Blake said:
Those pictures just don't look right. The beach will never look the same. SAD!
Seawalls
- Thread starter Blake
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Those pictures just don't look right. The beach will never look the same. SAD!
From Walton Sun
Of 254 temporary armoring permits that have been issued in Walton County, Commissioner Ro Cuchens is listed as the contractor or agent on approximately 65, said Florida Department of Environmental Protection spokesperson Sara Williams.
Under a FDEP emergency final order, the Walton County Board of Commissioners approved a motion to temporarily remove restrictions prohibiting citizens from securing property at a July 12 meeting following Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10.
The measure allowed property owners to shore up damaged property in imminent danger of collapsing by constructing temporary walls. Permits were to be purchased by a licensed contractor.
The vote was approved unanimously, which included Cuchens? vote.
Based on Florida Statute 112.3143, public officials cannot vote on a measure that would personally affect them, Commission on Ethics spokesperson Helen Jones said. If there is ever a question if a measure presents a voting conflict, public officials should abstain from voting and file a query, she said.
If someone believes there may be a conflict, the Commission on Ethics interprets the law and will render an opinion, Jones explained, once a complaint has been lodged.
Civil penalties for violating the statute can incur civil penalties, public censure or removal from office.
The temporary wall permits are only valid for 60 days after completion, then homeowners must apply to FDEP for a permanent permit, Williams explained.
The FDEP is monitoring the progress of sea wall construction throughout Walton County. Currently, all structures are in compliance with permit deadlines, Williams said.
However, U.S. Fish and Wildlife expressed concern about violations of the Endangered Species Act in regard to as many as 158 seawalls.
Cuchens was contacted for comment but messages left for him at his office were not returned as of Thursday morning.
Of 254 temporary armoring permits that have been issued in Walton County, Commissioner Ro Cuchens is listed as the contractor or agent on approximately 65, said Florida Department of Environmental Protection spokesperson Sara Williams.
Under a FDEP emergency final order, the Walton County Board of Commissioners approved a motion to temporarily remove restrictions prohibiting citizens from securing property at a July 12 meeting following Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10.
The measure allowed property owners to shore up damaged property in imminent danger of collapsing by constructing temporary walls. Permits were to be purchased by a licensed contractor.
The vote was approved unanimously, which included Cuchens? vote.
Based on Florida Statute 112.3143, public officials cannot vote on a measure that would personally affect them, Commission on Ethics spokesperson Helen Jones said. If there is ever a question if a measure presents a voting conflict, public officials should abstain from voting and file a query, she said.
If someone believes there may be a conflict, the Commission on Ethics interprets the law and will render an opinion, Jones explained, once a complaint has been lodged.
Civil penalties for violating the statute can incur civil penalties, public censure or removal from office.
The temporary wall permits are only valid for 60 days after completion, then homeowners must apply to FDEP for a permanent permit, Williams explained.
The FDEP is monitoring the progress of sea wall construction throughout Walton County. Currently, all structures are in compliance with permit deadlines, Williams said.
However, U.S. Fish and Wildlife expressed concern about violations of the Endangered Species Act in regard to as many as 158 seawalls.
Cuchens was contacted for comment but messages left for him at his office were not returned as of Thursday morning.
From Walton Sun
Disgust has filled me during the past several months as I have watched brown sand being placed on our once beautiful beaches here.
While the county engineers have attempted to assure me that this sand will be topped off with three feet of white sand, I still maintain that the brown sand will mix with what?s left of our natural white quartz and sand when the next storm hits.
There is also the question of the size of the grain.
Samples of grains of sand as large as rock salt and some even pebble size were taken by me to the county engineers office where I was told by the chief engineer that he was not concerned with the size.
Excuse me? What is this?
Very recently we spent an informative evening listening to Brad Pickel who related the problems in finding the appropriate sand to be used for the upcoming beach nourishment. Appropriate was defined as being the correct color and size of the grain.
Now someone please explain to me why the size of the grain does not matter in what?s now been dumped on our beaches versus what is appropriate for the nourishment.
Face facts ? the two are going to get mixed together one way or another.
It is obvious to so many that down the road we will all live with the results of the bad judgment which has allowed the dumping of totally inappropriate sand on the beach. These judgments were made in haste in a misguided effort to help people save their houses when the correct thinking all along should have been save our beaches.
It has been so unfortunate that people panicked after summer?s storms and thought dumping anything on the beach and building a seawall was the answer to the problems. Surely these people knew the Gulf was there when they bought or built their homes. And since time began, there have been storms.
My disgust reached new heights last Friday (Jan. 20) when I went to the beach and saw a bulldozer go to the water?s edge and began pushing our beautiful natural beach sand up to piece of beachfront property where a seawall is going on.
This was being done in spite of the fact that there are no permits out to anyone to scrape on the beach.
This was not the first time that I have seen this and I cannot but wonder about what kind of insanity permits it to continue.
Unfortunately, this world is full of those people who think it?s all right to do as they please. They know a permit is required when they build, know they are taking beach sand that is not theirs, but folks like this just don?t give a damn.
All of us have been so fortunate to enjoy a beautiful beach which nature created and nature occasionally decides to tear up or rearrange some. Perhaps it?s time for all to do as Seaside and Rosemary Beach are doing, and let nature take its course with beach nourishment being the only help.
Martha Heller
Disgust has filled me during the past several months as I have watched brown sand being placed on our once beautiful beaches here.
While the county engineers have attempted to assure me that this sand will be topped off with three feet of white sand, I still maintain that the brown sand will mix with what?s left of our natural white quartz and sand when the next storm hits.
There is also the question of the size of the grain.
Samples of grains of sand as large as rock salt and some even pebble size were taken by me to the county engineers office where I was told by the chief engineer that he was not concerned with the size.
Excuse me? What is this?
Very recently we spent an informative evening listening to Brad Pickel who related the problems in finding the appropriate sand to be used for the upcoming beach nourishment. Appropriate was defined as being the correct color and size of the grain.
Now someone please explain to me why the size of the grain does not matter in what?s now been dumped on our beaches versus what is appropriate for the nourishment.
Face facts ? the two are going to get mixed together one way or another.
It is obvious to so many that down the road we will all live with the results of the bad judgment which has allowed the dumping of totally inappropriate sand on the beach. These judgments were made in haste in a misguided effort to help people save their houses when the correct thinking all along should have been save our beaches.
It has been so unfortunate that people panicked after summer?s storms and thought dumping anything on the beach and building a seawall was the answer to the problems. Surely these people knew the Gulf was there when they bought or built their homes. And since time began, there have been storms.
My disgust reached new heights last Friday (Jan. 20) when I went to the beach and saw a bulldozer go to the water?s edge and began pushing our beautiful natural beach sand up to piece of beachfront property where a seawall is going on.
This was being done in spite of the fact that there are no permits out to anyone to scrape on the beach.
This was not the first time that I have seen this and I cannot but wonder about what kind of insanity permits it to continue.
Unfortunately, this world is full of those people who think it?s all right to do as they please. They know a permit is required when they build, know they are taking beach sand that is not theirs, but folks like this just don?t give a damn.
All of us have been so fortunate to enjoy a beautiful beach which nature created and nature occasionally decides to tear up or rearrange some. Perhaps it?s time for all to do as Seaside and Rosemary Beach are doing, and let nature take its course with beach nourishment being the only help.
Martha Heller
SoWalSally said:
so they could have had a wall o rock (like the surface of a jetty) - which was my idea in the first place - breaks up the waves and holds backthe sand in all the little holes - natural and when it gets blown away its just rocks that sink below the sand - might stub your toe on one but it wont give you tetanus
and my reaction after reading the bit about 'let nature take its course' was the proverbial teenage 'well, duh!'
From Anita Page
SWCC Executive Director
Hello everyone. Here is some information on an issue that must soon be
resolved by the county. This is a complicated issue and is still evolving so bear with us as we try to keep you informed.
County Role and Taxpayer Money In Private Seawall Permits
On Jan. 30th, 2006, U.S. Fish & Wildlife (U.S.F.&W.) issued a letter to the
county stating that the seawalls on 158 out of 220 properties could negatively impact the habitat of three federally listed species- sea turtles, beach mice and piping plovers. Any action, including detrimental habitat modification (which will ultimately impact the species), that harms a listed species is called a ?take? under the Endangered Species Act.
Any person who wants to do an activity (e.g., construct a seawall) that might impact an listed species must apply to U.S.F.&W. for an ?incidental take permit?.
An ?incidental take permit? allows an activity to continue that would otherwise constitute an illegal take of a listed species. If the incidental take is allowed, the person must mitigate for the ?take? by establishing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that reduces or compensates for the harm to the species.
The letter states the county must obtain an ?incidental take? permit as the
county?s action in issuing the temporary permits facilitated a take. Additionally, the letter states each of the 158 property owners are required to have an incidental take permit if they are seeking a permanent permit for their walls. In addition to the permits, both the county and the individual property owners are responsible for implementing and maintaining an HCP.
Without an incidental take permit, the letter warns both the county and
property owners could face prosecution under the Endangered Species Act if a ?take? occurs as a result of a seawall.
For logistical reasons, U.S.F.&W. has asked the county to apply for one permit
on behalf of itself and the 158 private properties and to implement one HCP in
lieu of individual permits and HCPs. According to U.S.F.&W., there are grant
funds available to help defray the cost of the HCP. Proposals, however, must be submitted by March 20, 2006. We strongly encourage the county to vigorously pursue any potential grant funding for the Habitat Conservation Plan.
With regard to the 158 properties, it seems the county has several choices:
1. Do not apply for the county-wide permit. Let each individual property owner seek their own take permit and implement and maintain their own HCP.
2. File for a county-wide permit on behalf all affected property owners, apply
for a grant and administer an HCP on behalf of everyone.
If this option is chosen, we have two questions:
1. What is the county?s liability if it files for the permit and administers an
HCP on behalf of the private property owners?
2. Who will pay for the county-wide permit, the grant application and the
implementation and maintenance of the HCP?
3. Let each affected property owner get their own incidental take permit. For
consistency and the development of a comprehensive HCP, the county would
apply for a grant and administer an HCP on behalf of all the permit holders.
Again, who will pay for the HCP?
We understand that a comprehensive and integrated county-wide Habitat
Conservation Plan administered by the county may provide the strongest habitat protection for listed species and for the integrity of the beaches and dunes as opposed to 158 individual HCPs. Requirements of an HCP often include acquiring land for habitat, restoration of degraded habitat, strengthening buffers around habitat, modifications of land use practices, etc. It may well be that the county should administer the HCP on behalf of everyone.
We are not so sure, however, that county time and resources should be spent in pursuing a permit for the benefit of the 158 private property owners who want their walls to be permanent. U.S.F.&W. acknowledges the permit process ?can be lengthy?.
A recent article in the Walton Sun (Jan. 28th), implied that if the county helped the private property owners ?by obtaining the costly permits?, it would do so at its own (taxpayer) expense, ?something that might not sit well with inland property owners?. Our assumption would be that if the county undertakes to act on behalf of the private property owners with regard to obtaining a permit and/or establishing and maintaining an HCP, those property owners would contribute their fair share of all the expenses incurred by the county for their behalf.
February 14th County Commissioner Meeting on this Issue
Answers to these questions may be provided on February 14th. On that date,
Planning Staff will provide an update to the Commissioners on these issues at
the DeFuniak Springs courthouse. The meeting starts at 4:00 p.m. This issue is currently on the agenda for 6:50 p.m. The times are flexible, however. If you want to attend, I suggest you get there earlier than the scheduled time.
SWCC Executive Director
Hello everyone. Here is some information on an issue that must soon be
resolved by the county. This is a complicated issue and is still evolving so bear with us as we try to keep you informed.
County Role and Taxpayer Money In Private Seawall Permits
On Jan. 30th, 2006, U.S. Fish & Wildlife (U.S.F.&W.) issued a letter to the
county stating that the seawalls on 158 out of 220 properties could negatively impact the habitat of three federally listed species- sea turtles, beach mice and piping plovers. Any action, including detrimental habitat modification (which will ultimately impact the species), that harms a listed species is called a ?take? under the Endangered Species Act.
Any person who wants to do an activity (e.g., construct a seawall) that might impact an listed species must apply to U.S.F.&W. for an ?incidental take permit?.
An ?incidental take permit? allows an activity to continue that would otherwise constitute an illegal take of a listed species. If the incidental take is allowed, the person must mitigate for the ?take? by establishing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that reduces or compensates for the harm to the species.
The letter states the county must obtain an ?incidental take? permit as the
county?s action in issuing the temporary permits facilitated a take. Additionally, the letter states each of the 158 property owners are required to have an incidental take permit if they are seeking a permanent permit for their walls. In addition to the permits, both the county and the individual property owners are responsible for implementing and maintaining an HCP.
Without an incidental take permit, the letter warns both the county and
property owners could face prosecution under the Endangered Species Act if a ?take? occurs as a result of a seawall.
For logistical reasons, U.S.F.&W. has asked the county to apply for one permit
on behalf of itself and the 158 private properties and to implement one HCP in
lieu of individual permits and HCPs. According to U.S.F.&W., there are grant
funds available to help defray the cost of the HCP. Proposals, however, must be submitted by March 20, 2006. We strongly encourage the county to vigorously pursue any potential grant funding for the Habitat Conservation Plan.
With regard to the 158 properties, it seems the county has several choices:
1. Do not apply for the county-wide permit. Let each individual property owner seek their own take permit and implement and maintain their own HCP.
2. File for a county-wide permit on behalf all affected property owners, apply
for a grant and administer an HCP on behalf of everyone.
If this option is chosen, we have two questions:
1. What is the county?s liability if it files for the permit and administers an
HCP on behalf of the private property owners?
2. Who will pay for the county-wide permit, the grant application and the
implementation and maintenance of the HCP?
3. Let each affected property owner get their own incidental take permit. For
consistency and the development of a comprehensive HCP, the county would
apply for a grant and administer an HCP on behalf of all the permit holders.
Again, who will pay for the HCP?
We understand that a comprehensive and integrated county-wide Habitat
Conservation Plan administered by the county may provide the strongest habitat protection for listed species and for the integrity of the beaches and dunes as opposed to 158 individual HCPs. Requirements of an HCP often include acquiring land for habitat, restoration of degraded habitat, strengthening buffers around habitat, modifications of land use practices, etc. It may well be that the county should administer the HCP on behalf of everyone.
We are not so sure, however, that county time and resources should be spent in pursuing a permit for the benefit of the 158 private property owners who want their walls to be permanent. U.S.F.&W. acknowledges the permit process ?can be lengthy?.
A recent article in the Walton Sun (Jan. 28th), implied that if the county helped the private property owners ?by obtaining the costly permits?, it would do so at its own (taxpayer) expense, ?something that might not sit well with inland property owners?. Our assumption would be that if the county undertakes to act on behalf of the private property owners with regard to obtaining a permit and/or establishing and maintaining an HCP, those property owners would contribute their fair share of all the expenses incurred by the county for their behalf.
February 14th County Commissioner Meeting on this Issue
Answers to these questions may be provided on February 14th. On that date,
Planning Staff will provide an update to the Commissioners on these issues at
the DeFuniak Springs courthouse. The meeting starts at 4:00 p.m. This issue is currently on the agenda for 6:50 p.m. The times are flexible, however. If you want to attend, I suggest you get there earlier than the scheduled time.
Walton Sun:
Gulf-front property owners may have a chance to spare Walton County taxpayers from paying for beach armoring.
Walton County is investigating a unified take permit for Gulf-front property owners from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
If the Board of County Commissioners approves the measure, the county would facilitate the application and property owners would foot the bill, explained County Attorney David Hallman.
?We?re trying to find a solution that satisfies everyone,? he said.
On July 12, 2005, the county voted to permit temporary armoring of coastal properties. However, officials at U.S. Fish and Wildlife expressed concern over seawall construction ?taking? endangered species habitat along the Walton County coast. At least 52 of the more than 200 constructed sea walls are in federal violation of endangering species? habitats, according to FWS estimates.
FWS has urged Walton County to apply for a blanket incidental take permit, which allows the taking of endangered species habitat through construction.
However, the county
is trying to ensure taxpayers are not penalized for sea walls constructed by Gulf-front pro perty owners, Hallman said.
To accomplish this, they are hoping to create one document facilitated by the county and signed and paid for by homeowners involved with armoring.
Hallman will discuss the legal consequences of beach armoring and the unified take permit March 21 at 5 p.m. in the South Walton Annex.
?We?ll wait and see what happens,? he said.
Gulf-front property owners may have a chance to spare Walton County taxpayers from paying for beach armoring.
Walton County is investigating a unified take permit for Gulf-front property owners from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
If the Board of County Commissioners approves the measure, the county would facilitate the application and property owners would foot the bill, explained County Attorney David Hallman.
?We?re trying to find a solution that satisfies everyone,? he said.
On July 12, 2005, the county voted to permit temporary armoring of coastal properties. However, officials at U.S. Fish and Wildlife expressed concern over seawall construction ?taking? endangered species habitat along the Walton County coast. At least 52 of the more than 200 constructed sea walls are in federal violation of endangering species? habitats, according to FWS estimates.
FWS has urged Walton County to apply for a blanket incidental take permit, which allows the taking of endangered species habitat through construction.
However, the county
is trying to ensure taxpayers are not penalized for sea walls constructed by Gulf-front pro perty owners, Hallman said.
To accomplish this, they are hoping to create one document facilitated by the county and signed and paid for by homeowners involved with armoring.
Hallman will discuss the legal consequences of beach armoring and the unified take permit March 21 at 5 p.m. in the South Walton Annex.
?We?ll wait and see what happens,? he said.
Walton Sun:
At the end of April, all temporary armoring permits issued by the county will expire.
?As a consequence, (at that time) there will be no one constructing on the beach as a result of county permits,? County Attorney David Hallman said.
The permits expire just in time for turtle nesting season, which begins May 1.
In light of Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10, 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection released an emergency final order for temporary measures to protect structures from further destruction.
In conjunction with the FDEP order, the Board of County Commissioners voted to remove county restrictions prohibiting residents from securing their homes, allowing the construction of sea walls. Following the vote, more than 250 temporary permits were issued in Walton County.
Property owners have 60 days after completion of walls to apply to FDEP for a permanent structure permit.
As of Wednesday, 7 permanent permits had been issued in Walton County and 79 applications were pending, FDEP spokesperson Sara Williams said.
The permits are taking a long time to approve due to the volume of requests, Williams explained.
Residents may receive permanent armoring permits from DEP, however, the federal regulations prohibit building along the coast from May to October to accommodate turtle nesting season.
?(Homeowners) better get on the ball,? Hallman said.
At the end of April, all temporary armoring permits issued by the county will expire.
?As a consequence, (at that time) there will be no one constructing on the beach as a result of county permits,? County Attorney David Hallman said.
The permits expire just in time for turtle nesting season, which begins May 1.
In light of Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10, 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection released an emergency final order for temporary measures to protect structures from further destruction.
In conjunction with the FDEP order, the Board of County Commissioners voted to remove county restrictions prohibiting residents from securing their homes, allowing the construction of sea walls. Following the vote, more than 250 temporary permits were issued in Walton County.
Property owners have 60 days after completion of walls to apply to FDEP for a permanent structure permit.
As of Wednesday, 7 permanent permits had been issued in Walton County and 79 applications were pending, FDEP spokesperson Sara Williams said.
The permits are taking a long time to approve due to the volume of requests, Williams explained.
Residents may receive permanent armoring permits from DEP, however, the federal regulations prohibit building along the coast from May to October to accommodate turtle nesting season.
?(Homeowners) better get on the ball,? Hallman said.
Walton Sun:
Some homeowners are confused about the ongoing seawall saga in Walton County.
?We still don?t know where we stand,? said resident Debbie Holmes.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission expressed concern over seawall construction ?taking? endangered species habitat along the Walton County Coastline after temporary armoring permits were issued following Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10, 2005.
?They all need incidental take coverage,? FWC Deputy Field Supervisor for the Panama City Field Office Janet Mizzi said.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, incidental take permits are required when ?non-Federal activities will result in ?take? of threatened or endangered wildlife.? A habitat conservation plan must accompany any application for an incidental take permit.
According to Mizzi, a consultant is needed to write the HCP, which can range anywhere from $15,000 to $100,000.
?It?s a large range,? she said.
According FWS reports, more than 430 HCPs have been approved, with more in the planning stage. Early HCPs were for planning areas of less than 1,000 acres, now they can exceed half a million acres.
In some cases, there are more than one incidental take permit associated with a HCP. The Central Coastal Orange County HCP was developed as an overall plan under which each individual received a separate permit.
One major landowner, several agencies and few homeowners were part of the permit said Carollyn Lobell, an associate at Nossaman Gunther Knox Eliott, the firm that created Orange County?s plan.
The project provided for the take of the endangered California gnatcatcher and 38 other listed or sensitive species. It established a 37,000-acre habitat reserve and provided adaptive management for the reserve.
Walton County is seeking to facilitate the HCP for beachfront property owners. To accomplish this, they are hoping to create one document facilitated by the county and signed and paid for by homeowners.
From a national perspective, FWS ?encourages large scale regional plans,? FWS National HCP coordinator Patricia Cole said. When the HCP process started in 1982, it was intended for individual landowners, however, it has changed to a more ?landscape approach,? she said.
?You?ll be heroes if you save the beach out there,? Holmes told the Board of County Commissioners.
?We?re waiting and we?re hoping we can get something moving prior to sea turtle nesting season,? Mizzi said.
County Attorney David Hallman will address the incidental take permits at a meeting on March 13 at the South Walton Annex at 5 p.m.
Some homeowners are confused about the ongoing seawall saga in Walton County.
?We still don?t know where we stand,? said resident Debbie Holmes.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission expressed concern over seawall construction ?taking? endangered species habitat along the Walton County Coastline after temporary armoring permits were issued following Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall July 10, 2005.
?They all need incidental take coverage,? FWC Deputy Field Supervisor for the Panama City Field Office Janet Mizzi said.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, incidental take permits are required when ?non-Federal activities will result in ?take? of threatened or endangered wildlife.? A habitat conservation plan must accompany any application for an incidental take permit.
According to Mizzi, a consultant is needed to write the HCP, which can range anywhere from $15,000 to $100,000.
?It?s a large range,? she said.
According FWS reports, more than 430 HCPs have been approved, with more in the planning stage. Early HCPs were for planning areas of less than 1,000 acres, now they can exceed half a million acres.
In some cases, there are more than one incidental take permit associated with a HCP. The Central Coastal Orange County HCP was developed as an overall plan under which each individual received a separate permit.
One major landowner, several agencies and few homeowners were part of the permit said Carollyn Lobell, an associate at Nossaman Gunther Knox Eliott, the firm that created Orange County?s plan.
The project provided for the take of the endangered California gnatcatcher and 38 other listed or sensitive species. It established a 37,000-acre habitat reserve and provided adaptive management for the reserve.
Walton County is seeking to facilitate the HCP for beachfront property owners. To accomplish this, they are hoping to create one document facilitated by the county and signed and paid for by homeowners.
From a national perspective, FWS ?encourages large scale regional plans,? FWS National HCP coordinator Patricia Cole said. When the HCP process started in 1982, it was intended for individual landowners, however, it has changed to a more ?landscape approach,? she said.
?You?ll be heroes if you save the beach out there,? Holmes told the Board of County Commissioners.
?We?re waiting and we?re hoping we can get something moving prior to sea turtle nesting season,? Mizzi said.
County Attorney David Hallman will address the incidental take permits at a meeting on March 13 at the South Walton Annex at 5 p.m.