6 May 2006

Over the years, we have sent comments regarding permitting on gopher tortoises, burrowing owls and indigo snakes. I have not gone to the barn to find all the old comments going back to the 1980’s. But I am sure that I am hitting the high points. First I would like to say that my experience with permitting for protected species and wildlife goes beyond Florida. I served on the endangered species committees in Kansas and North Carolina back when the first permit discussions came about and communicated with a number of states after we published the first proposed list of Rare and Endangered Reptiles and Amphibians of the United States, 1976, SSAR Special Publication.

Comments. The two most important elements in the process are:

The conservation value in each part of the application, the procedures and results. Second, the permit is a vehicle in developing and sustaining conservation of habitat and a species and the process of how permits are completed or the process is not a goal unto itself. These two points are the basis of permitting failure.

What are some of the key elements of conservation based permits or conservation contracts?

1. They identify the parties involved and their role. This includes:
   1. Name, address ,etc.
   2. qualifications for what they want to do e.g. if they have no experience in excavation of burrows, then they should be required to demonstrate that they have gotten training or interned on the job with someone who has the skills.
   3. What will their personal impact will be on the conservation value of the permitted project? How can the permit insure and even make that impact more positive?
2. Clearly the permitting process should be designed so that qualified staff have an opportunity to review the situation and that the procedures, staff and all aspects of the request fit the situation. This information is used to write a contract between the developer or landowner and FWC. Permit applications do not exist as they are today. The permitting staff writes contracts that include all aspects of the actions as approved by the consulting biologist (one working with the applicant).
   
   No application should be given out without a clear checklist of what these goals are and what is expected out of the permittee. Note there is a difference between a liscence and a permit If for example someone wants to have a refuge for tortoises in their yard. Do they get a permit or a license? The question then becomes what the FWC is going to do with it and what is the conservation goal. In this case, a license is given because the goal is to know the person has the animals, they know they have a list of charges (on the license). If they don’t follow it, the liscence can be revoked. No enforcement is expected unless there is a complaint. The positive conservation value is allowing the person to have the tortoises. From a biological prospective, they are not considered.
    
3. The permit should help the permittee in accomplishing the conservation goals The bigger the goal, the more assistance the permittee should be given.
   1. the application should be designed to provide enough data to allow experts to step in and be sure that relocations are done properly for example. This cannot be done by someone looking at maps and forms that do not ask the right questions or have space to answer them.
   2. This is a very big issue. People in the permitting office handle the paper and some of the basics in assuring that the application goes to knowledgeable folks who can walk folks through the process to make sure recipient sites have proper forage and are enclosed for the right time.
   3. The work to develop a plan is proactive and FWC personnel should work with the individuals in advance to create a conservation plan, then it is permitted. With large developments, this should be done before preliminary planning is done. Frequently, before such plans and financing are being worked out is the time to have the greatest impacts. In essence, the permits should be outlined at the table and on the site with a knowledgeable biologist and the other stakeholders. The permitting office simply puts the “contract” together.
   
   The methods required to fulfill the conservation effort under a permit should be based on conservation value. All to often very specific requirements are put on all aspects of permitting whether or not they have any value and do not fit the situation. For example, on site relocations are a disaster for the most part. What conservation value does a 5 acre linear tortoise reserve have surrounded by houses? If planned properly as part of a local park program, it may have some education value. The smaller the preserve the greater the need for on going management. This is one of the key issues with the FWC tortoise permits today. DOGMA!!! These are issues that need to be worked out with biologists that are out there advising folks. If you require a 25 foot radius for marking a burrow under any and all circumstances, one may impede and complicate what is going on and punishes the permittee without any conservation value. For example. When we did the ATT right of way, if we used the 35 ft radius, every tortoise in the right of way would have been dug up and moved. As it was, we adapted the marking to insure the burrows were protected but created methodologies that allowed the cables to be laid and not one burrow or tortoise was taken (552 burrows) in 5 82 miles.
    
4. The permits should reflect local and regional goals and conditions. The goals should revolve around an Assurance Colony program that is designed to protect a realistic number of colonies at various levels of protection offered by such a plan.
   
   A number of developers have and are interested in creating local or regional plans that would allow them to put work together to create conservation lands in lieu of paying cash to FWC. These lands would be organized as part of the discussions to develop the mitigation contract for the taking of upland habitat. The combined efforts, the ability to work within their development communities and including the County or City governments in these efforts would work well to establish more acreage in better situations.
   
   The conservation goal of saving tortoises, especially in counties where populations have been so reduced should be considered most important. Yet today, the permitting procedures do not take these situations into account or because of the testing requirement, give the landowner a choice of reducing time and allowing them to make the decision leading to the loss of the local resources. This has led to counties instituting local regulations to stop Take. The Assurance Colony system will work to save tortoises directly and to properly use lands for relocation for conservation purposes as well as education and humanitarian goals. If the permitting “contract” approach was taken, the permittee would have an opportunity to put cash in lieu of acres into a Site Management and Monitoring program. The funds would in sure that local assurance colonies would be monitored and managed in perpetuity. This would help off set the train wrecks about to or are taking place in many counties and in the Florida Forever program where neither are taking place and tortoise habitat is being lost.
   
   Some points:
   1. Establish the Assurance Colony Plan based on numbers needed for conservation purposes and in saving tortoises when possible.
   2. Develop the program from the county level to statewide needs, not the reverse.
   3. Consider all conservation lands including federal, state, and local properties.
   4. FWC staff work with agencies to establish specific assurance colonies including monitoring and management plans for resident tortoises, augmented or reintroduced programs.
   5. Work with a statewide nonprofit organization that will assist the official efforts by FWC to promote and enhance the assurance colony program and to help guide the proactive organizations that will work to see that management is done as well as promote funding and support at all levels.
5. As a part of developing a “contractual permit” approach, the FWC biologists handling the discussions with the permittee should:
   1. Insure that there is ample funding and all parts of tortoise and other conservation efforts are available. This is based on a projected budget for getting the work completed including obtaining land or providing management funds, to insuring that appropriate staff (qualified) and proper methodology is being used for the conditions on the site. It should be noted that there is a great deal of overlap in this area in some counties. It would not be difficult to establish some methods to reduce costs and increase efficiency the in this area. This includes:
      1. The landowner/developer agrees to the financial commitment required throughout the process.
      2. The actual methodology being proposed by the consultant is appropriate for the habitat and conditions.
      3. The FWC biologist evaluates the qualifications of all consultants actually doing the work from the Environmental Assessment to excavation and relocation.
      4. FWC has the right to review and reject work at the appropriate points. Basically this is rarely done and most often on sites where mitigation fees are expected.
      5. Ultimately a bank of qualified people in the state and locally will be identified and as long as they produce proper information (with conservation value) the scrutiny of these individuals would not be so time consuming.
      6. The recipient site information on relocation efforts should be certified for current conditions especially forage diversity, and canopy/shrub cover as well as pre and post management and monitoring programs. Again if it is pasture verses scrub, the conditions and issues vary greatly. Currently relocations can go into dangerous situations in scrub while pasture is being scrutinized much more.
      7. If data are faulty then the FWC biologist can reject it at any point. Then the work is redone.
      8. Once agreements are organized and reviewed for conservation value, then they are passed on to permitting for the development of the contract.

CONCLUSION

The concept outlined here is one that changes most forms of permitting into conservation contracts. Biologists with proper training and experience work proactively with permittees that may have a substantial conservation loss when the development action takes place. The professional biologist can go through the process with the permittees to insure that the plan is acceptable for carrying out the work and, that it fit conditions (e.g. palmetto flatwoods verses cow pasture) The biologist may bring in other stakeholders such as county government, national forests, when there is a greater conservation benefit. Biologists review the reports such as tortoise population estimates before the next step is allowed. Permittees can work together to obtain approved lands, they would have an alternative to pay into management and monitoring funds on a local or regional basis in lieu of purchasing land (or do both). The current permitting process changes to Conservation Contracts. Once the Biologist and appropriate staff agree to a plan then a contract is drawn up. THIS AVOIDS THE CURRENT SITUATION WHERE THE APPLICATION BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT IS DONE ON THE GROUND.