Perran Ross, Facilitator assisted by Adam Cox, WEC/UF and Florence Sergile, WEC/UF

We thank Kathy Beville and Susan Farnsworth Citrus County for graceful meeting arrangements at the Lecanto Government Building

Primary Industry : R. Concoby (Phosphate Industry), Cheryl George (representing Joe McGlincy- FL Forestry Assoc); Conservation organizations: Boyd Blihovde (Gopher Tortoise Council) who came in the afternoon, alternate- George Heinrich; Land Development: D. Rillstone (Fl Chamber Commerce), S. Godley (Homebuilders association); Government Agencies: B. Burgeson (Collier Co.), B. Kaiser (Hillsborough Co.); Research and Academic : M. Aresco (FSU), alternate- Lora Smith, Jones Ecological research Center, Commercial Service (consultants): M. Palmer, D. Gordon alternate- R. Clementi, Private land owners: S. Shea (St Joe), MC Davis (Nokuse Plantation); Federal or state land managers: Skip Griep (US Forest SVC.), Chris Becker, DEP, Florida Parks; General Public: R. Ashton (GTCI), Rebecca Eagan, alternate-. J. Bierly; Animal Welfare. J. Hobgood (HSUS);

Other participants

Joan Berish and David Arnold FWC; Walt Thomson (The Nature Conservancy); , Amy Dierolf (Progress Energy), Terry Witt (Chronicle), Darla Miller (MSCW), Sharon Carsen, Kathy Beville, Susan Farnsworth, Charles Hicks, Imre (Jim) Kantor; Tom Connolly; Wilma Katz; Jeddi Bierly

Action items and recommendations in Bold.

New member Chris Becker was nominated and approved to represent agency land owners (Florida Parks). Skip Griep was recognized representing agency land owners (US Forest Service) for Carrie Sekerak. The Nature Conservancy sent a delegate Walt Thompson. TNC manages 25,000 acres on private land. Laura Bevan and Sherry Silk are nominated to represent Animal Welfare and can be confirmed when they attend a meeting.

Kathy Gault was unable to attend as her travel budget had been cut. Eglin being a recipient and shelters a large population of Gopher Tortoise, the group requested FWC to assist her future travel.

Report on implementation of 'quick fixes'. The three short term adjustments to permit policy (quick fixes) proposed by staff and two of the four proposed by stakeholders were approved by the executive director FWC and are immediately in force. Following stakeholder recommendations FWC will advise applicants and the public by : media released 17 May, preparation of FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions), posting these and revised guidelines on the FWC website, direct contact to all current Gopher Tortoise permit holders, advise FWC regional officers and biologists and the stakeholders will directly advise their constituencies using the material posted to Sharepoint.

Policy on enforcement of the new burrow rule.

Codifies FWC intentions as previously stated by Law enforcement staff in a policy statement providing clear written guidance on agricultural, forestry, wildlife management practice and limitations of the burrow rule.

Overview of the GT burrow rule enforcement (13 April 2006).

• Separate burrow rule from agricultural and forestry practice
• Recognize power transmission right of way maintenance as another area needing policy interpretation.
• Recognize best management practice for forestry, agriculture and wildlife management as the basis for activities not requiring a permit.
• Recognize the difference between conversion of wild land to agriculture use and conversion of agricultural land to development use.

County representatives distributed their draft questionnaire to obtain information from counties and invited members to comment directly back to Bernie or Barbara.

Proposal to list the gopher tortoise as ‘Threatened’ in Florida.

The group was informed about the process and timetable for end of phase I (biological assessment) and phase II (development of a management plan) and opportunities for stakeholder input. FWC Commissioners will consider the recommendation at their June 7^th meeting. If approved, staff will be authorized to prepare a species management plan. A public comment period in July is a vital opportunity for stakeholders to indicate their concerns and recommendations for the plan. The biological goals and objectives will be the basic reference point for the management plan.

Staff outlined the sections of the proposed management plan and an overview of the components of gopher management that we will review over the next few months. Elements of the plan already drafted or prepared in concept include disease testing and management, genetics and translocation, habitat suitability and management (fire management), restocking policies and permitting. These drafts will continue to be shared with and receive input from the stakeholder group. The group requested FWC staff to provide them as quickly as possible with a detailed outline of the contents, and a schedule for preparation of the management plan.

Biological Goals and measurable objectives.

The group was advised about the conceptual and actual benchmarks against which our future progress and success can be measured. Goals are overarching the big pictures and objectives are measurable. The group conducted a wide ranging discussion considering the feasibility, timing, scale and structure of a process that would insure the survival of Gopher Tortoise in perpetuity. Particular topics included:

• Is linking goals to the imperiled species listing process useful?

• Providing and protecting sufficient habitat

• Land availability
• Current land cost
• Size and connectivity of parcels
• Role of other agencies and the private sector
• Realistic time period to implement a new program
• Are counties the appropriate management unit? And do they have accurate data and management capacity?
• Removing regulatory impediments and perverse incentives
• Importance of stemming current gopher mortality short term
• Feasible objectives for habitat acreage, tortoise relocation and habitat management
• Funding the program and optimizing cost/benefit ratio
• Consider landscape scale and multiple species use in habitat.
• Consider ‘no net loss’ of tortoises or habitat.
• Fund habitat management as well as habitat acquisition.

The current FWC Biological Goals and measurable objectives provide a conceptual framework but, stakeholders felt the details could be clarified and expanded.

Stakeholders agreed that each interest group (sector) would draft their preferred formulation of a general biological goal for Gopher Tortoise Conservation and specific measurable objectives. These will be submitted to the group facilitator by 26 May 2006, compiled and provided to FWC GT2 team to guide additional development of the goals.

A Proposal for restructuring permits for gopher tortoises. David Arnold presented a draft new permit concept elaborated by FWC staff for future permit options. Major features of the proposal are an expedited online free self-issued permit for single owner home sites, a series of options for relocation of gophers to both protected and unprotected sites. A cost structure providing incentives for the most conservation positive actions (relocation to a protected site) and elimination of “incidental take” in its current form.

The proposal was well received by the group. Particular concerns raised included:

• Whether the single home process adequately protects gophers
• Recognition of inadvertent mortality during permitted relocation
• The need for limited incidental take under special circumstances and with very careful review
• Indexing conservation contributions to regional land values and management cost
• Consideration of commensal organisms in relocation permits
• The importance of (and great difficulty of) providing adequate recipient sites for relocation
• Considering upland habitat at wetland mitigation sites as potential gopher habitat
• Actual and potential function of mitigation funding and conservation easements (Group members have detailed current knowledge of this subject that FWC should use.)

These and numerous other specific and general recommendations were presented and noted by FWC staff who will redraft the proposed permit structure taking them into consideration.

Stakeholders are asked to submit their specific comments in written form to the facilitator by 26 May 2006 to insure accurate consideration of these points.

To facilitate planning and attendance by group members, the group agreed to meet approximately monthly through the period of intense work anticipated during the preparation of the Species Management Plan. Proposed dates for next meetings are: June 9, July 14, August 18, September 15 and October 13. Facilitator will explore availability of the Lecanto facility for these dates, circulate the dates to steering committee and members will consult their schedules and quickly confirm these meeting dates.