East Hampton Town Trustees Fear Damage From Napeague Dredging
Following what the clerk of the East Hampton Town Trustees called a “bureaucratic nightmare,” the Suffolk County Department of Public Works began dredging the west channel of Napeague Harbor yesterday, a project the trustees said was both unnecessary and liable to damage the shoreline.
As part of the work, the county is to remove the tip of Hicks Island, which the trustees and Lazy Point residents fear will leave the shoreline vulnerable to northwest winds and waves. If the channel is dredged again, the trustees’ clerk, Diane McNally, told her colleagues at a Sept. 23 meeting, “we are going to have continuing erosion to the shoreline, a more dangerous launching ramp, and the northwest winds are going to be coming straight into that harbor with no protection at all.”
At that point, Ms. McNally had already drafted a letter to East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell explaining that previous dredging of the channel, last completed in 2004, had “contributed significantly to the changes in this area and waterway, including erosion of the shoreline, the undermining of the launching ramp, and closure of the east channel.” The letter was sent the next day.
In 2013, the town included the channel on a list of priority dredging projects sent for the county, according to Supervisor Larry Cantwell, who was not in office at the time. It was his understanding, he said Monday, that the trustees both knew of and agreed with the request for dredging. The town board passed a resolution on May 1 of this year authorizing the county to dredge a navigation channel in the harbor.
According to Ms. McNally, the trustees were not aware of the May 1 resolution, and feel that their concerns and reservations about the project and where the 15,000 to 18,000 cubic yards of dredged sand are to be placed “have not been completely addressed.” The county “will only communicate with one entity,” in this case the town’s Natural Resources Department, Ms. McNally said, and “therein lies a major problem.”
The county should not have scheduled the dredging “until all aspects of the project were in place,” she said in a letter to the supervisor last Thursday.
In a special trustee meeting on Monday, Kim Shaw, director of Natural Resources Department, allayed the trustees’ concerns slightly, pledging to seek appropriate modifications to the project.
A primary concern of the trustees is placement of the dredge spoil. They assert the right to relocate it in front of vulnerable areas on trustee-managed land.
Ms. Shaw said, however, that the State Department of Environmental Conservation, a permitting agency for the dredging, does not authorize placement of sand below the mean high water line. And, according to a 2012 report by Land Use Ecological Services “the northern shoreline of Lazy Point to the north of the intersection of Shore Road and Lazy Point Road (to the west of the existing boat ramp) has receded by 165 feet between 1970 and 2010,” leaving a limited area in which to place the sand.
“Any other placement would be in the water, incompatible with D.E.C. regulations,” Ms. Shaw said.
She was hopeful, however, that county Public Works officials would modify the project as it proceeds to stockpile dredge spoil at the east and west ends of the dredging site, with the trustees committing to relocate the spoil, at their expense, in front of vulnerable houses and at a road end off Shore Road where erosion has been severe. The trustees agreed to commit up to $25,000 for that effort.
Ms. Shaw also said that the launching ramp itself is responsible for erosion to the west and should be modified or relocated. “It’s very clear that water is hitting that and scouring, building up on the east side. That launching ramp has got to have some modifications. It’s in the wrong place.” She said that future requests to the county should include relocating the ramp. “It’s not the dredging, it's the way the water is hitting that structure,” she said.
With regard to opening the east channel, Ms. Shaw recommended the trustees support a study of its feasibility and efficacy. “Do the analysis before we say, ‘Forget this, offer that,’ ” she told the trustees. “It’s not an easy fix. If we allow the west side to close, you’re going to see degradation of water quality. . . . This year, keep that water flow going and do the analysis. It’s a step in the right direction.”
Suffolk County Legislator Jay Schneiderman agreed with Ms. Shaw’s suggestion. “Maybe not for navigation, but water flow,” he said of an opening of the east channel. “Once you have more volume you allow to pass through, it will slow down the flow rate of water coming in and out,” lessening erosion.
William Hillman, chief engineer of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, did not return a call seeking comment.
At the conclusion of Monday’s meeting, the trustees remained unhappy with the situation but resigned to its inevitability. “The project, as proposed, we still don’t stand behind 100 percent as modified,” Ms. McNally said. “But we’re going to continue to press for more modifications to the permitting process.”
Ms. Shaw said on Tuesday that she believes county officials will accept the proposed modifications. “It’s not an outrageous proposal, and as long as the cost is not borne by them I think they’ll be agreeable,” she said. “I’m hopeful, that’s all I can say.”