The Oak Bluffs citizens beach committee was formed to advocate for attractive, high quality beaches and, in so doing, to represent human and economic needs. The Oak Bluffs conservation commission represents the ecologically important aspects of the beaches. To achieve the best outcome, these differing interests need to be compatible.

We agree with the conservation commission that in order to maintain beaches, sand replenishment may sometimes be necessary. What we differ on is how it is done. Last week Elizabeth Durkee, the Oak Bluffs conservation agent, wrote a commentary in the Gazette. We would like to respond to some of her points. The quotes are from her piece and our responses follow.

In recent years the town has received complaints that recycled beach sand on Inkwell Beach contains too many rocks and shells. But that’s what beaches are made of; sand is formed by the wearing down of rocks and shells. Without them the soft sand would wash away even faster than it already does.

While it is true that beaches are made of ground-up rock (and shells to a much smaller extent in New England), it is disingenuous to suggest that rocks placed on the beach will turn into sand any time soon. The complaints have centered around the fact that the recycled material from dredging contains excessive stones and shells in comparison with the receiving beach.

Northeast facing beaches naturally contain more rocks and shells than south-facing beaches (like South Beach) and southern beaches (like those in Florida).

What is the basis for this claim? Beaches on Nantucket Sound, regardless of orientation, naturally have rocks and shells; ocean beaches like South Beach and beaches on the outer Cape (that face east) don’t have a lot of rocks and shells. No one expects our New England beaches, with naturally-occurring rocks and shells, to look like Florida beaches.

There has been discussion about screening or raking some of the rocks and shells to make the beach sand softer. But a mechanical beach rake would possibly remove too many rocks and shells and put the beach at further risk.

The statement did not address the question of screening dredge material before placing it on the beach. If dredge material has a significantly greater amount of stones and shells than the receiving beach, then it should be screened before it is used.

If dredge material is not screened before being placed on the beach, then a surf rake, which every beach community on the Cape and Nantucket uses for the benefit of beach-goers, should be used to clean the material after it is applied. The author’s concern about the possible negative impact of a surf rake is conjecture and, based on evidence, incorrect. Three years ago Provincetown acquired a surf rake and asked the Center for Coastal Studies do a multi-year study to assess the effects of raking on town beaches; they found no noticeable difference between raked and unraked beaches so long as the surf rake stayed above the most recent line of seaweed.

When beach replenishment is necessary, it should be done in a manner that doesn’t degrade the beach. Material which is placed on our beaches, whether it is dredged or purchased, should be as good quality as the beach that is receiving it. If the material is of lower quality because of rocks and shells (and as was the case with the material from Sengekontacket four years ago, corroded beer cans), then it should be screened before or raked after placing it on the beach. If, as we saw last year with the Lagoon Bridge dredging, the material is inappropriate, it should never even be considered for beach replenishment.

Another concern is that continued placement of dredge material above the mean high water line makes the beach profile steeper and results in more difficult access for beach-goers. If it is necessary to replenish the beaches, it would make more sense to build out the beaches below the high water line. For several years we have been hearing about a plan to place material below the high water line, but that plan is tied up with re-engineering the jetties, and the money and the permits are still a distant hope. Is there any likelihood that this project will come to fruition?

In order to meet needs for beach replenishment the conservation commission has looked to dredging spoils, which are not always available and which may not be suitable for beach replenishment. Another option for replenishment could be the mining of sand offshore, which many states allow but Massachusetts currently does not. There has been discussion about changing the law, and what has been discussed is mining sand in the marine environment, from one to three miles offshore. The beach committee would be in favor of near-shore sand recovery (such as from the enlarging sand bar just off Pay Beach) but members are skeptical about mining in deep water. We are uncertain whether this large-scale operation is either wise or necessary; it certainly will be expensive and possibly damaging to marine habitats.

The mission of the Oak Bluffs citizens beach committee is to advocate for beach improvements and we wish to work with the conservation commission and all agencies that are responsible for and impact the integrity of Oak Bluff beaches.The beach committee is open to all interested citizens.

Richard Seelig is a member of the Oak Bluffs beach committee. Other members are Caroline Hunter, Jackie Hunt, Muriel O’Rourke, Rosemary Verri, Barbara Peckham, Ashley Strong, James Caporale, Gretchen Underwood, Kerry Scott, Brian Hughes, Lisa Rohn, Renee Nolan, and Yvette Raven.