HomeMy WebLinkAboutGoldsmith JettyRecsivl:D
q 7'o wN ~a rte! /fit
PRESENTATION TO TOWN BOARD -August 12, 2008
Southold Town Clerk
Good Evening. My name is Peter Terranova from Peconic, specifically Peconic
Sound Shores at the end of Mi11 Lane at Goldsmiths Inlet.
I would like to address the Town Board on the subject of the most recently passed
resolution:
RES-2008-692 titled SEQRA for Goldsmiths Jetty.
I come before you as a resident of Peconic Sound Shores and not as Vice-President
of the Peconic Sound Shores Association, as I do not want my comments to
preclude any legal action the Association may take to protect their property and
rights.
First, I would like to ask the Town Board members if they know why the jetty was
built. I raise the question because there is widespread mis-information that has
found its way into past studies, analysis and the public record.
The Jetty was built in 1964 to specifically protect the homes of Peconic Sound
shores directly to the West of Goldsmiths Inlet as stated in the Greenman-Petersen
Shoreline Impact Study ordered by the NYS Attorney Generals Office in 1982. A
secondary purpose of the jetty was to help stabilize the tidal inlet opening. To this
end, the Jetty has performed exactly as intended.
Any attempt to modify or shorten the Jetty will have a severe detrimental effect on
the protection from storms that the residents of Peconic Sound Shores have relied
upon over the years to invest in their homes and property since the Jetty was built.
The Greenman-Peterson Study also documented the following:
- Severe erosion (up to 18 Ft/yr) west of the inlet from 1959-1962. Led to
construction of Jetty.
- By 1972 full impoundment attained with sand now by-passing the Jetty.
Actually sand was by passing Jetty before full impoundment as shown on
this Ariel photo.
- Between 1972 and 1978 all areas both east and west of Jetty experienced
severe erosion.
- Most of erosion east of the Jetty, after Jetty was built occurred after 1972
when Jetty was already by-passing sand.
- The maximum shadow of the Goldsmiths Jetty is limited, with the Bittner
property groin and other structures to the east contributing to the natural
beach erosion further east.
Some Background
My parents bought their beachfront property in 1956. They wanted the best
possible environment for their children to experience and grow up in. Peconic
Sound Shores was like a summer camp where you could go barefoot all summer
and never have to lock your doors. My parents, while normally risk adverse, did
make a mistake. They were so enamored by the beauty and tranquility of Peconic
Sound Shores, that they invested in a property that was at serious risk. The seller,
Harry Tappan, one time supervisor of Oyster Bay was smart. He knew that it was
just a matter of time for the shoreline erosion to devourer the beachfront and
ultimately destroy the beachfront homes.
But we were lucky. After the alarming rate of beach erosion from 1959-1962, the
property owners appealed to Town Supervisor Lester Albertson who was able to
initiate Jetty construction to protect the homes of Peconic Sound Shores.
Following the construction of the Jetty my Parents as well as other residents of
Peconic Sound Shores invested heavily in their homes and properties and the
community has expanded considerably since then. The lesson here is that anyone
who invests in beachfront property is taking an inherent risk, unless there is some
guarantee of some protection from the sea. The Jetty is our current protection and
the investments made in our properties as well as the new construction in Peconic
Sound Shores(approved by the Town), since the Jetty was built, was made on the
basis of the Jetty remaining as is.
While I am not a registered Professional Engineer, or an Oceanographer, I am a
graduate engineer from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. My 40 year work career
includes 30 yrs in Corporate Engineering Management and 10 years in private
entrepreneurship. I say this only to establish my thought and analysis process. I
have long adhered to the statement, "one is entitled to their own opinion, but not
their own facts".
Now, I wish to return to the resolution. First I am pleased to note that your
resolution to shorten the Jetty does not attribute the Jetty length to any alleged
beach erosion further east beyond the Bittner Property. This issue has been studied
to death and should have been finally put to bed with the Greeman-Petersen
analysis in 1982.
In reviewing the resolution just passed, I am not clear how and why the conclusion
that the Jetty should be shortened was reached. I do not recall or can find any
study titled "What are the causes of, and why does Goldsmiths Inlet need to be
dredged on a regular basis?"
Is there such a study that concludes that it is because the Jetty is too long? If so, I
ask you to produce it. So how did the board arrive at its conclusion that the Jetty
should be shortened? The Analysis of Jetty shortening Alternatives initiated by the
Board starts with premise that the cause of Inlet dredging is the Jetty. This is
wrong, and suggests that shortening the Jetty is an unstated agenda of the board
regardless of reason.
It may come as news to the board that before the Jetty was built, it was almost an
annual spring task to open up the mouth of the inlet to maintain tidal flow into
Goldsmiths Pond and maintain the ecological health of Goldsmiths Pond and
Autumn Lake. So we can conclude that a shortened Jetty or no Jetty at all, will not
mitigate the need for maintenance dredging of Goldsmiths Inlet.
This is a serious flaw in the goal achievement for Jetty shortening as stated in the
resolution.
1. To reduce the need for dredging at Goldsmiths Inlet. One does not need
to be a rocket scientist to know that with a west to east littoral drift, any
reduction in the length of the jetty will bring the sand by-passing the jetty
closer to the shoreline immediately east of the jetty, thereby driving that
sand into the mouth of the inlet with the first northeast wind and tide. As
documented in the US Army Corps of Engineers 2005 Geomorphic Analysis
of Mattituck Inlet and Goldsmiths Inlet, the Inlet is Flood Dominant and as
such will always take in more sediment than flows out.
Now turning to the second stated goal in the resolution:
2. To mitigate any potential adverse impacts from the reduction in Jetty
size to down drift properties.
Question: What properties are you referring to? There are few, if any
private homes in the effective down drift shadow of the Jetty, but the entire
Peconic Sound Shores Community up drift of the Jetty will be severely
impacted by any shortening of the Jetty as well as homes to the west situated
on the bluff. Why is there no mention of mitigating the definitive adverse
impacts on these up drift properties?
These two flaws make your recently passed resolution statement and goals
of this project misleading at best and most likely blatantly false.
Now on to the analysis that the board caused to be prepared titled" An
assessment of Jetty Shortening Alternatives"
Lets start with the preface - I will not comment on the individuals who
conducted the analysis, but I wish to take issue with the Town officials who
provided technical input and directional guidance and commentary to the
analysis team, both of whom have demonstrated in the past a bias on
shortening the Jetty for reasons unsubstantiated.
In reading the analysis report, I ran out of post-it flags highlighting the
errors, mistakes, and incorrect assumptions. By any measure, this is a
sloppy report and notwithstanding the credentials of the authors, it reads as a
graduate student thesis at best.
Let me point out a few:
First and foremost, this analysis is a modeling and simulation exercise,
attempting to predict the shoreline behavior in a coastline reach from Duck
Pond Pt to Hortons Point which is unique in is bathymetry from any other in
Long Island Sound. Far too many assumptions are made for this to be used
as a credible guideline for shoreline modification
Secondly, certain specific measurements of inlet flow were taken one month
after a dredging operation and certainly not indicative of the natural state.
On page 15. the analysis supposes that deep dredging of the inlet could
double ebb tide flow velocities leading to lower water elevation in
Goldsmiths Pond and possible negative environmental and aesthetic
consequences. I know first hand this not to be true as the deep channel
dredged when the Jetty was first built enabled me to drive a powerboat right
into the Pond at low tide.
On page 29 the analysis talks about the sediment budget base on numerical
modeling. What they fail to take into account is that the historical source of
significant amounts of littoral drift sediment was sand from the eroding
bluffs west of the Jetty. This bluff erosion was dramatically reduced by
privately constructed bulkheads and vegetation growth during the benign
hurricane activity since the Jetty was built.
Since this analysis was made in 2005, a significant spit of accreted shore has
appeared between the Jetty and the Bittner Bulkhead and this spit extends
seaward almost the same distance seaward as the Bittner Bulkhead. This
was not predicted in the Genesis Simulation of Future Shoreline conditions
with existing conditions as shown on page 30 of the analysis, and brings into
question the entire simulation model.
In looking at wave and water level conditions at Peconic Sound Shores, the
analysis does not appear to add the wave height to the water level storm
surge that occurs during a Hurricane in their calculation, and erroneously
states that the higher water levels would not cause significant damage,
overlooking the fact that most of the damage occurs from the debris carried
by the water and waves. I have a photo which shows a huge tree trunk
penetrating the foundation of my parents home in the 1944 Hurricane. This
also occurred during Hurricane Carol in 1954
Another incorrect assumption used in the modeling of Beach Erosion and
Inland Hydraulic conditions was the assumption of 80 degree offshore wave
angles. In a Hurricane the wave angle is dependent on the direction of the
wind dictated by the path of the cyclonic storm. I have photos taken during
the Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 and Hurricane Carol in 1954 which
show wave angles much less than those used in the modeling analysis.
On page 44 of the analysis, a discussion of flooding analysis is made using
inputs from the Town Engineer as to flooding on Mill Lane adjacent to the
Inlet since 1975/1976. What about since 1938, 1944 or 1954. I recall a
painted line on a since replaced telephone pole next to the intersection of
Mill Lane and Second Ave. that delineated the high water during Hurricane
Carol in 1954. While not precise, this line was no less than 10 feet high,
which disputes the statement that flooding of the Goldsmiths parking lot is
rare.
Our community experienced three major Hurricane events over a period of
16 years. 1938, 1944 and 1954. This can and probably will happen again as
we move out of the most recent period of benign hurricane activity in the
Atlantic. It is a fact that most experts consider the benign activity of the past
40 years to be abnormal.
The Goldsmiths Inlet Recreation Area is presently a gem on our precious
North Fork, and this recreational resource is made possible by the Jetty in its
present form. On any given day and especially on weekends the number of
people and families enjoying the inlet's unique characteristics far exceeds
the use at many other town beaches & recreation areas, despite the lack of
lifeguards and comfort facilities. Shortening the Jetty will destroy all of this
as well as seriously damaging the existing natural environment & eco-
system.
Shortening the Jetty will dramatically increase the frequency and amount of
dredging required on an annual basis to keep the inlet open, as the fillet of
sand west of the Jetty moves around the tip of the shortened Jetty to the
mouth of the Inlet. Don't for a minute assume that the town can remove the
sand west on the Jetty that is on Private Property, prior to the shortening of
the Jetty.
Although not stated in your resolution but privately expressed to me by a
Town Official - is that the Jetty needs to be shortened because it is unsafe
and the town is afraid of a lawsuit resulting from injury. If so -why has not
the town proceeded to initiate repairs or block off access with a fence, or at
the very least post a sigh "Proceed at your own risk", or is this just another
Red Herring similar to Supervisor Horton's claim that sand was moving
through the Jetty as an excuse to shorten it. With the Jetty impounded with
sand for hundreds of feet, there is no way sand is moving through it.
Gentlemen and Ladies of the Board, your passing of this resolution
statement and the analysis study that is based upon, brings to mind the
expression "What have you people been smoking and how do I get some of
that"
I respectfully request that you move to rescind this resolution and all
previous resolutions calling for the shortening of the Jetty. Stop wasting
taxpayers money on consultants and studies and the man hours of town
employees. While most of the past expenditures have been in the form of
grants, it still represents taxpayer money better spent or not spent at all.
Going forward, I understand the $400K grant for this project from the state
will require matching funds. Where is this money going to come from. As
stated by our Governor just a few weeks ago, our state faces a fiscal crisis
brought on by the severe contraction in credit. Make no mistake, this
contraction in credit nationally and perhaps worldwide will impact our town
in some form and will last longer than most realize. Local, state and the
Federal Government needs to reduce its spending and save every penny it
can to maintain essential services will not raising financial burdens through
increased taxes.
As far as the dredging of the inlet is concerned, consider the fact that the
Town spends next to nothing at Goldsmiths Inlet for lifeguards, comfort
stations, beach cleanliness and appearance and even garbage removal. Take
these savings and use it to secure a long term contract for the annual
maintenance of the inlet opening consistent with the eastward orientation
recommended by the US Army Corps Study in 2005 to maintain the eco-
system and unique characteristics of Goldsmiths Inlet Recreation Area.
For your reference, I have numerous historical photos which support much
of what I have presented here tonight and would be pleased to show them to
you after tonight's meeting.
I hereby provide a copy of my prepared comments to the Town Clerk for
inclusion in the minutes of tonight's meeting.
Thank you