Nov/Dec '99 Fire Island Association Newsletter

Depart Penn Sta.           Arrive Oakdale

1:29                                  2:47

2:38                                 3:58

4:04                                  5:29

4:40                                 6:03

5:10                                6:34

Depart Oakdale                  Arrive Penn Sta.

      3:42                                   4:09

      4:51                                   6:23

      6:41                                   8:04

      7:56 (Bay Shore)               9:19

For those car-pooling, Dowling College is on Montauk Highway in Oakdale, about 10 miles east of Bay Shore (directions by car).

CRUNCH TIME ON THE INTERIM PROJECT

On December 6 the Corps of Engineers released its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Fire Island Interim Project (FlIP) for public comment. This is the part of the process under the National Environmental Policy Act where the public is heard, the involved agencies having worked out their differences on the details of the project. In other words, it's time to stand and be counted.

The Draft Decision Document, as it's known, contains the EIS, and is about the size and heft of the Manhattan Yellow Pages. It summarizes much of the known scientific and historic information that is available on Fire Island -- more than most people would want to know, but essential data for those dealing with the barrier island's erosion problem.

Here are some highlights of the plan:

·    With the FlIP in place, 10,500 mainland houses
      in the south shore flood plain will see fewer
      floods -- and less inundation from those that do
      happen. Another 1,500 mainland structures now
      at risk from flood will be so no longer. More
      than 3,000 barrier island structures would be
      less subject to flooding. This adds up to fewer
      and smaller claims on flood insurance.

· While the project is expected to cost $17 million
a year over its six-year life, project benefits are
$21.7 million, a 1.3 benefit cost ratio.

·    The project will cost $53 million to construct,
      with the federal share of that at $34.4 million,
      and non-federal at $18.5 million. The non-
      federal share is divided 70 percent state
      ($12,957,00) and 30 percent local ($5,553,000).

Fire Islanders will tax themselves to come up with half of this ($2,776,000). As flood damage reduction benefits are largely local, this is a good deal for the south shore.

Not What We Had Hoped

Still, the project is significantly different from what FIA sought in 1994 and from what the Corps and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) believed was needed in 1996. Getting from there to here has been difficult and protracted process, with FIA not permitted to comment directly on the project at any time.

FIA first recommended to members of the Long Island Congressional delegation that 12 miles of beach and dunes from Watch Hill on the east to the Lighthouse tract on the west be restored. While formal approval of the property owners was still to be gained at that point, FIA pledged that Fire Islanders would pay a significant portion of the of the local cost share of what was expected to be a combined federal-state-local project. FIA reasoned that mainlanders would not agree to their taxes being used to "protect the vacation homes of out-of-towners" unless the owners of those homes showed they would shoulder a big part of the cost themselves. Also, if a project was agreed to for Watch Hill to the Lighthouse tract, FIA assumed that county, federal and state governments would support the project's also protecting Smith Point County Park, the federal Wilderness Area and other significant federal holdings on Fire Island, and Robert Moses State Park.

As it happens, the county is moving aggressively to protect the beach and buildings at Smith Point, and the Corps project is expected to provide some fill in the county park area. The federal government has decided it wants to minimize (except at the Lighthouse) any sand placed on its holdings, as "natural processes" are expected to suffice. (They won't. It can't be said too often that you can have stabilized inlets or a "natural" system. You can't have both.) As for Robert Moses State Park, the state has followed a course of systematic, continuous nourishment there and at Jones Beach since the inception of those parks. Ironically, the agency with the most experience and most success is emulated neither by the County, which is relying on hard structures, nor the federal government, which prefers no action, presumably as a means of gradually eliminating private property on the barrier-island..

The Corps' initial approach to protecting Fire Island was to follow the methods outlined in the venerable Shore Protection Manual that had served it well over several decades. New York State, through DEC Division of Water's Coastal Erosion Section, also had participated in many coastal projects and was prepared to follow its past, proven practices on the FlIP.

Vigorous opposition to the FlIP was mounted, however, by environmental groups and their allies in the US Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park Service, both agencies of the Department of the Interior (DOI). The agencies objected to the proposed duration of the project and to its apparent conflict with a 1978 ruling by the Council on Environmental Quality that the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point project not be broken into separate sub-projects like the FlIP.

Independent and Reversible

On the duration issue, the Corps and New York State generally agree that a project must last for 30 years if it is to meet economic and protection criteria. DOI argued that a project of that duration could not be considered "interim," a concept hard to argue with. Key characteristics of interim projects are that they have "independent utility" and be "reversible." Independent utility means the project neither makes necessary nor precludes a subsequent project. Thus, if an interim project induced new development on a beach, to an extent that government would be forced to protect it, the project would not be "independent" of a follow-on project.

Interim projects must also be "reversible." That is, if it becomes apparent that the project was a bad idea from an environmental or other standpoint, simply abandoning it would mean a return to pre-project conditions. Again, an interim project that caused development that would not have occurred but for the project, could be said not to be reversible, in that the structures then would remain even absent the project that would protect them.

After many meetings with DOI, the Corps and DEC were able to design a project that met the economic and protection standards while still being reversible -- with one exception. By no means all of the nearly 100 homes that were either collapsed or seriously damaged in the 1992-93 storms have been rebuilt. Many would today meet permit or variance requirements for building, but the owners have chosen not to ask for them. There are approximately 30-35 sites in this category. While that is less than 1 percent of the island's 4,000 or so building lots, it is still enough to raise concerns about reversibility in the minds of agency reviewers. They would like some assurance that these lots will not be developed as a result of the interim project. FIA, of course, exists to represent the interests of its property owner members, regardless of where the property may be located. Any owner has the right to use property as suits his or her best interest. At the same time, many Fire Islanders recognize that there are problems associated with building near the dunes. In many cases owners want to wait and see what happens at the end of the six-year interim project before making permanent decisions about their property. Others may already have decided that the property will or will not he developed at some point in the future.

FIA would be interested in hearing from owners who believe theirs may be one of the few dozen lots mentioned. It is possible that FIA can clarify options that are open for property owner review.. DOI has made it clear that some of its concerns about the project will be alleviated if enough home-owners hold off on development of these lots.

NEW BOOK DISCUSSES FIIP

Anyone who thinks Fire Island's struggles of the past several years are simply provincial disputes with a handful of local environmentalists should take a look at Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1999). The author, Rutherford H. Platt, Professor of Geography and Planning Law at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and member of a long-time Point O'Woods family, makes it clear that Fire Island is a major battle ground in the national campaign by social planners from Portland, Ore., to Atlanta as a target of those in favor of "preserving open space" and opposed to "sprawl."

Prof. Platt approaches this national issue from the thesis that federal disaster policy encourages people to build houses where they should not. Worse, instead of wise "land use planning and regulation" at the local level, which is supposed to complement federal disaster legislation, "property rights interests have challenged the power of government to restrict the use of private lands without compensation." Exactly.

The book provides a useful look at the history of disaster policy in the country. The role of property rights organizations, specifically what Professor Platt refers to as "the backlash against regulation," is discussed in chapters analyzing recent Supreme Court decisions in the property rights area.

Fire Island is the subject of one of three case studies (St. Charles County, Mo., and Oakland, Cal., in the wakes of the Mississippi floods and the Loma Prieta earthquakes are the others) presented in the later chapters of the book. Your Association comes in for prominent (and on the whole unflattering) mention for its role in the debate over the National Flood Insurance Program in the early 1990s. By time that battle had been narrowly won, the storms of 1992-93 had occurred and FIA was in the midst of the even larger battle over the interim project that been raging ever since.

Prof. Platt spends several pages attacking the premises of the Fire Island Interim Project now in public review. He does not believe the mainland is at risk of flooding, despite studies and conclusions to the contrary by the Corps, New York State and Suffolk County. His book, however, is not only opinionated but is already outdated by new research. For example, he notes that eastern Fire Island is more subject to erosion and barrier island rollover than Fire Island's central and western segments. This has been known for decades, but the fact that Fire Island west of Watch Hill has been actually stable for hundreds of years, i.e., not acting like a barrier island at all, is not mentioned in Prof. Platt's book. Recent studies by Dr. William C. Schwab of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey have shown that part of Fire Island's sand comes from a submerged headland, south of Watch Hill, that is supplying sediment to Fire Island as it erodes. Because of the east to west drift, the sand from this source finds its way ashore near Cherry Grove. That may be why that community's dunes tend to be much healthier than those to the east, but that remains to be established.

Still, if new research makes some of Prof. Platt's theories outdated, the Fire Island chapter remains an excellent summary of Fire Island's erosion problems and FIA's role in the political and policy debate over how they should be addressed. What it reveals is how public policy experts use federal funds to create agencies which then attempt to usurp private property for public use without paying for it.

That is a struggle that will continue to be played out across the nation in the next 20 years. It is interesting that Fire Island has such a prominent role to play in it.

FACTS ABOUT FIRE ISLAND

Did you know ....

· 80 percent of Fire Island is public park land and will remain undeveloped open space? That includes a National Seashore, a state park, a county park and a couple of town parks.

· Only 20 percent of Fire Island is developed? Some 4,000 usable lots comprise 17 small communities. Many of these houses are rented for all or part of each summer. People come from all over America and the world for a seaside vacation.

· That Fire Island property owners, through their community associations and the FIA umbrella group, fought hardest to get the Fire Island National Seashore (FINS) created in 1964? That’s why the rest of Fire Island remains undeveloped and open to all to this day. And there are no “residents only” signs on any Fire Island ocean beaches, and no fees or beach passes are needed.

· That not a penny of federal or state money has been spent to protect Fire Island since 1971? Thirteen communities, have created erosion control taxing districts that invest more than $1.5 million a year to build up the barrier at no cost to the general public.

· The Westhampton groinfield, started in 1964, was left unfilled with sand and then abandoned in 1975? That meant all the east-to-west sand destined for Fire Island was blocked. If it hadn’t been, Fire Island dunes could be higher and the beach scores of feet wider than it is today.

· Congress called for an erosion control plan for Long Island’s south shore in 1960? That’s 40 years ago! The Fire Island Interim Plan (FIIP) is designed to protect the island pending a permanent solution to south shore erosion problems.

· Fire Island is free of all but essential vehicle travel? Most people get there by ferry boat, a service that wouldn’t exist except for the regular business the community residents provide in summer. There are police, and utility vehicles, and a limited number of vehicle permits for those who maintain a year-round residence on the island. In winter months, ferry service is cut way back. Homeowners rallied against a proposed highway in 1955 and 1962. Stopping the highway meant the beauty of Fire Island was largely retained.

· By a 64 percent vote, Fire Island property owners agreed to pay half of the cost to Suffolk County of building the FIIP through higher taxes on their property? For every dollar paid by Suffolk taxpayers for the FIIP, Fire Islanders will pay $127! And strengthening the barrier will benefit thousands of homes in the south shore flood plain.

· The Army Engineers and New York State can only provide shore protection projects where the value of the property and infrastructure protected (not counting recreational benefits) exceeds the cost of building the project?

Dear Fire Islander:

This edition of The Newsletter, in addition to news articles, contains an updated list of contacts to whom your letters of support should be directed. If you can only write one letter, send it to Mr. Weppler (see back cover); but your political representatives and the media also need to hear from you). On this page you will find basic background on the Interim Project. The inside back cover is an abstract of "Pertinent Data" on the project from the Corps document. Also enclosed is a map showing the south shore flood plain that depends on Fire Island for flood protection. If you know anyone in the indicated zip codes, send them a copy. Most of all, please attend the hearing on January 12, and urge your friends and neighbors to do likewise.

The long-term value of your Fire Island property may be greatly affected by our response to this opportunity. Thanks -- FIA

Background Brief

Why You Should Support the Fire Island Interim Flood Protection Plan

• Fire Island protects Long Island’s south shore from flooding caused by storms in the Atlantic Ocean.

• Manmade groins and inlet jetties have blocked sand from nourishing the island’s beaches, and the protective barrier has eroded.

• Island residents, who led an effort 35 years ago to prevent over development by creating a National Seashore, now are supporting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Fire Island Interim Project (FIIP) to add sand to the island to help it protect the north side of Great South Bay.

• BUT – forces trying to block the FIIP are saying that the plan would promote development and hurt the environment.

• The FIIP will add protection to properties and businesses on the mainland and help preserve one of Long Island’s finest beach resources for the benefit of all Long Islanders.

Here is some background on this important issue.
Homes, businesses, and government buildings and infrastructure on Long Island’s south shore are protected by the string of barrier islands that extends from Rockaway Point to Southampton. Stabilizing the inlets between these islands, however, causes beach erosion, because the east to west movement of sand is blocked. (These effects were magnified by the over-built and improperly constructed groinfield at Westhampton Beach that was recklessly abandoned in 1975.) Coastal engineers compensate for erosion by mechanically moving sand from the updrift (east) side to the downdrift (west) side of inlets, and by dredging sand from offshore deposits and placing it on downdrift beaches. Without these efforts, barrier islands can narrow to a point where a storm or hydrological forces cause a breach; i.e., a new inlet. This subjects the mainland to flooding as more water gets into the bay. The breach at Westhampton in the December 1992 nor’easter, a direct consequence of the Westhampton Beach groins, caused flooding of the mainland. In Remsenberg, for example, a flooded house burned to the waterline in 1993 because fire fighting apparatus could not reach it.

There were relatively few houses on the island when Robert Moses proposed to connect it to the mainland by bridges and then connect the bridges with an extension of Ocean Parkway. When Moses’ plans seemed close to fruition in the 1960s, Fire Island property owners intensively lobbied Congress to make the island a mixed-use National Seashore, like Cape Cod, that would freeze development as of 1964. They won. The park was created and today all 32 miles of ocean beach and 80 percent of the upland area of the island is fully open to the public. Fire Island became the only developed barrier island in the world that does not have a formal road system. And the 17 pre-existing, middle class residential communities, reached primarily by ferry, will remain, so long as their low-density, single-family character is retained. In this arrangement, Fire Island’s recreational beaches, limited commercial development and thriving second-home industry adds hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the Long Island economy. As primarily a summer community, it makes relatively few demands on mainland municipalities.

Despite this win-win situation for Long Island, a new generation of bureaucrats now wants to go back on the deal their predecessors welcomed. People opposed to houses on or near beaches are trying to delay shore protection projects in hopes that property will be destroyed, thus lowering the cost of acquiring it. It is one thing for towns and the County to protect undeveloped land for future generations by buying it at market prices from willing sellers. It is something else for government to adopt policies certain to cause the destruction of homes by storms and flooding so that underlying property can be acquired cheaply. Delaying programs designed to protect public recreational beaches and low-lying areas from flooding, puts individual homes and entire communities at risk, along with government facilities, roads and bridges.

Congress well knows the need to provide storm damage protection and beach erosion control on Long Island. In 1960 it asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for proposals to accomplish this between Fire Island Inlet and Montauk Point. A stop-gap aspect of this plan, the Fire Island Interim Project, or FIIP, would place about 7.7 million cubic yards of sand along Fire Island where needed to raise dunes to an average of 15 feet and widen beaches to about 90 feet. A second sand placement (renourishment) of about 2.7 million cubic yards will be needed at some point within the six-year project life. This is expected to provide time to complete studies on the longer-term project. The Corps says the FIIP will provide protection against barrier island breaching (and consequent mainland flooding) in storms of a severity encountered every 30 years on average; for example, the 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm and the December 1992 nor’easter. Governor Cuomo’s Coastal Erosion Task Force endorsed this approach in its 1994 Final Report.

The FIIP would cost $53 million initially and about $17 million a year to maintain for six years, including the renourishment. Federal funds would account for 65 percent of initial construction, or $34.5 million. The non-federal cost share is 35 percent, or $18.5 million. Under state law this amount is divided 70-30 with local government, or $12.95 million state and $5.55 million local. Fire Island property owners, recognizing the benefits of a federal-state-local project, have proposed that Fire Island property be taxed to raise half of the local share. The balance ($2.27 million) would come from Suffolk general revenues.

Opponents of the FIIP say it will cause people to rebuild houses knocked down by storms. But a new state law strictly controls building and rebuilding houses in beach project areas. If the FIIP is delayed, opponents hope, more houses will be knocked down and these properties acquired cheaply. But delay puts the barrier and south shore of Long Island in jeopardy. By protecting south shore homes and businesses from flooding, the FIIP will help lower disaster recovery costs. Meanwhile, healthy beaches throughout Long Island means many millions in travel and tourism revenue. The project deserves the support of thoughtful voters.

The Fire Island Association December 1999

A STEADY STREAM OF SUPPORT FROM YOU CAN HELP WIN THE DAY

By Bob Spencer

Attending the public hearing on January 12 will help, but we want thousands of communications from FIA members and south shore Long Island homeowners to a wide variety of the names on the contact list at this link

First, by January 25, 2000 write a comment supportive of the Interim Plan described in the Corps of Engineers' "Draft Decision Document." Send it to:

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FlIP

Not What We Had Hoped

Independent and Reversible

NEW BOOK DISCUSSES FIIP

A STEADY STREAM OF SUPPORT FROM YOU CAN HELP WIN THE DAY