Kriss Titus of the Walton County Tourism Development Council suggested to the BCC that the county may want to continue the western beach restoration effort without the cooperation of the City of Destin.
The two agencies had been working together until the project was delayed by excessive turtle takes in May. Titus said the company doing the work, Great Lakes Dredge and Docks, could not commit the same equipment that was utilized originally, but the TDC could move forward with smaller dredges.
Titus indicated that Destin offi cials were uncomfortable with the idea of remaining in a previous interlocal agreement with the TDC, and suggested moving forward without their approval. The BCC concurred, but Commissioner Larry Jones said termination of the agreement should be left up to Destin. If the TDC is able to secure a contract for the smaller dredge, work could be completed as early as March, 2007.
____________________________________________________
Beach restoration project could resume this year
By David Magliano
The Walton County Tourist Development Council will begin negotiating with Great Lakes Dredge and Dock and the City of Destin to immediately continue the Western Walton County Beach Restoration Project.
The restoration project will repair 6,500 feet of beach in Walton County, and two miles of beach in Okaloosa County that eroded during Hurricane Opal in 1995 and Hurricane George in 1998. Before its halt, the project reconstructed more than 18,900 feet of Walton County beach.
Following the hurricanes, the TDC began a study on the beaches? ability to continue to act as a first defense against hurricane storm surge. The study found the beaches to be ?critically eroded,? initiating the restoration project.
Beach restoration is accomplished by dredging sand from a separate site and pumping it underwater to the new site, which both lifts and widens the existing beach.
Construction began last February, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stopped the project when they determined that too many turtles were killed during dredging.
Reaching nationally set limits on turtle takes can cause the shutdown of projects all along the Gulf of Mexico, not just in Walton County.
Timing of the restoration is important, said Kriss Titus, executive director of the TDC. If negotiations are quick, the project can resume in December, with construction completed by May 2007, before both the turtle nesting and hurricane seasons begin.
If an agreement cannot be reached, the county may need to use Liberty Island dredge for construction, which is not available for use until March or April of 2007.
?If we do not move quickly, Walton County is in jeopardy of available dredges being assigned to other projects,? said Titus. ?We must restart the project now in order to complete construction of our beaches prior to the water warming and storm season beginning.?
The Florida Supreme Court is also preparing to hear a case brought by four property owners against the county, who feel their property rights have been violated because of the project.
The county is allowed to continue work while the case is heard, but if the court rules against the county, it will need to stop restoration.
With multiple issues looming in the summer, construction needs to begin quickly, said Brad Pickel, Director of Beach Management for the TDC.
?Based on everything, now is a perfect time,? said Pickel, ?and time is of the essence.?
The $6.8 million cost to Walton County is being funded through state grants, bed taxes, and a loan against future bed taxes.
Replies
32
SoWal Insider
With multiple issues looming in the summer, construction needs to begin quickly, said Brad Pickel, Director of Beach Management for the TDC.
?Based on everything, now is a perfect time,? said Pickel, ?and time is of the essence.?
The $6.8 million cost to Walton County is being funded through state grants, bed taxes, and a loan against future bed taxes.
Mr Pickel,
How is the county planning on structuring this loan? Details please.
Beach Lover
Mr Pickel,
How is the county planning on structuring this loan? Details please.
The loan has already been developed. It was structured as a 10-year loan pledged against future bed tax revenues (i.e tourist occupancy tax dollars). The initial amount was for $8 million dollars.
Beach Lover
The loan has already been developed. It was structured as a 10-year loan pledged against future bed tax revenues (i.e tourist occupancy tax dollars). The initial amount was for $8 million dollars.Any word on when we might expect some restoration action on the "forgotten 2 miles" on the eastern end of Walton Co., immediately west of Rosemary Beach? It is my understanding that restoration is planned directly east and west of this 2-mile section (which is also severly eroded...)
SoWal Insider
The loan has already been developed. It was structured as a 10-year loan pledged against future bed tax revenues (i.e tourist occupancy tax dollars). The initial amount was for $8 million dollars.
Mr Pickel,
Why was the loan for $8 million when the cost was stated as $6.8 million?
The article also stated the restoration cost was going to be divided up between the loan <borrowed against future bed tax>, past bed tax revenue and a state grant?
How much <other than the $8-million loan> is being provided by the state grant and how much is coming from current bed tax? What is the total amount of all three that is going toward beach restoration?
Can you please provide a link which outlines details of this loan?
Edited
Beach Lover
Mr Pickel,
Why was the loan for $8 million when the cost was stated as $6.8 million?
The article also stated the restoration cost was going to be divided up between the loan <borrowed against future bed tax>, past bed tax revenue and a state grant?
How much <other than the $8-million loan> is being provided by the state grant and how much is coming from current bed tax? What is the total amount of all three that is going toward beach restoration?
Can you please provide a link which outlines details of this loan?
Sorry but that quote is a little confusing... The overall project amount for Walton County is going to be about $21.1 million if we have to construct it alone. Of that the state is paying about $4.2 million leaving WC $16.9 million. Of the $16.9 million amount, we currently have a loan amount of $8 million. The Beach Nourishment bed tax will cover the remaining amounts, and the loan amount may have to be increased.
There is no loan website link. It is a 10-year, $8 million dollar loan from SunTrust secured by bed taxes. The annual debt service is $842,249.28.
Shelly:
Now I have a question for you. Do you live in Blue Mountain? ;-)
Edited
Beach Fanatic
.....Shelly:
Now I have a question for you. Do you live in Blue Mountain? ;-)
Brad, what did I miss here?:scratch:
SoWal Insider
Shelly:
Now I have a question for you. Do you live in Blue Mountain? ;-)
No...I'm just an interested Walton citizen who pays taxes to the U.S. and Walton County ;-)
(< 1% interest?? :shock: )
SoWal Insider
:shock: It must be Halloween....my post disappeared!! 
Edited
Meow
:shock: It must be Halloween....my post disappeared!!
...and you are not getting post credit. The count is staying the same. I am sure it was a Realtor.
SoWal Expert
I saw my first seawalls/beach restoration today. I walked east from the beach access at Gulf Place. It was very interesting to see what everyone has been talking/arguing about!
SoWal Insider
But....The post disappeared.....and I didn't even mention the "R?" word in the post ...I swear!!
Boy, I hope I'm not in a pickel. ;-)Meow
But....The post disappeared.....and I didn't even mention the "R?" word in the post ...I swear!!
Well, repost it! Were you being bad SHELLY or funny SHELLY???
Beach Lover
:shock: It must be Halloween....my post disappeared!!
Actually, my post dissapeared first using a deleted button as I was not logged in as BPickelTDC but as someone else
To answer your earlier question and post the correct information, the loan rate was between 3.5 and 4%
As for the Blue Mountain question, I thought I had figured out who you were since it is a mystery, no malice intended.
SoWal Insider
Actually, my post dissapeared first using a deleted button as I was not logged in as BPickelTDC but as someone else
Yeah, I saw that ;-)
To answer your earlier question and post the correct information, the loan rate was between 3.5 and 4%
If that's the case, I calculate the annual payment on the loan should be @ $150,000+ more than the annual payment stated in the post above ($842,249.28)
As for the Blue Mountain question, I thought I had figured out who you were since it is a mystery, no malice intended.
Mystery?? :shock:
-----------------------
Thank you for being so forthcoming with the information
.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
$16.9 million dollars for 6500ft of beach? Plus $800,000+ per year in added debt. Seems like a lot of money for barely a mile of beach. Or am I missing something from what I read. Dredging up sand to put on a beach where the storms come in and take it back is a losing battle. And when this is complete and a Cat 3 comes and takes it all back, i suppose the County will once again jump through federal hoops to obtain more money to flush into a never ending cycle.
The Gulf will take what it wants whether it's sand,walls,tubes, or houses. By putting an additional foot or two of sand added to the existing beach,correcty me if I'm wrong, will undoubtable raise the impact of the water by the same amount. But hey who am I to question anything when uncontrolled and unaudited federal/local tax money is being spent.
And how can it cost the county $55,000 for a beach walkdown? $1,000 dollars wood + maybe a week of labor by 2 workers. Any chance of finding an audit on that dept.? I'll Take MisMangement for $2000, Alex.
The Gulf will take what it wants whether it's sand,walls,tubes, or houses. By putting an additional foot or two of sand added to the existing beach,correcty me if I'm wrong, will undoubtable raise the impact of the water by the same amount. But hey who am I to question anything when uncontrolled and unaudited federal/local tax money is being spent.
And how can it cost the county $55,000 for a beach walkdown? $1,000 dollars wood + maybe a week of labor by 2 workers. Any chance of finding an audit on that dept.? I'll Take MisMangement for $2000, Alex.
Beach Fanatic
IN TODAY'S PAPER:
Beach restoration continues
Walton-Destin renourishment may be done in phases
By HEATHER CIVIL heatherc@nwfdailynews.com
SANTA ROSA BEACH ? Work could resume on a joint beach restoration project between Walton County and Destin by the end of this month.
The final 6,500 or so feet of the project in western Walton could be finished by year?s end, and work on the remaining two miles of beach in Destin will likely begin in the spring, said Brad Pickel, beach management director with the county?s Tourist Development Council.
City and county staffers met Wednesday afternoon to discuss how Destin and Walton can continue the restoration together.
The meeting was scheduled after the city expressed concern about restarting the project before the state Supreme Court rules on whether beach restoration violates private property rights.
The court will likely take several months to decide, and Walton does not want to wait until then to restart the work.
Walton considered terminating an agreement with the city to share costs on the project so the county would not have to wait.
However, it appears that there are alternatives that will give both the county and city what they need while keeping the agreement intact.
What will likely happen is that the project will be renegotiated with the contractor, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, so that the final stretch in Walton and the restoration in Destin can be done in phases, Pickel said.
That means that Walton can begin restoration this month and Destin can start in the spring without having to end the agreement, he said.
?It gives the city of Destin a little more flexibility,? Pickel said.
It is now up to the Walton County Commission and Destin City Council to approve that plan, he said.
Destin will meet in executive session at 5 p.m. Monday to discuss the issue, said Mayor Craig Barker. Barker said the city wants to continue working with the county.
?This partnership with Walton County has been mutually beneficial for the entire area,? he said.
The Walton County Commission has not set a date to discuss the matter.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May halted beach restoration as it neared completion in Walton after several endangered sea turtles died during the sand dredging process.
The Corps has since said that the project can resume.
The price tag for the restoration, which started in February, stands at almost $28 million.
The project is being paid for in part with state grant money and tourist bed tax revenue.
Project delays caused by sea turtle deaths have already cost the project an additional $4 million to $5 million.
Daily News Staff Writer Heather Civil can be reached at 267-8300.
Beach restoration continues
Walton-Destin renourishment may be done in phases
By HEATHER CIVIL heatherc@nwfdailynews.com
SANTA ROSA BEACH ? Work could resume on a joint beach restoration project between Walton County and Destin by the end of this month.
The final 6,500 or so feet of the project in western Walton could be finished by year?s end, and work on the remaining two miles of beach in Destin will likely begin in the spring, said Brad Pickel, beach management director with the county?s Tourist Development Council.
City and county staffers met Wednesday afternoon to discuss how Destin and Walton can continue the restoration together.
The meeting was scheduled after the city expressed concern about restarting the project before the state Supreme Court rules on whether beach restoration violates private property rights.
The court will likely take several months to decide, and Walton does not want to wait until then to restart the work.
Walton considered terminating an agreement with the city to share costs on the project so the county would not have to wait.
However, it appears that there are alternatives that will give both the county and city what they need while keeping the agreement intact.
What will likely happen is that the project will be renegotiated with the contractor, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, so that the final stretch in Walton and the restoration in Destin can be done in phases, Pickel said.
That means that Walton can begin restoration this month and Destin can start in the spring without having to end the agreement, he said.
?It gives the city of Destin a little more flexibility,? Pickel said.
It is now up to the Walton County Commission and Destin City Council to approve that plan, he said.
Destin will meet in executive session at 5 p.m. Monday to discuss the issue, said Mayor Craig Barker. Barker said the city wants to continue working with the county.
?This partnership with Walton County has been mutually beneficial for the entire area,? he said.
The Walton County Commission has not set a date to discuss the matter.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in May halted beach restoration as it neared completion in Walton after several endangered sea turtles died during the sand dredging process.
The Corps has since said that the project can resume.
The price tag for the restoration, which started in February, stands at almost $28 million.
The project is being paid for in part with state grant money and tourist bed tax revenue.
Project delays caused by sea turtle deaths have already cost the project an additional $4 million to $5 million.
Daily News Staff Writer Heather Civil can be reached at 267-8300.
Beach Lover
$16.9 million dollars for 6500ft of beach? Plus $800,000+ per year in added debt. Seems like a lot of money for barely a mile of beach. Or am I missing something from what I read. Dredging up sand to put on a beach where the storms come in and take it back is a losing battle. And when this is complete and a Cat 3 comes and takes it all back, i suppose the County will once again jump through federal hoops to obtain more money to flush into a never ending cycle.
The Gulf will take what it wants whether it's sand,walls,tubes, or houses. By putting an additional foot or two of sand added to the existing beach,correcty me if I'm wrong, will undoubtable raise the impact of the water by the same amount. But hey who am I to question anything when uncontrolled and unaudited federal/local tax money is being spent.
And how can it cost the county $55,000 for a beach walkdown? $1,000 dollars wood + maybe a week of labor by 2 workers. Any chance of finding an audit on that dept.? I'll Take MisMangement for $2000, Alex.
No, the costs you are describing include the entire project as I discussed in Post 6 on this thread. The entire project is over 5 miles.
As for impacts from a Category 3 on a restored project, I would point you to Pensacola's project and a direct hit from Hurricane Ivan. The beach was surveyed after the impact of the storm and there was MORE sand in the beach and dune system AFTER the hurricane then there was BEFORE they did the project.
Raising the beach will not raise the water levels. The increase in water levels in a storm is caused by meteorological factors, primarily the fact that a tropical system is a low pressure system. The interaction of the low pressure with the associated winds is what "pushes" the water ahead and causes a storm surge. For example, I will describe two differences with the same storm, Tropical Storm Alberto from this year. In the restored beach area, the beach had been elevated up to approximately 7-8 feet and extended seaward by about 100 feet. The existing beach area was only about 3-4 feet in elevation. See these pictures of its impact.
Restored Beach
Non-restored beach
As you can clearly see elevating the beach did not lead to higher water levels, it only led to the water being kept further offshore. this is the primary benefit of beach restoration projects, storm damage reduction. By the way, here is a picture showing the relative beach elevation increase and as you can see it is not 1-2 feet at the water's edge
As for beach accesses, we at the TDC are continuously contacted regarding the quality of the systems we install. We have further researched technologies that will make these accesses more storm resistant, and these options cost more money then your regular family walkover. Also, we will not sacrifice safety for costs. Wood does not last as long as Trex, or other recycled composites, so we do not use it. Wood buckles, splinters, and they are difficult to keep maintained. When someone is injured on a boardwalk, we are sued. It has happened twice in the past 1.5 years. Therefore, we have chosen to build a better system up front to limit ongoing costs, and we are excited about the changes we have implemented to existing boardwalks and the experimental retractable/removable boardwalk we are installing this winter at Greenwood Avenue.:clap_1:
Finally, regarding audits and mismanagement, I will not take the bait
except to say this, the county's budget is overseen by a variety of people and the review process is open to all. We ARE audited and all of our FEMA projects and state grants require an even more intensive auditing process. The budget is reviewed by a variety of groups and agencies including the Walton County Tax Payers Association and any others that would like. To that end, I would personally invite you to meet with me at any time to address your concerns regarding the TDC's beach program. I will work to the best of my ability to answer your questions, and if I am unable I believe others would as well. Finally, one item is critically important and I know it is like beating a dead horse, but the local costs of beach projects that are overseen by the TDC including access development, are paid 100% through Tourist Occupancy Taxes. The costs are exported to our visitor, and we have not utilized any ad valoreum taxes for these projects.
I hope this helps to clarify and outline your concerns. As always, I welcome further questions and discussion, with or without personal attacks.
Brad Pickel
Director of Beach Management
Walton County TDC
SoWal Insider
As for impacts from a Category 3 on a restored project, I would point you to Pensacola's project and a direct hit from Hurricane Ivan. The beach was surveyed after the impact of the storm and there was MORE sand in the beach and dune system AFTER the hurricane then there was BEFORE they did the project.
With all due respects, Mr Pickel, I disagree with your above statement about Ivan's impact on Pensacola Beach.
In 2003 (pre-Ivan), Pensacola paid between $17-$20-million to restore erosion experienced over the past several years dating back to Opal/Erin and a few minor storms since then. Hurricane Ivan plowed ashore in Sep '04 and totally flattened the island, pushing the renourished beach across the island (through living rooms and parking garages) and dumping it into the sound. (I saw the destruction first-hand since I have a friend who lives on Pensacola Beach.) Then the string of 2005 hurricanes added to the beach erosion problem.
The government ponied up several more million dollars to re-renourish Pensacola beach earlier this year.
On a sidenote, Navarre Beach is now finishing up its first re-nourishment project. My friend and I paid a visit to the beach recently during the recent storms. The waves from the storm chewed the newly renourished beaches up a bit, but at least waves weren't passing under the houses as before. What I did notice was the quality of sand is awful--full of sharp, broken shells. I was at that same beach pre-Ivan and the sand was as white, soft and fluffy as the sand in SoWal--now I wouldn't walk on that beach or go swimming without shoes on.
All the kings and horses and all the kings men won't be able to put the beach back to how it was "then."
Edited
Beach Lover
With all due respects, Mr Pickel, I disagree with your above statement about Ivan's impact on Pensacola Beach.
In 2003 (pre-Ivan), Pensacola paid between $17-$20-million to restore erosion experienced over the past several years dating back to Opal/Erin and a few minor storms since then. Hurricane Ivan plowed ashore in Sep '04 and totally flattened the island, pushing the renourished beach across the island (through living rooms and parking garages) and dumping it into the sound. (I saw the destruction first-hand since I have a friend who lives on Pensacola Beach.) Then the string of 2005 hurricanes added to the beach erosion problem.
Shelly:
Based on your reply, I called the coastal engineer who oversaw their project to make sure that I did not mis-speak, and I did not. My comment was that there was more sand in the beach dune system after Ivan then before they built the project.
Based on post-storm surveying within the project limits where the beach was built, only 70% of the project sand was lost, was that good.... NO, but that was the effect of Ivan 70% loss. That means that there was 30% of the beach project sand remaining when compared to the pre-storm beach. I think we would all agree that the pre-storm beach was better then the pre-construction beach. This is why we monitor projects is to learn about impacts. I know it may seem incorrect, but it has been quantified.
Edited
SoWal Insider
Shelly:
Based on your reply, I called the coastal engineer who oversaw their project to make sure that I did not mis-speak, and I did not. My comment was that there was more sand in the beach dune system after Ivan then before they built the project.
And what I saw after Ivan,with my own eyes, was that there were no dunes--at all--the beach was totally flat. The closest I saw to a post-Ivan "dune" were cars covered up to their roofs in sand.
Charts and measurements produced by the folks who did the project in the first place is one thing...seeing the island pounded flat with your own eyes is another. I have nothing to gain, just my observation.
Edited
Beach Lover
And what I saw after Ivan,with my own eyes, was that there were no dunes--at all--the beach was totally flat. The closest I saw to a post-Ivan "dune" were cars covered up to their roofs in sand.
Charts and measurements produced by the folks who did the project in the first place is one thing...seeing the island pounded flat with your own eyes is another. I have nothing to gain, just my observation.
I agree it was amazing and devestating on the order of impacts rarely seen. The movement of over 1.5 million cubic yards of sand inland is quite shocking, and that is what happened (but roughly 880,000 cubic yards were sifted and returned to the beach). Did you know they placed over 4.25 million cubic yards?:shock: Approximately 3 million cubic yards of sand total were transported from the beaches located within the project limits. (from "The Impacts of Hurricane Ivan at Pensacola Beach, Florida" by Browder and Norton in Shore and Beach, Volume 73, Issue no. 2-3, Spring/Summer 2005)
However, as you have pointed out in various posts, qualitative observations are often not true judges- "where are the numbers?" In this case real estate and beaches are comparable. ;-)
The good thing about project monitoring is that it follows the scientific method and that the process is relatively simple. The same area is measured over and over and through those measurements trends are calculated, positive or negative. In this case, the measurements themselves show that the trend was a huge loss, but not as large as some think.
Thank you for your observations as the offer an incredible qualitative discussion of what you and many others have seen. It also shows why we monitor projects. As far as the "Charts and measurements produced by the folks who did the project in the first place is one thing..." This is not some whodoo voodoo practice. You take measurements before the project, and every year afterward. If a storm comes you take the same measurements and compare. Hope this helps since I have read how you feel about the facts and numbers, and not emotional judgements.
Edited
SoWal Insider
Did you know they placed over 4.25 million cubic yards?:shock: Approximately 3 million cubic yards of sand total were transported from the beaches located within the project limits.
Actually, I had a front row seat as I spent many days and weeks helping my friend and his neighbors picking through the sand and trying to put the pieces of their lives back together again.
As you probably know, I'm not a big fan of beach renourishment, but I respect the tough job you face in having to play Mother Nature in order to keep the area's economic engine stoked.
If you haven't seen Navarre Beach lately, I would recommend you drive over and take a look for yourself. Man-made beaches, although a quick fix, are second-rate compared to letting nature take its course. I know your hands are tied....sometimes life just sucks out loud.
Beach Fanatic
In Today's Paper:
March/April startup possible for beach work
By Patrick Donohue
( 850 ) 654 - 8445 pdonohue @link .freedom .com
Destin officials realize the importance of finishing the Walton County/Destin beach restoration project ? but the risk to do so immediately may be too great.
At a meeting Wednesday afternoon at the Walton County Tourist Development Council, Walton County officials reemphasized their desire to see the project, which was halted in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after a fourth sea turtle death, resume as early as Dec. 1.
But work in Destin may not begin until March or April and is estimated to take about 45 days. Such a startup date falls during the busy spring break tourist season but before the June 1 start of the 2007 hurricane season and the May 1 start date of the sea turtle nesting season.
The city and county elected Wednesday to take a plan to the Destin City Council to continue the project in phases, as proposed by the project?s contractor, Great Lakes Dock and Dredge. A plan that would necessitate a re-negotiation of the agreement between Walton County and the city of Destin.
If approved by the council, the beach restoration project would consist of three phases: Phase 1 would be the stretch of Walton County beach already restored; Phase 2 would be from where the project was halted in May; and Phase 3 would be the 2 miles of beach in Destin immediately east of Henderson Beach State Park.
While the city wants to see the project through to completion, the implications of a case currently before the state Supreme Court have caused the city to move cautiously.
Brad Pickle, beach management coordinator for the Walton County Tourist Development Council, said the plan would still allow for Walton County to restart the project by Dec. 1, if not sooner, and wouldn?t require a cancellation of the agreement between the county and the city, and the project would be executed as contracted.
Destin City Manager Greg Kisela said he felt the phasing plan seemed like the best way to proceed.
?The phasing seems like an adequate approach to appeasing the concerns of all the parties,? Kisela said.
However, the impact of the case, which calls into question whether aspects of beach restoration violate private property rights, and the risk associated with restarting the project before the case is decided, remains a concern for the city.
?The case is really a wild card,? Kisela said. ?On one hand, you have very little risk and on the other hand it could be a multimillion dollar risk. It?s difficult to say.?
Kisela said while the motives for wanting to complete the beach restoration are the same for the city and the county, the risks presented by restarting immediately are different for each party.
?What they (Walton County) have left to do, they?ve got 10 to 15 property owners that have been supportive of beach restoration,? he said. ?We have 2 miles of beach to restore and half of those property owners have not been supportive of beach restoration.?
An executive session has been called for city staff, including the seven members of the Destin City Council, at 5 p.m. Monday, at which time Kisela said the city?s legal staff will brief the group on the risks involved with moving forward before the outcome of the court case has been decided. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set by the court.
Following that, the City Council will vote on the phasing plan as proposed by Great Lakes, a decision that Kisela said is one of the most difficult the council has had to make.
?This is a very difficult policy issue for the council to have to decide on. There?s not a right or a wrong answer,? he said. ?This is right up there in the top three decisions the council has had to make in my tenure as city manager.? Kisela has been city manager for almost three years.
Upon completion, the project would add 80-100 feet of sand to about 5 miles of beach in Walton County and 2 miles in Destin, all of which was deemed ?critically eroded? by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Before work stopped in May, 3 miles of South Walton beach had been restored. The operation was to move into Destin only weeks before the project was suspended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following a fourth sea turtle death.
The restored beach was designed to protect upland structures from hurricanes and tropical storms as strong as a Category 3 hurricane, which generates winds of 111-130 mph and storm surge of 9-12 feet.
A portion of the original $22 million cost of the project has already been paid. Upon completion, the cost is expected to be about $28 million.
March/April startup possible for beach work
By Patrick Donohue
( 850 ) 654 - 8445 pdonohue @link .freedom .com
Destin officials realize the importance of finishing the Walton County/Destin beach restoration project ? but the risk to do so immediately may be too great.
At a meeting Wednesday afternoon at the Walton County Tourist Development Council, Walton County officials reemphasized their desire to see the project, which was halted in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after a fourth sea turtle death, resume as early as Dec. 1.
But work in Destin may not begin until March or April and is estimated to take about 45 days. Such a startup date falls during the busy spring break tourist season but before the June 1 start of the 2007 hurricane season and the May 1 start date of the sea turtle nesting season.
The city and county elected Wednesday to take a plan to the Destin City Council to continue the project in phases, as proposed by the project?s contractor, Great Lakes Dock and Dredge. A plan that would necessitate a re-negotiation of the agreement between Walton County and the city of Destin.
If approved by the council, the beach restoration project would consist of three phases: Phase 1 would be the stretch of Walton County beach already restored; Phase 2 would be from where the project was halted in May; and Phase 3 would be the 2 miles of beach in Destin immediately east of Henderson Beach State Park.
While the city wants to see the project through to completion, the implications of a case currently before the state Supreme Court have caused the city to move cautiously.
Brad Pickle, beach management coordinator for the Walton County Tourist Development Council, said the plan would still allow for Walton County to restart the project by Dec. 1, if not sooner, and wouldn?t require a cancellation of the agreement between the county and the city, and the project would be executed as contracted.
Destin City Manager Greg Kisela said he felt the phasing plan seemed like the best way to proceed.
?The phasing seems like an adequate approach to appeasing the concerns of all the parties,? Kisela said.
However, the impact of the case, which calls into question whether aspects of beach restoration violate private property rights, and the risk associated with restarting the project before the case is decided, remains a concern for the city.
?The case is really a wild card,? Kisela said. ?On one hand, you have very little risk and on the other hand it could be a multimillion dollar risk. It?s difficult to say.?
Kisela said while the motives for wanting to complete the beach restoration are the same for the city and the county, the risks presented by restarting immediately are different for each party.
?What they (Walton County) have left to do, they?ve got 10 to 15 property owners that have been supportive of beach restoration,? he said. ?We have 2 miles of beach to restore and half of those property owners have not been supportive of beach restoration.?
An executive session has been called for city staff, including the seven members of the Destin City Council, at 5 p.m. Monday, at which time Kisela said the city?s legal staff will brief the group on the risks involved with moving forward before the outcome of the court case has been decided. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set by the court.
Following that, the City Council will vote on the phasing plan as proposed by Great Lakes, a decision that Kisela said is one of the most difficult the council has had to make.
?This is a very difficult policy issue for the council to have to decide on. There?s not a right or a wrong answer,? he said. ?This is right up there in the top three decisions the council has had to make in my tenure as city manager.? Kisela has been city manager for almost three years.
Upon completion, the project would add 80-100 feet of sand to about 5 miles of beach in Walton County and 2 miles in Destin, all of which was deemed ?critically eroded? by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Before work stopped in May, 3 miles of South Walton beach had been restored. The operation was to move into Destin only weeks before the project was suspended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following a fourth sea turtle death.
The restored beach was designed to protect upland structures from hurricanes and tropical storms as strong as a Category 3 hurricane, which generates winds of 111-130 mph and storm surge of 9-12 feet.
A portion of the original $22 million cost of the project has already been paid. Upon completion, the cost is expected to be about $28 million.
Beach Fanatic
Another Interesting Article in today's paper:
Beach/shoreline group fears end of beach restoration
q Restored beaches seen as investment in future
By Patrick Donohue
( 850 ) 654 - 8445 pdonohue @link .freedom .com
The Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Association fears that a ruling by the state Supreme Court could have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences.
In an amicus curiae, or ?friend of the court,? brief, the group stated its position that a ruling against the state Department of Environmental Protection, Walton County and the city of Destin could end the state?s beach restoration program, a program responsible for the restoration of more than 180 miles of critically eroded beaches in 40 years.
?FSBPA members, particularly its 74 coastal cities and counties, are concerned that if the decision of the First District Court of Appeals is not reversed, the beach nourishment program in Florida will be eliminated,? the brief read.
In April, the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee ruled that by establishing the erosion control line in state beach restoration projects, the state was simply building a public beach in front of a private beach, thus seizing private property for public use without just compensation, a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The erosion control line is defined by the state as the line that establishes the upland limit of the state?s ownership of the beach in relation to the mean high water mark.
The erosion control line has been used in beach restoration projects by the state since the 1970s and the association said declaring it unconstitutional would predictably result in ?hundreds of claims against the state and local governments.?
This kind of expensive and time-consuming litigation, the group argued, would have a ?chilling effect on the willingness of the federal government and state and local governments to fund beach nourishment projects.?
In the brief, the group contended that the Gulf-front property owners who object to beach restoration were putting not only themselves and other upland structures at greater risk but forgoing the direct benefits of having a restored beach in front of their property.
?Instead of a critically eroded beach in front of their property, it its now protected ? at the expense of the public ? from potential storm damage and resulting economic losses,? the brief stated. ?In fact, the value of their property is enhanced substantially as a result of the public?s investment.?
The brief, which was authored by an attorney with Fowler White Boggs Banker in Tallahassee, cited Florida Statute and a $65 million line item appropriation for the state?s most critically eroded beaches for the 2007 fiscal year as evidence that the state has a vested interest in restoring beaches and protecting property and lives.
The group also contends that the state should not be reprimanded or held financially or legally liable for trying to protect citizens and property, including those who object to beach restoration, from the threat that critically eroded beaches pose.
?A critically eroding beach creates an imminent threat of catastrophic loss of shoreline structures, such as those owned by appellees, and the state should not be punished for deciding to protect those properties,? the brief said.
The group urged the court to consider the ramifications of negating the state?s beach restoration program by upholding the Court of Appeals? ruling.
?If the beach program is eliminated or reduced ... Florida?s coastal communities and our state as a whole will suffer significant economic losses and the potential for devastating building and infrastructure losses because of the lack of beaches as a tourist destination and the lack of storm protection provided by beach nourishment projects,? the brief said.
Beach/shoreline group fears end of beach restoration
q Restored beaches seen as investment in future
By Patrick Donohue
( 850 ) 654 - 8445 pdonohue @link .freedom .com
The Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Association fears that a ruling by the state Supreme Court could have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences.
In an amicus curiae, or ?friend of the court,? brief, the group stated its position that a ruling against the state Department of Environmental Protection, Walton County and the city of Destin could end the state?s beach restoration program, a program responsible for the restoration of more than 180 miles of critically eroded beaches in 40 years.
?FSBPA members, particularly its 74 coastal cities and counties, are concerned that if the decision of the First District Court of Appeals is not reversed, the beach nourishment program in Florida will be eliminated,? the brief read.
In April, the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee ruled that by establishing the erosion control line in state beach restoration projects, the state was simply building a public beach in front of a private beach, thus seizing private property for public use without just compensation, a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The erosion control line is defined by the state as the line that establishes the upland limit of the state?s ownership of the beach in relation to the mean high water mark.
The erosion control line has been used in beach restoration projects by the state since the 1970s and the association said declaring it unconstitutional would predictably result in ?hundreds of claims against the state and local governments.?
This kind of expensive and time-consuming litigation, the group argued, would have a ?chilling effect on the willingness of the federal government and state and local governments to fund beach nourishment projects.?
In the brief, the group contended that the Gulf-front property owners who object to beach restoration were putting not only themselves and other upland structures at greater risk but forgoing the direct benefits of having a restored beach in front of their property.
?Instead of a critically eroded beach in front of their property, it its now protected ? at the expense of the public ? from potential storm damage and resulting economic losses,? the brief stated. ?In fact, the value of their property is enhanced substantially as a result of the public?s investment.?
The brief, which was authored by an attorney with Fowler White Boggs Banker in Tallahassee, cited Florida Statute and a $65 million line item appropriation for the state?s most critically eroded beaches for the 2007 fiscal year as evidence that the state has a vested interest in restoring beaches and protecting property and lives.
The group also contends that the state should not be reprimanded or held financially or legally liable for trying to protect citizens and property, including those who object to beach restoration, from the threat that critically eroded beaches pose.
?A critically eroding beach creates an imminent threat of catastrophic loss of shoreline structures, such as those owned by appellees, and the state should not be punished for deciding to protect those properties,? the brief said.
The group urged the court to consider the ramifications of negating the state?s beach restoration program by upholding the Court of Appeals? ruling.
?If the beach program is eliminated or reduced ... Florida?s coastal communities and our state as a whole will suffer significant economic losses and the potential for devastating building and infrastructure losses because of the lack of beaches as a tourist destination and the lack of storm protection provided by beach nourishment projects,? the brief said.
Beach Fanatic
The more I read about all this, the more complex the issue becomes.
Brad Pickel, if you're still reading this thread, I know this is a "hot issue" regarding TDC. The county (as a whole) depends on tourism of course which is directly related to beach access. I don't envy your position in this regard. I've always said that in general, for what TDC was commissioned to do, TDC has done a wonderful job! A little insight regarding the County's position would be very interesting...to say the least.
It is apparent to me the County is internally divided as to what the County can and cannot do regarding beach regulation. Case in point, the County Commisioners tried to mandate sand "specifications" when they do not have jurisdiction of this, seaward of the CCCL. This was confirmed by the County Attorney, David Hallman. This, to me, is a simple issue.
The point of the above... the County (in my opinion) does not have a handle on the much more complicated idea of private property rights on the beach. I just hope all of this is not "botched" to the detriment of everyone.
In my very strong opinion, the County should be "campaigning" to those private property owners to encourage beach renourishment and not assume that all property owners will go along with this idea. This should be a function of TDC.
I remember reading somewhere that only a handful of people objected to "phase II" of the renourishment here in central and east Walton County. For the record, nobody that I know of, ever asked our associations our feelings regarding this matter.
The public should understand that in exchange for beach renourishment, the public would gain legal easement to a significant part the beach (seaward of the erosion control line). This benefits all involved.
Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.
Brad Pickel, if you're still reading this thread, I know this is a "hot issue" regarding TDC. The county (as a whole) depends on tourism of course which is directly related to beach access. I don't envy your position in this regard. I've always said that in general, for what TDC was commissioned to do, TDC has done a wonderful job! A little insight regarding the County's position would be very interesting...to say the least.
It is apparent to me the County is internally divided as to what the County can and cannot do regarding beach regulation. Case in point, the County Commisioners tried to mandate sand "specifications" when they do not have jurisdiction of this, seaward of the CCCL. This was confirmed by the County Attorney, David Hallman. This, to me, is a simple issue.
The point of the above... the County (in my opinion) does not have a handle on the much more complicated idea of private property rights on the beach. I just hope all of this is not "botched" to the detriment of everyone.
In my very strong opinion, the County should be "campaigning" to those private property owners to encourage beach renourishment and not assume that all property owners will go along with this idea. This should be a function of TDC.
I remember reading somewhere that only a handful of people objected to "phase II" of the renourishment here in central and east Walton County. For the record, nobody that I know of, ever asked our associations our feelings regarding this matter.
The public should understand that in exchange for beach renourishment, the public would gain legal easement to a significant part the beach (seaward of the erosion control line). This benefits all involved.
Thoughts and ideas are appreciated.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.