|
Gopher Tortoise Stakeholder Meeting Report 20 October 2006
At the Citrus County, Lecanto Government Building, 3600 W. Sovereign Way, Lecanto FL 34461
We thank Citrus County for meeting arrangements at the Lecanto Government Building
The meeting started promptly at 10.00 am with a full quorum, see participant list following. Decision/recommendation items in bold italics.
Introduction, recognition of proxies, quorum, steering committee membership
Recognition of proxies: B Burgeson was represented by S. Farnsworth; D. Rillstone by Caroleen Deneen, Steve Godley by Lee Walton, Ray Ashton represented M. Aresco, Sherry Silk was represented by J. Hobgood. Steering committee confirmed that the governance of proxies restricted members of the steering committee to just one proxy each (i.e. each steering committee member would have a maximum of 2 votes) accordingly David Gordon’s proxy requested to Ray Ashton was not valid and the vote assigned to the alternate for the group, Roseanne Clementi.
FWC response to incidental take issues -- Concrete suggestions and recommendations of the Stakeholder group were positively taken into consideration by FWC. Gregg Holder updated the group as follows:
With incidental take permit, permittees pay mitigation fees that are used to buy conservation lands. FWC will accept applications to amend current IT permits to allow voluntary humane relocation by move off-site, until long term conservation measures are worked out. Ammended IT permits will allow moving Gopher Tortoise up to 100 miles to receiving sites. All that is needed are a map of the relocation site and two letters. 1) from the land owner stating he/she wants to move GT to a receiving site; 2) from the recipient site responsible stating they accept the relocated animals. FWC will not refund or divert mitigation fees for this process and any costs must be met by the donor and recipient parties. This permit ammendment can be made very quickly by sending the letters to Rick McCann at FWC. Long term issues need to be addressed such as evaluation of relocation sites and population density. However, FWC is trusting the professional knowledge of those that are involved relocation. The group recommended that relocation sites have suitable habitat and appropriate tortoise density and tortoises be enclosed at relocation sites. This interim measure will become effective immediately and will be noticed and posted to FWC website.
Evaluation of Quick fixes. The stakeholder group was asked to express its views and experience regarding the effect of four measures adopted by FWC to facilitate easier relocation of tortoises. The ‘Quick fixes adopted since April 2006 were the new rule protecting burrows, suspension of the requirement for URTD testing, expansion of the distance considered to be ‘on-site’ to 2 miles and extension of the allowable distance of relocation from 50 miles to 100 miles.
Stakeholders generally stated that these measures have worked to make relocation easier and faster and offered many examples and personal experiences that included:
- FWC reports an increase of 57% in relocation permits issued since the changes compared to the preceding 6 months.
- Several consultants reported that they now direct their clients directly to relocation options.
- Several people reported small site relocations quickly permitted and completed.
- Counties reported better compliance with protection requirements due to developer and consultant appreciation of the burrow rule.
- Several pro-active initiatives to locate recipient sites.
- Concern was expressed that increased application for relocation permits created a workload for FWC staff and permit processing had slowed down, but several dissenting views (expeditious permit process) presented.
- FWC permit staff cooperative and interactive response to permit needs was applauded.
- The need to coordinate with County permit process and the continuing concern about recipient sites remain.
While the quick fixes have been successful, the group recognized the need to continue with the systematic and comprehensive development of the species management plan as the best future option for successful gopher tortoise conservation.
Report on a new initiative for private mitigation preserves. Tom Logan of Breedlove Dennis Inc. gave a presentation on the Morgan Lake Wales Preserve in Polk County. This is a private, family owned property of 487 acres strategically located as a corridor between other protected areas that has now been secured under a conservation easement and will be available as compensatory mitigation for destruction of upland habitat. The preserve is primarily designed to mitigate destruction of isolated small fragments of habitat of scrub jays and sand skinks, securing continuous and well protected habitat in return. The area will also serve as mitigation for gopher tortoise habitat incidental to the primary focus species.
Tom explained the concept, process and benefits accruing to the owners (continued use, protected land and probably tax advantages), the FWC (long term protection and management of the preserve by the owners) and a special Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) that brokered the action and will manage the mitigation distribution on a commercial basis. While process had been time consuming (2.5 years) it is hoped that the legal instruments and understanding developed in concert with the owner, FWC and private investors were now available as precedents and models for similar arrangements in future. The economic success of the venture now rests on the timely issuance of actual mitigation permits using the preserve.
The Morgan preserve model has clear application to the FWC staff proposal to establish a process for registration of tortoise recipient sites. The group applauded Tom, Breedlove Dennis and FWC for promoting this groundbreaking initiative.
Revised Permit Process flow- David Arnold presented the revised proposal from FWC for a permit process including small sites. Six major ‘channels’ for permits are recognized:
- Certification of recipient sites.
- Certification of qualified individuals who can move tortoises.
- Small sites (< 10 burrows) requiring self help On-site relocation or Off-site relocation requiring more detailed professional assistance.
- Larger numbers On-site relocation and Larger numbers Off-site relocation to fully protected recipient sites.
- Larger numbers Off-site relocation to sites lacking complete protection.
- Other special circumstances for lethal take, resolution of enforcement cases.
The proposal is to structure application processes and conservation contributions to create positive incentives for land owners to favor conserving tortoises in well protected areas of suitable habitat- thereby ensuring conservation value to the activity. The process also recognizes the logistic and staffing difficulties of giving detailed review to every small site, but structures triggers in the application process that would alert staff to review applications. The group discussed the concept and process and offered the following recommendations:
- Require the site ‘Folio/Tax parcel” number in the application as the best unambiguous identifier of ownership that cross references to other local permit requirements.
- Make the on-line applications accessible on-line for review by local authorities.
- Review applications from a single applicant/parcel for progressive elimination of tortoises.
- Provide detailed information/ education both on-line and in media on tortoise biology and characteristics to assist private individuals identify their correct action.
- Encourage counties to link gopher tortoise permits to other permit issuance.
- Provide lists of available experts, certified tortoise movers and consultants.
- For individual certification- review other models for process of assigning agents (sea turtle conservation, burn certification).
- Provide an equitable way to distribute or share mitigation revenues with local authorities who incur regulatory costs (inspection, enforcement, processing etc.)
- Need to establish base level and step-ups for conservation contributions in consultation with stakeholders.
- Continued concern and need to specify what constitutes acceptable emergency lethal take.
- Require escrow/bonds to pay for default in recipient site long term management (Morgan Preserve example).
- Concern expressed about linking process to burrow count rather than tortoise count.
- Suggestion to generate revenues for habitat conservation and management from all applicants using on-line payment possibilities.
- Concern that ‘Take’ provision may be inconsistent with other FWC regulated species and federal law.
- Concern that community tortoise on-site protection is not adequately covered (but FWC considers these can be included in current proposal).
After discussion, the group proposed a vote of confidence to recommend that FWC continue to develop this process as outlined, adding the functional details for additional stakeholder review and giving attention to the various points raised by the group. The vote received 14 votes in support (a sufficient 75% majority of 16 votes for approval) following our governance rule, a dissenting opinion was recorded by 2 voters and is attached separately but is an integral part of the decision:
Special Conservation sites, (‘crown jewels’ and heritage assurance colonies). A draft list of sites meeting FWC’s proposed criteria of large area, excellent habitat and well protected tortoise populations was reviewed and the dilemma of these areas discussed. On one hand, joining these with corridors to increase their connectivity would enhance their biological and conservation value BUT, restocking tortoises adjacent to these excellent areas could have unforeseen negative consequences on tortoise demographics, behavior, disease incidence or other detrimental factors. We clarified that many of these sites are not owned or managed by FWC and their future value in tortoise conservation depended upon the voluntary cooperation of other owners and agencies. The Gopher tortoise management plan will address mechanisms that FWC will use to establish that cooperation. Issues discussed were:
- Many listed sites are already adjacent to contiguous protected/managed lands.
- The inherent biology of tortoises makes natural recovery/ restoration slow.
- Consider existing blueprints, maps, GIS sources and other integrated guides to habitat conservation (e.g. CWCS, IFNAI, TNC etc.).
- Note that future management of tortoises will have to be flexible and adaptive.
- Plan and conduct robust research on actions and consequences.
- Consider detailed demographic modeling to answer some of these population viability issues in the management plan.
Next Meeting. Group agreed to POSTPONE the meeting scheduled 10 November.
Next meeting will be 8 December 2006.
The meeting closed at 4.20 pm. |
|
