VOICES AWAY FROM THE BLUFF AN INDEPENDENT SERIES
Catherine Stover 5 Liberty Street

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent file Catherine Stover

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 am a Nantucket native, although I don't believe that should have any bearing whatsoever on one's abiding concern for the island's future. My family members, by Nantucket standards, are relative newcomers. We've only been here for 160 years. I graduated from Nantucket schools. I have been married for 36 years to the smartest, kindest, most principled man I've ever known. We have had seven children and one grandchild. I consider myself most fortunate to have had three careers that I've absolutely loved: mother, funeral director and town clerk.

Professionally, I am the elected Town and County Clerk, a certified Massachusetts Town Clerk, an internationally Certified Municipal Clerk, and hold registered licenses as a Massachusetts funeral director and embalmer, and a Massachusetts real estate broker.

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

In my opinion, the measures being proposed are thought to be the best options currently available. They have been used in other communities with some measure of success. Sadly, they will, most likely, not work here. Because of the intensity of the oceanside forces, constant undermining of the stability of the beach nourishment and structures is assured, and indeed expected, by all concerned. What cannot be accurately predicted, with the current level of monitoring data available, are the long-term effects on the collateral environment, the fishing industry or the coastline. I don't care what the proponents assert. Their computer modeling can, in no way, warrant the behavior of the Atlantic Ocean. We're talking about a force that is predictably unpredictable.

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?

In my opinion, the most compelling reason not to do it is the intense level of turbidity that will result from the slurrying, the direct long-term effect it will have on the natural habitat and its recovery, if it ever recovers. The SBPF will rebut this, saying that they don't expect it will be harmful long-term. Frankly, they have no proof that it will not. The resultant interruption in our local commercial and recreational fishing will be devastating, in my opinion. I am afraid that the area will never recover its current level of success, particularly since the "nourishment" will have to be ongoing in future years in order to continue to be successful in saving the Baxter Road properties. But, what do I know? The last person in my family to make his living from the sea was my paternal great-grandfather Gene Perry whose fishing business was retired, at great personal and professional cost, by my grandparents Charles P. and Catherine (Perry) Flanagan in 1952. Maybe things have changed in 55 years?

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

In my opinion, this is a situation of the BOS being in a position of "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-youdon't."

I ran for a 2006 interim seat on the board because I was dismayed at the original SBPF proposal. Of course, the magnificent scope of the original proposal has changed since August of 2006. My concerns, both personal and communal, have not changed, however.

Ultimately, the board must strive to represent its constituents. Now, perhaps the SBPF folk will argue that future constituents' interests lie with what will be protected by present decisions. It is my personal belief that no matter whose "side" is being considered, there is no "right" decision, which may be made. There will be no winners in a contest with Mother Nature.

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

That is such a tough question. The future will always be different than what we can imagine today. If you had asked my grandfather, Navy Chief Dan Murphy and a survivor of Pearl Harbor, if there would ever be a day when we would distrust the federal government, or anything that they would ask us to believe or do, he would have said, "Impossible. My country, right or wrong."

If you had asked my great-grandfather Gene Perry if there would ever be a day when we would have to give up our control and access to what we perceive as our own public lands and waters, he would have told you, "Trust, but verify." In the 1940s, he and nine other Nantucket voters put forth a citizen's Town Meeting article to guarantee access from Hulbert Avenue to the Nantucket Harbor and the waterfront for all time.

I am generally a trusting person. I am an enthusiastic admirer of the individuals and groups who are in support of the SBPF effort, and I respect everyone involved. They are doing what they believe they should do, and must do. They have been generous with their resources, and quick to offer access to their experts at every opportunity. But, even with my Pollyanna frame of mind, I worry about the longterm effect that this effort will have, even down to my granddaughter Addison's children's generation.

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

Sadly, in my opinion, there is no way currently known that can mitigate the long-term effects that the SBPF efforts could have.

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

What options do you have when the train has jumped the track? What recourse do you have if the ship has sunk? Do we save 20 pieces of property only to lose several island settlements such as Squam, Quidnet, or Pocomo? One might be able to say, "Hey! We saw this coming and that's why we have insurance!" and hope that the insurers will agree, and support you. Most likely, the insurers will say, most emphatically, that they don't owe anything to anyone. Perhaps they will state that conditions and the efforts we approved, or allowed, will substantiate the position that there is no other position. We all lose. Big.

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?

First off, I don't believe that anyone can legitimize the belief that mining the sand from Bass Shoal will have anything but a deleterious effect on this ocean area. With the amounts of sand that have reportedly been dumped over the 'Sconset Bluff in recent months, who says it absolutely must be mined from the Bass Shoal? Where did that sand come from? In my opinion, it appears that other sands will do. Here's what it all boils down to: The SBPF proposal is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

With the predictable SBPF rebuttals to each "Away from the Bluff" contributor, we have seen blind compliance to the SBPF party line: "We believe we are right. Those who disagree are holding us back from protecting our homes..." which, in my perception from their ads and press, implies the Village of 'Sconset if not the Island of Nantucket, by extension. "We're technologically correct, you're all whooped up with emotion."

Whenever you change things in a natural environment, it will most assuredly change things collaterally, right down the line.

In my opinion, the only option that I believe is truly viable is to move the houses that are being threatened. If that option is steadfastly rebuffed, the inevitable result will be the loss of the Baxter Road houses. This has been the consequence that generations of Nantucketers who lived on the shores have suffered. It has happened consistently in Madaket, and elsewhere around the island. From the recently republished, "The Nation of Nantucket," "...In 1751, the town claimed that the sea was washing away parts of the island..."

Notwithstanding other homeowners' heartfelt pleas for assistance in recent years, the community was unable to extend the resources that the SBPF is able to expend for them. The only glitch to the SBPF's proposal is that someone else owns the land that they need to accomplish their goal.

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?

Do we have 20 years to explore that outcome from any one of the speculated, alternate options? I don't believe we do. In my opinion, we don't have the luxury or the necessity to trust the SBPF's "paid experts," nor are we compelled to trust their assurances or "hopes" that there will be no harm inflicted.

I'm not willing to sacrifice the permanent, scoured-out effects on Sesachacha Pond, nor the effects that this could ultimately have on Quidnet, Squam and Pocomo. In case all the science and technology that the SBPF is paying for turns out to be so many magic beans, I am not betting the mortgage payment on the ultimate success of their project.

What do we know about re-routing the forces of the sea? We know for sure that if we try something in Area A, the results will show up somewhere in Area B or C. Duh. That's right, I said, "Duh."

If one cares to investigate, one merely needs to walk upon the beach - or what's left of it and is rapidly disappearing - at Brant Point. The beach is receding on the north side, and accreting on the south side. Why? Because the shore has been substantially hardarmored on the north side by the abutting property owners.

This has had a devastatingly deleterious effect on the beach that we have known for generations. I believe Brant Point to be Nantucket's signature landmark. How long can we hope that it will be there?

I am going to speculate that there will not be any positive, long-term effect resulting from any of the SBPF efforts short of a temporary stay of execution for the houses on Baxter Road.

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?

Yes! It has been my personal perception that during the weeks of the Independent's "Bluff" series, the Independent has courted the favor of, and has facilitated the efforts of, the SBPF. Perhaps I am way off base; maybe I'm reverting to some generational entrenched sense of being a "Townie." I don't think any one person or any group, no matter how emotional, no matter how wealthy, no matter how many consultants and spin-doctors they're able to put on retainer, has the right to mortgage the future of this island's fisheries, its resources or its shoreline.

I fully expect that the SBPF rebuttal for my comments will accuse me of the very things I suspect they are guilty of. I have been careful to frame my answers as my own opinion for that very reason.

When I was a member of the Board of Selectmen, I moved consideration of a Special Town Meeting to consider the SBPF proposal and its potential effects on our island community. Then, I asked for my brothers' reconsideration of the vote against it. I was turned down. One selectman stated that he believed the board had the ability to make the decision for the town, and no voter input was necessary.

For more than a year, town counsel has advised that this is too important an issue not to have a Town Meeting about it. Since the past board would not bring it forward, I have been in hopes that the current board would propose it. In my opinion, for many political reasons, they cannot. I plan on submitting a citizen's article for the Annual Town Meeting to prompt discussion on this topic, if nothing else.

One other thing, I am saddened that the Independent has applied the appellation "Voices Away from the Bluff" to those of us who have had the temerity to question the wisdom of the SBPF's efforts, to challenge the veracity of their "science" or to offer our view or opinion of it. In the habitual SBPF rebuttals, we have been portrayed as virtual adversaries.

I recall Abraham Lincoln's assertion about his decisions when confronted with the spectacular conflict between the North and South, each of whom believed that they were right: "If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, then 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

In any case, no matter what happens, I am deeply and truly sorry that the Baxter Road homeowners have been faced with such an emotionally challenging crisis. My heart goes out to them all. I