To the Editor:
On behalf of Eastville Beach visitors, residents and beachgoers, we request that that an industrial, for-profit oyster aquafarm proposal be discussed and reviewed prior to any final approvals. We have significant concerns about this proposed farm and would encourage Island residents and the public who use Eastville Beach to voice their concerns. If approved, this farm would be among the first views visitors have of Martha’s Vineyard as this busy harbor is the gateway to the Island for visitors and residents.
A commercial oyster farming operation just off the beach at Eastville on this beautiful and busy public recreational area will negatively impact not only the residents of Beach Road, but the many Island visitors and residents who enjoy Eastville Beach and its waters. Our concerns include significant hazards for navigation and swimming, pollution of the beach with material, buoys, odors, and permanently-moored barges in the water as well as noise from power washers. Oyster farming risks biofouling with invasive species, such as sea squirts.
We have the following key concerns:
What environmental impact will an aquafarm have on the quality of the public beach, water quality (which has been improving since residents paid for the sewer system to be installed, benefitting residents and beachgoers), and impact to public and private property? What farming and cleaning practices will be utilized? No details have been provided by the proposers to assuage resident’s concerns.
Residents are concerned that a similar proposal by the Martino brothers in the Lagoon Pond (that was defeated unanimously by the selectmen of Oak Bluffs) provided residents more time for review. The Lagoon residents were given a four-month period while Eastville Beach residents were given only a few weeks.
It defies logic that the Eastville Beach location would be approved when the Lagoon proposal was defeated. All of the same negative impacts at the Lagoon site are present in the Eastville site. But the Eastville site is more exposed, and thus, more prone to a farm failure or environmental impact due to currents and storms.
The process for review of this proposal was minimal for those being impacted. The time for review was prior to the shellfish committee meeting in February — where minutes of the meeting do not even mention the Eastville proposal. Why is it that the agenda for that shellfish meeting did not mention the Eastville location? It is clear from the agenda that the Martino brothers were proposing an aquafarm, yet they never mentioned the Eastville location. By the time the residents became fully aware of this proposal, the shellfish committee had already given their approval to proceed. The first opportunity to comment on this was at the March 15selectmen meeting where comments were allowed yet no discussion of the comments was permitted. At that meeting, an immediate vote was taken without allowing any discussion and the selectmen approved the proposal.
Why is such an exposed location being proposed? This location will be prone to movement of materials away from the farming zone and is located in very active recreational, sailing and boating waters. There is no commercial activity in this area. Is this area now being considered a commercial or industrial zone?
The proposal will introduce significant navigational hazard concerns for swimmers, boaters, sailors and other recreational users. Consider the moored barges of uncertain size, the undetermined number of buoys, cages and lines, and the sheer size of the area. Consider also that the sailing program through the V.H. Yacht Club trains in the waters off Eastville Beach throughout the summer months and this is a major hazard to the young sailors.
Residents are concerned about the placement of a private commercial venture within the boundaries of an environmentally protected area.
Residents are concerned that another oyster farm in Menemsha Pond failed and material and hazards from that farm were not cleaned up for years. To this day, rotting material from that failed farm continues to sully the environment around that pond, and residents were not provided an appropriate remediation process.
What relevance do the FEMA Velocity Zone Designations have on this proposal? Have those been considered and reviewed?
Finally, the Martino brothers have already expressed plans to “substantially increase” the scope of this commercial farm. It must be said that they are not experienced aqua farmers; that is a fact. Few details about this proposal have been discussed in a public forum and impacted parties have not been informed about this aquaculture application by the Martino brothers.
As residents and recreational users of Eastville Beach and its surrounding waters, we ask that the Selectmen do not grant final approval of the application for an aquafarm off Eastville Beach for the same excellent reasons it was denied in the Lagoon Pond proposal.
Patricia, Jacob, Wendy, and Amy Ludwig
Oak Bluffs