VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF
AN INDEPENDENT SERIES

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent file Bam LaFarge

Bam LaFarge 88 Vestal St.

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, MA 02554.

Tell us about yourself - line of work, connection to Nantucket.

I was a summer boy on Tuckernuck. I got hired by E. B. Coffin to dig a garbage hole in 1963, and that began a life working on and around houses there and here. I moved to Nantucket in the mid '70s, and raised three children here with my wife, Nini.

My personal connection to erosion issues is that I and my family have lost well over 100 acres and most of a house to the sea, and we're still losing land.

I have always had an interest in natural history wherever I go, and wanted to become a geologist until I reached college and figured out that I couldn't use a slide rule and that most geology takes place indoors nowadays.

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

First of all, let me say that I have no personal animosity towards SBPF and its proponents; this is not about personality or money, but about relative benefits and cost in terms of environmental impact.

Secondly, although the proponents in their name are hanging on "Beach Preservation," there is a wonderful beach out there now that doesn't need any help from us.

"Dewatering," the drilling of wells to take ground water away from the beach to lessen wave action, seemed farfetched, and certainly didn't work, but its main impact was some ugly concrete structures on the beach. Planting of vegetation, huge bags of sand and fencing seem logical, and make one feel safe until a storm comes along and acts as though nobody ever did anything. The trouble is that we underestimate nature and its power and can only think in human, not geological, terms.

The current proposal is a massive one, and does have the potential of great impact on undersea and shoreline life and habitat. However, though it may buy time, one storm could easily undo all the work of moving 2.6 to 3.1 million cubic yards of sand.

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?

The pro of pumping sand is that it's the only logistically viable way of getting that much sand to the beach. Down the coast this has been true; municipalities run out of material, and the cost and impact of moving sand by truck or barge is prohibitive.

The cons are somewhat unknown, though the proponents act as though everything is in hand. First is the impact on wildlife habitat, which the National Marine Fisheries Service thinks will be severe.

Secondly, the beach itself will not be the same to look at, walk on or nest on (until a storm, after which it will seem that nothing ever took place by the hand of man). Then there is the impact of the actual construction: huge hopper dredges, lights all night long, tender vessels in our harbor, bulldozers on the beach, pipes snaking along the bottom, diesel fuel spills, etc. And to keep the project up to date this will have to be done every few years, or more often.

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

I once thought that we should let SBPF "go for it" since they're paying the bill (and maybe buying some time), but the more that I have attended the ConCom meetings on this subject, and researched it, the more I think there will be a negative impact in most every way: public detriment and a big hit on the natural world. I would urge our leaders to drag their feet, and not to get taken in by promises of saving historic Siasconset or the sewer beds. On one hand the proponents talk about this project as being proven, reliable technology, and on the other that it is a big experiment that will light the path to beach nourishment for all.

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

In my mind, I see a scenario of SBPF getting the green light, and then a big mess and no benefit, even to Bluff owners. They will think they are safe and can build with even more density and will be taught a lesson again by the North Atlantic. The benefit to public or private property will, I am afraid, be negligible. We (the public, and the natural world) own the beach as it is, and need to be its stewards. To me this trumps private ownership, especially in light of all the unknowns of this project. To quote from the New England Fisheries Management Council letter to the Army Corps of Engineers "The impacts to the affected biological, physical, economic and social environment should be fully addressed in the EFH (Essential Fish Habitat) assessment. Further, the Council urges the ACOE to disapprove this application because it has no demonstrated net benefit to the nation."

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

It may seem as though the opponents of this project are dragging their feet, but there is a lot of research and monitoring work that should be done to know what our resources are before giving SBPF the go-ahead. The National Marine Fisheries Service and others keep reminding us of this, though SBPF would like us to think that they have this covered. For instance, we all are told that there will have to be renourishment every few years. To quote NMFS "The continual nature of the proposed project itself will result in impacts for the foreseeable future and should be considered along with additional projects, which may be proposed as an indirect result of the regulatory approval of this project." In other words, this first phase is just the beginning, and SBPF has a lot of work to do. What, for instance, will SBPF do when they run out of sand at their proposed "borrow" site?

Another impact would be the derangement of existing habitat at the proposed "mitigation" sites. This worries NMFS and the Management Council. What are you dumping 28,000 railroad ties on top of? The enormity of this project requires a lot more research than has been done to date.

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

If and when things don't work out, SBPF should cease and desist, and admit the error of their ways.

Furthermore, they should be required to do any mitigation deemed necessary by the Town, NMFS, and any other regulatory bodies.

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?

Siasconset Bluff is a wonderful spot. However, we need to know that erosion didn't start yesterday, and it isn't going to stop tomorrow.

Baxter Road residents can do what my family did in 1939 on Tuckernuck (at almost the opposite end of Nantucket County) and get other land to which to move their houses, whilst hiring men with ripping bars (or their machine-driving modern counterparts) to dismantle the less-used parts of their dwellings. Or play the current Nantucket shoreline game of putting their houses on the market and having realtors declare that erosion has stopped. Seriously, I sympathize with the owners but just don't believe that beach nourishment or any other measures will stop erosion.

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?

At some point in this very hypothetical scenario there will be the attempted use of either taxpayers' dollars, or the assessment of property owners based upon how close they are to the water. Other municipalities have run into this. In addition, there has been an almost complete lack of federal subsidies for beach nourishment for several years now.

If this kind of work were able to be done on any scale we would be mining out the shoals that protect this island, and this would almost certainly accelerate erosion. In addition, operating hopper dredges near the South Shore is a specter that I shudder to contemplate. There are in that all the components for disaster (not that there isn't with this current proposed project).

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?

I'd like to end with a couple of quotations. First, by coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey on page 196 in the book, "Islands at the Edge of Time" by Gunnar Hansen: "Nature always wins at the shoreline. In a geologic sense, the idea of controlling nature is outrageous, impossible, idiotic, insane."

Second, from Obed Macy's 1835 "History of Nantucket:" "The inquiry is frequently made by strangers, whether the island increases or decreases in size. On the authority of long and accurate observation it may be stated, that there has been a decrease, in some places to a considerable extent... If the decrease were in regular proportions from year to year, it might be ascertained, by a simple calculation, at what time the whole island would become extinct. But this cannot be done; for in some years there is even an increase, in others but little loss, in others again, in consequence hard and repeated storms, such has been the waste, that the final destruction would seem to be the easy work of a very few centuries."

To me these quotes put things in perspective. I