November 21st 2008 • HOME •

National Parks Conservation Association Reaction to Army Corps of Engineers' "Draft Decision" on Beach Replenishment

9 February 2000

Mr. Peter Weppler, Project Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CENAN-PL-ES, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278-0090

Dear Mr. Weppler:

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is pleased to submit these comments on the Draft Decision Document and Environmental Impact Statement on the Fire Island to Moriches Inlet Interim Plan for Storm Damage Protection. NPCA is America's only private, nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has more than 400,000 members of whom 25,000 are New York residents.

NPCA fully concurs and supports the comments submitted to the Corps by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Great South Bay Audubon Society, and the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter on the draft documents. These [Army Corps of Engineers'] documents are fundamentally flawed in their description and analysis of the problem and provide no supportable justification for the Proposed Action. NPCA can come to no other conclusion than the Proposed Action, if implemented, has the potential to cause environmental harm. NPCA urges the Secretary of the Interior not to approve the project and the National Park Service not to issue a special permit for the project or enter into any other contractual agreement that would allow the project to go forward.

Inadequate Presentation of Fire Island National Seashore and National Park Law

The documents fail completely to present the full nature of Fire Island National Seashore, its national significance, and context within the National Park System. There is not even a description of the park's major nationally significant resource components, such as the Sunken Forest. Likewise the documents fail to describe the nationally significant values of the park and the desired visitor experience.

More stunning still, there is no explanation--or even mention--of the Organic Act of 1916 which is the touchstone for all NPS regulations, policies and resource protection activities. In addition, the documents refer only to the park's General Management Plan (GMP). While this is an important document in managing the park, the more relevant and current document is the park's Strategic Plan which is required under the Government Performance and Results Act. The Strategic Plan contains a more up-to-date understanding of park's ecological functioning and any new management polices stemming from that enhanced understanding would supercede any management policies contained in the GMP that are based on out-of-date science.

There is information on the authorizing legislation for the Corps' engagement in this project (the River and Harbor Act, as amended and the Water Resources Development Act, as amended). Reference to these laws gives the misleading impression that there is only a single federal mandate at work here, when that is not the case at all. It is inconceivable that documents such as these, which propose an action that will have a profound effect on a unit of the National Park System, should disregard so utterly the nature of that unit and its context within the National Park System and national park law. This is an unacceptable omission.

Furthermore, on a more specific point, there is no explanation of why NPS must issue a special use permit for this project. How can the reader adequately evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and come to an informed conclusion when there is not sufficient information presented in the documents?

Biased Treatment of Nature and Dynamic Natural Processes

The documents treat nature as a "threat" and a "hazard". They make the false assumption that stabilization of an inherently dynamic eco-system is a good thing. They also make the equally false assumption that real estate values exceed the intrinsic values of the natural system. As noted above there is no description of the national park resources and values at stake, and natural areas are referred to as "undeveloped" rather than as "natural areas" or "areas in a natural state". On the other hand, there is in depth analysis of the real estate values that lie within the project area. The documents mislead the reader to believe that the only cost-benefit analysis necessary is to measure project costs against the potential loss of real estate.

No Guarantee of Future Harmful Development

The documents fail completely to guarantee that, under the Proposed Action, the Article 34 line and development will not move seaward with the artificial dunes and/or berms. This would then necessitate--by creating expectations of continued federal intervention--further protective measures, and calls into question whether the Proposed Action is truly reversible as is required by law. NPCA fully supports EDF's analysis and conclusions on this point.

No Reasonable Range of Alternatives

One of the most egregious flaws of the documents is the lack of a reasonable range of alternatives. The documents completely dismiss the possibility of a land buyout program because the Corps erroneously assumes that there could be only one buyout program and that would be one that acquires all of the real estate in the project area, thus making the program fiscally infeasible. This is a ridiculous assumption.

The documents also dismisses various dune and land management practices as not meeting program goals because they are assessed as separate actions and not in combination with other actions. However, a combination of land management practices, effective enforcement of land law, selective buyouts, easements, and land swaps, and dune management might be the best strategy--both from a financial and ecological standpoint--to reestablish natural processes which in turn would rebuild the natural primary dune. This would provide the optimal long-term protection for structures on Fire Island and the mainland. In addition, such an alternative complies more with the intent, if not meets the letter of the Organic Act and NPS management policies. It is a truly interim measure that requires consideration.

Insufficient Baseline Data

NPCA is concerned that the Corps has reached its conclusions without sufficient baseline data to support its Proposed Action. The DEIS cites a number of instances where studies are being completed to assist in framing relevant baseline and impact analysis studies for various affected areas (example para 3.258, p EIS3-73). In addition, the DEIS seems reliant on data derived from studies conducted at other geographic locations and that may not be applicable to the situation at Fire Island. Any decision must be based on sound scientific data that come from appropriate studies concluded prior to that decision-making. NPCA embraces the concept of adaptive management, but this exceeds our faith that implementation will reflect the best scientific information at hand.

Non-fulfillment of NEPA Requirements

The lack of a reasonable range of alternatives and the questions concerning sufficient baseline data portrays the DEIS as a justification for a pre-determined conclusion. In addition to not fulfilling the Corps' NEPA requirements, it raises the serious question as to whether there exists the potential for environmental harm. Under the Proposed Action, as present in these documents, our answer must be yes.

Effect on Threatened and Endangered Species

The documents raise doubts as to whether the Army Corps has fully evaluated the detrimental effects of the Proposed Action on piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) and seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). With regards to Piping Plovers, the documents seem to understate the positive benefits of the No Action alternative. NPCA concurs with and supports the comments of the Great South Bay Audubon Society that the Proposed Action will have an unacceptable effect on piping plovers.

Unknown Effects on the Wilderness Area

While no sand will be placed in front of the wilderness area, stockpiling will occur nearby. The documents have not fully assessed the potential affects of longshore drift on the wilderness area. A general pledge to "resolve these concerns" (EIS Summary 4) is insufficient.

Lack of Mitigation Costs

The documents do not describe the full extent of the mitigation costs associated with the Proposed Action. These must be included and be used as part of the Corps' cost-benefit anaylsis.

Conclusion

The documents' profound deficiencies--as well as the extremely high project costs--point to the need to abandon the interim measure and to undertake a larger study that will provide needed long-term solutions for reestablishing the natural processes that will in turn provide the highest level of benefit to both Fire Island's natural and cultural resources and the human community. A longer view study will allow all the cooperating agencies to complete necessary baseline studies so that any plan will be based on sufficient, analogous and sound scientific data. The plan as currently construed is financially irresponsible and ecologically tenuous. It must be rejected.

NPCA will continue to examine the Draft Decision Document and Environmental Impact Statement. We will submit further comments in separate correspondence.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 617-338-0126.

Yours,

Eileen Woodford

Director, Northeast Region