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.

The following is part two of the two-part interview with fisherman Doug Smith

Where do you draw the line between preservation of public and private property and protection and conservation of natural resources?

The history of 'Sconset is clearly evident in the older core center. Most of the structures built there are two or three additions from structures moved and shared by this community. When the ocean threatened homes, they were taken apart and moved to new places and or used to add on to existing homes and businesses.

Conservation of natural resources is perhaps Nantucket's biggest and most important issue. I'm a scalloper and water quality is diminishing rapidly. I fear the loss of this industry due to Nantucket's rapid rate of growth and so-called environmentalists wanting trophy houses with lush green fertilized lawns and landscaping. Without our natural resources, where will our tourist industry go? Will people actually come here to see our beautiful trophy compounds when there are no more open spaces? I would ask anyone who reads this article to take a ride to Altar Rock, turn 360 degrees and find a view without some kind of private home or structure in it.

I spoke with a prominent citizen of 'Sconset yesterday [Oct. 6] and one of her concerns was that the SBPF has been whittling away funds that need to go into the 'Sconset Trust, a group that, like the Land Bank, buys open spaces and leaves them wild forever for the public to enjoy. Two large tracts of land in 'Sconset will fall under developers' hands because of the Trust's inability to procure them just recently.

This question is one that all Nantucket residents should ponder seriously if changes keep coming at the rate they have for the last 30 years what will our island look like 50 years from now?

How should SBPF modify its proposal to address the projected negative impacts of its beach rebuilding project?

This is just my opinion, but I believe the only thing that will slow Mother Nature's advance is stone. Stone nourishment has proven successful in several areas such as Montauk Point, N.Y. and Cape Ann, Gloucester, Mass. I've seen these structures and they are both aesthetically pleasing to the eye and they do the job. Montauk has probably the closest environment to Sankaty. Their winds and tides are very similar. Rock protects their properties and improves fish habitats.

On Martha's Vineyard at Gay Head, virtually identical to Sankaty, I witnessed a Wampanoag Indian harpooning stripers by hand. That was quite an experience. There he was, standing on the rocks waiting for large bass to swim by. The Anasquam River at Cape Ann, Gloucester, Mass. has properties fortified with stone. There, the tide was 10 feet vertically and at four to five knots, very similar to Sankaty. Stone stays in place and again, improves fish habitat.

Stone terracing is, I believe, what the SBPF people should be looking at. The sand bag terraces that have been used have all ended being washed away. The latest example is the Patriot's Day storm this spring. A winter's work all gone in one storm event. The proponents will explain that a 400- foot beach will not allow surf to hit these terraces, but the proposal calls for sand bags on sand structure held in place with four-by-four wooden posts. Then they will plant native plants in these terraces.

First, the native soil does not contain salt content similar to the dredged sand. The current bluff has a higher salt content, conducive to plant growth. Dredged sand will need Mother Nature's rain to wash away salt content before any vegetation will grow there successfully.

Anyone who has built sandcastles on the beach knows that sand and water don't mix. A little water is good for sand structures, but a 250-foot bluff that is irrigated (for the lawns) and is subject to New England gales with three to five inches of rain is at best, a poor bet. Rain runs downhill and undermines the sand bags and four-byfours and gravity does the rest. The proposal is again called "experimental." I think common sense tells me that this won't work.

No amount of [concrete] railroad ties, which disintegrate over time, will mitigate the loss of this habitat. Both the replenishment area and the borrow site will be affected forever as replenishment happens every three to five years as necessary, not allowing Mother Nature time to heal.

Something I haven't spoken of yet is siltation. This is the most deadly part of any dredging project. I've seen those effects during dredging projects in Nantucket Harbor and at Jackson's Point in Madaket. The proponents say the habitat will "heal" in one to three years. In the harbor, the dredged area filled in with soft sand in one year and in Madaket, the bottom never became hard like it was and is now a channel filled with mud and dead eelgrass holding very little shellfish compared to before dredging.

The SBPF proponents tell us that the borrow site is one-percent clay silt. What they're missing is that one-percent of 2.6 million cubic yards is 26,000 cubic yards of clay silt that will stay in the borrow area. Moving around slowly during storm events, this will smother the benthic (bottom) community completely. What seed clams and mussels aren't sucked up for the beach will be covered by clay siltation. The folks told us at the hearings that "this material eventually washes off the Continental Shelf into the deep part of the ocean." The Continental Shelf off Nantucket is 140 miles east and it's going to take to go that far. It will most likely end up on the beach. Do we want a sticky soft clay beach?

The proponents need to completely re-examine their line of thought. No mitigation can correct the negative effects of this project. I believe stone terracing is the only thing that could possible save Baxter Road and its valuable properties.

If this proposal is approved and harmful effects occur, what should SBPF be prepared to do to remedy the negative impacts?

Unfortunately, if this project is approved, the harmful effects can never be changed. The habitat has been created over thousands of years of erosion since the ice shelf melted as shown by the proponents in their presentation. The cobblestone structure there has come from the bluff as it retreated since then. If this habitat is buried by sand and gravel, I believe it will take thousands of years to re-create.

Mitigation in other areas would change their pristine habitat with a negative. The proposal is to dump concrete railroad ties off a barge and create vertical artificial reefs. Currently, no applications have been made by the SBPF and both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Marine Fisheries have stated negative responses to this proposal.

The habitat that will be destroyed is horizontal on the bottom. Sea plants grow on the rocks and create homes for the crabs and crustaceans that attract striped bass. Small fish, sand eels, scup, sea bass and hundreds of species live in this plant material and stone mix. As I spoke of before, siltation from this project will destroy this environment. Twenty-six thousand cubic yards of clay siltation at the borrow site will cover X number of square miles offshore.

Prop scour is what happens when propellers get too close to the bottom and blow sand and silt from the propulsion. The barges to be used are 300 feet long and need 25 feet of water to work in. They are equipped with twin screws (two propellers) and will be working in water 25 to 30 feet deep. There is no way they can work in this area without affecting the bottom. This is referring to the pumping stations, three of which will be needed to cover the three miles of shoreline to be affected. The pumping station is where the sand is moved from the hopper dredge boat and pumped directly onto the beach via three-foot pipes. The tide in these areas runs two to four knots, sometimes five knots.

For the dredge boats to remain stationary while pumping occurs, the engines will be in gear and the propellers will be turning, blowing holes in the bottom on both sides of the pumping station because the tide runs both north and south. Three stations, six holes - who knows how much sand and siltation will be deposited in these areas a half-mile from the beach. The dredge boats will also have to traverse the area between the borrow site and the pumping stations scouring the shallow areas in between. Very similar to smaller boats running aground on areas like Hussey Shoal and the Horseshed, which now look like the face of 40-year-old hockey player with many deep scars.

Again, mitigation is spoken about. Vertical structures that work perhaps in Florida aren't what this bottom structure is all about. Stone is what is there and stone is what would be needed to re-create this habitat. Dumping railroad ties off a barge is a poor example of mitigation in my belief.

Finally, one of the reasons I became a charter boat captain was to share my knowledge and experience with a great deal of people. One of the mitigation options is cash remuneration to the charter businesses for our loss of business. Here, SBPF admits there will be losses.

I can remember the first codfish I caught when I was 10 years old. My father took me fishing on a charter boat out of Boothbay, Maine. The fish was hooked and so was I. No amount of money is worth stealing the memories I can create in young people's minds when they catch their first fish aboard my boat. No amount of money will equal the loud happy screams of "fish on" that I hear from customers. Nothing is worth taking away the pictures and the memories that created every day on Nantucket's charter boat fleet. People come from all over the world to partake in the striped bass fishery that we have under Sankaty Light. We, the residents, aren't the only people that will feel the damage from the negative impacts of this project.

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?

Earlier, I spoke of stone terracing. I believe if stone were used years ago, a lot of property could have been saved. In my travels on the water I've seen the benefits of using stone. Think of it, jetties, breakwaters, the Cape Cod Canal and riverbanks all are made of stone and it works. Sand and water mix, and that's the problem with this proposal. Sand moves when water is added to the equation and again this project has been called experimental. The downside doesn't match the positive. At best, the proponents say it might last seven years, but most likely three to five years. This invasion of our summer resources is asking too much.

Stone could be brought to the site in barges and unloaded in one area and or trucked to Baxter Road, eliminating the need for destroying the offshore habitat. If any stone were to move, it would enhance the habitat that exists there. If there was an easy solution to the issue of erosion of beaches, something that has gone on for as long as mankind or longer, I'm sure we would have heard of it by now. But with the resources available to the SBPF, I hope we can come to amiable solution to this pressing issue.

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, why not?

Will this project slow erosion? Yes, but only temporarily. I believe weather events, whether it be many small New England gales or one large hurricane, will cause this terraced structure to collapse. Water from the top of the bluff running downhill will undermine the terraces from the top down. This is a sand structure. When mixed with water, it will collapse just as the bluff has collapsed for hundreds of years.

Will the project create shorebird habitat? Yes, but only temporarily. As the project will require re-mitigation every three to five years, I wonder if it won't drive away nesting birds from one area. On aspect that is important is the fact that the borrow site will be constantly changing, eliminating feeding areas for 10 percent of the world's population of sea ducks. Oldsquaw, black- and white-winged scoter, Northern gannet and federally protected loons. Ten percent of the world's population, yes. This was presented by Dr. Bob Kennedy in his presentation on shorebirds.

Presently, the only habitat reconstruction offered is concrete railroad ties dumped off barges. This will create artificial vertical reefs. The key word here is vertical. The present habitat is horizontal, or at least, associated with the bottom structure. The proponents are offering 60 acres of these artificial reefs. Onehundred five acres of habitat near the shore and 400 acres at the borrow site will be affected on the first phase of the project.

I believe far more will be affected as the sand settles and covers more bottom and as weather and tides will disperse this project north, south and offshore. The mitigation is inadequate. The Division of Marine Fisheries also had problems with this proposal and the proponents don't know presently if these artificial reefs will ever be permitted. One last thing, said reefs will not be located even near the project area. They are to be scattered between Wauwinet north and then a couple in Nantucket Sound as presented in the fisheries presentation. The habitat associated with Sankaty bluff will be forever altered, covered by shifting sand.

I cannot recommend this type of beach nourishment anywhere in our region. Esther Island is a perfect example of how sand movers throughout our area. A brief examination of the history of the shoals to the west of Nantucket would clearly explain how much sand moves around here. Again, this proposal is called "experimental." I believe the cost is not worth the benefit.

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?

If I still have your attention, just a few more facts from my notes.

Presently, it has been reported by the proponents that anywhere between 64,000 and 87,000 cubic yards of sand now move annually through this area. After the project [is completed], it is estimated that the average annual figure of sand moving will increase to 280,000 cubic yards with a maximum of 520,000 cubic yards. This is why renourishment will have to be done whenever necessary. How long can the SBPF continue the procedure and how much coastline will be affected by the project over that period of time?'

Next, if the shoals east of us are used as the borrow area they will not be able to break the large ocean waves coming onto the beach. Leveling of these shallow areas will result in large swells hitting the beach, thus causing more and faster erosion.

I'm sorry to be so long-winded, but all of this, in my opinion, is very important.

So far in these presentations, there has been no talk about the effect on marine mammals. There are lots of seals in the news lately. Also, pelagics; sharks, sunfish and turtles all use this area and they were not mentioned.

Last, but not least, is the collection of data given during the fisheries presentation. I've been a waterman for 30-some years and suspect I know a little more about catching fish in this area than the socalled "experts" that the proponents hired. "Fish collection" efforts by these people were dismal to say they least.

From the bottom (benthic) dwelling creatures to the planktonic creatures to the fish that use this area, all techniques were inadequate. I, personally, would starve if I depended on their efforts, not to mention that I wouldn't have many customers on my boat if I caught the same amount of fish that they did.

For the magnitude of this project, one would think at least the proponents would want accurate data to work with. Either that or they don't want the public to know what's really there.

During the presentation given to the ConCom, words like unique, dynamic, challenging and very valuable were all used to describe the area in this proposal. That's how I feel about our island just the way it is. I sincerely empathize with the folks on Baxter Road [but] please re-consider changing

our 'Sconset forever. I