A proposal to save Montauk Light threatens The Point and adjacent beaches
By Capt. John McMurray
Located at the eastern end of Long Island, NY, the Montauk Lighthouse is synonymous with fall-run striped bass, bluefish and false albacore blitzes. It is frequently called “the Mecca” of the northeast surf-fishing community. However, this all may change in the near future. Because of the continued erosion and instability of Turtle Hill where the lighthouse sits, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is proposing the construction of a massive stone revetment designed to protect the bluffs from erosion and the possibility a “73-year design” storm. The plan involves boulders, to be placed in a wall, 840 feet long and 40 feet thick.
Many folks believe that the height, length and overall distance that the proposed structure will project out into ocean will have a significant effect on the current wave patterns, near shore ocean currents, and sediment flow dynamics, all of which make Montauk Point the world class fishery that it is. Thus the fishing, particularly the surfcasting at the point where many a bass-blitz has taken place may suffer both in the short and long term.
More erosion?
The evidence is overwhelming that these types of revetment structures lead to accelerated erosion of adjoining shore lines. Montauk beaches have been getting smaller over the years because prior revetment projects stopped the natural erosion material that should be replenishing those beaches. In time, surfcasters will likely loose beach access west and north of the point because of the accelerated down-drift beach erosion. As the sand disappears and the water encroaches anglers will have less of a platform from which to surf-cast from. More than likely, the ACOE will advocate their standard “beach nourishment” (dredge and fill) projects to mitigate. Currently, in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, stripers avoid some “re-nourished” beaches because the sediment the ACOE uses does not match the natural beach, thus causing chronic turbidity and acute lack of visibility. If stripers can’t see the bait, they can’t feed. These projects also dramatically reduce beach invertebrate populations as small critters like sandeels and various worm and crustacean species that feed the bottom of the food chain get washed off with the beach or get smothered by fill.
Setting a precedent:
In lieu of “beach nourishment,” many anglers believe that the ACOE could approve more armoring on the affected beaches, which could make the beaches, and access, disappear. One need look no farther than Montauk’s North Shore community of Culloden. At the time when the ACOE was planning the extension of the jetties at Montauk Harbor, residents along Culloden shores were given assurances from Corps staff that little or no change would result to the beaches west of the project. Local residents know well of the “unintended consequences” that have resulted in extreme down-drift erosion and loss of beach, which forced home owners to install shore hardening structures to protect their property from being swallowed by the sea. The combination of accelerated down drift erosion along with wave refraction from shore hardening structures have created an industrial shoreline that is inaccessible to anglers.
Approval of such a high-profile shore hardening project will send the wrong message to waterfront owners across Long Island. The project has potential to set a precedent and encourage private land owners to construct similar structures. Ultimately the revetment approach will only lead to more and more challenging and expensive coastal structures. Up and down the Atlantic coast, almost every ACOE project such as this one has proved repeatedly that shore hardening is a short-sighted, and often a careless and inefficient strategy that interferes in natural processes and more-times-than-not makes erosion worse. The littoral flow in Long Island moves from east to west. Trap the sand on one beach and inevitably one gets starved of sand down-drift.
Safety considerations:
Furthermore, some contend that the new structure will be at a dangerous and steep angle making fishing Montauk Point from the structure considerably more difficult. With the reduced angle of the proposed structure, and having it 22 feet seaward, the same surges which now make casting and footing difficult, will be even worse. With a smooth ramp that has less gravitational resistance on the swells, they could travel further landward, so the fishermen will have to cast from further back, and at a lower elevation than before.
Things are projected to be more difficult for those folks fishing from boats as well. There could be substantially more backwash off the new structure that could make boating close to the point where bass-blitzes often take place significantly more dangerous than it is now. A handful of boats capsize there each fall as it is. We can expect quite a bit more of this kind of thing if the ACOE go ahead with the revetment construction.
No guarantee
There is no guarantee that the proposed revetment will prevent further erosion of Turtle Hill in which the famous lighthouse stands. The ocean and especially ocean storms are full of uncertainty and their ability to circumvent and beat mad-made structures is notorious. Prior ACOE attempts so beat back mother nature have been widely known to be ineffective. Tax payer funds would be more wisely spent on a permanent solution.
Moving the lighthouse?
Moving the lighthouse back is an option that some in the angling and surfing communities are advocating. This could provide safety and security for the next 300-plus years with no significant environmental costs and no effect on the fishing. The ACOE contends that this option would be difficult and cost prohibitive, however, other prominent historical lighthouses on the east coast have been safely moved (e.g. Cape Hatteras, NC, Block Island, RI, and two in Cape Cod, MA). In these cases it was decided that, although initially more expensive, moving the lighthouse was the only guaranteed long term solution, and in the end tax-payers would end up saving millions of dollars.
Where we are now
ACOE is currently looking for the next level of congressional authorization for this project. It was included for authorization in the Senate version of the Water Resource Development Act, however not the house version. Summer of 2006 saw committee sessions working to reconcile the different versions of the bill but this effort was unsuccessful. Fall of 2006 saw a continuation of efforts to get a bill sent up for vote but more than likely, no action will be taken until 2007. Even if the bill is passed it still has to go through the appropriations process. There is also the issue of the ACOE reform legislation pending in the halls of congress. If the stronger version in enacted, projects like the one at Montauk Point could be subject to a new review process, possible revision and/or outright cancellation. Whatever the case, there will be ample opportunity to comment on the proposed revetment as well as alternative projects. Montauk anglers would be wise to pay attention to the process and write letters to their local legislators voicing their concerns.
Montauk’s congressman Timothy Bishop has yet to take a position on this issue. Readers can call and/or write him to voice their concerns: email: nick.holder@mail.house.gov, (631)696-6500, (631)696-4520 (fax).