Fort Walton Beach Resolution — 75-16-Shoreline erosion prevention-LJP — reading text

RESOLUTION NO. 75-4 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ACTING THROUGH THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS TO ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY OF MITIGATING AND © PREVENTING SHORELINE EROSION AND DREDGING AND FILLING FOR BEACH AREA AT LIZA JACKSON PARK IN FORT WALTON BEACH AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 103 OF THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1962, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended, provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to develop and construct coastal shore and beach restoration and protection projects, and WHEREAS, said law provides that the cost of such projects shall be complete, economically justified and is limited to a Federal cost of no more than $1,000,000 and that such projects may be con- structed without specific authorization of Congress, and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Walton Beach, established in 1953 in accordance with Chapter 29093 Special Acts, Laws of Florida is a public agency fully authorized under State laws to give such assurances and capable of fulfilling all measures of local coopera- tion, and WHEREAS,. erosion damage on the beach at Liza Jackson Park along the Inter-Coastal Waterway of Santa Rosa Sound has become a serious problem and reduced such beach, at points where it is now non-existent, and WHEREAS, Liza Jackson Park is a primary recreation area for the western half of the City of Fort Walton Beach, and being located on Highway 98 serves many of the thousands of tourists who visit this area annually, and WHEREAS, the loss of this beach will seriously affect this important tourist industry, restrict the use of the park area by both local and tourist personnel and in time cause extreme adverse effect on the economy of the City and the State, and WHEREAS, if beach erosion is allowed to continue unabated, serious damage will eventually result to huge sections of a thirteen acre public park and resultant loss to the general public. Acvertisec’ on City Hall Public ulletin Board From . 4¥ - 2—_— PS ere Cri Year 10. ~ RIE - 2S Month Pate Year RESOLUTION NO. 75-16 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA: SECTION I. That the City Council of the City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, assembled in meeting this 25th day of March 1975, request that the Chief of Engineers authorize and direct the District Engineer, Mobile District, to undertake as soon as possible a study of the erosion problems of the beach affecting Liza Jackson Park, with such study resulting in recommendations and/or corrective measures as may be required. SECTION II. This resolution being of administrative nature shall take full force and effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor. ADOPTED March 25, 1975 MAYOR GEL NE City Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF OKALOOSA I, CHARLES H. EVANS, City Clerk to the City Council of the City of Fort Walton Beach, in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution as the same was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the Council on the 25th day of March 1975, and as the same appears on record in my office. IN WIINESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this 3/% day of March 1975. WMA NEw CHARLES H. EVANS City Clerk Reviewed And Approved By The City Attorney Which Will Be Legal When Enacted By The City Council of the City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida. WALTER J. SMITH City Attorney DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MOBILE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 2288 MOBILE, ALABAMA 36628 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: SAMEN-PD 18 March 1975 Mr. Harold B. Elliott Superintendent Parks & Recreation Department City of Fort Walton Beach P. 0. Box 1449 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Dear Mr. Elliott: I have your letter of 3 March 1975 concerning the feasibility of constructing a beach erosion control project under the authority of Section 103a of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, as amended. The work you requested possibly could be accomplished under the Section 103a authority. A circular describing this authority is inclosed. As noted in the second paragraph of the circular, an investigation of a prospective new project under Section 103a may be initiated after receipt of a formal request from a sponsoring agency fully empowered under State law to provide local cooperation, generally as listed on page 2 of the circular. A resolution by a City Council or a Board of County Commissioners would suffice for the purpose. After receiving a request from a legally empowered Government entity for a study under this authority, a report will be prepared based on preliminary type investigations to determine if ‘further studies under this authority are warranted. If these recon- naissance investigations indicate that further studies are warranted, detailed project studies will be conducted. Based on these detailed studies, a recommendation concerning Federal participation in a project will be made. Following reconnaissance investigations, detailed project studies usually require about 18 months to complete and all study costs are borne by the Federal Government. For your further information, a resolution requesting a study under the 103a authority is inclosed. If you desire additional information, please contact us. Sincerely yours, SPEurervce Jpperr 2 Incls LAWRENCE R. GREEN As stated Chief, Planning and Reports Branch ested eta AS HE Be Aken eek Nn aml soe we a: . * a CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ‘ BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF " SECTION 103 OF THE RIVER & HARBOR ACT OF 1962, AS AMENDED Authority and Scope. Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended, provides authority for the Chief of Engineers to develop and construct coastal shore and beach restoration and . protection projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress. A project is adopted for construction under Section 103 only after detailed investigation and study clearly shows the engineer-: ing feasibility and economic justification of the project. Each project must be complete, economically justified, and is limited to a Federal cost of not more ‘than $1,000,000. This Federal cost limitation also in- cludes all project related costs for construction, investigations, . inspections, engineering, preparation of plans and specifications, supervision and administration. The beach erosion control project developed under Section 103 is formulated to provide the same complete- within-itself project that would be recommended under regular authori- zation procedures. No additional work should be required to assure effective and successful operation of the project. An increment or portion of a larger overall project is not eligible for construction under this program. | How to Request Federal Assistance Under Section 103. - An investi- - gation of a prospective new project under Section 103 will be initiated after receipt of a formal request from a prospective sponsoring agency fully empowered under State law to provide all required local cooperation. This request and further inquiries concerning the desired project should be directed to the District Engineer for the concerned area. Upon receipt of a formal request, the District Engineer will initiate action to have the prospective project considered under the Section 103 program. Project Cost Sharing. The costs allocated to restoration and pro- tection of Federal property are borne fully by the Federal Government. Federal cost participation may be up to one-half the cost of protecting shores owned by non-Federal public agencies. Protection of shores not publicly owned may be eligible for Federal cost sharing up to one-half provided there is significant public benefit arising from public use or from protection of nearby public facilities and provided such work is economically justified. The Federal participation is adjusted in accord- ance with the degree of such benefits. Under certain conditions, a project for restoration and protection of State and other publicly owned shore parks and conservation areas may be eligible for Federal cost sharing up to 70 percent of the total project cost, exclusive of land costs, provided the area meets specified criteria. Such areas must in- clude a zone which excludes permanent human habitation, including summer residences; provide for conservation preservation and development of the natural resources of the environment; extend landward a sufficient distance to include protective dunes, bluffs or other natural features which serve to protect the uplands from damage; and provide essentially full park facilities for appropriate public use. | 5 + Local Cooperation: Formal assurances of local cooperation similar to those required for regularly authorized projects must be furnished by a local sponsoring agency. The local sponsor must be a municipality or . « public agency fully authorized under State laws to give such assurances and financially capable of fulfilling al] measures of local cooperation. As a project is dependent upon local cooperation and participation, the importance of the existence of a legally authorized and financially capable local sponsoring agency warrants special emphasis. The sponsoring agency must normally agree to: 1. Contribute in cash the local share of project construction cost and assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the Federal cost limitation of $1,000,000. 2. Provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way. 3. Hold and save the United States free from claims for damages which may result from construction and subsequent maintenence of the project. soe ~ “ 4. Assure that water pollution that would affect the health of bathers will not be permitted (applied only in cases where-the beach is used for recreational purposes). 5. Assure continued public ownership or continued public use of the shore upon which the amount of Federal participation is based, and its administration for public use during the economic life of the project. 6. Assure maintenance and repair, and local share of periodic beach nourishment where applicable, during the useful life of the works as required to serve the projects’ intended purpose. 7. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas and other public use facilities open and available to all on equal terms. Specific cases may also warrant assigning other additional local responsibilities, such as providing appurtenant facilities required for realization of recreational benefits. Local Assistance: Local proponents of coastal beach erosion control projects can provide valuable assistance in the collection and furnishing of data needed to formulate the project plan and to evaluate project benefits. The District Engineer for the area involved will provide details to interested local groups concerning how they might assist in this respect. Examples of useful information that local groups can obtain are: 1. A history of all prior actions taken to prevent or control shore erosion and the results secured thereby. 2. Any accurate local surveys which can be used to indicate progressive shoreline and off-shore changes. 3. Statistics on beach use, both for peak days and for the entire recreation season and estimates of prospective use. 4. Past storm and erosion damages experienced along the shore front. 5. Location of boundaries and the length of publicly owned shore frontage, such as bathing beaches, parks, public landings and street ends. Similar information for publicly used private frontage. 6. Description of use of publicly owned shore and/or publicly used private shore. 2 (1-71)  RSQESTING THE J. S$. ARMY CORP3 OF ANGINESRS ACTING, THROUCH THE Cue OF ENGLAaskS “40 ASSUME ITS 2, ,ONSI3BILITY 2 F MITIGATING AND LL WENTING SHORELINE EROSION AT