The agenda was adopted with an additional item from Ray Ashton concerning definition of incidental take. Committee was requested to offer agenda items in advance of the meeting where possible.

Update on ongoing issues;

Mitigation fee rebates - following stakeholder request 14 July, FWC is convening a small expert team to develop policy on this point.

Burrow policy and Agriculture and forestry policy. Discussion continues among the principles on these issues.

Biological goals and measurable objectives

A revised draft version of biological goals (meeting doc. 1) prepared by S. Griep following the April meeting was reviewed. This draft restated FWC staff objectives in simpler language. Key issues identified by the stakeholders are:

• The data sources on which the measurable objectives are based remain unclear.
• The feasibility of habitat acquisition was questioned.
• The linkage of tortoise conservation and listing criteria was questioned.
• The goals and objectives do not address distribution of the species with Florida.
• The quality of habitat and different carrying capacities and current population densities are not considered.
• Management of habitat should be moved to higher priority.
• A research and monitoring objective should be clearer.
• Site specific density information could be collated and mapped (e.g. FROGLOG program) to provide more detailed distributional data.
• Basing goals on tortoise population estimates was discussed.
• The sources of funding to achieve the goals are not specified.
• A component of interagency coordination should be specified. (E.g. coordination with Water Management District land acquisition programs).

FWC staff responded that many of these elements are vital parts of the management plan detail but need not be specified in the Biological goals. After discussion, stakeholders agreed to again attempt to redraft goals and objectives in a form that they felt was appropriate. The facilitator was asked to coordinate this redraft immediately following this meeting for the group to present a draft for electronic discussion and finalization at the next meeting.

FWC was asked to post the base numbers it used to calculate objectives.

Proposed permit flow process.

In response to issues raised at the July 14 meeting, FWC presented additional definitions for Single Family Residence, Ideas for FWC-County cooperation and Humane/Incidental take

Revision of the Draft Definition of "Single Family Residence" -- A discussion document outlining the objectives of this process and elements of Single Family Dwellings in Florida law (Meeting doc. 2 ) was reviewed. Key issues identified by stakeholders were:

• A fundamental difference of view was recognized between an incentive driven, minimal regulatory structure and a firm regulation and enforcement process. FWC staff and some stakeholders lean toward the first but many stakeholders prefer the second.
• Whether SFR permits should be free or charged a fee. A large majority of those present indicated support for a fee structure equivalent to that proposed for all other permits. But, FWC staff and some stakeholders feel that fees will discourage participation/voluntary compliance from general public.
• A variety of different ways to differentiate SFR were proposed including:
• Tie to plat applications and building permits independent of residence intentions.
• Integrate with Local govnt permit process (but see next).
• Require check-off on local permit applications. (see scrub jay example)
• Separate modifications to existing occupied family residences from new construction.

FWC –County cooperation. FWC staff proposed sideboards for future interactions and revenue sharing for local govnt intervention in small scale gopher permitting. Key issues discussed were:

• The large variation in capacity and willingness among local govnts, some effective willing partners, others not.
• Despite widespread support in principle for coordinating or delegating this process to local levels, county representatives were unanimous that they lacked capacity to handle this regulatory load.
• FWC could be asked to educate/remind counties and inspectors and review comp plans for wildlife compliance

FWC staff will proceed with designing a plan that can work everywhere in Florida, independent of whether local government is directly involved, but which provides a framework for partnerships with interested local government.

Incidental Take/Humane Take/Lethal Take. FWC staff’s draft permit flow proposal originally omitted any form of permitted incidental take in the current mode. Subsequently, stakeholders have suggested that some recognition of necessary incidental take should be included in the permit structure. A draft discussion document was presented that proposed a very narrow window for Incidental take based upon FWC evaluation of conservation need or very limited circumstances of an applicant. Numerous objections to this formulation were raised, both by stakeholders who felt it was a dangerous loophole and those who felt it too restrictive. Important points raised were:

• Use existing FAC - 68 A - 22.004 and Federal ESA IT as templates.

• Recognize the serious consequence to land owners and the inadvertent ‘Taking’ of private property issue.
• Consider how other threatened species IT is handled e.g. indigo and hognose snakes, sand skinks.
• Recognize that the proposed new relocation process may take a while to become functional and in the interim, some IT may be requested.

After discussion the group agreed to redraft a definition for IT, led by J. Hobgood, S. Silk, R. Ashton and R. Eagan. A draft will be circulated for discussion, facilitator to coordinate process.

Proposal from FWC staff on criteria and process for relocation of tortoises. FWC staff presented a draft outline of key Biological and conservation issues for relocation/restocking. This will be supported by a second document that will propose specific criteria for habitat, stocking densities and similar technical details. The group generally supported the concepts and the proposal for a hierarchy of sites for Restocking and Rescue Relocation. Issues raised were:

• Criteria and restocking densities should be indexed regionally.
• Better managed areas could received increased stocking densities.
• Restock sites require continued performance and effectiveness monitoring
• Guidelines for humane and effective tortoise handling are needed.
• FWC needs to be careful in setting recipient fees for its own land not to unbalance the private recipient market.

FWC staff will respond to these and other issues with the detailed techniques and criteria proposals next meeting.

Next meetings. Meetings September 15 and October 20 were confirmed and dates for meetings through February requested. The possibility of having a meeting in the north of the state was requested. Anyone may offer a suitable (free) venue for the Group to consider.