Stakeholder Group Meeting 23 February 2007, Vero BeachThe meeting was held at the conference facilities of the Vero Beach, Indian River Humane Society. Our thanks to Ilka Daniel and Jen Hobgood for making these arrangements. The meeting opened at 10.10am with 10 members of the steering Committee and 34 members of the public in attendance. After reviewing attendance, and recognizing that a quorum of the steering committee was not present, the meeting agreed to proceed with discussion of the agenda items but defer any decisions to a future meeting.
FWC response to stakeholder recommendations regarding phase out of Incidental Take. Perran Ross outlined FWC’s actions since receiving the recommendation agreed by the group at its last meeting on January 26. The recommendation was brought immediately to the attention of FWC Habitat and Species Division leadership and the Executive Director. Greg Holder was charged with developing a response and after extensive discussion, advice and negotiation with FWC staff, the GT 2 and interested stakeholder parties, a draft response is in preparation but not yet finalized. FWC holds the position that the best solution to concerns about IT in its present form will be the approval and implementation of the proposed Gopher Tortoise Management Plan. The current draft of the plan substitutes ‘Permit type 3D’ for current Incidental Take and there is no provision for “pay and bury”. Permit 3 D requires relocation of tortoises from harms way but has relatively few restrictions on where they might be moved to. Unprotected lands, lands of lesser habitat quality and smaller parcels are acceptable recipient sites. While these sites may have uncertain, low or even no conservation value, they are an alternative to tortoise burial. The successful implementation of the other proposed permit options, encouraging relocation to protected lands and suitable habitat have much stronger conservation value and have economic incentives to encourage their use. However these options will take a period of several months after plan approval to implement and become available. In the interim, FWC is exploring the possibility of implementing permit type 3 D immediately and also continuing the present process of voluntary amendments to approved IT permits to allow relocation, again with few restrictions on recipient sites.
Impediments to final approval of this plan for interim relief are discussion of costs and conservation payments associated with tortoise relocation, provisions for ‘grandfathering’ in currently approved and pending IT permits, and the availability of adequate recipient sites. FWC is exploring the possibility of providing interim recipient sites on FWC managed land, although these could only accommodate a limited number of tortoises, and has already permitted additional private sites to receive tortoises. However, these details are all still in negotiation.
If a suitable formula of cost, process and recipient sites can be found, FWC proposes to present this interim process to Commissioners at the same as the draft plan (June 13) with a recommendation for Commissioners to approve both implementation of the full plan and immediate interim relief measures. The interim relief measures will therefore buy all parties breathing space where tortoises can be relocated rather than buried, while the full plan and permit structure is implemented. All parties must recognize that to follow due process and normal regulatory procedure, currently approved permits allowing tortoise burial cannot be rescinded and relocation rather than burial must be voluntary by permit holders, however it is hoped that if sites are available and costs not excessive, current IT permit holders will choose to relocate tortoises.
The stakeholder group requested that to facilitate the proposed process that FWC establish a central on-line and readily available reference source where active recipient sites statewide can be listed.
Some stakeholders suggested that a minimum standard of humane treatment and suitable habitat be enforced on recipient sites for the interim measure and type 3D permit.
Discussion of the Draft Management Plan for gopher tortoises.
The Plan can be seen at http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/petitions.htm and comments submitted to:
or mail Gopher Tortoise Management Plan, 620 South Meridian Street, Mail Station 2A, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600,
All stakeholders were urged to carefully review the plan and submit comments. Comments that were specific, focused on clear locations in the plan (section, page) and provided clear indication of revisions needed, direction, solution or preferred wording were most useful. The FWC staff plan for compiling, reviewing and responding to comments received, and revising the plan was outlined. Following the closure of the comment period(4 April) and revisions to the plan, the revised plan will be available again for public review and comment as part of the agenda documents for the FWC Commissioners meeting June 13th and these should be accessible at the FWC website by 2 May. Further comments can be submitted directly at the Commission meeting.
The group then had a wide ranging discussion of numerous elements of the plan, questions, suggestions for clarification. Stakeholders were urged to record and submit their comments as indicated above. Topics covered:
- Formating of the time schedule tables- the shaded portions do not show well on screen or print clearly. (propose immediate reformat to fix).
- The estimated high cost and feasibility of the proposed land acquisition goal.
- Feasibility of proposed Fire Strike teams and recommendation to learn from existing models.
- Addition of a disease management plan and research.
- Clarification of how tortoises showing symptoms of URTD or other disease should be handled/euthanized/moved.
- Confusion on how the 10 burrows/5 tortoises would be applied to permit qualifications and payments.
- Definition of ‘Protected lands’ needed.
- Long discussion of the conservation payments proposed for relocation activities.
- Appropriate amounts to provide incentives.
- Concern about high costs as disincentive to move tortoises and encourage illegal/surreptitious removal.
- Application of funds raised to activities in addition to land acquisition including other management expense, transfers to cooperating agencies to cover their expenses, research etc.
- Continued concern about the lack of specificity in the local government interaction sections, noting that local government extends beyond 67 counties to hundreds of municipalities. Suggestion that plan implementation include a series of workshop meetings with counties to clarify and recommend structures.
- Continued concern about the Biological Goals managing for continued decline.
- Recommendation that the Education component be elevated to a primary goal.
- Continued concern that the plan restocking and relocation elements do not adequately address conservation of commensal organisms, although counter view that land acquisition and land management elements do directly conserve commensals.
- Questions about how much of the plan action needs to be in rule and directly enforceable and how much in guideline and policy where it is more easily modified adaptively to meet changing needs.
- Concern about whether FWC can adequately staff and service proposed permit and oversight proposals.
- Discussion of best approach to certify practitioners and consultants both to improve their skills and service and provide control of irresponsible players.
- Discussion of need for more active training and implementation of FWC law enforcement (but see LE protocols appendix).
- Question on operation and applicability of Safe harbor agreements.
- Question on Agricultural and Silvicultural policy and actual negative effects of some agricultural and forestry practice.
- Concern that gopher tortoise conservation was driven by larger considerations of Human population increase and impact, quality of life and environmental responsibility that the plan does not address.
Overall, this meeting congratulated FWC staff on pulling together a comprehensive plan, that, while requiring revision, fairly laid out most of the necessary topics and actions. Participants were again urged to submit their comments on these and other topics directly to FWC. The meeting closed at 4.15pm.
Facilitation staff: Perran Ross, University of Florida
Steering Committee of the Florida gopher tortoise stakeholders group
Conservation organizations: L. Macdonald (Defenders of Wildlife), alternate- Walt Thompson, Government Agencies: B. Burgeson (Collier Co.), B. Kaiser (Hillsborough Co.), alternate- Susan Farnsworth (Citrus Co), Commercial Service (consultants): M. Palmer, alternate R. Clementi, General Public: R. Eagan, Animal Welfare. J. Hobgood (HSUS), Ilka Daniel (HSVB)
Participants
Ginger Adair, Volusia County
Yvette Alger, St Lucie Conty Gov.
Mary Barnwell, SWFWMD
Sara Benhamino UCF Student
Mike Bush, St Lucie County – Vov
Heather Carpenter, HSUS
David Commodario, Volunteer
David Cox, Pelican Island Audubon Society
Marissa Krueger, Crossroads Environmental Consultants
Bruce Dangerfield, Vero Beach Police Department
Tom Connolly, Gopher Tortoise Services
Amy Dierolf, Progress Energy
James Dierolf, Sarasota Co. Natural Resources
Gail Duggins, Flagler Beach Environmental Preservation Council
Mike Duggins, Flagler Beach Environmental Preservation Council
Heather Fiedler Seminole Chronichle
Steve Haulk, MSCU, Inc.
Ronnie Hawkins, Gopher Tortoise Council
Mary Anne Holls UCF student
Carrie Kelly, Kimley-Horn's Associates
Carissa Kent, Volunteer
Bill Lites, Glatting Jackson
Casey Lyon, PBS
Bob Mish, Flagler Beach Environmental Preservation Council
Jon Moore, FAU, PIAS, VBHS
Julie Morris, PEER, Inc.
Velva Peterson, ARFF Orange County
Tom Rehyansky, Kimberley Horn and Asssociates
Mark Rizzo, Volusia County Council Management
Pam Simpson, Human Society VB
Stephen Tonjes, Fl Department of Transportation
Billy Wagner
Bryan Wilson, ARFF
Adam Zions, Avid Group | 
