ON SPENCER’S POINT

How Oceans Attract Us

By Bob Spencer

Alluring. Mysterious. Relaxing. Inspiring. Awesome. This is what an ocean offers.

And — sniffing the salt laden air, as one approaches the seaside, just adds to an ocean’s appeal.

I first became inspired by the ocean when in my teens, and I would sit by a summer sea in the evening and watch a full moon slowly rise out of the Atlantic. I promised myself then and there that I would seek to recreate such a feeling over my life span. Because it made my mind come alive, it becomes a catalyst of the imagination.

An ocean can reveal its infinite beauty – it can also raise its haunches in powerful strokes of stormy winds and tides to cause a show of respect.

Oceans symbolize freedom and escape from the ordinary. The unconscious mind can find a connection with the infinite array of life that abounds among the waves. The sounds of the sea can be like talking to God.

In one sense, the ocean appears stable and homogenous. On calm and sunny days this can be misleading. Right down beneath the surface, there can be turmoil of life. Whales are there seining plankton from the brine. Mollusks nestled in the sand below also wait to ensnare the next meal drifting down from above. A school of bluefish can surprise you by breaking the surface with their gnashing teeth seeking the next meal, and with the gulls soaring in to snatch a meal for themselves. It’s quite a mélange.

With oceans we have unpredictability, sensitivity, beauty, and strength. Wherever we are, we can access that image and help meld our emotions and physical being by meditating on the sea.

It is pretty well known that oceanic meditation is one great way to relax the stressors. Envision yourself perched on a beach with sand between the toes, and a salt spray wafting inland from a gentle surf breaking close-by. You’re aware of the ever changing tide either moving in – or moving out. The surf rustles up the sand, and then relaxes back to a slack moment awaiting the next tidal lick.

Close your eyes. The sun warms you. You notice a slight breeze—and sounds of a bird – or maybe an offshore boat – or even some human banter a bit down the beach. Then open the eyes and gaze out to the horizon, watching the colors of undulating waves mingled with the scope of the sky above. A slight humming, as some meditation devotees are wont to do, can get you tuned to a healthy level of relaxation. Don’t be too surprised to see a dolphin or even a seal frolicking in the waves. Soak in the beauty of this infinite splendor.

William Wordsworth once stated that “The Ocean is a mighty harmonist.” Within the estimated 340 million cubic miles of ocean waters there are an estimated more than 400,000 species. That means a sense of great harmony. Many see the seas as where life on earth began.

People are drawn to living within reach of the ocean and its connecting bays and inlets. There is a lingering respect for the ancient allure of historical exploration, along with the knowledge that there is yet much to be done – and much to be saved. Our early explorations of the sea were limited to what one could observe from the shorelines or aboard ships, or from what drifted ashore into those places that catch flotsam elements of ocean mysteries.

After thousands of years of this surface-thinking about oceanic wonder, there has been intense new scientific exploration into those mysteries to such a point that people now seek to preserve and protect those wonders. Many such as Rachel Carson and Jacques Cousteau have further stimulated our thinking to help gain a new understanding of the oceans so as to utilize the imagination stimulating powers for beneficial changes in how we view oceans in the future.

Along with the lure of watching a full moon rise out of the Atlantic at night, there is another aspect of the imagination stimulated by watching a summer sunrise start to show its light. Try sitting by the ocean or its bays before the dawn. A hue of pink begins to show. You know that you are seeing it as humans have seen it for thousands of years. You are in harmony with nature as your senses begin to sense the stirrings of nature, Breezes start. The animals and birds make small sounds. And you realize that thousands of thermonuclear explosions on the sun’s surface are creating life some 93 million miles away. Awesome.

The early sun glints warmly on the water. And you realize that humans are mostly composed of water (composed with minerals much like seawater) as well. You can well understand the attractive powers that draw you to be near the intriguing surface waters of the world.

Life’s easier with the edge of that ocean beside us.

Bob may be reached by e-mail at spencerbob@msn.com

Published in the March 2008 issue of Great South Bay Magazine.

Copyright 2008 Robert H. Spencer

ON SPENCER’S POINT

On the Nature of Fire Island

By
Bob Spencer

On a summer afternoon, I sometimes can imagine myself
suspended in mid-air about twenty feet above the oceanside
dunes of Fire Island.

Fire Island has many moods of a
simple order. On a clear sunny day, I can see many miles out to the blue sea
and miles along its sandy and grass-green shores as well. At other moments the
mood is stark gray, with scudding thunder clouds hovering over a white-capped
sea and over the bay spitting electric strikes – sometimes in rapid succession.
And it also has an extra beauty to reveal on a full-moon evening, with its
puffy clouds to flit about.

That simple closeness to the natural order of things can
raise wondrous thoughts in your mind. It can stimulate thoughts of just how
great it can be to be within such a canopy of kaleidoscopic nature.

One of those sunny mid-days, I began to focus on the dune
grass below and spotted a number of movements there. A rabbit here. A mouse or
shrew over there. A sparrow . And swallow soaring close to the beach looking
for a buggy lunch. And the gulls and terns were soaring as well.

It wasn’t long before I spotted a pair of ducks at the
ocean’s edge, working their way through an apparently clear tidal pool that was
only a few inches deep. They seemed to be feeding as if in the bay, but what
could it be that was their motivation? A bit of plankton off the ocean’s
run-up? I know that this can be lunch for the occasional whales that run
offshore, but ducks should be vegetarians. I’ll have to research that a bit
more.

It makes you think.

And I know that I’ll be seeing – in seasonal episodes — whales offshore, along with seals and
sea-turtles too. Things are improving for them I believe.

Far off to the right I spot two horseshoe crabs stranded
just after high tide that were slowly inching their way back to the ocean.
There weren’t too many people on the beach and I hoped that no one with
attitudes unsympathetic to horseshoe crabs would come by to tip them over or do
otherwise evil things. Those crabs have enough trouble surviving in reasonable
numbers in our Great South Bay, where they habituate in
good numbers and try to avoid those seeking to round them up beyond stated
limits for sale, as they have value for medical use.

I notice the grass once more. Storms last year had scarped
away the grass nearest the ocean, and I could see that the grass plugs which
were left topside of the dune, sending out little runners called rhizomes
(tendrils) downward into the sand blown into the base of the dune that would
replant the grass cover nearer the dune toe. While some beach grass can yield
seeds, like wheat that can be a means of regeneration, the rhizomic method
seems to be faster in getting the job done.

Jigging my eyes just a bit more on to the beach itself, I
notice that the recent high tide has left a wide swath of small pieces of
driftwood, and shells. My thoughts turn to the need to get down there onto the
beach to retrieve some of that for crafting into my driftwood clocks that I
whimsically produce for friends who like “beachy” stuff. Maybe there is a
harvest of beach glass in there as well, to add real extra value to the beachcombing
ahead.

I notice that the rather brisk breeze is blowing in from the
southwest today. I think – that’s good it will build up the beach when it comes
from the south or southwest with any vigor. I note that the offshore sandbar is
beginning to come back at low tide this week. That’s a good sign of the
possibility of the beach being able to repair itself after last year’s horrific
storms. I make a mental note of the fact that full moon and new moon higher
tides haven’t been as severely busting at the dunes toes lately because health
seems to be returning to the beach.

You might think that the beach scene is pretty much the
same, year after year, but it does change and evolve. I’m aware that some forty
years ago, mankind’s efforts tried to fortify the beach way down past Smith
Point, where I can see today in this clear air; also even further east where I
can’t see Moriches Inlet beyond. A sudden negative thought hits me about that
effort decades ago. An unwanted inlet formed as a result and sucked away
millions of cubic yards of sand that should have moved this way, until only a
few years ago. A boo-hiss act that that affected us over a 40-year span really
made me think about that one.

I return to my thoughts of what we like to think is the
protective offshore sand bar that is now struggling to reconstitute itself. I’d
like to reverse that unnatural act of 40 years past – and I once dreamed of
writing letters to try and get that legendary submarine, the Red October, to
park offshore in the sand bar location to protect the beach. Or maybe I’d like
30 to 40 subway cars that they drop offshore in many locations to stimulate
reef-like areas that harbor fish. I know – two wrong and unnatural acts don’t
make a right natural move.

I got thinking on the natural track once more by dwelling on
the idea that many of us see the ocean as where life on this planet once began.
I remember well the personal turn-on of Rachel Carson’s 1951 book The Sea Around Us. She had been chief
editor of all publications for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Her lifelong
passion with the preservation of nature was inspired by the mysteries of the
sea, which covers over 70% of this planet earth. They say that there are more
than 400,000 species in our oceans of more than 300 million cubic miles. That’s
a lot of thinking.

Carson asked her
readers to re-think complex phenomena like the sea as she had come to know it.
She was hoping that we would become enthusiasts for preserving the natural
qualities of the oceans and shores around us. She predicted that there would
result a great understanding of the oceans and its shore and that would create
beneficial changes in thinking.

That book stirred many early thoughts on the nature of Fire
Island for me at least.

“My soul is full of
longing for the secrets of the sea,

And the heart of the
great ocean sends a thrilling pulse through me.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Bob cane be e-mailed
at spencerbob@msn.com

Copyright 2008 Robert H.
Spencer

]]> http://www.fireislandassn.org/2008/01/on-the-nature-of-fire-island/feed/ http://www.fireislandassn.org/2006/08/how-fire-island-was-saved-from-being-paved-over/ http://www.fireislandassn.org/2006/08/how-fire-island-was-saved-from-being-paved-over/#comments Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:01:19 +0000 admin http://www.alex-lee.com/?p=3 By Bob Spencer

Many readers will be aware of some of the story about how Fire Island was saved from the paving of a highway, atop a sand-dike that had been first proposed by Robert Moses back in 1924, when he first became head of the Long Island State Park Commission. With each major storm after that, Bob Moses came back time and again with his same idea. But here, this reporter will try to set down a bit more on how the people of Fire Island, and just across the Great South Bay pulled off a little miracle.
It took mammoth storms in winters of 1954-55, and March 1962 — with huge destruction of many homes — to trigger action among thousands of people all along Long Island’s south shore.

Right after the 1954-55 storm, Gil Serber formed the Fire Island Erosion Control Committee (FIECC), which became a very active group participating in lobbying for a federally supported beach erosion and hurricane protection project from Montauk Point to Fire Island Inlet. Congress approved this project for the Army Corps of Engineers which included major beach nourishment in 1960. Some modest funds were appropriated, and then abruptly cut off soon thereafter, and we’re still “reformulating” plans today, after four decades of worsening erosion – much of it due to sand blockages to the east.

In that same 1960 year, in December, Islip proposed building a paved “service road” on the island’s west end, and the FIECC stood with nearly 1,000 hardy souls at a public hearing in Ocean Beach and showed their disdain for paved roads. Moses was surely not pleased, but he knew more storms were to come. Serber and other friends then set up a new not-for-profit organization in 1961 called the Fire Island Voters Association (FIVA) with Arthur Silsdorf as President. (FIVA later became the Fire Island Association.)

Just a few months later, in March 1962 we saw a monster nor’easter sit off Fire Island for five high lunar tides. It ripped out more than 40 homes on Fire Island. Moses was right on cue, but with a new wrinkle – pave an even larger four-lane highway right down over the Corps proposed dune and beach-building plan. Governor Rockefeller named Joseph Carlino, Speaker of the Assembly, as Chair of a “Temporary State Commission on Protection and Preservation of the Atlantic Shore Front,” but with Robert Moses as Secretary.

A public hearing was set for July 10 at Jones Beach. The FIVA set out to raise $20,000, and get massive batches of letters written, and generally organize the many hundreds of volunteers to oppose the proposed highway.

In March 1962, at the time of that storm, this reporter, with a home in eastern Davis Park, was as shocked as thousands of others at the idea of a Fire Island highway, with its huge right-of-way proposed, that would essentially wipe out many of the small communities on this barrier island, which often was less than 500 feet wide. But, oddly enough, I had a personal friend – George Biderman, Saltaire – who happened to be my fellow jazz-loving neighbor back in Manhattan. But he was also a staunch assistant to Arthur Silsdorf of FIVA. I called George and offered to raise money, make signs, and be a general rouser of righteousness, as my house was in the path of a ribbon of concrete. We were soon having meetings in Babylon, virtually across the street from Robert Moses.

By mid May, I was sitting in the restaurant of the Houser Hotel in Ocean Beach with Arthur Silsdorf, George Biderman, and Charles Collingwood (also Saltaire), CBS correspondent associate of Edward R. Murrow. We were getting an update. Silsdorf and Biderman were reporting on emergency funds becoming available for some limited summer dredging. They also were enthusiastic about all the new organizations, including conservationist groups, garden clubs and many civic groups joining in the struggle. They expected a good turnout in July. Collingwood reported that he believed he had some good points to make at the July meeting. Then Biderman reported that US Secretary of Interior, Stuart Udall, was coming out to support the Corps plan, but he was rejecting the Moses highway – calling it the “Hell and High-water oceanway plan.” (As the Fire Island News was to report on June 23, 1962.)

Then, Biderman told us of the progress that had been made on getting two bills moving in Congress to establish a National Seashore along the lines of the one recently established in Cape Cod. Senators Javits and Keating were sponsoring the Senate bill, while John Lindsay was sponsoring one in the House. He also reported that yet a second House bill was probably to be introduced by Congressman Otis Pike, a Democrat from Suffolk. (This was actually done in June 1963, and voted into the law to become the Seashore Act in 1964.)

The stage is set for July 10 at Jones Beach.

The meeting was to be in the modest sized marine dining room at Jones Beach. As many as 1,500 people were on hand to listen and speak. More than half could not gain entrance to the meeting room, and listened on loudspeakers outside.

The “Temporary Commission” had unanimously approved the Moses plan at a meeting on June 6th. Joseph Carlino started this four-hour meeting, and called on a long list of speakers. Road opponents had 90 minutes. Arthur Silsdorf of the Fire Island Voters Association talked about the virtues of turning all major undeveloped areas to a national seashore. This followed with FIVA-designated spokesmen Gil Serber, and George Biderman.

And then, Charles Collingwood, a well known TV personality came forth with his prepared speech. According to the New York Herald Tribune, Collingwood sprinkled his speech with quotes from “Alice in Wonderland” about the walrus and the carpenter weeping over sand. Then, as reported in The New York Times, Collingwood stated the following, which was referring to a 1938 letter from news correspondent Elmer Davis regarding Hitler’s taking over of the Sudetenland: “Mr. Moses wanted to save Fire Island ten years ago (1929), but luckily hard times came along and he didn’t have enough money to do it. Luckily, because he would save Fire Island the way Hitler is saving the Sudetenland – to the distress of many of its inhabitants.” Standing ovation.

This caused Moses to walk out of the meeting, and registered in headlines the following day. Even so, Moses was confidant that the Temporary Commission’s position would stand in September when the state legislature got back in operation. In fact, in August, the Suffolk County Board of Supervisors voted for it, and things seemed bleak.

There was one more hurdle to go. It yielded a surprise.

The FIVA now had the Moses plan in enough detail to analyze it. Very quickly it was discerned that most of the land to be traversed by the highway was to be placed into private development, not into parks for the public. Some of the areas to be developed were to be made available to those with homes eliminated by the road, but the major portion was to be opened for new development.

The idea developed then was to prepare a detailed report of this analysis, and then present it to Governor Nelson’s brother, Laurence Rockefeller, widely perceived as a conservationist. He was heavily involved with New York State parks.

It was not long thereafter that Governor Rockefeller asked Moses to resign from the New York State Council of Parks.

From that point on, the lobbying efforts of the Fire Island Association (evolved from FIVA), and many other affiliated groups such as the Citizens Committee for a National Seashore, based on the mainland, were much more effective. Interior Secretary Udall then added to his support of the Corps beach nourishment plan, and gave his full support to a new National Seashore.

Congressman Otis Pike of Suffolk introduced his version of a Seashore bill in June 1963. It was strongly supported by Secretary Udall, and that’s the bill to get enacted and signed into law in September 1964. This unique Act, unlike that of any other US National Seashore, embeds 17 communities – uniquely — right within the park.

Recent Interior Secretaries have not also supported the 1960 Corps plans for beach nourishment. Now, with Corps planners expected to offer us later this year a new sand restoration program, best suited for Fire Island and Long Island protection, this may change. For one thing, there is a new Interior Secretary in office now – his name is Dirk Kempthorne.

Hope has been springing eternal for residents around the Great South Bay since the Army Corps announced their intentions in1960. The Fire Island Association is alert, and may have another think-session at the Houser Hotel.

Copyright 2006 Robert H. Spencer
First rights exclusively to Fire Island News — gratis

The purpose of this guidance is to provide for consistent treatment and a clear understanding of compliance requirements and park policy concerning applications for special use permits for the repair and replacement of bulkheads on private property.

ON SPENCER’S POINT

Love for a Barrier Island by the Sea

By Bob Spencer

The ocean has a mystique for millions of people, who are drawn to it for many hidden reasons.

I caught a life-long urge to explore that mystique as a teenager one evening sitting on a beach in Maine staring at the full moon rising out of calm and distant ocean horizon. When I turned 29, I borrowed a dune-full of money and built a small house on the barrier island of Fire Island to espy those moon rises — and occasionally some sunrises. I had connected with something meaningful.

I can remember one late and dusky September afternoon when I was body surfing with “island-famous” Hobby Miller. The beach was especially flat that evening, and modestly good surf was rolling steadily in for possibly more than 200 feet before halting. Both of us had caught the swells well out and were gliding along at the end of this marvelous ride to the last ultimate inch. I was a mite skinnier then and won that “heat” by an inch or three. We laughed and stood up. Hobby had this world famous grin and stared intently out to sea. After a moment, he said with a flourish, ”Did you ever stop and think about all the billions of creatures living in this ocean, with everything eating everything else? Wow, it makes you think.”

That’s exactly one of the things that the sea can do is make you think. It fascinates. It has mysteries. It’s a lot more than a sea-view.

One learns early to respect the ocean. If you give it its strong close relative, the wind, it can be wreaking havoc in no time at all. Even those giant whales offshore swim just a bit deeper on those days when the sea is yelling for respect. This is when you also gain respect for a “barrier island” such as Fire Island in doing a special task of holding much of those raucous storm waters away from low lying back bays, marinas and homesteads along those waterways.

Living close to the sea also can place a barrier against what might be life’s complications. You can remove yourself from many of life’s stresses. When I first came to Fire Island we had no electricity and loved it. Egad, gas refrigerators and no TV! Without many electric lights in communities, the stars at night glistened a lot more clearly than you find in most locations nearby. It was not until 1994 that I succumbed and allowed a full wiring to my house. I had just felt closer to natural things without it.

When you do feel close to nature, you tend to scan the environment a bit differently. Again, it makes one think. You stare at the small things that grow off to the sides of paths and boardwalks. You begin to focus on the many things that struggle to live, and the many other things that grow with gusto. You often stroll along the ocean and bay beaches and stare at the thousands of flotsam objects that keep appearing in varying patterns each day. You tend to appreciate nature’s art. These adjacent sea elements are poetry to life at its edge.

It’s this combination of “artistic sense” and respect for nature that welds together people who live or visit barrier islands. Many years ago, when a monster storm came along one mid-March, 1962 the few thousand residents of Fire Island banded together to defeat a project put forth by Robert Moses to build a road-dike down the middle of this small barrier island. As a result of their love of the road-free island they initiated multiple bills in Congress to bring in a National Park, such as the US government had successfully created in Cape Cod. This worked, and the Seashore came in two years.

But now there are those with governmental and also non-government planning agencies who think they love the island even more than the original residents, and who think it would be nice to “naturalize” the beach and eventually present a barrier beach without some 400 to 500 houses remaining along the dunes. Mind you, the 17 Fire Island communities only exist within six miles of the 32-mile island, and fought hard to keep roads away, so there are troubles ahead. This is especially so since there was major sand-catching groin construction at Westhampton some 40 years ago, which was left unfilled with sand when constructed, and that has caused chronic sand-blocking and extra erosion all along Fire Island. There thus is some resentment about not replacing blocked sand, accompanied by possible removal of homes via storms or new laws..

Beware those “messing with the love affair” of many islanders with the preserved natural wonders which many residents take credit for.

It’s going to be the question of who is more in love with Fire Island – the residents or the governmental planners?

Anyone who has a passion for shorelines, and waking up to Atlantic sunrises with surfing sound effects, followed by moonrises, will become fervent in their protective nature of living within a slightly less complicated way of life, that amounts to “seaside grace.” There is a strong appreciation of nature’s air, light, sounds and colors by the sea that often brings treasures ashore and makes artists of us all. There is mutual appreciation of fellow Fire Islanders who have a like-minded leaning to artistry of the “seaside grace” contained in the life-style located there.

Carl Jung, well known psychiatrist of the last century characterized our fascination with the world’s seas as connected to the “collective unconscious,” and thus symbolizing why we feel so at home at the edges of our seas.

Rachel Carson had an affinity for oceans as well. She would say that the only way to understand the planet we inhabit was to take a long ocean voyage, and spend the day looking at nothing but the sea. I’ll bet that standing onshore, and absorbing the early glistening waves of sunlight at dawn, or the moon light dappling the waves of night off the shores of Fire Island would have brought smiles to her eyes.

Bob may be e-mailed at spencerbob@msn.com

Copyright 2006 Robert H. Spencer

ON SPENCER’S POINT

The Seal Island Legend

By Bob Spencer

Four years ago, this reporter wrote here of a discovery on Fire Island, which is the current name for Seal Island — its Algonquin name. In this report it was revealed that a large collection of 40 wooden cases of wampum, along with some gold doubloons, silver pieces of eight, along with English coins and pieces of parchment were uncovered under an early 19^th century site of one of the life saving station “rescue huts” built by volunteers along Fire Island in 1805. Four years ago it was estimated that this might be worth ten million dollars.

Because this cache of mixed treasure was discovered on private land, it was never reported beyond a small article in a numismatics trade magazine.

Now it seems that the parchments – some in fragments – contain certain information that was originally written in 1641 and 1642, right after the first European settlers appeared in Long Island. The writing was in the hand of Henryk Neuhaus, who identified himself as a Dutch settler – a former sailor who had jumped ship and was then living with the Secatogue Native Americans on the north shore of what is now called the Great South Bay.

History indicates that the Dutch had begun their colony, New Amsterdam, back on the Hudson River, and were endeavoring to enlarge their territory, while the English who had first settled in New England, had been expanding southward from New England to the eastern tip of Long Island. The English and Dutch had no love for each other.

History also shows that the English had been through an aggressive war five years earlier with the Pequot Indians in southern New England, and were actively settling in Long Island by 1640. There were several tribes on Long Island that had established “tributary relationships” with the Pequots. These tribes now knew they had to deal with the English. The main tribe — the Montaukettes – was headed by young chief sachem Wyandanch

One of those other tribes with former allegiance to the Pequots was the Secatogues. Neuhaus wrote that he had settled in the Secatogue Native American area in what is now Sayville, where there was a substantial farming village that also harvested an enormous resource from the Great South Bay – quahogs, the Algonquin word for clams. Since the Europeans had arrived in America, and traded with the Indians. Almost every tribe along Long Island’s north and south shore had access to European metal tools for the manufacture of wampum from the plentiful hard clams in Great South Bay and Long Island Sound.

The Secatogue Native Americans – had an enormous advantage over most other tribes on Long Island with the rich quantities of the quahogs that were available close by. There were hundreds of artisans making some of the highest quality wampum beads which were often woven into intricate patterns that were prized all over the area within hundreds of miles.

Wampum was considered “status related” and quite valuable. It was widely used in the place of European coin in trading with other widespread tribes. Archaeologists have discovered that wampum has been found in remote locations as far west as the Dakotas, and copper from the Minnesota area has turned up in Algonquin graves. The colonists, needing furs and agricultural goods even adopted wampum as legal tender for the period between 1630 and 1660

The idea was to conserve scarce coin supplies for trading with the European market. This caused a burst in wampum production during that time. Generally, six white beads were worth about one penny, while the colored ones – purple or black — were worth about double at that time.

As has been the case throughout history of those times, when a group becomes successful in accumulating wealth, they also begin to realize that they were vulnerable to attacks.

The Secatogue chief sachem – Cockenkata — had given one of his daughters in marriage to Henryk Neuhaus. Together they decided that the wealth of the entire tribe was at stake, out of concern that English soldiers would attack from the east. Neuhaus, had a role in deciding that the safe answer was to relocate their community wealth in a place outside of their village. Seal Island was chosen.

The fact that the wampum and coin trove found on Seal Island remained hidden for almost 370 years is quite phenomenal and the trail goes cold. Could it be that the entire Secatogue tribe was destroyed at some point soon thereafter Neuhaus made his writings? Also, many Native Americans succumbed to European diseases.

It is known that the Dutch New Amsterdam colony only existed until 1664 when the English Duke of York sent a fleet to threaten New Amsterdam, which did not have the ability to resist. And no record exists in history of the fate of Secatogue sachem Cockenkata.

And how did it happen that the trove ended up beneath one of the “rescue huts” on Fire Island and did not get reported? Or taken?

The quahogs are still in the bay, and rumors have it that they are becoming more plentiful now that current machine-harvesting techniques have been abandoned. Today, the wampum makers are local artists who find well burnished shell pieces along the coastal beaches of Seal Island.

Bob can be reached at spencerbob@msn.com

Copyright 2008 Robert H. Spencer

]]> http://www.fireislandassn.org/2005/02/the-seal-island-legend/feed/ http://www.fireislandassn.org/2005/01/whale-off/ http://www.fireislandassn.org/2005/01/whale-off/#comments Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:04:47 +0000 admin http://www.fireislandassn.org/?p=361

ON SPENCER’S POINT

“Whale — Off!”

By Bob Spencer

One of the earliest references to Fire Island I’ve ever found is for 1653 when Isaac Stratford set up whaling huts at Whalehouse Point on the Great South Beach, opposite Bellport, on what is now Fire Island. It is still called this today, and even has a private community ferry that chugs out there for recreational “beaching,” within the “Wilderness Area” of the Seashore. (It’s about halfway between Smith Point and Watch Hill.)

Back in 1653 Stratford didn’t have “beaching” in mind. His objective was to harpoon a whale or three, and make a profit.

An ancient letter has come into my possession, lent to me from a historian I’ve known for decades, who has many connections to those now living in Bellport. It is addressed to “Arthur”, dated Oct. 1, 1798, and signed “Ed.” I quote:

“Strange things happen on South Beach. The latest one I’ve heard is foreboding.

In the early part of this century, a Stratford whaling crew, half Indians, had their whaling hut east of Quanch, at a place called Whalehouse Point. They used to land at the point where the water is deep. They would live in those huts during the whaling seasons and watch the sea every day from rickety towers – ready to launch their boats and push off whenever they saw a whale blow.

Their supplies were brought ashore from across the bay to the north side of the island, and fires were built in a giant fireplace on the island to signal when supplies were needed from across the bay at Long Point, and also whenever help was needed in the way of new crew.

When a fire flashed up at night on the beach, the extra crew would row across the bay, heading directly for the fire with supplies. On the north side of the bay, others looked to send signals by fires as well.

This crew in one of the beach huts had been expecting a response fire signal for three days now, and they were getting short of supplies.

Now, the curious thing about this is a man named Jonas who was the watch for the second of those nights, and had a very strange experience. That South Beach, you know, is one of the most lonely places in the world. Take it on a dark night with the wind blowin wild and spooky.

That night, just past midnight, Jonas took it upon himself to walk in the dark westward about a mile. Frequently he would go down in the hollows between the sand hills and stop and listen. He heard – under the black and starry sky, the sound of the wind in the grass, and the beat of the surf.

And yet there was something more. There was a moaning sound – almost human he thought — carried on the wind to the west of where Jonas stood. As he stood thinking of it, the moaning sound came again, stronger than before, but to the east of him. Jonas became skittish, and quickly made his way to the bunk in the hut. It was two hours before he could get to sleep.

The next morning a whale was sighted close to shore. A shout “Whale off!” came from atop the watch tower. That’s the shout you know to alert the crew to action. They launched their whale-boat and put off for him. They calculated where the whale would next rise above the water, and rowed to that spot. He came up lengthwise of their boat, just far enough ahead to smash it with its flukes. It was a Right Whale, and they strike sideways, you know, with their tail.

“Stern all,” was the call. They whirled around – whale-boats are sharp at both ends you know – and they rowed straight for the whale. Quebax, the harpooner, fastened his oar, rose up in the bow, grasped hard at the harpoon, and threw it a long fifteen feet, and it entered the whale’s side and held securely. But the whale turned suddenly and struck the boat with his head, staving the boat into hundreds of splinters.

All the crew, thrown in the sea, was able to swim to the beach except Quebax who must have got tangled in the ropes. His body was never found. Nor was the whale seen again.

It was toward the end of the season – this whale would have made their sixth – and the disaster broke off their whaling for the year.

Jonas has been thinking that the moaning sounds came most in the area close to this disaster. He feels that they were foretelling the misfortune that was about to befall the crew. It sure did sound human, and then again, the whale could have been making a sound like that as well. To this day, on certain dark nights about midnight, with the wind coming from the southeast, there are reports of these moaning sounds still putting some fear in the crews that stay on that beach.

There’s talk now of abandoning whaling off this part of the beach. Some feel it is haunted now by the sounds of Quebax and the whale dying together that night.” (End of letter)

Whaling is now off

Whaling off the beaches of Fire Island ceased by the mid-1800s, and ceased entirely as well off the sailing ships that were based in Sag Harbor, Cold Spring Harbor, Greenport, Nantucket, New Bedford and elsewhere by the 1930s when whale hunting was banned off US shores.

Right whales were vulnerable to hunting, as they have the habit of slowly cruising along the surface, skimming plankton and krill. Whalers of old termed them “Right Whales” because they felt that they were easy prey and “right” for the whaling industry. As a result their numbers diminished over the years to less than 100 along the Atlantic coast by the 1930s. Reports are that the Right Whale population is now back up to 300-350 creature cetaceans cruising back and forth from south to north and back with the seasons.

If you are lucky, and do a lot of ocean staring, as I do, you can hope to see a whale or two offshore as did the whale spotters of the 1800s. You have heard that whales sing, have you not? They surely can make a range of mammalian sound, and probably they would include moaning sounds, such as the moans that seem to lurk at midnight among the dune hills along the Fire Island Wilderness area of the National Seashore where Jonas once stood.

Bob can be reached at spencerbob@msn.com

Copyright 2005 Robert H. Spencer

The article whose title and authors appear above, appeared in
successive issues of Environmental Law in New York, Vol. 13, Nos. 10 and
11, October and November, 2002. It puts forward a misguided and
uninformed theory aimed at removing residential property from the Fire
Island National Seashore. The authors seem unaware of existing law on
the subject and are not informed as to the scientific or technical
background of the issues the article discusses.

The article analyzes “the bleak prospect of permanently losing our
beaches to a wave of development, particularly fostered by a lack of
informed land use decisions.” After at-tempting to explain why the
“natural processes” involved make barrier islands “unsuitable for
permanent development, and why “solutions that involve structural
engineering … have been futile,” the article sets forth “a regulatory
solution … that is both effective and practical.” In fact, the article
answers none of the questions it poses. Instead, it demonstrates the
potential harm that can result when a social policy agenda determines in
advance the outcome of re-search. By quoting selectively from relevant
materials, but relying for the most part on like-minded theorists
speaking in a seriously out of date tract that is aimed at a
non-technical audience, the article contributes little to an
understanding of the coastal policy issues under discussion.

The following comments and observations are keyed to page numbers:

The authors introduce the article by describing the coastal
environment as “a place of insurmountable beauty, serenity and grandeur”
but noting (p. 176) “Dozens of homes are built every day on this fragile
environment.” And, while “[s]table beaches can withstand an in-crease in
development, … barrier islands are too transitional due to their natural
processes to accommodate permanent structural development.” Thus, the
authors’ entire premise is aimed at the existence of processes peculiar
to barrier island beaches. Those processes, however, do not reflect
conditions in the developed portion of Fire Island, a fact that
undermines most if not all of the authors’ argument.

Footnote 3 at the end of the quoted sentence directs us to p. 59 of
Beach Nourishment and Protection, a 1995 report of the National Research
Council’s Marine Board Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection
(“Beach Nourishment”) for support of the statement. But reference to p.
59 leads to no discussion whatever about barrier islands being “too
transitional … to accommodate … development.” Moreover, a seemingly
relevant sentence that does appear on that page, “… our ability to
predict sediment behavior on beaches and there-fore to design successful
beach fill projects has improved considerably in the past two decades”
is not cited.

In the next sentence of the article’s introduction, the authors state
flatly that: “Barrier islands are not the place for permanent
development and preserving them through structural and other
non-structural solutions is of uncertain value.” Again, no authority for
the conclusion is given and nothing in the balance of the article
supports it. Nevertheless, the authors assert, “A regulatory solution is
available that is both effective and realistic,” and the article will
“attempt to offer a paramount solution, ‘the beach zone’.” Further, the
authors say they will “[use] Fire Island, a critical barrier island off
the coast of Long Island, New York, as a case study” but soon
demonstrate they have done little research into that island’s history or
natural processes, much less the legislative history of the Fire Island
National Seashore. (FINS). (It might be noted here that the article was
prepared by students of Professor John Nolon, of Pace University Law
School, who may have noted in a lecture that he had participated in a
workshop at which potential non-structural flood damage prevention
measures were discussed, with particular reference to Fire Island, NY.)

The authors are optimistic that their concerns for the coastline will
become public concerns (“… the dynamic nature of barrier islands that
often make them unsuitable for permanent development … has resulted in
an increased awareness by the public of the need for proper coastal
management.”) The authors leave little doubt that “proper” management
means ridding beaches of residential development and they warn that
“affluent landowners” will not approve of their proposed solution. Why
the “affluence” of the property owners is relevant to the policy
discussion is not explained.

The section headed “Transitional Environment of the Barrier Islands”
(p.177) de-scribes why “Barrier islands are inhospitable locations for
development due to their transitional nature.” The authors offer a basic
explanation of “barrier island migration,” neglecting to mention that it
is a phenomenon that occurs over millennia, rather than decades. They
seem unaware that on Fire Island, their chosen “case history,” barrier
island migration does not occur at all in the western half of the
island. According to Leatherman and Allen, “The western section [of Fire
Island] is axially stable.” (Leatherman, S. P. and Allen, J. R., Eds.,
Geomorphic Analysis, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, Long Island,
New York Reformulation Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York,
1985, p. 259.) This continues to be the accepted wisdom on the matter of
whether barrier island migration is a significant factor on Fire Island.
See, e.g., An Overview and Assessment of the Coastal Processes Data Base
for the South Shore of Long Island, Proceedings of a Workshop, Tanski,
Jay and Bokuniewicz, H. J., convenors, New York Sea Grant Program
Special Report No. 104, 1990:

“The central and western sections of Fire Island have been axially
stable for hundreds of years (Leatherman and Allen, 1985). From a
management standpoint, the relative stability of the barrier island over
long time periods indicates that concerns regarding disruption of
barrier island migration by inlet processes may be of secondary
importance compared to other more immediate impacts associated with the
formation of inlets.” (p. 47)

As “western Fire Island” is where all the development is, the
authors’ concern about development being “inappropriate” would seem
misplaced. The introduction of alarming statistics, such as “barrier
islands along the Atlantic Coast have been moving landward at a rate of
1.5 meters a year,” may or may not have relevance elsewhere; it clearly
does not apply to the developed portion (about 20 percent) of Fire
Island.

The authors’ concern about the “unpleasant surprises” coastal
property owners may be faced with extends to sea level rise “due to what
is known as global warming.” They may be unaware that beach building is
an eminently logical response to a rising sea level. According to
Newsday, a “key finding” of a recent United Nations Report on global
warming was that remedies for the Atlantic Coast include “build barrier
islands” and “raise beaches.” (“An Un-easy Climate / Report forecasts
effects, mostly bad, of global warming,” Newsday, February 20, 2002)

The solution favored by the authors is to depopulate shorelines
developed with single family residences. The principal tool for
accomplishing this would be local zoning codes. Thus the authors state
(p. 178) in footnote 28: “Coastal zone planning and development have
been largely based on the concept that beaches and barrier islands are
stable or that they can be engineered to remain stable.” In fact,
western Fire Island is relatively stable, as noted. In addition,
improved construction techniques have led to many successful beach
nourishment projects, as noted in the National Research Council study
referred to above.

In a discussion (p. 178-179) of whether the “funding burden” of shore
protection projects is “appropriate” or not, the authors note that
“local governments are not likely to seek out less costly alternatives,
such as non-structural solutions.” (Why more “costly alternatives” are
preferred is not explained.) In addition, the authors quote Beach
Nourishment on the question of whether “the direct beneficiaries
(coastal landowners) of a project contribute a fair and appropriate
share of the costs.” A footnote directs the reader to p. 43 where the
quotation, minus the parenthetical phrase, appears. The authors ignore,
however, the following sentences:

“[T]he perception by some [is] that beach nourishment is a government
“gift” to a wealthy segment of the population. This issue may be the
primary underlying factor that stimulates criticism of many projects.”
The report then proceeds to examine the question, concluding, “Just as
each nourishment project has physical conditions that are unique, each
project has economic and social conditions that are unique. … The is-sue
to be examined is whether the total distribution of benefits realized …
should be the basis for determining the cost-sharing partnership ratio.”
(p. 45)

This kind of selective referencing appears often in the article.

The next paragraph (p. 179) contains another example. “… after 70
years of involvement in coastal management, the USACE has been
ineffective in curtailing erosion.” Again, a footnote promises support
for the statement but in this case it directs the reader to “See infra
Sec. III, A-C.” This turns out to be a short paragraph each on “Groins
and Jetties,” “Seawalls and Bulkheads,” and “Beach Nourishment.” In none
of these paragraphs, however, and in none of the footnotes to them, is
there any reference to the Corps of Engineers being “ineffec-tive at
curtailing erosion.”

In general, the authors’ research seems to have been confined to
documents that sup-port their point of view, or portions of documents
that seem to do so when taken out of con-text. They rely often on Living
With Long Island’s South Shore, one of a series of monographs edited by
Orrin Pilkey, a critic of beach nourishment of wide renown, and
published by Duke University, where Prof. Pilkey is employed. Directed
towards a lay audience, as opposed to planners or engineers, the
monograph in question was published in 1984. It does have the ad-vantage
of being easy to understand, especially if the reader starts with a
strong antipathy to-ward shore protection projects.

We are told (p. 179) “… structural solutions have proved to be of
dubious value be-cause they alter the natural processes of the dynamic
barrier islands… .” Again, to the extent that the “natural process” is
“barrier island migration,” there should be no problem on Fire Island
because that process has been shown to not to occur there in a
meaningful way. If the natural process referred to is erosion, well,
curbing erosion is the purpose of the intervention. A process is not
beneficial simply because it is “natural.” The balance of the authors’
sentence is confusing: “[Structural solutions … alter the natural
processes of the dynamic barrier is-lands] which through time,
paradoxically, destroy the structures that were built to protect them.”
Are the authors alleging that groins, seawalls, etc., will be destroyed
by altered natural processes? If so, considerable rethinking by
generations of coastal engineers is in order.

The authors go on to state, without reference to scientific or
technical support, “Most structural solutions fail to allow the
shoreline to migrate naturally and therefore cause accelerated erosion.”
They continue, “Most structural solutions on or near the shoreline
change the natural balance and reduce the natural flexibility of the
beach. The result is often change that often threatens the structures
that people have erected.” The subject has been changed from erosion
control structures to residential structures.

The authors introduce (p. 179) the “Shoreowners Protection Act,”
citing it as “evi-dence that governmental interest in structural
solutions is abating.” A later footnote (no. 47) seems to associate the
Act with “New York Environmental Conservation Law § 34-0101(4).” The
statute codified under this heading is titled “Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas.” It does not include reference to “shoreowner protection” nor
does the cited section “recognize[d] the in-effectiveness of such
structural solutions.”

In the last sentence on p. 179 the authors assert: “All structural
solutions negatively affect the environment.” But the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency rated a proposed beach fill project for Fire Island at
LO-1, its lowest rating for environmental impact. (Letter, R. W.
Hargrove, Chief, Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch, EPA
Region 2, to Frank Santomauro, Chief, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, New York District, January 28, 2000) The authors do not
refer to the Corps of Engineers’ $8.5 million, 7-year “Biological
Monitoring Program for Beach Nourishment Operations in Northern New
Jersey,” that concludes, “[A]ll forms of animal and plant life
essentially recover fully from the effects of beach nourishment in a
relatively short time” (“Sea Life Rebounds After beach Nourishment,” (www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/beach
nourishment.htm.)

On p. 180, the authors characterize groins and jetties as more
environmentally damaging than seawalls and bulkheads, without explaining
why this is so. Nor do they distinguish between types and sizes of
groins, or admit that some have been found effective. Similarly, the
authors say, “Sand pumping can rebuild dunes to their previous height,
but these artificial dunes are likely to wash away in a few years or in
a major storm” (emphasis added). They again cite the 1984 Pilkey/McCormick
document to reach the conclusion that “beach nourishment is an eternal
project.” A dune made of sand is not “artificial.” No doubt the authors
have reference to the fact that a replacement dune cannot immediately
become vegetated with the beach grass whose rhizome structure tends to
hold dunes together. But all beach fill projects call for planting,
fertilizing and watering beach grass in recognition of the importance
vegetation has to a rebuilt dune. Given mild enough winters immediately
after the dune is re-built, it soon becomes indistinguishable from a
“natural” dune.

The authors’ quote the offhand reference in the Pilkey/McCormick
monograph to the effect that “beach replenishment is being advocated by
the same factions that gave us [Cape May, Sea Bright and] Westhampton
Beach.” It is ironic that, almost twenty years later, the projects named
are among the most successful beach replenishment efforts. Research
would also have revealed that West Hampton Dunes showed a very large
increase in production of Piping Plovers as a direct result of the
replenished beach in that location.

The final paragraph of Section III (p. 180) tells us that “Structural
solutions are speeding erosion, narrowing the shoreline’s width and
slowly destroying the quality of the beach.” The authors quite clearly
include beach nourishment in their list of ineffective “structural
solutions,” but do not refer the reader to the following statement from
the Executive Summary to the National Research Council’s report on the
matter:

“Beach nourishment is a viable engineering alternative for shore
protection and is the principal technique for beach restoration; its
application is suitable for some, but not all, locations where erosion
is occurring.” (Beach Nourishment, p. 3.)

The authors’ statement that “Structural solutions are speeding
erosion, narrowing the shoreline’s width [beach width?] and slowly
destroying the quality of the beach” is demonstrably false, even if it
appears in the outdated monograph referred to above. And, contrary to
another baseless assertion by the authors, studies have shown that
shoreline development is not encouraged by the existence of beach
replenishment projects in the area. (See, e.g., Shoreline Protection and
Beach Erosion Control Study, Final Report: An Analysis of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program, June 1996, IWR Report 96 –
PS –1.)

Turning to “Non-Structural Solutions” (p. 180), the authors deal
first with “Construc-tion Standards.” They have not researched the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to learn the extent to which
coastal structures must conform to rigorous standards for their owners
to qualify for flood insurance. The authors suggest this is unimportant
because construction codes “are merely a temporary measure [that] cannot
protect the structures completely” and “no building measure can save a
structure from the natural process of barrier island migration.” Whether
true or not, the statement is, as noted, not relevant to Fire Island.

In a section headed “Building Retrofit Measures” (p. 181), the
authors refer to “constraints,” such as “increased susceptibility to
wind damage during storms.” In fact, the New York Property Insurance
Underwriters Association requires wind insurance on houses located near
open water. It has imposed many special requirements on coastal
structures if they are to qualify for insurance against wind damage.
These standards were worked out cooperatively with homeowner
representatives. (See, Eserner, M., “The Role of the Insurance Industry
in Coastal Zone Management,” Proceedings, LICA Conference, March 1990,
p.20.)

In a section titled “Economic Solutions” (p. 181), the authors refer
to a four-year old newsletter from the Coast Alliance, a
Washington-based federation of environmental groups opposed to coastal
property ownership (and therefore to the NFIP, which it believes encour-ages
such ownership). The Alliance newsletter asserts that “2% of properties
in the NFIP account for 40% of the damage claims.” The Alliance does not
claim that the “2%’ are coastal structures, however. In fact, most NFIP
claims are from inland, riverine areas. And it is well known that
properties in the most vulnerable coastal regions, known as V-zones, are
not a drain on the program. Despite the authors’ reference to another
report from the National Re-search Council’s Marine Board, Managing
Coastal Erosion (1990), they managed to miss the sentence on p. 77 that
reads, “To date, V-zone policies have paid their own way and have not
generated excessive or unacceptable numbers of losses or repetitive
losses.” Since this sentence was written, the numbers have improved; not
worsened.

In the second part of the article, beginning on p. 197, the authors’
lack of knowledge of the relevant statutes that deal with coastal policy
on Fire Island becomes apparent. New York’s Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
Act (CEHAA), 34 ECL Ch. 34, is mentioned only in passing, despite the
fact that the CEHA rules promise to be the controlling land use
mechanism the article seeks. CEHA, adopted in 1981 elsewhere in the
state, did not become effective on Fire Island until 1999, something the
authors do not mention. It is also of interest that property owner
groups asked that the act apply to Fire Island because, as the state’s
primary coastal erosion control statute, it must be in place before the
state can join with the Corps of Engineers in an erosion control
project. This would seem relevant in an article about coastal policy.

Interestingly, the Fire Island National Seashore Act also escapes
mention, as does the extensive Congressional debate in connection
therewith. That debate, and subsequent zoning regulations (36 CFR Part
28) make crystal clear the Congressional intent to allow and protect
from condemnation the very development the authors would see abolished.

According to the authors (p. 202), “… the municipality should
institute programs promoting active public participation and take steps
to ensure that those who use the beaches, those that suffer the ill
effects of erosion, and those that pay the costs of rebuilding
understand the goal of the ordinance and seek their involvement and
support.” It is not irrelevant, how-ever, that the Towns of Brookhaven
and Islip collect millions of dollars of property taxes and enjoy the
benefits of many hundreds of jobs and large amounts of economic activity
as a result of the millions who visit the Fire Island communities each
year. Any effort to “fully involve and educate the public” might well
start with the Town Board members who as yet have shown little interest
in how the economic benefits of the barrier beach can be eliminated from
the towns’ revenue streams.

The authors have their own ideas about what uses of land should be
permitted on Fire Island. Unfortunately, the recital of their preferred
uses reveals a stark lack of familiarity with the island itself. They
suggest (p. 198), for example, that with the elimination of houses there
will be room for “public beaches; catwalks[?]; camp sites; non-motorized
boating; picnic areas; outdoor recreation operated by a governmental
division or agency; conservation uses; wildlife sanctuaries and
facilities; hunting and fishing preserves; hiking trails and bridle
paths [?]; and preservation of scenic and scientific areas.” Other
“compatible uses” the authors envision include “bait and tackle shops,
lockers, docks, piers, boat houses, parking lots and public rest rooms
[that] will be allowed subject to the issuance of a special permit.”

The authors seem unaware that zoning and land use on Fire Island are
regulated by the National Park Service in that local zoning (by the
towns of Brookhaven and Islip and the incorporated Islip villages of
Saltaire and Ocean Beach) must be consistent with regulations
established by the Secretary of the Interior (see 36 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 28, August 29, 1991). Further, as automobile travel to
Fire Island is now restricted, virtually all visitors to the island
between Smith Point County Park and Robert Moses State Park travel there
by commercial ferry services. The ferries exist primarily to serve the
communities; remove the communities, as seems to be the objective here,
and the ferry services will disappear as well.

In a section headed “Compatibility with Federal and State Law (p.
200), the authors refer to the “Shoreowner’s Protection Act” and also to
the federal Coastal Barriers Resources Act. As to the latter, after a
lengthy description of its terms, the authors note it does not apply to
developed barriers such as Fire Island. And the “Shoreowner’s Protection
Act,” seems here confused with the New York’s Coastal Management
Program. The 44 coastal policies referred to were adopted as a condition
of the state receiving funds available under the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act. While it may be granted that New York’s coastal zone
management policies are convoluted and at times contradictory, at least
a rudimentary knowledge of the existing statutes would seem prerequisite
to authoring an article on the subject.

The authors assert that while Article 34 “limits new development, it
does not address existing structures.” But 6 NYCRR 505, the regulations
implementing the Article, refers specifically to existing structures in
505.8(e). Apparently not clear on the state role, the authors state (p.
201) “it is vital that the municipality take over this [Fire Island]
permitting process.” In fact, the Town of Islip and Suffolk County have
both recently shunned the opportunity to administer Article 34 and
turned that function over to the state DEC, while Brookhaven has opted
to implement its own version. The somewhat breathless description (p.
203) of “a full study of the environmental benefits and economic costs
and benefits of the action” shows no awareness whatever of the way
municipalities implement zoning regulations in practice.

In the section headed “Constitutional Challenges” (p. 203), the
authors remind us of their recommendation (p. 198-199) that all private
structures on Fire Island should be forth-with deemed “non-conforming
uses” and fully eliminated in 50 years. The ordinance implementing this
recommendation, we are told (p. 203), “may be attacked by landowners,”
which might be something of an understatement. But the authors believe
that spreading the impact of a taking over fifty years so that owners
can “recoup their investment” would be sufficient to avoid a takings
claim, a proposition they support by citing an article by Professor
Nolon, whose guidance in preparing the article they effusively
acknowledge.

Other observers might think that, as soon the “fifty years and out”
policy is announced, the property is vastly diminished in value and the
owners would seem entitled to immediate compensation. Whether or not an
owner’s investment is recouped, the reaction of the public to the
explanation that these expenditures are necessary so that certain
barrier is-land processes, which do not even exist in the area under
discussion, shall not be impaired, can be imagined. A politician who
embraced such a scheme might expect a short career.

The authors note, “There is a strong public purpose in protecting our
nation’s shore-line.” This is certainly true and for the past several
decades shore protection has been practiced, primarily through beach
nourishment. The protection proposed by the authors, however, would be
implemented by depopulating coastal areas. As residential use is usually
deemed the highest and best use of property, the authors’ proposal is
obviously an effort to effect the social objective of depriving
“affluent landowners” of their right to own coastal property. The fact
that, populated or not, beaches must be protected from the effects of
storms and past stabilization of inlets, is not addressed in the
article.

In a section entitled “Economic Impact” (p. 205) the authors
demonstrate a similar lack of familiarity with basic economics. As
noted, Professor Nolon, acknowledged as tutor and “mentor” by the
authors, presented the principle themes of their paper in a workshop
presented by the Nature Conservancy and the Corps of Engineers in 1999.
Perceived shortcomings in Professor Nolon’s presentation were noted by
the Fire Island Association in a paper entitled, “Non-Structural
Solutions Workshop: FIA Comments on Draft Proceedings,” February 12,
2001, available on request to FIA.

Minimal acquaintance with coastal regulations would reveal that ECL
Article 34 al-ready addresses many of the points under discussion. The
act and the regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 505 contain much useful
information on questions such as policy for rebuilding after storms, the
variance procedure, the Commissioner’s ability to remap the Coastal
Hazard Area after storms or manmade events, and how the act applies
differently to different coastlines. The absence of this background is
another indication that the principal objective of the article is to
promote a social policy objective that is only loosely based on a theory
of environmental conservation. The authors do not seem aware that their
principal questions have already been posed and policy action taken to
address them. A fuller discussion of of those policies than is provided
in this article would be helpful.

Of course, no discussion of “economic impact” would seem complete
without thorough analysis the cost of the proposal, something notably
lacking in the article. A hint of the dimensions of the problem is seen
in the Nature Conservancy’s plan to use $163 million of taxpayer funds
to purchase homes in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area on Fire Island.
(See, The Nature Conservancy, “Concept Description: Fire Island Buy-out
Program,” March 13, 2000) Neither the Town councils involved (who are
the underwriters of many millions of dollars of contractual liability
for various taxing districts within the island communities) nor the
individual homeowners are likely to be willing partners in such an
effort, no matter how many “catwalks” and “bridle paths” may be offered.

Fire Island Association December, 2002

To: Interested Public Officials

The following comments expand on points made in the article, “A Creeping Sensation For Fire Island Owners” NY Times, Long Island Section, Sunday, October 14, 2001.

1.               “Holes along Fire Island” Holes were in the sand bar offshore, not in the island itself. “Holes in the bar” allow wave energy to be focused, unblunted, on particular sections of the shoreline. If there are no holes (i.e., discontinuities) in the bar, it serves to remove most of the energy from waves by causing them to break well offshore.

2.                “… an annual cycle” Wind direction, strength and duration is the key. Storm winds tend to be from the ENE and they cause acceleration in the alongshore current. A rapidly moving current carries sand along with it; a slow-moving one stirs up little sand and tends to drop that which is suspended. In the region, winds are predominantly from the WSW. These are gentler but of longer duration than storm winds from the east. The spring and summer westerlies slow or stop the east to west current and move the sand onshore. Sometimes hurricanes off the east coast will produce a big surf that comes straight onto Fire Island, pushing sand in front of it; this is different from the storm surge that precedes a direct hit by a hurricane. The most damaging storm is a northeaster that surrounds a stalled low pressure center. The counter clockwise winds cause huge waves from the east that move far up on the beach The result is a strong east to west current that can dislodge thousands of cubic yards of sand in a day or two.

3.               “… a popular theory” There is no dispute that improper construction of the groins at Westhampton Beach, and the impact of the Moriches Inlet jetties combined to block any sand from moving on to Fire Island from the east from 1975 to 1995. Not until 1996 did a detectable amount of sand start getting around Moriches Inlet. While some (not “many”) “coastal experts” may be “skeptical,” one reason for this is fear of the legal implications of an admission that the structure was improperly built by the government.

4.               Fire Island is “supposed to be preserved in a natural state” The proposed community projects are nowhere near a significant “undeveloped area” of the Seashore. Like any barrier island with stabilized inlets, Fire Island has long since ceased to be in any sense “natural.” For the Seashore Superintendent to deliberately interfere with the Corps of Engineers and New York DEC’s effort to make it function as if it were natural is not only harmful but far exceeds his scope of responsibility. He received a $2,500 award from the National Parks Conservation Association for preventing the Corps project from going forward, which shows how far the environment community will go to prevent the protection of the Fire Island dune houses.

5.               “ … added red tape” The article does not make clear that there are two kinds of “community projects” that the Superintendent refers to. “Beach scraping” is the practice of recontouring the summer buildup of sand by placing proportionally more sand in the form of a dune as opposed to a higher berm, or general beach elevation. Communities such as Kismet, Ocean Beach and Ocean Bay Park substantially strengthened their dunes in 2001 and were unaffected by the September storms. The NY DEC has issued a program permit that allows an interested community to perform annual beach scraping, using a licensed landscaping firm that operates within known guidelines and with monitoring provided. To say that each individual project should require review under the National Environmental Policy Act is ludicrous. Beach replenishment, the other type of community project, consists of importing sand, either from an offshore dredge or bringing it in by vehicle from a stockpile or upland source. Here the Superintendent argues that the vehicle access permit requires NEPA review, because the vehicles are larger than those that are issued permits all the time. Since permits are routinely issued for bulldozers, which have considerably more impact on a beach than vehicles equipped with oversize, low-pressure tires, designed for minimal impact on the environment, it is clear that the Superintendent is being obstructionist rather than cooperative with the communities.

6.               “… homes endanger the park.” Mr. Dillon cannot point to a single shred of scientific evidence that supports this assertion. While the Seashore may have filed a form letter objecting to reconstruction of damaged dune houses, permits were issued under a zoning code approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The homes are entirely legal and are part of what Congress intended to be a mixed-use National Park.

7.               “ … the park does not have funding” that would enable the Superintendent to condemn and acquire dune properties. The Superintendent continually alleges that the Park has insufficient funds for him to purchase the homes he would prefer not to have in the Park. The place for him to make this charge is within the Park Service, not to the press. He chooses the latter because his real support comes from environment groups that he hopes will pressure government to withhold beach nourishment, so that routine winter storms will destroy the houses.

8.               “… announced last April” In fact, the state of New York has avoided making any statement about the non-support of the Interim Project, except that an unnamed Department of  State official said the agency’s silence should be taken as disapproval. The reason the state has not made a statement is that it realizes that a policy of refusing to participate in routine dredge and fill operations to protect Fire Island in order that storms will knock down unwanted houses is difficult to justify as a rational public policy. Should major damage occur as a result of this policy, as seems likely, the state would like to be able to say, “We never said it was state policy not to protect the barrier island; it’s just that we never got around to it.”

9.               “… will consider non-structural approaches to managing the shoreline” “Non-structural” means elevating or relocating houses. All dune houses are already elevated. Relocation opportunities are virtually nil, because there is no comparable property to which they may be relocated. Where lots are deep enough to move a home back, the owner needs little prompting from the Seashore to do so. “Non-structural” should be recognized as a guise under which the Nature Conservancy, abandoning its hard won and well deserved reputation as honest broker in preserving sensitive lands at the behest of a willing seller, on Long Island appears to aggressively seek acquisition of properties they deem important, by whatever means possible.

10.             “offshore habitat destruction and temporary short-term disturbances to the intertidal zone” No offshore habitats have been “destroyed.” Intertidal and other areas recover quickly, essentially within 7 months according to the Corps’ Biological Monitoring Program mentioned in the article. Only the sand dollar population takes longer than 7 months to recover, but it, too, does so fully within a reasonably short period. A land preservation agency second guessing environmental scientists in the public press in order to effect a social policy agenda is just one aspect of an important public debate gone far off kilter.

11.            “beaches have to be able to move and islands have to be able to move” Apparently, geomorphology also is not beyond TNC’s expertise. The statement is simplistic and misleading. Barrier islands move landwards over millennial timeframes that are far beyond human planning horizons. At that, western Fire Island has not migrated in at least 500 years, according to experts. Beaches are relatively stable, but only in conditions of adequate sand supply. Absent sufficient sand, dunes will erode and then set up in a landward location unless the eroded sand is replaced.

12.            “… allow the buildup of natural dunes” There can be no “natural build up” until a normal flow of sand is restored. Pending that, replenishment by mechanical means is essential.

13.            “buy damaged properties … and prohibit rebuilding” This is the real objective of those opposed to beach nourishment: allow the unwanted houses to be damaged or destroyed, and then buy the land under them. As government policy, this is a travesty. It risks very major damage to private property and government infrastructure and vast amounts of flood damage should it result in an entirely preventable breach in the barrier island.

14.            “the alternative is dumping sand in perpetuity” Superintendent Dillon noted that Fire Island Pines bought $3 million worth of sand in 1997, is ready to do another replenishment. He does not explain why this expenditure of private funds should be a problem for the Park Service. The Pines project, though substantial for that community, is still small and isolated in the context of a 32-mile-long barrier island that needs protection. Nourishment project life is in part a function of the project length. Also, properly built projects employ the concept of “advance fill”. Roughly twice the amount of sand needed for a recreational beach is placed in a way that allows wave action to distribute part of it to the underwater beach and establish an equilibrium profile.

15.            “Piled sand does not stand up to time as much as a natural dune.” Natural and manmade dunes are both made of sand. The only difference between them, sometimes, is how much vegetation there is on one or the other. It is a requirement of all beach projects, including scraping projects, that artificial dunes be planted with vegetation. Most individual communities provide fertilizer and keep the dunes watered to insure the growth of the vegetation.

Fire Island Association
October 2001