The waters of Lake Erie move from west to east. Waves break at an angle upon the beach, creating a backwash carrying sand and sediment straight out, only to be caught by more angled waves and washed back onshore further to the east. This out and back process carrying beach sand from west to east is called littoral drift.
An evolving shoreline
As most of you know, when the weather is calm, the drift is almost unnoticeable, but heavy storms can dramatically alter and even remove large portions of the shoreline overnight. This process happens everywhere along the lake shore.
Man made structures built along the shoreline can alter the current and movement of sand and sediment to varying degrees. Sometimes, this effect is unintended, as it is with the marina, while at other times it is the whole point of the structure as it is with breakwalls and jetties. In the western portion of North East Township, some lake shore property owners have lost massive amounts of their land to the waves, far removed from and completely unrelated to the marina.
The beginning of the marina and the sand problem
On May 8, 1990, the Corps issued Permit No. 90 76-1 (“the Permit”). This permit authorized Safe Harbor to create the North East Marina, including the construction of rubble filled bin walls with a stone facing, a rubblemound breakwall, and a concrete bulkhead with loading docks. The company was to perform initial and periodic mechanical maintenance and dredging, and dredge accreted sand and dispose of it as littoral drift nourishment.
The Marina was completed in 1991. Plaintiffs began to complain to the Corps that their beaches were eroding, and the permits were modified several times with regard to bypassing accreted material from the west of the Marina to the eastside beaches.
How the Fish and Boat Commission came to own the marina
The Corps responded to these complaints. In December, 1991, Corps sent a letter ordering Safe Harbor to comply with Special Condition 20. … In August of 1992, the Corps suspended Safe Harbor’s permit due to non-compliance. … Ultimately, Safe Harbor was unable to comply with the terms of the Permit. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to bypass sediment by truck or by hydraulic jet pump, the company declared bankruptcy. On September 8,1993, the Marina and operating permit were transferred to the PFBC, which continues to own and operate the Marina today.
Property owners take legal action
On August 24, 1993, plaintiff property owners filed this action in federal court, alleging that construction of the Marina had caused substantial erosion of the beaches adjacent to their properties. … In Count I, plaintiffs contended that the Corps had failed to enforce the conditions of the Permit. … Count III alleged that the Commission had permitted a nuisance to be constructed on its property, and demanded injunctive relief.
Property owners seek damages
Plaintiffs filed an action in the Erie Court of Common Pleas in 1996, at No. 60018-1996, seeking damages for their property loss. By Order dated September 22, 1997, that court concluded that construction of the Marina had taken property from the petitioners such as to constitute a de facto condemnation and a Board of Viewers was appointed to determine the amount of damages.
An agreement is reached to move sand in specific amounts
…the parties reached an agreement to avoid protracted litigation and entered into a stipulation *524 dated September 14, 1998 (“the Stipulation”). … The parties agreed that the Corps of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station (“WES”) would submit a study and plan and/or progress report for the restoration of the beaches east of the Marina. … The PFBC agreed to replenish not less than four thousand (4000) cubic yards of material from the west side of the Marina to the east side for the purpose of protecting the beaches. The Stipulation included a time frame for moving the material, and stated that the “Commission will move the same amount of material each spring and fall during their normal bi-annual movements; until completion of the WES Study. Movements are contingent upon lake conditions.”
An increase in sand amounts
In May of 2002, amendments were made to the original permit, reflecting the WES Study’s findings and recommendations. The current permit is No. XXXXXXXXX. … Declaration of Albert H. Rogalla, … Whereas Special Condition 20 of the original permit required the Commission to bypass all littoral drift material, Special Condition 18 of the new permit incorporated the conclusion of the WES Study that the optimum volume of material that should be bypassed each year is approximately 17,000 cubic yards. Half of the material should be moved in the spring, and half in the fall prior to December 1. The Permit also incorporated the WES recommendation that if less than 17,000 cubic yards of material has accreted on Commission property in any calendar year, only the accreted amount will be moved to the east beaches. The material should be contoured after it is moved.
After more debate, the final conclusion is stated as follows:
Plaintiffs have successfully pursued a condemnation action in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, and will be financially compensated for their losses. The Marina will continue to operate under the Permit, which obligates the Commission to move material twice a year to temporarily restore the beaches and compensate for the litoral drift, and requires regular oversight and inspection by the Corps of Engineers.
A complex and costly issue
The loss of lake side property due to the constant wave action on Lake Erie is present all along the shoreline in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York. A brief search for information about lake side erosion yields numerous documents, some related to construction and some the result of storms, changing water levels in the lake and just normal erosion over time. The construction of the marina caused sufficient change in a short time period to make it the proximate cause of the problem for property owners to the east of the marina and resulted in their legal actions. Their desire to return their shoreline to pre-marina condition in a sense, means they want what no one else on the lake has achieved, an unchanging stretch of beach, unaffected over time. They certainly have lost property adjacent to the water, some a very large amount, but so have many others. Presque Isle’s constant sand replenishment program is a case in point where many beaches almost totally disappeared and are rebuilt on an annual basis.
Nevertheless, the courts have ruled that the marina must move large quantities of sand every year to make up for what is lost. How much is in reality caused by the marina may be difficult to ascertain, but that is not the issue. The court ruled and the sand must be moved.
The marina authority is now faced with this costly issue, as well as the issue of dredging the marina itself where the sand cannot be returned to the lake, but must first be drained onshore, tested and if found contaminated placed in a landfill, another very costly operation.
Whatever your thoughts related to the marina and its new organization and operation, there is no doubt many complex factors are involved in keeping it open for the benefit of the entire North East community and for many others far beyond.
Since so many of you are interested in the marina and wish to see it remain in operation, while at the same time may not be fully aware of some of these issues, I’ve tried to present this introduction to help you dig deeper and see for yourself. There are a huge number of related documents for those wishing to study this issue in depth, probably more than you would ever wish to read, so let’s just start here.
Boll v. US Army Corps of Engineers
Boll v. Safe Harbor Marina
Matt Winschel says
My family was part of the suit filed and overall that was a good recap. The overall remedy sought by the group was maintenance of the beaches to pre-marina conditions. I am a civil engineer with a specialty in hydraulics and followed this closely since my college days when this started. We have owned our property west of 20 mile for about 45 years now. The section of beach east of the marina from about the and of 18 mile lane to the mouth of 20 mile due to the constant pushing of material out of 20 mile has formed a more or less continuous jetty that acts to capture littoral drift. Aerial photos from as far back as can be found show massive beaches throughout the area west of 20 mile. The proposed solution from the court hearing not only has this been a costly process but has proven to be grossly inadequate to solve or even stabilize the problem it intended to correct. I believe some of the key issues that should also be considered:
1. To the best of my recollection the proper required environmental impact studies were never done prior to permitting and the facility was pushed through due to pressure from above anyway. It was easily proven that construction of the marina at that location would cause what is being seen now 30 years later. Had the permitting been properly done it would have been either recessed or located elsewhere and not been the environmental burden it is today.
2. The intent of the court’s remedy via permit modification was to pass all accumulated debris from west to east. The estimates at the time it was done were shown to be grossly underestimated by our coastal expert (he wrote the textbooks used by the corps) yet that was left as a starting point. The intent of the bypassing was that it was to be done and reviewed and modified as needed. That review and modification has really never been done and the corps, who has ultimate responsibility for permit enforcement, has largely ignored the situation to this day. The expert explained to the court that the sand at the rate proposed would build up to the end of the wall and then start bypassing the marina. He showed that this material would all be lost to the lake at that point. It can be clearly seen this is happening in drone footage I have taken.
3. There are those that claim that its happening everywhere…it would have happened here. Thats a point worthy of consideration were it not for the fact that there were never beaches west of the marina. The individuals property to the immediate west of the marina when last I saw still has the boat ramp that used to go directly into the lake. There is hundreds of feet of beach there now I believe that was never there. As the judge stated at the conclusion of the trial, there was never a beach there before…now you need to pack a picnic lunch to get out to the water. If that whole area was maintained at pre-marina conditions there would not be beach in that entire fillet. If there was significant erosion issues in the entire area that would not be in that condition. Unfortunately the materials which could be helping all of the beaches east of the marina now are sadly out in the lake, not to be recaptured, causing untold environmental and property issues eastward.
The marina concept is a good one for the community. The application of it was not done properly and it is costing everyone still to this day…the corps, the fish commission, and the property owners are losing their lives savings to protect their homes from falling in the lake after a loss of hundreds of feet of beach prior to this construction….Maybe now is a chance to reevaluate how to fix the problems properly and move forward in a manner that lessens or eliminates the environmental impact of this structure on the beaches and the environment. The true cost of maintenance, even as inadequate as it is, is unsustainable in any economic analysis. Why not look at a restructuring of the failing structure to retract it or relocate to a proper place? The OPEX benefits should wipeout any CAPEX losses in a very short amount of time and make it an environmentally sustainable option for everyone going forward.
Ron Sivillo says
Thank you for a straightforward and highly informative article. I wish all the articles on this site were written in an objective fashion like this. Too often, it seems like, an agenda is being pushed forward, one meant to influence or even demonize a public policy/action (ie., turf being called “plastic grass”). I found this read to be highly informative and hopefully it is indicative of what will be the tone in later articles. Thank you for your insights.
Paul Crowe says
Thank you, I always try to be as objective as possible.
(now, off topic in response to your comment …)
“plastic grass” vs “turf” The components of the “turf” are listed as:
Polyurethane, Polyethylene, Polypropylene and Polyester are all classified as plastics. When fashioned into a product that resembles grass, it is objectively, “plastic grass.”
My usage of the term plastic grass is objectively more accurate than turf which is a term more often used to refer to natural grass, which the new field, most assuredly, is not.