ABCO and the NY times Editorial

From: MaryAnn Johnston <mryjhnstn@aol.com>

Date: August 23, 2014 1:07:43 PM EDT

To: mryjhnstn@aol.com

Subject: ABCO and the NY times Editorial

All, 

Subject: ABCO and the NY times Ediotrial

This past spring, ABCO [Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization, Inc.] submitted lengthy comments regarding our concerns with the superficial scientific analysis and basic  scientific soundness and prospects for success of the Fire Island to Moriches Inlet (FIMI) plan, as well as the flawed scientific basis used for the larger proposed FIMP (Fire Island to Montauk Point)  proposed plan. We clearly understood the all too obvious and compelling reasons for a  knee jerk decision based on the destruction and heartache heaped on the vulnerable Mainland communities of Mastic Beach and Lindenhurst.  More importantly, we had hoped that any solutions proposed to protect these areas would actually be focused on those mainland areas.  We sincerely hoped that the wealth of substantial science now available would be used to comprehensively study impacts and allocated funds would be spent to provide realistic protection measures geared and actually implemented  to protect those mainland communities. 

Unfortunately, those communities were little more than a mere excuse to once again recommend an over-the-top knee jerk response. Predictably, one that the Army Corps and politicians have repeatedly employed for decades, with little regard for either Fire Island or the Mainlands' safety.  We understood all too well the political concerns, but advocated strongly that the Army Corps not forego an exhaustive environmental analysis of all alternatives, and protect those most vulnerable areas with more than a plan to place sand on a beach that time after time and year after year just continues to wash away. 

We were  also deeply disturbed and expressed concerns that the recommendations of several other interested agencies were apparently strong-armed  and diluted their dire concerns and  were urged to endorse a project they had previously labeled as ineffective, destructive of flora and fauna, or had no reasonable expectation for any long term success.

We also understood then and now, that  purely political decisions are rarely if ever reached based on any sound science, and the flawed FIMI plan is no exception.  Our comments and concerns were developed over 18 months, and were based on solid science, research,and the belief that the decision to place sand along the barrier island between the Fire Island Lighthouse and Moriches Inlet (FIMI) would end up simply being another enormous waste of valuable resources, and would provide virtually no protection for the Mainland, but would actually create conditions that could place it in real peril.

We believe that the natural processes at work for centuries along our southern coast's barrier islands are still capable of restoring the dunes, if only the ACOE does not continue to deplete the ocean sand deposits necessary for that process through ill advised dredging.  We strongly urged that the breach at Old Inlet remain open to clean our bays, and that the dunes and beaches destroyed in our public recreation areas at Smith Point, Moriches Inlet and the Robert Moses State Park be protected by an expeditious rebuild of those dune areas for protection of the communities on newly vulnerable mainland areas.  However, we expressed our disbelief that the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) line was re-drawn and tailored to skirt around homes in the Fire Island Pines.  Clearly, the best solution was to draw the line based on science, and remove all structures that fell south of the line lying vulnerable to Atlantic seas.  Once again a political decision and massive money influence prevented a solution geared to protect both the barrier island or the Mainland and simply catered  once again to those loud special interest voices.

Yesterdays' NY Times editorial (below) echoes our concerns and speaks to the question all of us should have asked before the plan was approved...Nonetheless we should all now be asking  again..."What and who are we really pretending to protect...and why"
MaryAnn Johnston

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/opinion/a-beach-project-built-on-sand.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone

 A Beach Project Built on Sand

By ROBERT S. YOUNG
AUG. 21, 2014

Your tax money at work - Beach Project Built on Sand

New York Times

 

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Beach Project Built on Sand

By ROBERT S. YOUNG AUG. 21, 2014

Photo

Credit Rob Pybus

EARLIER this month, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced a $207 million plan to dredge millions of tons of sand off the south shore of Long Island and spread it along the beaches and dunes. The Army Corps of Engineers, which will direct the federally financed project, says it will stabilize Fire Island and reduce the storm surge hazard for the mainland.

In fact, the project will do neither. It is a colossal waste of money and another consequence of the nation’s failure to develop a coherent plan to address the risks from storms faced by states along the eastern seaboard and gulf coast.

That failure was underscored in a report last month by the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which evaluated efforts by the Army Corps and other federal agencies to reduce those risks. The take-away from the National Research Council was alarming: There is no national plan to manage the coast. No plan for storm-damage reduction. No plan for how best to allocate federal funds. And no plan for how to respond to coastal hazards and rising sea levels over the long run.

This leaves governments reactive rather than proactive. Most money is provided only after a disaster occurs, and is to be used in the areas affected by that one storm. In some cases, government officials and politicians want to be seen doing something, anything, to protect valuable coastal properties. Unfortunately, science and reality have been ignored in the plan to rebuild storm-damaged beaches and dunes along 19 miles of Long Island’s South Shore, including Fire Island National Seashore.

Scientists from the United States Geological Survey have been studying the evolution of Fire Island for more than a decade. They have examined how the sediment moves, where it comes from, how the island’s shoreline changes and the way ocean waters move in front of and behind the island during storms. The results of these studies have been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

In its evaluation of the Army Corps’ draft Fire Island plan, the Geological Survey pointed out that the project’s justification and benefits were seriously flawed. The project will not reduce storm surge or storm hazards for properties across from Fire Island on the mainland, even though a significant portion of the cost justification for rebuilding the beaches and dunes came from protecting private property and infrastructure on the mainland. Why else would you spend so much to pump all that sand on the island?

The Army Corps’ environmental assessment made a broad assumption that Fire Island had been “damaged” by Hurricane Sandy and required repair and stabilization. But significant work over the years by coastal scientists at the Geological Survey has laid out a very clear picture of the long-term evolution of the island. Fire Island is a barrier island that does not require this project to “stabilize” it. The island and the national seashore have been relatively stable since colonial times.

Significant post-storm recovery of the island’s beaches has already occurred since Sandy. Natural reformation of the sand dunes will take longer, but nature is already repairing the island. Free of charge.

Fire Island is blessed with significant near-shore sand that has maintained shoreline stability over the years. This is the very sand that the Corps plans to dredge to build artificial dunes. The impacts of changing the natural flow of this sediment to the beach are unknown, but surprises are possible.

 

Dredge-and-fill projects like this are not environmentally benign. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service warned that the plan, in the short term, would hurt fish and wildlife and their supporting ecosystems, and would have long-term consequences on habitat and the island itself.

Of particular concern to some scientists and environmentalists is the habitat for piping plovers. These birds are listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened nationally and endangered within the State of New York. Storms like Hurricane Sandy actually create fabulous habitat for these birds in the storm deposits that sweep across Fire Island. But the proposed dune building will interrupt the development of that habitat.

Fire Island National Seashore is a perfect example of a place where storm impacts should be viewed as a natural event. Storms are an important part of barrier island sustainability. The waters that wash over the island also pile sand on top of the barrier, adding to the overall elevation of the island itself. The Corps’ proposed dunes will block that process.

It is hard to understand why this project was allowed to move forward without a more detailed investigation in the form of an environmental impact statement. The Corps relied on old science or no science to build a case for the benefits. The scientific criticism provided by other agencies was overwhelming but went largely unaddressed. Instead, the Corps will bury a national seashore, a state park and a county park in sand under the illusion that some properties in low-lying areas on the mainland might gain a small bit of protection.

This is the new post-Sandy model. We now favor political expediency over science, and action over a thoughtful evaluation of its long-term consequences.

Robert S. Young is a professor of coastal geology and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 22, 2014, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: A Beach Project Built on Sand. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/opinion/a-beach-project-built-on-sand.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A6%22%7D&_r=0

Pattersquash "The Duck Shack"

 

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/pattersquash-duck-hunters-plan-to-build-new-island-clubhouse-1.9073296

Pattersquash duck hunters plan to build new island clubhouse

Originally published: August 15, 2014 8:13 PM
Updated: August 15, 2014 9:35 PM
By JOAN GRALLA  joan.gralla@newsday.com

The Pattersquash Gunners Association is debating its future after the historic hunting group's clubhouse washed into Bellport Bay in the March nor'easter. (March 9, 2013) (Credit: Doug Kuntz)

The Pattersquash Gunners Association, which lost its historic Pelican Island clubhouse to a nor'easter in February 2013, hopes to start building a new cabin this fall, officials said.

"It's going to be a little bit smaller, but we want it to look exactly like it did before. . . . It's going to look like we picked it up and put it back exactly where it was," said Pattersquash president Frank Miller.

The replica of the duck hunters' 1920s-era clubhouse will be built on Quanch Island, a couple of miles west of the original location, he said.

The modest two-bedroom shack was swept off its pilings and washed into Bellport Bay by stormwaters that barreled through the Fire Island breach that superstorm Sandy carved in October 2012.

"The only trace of the club that's left on the island is the osprey nest" the duck hunters built, Miller said.

The club, with about 60 members, hopes to finish building the new shack next spring. This is the third time the group will rebuild its clubhouse.

"In the 1938 hurricane, it got washed away, but we got it back," said Dick Richardson, a former president, who was 14 when he joined in 1949. "There was a fire in 1983, and we rebuilt it then."

The new shack will cost about $40,000. The members raised that sum from donations and a fundraiser held Thursday night at the Bellport Country Club that drew more than 300 people, Miller said.

"It's quite obvious by the amount of support we had last night, people don't want to lose their heritage," he said.

Only residents of the Town of Brookhaven can join the club, and Brookhaven is leasing Quanch Island for the new cabin, said Edward P. Romaine, town supervisor.

Saluting the group's historic role, he said, "The cabin serves as a safe, warm haven during the winter hunting months."

The state Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the group's plans and requested minor modifications.

 

 

 

Newsday Article about Bobby Stirling's stolen bike

With more than 3 million people living on Long Island you would think that the only daily newspaper, Newsday, would be able to find better reporters. I've often read an article about a Town meeting that made me wonder if I was at the same meeting. 

 Below is a link to an article in Thursday’s Newsday (7/31/2014) about Bobby Stirling's bike being stolen. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Bobby is disabled. They also have the Post Morrow boatyard in Bellport instead of Brookhaven. And, under "Bellport Links," they have a picture of Sam Newey at his boatyard here in Brookhaven, NY. 

 Long Island NowBellport bike theft leads to a neighborly reaction

Note:  Newsday misspelled family surname.  It is Stirling, not Sterling.