Erosion threatens Louse Point home, but is a revetment necessary?

Recommend

Comment

Email this article

Print this article

Get news alerts

RSS Feeds

Share Digg Mixx Linked In Facebook Twitter Delicious

Robin Wilder wants to build a rock revetment that would continue from the one next door to prevent further erosion of the beach. KYRIL BROMLEY

A Louse Point resident’s plea for special permits to build a revetment that she says is necessary to save her home from collapsing into Gardiner’s Bay raises yet again the question of how to ease erosion amid a growing body of science that condemns armoring shorelines.

Robin Wilder, a principal in Rowit I and Rowit II, which owns property at Louse Point, wants to build a 160-foot rock revetment, which would be buried under sand, to save her house from the rising tide.

But both Brian Frank, East Hampton Town’s chief environmental analyst, and the New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation, have argued that hardened shorelines do damage to the environment and result in significant loss of public beach and habitat. As a result, they say, revetments should be built only as an absolute last resort after all other alternatives have been pursued.

“They haven’t done a good restoration attempt there,” Mr. Frank said, referring to the restoration of the beach with sand planted with beach grass. “Not this property owner and not really the last one either.”

Ms. Wilder and her squadron of erosion experts presented evidence for their case—that attempted beach restoration failed and a revetment is a last and necessary resort to save her home—at a historic joint hearing held by the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Trustees on May 12. The proposed revetment needs permits from both entities as well as the DEC. Mr. Frank was not convinced, and will provide his written response this week.

Over the last several years, several scientific studies and investigations have concluded that hardened shorelines like revetments diminish the quality of plant and animal habitats and their productivity, Mr. Frank said in an interview last week.

The Peconic Estuary Program, an East End environmental organization, writes on its website that “shoreline hardening structures change currents, wave energy and sedimentation patterns, which in turn lead to wetland loss, beach erosion and altered species composition.” The loss of the dry beach and the littoral zone, or the area between the high water mark and shoreline areas that are permanently submerged, diminishes the habitat for dozens of species that forage on a bay beach like that of Louse Point, including horseshoe crabs, sandpipers and sanderlings. Many of those species, such as the ruddy turnstone, migrate through Long Island, stopping to feed at Louse Point, while on their way to the polar regions.

“This is an important stopover, and if they don’t feed enough along the way they might not survive to get up there,” Mr. Frank said. “Or if they don’t get enough nutrition, they may not produce fertile eggs.”

Mr. Frank also mentioned revetments’ adverse impact on key species like eel grass.

Because of these concerns, the Peconic Estuary Program calls for an end to all new shoreline hardening and to decrease overall shoreline hardening by 5 percent over the next 15 years.

To acknowledge the adverse impacts of revetments, the town recommended in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan adopted in 2007 that shore hardening structures should be prohibited except in emergencies, when a variance from the ZBA would be needed. The Trustees must also issue a permit, as they manage the beach. The two boards decided for the first time that this case would benefit from a joint hearing that would streamline their decision process.

In fact, the existence of a stone revetment on the neighboring property, owned by Dieter Hach, was permitted only after conflicting decisions were made by the ZBA and the Town Trustees. The Trustees issued Mr. Hach a permit for a four-foot-high wall after the ZBA had already denied Mr. Hach’s application for a 14-foot-high stone revetment.

It was a “prime example of the homeowner getting caught between the two regulatory processes,” said Diane McNally, the Town Trustees clerk.

Because the two boards did not correspond, Mr. Hach appealed the ZBA’s denial in the Appellate Division’s Second Department and won, which forced the ZBA to give him the permit for a 14-foot-high revetment that he built in 2007.

The Wilder property is “unique only because it is following an instance where the applicant was able to override the town’s decision,” Ms. McNally said. “So we would just want to ensure that whether it’s allowed to be exactly as it’s proposed or not, that there is a sufficient thought process and examination to arrive at the right decision.”

The proposed revetment on the Wilder property would mirror and connect to the Hach property revetment. The Rowit camp argues that the properties are two of eight parcels that are not hardened among the 35 parcels from Louse Point to Barnes Landing.