November 21st 2008 • HOME •

On Beach Management

A barrier island such as ours is comprised entirely of sand dunes. An unadorned sand dune is inherently unstable, constantly on the move. But nature sometimes affords them a bit of stability by covering them with grasses with long underground stems known as rhizomes. These plants only do well on natural dunes, made of fine wind-blown sand. Structures like houses prevent the growth of such vegetation, and thus deminish the stability of the underlying sand. But even with the relative stability afforded by vegetation, the south shore of the island is creeping northwords. (In the past, the north shore also crept northword, but this may have slowed, or even stopped in some places. The reason for this is unclear, but it is unlikely that the bulkheads which line much of the north shore help, and one can speculate that the wave energy is no longer absorbed by a normal shore and may be churning up the bottom and the remaining unbulkheaded shores.)

Whereas beach grasses do well on natural dunes, they generally cannot survive long on artificial dunes because the sand is too coarse and does not hold enough moisture to sustain vegetation. Nonetheless, there has been a movement to "restore" the entire beach of Fire Island, referred to as the "Interim Project" (perhaps an implicit admission that no such beach replenishment can last very long). An example is the strident and self-righteous group Save our Seashore ( SOS ), which claims to have just about every politician in the area in their pocket. The National Park Service has yet to speak on the issue, and until it does the Fire Island National Seashore folks are trying (and failing) to stay out of the cross-fire. Alan Brockman, president of the Fire Island Pines Property Owners' Association, complained in March 1999: "We are still receiving mixed signals from Fire Island National Seashore with regard to the interim project. . . . On the one hand, Superintendent Constantine Dillon talks about the inevitability of the project taking place and, on the other hand, gives interviews to Newsday, and issues position papers opposing the project without any scientific basis for his opposition." Well, to our knowledge Dillon has not opposed (nor supported) the project, but his nuanced discussion of the issues is bound not to please those who have simple "scientific" solutions to this complex problem.

Work on the Interim Project was supposed to begin in 1998, but it remains stalled. As a stop-gap measure, Fire Island Pines pumped $2.5 million worth of sand from the ocean bottom to the beach, but 70 percent of it immediately washed back out to sea, and more has washed out since.

Late in 1998 six environmental groups* raised concerns about the ecological impact and ultimate cost the proposal to pump sand along the Fire Island shoreline to combat erosion. Their letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (a government agency badly in need of reform) argued that the so-called Fire Island Interim Project could open the way for a new wave of building on private property that is now underwater or undevelopable. Since then, these groups have been floating a proposal for voluntary by-out of vulnerable properties. Judging by the Environmental Impact Statement the Corps issued in November 1999, it is not interested in such solutions.

According to the letter, considerable environmental damage has been inflicted by new housing development along the Fire Island beachfront. "Unfortunately, the natural dune system has been compromised in several locations, in part through the construction of houses on or in front of it. In our view, any interim shoreline protection program for Fire Island should not encourage or condone construction or reconstruction of houses."

The general counsel for the group, James Tripp, argues that the Project could be a green light for developers who now own land that is undevelopable, and that they would be able to build willy-nilly."

Also questioned is the long-term cost of the 12-mile federal sand project. Supposedly, this will initially cost "only" $60,000,000. However, federal officials have indicated it could be two-and-a-half times that, because of the numerous sand replacements that will be required. During the estimated 30-year life-span of this proposed beach restoration, new sand will have to be pumped in the same areas every three years or so, depending on the rate of natural erosion, officials say. According to letter co-author Lorna Salzman, director of the Long Island Shorefront Defense Committee, "This could be a potential windfall for landowners in the Fire Island shoreline area zoned for the federal beach restoration project."

Because some government agencies have not advanced the proposed Interim Project, in 2001 various land owners' and commercial organizations launched a federal lawsuit against, inter alia, the National Park Service. (N.Y. Coastal Partnership, et al., v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, et al.) On April 19, 2002, this suit was thrown out of court on grounds that, under the principle of sovereign immunity, the government cannot normally be sued. Beyond the propriety of such a suit against the government, the court did not address the merits of the case. Still, it was a major victory for the Fire Island National Seashore, and for environmentalists.

Geotubes. In the meantime, the village of Ocean Beach is not waiting. In1998-99 they began installing polypropylene "geotubes"-600 feet of, at a cost of at least $95,000 last month to place the tubes on the shore. Legally, these tubes are in the gray area between "soft" (legal) and "hardened" erosion-control which are illegal because they simply divert the erosion to somewhere else. But Ocean Beach has had a special problem because its fresh water supply was in danger of being contaminated by sea water.

Are they "soft" or "hard"? According to one expert, James Allen, the devices have "a reflective force that during a storm will have waves bounce off of it and it leads to rapid erosion in the area right around the structure;" they have "the physical properties of a hard structure." The state of New York takes the view that these tubes have both "hard" and "soft" qualities. They are soft at least in the sense that they can be removed-at least in theory.

The idea is not entirely new for Fire Island. In the mid-1990s similar tubes were installed at Seaview and Fire Island Pines. They are still there, but at least no longer visible. Hopefully, any damage done to neighboring lands was only temporary. But storms can uncover them; that will be the test.

FIEC's view: One of the biggest threats to the future of Fire Island is buildings very near the beach, especially those built on fragile artificial dunes. Such "dunes" prevent the formation of natural, enduring dunes. Although existing structures should be allowed until nature does them in, no beach replenishment project should go through until the non-buildability on forward dunes is solidly entrenched in the law.