Cork On the Ocean
directionally challenged
Smiling JOe said:
I know that! I'm not that bad
Just saw it again when I got to this thread and quacked me up!Seawalls
- Thread starter Blake
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I know that! I'm not that bad
Just saw it again when I got to this thread and quacked me up!jimmyp5 said:
Those photo are not from Destin.
Destin did not approve sea walls. They removed themselves from the position of approving or disapproving them. They have left it up to the DEP. The DEP stated that the agency will not approve sea walls unless the structure was built prior to 1984 and is on a slab.
Do the math on that one.
Originally Posted by Smiling JOe
Heck, we can't even get our own County Gov't to enforce the rules which they made regarding slopes of fill and sand color. I think the seawalls are way over our elected officials heads. From what I see in Blue Mtn Beach, many of the seawalls do not even have the front fill of sand...
SJ is correct; the county seems to have no interest in enforcing its own rules and regulations. They promised the community the seawalls would be covered with sand but many in Blue Mountain Beach are not covered, they promised they would require three feet of 8.1 white sand over the darker sand that was allowed. But only two houses on Blue Mountain Beach have sand that might qualify as white. Everything else is a shade of brown.
This beach has a very rough, messy, unattractive and unnatural look to it. This is not what I had in mind when commissioner Cutchens said, just wait until we're finished (bringing in the red sand), it will look great. One of the ugliest parts of the beach in this area is in front of the Blue Lake Road community beach access, where the county allowed homeowners to build a seawall in front that empty lot and beach walkover. Although all construction was stopped April 30th, massive amounts of construction material still sit on the beach.
Heck, we can't even get our own County Gov't to enforce the rules which they made regarding slopes of fill and sand color. I think the seawalls are way over our elected officials heads. From what I see in Blue Mtn Beach, many of the seawalls do not even have the front fill of sand...
SJ is correct; the county seems to have no interest in enforcing its own rules and regulations. They promised the community the seawalls would be covered with sand but many in Blue Mountain Beach are not covered, they promised they would require three feet of 8.1 white sand over the darker sand that was allowed. But only two houses on Blue Mountain Beach have sand that might qualify as white. Everything else is a shade of brown.
This beach has a very rough, messy, unattractive and unnatural look to it. This is not what I had in mind when commissioner Cutchens said, just wait until we're finished (bringing in the red sand), it will look great. One of the ugliest parts of the beach in this area is in front of the Blue Lake Road community beach access, where the county allowed homeowners to build a seawall in front that empty lot and beach walkover. Although all construction was stopped April 30th, massive amounts of construction material still sit on the beach.
I remember hearing some controversy about GF owners who had encroached on county accesses with their walls. I wonder if there was a stop work order there?
But the problem to me is that even for those who spent $40K+ for sand to cover the seawalls, the sand is blowing away, so soon all we see is a wall. It's already happened in Seagrove. It's not natural looking very long because IT'S NOT NATURAL. The slope is unnatural, the sand color in most places is unnatural (I commend those who paid extra for white sand), and as the sand (and these homeowners' investments) blows away, the seawalls underneath are definitely unnatural.
I'll admit, though, if I had a $1M+ piece of beachfront property (excluding the house), I'd be building myself a gosh-darned seawall. Don't hate me for saying that (although some will, some won't, and it's obvious who's in each camp).
I'll admit, though, if I had a $1M+ piece of beachfront property (excluding the house), I'd be building myself a gosh-darned seawall. Don't hate me for saying that (although some will, some won't, and it's obvious who's in each camp).
By DOTTY NIST
Only one more state permit has been issued in connection with a post-Hurricane Dennis emergency seawall in Walton County since January.
That state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit was for a fiberglass wall on the gulf side of the Santa Rosa Golf and Beach Club. The state lists the completion date of the structure as Dec. 8, 2005.
A permit application for a seawall at 4691 W. CR-30A has been denied. A state permit is a legal requirement for seawalls or other coastal armoring constructed under a post-Hurricane Dennis emergency order to remain in place.
Two state permits, one covering five properties, the other one property, were approved prior to January 2006. These permits will allow armoring at the following addresses to remain in place: 739 Scenic Gulf Drive, 747 Scenic Gulf Drive, 757 A&B Scenic Gulf Drive, 767 A&B Scenic Gulf Drive, 775 Scenic Gulf Drive, and 167 Village Beach Road (Four Mile Village).
"Many more applications are pending, with the Department either reviewing or awaiting additional information," Sarah Williams, a DEP spokesperson, commented on June 9.
From shortly after the arrival of Hurricane Dennis on the Gulf Coast in July 2005 until Oct. 28, 2005, Walton County issued over 200 emergency permits for seawalls and other coastal armoring. The purpose of the structures was to protect homes and other beachfront buildings faced with further erosion-related damage. The permits were issued with the understanding that state approval would be necessary in order for the armoring to be permanent.
A challenge with the permitting has resulted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials' view that the temporary permits issued by the county and the armoring had the result of a potential "take" of federally protected species such as native sea turtles and beach mice through loss of habitat.?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife is one of the agencies that provide input and guidance to DEP as part of the permitting procedure for coastal armoring.
Since early this year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have been calling for an incidental take permit application from Walton County for mitigation in connection with the county's issuance of the emergency coastal armoring permits. For Walton County, the question has been whether the appropriate role for the county is applicant for the incidental take permit or whether the individual seawall owners should serve as applicant for the take permit.
Previously David Hallman, Walton County director of Legal Services, had been assisting the seawall owners in their efforts to obtain state permits for their armoring. Billy McKee, an environmental planner for Walton County, is reportedly now undertaking that role. McKee had not returned calls requesting comment on the matter by press time.
Lorna Patrick of U.S. Fish and Wildlife commented on June 12 there has as yet been no application from Walton County or from the private individuals who constructed seawalls/armoring for an incidental take permit.
However, Patrick said Walton County officials have told her agency that the county plans to apply for an incidental take permit in connection with its action as issuer of the temporary coastal armoring permits. She said she also understands that property owners will apply for an incidental take permit in connection with impacts of their armoring remaining in place on a permanent basis.
Patrick said that a habitat conservation plan is a requirement for the incidental take permit and that she understands Walton County has requested proposals for consultants interested in preparing the plan, which may take up a year to complete.
She added that the private individuals applying for take permits will likely be able to use the county habitat conservation plan to meet their take permit requirement.
Patrick said U.S. Fish and Wildlife is also drafting on an "interim agreement" with Walton County that will facilitate the agency and county working together until the incidental take permit is in place, to resolve potential endangered species protection violations in connection with the coastal armorin
Only one more state permit has been issued in connection with a post-Hurricane Dennis emergency seawall in Walton County since January.
That state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit was for a fiberglass wall on the gulf side of the Santa Rosa Golf and Beach Club. The state lists the completion date of the structure as Dec. 8, 2005.
A permit application for a seawall at 4691 W. CR-30A has been denied. A state permit is a legal requirement for seawalls or other coastal armoring constructed under a post-Hurricane Dennis emergency order to remain in place.
Two state permits, one covering five properties, the other one property, were approved prior to January 2006. These permits will allow armoring at the following addresses to remain in place: 739 Scenic Gulf Drive, 747 Scenic Gulf Drive, 757 A&B Scenic Gulf Drive, 767 A&B Scenic Gulf Drive, 775 Scenic Gulf Drive, and 167 Village Beach Road (Four Mile Village).
"Many more applications are pending, with the Department either reviewing or awaiting additional information," Sarah Williams, a DEP spokesperson, commented on June 9.
From shortly after the arrival of Hurricane Dennis on the Gulf Coast in July 2005 until Oct. 28, 2005, Walton County issued over 200 emergency permits for seawalls and other coastal armoring. The purpose of the structures was to protect homes and other beachfront buildings faced with further erosion-related damage. The permits were issued with the understanding that state approval would be necessary in order for the armoring to be permanent.
A challenge with the permitting has resulted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials' view that the temporary permits issued by the county and the armoring had the result of a potential "take" of federally protected species such as native sea turtles and beach mice through loss of habitat.?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife is one of the agencies that provide input and guidance to DEP as part of the permitting procedure for coastal armoring.
Since early this year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have been calling for an incidental take permit application from Walton County for mitigation in connection with the county's issuance of the emergency coastal armoring permits. For Walton County, the question has been whether the appropriate role for the county is applicant for the incidental take permit or whether the individual seawall owners should serve as applicant for the take permit.
Previously David Hallman, Walton County director of Legal Services, had been assisting the seawall owners in their efforts to obtain state permits for their armoring. Billy McKee, an environmental planner for Walton County, is reportedly now undertaking that role. McKee had not returned calls requesting comment on the matter by press time.
Lorna Patrick of U.S. Fish and Wildlife commented on June 12 there has as yet been no application from Walton County or from the private individuals who constructed seawalls/armoring for an incidental take permit.
However, Patrick said Walton County officials have told her agency that the county plans to apply for an incidental take permit in connection with its action as issuer of the temporary coastal armoring permits. She said she also understands that property owners will apply for an incidental take permit in connection with impacts of their armoring remaining in place on a permanent basis.
Patrick said that a habitat conservation plan is a requirement for the incidental take permit and that she understands Walton County has requested proposals for consultants interested in preparing the plan, which may take up a year to complete.
She added that the private individuals applying for take permits will likely be able to use the county habitat conservation plan to meet their take permit requirement.
Patrick said U.S. Fish and Wildlife is also drafting on an "interim agreement" with Walton County that will facilitate the agency and county working together until the incidental take permit is in place, to resolve potential endangered species protection violations in connection with the coastal armorin
"Since early this year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have been calling for an incidental take permit application from Walton County for mitigation in connection with the county's issuance of the emergency coastal armoring permits. For Walton County, the question has been whether the appropriate role for the county is applicant for the incidental take permit or whether the individual seawall owners should serve as applicant for the take permit."
told you so!
told you so!
Seawall folly ? They may protect property but will destroy beaches
by Rob Young, an associate professor of geology at Western Carolina University, specializing in coastal and environmental science and management. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
Once again, poor management of Florida?s shorelines is allowing the destruction of public beaches for the sole benefit of a small number of oceanfront property owners.
In response to the storm impacts of the past two hurricane seasons, there has been a seawall-building frenzy across the state. Through emergency permit-granting authority, some counties have allowed almost unmanaged seawall construction. Walton County in the Panhandle alone has allowed the construction of more than 250 new seawalls.
Some of these walls are ?protecting? empty lots or property that is not imminently threatened by erosion. Some of them have been built so far out onto the beach that a significant portion of public beach access has been removed. Undoubtedly, there has been tremendous harm to sea turtle nesting. But for those of you who hold little sympathy for the fate of charismatic marine fauna, allow me to make the case that seawalls are a threat to the state?s beaches and economy as well.
Seawalls destroy beaches.
Property owners build seawalls in a desperate attempt to protect their investment. Much of the development along Florida?s shorelines was constructed far too close to the ocean. As coastal erosion brings the sea toward a beach house, it seems natural that one would want to build a wall to protect the house. But here is the problem: The wall does not stop the erosion. If you place a seawall between a beach house and the beach, the beach will continue to erode until it disappears in front of the wall. The wall may protect the property, but it will eliminate the public beach.
This reality is so well-established that six states have banned seawall construction altogether. Some of these states (North Carolina, Texas) are not exactly hotspots of environmental progressiveness. These states have banned future seawall construction because they know that protecting oceanfront property at the expense of the recreational, public beach is bad economics.
While oceanfront development is a powerful economic engine, it is still a small portion of the overall economy surrounding coastal tourism. The centerpiece of coastal tourism is the recreational beach. Eliminate the beach, and you will be left with the oceanfront property owners, and no other visitors.
Too often, local business interests sit by, idly allowing oceanfront property owners to take actions that will protect their own self-interests while harming the resource that everyone depends on: the beach.
More often than not, protecting oceanfront property and protecting the beach are incompatible goals. Some may argue that beach replenishment can be used to rebuild the beach in front of the seawalls. While this may be true, it is a bad option. Beach replenishment is costly, temporary, and sources of high-quality sand are vanishing. Furthermore, the burden of paying for beach replenishment is typically borne by all taxpayers, rather than those who have played a primary role in destroying the beach: oceanfront developers.
The best option is to eliminate the construction of beachdestroying seawalls. All walls built through county-authorized emergency permits are supposed to be temporary. The property owner is required to get ultimate approval from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to make the wall permanent. DEP should reject the vast majority of these ill-advised permits and require removal of the seawalls.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Florida coastal management is driven by a bruteforce mentality that asserts that people can engineer their way out of any environmental problem. Many coastal engineering firms do not mind seawalls, because if the wall destroys the beach, then some engineer will have to design a new beach. It is all incredibly profitable, and taxpayers foot the bill.
Anyone who benefits from coastal tourism should be demanding the removal of these ?temporary? walls. In addition, we should all be demanding that the counties and the state do a better job of protecting Florida?s most important economic resource: its beautiful beaches. After all, the beaches belong to all Floridians, not just the oceanfront property owners. We should be urging coastal managers to protect the beach, not the beach house.
by Rob Young, an associate professor of geology at Western Carolina University, specializing in coastal and environmental science and management. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
Once again, poor management of Florida?s shorelines is allowing the destruction of public beaches for the sole benefit of a small number of oceanfront property owners.
In response to the storm impacts of the past two hurricane seasons, there has been a seawall-building frenzy across the state. Through emergency permit-granting authority, some counties have allowed almost unmanaged seawall construction. Walton County in the Panhandle alone has allowed the construction of more than 250 new seawalls.
Some of these walls are ?protecting? empty lots or property that is not imminently threatened by erosion. Some of them have been built so far out onto the beach that a significant portion of public beach access has been removed. Undoubtedly, there has been tremendous harm to sea turtle nesting. But for those of you who hold little sympathy for the fate of charismatic marine fauna, allow me to make the case that seawalls are a threat to the state?s beaches and economy as well.
Seawalls destroy beaches.
Property owners build seawalls in a desperate attempt to protect their investment. Much of the development along Florida?s shorelines was constructed far too close to the ocean. As coastal erosion brings the sea toward a beach house, it seems natural that one would want to build a wall to protect the house. But here is the problem: The wall does not stop the erosion. If you place a seawall between a beach house and the beach, the beach will continue to erode until it disappears in front of the wall. The wall may protect the property, but it will eliminate the public beach.
This reality is so well-established that six states have banned seawall construction altogether. Some of these states (North Carolina, Texas) are not exactly hotspots of environmental progressiveness. These states have banned future seawall construction because they know that protecting oceanfront property at the expense of the recreational, public beach is bad economics.
While oceanfront development is a powerful economic engine, it is still a small portion of the overall economy surrounding coastal tourism. The centerpiece of coastal tourism is the recreational beach. Eliminate the beach, and you will be left with the oceanfront property owners, and no other visitors.
Too often, local business interests sit by, idly allowing oceanfront property owners to take actions that will protect their own self-interests while harming the resource that everyone depends on: the beach.
More often than not, protecting oceanfront property and protecting the beach are incompatible goals. Some may argue that beach replenishment can be used to rebuild the beach in front of the seawalls. While this may be true, it is a bad option. Beach replenishment is costly, temporary, and sources of high-quality sand are vanishing. Furthermore, the burden of paying for beach replenishment is typically borne by all taxpayers, rather than those who have played a primary role in destroying the beach: oceanfront developers.
The best option is to eliminate the construction of beachdestroying seawalls. All walls built through county-authorized emergency permits are supposed to be temporary. The property owner is required to get ultimate approval from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to make the wall permanent. DEP should reject the vast majority of these ill-advised permits and require removal of the seawalls.
Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. Florida coastal management is driven by a bruteforce mentality that asserts that people can engineer their way out of any environmental problem. Many coastal engineering firms do not mind seawalls, because if the wall destroys the beach, then some engineer will have to design a new beach. It is all incredibly profitable, and taxpayers foot the bill.
Anyone who benefits from coastal tourism should be demanding the removal of these ?temporary? walls. In addition, we should all be demanding that the counties and the state do a better job of protecting Florida?s most important economic resource: its beautiful beaches. After all, the beaches belong to all Floridians, not just the oceanfront property owners. We should be urging coastal managers to protect the beach, not the beach house.
How can the County commissioners and planning staff be so short-sighted, so swayed by knee-jerk "property rights" arguments, to have allowed such widespread seawall construction here?
To me, the salient portion of the article in yesterday's Sun is short but not sweet:
"Seawalls destroy beaches.
Property owners build seawalls in a desperate attempt to protect their investment. Much of the development along Florida?s shorelines was constructed far too close to the ocean. As coastal erosion brings the sea toward a beach house, it seems natural that one would want to build a wall to protect the house. But here is the problem: The wall does not stop the erosion. If you place a seawall between a beach house and the beach, the beach will continue to erode until it disappears in front of the wall. The wall may protect the property, but it will eliminate the public beach."
It reminds me of the selfish arguments that smokers make about second-hand smoke ... it's their right to smoke. Yes, but not at the expense of my health. It's not within Gulf-front property owners' rights to do something that fairly quickly is going to take away our public beach.
To me, the salient portion of the article in yesterday's Sun is short but not sweet:
"Seawalls destroy beaches.
Property owners build seawalls in a desperate attempt to protect their investment. Much of the development along Florida?s shorelines was constructed far too close to the ocean. As coastal erosion brings the sea toward a beach house, it seems natural that one would want to build a wall to protect the house. But here is the problem: The wall does not stop the erosion. If you place a seawall between a beach house and the beach, the beach will continue to erode until it disappears in front of the wall. The wall may protect the property, but it will eliminate the public beach."
It reminds me of the selfish arguments that smokers make about second-hand smoke ... it's their right to smoke. Yes, but not at the expense of my health. It's not within Gulf-front property owners' rights to do something that fairly quickly is going to take away our public beach.
I am a student at FSU's College of Law and am I doing a paper/presentation on coastal armoring I would love to use some of your pictures in my presentation if you don't mind.
(I would also love to hear from anyone that is against the walls, for the walls etc. feel free to email me at jlj04g@fsu.edu if you would like to have an opinion in my paper or presentation. Or if you have any information to offer.)
Thanks so much.
(I would also love to hear from anyone that is against the walls, for the walls etc. feel free to email me at jlj04g@fsu.edu if you would like to have an opinion in my paper or presentation. Or if you have any information to offer.)
Thanks so much.