HomeMy WebLinkAboutPetitions - Goldsmith Inlet Jetty }
JOSHUA Y. HORTON ��� G JAMES A. RICHTER R.A.
SUPERVISOR 60 ENGINEER
TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD %fto TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971
Fax. (5l 6)-765-1366 �� �� Tel.(516)-765-1560
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Craig Richter March 20, 2003
Town Councilman
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971 Re: Goldsmith's Inlet Jetty Project
Dear Craig:
As per your request, I would like to offer the following outline for the above referenced project.
This outline has been generated from our conversations during recent meetings set up to evaluate the
previous coastal erosion studies to determine a coarse of action.
Item # 1: Appointment of a Project Coordinator.
(Recommendations to be submitted to the Town Board.)
Item #2: A Modification of current Project Narrative is required.
(This item should be completed by the Project Coordinator with assistance from Mr.Barry Pendergrass.)
The approved EPF Grant Program Work-plan(copy Enclosed)in the files had been used
to solicit funding from the Department of State to address chronic shoreline erosion in
the vicinity of Kenney's Beach. This new narrative would be based upon the Boards
determination to select a specific coarse of action regarding the Jetty.
The Town must file an amended Work-Plan with the Department of State before
the EPF Grant funds can be used to pay for Shoreline Modeling.
This will be required before any action can be undertaken at the site.
The Board must also verify the availability of promised funds from Ken Lavalle's
Office. An extension agreement was sent to Town Hall some time ago but I do not
know the status of these funds. They were to be used as a match for the State Grant.
The following recommendation is based on the previous Coastal Erosion Studies.
It is hereby recommended that the Town Board of the Town of Southold should
authorize the study and required modeling related to the removal of one third,
approximately one hundred twenty five (125') feet, of the existing jetty.
Item #3: Based on the recommendation of Mr. Barry Pendergrass at the Dept. of State, It is
hereby recommended that the Town Board of the Town of Southold authorize
the new Project Coordinator to enter in to contract negotiations with Mr. Bill
Grosskopf of Offshore and Coastal Technology, Inc.to do the modeling work.
At this time, negotiations will include the scope of work recommended by the
Department of State(Copy Enclosed)and the clarification of how many alternates could
be effectively modeled based on site conditions and funding availability. The outcome
of these negotiations would be summarized and submitted to the Board for comment
& approval prior to commencement of any work.
Page 1 of 2
Craig Richter, Southold Town Councilman Page 2 of 2
Re: Goldsmith's Inlet Jetty Project March 20, 2003
Various options or alternates currently under discussion or consideration.
1. Do Nothing
2. Remove 1/3 of the Jetty as recommended by the Committee
3. Remove 1/2 of the Jetty
4. Remove the entire Jetty (this option is not supported by any of the analytical
data or studies that have been completed to date!)
Item #4: Environmental Impact Statement.
Nelson Pope & Vorhese has been retained to prepare Environmental Impact
Statements and provide all supporting documentation for the SEQUR process.
When the Board decides what action will be studied and modeled, Mr. Chick Vorhese
will be contacted to coordinate the process.
Item #5: Dredging the Inlet.
The Suffolk County DPW has agreed to perform a major dredging project forthe Inlet.
Due to modifications in scope of dredging as recommended by the DEC and the
staffing situation at the County Engineering Department, the permit process has not
been completed. Recent conversations with Suffolk County DPW Engineering
department would indicate that the dredging of the inlet would be done in the Fall of 03
at the earliest but more likely the Spring of 04.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
James A. Richter, R.A.
Town Engineering Department
Enc. (2)
cc: James McMahon (with Enc.)
-s
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM WORKPLAN
Contractor: Town of Southold
Program Contact Person: James McMahon, Administrator
Phone: (Office) 631-765-1892
(Fax) 631-765-1823
1. Project Description
The Town of Southold is seeking a means to address chronic shoreline erosion in the vicinity of Kenney's Beach.
A series of studies of the shoreline have been completed and the Town is considering possible actions to mitigate
the erosion. Southold proposes to develop a comprehensive action plan using the results of the previous studies
and the work described in this agreement. The action plan may include acquisition of certain private properties
or easements, sand bypassing at Goldsmith Inlet,and beach nourishment. The property acquisition may include
removal of shore protection structures impeding longshore sediment movement and removal or relocation of
shore front homes if necessary to safeguard them from erosion threats.
Sand bypassing may include modification or removal of a portion of the jetty at Goldsmith inlet, or other means
to assure regular movement of sediment around the inlet. The beach nourishment element would consist of
dredging sand from Long Island Sound and placing it on the beach face along the shoreline most threatened by
the continuing erosion. The dredging operation may involve a one time excavation of between 200,000 and
800,000 cubic yards of beach quality sand from an offshore borrow site already identified and placement along
the shoreline.
The purpose of this contract is to analyze the feasibility of each of these options which will allow the Town to
decide upon which alternatives it can support, and prepare the necessary support for project management,New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)compliance,permitting, engineering design and
mitigation of impacts if necessary.
The work to be completed through this agreement will include the following five elements:
• 1.Borrow Site Proving-For an offshore borrow area already identified: determine the quantity of beach
compatible sediment available, map the extent of the deposits and any obstructions and provide geophysical
information necessary to support permit applications.
• 2. Shoreline Monitoring -Carry out Year 3 work of the existing contract between the Town of Southold and
Offshore and Coastal Technology,Inc. -East Coast.
• 3.Wave Refraction Analysis - Analyze impacts to waves, the near shore, shoreline and upland resulting from
removal of sediment from the borrow site identified in item 1., above. The analysis will include at least two
alternative removal quantities: 300,000 cubic yards and 800,000 cubic yards. Provide wave refraction
information necessary to support permit applications for the beach nourishment.
• 4. Goldsmith Inlet Hydrologic Conditions Assessment- Analyze hydrologic patterns through Goldsmith
inlet. Assess hydrologic impacts that could result from bypassing alternatives. Propose options for
mitigating any impacts. Identify permits necessary to carry out proposed sand bypassing alternatives and
provide hydrologic information to support permit applications.
• 5. Environmental Analysis -Following completion of work elements 1 through 4 above, the Town of
Southold will identify project alternatives for detailed investigation. Selection will be contingent on
information obtained through the work performed under this contract, the results of previous work,
Appendix D`-2
requirements for permitting and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). Once
project alternatives are selected by the Town of Southold the Environmental Analysis consultant will:
Determine the environmental impacts of project alternatives on the near shore, intertidal and upland areas;
Propose management options for eliminating,minimizing and mitigating those impacts; Develop a work plan
for understanding conditions of the proposed borrow site and a borrow site monitoring program; Identify
permits necessary to carry out Town selected projects, perform a feasibility analysis of selected projects, and
assemble information necessary to support pen-nit applications. The consultant will utilize the existing
Environmental Inventory(Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc., Sept. 1, 1998), results of the above work, and
provide additional supporting information as necessary.
2. Project Attribution and Number of Copies
The municipality must ensure that all materials printed,constructed,and/or produced acknowledge the contributions of the
Division of Coastal Resources to the project. The materials must include the following acknowledgment:"This(document,
report,map,etc.)was prepared for the New York State Department of State(DOS)with funds provided under Title 11 of the
Environmental Protection Fund."
The municipality must submit to DOS two copies of all written reports and supporting graphics, final design
documentsi and other printed materials.
3. Project Components �=
Task 1: Contractor Selection Process
For each of the five work elements in item 1.Project Description,above,Southold shall decide whether to select a
contractor through a Request for Proposals(RFP), or whether to select a contractor already known to be capable of
successfully completing the work. Southold shall notify DOS which work elements will be completed using an RFP,
and which will be completed by direct selection of a contractor,including the firm name,principals names,and contact
-------------
address and phone number.
The Environmental Analysis cannot be initiated until sufficient information has been obtained for Southold to make a
selection of project alternatives the Town would support. For this reason,selection of a contractor for the _
Environmental Analysis may be delayed until later:in the course of the work. Southold is aware that projects undertakcn
to mitigate erosion will require compliance with the.New York State Environmental Quality Act(SEQRA)and the
issuance of permits. Southold will provide DOS a list of supportable project alternatives to be investigated in the
Environmental Analysis prior to arranging a contract for the work.
Product:A letter(s)from Southold to DOS advising which work elements will be completed using the RFP process and —�
which work elements will be completed by contractors already selected,with contact information. Southold will also
provide DOS a list of supportable project alternatives prior to initiation of the selection process for the Environmental
Analysis.
Task 2: Request for Proposals
For each work element to be completed using an RFP to select a contractor,Southold shall draft the RFP including a
complete project description with site conditions;expected final results,requirements for the contractors to provide a
schedule for completion of the work;requirements for the Town and the contractors to agree on a payment schedule, and
criteria for selecting a preferred proposal. The RFP(s)will be submitted to DOS for review and approval prior to release
for solicitation of proposals.
Appendix D-3
Product: Approved RFP(s)released through advertisement in local papers and other appropriate venues.
Task 3: Consultant Selection
In consultation with the Department of State, Southold shall review all proposals received as a result of the RFP(s). For
preparation/certification of final design and preconstruction documents,and for supervision of construction, a
professional engineer or licensed architect landscape architect is required. The consultant selected is subject to approval
by the Department of State.
Product: Consultants selected.
Task 4: Contract Preparation and Execution
Southold shall prepare a draft contract for each of the work elements in item 1.Project Description,above,to conduct
the work with the selected consultants. The contracts shall contain a detailed work plan with adequate opportunity to
review progress of the work,a schedule for completion of the work, a payment schedule(payments shall be tied to
receipt of products identified in the work plan),and a project cost. The draft contracts will be submitted to DOS for
review and approval prior to execution. Following DOS approval,Southold will distribute the contracts for execution.
A copy of the final contracts, incorporating DOS comments on the draft contracts,will be provided to DOS.
Product:Draft Consultant Contracts,Executed Final Consultant Contracts.
Task 5: Project Scoping Session
For each of the work elements in item 1.Project Description, above, after consultation with DOS, Southold will
determine whether to hold initial meetings to review project requirements, available information, studies already
underway, and to transfer any information to the consultants which would assist in completion of the work. If a
meeting(s) is held,the consultants will prepare summaries indicating information exchanged and agreements or
understandings reached.
Product: Scoping meetings with appropriate parties. Meeting summaries with note of information exchanged and
agreements/understandings reached.
Task 6: Interim Reports
For the purpose of monitoring work progress and adapting to unforseen conditions, contractors will provide the Town of
Southold periodic letters describing work accomplished,any problems encountered, and any assistance needed. The
schedule for providing these work summaries shall be as follows:
1.Borrow Site Proving-every two months from the date of contract execution until the Draft Final Report is submitted.
2. Shoreline Monitoring-Within one month after the fall surveys are complete, and one month after the spring surveys
are complete.
3.Wave Refraction Analysis-every two months from the date of contract execution until the Draft Final Report is
submitted.
4. Goldsmith Inlet Hydrologic Conditions Assessment- every two months from the date of contract execution
until the Draft Final Report is submitted.
5. Environmental Analysis-every two months from the date of contract execution until the Draft Final Report is
submitted.
Product: Letter reports on the progress of the work.
Appendix D-4
Task 7: Draft Final Reports
For each work element the consultant(s)will submit draft final reports to Southold describing findings. Reports will
include an executive summary,a description of how the work was conducted,results of the work,bibliographic
references and identification of any additional work necessary for erosion project implementation. In addition,the
Environmental Analysis will include identification of work elements necessary for permit applications,project design,
and construction.
Products: Thirteen Draft Final Report copies,paper,'Ten for Southold,and three for DOS.
Task 8: Presentation Meetings
After reviewing the Draft Final Reports Southold will consult with DOS on the advisability of holding a presentation ■
meeting for each of the work elements. If a presentation is desired,the consultants will appear to discuss their findings
and respond to questions about the work. If Southold has additional questions after the meeting,they will submit them
in writing to the consultants within two weeks following the presentation. The consultants will prepare summaries of
questions from the meetings with responses to be included in the Final Reports.
Product:Presentation Meetings,written questions from Southold.
Task 9:Final Reports
The consultants shall prepare Final Reports detailing the results of the work. The reports shall include all the
information included in the Draft Final Reports,updated with revisions as necessary,and summaries of questions and
responses from the Presentation Meetings.
Product:Fifteen Final Report copies, ten paper and one digital copy for Southold, and 3 paper and one digital copy for
DOS.
Task 10: Measurable Results
Southold shall complete the Measurable Results form attached to this work program and provide a.copy to the
Department of State.
Product: Completed Measurable Results form. ,
Payment Requests
Payment requests may be submitted quarterly. If a payment request is submitted,it should be accompanied by a report
indicting the extent of the project completed. Interim reports,as described above,may be used to indicate progress.
Appendix D-5
2. Schedule
I
Task Expected
Description Products
Mo E Mo E Mo Mo Mo ? Mo Mo Mo 4 Mo Mo Mo Mo
1 2 � 3 4 5 :: 6 7 8 9 10 E 11 ? 12
1.Contractor Selection Process Southold letter to DOS on consultants/RFP selectio
a v
Approved RFPs d ertized
� 2.Request for Proposals
to
List f Consultants Selec d
3. Consultant Selection
0
4.Contract Preparation and Execution Draft Contracts,Executed Contracts
5.Project Scoping Session Meeting-Summaries
6. Interim Reports Interim Reports
7.Draft Final Reports Draft Final Reports
8.Presentation Meetings Meetings, Written Questions from Southold
9.Final Reports Final Reports
10.Measurable R
esul
ts
Measurable Results Form submitted to DOS
Appendix B
BUDGET SUMMARY
A. Salaries&Wages (including Fringe Benefits) $0.00
B. Travel $0.00
C. Supplies/Materials $0.00
D. Equipment $0.00
E. Contractual Services $180,000.00
F. Other $0.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $180,000.00
Total State Funds(50%of Total) $90,000.00
Total Local Share (50%of Total) $90,000.00
Describe the anticipated project costs for each of the above cost categories in detail on the following
P P J g g
pages (i.e.the title and pay rate of municipal employees to work on the project,type of consultant to be
retained, type of equipment and materials to be purchased).
The Total of your BUDGET must equal the suin of the State Share and the Local Share as shown on the
Contract Face Page.
McMahon, James
From: Barry Pendergrass [BP END ERG@dos.state.ny.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:26 PM
To: James.McMahon@town.southold.ny.us
Cc: Fred Anders; Laurissa Parent
Subject: Modeling for Goldsmith Project
Jim, below is a copy of my message to you from 8/8/02. These are my
recommendations for modeling. You will have to negotiate the
price/products with Bill Grosskopf. I can give advice and might
recommend a conference call if you like. I suggest writing a sentence
or paragraph for each element that describes what information is to be
gained by the work and what products will be produced.
Also, the Town must send a written request to amend the work program
for the EPF grant before the funds can be used. According to our
records the contract expired on 3/31/02. In order to use the funds a
request for an extension must be filed. Contact Laurissa Parent at
(518) 473-2466 for info on the contract.
Copy: I discussed the Town meeting of 8/6 with Bill Grosskopf of
Offshore and Coastal Technology, Inc. (OCTI) . The Town may already
have a contract with Bill that can be used for additional work, and he
is familiar with the area from previous work. If the Town wishes to bid
out the work, that is ok with me. My guess is that anyone else capable
of doing the work well will be more expensive than Bill, because he
already understands the issues and the area, and he has done a
preliminary sediment budget he can use in this additional work.
Below is my description of what the Town wants to do, and
recommendations for engineering investigation to support the SEQRA
process based on that work. If any of the description is wrong or
should be modified, please let me know. If any of the necessary data
(inlet specific tide data, hydrographic data for the inlet and pond,
etc. ) is already available, let me know. If Suffolk County has good
hydrographic data we should get a copy to Bill and see if it is
suitable. There are work items the Town and County must provide to get
the analysis done, so let me know if those are ok. Based on our meeting
8/6, the Town situation is as follows:
1. The inlet flood shoal has accumulated to the point where it is
causing large serpentine bends in the channel, damaging valuable
wetlands in the County Park and restricting pond drainage. DEC
recommended the flood shoal be removed to a depth of 4-5 feet, and a
channel of similar depth cut out to the Sound, parallel to the jetty.
Restoration of the east side of the inlet would be carried out in
conjunction with the work. The pond side slopes from the dredged flood
shoal would be tapered to allow spartina to grow. The work would be
done with earth moving equipment using a road constructed along the
inlet side of the jetty back to the flood shoal, and excavating as the
work proceeds seaward. A temporary road would also be constructed
across the inlet for carrying the sand down the shoreline (1200-1300
feet downdrift shoreline disposal site proposed) . A culvert could be
inserted under the inlet crossing for drainage if necessary.
2. The end of the jetty is unravelling, consequently it is not
functioning and loose rock/holes could be dangerous. The Town would
like to tear back the jetty and reconstruct the end, leaving the result
150-200 feet shorter than existing. Sand at the end of the jetty and
the beach west of the jetty, behind the section being removed, would be
bypassed down the shoreline in the course of the work.
1
3 . DEC recommends a regular plan for bypassing be included as part of I
the project. The Town does not know whether this would be an annual
project, or whether advance removal could reduce maintence to every
other year, or every few years. The Town does not know what quantities
would be involved.
4. The Town must investigate shoreline recession to the west of the
jetty as a result of shortening and possible impacts to private
property. DEC was not receptive to the idea of inserting a low profile
groin to stabilize part of the updrift shoreline near the private
property. Construction of a small dune in front of the west side homes
and planting with beach grass was suggested as part of the project. It i
would not be adequate to provide protection from major storms, but would
give some additional security to the homeowners.
Based on the above, and using the info Bill/OCTI provided, I suggest
the following elements of work should be done:
a. Hydrographic survey of the inlet and pond, as a basis for design of
the dredging project as well as modeling.
$11,500 (OCTI)
b. Placement of tide 2 gages for one month to provide data for modeling
inlet channel/flood shoal behaviour. Timing of placement should be
programmed to provide the most useful data set.
$8000 (OCTI)
c. Town of Southold to provide Suffolk County a design for
reconstruction of the jetty showing final position of the end.
d. Suffolk County provide a revised set of plans showing the shape and
depth of project excavation in the pond, inlet and updrift fillet. The
plans would be based on the results of the hydrographic survey and jetty
plans prepared by the Town. -
e. Perform analytical investigation of the stability of dredged inlet
channel, pond, updrift fillet, based on Suffolk County plans,
hydrographic survey and Town plans for jetty. --
$4, 000 (OCTI)
f. Model inlet/pond behaviour using Suffolk; County excavation plans,
Town jetty plans, hydrographic survey and gide data. Inlet and pond
behaviour is inferred from hydrodynamics (water volumes, cross section,
velocity)
$11, 000 (OCTI)
g. Model sediment transport in the vicinity of the inlet (how far
updrift and downdrift) to identify sediment: destination/rate of filling.
Use output from above to produce a model predicting sediment movement.
$12, 500 (OCTI)
h. Shoreline Change Model (GENESIS) - Model shoreline recession given
project parameters to predict realignment of updrift beach and
relationship to private property lines and structures.
$20,000 (OCTI)
i. Prepare a report summarizing the outcome of analytical investigation
of dredged inlet, model of inlet behaviour„ model of sediment transport
and model of shoreline recession.
$6, 000 (OCTI)
The above seems to be the minimum necessary to prepare support for the
proposed project elements. Total estimated costs to the Town for items �-
a. through i. are $73, 000. This does not :include wave modeling to
bracket sediment supply rates to the inlet (estimated $7,500) , storm
wave modeling to examine beach behaviour on the updrift side for a few
"major" storms (estimated $6,000) or a full suite of storm/surge
2
modeling (estimated $60-70,000) . Please take a look at the items above
and evalute whether the work is appropriate for the proposed project,
and whether the expenses are acceptible.
I 'll be out of the office from August 15 to September 3. If you send
me something during that time I'll respond when I get back. Bill
Grosskopf can be reached at (610) 361-0424, or at
wgrosskopf@offshorecoastal.com You may also want to share this with
Chick Voorhis and see what he thinks.
Thanks,
Barry Pendergrass
Coastal Resources Specialist
New York State, Department of State
3
i
G
Mr.s Mrs.F.Kedenburg RECEIVED
3080 Henrys Ln.
Peconic, KY 11958-1118
NOV 1 4 2002
October 2002 Southold Town Cleri
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
Mr.6 Mrs.F.Kedenburg
3080 Henrys Ln.
Peconic,NY 11958-1118
1
!I
October 2002
RECEIVED
Southold Town Board NOV202
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board: Southold Town Cleri
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hear.nbs required by New York State law(SEQRA_).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
C `�S-T
ITO
RECEIVED
P�Q?� 4 '}u%'
Southold Town Clerk
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
�A(Al
1,��i
o�Og�fFO�,�c
O
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE j� Gy� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
TOWN CLERK o - P.O. Box 1179
ySouthold, New York 11971
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS py • �yC Fax (631) 765-6145
MARRIAGE OFFICER �L
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER '/9 �a� Telephone (631) 765-1800
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 529 OF 2002
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON AUGUST 13, 2002:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Jamie Richter and Jim McMahon to secure the permits necessary to remove a portion of
the Goldsmith Jetty.
04a4a 46e�&
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
IS
£s-/3-0 a
Goldsmith Inlet —Proposed Sequence of Events
1. Determine the amount of jetty to be removed Jamie/Jim
based on field observations and site conditions
2. Plans & Specifications for jetty removal Jamie
3. SEQA — lead agency determination and review C Voorhis
4. Modeling Study Grosskopf
5. Submit permit application to appropriate agencies Jim
*Amount of material to be dredged has increased
based on NYSDEC comments... SCDPW needs
to revise plans and budget SCDPW
6. The Town of Southold needs to determine the
cost of the jetty removal and funding partnerships Josh/Jim/Jamie
Project Cost & Funding:
*Dredging SCDPW $125,000
Modeling Town of Southold — 100% grant funding $70,000
SEQA Voorhis needs to send us a proposal ?
Jetty Removal Town of Southold and '???? ???
S11FF0(�- t �
OHO C�
Gyp
JOSHUA Y. HORTON H Town Hall, 53095 Route 25
SUPERVISOR _ • P.O. Box 1179
ZIPSouthold, New York 11971-0959
Fax(631) 765-1823
Telephone (631) 765-1889
COASTAL EROSION STANDING COMMIT
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
GOLDSMITH INLET
Peconic, Town of Southold, New York
PROJECT UPDATE AND SUMMARY
August 12,2002
A jetty was installed on the west side of Goldsmith Inlet in 1963/64, as part of an inlet stabilization and future marina
project that was never built. The jetty was built at a length of over 400 feet, as part of a system that would have
included an east jetty and dredging project for the marina. The jetty intercepts the littoral drift, and accretes sediment
on the west or updrift side. This results in a depletion of sediment on the downdrift or east side, causing erosion as a
result of this"shadow" affect. The jetty also causes sediment accumulation within the inlet, as sand bypasses the filled
updrift side. The Town currently removes sand from the inlet and places it as feeder sand on the downdrift side of the
inlet. The inlet requires periodic dredging by Suffolk County to maintain the environmental quality of the estuary. As
a result, the constriction of the inlet as a result of this sediment accumulation is also of concern and is intended to be
addressed as part of a comprehensive improvement project.
This issue has been studied for a number of years, and the most current scientific information finds that several
interrelated projects are recommended to help alleviate the present erosion and sediment accumulation problems for
this north shore area of the Town of Southold.
The Town of Southold is the primary governmental entity with responsibility over this project, as a result of ownership
of the jetty and upland beach area. There is a cooperative effort underway with other agencies with interest in the
project. Involved/interested agencies include:
• Town of Southold (funding, owner of jetty and immediate upland on west side of inlet, jetty removal, local
political body)
• Suffolk County DPW(inlet dredging, park/landowner on east side of inlet)
• NYS Dept. Environmental Conservation(permitting agency, expertise)
• NYS Dept. of State/OGS(coastal zone management consistency review, studies/funding, expertise)
• Afmy Corps of Engineers(permitting agency)
The project is expected to involve the following steps:
The Town of Southold will assist Suffolk County DPW with the preparation of permit plans involving reduction of the
jetty by approximately 1/3 of its current size. This will reduce updrift sediment accumulation and downdrift shadow
effect and will achieve a more natural shoreline configuration. This project will also address safety issues as a result of
the deterioration of the outer part of the jetty. The permit plans will include the dredging of the inlet in-line with its
more historic configuration as a straighter channel along the west entrance to Goldsmith Inlet. The dredging_will
provide improved flushing and environmental health of the estuary. The project will create a channel depth of-5 mean
low water for a width of 40 feet, with 1:3 side slopes, and will remove approximately 31,000 cubic yards to be placed
on the downdrift beach within the County Park property. An additional 16,500 cubic yards of excavation will occur on
the updrift extensive beach area, and will similarly be placed on the downdrift side of the inlet. The project will further
include a 10 year permit to continue the updrift removal and downdrift placement of accumulated sediment from the
updrift side of the jetty.
00 ¢�
= TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
oy • !�
COASTAL EROSION STANDING COMMITTEE
The project is currently underway whereby the Town Engineers Office will provide jetty reconstruction information to
the completed SCDPW permit plans for submission to the NYSDEC. A pre-application meeting and field inspection
have been held with permitting and interested agencies. The 1/3 jetty removal project is not expected to adversely
impact properties on the updri$ side of the inlet; however, the Town is considering further study and modeling of this
issue by a qualified consultant under a State EPF grant. The Town has retained Nelson, Pope&Voorhis as consultants
to assist with permit submission, and preparation of environmental documents to support a determination of
significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Prepared scientific literature would suggest that
no significant adverse environmental impacts are expected, subject to further review and finalization. The Town and
Suffolk County are expected to be co-permittees in a permit process that is predicted to take approximately 6 months.
The project may take place as soon as February-March, 2003, and must be completed prior to the nesting season of the
piping plover beginning in April.
T-r4
�VGiN�r
RECEIVED
N 01' 4
October 2002 Southold Town CIA
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
7`0
Wetherell
5 Yeoman Road
Rocky Point, New York 11778
RECEIVED
October 2002
NOV 4
Southold Town Board Southold Town Cleri
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,'we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
*We have been involved with helping to protect the ? ping
plovers since we first joined the North Fork Audubon in 1998 .
T-a
T�-
46;K��r
RECEIVED
October 2002
Southold Town Cleri
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
: � � Y�
78
ee/
RECEIVED
NOV 1 2012
Southold Town Clerk
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely, Q CA
-4
RECEIVED
Nov 70j
Southold Town Clerk
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
7`I3
Beverlv Prentice
P.C. Box 771
RECEIVED Jamesport,NY 11947
Southold Town Cler)
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public heari^gs required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
I
eC—p--
'TA
RECEIVED
2 9 -',A0
October 2002
Southold Town Clerk
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society, we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincer j „
J
il��E%?� +%�
73
TA
RECEIVED
October 2002
Southold Town Clergy.
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely, A�
RECEIVED
? g ,
October 2002 Southold Town Clea
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
7g
-r4
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
7!3
7,g
RECEIVED
. _
October 2002 Southold Town Clea
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and puffilie hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
0812812012 13:56 5164377798 RECEIVED MCFOODS PAGE 01
AUG 'Z 0 2002
August 29,2002,
Southold Town Clerl
Supervisor Joshua Horton and Board Members:
This letter concerns the Town of Southold's approved resolution V-529 that authorizes a permit
process to remove a portion of the Goldsmith Jetty(Jetty). The Jetty is a successful public works project
that accomplishes its stated purposes of"beach protections a and erosion control for the Peconic Shores,
Therefore, I arts opposed to resolution V-529 and any other measure that proposes the full or partial
removal of the Jetty,
In the early 1960s, Greenman-Pedersen reported that Peconic Shores experienced unusually high
rates of erosion, 18 feet per year. Alarmed by the pace of the erosion, Peconic Shores homeowners
petitioned the Southold Town for protection. The idea of a jetty came to fruition, and ultimately the Jetty
was constructed in 1964. By 1967, the Jetty had done precisely what thea Supervisor Albertson stated it
was built to do—it protected the western side of the Inlet by stabilizing the erosion, Fuirthermore, the
Jetty's sole purpose of combating the abnormally high erosion rates occurring at Peconic Shores remains
necessary and viable.
While it is true that northeast storms pack sand against the Jetty's eastern side and impact the
mouth of the Inlet, I am unawaire of any sciontifie studies that implicate the Jetty as a contributing factor
to other Inlet problems. The Town can solve the Inlet's problems with proper, periodic dredging of the
entire length of the Inlet, including the pond area. Dredging is a more prudent and responsible alternative
to Jetty removal, especially givers the complex nature of the surrounding ecosystem (including Autumn
Lake aid its drainage system,which di metly affects wager levels of the Inlet area).
In conclusion, for all of the foregoing reasons, I oppose the Town's approved resolution V-529
and any other action, that proposes full or partial Jetty removal. At its current length, the Jetty
successfully performs the necessary and beneficial functions of(1) preventing beach erosion at Peconic
Shores; (2)providing security and protection for Peconic Shores homeowners; and(3)contributing to the
enjoyment of Goldsmith Inlet beach-gouts. Even a partial removal of the Jetty may irreparably harm the
area and its residents,
Fpha
spectfully,
4�
senue
Peconic,NY 11958
Cc: Torn Wickham
Craig Richter
John R,omanelli
William Moore
Justice Louisa Evans
7 See The New York State Department of Public Works Bial for Construction of the Jetty.
RECEIVED
Southold Town Clerl,
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
� d Q
i
Ti9
RECEIVED
Southold Town Clerk
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the.entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
TA
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2002
October 2002 Southold Town Clerk
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
T/3
T¢
RECEIVED
Southold town Cleric
October 2002
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment, but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years, one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely, ,
T3
T.Q..
RECEIVED
w
October 2002 �`L r
Southold Town Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Many people are concerned about the issue of the jetty at Goldsmith's Inlet in Peconic.
Removing part or the entire jetty could have serious consequences for residents as well as
local bird life. When considering appropriate action we strongly urge the town Board to
conduct a Full Environmental Impact Study, including a scoping hearing as well as all
other reports and public hearings required by New York State law(SEQRA).
As members of the North Fork Audubon Society,we understand that jetties and other
hardening of the shoreline are not generally beneficial for the marine environment,but
that this may be a special case. Our chapter has monitored this area for endangered birds
in cooperation with the NYS DEC since 1997.
Over the past six years,one of the most productive Piping Plover nests on the North fork
has been located within 75 feet of the jetty on habitat that would disappear if a portion of
the jetty was removed. Some years this is also the site of Least Tern nests. Piping Plovers
and Least Terns are protected under both state and federal Endangered species
regulations and would need to be considered in any plans to modify the town Beach area
at Goldsmith's Inlet.
Sincerely,
g wz�t
Elsie S.Bleimiller
1232 Luptons Point Rd
Mattituck,NY 11952-2249
T9
rk s7c�s
October 9, 2002 RECEIVED
Town Council 0C,T 17 20,,1>
Town of Southold
PO BOX 1179 Southold Town Clerl
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Town Council members,
In reference to the that is being undertaken by
the town, I would like to clarify our group's historic position: The Peconic Sound
Shores Association has always supported efforts to maintain a clean and
environmentally healthy inlet and pond.
I enclose two newspaper clippings from 1974, relating the efforts of our group to
have the inlet dredged. Please note that the articles report that the inlet has
historically shoaled over in the winter months. "Goldsmith's Inlet has a history of
natural closing and human opening that goes back at least to white man's appearance on
the scene." (Suffolk Times, My 23, 1974)
The town-proposed dredging and jetty shortening project links jetty length to
inlet shoaling. The historical record (and basic marine science) prove that jetty-
shortening will not inhibit inlet shoaling. Additionally,jetty-shortening is
prohibitively dangerous to our community. Responsible environmental planners
must find a solution to pond pollution that does not endanger our community.
The supervisor has recently written to our community stating that "numerous
studies" have shown that the jetty contributes to the problems in the pond.
Please provide these studies for our review.
Beginning in 1975, the County dredged the inlet to previously unprecedented
depths. This was 5 feet deep at low tide, the same depth that is proposed in the
currently considered project. This depth dramatically increases the velocity of
the inflow and outflow of water. Tidal inlets cause downdrift erosion depending
on the velocity of water exchange. Increasing the velocity of the tidal exchange
will change the erosion picture to the east of the inlet.
Please consider that when the inlet was dredged to these depths in the late
1970's, for the first time in history, unprecedented levels of beach erosion were
experienced at Kenney's Beach. Is this a coincidence? It may be a coincidence, it
may be the cause. Unfortunately, the jetty is the only littoral-drift interruption
that has been studied. Unnaturally extreme inlet velocity has never been studied
as a possible contributor to erosion problems. In fact, the velocity change that
occurred in the late 1970's was withheld from the Aubrey Consulting firm's
historical shoreline analysis as I reported to you in my letter of September 22.
The inlet velocity increase that the town is now considering is essentially an
erosion experiment. The potential risk to my neighbors to the east is extreme-- a
bout of erosion like that experienced in the late 70's might demolish their entire
Marisa Cardinale 41 Union Square West #705 New York NY 10003 Tel: 212-229-9977 Fax: 212229-9903
e a
community. The risk exists for my community too -- if erosion occurs at
Kenney's Beach after inlet dredging, it will be the jetty that is blamed, and our
community may have to fight renewed efforts to have it removed.
I have also enclosed additional documentation to support my request of
September 22, 2002 that the draft Waterfront Revitalization Plan be corrected.
First, enclosed please find the NYS DPW plans for jetty construction, submitted
by A Bebee, Commissioner of the Suffolk County DPW to the US Army Corps of
Engineers, indicating that the jetty construction project is for "Beach Protection".
Second, please find a newspaper clipping recording the meeting at which the
Town, State and County decided to proceed with the jetty-building project for
the purpose of erosion control.
I would also like to request another change in the draft Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan. The plan states that homes immediately east of the jetty site
were abandoned because of erosion caused by the jetty. It also states that these
homes were undermined by erosion and had to be demolished for this reason.
Mr. McMahon, in his meeting with our group, repeated this story.
In fact, the homes were purchased by Suffolk County as part of the County's
1967 harbor of refuge plan. The property was acquired and the homes were
raised by the County as part of the 1967- 1970 plan to develop the pond. Suffolk
County has been asked to provide these records in compliance with the Freedom
of Information Act. The misinformation in the draft Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan is prejudicial and must be corrected.
I have enclosed a summary of the misstatements of fact that must be corrected in
the draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the issues of data
interpretation, presentation and omission that we request be re-evaluated. We
have asked the New York State Secretary of State to investigate the perpetuation
of misstatements of fact on the part of NYS DOS Coastal Resource staff. We have
asked him to withhold approval of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization
Plan until these corrections are made.
Lastly, there has been no response to the September 3,2002 request for
information and rebuttal to the Town of Southold Project Summary dated
August 13, 2002. Another copy is enclosed. We would be grateful for a
response.
Sincerely,
Marisa Cardinale
Marisa Cardinale 41 Union Square West #705 New York NY 10003 Tel: 212-229-9977 Fax: 212-229-9903
Goldsmith's Inlet Blocked By Red Tape
by Tim Stalker
"Years ago, I even went down with a
sb $was a young man then," said
Nelsen Awn`lay.
Just about five weeks ago, during an
easterly blow,waves from the Sound pushed
gravel into the shallow gully in the beach
that provided a passageway for water to
reach and flow from Goldsmith's Inlet. F
In the 32 years Mr.Axien has been living
near the inlet, he figarts that it has been
closed oil fi+m the Sound at least 10 times.
"In the elder days,before the county took
over andbefore the jetty was built, be
s
recalls, all you had to do was make a ' e 3
telephone call to the (town) roads
superintend�►t mind it was Opened agate] m
about 10 minutes of work." a�r � {h a r
Opening the inlet to the Sound has not been
as easily done as it was in olden days. K
� •
Mr.Axien is a member of an organizations .
called Peconic Sound Shores Association.It
has about 25 members and they all live near
the inlet.On April 19,after considerable talk "` '
among themselves, they decided to write a �
letter. Copies were sent the Suffolk County k
Mosquito Control Commission,to the Suffolk GOLDSMITH INLET became land-locked five weeks ago when an easterly blow closed off n
County Parks Commission and to the Suffolk the creek that connects it with the Sound. The photographer would have had to stand kne.f.- F
County Department of Environmental deep in the creek to take this picture...if the creek were there. photo by Scott Harris
Control. It pointed out what had happened Engineers. required by the controlling agencies.We are f,
and requested that the passageway be By May 11, the inlet was still closed and certain now that it will take$3,000 worth of a'
opened. the association decided it had to try to take bureaucratic salaries,time,paper,etc.just sl
Mr. Axien learned that about two days its appeal for action to a higher command. toet the r<
g approval. s
later,eight men from the county came to the That day the association wrote Governor s
"No question,all agree it must be done.In
inlet to have a look. And the association Malcolm Wilson-in Albany. Copies of the this case it appears that environmental
received a letter dated April 22 from the letter went to most of the agencies the control will guarantee death of the sea life v
Mosquito Control Commission. It said the association had dealt with. It read: therein before approv4al of impact
County Mosquito Control Commission, the "It is now five weeks since Goldsmith's statements etc. is made. h{
County Parks Commission and Southold Inlet, a salt water tidal basin at Peconic, "
We now facing a bad situation and we
Town Supervisor Albert Martocchia were New York 11958, on the Long Island Sound are not interested in just the opening of the 1.
all in favor of opening the inlet,but first an' has been closed off by a storm and there is inlet. There must be a standing order of
environmental impact statement had to be no drainage.Tbis,h 4s hammed before. In approval so that we will not encounter a
prepared. Once prepared, the letter said the "old days" it was a sial r
y8 ,pie problem;' recurrence of this desperate situation.
the statement would then have to be ac- locatiy we could opeb It up.#t tB Abotd lA "Mr. Governor, we feel nothing will
cepted by: The Suffolk County Council on miailtes of pin* # a btitidgQelr, Wal happen unless your office intercedes and
Environmental Quality, the Environmental ``sire _pt+eptsred w open it up. coordinates the involved agencies into the
Analysis Section of the New York State However, now we have environmental immediate and necessary action required to 1
Department of Environmental Conservation control and it is definitely against the law to (continued on page 27) i
and by the United States Army Corps of touch it without all the bureaucracy
•/!■1-- -- - ,w ■ _ - w - ■- ■ - --- - ■�--- - -ice
GOLDSMITH'S INLET floil min
(continued from page 3)
open Goldsmith's Inlet, save the sea life,
and avoid pollution due to this stagnant
condition. This cannot be a "one shot" ac-
tion; it must be a continuing protection
against any further closings.
"We therefore request that the New York
State and Suffolk County Environmental
agencies, along with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers,send written approval forthwith
to our Town of Southold Supervisor, Albert
Martocchia, so that an immediate action Brook" where the regional offices of the
may be taken by the Town of Southold. State Department of Environmental Con-
Very truly yours, servation are located.
,By order of the Board of Directors "We even have a member (of the
Helen Hanna,Secretary" association) who wrote a letter to the
Mr. Axien spoke with Supervisor Mar- Secretary of State," said Mr. Axien.
tocchia Tuesday,May 14,and said later.that "You mean Dr. Kissinger?" he was
the supervisor had told him "that the wires asked.
were humming between Albany and Stony "Yes."
aK� C` 4C Suffolh Mimes envy.Ls, IY/4
Goldsmith's Inlet
Red Tape Cut, continued rom page 2) permits•
f
� � A permit from the Corps is required today
Goldsmiths Inlet Reopened The S Mosquito Control Commission told for any work involving the removal of
The Suffolk Times that he was just then material from channels connecting inland
Tim Stalker completing a U.S.Corps of Army Engineers waters with bodies of water like the Sound.
by application for a permit to open the inlet. The Mosquito Control Commission,whose
Goldsmith's Inlet and all the creatures map's appearance on the scene.At times in On Friday, perhaps an hour before Mr. biggest ditches do not exceed four feet,was
that survived their imprisonment in it,have the past the passageway has even. been Eisenschmeid's announcement, the permit asking the Corps for a permit to open the
been reunited with the waters of Long Island reopened with volunteer shovels. At other agent for the Corps in New York had not yet inlet passageway to a width of 30 feet and a
Sound. times,it has been quickly unblocked by the received the application. The agent, John depth of 11 to 14 feet for a distance of 1,000
On Monday, approximately six weeks town highway department with a bulldozer. Zammit,predicted it would take a minimum feet in from the shore.
after an easterly blow blocked off the Announcement of the county's decision to of 65 days for the application to be passed The job that has been done at the direction
narrow passageway connecting the inlet proceedwas made Friday by Carl Eisen- through normal channels for dredging of the Waterways Division is on a far'lesser
with the Sound,a crane moved in and began schmeid, chief engineer of the Waterways
digng, Division.He said then that the county was in
It was dispatched by the Waterways the process of applying for a 10-year permit
Division of the Suffolk Cuunty Department to do annual maintainance work on the inlet degree than Mosquito Control was seeking. of weeks.
of Public Works. passageway. Announcement of the decision to by-pass Last week, in an interview with The
The decision by the county to proceed with Last Thursday the director of the Suffolk the Corps was first delivered Friday to Suffolk Times, Mr. Axien of Peconic Sound
the project was announced last Friday. Southold Supervisor Albert Martocchia. It Shore Association made the comment, "The
Word came two days after the New York came approximately 10 minutes after he eels must be saying, 'Please do something.
State Department of Environmental Con- called Waterways and told them; 1. that the We don't care about impact statements'."
servation in Albany notified its regional state had given approval. 2. that Mosquito Meanwhile, Mr. Zammit of the Corps
office in Stony Brook that permission to - Control had not yet gotten its application to ended his phone conversation with the
open the inlet had been granted.The Albany the Corps.3.that the heat was on him to get Times by saying,"What is an emergency to
dispatch reportedly referred to the opening the work done. Supervisor Martocchia has you may not be to others.Someone could be
as an "Innocent Project". been in constant contact with both county asking to turn this into a deep sea port for all
State approval came four days after the and state agencies concerned for a number we know."
Peconic Sound Shore Association sent a
letter to Governor Malcolm Wilson, calling
his attention to "a bad situation" and
saying, "No question, all agree it must be
done. In this case it appears that en-
vironmental
n vironmental control will guarantee death ofb� ,
sea life therein before approval of impaces.
statements, etc., is made." 61,
The association, whose members all live , /,�
in the vicinity of the inlet, made its first
appeal for help on April 19 to three different
Suffolk County agencies, including them "d '
Suffolk County Park Commission, which '+
oversees the inlet.For a reason not known at
this time the Suffolk County Mosquito
Control Commission was assigned the task
of preparing an environmental impact
study. u + x
The letter to the governor, according to y'
Nelson Axien,a member of the association, - _
was prepared when the association became
frustrated because its efforts to secure �, • : ,°* ;
f opening of the inlet seemed to be bogged
down in red tape. AN INNOCENT OPENING A crane 11 owned by Irving Latham and dispatched by the Waterways Division of the Suffolk County
The passageway into Goldsmith's Inlet Department of Public Works,in action early Monday morning at Goldsmith's Inlet.Photo was taken from the jetty,facing the inlet.
has a History of natural closing and human
opening that goes back at least to white Photo by Scott Harris
Town Board'Ready to Proceed with Sound
Erosion Control Jetty at Goldsmith Inlet
Such Jetties May Find
General Use If This
One -Proves Practical
At the meeting of the Southold Town
Hoard held on August 6th a represent-
ative of the New York. State Depart•
ment of Public Works was present to
receive from the town the necessary
maps, resolutions and-releases to pro-
vide for the State granting to the Town
of Southold the land& under water
7Qeoessary to oonstrua a Jetty at C3old-
"th's Inlet, Peconic, N. Y.
`Some time aga through the efforts
of Supervisor Lester M. Albertso% the j
a State of New York and the County of
Suffolk made funds available for the
Installation of a stone jetty to be
placed somewhere along the North
Shore of Suffolk Oounty to determine
whether or not the installation of such
Jetties would be sufficiently effective
in controlling erosion as to make them
i practical for general use.
After extensive surveys the final loca-
tion of the jetty Will be immediately
to the west of Goldsmith's Inlet.
In order for the Town to receive a
grant of land under water for this jetty
it was necessary that the Town first
purchase the upland. This property is
now under contract for purchase and
with the filing of these papers in
AUxLuy all steps have been completed
an the Town level to insure the erec-
Uon of a jetty for necessary erosion
control.
The-lefty will be 310 feet long pro-
jeatog iato,the Soared &aid conatruet-
ed 0:40t atlo" -am 'levd. The
:-tom 11",Vft1*WtL Mlth sida40
of 1% 40 1. 13,000 tons of groin stone
will be used.The cost for the construe-
tion of this jetty wW be borne equally
1i?tUse state and Oounty.
y _ ¢'M-„ _moi o' er
EYP/CAI
Cc�t •Tfoses ;�� 3, ii%I.N W,Foo e a
-{ P
-- Eti.St/nq Ground Bip.. /5� ._; =
'LDIn ee '
... ._,: -: � - _ __. ._- _-._:•. ,-�� tel:
G.�63. Charl.'.3 o3Cale, Yards
}
ON
36
-
�;
<.� vi m
�
t
>..ry+; :� _ •�: �-r�'s `o-�; �1� �:a ;� _ ,_ .- -fADI�GIGAT�T.�L`7�F Q�.,.3GE-;e�tifl,S.SID�CI�1'G
!13
cOM5TRU6 T i ,:roNE JEt'TY I�! c o,
_
1.5LAAID 504MYO A�T G17LD311�f $
/AULET J'P66OA1 � TOu1,c7 OF SOU,TNG
�� � s - - GOUitlTf OF °3[IFFO�K,�3TATE SOF
8 Y A/EKl YO,e ;STATE DEPT OF
i PuBGi� xloe,�3, .�
lip
,
OEPUTS'_ F-_
EAi1G/,vEEA2 � _
,. 74.*
'F',e 'n"'.-.�5-�..,• �. ;._� O yg s
-�...: WOM51f�g�i .]i
sla d�
AM"i elks & l g
7 rrt - s x s �PE3GCII�C}
-� _�- ^^�z�'�` +•�, _ 'ter ^^�"1: � �
mal
21
..xy
50 X04 _
F
'S=�
Z-j
y�'9:-�.^�����s�+�3`F��u^•Fz�'r��•iM iii l..: - �'S '"�gY } � � (-j /.��-{-(j-+--'/'
. a
I+ of
mail
I �ch��F.-. c� . ?��filf�x� 7f �, E� � R'V� - s�� - - Yrrs�"�fO ✓-��'•'4a,��O M��V�V
ZE�
Y
�+'�`r�1 C) GT TOwE-�iIETJY
r
- t y, / LDtlG>S-LA�C/D .SQUkO AT
60crF r P66
x �
`,. o � �OF�SUFF_ OLS ..STATE Of �tTEKI
l
-may'� Pu8L1� =xlo3
A ,v y, ,llE iu yoQe-
x
�N
s
.-+_�.--�.,.o. iq�'X.�'rpt,, n x R ;.���+-`-g��rn� s,:1+r..,z,.',.r... '�•»i-+--a..��-+.o.+a�+r 1-:.'. .' '_'� a:,�...=t_., s�i�•��.n
Summary of Issues
Misstatements of fact Documented facts
#1. The jetty was built as part of a #1. The jetty was built in 1964, for
marina project that was never beach protection, after residents
completed. This is used as alerted the town to severe erosion
justification for shortening the jetty (Suffolk County study reports 18 ft
because its protective effect is per year; Southold Town study
considered accidental,not by design. reports 15 ft per year).
citations: Fred Anders 1997 co- supporting documentation: Twelve
authored article in Shore &Beach; source documents include,Town of
current Southold project for jetty Southold Board resolution;Suffolk
shortening, draft Local Waterfront County Board of Supervisors
Revitalization Plan. The result of this resolution; records of NYS Attorney
misstatement is prejudicial. General, Louis Lefkowitz; NYS DPW
construction plans,press release.
#2. Erosion caused by the Goldsmith #2. The private property at this
jetty resulted in the abandonment of location was purchased by the
homes east of the jetty site. County and the homes there raised
as part of the 1967- 1970 harbor of
citations: Fred Anders 1997 co- refuge plan.
authored article in Shore &Beach;
draft Local Waterfront Revitalization supporting documentation: records
Plan. The result of this misstatement of property acquisition and
is prejudicial. demolition requested from Suffolk
County through FOIA.
#3. Erosion caused by the jetty's #3. The two identified structures
construction prompted property were built and improved between
owners to the east to build erosion- 1933 -1955; and between 1962-64.
control structures on their property. This is decades prior, and
The successive building of coastal contemporaneous with, the jetty
engineering structures has created a construction.
domino effect.
supporting documentation: Aubrey
citations: Fred Anders 1997 co- Consulting, Inc, Historical Shoreline
authored article in Shore &Beach; Analysis, 1999, commissioned by
draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Town of Southold
Plan The result of this misstatement
is prejudicial.
Significant Omissions from State-
funded studies
Omission: Deep-water dredging Results of omission of dredging
In 1975, Suffolk County applied for a Tidal inlets interrupt the littoral drift
ten-year deep-water dredging permit to a degree dependent on the
from the US Army Corps of velocity of water exchange, causing
Engineers. The inlet was dredged at erosion. Withholding dredging data
least once to a depth of 5 feet deep at presents environmental consultants
low tide. The inlet channel is with only one possible littoral
naturally so shallow that it shoals interruptive feature: the jetty. This
over most winters. Dredging to the increases the chances that
degree of 5 feet deep at low tide consultants will find the jetty
increases the velocity of the water culpable for atypical erosion. (In fact,
severely, causing erosion to the east. the Suffolk County study found that
This dredging depth was omitted the cause of erosion in the late 1970's
from materials submitted to Aubrey was unknown; the Southold Town
Consulting for their state-funded study found that it was due to a
Historical Shoreline Analysis. combination of structures. These
Dredging records provided show findings are compromised as they do
3000 -4000 cubic yards a year which not take into account critical inlet
keeps the inlet shallow as it is now, velocity data.)
and the velocity low.
Results of the omission of sub-
marine canyon feature
Omission: Sub-marine Canyon
feature The assumption that littoral drift
from the west will nourish the
All state-funded studies have eroding beach depends on a smooth,
omitted one unique feature from laminar, movement of sand. The
consideration. There are deep deep troughs found at Kenneys
troughs occurring in this area,most Beach cause turbulence that sucks
substantially at Kenneys Beach. No sand from the shore. Beach
study has charted these troughs and nourishment plans that omit study
theorized as to their influence on of the troughs may effect no
observed erosion. improvement.
Omission of data showing that Results of the omission of data
erosion is diminishing showing that erosion is
diminishing.
A state-funded study (Aubrey, 1999)
reports that erosion east of the jetty A jetty in equilibrium does not cause
has declined steadily since 1972, and erosion. Accurately reporting that
declined at Kenneys Beach since erosion is diminishing removes the
1980. This information is omitted most compelling reason for jetty-
from the Local Waterfront shortening or removal. Hiding this
Revitalization Plan. information is prejudicial.
Manipulations of Study data
Averaging of pre and post-jetty Proper averaging of periods
periods
The Southold study compares the The Southold study reports the rates
average rates of erosion pre-jetty and of erosion from 1993 - 1998,but does
post jetty. But, the pre-jetty period not average them. These low
selected is 1884- 1964,eighty years numbers are not reported in the
long, and the post jetty period is Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.
1964- 1998, thirty-two years long.
Policy recommendations are being
Highs and lows of erosion are made based on averages that do not
evened out over eighty years and reflect the current state of erosion.
more apparent over thirty years.
This manipulation of data skews the Current policy must be based on
results to appear that there has been present circumstances,not based on
more extreme activity post-jetty. statistics that reflect bias.
The skewed averages are included in
the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Report. This is prejudicial.
Omission of historic Kenneys Results of Omission of historic
Beach erosion data. Kenneys Beach erosion data
The Southold study identifies By omitting the fact that Kenneys
Kenneys Beach as the area of greatest Beach has been the historic hot point
erosion in the period between 1884 - for erosion since 1884,the Local
1955. The Southold study identifies Waterfront Revitalization Plan
Kenneys Beach as an area of encourages the community to
"increasing erosion"between 1955 - conclude that it must be the jetty that
1964. This is not reported in the makes Kenneys Beach erode. This is
Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, divisive to the community and
creating the prejudicial impression makes reasoned leadership difficult.
that Kenneys Beach experienced
erosion only after the construction of
the jetty.
September 3,2002
Questions and requests for amendments to the Project Update and Summary
issued by the Town of Southold on August 12, 2002
1. The Project Summary introduction
The Summary states that the jetty was installed as part of an inlet stabilization
and marina project that was never built. This statement is disproved by the
minutes of the Town Council meetings of Southold from August 1963, which
record that Councilman Demarest moved, and Justice Tuthill seconded, a
resolution to construct the jetty in cooperation with the NY State DPW and the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Suffolk for the purpose of erosion control
pursuant to the responsibilities of the Town under the requirements of Chapter
535,Laws of 1945. Supervisor Albertson,Councilman Grathwohl and Justice
Clark concurred. The motion passed unanimously.
During 1963, the Board also unanimously voted to acquire the privately-owned
property at the jetty site,applied for permits from the Army Corps of Engineers,
secured a 50% commitment for funding from Suffolk County which was matched
by the town,applied to New York State to be deeded the land under the water of
the proposed structure, and participated with New York State in the
consideration of bids for the work,all for "erosion control."
This was not a poorly thought out, incidental project. The rate of erosion was 18
feet per year. These records are available from the Town Clerk's office. For your
immediate review,one relevant page of the Town of Southold record is attached.
An amendment to the introduction stating the documented purpose of the jetty is
respectfully requested.
b. The Summary states that the jetty was built at a length of 400 feet as part of
a system that would have included an east jetty and a dredging project for the
marina. The permits and plans filed for the construction of the jetty describe a
single 300 foot-long structure that is intended to provide beach erosion control.
There is no marina plan,no second jetty plan,and no plan for a system that
includes dredging. The new 300-foot structure is erected at the water-end of a
previously existing stone structure of unspecified length. I have not been able to
find permits for the pre-existing land-ward jetty-type structure, and it appears
that this was a structure that had been there is some form for decades. An
amendment to the introduction providing accurate specifications of the jetty is
respectfully requested. An amendment omitting the statement that the jetty was
constructed as part of a larger, incomplete, project is respectfully requested.
Three years after the jetty was completed, the town and county first began
discussing a new project. This was proposed to be a harbor of refuge in the pond
and would have included the construction of an east jetty. The area was battered
by very severe storms in the following years and the determination was made
that this site was not appropriately secure in a storm to be used for this purpose.
Marisa Cardinale 41 Union Square West #705 New York NY 10003 Tel: 212-229-9977 Fax: 212-229-9903
c. The Summary asserts that the jetty causes sediment accumulation within
the inlet, as sand bypasses the filled updrift side. I met with Mr. McMahon on
August 27, and he reported that the amount of sand that is bypassing the jetty is
10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards per year. Yet, the Coastal Erosion Study by New
York State DEC Flood Protection Bureau states that there is no deposit of
material on the downdrift side. I respectfully request that the conclusion that sand is
bypassing the jetty be reviewed in the light of conflicting expert opinions.
2. The Project Summary fourth paragraph lists steps that are expected to be
taken.
a. It is stated that a permit will be prepared to reduce the jetty by one third.
One purpose of this action is stated to be to "reduce updrift sediment
accumulation." Updrift sediment accumulation is the purpose of the jetty-- the
erosion control, storm protection and beach maintenance at the Peconic Sound
Shores Beach. If the Town reverses the work of the jetty, it will open itself to
substantial liabilities. Amendment of the proposal to maintain jetty length is
respectfully requested.
b. Another stated purpose of this action is the reduction of downdrift shadow
effect. The downdrift shadow effect is described by independent studies to be
1500 feet to the east of the jetty. These studies call the current environment
"dynamic stable" -- there is no progressive erosion at the east beach. Residents
there will tell you the beach is growing. Today, the beach east of the jetty is
approximately 100 feet deeper than the beach west of the jetty. What is the
purpose of reducing the downdrift shadow on the deeper west beach? What
amount of downdrift shadow reduction is necessary to achieve this purpose?
What is the benefit of this purpose? Why is it desirable to reduce the shadow on
a deeper beach, at the expense of the protection for a more narrow beach?
Amendment of the proposal to maintain jetty length is respectfully requested.
This section states that jetty length reduction will result in a"more natural'
shoreline. The preference for a "natural" shoreline, where the sand ebbs and
flows with no man-made obstructions,is a popular theory among environmental
agency personnel and some coastal engineers. Indeed, many disastrous projects
were constructed to interrupt the natural ebb and flow and had unanticipated
effects. Often,removing structures is beneficial. But, today's jetty is not eroding
the beach on the downdrift side -- the environment is "dynamic stable."
The Supervisor has repeatedly told community groups that he agrees that the
only shadow effect of the jetty is 1500 feet to the east. Within 1500 feet to the east
is a beach 100 feet-deeper than the Peconic Sound Shores Beach. Therefore, the
most significant effect of creating a "natural" crescent-shape shore would be to
diminish the protection from erosion and storm for the west beach, causing
significant danger.
Marisa Cardinale 41 Union Square West #705 New York NY 10003 Tel: 212 229 9977 Fax: 212229-9903
0066 6Z ZTz AeA LL66-6ZZ-ZTZ '.I91 HOOT l,N �JOX MGN 50L# TsaM aaenbS uoiuN TV aleuipaeo esiaeW
The regional director of the DEC, Mr. Ray Cowan,was quoted by Fairharbor.com
in 1999, "The most critical need is the restoration of the natural alongshore
sediment transport system,the littoral drift,by removing or modifying littoral
interruptions. The most effective means of reducing structural damage to homes
and other buildings is to locate them out of the reach of the hazard." Does the
Town Board agree that littoral drift is more important than protection from
storms and erosion? Does the Town Board agree that there should be no homes
and businesses on the waterfront?Amendment of the proposal to maintain jetty
length is respectfully requested.
d. This section states that removal of a portion of the jetty will address safety
issues as a result of the deterioration of the jetty. The statement that the jetty
has deteriorated is not supported in this summary. Those of us intimately
familiar with the structure see it as safe, sound, and unchanged. There is no
observable movement of the rocks. We agree that there are rocks at the very tip
that are separated from the rest of the structure. The jetty was built to protect the
west beach from erosion, and the consequences of any lack of maintenance are
serious. Maintenance of the existing jetty is respectfully requested.
e. This section states that the permit plans will include a dredging of the inlet
in-line with the jetty and describes this as consistent with the "historic
configuration of the channel." A straight channel at the proposed location is
consistent with the manner of the inlet dredging ten years ago. But, the "historic"
placement of the inlet channel was actually far to the east of the location
proposed. The spot where dredging is proposed was once land. For the sake of
consistency, if the coastal planners want to replicate the shoreline that Mother
Nature created, they should remove the entire land mass approximately 200 feet
to the east from where they propose to put the channel, and fill in the area
alongside the jetty. Interestingly, sand caught over the winter from North East
storms is creating land where it once, "historically," and "naturally," existed.
f. This section calls for 16,500 cubic yards of sand to be moved each year for
ten years from the west side of the jetty to the east side of the jetty. The
purpose of removing sand from the shallow west beach and placing it on a 100
foot-deeper east beach is not explained. This is a substantial amount of sand. It is
3 to 4 times the amount of sand that is dredged each spring from the inlet. The
cost far exceeds the$15,000 annual dredging bill the town is now paying to move
4,000 - 6,000 cubic yards of sand from the inlet. This action does not replace
dredging, so these funds will be in addition to dredging. Incidentally, future,
ongoing, dredging is not proposed anywhere in the project summary. By
entertaining this proposal, the town and county are committing themselves to a
substantial cash outlay for the distribution of sand from one beach to the other
for a decade (for no stated purpose or benefit),but are making no commitment to
keeping the inlet open and the pond clean.Amendment of the proposal to define a
goal in the ten-year redistribution of sand from the west to east beach, and to declare a
commitment to dredge the inlet as needed in the future, is respectfully requested.
g. This section calls for the 31,000 cubic yards of sand that is dredged from the
proposed new channel to be deposited on the downdrift beach. This is an
enormous amount of material. It is hard to figure that the pond and inlet are
large enough to produce this amount of material at the width and depth of the
channel described. Added to the 165,000 cubic yards of sand that is proposed to
be moved as discussed above, this totals almost 200,000 cubic yards of sand
placed on the downdrift side of the inlet. This is a vast quantity of material,yet
the proposal does not state a need for this dramatic activity, or describe a benefit.
Amendment of the proposal to define a goal in the redistribution of these enormous
quantities of sand and a description of the benefit to the community is respectfully
requested.
h. The width and depth of the proposed dredging far exceed that required to
flush the estuary. The depth of five feet at low tide is consistent with the
dredging done at the town's navigable creeks and inlets. Is this a plan to bring
motor-boating to the Pond? Has the erosion impact of the velocity from such a
channel been considered?
i. The proposal does not discuss a plan for the sand that will be let loose if the
proposed removal of a substantial length of jetty is approved. One engineer
described it to me as the "popping of a cork." Many thousands of cubic yards of
sand will be unharnessed if this proposal is acted upon,yet the proposal has no
management plan for the material and has stated no benefit to the release of the
material. One engineer speculated that much of it will probably end up in the
mouth of the inlet. Amendment of the proposal to state the benefit of unharnessing this
vast quantity of material, and a management plan, is respectfully requested.
3. The Project Summary conclusion
a. In the project summary conclusion, the statement is made that the 1/3 jetty
removal is not expected to adversely impact properties on the updrift side of
the jetty. Yet,by definition, the properties will lose 1/3 of the protection that the
jetty affords. The jetty was built to protect the Peconic Sound Shore Beach,west
of the jetty site,from storm damage and erosion. The success of the jetty at this
primary function is lauded in 1977 by FEMA, "shore protection construction has
been carried out within the town (Southold). This construction helps to stabilize the shore
front and thus does reduce the damage which would otherwise occur during storms.
Among these structures are substantial jetties at Mattituck and Goldsmith inlet."
Removal of one third of the jetty will reduce the erosion protection by one third.
Removal of one third of the jetty will also remove one third of the Peconic Sound
Shores Beach. This will obliterate the entire public beach and a portion of the
property owners' land.
In fact, a Beach& Shores article authored by Leatherman, Dean. Kana and
Anders in 1997, (attached) admits that jetty shortening would put Peconic Sound
Shores at risk. They propose building a second structure "to hold beach width in
front of this community sufficient to provide storm protection in order to compensate for
shortening of the Goldsmith Inlet jetty."
Amendment of the Town proposal acknowledging that the proposed 1/3 jetty removal will
adversely impact properties on the west side of the jetty is respectfully requested.
b. The project summary conclusion states that a modeling project will be
conducted to determine the effect of jetty removal on the west beach. There
are three factors unique to this situation that a modeling study must take into
account if it is to be valid. First,the cove between Duck Pond Point and Horton's
Point is unique compared to the entire North Shore. Virtually the entire North
Shore has shoals that slope gently from shallow to deep water. The Duck Pond
Pt- Horton's Point section is entirely different. If you examine any nautical chart
of Long Island you can see this clearly by reading the depth soundings close to
the shore.
There are deep troughs close to the shore and shallow points a distance from the
shore. If you viewed the sand without the water on top it might look like a mini-
American Southwest canyon land. These deep areas interrupt the littoral drift,
the alongshore drift, that functions on the rest of the North Shore. Here, the
water becomes turbulent in the deep areas and does not behave the way it does
elsewhere. Much less sand makes it back on the beach than in typical areas. Sand
fills the canyons and strips the beach. The turbulence actually sucks sand away
from the beach. Therefore, the standard rates of erosion for the North Shore are
not applicable to this location. If the standard rates of erosion are used, the
modeling plan will show a dramatic underestimation of the amount of the
erosion. (This "submarine canyon effect" is also why it is so hard to control
erosion at other beaches nearby.)
Second, most flood hazards are determined using FEMA analysis of risk. FEMA
divides this area into "transects." The transect that includes Goldsmith Inlet and
the west beach is described as an area that has mostly high bluffs. Minimal
amount of flooding will occur at expected wave heights because the bluffs are so
high. If the modeler uses the guidelines for this transect,he will dramatically
underestimate the amount of risk of flooding, as this specific area has no bluff
and is mainly in a flood zone.
Lastly, the jetty was constructed in response to dramatic erosion that occurred
after major storms. These storms occurred in 1950, 1953, 1954, 1960 and 1962.
The storm of 1962 was the "final straw" that made Supervisor Albertson and the
council initiate jetty-building. The modeling study should account for storms of
this magnitude and succession to determine the effect of the removal of the jetty.
Details of the storm of 1968 would also be beneficial to include. This storm
caused dramatic damage nearby, many beaches did not survive. The west beach
survived and the jetty was credited with it's survival.
One also could wonder why it is necessary to use $70,000 of our tax dollars to
have a modeling study done,when the Town Engineer told me on August 27,
2002,that if a 100-foot section of the jetty was removed,we will lose 100 feet of
beach to the west.
c. The project summary states that no significant adverse environmental
impacts are expected and that the town has hired a consulting firm to support a
determination of no significance under SEQRA. Any length of jetty removal
will cause loss of public beach at Peconic Sound Shores Beach and triggers
SEQRA. Jetty removal will expose the west beach to the erosion and storm
damage that the jetty has effectively deterred for 40 years. This is a dangerous
overt action and demands an Environmental Impact Statement. This is also a
potential liability issue for the town and should be taken on only after careful
vetting from the town's attorneys. For its sheer scale of impact, the release and
redistribution of many 100's of thousands of cubic yards of sand with only a
partial management plan and no clear benefit to the community should not
qualify to be submitted in an Environmental Assessment Form. The amendment of
the proposal acknowledging that significant adverse effects are expected from the
proposed action, and that the town supports a full Environmental Impact Statement
under SEQRA, is respectfully requested.
d. The dredging of the inlet is a positive contribution to the health of the inlet
and pond. The community has been active in requesting inlet dredging for
several years. The length of the jetty does not effect the need for dredging. This
step should not be delayed by the lengthy SEQRA process. The unlinking of the
dredging of the inlet, with the proposed controversial shortening of the length of the jetty
is respectfully requested.
4. Letterhead.
The Project Summary is printed on letterhead of the Town of Southold. A large
stamp appears at the head of both pages reading "Coastal Erosion Standing
Committee." This gives the impression that the Coastal Erosion Standing
Committee generated,participated in, or endorsed the plan described. The term
of the Coastal Erosion Standing Committee expired on December 31, 2001 and
the committee did not meet for the last year and a half of its term. This Project
Summary is not a product of that committee. The removal of the committee's title
from the proposal is respectfully requested.
R
• uFFot ��
JOSHUA HORTON � � Town Hall, 53095 Route 25
SUPERVISOR dy P.O. BrC 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Pax(631) ' 65-1&g2
Telephone(691) 765-1889
COASTAL EROSION STANDING COMMIT
} OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
GOLDSMITH INLET
Peconic,Town of Southold, New York
PROJECT UPDATE AND SUMMARY
August 12,2002
4 a�
A jetty was installed on the west side of Go!dsmith Inlet in 1963/64, as part of a*inlet stabilization and future marina
project that was never built. The jetty was built at a length of over 400 feet, as part of a systP.At that would have
included an east jetty and dredging project for the marina. The jetty intercepts the littoral drift, and 4ecretes sediment
on the west or updrift side. This results in a depletion of sediment on the downdrifl or east side,causing erosion as a
result of this "sliadow" affect. The jetty also causes sediment accumulation within the inlet, as sand bypasses the filled
updrift side. The Town currently removes sand from the inlet and places it as feeder sand on the dovtndrift side of the
inlet. 11te inlet requires periodic dredging by Suffolk County to maintain the environmental quality of the estuary. As
a result, the constriction of the inlet as a result of tit`s sediment accumulation is also of concern and;is intended to be
addressed as part of a comprehensive improvement project.
This issue has been studied fur a number of years, and lite most current scientific information finds that several
interrelated projects are reconunended to help alleviate the present erosion and sediment accumulation problems for
this north shore area of the Town of Southold.
The Town of Southold is the priniary governmental entity with responsibility over this project,.as a result of ownership
of the jetty,and upland beach area. There is a cooperative effort underway with other agencies with interest in the
project. Involved/interested agencies include:
• Town of Southold (funding, owner of jetty and immediate upland on west side of inlet, jrt +removal, local
• political body)
•. Suffolk County DPW(inlet dredging, park/landowner on east side of inlet)
• NYS Dept. Environmental Conservation(permitting agency, expertise) , -
• NYS.Dept, of State/OGS (coastal zone management consistency review, studies/funding,expertise)
• tV- my Corps of Eilgineers•'(permitting agency)
The project is expected to involve the following steps: -:
The Town of Southold will assist Suffolk County DPW with the preparation of permit plates involving reduction of the
jetty by approximately U3,of pis,current size: 'hiis will reduce updrift sediment accumulation and dfowndrift shadow
effect and will achieve a more natural shoreline configuration. This project will also address safety issues as a result of
the deterioration of the outer part of the jetty. The permit plaits will include the dredging of the irdet in-line with its.
more historic configuration as a straighter channel along the west entrance to Goldsmith Inlet. Tare dredging-'will
provide improved flushing and environmental health of the estuary. The project will create a channel depth of- 5 mean
low water for a width of 40 feet,with 1:3 side slopes, and will remove approximately 31,000 cubic y rds to be placed
on the downdrifl beach within the County Park property. An additional 16,500 cubic yards of excavation will occur on
the updrift extensive beach area, and will similarly be placed on the downdrifl side of the inlet. The project will further
include a 10 year permit to continue the updrift removal and downdrifl placement of accumulated sediment from the
updrift side of the jetty.
11 �
TOWN OF SOUTHULD
COASTAL EROSION STANDING COMMITTEE
The project is currently underway wherry the ]'own Engineers Office will provide jetty reconstruction information to
the completed SCDPW permit plans for subnussion to the NYSDFC. A pre-application meeting anO field inspection
have been held with permitting and interested agencies. ]lie 113 jetty removal project is not expected to adversely,
impact properties on the updritl side of the irdet; however, the Town is considering turther study and modeling of this
issue by a qualified consultant under a State LPF grant. The Town has retained Nelson, Pope& Vooehis as consultants
to assist with permit submission, and preparation of envirorunental documents to support a determination of
significarWursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Prepared scientific literature ould suggest that
no significant adverse environunental impacts are expected, subject to further review and f<nalizatto The Town and
Suffolk County are expected to.be co-permittees in a permit process that is predicted to take approximately 6 months.
The project;my take place as soon as February-March, 2003, and must be completed prior to the nesting season of the
piping ploverbeginning in April_
JOSHUA Y. HORTON ��° G JAMES A. RICHTER R.A.
SUPERVISOR Go ENGINEER
TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD 0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971
Fax. (516)-765-1366 �� °�' Tel.(516)-765-1560
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 7, 2002
Supervisor Horton/Southold Town Board Members
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Reconstruction &
SC DPW Channel Dredging Project
Dear Supervisor& Board Members:
Please consider this letter a status report for the above referenced project. Due to potential time frame
difficulties with scheduling this project, it has been determined that the work should be separated into two
individual projects. This is primarily due to the need to keep Suffolk County DPW on track with their promise to
dredge the inlet.
At the last general meeting of the Goldsmith Committee I was asked to prepare plans and specifications
for the reconstruction of the jetty. Since that time, I have been in contact with Mr. Stan Michalowski from the
Army Corp of Engineers. Parameters of the required work were reviewed and the enclosed preliminary plans,
sections and details are a result of that meeting. For this project to move forward, it will be necessary to
proceed with the Coastal Process modeling that will be used to verify the impact of the proposed shortening.
Funding for the Modeling will come from an existing NYS DOS Grant. Mr. Barry Pendergrass has
assured us that with the submission of a new project narrative the existing funds will be approved for this
purpose. Mr. Pendergrass has also recommended Mr.Bill Grosskopf from Offshore&Coastal Technology, Inc.
(OCTI)for the modeling of the Inlet. Barry's recommendation is due to the fact that Bill has Local knowledge of
the Project area and all ready understands the issues surrounding the proposed work. With that said and even
with the above recommendation,the decision to retain services for Coastal Modeling is up to the Town Board.
Jim and I will need direction from the board to begin the modeling process with OCTI or should we bid out the
Modeling Work? A memo from Mr. Pendergrass on the subject of modeling has also been enclosed herein.
The modeling work will also need to be given parameters to define the limits of the proposed modeling
in an effort to help determine the scope of the project. Site inspections would indicate that approximately 200'of
the existing jetty has begun to fail. The failure of the structure is evident from visual inspection of the armor
stones that have shifted, separated and dropped creating large openings around and below the stone. Due to
the combination of public access and the amount of activity at this site throughout the season these shifting
stones need to be reconstructed and reset to stabilize the jetty's profile. The preliminary plans contained
herein recommend that about 200' of the existing jetty needs to be renovated or removed. Mr. Stan
Michalowski from the Army Corp of Engineers has recommended a slightly different Cross Section design for
the end of the jetty. The end section of the jetty has been proposed with double armor stone over a core stone
(See Section A-A, Drawing # J-2) for a distance of fifty feet and a transitional area of twenty-five feet for
realignment with the original jetty section (See Section B-B, Drawing#J-2).
If 200'is dismantled and 75'is reconstructed the resultant reduction would be approximately one third of
the total length of existing jetty. (This location — [ STATION 54+00 ] has been highlighted in blue @ two
locations on the plans enclosed herein.) This distance would be in keeping with previous reports recommending
removal of one-third to one-half of the existing structure.
Page 1 of 2
Supervisor Horton/Southold Town Board Members October 7, 2002
Re: Goldsmith Inlet Jetty Reconstruction &
SC DPW Channel Dredging Project
If the Town Board is in agreement with the above,the modeling should be tailored to accommodate this
proposed decrease in length. It has also been suggested that the modeling should be performed to verify how
much of the existing jetty can be removed before it would adversely effect or encroach on private property to the
West. Please keep in mind that the beach west of the jetty is State Land that has accumulated in front of
private property. (See the enclosed copy of the Existing Condition Survey prepared by the County)
In conclusion, how does the Board wish to proceed with the selection of a Consultant and what scope of
modeling does the Town Board wish to proceed with? If the Board would like to discuss this at the upcoming
work session please let us know.
JJ
;es
y,
A. Richter, .A.
Enc. (10 Sets)
CC: Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk
Gregg Yakaboski, Town Attorney
N
O
STA. 54 + 00 STA. 53 + 00 Lh a
*j z
123' +/- NTS CLa
JETTY TO BE REMOVED o o
10' 24' (+/') 50' 25' (+/-) EXISTING JETTY TO REMAIN IN PLACE
NOTE: THIS DIMENSION IS VARIABLE !! >' W
(1/2 Pitch) DOUBLE ARMOR STONE Transition to ALIGN NEW JETTY END SECTION
According to existing plans on file - The Goldsmith Jetty A/
SINGLE WITH EXISTING STRUCTURE
structure is between 375'&400'long. The 123'Dimension W a Q Li N
Indicated above is Approximately one third the total length of ', ARMOR STONE W J L
the Existing Jetty. Final determination of Jetty length that O
will be removed,if any,shall be made by the Southold Town Z 1- A W a _ AM
Board after reviewing all of the analytical data provided by the W W ~ S N
Coastal Process Modeling. ' B J Z Q .� 0
900
Z
CA
- - - - - - -
o0Q � E o
� CLO �0-i
- - - - - - - - - - - TOP - - - -
W
SIDE SLOPE o
NN N, UU mi= z
- - - - - -
- — — BLANKET STONE W
NOTE:
Beyond Station 54 + 00 z
THE EXISTING JETTY SHALL BE EXCAVATED & REMOVED. O 3
THIS ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL BLANKET, CORE & ARMOR STONE. A z
Cn W
ALL MATERIAL SHALL BE STOCKPILED & INVENTORIED FOR RE-USE
Between Station 54 + 00 and Station 53 + 00
THE EXISTING JETTY SHALL BE DISMANTLED & RECONSTRUCTED
TO CONFORM WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED. N
TYPICAL PLANVIEW
PROPOSED JETTY RECONSTRUCTION �y
Scale: 1" = 20.0' �y�nOS A°
,SONG ISLAND SOUND
4-
CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED BERM SHOWN IS
INDICATED FOR CHANNEL EXCAVATION ONLY
ll4-11 1
ll� lid, Iro Ll,
CHI NEL -rj
S l
X
& CHANNEL SECTION
100 0 50 100 200 % + .. '-OV.. TYPICAL
1P 4b + 110 ----- —
X
X.I. 0' \C
X
X +
x
A-� 15�- X
SUFFOLK COUNTY D P W X p 3
X
+
X cb X 0 3t
X X
Condition Survey tv Xr
Existing �-z 0
+6.0 e7
Al• Xr sr +
X X X .6 b 00
X V
X
X
X"
Irp
X xt� eo,
A
o, X1
XVX C�-
X1►. `AR % 3w +&6 +7.5
X X 6
+ .
X +7-2
xxB ar xs + +2.1
11
X'\ XQ,9 +0,9 +1-3 X
1 X.6
9 O/ +37
X:? X 41 kl,� 1),
CP
+7.1 X
N82-02-47- +6dW
Y,
Al? 111Z X
%/ X A
I*
I
4D
K
k
Ir X lc� X
b
X -0e.
A
V
'a"y
x1ro
It
l SST '60 X- X
X -?
X" .19&
X
XlK X "9
,9-
X
i9o, 5
lb. /
X
(b P,"5
19
x \ 7 eo X
� 1960 �'96-
c)-
X, (.3
0 II/lp
7 X
X/ '61t 11%
p
CO
A.
IV X
!fix °/%��, / x %s� O `��•`�� \ Y '`PX
X
X\�
GO C7
� C �l Q?r ♦a' �?, �
6e s!
9 F Ir,
fi
r, ' oe
ee
ti
sj
6'
m Cv
49
49
J l
19
le
0
y120
0