THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 27, 1995 TAG: 9508250212
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 126 lines
Following are excerpts from an Aug. 17 memo responding to concerns raised in a flyer distributed in the North End by the North Virginia Beach Civic League concerning the Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. This project is discussed editorially on the opposite page.
To James K. Spore, city manager
From: Ralph A. Smith
Director, Department of Public Works
AUG. 7 NVBCL LETTER
The discussion of the concrete slab . . . between 42nd and 59th streets implies that the zone behind the new seawall could be developed into a boardwalk extension. This is incorrect. . . . Further, the zone behind the wall is not proposed to be utilized as a public area. While most of the adjacent owners do not hold title to this zone, the only interest that we or the federal government proposes to have in this zone is the ability to maintain the seawall. . . . We have no intention of posting the area as ``public'' and inviting beachgoers to use the adjacent back yards. . . .
(T)he proposed concrete crossovers are reported as definite project features. . . . The original concept was to use concrete crossovers at 10 locations. (The civic league) voiced objection, which is good; that's what the public-involvement process is all about. We proposed to reduce the number of the concrete crossovers to three. . . . Apparently, that proposal is also not acceptable. We are now considering deleting the concrete proposal completely .
The final point . . . indicates that if improvements are made with respect to public access to the North End beaches, more people will come and the character of the North End will be forever changed.
We understand the problems that congestion can cause, but the proposed improvements, which specifically exclude any parking improvements, will only build or rebuild access to the beach where access currently exists: the ends of the numbered streets. As it is, any member of the public can legally walk, pedal or drive to the end of any of these streets and hike over the dunes. Many of the streets have existing at-grade timber accesses . . . to confine access to a narrow zone which lessens the impact of the public on the dune and the property owners. The residents of the North End have asked the city on several occasions to build these at-grade walkways at the street ends that do not currently have them, and we have been repeatedly asked to maintain the existing ones. So, apparently, not all North End residents are concerned that confining legal access to a narrow, hardened path will cause the introduction of new visitors and change the character of the neighborhood.
SUMMARY PAPER
The (Virginian-Pilot) reports a July 11 hand vote of the civic league in majority opposition to the project. The paper does not report the April 11 hand vote in which an opposite result took place. Perhaps the single issue of 3 to 10 concrete ADA accesses has changed the majority's opinion. More likely, it is misinformation, or the simple lack of correct information, which has caused the shifting of opinion. . . .
Existing dune sand will not be used to improve the dunes to a uniform crest elevation of 18 feet above ``mean sea level'' (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, NGVD). (The following sentence is a correction from city engineer Carl Thorn to the original memo.) To minimize disturbance to the existing dune and to maximize dune stabilization, the sand for dune augmentation will be borrowed from the beach itself and then the beach will be renourished. The existing dunes will not be reshaped, lowered or relocated. Work will only occur in the zones where the dune crest elevation is less than 18 feet, NGVD.
(T)he author (of the NVBCL summary) misses the primary, indeed the authorized, benefit: storm damage reduction. The dune crest of 18 feet, NGVD, has been selected to maximize the net benefits (i.e., provide the most benefits with the least expense). . . . The storm-damage reduction benefit to the North End is the minimization of flooding of residences and the resulting losses, both in the contents of the dwelling and the structure itself. The improvements to the dunes to elevation 18 feet, NGVD, are expected to eliminate flooding damages totaling $7,819,000 for the North End under the design storm condition, a (140)-year storm event. A significant portion of these damages may be reimbursable to the homeowner through insurance claims and disaster relief. However, the goal of the project is to preclude the damage . . . to minimize pain, suffering and economic hardship to the individuals, as well as minimizing the impact to the flood-insurance underwriter - the federal government. . . .
The North End is characteristically different from the Resort Beach. However, the areas are connected and are within the same ``cell'' of the coastline. Not protecting the North End from the same storm-event level as the Resort Beach will degrade the performance of the Resort Beach's protection by allowing it to be flanked. It is appropriate to note that inclusion of the North End in the project, as was first authorized by Congress in 1954, does provide disproportionately high benefits for a relatively small expenditure. This fact alone, however, does not support a position to separate the North End.
CLOSING
. . . (B)eing included in the project does not mean that the character of the beach, or the access thereto, will change significantly. Inclusion means that during the next 50 years if the North End beach and dune system becomes degraded, the city and the federal government would have pre-agreed to restore the beach and dunes back to the design dimensions. The North End currently does not have that guarantee.
Second, since 1991 FEMA has been studying the issue of prequalification of our nation's beaches for eligibility for disaster relief in the form of post-storm rebuilding with federal cost-sharing. . . . The proposals debated would limit federal disaster relief to beaches which have an authorized federal beach proj-ect, such as the Resort Beach south of 49th Street . . . If (these proposals are) adopted, the North End, or any other beach in the nation not currently authorized for federal beach replenishment, would not be eligible for federal disaster assistance to rebuild the beach if damaged by coastal storms.
The larger, citywide issue is that if we do not build or obtain authorization to build this project, we risk losing our status at the Resort Beach as being an authorized federal project and potentially lose eligibility for federal disaster relief there, too. Our agreement with the federal government for Resort Beach replenishment expires in 1997. . . . Failure to adopt the project recommended to Congress by the Corps of Engineers will jeopardize continued participation, and authorization, by the federal government.
This risk is a significant concern. The administration has already proposed that the federal government get out of the beach-replenishment business and Congress is searching for means to balance the budget.
The loss of federal participation in beach replenishment, and disaster relief in the form of beach rebuilding, would be significant to the city. A storm event like the 1933 hurricane or the Ash Wednesday storm could destroy the North End and Resort beaches. Rebuilding could cost millions of dollars and, without the participation of the federal government, would be a very heavy burden on the city's finances. by CNB