HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAOUDIS, THEODORE State of New York
DEPARTMENT OF E~NVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
In the Matter of the AppliCa~ion~
THEODORE LAOUDIS
For Tidal Wetlands and Protection of
Water Permits and a Water Quality
Certification to construct and fill
two 60 foot long timber groins in the
waters of Pecomic Bay in the Hamlet
of Bayview, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York.
%~l.We.t!~.nds..Ap.ptiga~i0n No....TWt5276~0344 PW WQ
Decision
June 9, 1981
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
The attached Repor~ of Administrative Law Judge A. Marshall
Irving, including Findings of Fact and Conclusions, in the
matter of the application of Theodore Laoudis for Tidal
Wetlands and Protection of Water Permits and a Water Quality
Certification is adopted as the Decision in this matter.
Accordingly the application is granted subject to the noted
conditions in the attached perm_it.
IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department of
Environmental Conservation has
caused this Decision to be signed
and issued and has filed the same
with all maps, plans, reports and
other papers relating thereto in
its office in Stony Brook this 9th
day of June 9, 1981.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ROBERT F. FLACKEf"COMMISSIONER
F~_rst Deputy Commissioner
State of New York
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
In the Matter of the Application
- of -
THEODORE LAOUDIS
.Tidal Wetland~ Ap~licat, ion No~ ~15276-0~&4 P~ W~
Report by
Administrative Law Judge
A. Marshall Irving M.S., P.E. hereby submits this
Report including Findings of Fact. ~p~tOonclus±on~
in the caDt±one~matter. ~
AdminiStratiVe Law JUdgev
PROCEEDINGS
On December 22, 1980, the staff of the Department of
Environmental Conservation ("Department") accepted as
complete the application by EnConsultants, Inc. acting on
behalf of Theodore Laoudis (the "Applicant") for a permit to
consnruct two 60 foot long timber groins extending into
Peconic Bay from an existing bulkhead at the Applicant's
property along Watersedge Way, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County (the "Site"). Prior to publication of the notice of
hearing in this matter the Applicant reduced the scope of
the Application to one (1) 60 foot long groin with deck and
at the hearing further reduced the proposal to one (1)
45 foot long groin without a deck.
The Applications were made pursuant to Environmental
Conservation Law ("ECL") Article 15, Title 15 (Protection of
Waters); Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands); and Section 401 of
Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) (Water Quality
Certification); and pursuant to Title 6 of the Official
Compilanion of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of
New York (6 NYCRR") Part 608 (Use and Protection of Waters)
and Part 661 (Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations).
Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Lon~
Island Traveler Watchman on February 19, 1981 and proof of
publication*was received. Notice was also published in the
Department's Environmental Notice Bulletin issue of February 11,
1981. Copies of the notice were sent by mail to the chief
executive officers and clerks of the municipalities within
whose boundaries the Project lies.
A preheating conference was held in the Southold Town
Hall on March 3, 1981 at 10:30 a.m. The major issues in
contention were defined but not resolved at the conference.
Five persons attended the conference.
A public hearing was held before A. Marshall Irving,
Administrative Law Judge in the Suffolk County Legislative
Meeting Room, County Center, Riverhead, New York on March 6,
1981 an 10:30 a.m. Five persons attended the hearing. The
ALJ inspected the Site on the day of the hearing.
The Applicant was represented by Roy L. Haje, President
of EnConsultants, Inc. The Department staff was represented
by Michael Fis¢ina and Jean L. Gilman both Senior Environ-
mental Analysts from the Department's Region 1 office in
Stony Brook. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was repre-
sented by Regina Flynn, Area Engineer. The North Fork
Environmental Council was represented by Ruth Olive,
President.
-2-
The stenographic transcript of the hearing was received
on April 7, 1981 and the hearing record was closed on that
date. The Applicant's representative was advised of the
close of the hearing by certified mail on April 27, 1981.
POSITION OF DEPARTMENT STAFF
The Department ~taff was opposed to the Project con-
tending that the Project as proposed and even as reduced in
scope by the Applicant would cause increased erosion of
beaches to the west of the Si5e. Staff recommended rock
armor at the toe of the bulkhead, periodic replenishment of
the beach and that any groin installed at this Site should
be a low profile groin not exceeding 25 feet in length.
SUMMARY POSITION OF THE PARTIES
Ruth Rehfus, Acting Branch Chief of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, in a
letter of January 13, 1981 to the Army Corps of Engineers
indicated no opposition to a single groin not more than
45 feet long which would slope down seaward and not exceeding
the elevation of Mt{W at its seaward end and would be immediately
prefilled to bypass capacity.
Ruth D. Oliva, President of the North Fork Environmental
Council, Inc. opposed the Project as likely to cause increased
erosion of the beaches to the west and recommended that the
existing t00 foot jetty (groin) immediately east of the Site
be removed or shortened. These matters are addressed by the
entire array of Findings and Conclusions.
STATE ENVIROI~ENTAL QUALITY REVIEW
Pursuant to Part 617 of the Department's implementing
regulations for the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA"), it has been determined that this Project will not
have a significant effect on the environment. Department
staff published a notice of complete application including a
"negative declaration" in the Department's Environmental
Notice Bulletin issue of January 7, 1981. Staff indicated
opposition To the Pr~ect in the notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicable Regulations
1. The proposed Project (the "Project") would place
timber structures and fill in a tidal wetland area mapped as
-3-
coastal shoals, bars and mud flats ("SM") and consequently
would require a permit under 6 NYCRR Parn 661 (Tidal Wetlands
Land Use Regulations). The Project would involve construc-
tion in the navigable waters of the State and would therefore
require a permit under 6 NYCRR Part 608 (Protection of
Waters). The Project would introduce temporary turbidity
during and after construction and would require a certifi-
canion under Public Law 95-217 (the Federal Clean Water Act
of 1977).
The Sit.~
2o The Site is located on Peconic Bay (the "Bay") in
the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. The Site extends
northerly from the Bay to Watersedge Way and is located west
of ~he intersection of that road with Longview Lane,
3. The Site is developed with a single family residence
sen back 50 feet from the Applicant's bulkhead which is 127~
feet long. The bulkhead extends across the entire water-
front side of nhe Site and connects with the Honig bulkhead
to the west and no the inland end of the 100 foot Gaiati
groin to the east. The top of the bulkhead is at elevation
8.8 feet above mean sea level (+8.8 feet MSL) referred to
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey of 1929. The tidal range
in the area of the Site is 2.4 feet. Mean high water at the
Site is approximately +1.2 feet MSL. The elevation of mean
high water (MHW) is approximately at the elevation of the
beach at the toe of the bulkhead. The residence is constructed
at an elevation of approximately +10 feet MSL.
4. The Applicant's bulkhead has been and is subject
to toe scour by storm wave action. Storms at the Site
deposit and remove sand from the beach by action of tides,
waves and wind. The Applicant estimates a loss of beach
elevation at the bulkhead of 1 1/2 feet since 1979. The
bulkhead is sheathed with 8 foot planks which at one time
oene~ra~ed 3+ feet into the sand and presently penetrate
1 1/2 to 2 f~et into the sand.
5. The beach in the vicinity of the Applicant's
property was historically maintained at some unknown width
by a natural process of ~horeline erosion and deposition
from the littoral drift. The shoreline of the Site has
eroded at an average rate of 1 1/2 feet per year and has
1 "Littoral drift" is the flow of water parallel to a
coastline. The flow can be in either direction and usually
has a net flow predominately in one direction.
-4-
furnished "bank run sand and gravel''2 to replenish a net
loss of beach material to the "littoral drift" in the waters
of Peconic Bay.
The Area
6. There are 10 developed waterfront properties along
the shoreline adjacent to the Site which are estimated by
~he ALJ to have significant value in the range of $50,000 to
$100,000 e§ch. The landowners have constructed bulkheads
and groins along ~he shoreline adjacent to their properties
in an attempt to prevent erosion of the shoretzne and a
resultant loss of the uplands areas containing their residences.
The bulkheads stopped the erosion of the uplands and also
stopped the uplands from replenishing the beach. The
bulkheads also increased the net loss of beach sand by
concentrating the force of storm waves in a process referred
go as bulkhead "~oe scour" which if allowed to continue
leads to the undermining and collapse of the bulkheads. The
loss of beach material exposes more and more of the bulkhead
until the bulkhead fails and allows erosion to resume,
7. Landowners in this situation are often advised by
local contractors to build groins in an attempt to trap sand
against the base of the bulkheads and thus protect them from
~oe scour. Groins, in trapping sand, deprive dow-adrift
beaches of littoral draft sand deposits which would normally
tend to counseract natural erosion. Even if groins are
prefilled with sand by the contractor after construction,
groins can starve downdrift beaches in their "shadow". The
spillover of sand in the littoral drift is out at the end of
the groin and does not come into the shoreline for some
distance downdrift approximately 2 to 3 times the length of
the groin.
8. A 100 foot long timber groin was shown on the
Gelati (then Riley) property immediately east of the Site on
a survey dated October 18, 1972. The bulkhead on the Site
was shown on a survey of the Galeti property dated November 26,
"Bank run sand gravel" is a term applied to the naturally
occurring glacially deposited material which makes up the
bulk of the geologic formation of Long Island.
3 "Groins" are wall or fence-like structures generally
constructed perpendicular to a shoreline and extending from
upland above the high water line out in the water ~o below
the low waner line. Groins are usually constructed of
timber or rock.
-5-
1973, The Site is in the immediate "shadow" of the Gatati
groin and prior to bulkheading had lost upland area to
erosion while the Gelati property had not lost upland area
to erosion due to installation of the groin. The predominant
direction of littoral drift at the Site is from the east to
9. Groins exist along the shoreline on both sides of
the Applicant's property and in 1974 there were an least 6
groins of varying lengths and spacing as depicted on Appendix
attached to this report. As shown on Appendix D attached to
this report there are now 2 more 25 foot groins on the
adjacent and bulkheaded Honig and Cusumano properties to the
west of the Site. The proposed groin would be located
130 feet west of the Galati groin and 300, 100, 75, 150 and
200 feet respectively west of the next 5 up drift groins,
Downdrift (westward) the spacing is 60 feet to the Ronig
groin, 180 feet ~o the Cusumano groin and then 725 feet to
the next downdrift groin shown on the aerial photography of
1974.
10. The Applicant's shoreline is immediately adjacent
to and downdrift of the 100 foot long Galati groin which
deflects the suspended littoral drift material out and away
from the Applicant's beach as well as the downdrift Honig
and Cusumano beaches.
11, The existing 25 foot long Honig and Cusumano
timber groins downdrift (west of the Site) are intended To
protect the Honig and Cusumano bulkheads but are non
effectively collecting beach sand to maintain the beach in
front of those properties. Rock has been added at the
bayward end of the Honig groin and at the bulkhead end of
the Cusumano groin to increase the trapping of sand.
The Project
12. The Applicant proposes to construct a 45 foot long
low profile timber groin and t~ replenish the beach with
bank-run sand. The groin woul~ be perpendicular to the
bulkhead and located i0 feet east of the westerly property
line of nhe Site and approximately 130 feet west of the
Gelati gzoin. The Applicant has received 2 estimates for
the groin and the beach replenishment which are S75.00 and
$85.00 per foot for the groin and $1000 and $1200 for
replenishing the beach. The top of the proposed groin would
be at +4.8 feet MSL (approximately 4 feet below the height
of the--existing bulkhead). The groin would slope down
bayward to the elevation of MHW (+1.2 MSL) at the bayward
and of the groin.
-6-
13. Department staff has recommended that the Applicant
construct a rock revetment at the toe of the 127+ feet of
bulkhead and replenish the beach. The Applicant has received
2 cost estimates on this alternative, which are $130 and
$145 per foot.
14. Cost estimates for a third alternative of pla~ing
deeper sheathing directly in front of the existing bulkhead
were $80 and $92 per foot. Costetlo Marine Contracting
Corp. Stated that such sheathing would not reinforce the
existing bulkhead backing system which was improperly
constructed in Costello's opinion.
15. The Applicant contends that he does not intend to
institute legal action against his neighbor Gelati in an
attempt to force removal of, or reduction of the length and
height of, the Gatati groin since in the Applicant's opinion
such action would be costly, the outcome uncertain and would
take too long co be of any benefit to the Applicant.
Environmental Considerations
16. The Project as proposed would restore an unvegetated
beach area lost to erosion by placing sand at the toe of an
existing bulkhead. The sand proposed to be placed on the
beach would be of similar grain size to that found on
adjacent beaches. ~ae proposed copper chrome arsenate (CCA)
treated timber groin would be of similar design and material
as the already existing bulkheads and groins in the area.
17, The objection raised to the proposed Project was
the probability that the groin would cause increased downdrift
beach erosion and would therefore lead to a need for con-
struction of additional erosion control structures such as
additional groins downdrift of the Site. The construction
of a groin or groins on an eroding shoreline strongly
influences adjacent and downdrift property owners to also
seek ~o construct groin.
CONCLUS IONS
1. The Applicant's upland property would be in danger
of being rapidly lost to erosion should the bulkhead in
front of his property be lost to toe scour. The Applicant's
bulkhead is at least partially responsible for the loss of
beach in front of the bulkhead since it is evident that
vertical bulkheads cause increased toe scour which results
in rapid loss of the beach during storms. The Applicant's
bulkhead has been successful in the effort tO stop upland
-7-
erosion of approximately one to two feet per year in this
area which has in the past replenished the beach.
2. Although sufficient data is no~ available to
asszgn percentages uo the various causes of the erosion of
the Site shoreline, it is apparent that bulkheading, toe
scour and updrift groin construction have each contributed
to and accelerated the present loss of beach at the Site.
3. It is reasonable and necessary for the Applicant
to replenish the beach with suitable sand on a periodic
basis as necessary to protect the Applicant's bulkhead from
toe scour failures and to maintain the historic beach. It
is reasonable to assume that the installation of a groin
will reduce the Applicant's total future expenditures for
beach sand replenishment by retaining sand prefilled between
the groins for a longer period than would be the case
without a groin.
4. The construction of a 45 foot groin which would be
less than half the length and lower than the existing
updrift groin is a reasonable and necessary action by the
Applicant to attempt to save property containing a residence
located at 50 feet from the bulkhead and on land at an
elevation of approximately 10 feet above the elevation of
the beach at the bulkhead. It is apparent that a 25 foot
groin would not be effective at the Applicant's site since
existing 25 foot groins downdrift of the Site are not
effective. The selection of a 45 foot minimum groin length
at this proposed location would also tend to "straighten the
shoreline" between the Gelati and Honig groins as shown on
attached Appendix "D".
5. The beach erosion control measures proposed by the
Applicant should be economically analyzed to determine
whether in fact the periodic addition of sand to a groined
beach is more economical than some other alternative action
which might be more cost effective. The only way to accurately
analyze the economics of this situation would be to replenish
the beach sand and study the rate at which it leaves the
Site. The rate of loss of sand would determine an annual
cost which could be contrasted to costs of alternative
actions. It would also be possible to set a lower limit for
acceptable beach elevations at the Site and to require that
the Applicant periodically add sand to the beach whenever
the loss of beach sand reduced the beach elevation below a
predetermined average elevation. However, absent extensive
and lengthy study and analysis of actual data, of a scope
unreasonable to require in a project of this size, there is
no basis on -which to establish effectiveness or economic
advantage or disadvantage of such a proposal. Consequently,
-8-
the Applicant should be required to provide information
annually on quantities and costs of sand to refill the
groin. This and similar information from other areas would
enable the Staff to undertake appropriate analysis.
6. The estimated costs of the alternative proposals
(1) 25 ft groin $75 or $85/ft. $1,875 to $2,125
(2) 45 ft groin $75 or $85/ft $3,375 to $3,825
(3) 60 ft groin $75 or $85/ft $4,500 to $5,100
(4) rock armor ~oe 127 ft at $130 or $145/ft $16,510
to $18,415.
(5) add deeper sheathing 127 ft at S80 or $92/ft
$10,160 to $11,684.
Replenishment of the beach would add from $1000 to S1200 To
each of the above, thus the total range of estimated costs
would be from $2,875 to S19,615.
7. Past acts of the Applicant or prior owners of the
land (i.e., butkheading their properny prior to the effective
date of the Tidal Wetlands Act) have resulted in damage by
erosion to an SM tidal wetlands area. It is concluded that
the Project is compatible with the policy of said Act to
preserve and protect tidal wetlands since the Project would
at least temporarily restore some of the affected SM area to
its prior condition. The Project would not have any undue
adverse impact on the values and functions of adjoining or
nearby tidal wetlands areas since the Project would supply
additional sand to a depleted area.
8. The Project would be compatible with the public
health and welfare since it is a restoration in part of an
area lost to erosion.
9. The Project complies with use No. 30 in 6 NYCRR
661.5. Although filling of an SM area is a presumptively
incompatible use, the Applicants have demonstrated that the
Project is compatible with the area involved since the
Project would restore an eroded area with no change in the
character of the area.
10. The Project would not cause unreasonable,
controlled or unnecessary damage to the natural resources of
the State since it would restore and stabilize an eroding
shoreline.
-9-
11. There would be no significant adverse effects on
water quality since the turbidity associated with the
installation of the groins would arise only during construction
and wculd be minor and temporary and the use of CCA treated
timber in the groins would produce negligible environmental
effects~
12. The effect of placing the groin and keeping it
full of sand over future years would be similar in effecg to
removing the bulkhead and allowing the upland to erode to
replenish the beach. The effect on adjacent beaches would
be the same either from the clean bank run Sand added to the
groin or from the erodial material off the upland.
13. The Gatati groin is a major cause of rapid loss of
beach on the Site since said groin deflects the sand carried
by the littoral drift approximately t00 feet out into
Peconic Bay frc~ the beach at the Site. The Honig and part
of the Cus~r~no properties also are deprived of the benefit
of any sand in the littoral transport system due to the
effects of the Gelati groin.
14. The construction of a 45 foot groin (with the
Applicant required to both prefill and in future to add
beach nourishment as may be necessary to protect his bulkhead)
is a compromise solution to the Applicant's erosion problem.
This report does not conclude that either groins or bulkheads
are desirable erosion control devices on this and similar
shorelines.
15. In the view of the Applicant's special situation
(i.e., having a threat of erosion loss to bulkheaded property
immediately downdrift of a 100 foot high profile groin) the
downdrift property owners similarly affected would be as
likely to request permits to stabilize their shoreline
whether or not this Project is built. Since the Project
would nend to add sand to the littoral drift system inshore
of the drift system now bypassing the Galati groin there
would be a mitigating effect on downdrift properties.
CONDITIONS
1. The groin shall be prefilled v~th clean bark run
sand and shall be refilled as necessary to maintain adequate
protection to the toe of the existing bulkhead and to
downdrifn properties. The groin shall be constructed of CAA
treate~ timber.
2. The Ap plican~ shall transmit annually (on or about
September 30) to the Department a report indicating beach
con, ours as of that date (at 2 foot intervals references to
MSL) and the amount and itemized costs of any sand placed on
the beach for replenishment during the previous yeaL
3. The top elevation of the groin at the bulkhead
shall not exceed +4.8 feet MSL and shall slope down bayward
so ~hat the bayward end of the groin shall not exceed
+1.2 feet MSL. The filled beach contour shall not exceed
the elevation of the groin.
5
Offices. SOUTHO~O, ~4~7~ ~in Rd., ,,5~6~
{conven{ently
PORT JEFFERSON sTA, 532 Old Town
I located in ~OH~,~14525 Su~,i~e Hwy, at Sycamore ,
-I
PERMIT
TW-15276-ogL~4 PW ~Q
PERMIT IssUED TO
TheodOre Laoudis by En-Consultants, Inc.
ADDRESS OF PEP~ITTJ~E
64 North Main Streett .Southamptont New York
LOCATION OF PROJECT (Section of strea~, tidal wetland, danf, building) "
Pe conic Bay
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW
ARTICLE 15, (Protection of Water) [] ARTICLE 25, (Tidal Wetlands)
ARTICLE 24, (Freshwater Wetlands) L.J ARTICLE 36, (Construction in Flood Hazard Areas)
11968
~onstruct and. prefi.lt with clean bank run sand 9ne 45 foot t~mber ,gro:Ln
Bay-~iew Southold
COUNTY Suffolk FIA COMMUNITY ND,
'J DAM NO.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
95-20u4
(SEE REVERSE SIDE)
' SPECI~L CONDITIONS
16. The groin shall be preffi tled with clean bank run sand smd shall be refilled
as necessary to maintain adequate protection to the toe of the existing bulkhead.
The groin shall be constructed of CCA treated timber.
17. The Department shall be advised at least armually of the beach contours
(at 2 foot intervals r~ferenced to MSL) and of the amount s~ud itemized costs of any
sand placed on the beach for replenishment.
18. The vop elevation of the groins at the bulkhead shall ~ot exceed L.8 feet
above MSL and shall slope down bayward to an elevation no~ ~o exceed 1.2 feet above
MSL (1929 Datum).
SPECIAL NOTE:
Based upon our review of the above application and a request for water quality
certification pursuant to Section ~O1 of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977, Public
Law 95-227 (the "Act") public notice for w~ich has been duly given and based upon a
public hearing held pursuan~ to ~ticle 25 of the W~uvironmental Conservation Law,
the Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies that the Applicant will
comply with applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the Act,
provided that:
(t)
There are .~ fut-~re changes in any of the followi~ that would
result in non-compliance with Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307
of the Aco:
(a)
(b)
The project as modfi¢ied as a result of the above mentioned
hearing,
The wa%er quality criteria applicable 5o such waters~ or
(c) Applicable effluent limitations or other requirements~ and
(2) The applicable provisions of the State law s~ud regulation are complied with.
DRESS NYe Depa~tment of
EnVironmental Conservation
C~ef ~it A~rator ~ ~b~y, New York ~2~3