Ocean Grove, NJ. Red flags, rough seas. PG Photo
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger
June 4, 2013: Just three days after learning that the FEMA appeal had been denied, officials of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association met today with representatives of major OG organizations to discuss the current situation. Dr. Dale Whilden, President of the CMA said , “We were shocked” to receive the news which came to them via the Governor’s office.
Mr. Ralph delCampo, interim administrator, discussed FEMA regulations with the group. He said that the CMA had been “struggling” with changes in FEMA regs since the rules were first changed in 1993. Later those rules were changed further due to the tremendous amount of money spent after Katrina (2005) when the government was trying to tighten spending.
Mr. delCampo noted that even though this current appeal was denied, the official letter from FEMA indicated that government officials had a “better understanding of the role our boardwalk plays as a multi-use entity with a variety of systems which involve the entire beachfront and contain significant support for emergency services.” The letter detailed all the ways our boardwalk works for promoting the health and safety of citizens at the beachfront. But FEMA evidently did not buy the CMA’s application claim that “the Ocean Grove Beachfront has long been recognized as a public facility by the State of New Jersey and that its services are available at all times, making it eligible for FEMA aid.”
The reason this appeal failed is because of a regulation that requires eligible services to be in use more than 50% of the time. The CMA argued that their emergency services at the beachfront are available all the time, much like a levee in New Orleans is always ready to turn back a major rise in water levels or like an insurance policy that provides constant background protection. But FEMA said that since CMA “has not established that the primary function (50% of either space or time used) of the boardwalk facility serves to provide critical emergency services, FEMA does not consider the boardwalk to be an eligible facility.”
Mr. delCampo pointed out that in 2001 and again in 2013, a Federal agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, will pay 100% for beach replenishment, and yet, here is FEMA turning us down. “Why this discrepancy?” he asked. “Consistency is missing,”
He said that these FEMA rules are “not as black and white as a lay person would think by reading the regulations.” Instead he said that these regs are “more grey than black and white, and that they could be interpreted and even modified in different ways.” As an example, he pointed out that our Representative Chris Smith (4th District) sponsored a bill in Feb, 2013 to correct an “unfairness” and which would require FEMA to repair damaged houses of worship. (The Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act.) That proposed law would not affect us, but it shows that Congress has the power to compel changes in FEMA regulations.
This past weekend, CMA officials met with “experts in dealing with FEMA” to decide on the next steps, including the possibility of a second appeal, perhaps with the chance of having our ideas heard in Washington. They also are contacting all our elected officials about the situation. The FEMA letter mentions a second appeal mechanism. All implications of a second appeal must be considered to decide if that approach would be “best for the community.” Other options are available.
He expressed thanks to all the elected officials in our area: municipal, county, state, and federal who have been supportive. Regarding this political help, he said, “We are very very pleased,” and the names he mentioned included Beck, Smith, Pallone, Menendez, Houghtaling and Bishop. “We are working with them,” he said. “They can generate or influence legislation.”
The CMA has just begun to figure out what to do next, but “our goal is to get funded.” That target will drive all subsequent decisions. In the process they will be careful to not cause any extra issues. Mr. delCampo concluded by saying, “I believe, at the end of the day, that the right decision will be made” by those who control public disaster funding.”
Meanwhile, engineers and consultants are working with the CMA to design the rest of the boardwalk project based on the prototype near the beach offices and based on lessons learned from the past. They want a plan that will protect the beachfront with a strong and durable design that will last for many years and for many storms. They don’t want to rush “like some other beach towns have done.” Mr. delCampo stressed that “We want to be cautious and responsible with the construction; what we do will set precedents for the future.”
There is still another FEMA appeal level. I hope they try for it.
JOE: If a FEMA denial is black and white, then why do they allow appeals? Obviously it is not irrelevant if an applicant disagrees. Also, did you read this BF article which talks about how FEMA rules are not hard and fast?
The law is pretty clear on how and why OG has been denied for funding. Whether or not we agree with this is irrelevant. FEMA has been clear.
The two boardwalks that did best were those that were built not of wood and nails, but of stone, masonry and cement. Avon and Bradley suffered minimal township damage and almost no damage to the boardwalk. High dunes backed by high cement walls, flat masonry tops. Maybe this is the route we should go, high dunes backed by at-grade masonry surface, perhaps raised slightly.
The simple fact is OG still has no boardwalk. Borrow the money and get it built!! Then the loan can be paid back once the money is obtained from FEMA on the second appeal. Let’s not put off for tomorrow what can be done today.
I would bet if the boardwalk had been built, you would not be seeing so many summer rental signs still up around town. The boardwalk not being complete is sending a bad message to potential vacationers. It’s not fun pushing a baby carriage, riding a bike, or strolling and viewing the ocean and then having to detour across the street and back again. It is a hassle and not safe for families with children.
Let’s get real; it’s the vacationers and visitors that keep the town thriving. Really fed up with all the talk. Enough talk and more action!!
Southern Opinion: The important point is that these boardwalk projects require new designs that will withstand future storms. Each town is doing it their own way. That’s what Mr. delCampo was talking about. We don’t know which town(s) he was referring to when he made the “rushed” reference.
One specific detail that he emphasized was the necessity for bulkheads. Ours are being made out of strong vertical boards. This was researched extensively for the OG project with the engineers looking at metal (which rusts) and fiberglass (which cracks.) Did your friends to the south build bulkheads?
Another detail which makes our project special is the plan to move the middle beach boardwalk back thirty feet so as to position it behind an existing bulkhead. This maneuver will make the OG boardwalk much more stable than before.
It’s important to remember that the overall beachfront construction is not only for the boardwalk. The dunes, bulkheads, strong construction methods, etc. will all together contribute to protecting the town itself from damage during a storm.
In some areas, the dunes are being made so high that views of the ocean might be blocked, but citizens are grateful for the protection. Here is a link to see how well the Sea Girt dunes worked.
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2013/02/gov_christie_sea_girt_is_proof_of_the_effectiveness_of_dunes.html
Does anyone really think our neighbors to the south rushed to rebuild without attention to preventive details? These towns hired consultants and engineers. Some one needs to drive down Ocean Ave. and look closely at rebuilt board walks with larger and deeper pilings, newly designed and installed top boards, reinforced metal braces, metal strappings and early dune rebuilding. The major difference between them and us is FEMA funding. They are up and runing with new and improved board walks. Maybe the CMA could learn something from their neighbors to the south. Let’s see who fairs better with the next storm.
Not Cool: We took this quote out of context. Mr. delCampo was describing our engineering challenge of designing a beachfront that would resist big future storms. The CMA is approaching this situation by developing strong bulkheads, significant dunes, deep pilings, and using durable materials. He said that other towns had rushed to rebuild their boardwalks without paying much attention to those preventive details and he thought that they would pay for rushing by experiencing destruction again when the next large storm rolls in. Our neighbors might want to pay heed to his wise perspective and advice. He didn’t discuss any specific towns other than OG.
Happy: Why don’t you return from fantasyland and consider reality. Perhaps you can suggest something else to help solve our problem.
If the CMA would cede ownership of the beach properties to the Township of Neptune, as they long ago did for the streets, police, refuse disposal, storm sewers, etc., then this whole great heap of contention would harmlessly vaporize into a puff of hot air. FEMA would happily grant storm remediation funds to the municipality, and everyone would only be left to wonder why this didn’t happen many years ago.
Thanks Mr, deCampo for such a well thought-out, detailed commentary on FEMA’s decision to not fund rebuilding Ocean Grove’s boardwalk. It leaves us hopeful for a satisfactory resolution.
This is awesome reporting. I realize how much work it is to do this and I realy appreciate it. Thanks Blogfinger!!
Mr. DelCampo states: “don’t want to rush like some other beach towns have done.”
Nice. How to insult and alienate your neighbors. Plus, give an example– the “other towns” seem to have done a great job.