temporarily, we are "saving them" at the cost of changing the coastal landscape of this island forever. We cannot undo this project. When it is done, it's done. I have great amount of confidence in our ConCom and Board of Selectmen to make the right decisions and I urge them to take their time. What we decide now, will determine the fate of this island for all who come after us. There certainly are situations where experimental science is appropriate, be it life-threatening disease or anticipated catastrophic events. When there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, we all have to take chances. This is not one of those times. While I certainly empathize with the people who will lose their homes, I have a much greater concern for this truly unique, historic, and beautiful island. There is no other place like this. We live on an extremely vulnerable sand bar with a vast array of coastal and sea life surrounding it. Losing it in a effort to save a stretch of sand that Mother Nature is carving out for a purpose she has yet to reveal could be more detrimental than we could imagine. I |
for larger version       |
||||
)