[ May/June '99 ] [ July/Aug '99 ] [ Sept/Oct '99 ] [ Nov/Dec '99 ] [ FIIP Brief Nov. '99 ] [ FIIP 1/12/2000 ] [ Jan/March 2000 ] [ Summer 2000 ] [ August 2000 ] [ Jan/March 2003 ] [ Apr/May 2003 ] [ Jan 2004 ] [ Fall 2004 ] [ Summer 2005 ] [ Fall 2005 ] [ Winter 2006 ]

Note: More than sixty speakers were heard from. The vast majority spoke in favor of the project. Among these were County Legislator Carpenter, representatives of County Executive Gaffney and State Senator Johnson, a representative of the Bay Shore Chamber of Commerce and Business Improvement District, numerous business owners, volunteer fire fighters, and property owners from the south shore of the mainland as well as Fire Island. The following spoke in opposition:

Ginny Fields, Suffolk County Legislator for the 9^th District
Art Cooley, Environmental Defense Fund
Peter Quinn, Tax Payer
Jim Seymour, Fire Island Ecology Coalition
Scott MacWhinney, New York City Real Estate Executive
Susan Antinen, Coastal Conservation for the Nature Conservancy
Guy Jacob, Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club

1. My name is Ginny Fields and I am Suffolk County Legislator for the 9^th District. (See FIA comments) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is committing in excess of $79 million for the Fire Island Interim Project. This money is being allocated to reverse erosion damage, not prevent erosion damage. The purpose of the project has nothing to do with preventing erosion. As a matter of fact, when it is viewed where the sand is to be placed, you will note that it is only in front of beach communities.

After the Corps pumps in the sand, the first nor’easter or hurricane will wash it back into the ocean. This is an incredible waste of taxpayers’ money. For years property owners and government agencies have dumped millions of dollars into projects that may have already worsened or accelerated erosion by interrupting the flow of sand, locking up sand supplies and scouring away public beaches and adjoining properties. We should be correcting mistakes of the past and not repeating the same or creating new mistakes.

According to NEPA requirements, the Corps should be assessing reasonable alternatives. In the draft Environmental Impact Statement they have not looked at any alternative plan in detail. They are essentially dismissing the alternatives. The analysis of the benefits of the program are questionable at best. The word the public has been given, and wrongfully, I might add, is that this project will save the mainland from flooding. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is natural tidal action, and there are normal tidal cycles during storm events. And there are other considerations that are the real causes for potential flooding on the south shore of Long Island. This plan doesn’t address those. This plan doesn’t provide a solution to the problem of flooding. There are many questions about how they derived the information, and this should be looked at very carefully.

There are alternatives to the Fire Island Interim Project. One recently has been suggested to me called the Fire Island Land Grant Initiative. I won’t read the rest of the statement about that because I think there are other speakers and in time they’ll explain it to you.

The Fire Island National Seashore Article 34 requires that all land in or south of the Fire Island Interim Project are to be off-limits for development. New York State DEC has indicated that it will not allow the Article 34 Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary no-build line to move southward during the 6-year interim project. However, what will happen after the interim period? We have all seen the result of West Hampton Beach replenishment and the new construction being completed there. It’s been concluded that the DEC will not implement the law; there would be no regulatory conclusion on additional building and new construction.

2. My name is Art Cooley. I am a Trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund. (See FIA comments) I am presenting this testimony on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Great South Bay Audubon Society, Great South Bay Restoration Alliance, Open Space Council, Long Island Chapter of the Nature Conservancy and the Fire Island Ecology Coalition.

The draft environmental impact statement described in the beach restoration program by the US Army Corps of Engineers should not be approved in its present form. Given the dubious nature of achieving any significant mainland protection, we urge that the plan described in the EIS be rejected. However, even if the plan is approved, we will be no closer to a solution of how to manage development on the shifting sands of the barrier beach. We believe, however, that a solution can be crafted and ought to be addressed by the EIS and implemented.

We support the creation of a Fire Island Land Initiative. This initiative would create an agency or commission that would have the authority and funding to use the variety of land use tools that would gradually and legally begin to move development back from the ocean’s edge, thereby reducing the need in the future for wasteful dredging and sand filling.

The Fire Island Land Initiative could be funded in part by the Corps and would perform a role that government agencies are already performing in the flood plain of the Mississippi River following the disastrous 1993 floods. The initiative would, while respecting the private right of owners, provide economic incentives to remove construction from the most vulnerable parts of the barrier island; that is those areas of the CEHA. Without a framework, however, for moving development back from the brink, we will continue to have divisive arguments and wasteful expenditures about the need for ocean beach nourishment. (I need to cut out a whole lot.)

The Corps’ proposed alternative has been developed without participation of major stake-holders with interests on Fire Island. These stakeholders include the National Park Service, the millions of visitors each year, other governmental entities and Long Island taxpayers. A few years ago a proposal such as the Fire Island Land Initiative would have been difficult to achieve but that was before comprehensive use plan for the Pine Barrens was adopted and showed us the way. That effort brought together all the stakeholders in one organization, was funded by public funds and we need to learn that lesson.

3. My name is Peter Quinn. (See FIA comments) Let me state unequivocally that I am opposed to building expensive sand castles no matter where they are. I am particularly opposed to seeing my tax dollars, the $34 million federal, $13 million in state monies, the $5.6 million in local monies, even though $2.5 million would be paid by the Fire Island residents on that project.

I suggest an alternative. We’ve all heard so much about volunteerism over the years, let’s put it to work. Let’s have the Fire Island Association assess themselves to float a bond for $52 million, they can pay for the whole thing without involving government. If they put up $12.5 million a year they could do it in 14 years.

The notion that Joseph Vietri from the Corps of Engineers is that it’s a pure coincidence that this is going to planned for the western end of Fire Island. I think from day one this was a tailor made plan invested in by the Fire Island residents for the Corps of Engineers sited in one location.

You don’t have to be a marine biologist or a climatologist to understand that global warming, the potential exists for destroying Long Island’s mainland. I think it’s absurd on its face to say that that’s the main purpose. Can anybody guarantee that future storms will occur only within that 11-mile replenishment area? What happens if it occurs elsewhere? Can you still protect the mainland? I don’t think so. A recent study by scientists showed that the arctic sea shore has melted, the size of the state of Massachusetts, every year. What are you doing about that?

4. I obviously won’t have time to give my full statement. I’m Jim Seymour, representing the Fire Island Ecology Coalition. (See FIA comments) The entire statement will be on our web site. Even if you support the interim project, which I do not, you might find our web site interesting. It has a lot of useful information.

I own a house in Fire Island Pines. In my other life I am a political scientist at Columbia University. A few years ago through a massive tax increase in the Pines, they brought in and created a whole lot of what I call fake dunes. There’s a difference between a dune that the Corps dig-up coarse sand from the bottom of the ocean and dump it on the beach. That is not a peat dune and that will wash out. And all of this – not all but 70 percent of it washed out right away, and another 20 percent has washed out over the course of the last couple of years. I’d say there’s only about 10 percent of that sand left.

So, it’s just been a boondoggle. What’s really important to saving Fire Island is to have natural dunes which are made of fine sand and hard packed sand, laced with roots of dune grass, that’s what really holds it together. If you put artificial dunes and then houses which is going to happen, which are very detrimental to Fire Island. The reasons I have no time to go into but it’s in my statement and there are good books on the subject which are on the web site fiecol.org.

5. Hi. Scott MacWhinney. New York City Real Estate Executive, 14^th generation native of the south shore of Long Island. Fire Islander. (See FIA comments) I’m here to speak in opposition to the Fire Island Interim Plan, not as an anti-private property environmentalist or someone resentful about the beach homes, as the Fire Island Association is wont to characterize anyone who opposes their agenda, but as a representative for my family who’s owned oceanfront property on Fire Island for nearly a century. I also take this position as a citizen and voter who’s fiscally conservative and a sensible environmental conservationist.

The plan as proposed was conceived unscientifically by self-interested parties in the Fire Island Association, given the phony imprimatur of the compliant Corps of Engineers, all with the help of various legislators who are heavily funded by the FIA and associated commercial interests. This plan does not deal with the claimed or root causes of damage in the erosion of Fire Island nor will it provide any of the claimed benefits such as flood protection for mainland properties or institutions. The benefits only encourage the oceanfront real estate speculators, dredging contractors, the Army Corps appropriation process, various politicians and a handful of mendacious power brokers at the FIA.

As with previous such projects, the sand will wash away in a matter of months, the environmental damage, and collateral damage will be unprecedented and will cost the public for decades. The most egregious aspect of this plan is the politicized choice of a borrow site from which the sand is to be taken. One community has been singled out here to have its protective offshore sandbar mined to provide sand for this project. A community that has been by far the lowest contributor to the FIA. Over the years the property owners of Cherry Grove have never built [except with] with prudent setbacks decades ago. The dunes have been nurtured by natural processes. The project will abnormally expose the narrowest and lowest system we have in that section of Fire Island to the high risk of overwash and property damage.

The Fire Island Association says that of 6,000 private properties the FIA with but 1,500 members is hardly a representative body. (I’m skipping because I’m running out of time here.)

But the FIA seeking in order to gain the project an erosion taxing authority for Suffolk County. This would effectively give the County Legislature political cover while ceding control of the legislative process to the property owners.

Caesar Malaga (phonetic) spoke against the plan, stating that the only thing that will work is a massive seawall about a mile offshore.

Janet Goltz raised the issue of public access, specifically the reservation of beach driving permits to year around residents and contractors.

6. I’m Susan Antinen. I’m the Director of Coastal Conservation for the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is a conservation organization with over a million members including 35,000 on Long Island and New York City. We have a 45-year history on Long Island and own three nature preserves along the shore which may be impacted by the study. (See FIA comments)

The Conservancy has a keen interest in articulating and implementing a long-term conservation vision for the Atlantic Ocean, beaches and bays. We believe any short-term remediation would need to be evaluated within such a framework.

The Conservancy believes the draft EIS does not yet demonstrate that the proposed actions are suitable for achieving he short-term goals presented in the Fire Island Interim Plan. Furthermore, because all potential alternatives were not seriously considered, we believe the DEIS is not compliant with NEPA regulations. The DEIS states hat the preferred alternative is necessary to prevent the flooding of structures on the mainland. However, the DEIS doe not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that breaching and overwash on Fire Island is not the primary cause of potential future flooding. The plan does not seem to prevent development of new private homes on building lots that would be created as a result of the artificial dune construction, nor does it adequately address the possible reconstruction of houses on which that may be damaged in future storms. And thirdly, the ecological analysis is deficient and does not adequately examine indirect and cumulative impacts to endangered and migratory species, benthic communities and the near shore and estuarine biota.

The Nature Conservancy will support a plan that adopts sustainable approaches. A public opinion poll sponsored by the Conservancy indicates that 95 percent of Long Islanders recognize the need to change the way we think about the coastline and understand that we need to accept some natural changes.

The DEIS itself states that sand pumped on Fire Island’s beaches will wash back into the sea almost immediately. The Nature Conservancy recommends that the Corps proceed with developing a long-term management plan. Basic elements we think should be included would be a designated dune line that delineates a no-building zone, a comprehensive program to relocate houses out of flood-prone areas on Fire Island and restore these dunes and beaches in their natural condition. The program should include voluntary buyouts of building lots, life tenancy agreements and trading of lots. Creating and funding a Fire Island Land Initiative under the auspices of the Corps plan would be very positive. Surely there should also be recognition that natural processes are an essential part of the long-term health of the ecosystem.

In closing, Fire Island is a significant part of Long Island’s beautiful and important coastal areas and we look forward to working with the Corps and others to develop a long-term plan.

7. My name is Guy Jacob. I am Coastal Resources Chair of the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club, representing 35,000 members around the state. (See FIA comments)

Let us assume that 12,000 homes on Long Island are vulnerable. Let us assume that this interim plan can serve as a protection more to Long Islanders than to Fire Islanders. Why then has this interim plan not included a buyout of 35 properties that are currently either submerged or semi-submerged year around. Buying out these homes is consonant with the reversibility of the plan. The plan is interim, which means that the plan is required to be reversible. Development of 35 homes counteracts the reversibility mandate of this plan. Once you develop the Corps will be compelled again and again to replenish on a far more frequent basis as crisis intervention. The Corps should use its power, authority and its funding of eminent domain to buy out these 35 properties as part of an interim plan.

Fire Island home owners who do not own one of these 35 properties will be further hurt if these 35 properties are allowed to be developed. Common sense, people. In order for the project to do what it is supposed to do, that is, to protect, grasses have to grow. If you are going to build 35 homes on property that is not currently developed, you’re going to lose that protection. Because the homes are going to interfere with the grass development and the plan is not going to do what it is supposed to do.

And when a nor’easter comes, as it surely will, the debris from homes will act as missiles and pollute the ocean. If the plan is going to do what it is supposed to do, buy out the 35 homes – now – because public dollars should not be used for private profiteering. The plan should do what it is supposed to do. That is to protect Fire Islanders and Long Islanders. Buy out the property now.

Attached is a transcript of verbal presentations made at the public hearing. The comments have been edited for intelligibility and are not verbatim. All comments that were intelligible were transcribed. The following observations are directed at factual errors and other reasons for disregarding the bulk of the comments made by opponents of the project. It seems clear that comments made in furtherance of special interests, unsupported by relevant scientific or technical evidence, should be given little if any weight in determining policy alternatives.

Ms. Fields should have noted for the hundreds in attendance who do not know her that her principal activity prior to her election in November was as a volunteer with the Great South Bay Audubon Society, one of the organizations that appeared in opposition to the project under discussion.

Sand is being placed "only in front of the beach communities." The implication is that this is an accommodation to the communities when in fact it is a result of the Fire Island National Seashore's insistence that only minimal amounts of sand be placed in areas of Fire Island where it is also needed.

Ms. Fields cites no engineering or other studies in support of the notion the project is "an incredible waste of taxpayers' money," or that beach protection projects "may have already worsened or accelerated erosion."

Ms. Field stated, erroneously, that the public was being told that the "project will save the mainland from flooding. In fact the public was told that present day flooding is indicative of the fact that even a mild storm or hurricane could result in a breach of the barrier that could have disastrous flooding consequences for the mainland.

Ms. Fields' reference to the "Fire Island Land Grant Initiative" as something that "other speakers … will explain to you" shows that project opponents coordinated their statements ahead of time to give the impression that there is a plan to acquire certain Fire Island properties when no such plan exists. The only reason for raising such an issue at the eleventh hour is to create a reason to delay implementation of the project.

The comparison of the possible rebuilding of some lots in the state Coastal Erosion Hazard Area on Fire Island to the almost total reconstruction of what is now West Hampton Dunes is a deliberate attempt to confuse the public. There is no similarity between the two situations, save that both are coastal communities recovering from storm damage in the presence of sand-starvation.

Ms. Fields' assertion that "the DEC will not implement the law" can only mean that she believes the DEC will fail to carry out its duty as a state agency for reasons she does not explain. This is hardly an appropriate comment for an elected official to make in a public forum without strong evidence of the truth of her assertion.

Mr. Cooley is the first of those speaking on the "Land Grant Initiative" that Ms. Fields referred to.

There is no scientific or other support for Mr. Cooley's assertion that the Corps' claim of "significant mainland protection" is of "dubious nature."

There is no "Fire Island Land Grant Initiative" pending before any legislative body, and it is not appropriate to give the impression that there is. Nor has any responsible agency or scientific study given support for a solution to south shore erosion problems based on "gradually and legally [moving] development back from the ocean's edge." In fact, Governor Cuomo's Coastal Erosion Task Force specifically rejected that conclusion. (See R. H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy, 1999, p. 187.)

The statement by the environmental groups that the FIIP "has been developed without participation [of] the National Park Service" is a total fabrication aimed at creating the illusion that there are environmental reasons for not proceeding with the project. In fact, no such reasons exist, as the environmental groups well know.

The reference to "sand castles" is presumably intended to be jocular.

The idea that Fire Island property owners should pay the entire cost of a project that has a specific public purpose may also be facetious, but it serves as well to highlight the underlying social policy basis for opposition to this project.

The statement that the project is "a tailor-made plan" of the Fire Island Association and the Corps of Engineers is not only insulting to both those organizations but it calls into question the seriousness of purpose of the speaker.

After noting that the project is not as complete as it should be (and as it would have been were it not for the resistance of the National Park Service), the speaker notes that a rising sea level is not taken into account. In fact, the Corps/DEC project does take sea-level rise into account, except in those places where the Park Service refuses to allow protective measures to be taken.

Professor Seymour, a political scientist, is not qualified to comment on the design or performance of an engineering project, and his reference to a "boondoggle" is inappropriate. A boondoggle is defined as "a wasteful or impractical project often involving graft," (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10^th Ed.) as political scientists presumably are aware. Prof. Seymour is unqualified to judge whether the project is wasteful or impractical, and no one has alleged that there is graft involved.

It isn't clear which "houses" Professor Seymour fears will be built as a result of the project; nor is there evidence that any lots will be made developable as a result of the project.

Mr. MacWhinnie's background as a real estate executive in no way qualifies him to comment that the project was conceived "unscientifically."

Obviously, no individual in the Fire Island Association, self-interested or otherwise, "conceived" the project. For the record, the sole interest of the Fire Island Association in this or any shore protection project involving Fire Island is the long-term preservation of the geologic integrity of the barrier.

To call the scientific research and engineering demonstrated by the Corps and other involved agencies "phony" says more about the speaker than the agencies spoken about.

There are no "legislators who are heavily funded by the FIA." Nor does FIA have any "associated commercial interests."

The sentence about "beneficiaries of the project" will be dismissed as mindless twaddle by any objective analyst.

Mr. MacWhinnie's concern that the borrow site was selected because his Fire Island community "has been by far the lowest contributor to the FIA," can only be described as paranoiac.

Susan Antinen, The Nature Conservancy

The concern that "short term remediation" would need to be evaluated within a long-term conservation vision ignores the ongoing Reformulation Study, of which TNC is fully aware. The interim project is designed as a bridge to that study's recommendations by reducing the likelihood of a possibly irreversible breach in the island before long-term decisions can be made.

The assertion that "all potential alternatives were not seriously considered" is made tenable only by insertion of the subjective concept of "seriously." In fact, the Corps completely met its obligation to consider all alternatives in the Interim Report and Draft Decision Document (see the Association's principal Comment herewith).

The assertion that the DEIS did not meet the regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act is mere opinion. The agency involved may well have a different opinion from the of the Nature Conservancy; that is the more important opinion..

The key concern of TNC and the Sierra Club seems to be "The plan does not seem to prevent development of new private homes on building lots that would be created as a result of the artificial dune construction …" (see the comment related to Mr. Jacob's remarks below) "… nor does it adequately address … reconstruction following storms." As to this point, it is the law of the state of New York, not the Corps' DEIS that is relevant. Ms. Antinen does not mention that Article 34 now is the controlling regulation as to construction and reconstruction following storm damage in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. This has nothing to do with the Interim Project. Most significantly, she fails to acknowledge that no new lots, and no old lots, now in or south of the project area can be developed once the project is in place because the Article 34 construction control line will not move. As the EIS notes, the Corps had found that only 35 "in-fill" lots could conceivably be developed, which is less than 1 percent of the total number of lots on Fire Island. The DEIS also indicates that it is highly unlikely that development will occur even in these 35 identified lots. (DEIS 4-41)

Ms. Antinen's comment that the statement is inadequate is not persuasive in light of comments from the expert agencies involved that take a contrary view.

Ms. Antinen and others hope that the Corps of Engineers' budget can be tapped to acquire private property in Corps Project areas. This would require very substantial legislative and regulatory changes in existing laws. Very lengthy delays would be encountered if the interim project were to be held hostage to the adoption of such a plan. Only if delay is the goal would consideration of this approach be sensible.

Mr. Jacob makes it clear that even protection of 12,000 mainland homes from flooding would not be a reason to go forward with the Interim Project, if putting the project in place made it possible for the owners of 35 Fire Island lots to be able to build houses on them. Fortunately, that kind of decision does not lie in the province of the Sierra Club.

The statement that "35 properties [that] are submerged or semi-submerged the year around" would be made buildable by the project is patently false and irresponsible. By definition, a lot now submerged would have to be in the project area and therefore could not be developed under the state's CEHA regulations. Virtually without exception the so-called "in-fill" lots can be developed now, without the project. Stopping the project will not stop those owners who wish to develop their property. The Corps notes, in the Draft Decision Document (43-44), that at most only 15 of the now-buildable lots are likely to be developed during the Interim Project life.

Neither Mr. Jacob nor any of the other opponents cites an environmental reason for preventing the development of these lots. No study has yet shown that beach houses cause erosion. While NEPA regulations say that an interim project cannot make a follow-on project inevitable, it is a huge leap from that to say that potential development of less than 1 percent of the area's building lots will make a difference one way or the other.

Mr. Jacob offers no support for his assertion that "public dollars" will be "used for private profiteering." The Sierra Club plea to "buy out the property now" simply echoes the other environmental organizations who want to depopulate the barrier island in order to foster their special interest in open space, whether or not it makes sense from a recreational, economic, engineering or environmental standpoint.

Other comments have been made since the public hearing that indicate project opponents, in and out of government, intend to continue to twist the facts in order to delay the Interim Project at least long enough to justify an attempt to merge it into the Reformulation Study. The Town of Islip, for example, is understood to have requested a further extension of the comment period because of unresolved questions. This in a project that has been ongoing for years at a cost of millions of dollars; yet, only now does Islip raise concerns that it could and should have resolved months ago. It should be noted that, to the extent the Town has concerns relevant to land use issues on Fire Island, it has abrogated its responsibilities in this connection by refusing to administer Article 34 on Town beaches. Having turned its back on the need to protect its beach communities and low-lying areas of the mainland it is not fitting that Islip criticize the expert agencies that its actions have placed in charge.