[an error occurred while processing this directive] • HOME •

The Question of "Beach Replenishment"

Newsday blasts FIPPOA

FIE introduction: Beach replenishment in front of Fire Island Pines has been highly controversial. In 1997, at least $2,500,000 of Pines taxpayers' money was spent flushing sand from in front of Cherry Grove to the Pines beach (much to the distress of Grovers). Because it arrived after the season, few people ever saw it, but for those who did, the massive beach was quite a sight--for a couple months. Alas, with the exception of a one or two stretches (discussed below), following a few to-be-expected winter storms almost all of it had washed away--never to be seen in these parts again. The project was a massive failure. Local media reaction was hardly sympathetic. Newsday © had this to say:

"Proponents say the federal project will ensure the safety of homes on Fire Island.... But others have also expressed concern that this expensive beach stabilization project will open the way for land speculation and private development." [© Newsday, 08-20-1998, pp. A45.]

FIE comment: Actually, the latter is more than a mere "concern." In recent years a few land speculators have put through a huge local tax increase for beach replenishment. This project appears to have been of almost no benefit to the community, but it enured greatly to the benefit of the individuals who pushed through the tax increase; they now enjoy new dunes setting on their reclaimed land. From another Newsday article: . . .

"The pouring of sand enabled Pavlon-Blum to build two houses on land left under water by previous storms, to start construction on a third and to build a pool and wooden deck in front of another oceanside house he recently purchased.... Residents agreed in 1996 to build another, even larger artificial dune. Pavlon-Blum led the advisory committee of homeowners that agreed to pay $3 million in special district taxes to build an even wider beach and dune in the area devastated by the ocean. Officials say about $2.5 million was actually spent....

"State documents show Pavlon-Blum was directly involved in the permit process, and one document purportedly signed by him identifies him as "chairperson" of the Fire Island Pines erosion control tax district. Pavlon-Blum disputes the authenticity of the signature. Under this project, Fire Island Pines residents will pay $300 to $800 extra annually in property taxes for the next five years, depending on the size and assessment of their property. Residents overwhelmingly approved the proposed project.

"Even before sand was poured, Pavlon-Blum had applied for permits to build on the same place where his house had been destroyed, records show. With a large new beachfront restored with sand--some of which spilled directly onto Pavlon-Blum's lot--he and a few other beachfront owners gained the opportunity to reconstruct their homes. The Fire Island National Seashore filed a formal objection, saying his property enhanced by the artificially constructed sand dune "cannot qualify as a buildable lot."

"Moreover, federal officials said that allowing new houses to be built on the new dune would undermine its purpose--protecting existing homes in Fire Island Pines--and would hinder the growth of dune grass that keeps the sand in place. Similar objections were expressed by federal officials to two other nearby oceanfront properties purchased last year by Pavlon-Blum. [© Newsday, 8-16-1998, pp A32.]

The complete article is available at Newsday's site.

It is not surprising that these people, who are mostly professionals from Manhattan with little understanding of the forces of nature, would not have the answers to such question. But their bitter hostility toward environmentalists is difficult to understand. Why don't these leaders ask the right questions--of the right people?

Some Fire Island leaders have warned of the dangers of the island being breached. Actually, it is normal for barrier reefs to occasionally be broken through, but the process does not happen the way these leaders say. As long as human activity does not put the dunes at risk (for example, by vehicular passes, of by houses being built on them), the breach is very unlikely to come from the ocean side as these leaders want everyone to think. (That would make "beach replenishment" make some sense.) No, any catastrophic or running breach in that area would happen from the bay side and from a catastrophic storm that would do damage in a lot of areas and would not be ameliorated by anything planned by the Army Corps of Engineers or any Fire Island organization. Indeed, in early 1998 the ocean washed through the vehicle cut near the lighthouse and followed it to the Burma Road depositing soft sand there (where the road is normally kept graded and hard by FINS for some inexplicable reason). But it was not a disaster and this sort of event could probably be avoidable by means of proper snow fencing, and keeping vehicles inland.

Resources (as always, not necessarily endorsed by FIE):

Park Service's Environmental Assessment

Information from some who provide beach restoration services click: "Beach Restoration Technology Reverses Shoreline Erosion"

An interesting and entertaining book about the all aspects of beaches (history, ecology, anthropology) is Lina Lancek and Gideon Bosker, The Beach: The History of paradise on Earth. (1998).

Updated 22 May 2003