  |
|
|
|
Vol. XX, No. 1 January - March 2006
Highlights:
FIA Adopts Resolution on WRDA
FIMP Reformulation Nears
Conclusion
Erosion Control Taxing District Bill Is Needed to Assure a Project
Scraping May Be
Permitted Again in 2006
Ocean Beach Geotube Request
Denied
Some in Davis Park
Consider Sandbags
New Bulkhead
Rules
Insuring Your Fire Island Home
President’s 2007 Budget Funds the FIMP In what Congressman Tim Bishop called “a significant step forward toward funding the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study (FIMP),” the President’s budget for fiscal year 2007 includes $1.7 million to complete the studies. The same amount was required a year ago to keep the project on schedule, but the President’s budget cut FY 06 funding for the FIMP entirely. Congress restored $1.075 million, but the shortfall nevertheless kept studies from being concluded and reported. This year, to judge by results, the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works pushed the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to see that the money would be in the budget in amounts large enough to finish the project once and for all. Congressman Bishop (D. Southampton), a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees the Corps of Engineers, has been steadfast in his advocacy of completing the FIMP study since he was elected in 2002. If the proposed funding level is accepted by Congress, Mr. Bishop sees the Corps completing a draft Environmental Impact Statement by April of 2007. Fire Islanders and other groups will have an opportunity to weigh in with preferences when the Corps releases its alternative plan formulation in November of this year (see separate story). "This is the best starting place [in the budget] we have seen for FIMP in many years," Mr. Bishop stated. "Now more than ever, we see how important it is to adequately protect our shorelines. Long Island's beaches are national treasures, and I am pleased that the President's budget recognizes that fact". While supporting increased funding, Mr. Bishop has kept in close contact with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, John Paul Woodley, Jr., and other high ranking Administration officials, to expedite completion of the study. He has been aided in this by Senator Clinton’s office and locally based Corps officials knowledgeable of the project. The total cost of the study is expected to be approximately $24 million. More than $21 million has already been spent on the project. Projects like the FIMP must be approved by Congress in a two-step process. In the first step, Congress authorizes spending on what it sees as needs involving coastal and other water-related projects in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). In step two, Congress actually appropriates funds, which allows studies to be made and projects to be built. The President’s budget sets out what the Administration considers priorities in the area, but Congress has the last word. WRDAs were known as Rivers and Harbors Acts in past decades. Once adopted about every two years, Congress has not approved one since 2000. This means that the list of important flood control, shore protection, dam safety, storm damage reduction and environmental restoration projects waiting to be done are backlogged. This year’s WRDA, already approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, thanks to Senator Clinton, will provide funds for an important Corps study of the concept of regional sediment management. The bill includes language that would make Fire Island Inlet a priority location for such a study. To assure that the Senate will vote on a WRDA in 2006, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) led a coalition of organizations interested in water resources in urging the Senate to bring the bill up for a vote. Almost four-fifths of the Senators have signed a letter urging the Republican and Democratic leaders to bring the bill to the Senate floor. The House version of the legislation has already been passed (albeit without the Regional Sediment Management provision). This and other differences in the bills will be resolved by a conference committee. WRDAs are important to Long Island’s coastal municipalities. On February 8, the FIA Board of Directors voted to adopt a resolution calling for passage of this year’s bill. A copy was circulated to Suffolk villages asking them to adopt similar resolutions and provide them to ASBPA’s Washington office for transmittal to Congress. The FIMP Reformulation Study was begun in the early 1990s to study alternative methods of protecting eastern Long Island from hurricanes and erosion, and to provide beach renourishment where needed for an 83-mile stretch of Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Originally approved in 1960, the plan was ordered to be reformulated in 1978 by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Funding problems that took fifteen years to resolve followed before the 1992-93 nor’easters served to jump start it again. The studies needed were many and complex. They ranged from detailed assessment of wildlife habitat to precise estimates of the amount of sand that passes along the shoreline; to computer modeling of the impact of likely storms on beaches and dunes, to on-the-ground appraisals of the value of property and infrastructure to be protected. The studies are now largely completed, in that the data has been collected. Now the experts must analyze the findings and prepare reports for those who have to make the policy decisions. Complicating the issue is the fact that the studies have been carried out under the direction of the Planning and Engineering Divisions of the Corps’ New York District at a time when the Corps of Engineers as a whole faces extreme budget restrictions within the Administration. At the same time, environmental groups are demanding basic changes in what the Corps does and how it does it. For example, environmental groups are pushing hard for legislation that would require Corps studies (such as those being conducted in the FIMP) to be “peer reviewed” by “independent” scientists (selected, of course, by them). Peer review has been on the horizon since the Corps was accused of allowing improper engineering decisions to be made in the upper reaches of the Mississippi River, the Everglades, and other projects including, recently, the New Orleans levees. Bowing to the inevitable, perhaps, the Corps has adopted the practice in all its study efforts, including the FIMP studies. Professors Henry Bokuniewicz of Stony Brook University’s Marine Sciences Research Center and David Basco of Old Dominion University in Norfolk have led the peer review effort on the FIMP. The study has involved the use of two computer models that run simultaneously. One model involves coastal processes while the other focuses on the economic implications of different scenarios. By using two models at once the engineers can make a more accurate assessment of the likelihood and the consequences of a breach in the barrier island, for example. It now appears that in November the Corps will release a document for public comment that will include an array of possible features of a shoreline restoration and habitat protection project. Interest groups will be expected to identify those features considered essential, those that must be opposed and those that “can be lived with.” Some will focus on environmental enhancement and prevention of adverse impact on the ocean and bay ecosystems, and some on the needs of transportation and inlet safety. FIA will stress the need for shoreline restoration, while others consider the management of coastal ponds of great importance to their communities. Experts say that doing the 83-mile FIMP project right from a standpoint of science and engineering, will require prioritizing – not only what should be done but what should be done first. Final completion of all elements should not be expected for several years. Assuming all the interest groups can arrive at a consensus as to what a coastal project should consist of, a draft Environmental Impact Statement will be released for comment around April of next year. Erosion Control Taxing District Bill Is Needed to Assure a Project One of the project “features” sure to be debated is whether, and how often, a beach fill project would need to be renourished. FIA Directors believe periodic renourishment is essential to a beach project as the (probably man-induced) reasons for the erosion will not go away when some sand is added to the shoreline. Community involvement in decisions about when and where more sand is needed might be more feasible if local property owners tax themselves to raise part of the money needed to pay for the effort. The basic raison d’etre of the proposed island-wide erosion control taxing district (see previous Newsletter) is to help Suffolk County meet the local cost of constructing the project. But an on-going district, guided by representatives of the communities, could also monitor the project and make recommendations about where and when more sand is needed. A district might also be able to address erosion hotspots that threaten specific areas between renourishments. This sort of local involvement in project maintenance and monitoring is growing in importance as the question of project maintenance also is debated against a background of increasingly tight federal funding. OMB remains adamant that beach projects benefit only the immediate area where a beach is located. Economic benefits to that beach, they argue, should be paid for by the locality in which the beach resides. Project maintenance, OMB feels, should especially be a local responsibility. Beach people strongly believe the benefits of maintaining shorelines are national, not local. The American Shore & Beach Preservation Association, for example, says that there is a $4 federal benefit (in increased general tax revenues) that can be traced to every $1 spent on nurturing beaches. More than likely a middle ground between these positions will be found, but the debate is likely to affect the details of many projects, including the FIMP. As to developments on the Erosion Control Taxing District bill, first a correction: The previous Newsletter (p. 5) reported that “Only property owners registered to vote in the district may participate [in the referendum to establish the district].” This is wrong. Section 5 of the bill states: “… the provisions to be voted on shall be submitted to a vote of the owners of taxable real properties within the proposed district.” In other words, all property owners get to vote for or against establishing the district. At its November meeting the FIA board discussed the fact that as drafted, the bill restricts service on the governing board of the district to persons registered to vote in the district. The board would prefer that any property owner, registered to vote in the district or not, could serve. The question of whether this can be settled at local option or is a requirement of all taxing district laws is being looked into. A companion measure to the Senate bill, introduced by Owen Johnson (R., Babylon) last summer, has been introduced in the Assembly by Ginny Fields (D., Sayville). Tax district bills are usually packaged for committee consideration. Action should not be expected by each chamber’s Committee on Local Governments until around the middle of the session. In the meantime, the Newsletter will keep Fire Islanders informed (accurately, one hopes) of developments. Scraping May Be Permitted Again in 2006 At a meeting in January, Chuck Bowman of Land Use Environmental Services, who consults with most Fire Island community erosion control districts, accompanied by FIA president Jerry Stoddard, visited Superintendent Reynolds and members of his staff at park headquarters in Patchogue. The topic was beach scraping. Communities want to continue the practice, where the minimum conditions of beach height and width, worked out in a 2002 Environmental Assessment (EA) with approval of the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), are met. Unfortunately, the EA was written to expire after three years. The park administration then in charge took the position that scraping could harm the beach and should only be permitted pending findings of the Corps of Engineers Reformulation studies (see separate story), then expected to be by the end of 2005. With completion still more than a year away the park seems willing to extend the present EA at least through 2006. Mr. Bowman will consult with community ECDs on whether scraping projects may be possible this summer. Even after the island-wide ECD is established, community ECDs will be needed for projects like scraping and planting dune grass in particular communities. Ocean Beach Geotube Request Denied In discussing the impact of the October storm, the last Newsletter noted that the Village of Ocean Beach was talking to the state DEC and the Seashore about emergency repairs to the geotube that protects the village’s water supply. In addition to making some emergency repairs to the tube, the village asked if it could be extended to the village’s western boundary. After several meetings, the park issued a permit for the repairs but not for the extension requested. Geotubes work best when they are located between groins (rock structures that extend perpendicular to the beach out into the sea). DEC installed a pair of groins at Ocean Beach in the early 1970s, replacing two much older ones that had had fallen into disrepair. Groins trap sand by slowing the rate at which the littoral current moves along the shore: the faster the current, the more sand it can carry. By keeping the sea from moving over the dunes and into communities, geotubes are essentially super sized sandbags that act like seawalls, and the 2002 EA denotes them as “hard structures.” Indeed, geotubes do nothing to slow the speed of the current moving along the shoreline. In severe storms with winds from the northeast pushing the ocean along the shoreline at a fast clip, a geotube can be undermined and a scour effect can occur at the down drift end. That’s why they work best in combination with groins, as at Ocean Beach: the groins slow the current, preventing undermining of the geo-tube which provides protection to the upland, including the village water supply. The Village wanted to extend the geo-tube to the west to protect the houses not between the groins. Some fear this would simply move the scour effect further west. In the end, the park decided to await the engineers’ recommendation that will come out of the FIMP studies. There has been some build-up since the October storm, but houses west of Ocean Beach are mostly on a wide, flat beach with no protective dunes. Some in Davis Park Consider Sandbags The erosion hot spot in Davis Park mentioned in the last Newsletter continues problematic for a dozen and a half houses, although steady winds from the west have led to some beach build up since the October storm saw water under several of them. Like Ocean Beach, Davis Park worked with DEC and the National Seashore to see what could be done. As an unincorporated hamlet, rather than an incorporated village, Davis Park also called on the Town of Brookhaven for help. The solution agreed to by all in this case was sandbags. The plan called for 80-lb. biodegradable (burlap) sacks, filled on the mainland and barged over on palettes. This is obviously labor-intensive and therefore costly. And the Town is bound by the state Municipal Law, which dictates how costly. According to Bob Spencer, the extra $50.000-$60,000 required raised the ante to more than the community ECD could handle, and more than the individual homeowners involved were able to come up with on short notice. It is encouraging to see the cooperation offered by both DEC and the park, which is a change from past experience. Still, an ongoing shoreline management program, had it been in place, might well have avoided the emergency in the first place. The National Seashore and the state Department of Environmental Conservation also share responsibility for addressing bayside erosion. DEC has strictly enforced state laws against building new bulkheads and docks along the bay shoreline. Now the Seashore has revised its policy for reviewing and issuing Special Use Permits for private bulkheads. The park rules seem to boil down to this: The cumulative impact of all the bulkheads on the north side of Fire Island is of significant environmental concern. There may be better ways to protect bayside property than simply replacing a bulkhead that has deteriorated with a new one of the same design. The park intends to continue to allow routine maintenance and replacement in kind of existing bulkheads (but no new ones where none now exist). The new wrinkle is that applicants for new permits must agree to remove a bulkhead if the park comes up with “a more sustainable shoreline protection method” in the future. It seems likely this policy will be implemented over a long period. Obviously, if your bayside property is bulkheaded you will want much more detail than this. FIA has made the park’s policy statement available to your community association. You can also write to FINS, 120 Laurel Street, Patchogue NY 11772, or download it from the FIA website: http://www.fireislandassn.org or at this link. Insuring Your Fire Island Home In the Newsletter item on flood insurance in the last issue, we mentioned the names and phone numbers of three agencies serving the Fire Island market that specialize, more or less, in the western, central and eastern parts of the island. It was by no means intended to suggest that there are not other agencies and brokers that do an equally good job for Fire Island homeowners. One, Lloyds Planning Services, Inc. wrote to tell us that their New York City address (370 Madison Avenue, Suite 312, New York NY 10017 212-689-0431) does not mean they are not very well informed on the special insurance needs of Fire Islanders. As the CEO is my neighbor and friend in Ocean Bay Park, I am happy to pass this information along. (GS)
|