VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF
AN INDEPENDENT SERIES
Doug Smith
9 Lily St.

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent file Doug Smith

Editor's note: This week, The Nantucket Independent

continues Voices Away from the Bluff,

examining the ramifications of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund's

beach nourishment proposal. For 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 - line of work, connection to Nantucket.

In 1961, my family was invited to Wauwinet to share a cottage at the Crow's Nest [Crow's Nest Way] with the Cook family. I was five years old and my first encounter with Nantucket Harbor was swimming there and to this day, I remember the bay scallops that surrounded me as I waded through the eelgrass. Little did I know this would probably influence my life's work.

Each summer thereafter, our family rented cottages in 'Sconset for many years. "Hearts Ease," "Easternmost," "Eastward Look," "Willow Harp" and at the Chanticleer were among the cottages that my parents rented.

In 1967, I met a man that would profoundly change my life. His name was George Rogers. He was an electrician and 'Sconset's "Master Handyman." He was also a master fisherman who spent his time fishing from Nantucket's beaches. He taught many boys and girls to fish and I was lucky to be one of them. For the remainder of his life, I was able to fish with him. This also was to affect me for the rest of my life.

Upon graduating from high school, my first jobs here were with Russell Pope and then Walter Beinecke. While bricking Straight Wharf, I encountered the commercial scallop fleet. That winter, I opened scallops at George Fleming's shack and saved enough money to buy my first boat, the Diana K, a 16-foot lapstrake.

With that boat, I fished summers for striped bass and winters for bay scallops. I progressed to conch fishing and met Pennel Ames and his boat, Mom's Worry. The next boat I worked on was Pete Kaizer's Althea K. I would spend 10 years fishing for stripers, cod and tuna. I then moved on to a boat owned by Chip Bourget, the Huntress. On that boat we harpooned giant bluefin tuna. During that time, I've owned several scallop boats and have, between scalloping winters and [fishing] summers offshore, logged nearly 5,000 days at sea between Montauk Point, N.Y. and Monhegan Island, Maine.

In 1996, I attended the New England Maritime School and got my first captain's license. Since then, I've upgraded to a master's certificate for running charter boats. The first boat was The Coof and this summer I took a job running Bob DeCosta's boat, Albacore.

For the past six years, I've been a member of Nantucket's Shellfish & Harbor Advisory Board. I was also the first president of the Nantucket Shellfish Association, both of which I am still a member of. My connection with Nantucket's and 'Sconset's waters are at the center of my life.

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

Erosion control projects in the past have failed. In the Codfish Park area, sand fencing has brought the beach up three to four feet along Codfish Park in the last 10 or so years.

I believe the beach along there has remained constant or growing in the same time frame. The SBPF presented it as shrinking at the rate of 10 feet a year. I believe this not to be the case. The sand enhancement that's been deposited over the bluff is moving mostly south due to northeast winds during the winter and is ending up along Codfish Park and south extending the beach in this area.

The dewatering idea didn't do anything but leave a lot of debris along the beach, some of which still remains. The SBPF folks told us that it would be removed, but that still hasn't been done.

Sandbag terracing attempts have been repeatedly removed by Mother Nature. The spring storm this year left debris scattered from Madaket to Great Point. The beach was cleared of this, but a great deal of sandbags remain in the water where no one can see them. I know this because when I'm jigging for stripers there, I've lost more gear there this year than ever before by my lures fetching up on these sandbags.

The present proposal scares me because of its experimental nature. Beach nourishment projects up and down the Eastern Seaboard have proven to be temporary solutions. A project at Long Island earlier this year was completely destroyed by the spring storm. The project took longer to construct than it lasted. The dynamic natures of wind, tides and storms make sand replenishment questionable. The proposed project, in my opinion, has more negative issues than positive. Shoreline erosion has been occurring in this area for hundreds of years. While I truly feel for the property owners, they should have taken this into account when purchasing these properties. This will have to augment sand erosion that often. 'Sconset Beach has been called one of the best beaches in the world. This project will require lighting, as work with bulldozers will go on 24 hours a day. Clambakes, fishing, wedding receptions and family gatherings all take place there as well as swimming and sunbathing. Are we willing to forego all of this every five years for the sake of a few short-minded property owners who feel their needs are more important than ours?

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?

From my perspective, I find this project to be too much too late. We are not talking about the shoreline of Florida. There, any reef habitat is considered sacred. This shoreline habitat is one of the most productive areas in southeast New England. On any day during the commercial striped bass season, there are 20 to 40 boats catching their limit of 30 stripers in the area. Nantucket's charter boats all use this area as well. This is habitat that will be covered by eroding sand from this project. What's left will be destroyed by prop scour from 300-foot dredges and the siltation that results from these boats working in the area.

The project would have to use sand from the ocean, as 2.6 million cubic yards isn't available on our island. In perspective, the Pyramids of Egypt are three million cubic yards and Mount Madaket is but a small percentage of that.

Currently, there is no plan for mitigating the loss of habitat in the borrow site of 400 acres. This area is productive sea clam habitat that feeds some of the world's largest seabird populations as represented by Dr. Bob Kennedy in his shorebird presentation given by SBPF. The applicants propose moving adult sea clams, but missed the fact that immature clams, the ones the birds feed on, aren't caught in the dredges. These clams will be sucked up and mixed with the sand deposited on the beach. This will attract large sea gulls and crows that eat fledgling plovers and terns in the project area. Again, this process will need to be done every three to five years ensuring little or no shorebird recruitment.

Periodic re-enhancement is one of the problems with sand replenishment projects. The sand-gravel mix will move offshore, north and south, changing the eastern shoreline of Nantucket forever. Once this project is constructed, these areas can never be brought back; this is a permanent change. The proposal will have a onefoot drop in every 10 feet of beach, changing what we have now and a 16-foot high hill of sand in front of the sewer beds to protect them. It will leave Low Beach looking like a construction area instead of the pristine area that we have now.

I can find no pros to using sand along this dynamic shoreline. In my opinion, only large stones will stay in place in this area. The currents and the wind will always move sand. The proponents use computer models to calculate these movements. Are these the same computers that said dewatering and sand bag terracing would work as well?

Should the Board of Selectmen approve the use of Town-owned land, necessary for the project to go forward?

Well, by now it's pretty obvious that I have serious doubts about this entire proposal. Public access is a dwindling resource on our island. As private concerns take control here, the public's ability to enjoy Nantucket's true treasures disappears.

Two, perhaps three access points will need to be utilized. Low Beach is the first. Lights, trucks, diesel generators for the lights, piles of long sections of three-foot pipes will take over the point of access. Not only will Pochick Rip be destroyed, but the simple ability to listen to the surf that puts me to sleep every night for the last 30 years. We will hear bulldozers and diesel generators instead every three to five years, as beach nourishment projects are only temporary. Human access to this area will be prohibited in the construction process.

Now, let's talk about Mother Nature. Low Beach doesn't need beach nourishment. This pristine habitat has taken years to become what it is. The proponents say they will plant American beach grass and some other plants, but the native plants that live there will not be able to be purchased on or off island. Animal species there are impossible to replant. The first that comes to mind is the snowshoe hare, which is rarely seen. I used to walk with my old friend, Emma, a Jack Russell Terrier belonging to Sarah Alger. She had a nose for these rabbits and would jump two or three every time we took a walk at Low Beach.

On Nantucket, we've cut and burned hundreds of acres in the moors to provide habitat for owls and hawks that use Nantucket on their migratory adventures. How will lights and generators and bulldozers affect their lives? Ask Edie Ray and Dr. Bob Kennedy about shorebird nesting habitat.

Once again, I will remind you that seed surf clams, starfish, mussels and all species that live in the benthic community will be mixed in with the sand and gravel and will attract large gulls and crows that baby plovers and terns. Every three to five years as needed to protect these properties.

The SBPF folks call themselves environmentalists. I find this hard to swallow. Quidnet will be on the other end of this project [where residents] are not too excited to turn their village into a construction area. No quiet nights listening to the wind and sea. Diesel generators, bulldozers and trucks every three to five years as needed to protect a handful of private environmentalists.

Hoicks Hollow will be the major point of access to be affected. I believe the proponents plan to stage most of their activity there. Stockpiles of three-foot pipes, generators, lights, bulldozers and all the heavy equipment that goes with the project. I believe this is where the fueling of all this machinery will take place. It will take hundreds of Harbor Fuel trucks, or I suppose, tanker trucks could be brought from the mainland, to fuel this job. All we've been told at public meetings is that fueling won't be done on the beach.

This is also one of my major concerns. What will Hoicks Hollow look like after this project? Picture 400 to 800 feet of sand bag terracing to the south and north on either side of our public access point. I'm sure the proponents would rather put up a sign to protect their assets.

If dogs on the beach affect nesting shorebirds, what will all of this equipment do? I'm not into losing the beach the way it is now. Nor am I excited about losing three public access points for one summer, much less than every three to five years as needed to augment losses.

- Doug Smith's responses to questions five through 10 will appear in the Oct. 17 issue of The Independent.