My View
By Brian P. Simmons

The following My View is written in response to the "Voices Away from the Bluff" featuring Mary Wawro that was published in the Nov. 14 edition of The Nantucket Independent.

The interview with Ms. Wawro includes many incorrect assumptions and assertions about the beach nourishment project that I would like to clarify.

1) The terraces were a temporary measure needed to bring immediate protection; we have modified the project such that terraces will not be used once beach nourishment is completed.

I would like to clarify the purpose of the terraces, which were never "intended to work only after the beach nourishment system was in place" as Ms. Wawro states. The terraces were a temporary measure designed to provide immediate, urgently-needed protection for homes where the bluff was rapidly disappearing (up to ten feet can be lost in a single storm) while the larger beach nourishment project was being permitted - a process which has been ongoing since February 2005. As required by local regulations, the terraces had to be temporary and pervious. SBPF mounted a massive clean-up following the April 2007 storm, patrolling the beach and responding to every call reporting debris. Further, we have subsequently worked with the Conservation Commission to modify the design so we use fewer wooden posts and so that more material is retained on-site. As a result, during Noel none of the jute material was lost from the terraces repaired with the new design. Finally, we've modified the project design to eliminate terraces from use once the beach nourishment project is completed. We will instead stabilize the bank by adding additional sediment to bring it to a more gradual angle and planting it with native vegetation.

2) Construction of the project will be far less noisy with far less equipment than Ms. Wawro suggests.

The noise from each of one or two dredges will be limited to approximately 500 feet around the active construction area (the end of the pipe that will discharge the sand). Most beach nourishment projects occur in areas of heavy public use, so the contractors are sensitive to minimizing any interruptions. The contractor will move along the beach as the project is constructed, so any particular area will only be directly inconvenienced for approximately two-to-four days.

The 'Sconset beach nourishment project, like most beach nourishment projects, will be a 24/7 operation; however, Ms. Wawro misstates the amount and type of equipment required. There will be no "spraying equipment," rather, the hopper dredge(s) will be stationed a half-mile offshore and the sediment will then be pumped to the beach via a 30-inch pipeline. The sand will be discharged out of the pipeline along the beach and then smoothed out using bulldozers and very modest nighttime lighting (one or two stands containing four lights each). The hopper dredge will not refuel at the beach but at a port capable of handling a boat of this size. The bulldozers will refuel at the beach from a specially designed fuel tank. Federal standards require a double walled tank with the exterior tank capable of holding 110 percent of the interior tank. The contractors are accustomed to working on pristine beaches and have stringent safety measures and refueling protocols in place to avoid accidents and fuel spills (federal laws govern much of this), and there have been no reported fuel spills associated with beach nourishment.

The staging area at Hoick's Hollow is sufficient in size. Typically, the contractor will bring enough equipment to start building the beach, and then as the beach increases in size, they bring additional equipment and store it in the vicinity of the discharge pipe on the beach. We estimate that 12-to-15 flat bed trucks will be needed to bring all the equipment to the site. Discussions have been held with the Chief of Police and Harbormaster to minimize disturbances from projectrelated staging activities.

3) Marine organisms will have sufficient time for recovery in between nourishment cycles.

Information from the scientific literature demonstrates that Ms. Wawro's timeline of three-to-five years for benthic recovery is inaccurate. Both the beach and the subtidal sands at the borrow site are highly dynamic environments that experience severe marine weather and disturbance on a regular basis by wave and tidal energy. The colonizing organisms associated with these habitats have evolved life strategies that allow them to live in these highly dynamic environments, enabling them to reproduce and sustain their populations through disturbances substantially greater than those associated with beach nourishment.

One such strategy is that these organisms are mass-spawners, meaning that they release millions of eggs or larvae at a time, maximizing the chances of survival. These organisms also have relatively short life stages that allow them to reproduce, recolonize and reach maturity within a short period of time.

Scientific studies conducted on benthic recovery associated with beach nourishment projects support what we know about the rapid recovery time of benthic habitats in high energy environments. Based on this information, we expect that benthic recovery in the sandy environment off of Nantucket will be substantially achieved after one year with a few larger species (e.g., surfclams) attaining maturity in three years. This conclusion is supported by the results from a seven-year biological monitoring program of a 21- mile beach nourishment project from Manasquan Inlet to Asbury Park, New Jersey undertaken by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It found that nearshore organisms recovered fully in two- to-six and a half months; offshore organisms recovered fully in two to two and a half years. This information demonstrates that organisms in the nearshore will have several years of recovery prior to future renourishment. Additionally, renourishment intervals typically lengthen with time. This first renourishment is planned for three years; the next for five years; and it may eventually be much beyond five years before additional nourishment is needed.

4) Beach nourishment has been successfully undertaken in high energy environments like 'Sconset.

Beach nourishment has been undertaken successfully for decades and in numerous environments, including dynamic conditions like Sconset. Our coastal engineering team has previously worked in high energy environments, including over twenty miles of beach nourishment projects along the New Jersey coast and multiple successful projects along Fire Island in New York. Since the proposed borrow area has almost identical characteristics to the existing beach, the movement of sand along the shoreline will be similar, just farther away from the base of the bluff and where the shoreline once was.

5) Moving an entire community is simply not possible.

Despite this common misconception, most of the homeowners on the bluff have no place to move their homes. Many nearby lots have already been used; other homeowners have already moved their homes as far landward as possible on their own lots. Unlike moving a single structure such as the lighthouse, it is simply not possible for an entire community to be moved and remain a community. As part of our permitting process, we were required to analyze multiple alternatives - including moving houses - for state and federal agencies, which agreed with our assessment that this was not a viable option. Further, if we simply move houses and do not address the erosion, eventually Baxter Road, 'Sconset Village, and the town sewer beds will be gone. We feel this valuable and historic community is worth saving.

6) SBPF is confident there will be no adverse impacts from the project but will nonetheless provide financial guarantees should adverse impacts occur.

SBPF is confident there will be no unanticipated adverse impacts from the project. Nevertheless, SBPF will provide financial assurances to be used in the event of adverse impacts. The dredge company will also maintain adequate insurance coverage. Further, we have proposed mitigation for the less than five percent of hardbottom habitat that will be unavoidably covered as a result of the project. To ensure that we can effectively mitigate this impact, we are proposing a pilot testing program of our mitigation plan to replicate this hardbottom habitat prior to commencement of the beach nourishment project. Such pilot mitigation is typically not required and represents SBPF's commitment to an environmentally responsible project.

Sincerely,

- Brian P. Simmons