By DOTTY NIST
After a decade of work on the Walton County Hurricane & Storm Damage Reduction (WCH&SDR) Project, a motion to table the project has been approved by the county commission.
Project details and milestones
In 2006, while Walton County’s first large-scale beach nourishment project along the west end of the county was still ongoing, the county had begun to look at a project to address beach erosion along the CR-30A corridor and eastward to the county line. After many studies and workshops, in 2013 the county had obtained Congressional authorization for the project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a partner, with the project to encompass over 18 miles of Walton County beachfront. The project was dubbed the WCH&SDR Project at that time, with beach nourishment from offshore sand deposits the planned construction method.
In 2014, updated numbers for project cost had been released by USACE and were announced. Those put the project cost at $53.9 million for the initial construction and at $220.1 million total for the 50-year life of the project, accounting for inflation and providing for a number of renourishments.
Project cost was set up to be split between Walton County (about 58 percent), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the state (18 percent), and the USACE (24 percent), although state and federal funding had not yet been advanced. Since 2000, funds had been collected by the county for beach nourishment as one “penny” (one percent) of bed tax collections.
Report on easements and motion to table
The vote to table the project was taken at the March 8 Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regular meeting at the South Walton Annex. It was preceded by a presentation by Sidney Noyes, assistant county attorney, on responses received to the county’s mail-out to beachfront property owners in the project area.
The mail-outs had included an informational letter about the project and construction easement language that the owner would be required to sign in order for project contractors to go onto their property to build the project. The letters and easements had gone out in summer 2015.
The USACE had indicated that the project would not be considered viable and would not proceed unless participation by property owners was sufficient.
Noyes reported that there had been slightly over 1,000 parcels to which mail-outs had been sent, with 511 easements returned in response by the Jan. 31 deadline. Of those easements, approximately 89.5 percent of the responses had been “nos” and 12.5 percent had been “yeses,” she told the commissioners.
“At this time, it’s my understanding that the army corps does not believe that there is a viable project;” Noyes continued, “given the results that we’ve received, it would be staff’s recommendation that the board consider shelving or tabling the project at this time.” In response, District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman moved to table, and his motion was seconded.
FEMA funds for beach repair
District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones raised the question of whether, if the county did not proceed with the beach restoration project, they would be able to obtain Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds for beach repair in the event of a storm.
Noyes responded that it was her understanding that these funds were only available for use on “engineered” beaches, such as the approximately four miles of beachfront that had been nourished in the Western Walton County Beach Nourishment Project.
Matt Trammell, consultant for the WCH&SDR project, came forward to provide more information on the topic.
“That is correct,” he told the commissioners.
In order to obtain FEMA funds for repair of the west end area, surveys would be needed to show a loss of beachfront, he explained. “But that reimbursement is only specifically for engineered beaches,” Trammell said.
Turning to the situation for unnourished beachfront areas, Trammell said, “There is some disaster recovery assistance for small—the coin term is FEMA berms—they will come and basically put small truckloads of sand along the beach. That is not dune restoration and that is not beach restoration. It’s basically a speed bump on the beach.”
Chapman asked Trammell if funds would be available to the county to restore the coastline at its beachfront parks in the event that a storm “tears the beach up.”
“That’s a very difficult question to answer,” Trammell responded. The county, he continued, would be able to file for reimbursement for repairs on the west end, but such assistance would likely only be available in the case of a disastrous storm, as FEMA would not advance funding to replace sand in connection with minor tropical events.
Trammell warned that the county was “close to being unprepared” for storms along the CR-30A corridor and eastward to the county line. The WCH&SDR Project had been proposed as “a proactive approach,” with the restored beach to serve as the “front line of defense” against storm impacts, he noted.
A number of studies, Trammell continued, show that these beachfront areas are eroded and have not recovered from 2004-2005 Hurricanes Dennis and Ivan or even 1995 Hurricane Opal.
Tabling the project would necessitate a reassessment of the beachfront by the USACE and could ultimately result in the county losing federal assistance and support, he warned.
Public comment, responses and final decision
As the commissioners turned to public comment, south Walton County resident Alan Ficarra came forward to urge the commissioners to set a policy regarding seawalls. He recalled that “seawall after seawall” had been approved by the county in the wake of Ivan and Dennis. Hundreds of such structures had been approved by the county on an emergency basis to shore up property. Among Ficarra’s complaints was that seawalls had not been properly maintained by property owners.
County Commission Chair Sara Comander responded that the BCC might well need to take up that issue in the future.
Blue Mountain Beach resident and homeowner Emmett Hildreth urged the commissioners to not only table the WCH&SDR Project but to vote to “abandon the project.” He expressed concern that the tabled project could be brought back up at any BCC meeting.
Walton County Attorney Mark Davis clarified that, upon being tabled, the project “would have to start all over” if the county decided to consider it again. He commented that tabling had been the wording recommended by the USACE for the action.
Comander said it was her understanding that the BCC would need to the use the “tabling” language in the event that assistance from the USACE was needed in the future. She explained that the BCC wanted to have the ability to help beachfront property owners in the event of a hurricane, as the owners had requested after Hurricane Dennis.
“This project may be on the shelf 20 years, I hope to God,” Comander said.
Kent Safriet, an attorney representing beachfront property owners opposing the project, said he was encouraged by the motion. However he suggested that the BCC add a provision to “take the temperature” of beachfront property owners about such a project if it were considered again and notify the owners early before millions of dollars were spent on engineering and design.
The commissioners discussed that, if beach nourishment were to be brought back up, it would appear on an agenda and workshops and public hearings would be scheduled and held. It would also be necessary to resend the easements to property owners, Davis noted.
Safriet suggested direct notification to beachfront property owners early on, as many of them do not live in the area.
Beachfront property owner Gary Drake questioned the commissioners about a notice he had received about the USACE withdrawing the state permit application for the project. It had indicated that it was anticipated that a revised application would be submitted.
It was clarified that it was the USACE that had stated that they would anticipate this, not the county.
“Them thinking and us doing are two different things,” Comander said.
Drake asked under what conditions would the BCC entertain considering the project again.
“I would think a storm like Katrina would make a big difference…or the beach is going to be in Freeport, one of the two,” Comander responded.
Linda Hildreth pointed out that many beachfront owners had been against the project but had not returned the easement language that the county sent out. She said she had not returned the document because she had not thought it appropriate for it to be sent to her.
Rosemary Beach resident and property owner Zuma Banks commented that she did not think her property owners’ association had returned their easement, partly because they had been told that the lack of response would be counted as a “no” vote.
This had in fact been the case, since signed easement were required in order for property owners to participate in the project.
Banks said she thought the reason that many property owners and homeowners’ associations had not returned the easements sent to them was that the “no” votes would be recorded and that, based on that, homeowners would “go after” the association or town manager if the beach were hit by a big storm in the future.
With public comment concluded, a vote was taken on Chapman’s motion to table, which was approved unanimously.
As of March 14, according to Walton County Finance Director Melissa Thomason, there was approximately $17 million in Walton County Tourist Development Council reserves for beach nourishment. These were funds resulting from the one-cent bed tax collection for beach nourishment.
Regarding allowable uses for these funds, Florida Statutes specify: “…any funds identified by a county as the local matching source for beach renourishment, restoration, or erosion control projects included in the long-range budget plan of the state’s Beach Management Plan, pursuant to s.161.091, or funds contractually obligated by a county in the financial plan for a federally authorized shore protection project may not be used or loaned for any other purpose.”