Stop the Heceta shores stabilization project.
  • Petitioned mailto:comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us

This petition was delivered to:

mailto:comments-pacificnorthwest-siuslaw-centralcoast@fs.fed.us

Stop the Heceta shores stabilization project.

    1. Terry Leo
    2. Petition by

      Terry Leo

      Florence, OR

 

The original Rip Rap was put in 1983. It was extended again in 1993 and in 1996.

 

It is clear that the beach continues to erode, based on the many extensions of the rip-rap. Where ever there is rip-rap there is passive erosion. Passive erosion is the shoreline’s long-term net erosion; the shoreline will eventually migrate landward beyond the structure. The effect of this migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the rip-rap as the water deepens and the shore face and moves landward….while private structures may be temporarily saved, the public beach is lost. This process of passive erosion is the result of fixing the position of the shoreline on an otherwise eroding stretch of coast. This rip rap does not allow high water to release into low lying areas like it naturally would, and is forcing water to go other places like Ocean Street.

 

The most important thing to remember is that rip-rap is never placed to protect the beach but rather to protect property from eroding. The intelligent action would be to move the building away from the ocean. Unfortunately, what happens is to armor the coastline with rocks, concrete and steel. This does not protect or maintain the beach…it only protects the buildings.

 

Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted subsidizing beachfront buildings. Federal flood insurance and expensive Army Corps of Engineer projects have done very little to make oceanfront buildings safe and have hastened beach erosion. In many cases, it would be more cost-effective for taxpayers to have the government buy the coastal property, condemn the buildings and allow the area to act as a buffer between the ocean and the remaining buildings.

 

Rip-rap can cause increased erosion in adjacent areas of the beach that do not have seawalls. This so-called “flanking erosion” takes place at the end of the rip-rap. Wave energy can be reflected from the seawall sideways along the shore, causing coastal bluffs without protection to erode faster.

 

Erosion is a process/fact, not a problem. Beaches are dynamic and natural. Buildings, bridges and roads are static. The problem occurs when there is a static structure built on a dynamic, moving beach. If buildings and roads were not built close to the shore, we would not have to worry about shoreline structures or sand erosion.

 

Who would be held responsible when the expansion of this rip-rap erodes more beach, forcing the water to migrate further inland following the small streams behind the homes in Kla Ha Nee. Will more rip-rap need to be placed behind these homes to keep the waves from eroding the sand behind them? I have been watching the existing rip-rap for 25 years. It looks ok for a few years and then the river and ocean compromise it again and again. The rip-rap is also sinking into the sand, disappearing and losing its effectiveness.

 

I am asking the district manager to drop this project for all the above reasons. It’s a waste of time and money and ruins the natural state in which nature was supposed to be,

 

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Reached 25 signatures
    2. Ok we got 16 signers so far.

      Terry Leo
      Petition Organizer

      WE have until Saturday the 28th to submit comments. Feel free to write your own letter and send it to the above email address. Thanks for your support. T

    3. Reached 10 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Susan Reuter NEVADA CITY, CA
      • over 2 years ago
      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Rosemary Camozzi EUGENE, OR
      • over 2 years ago

      Rip rap increases erosion in nearby locations and impedes the natural function of the shoreline.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Sean Sisson PORTLAN, OR
      • over 2 years ago

      I don't want ANOTHER section of public land thrown away so a few well to do people can have a house right next to the shore. . .

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • John Getz FLORENCE, OR
      • over 2 years ago

      (1) I don't want my wife who is legally blind to get run over by the trucks used in this project going right past our driveway this summer. She walks these roads every day and if you hit her you will have hell to pay!

      (2) This project is a 'band-aid' and it will not fix the problem (one house that should have never been built in the first place) because we are dealing with 4 factors; the ocean tides, a river (Sutton outlet), and 2 more creeks flowing from the dunes, that are ALL merging at this exact location.

      (3) To compromise the quality of life for an entire community to save one house that should have never been built in the first place, (and is this a vacation home that sits empty all year long?), at the expense of taxpayers, is highly irritating.

      (4) I believe this project is 'all for nothing' and will eventually fail like all the other attempts have, time and time again..

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.