Before coming to any opinion we strongly encourage you to read all the science against revetments in front of sand beaches. Alternatively, that if they are allowed, what absolutely must accompany them in the form of sand nourishment and replenishment going forward in perpetuity. (A very costly endeavor for the RM.) Science that was backed up further by the Baird Report/Shoreline Management Plan. Please follow this link to the Preserving Victoria Beach Website for the facts: https://preservingvictoriabeach.wordpress.com/category/3-scientific-research-and-other-documents/
To be reminded of the devastation caused by the Arthur stone revetment and the King Edward sandbag revetment , as well as the current Pump House stone revetement please download the following document: http://vbcoa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Seeing-Is-Believing-Sept-20-2.pdf
There were twelve solid presentations to council by concerned citizens in regards to the proposed revetment on King Edward. (Others against the revetment have since been denied the opportunity to present to council.) We strongly encourage you to spend the time to listen to them and the council’s response. Here is the link to both meetings: September 5th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiWaFYA29kQ&t=139s September12th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_4I1nwHdc&t=2s
Next, to learn the chronological history, news, and efforts of the previous battle against revetments a decade ago, please follow this link to the Preserving Victoria Beach website: https://preservingvictoriabeach.wordpress.com/category/2-breaking-news/
If you want a copy of the Baird Report: https://victoriabeach.municipalwebsites.ca/ckfinder/connector?command=Proxy&lang=en&type=Files¤tFolder=%2F&hash=c245c263ce0eced480effe66bbede6b4d46c15ae&fileName=Shoreline%20Management%20Plan.pdf
These are the facts. Science matters.
But you don’t need only science to tell you, in this case. You can witness it with your own eyes. Don’t let fading memories fool you. These are just three sample of images that your council and the seventeen King Edward property owners want you to conveniently forget to allow this disaster-in-the-waiting stone toe revetement they are proposing:
If you are against this proposed revetment on King Edward, please contact your council and let them know. Your voice matters! They plan to start work within a matter of weeks for a spring completion. A revetment of rocks will be on King Edward beach forever, as of this spring, if we all don’t act now.
| Mayor Penny McMorris | pmcmorris@victoriabeach.ca |
| Councillor Graham Randle | grandle@victoriabeach.ca |
| Councillor Irwin Kumka | ikumka@victoriabeach.ca |
| Councillor Ian Chadsey | ichadsey@victoriabeach.ca |
| Councillor Steve Axworthy | saxworthy@victoriabeach.ca |
Also, if you feel that constituents voices are being supressed by being denied the ability to present before council beyond Sept 17th or that council has not adequately engaged constituents in a timely and open manner, we encourage you to let these entities know your concerns so that Council can be investigated further:
Provincial Municipal Board MuniBrdGenMail@gov.mb.ca
MB Ombudsman ombudsman@ombudsman.mb.ca
Please feel free to copy the VBCOA in any correspondance you send so that we can have it for our records as well. vbcoaexec@gmail.com
Here was the VBCOA response to the Q&A submitted by the proponents of the revetment:
The following is the VBCOA response to Laura and her group. The VBCOA answers are in red.
September 15, 2023
Dear Laura and King Edward/Alexandra Toe Protection Proposal group:
Thank you for taking the time to reach out to the VBCOA. It is nice to finally have some dialogue and get a better grasp of what you and your groups stance is on numerous concerns many still have with the King Edward revetment as currently proposed.
We know you invested time and thought into your Q&A which was widely circulated to the community so we have done the same, sharing our responses to it on our website and private Facebook page.
We too are encouraged by your desire to follow the Baird report and science. Of course, when doing what the Baird report says, it means numerous actions must accompany each other. Not just one action, in isolation.
Sadly, a commitment to those actions – such as sand replenishment and nourishment and the costs involved — including who pays for what – is nowhere near being resolved from what we have heard to date.
Thus far, it is good to know we have at least one good option available that worked – the sandbags. (Not perfect, but a good compromise for both sides.)
We too look towards community building and want to steer away from the inevitable turmoil the loss of Kind Edward and Alexandra beaches would cause.
This is indeed a historic moment in the evolution of Victoria Beach and we all must do our ultimate best to make sure the right choices are made for the many generations of beach goers and residents to come.
Here are our responses to your Q&A. Please feel free to reach out to us again if your would like to discuss any of them further.
Yours truly,
VBCOA
VBCOA response to the Question & Answer submission by the King Edward Toe Revetment Proposal:
(VBCOA responses highlighted in red)
Q. Is protection actually needed?
A. Yes, protection is needed for a number of reasons detailed in the Baird Report.
Actually, the Baird report tells us that protecting the sand cliffs requires building groins and or a breakwater along with toe protection and periodic sand replenishment. Toe protection without sand replenishment means “the beach will eventually disappear”(p. 70 Apendix B)
This toe revetment protection (in isolation without anything else being done to accompany it) is only part of the solution. Without sand replenishment and nourishment efforts to go with it, this singular effort of protection will result in causing more problems than fixing them.
The question is what form of shoreline stabilization is best for our circumstances. There are many studies recommending soft (vegetation/sandbags …) vs hard stabilization (rock revetments sea walls…).
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1073
https://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/67096.html
https://islandstrust.bc.ca/document/shorelines-matter-brochure-2/
http://rosshaven.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Shoreline-Stabilization-Techniques.pdf
There is also the added question of does the proposal before us meet the requirements of Baird as put forward?
Q. Who pays for this?
A. The RM will own the work but Sunset Blvd property owners along King Edward and Alexandra will pay to build it.
But since the project will — according to Baird and many, many other sources — require sand replenishment and nourishment and ideally properly engineered groins, the full project required is not being paid for by the Sunset Blvd property owners. The revetment part is, but not the additional efforts the impact of the revetment will create.
Q. Who pays for maintenance?
A. Sunset Blvd property owners along King Edward and Alexandra are trying to work with the RM on this and have offered to include some maintenance costs in their proposal.
No plan should go forward without hard costs attached. Firm numbers. Does it include sand replenishment and nourishment as a maintenance cost? Because it MUST be part of the solution to go hand in hand with the revetment otherwise we lose the beach. Are these numbers being proposed available to the public? We are using public land for this, after all.
Q. I think this only protects the Sunset Boulevard properties, how is this considered a compromise?
A. In order to leave more beach available for community enjoyment, this design occupies a much smaller footprint than what Sunset Boulevard residents proposed in 2011.
It will actually leave less beach available as the beach will mostly be scoured even further than with the sandbags. Much like Arthur was, with a rock revetment. There would be a benefit to a narrower revetment over a wide one when the water is high, but the scouring remains the seminal issue.
In addition, the folks proposing the project are incurring a large financial burden which reduces the remaining cost of the Shoreline Management Plan for the rest of the municipality.
Reduces? Some would argue increases. Does anyone know the costs attached to sand replenishment and nourishment this revetment will force the community to do? Millions of dollars may not be an exaggeration.
Q. Is this the same project that was proposed after the weather bomb of 2010?
A. No. It’s 12 feet deep which is much, much smaller. This rock toe only occupies the sandbag footprint and some space that eroded behind the sandbags this past year.
On actual recent measurements the bank is between 4 ft and 12 ft from the lake side of the sandbags. So, the proposed revetment will not be narrower and in many cases, it will be wider than the sandbags. However, that is not the main issue.
Regardless of size, the stone component is a far harder armour than the sandbags and for that reason the scouring in front will likely be considerably greater, not less. (Remember the devastation that happened to Arthur and Patricia?) Soft armour has been shown to cause less scouring.
What is the difference between hard and soft shoreline?
In a nutshell, soft solutions are natural and may include fabrics, beach nourishment, beach dewatering systems, sandbags and specialty products. Hard solutions involve rock, concrete and steel, thereby increasing the potential of damage to sand beaches due to wave reflection off of such hard structures.
Q. People should be planting more trees and bushes to prevent bank erosion. Why is the municipality considering a rock toe when they should be enforcing more natural vegetation?
A. Toe stabilization and protection against storms is needed along King Edward and Alexandra. Plant cover does not protect the toe of the bank where wave action strikes.
This answer ignores the fact that the vegetation on the banks needs to be maintained and nourished always. The top, the middle and the bottom of the banks. Thus far, there has been more removal of trees and bushes on the banks, particularly for a view, than there has ever been planting them. Perhaps, had there been better stewardship on the banks by private owners the banks would have been much more resilient and capable to protect the toe of the bank when needed? Instead, the lack of bushes and trees have done the opposite. From the top to the middle to the bottom of the banks.
Trees and bushes may not be the ultimate solution but ignoring them as not an important part of the puzzle is folly. Sandbags protect the toe and as soft armour are less harmful to the beach than a revetment.
Q. Why toe protection?
A. Toe protection is a compromise recommended in the Baird Report, as a result of concerns people had with the revetment proposed in 2011 and potential impacts to the beach.
Actually, the sandbags were the compromise the community did eventually give in to. But yes, toe protection was given by Baird as another option, but only with properly engineered and located groins plus sand nourishment and replacement to go along with it. Which is not in this proposed plan. In the proposal sand replenishment is described as a “maybe” or an “add-on” and occurs at the expense and discretion of the community at large down the road.
The impact this stone revetment will have, as proposed in isolation, still remains devastating to the beach in front.
Toe protection provides less, but still some bank stability and protection against storms.
Then why not stick with the sandbags? They did too. And they buy time. Hopefully council will come up with a more complete plan based on Baird and will begin applying for federal and provincial grants and also begin budgeting in the RMVB 5 year plan. A more complete and comprehensive erosion mitigation plan is suggested.
Q. Will this fill up the beach with rocks?
A. No. It’s a small scale rock toe that won’t extend past the sandbags.
Smaller than the original one proposed in 2011, yes. But small? Not in many peoples opinion. It is substantial and it is hard vs soft armour.
Q. What if the rocks tumble down on to the beach?
A. It’s not likely and if it does happen, they’ll be repositioned.
Actually, the science says, that without sand replenishment and nourishment they in fact will tumble down the beach eventually. The revetment will fail. And when constant repair and repositioning starts sooner than later, down the road, without sand replenishment, the costs will not be minor. Who will be paying for that?
Furthermore, there is a confusion by many that when they suddenly see more rocks on the beach in the immediate years following a revetment, that they are coming from the revetment. Falling off of it. They are not. They are coming from under the sand on the beach, from the scouring the revetment is causing. People forget or do not understand, under the sand beach we enjoy, are rocks.
Q. Weren’t the sandbags going to be replaced this past winter?
A. Yes but ice conditions prevented the work.
So, if conditions are good this year, why not go ahead with the sandbags as was planned to do this last winter? Why the sudden change of mind? Sandbags are part of soft armour and therefore do less to scour the sand beach.
Q. Why can’t the current sandbags simply be replaced?
A. Better protection is needed.
But they were effective. It is even said so in this Q&A. Had the weather been okay last winter they would have already gone back in. See above.
Q. This toe protection looks different than the example in the 2015 Update from Baird & Associates on the Victoria Beach Shoreline Stabilization Project. Why?
A. The 2015 design is cost prohibitive. Additionally, the community use aspect of this design would now be unsafe.
Q. Will toe protection make the beach disappear?
A. We haven’t seen a negative impact on the beach from the sandbag protection that was in place for 12 years.
This is perhaps one of the most alarming responses from this proposal in this Q&A. Saying there was no negative impact to the beach is categorically incorrect. The scouring was clear and evident when the sandbags were in their best shape. There is photo evidence to prove it. Photo’s decidedly absent from this presentation we have been given.
Furthermore, we need only look to Arthur for what a stone structure – over a sandbag one — will do. Arthur/Patricia is our rock revetment example. As is the northern end of Connaught by the Pump House.
The good sand beach on King Edward we enjoy now is because a) the water is 4 ft lower than it was last year at this time and b) the failed sandbags have resulted in cliff erosion that has deposited sand onto the beach c) the sandbags were soft armour not hard as at Arthur.
Note that sections of King Edward where the sandbags have not failed the banks have held while in the sections where the sandbags failed, the banks collapsed.
The Baird Report recommends sand replenishment and retainment measures be taken to increase volume of sand on the beach to make up for gradual loss of sand over time. If these measures are wanted now, or end up being needed in the future, the community and municipality can prioritize and implement these measures. We would fully support a municipal decision for sand nourishment.
Anyone wanting a stone revetment on the beach of course should fully support sand nourishment. It can’t be built without it. Supporting it and paying for sand replenishment and nourishing though, are two different things. Particularly when the rock revetment will be the cause for the increased need.
This proposal clearly recognizes “Since the vast sandy beaches are one of the most valuable community assets and enhancing them is a part of The RMVB Shoreline Management Plan, the community and municipality can consider budgeting for and investing in sand nourishment. Groynes can help to trap sand and can also be considered.”
We must remember, the science and Baird does not give the community the choice of “they can if they want to” but rather it becomes a “must-do” if a revetment solution like this goes in.
Q. Has risk of scouring been factored into the design?
A. Yes, the potential for scouring has been considered and factored into the design.
While it may be true you can do certain things in the construction to potentially lessen the scouring a revetment causes over time, that is about as good as it gets. “Lessens” it. But they will cause scouring. It is completely unavoidable. We have seen it on Arthur, we have seen it on King Edward, we have seen it on Connaught.
We steadfastly agree with the suggestion that you go and take a look at the water shoreline in front of the stone revetment in front of the Pump House and numerous properties beside it on Connaught. Where the Q&A claims there also has not been scour.
Compare that short revetment stretch with the rest of Connaught beach too, while you are there. All the way to the 4th Avenue stairs.
Then, let’s see if you think this is the example of a good or acceptable result for the beach, as this Q&A implies it is.
Q. How do we know the work will be done well?
A. It is a large investment from a few cottage owners. The contractors are experienced and will provide the service requested. Additionally, the RM ensures qualified oversight of the work.
While no one doubts the expertise and experience of Mr. Kraft who appears to have been hired for the project, there has been no licensed engineering report that the public is aware of. At least, not one submitted that anyone is aware of. No licensed engineer has been part of this project. Without one — before, during, and upon completion – asking the community to blindly trust in good faith that it will be done right and that the RM has the proper skill set to over see it, is far too big of an overreach and expectation. Particularly when all the Development Plans are very clear on them being required.
Q. The Baird Report says preserving the public beaches in perpetuity is a priority. It also says rock will block sand and cause us to lose the beach. So why would we do this?
A. The RMVB Shoreline Management Plan (Baird Report) prioritizes both protection of private property and public beaches. Further erosion into private property, it explains, threatens municipal ownership and control over the beach, along with public access to the beach. Preventing erosion into private property will ensure the public can use the beach in perpetuity.
The argument that the RM will lose control over the beach or that somehow it becomes the property owners or that riparian rights will apply is bogus. All has been proven to be false for these stretches of beaches. Although, we do concede, as our Mayor says: “ask more than one lawyer and you are bound to get another answer.”
Q. Are there risks to preventing this work from taking place this winter?
A. There are serious risks that could impact the beaches and the community. See Risk Sample Table.
From the risk table:
Sunset Blvd residents gain ownership of the beach in front of their cottages, to the water’s edge.
Not true. Only an opinion. Plenty of other legal opinions say different.
Cottage owners start building their own, ad-hoc protection structures as erosion crosses private property.
Only when and if. And only on their own property. No public land has been granted use for this purpose. Any ad hoc action would have to be 100% on private property only. And remember, since any such construction on private land would require a signed engineers report, and since any such structure would exacerbate erosion on adjoining banks both public and private, it does not seem likely that council could, in all conscience grant such a permit.
Sunset Blvd Cottage septic fields drain onto the beach.
If so, the onus would be on the owner to rectify.
Community members walk along or sit at the foot of the bank.
There is always risk at the bottom of the banks on all beaches at all times. Hence the signage, NO CLIMBING ON THE BANKS.
Litigation.
Litigation is a two-way street and is always a purposeful, expensive, divisive threat. Merely mentioning it in this Q&A is in itself a cause for lighting a fuse to more in-fighting. But if it is to be bought up here… who is going to be held accountable years down the road if the beach is lost? When owners and the RM knew what the consequences would be and went ahead anyway despite the concerns and protests of the other non shoreline taxpayers? Negligent, some would say.
Q. Where does it say in the Baird Report that toe protection should be installed along King Edward and Alexandra?
- pp II, 22, 27, 30, 32, 36, 45, & APPENDIX D SHORELINE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATONS:
Appendix D p. 86 Recommendations for Reach 3 King Edward and Alexandra Beaches
“Erosion Mitigation and Beach Enhancement Recommendations:
It is recommended that a detailed design engineering study be conducted.
Commence final engineering to determine design parameters and optimize design.
Recommended design includes beach nourishment & toe protection for bank.
Rock structures will be required (see conceptual sketch) to anchor the beach nourishment, these could be offshore breakwaters or rock groynes (to be con-firmed with engineering design)”
p. 70 Apendix p. 70
Option 1: Beach nourishment with periodic maintenance
Option 2: Groynes and beach nourishment (groynes anchor the nourishment and reduce the amount of maintenance required)
Option 3: Armour bluff toe with rock revetment (beach will eventually disappear)
Q . Is protection actually needed?
A. Yes, protection is needed for a number of reasons detailed in the Baird Report.
Yes, it is needed. That is why the sandbags were used. The sandbags were doing a good job.
Q. Who pays for maintenance?
A. Sunset Blvd property owners along King Edward and Alexandra are trying to work with the RM on this and have offered to include maintenance costs in their proposal.
What is the actual estimated dollar value of that maintenance? And in the event the maintenance does not occur when needed, what are the means in place for the RM to act independently and pass on the costs to owners? Who will dictate and oversee who decides when (and when not) maintenance is necessary and what it is to be?
Until this is resolved it is hard to comprehend how this proposal can go forward.
Q. I think this only protects the Sunset Boulevard properties, how is this considered a compromise?
A. In order to leave more beach available for community enjoyment, this design occupies a much smaller footprint than what Sunset Boulevard residents proposed in 2011. The design provides less protection to the bank and is 12 feet deep, occupying only the sandbag strip and land recently lost behind it.
How can it leave more beach available when much of the beach will be scoured? Less will be available. Without beach replenishment and nourishment, that will be the result.
While this plan is smaller than the 2011 proposal, let’s not forget the footprint now proposed by the toe rock is bigger than the sandbag footprint, as it will add to it by occupying land behind it.
In addition, the folks proposing the project are incurring a large financial burden which reduces the remaining cost of the Shoreline Management Plan for the rest of the municipality.
Actually, by going this route, science says the RM will now need to add sand nourishment and replacement almost immediately. This is a very costly endeavour. It is very probable this revetment increases the financial burden of the RM.
Q. Is this the same project that was proposed after the weather bomb of 2010?
A. No. It’s 12 feet deep which is much, much smaller. This rock toe only occupies the sandbag footprint and some space that eroded behind the sandbags this past year.
While definitely a smaller footprint than the monster revetment proposed after the weather bomb in 2010 it is by no means a small or inconsequential addition to the shoreline.
Q. Why toe protection?
A. Toe protection is a compromise recommended in the Baird Report, as a result of concerns people had with the revetment proposed in 2011 and potential impacts to the beach. Toe protection provides less, but still some bank stability and protection against storms.
And can only be effective if it is accompanied by sand replenishment and nourishment and all that entails.
Q. What if the rocks tumble down on to the beach?
A. It’s not likely and if it does happen, they’ll be repositioned.
Without sand replenishment and nourishment to go with the toe revetment, science and the Baird report are clear. The revetment will fail over time. The rocks will eventually “tumble down the beach”.
Q. Weren’t the sandbags going to be replaced this past winter?
A. Yes but ice conditions prevented the work.
If this winter conditions are good, why not just put new sandbags back as planned?
Q. Why can’t the current sandbags simply be replaced?
A. Better protection is needed.
The sandbags by many accounts have been doing their job. With even better design capability since then and better maintenance this time during their lifecycle, the protection may very well increase this time around.
They can also be replaced, and they provide a soft armour with bank protection and hopefully less scouring of the beach in front.