The North East Community Marina is required to move sand or beach materials from the west side of the marina to the east side twice every year to replace what is washed away. As everyone living in this area already knows, beach erosion can be a significant problem for lake side property owners trying to maintain their shoreline. This erosion occurs all along the lake shore, whether east or west of the marina or anywhere else along the shores of Lake Erie.
These two photos, taken just over two weeks apart show how quickly erosion takes place, even though there have been no heavy storms. The entire operation is pointless. The photos are from slightly different vantage points, but the erosion is clear. A great deal of money is spent and almost immediately washes away. Later this year, they’ll do it all over again.
You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I just thought you might like to see this for yourself.
Your thoughts?
Discover more from North East PA Online
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Matthew Winschel says
My thoughts? Where are the photos looking to the west side beach from the marina wall? Interesting you describe it as “pointless” and the fact that erosion occurs west of the marina yet the beaches immediately west of the marina were literally non-existent prior to construction of the marina (please go back and look at photos preconstruction if you have any question of that). Since then there has never been a problem with erosion immediately to the west of the marina. They actually I think have probably 50-100 yards of beach that never existed prior to the construction of the marina. If you are interested, I have drone footage that shows exactly what the coastal engineer told the judge in the court cases years ago… that eventually so much sand will back up on the west side of the marina that it will start to go around it and that sand will be lost to the lake. The statement of this as “pointless” is either a deceitful attempt to misinform people in an attempt to bring public sentiment around to push for the movement of sand to end or it is just sheer ignorance of what is actually happening. In reality (as a civil engineer who has studied this for over thirty years now) the problem is that there is nowhere near enough sand being moved to comply with the intent of the court order to maintain the beaches to pre-marina condition. The point of the sand movement was to move anything that accumulates west of the marina to the east. The reality is it is nowhere near enough is being moved to comply with that, which is easily proven be aerial photography. The sand has actually built up all the way to the extent of the west side wall and is bypassing the marina naturally. Unfortunately its so far out, it never comes back in. I would be happy to share photos that are worth a thousand words that shows just the contrary to your thesis.
Paul Crowe says
You’re absolutely correct, immediately west of the marina, sand definitely builds up due to littoral drift being impeded by the marina wall. Your assumption seems to be, that if the marina were not there, all would be fine on the other side. That’s incorrect.
As noted previously, the problem of erosion exists all along the shoreline of Lake Erie and even in the western portions of North East Township, nowhere near the marina, property owners are seeing large losses of land due to the constant action of the waters of the lake.
To say:
means you are looking for something that no one anywhere along the shoreline of Lake Erie has been able to maintain.
Court orders may demand, but, unfortunately, Lake Erie doesn’t care. It will do what it does to everyone, regardless.
Complicating matters has been the the issue of numerous agencies involved, DEP, Fish and Boat, Army Corps of Engineers, having input controlling and limiting what can be done.
Discussions are currently taking place to find a better solution, but simply moving sand as being done now is, indeed, pointless.
Jim says
The current process is not pointless, but rather insufficient. I100% of the longshore drift must be bypassed annually, and the original USACE permit specified just that. Now we only move ~18,000 cuyd per year.
Re everyone along the shoreline experiencing erosion, I agree. The difference is that the marina caused downdrift property erosion to accelerate rapidly. As one resident that has been living there since 1948 put it to me: *we’ve historically dealt with erosion; however, there was always a MOUNTAIN of beach material present after the storms prior to marina construction*
Jim says
There is a 15-inch file at the Erie County Courthouse Prothonotary office, as well as very consistent case law from other Great Lakes regions that explains why the beach bypass continues. Check it out.
As it sits, the NE Marina is not an asset, but rather a very large liability. Mainly due to the costs of bypass/dredging operations, and several other key factors.
A marina is a great idea for our community and for boater safety; however, why would the North East want to hang such a heavy burden around it’s neck going forward?
Stella says
It should be evident to anyone living on the lake that you cannot control Mother Nature. Shoreline erosion is a challenge we all face, as seen in the retaining walls constructed by both neighbors flanking the North East Marina. Yet, those to the east persist in blaming the Marina for their erosion problems—despite mounting evidence and common sense that this is a natural and ongoing issue affecting the entire Lake Erie shoreline.
It is these same neighbors who filed a lawsuit years ago that resulted in an expensive and burdensome sand relocation operation. This process consumes time and resources, has proven ineffective at protecting their properties, and continues to drain the community of funds that could be better spent improving and preserving the Marina for future generations. The judgment in their favor is deeply frustrating—one can only assume the judge had never lived near a body of water or understood the dynamic nature of a shoreline.
From Presque Isle to the state line, the lakefront has undergone countless changes. Why weren’t lawsuits filed against the many other waterfront developments and interventions? It makes no sense. This lawsuit has become a roadblock to maintaining and improving one of this community’s most vital assets.
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) has neglected this facility for far too long and now seeks to hand it over to the Marina Authority in disrepair. That is unacceptable. Shame on PFBC for abandoning this site after years of oversight failures.
We call on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the PFBC to do whatever is necessary to save this Marina. We also call on our elected officials, including state representatives and senators from Erie County, to step up, take action, and stand with us in defense of this community treasure.
The time for excuses has passed. The time for leadership is now.
Jim says
The ruling was largely based on several renowned longshore drift professionals, who performed extensive studies, not the judge. There is also very consistent case law with additional studies that strengthens the ruling as well.
As it sits, the marina is a massive liability not an asset.
Sadly, PAFBC was well-aware of what potential erosion problems would happen prior to partnering with Safeharbor. They initially had a much smaller design, and Safeharbor convinced them to go much bigger.
Why don’t we go to the much smaller design, and attempt to reach consensus with all neighbors?
Stella says
I understand and respect that the court’s ruling was informed by expert testimony and studies regarding longshore drift. However, it’s also important to acknowledge that not all professionals agree on the causes or solutions to shoreline erosion—especially along dynamic bodies of water like Lake Erie, where conditions vary year to year.
While there may be case law that supports the ruling, that doesn’t mean the resulting mitigation measures have been effective or fair in practice. The sand relocation operation continues to be a drain on time, resources, and energy, with questionable benefit to the very properties it’s supposed to protect. That’s a concern worth revisiting.
Calling the marina a “massive liability” ignores its economic, recreational, and cultural value to the broader community. The Marina draws thousands of visitors each year—boaters, anglers, and tourists who support local restaurants, shops, gas stations, and lodging. If the Marina is forced to close or becomes unusable, the economic impact on small businesses in the North East community could be devastating. Some may not survive. That is not a viable solution for our community.
The idea of downsizing the facility may sound like a compromise, but the reality is far more complicated and expensive. Downsizing would cost millions of dollars in new construction, permitting, and design—and PFBC has made it clear they will not invest in a smaller facility. If money is not put into preserving the current structure, PFBC won’t scale it back—they’ll shut it down. That’s the direction we’re headed unless serious action is taken now.
Regarding Safe Harbor and the original design: if PFBC had concerns from the beginning, it’s even more frustrating that they allowed the project to move forward without greater accountability. If true collaboration can happen, it should—but let’s not chase theoretical solutions while a vital asset slips away.
This issue is too important for finger-pointing or piecemeal solutions. What we need now is leadership, transparency, and a unified commitment to preserving what makes our lakeshore community thrive.
Guy Steg says
I have lived east of the Marina for almost 70 years. The beach on the east side of the marina did not start to erode until the oversized marina was built. Our beaches have been starved of sand because of the marina!
Paul Crowe says
It’s not just Lake Erie. Homes just feet from falling off eroding cliff along Lake Michigan
Some people here are fixated on their own issue when all of the Great Lakes have the same problem.
And this: Great Lakes Shoreline Erosion
Food for thought.
Evan says
So if the Marina gets shut down, is that going to eliminate the sand problem? It seems to me that the erosion problem is directly related to winds on that lake. Many properties East and West of the Marina now have extensive retaining walls to stop erosion. Can’t all be caused by the Marina.
Also, Pa owns about 8% of the Lake Shoreline. Everyone else puts their dredgings back into the lake but we are required to test and haul away. Why?