RSS Feed
|
|
|||||
|
VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF
continues 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 a Quidnet Village homeowner, and it has been my good fortune to have been a summer resident of Quidnet for nearly 60 years. My immediate family currently has four generations enjoying Quidnet's unparalleled natural beauty. My extended family are homeowners in many areas on Nantucket, including two homes in 'Sconset. I hold a doctorate in child psychology and have long been an avid naturalist, outdoorsman, boater, fisherman, and birder. Other than family, there are few things I hold dearer than the pristine shoreline and coastal waters around Quidnet, and the varied wildlife they support. The absurdity of these habitats and beautiful beaches being threatened with destruction by private citizens is difficult to fathom. In general, what are your thoughts about the erosion control methods employed by SBPF in the past and in its current proposal? I first saw the 'Sconset Bluff terracing project (debacle) the summer before last, when I was boating off the 'Sconset Bluff, and was astounded at its enormity. My immediate thought was, "That will never hold," then I realized, "where was all that timber and jute bagging going to go when it becomes debris, and washes into the ocean?" Of course, having lived in Quidnet for so many years, I knew the answer: what goes into the water in 'Sconset rapidly turns up on Quidnet Beach, due to our prevalent long shore currents. I did not have long to wait for a realization of my fears. Being on island for last April's nor'easter, I witnessed with my son thousands of pressure treated posts, planks, and jute bagging deposited north from Sankaty all along the island's eastern shore, out to Great Point, and far out to the horizon. Those who had the opportunity to witness it, I'm certain, had their view about bluff terracing forever changed, not to mention what mainlanders, or those on islands up the coast to Nova Scotia, must have thought about the debris Nantucketers had unleashed on them, not to mention the wildlife that may have fallen victim to the impulsive actions of a few "wellmeaning" citizens. The SBPF probably had no idea what a disaster their terracing project would become. Yet, now they want us to trust in their declaration that no environmental disasters will occur from their poorly researched dredging "nourishment" project. Who really believes that? All the SBPF has presented for negative impact following their artificial beach construction are hypotheses from "best case scenarios." Let's hear about what the possible "worst case scenarios are," which are undoubtedly more likely to happen. At stake is the destruction of a wide swath of shoreline and irreplaceable habitat, not to mention the unasked for alteration of their beautiful beaches, and much has already been said about the loss of the island's most productive fisheries. How arrogant is their offer to make a monetary compensation for something that is irreplaceable, and they have no right to destroy? The massive artificial beach construction project the SBPF is trying to inflict upon us does have precedent elsewhere. In Miami, where similar projects have vacuumed offshore sand from the seafloor, they are faced with the resultant dilemma that there is nothing left to dredge, and the seafloor is now virtually sterile of life. What will the SBPF propose after we destroy our seafloor habitat, and then cover it with surplus concrete? If I sound outraged that this SBPF debacle has gone this far, it's because I am. Nantucket residents have a way of understating their disagreements, but let's call a spade a spade, and realize there is nothing in this for Nantucketers, except finding a new way to waste money, and further destroy what many of us hold so dear. From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of dredging sand offshore and pumping it onto a beach to rebuild it (beach nourishment) in relation to the SBPF proposal? I can only imagine negative results from the proposed dredging project of the SBPF. I lived in Florida for many years witnessing beach construction efforts in much calmer waters than Nantucket's eastern shore. Beaches that are constructed in places where nature wants to erode do not last during a significant storm, and must not be rebuilt, period! The constructed beaches do not look, feel, or support life similar to a natural beach. Nourished beaches are artificially constructed and have all the drawbacks that implies. The scouring by dredging of a natural sea floor ruins that habitat the same way clear-cut logging does a virgin forest. Does dumping surplus concrete onto the dredged site restore the habitat? Who are they kidding? The stretch of beach north of Sankaty Light has been claimed to be one of the top 10 beaches on the U.S. Eastern Seaboard, and an important nesting site for endangered shorebirds, and SBPF suggests dumping the sand and cobble from Bass Shoal on and adjacent to it. Remember, everything that goes in the water at 'Sconset Bluff quickly winds up in Quidnet. Every resident in Quidnet, Squam and Wauwinet knows this firsthand. Changing the contour of a coastline where powerful currents exist will alter the adjacent shoreline, period! I do not, and I'm certain the majority of residents north of the SBPF do not, want this and I believe the SBPF is acting irresponsibly and selfserving. I would be surprised if their irresponsibility is not suggestive of a crime against the environment. You ask for pros to the project. To some there will be money to be made implementing the SBPF's project, then probably even more money to be made trying to clean up their mess. Or maybe it will serve as a warning to other would-be environmental conquerors in New England. The beauty and way of life in 'Sconset is not really being threatened, as the SBPF and their staff of highly paid publicists/lobbyists would like you to believe, but at stake are a few wealthy homes perched atop a gorgeous, but obviously precarious view of the ocean. The beach at Codfish Park has actually been building up in the past few years. Sankaty Light is already being moved to a safe location, and so should the few imperiled homeowners. Should the Board of Selectmen approve the use of town-owned land, necessary for the project to go forward? By now I'm certain you know my answer: of course not. Neither should the use of other - either public or private lands - be offered up as sacrifice for the SBPF's ill-fated proposal. Where do you draw the line between preservation of public and private property and protection and conservation of natural resources? What an individual or group does on its own private property should be limited to what their neighbors and the environment can tolerate. We have many ordinances and laws, which I believe the SBPF is in serious jeopardy of violating. Just because you can bankroll some outrageous scheme, and you can afford a high-priced legion to implement it, this should not give you an edge on credibility or political influence. This SBPF project is just wrong, and, I've heard many say, ridiculous. How should SBPF modify its proposal to address the projected negative impacts of its beach rebuilding project? An apology for the messes and bad feelings they have already created would be a good place to start. I personally removed some of their debris from Quidnet Beach after their terracing project washed away. Furthermore, it is likely that their terracing project had a reverse effect and weakened the bluff, hastening its collapse. If this proposal is approved and harmful effects occur, what should SBPF be prepared to do to remedy the negative impacts? The proposal should not be approved, period! Then we will not have to address remedies for the SBPF's inevitable mistakes; a simple solution to your question. If rebuilding the beach with offshore dredged sand is not the answer, what should the residents of Baxter Road do to protect their property from erosion? Move themselves and the property they value out of harm's way. Alternately, 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. Why, or why not? You're asking a response to a fantasy scenario. None of the above "best case scenarios" are possible for this project. The "worst case scenarios" are those we would be faced with in reality. If nothing else, sit down with an old Nantucketer and ask them if these things they claim can be accomplished, then wait for them to stop laughing. Is there anything you want to say that I haven't asked you about today about SBPF's offshore sand dredging and beach rebuilding proposal? No. To be absolutely honest, I am just astounded that the SBPF projects have been allowed to go this far - maybe even panic stricken - when I consider their power and influence. I |
for larger version       |
||||
)