My View
By Fred Singer

The following My View is written in response to the "Voices Away From the Bluff" with Doug Smith, published in the Oct. 10 and Oct. 17 Nantucket Independent.

Mr. Smith's interview highlighted some common misconceptions about the project that I would like to clarify. Here are some of the key characteristics of the project that Mr. Smith chose to deny or ignore:

1) Beach nourishment is a tried and tested practice, with hundreds of completed projects.

Mr. Smith categorizes the project as "experimental;" however, beach nourishment

has been undertaken successfully for decades in numerous environments. Beach nourishment is not a one-time occurrence; rather, it involves maintenance several years after initial construction. We all recognize that our roads need repaving, our roofs need repairing, and our automobile tires need periodic replacing. Our beaches can be viewed similarly, especially when they protect irreplaceable historic shorefronts and/or valuable community infrastructure, as is the case in ''Sconset.

As for the Long Island project Mr. Smith mentions, it was not completely destroyed, but performed well despite being relatively small. A survey showed about 75 percent of the sand stayed on the beach poststorm; the remainder probably shifted below mean low water. Suffolk County officials were pleased with the project, as their pavilion might have been lost without it.

2) Most of the beach will be open to the public during construction.

Most of the beach will be open during construction and public access will be available, contrary to Mr. Smith's assertions. The contractors are sensitive to public use of the beach and are experienced in constructing projects in resort areas with considerable public traffic. Only one public access will be used at a time and will not be blocked. The contractor may exclude the public for 10 -15 minute intervals to move pipe. Pipe staging areas will be unobtrusive. Contractors typically keep equipment within a few hundred feet of the discharge pipe to minimize disruption to the beach.

3) Construction activities will be directly apparent in a given area for only two to four days.

Beach nourishment projects are typically 24-hour operations; however, the contractor will move along as the beach is built, so any particular area will only be directly inconvenienced for two to four days. The project will require modest lighting (one stand containing 4 lights) and bulldozers. The work area is typically limited to a 200-foot section of beach, and the fill location will move about 125 feet/day. The observable inconvenience on the beach typically extends less than 300 to 500 feet, likely less given the high bluff at ''Sconset.

4) The Project will not change many nearshore habitat characteristics and will impact less than five percent of cobble habitat.

Mr. Smith mentions that shoreline habitat "will be covered by eroding sand from this project," causing detrimental fishing impacts. This perception fails to recognize that there are multiple unique characteristics making this area a good fishing spot, many of which will not be altered by the project. Part of the area's value is the cobble which provides a substrate for vegetation and organisms to grow, affording shelter and feeding for fish and other organisms. The Project will impact under five percent of the total cobble habitat and the impacts will be mitigated, ensuring no long-term change in habitat functions and values. Other valuable characteristics will not be changed, including currents, proximity to deep water and the Nantucket Shoals, and sediment transport, which carries with it important nutrients and oxygen.

5) The nourished shoreline will have similar grain size, color, and slope.

The borrow area material matches the beach material extremely closely, in terms of grain size and color. The constructed beach slope will match the existing, measured beach slope. The proposed sewer bed dune elevation is 16 feet, MLW compared to the existing elevation of 10-12 feet, MLW. Therefore, the additional material will only be four to six feet higher (not 16 feet as Mr. Smith suggests), enough to prevent storm waves from eroding the bluff and dunes at the back of the beach

6) The dune at Low Beach is needed to protect the Town Sewer Beds.

SBPF is proposing an 800-foot long dune at Low Beach to protect the Town Sewer Beds as suggested mitigation for the project. The Town is obligated by a Consent Order to maintain an area at least 100-feet from the wire fence or relocate the Sewer Beds (at a public cost of $5-7 million). Mr. Smith questions the need for nourishment; however, the Town Sewer Beds are notoriously vulnerable to erosion. In the 1990s, a multimillion dollar Commonwealth-funded project to enhance the sewer beds was canceled due to rapidly accelerating erosion. Since 1994, the beach fronting the sewer beds has eroded 105 feet. While the beach fronting the sewer beds accreted during a five-month period earlier this year, the beaches just north of the sewer beds eroded up to 34 feet. Further, while shorebirds have historically nested there, no nesting occurred during the past 2 years. Prior to construction, SBPF will perform a detailed vegetation survey and will replant the impacted dune to mimic existing conditions.

7) The Project will benefit protected shorebirds and will not disturb other bird species.

Mr. Smith questioned whether construction activities would disturb protected shorebirds. Most of the beach is not used by nesting Piping Plovers and Least Terns because it is too narrow. At the project's northern and southern ends where nesting shorebirds have at times been present, the contractor will maintain at least a 100 yard buffer to any nests. Thus, any discernable noise or light will be minimal and will have no impact. Further, Piping Plovers are able to nest in actively-used areas: each summer, they have successfully nested on Jetties Beach despite simultaneous use by tens of thousands of beachgoers and several signif- icant public events. Renourishment activities will not disturb shorebirds because renourishment involves significantly less sediment and thus construction can be scheduled after yearly nesting ends and the birds have migrated elsewhere. Ultimately, protected shorebirds will benefit from 50 acres of newly-created habitat.

Mr. Smith stated that sand placement "will attract large sea gulls…that eat fledgling plovers and terns…." Birds, including gulls, may be attracted to the immediate construction area because organic material mixed with the sand provides a food source. However, construction will begin after gull nesting commences and their breeding population is fixed for the season. Gulls are opportunists, so gulls already present in the area may fare a little better, but only during the actual construction season. 90percent of the construction is outside areas used by nesting shorebirds. For areas where shorebirds may nest (Sesachacha Pond and Low Beach), construction won't occur until after the nesting season ends, so gulls will not have any increased attraction to these areas when unfledged chicks are present. By the following year when shorebirds may be present along the entire nourished beach, gulls will experience no benefit.

While regionally significant numbers of waterbirds exist offshore Nantucket, multiple surveys show that the borrow site is outside the birds' two main habitat areas (at Quidnet Rip and Bass Rip Shoals). The project will not impact either of these two critical habitat areas. Further, construction will occur when waterbirds are largely absent. Finally, surveys have demonstrated that the borrow site is not habitat for Common Loons (which are a state-listed species at the lowest level of protection, not federally protected as Mr. Smith states).

The project will not disturb owls or hawks. Local hawk species (Red-tail Hawks and Northern Harriers) do not use the beach as habitat. No owls are present during the summer construction season.

8) Hoick's Hollow will be returned to its original condition.

The contractor's will be required to return access points, such as Hoick's Hollow, to their pre-existing condition. Hoick's Hollow will have a wider fronting beach and dune but will otherwise look similar. Unlike Mr. Smith suggests, there are no terraces proposed here.

9) Computer models are state-of-the-art and were not used in designing or analyzing earlier SBPF dewatering systems.

State-of-the art models were used to predict sediment movement within the system. Mr. Smith asks if these models were used to predict dewatering results; however, these models were not available then. Further, the dewatering systems and terraces were very innovative: SBPF was among the first in the U.S. to install dewatering systems. By contrast, over 300 beach nourishment projects exist in the U.S. alone.

10) The project will not destabilize the shoals or reduce their ability to protect the Island from storms.

The proposed borrow area is west of the shoals, in water depths of 30 to 60-feet. Dredging the borrow area will not cause a collapse of the shoals. State-ofthe art modeling indicates that there will be no significant changes to the waves or tidal currents in the vicinity of the borrow area or beach. Therefore, dredging of the borrow area will not have any impact on the waves hitting the beach.

11) Dewatering systems north of Codfish Park will be removed during beach nourishment construction.

The innovative dewatering systems had mixed results: after the Codfish Park system capacity was doubled in December 1999, the beach in front of it accreted 120 feet over the next 15 months; once it was turned off in 2002, erosion resumed. This system was partially buried as beach width increased and is still in place. Asecond system north of Bayberry Lane has similar drainage capacity. Both of these systems will be employed, targeted at slowing erosion of the sacrificial beach to lengthen the interval between renourishments. The other dewatering systems experienced operational challenges and any remaining pipes will be entirely removed during beach nourishment construction.

12) The suggested stone terraces would be frowned upon by local, state and federal regulators.

It is highly unlikely that local, state or federal authorities would approve the stone armoring advocated by Mr. Smith given existing regulatory practice reflecting the potential for negative impacts on adjacent shorelines.

13) Concrete habitats have demonstrated success along the Atlantic coast.

Proposed mitigation will consist of clean concrete railroad ties and natural stones. Concrete has been endorsed by state agencies and recently used for fish habitat creation projects in Boston Harbor and Narragansett Bay, as well as many other Atlantic locations. The proposed higher relief structure (<4 feet) Mr. Smith opposes is based on fisherman input that this would provide shelter for larger predatory fish species like striped bass and black sea bass. The proposed mitigation would provide comparable habitat surface area for that which will be permanently covered by the project; all proposed locations are offshore Nantucket and can be readily used by local fishermen.

While Mr. Smith questions whether SBPF has initiated permitting for the proposed mitigation, the habitat mitigation is part of the overall project proposal and its permitting is already underway with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Conservation Commission. One additional state permit (Chapter 91 License) cannot be granted until after the Conservation Commission approval.

14) Marine organisms can readily rebound from disturbances.

Both the beach and subtidal sands are in a highly dynamic environment subject to some of the severest marine weather on the eastern US. Wave and tidal energy is constantly disturbing and reshaping these environments. The colonizing organisms have evolved to live in these highly dynamic environments and can reproduce and sustain their populations through disturbances substantially greater than those associated with beach nourishment.

15) The borrow site sediment is less silty than the eroding bluff.

Assuming all silt remained within the borrow area as Mr. Smith postulates, the silt layer would be about one inch thick. However, silt will either be transported to the beach by the dredge or outside the borrow area by strong currents, sharply reducing the potential silt layer. Such silt layers are not observed on other projects with higher silt percentages and weaker currents, so this is not expected at 'Sconset. Notwithstanding, benthic organisms at the borrow site could readily tolerate a 1-inch or less silt layer. In relation to the beach, the silt content of the eroding bluff is triple that of the borrow area, and there is no evidence whatsoever of the "sticky soft clay beach" which Mr. Smith conjectures, even following a strong storm.

16) The Contractor will avoid prop scour.

The Contractors will maintain at least 5-feet underneath the keel at low tide, which typically avoids damaging prop scour. Unlike the boats Mr. Smith references, the contractors perform extremely detailed bathymetric surveys and have experienced, qualified, and certified crews. They are not willing to place their boats in peril or risk running aground. The Contractors have never previously observed prop wash damage and consider it unlikely at 'Sconset. However, SBPF will closely monitor and mitigate for any prop wash damage, should it occur.

17) Marine mammal impacts will be minimal.

Marine mammals potentially transiting through the area include whales, porpoises, and seals. Sharks, sunfish, and sea turtles also occur seasonally. All these animals are free swimming and can sense and avoid activity, thus impacts are unlikely. Regulatory agencies do not require sampling for these species (which could itself cause an impact), but rely on existing information. We've completed an exhaustive biological assessment (using 10 years of recorded sightings and other data) for the federal agencies that implement marine mammals and endangered species protection laws, and concluded that impacts are minimal. A trained endangered species observer will be present on the dredge to monitor for protected species.

18) A multi-year fish sampling program is being conducted.

The sampling program involved much more than the rod and reel efforts referenced. Over 15,000 fish have been captured during the sampling program. Diverse, scientifically acceptable sampling gear has been employed including an otter trawl for bottom species, shrimp trawl for nearshore bottom and pelagics (fish that live within the water column), mid-water trawl for offshore pelagics, bongo nets for eggs and larvae, a clam dredge for surfclams at the borrow site, and dive surveys in the nearshore for shellfish. In addition, extensive information has been collected on the extent of vegetated cobble habitat between the shore and the borrow site.

19) Terraces will support plant growth and provide stabilization.

The terraces, like most of the existing coastal bank, will be made of coarse beach sand. Water will quickly soak into the terraces and the coastal bank underneath. Surface runoff will be minimal. Unlike Mr. Smith maintains, there is no issue with salt in the sediment, as any salt present is highly soluble and will be washed out by the first rainfall. Further, coastal plants such as American beach grass are highly resistant to salt.

20) Increased sediment transport was incorporated into the 5-year beach design.

Approximately 210,000 cubic yards of sand are eroded from the beach, bluff and dunes and transported north and south of the project area each year. The beach project will increase this sediment transport to adjacent beaches by approximately 38percent. This increase was factored into the expected 5-year project life. Adjacent beaches may expect some modest gain in width and storm protection that will taper off with increasing distance from the project area.

Sincerely,

- Fred Singer