2003 - Walton Wetlands Group to Conduct January Meetings

A subcommittee of the Walton County Wetlands Work Group will continue to review and discuss the current wetlands regulatory language in the Walton County Land Development Code in a second meeting on January 7th, 2003 at 8:30 am, at the Coastal Branch Library.

The subcommittee will present a summary of these discussions to the primary 15-member Wetlands Work Group on January 13th. The January 13th meeting will begin at 8:30 am at the South Walton Annex.

In December, a sub-committee of the Wetlands Work Group met two times specifically to review current problems and inconsistencies with the Land Development Code concerning wetlands protection policy. Some items reviewed and discussed concerned county regulation of isolated wetlands, aligning the Land Development Code with the current Comprehensive Plan language, the permitting of commercial and industrial development within wetlands and the possible designation of wetlands of special interest.

The Wetlands Work Group has expressed concern about inconsistencies between the current Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code which are perceived to cause confusing regulations. The long-term goal of the Wetlands Study Project is to generate recommendations on the county’s overall role in wetlands regulation. The Walton County Growth Management Division is providing administration to the Wetlands Work Group, which consists of fifteen stakeholders representing various interests in the community appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. For more information on the Wetlands Study Project, please contact Erica Teets, 267-1955, at the Walton County Growth Management Division. Erica L. TeetsEnvironmental ScientistWalton County Growth Management31 Coastal Centre Blvd. Ste. 100Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459Telephone (850) 267-1955Fax (850) 622-9133

Overview

The Walton Wetlands Study Project is designed to engage property owners, citizens, government agencies and others in shaping an appropriate policy that addresses common and conflicting hopes and concerns. The goal is to efficiently involve everyone in issue identification, and productive problem solving; as an alternative to presenting positions at public hearings. The County Commission, the Department of Community Affairs and others will review the resulting recommendations. A clearer, more effective, acceptable wetlands policy for Walton County depends on the creative, constructive input of all points of view. An initial description of the study process is included in Appendix C.

On June 24, 2002, more than a hundred people participated in a Community Workshop on Wetlands that sought to: 1) build a shared understanding of wetland regulation issues in Walton County; 2) identify issues and options to be considered by the Walton Wetlands Work Group; and 3) identify possible work group representatives. A 16-member workgroup was created by the Walton County Commission.

This report is based on the products of the first work group meeting held on October 31, 2002. A list of the attendees and the meeting agenda are included in appendices A and B. This report has been compiled from the flip chart notes and does not capture everything or exactly what was said.

Opening

Mike Underwood, Walton County Administrator welcomed and group and emphasized that the County Commissioners are charging the group to identify and address the inconsistencies and problems with the current Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Land Development Code (Code). Dr. Tom Taylor, Associate Director of the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium and Study Facilitator, reviewed the process plan and the agenda (Appendix B). It was acknowledged that the work of the Wetlands Study needs to be coordinated with that of a consultant to be hired soon address other inconsistencies between the Plan and the Code, The North Florida Regional Planning Councils efforts to clarify the definitions in the Plan and Code and sector planning being done by Post Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan. Several members expressed a desire to address at least some of the Plan-Code inconsistencies as soon as possible and the group agreed that it might be possible for some issues that only require changes in the Code and don't need to be considered in more depth.

Vision for Walton Wetlands Regulation

The group considered the following draft vision statement and offered the comments that follow. Lloyd Blue, Ross Hamilton and Bill Higgens agreed to consider these comments and redraft a vision statement to be presented at the next work group meeting:

Draft Vision Statement

Walton County Wetlands Regulations will:

· Protect the most critical wetlands (areas of no development),
· Assure sensitive development that maintains important wetland functions,
· Develop areas with limited wetland values appropriately,
· Distribute costs and benefits of appropriate wetland regulation fairly and equitably

To achieve a sustainable ecosystem, economy and quality of life in Walton County.

Participant Comments

· Add that we need to bring the Land Development Code (Code) and Comprehensive Plan (Plan) into parity.
· We need to address what State and Federal programs that can pre-empt County efforts. We need coordination between the programs.
· I am not sure our purpose is to do bullet #1 and I don't object to having this in there.
· There is not enough balance between property rights and the environment.
· We may want to include two buzzwords, "sustainability" and "optimum utilization."

Criteria for Evaluating Wetlands Regulation Options

The group individually reviewed this draft list of criteria. The only comment was that the stormwater runoff from public roads and other facilities also needs to be considered.

I. Environment
A. Water Resources
i. Water quality improvement/preservation
Surface water: pollutant levels and turbidity
Groundwater: pollutant levels and salt-water intrusion
ii. Water quantity improvement/preservation
Lake and wetland levels
Well levels and sustainable flow
B. Adequate flood protection
C. Promote ecological diversity
i. Habitat preservation
ii. Preserve endemic vs. exotic species
iii. Provide greenways and balance between uplands and wetlands systems

II. Social
A. Aesthetic preferences
B. Quality of life
i. Preserve/create green spaces
ii. Provide for a range of community recreation activities

III. Economic
A. Protect and maximize property value
B. Protect and increase economic activities - tourism, business, jobs, etc.

IV. Legal/Governance
A. Improve efficiency of services
i. Clarity of regulations for applicants and public
ii. Alignment of Plan and Code
iii. Reduce burden for permit applications
1. Reduce time for processing and approval
2. Reduce the applicant's cost and effort
3. Reduce the agencies' cost and effort to process applications
iv. Reduce challenges of permit denials by applicants
v. Reduce challenges of permit approvals by neighbors and environmentalists
vi. Maximize compliance and minimize need for enforcement actions
vii. Ensure adequate resources for permit reviews
viii. Ensure adequate resources for enforcement
B. Balance public vs. private rights
i. Prevent unnecessary takings
1. Protect current development rights under the new policy
2. Protect against loss of land value
3. Provide compensation for losses when appropriate
ii. Assure that the costs to County to enact policy are worth the benefits to the environment, economy and community
iii. Protect against cumulative negative impacts of development

Workplan for Addressing Wetland Regulation Issues and Options

Components of Effective Action

This part began with recognition that effective wetlands regulation includes planning (comprehensive, sector, subdivision), zoning, development review and wetland permitting by the Army Corp of Engineers, the FL Department of Environmental Protection and possibly the County. Stewardship efforts by property owners, renters and private groups can also be a key part of assuring that wetland functions are maintained.

Priority Issues

Work Group members were asked to pick the three issues that they wanted to address first and these are the results:

Issue Vote Order
A. Classification of wetland quality 3 6
B. Isolated wetlands, these may be regulated by the 6 3
C. County role in wetland regulation 11 1
D. Wetland-Upland Density 3 7
E. Mitigation 8 2
F. Enforcement 5 4
G. Artificially created wetlands 0 9
H. Vested rights to develop wetlands, "Grandfathering" 1 8
I. Cumulative impacts 4 5
J. Incentives 0 10

Comments and Next Steps for Each Issue

The Group considered each issue in the agreed upon order. For each issue they 1) reviewed the options generated at the Community Wetlands workshop, 2) shared points to consider and 3) identified information and steps needed to prepare for decision making at a future meeting.

1 (C) County role in wetland regulation:

Options
· No role
· Regulate isolated wetlands only
· Regulate all wetlands
· Provide review and comment only on state and federal permits
· Do compliance and enforcement inspections on state and federal permits
· Regulate through land use policies (zoning, subdivision, development applications)
· Participate in coordinated advisory and planning efforts with other agencies
Considerations
· Current regulations address just DEP defined wetlands (this could include isolated wetlands which are not regulated by DEP).
· We have an obligation to implement the DCA/County settlement agreement.

Next Steps:
· Explain current county role in wetlands regulation and the status of wetlands data -Ken Shannon
· Develop definitions of wetlands:
a. Gather and draft alternative definitions, (natural, artificial, size, etc.)
b. Presentation by Todd Wilkinson and Jeremy Craft
2. Identify Plan-Code conflicts in definitions and draft possible code language to make it consistent - (see next steps under "inconsistencies")

2 (E) Mitigation:

Options
1. No mitigation required or allowed
2. Create a mitigation bank
3. Assess fees for wetland impacts
4. Link wetland protection to stormwater requirements
5. Link wetland protection to landscape requirements
6. Assign different mitigation standards for different quality wetlands
7. Provide varying maintenance requirements for different types of wetlands
8. Provide varying requirements for different sizes of wetlands
9. Specify acceptable options for mitigation
10. Clarify the mitigation location requirements, e.g. adjacent, same watershed, etc.

Considerations
· Mitigation banks usually have government sponsors
· County doesn't deal with mitigation now
· Mississippi just charges developer an impact fee and an agency uses the funds to protect wetlands
· The County could create a preservation trust

Next Steps
· Bring examples of mitigation programs - Ken Shannon
· Get copies of DEP and COE requirements
· Look at existing mitigation sites and opportunities for coordination. Check with DEP, COE, WMD and consultants; identify problems with mitigation programs' and research alternative funding plans and their costs - Todd Wilkinson, Jeremy Craft

3 (B) Isolated wetlands, these may be regulated by the:

Options
· Federal government, if they can show a tie to interstate commerce
· Florida Department of Environmental Protection, possibly after July 2003
· Walton County under LDC or additional authority
· No regulation

Considerations
· What is an isolated wetland? Do we use the DEP definition?
· Some of the problem may be dealt with through flooding and stormwater controls

Next Steps
· Gather examples of isolated wetland regulations. - Anita Page, Mary Rosenheim, Erica Teets.

4 (F) Enforcement:

Options
1. DEP and Corps
2. County code enforcement office
3. Create a county environmental office
4. County monitoring and enforcement of stormwater quantity
5. Penalties (how much and for what?)

Considerations
· We can just let DEP and ACE do their own enforcement
· The County doesn't have the resources to do more enforcement
· An educated public can have a role in enforcement.
· The County is improving posting and notices to the public

Next Steps
· Assess cost of current enforcement, and options - Mike Underwood and Erica Teets
· Assess current enforcement and limitations - Ken Shannon

5 (I) Cumulative impacts:

Options
1. Do nothing
2. Lower the project size requiring permits, e.g. 1/4 acre instead of 1 acre
3. Develop targeted area plans that set development limits, e.g. for a watershed
4. Address in existing plan development requirements, e.g. subdivision, PUD, etc.
5. County assessment of current and potential impacts (to identify target areas)
6. Base allowable density and intensity on cumulative impacts

Considerations
· What are the impacts: Stormwater, aquifer recharge, net loss of wetlands, etc.
· We need to consider the 25,000 acres in state lands when talking about wetland functions
· Wetlands are addressed and can be addressed in the future land use map
· Look at watersheds not water bodies. Address coastal areas differently

Next Steps
· Make copies of drainage study available
· Need info on buildout and environmental areas - Tom Blackshear

6 (A). Classification of wetland quality

Options
· Do nothing, no changes in existing regulations
· Create new set of classifications and provisions for how they will be used
· Apply to wetlands that are:
· Connected?
· Isolated?
· Adjacent?
· Other?

Considerations
· We can classify all wetlands or just in targeted areas
· Classification could be done by the owner's consultant for each property or by the county for general areas where wetlands are more significant
· The classification may apply to wetlands of a specified scale or size
· Should we apply no net loss to all categories?
· We could use NWI, Soils book or (good, med, poor) categories

Next Steps
· Prepare a report on FNAI, DEP mitigation program, FUWAM, SFWMD, and ACE - WRAP classifications - Erica Teets, Todd Wilkinson and Jeremy Craft

7 (D) Wetland-Upland Density:

Options
1. Base number of units on a site by calculating the units/acre using:
a. Total acres (wetlands and uplands)
b. Upland acres only
c. A formula
2. Does it apply to residential, nonresidential or both?
3. Is the area of impervious surface a factor in the calculation?
4. Is the density set in perpetuity or can the owner ask for more density later?

Considerations
· We could vary requirements by quality classification
· Incentives can be parcel specific or apply to all adjoining land in single ownership

Next Steps
· Identify other examples and typical situations-Ken Shannon, Erica Teets

8 (H) Vested rights to develop wetlands, "Grandfathering"

Options
1. Deny rights for actions prior to a fixed date and let the court decide challenges
2. Honor development rights under specified conditions

Next Step
· Clarify the date when a project is considered "in the pipeline:" Plat, DEP permit, etc.

9 (G) Artificially created wetlands:

Options
1. Possible responses:
a. Increase allowable density in uplands,
b. Compensation for loss of use,
c. Public acquisition,
d. Allow development
2. Exemption for all wetlands created by borrow pits and mosquito control activities
3. Exemptions for some depending on when created, by whom, etc

Next Step
· Address in definitions (see county role)

10 (J) Incentives:

Options
1. Increase density allowances
2. Tax reduction (county and federal)
3. Provide tax benefits for donations of wetland corridors
4. Reduce other development requirements
5. Provide incentives for good stewardship
6. Streamline permit and development review process for those who take desired actions
7. Establish a targeted acquisition program
8. Showcase quality development (create value through recognition)

Considerations
· Developers could make contributions to conservation fund, the county has preservation fund that could be used
· Many incentives can be addressed under the density issue
· Conservation easements can be an incentive
· Developers would like a bonus point system

Next Steps
· Identify examples from other communities - Erica Teets

(K) Plan-Code Consistency

This was an issue that was identified in the Wetlands Community Workshop that applies to all the issues. A number of the members and observers at this meeting that expressed a desire see if there are some of the Plan-Code inconsistencies that contribute to confusion and law suits daily, can be corrected as soon as possible (without waiting to the end of study). Only changes in the Code will be considered in the short-term. The changes in the Plan will be made at the end of the Wetlands Study and done in conjunction with the changes recommended in the broader Plan-Code revision projects being done by the N. FL Regional Planning Council and a consultant (yet to be named). Changes in the plan are only allowed twice a year and require review by the FL Department of Community Affairs.

Note items in [ ] are steps that have been determined after the meeting.

Next Steps
· A side-by-side comparison matrix of the Plan and Code would be prepared - [Erica Teets]
· County staff and others will be asked to identify inconsistencies [other problems and suggestions for solutions]
· [The matrix is being sent to appropriate staff and work group members. The input will be compiled by Erica Teets]
· David Kramer, Ken Shannon, and Tom McGee will review the input and draft suggested changes in the Code to be considered at the next meeting

Closing

The facilitator provided a summary of the meeting activities and products and the group discussed a tentative agenda for the next meeting to be held December 9.

Tentative Agenda for the Work Group Meeting 2, Dec. 9 from 8:30 - 12:00

· Presentations on current wetland regulation and options
· Seek consensus on changes in the Code to address Plan-Code inconsistencies
· Discuss the appropriate role of the County in wetland regulation
· Address other issues as time permits
· Identify next steps in preparation for Work Group Meeting 3

The meeting concluded by giving each work group member an opportunity to offer a concluding comment. County Commissioner Pauls and County Administrator Underwood thanked everyone for their efforts and emphasized the importance of seeking practical, acceptable recommendations.

Appendix A - Walton Wetlands Work Group Meeting Attendees

Work Group Members Present

Lloyd Blue Beverly Kraska
Wayne Bodie Tom McGee
Van Ness Butler, Jr. Anita Page
John Dalton Mary Rosenheim
Eric Forman Richard Stafford
Ross Hamilton Leigh Vanderels
Bill Higgins Todd Wilkinson
David Kramer Ken Shannon, Co. rep. Ex officio

Other Participants

• Bert Mohr
• Paul Miller
• Mr. & Mrs. Don Foglin
• Angela Ellis
• Jesse Goddard
• Ricky Rookis
• Larry P. McDonald
• Thor Harstvedt
• Jennie N. Lewis
• Steve Schmidt
• Daniel Varnum
• Russ Aldrich
• David McCarty
• Richard Veldman
• Gabe Davie
• William Schissler
• Myron Touchstone
• Laverne Camacho
• Dan Pennington
• Bob Dobes
• Anthony M. Montabana
• Ken Goldberg

Appendix B

Walton Wetlands Study Project
Work Group Meeting One
October 31, 2002
8:30 A.M to 12:00 P.M.

Proposed Objectives

· To clarify the Work Group purpose and process
· To review and prioritize the wetland issues and options
· To identify the information and activities needed to prepare the next meetings

Agenda

8:00 Coffee and Conversation

8:30 Opening
Greetings from the County
Charge from the county and workshop purpose
Project plan and meeting agenda
8:45 Vision for Walton Wetlands
Present a draft vision statement
Solicit suggestions for refinement
Select a drafting committee to refine the statement
9:30 Criteria for Appropriate Wetlands Regulation
Present a draft list of criteria
Allow individual review of the list
Solicit and seek consensus on suggestions for refinement for each section
9:45 Workplan for Addressing Issues and Options
Review categories of options: development review, permitting, stewardship
Review and refine the list of issues and options
Discuss criteria for prioritizing issues
Use multi-voting and seek consensus on the order to consider the issues
Identify information needs and next steps for priority issues.
Determine tasks and responsibilities
11:45 Closing
Facilitator summary of the workshop activities and products
Concluding comments and guidance for the work group from participants
Closing remarks from the County
12:00 Adjourn

Appendix C
Proposed Walton Wetlands Study Project Plan

I. Overview

The social, economic and environmental health of Walton County is linked to wetland protection. This proposed Walton Wetlands Study Project Plan is designed to engage property owners, citizens, government agencies and others in shaping an appropriate policy that addresses common and conflicting hopes and concerns. The goal is to efficiently involve everyone in issue identification, and productive problem solving, not just presenting positions at pubic hearings. The County Commission, the Department of Community Affairs and others will review the resulting recommendations. A successful result depends on the creative, constructive input of all points of view.

II. Components of the Proposed Study Project Plan

A. Community Issue and Options Workshop on June 24

There will be a presentation of background information and an opportunity for participants to identify and discuss issues that need to be addressed and to suggest ways they can be addressed. This input will be compiled and used by work group participants and the technical team.

B. Walton Wetlands Work Group

The Work Group will include property owner, business, environmental, agency and other representatives. The members will be encouraged to communicate with their groups' decision-makers and constituents between meetings. The Work Groups will process input from the Community Workshop, experts and others, agree on a work plan, refine draft products, seek solutions to issues that arise and prepare a report of consensus recommendations and any unresolved issues.

C. Stakeholder Contacts

Letters will be sent to a full range of stakeholders who may be interested in wetland issues. Groups and individuals will be asked to provide input on the initial background paper and to designate a contact person to work with the process. The Stakeholder Contacts will be responsible to get their groups feedback on draft materials and transmit a response to the Work Group. At the end of the process the Group Contact will be asked provide a letter from their group to the County Commission indicating their support and/or concerns about the proposed ordinance.

D. Input Questionnaires and Other Involvement Opportunities

This will be an open process. Stakeholder Contacts and others will be invited to respond to Input Questionnaires at various points in the process. This will allow more groups and people to be involved even if they can't attend meetings. Anyone may request copies of the materials developed during the process and their comments will be made available to all involved through a project specific web site or in written form. Work group meetings will be noticed and the public can observe and contribute at appropriate times during the meetings.

E. Web Site

A web site is being created for the Walton Wetlands Study Project. In addition to background information, it will have reports from the workshops, work group meetings and other activities. The purpose is to provide a way for those new to the process to get up to speed and to solicit input from a wide range of individuals and groups who may not be able to attend some or all of the meetings. (URL?)

F. Study Facilitators

Tom Taylor from the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium will coordinate a neutral facilitation team that will work closely with Walton County and the workgroup in planning and implementing the process.

III. Work Group Participants

• Lloyd Blue
• Beverly Kraska
• Wayne Bodie
• Tom McGee
• Van Ness Butler, Jr.
• Anita Page
• John Dalton
• Mary Rosenheim
• Eric Forman
• Richard Stafford
• Ross Hamilton
• Leigh Vanderels
• Bill Higgins
• Todd Wilkinson
• David Kramer
• Ken Shannon, Co. rep. Ex officio

IV. Walton Wetlands Ordinance Review Schedule

Possible Dates Possible Activities

June 24 Community Issues and Options Workshop
Expert and stakeholder research and problem solving
October 31 Work group Meeting #1 - Seek conceptual agreements
Expert and stakeholder problem solving and drafting
December Work group Meeting #2 - Seek consensus on drafts
Expert and stakeholder work on unresolved issues
January Work group Meeting #3 - Final drafting session
March Walton County Planning Commission Workshop
April Presentation to the Walton County Planning Commission
May Presentation to the Walton Board of County Commission
June Transmittal Hearing
June-July DCA review
August Final adoption by the Co. Commission

Note: Work Group members and stakeholder contacts will receive reports of each meeting and solicit input from their decision-makers and constituents. This input will be used in preparing materials for the next meeting.

V. Decision Making and Outcomes

A. Consensus Items (Recommendations)
All Work Group recommendations will be made by consensus. Consensus is defined as follows. A consensus exists when most members of the group can publicly support (or at least not oppose) a decision. Not all members have to support the decision with equal fervor. It may be the first choice for some, while it is only just acceptable to others. Nevertheless, most members can support it because it advances at least some of their interests or issues, while not violating any interests or issues essential to them. The Work Group report to the Walton County Commission will include all consensus recommendations and options and analysis for unresolved issues.

B. Clarification of Personal and Organizational Opinions
The lists and rankings of issues and options by the Work Group members will be included in the reports prepared for each Work Group meeting. Any Work Group member, citizen or organization may submit a letter articulating their opinions, which may be appended to the Work Group reports. All meeting reports are public records and will be maintained by the Walton County Planning Department.

VI. Communications

A. Discussion Guidelines
Participants recognize that others represent a variety of differing perspectives. To promote open discussion, members agree to abide by the following guidelines:

· Stacking - raise hands and the facilitator will establish an order of speakers. The stack may be temporarily interrupted to follow-up on specific ideas.
· Listen to all perspectives respectfully.
· Listen with an open mind.
· Seek understanding before responding.
· Speak concisely to make the best use of limited time.
· If you agree with what has been said, please say so. Please do not repeat what has been said. (We have limited time.)
· If you disagree, please do so respectfully and openly, not in private.
· Explain the reasons behind your statements.
· Seek agreement where possible and determined appropriate next steps when there is disagreement.
· Help the group develop and adhere to its agenda.

B. Communication with the Media.
In order to preserve maximum flexibility for Work Group discussions, members are asked to minimize speculation about the outcome of on-going Work Group discussions with third parties and the media. In the event, members do communicate with the media, they agree to characterize only their own views and not those of any other members or the group.

VII. Open Process
At a minimum, all Work Group activities will comply with provisions of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Act. Further, all discussions of the Work Group will be open to observation, comment, and where appropriate participation, by any member of the public. All records of Work Group discussions and materials used by the Work Group will be available upon request from the Walton County Planning Department.