Thursday, November 17, 2005
It's not Rocket Science.....
Rocket Science is much easier to understand...
To: Retreat Homeowners
From: Bill Linder and Shawn O’Neal
Date: Thursday, November 4, 2005
Subject: Walton County Board of Commissioners Meeting
Purpose: Workshop on Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Bill Linder and Shawn O’Neal attended the meeting and agreed to co-author a summary of the meeting and forward their observations to all fellow homeowners for the purpose of information. Our summary may not be totally correct and I’m sure we missed some key points. This is our best effort.
Incidental Takings Permits
First, a lady from FWL (Florida Wildlife) gave a slide presentation highlighting key portions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as it relates to armoring beachfront homes.
Four endangered species were listed for our areas. Loggerhead turtles, green sea turtle, beach mouse, and piping plover (a bird).
She defined what it meant to Take, Harm, and or Harass these species
Beach armoring falls in the category of Harming habitat
Considerable discussion ensued as to the County’s degree of liability should litigation result from the issuance of the temporary armoring permits which the county has issued.
The county seemed not to know of this “shared” liability
FWL seemed to suggest that county should not issue the permits but rather help homeowners seek such permits
Some Commissioners seemed to agree that this is not a big deal, because all temporary armoring permits are just that – temporary – and there should be no long term liability.
The FWL lady then discussed ways to address armoring on a permanent basis
Suggested consultation with a federal agency (FEMA, Corps of Engineers)
Seemed to support a county wide effort for a Incidental Takings Permit
County needs to determine best way to handle this
In such a manner, the county can capture all authority
Such direction was considered the “next step” for the county
Some county facts were stated
There are 26 miles of Walton County beach
Some 170 temporary armoring permits have been issued covering some 220 individual properties
Work has begun on about 50% of the total applications
No more temporary permits will be issued past the Oct. 28th deadline
Once temporary armoring is in place, a permanent application must be submitted within 60 days (no definition of completed!)
The state must then respond within 90 days in some manner
A DEP representative (Michael Barnett) then spoke on the permitting status and process
Individuals must provide their own habitat conservation plan if there is no county-wide Incidental Take Permit granted.
DEP did not favor the temporary permits
County was not aware of “future” requirements of DEP once temporary permits were issued – The County gave us the impression that they did not ask!!
Here, the county reminded themselves of all the qualifiers in the temporary permits and that they indeed are temporary.
DEP only knows of 145 temporary permits. The county informed him of some 170 total to come his way.
Of the 145 temporary permits, less than half have even started the armoring process
DEP has only received 20 permanent applications
They are in the county at least twice a week checking on the status of temporary permit locations to inspect for vulnerability and eligibility
The Retreat is not eligible under current guidelines
Also working to determine the intentions of the permit holder
Suggested that some of the temporary permits are for structures that are neither eligible nor vulnerable
DEP commented that property owners will need the help of the county in the permanent permitting process
When asked when DEP will be done categorizing properties, DEP thought maybe two weeks after receipt of last permits. Some properties they don’t even know where they are.
DEP said permanent applications are being held up because each property owner must file a Takings Permit
There was then some discussion as to the feasibility or advisability of the county applying for a blanket Takings Permit on behalf of all property owners. There was no resolution.
The floor was then open to the public with some 5-6 individuals asking questions and/or offering comments
1st party had a temporary permit and no idea he needed a Takings Permit
2nd party commented that there is currently action in the State Senate to either circumvent or at least ameliorate some of the difficult restrictions on homeowners
3rd party commented that the geo-tube concept is the only armoring method that the “feds” would allow, that it had been approved by the Corp of Engineers
4th party, The Engineer representing SEASIDE a Mr. David McGuhee, Said that SEASIDE had decided not to pursue and Temporary Measures but instead to undertake a more through study and look for a permanent solution.
And it was likely that had tubes been installed under the current
Rules, they would then have to be removed before next Hurricane Season! David also asked several technical questions as to definition of MHW etc.
5th party was frustrated that in seeking a temporary permit she was never told that she had to come up with a plan to protect the turtles. She asked “what must I do” – no response.
6th party reiterated that there was no discussion of the need for a Takings Permit
7th party said it best. To paraphrase, “Would the FWL acknowledge that Dennis, not the property owner, harmed, indeed took away, the habitat and that property owner's are simply trying to restore it?” He continued “no matter the armoring, it will all be covered up, turtle habitat will be restored and this is a good thing”.
The meeting was adjourned following a round of applause for the last speaker, an emotional, well spoken, senior citizen.
Some observations by Bill and Shawn:
The issuance of temporary armoring permits is risky business, both on the part of the county and the property owner.
The county sees its limit to liability as simply requiring that the property owner remove the temporary armoring.
The permanent permitting procedure is not as clear to any authority, County, FWL, DEP, to say nothing of the homeowner as we would all like it to be.
The county should help generate a county-wide Takings Permit.
A permanent permit for our proposed geo-tubes (which are defined as temporary structures) will be difficult.
To: Retreat Homeowners
From: Bill Linder and Shawn O’Neal
Date: Thursday, November 4, 2005
Subject: Walton County Board of Commissioners Meeting
Purpose: Workshop on Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Bill Linder and Shawn O’Neal attended the meeting and agreed to co-author a summary of the meeting and forward their observations to all fellow homeowners for the purpose of information. Our summary may not be totally correct and I’m sure we missed some key points. This is our best effort.
Incidental Takings Permits
First, a lady from FWL (Florida Wildlife) gave a slide presentation highlighting key portions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as it relates to armoring beachfront homes.
Four endangered species were listed for our areas. Loggerhead turtles, green sea turtle, beach mouse, and piping plover (a bird).
She defined what it meant to Take, Harm, and or Harass these species
Beach armoring falls in the category of Harming habitat
Considerable discussion ensued as to the County’s degree of liability should litigation result from the issuance of the temporary armoring permits which the county has issued.
The county seemed not to know of this “shared” liability
FWL seemed to suggest that county should not issue the permits but rather help homeowners seek such permits
Some Commissioners seemed to agree that this is not a big deal, because all temporary armoring permits are just that – temporary – and there should be no long term liability.
The FWL lady then discussed ways to address armoring on a permanent basis
Suggested consultation with a federal agency (FEMA, Corps of Engineers)
Seemed to support a county wide effort for a Incidental Takings Permit
County needs to determine best way to handle this
In such a manner, the county can capture all authority
Such direction was considered the “next step” for the county
Some county facts were stated
There are 26 miles of Walton County beach
Some 170 temporary armoring permits have been issued covering some 220 individual properties
Work has begun on about 50% of the total applications
No more temporary permits will be issued past the Oct. 28th deadline
Once temporary armoring is in place, a permanent application must be submitted within 60 days (no definition of completed!)
The state must then respond within 90 days in some manner
A DEP representative (Michael Barnett) then spoke on the permitting status and process
Individuals must provide their own habitat conservation plan if there is no county-wide Incidental Take Permit granted.
DEP did not favor the temporary permits
County was not aware of “future” requirements of DEP once temporary permits were issued – The County gave us the impression that they did not ask!!
Here, the county reminded themselves of all the qualifiers in the temporary permits and that they indeed are temporary.
DEP only knows of 145 temporary permits. The county informed him of some 170 total to come his way.
Of the 145 temporary permits, less than half have even started the armoring process
DEP has only received 20 permanent applications
They are in the county at least twice a week checking on the status of temporary permit locations to inspect for vulnerability and eligibility
The Retreat is not eligible under current guidelines
Also working to determine the intentions of the permit holder
Suggested that some of the temporary permits are for structures that are neither eligible nor vulnerable
DEP commented that property owners will need the help of the county in the permanent permitting process
When asked when DEP will be done categorizing properties, DEP thought maybe two weeks after receipt of last permits. Some properties they don’t even know where they are.
DEP said permanent applications are being held up because each property owner must file a Takings Permit
There was then some discussion as to the feasibility or advisability of the county applying for a blanket Takings Permit on behalf of all property owners. There was no resolution.
The floor was then open to the public with some 5-6 individuals asking questions and/or offering comments
1st party had a temporary permit and no idea he needed a Takings Permit
2nd party commented that there is currently action in the State Senate to either circumvent or at least ameliorate some of the difficult restrictions on homeowners
3rd party commented that the geo-tube concept is the only armoring method that the “feds” would allow, that it had been approved by the Corp of Engineers
4th party, The Engineer representing SEASIDE a Mr. David McGuhee, Said that SEASIDE had decided not to pursue and Temporary Measures but instead to undertake a more through study and look for a permanent solution.
And it was likely that had tubes been installed under the current
Rules, they would then have to be removed before next Hurricane Season! David also asked several technical questions as to definition of MHW etc.
5th party was frustrated that in seeking a temporary permit she was never told that she had to come up with a plan to protect the turtles. She asked “what must I do” – no response.
6th party reiterated that there was no discussion of the need for a Takings Permit
7th party said it best. To paraphrase, “Would the FWL acknowledge that Dennis, not the property owner, harmed, indeed took away, the habitat and that property owner's are simply trying to restore it?” He continued “no matter the armoring, it will all be covered up, turtle habitat will be restored and this is a good thing”.
The meeting was adjourned following a round of applause for the last speaker, an emotional, well spoken, senior citizen.
Some observations by Bill and Shawn:
The issuance of temporary armoring permits is risky business, both on the part of the county and the property owner.
The county sees its limit to liability as simply requiring that the property owner remove the temporary armoring.
The permanent permitting procedure is not as clear to any authority, County, FWL, DEP, to say nothing of the homeowner as we would all like it to be.
The county should help generate a county-wide Takings Permit.
A permanent permit for our proposed geo-tubes (which are defined as temporary structures) will be difficult.
