Public overwhelmingly supports restoring, elevating existing waterfront structure
By Delayna Earley
The Island News
Members of Beaufort’s Waterfront Advisory Committee are moving toward a recommendation to rebuild Henry C. Chambers Waterfront Park’s failed relieving platform largely in its current form after engineers said public feedback overwhelmingly favored restoring the existing promenade design while elevating it to better address flooding and long-term resilience concerns.
The relieving platform is the structural waterfront promenade beneath much of Henry C. Chambers Waterfront Park, built on pilings that allow water to flow underneath portions of the walkway.
During the committee’s Monday, May 4, meeting, engineers with McSweeney Engineers presented the results of public input gathered during the city’s recent waterfront design concepts meeting and online surveys.
According to project engineer Bill Barna, “Option 2” — rebuilding the current relieving platform while raising it slightly — received the strongest support from residents.
“So the takeaway that I got out of it by looking at the data and looking at just being present at the public meeting is Beaufortonians want back what they have,” Barna said.
The proposed option would largely preserve the existing appearance and layout of the waterfront promenade while incorporating engineering improvements intended to address flooding, sea level rise and long-term structural deterioration.
What ‘Option 2’ would include
Under the concept currently receiving the strongest support, the city would rebuild the existing relieving platform structure while raising it above current elevations to reduce routine tidal flooding and improve long-term resilience.
Barna said the design would maintain many of the park’s defining visual elements, including the promenade layout, swings, brickwork, tabby-style paving and tree-lined waterfront aesthetic that residents repeatedly identified as priorities during public engagement sessions.
“They love the brick, the red brick, the tabby pavers, the swings and the trees,” Barna said. “They love what they have and they want it back.”
The rebuilt structure would also be designed to better withstand flooding and environmental stress that engineers say have dramatically worsened since the original promenade was constructed in the 1970s.
Presentation materials shown during the meeting noted local relative sea levels have risen approximately seven inches since construction of the original promenade began in 1974.
Engineers said modern king tide events now reach portions of the relieving platform and support structures far more frequently than the original design anticipated, accelerating deterioration of the structure beneath the promenade.
The project would likely also involve rebuilding portions of the old seawall beneath the structure.
“We’re probably going to have to replace that old seawall,” Barna said during the discussion.
Barna said replacing the seawall would likely be necessary if the city wants the project to achieve a projected lifespan of 75 to 100 years.
Why engineers favor rebuilding instead of filling
Committee members also discussed “Option 3,” which would replace the relieving platform with a massive seawall and backfilled promenade extending farther into the Beaufort River.
However, Barna repeatedly cautioned that the seawall-and-fill concept would likely become dramatically more expensive and substantially more difficult to permit due to the site’s environmental conditions and recently updated critical line determinations from the state.
According to Barna, state regulators now officially consider the area beneath the existing relieving platform to remain protected water area because tidal water still flows beneath portions of the structure.
As a result, replacing the promenade with a filled seawall system would require extensive excavation, massive amounts of fill material and significantly larger retaining walls than many residents may realize.
“The water depth right now at the corner by the pavilion where we had the public meeting is 24 foot deep,” Barna said. “So you’d have to have a 30-foot tall seawall there.”
Barna said the wall itself would likely need additional piling support due to both its size and the depth of the river bottom.
Engineers also warned that expanding the project to include larger flood mitigation efforts for surrounding downtown areas could quickly escalate costs beyond what the city could realistically manage.
“When we started to look at it from that angle, then the cost just starts to get so out of hand you can’t really manage it all,” Barna said.
Design, permitting expected to take at least 18 months
Even if the city ultimately selects “Option 2,” engineers cautioned the design and permitting process alone is expected to take at least 18 months before construction could begin.
“There is still a heck of a lot of work left,” Barna said.
That work includes additional surveying, geotechnical investigations, permitting analysis and phased engineering design work.
The city has not yet released a final projected construction cost for the project.
Committee members also discussed the possibility of seeking state and federal grant funding to offset both engineering and construction expenses.
Engineers said the next phase of work will likely include a formal alternatives analysis ranking each waterfront option based on permitting difficulty, resilience, cost, longevity, schedule and public feedback before a final recommendation is presented to the city.
The committee is expected to continue discussions as the city moves toward selecting a design and permitting firm later this year.
Delayna Earley, who joined The Island News in 2022, formerly worked as a photojournalist for The Island Packet/The Beaufort Gazette, as well as newspapers in Indiana and Virginia. She can be reached at delayna.theislandnews@gmail.com.