Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-1268Board Of Southold Town SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Trustees PERMIT NO ....... .!.26.8 ............. DATE:No.~. ...... 2+.;1977 ISSUED TO ............. S.~.~o. lk,..,Q,oug~y...DeDt ...... of...P, ublic.,,.W, or, ks Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of the State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the State of New York 1952; and the Southold Town Ordinance an-. titled "REF=ULATINC= AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN AND .ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL-OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance wlfh the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meefing held on ~9.¥.~......2.., ..... 19..~..7...., and in consideration of fha sum of $.._..-....-. .................. paid by of ............................. ..-...-_ ...................................................... N. Y. and subject 'to the Terms and Condlfions listed on +he reverse side hereof, of Soufhold Town 'Trustees aufhorlzes and permits the following: maintenance dredging at the entrance to Wickham~s Creek, the dredging being limited to Station 25 and the spoil to be deposited on the northeasterly s.,ide of .creek a.s .per. am.e.nded _ma]o all in accordance with fee detailed specifica}ions as presented in the originating application. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The 'said Board of Trustees h,ere- by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents fo be subscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this dat~e. DONALD B. RYND JR. -- ATTOF:~N~¥ AT/AW -- 70 MBADOWB ROOK ROAD SYOSSI=T, N.Y, I 1791 Mr. Malvin Gamborg Gibson Cushman Dredging Co. 38 Homan Avenue Bayshore,New York 11706 Re: Dredging Project Wickham Creek April 10,1979 Helen M.Rynd Property Owner Dear MroGamborg: I represent Helen M.Rynd in the matter of the spoil damage to her property immediately adjacent to Wickham Creek in Cutchogue, New York. The damage occurred on April 10,1979 as a direct result of the negligence of your dredging crew.. Mr. Chris Kirk of your organization and Mr. Carl Eisenschmied Principal. Civil Engineer of the Department of Public Works, Division of Waterways met with my client on April 12,1979 at the site of the spoil~.~Tr. Eisenschmied stated that the spoil operation had been improperly carried out and Mr. Kirk agreed to remove the Sand spill and to" return the property to it's former appearance by June 1979". I have spoken to MroR.M.Kammerer, Suffolk County Commissioner of Public Works a~d he has assured me that Mr. Eisenschmied is workinE with representatives of your company to have the.shoreline restored as quickly as possible. As you are undoubtedly aware, unless my client's property is promptly and properly restored to it's original condition it will suffer a sharp decline in market value and additionally be rendered useless from a standpoint of privacy and utility for beach and boating purposes. Due to the fact that my client plans to occupy her home on Fleet's Neck on a full time basis beEinning on Memorial day weekend, would you be kind enouEh to see to it that the spoil is removed and that the property is restored prior to May 31,1979. I wish to impress upon you the urgency and gravity with which both my client and I view this matter° The-restoration will,of course, have to be accomplished to my client's complete satisfaction prior to our considering this matter to be closed and my abandonment of thoughts of further legal action. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation and shall look forward to the exaeditious handlinE of this matter. CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 756275 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED DON'ALD B. RYND JR. -- A'FI'ORN~EY AT LAW -- 70 MEADOWBROOK ROAD SYOSSET, N.Y. 11791 cc: Robert Abrams Attorney General,State of New York 2 World Trade Center New York,N.Y. 10047 United 'States Army Corps of EnEineers Ne~,z York District Field Office 313 ~est Main Street Riverhead ,New York William Becker R~Elonal Environmental Officer Westview Lane Mattituck.New York 11952 Daniel Larkin NYSDEC Buildin~ 40 SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook.New York 11794 Albert M.Martocchia ' / Supervisor,ToWn of Southold~ Southold,New York 11971 Telephone 516-765-1938 BO South 11971 September 20, 1979 Mr. Ro M, K~mmerer, Commissioner Suffolk coUnty Department of Public Works Yaphank, New York 11980 Re: Maintenance dredging at entrance to Wickham's Creek Dear Commissioner K~mmerer: On November 2, 1977 Permit ~1268 was issued to the Suffolk County Department of Public Works to perform maintenance dredging at the entrance to Wickham's Creek, the dredging being limited to Station 25 and the apoil to be deposited on the northeasterly side of the creek. The spoil has not beenplaced where the permit stated it would be and should be placed up next to the bulkheads to the east. We would appreciate your attention to this matter. Yours truly, PHILIP G. HORTON, PRESIDENT BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES PGH/mt Copies to Mr. C. Eisenschmied, P. E. William Nicol, President Fleet's Neck Property Owners Assn. CoUncilman John Nickles Boatmen's Harbor Marina WEST CREEK AVENUE CUTCHOGUE. NEW YORK 11935 516-734-6993 Marine Supplies Repairs C.C. Galardi Yacht Sales March 31, 1978 Town Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Due to the extreme winter~ the mouth of Wickham Creek has again severely narrowed. It is our intent to dredge approximately five hundred cubic yards from the mouth of the creek to enable boats to navigate. Ail concerned agencies have been contacted and an emer- gency permit has been applied for. If you have any questions or require fUrther clarifi- cation with respect to the project, please contact me. Very t ly y~ s, SJG:jg FLEET'S NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. P. O. BOX 554 CUTCHOGUE, N. Y. 11935 Ms. Joyce Burland 49 East Main Street Riverhead~ New York June 28, 1977 Dear Ms. Bur!and: This letter is intended to inform you of the Association's ~ ~ d~ scussed feelings coi~cerning the ?;ickham's Creek Dredging Prob_~m, as _ at the Southo!d Town Hall, Thursday, June 23, 1977. Two very important and possibly precedent setting ideas are of significance here. Before discussing these I would like to state in general the acceptable parameters of this project. Dredging to maintain the mouth of Wickham's Creek is desirable. However, to run past Station ~2~-25, of the tov~m road is not acceptable for the reasons to be discussed below. Dredging past this point will be largely on private creek bottom. The northwest portion of this project should swing as closely as possible to the bulkheaded area to avoid undermining and ev~ntua! sloughing off of the median and the marsh. The question of dredging private property ~.~n public funds is of primary concern here. There have been no projects in which private property was dredged at nublic expense, in this case between Station 2 In some cases dredging projects have gone past private property to reach public facilities. However, this dredging project is a clear cut situation o£ public funds being used to maintain private bottom lands. We also feel the question of private interest is of importance here. The sole benefi~ from an economic standpoint, will accrue to the ovmers of Boatman's Harbor. There are not public facilities for launching or docking located at Boatman's Harbor. If truly public facilities existed, a stronger argument could be constructed for allocating public funds to this project. There is little public inter~st being shown here. Dredging past Station ~2L~-25 would add substantial cost to this projett. ~ith limited funds already available for maintenance dredging in the Town o£ Southo!d, this additional expenditure could seriously jeopardize the financial status of other necessary maintenance projects· cc: Eisenschmidt, C. Environmental Quality Council ~ldSmith, A. Klein, Martocchia, A. Sincerely, ~ President, ..... F. ~T.' P.O.A. Ju~e 8~ 1977 Southeld To~ao. Board To~ Ha i I -o~.~ew~N~~ aetlo}~ ~as takes by the Board of To~,m '~ . 'vees the ~x, ......... - ~ ..... ~.~ of SoutP~ol~ at a reg~!.ar ~ . ~.~ dred~ing ' side in ¢ ~ ~Orto~ eld }lataier~ Yours Muriet Brush, Secretary Board of To~ Trustees BARNEY A. EVANS, P.E., L.S. CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 516 924-345! COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. M. KAMMERER, P.E., L.S., COMMISSIONER YAPHANK, NEW YORK, !1980 WILLIAM S. MATSUNAYE, JR, P.E., L.S. CHIEF ENGINEER May 3, 1977 Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, ~Z 11971 Re: Proposed Maintenance Dredging at entrance to Wickhams Creek--Town of So'uthold Gentlemen: Please find enclosed, a permit application along with permit drawings for the referenced project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yo'urs , / / Co Eisenschmied, P.E. Principal civil Engineer Division of waterways CE:db Enct. appl. & drawings cc: Supervisor Martocchia A/4 - Rev. 6/72 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Town Of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 APPLICATION TO DREDGE and or FILL ]. -------------------~.s this project involve the use of WETLANDS as defined in the Southold Town Ordinance in Wetlands? YES or NO. If it does, your applica?ion must be filed through t'he Town Clerk's Office. 2. Applicant's name and address: .$..u..f..~.Q.%~¢..~.C.Q~D.J;.y...D.~!%t~ .... .O.~...~h~.J,J,.~..~.Q.~3!~..,....R..,.~., I<ammerer, Commissioner 3. Contractor's name and address: To be determined by competitive bids. ' 4. Explain briefly the purpose of this application: ..R...e..m..~.Z.e.~.~.s-.h..-~..a.~.~.~..c...~..n...d..i..t.~..~..n..~.'a...t...~.~ance to Wickhams Creek--Town of Southold 5. After issuance of Permit, I expect to: '(mark with an X) (a) Commence work AT ONCE ............; ASAP .... .x. ...... ; UNKNOWN TIME ............. (b) Complete work in 1 DAY ............ ; 1 MO. × , 1 YR. ' FUTURE 6. Secure the correct Area Map from the Secretan/ of this Board, and by using an X WITHIN A CIRCLE as a mark, indicate as closely as possible the location of this work. On the reverse side of this map, provide a SCALE DRAWING which will Show the Ordinary High Water Mark and the size .and shape of the structure or work. All dimensions offshore of the O. H. W. M. should also be shown and include any free standing pilings which will remain at completion. 7. Provide the following documents: (a) A Licensed Eng near s Survey of the property involved. (b) A copy of the Contractor's Plans and Specifications. 8. Has any previous application for this work been denied by any other local government.agency? YES or NO. If it has been, name the agency ..... ]~.q ................................................................. Date of denial ........ .N./.~ ......................... 9. If dredging is contemplated, give your estimate of the fol'lowing. . (a) Average depth of water at M. L. W.wher'e dredging, . ...... ,3...5.] ................................ ft. (b) Maximum depth of dredging below the bottom ........... 7..'.....b..e...1..o..w.....~..L..W. ...................... ft. (c) Maximum length of dredged area ..... .1..2...0.Q....1..i,n...e..a...r. ................. ~'~ ...................... ft. (d) ,Maximum width of dredged area ..... lQ.0. ........ ; ................................................... ft. (e) Maximum amount of material to be dredged 11000+ , · ........................................... c. yds. 10. If filling is expected, give your es6rnate of the following: (a) Maximum amount of material required,. ............ ..N../..A.. ............................................... c. yds. (b) Explain how fill will be obtained and where it will be placed. N/A ] 1. In requesting approval of this application, I submit that: ] am the person occountab e for the performance of the work in accord with the plans and specifications attached hereto; I have read or am familiar with the provisions of any Southold Town Ordinance pertinen'r to the work involved; and further, I intend to adhere to and abide by the Terms and Conditions of the Permit. Ac'~cep'fed Dated: WICXHAM CREEK DREDGING June 23~ 1977 The following people were among those present at this hearing: Joyce Burland, County Legislator Rudy Kammerer, Commissioner of Public Works Carl Eisenschmeid, Head of Division of Waterways Bruce Collins, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality James Bagg, Council on Environmental Quality Philip Horton, Southold Town Trustees George Bird, Southold Town Trustees Joseph Hataier, Southold Town Trustees Douglas Robertson, Southold Town Trustees Alvah Goldsmith, Chairman, Southold Town Trustees Charles Galardi, Boatmen's Harbor Paul Stoutenburgh, North Fork Environmental Council William Nicoll, Fleets Neck Property Owners' Association Frank Kujawski, Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council Justice Martin Surer Legislator Burland: I would like to introduce Commissioner Kammerer whom many of you know. Next to him is Bruce Collins who is the chair- man of the Council on Environmental Quality of which also I am a voting member as your legislator from this district. Jim Bagg is immediately on my left. He is on staff for the CEQ. Carl EisensChmeid is head of the Division of Waterways for the County. Let me just say that we are here today because since the months have transpired on this project, it was initiated as you know way back in '76 and a number of you have participated in discussions regarding'the project. We began to pick up that in the last ten days or so there have been other questions that have been raised about the project. We make it a policy in dredging in Rudy's department and Carl's, and it comes up all the time in this district, that if there are.any questions on a project once we get to the stage where we are going to bid and we haven't gotten everything kind of settled down and all ready to go, that we just bring the whole matter up again. So, we are here today to answer your questions about the project, certainly hear your comments about the project, explain it to you and I think what I would like to do first, if I could, could I start with you, Jim, to give us the history of the project and then I think we ought to get the maps out and see where we are because we might have some misunder- standing about the extent of the project and we would certainly would want to open this right back up again. I know that the project started and the Council from the North Fork Environment, well, it's a long history. Let me just go through it. In '75 the job was requested by the Town Board and A1 Martocchia. It was concurred in by the Legislature in 10/75. It received approval in 11/75 from the Public Works Committee, the application to New York State DEC was '75. In December of '75, the application to the Army Corps was made. 4/1~/76 was the public hearing of the State DEC. We made an application in 61/76 to the CEQ. Then in 10/76, we had a conditional permit from the Kew York State DEC. CEQ approval came, if I remember, there were quite a number of extensive exchanges between the North Fork Environ- mental Council and the CEQ of the County. The Army Corps permit came in 4/77. Application for a town permit was in April of '77. The resolutions and assurances from the town in June of this year and we were about to consider a resolution to authorize Rudy to go to bid on this project when we picked up there were still some questions. Wickham Creek 2 Those resolutions have been tabled so it's just sitting right now while we discuss it. Maybe, what we might do is start with Carl and have you explain as we are now into the project what our permits allow us to do and the extent of the job. Would you do that for me, Carl, with the map so we all have an understanding of exactly what we are looking at. Mr. Eisenschmeid: We only have three copies. Would you like to put two on the floor, perhaps? We are permitted by the various regulatory agencies at this time to proceed from the entrance which is about station 19 plus 38 some 2,000 feet to station 39 which is just ..... (the maps were taped in the front so everyone could see) To start again, it's permitted by the various regulatory agencies at this time to do the entrance work and extend to the interior of the creek some 2,000 feet just past what is now or formerly Danwich Marine Inc. We have scaled down what the army permitted us, what the state permitted us and in accord with three recommendations from Chairman Collins' group, Mr. Bagg's organization, we have narrowed. The Army Corps permit allows 100 feet. This has been narrowed to 75 as the red lines indicate in accordance with modifications requested by the various Councils on Environmental Quality. We also, the state permit was open ended in that it allowed the material to be placed as the higher levels of government requested. This resulted in the deposition on what is called the north or the east side. That's the position we are in now. Some 10,000 yards of material to be placed on the northeast side of the waterway and work to begin as soon as this is cleared the legislator and the commissioner. Legislator Burland: Let me read and then, Bruce, you might want to make some comments and then we certainly will want to have all the questions that are here today. Here is a letter that i received from Carl that is taken from a letter of Bruce's that I believe, Bruce, after you met with the Council, the North Fork Environmental Council. John Wickham: For the sake of the record, I am John Wickham and I suppose I'm part of the problem. When this was first presented, the adjacent landowner, we own all the land on the south and west side and either myself or my immediate family own the entire west side and south shore of Wickham Creek and most of the head of it. It was proposed to put the spoil area on the south and west side and I gave my permission. I attended a subsequent hearing and nothing different was suggested. It wasn't until I saw an article in the paper, in our local paper, which said that the spoil area would be on the north and east side. This was within the past three weeks and I realized that some changes had been made without my knowledge. I immediately came to Southold and talked to the supervisor and got in touch with Carl and said look there have been some changes made without my knowledge. I might raise some objections. Let me say that since the channel has been dredged numerous times underpermit from the Town Trustees that there is a possibility that I own proprietory interest to the center of the channel. Regardless of that, all of the sand in the channel, 99% or thereabouts, has come from the beaches to the southwest, all of which is also the property of my two sons and myself. It seems to me unfair to put all of that spoil to the east. I will admit that the beaches to the east and north are undernourished because that sand has also drifted into the East Creek channel. There is no Wickham Creek 3 question, but it isn't quite fair to take the sand from my beach, which has drifted into this channel, and put it on the east side. I think I can substantiate the fact that sand has never gone across the channel. It is also always going in and since basically all of the sand that blocks this channel is on my side of the center line of the channel, I think it's unfair. Having said that, if you, Joyce, can make some reasonable assurance to me that the next time this is dredged that all of the sand will be deposited on my beach, I am open-minded about this, in other words, I would be perfectly willing to be fair. I have to say one more thing. Historically, the channel was not always here. At one time it was far to the west. My family did not own the beach at the time. It had to be bought back after the channel was made and my family bought it back at considerable financial sacrifice. It is entirely possible that if sand which is eroded from this beach is not put back that in the long run the beach will be breached again far to the west. Boatmen's Harbor will be shut off from Cutchogue Harbor. I will be shut off from my own property and, in general, it will be a very real problem. There is one other factor. I have agricultural dikes of very considerable value, a farmland with trees on it of far greater value behind the dikes and the beach is the first line of defenss. If that beach is breached, there is a tremendous financial loss. For all these reasons, this time, yes, but only if there is a firm promise that if it's every dredged again, all of the sand goes on my beach. Ms. Burland: Before I answer that, let me ask you a couple of questions and Bruce help me here and I know there are others that want to speak to this. The record that I have indicates that the site selection for the surplus material was selected because when it goes back on your property, it simply drifts back into the creek again and there was some thought that if it was placed on the other shore, that we would not get the litteral drift that has been necessitating the dredging of this creek over the years. I don't know. This is simply a matter of record and I know it was of immense concern to the Council up here on the north fork. Mr. Wickham: This is perfectly true and if you fol~low the pattern that you are speaking of, it will result in their being no channel at Boatmen's Harbor. I want to say for the record that in one of the hurricanes about 15 years ago the storm waters did, in fact, come across the beach and wash out a channel. Fortunately, it was shallow and the county subsequently built up the berm of the beach to a higher level but it is possible, For 335 years more or less the sand has been moving to the north and east. There's no question. You are abSolutely right. The problem that faces me is it to the dnterest of the town to stop putting back and we have put it back at least three times, probably more than that. Mr. Eisenschmeid: If I might, I would also like to point out that we are in a controversy between agencies here. There has always been. Putting the sand back is not the only reason it will erode. That's a dynamic beach. Whether you put this material back on Mr. Wickham's property or not, erosion will continue. It will be further in so that is not really that strong an argument in my opinion. We have documentation here as of June 21st, which you and I discussed prior to that, the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National, OceaniD and Wickham Creek Atmosphere Administration, National Marine Fishery Service recommends spoil placement north. This could be further complicated by as yet unheard comments from New York State. So, in this and in other cases we have had agencies, one say put it on the downdrift side because it will not re-enter the channel. Others says put it back on the updrift side because if you don't the erosion will continue~only deeper into the land you won't alleviate that source of flow of sediment. So, I just wanted to point that out, I don't think that it's a clear cut situation. Mr. W.ickham: I have one other comment and this is historical back- ground. .Prior to the departure of the eel grass in Peconic Bay in about 1932, this beach was stable. There were pebbles and even cobbles. As a result of the disease of eel grass, the beach is nothing but white Sand. Now, within the last year eel grass has made its appearanc~. ' Now, whether it has come back I can't tell you but eel grass is in Peconic Bay. 1932 was 45 years ago. It is entirely conceivable, if not prObable, that in another 25 years or 20 that there will be enough eel grass to stabilize this beach. This is a probability but'historically, that beach was stable until 1932. Ms. Burland: In the letter that I referred to earlier, it is from Bruce to the Department, the decision of the Council on Environmental Quality, as I understand it, Bruce, actually' it was the agency that picked the site. It has been really left up in the air as far as I can find. Mr. Eisenschmeid: This is correct. Ms. Burland: If the other agencies differed, I believe there are three letters that would indicate that the eastern portion was the best spoil site and one indicated that the west side was the preferable site. So,~ at the end of the hearings, whatever assurances you were '~ hearing may not have been because they did not make a decision and they did not make a decision on paper. As far as I can find in the record, the decision is made in point thr~ of Bruce's letter to the Department from the Council of Environmental Quality, who had all this data at their disposal when they made the decision. Point three says the spoil be placed on the downdr£ft or north side of the creek mouth to prevent its returning to the creek. Maybe, I can ask you now to Pick up in getting to that decision because I know it was one of three points. Mr. Collins: This is for the most part basic policy of the Council of Environmental Quality. It has nothing to do with personalities. I've knownJohn Wickham for a good many years. As a matter of fact, it wasn'.t until the conflict that I was really aware that that was John's project. The Council invariably recommends due to beach dynamics this position of spoil on the downdrift side to try to prevent the channel filling in more rapidly than it would in other instances, for instance if the spoil was put on the west side. That is solely the reason for that and it's policy in almost every decision that we make to try to put it on the downdrift side. We recognize the fact that there is East Creek there and some others-that probably would be affected by the disposition of that spoil but that's the sole reason and it's basically policy. Wickham Creek 5 Mr. Bagg: If I might add something here, you point out ~he littoral drift does go from the south to the north in its natural process and this creek is being artificially maintained for navigational purposes and what is happening and to a depth that is probably~much deeper than it would naturally have. The sand is going down the beach from Mr. Wickham's property into the creek and is not allowed to go further so in essence what Mr. Wickham is saying is you are depriving him of that sand that came from his property. However, the sand that is now on his property came from the property further .... Mr. Wickham: We own 3,000 feet of beach there and there is no sand further up. There are jetties. Mr. Bagg: I don't know how far your property is but what I am saying is it comes from the north in a sense and what is happening is without, you're interrupting the natural process and you are causing erosion on the northern side of that channel to happen to those people and if that creek was not dredged and maintained, that sand would bypass and would nourish that beach to the north of the area. Also, it was~ pointed out that in the 1930's that beach was a stable area and there were larger pebbles there, it might be pointed out that there is a jetty on the southern side of that channel and that beach might have built up and collected the sand,on the northern side of the channel it has been eroding. I believe this area was dredged in the 1930's. Isn't that right Carl? Mr. Eisenschmeid: John Wickham would know. Mr. Bagg: Was that not the first time that they dredged. Mr. Wickham: yes. Mr. Bagg: And prior to that it was a natural system, I believe, so that the sand was bypassing that creek area. Mr. Wickham: Your facts are correct. Your deduction is not. Prior to that there was seaweed. My father had what we called seaweed fences. There was a mat of seaweed all the way along. I might also add that we put up that rock jetty at private expense, at our own expense to help protect as a gesture of good will. I have since tried to establish a small wooden jetty of the old seaweed fence type. Mr. Bagg: What is happening to that property downdrift of that inlet? Is it not a fact that the beaches are eroding? Mr. Eisenschmeid: No, not really. There was a Mr. and Mrs. Rind in the office a week ago or two. The supervisor sent them over. We overlaid that 58, 64 and 72 that happened to be the latest we had. It didn't appear to be a great process going on. William Nicoll: I must differ with that. Mr. Eisenschmeid: You're welcome. ~r. Nicoll: If you had just been down there in the past ten years since the dredge went through there, there is tremendous erosion. What the beach was back in 1900 I can't speak for but since the dredge Wickham Creek 6 put the spoil there, all that spoil has disappeared at the end of Pequash Avenue. The people have had to replace their bulkheads from erosion. Those bulkheads were once high and dry. Now, they are in the water, so there's been tremendous erosion at the southern end of Fleet's Neck. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I can only tell you what we found when we overlaid the mylars and I don't see those people here. Mr. Wickham: Joyce, may I speak just once more. with this gentleman. I beg to differ Mr. Eisenschmeid: Excuse me a minute, John. Are you saying that erosion takes place on both sides of this. Mr. Wickham states that it takes place on the west and you say it takes place on the east. Mr. Nicoll: Let me bring something out. It's considered north and south according to the map and you're talking east and west. Mr. Eisenschmeid: Unfortunately, this is in the northeast and south- west quadrant. It's a 45 degree angle. Mr. Nicoll: Erosion takes place on Mr. wickham's property and on the other side but there is interference with the normal littoral drift. Mr. Wickham: For the sake of the record, my property also included 140 feet to approximately 150 east and horth of the beach, is now the property of my brother, Henry P. Wickham. I owned it for many, many years with him and the family before that. That beach was filled at the time of the last dredging, almost to the top of the bulkhead. That sand is still there. Mr. Eisenschmeid: As I said, the people that~live there that were sent to us by the supervisor and of. course ~they would have better local knowledge than I do. I'm no~ saying that you're incorrect but you must recognize that these are dynamic and they do change in ten years. In '69 it may be back 40 feet. In '70 it may be back out. I am just saying, I don't know. Mr. Nicoll: I would just like to interject one thing. His brother, who lives there~ used to have a dock which was covered by the dredged spoil and is now sticking about two feet above. That's erosion. There's no way you can deny that. W/aether it's gotten back as far as the old bulkhead was, no, it hasn't gotten back that far. In l0 years a tremendous amount of sand has gone there and it eroded away because they just took it out of the creek. Mr. Wickham: For the sake of the record, that sand came out of the East Creek channel, not out of the West Creek channel, West Creek and Wickham Creek being more or less synonomous. Ms. Burland: John, let me suggest something to you. I am trying to cover the spoil site issue now, but when you tell me that it is highly possible that you have a proprietory interest in the creek bottom and I hear that farther up the creek there is an actual deed to ownership of the creek bottom, Bruce and I then have to put our Wickham Creek 7 heads together because we are dealing with a very delicate issue in county government called - shall the county pay to take private land up off a creek bottom and put them where somebody says, where the envirmnment says to put them. It's not quite the public - private issue that we've been hassling now for months in the county but it is something we are going to have to sit down and talk about because in other areas there is general public ownership of the creek bottoms and that gives us a little easier access for another municipality to come in and do it. Mr. Wickham: The reason for my statement was that in the Town of Southold there is a court case in which the decision was that under- water land.belonging to the Town of Southold, the trustees of the Town of Southold, dredged under permit from the Town of Southold, the adjacent property owner had proprietory rights. The court case was decided in that manner. Since that time the Town of Southold and I speak as the chairman of the Planning Board, has been very careful because each case must be decided on its own merits. But we have the fact that a court case was decided and since that time, there are trustees enough here to verify my words, since that time we have been very careful if dredging was done under permit. Ms. Burland: Paul, I would like to hear from ~he Council and why you were concerned about the site initially, your reactions. Paul Stoutenburgh: We objected to the dredging, absolutely thought it was a farce all the way through for the simple reason that I have lived there since I was eight years old, at Fleet's Neck, swam in the channel, boated in the channel, duck hunted in John's creek and every- thing else. So, I know the area and boats have gone up and down that without any trouble except for the mouth of the creek. When we wrote our letter to you people and asked that nothing be done except at the mouth. We could see no reason for anything further because, first off, we had our first good set of oysters in that creek and right along that shore, the south shore, and the dredging that you are suggesting is going 'to go right up to it and if it's anything like the dredging I've seen in East Creek, the banks tumble in and we lose 10, 15, or 20 feet of bog and everything goes under water. So, we objected to it strongly. We thought that it was wrong. We saw 48 foot boats in there that seem to get around. Perhaps, they can't make a U-turn, they might have to work a little bit to get around but the majority of boats, particular in the north slip were small boats, outboard motors. We could see no reason for going up that length. NOw, this was our objection and we stated it, of course, no one listened, listened a little bit but not to the whole matter. We felt that we just couldn't go along with it. We went to your hearing, the DEC hearing and we were to!id that nothing would be done until the spoil site was determined. We found out that that wasn't the case. We woke up one morning and found it would be done. We were very much disappointed in the results. We had put an awful lot of work into this. We had some exp!ertise to testify. We feel that the sand should be put on the north shore because the people there, their bulkheads are seven foot high already. I can remember as a kid walking along there, they were only five feet and they are being undermined. The sand moves along Fleet's Neck beach down into the East Creek. They just recently, last year, dredged it out which shows there is erosion. Wickham Creek 8 If you want any more definite proof that that beach is eroding, why did they dredge it out, because it had filled in the mouth of East Creek. We felt that this was not absolutely important as far as site being on John's side. I can sympathize with John but I can't sympathize whole heart for the simple reason that they just dredged out Schoolhouse Creek, New Suffolk. This spoil was put on the shore which is to the extreme west and south of John's property. This eventually will move along the beach and we felt this would be an added feature giving John more nourishment to his beach and, for the first time, have some fill over there. That was why we suggested that site also. Basically, that's what we felt was important. That was never dredged all the way up in there by any county dredge. It was always done just in the mouth of the creek so when they say that it's been done many times, the mouth of the creek was done many times but not up to the end of the creek. It was my understanding by your Council when any new project was~done. We were completely dumbfounded. We found out that the permit had run out, but all they had to do was reapply and it was picked right up again. Everywhere we turned we were stopped so, to be perfectly frank, we gave up on the thing. We feel the'spoil should be on the Fleet's Neck side to give these people something that they have not had in the last twenty or thirty years. We were very concerned about the dredging so close to the edge of the marsh. Ms. Burland: Before we go on, are there any more comments about the spoil site. I know the trustees are here. There was in the paper some suggestion that someone had come from the Council indicating that the site was to the south and you pointed out, no it isn't. It's the north. Actually, on our plans it is the north or east. That's what we're dealing with now. John has his point of view but the site is for purposes of information and record. The northeast sector is the spoil site that has been selected. I know you are here, Alvah, and I would be happy to have ..... Alvah Goldsmith:~ I think you should recognize the fact that our problem here is to keep the mouths of these creeks open. Perhaps, the day will Come when we will have to go further than that, the mouths of the creeks, but I hope not. With the crunch on finances in the county and the loss of our dredge that did this work before, it's going to be more and more expensive just to keep the mouths open. I object very strongly as a trustee to the use of public funds beyond the point of maintenance which this goes. It's not maintenance dredging beyond the end of West Road. No way, shape nor form. And I think we've got to conserve whatever funds and whatever ability we have to maintaing the creek entrances to a usable and open condition. As far as the spoil area is concerned, the reason that we are interested in it is that if we are dredging in the creeks, it is the property of the Town of Southold who owns the bottom and we think that we have some right to demand that our consideration be given to the fact that our ownership, the Town's ownership, has some bearing on what they do with it. We are trying to do with it what we consider will be the most long lasting result of the dredging. I wouldn't be in favor of taking something out here and dumping it in an area where it is going right back in with the first storm. This is exactly what would happen particularly if it is going to be done with a crane because you either have to bulldoze it for hundreds of yards up the creek or you might Wickham Creek 9 just as well not do the dredging in the first place. Those three factors, the fact that we want to maintain the entrances to the creeks in the town, we want the spoil deposited where it will stay the longest period without further dredging and we want to make sure that we're not dredging private property in the process. Ms. Burland: Any other comments. I think we're dealing with two problems here. One is where the spoil site should go or will go and, secondly,~how far up the creek we will go. Any other comments about the spoil site~before we get into the other portion of the problem? Mr. Wickham: Joyce, wouldn't it be possible, I've said it before but I'll say it again, at this particular time this year, I couldn't care less but it's a matter of the protection of my dikes and property in the long run is what I'm concerned about. This year, no problem. Ms. Burland: The only problem I have with that and it's a considerable one, and I ask your help here. I don't believe that I can sit here today and make a commitment to you about a future dredging project in ~three years. Certainly, it would be a matter of record that you felt that the spoil should go here this year bUt you certainly wanted to make a claim for~it the next time but I don't believe any of us here could give you those guarantees. It would be unrealistic. I don't believe we're authorized to do that. Each dredging pro:ject has a special process that it goes through with job studied as it existed at that point in time. I don't know what the regulatory agencies would recommend. I don't know who is going to be on the CEG help. I honestly think we do not have the jurisdiction to indicate or make-a promise. Mr. Bagg: There's .one thing, too. According to federal law, when a property owner along the shore line either loses property through erosion or gains it due to ecretion, it is considered a natural process and he either benefits or loses, one way or the other, and he has no claim that he can go down the beach and pick his property up and put it back in front of his property. Supervisor Martocchia: I don't think that's accurate. Mr. Eisenschmeid: No, it's not. That thing's called reliction that is lessening of the water. There are many things. It's not that straight forward. Mr. Bagg: It's not that straight forward but now we are talking about artificial means with ecretion or erosion. Mr. Wickham: I want to point out that actually this isn't on some- body else's property. The hook that they want to take off is my property. It's on my property. It's mine. It's above highwater mark. It's mine. I am perfectly willing to be fairminded about it but I want some assurance from somebody, the supervisor or the town trustees, I am willing to part with some of my property in good faith with some assurance that the next time it will be put back where it came from. Let's be fair. Mr. Eisenschmeid: The commissioner pointed, Public Works doesn't Wickham Creek 10 control the deposition. Mr. Wickham: But the Town of Southold, the trustees, the supervisor, the Town Board can say alright next time we will be solidly behind you. That's all I ask. Ms. Burland: Can we come back to this point. There are a couple of other comments and then we're going to get into the extent of the job, the width and how much spoil we're dealing with because there seems to be some real question. Frank Xujawski, Jr.: Mr. Collins mentioned that it was now policy that spoil areas would be downdrift from now on. Then, the problem for the future seems to be resolved because as each creek along the bay needs maintenance dredging, which they are going to, at least until maybe that day when eel grass comes back and beaches begin to stabilize, but right now, assuming they are going to remain dynamic, and if it is the policy that spoil areas will always b~ downdrift, then each beach downdrift of the adjacent creek will always benefit and you won't have to go through this nor will you have to make guarantees that in the future years to come, someone will be able to get a fair amount of spoil because each creek as you go along is going to be deposited downdrift. Is that correct? Mr. Collins: That's essentially correct. It's not always that easy because although the Council feels that this is our policy and we're a recommending agency, if you go to the County Executive and the Legislature, they could very well probably agree or disagree in this matter. In general, it is the policy but don't think for a moment that it's a hard and fast policy. Mr. Kujawski: It sounds like a lot of problems would solved if it became a hard and fast policy. Mr. Collins: Possibly, it could. Mr. Eisenschmeid: You want to recognize, also, that the l~ttoral drift while it is generalized here as being from west to east, it is not always so or consistently so. It fluctuates. It will go from east to west depending on conditions. Even within local areas. It's just not a straight forward west to east flow. Mr. Collins: There's also the private versus public interest. I would assume that, for instance, if this is being dredged and John's property happened to be a county-owned facility or a state-owned facility or municipal beach, a Town of Southold Beach, without a question we would recommend probably that the spoil be put on that side. Ms. Burland: Let me say, Bruce, that I remember things that have come up, the spoil has been deposited on both when there is a real problem. The problem we have in this department, my office, and all of us that work together is trying to resolve and compromise a number of different points of view when we feel the dredging is justified. How much spoil? Where does it go? It is rarely a clear issue so that we have many sessions and we've been to many of them. Wickham Creek 11 Mr. Stoutenburgh: I would be in agreement with John in the sense that the next time dredging came up, we would probably recommend that it be put on the'other side if there was no great amount of erosion. We felt that this was a very vital need and, therefore, we can appreciate John's predicament. I know exactly where he needs it. I've seen it myself and I would be willing to suggest that it be put up there. But, in this particular situation, we feel that those people have never had any fill. They should have some of this to keep this thing going along. What we are trying to say is that we would probably go along and put this in our recommendation in the future. Ms. Burland: That would make a real difference. George Bird: Has there been any authorization for any kind of work to be actually done on Wickham Creek yet? Ms. Burland: Authorization. I believe you have had exca...there has been .... we have all the authorizations, we were going to authorize Rudy to go to bid. Mr. Bird: Another question, then. I was in that creek on Sunday and on the north side as you say here, or the east side as we call it out here, of the creek, there is evidence of a dragline having worked in that creek. There are two large mounds of dirt as of last Sunday and I mentioned it to someone else today. Ms. Burland: Can you tell us about that? Mr. Bird: The only thing I can tell you is there's two large mounds of dirt there. It looks like work has been done with a dragline. Ms. Burland: Has anything been done at the mouth of the creek? Not by the County of Suffolk, but, I believe, on a separate permit? Charles Galardi: It was done under emergency permit by Boatmen's Harbor with a permit granted by the DEC. Ms. Burland: And you took out what, three or four hundred. Mr. Galardi: 500. Ms. Burland: 500 cubic yards to open the mouth for boats. Mr. Galardi: Because the mouth had narrowed to about.twenty feet. Ms. Burland: That is nov a county project. It requires no county permits. I believe that is a request acceded to by the town on an emergency basis when a dragline is done. Supervisor: Whose signature was on it, Mr. Bird? Mr. Bird: I've never seen it. Supervisor: The gentleman back there, whose signature? Mr. Galardi: Whose signature is on ...... Supervisor: The Town approval. Wickham Creek 12 Mr. Galardi: I don't know whose signature is on it. Supervisor: I didn't sign any. Ms. Burland: I don't know anything about this. we don't deal with local emergencies. Help me, Al, because Supervisor: The only project I know I worked on was through you, through Carl, through Rudy and it's this particular one we're talking about. Mr. Galardi: Mr. Martocchia, are you saying that you are not aware of that particular project? Supervisor: Of Wickham Creek dredging? Mr. Galardi: The mouth of Wickham Creek? Supervisor: Yes, I'm working on it, but not an emergency permit. No, I'm not. Ms. Burland: Who signed the permit? Mr. Galardi: The DEC. Ms. Burland: I assUme the town has to approve. Philip Horton: The DEC does not inform the town trustees of any permits they put out. Ms. Burland: Was it a D letter, John. John: Yes, it was. Mr. Collins: Where was the digging done, in the creek. In the mouth? John: Yes, on the west side. The spoil was placed on Mr. Lister's property and Little Peconic Bay's property. Supervisor: The only project I was involved with is the one we are discussing today. Mr. Eisenschmeid: Thi~ is my first knowledge of it. We will probably see the D letter in the index. I hav~en.,t seen it but probably will. Ms. Burland: Bruce, on the map and again in your letter to the department, you said the width of the channel between stations 25 and 31 as designated on the project was to be narrowed from 100 feet to 75. Point 2, the channel be designated to run as close to the north shore beach as possible without adversely affecting any bulkheads in order to provide a buffer for the wetlands on the south shore. Perhaps, you could tell us why those two points were ..... Mr. Collins: I think it is self-explanatory. There was concern, I Wickham Creek 13 think by a letter from the association here of the wetlands. We felt that 100 foot channel wasn't necessary in here and it should be kept to a minimum width as near as possible, I indicated ii. would be done by a hydraulic dredge. We didn't want the wetlands over onto the property on John's side shuffling off. That was b~ically the reason. Mr. Bagg: Essentially, what it really was, the Council being an advisory group, knowing that there are two sides to any story. It was a compromise. That's basically what it was. Ms. Burland: If the trustees look at this, do you object to the length of the job. Mr. Goldsmith: Yes. Ms. Burland: We are looking at a 75 foot width. Mr. Goldsmith: We don't object to the 75 foot width. The only thing that we object to is that this is concerned with maintenance dredging and beyond station 25 upstream of that is strictly a private concern. It concerns no useful purpose. Ms. Burland: Alvah, let me suggest to you, again, this comes up all the time. When we go in a dredge in Sag Harbor, we are dredging for a town marina there that is used by many citizens in Suffolk County. The only person that has any benefit is the town and then there are a couple of guys in the cove that are going to benefit because they happen to have marinas there. It just happens that the marina business is on the east and is kind of the life blood of the east end. We, again, have this problem of what do you call private. if Mr. Goldsmith: I think that/it can be rationalized in a case like this then every private marina would have a claim to preference in these areas and I still don't think it's fair. It's a business project and if a business doesn't justify their own maintenance, then I don't think the county has the responsibility to maintain it for them. It's just that simple. I'm in the marina business. I would be delighted to give me a boost on this thing. We've always felt that we had no right to ask the county. I would be embarrassed to do so and I think that here is a case where it has never been done by the county before. It never was required. They did their own dredging. Now, we are going in and maintain it. i think we need that money for other more necessary purposes just to keep the mouths of these creeks open. We're hurting and we're going to hurt if we don't have the mouths of these creeks open. If we are going to go spending money that is not necessary in this job, another one is going to suffer, i see it that way. If we had all the money in the world, I would say go ahead, go all the way but in these limited conditions .... Ms. Burland: I believe that the town requested that the dredging go that far up the creek and I believe I heard that the dredging has never gone up the'creek. Mr. Goldsmith: The town trustees have control of the bottom of these lands and I think Supervisor Martocchia will verify that. Wickham Creek Ms. Burland: Bruce, when the project came to you it was that far up the creek. Your concern was to narrow the channel. Mr. Collins: Our concern was to narrow the channel. As to the extent of the dredging, it didn't go further. It's always been just as you see it here. Our concern was to narrow the channel.. For 6 months the Council of Environmental Quality has been in. a very, very sort of wild hassle over the public versus private dredging. We have sought opinions from the county attorney and were told we were out of our minds and while we have gained some headway in private versus public concerns, i.e. outright private marinas, associations and that type of thing. The public versus private issue as far as a marina where people are or can get, not an association, but where you can go rent a slip has not yet been settled. In fact, I think,Jim, you worked with the dredging program. An operation such as this is a quasi-public thing. Now, there are some of us that don't see it that way. Apparently, you and I are two of them. And until that issue is settled, I really don't know how we are going to resolve this. We feel in some instances, we have resolved it as far as the outright private associations are concerned but even then we are a recommending agency. The final decision as to whether or not this is a priority, the final decision as to whether or not this in fact is public or private or quasi-public is for the time being going to have to rest with the legislature. Ms. Burland: Which is not a safe place to put it. Commissioner Kammerer: This public-private problem that has all of a sudden reared its ugly head is a little bit, in my opinion, warped. Never have we dug in a private marina. The only digging the county has ever done is on publicly owned town bay bottoms. Because there is a private marina nearby does not mean we will help him any other than clearing the channel out to the bay. It's no more that building a road because somebody has a house on the road. As far as I am concerned, the town owns the bay bottom. If the town wants the bay bottom dredged, that is public property and if somebody benefits, that is something that is not in my power to determine. Unidentified: There's one problem here, though, at the beginning, the fact that they do own, that Boatmen's Harbor does claim ownership to the middle of that creek. Commissioner Kammerer: That's something out of my control. Man: YOu just said that you never dredged on private property. Ms. Burland: I believe that Paul also said that they never dredged that far up the creek. Man: It just so happens as a coincidence that station 31 is also the end of Boatmen's Harbor property. Isn't that a strange fact? Why don't you go all the way up to the end of the creek and benefit everybody. Commissioner Kammerer: The town trustees claim the bottom of Wickh~m's Creek, as I understand it. Is that right? Wickham Creek 15 Mr. Goldsmith: There was a grant of land made by the town trustees many years ago. Sproessig was the first one to develop that area. He went to the town trustees, as I understand it, and got a grant of land and we looked it up in our records and that's when he built that marina. This property line now, this dredging line, whether it exceeds that or it's on that or beyond it, I am not sure. The point of the whole thing, if there were a hardship there, if this was a necessary thing, it would be different, too. I don't think it's that vital. Commissioner Xammerer: That's not mine, that's Carl's. What you mentioned before about keeping the mouths of the creeks open, I fully agree with it. If they let me alone and let me have that dredge and left us to our policy, keep going the way we know how we should go, there wouldn't be any problem with the mouths of these creeks. We'd keep them all open. Somebody pull.~d the cork and we're not able to operate. I don't care if they dig inside the creek or not. That's up to the people that want it. Mr. Collins: Is it a fact that this portion of the creek up there, is it private? Mr. Goldsmith: We can produce the original grant. Ms. Burland: Maybe the owners can tell us. Charlie... They have their own deed. Mr. Galardi: I don't know how one can separate. The water flows over that land that we have title to. The marina itself, when you are talking about the marina, you are talking about two basins that go in there. Access to them, boats are traversing over, is for all practical purposes, it's public. We don't block it off. They use it to go in and out. Hundreds of people. Police use it, the town uses it. So my contention is that it's more public than private from the argument that it's private and just benefitting us. Ms. Burland: Alvah, too, let me just say that we have so many projects that we deal with. We have one coming up in Sag Harbor Cove that would be of great benefit to two marinas in Sag Harbor Cove. They do a' great business, they're the most popular marinas in Sag Harbor and I do not consider that dredging for a private person. They area private .corporation. The dredging will benefit the owners of the marinas but they are so much a part of the business enterprise of the east end that if you told me you wanted to get into your hard- ware store and you better come and plow in front of the store, I would feel quite the same about it. The other public - private that Bruce and I have agreed on and are having some time with in the last legislature is when man has gone up and put an arm out into the water and then built houses on it and for his boat and there's a bar like Shinnecock Shores landing and we're supposed to dredge it for the people. I call that pure private benefit for'the property owners. Man: I think you mentioned the Sag Harbor dredging project. In this case you have private property and you.are extending the project into private property and ending it at that property line. In Sag Harbor, are you extending the project into private property? Wickham Creek 16 Mr. Eisenschmeid: I can't let that statement stand about this private property. We work on the Suffolk County tax map. We have a copy of it here which shows all. the property that belongs to the town trustees. The copy of this deed and the map, neither is confirmed or signed nor was I able to find a record of it in Riverhead. I am not saying it doesn't exist. What I am saying is that prior to doing this .... Mr. Stoutenburgh: We are saying in light of what has happened now, that as you understand it, do you feel you have a right to go in there now? Mr. Eisenschmeid: ship. But you and I are in disagreement as to the o~ner- ~ouglas Robertson: I was a member of 'the Board of Trustees when that marina said they owned to the middle of the channel. Both basins were worked at the time and it was done with that understanding that the marina owned out to the center line o£ the creek because they owned the land. And, therefore, any further maintenance or dredging o£ those basins was a matter of private concern and not part of the town~ And that was approved on that basis. Ms. Burland: Let me ask you this. When we consider the deeds whether they are signed or unsigned, let me ask you where does the deed extend? Mr. Robertson: To the center line of the creek. Ms. Burland: I understand that but how far does it go down. Mr. Robertson: It goes from the front of that whole marina and that basin, the furthest basin to the left, was placed very close to his property line at that time. Ms. Burtand: down. The question I have is how far does the deed extend Mr. Robertson: The deed extends from the bulkhead in front of West Road. In other words, where West Road comes in front of the property. Here's where, this is West Road and that's a town road as I understand it, but from that corner right there all the way up to his property line which is here. Ms. Burland: So, then, this is the only portion of the project that would be in question. Mr. Robertson: 25 to 31, right. That's why we objected. Man: You know a lot of deeds in the Town of Southold go to the center line of the highway so it's a safe assumption that you shouldn't be riding on the roads because they're private. Mr. Robertson: It's possible that the deed went to the center line of the highway. Ms. Burland: Let me ask you this and I certainly will stay here as long as anyone wants to make comments. I think what we have so far is Wickham Creek 17 an agreement that in this case whatever spoil is removed and we have not determined how much will be may in this case go on the east portion if there is some sense here today that we in future years would place the spoil on your portion. Not we but those here and it's a matter of record. Mr. Wickham: We are not talking entirely about underwater rights and so forth. I want you to look at the maps again. You are taking some of my upland. Not only that, you are seriously endangering the rest of it because it will slough right in because it's nothing but sand. Ms. Burland: Alright, John, but if we do not go up the creek, tell me somebody if you're dredging the mouth of the creek, how much of your land would go. Mr. Wickham: That whole point. Ms. Burland: You would consider up in here the mouth of the creek. Mr. Wickham: Now, I'm bargaining with you~ I'll say I will give you that in exchange for an assurance. I will sign the papers or releases. Ms. Burland: I am not sure we can give you the assurance because it is the town that initiates the project. Then it goes to the permit. If the town and the community are together on a request, it goes ever so much better. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I think Mr. Stoutenburgh said... Mr. Stoutenburgh: I'm a little confused here and I just have to use another example to bring this point out, Joyce. There's a creek to the east and the sand goes along Fleet's Neck and went way out into the middle of the creek and the county comes in and they take that pont off because it went on the town property. I thought that creek was town property there~ Mr. Wickham: We said that the right of ecretion and this is the one that the Mattituck Park properties have been working on for quite some time. I think all of you know that in West Creek, west of New Suffolk, the project was stopped because the Case family sa~id .no that is our property. I want some assurance from somebody. Here I have something, upland and we are talking about the protection of the sand behind. I'm concerned. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I would have to disagree with you. In West Creek the project was stopped because the Commissioner of Public Works came out and thought there was merit to the utilization of that thing for swimming. That was not a consideration. Commissioner Kammerer: Besides, there was a woman threatening to throw heresetf in front of the dredge. Mr. Eisenschmeid: Let me hasten to say that we would always do preliminary cross-sections. That may be modified. That point may not be exactly as it is indicated there. These gentlemen would know better. Mr. Wickham: I think there is more. Wickham Creek 18 Mr. Eisenschmeid: That could very well be. It might be less. Ms. Burland: Let me approach it from this end~ I'm sorry tH'is is so slow but this is kind of how we get to where we have to go. Do I understand that the Town Trustees, the North Fork Environmental Council agree that the mouth of the creek ,should be dredged,~ the full job at tn~ mouth. That would be up to about station 22. Mr. Stoutenburgh: ~.From 19 to 25 is what we thought. Ms. Burland: I've got to tell you, Alvah,~that-ti~at may be your definition of the mouth of the creek but You're suddenly stopping very short of servicing a business in the area. You are right on ~he edge of the deed that you claim is his responsibility and yet in every other area ~nere we have gone in when there has been a business, we have gone and done it. You say the mouth of the creek stops at 21. I say fine that's the mouth of the creek. But, you're going way up to 25. Mr. Stoutenburgh: Because there's a public landing there, Joyce. There's a public landing where the town boat comes in right at'the end of that road. Ms. Burland: A!right, that' s something I need to know. I'm trying to get the scope of the project and to be equitable to all concerned. Mr. Stoutenburgh: It is reasonable to use public funds to go that far because there is a public landing there where 'the public can come in and get people on and off of boats. Mr. Galardi: Why doesn't that same argument that you just made apply to the traffic that'goes on the water that goes over that land? You just used the public road as an argument but yet I can't use that same argument. Mr. Stoutenburgh: You wouldn't let me come in and land at your dock and unload and leave my boat in your marina for an hour or two or three. Mr. Galardi: Your argument for that street for public access. the same thing. It's Mr. Stoutenburgh: You can use the water but dredging your land .... Man: The land comes up to reach the water, Paul. I don't know if anyone has gone in since the winter has gone by ....... this shoal is not on the marina side, it is on the other side. That's where all the hangups we are getting. You say small boats never get hung up~ but we have boats up to 3-1/3 or 4 foot draft that are getting hung up on the opposite side. Ms. Burland: Let me ask one more thing because everyone has something to say and I will certainly stay here. I know Bruce has to go. The people here from neighborhood associations, have you all had a chance to speak.~ Mr. Nicoll: I would like to put our name in this public record. You Wickham Creek 19 mentioned the Co~uucil and Boatmen's Harbor and the Town Trustees. The Fleet's Neck Property Owners' Association has been involved in this from the beginning and we represent over 300 people. We have a concern, a very definite one. One point before you call somebody else, I used to have a friend of mine that used to keep his boat right up on one of those corners there and, even after this thing was originally dredged, he had trouble getting out. It was always shoal on the marsh side and ti~at's necessary for the protection of that marsh. Ms. Burland: Let me understand something. Paul indicates that the upper portion of this creek has never been dredged before. Mr. Stoutenburgh: Originally. Ms. Burland: Originally, this was back i~ ti~ 30's orig~na~ date of the hydraulic dredging? That's the Mr. Stoutenburgh: I believe they used hydraulic. able to tell us that. John would be Ms. Burland: It was a hydraulic dredging operation and it went all the way up. I am trying to get at the reason why the station was selected, because that's where it went originally. It was privately done in the first place. Mr. Stoutenburgh: ~ That's why I say it should have had an environmental impact. Ms. Burland:~ The Council says this is the first time a hydraulic dredge has been up.there and they require an EIS. It is an eXisting waterway that hadbeen hydraulically dredged. Mr. Stoutenburgh: Yes, you would have to use a hydraulic dredge in there, so.maybe you should have an impact statement. Ms. Burland: Alright, let me make this suggestion and I will stay on and anyone that wishes to. John, for your purposes and the purposes of the town, let me say that this public - private issue will have to go back to the legislature. We're in a hassle with three or four of them. They are none of them concerning any commercial business. This is the first one we've had that is an upper portion of a~creek where a request has been made for a commercial usage, not for the others we are dealing with. They are all private people who oWn their boats and want to get in and out. It's a slightly different case, Bruce, that you and I have talked about. We haven't had one like this and I want to tell you this is tough because there have been other areas of the county where we also have commercial interests whose boats are used by .... How many people from Suffolk County use your marina? Mr. Galardi: 90 out of 104. Ms. Burland: Well, this is a commercial operation for the benefit of citizens with boats in Suffolk County. Therefore, we are going to be in a little bit of a hassle if we say you can't go to Boatmen's Harbor but you sure can go to Sag Harbor. Anyway, this part of the problem must go back in the shop. While we are there, may I ask the Board of Trustees, perhaps the Council and John to sit down and come up with Wickham Creek 20 some document of agreement. I believe that~is what you'are asking for and that would become a matter of record so whatever yardage we eventually take out of this project at whatever time, we will have settled that problem. How far up aad down we go we will sit down with it. I am sure Boatmen's Harbor will come into it. The trustees will come with their argument and the members of the committee that makes these decisions. We are going to have to hear you out. My personal opinion is because I've seen so many of these commercially helpful projects throughout the east end in the year and a half, I hate to cut someone off who falls right within the same category as dredging we have been doing all along. Mr. Goldsmith: May I just say that we are not trying to cut anyone off. We just feel in the present state of finances, the present state of the economy, that we should limit ourselves to the minimum. God bless us, I hope we can some day dredge the whole works out but I think right now is not the time to start expanding the operation .... Ms. Burland: But, Alvah, but we are down there battling for funds for contract dredging that will cover the work necessary, commercially on the east end. I don't know if we are going to get it but .... Yes, Jim. James Bitses: There seems to be a little confusion. Where a property owner owns property to the center of the road and the town or the state or whomever takes an easement for use, in other words, by eminent domain, takes part of that land and denominates it a road, he still technically owns to the center line of that road. However, that land is usable by anyone that passes through because it is taken for public use. Where a person owns land on the shor~ of a lake, all the contiguous property owners of the lake own ~he center of this lake. In other words, pie-shaped pieces running to the center. However, they cannot fence off this land. They must leave this land free for the navigation of all the owners of the waterfront, the ritarian owners. Where property lines run under and it becomes more complex when you have old grants and grants for taking of salt hay, but generally speaking, even in tidewater, where the property line runs into the center of the creek and the creek has been used for passage to and fro by the other ritarian owners and one of the ritarian owners happens to be a public launching ramp, the owner of the land under the water, truly he owns the land under the water, but he can't fence it off and he cannot block it off from ingress and egress for all the users of that particular creek and in the case, the public. So, I just wanted to clarify that point. Man: I would like to ask where the public launching ramp is do~a there at Boatmen's Harbor. I have never been able to find it. Ms. Burland: That's a good question. Is it a launching ramp, Is it a tie-up dock. It's a dock. Mr. Stoutenburgh: Mr. Bitses, I think there's a little difference in what we are talking about here. You are talking about an easement. We are talking about a bona fide deed. Mr. Bitses: There's an easement of ritarian use by all contingent people on the creek. Wickham Creek 21 Mr. Stoutenburgh: We are talking about bottom land that is being dredged. That's what concerns us. We are not talking about the water part. We are talking about the bottom. Commissioner Kammerer: His argument is sound. By the same purposes, you couldn't repair the road based on the same argument. Mr. Stoutenburgh: No, because when you give the easement, you give that easement .... Mr. Bitses: He is raising a legitimate question. the bottom owners are objecting .... I don't think Ms. Burland: We're past that. We're moving by inches up this creek. Mr. Nicoll: As spokesman for the property owners' association, we in no way object to them dredging as indicated by the red line. We simply disagree with public funds being used for private benefit. They will benefit moneywise from dredging that area. We feel that they should pay for that. Secondly, we would like to know why you would stop at station 31. That seems to be an incredibly arbitrary line. Ms. Burland: I think we have established the reason it was stopped there is that is the extent of the initial dredging. Now, if we go beyond the initial of 30 some years ago, then you have environmental impact statements and all kinds of things. In other words, as I understand, it's going up to the point where the creek was initially privately dredged. Mr. Nicoll: May I ask a third question. It's a serious question, by the way, it is not as a joke. If I were to pull not into one of their slips but the area that has been dredged and decided to go fishing there, what right would they have to ask me to move out of there? They do not have any right because I have a right to use that public waterway. Is that not correct? Joseph Hataier: May I answer~that? According to the U. S. Federal laws, if you anchor there you are trespassing. They can ask you to move. Mr. Nicoll: That's what I assumed. So they do have property rights to that, so they do have control of it. Mr. Hataier: Under the water, yes. Man with Mr. Galardi: We have a lot of people coming down, fishermen, that not only use the public dock but land across our gas docks and some of our piers and the basin to the northwest. This is mainly when the boats aren't in, early season and late season. We allow them to do this and we also found the baymen come in there and drop anchor and nothing is ever said to these people that they have to get out. We have the rights and we own the bottom. We have not put poles out there, we have not put up a fence or anything like that. It is public waterways used by everybody. Incidentally, of those 104 people, 59 are Southold Town taxpayers so it certainly is a community facility. Ms. Burland: Keep their boats there? Wickham Creek 22 Man: Keep their boats there , are taxpayers. Mr. Eisenschmeid: slips? you have transients? Do you have overnight Man: We have transients but I would say probably if we get maybe a couple of dozen .... Mr. Eisenschmeid: But you have provision for them? Man: Yes, we do. We have the capacity of 5,000 gallons of gas. Most everyone in that area buys gas from the marina which is past that station 19. Ms. Burland:a May I ask, this will now be discussed. We are going to have a meeting with John Klein on the public - private issue. I didn't mean to be offhand by saying the legislature is a bad place to put the issue but as long as you can get eleven of your friends to go along with you, you may not be delivering the best public policy. It works out that way. Somebody says if you give me my dredge job, I'll give you yours. We still have not dealt with the issue of whether the county should spend public funds to benefit private ownership. This is a real question and we'll just have to deal with that. I would appreciate it very much if any of you here, I think the trustees mightlslend a couple of paragraphs and send it to me and say our position is the following so that I have that in my file as a matter of record. If the association could put its thoughts and feelings about this public - private issue, if the owners could do the same, then we have a case to take down and say, now how do you feel about the policy of this particular issue. Could you do that for me because I think from the station that is about where the town tie-up is~ 25, the rest of it is going to have to go into that group in county government which is the presiding officer, the county executive, the county attorney, Rudy, Jim Bagg, me and the head of the public works committee and we are going to have to figure out what Suffolk County is going to do when it is clearing out private water- ways that are sincerely, if you think this is difficult you ought to see some of the cases. We have to deal with where there is no public purpose at all to the dredging request. I would very much appreciate that as a matter of record if you could get that off to me. Just a simple Statement, Anyone else in the room that wishes to make their own personal statement, I would be very happy to have that, too. Man: I own the property adjacent to the Harbor. I would like to know how do you get one of these special D permits because I may have to get it, too. We've got some sand, You don't know about it. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I know about it but it's not concerning the county. Are you speaking as a point of information. You have to make application to Mr. Larkin who is the Local Tidal Wetlands Administrator and state your proposition and what you wish to do and it's my underst~ing that he'll make that decision. I'm not involved in it in that sense. I am familiar with it from.... Man: The D permit was issued, right? Mr. Eisenschmeid: I have no idea, sir. Not to us. Wicknam Creek 23 Ms. Burland: how long? A D permit was issued to you recently within the last Mr. Galardi: Couple of weeks. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I don't know. We don't operate that way. It serves no purpose from the county's standpoint because we have so many'other regulatory agencies because we've never done it, Man: Doesn't the town finally have to give the signature on that thing. Mr. Eisenschmeid: know. You would have to check with the town. I don't Mr. Horton: To the best of my knowledge the secretary of the Board of Trustees hasn't received anything as far as to what D permit Boatmen's Harbor got. They did not have any town authorization to ~ do anything as far as the Board of Trustees knows. Anybody else can go to the state, get the permit, do the work, but they're in violation of the Town Trustees and the Town Board regulations. Boatmen's Harbor has no permit for what they've done already. Man: That makes a sham of this whole thing. Mr. Horton: It is. Mr. Nicolt: We have absolutely no control over our local waterways and that's what they're telling us. Ms. Burland: Well, you do and T think what you're hearing is their procedure, but the county was not involved. What has happened in this particular is that the town makes an application and says will you the County of Suffolk come in and .... Mr. Nico!l: My point here is that I would agree with Boatmen's Harbor. They should have been given that permit, absolutely, they have the need to open the mouth of that channel but, then again, nobody know~ about it, so this gentleman, Mr. Larkin, issues a permit. You don't know about it, the Town Trustees don't know about it. Ms. Burland: It changes the quantity for our job, you see. Now, so that everyone will havethe same understanding, this resolution authorizing, the department to go to bid will remain on the table until we get a resolution. I think the spoil site is coming along o.k. but the public-private is something that will hang us up so there will be no action on this job by the county until we have a resolution and a meeting about it. Let me just tell you that the reason this did go to an authorizing resolution to bid is that we are trying to cluster the work in the township so we can get a bid on two or three jobs and possibly bring the price down. Then, we don't have to mobilize every time we have a job in the east end and this is how we are trying to move the work along without our county dredge and bring its costs down so we have Hall's and Wickham's linked and thought - great we'll go to bid. The thing was fine until we picked up the newspaper. We will now just go ahead singly with Hall's. We're not going to wait on this to do Hall's. Go to bid on that one and see how quickly we can resolve Wickham Creek 24 this. Any other comments or suggestions. Mr. Bagg: Is there going to be a transcript covering this meeting or anything, any notes? The Council would like to receive any notes covering this meeting and, also, any comments sent to Ms. Burland we would like to receive as far as this public versus private interest. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I would like to have minutes but Ms. Burland's correspondence is her own as far as we're concerned. Mr. Nicoll: You mean if I send a letter to you, you two ~entlemen will not get it? Ms. Burland: I will send it to them, absolutely. I'll get it out of my office. Also, don't be surprised if I call you up, the principles involved, of the town, the trustees, the owners of Boatmen's, the council and say, we're just going to sit down together and see where this thing is going. I would hope that we will have a policy meeting with John Klein before we do this. This is now presenting some serious problems. We have four or five that have nothing to do with the commercial interest in the dredging. Mr. Stautenburgh: I have a question of concern. Maybe, Mr. Eisenschmeid can help me and Bruce, also. How about the width. Is this determined primarily if the county dredge was going to be used here. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I can only answer for myself. From the engineering standpoint, this was designed on the 25th percentile of the boats that we see using it. This is designed for a boat with a three foot draft. It is designed on eight features, depth of all boats except the upper 25th percentile so it's not deep enough for him, it's too deep for this guy. But, there are eight design factors that go into it - the wind conditions, directions, pitch roll and this type of thing. That's how this is designed. That's what you asked me - the width. We felt at that time and we still feel that 100 foot would be preferable if you have two or three boats, both navigating this thing longitude and depending on the tide and so forth, but the CEQ would not pass it and we said fine but this is what we feel is right. You say it will not fly that width, so we went 12-1/2 feet on each side. I don't know if that answers your question from the Public Works standpoint. Mr. Stoutenburgh: no objection. The point is with less width we would probably have Mr. Eisenschmeid: Sure, but just like designing a highway, there are constraints, public welfare hazards, and somebody has to be responsible for them. That's how we came to it..As long as someone goes on record below a certain minimum and saying, this is your idea, great. If you were to say I want it 28 feet, I would have to say to you the average boat that comes in there ~has a 6 foot beam and the AECE recommends such and such and I would have to go to the commissioner and say I can't. Is this what you're driving at? Mr. Stoutenburgh: We are more concerned with the ecology of the area tha~ we are for the private concern. Wickham Creek 25 Mr. Bagg: To begin with, they agreed with the environmental council out here that the project should be scoped down and the question of really going up as far as the marina, however, the Dept. of Public Works received the request from the town, so we came to the compromise saying, put it on the downdrift side and scope the project down. We tried to write it so it would appear that the wetlands would not slough off. Mr. Eisenschmeid: Which, essentially, I think, followed your recommendation. Ms. Burland: The response of the CEQ was predicated quite largely on the letter from the Council. It was very much a part of the planning that was done. May I ask, just to get it clear in my mind, does the Council have any objection to the dredging up to the point of 25? Mr. Stoutenburgh: No. Ms. Burland: That is up creek. We are talking about halfway up. Mr. Eisenschmeid: of the project. So, essentially, we have agreement on 50 or 60% Ms. Burland: This is why we sit down together. It's the upper portion of the creek that brings up the public-private question in all your minds. Then, you have an environmental question in your mind, Paul, from that point to the initial edge of the dredging 30 years ago. Mr. Stoutenburgh: the north side. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I would like to see it as close as possible to We agree. Ms. Burland: In fact, the red line could be moved north. Mr. Eisenschmeid: I think what Paul is saying and we agree with him, that as far north as you can without dangering the bulkhead. We wOuld be happy to do that. ' Ms. Burland: Alvah: Mr. Goldsmith: Maybe, we can speed this thing up. I think we have, everyone has pretty well expressed their opinions. We are aware of the public advantage in the public-private interest and I think that the trustees are pretty much of the same opinion that, if this is kept to a minimum and it is kept nearer to the marina side, it would be an advantage· and whatever your group decides will be alright as long as it's a minimum. We don't want to stop this project. We don't want to hurt the marina. We certainly don't want to hurt any private business. We like to help them to what they are entitled to, but... Ms. Burland: May I tell you right here in the family that when this question comes up, it could be ominous for the east end and its businesses if we have to go through this for every single dredging project where there is a benefit to a boat supply or a marina or a restaurant owner on the water. Wickham Creek 26 Mr. Goldsmith: No, but in most instances you have a dredging area that affects a lot of people, some more than others. Some benefit more than others the same as a highway or anything else. This is no question. It is only when, after a certain job is privately maintained over the years and then we are supposed to approve of the county coming in anddredging this an additional distance, we feel we would be out of order if this wasn't thoroughly discussed and thoroughly understood. We sure don't want to stop it but we would certainly want to keep the cost of a minimum so that we could keep going on the rest of them. ~Mr. Wickham: May I say one more thing again as an adjacent property owner. I would have no objection to extending it all the way up if, particularly if~it was all the way up and even further to the north than'is here shown. There is no reason that the last couple of hundred feet can't be swung up towards the marina. The comments of Paul about this ~sloughing off are very real and this is where the oysters are and there's no reason if it could come this close at this time, you see, there's no reason why the red line can't come right over there. Ms. Burland: You are talking about swinging the whole thing up. Mr. Stoutenburgh: I am 100% for that. Mr. Wickham: Then, there's no reason why it couldn't be continued from this point right in this direction and keep away from this because here, actually, it's closer to the bog than it is down here and I think this is a mistake. You see the angle is changed right here. It should go right on up like that. Ms. Burland: Now, Charlie, what's you draft here now. This is where you have the bad turnaround, down in here. Well, we can't dredge there anyhow. We are always going to have a problem there because we can't go in there. Mr. Galardi: There's a bar in this area. Mr. Wickham: I'm perfectly willing to take that off and have it go right up through here instead of coming closer to the bog. Mr. Galardi: We have sailboats here that draw 3-1/2 feet. Ms. Burland: But, they're not getting hung up on the bog, they're getting hung up on the bar. Carl, if we moved that ...... Mr. Eisenschmeid: It would probably have to be resubmitted, but we can probably handle it on the phone ..... Ms. Burland: So, we all agree today that if, when the public-private question is determined and fully discussed and it certainly has to be brought up. I hope it kind of ends up in our favor because it comes up so often and it's a benefit to the community in general, that we understand that the project would swing up and if we do go up in that area that we would move it up and stay away from the shoal .... (more discussion about exactly where the red line should go) I think Wickham Creek .~ 27 it's important ~hose here from Boatmen's Harbor to let me know as part of the testimony of today exactly the kind of business they do as to the percentage and where the people come from, public applica- tion, the amount of gas, you are the largest area for boats in the area to use, whatever case you have for a service operation that is commercial, of course, but it is also a service operation, I believe it is important. Mr. Galardi: Do you want me to state this now? Ms. Burland: I would just as soon get it in writing. I have taken my own notes and I believe it is in the record. Any other comments? Al, do you and John and the trustees want to get something ~ogether that will satisfy John as far as the spoil site. I think we have half the problem solved. I thank you all very much for coming. Respectfully submitted, Muriel Brush, Secretary COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 26th, 1977 KAMMERER, P.E., L.$. COMMISSIONER Mr. Alvah B. Goldsmith Southold Town Trustees Main Road Southold, ~f 11971 Re: Halls & Wickhams Creek, Town of Southold Dear Alvah: Please find enclosed, a copy of contract plans for Halls and Wickhams Creek which are to be let as one contract. You will note that the last contract page which covers Wickhams Creek, has been revised to show hydra'ulic excavation from station 19+00 to station 25+00 which is in accordance, I believe with your Town Board's intentions. May I therefore, request issuance of the Trustees permits which has been held in obeyance pending the noted revision. Cordially, C. Eisenschmied, P.E.,L.$. Principal civil Engineer Division of Waterways CE:db Encl. cc: Supervisor Martocchia Legislator Burland YAPHANK AVENUE · YAPHANK, N.Y. ! ! 980 · (5~ 6) 924-3451 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENt Of PUbLiC WORKS S°luttlold ToWn Trustees Main Road Southold, NY 11971 A'ug'ust 28th, 1978 Re: KAMMERER, P.E., L.S. COMMISSIONER Wickham Creek - Town of Southold Permit ~1268 Gentlemen: Please be advised that operations will commence at the above captioned projec~ on or about 8/28/78. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, C. Eisenschmied, P.~,L.S. Principal Civil Engineer Division of Waterways CE: db YAPHANK AVENUE YAPHANK, N.Y. I '1980 924-345! JOYCE C:. BURLAND LEGISLATOR, I ST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN: PARKS, RECREATION & CONSERVATION MEMBER: HEALTH PUBLIC WORKS & FACILITIES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE July 21, 1977 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 49 BAST MAIN STREET RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK ! ! 901 HOME OFFICE: P,O. BOX 897 BRIDGEHAMPTON, NEW YORK 1193Z (Sl 6) $37-0858 Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Muriel: The minutes you sent me from our Wickham's Creek meeting a~e superb, and I want to thank you for all the time you devoted to preparing them. You are a wonderZ I have made copies and'forwarded them to the Waterways Division and the C.E.Q. We are certainly in your debt for pro- viding us with such a detailed account of the proceedings. JB/tt Joyc~/Burl.and County Legislator, tst District BOAIi Telephone 765-1938 1971 July 27, 1977 Hon. Joyce Burland, Legislator Suffolk County Legislature County Center Riverhead, New York ll901 Dear Legislator Burland: In the matter of the county dredging of privately owned underwater lands at taxpayers' expense, the Board of Southold Town Trustees conveys herewith its expression of opinion for record with your committee examining this problem. Whereas, Suffolk County is almost unique in the extent and importance of its waterways, creeks, lakes, wetlands and attendant wa~er based resources and for the past 300 years or so local government has provided the needed control and jurisdiction in these areas, this Board contends that: 1. County facilities, which would not be otherwise available to the townships, is a necessary responsibility and obligation of the County to property maintain and improve these attributes, in much the same way that the County Highway Department serves the highways° 2o__Final decision and control of any dredging in these areas should be the prerogative of the respective local governing agency after proper consideration has been accorded to the require- ments of Federal, State or County recommendations and standards covering such a project. 3. Any single statement of general policy, to wit: "The County approves the dredging of privately owned underwater lands at taxpayer expense" cannot provide the proper evaluation of a dredging application because the factors involved are too numerous and complex. Hon. Joyce Burland -2- July 27, 1977 4. An application involving the dredging of privately owned underwater lands must involve consideration of at least four major factors: a. the extent and use of the waterway by private owner- ship the protection and use of the area by commercial interests such as marinas, baymen and other dependent interests c. availability of facilities for use by_the public d. the environmental impact of any changes to be made 5. ThiS Board believes there are very few cases in Suffolk County which would require dredging of.private underwater lands and, though it might favor this being done .under certain circumstances and in a decision involving only a single application, any general policy allowing private dredging to be done at taxpayer expense would open the door to mass dredging at tremendous cost and would be impossible to control. Yours truly, AlvahB. 'Goldsmith, Chairman Board of Southold Town Trustees Douglas Robertson, Trustee Philip G. Horton, Trustee George Bird, Trustee Joseph Hataier, Trustee Copies to Hon. John V. N. Klein, County Executive Mr. Bruce Collins, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality Mr. Carl Eisenschmied, Department of Public Works Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Mr. Paul Stoutenburgh, North Fork Environmental Council Mr. Frank A. Kujawski, Jr., Conservation Advisory Council COPY NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL GOUNCIL, lNG. ¢ Box 31 I, Sou+hold, New York 11971 Ju.ae 23, 1977 Mrs. Joyce Burlaud County Legislature Cou.aty Center Riverhead, h~/ 11901 Dear Joyce: This letter is ia reply to your request for the NFEC Wetlauds Co~wmittee ouiuioa o.a (1) private property and (2) private interest with regard to the use of ~ublic fu~nds for dre dgi.ag. Some of our raembers have been i~.volved ia dredgi~ng operations since the county dredge first came i.ato our creeks o.a the i~or. th Fork. T~oughout th~s period there have been ma.ay occasions when the proposed dredgiug was questionable because it iavotved ~ri~ate .~aterest. Another aspect of this whole problem is the situatio~n of private property.. To our k.aowiedge there has .never bee.a any d~edgi~ng of p~m ate property here on the ~'~orth Fork that iuvolved public fu.ads. This is a completely a~iffereat situation tha_~ privat~ i.a~erest. The use of public fu~-ds for dredging of private property uo~ would surely set a precedent S~d make it hard to live with in the future. Therefore: t. Private Interest -W~ are against the use of public fu.ads for ~redg'img when it will benefit only a seisct pri~ate sector. Should there be a public boat ramp, dock, etc. within the area, we would be inclined to view the situatio~ with more !e nie~cy. 2. Private Pro~e.rt.y- Here we see the issue more clear cut. Public funds should act go for the\,bettermeat of private property. Any improvement should b~ uddertaken by the privat~ land owner a~ it has been i~ the past. Sincerely yours, NORTH FOR~ EhnJ!}~O!',~]~NTAL COUi~CIL, I?~C. CC: A!vah Goldsmith Carl Eis e.aschmied Joh~n Kle i .n Jim Bagg PS: bs Paul St outeaburgh Chairman We tlaads Committee · COUNTY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R.M. KAMMERER - COMMISSIONER YAPHANK, N.Y. NOTES: UTILITIES THE LOCATION OF EXISTING GAS, WATER, ELECTRIC 8~TELEPHONE LINES SHOWN ON THE PLANS IS NOT GUARANTEED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SATISFY HIMSELF BY PERSONAL INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH AS TO THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO WORKING IN THE AREA. RACE LOCATION MAP GOLDEN NEMATODE QUARANTINE THE CONTRACTORS ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE GOLDEN NEMATODE QUARANTINE OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS REGULATING THE MOVEMENT OF TOPSOIL, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IN NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES,AND CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN CHAFFER REGULATING THE MOVEMENT OF COUNTY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN OR FROM KINGS COUNTY. DETAILED INSTRUCTION AND ASSISTANCE IN THE NECESSARY STEAM CLEANING MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE FIELD PUBLIC AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRIOUL'FURE AND MARKETS GIVEN BELOW' DEPARTMENT OF OFFICE ADDRESS NEW SOUTH ROAD AT COMMERCIAL HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK TELEPHONE: WE 1-04-05 ST. MR. W. BROWN or MR. MORGAN DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 8~ MARKETS R O. BOX 96 HICKSVILLE, N.Y. OF SUFFOLK PLANS FOR THE WORKS PROPOSED MAINTENANCE DREDGING HALL'S. AND ' WICKHAM UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO THIS PLAN IS A VIOLATION Of SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW. MADE BY ,.,4 /-./~,',,~']',-~'.,~' TRACED BY COMPARED BY CHECKED BY~ DATE~ DATE~ DATE~ DATE TOWN OF" SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY N.¥ ALL WORK CONTEMPLATED UNDER THIS CONTRACT TO BE COVERED. BY AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS ADOPTED NOV. I, 1968 AS AMENDED BY PART I,JANUARY 1977 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,N.Y. AND ENTITLED "PUBLIC WORKS SPECIFICATIONS" EXCEPT AS MODIFIED ON THIS ' PLAN AND. IN THE PROPOSAL.' SHEET 4 LIST OF~ TITLE SHEET 8~ LOCATION MAP iTABLE oF. EARTHWORK- TYPICAL CHANNEL - !SECTION',- BENCHMARKS'-CONTROLS- ,COORDINATES (HALL'S CREEK) DREDGING PLANS (HALL~s CREEK) TABLE OF EARTHWORK-TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION - BENCHMARKS-'CONTROLS -- COORDINATES-DREDGING PLANS . (WICKHAM CREEK) PROJECT SCALE DATE SHEET NO. HALL ~S CREEK 8 WICKHAM CREEK RECOMMENDED BY .~--~ ~d~/~:'.~-~ DATE ~--~--77 CARL EISENSCHMIED-PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER- DIVISION OF WATERWAYS APPROVED BY ~/~ ~~~ DATE ' WILLIAM S. MATSUN~YE JR. - CHI~ E~GINEER ......... R.M% ~MMERER-)COMMISSlpNER OF PUBLIC WORKS '" APPROVED bY 4 ~~~~ DATE JOH~ ~. N KL~I~=~OUNTY EXECUTIVE DATE ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA-SUPERVISOR-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPROVED JOYC?.~(~.-~IU-RLAND- LEGISLATO'R -DISTRICT NO. I COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PROJECT SCALE DATE SHEET DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NO. R.M. KAMMERER- COMMISSIONER YAPHANK, N.Y. ?..~ d',x/'~',z~'~ .,5'../?,? ~o./'~ HALL'S CREEl( GENERAL NOTES COORDINATES ARE BASED ON THE LONG ISLAND SYSTEM OF PLANE COORDINATES USING THE LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC PROJECTION WHICH ARE PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR TO A MERIDIAN PASSING THROUGH THE ORIGIN WHICH IS THE INTERSECTION OP LATITUDE ,~0~ $0' NORTH AND LONGITUDE 7,~° 00' WEST AND GIVEN COORDINATES, N ICC, 000 FEET AND E2,000,000 FEET. PROBINGS ARE SHOWN THUS: 8°7. THE HEAVY DOT INDICATES THE LOCATION OF THE PROBINGS AND / ' J, ~ ' . ATTHEF~GURE~ND~CATES THEDEPTHPENETRATEDBEL~wMEANL~wwATER~N~ROCl(wASENC~UNTEREDDEPTHS SHOWN. -- MINIMUM DEPTH OF EXCAVATION SOUNDINGS, PROBINGS AND LAND ELEVATIONS ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND TENTHS AND REFER TO THE . ~ 2' -- AREA A \ LOCAL PLANE OF MEAN LOW WATER WHICH IS I.,~,~6 FEET BELOW MEAN SEA LEVEL BASED ON TWO TABLE OF BENCHMARKS -- TITLE ELEV. DESCRIPTION TABLE OF COORDINATES STATION (E) COORDINATES(N) DESCRIPTION E~EFATION 0.0 FEET MEAN ~OW WATEH ' T YPICA,'L CE/ WNEL SECT/OH NOT TO SCALE TABLE OF EARTHWORK (APPROZ) UNAUTHORIZED ~LTER~TION O~ ~DDITION TO ~TATJO~ TO STATION CUBIC YARDS THIS PL~N IS ~ VIOLATION O~ SECTION, OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION L~W. ~dX MADEBY ~ ~~ .DATE ~/~ ~/~ ~0 ~//0~ ~ ~ TRACED BY ~ ~7~g~ DATE //// ~ , COMPARED BY ~~ DATE CHECKED BY. ~~ . DATE ~//~ ~ GREAT PECOIV/C PROJECT NO. SCALE /' =~0' H~LL 'S DATE CREEK SHEET BAY l]]d 09 = HDNI I .' 37VDS 7 N /INRO3 X70dXRS'Q7OHiROS dO N~Oi X]]H3 INVHNDIi QNV HOHHVH ]RDOH31 RD ONIDQ3~4Q ]3NVN]I NIVIN HOd SNV ~d ONI~ OHS d VIN