My View
By Kermit Roosevelt

Response to September 19, 2007 Nantucket Independent article "Voices Away from the Bluff" featuring Edie Ray.

I would like to respond to several of the issues raised by Ms. Ray in her interview with The Nantucket Independent.

1. "None of these methods [such as dewatering and terracing of the bluff] seem to have had the results predicted by SBPF by computer modeling

and other means."

We have pursued numerous innovative erosion control strategies, including dewatering systems and terraces. For dewatering, the results were mixed. While the dewatering system was operating in Codfish Park there was substantial accretion (approximately 200-250 feet) of the beach. When the system was turned off in 2002, accretion rapidly changed to erosion. The three other dewatering systems installed beneath the bluff had frequent operational interruptions that unfortunately make their functionality difficult to assess. Nonetheless, none of these systems had environmental impacts beyond what had been assessed in our environmental permit documents.

The coastal bank terraces were specifically designed to be passive in nature. In fact they were porous so that they would allow the sand fill to leak out onto the beach during storms. This design was based on requirements from the Conservation Commission that the amount of sand getting to the beach from the terraces is the same or greater than what the eroding bank provides. Additionally, the Conservation Commission required that the terraces be built using only biodegradable materials. In essence the terraces were designed to provide protection during one to two major storms. As they provide this protection they lose sand and break down. The terraces as designed need repair following every major storm event. Notably, properties that have been protected by terraces over the last several years show significantly less erosion at the top of the bank when compared to adjacent unprotected properties.

In contrast to our previous innovative methods, beach nourishment has been widely implemented and is a standard practice in many parts of the country. This beach nourishment program has been designed, and its potential impacts assessed, by project-specific studies, literature review, and computer modeling. Two state-of-the-art computer models have been used and compared to account for the complexity on Nantucket. The models can account for various wave, wind, and current conditions and reflect several generations of development over decades within the coastal engineering field. However, the design has not been based solely on computer modeling. Historic shoreline changes and measured volumetric changes have been used in the project design. While every project site has unique conditions there are fundamental basics that coastal engineers apply in designing a project such as this. Beach nourishment projects have been constructed all over the world in a variety of conditions, including those characteristic of 'Sconset. The design engineers have worked in similar conditions, and are confident that the proposed project will work as intended.

2. "We have active nesting habitat for protected piping plovers and least terns [on the north and south ends of the proposed SBPF project area]."

We are well aware of these important nesting habitat areas at the northern and southern ends of the project (Sesachacha Pond and Low Beach) and have taken steps to ensure they will be protected. Specifically, a shorebird management plan has been developed which defines ways that shorebirds will be protected; for example, construction will not be allowed within a minimum of 100 yards of the nesting areas until after shorebird nesting has been completed for the season (i.e., after Labor Day). Further, the nourished beach will provide expanded habitat for protected shorebirds, and the state experts on endangered species (the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program) agree with our assessment.

3. "This very limited data collected by the proponents of this project doesn't begin to capture the yearround intricacies of the web of life of the marine mammals, avian life, fish and other organisms that make up this rich resource area."

We have conducted comprehensive, multi-year sampling programs to characterize the existing biological communities at the borrow site and at the beach/nearshore area.

Ichthyoplankton sampling has occurred biweekly from March-October since March 2006 at the borrow site and in the nearshore.

Bottom trawl sampling has occurred biweekly from March-October since November 2005 (borrow site) and July 2006 (nearshore).

Mid-water trawl sampling occurred from July 2006 to October 2006.

Rod and reel monthly sampling trips with local charter fishing experts occurred three times in 2006 and four times in 2007.

Fish stomach analyses were conducted on a variety of species taken during various sampling efforts. The stomachs provide information about what the fish are feeding on.

Side scan sonar surveys, used to delineate approximate area of cobble coverage, were conducted at both the borrow site and nearshore area in 2005 and 2006.

Two separate dive surveys were conducted along the nearshore to characterize the cobble habitat in 2006.

Video surveys of over five miles of nearshore subtidal habitat were conducted in summer 2007.

Benthic sampling at the beach and borrow site has been occurring twice a year since summer 2005.

Commercial shellfish sampling occurred at the borrow site in 2006 and nearshore sampling is currently being conducted.

Hydrographic measurements (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen) have occurred in association with other sampling events since 2005.

Shorebird surveys have been conducted weekly or bi-weekly from 2001-2007 during the spring and summer (from Hoick's Hollow to LHS-S or Codfish Park); since 1990s or earlier at Sesachacha Pond and Low Beach.

Waterbird surveys (total of 7) have been conducted at the borrow site from December 2005 through May 2007.

The presence of marine mammals (as well as sea turtles) has been assessed by reviewing 10 years of sighting data maintained by the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (1996-2005), as well as by interfacing with local fishermen.

Given the substantial quantity of data we have collected and analyzed, we strongly feel the resources have been adequately characterized.

4. "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."

We have used comprehensive, year-round data in our biological impact assessments (as discussed above) and in our modeling of impacts on physical processes. Two models were used to assist in determining project effects. Twenty-six years of historic wind and wave data was used to assess conditions throughout the year and as input for the models. The models were calibrated using measured wave and current data, which was collected over a period of several months. During deployment, the sensors captured the passage of Hurricane Wilma, assisting in the calibration of the models during large storm events. Thus, we would disagree that there is sparse seasonal data. This is much more data than is typically available for designing projects and it was used to its full extent. The design work on the 'Sconset Beach Nourishment project exceeds the industry standard for such projects.

5. "I do not believe that the Board of Selectmen should approve the use of town-owned land for this project."

I believe this project will only benefit, and will not detrimentally impact, the Island of Nantucket, its public resources, and town-owned property. Placing a large volume of nourishment material in the project area will result in sediment diffusion that will benefit shorelines to the north and south of the project. These adjacent shorelines will not experience any erosional losses as a result of the project. In addition, the project will protect valuable tax assets for the town (annual value of $1 million, based on 2005 figures), which would suffer from the loss of this revenue should the properties be destroyed. Third, rather than threatening the town's infrastructure, the project will provide substantial protection for existing roadways, utilities, and the Sewer Beds, potentially sparing the town a $7 million relocation cost.

6. "It does seem to me to be risky to assume that this project forever will be privately funded."

SBPF has already demonstrated a long-term commitment to this effort. We plan to continue funding renourishment as needed (initially every 5 years; the renourishment interval typically increases with time). However, in the event SBPF no longer funds renourishment, there would be no required action and the beach would return to the conditions we experience today, The public would bear no cost or financial responsibility for the project.

7. "We also have no projection from SBPF or other sources of how the movement of the "sacrificial sand" poured onto the project beach will affect other beaches around the island."

Modeling of the shoreline and shoals show that the project will not detrimentally impact any other beaches. Quite the opposite, the adjacent beaches will benefit from additional sand moving north and south from the project. The expected shoreline locations have been shown in public presentations and in documents submitted to the Federal, State, and Local regulatory agencies.

Further, project activities will not cause any changes in sediment transport, wave transformation, or current patterns that could detrimentally impact the island. Dredging of the borrow area will only cause minor changes to wave patterns in the vicinity of the borrow area even during a 50-year storm event. However, even these minor wave changes will not approach within 1 mile of the shoreline.

8. "To put these resources [vast protected conservation holdings and the beaches and sea life] at risk with a project untested in conditions such as we have here on island is, to me, not a viable option."

From an environmental perspective, beach nourishment projects are deemed the preferred method to provide shore protection. The project engineers are experienced working in many conditions, including those similar to Nantucket. One good example of a beach nourishment project successfully completed in similar environmental conditions is the Fire Island project in New York.

9. "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. I do believe…Mother Nature bats last."

If each person did nothing to manage the forces of Mother Nature, every human creation (roads, buildings, infrastructure) would fall into ruin. For example, Nantucket Harbor would cease to function if the jetties and channel weren't maintained. Within the foreseeable future, the main airport runway and town sewer beds will be directly threatened if long-term South shore erosion rates continue and are not addressed. To a certain extent, we all maintain our homes against mother nature every time we repair a roof, use durable materials, or in any way weatherproof our homes. As members of the 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund, we are seeking to preserve our community and have demonstrated our willingness to assume the risk of living on an island by personally funding beach nourishment.

Sincerely,

- Kermit Roosevelt