
Coastal erosion is defined as "the removal of material from the coast by wave action, tidal currents and/or the activities of man, typically causing a landward retreat of the coastline" (Princeton University). Nantucket Island is a prime example for the effects of coastal erosion. The island, located thirty miles off the coast of Massachusetts, is home to approximately 10,000 resident's year round and approximately 50,000 during the summer months. Nantucket has a truly fascinating history that ties into the formation of the colonies and that has resulted in a strong bond between the islanders and the "Gray lady". The natives have a way of life that exemplifies this bond and the island tradition. This includes their values and their economy. Nantucket was founded on the whaling industry and has consistently based its economy on tourism and fishing, both of which can be largely affected by coastal erosion. For centuries now, coastal erosion has plagued Nantucket and has created a divide among the islanders. Traditionally there have been two fields of approach to battle coastal erosion; one with "hard measures" and one with "soft measures". The hard measures have been supported largely by wealthy homeowners, while the majority of the town backs the soft measures. The purpose of this report is to argue my thesis of: Relocation in combination with minimal soft measures, is the most calculated method in adapting to coastal erosion on Nantucket.

Consistently experts, including the Army Corps of Engineers as well and the Office of Coastal Zone Management have denounced the use of hard measures, specifically the emplacement of "walls or any kind of vertically aligned structures along an open coastline" (Atherton). These hard measures are designed to work against mother nature and prevent natural erosion, which often results in a great number of side effects. These methods include Seawalls, groins and geotextiles or geotubes, which are permeable fabric tubes placed longitudinally to the coastline. States such as North Carolina and Massachusetts have banned hard measures for most of their coastline due to the abrasiveness of the structures as well as their side effects. For example, seawalls do provide a strong barrier but are expensive to construct and can result in scouring, another form of erosion which degrades the sea bed material (Hunt, Sullivan). If seawalls were implemented along the majority of the Nantucket coastline, the islanders would essentially be trading one case of erosion for another.

In contrast, most state governments and protection agencies have traditionally supported soft measures because they are designed to mimic natural coastal processes while simultaneously diminishing the destructive impacts. These methods include beach nourishment, off shore breakwaters and the plantation of vegetation. All of these possible treatments have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, beach nourishment is aesthetically appealing and is considered environmentally friendly, however; it requires continuous costly maintenance. Similarly, the implementation of vegetation can look natural but can disrupt wildlife habitats. Despite the debate on the suitability of each possible method, the progressing situation on the island requires a solution. 

Coastal erosion has brought homes on Nantucket closer and closer to the bluffs they used to sit far from and to the Atlantic Ocean. On average Nantucket bluffs have eroded at an average rate of three and a half feet per year (Abel). The bluffs have even been known to recede up to thirty feet during harsh storm seasons. The Siasconset beach area located on Baxter Rd. has suffered the worst of the erosion, forcing eight homes to be demolished and even more to be relocated (Fraser). Erosion on this bluff has left some homes within five feet of the edge of the Atlantic, a distance small enough for a large ocean swell to destroy the remaining bluff and engulf the property. There is no argument on whether or not coastal erosion has affected and will continue to affect this island, nor on whether or not something must be done; however, the method must be chosen carefully.

In the early 1990's the Siasconset Beach Preservation fund or SBPF was formed. The group consists of homeowners and other islanders, many of which own property on the Baxter Rd. bluff. Their goal is to evaluate possible solutions to address erosion in terms of their long-range potential to maintain the unique environment (Posner). In July of 2013, the SBPF proposed a 4000 ft. rock revetment plan that would assist in diminishing impacts from large waves. A rock revetment structure would present an initially high cost however does not require much maintenance. The SBPF saw this as a viable solution as rocks can be added or taken away as needed. Due to the large landscape impact and the possible alteration of sand dunes, the plan did not receive approval as it lacked the support of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy Commission or ConCom. During the following winter a rash of severe storms ravished the coast, threatening to destroy Baxter Rd., forcing the SBPF to appeal for an Emergency Certification Request, that the ConCom denied, but approved by the State Department of Environmental Protection. They were granted approval to install Geotubes. This is considered a combination of both soft and hard measures because while they are structures, they will require a continuous covering of sand. Despite the need for immediate action, the ability of the SBPF to surpass an entire town and receive approval from a State Department generated a lot of controversy and suspicion. Members of the ConCom voiced concerns that the legislative decision making may be influenced through political connections. Nantucket is notorious for having wealthy individuals as homeowners and is home to notable figures like Secretary of State John Kerry and billionaire Amos Hotsetter Jr. who has publicly contributed to the current governor and other law makers (Abel). The notorious wealth of the homeowners, particularly on Siasconset Bluff is another arguing point of those in favor of soft measures in addition to relocation. It is entirely feasible for these homeowners to relocate their structures away from the bluff. Many of them own more than one property on the island, so sacrificing one home is not an end to their future on Nantucket. This sentiment is even felt by islanders who in fact live on Baxter Rd. and face the worst of the erosion. Homeowner John Merson stated that "its impossible to stop the impact of erosion without doing such damage to the beach, houses are movable and replaceable, beaches are not" and that he thinks "there is still room elsewhere on the island to move the homes" (Fraser). There are currently over 60 plots of land for sale on Nantucket, not including land that is already owned but not utilized. Over development of the island could be a concern of those who do not want to relocate; however the vast idle land that is available in combination with the strict regulations concerning building would prevent the loss of Nantucket's small town sentiment. When the original lots were designed for Baxter Rd. in the 19th century, the developers purposefully included land on the opposite side of the streets to maintain room for relocation of the structures when erosion would inevitably endanger them (Gilles). Unfortunately, many of the homeowners are steadfast in their plots. I understand that islanders who have called Baxter Rd. home for decades or have had these gorgeous summer homes passed down for generations, do not want to budge and wish to save their property. However, many of the proposed plans have failed or are not realistic. Erosion on the island was first studied and reported in 1873 by Professor Henry L. Whiting, who concluded that the coast "had receded by an average of about one hundred feet since 1846" (Curtis, Woodworth). This observation is a clear example of the longevity of this issue and that erosion has not been nor will not be entirely stopped. These homeowners have to realize that if they proceed with hard and even soft measures, they will not only be damaging the rest of the island, but eventually their measures will fail, leaving them once again on the precipice.

Due to their financial situation, individual home owners have been able to fund their own personal erosion control projects. For example, in 2010 Siasconset beach resident Gene Ratner spent half a million dollars to place sandbags around his property after it partially collapsed into the Atlantic. The sandbags are an example of hard measures because they repel natural coastal process. Ratner's situation was dire and something had to be done. However, after the sandbags were emplaced, scouring occurred and the energy that would have been directed at his property reflected and damaged adjacent properties (Lombardi). Sandbags used in this manor have also been known to entangle fishing boat and ferry propellers, disrupting private business and public transportation. Eventually Ratner was forced to remove the sandbags and relocate the remnants of his home, however the damage had already been done. Cases such as this demonstrate the need for a suitable long term "soft" solution and relocation, as opposed to acting on an immediate individual basis.

The SBPF maintains that they want to work with the town to reach a compromise. However time and time again, such a partnership has not been able to withstand nor produce a viable solution. Their multitude of proposed plans and the steadfast attitude they maintain is applaudable, but it is time to face the facts. Studies conducted by the Worchester Polytechnic institute as well as by SBPF funded consultants have shown that the Geotubes installed will eventually fail, sea walls and other hard measures will fail eventually and immediately produce enhanced erosion on adjacent coastline. The proposed beach nourishment project, while considered a soft measure, is unrealistic. This would be at least a $20-million-dollar endeavor and would require an estimated 200,000 dump truck loads of sand initially (Aldrich). Soft measures like this require continual upkeep, costing homeowners millions each year collectively and with rising sea levels in combination with increasingly harsh storms, it will eventually not be enough to hold back the water. A beach nourishment project like this will also largely affect the islands local economy. The continual addition of sand will disrupt aquatic habitats and in turn disrupt the fishing industry. Local island native and fisherman Josh Eldridge summed up his communities' sentiment by stating in an interview with Yankee Magazine "I'll feel bad for their summer houses, but I'll also feel really bad if my fishing business goes to crap". This project and similar projects will require the constant use of heavy machinery, which could not only worsen the condition of the beaches with dump trucks consistently rolling over but could also largely detract from the aesthetic tranquility that the beaches provide. Not many tourists will be attracted to the rumbling of machinery or the taste of exhaust in their Something Natural sandwiches.

A large sub-debate has surfaced regarding state wetland law and regulations. The act prevents the construction and installation of manmade devices within 100 feet of a coastal bank or bluff, but does not apply to homes built before 1978. The SBPF is arguing that the majority of the homes were built prior to this act. However, opponents of their plan argue that some homes were built after then or largely modified, which should force them to adhere to regulation (Abel). There are also a number of vacant lots on Siasconset bluff. It would be socially irresponsible to sacrifice entirely separate beaches and businesses to protect vacant land for the short term. 

An article published in Business Insider also touched on the idea of relocation. Currently on Baxter Rd. houses on the ocean side have been valued on average between $5 and $10 million dollars, while houses on the other side of the street are valued between $2 and $5 million dollars. Aside from interior design qualities, the only real difference between these homes are the direct and indirect views of the ocean (Blodget). If the homes on the bluff are relocated, the homes across the street can double in value. This profitable outcome can be taken in two ways. Homeowners on the bluff may see this as selfish of their neighbors and a cause of their inaction, or it can be seen as win-win scenario. When these homes increase in value, so does the island, which could attract even more wealthy residents and in turn boost the economy. Both sets homeowners would be safe for the time being from erosion and can assist the island financially. 

Nantucket is known for their beaches and the unique environment has made it an infamous tourist destination. The economy of the closely knit island is largely based on these invaluable aspects. Historically, Nantucket has also been hugely funded by a large locally owned fishing industry, that includes supplying local restaurants, tourist charters as well as the export of catch across New England. The owners of such businesses as well as the owners of local shops and inns have weighed heavily in the debate on their coastal erosion issue. The general consensus among such people is in opposition of the SBPF and hard measures. This opposition is strongly founded and has created much difficulty in the obtainment of permits for the SBPF's projects. Their concern is that hard structures will not only detract from the aesthetic appeal of the island, which could deter tourism but also that such measures will only protect the homeowner's properties and in turn compromise the integrity of the rest of the island. There is a large fear of a snowball effect after the implementation of hard structures like a seawall. For example, if a sea wall is constructed on Siasconset bluff, then the force of those waves will wash away sand and begin to erode adjacent coastline. This would lead to the construction of an adjacent sea wall, just for the same issue to occur and then so on. These types of rash solutions could largely affect the local economy. Both hard and soft measures have the ability to affect fish habitats, however hard are largely regarded as more destructive. Many local fishermen have fought dredging, sea walls and even beach nourishment because the large flux of sand will cover up aquatic habitats and disrupt fish habits. The optimal solution in regards to the local fishing industry would be the relocation of homes away from the bluff and minimal implementation of vegetation. This solution would not affect aquatic habitats nor habits and would assist in absorbing some of the energy generated by the waves, in turn reducing erosion. 

Issues regarding coastal erosion will continue to plague all parts of the world. This topic has a global scope, as everyone essentially lives on large islands with an ever growing problem that the population will all one-day face. It is important to realize that mother nature is going to run its course and erosion cannot be stopped. Homeowners and experts can simply adapt to it and essentially try to make the best of the situation that we put ourselves in. From the time of childhood, citizens are taught the values of sharing and of sacrifice, now is a time to put those values to work. The sentiment felt by the homeowners on Siasconset bluff is entirely understandable; however, their desire to remain immobile is no longer feasible. The costs of both soft and hard measures severely shadow the costs of relocation. A study prompted by the SBPF to present the feasibility of combating erosion was conducted by a Professor of Coastal Geology, who to their dissatisfaction disagreed with their ideas. He reported that it was his "professional opinion that the logical next step is not construction, but rather the development of a long-term plan for getting critical infrastructure and threatened property out of harms way" (Young).  Moving someone's home is not ideal ever, but in the case of Nantucket, it is the only viable option. Studies and past experience on the island itself have shown proven time and time again that hard measures will not stop or help erosion. Islanders are not and should not be willing to sacrifice the "Gray Lady" as a whole. Both the homeowners' sentiment and the feelings of the town speak to the uniqueness of this place, and it is of the utmost importance that this is maintained. I propose that all of the homeowners threatened with losing their homes to the Atlantic, investigate in relocation of their homes. This, in combination with the use of vegetation on the dunes to slow erosion, is the best option for preserving the integrity of the island. 

