Meeting MinutesFBHCP Steering Committee meeting

31 March 2015Tallahassee

Steering Committee members present: Kipp Frohlich, Fred Aschauer, Julie Wraithmell, Gary Appelson, Jeff Gore, Stephen James, Rebecca O’HaraSteering Committee members by phone: Brett Moore

Others present: David Dell, Roxanna Hinzman, Jimmy Sellers, Robbin Trindell, Brian Powell, Niki Desjardin, Jennifer McGee, Tom Ostertag, Gene Chalecki, Kim Colstad, Lois Edwards, Rebecca Pfaller, Robert Hardy, Lauren Floyd, Kent Wimmer (Defenders)Others by phone: Bob Ernest, Lauren (CBMI?), Paul Davis, Mike Flaxman

Comments on December meeting minutes?

December minutes approved.

UPDATES

JM Phase 7 was the grant we were working on last year and some the year before (2014), and that expired in December. However, we requested an extension so now it expires at the end of June. There isn’t a lot of funding left in that grant, but what’s left will be used for the initial planning process for the NEPA and EIS, which we’ll talk more about later.

Phase 8 is where we had that long delay, but it’s the contract we’re currently working under.

Phase 9, which is the last grant we submitted, was awarded and will take us through March 2018. We don’t actually plan on starting on the tasks in this grant until the fall of this year – probably October.

If there are no questions then I’ll turn it over to Jimmy to go over the Gantt chart.

JS The Gantt chart starts with 2010, which is when we came on board. What we’re actively working on take – take – starts on line 35. We/re wrapping up those take estimates and should be getting them to you before the next meeting. The draft of the chapter is nearly

1

complete but it’s a matter of getting the final take estimate numbers from the GIS system that we’re using to estimate take.

Mapping support, which was mainly for our take estimates, is coming closer to an end as we will be using a little bit of it for our mitigation planning. FWC is taking the lead, with DEP, on developing the minimization measures, and I believe that should be wrapping up in the first half of 2016 as well.

Mitigation is what we’re in the throes of now and I’ll be talking more about that later on in the meeting. Once we get our mitigation measures determined we’ll pick up the adaptive management chapter again and complete that chapter hopefully by the end of 2016.

From there, we’ll get into the implementation chapter which will get into the nuts and bolts of how the plan will be implemented within DEP.

A few meetings ago we were asked to parse out the review and approval process in a little more detail, and we’ve done that. Our target for the completion of the plan is at the end of 2017. After that, we expect the USFWS will have the plan for up to 2 years for review. At the same time, we hope the statute and rule changes will be moving forward and DEP will be taking on the full implementation. So that’s the 30,000 foot view of what’s going on. There’s a much more detailed Gantt chart that I’d be happy to send to you if you’d like.

BE In the Gantt chart where you have the document ending on a certain date, is there a separate line for DEP Secretary review or is that included in that?

JS The Secretarial review is a subline under the Plan approval and submittal (line 137), and we expect that to start at the end of 2017 and go through the beginning of 2018.

JM Fred, do you know about how long the Secretary will need to review?

FA Probably at least a couple of months, but the legislation that will be proposed by DEP won’t go downtown until it get the Secretary’s approval. So I have trouble believing that the Secretary will sign off on legislation before he sees a complete plan. I don’t think we’re going to be able to keep this schedule; I don’t think it’s realistic to ask the Secretary to sign off on legislation when you can’t tell him everything that’s going to be in the plan.

JM We should have the plan complete in 2018.

FA Right, but I don’t think the Legislature is going to pass legislation without us being able to tell them what’s in the plan.

KF I don’t disagree. We met with our head lobbyist and her staff in the last couple of weeks, and we’re still in the process of developing part of the legislative “ask” because it takes a long time internally for us just to get Nick Wiley and everyone else on board. So we’re moving forward in understanding at least some of what the legislative items might be. I think we’ve had the discussion before in here that it’s not necessarily a legislative item that

2

approves the plan; there are technical changes that would have to happen to some of the laws that regulate beach activities and others. So I think we’re trying to frame up what that would look like and anticipate problems that may come up. I know Jackie Fauls wants to meet with her DEP counterpart at some point to have a conversation of what those legislative changes might look like. But we realize that sometimes it’s a multiple year effort when you’re working with the Legislature.

JW I just wouldn’t want to see the legislative process hold up the review by the Service.

GA I think we’ve been told that we can submit the plan to the Service prior to legislative approval. Also, I think we need a two-tiered approach where we go to the Legislature with the things that don’t necessarily require a full understanding of the HCP and then go back once we complete the HCP for other legislative approval. So maybe we need to flesh out what we can go to the Legislature ahead of time, for instance the change to include other species or to add an operational phase to CCCL permits.

FA Just so I understand, you’re suggesting we go to the Legislature with changes that could happen with or without the plan. And that’s under the assumption that as we go forward, these changes will pave the road for the plan.

GA Correct. And maybe the entire legislative packet can come to the Steering Committee at some point prior to the 2017 session so that we can have that discussion and see if there are other things that might not have to wait until the 2018 session.

KF In our internal process we’re already feeling like we’re hitting up against timelines. We start a year and a quarter ahead of time in terms of bringing something to the Legislature. And we have a placeholder for this, but it’s not really tracking because of the timing. And normally we have to take our legislative proposals to the Commission beforehand. But I think FWC and DEP legislative staff should gather together and talk about this in more detail, because one of us will be running it and one of us will be backing it and so forth. I don’t disagree that once we get our game plan in order the Steering Committee members need to be brought in and evaluate. So hopefully in the near future we can get the two agencies together to start going over this.

JM We’ve already started filling out the paperwork for the review team. It was submitted to them a couple weeks ago, and we have another meeting with them the week after next to go over that and beef up the information that we put in there already.

NEPA: EA v. EIS

JM As I mentioned before, we have put in the last couple grants to start the NEPA review process, which is a required document for the HCP. There’s been a lot of discussion about whether we should be pursuing an Ecological Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Right now, as a working group, we’re leaning toward an EA for a couple of reasons.

3

KF Before we get into that, can we have someone from the Service give us an elevator speech on the difference between the two?

BP The difference between the two is really the significance of the impacts to the environment. It isn’t restricted to environmental impacts; it also includes impacts to the human environment as well. The EA would represent a federal action that does not incorporate significant environmental impacts. An EIS would represent a federal action that does result in significant impacts to the environment. I would ask David (Dell) what triggers significant and not significant.

DD An EA is a quick review. You’re looking for impacts to the human environment that might be significant. If you find that there are a number of those that are significant, then you would move to an EIS. Sometimes you can determine up front that an EIS is unlikely and we just do an EA and a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI). If you’re not able to reach a FONSI in your EA, then you do the EIS and go through that lengthy process. But the question is, are the impacts to the human environment significant. I’m not enough of an expert on NEPA to rattle off what significant means, but I think if there’s enough change in things like air quality and species impact and traffic volume and that sort of thing, then you would be starting to get into an EIS. NEPA is nothing more than a public disclosure act. It is a part of our federal decision on the Incidental Take Permit, but it’s a procedure for disclosure of the impacts to the human environment, but it’s not necessarily driving our decision on the permit.

KF Thanks for that, David. Now Jennifer’s going to fill back in, from the working group’s perspective, and then we’ll have time for open discussion.

JM The whole idea with the HCP process, from an environmental perspective, is that there should be no significant environmental impact. If nothing else, there should be a conservation lift through the whole process. There was also the consideration of the timeframe; the EIS is a much lengthier process – 2-5 years. The EA process is typically only 6 months to a year. There is also a significant cost difference, where the EIS is much more costly. The one thing they have in common is that it shows that there is a lot of public input. So with all that, the working group is leaning toward an EA. Also, with the amount of money we have set aside for the NEPA analysis, it’s enough to do an EA, but if we did an EIS we would have to possibly ask for another grant from the Service.

JG Can a member of a third party compel an EIS?

DD During the public comment period on the HCP we are simultaneously advertising the EA. Someone can raise objections and provide facts that it should be elevated to an EIS, and then we can decide whether or not to do that. Beyond that, you’re getting into a court telling you to do it. So we just need to be sure that the level that we use is defendable. I hear you alluding to going the EA route, and we’re concluding that that would be an appropriate route, too.

GA What is normally done with an HCP that is relatively complicated?

4

DD It’s not the complexity; it’s the level of impact to the human environment and the significance of those impacts.

FA You could do a legal challenge, but a court could also conclude that an EA is the appropriate process.

JG Jennifer, is the proposal to do an EA your opinion or FWCs opinion, or what we’d run by the Service to get their concurrence?

JM That’s what the working group has come to, and Brian is a member of the working group. Brian’s also been reaching out to Roxanna and David throughout these discussions, so that’s where we are now.

FA I heard you say that one of the reasons you’re leaning toward an EA is because of the lift, but isn’t every federal project required to mitigate? So is mitigation the consideration, or is it the impact pre-mitigation?

BP It’s a decision based on the result of the action, which is the issuance of an ITP. In our internal discussions at the Service, one of the reasons that we decided that an EA is the appropriate route is that the activities that the ITP will cover won’t change as a result of this. DEP will still be permitting the same activities under the CCCL program that it’s permitting now.

KF I’ve heard the word ‘impacts’ used a lot, and in the context they’re being used I’m hearing ‘negative impacts.’ So we’re evaluating whether there are significant negative or detrimental impacts. Is that correct?

BP Yeah, it’s referring to is there an increased burden to federal citizens.

KF And when we talk about ‘human environment’ are we talking about the effects on the people or the effects on the ecological system and species and all that? Is it both?

BP Both

DD NEPA is more inclusive than the ESA, and it does include all of those aspects of the human environment.

JM Would ‘human environment’ also refer to the monetary side of things? Would the collection of mitigation fees be an impact?

BP We did talk to some other people in the Service about that and were told that economics is not a consideration.

FA Is an EA required to do a ‘no action’ alternative as well?

5

DD Yes

KW Haven’t you folks already written a lot of that in the plan already? When I looked at the plan, it looked like an EIS. You’ve already done half or 3/4 the work. What’s the problem?

FA I don’t think there’s a problem so much as it’s choosing the best procedural vehicle. And I think the meat of the HCP hasn’t been written – the mitigation measures and all those things. Like David said, the NEPA is a requirement of the federal government to show that you’ve considered everything. You cannot compel an outcome out of an EIS. You can only require the agency to go back and consider more, and then the agency can do that and come back and decide that they’re still going to do what they planned to do before. So it’s really just a process and a matter of picking the right process.

JW It sounds like what they’re saying is if we embark on an EA and suddenly a boogie man pops up, then you automatically move to the EIS. So why wouldn’t we just start with the EA? It sounds like staff and the working group are recommending that, and the Service is recommending that. It also seems like it’s the most efficient option. I think the working group’s recommendation is a good one.

FA And I disagreed with you until Brian said that the activities are already happening. That’s when I realized that an EA is probably the appropriate route to take.

KW My point was that with the amount of work and effort you’re putting into developing a good plan, you’re already well beyond the point of what you have to do for an EA. So then, now can you shop this around and get greater public input than just the stakeholders.

KF That’s a good segue into the mechanics of it. That is, who’s going to be doing this process and the mechanics of conducting it?

JM I don’t know that we’ve actually made a final decision on that.

TO We had a thought that this might be a fairly easy process if someone like Dave Henkla were involved.

KF So someone who’s familiar with the process can take all the good work that’s been done and put the pieces together in the right format and deliver that as a contract deliverable. It sounds like everyone’s on board with the EA approach, so at some time in the future the next step would be to find someone to do that.

JM Right, and we still haven’t decided if that’s going to be contracted out to someone else. Dave has over 20 years of experience, but there’s also a lot of experience in Coastal Tech, so we’re still discussing all that.

6

BM Listening to your discussion I think the EA certainly makes perfect sense, since all the plan is doing is reducing potential impacts from an ongoing program. When you talked about the human impacts, does that also include financial impacts?

BP No, the NEPA process does not include economics.

BM Okay, then it’s seems very straightforward that the EA would be the way to go.

BE One important consideration here in terms of the actual process and who might be doing it is there’s a distinction between what’s in the HCP and the NEPA document. In the HCP the Department’s proposing those activities it wants to perform and is assessing impacts it envisions the plan will have and includes an alternatives analysis. The EA is a Service document; it’s something that the Service is required to prepare so it might take a slightly different bent and might have, from their perspective, perhaps more objectivity into the analysis than the Department might have. So even though we think this is a very sound HCP, some of the alternatives that are presented in the HCP might not be included in the EA, and it may include additional alternatives to analyze. Even though it’s a Service document, it’s typically the person or consulting form preparing the HCP that does that just because it facilitates the whole permitting process. So for that reason, it might make sense to have an independent third party prepare the EA.

BP It is very typical for the NEPA analysis to be contracted out to someone outside of the Service, mostly just because of timing. But it is possible to have the NEPA document be prepared by a contractor who has worked on the HCP, however if that’s the case, it must be done by someone in that organization or firm that was not involved in the HCP.

JG You mentioned that economics is not a consideration in the EA, but it might be beneficial to include a cost-benefit analysis of the alternatives.

JM We have hired Stratus consulting to complete an economics analysis, and they’ll be giving us an update later on in the agenda.

BP And I’d just like to let the Steering Committee know, and remind the working group, that this is a part of the HCP that we really need to be moving forward on. Even the EA process can be pretty lengthy and it can be pretty in depth.

KF How should we keep moving forward with the assessment before we have a complete plan to assess? I’m not really sure how you do an EA on a work in progress.

BP There are documents that need to be prepared and I think we have enough information already to initiate the process.

KF I’m a little foggy on who will be writing the contract for whoever we decide to hire on to do this? It’s a Service requirement, so is it something the Service will contract out, or something FWC or DEP will do?

7

JM I believe it will be a subcontract under Coastal Tech. DEP has the contract with Coastal Tech to complete the tasks, including the NEPA, so it will likely be subcontracted under them.

RP It’s in the grant agreement between FWC and the Service.

GC So it’s another task assignment?

RP Yes.

KF So we spoke earlier that eventually the Secretary has to review this document and determine whether DEP is satisfied with the HCP. In terms of the EA, I would assume that it’s the Service that has to approve that. Is that correct? And if so, at what level does that approval take place?

DD That happens at the regional level in Atlanta.

GA Who’s pulling the trigger on what the dates are for this EA?

JM That work is going to begin under the Phase 7 grant, so once that new contract is executed, that work will be initiated. So that should happen in the next couple of weeks.

GA Is that on the Gantt chart?

JS It’s included in the section titled “FWS review and approval.” We will break that down into more detailed tasks and timeline when we define those.

OUTREACH

JM A suggestion was brought up at the last Steering Committee meeting to reevaluate and update our outreach schedule. It has been our plan to in 2017 focus heavily on outreach, and that’s not going to change. The biggest thing is just starting our 2016 outreach a little earlier than we originally planned. The reason for that is if we do have material we want to bring up at the 2017 session, we want to get out there and start garnering even more support from more stakeholders prior to that.

This is some of the outreach that’s already been done in 2016; February was an especially busy month. I presented at a conference for the Environmental Land Use Section of the Florida Bar. A lot of people at that meeting were just hearing about the HCP for the first time. However, I also sat on a panel for one session and the other panelists were familiar with the HCP. I’ve received feedback from attendees at that meeting, mostly just asking how they can help contribute to the HCP process.

The Service held a meeting on coastal armoring and sea turtles and there was a large focus on the HCP and how it’s going to address coastal armoring issues with sea turtles. Jimmy

8

and Robbin also presented at that meeting and I know they got some questions about the HCP, as well.

We also had the Florida Marine Turtle Permit Holder meeting. This was really important because a lot of our minimization measures will include the permit holders. The Southeast Regional Sea Turtle meeting also brought in many of the permit holders.

There was the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association tech conference where I also presented. The FSBPA annual conference is coming up in September and I’m planning on attending that, as well. The tech conference was a great opportunity to get feedback from a completely different group of people than the biologist side of things.

We had one round of species expert meetings, and Amy will give us updates from those in a minute. And finally, I was invited to participate in a Monroe County coastal hardening meeting, which included people from the county, DEP, ACOE, and TNC. The main focus of that meeting was coastal hardening, but it did expand into other coastal issues they’re having down there. Monroe County currently has an HCP for key deer, and some of those issues overlap with sea turtle issues. Currently, the Beaches HCP only covers beaches in Monroe County that are identified as critically eroding beaches, which right now only includes about 13 miles of beach and most of that is in state parks.

We still have a lot more outreach planned for the rest of 2016, and we’re always open to suggestions for any other groups that we should start targeting. We have a couple other species expert meetings planned. We’re planning on having another annual stakeholder webinar and that will just be updating on where are in the development process.

We’ve done some county specific outreach which was kind of a targeted pilot outreach. We went to them with some of the minimization measures to see what they might be interested in being involved with and see what they may already be doing, because a lot of our minimization will be contingent on county participation. We’ve met with Volusia, Indian River, Sarasota, Palm Beach, Escambia, and Gulf. We’re going to start the rest of the county outreach by targeting the Gulf Islands National Seashore, more panhandle counties, St. Johns County, Broward, and Collier.

In terms of upcoming meetings, I mentioned the FSBPA annual conference which is in September. The SEAFWA conference is also coming up in the fall. We’d like to meet with more NGOs who have expressed interest in the HCP – Surfrider and IDEAS are two. And then we’d like to meet with some of the more specific groups, like the Florida Realtor Association and the Tourism Council. Then in 2017 we’ll be targeting more of the regulated community.

JW If you’re already having conversations with Jackie about legislation, you may want to ask her if there are strategic committee chairs or other influential folks in the counties who you should be reaching out to.

9

FA I applaud this effort, because this is something that I’ve been interested in since day one – that we have a good, transparent process. And especially with local governments, I think that’s where this plan may live or die.

JM Our plan is to reach out to all 25 counties that will be involved in the HCP, and that’s why it’s good we have our two Steering Committee members – Stephen James and Rebecca O’Hara.

RO If you can get me a list of the 25 counties, I can give you links to all the cities within those counties. We’ve got really good abilities for coordinating those folks, too.

BM I think it’s a great idea to reach out to the cities, because I think a lot of times there’s a disconnect between the counties and the cities. I would especially reach out to the city of Sanibel; they’re a very environmentally sound community. My other comment is with regard to Monroe County and the armoring. That’s a 50 ft setback down there and I didn’t know if Gene knew if they’ve ever been given armoring permits.

GC My recollection is that there may be one, but I haven’t recalled one recently. I’m not really connected with that program, so if there’s been one that’s been processed recently then I don’t know.

JM The hardening they showed me down there wasn’t the typical seawall; it was just a lot of rocks.

RT I know we’ve been asked to review applications for armoring down there.

MINIMIZATION MEASURES

JM These are different from the ones that were previously sent out, because I know some people had concerns. The ones that have been reviewed by FWC staff and CCCL staff are: sand fencing, dune restoration, mechanical beach cleaning, special events, emergency operations, and vehicle operations. Ones that are still in review are: dune restoration, beach access, design/siting, and coastal armoring. Coastal armoring is our biggest one, and after many meetings and much discussion, including with Brett, we’ve come to the conclusion that there are no minimization measures that will fit all seawalls in all parts of the state. So we’ve been discussing doing sub-categories for the different types of armoring and for different locations. We have some information that Gene and the CCCL staff have provided as well as some documents that Robbin sent me, so I’m working on putting that together to see what kind of options we can come up with.

Another discussion that has come up in these talks has to do with temporary events/structures (such as field permits) versus permanent structures. There’s been concern with things like sand fencing and making sure that it gets removed after some period of time. St. Johns County in particular has been dealing with a lot of washed up fencing. And then there’s the whole operational phase discussion that we still need to resolve.

10

GA Wouldn’t sand fencing be a simple fix? Removal of derelict sand fencing? Wouldn’t that be a minimization measure?

JM Yes, definitely. We just need to make sure that the CCCL staff and everybody is aware that it’s being put in there.

KF I’ll use sand fencing as an example here. Is the team coming up with requirements or practices that if sand fencing is being employed, here are the ways to do sand fencing that have the least impacts?

JM Yes.

KF So these minimization measures wouldn’t be mitigation measures for some other activity.

JM Right.

KF Because I think at least some times in our discussions there’s a framework where you could think that to mitigate for activity A, someone agrees to do activity B. So there’s a conservation lift, because activity B might be pulling out 3 miles of sand fencing. But it sounds like these are just minimization measures for those specific activities.

JM Right. And there may be some instances where if they cover all the minimization measures then there would be no take. So the minimization can’t be so specific that they can’t always be done, which is what we were running into with the coastal armoring.

FA Do you have any idea what the minimization measures are for dune restoration?

JM It’s not finalized yet, but there has been talk about sand quality, types of vegetation, location of the restoration, time of day/year.

GA I think the armoring sub-groups is a great idea because one shoe doesn’t fit all. Can you give us some idea of what some of the sub-groups might be?

JM Types of structure will be one. Location – for example there are some beaches that are high density nesting beaches so those recommendations may be a little stricter. But we don’t know yet exactly how many groups there will be or exactly how they’ll be broken up.

INCIDENTAL TAKE UPDATES

MF One of the primary drivers of all the incidental take simulation work is basically the historic record of CCCL permit. We have about 30 years of permit history, broken out by type or activity group. What’s obvious is that that overall population growth is significant, and so is economic activity cycle. What we’ve done for a 25 year plan projection is to take a linear estimate of all of that data and to treat that as a base driver of expected future permits. So that’s intended to average out the economic cycles, but it’s imperfect because it’s hard to find out a good method to smooth things when there are really pits and spikes.

11

As a reminder, in terms of future, we extrapolate using some work from the University of Florida’s BEBR – they are the official state forecast for demography. We are assuming that future permit activities remain correlated with total households.

In terms of overall incidental take, here’s a map of all species, counties, activities, and incidental take. We have some widely distributed activity, but as you all remember, heavier activity in the panhandle just because there’s more developable land there. There’s also stronger activity in the upper east coast and gulf than in the more traditionally highly-populated southeast.

In terms of just the sea turtles, which are kind of indicative of the broader scale impacts, these impacts are driven largely by single-family residential. Second tier is multi-family commercial buildings. We may be wrong in detail if the biophysical environment starts changing in ways that we’re not simulating, but we think that overall there’s fairly solid evidence that since we’re recording single- and multi-family residences pretty well in Florida, we have a fair idea of where this stuff has gone and will go. And the amount of impacts relative to occupied habitat is around 40%.

In terms of updates, in broad brush the overall patterns haven’t changed since we did this a couple years ago. We made one major adjustment, which was cleaning up the beach raking permits. But the stuff is distributed across the state, and it’s driven by single-family residential, as I said before.

As for changes, we’ve had a lot of discussion in the working group about direct versus indirect impacts. The terminology has proven to be very confusing, so I’ll try to explain using an example. But the initial intent was to show which areas of incidental take could be affected by mitigation. So an example is multi-family residential construction, and we were thinking of direct take as something like the building footprint and construction area. Those are essentially irreversible habitat loss. The indirect impacts, which we are also legally required to account for, would be the activity buffer around the structure expected from normal ongoing occupancy. So, for instance, the human activity might impact a colonial nesting shorebird’s ability to nest. So the basic system we have buffers for the total of direct and indirect activities. But when you think about the difference between those two kinds of things, there is some potential that the mitigation could affect the indirect buffer. So that’s what brought on this attempt to try to split them out and think about it. So beyond the required minimization measures, there could be, for instance, predator control and locking garbage cans to control to reduce predation. And if that were done as a mitigation practice, that would reduce the quality-adjusted take for mitigation purposes. So if that’s done, it doesn’t affect our overall incidental take estimate, but it could affect the mitigation fees, for instance, if those were done for quality-adjusted take.

The challenges have been considerable and they come in two big groups. Basically this formula requires substantially more geometric precision than our original one, and that comes in terms of area and location. Our statewide minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 50 x 50 ft., which is a fair sized building. And anything smaller than that can’t really be

12

represented, so our smallest relative footprint is relatively large. So if you start putting in beach cabanas or other small activities and start to map their footprint within that MMU constraint, you can introduce very large errors if you’re counting lots of small activities. The other part of it is that the locations of the simulated points start to matter much more precisely, because you don’t have the averaging effect of using the larger buffers. So originally our point locations are largely driven by the parcels and by historic point data. For each historic point, we have an approximate point for the CCCL permit, and we compute it a setback from shoreline to try to get at the concept of line of construction because we want to show future activities going in roughly the same distance from shoreline as they had historically. But that does run into a couple types of problems. One is that in some counties, you get a lot of parcels going out into the water. I don’t know the history of that, but it’s odd and it’s not uniform. For instance, in Gulf County, our estimates are higher and there’s apparently a data error that’s starting to drive that. The other problem is that the CCCL permit locations vary greatly in spatial precision, but are generally around 50 m accuracy. So that doesn’t even get you onto the parcel for a very small beach parcel. So we’re just limited in what we can infer from the historic data. With all that said and with all those important caveats included, we did go ahead and split out some direct effects. And the 3 that we did were basically small buildings, large buildings, and unoccupied/unlit structures (e.g. seawalls).

The overall map is showing a lot of direct take in the eastern panhandle. If we break it out by species group, the non-breeding shorebirds and the sea turtles get the brunt of the direct take just because they’re getting the brunt of the take overall due to their spatial extent. The overall direct take accounts for less than 10% of the total take. We’re getting something like 500 ac of direct take on sea turtles for instance. That’s not surprising, but it has to be considered relative to the limitations.

So basically our recommendations on direct take are limited, and we’re hoping to hear from the Steering Committee. Data and method limitations make the distinction problematic for the reasons we’ve just discussed. Also, the expert opinions that we gathered originally for the incidental take model purpose was based on total take. So if we’re going to go further with direct take, we would have to go back to the expert groups and vet those differences. So the Steering Committee guidance that we’re hoping for is basically whether or not to pursue this approach further. If it’s highly valued, we can adjust the work plan and better account for it, but it’s going to require significantly more work. Or we can base things on the more general conclusions, which I think are more solid at the aggregate level. And those are pretty straightforward – direct take is a fairly small share of the incidental take. For mitigation planning purposes, we can assume that there is the ability to reduce the quality-adjusted take pretty much everywhere, and that’s kind of the policy question.

JW So this rough 90/10% split that you’re suggesting, is that consistent across the species and across geographic regions?

MF It varies a bit. One interesting thing is that for beach mice, the direct take is a higher fraction of things, and that’s just because the activities are further back from the shoreline. I don’t think we looked at it activity by activity, but the obvious one that had the largest

13

difference was beach armoring. When you think about armoring, the direct footprint is relatively small compared to the total footprint of the incidental take. So what you can do about indirect take from a seawall is different from what you can do about indirect take from beach raking.

FA So currently today, if a CCCL application comes to FWC for review, do you think of it in terms of direct and indirect?

RT We are looking at the footprint of an armoring structure, for example, and how much it intersects with suitable nesting habitat. So it’s direct.

FA For a single-family residence that’s coming in without an armoring structure, do you consider the kids playing in the backyard kind of stuff?

RT We don’t. We look at the lighting and we try to minimize that.

BP Another thing to consider is that as the Service goes through the process of issuing an incidental take permit, we have to conduct a Section 7 consultation with ourselves to evaluate the project for compliance with the ESA. One of the requirements of that is we have to consider indirect effects of the action. So that’s one of the reasons we had Mike consider those indirect effects, so that it’s identified when we do our Section 7 evaluation.

RT I want to be clear that we don’t typically look at single-family homes, but when we look at multi-family we do ask about things like beach furniture and how they’re going to manage that.

FA But the take estimate is what’s going to drive the bank in terms of the cash estimate of mitigation, right?

BP Yes.

MF That’s why this is a challenging problem, because if you want to charge differently for that direct take you could, but you have to have a method to solidify those numbers. People are going to argue a lot if they’re being charged by the square foot of the building footprint. If you’re just charging as a total, then less arguable then.

JW I just question how we’re ever going to get the degree of precision in that data to get the degree of precision of the output that you’re looking for. Maybe it’ll inform our monitoring program going forward, but I guess in my head I’m weighing if we decide we have to get that, is it a better investment to force the data to become more precise or do you take it out of this GIS structure and ask for individual human review of the application beyond a certain point to get to that final degree of precision.

MF That’s a great point, and it’s absolutely true that we could do better in the future if we changed the methods used to gather the data. But it’s also true that what we’re talking about is just hugely complex, particularly on quantifying the indirect effects side. So the

14

future permit data could improve this over time, however we’re stuck with the historic data which are imprecise. I think in time there could be individual permit review. You could learn from that individual permit review over time to adjust the mitigation recipes and formulas, however it doesn’t help us now in trying to set up the original system. We’ve done a couple of things before where we did stratified sampling with the original footprint analysis Coastal Tech did, and for each region we did some sampling of individual structures and measured things more carefully. We didn’t attempt to do a complete comprehensive on that, but we did do a sampling-based approach. So you could do the same thing on the indirect impacts, and the only sane thing to do would be a sampling-based approach. But again, it’s kind of easier to quantify the direct part of the effects. So if we wanted to get the direct part more precise we could, but it doesn’t help as much on the indirect. The indirect is the biological interactions or the human interactions with biology, and that’s just inherently difficult and you can’t do that from GIS. You have to do that from reviews and field data. So we could take that approach where we tease out the direct. We could pull a stratified random sample of those, and we could get solid numbers on the direct part of the equation. But that’s the policy side of it – is it worth it? It’s only worth it if you’re going to differentially charge based on direct or indirect.

JS Brian, earlier you said the Service has to take indirect effects into account for the Section 7, but I don’t think I heard you say that you have to quantify the difference between direct and indirect. Is that correct?

BP That’s correct.

DM I just want to comment that the incidental take that Mike is coming up with is really the “ask” for the Service, but you know that going forward they probably won’t match exactly with what’s going on, on the ground. So the question is how much more benefit do you get from refining these versus the pivot to the mitigation work? I think Mike has certainly passed the bar of a reasonable interpretation and a thoughtful effort to inform the “ask” to the Service, and I think we probably need to pivot to the mitigation.

GA So the combined direct and indirect take informs the bank, and it informs the mitigation. Correct?

JS The combined direct and indirect effects determines the total amount of take we’re going to ask from the Service. And the total take feeds into the mitigation.

KF It seems like there are a number of ways to deal with the indirect take, which has sort of been described as a “but for” scenario. The direct take has been described as a permanent loss of habitat. After that is where I struggle, and I think we’ve always had a struggle with that as an agency, and it sounds like it’s a federal struggle as well. So when we say it’s informing the bank, I’m not really sure on how we get there with these indirect effects.

KW The system is based, is seems to me, on a static system; you’re looking at impacts that are happening right now. So when we have sea level rise and the existing habitat is wiped, how does this model address climate change and sea level rise? For instance when

15

structures are knocked out or when the habitat is completely gone and you’re left with the surf right at the base of the seawall, how does this address that?

JM Mike has actually taken that into consideration in this take model – sea level rise, change in climate, change in economics, population changes, etc.

BP Mike has looked at things like sea level rise in his model in the process of identifying take. I think your question of how is the plan going to incorporate climate change and sea level rise to insure that there are those functioning systems is going to be addressed and provided for in the mitigation plan. So for those impacts, we will be looking at mitigation projects that will take into consideration those aspects.

JW I guess the reason I was asking about does the proportion shift based on geography or species or type of impact is because maybe there’s a proxy. If we’re talking about lumping direct and indirect, but at some point in the future we want to give particular emphasis to direct impacts, maybe we use the type of impact as the proxy for that rather than trying to drill down. I guess what I’m saying is that maybe for a particular type of impact within that we do add additional weight for direct impact. I just don’t know how much more precision we’re going to get out of this. I’m sure Mike can tease some more out of this with extraordinary effort, but if that’s the best use of resources I don’t know.

MF We’ll talk a little bit later about some of the mitigation possibilities, but I do think that if the burden of proof is on the mitigation activity to show how it can reduce the biological impact of the take, then maybe that’s another formulation of this. We have a fairly rough big box for take and then we get more refined on the mitigation side because we can take into account quality, and we can also kind of change the burden of proof in a way. So we can look at measures that are not legally required, but if people want to go above and beyond, we can choose to give them credit for having done so. It’s basically a more flexible formulation running forward because as we get better data as we get biological results from the activities that have been undertaken for mitigation, then the formula, for instance, for the funding side as well as the mechanisms could be adjusted. But it seems like the incidental take in itself has to be pretty static in a good upfront estimate, but if we try to get it more subtle, it’s more challenging. Whereas the mitigation planning can take a lot of this on, the problems there don’t entirely go away in terms of data, but it does mean that in a permit price-setting mode you could assume the average case and if people are willing to do additional measures, you can adjust for those additional measures off of the average.

FA So your MMU is 50 x 50 ft., and what I’m hearing from you is that the smallest unit you can use it that size. Does that mean we’re overestimating take?

MF It means that we’re overestimating the direct take on anything that’s a small structure, or less than 250 ft2. And just as a reminder, this came from the land cover dataset from FNAI. So it’s the best available land cover set for the state.

16

FA So we are estimating incidental take, but I heard Jennifer say that there will be instances where minimization will result in no take. So we’re estimating as if there is take associated with all these activities, but then in the end, there will be those for which there is not. So is there a way to say this is what take will be and then you put a dollar figure on that in terms of mitigation to offset that, but then really the cost will only be some percentage of that because of minimization?

BP The take that we’re estimating is the take assuming no minimization measures are applied. The process by which we’ll identify mitigation is we’ll take the take estimate amount, then apply the minimization with a quantified amount of reduction of take, and whatever the result is will be the mitigation.

FA I just want to make sure that we’re not creating something where we say, 10 million dollars and in reality at the end because of minimization we really only need 6 million but the Service is still expecting the state of Florida to pay 10 million dollars.

BP So what the service will expect their- one of the issuance criteria for the HCP and for the incidental take permit is to show the financial feasibility of the plan. And so DEP will have to demonstrate that whatever the cost of implementation of the program of the HCP is that they have the financial ability for pay for that. So from the service’s standpoint whatever it is for costs for not just the mitigation plan but also the administrative cost of implementing it- whatever that dollar amount is- that’s what we’ll look to see that the economics of the plan are such that it can be implemented and paid for. And so you know the how DEP works out what part of the plan and how much of the plan the applicant has to pay for is up to DEP. You know how much will get paid to property owners, you know what their responsibility is is up to you. From the service’s standpoint, we are going to be looking at the ability of the plan to be implemented and paid for.

FA I understand that and I think we’re somewhat communicating the same idea but somewhat not. So I guess I just have a concern that we don’t establish a take number that correlates to a dollar figure that in reality is not the dollar figure that people are going to be responsible for. That is my concern, especially if that dollar figure is very large because that is what’s going to get attached to the plan.

BP So I think that’s very easily accounted for in how that information is presented and so the take doesn’t have a dollar figure attached to it. It’s just an acreage. It’s being quantified in acreage not in dollars. Where the dollar comes into play is maybe some of the minimization measures have a dollar amount attached to it and the mitigation would have the dollar amount attached to it. And so it’s a matter of how that information is presented. I would feel as long as the take didn’t have a dollar amount attached to it, you’re not creating that. You’re not making it appear that there is this large number that is going to be paid for when in reality it’s not.

TO Mitigation for each property can be tracked out. Minimization is what’s going to get the dollar value. There’s the big key take at the front- what the whole project is going to do and

17

then there’s take for each project the little piece but not minimize will then have to come up with mitigation

MF Well I guess until we’re into it we won’t know the difference because the difference is going to depend on the homeowner of the landowners willingness to participate in some measures, so part of that’s voluntary. We’ll know averages, but we won’t know those differences. I agree I know it’s kind of a built in issue with the way that the program is required to be designed because we have to estimate the take fairly conservatively so that we don’t overrun it. That’ll lead to a big number by default if you chose to quantify it out. We don’t know how much people are going to be willing to do of the voluntary part of the activities. And what they don’t do on the voluntary part then we as the state then have to turn around and do on the mitigation side. But we don’t know that split until we see how people respond to the program, basically. If you’ve got a 1000 dollar incentive for putting in locking garbage cans, are you going to do it? Probably. If it’s a 10 dollar incentive, maybe not. But for each one of the things that are voluntary measures beyond the required minimization, there is going to be an adoption rate that’s going to depend on human behavioral stuff that’s kind of impossible for us to guess right now. All we know is that the state is going to have to pick up on mitigation, and we know that in acres

BE I’ve got two points not so much a question but basically about Fred’s concerns for the potential for overestimating take that was initially our intent to provide very conservative estimates because my calculations only addresses take for those major activities for which there is a variable to quantify take so we’ve got seven or eight activity groups in the department permits- tens of different types of activities that weren’t accounted for and so if we overestimate take our assumption is that that data accounts for those various miscellaneous activities for which take could not be quantified. And then the second comment I have is that I think that what most informs the response to the questions that Mike is asking is how the Service intends to structure its take authorization. I know that for other HCPs there have been definitive thresholds. For example, seawall. We are authorizing 100 miles of seawall. Just a random number there. If we don’t distinguish between permanent loss of habitat and indirect impacts, then basically it is going to influence how DEP’s accounting of take comes into play. In other words, when they’re reviewing a permit application or issue a permit, do they only concern themselves with the footprint of that structure or do they then have to consider all the indirect effects because if they do then they’ll have to use the same software that I use to estimate future take and use that same software to calculate actual take at the time of the CCCO permit issuance. So I think it’s how the service is really going to structure its take authorization as to whether or not we need to dissect out direct and indirect impacts. Not all direct impacts result in permanent loss of habitat but might cause irreversible effects a seawall does if it is going to stay in for the duration of the permit. Mechanical beach cleaning does not. The direct impacts occur at the time that that equipment is moving around on the beach and the footprint of the habitat it effects but it doesn’t result in permanent loss of habitat and it does have indirect effects as well because it influences perhaps the quality of that habitat and it might affect nesting shorebirds on adjacent properties. That sort of thing. So I just think it’s

18

important that we know how the service is going to authorize the take with the specificity with which they are going to authorize the take because that’s going to influence FDEP’s accounting of take once the permit is issued.

DM This is Dave Mills. I think at some level if the initial question was does the amount of take effect the sort of total cost for the mitigation that’s going to be proposed, the answer’s yes. There’s going to be some level- there needs to be some rough offsetting of the proposed take in the mitigation actions that are included in the plan so if you have more take then you need more mitigation. You know there are ways to structure that so that you could potentially adjust how fees are collected of assessed going forward but at some level there is the relationship that you were asking about.

MF Bryan’s prior point also applies in the sense that it is still the state’s decision how much of the cost of the HCP it absorbs as overhead and how much it passes on to which of the permit holders. That we’re presuming that the portion that’s related to variations in habitat is going to adjust the permit price but there is a base price for instance that the state sets already and that’s a state choice, so it’s not a one to one necessarily. There are still big discretion in what fraction of the overall program costs are borne by whom.

BM Seems like the take- this very conservative value for take- should either be factored somehow up front or we’re looking at factoring it through how you apply the mitigation or the minimization measures and the concern that I’m thinking about is such simplistic things like a house. Would a house that’s on the oceanfront have the same initial take as a second row home or a house that’s across the street? You know that’s just not right if it is. So maybe there’s a way to apply some initial factoring judgement to the take up front so it’s not unproductively excessive.

MF Well that, Brett, is taken into account currently with the geometric processing so indeed, the existing plat in relation to the beach does effect the amount of take that we’re calling and a second row house would definitely have a lower take than the front row so that part is being accounted for as we speak. There are some parts of that- some details of that- that are not determinable basically site layout stuff we don’t know at state scale. Basically, right now, we’re assuming a kind of legal worst case development practice. Like people building to the lot line- maybe they will, maybe they won’t. So that’s another case where we’re doing a conservative estimate. But the geometry is being taken into account as a fundamental part of the method. If we had more precise polygonal geometry of an actual permit, the same method could be used. More accurate data would get a better result. Right now, the historic limitation is based on the accuracy of the historic data. But certainly, a front facing parcel that’s putting in a large activity on the lot line would cause, even in the simulation, a larger impact presuming its closer to habitat. I guess the only exception to that would be the beach mice. But nonetheless, every activity is being judged relative to its proximity to habitat and its overlap with habitat.

BM And does that also consider it being shielded by a structure or just its location relative to habitat?

19

MF It includes its being shielded by any other permitted activity. So right now it’s kind of- the causality is contributed to the closest activity. So you’ll- basically you will get shielding in that sense.

BM Okay. You know it might be helpful at the next meeting- I’m not trying to jump ahead but, it might be helpful to run through just a couple examples of how that’s actually computed.

MF Yes, I apologize. I should have included more graphics, you’re making me realize already.

FA I think it’s a good idea for us to have a demonstration of what it might look like but here’s my concern. It’s that we do a good job of explaining this in our HCP so that people understand this is how we came up with this take number and we built in these assumptions. But that they can, through their actions, reduce their impact, and therefore reduce the dollar amount whether it’s a direct cash payment or a project or mitigation that they do themselves. If I’m the homeowner, I want to know, and I think we need to try and spell this out, I want to know how when I come in for my permit, how I start to on my property reel back those assumptions so I actually get mitigation that actually reflects my home, not these assumptions that by 50x50 foot when it’s not that, it’s just a little beach shack. So I think that’s critical to us for the public to accept this. I brought up, you know kids playing in the back yard but you know there are other things like chairs. As a responsible beach owner I bring my chairs in at night and there are lots of people who do that. So I want to know that I’m not going to pay for those who don’t. So there are things we can do as part of our process working with local governments, etc., to make sure that those things are taken care of and that the person coming in for a permit isn’t going to have to do mitigation based upon our assumptions so we have conservatively estimated to make the service happy that they are issuing their ITP, but then oh we need five more we need 10 more we didn’t get it right and I understand that but it’s very important that we take that next step in our document explaining when we talk about mitigation and minimization how those things will help them roll back that take estimate on a property level basis.

JM When you’re talking about the footprint of the property, the size of the property, location, and that kind of thing and just activities in general, we are working on the online permitting system. There’s going to be areas where once it’s routed through certain ways, and we’re still working on this type of thing, just like a giant flow chart- if you check this box it’ll knock you over to here. If you check this box it’ll knock you over to here. The placement of the structure around the state, the size of the structure, all those things will be boxes essentially in some of those things obviously not all of that’s going to be routed through that system. But we have been talking about having essentially an equation to calculate the specific mitigation fee for the property because it’s- for some of them it can be more of a blanket mitigation fee for the activities because they are all pretty much exactly the same but for something like a housing structure or something they are going to be a little different on all of them and in our last- one of our more recent meetings actually just last week they were kind of talking their way through the options for the flow chart, you know an online permitting system kind of thing, and thinking about how it could fit the one for the options that can be online permitting so you go through you check all these things that

20

will offset some of the take and after that you still have x amount of take and it shows you this is your fee for this amount of take. How does something like an alternatives generator kind of think (think about it like Avis or something). You know, you enter in your flight dates but then there are alternatives- you can fly out of this airport, then it’s cheaper. If you fly on this date then it’s cheaper. So something like that where it shows them if you do it, this is your price as you entered into the system but if you did it at this time of year you’d cut it down to this. If you set it back 20 ft., you cut it down to this. And have those options there, but it’ll also be a fee thing but it’ll- there will be projects, there will options too. There’s going to be a lot of mitigation options because that’s a lot of the feedback that I’ve been getting from a lot of people- to have options for mitigation.

FA I think this will be my final point. I’m glad that you provided me that input but that actually relates to what I was talking about before. If we have an algorithm that that calculates AC this is the mitigation fee I think is the term we use, that same algorithm can be applied to the total take and my concern is that number is going to create sticker shock because we all know we’re not going to be anywhere near that number but if we have that algorithm that’s going to be able to produce the number then it can be applied in total number and you know, $143 billion is just not going to sit well.

KW Or extinction of wildlife on the beach- I mean that’s what we’re talking about.

FA I understand and I think a lot of people would say that $143 billion is- I’m not saying I am but the fact is that numbers drive politics.

KF Absolutely and we deal with this a lot on the state level and we have different programs, like the gopher tortoise program that is dollars and cents. It’s got plusses and minuses and people love it or hate it but it’s developed with the development community and if you go to a level of dollars and cents when you or I or others are trying to walk around to the legislature, you’ve got to give them some kind of realistic dollars and cents that truly does mitigate and provide some conservation level but doesn’t have doors closed where you can’t do anything. So I appreciate bringing that up and it’s important to how it’s going to work. We work for everybody involved, for the conservation community, for Floridians, for the folks that live on the beach. I really hope, and we’ve circled around I hope we’re not really saying this and I like your ‘billions’ or whatever but I’m not comfortable with personally, and I don’t think our agency typically is comfortable with assessing impacts with any perception that people are breaking existing laws. It happens, I get that, but in terms of a calculation- and you didn’t say it that way but I just kind of wanted to say that so again I said earlier there’s ways of mitigating those kind of takes whether closed areas, different local ordinances, or pet or activities, dogs on the beach, dogs off. You can set up those things. I don’t think- I hope we’re not sort of calculating- well if there’s lots of people that fill in the barrier islands then live there, there’s going to be x amount of take that occurs just because of crazy people with flashlights on the beach and riding leatherbacks so I don’t think we should try to put into math that part of human behavior because there’s other ways. We have law enforcement officers to deal with that part of human behavior.

21

MF To be clear, we are not doing that. We’re assuming the most impactful legal behavior, but we are not modeling illegal behavior. So for instance in development, we’re assuming you build to the corner of your lot, and if that corner happens to be on sea turtle habitat, that’s our assumption. This is the kind of Garrison Keillor problem- all children are above average. So we’re assuming basically, for conservative purposes that you’re going to build to the edge of your lot line, whatever’s legal, the biggest structure legal. You’re pushing the law to the edge, but you’re not going beyond it in our assumption. And we know of course that there are people out there that do crazy stuff, but to be clear in the simulation process we’re assuming the most impactful legal case for the species and then we’re hoping that, first of all the average is going to be better than that, and then we’re really hoping that the activities we just talked about can be- that we can illustrate to people ways to get rid of as many of these fees as possible. It’s in all of our joint interests that people are not causing impacts and they’re not getting fees. But I do appreciate the advice in terms of illustrating this. I think we need to illustrate it down at the parcel scale with some examples, even before we do the interactive website piece, just to do a conceptual example that people can get, because we’re being asked to do this at state scale for 60,000 parcels and so forth. That’s the universe I’ve been operating in but we do indeed need to illustrate it- what it would mean to a homeowner under different set of circumstances and what these measures might look like when applied to a lot. And indeed, some places, people are cornered in and they can’t do much because they’ve got a very small lot right up at the beach. In other cases they’ve got much more management flexibility, so I think that’ll vary but we need to show some more kind of parcel level illustrations of how this would play out. We haven’t done that yet only because we haven’t finalized the mitigation part of things but I think we can start to do that. As we design the mitigation, we can design illustrations of what those mitigation or minimization practices look like. And for public education and as well as for explaining why we’re charging what we’re charging. I agree that’s pretty critical.

TO I just want to give a quick statement about the bad behavior he hit on today. Some mitigation can be influenced and changed but the inappropriate behavior can’t.

GA I just wanted to say that you know, you’ve been doing this for a long time. This never is a desire to stick it to the permittee. I’ve never seen it expressed, I’ve never heard it even implied. In fact, it’s always been just the opposite. And I think that everyone who has been involved in this knows that if we go overboard we sink the process. And just to give you some level of comfort, you’re relatively new to the process, but that has never been anybody’s intent and has never been discussed.

(Lunch)

JM We just wanted to clarify one thing. We’re not looking to get back into a discussion we had before lunch because we wanted to try and stick to the time frame but just to clarify, the take estimates that Mike has been working on and putting together for the HCP, it takes into account minimization. It takes into account the very basic minimization measures or that we first drafted and in the beginning and not that what we thing that what we have now is it is the take that is going to be requested now is minimized take so it’s not a total un-

22

minimized take number so it’s not going to be this giant number. It is going to take into account all of the minimization measures that are required.

SPECIES EXPERT MEETING UPDATES

AK Our most recent meetings focused on mitigation planning, and our specific goals for that were to reach consensus on mapping habitat quality, solicit examples of mitigation projects, and review initial mitigation planning options. In addition to these meetings, we’ve also had some back and forth with these experts via email, phone calls and WebEx, so the input hasn’t solely been from the meetings. We’ve continued to have really good participation at the meetings – 8-10 experts at each meeting – and we have representatives from all different organizations.

The purpose of the habitat quality indexes are to help develop the basis for mitigation fees. What we’ve attempted to do is assess some relative impacts of take. Mike has estimated that take in acres and right now we have the ability to adjust those acres by quality. It also gives us the opportunity to help identify areas for mitigation activities, and we can look at these maps both within and outside of the HCP plan area. Take is only calculated within the plan area, but we can mitigate within and/or outside.

The general approach to these indexes was to first assess quality within previously mapped habitat, and that can also include potential habitat. So for example, areas that have been proposed for translocation of beach mice, we’re including that here because it’s potential habitat where we might be able to mitigate. Working with these experts we’ve determined mappable factors related to quality, and then we tried to combine those factors into a habitat quality index. So regionally and for each species group, we have an index going from high to low on a scale of 1-5. Prior to this latest round of expert meetings, we did send out a web-based draft of these index maps so the experts could review and comment.

Now I’m going to go through each of the species groups and talk a little about the factors that we used to map, and then what the primary recommendations were coming from each of the expert groups. For sea turtles, the main quality factors that we are using are nest density (based on 5-year summaries) and also the overlap of sea turtle species. Again, we are creating these per region, so we’re also accounting for regional differences. Major recommendations included using the latest nest density data, and using it in the 3 classes of density that FWRI already uses. There had been previous discussion on using loggerhead critical habitat as a factor, but we’re not going to be using that for a variety of reasons that were brought up. And then there were concerns about the resolution of the nest density summaries that we have because they are summarized on a survey beach-based unit. So we’ll be talking about how to account for that or at least get people more comfortable with that as we move forward. We are limited to using best available data in this process and we have to be able to apply it statewide.

The quality factors we’re using for beach mice include: elevation, habitat area, vegetation, and connectivity. We don’t have real occurrence data that we can use for beach mice, so we’re relying more on landscape and habitat factors here. For the recommendations based

23

on the draft we presented, the factors that we present here don’t apply the same way for the different subspecies. For example, in the panhandle we’re going to be considering elevation and habitat area, but on the east coast I believe it’s elevation and vegetation that seem to be the two factors that assess quality the best. For the southeastern beach mice, these quality factors don’t assess habitat, so we’re kind of going back to the drawing board. Another recommendation for the beach mice was to consider revising the extent of potential habitat to include restorable connectors, so we’re going back and potentially adding some of that in.

For shorebirds and seabirds we have 3 groups: solitary nesters, colonial nesters, and wading shorebirds. The factors that are being considered for solitary nesters are: nest density (or nest effort), habitat area, site fidelity, species overlap, and rooftop adjacency for American oystercatchers (AMOY). For colonial nesters we’re considering: colony size, site fidelity, colony site density, number of species in the colony, whether we’re in a mile of an inlet or outfall, and then consideration for occurrence of black skimmers and least terns on the east coast. You can see that these factors are heavily driven by occurrence data, and for that reason I think the experts were a lot more comfortable with how these indexes turned out. The primary recommendation for possible changes was to reconsider number of species in a colony.

For the non-breeding shorebirds we have much less occurrence data, so overall we’re going to have to go back to the drawing board a little bit for this one. The index was just not working in some places. One of the things we’re trying to do is get more recent and more complete datasets for winter shorebirds. Since we first started working on these about 3 years ago there have been a lot more data coming online, so we should be able to include that.

Some comments that came back that were pretty common to all of the groups had to do with the timing of updates. Everyone wants to know when we’re going to update this, why we aren’t using the latest data. Right now, just the underlying maps of the habitat data are based on 2010 conditions, and you can imagine with changing shorelines how some of that is becoming out of date. Also, with just mapping quality factors where we’re using other peoples’ data, that information changes rapidly as well. We’re trying to decide when we’ll do a complete overhaul of the mapping, and right now we’re anticipating doing that at implementation, right before the plan goes into effect, and then again every 5 years. Another recommendation was that in addition to biological quality, we should also be considering additional information related to management or threats.

I hit on some of our next steps already, but we’re having some follow-up calls/WebEx with focused sub-groups. We’ve revised the index for sea turtles using the latest data, so we’ll be taking that back to the experts again. We’ll be revisiting southeastern beach mice and working with those experts. So essentially we’ll just be going back and soliciting additional input instead of waiting until our next full expert meeting.

24

So that was a summary of the first part of our expert meetings. The second half focused on mitigation and I’ll turn it over to Mike to talk about that, unless there are any questions about the habitat quality indexes first.

KF So it seems that habitat quality is highly influenced by the indicator of the species itself. But you know, sometimes for instance you see birds in not so great areas and then you have some places where the sand and everything looks great but there’s no birds and so on. So I’m just trying to understand is it more of an assessment of where the species are, or is it more of a geophysical measurement of what we think is good habitat?

AK That varied by group and we did get feedback specifically on that question. I would say for sea turtles that the very strong recommendation was to let the turtles tell us where the highest quality areas were. To some degree that was the same case for shorebirds. We have a good bit of data for shorebirds, so we’re combining occurrence data with information like distance from inlets and others, so it’s not completely by occurrence data. And for beach mice it’s the reverse; we’re relying completely on landscape factors.

KF I would think it would be complex as well for birds that depend on early successional beaches that maybe are maintained, but if they’re not maintained then you won’t have the birds. Or it could go the other way where if you have a renournished beach and that replicates an early successional beach and then all of a sudden it’s a great nesting place that wasn’t included in the dataset.

AK Yes, the birds are very dynamic and that’s come up a lot. It also stresses the importance of updating the maps. But we haven’t completely settled on how this will operate in implementation. We have the ability to override local information, but the statewide is different. It’s a question of scale as far as how this will work out.

MF And that’s particularly true of vegetation, obviously. Amy ended up using vegetation only in a couple of specific places. We tried it more than that and it didn’t pass expert review at the state level. Vegetation mapping for early succession is probably the most challenging of everything. So there will be permanent limits based on that update frequency and also based on the scale of the mapping of what the broader habitat maps can do. And there will be legal issues, I suspect, where people will attack this with local data from the field. But we think this is defensible at the state scale. The process issue, I suppose, is how you over time build a system where you can bubble up data from regional offices so that you don’t have to rely totally on the state level 5-year HCP update cycle; you can actually get new data inserted into the process, but it’s basically from external projects as that gets developed so that you’re always acting on the base of best available data. But that’s going to be a challenge, particularly for the temporally quicker moving stuff.

MITIGATION TECHNICAL STRATEGY AND METHODS

MF I’m going to go over the second half of the expert group meetings. This was the first time we asked them some of these questions, so it was intentionally broad. The primary take-home we got from them across meetings was that some of these mitigation review methods

25

will need to vary by species group. For species groups with narrower geographic focus, the experts were willing and able to review and score individual large projects for mitigation. But for the more extensive species with larger incidental take (sea turtles, non-breeding shorebirds), we’re going to still need a GIS-based rating system. So there’s a bit of a tension there – what do you do at which scale? But it’s clear that two scales are going to be needed, and so we’ll have to look at both scales and go back and forth with what we learn from one to the other, which is a little bit like we did historically with the habitat quality.

As Amy mentioned, there’s an interaction between habitat quality and what you might call management quality and management context. So the second takeaway is we need to explore and present to these groups some additional data to allow them to judge the impact of management activity or management context for the wide-ranging stuff, which makes sense to do by GIS. For site-level stuff we can do a similar process with similar variables and just ask them about a specific site.

For the compact-species groups, there are potential individual projects – some we solicited – that we could ask them to do mitigation scoring on. And that’s really ideal if we can do it project by project in terms of local knowledge and bringing in knowledge of existing management. We think we can make a process – we had concurrence on the metrics to use, but we don’t have the data to support those metrics. But we can have an expert judgement based process not involving GIS to do the project scoring. And from prior work that I’ve done, I think the best method is something like a “Delphi.” The Delphi method is basically you survey people individually and you give them discrete choices. You record those, and then you have a discussion and you ask the group to review the average and also the variance. So you have a discussion about that and then they re-vote and determine if things are moving in one direction towards consensus, or if there’s a hard range and differences in opinion or variance in biology across regions. If there is a consensus, you end up with a single score, and if there isn’t you end up with a range. And we can handle a range in the sense of being conservative on the mitigation credit score, so we can assume the low end of the range and hope that we get better than the low.

For the broad-scale activities, we’re going to need to do a process similar to what we did with the habitat quality scoring, which is going to take just a few rounds. We have some things that are just so broad-scale that we can’t possibly assess them by hand. So we’re going to present some of the initial GIS analyses and their implications in terms of management, and then we’re going to provide a process where that can be overridden by the expert judgement structurally. For example, we’ve done two different surveys of beach cleaning, but despite the repeated effort we got a 50% response rate. So we know what’s going on in half of those places, but we don’t know the other half. We’re going to have to use that information that we have, present it to the expert groups, make an assumption about what’s going on in the unsurveyed areas, and if anyone has better local knowledge just override and set that up as a defensible process. The lighting ordinances were in better shape; we have 100% survey coverage. So we know at the level of the survey questions what’s going on where for lighting ordinance. But in general I would say that management

26

activities are poorly recorded, particularly in spatial databases. So we’re just going to have to deal with that limitation the same way we dealt with limitations with habitat quality. We’ll present the data we’ve got, ask the experts if it’s good enough to use, and if it’s not good enough to use, we’ll fall back to the project-based approaches. So we’ll just have to go back and forth between those two.

So the overall process is basically an extension of what we’ve been doing for habitat quality. The note I would make, though, is the judgement for mitigation projects needs to be broader than the biologist; we need to get managers involved. And there are regional differences, too, so we need to make sure we’ve got managers from all different regions. But we’ll ask them to review the criteria that they gave us in brainstorm fashion recently, and then apply that scoring system to 1-3 trial areas per region and see what level of consistency we get.

In summary, this will require a process. We’ve got the technical piece in place, but we’re going to have to iterate. We’ll show rough draft examples, we’ll ask for help, and we’ll refine with at least one additional meeting.

DM I know we’re still going through a lot of this, but as we develop the mitigation projects, I think having two different scales for the habitat quality improvements will be an issue. We’ve talked with the Service about we don’t need to show an exact equivalence, but using one scale will probably make life easier, because the goal of the mitigation projects is how much better is the proposed activity making things or what sort of harm is being avoided. And keeping everything on the same scale will make it easier to say, yeah we’re close or we need more.

MF I’m hesitant to use two scales also for obvious reasons. I do think that some of the activity management side we only know at project scale. And some of the amounts of area that we need to mitigate are larger than we're ever going to get from a project review. So I would certainly prefer doing the project-level review first, because I think we can learn from that experience, but I do think that for some mitigation activities we’re going to need to scale them across very large areas. But we should talk more about this as a working group.

KF Is the framework for mitigation considering cross-species mitigation?

MF The current conceptual framework is what we’re calling species group at a time, but it’s awkward to talk about. So for beach mice we’re talking about sub-species, and for birds we’re talking about the 3 sub-groups of birds. So we had intended that the mitigation banks be established by species group within a region. And so if you’re mitigating for sea turtles in the panhandle, we’re only talking about sea turtles. It does go across species of sea turtles, but we’re only talking about that group. If you’re talking about beach mice it’s really at the sub-species level. With that said, I don’t think we have a final review from the working group on this question, so we’ll probably want to review this again as a work group before advancing that recommendation. Also, everything we’ve done is by broad region. We had some feedback that some people prefer mitigation to be more local if possible, and right now we’re hoping to do something like a proximity to try and make it as

27

local as feasible, but not as a requirement. In other words, if you conduct activities that require mitigation and we can do mitigation in Gulf County, then why not. So we’ll try to be as local as possible, but if there’s no mitigation that’s been vetted and recommended in Gulf County, you might have to go to Walton County, for instance. That piece of how local to get is still data-dependent.

DM I think conceptually, if your question was if a project benefits multiple species groups, will credit be generated in each of those areas, and I think the answer is probably yes.

BP In the past, when the Service has evaluated mitigation projects, if one particular area provides habitat for multiple species, we typically give credit for all of those species.

MF We have done the overlap analysis, and we certainly know for each r-zone which species groups are present. And therefore if we learn from the review of the mitigation measures that, for instance, predator control benefits all of those species then you will get a bonus. So we’re applying these management activities by area and then they’ll generate credits based on which species are benefitted by that mitigation.

I think for those areas where we don’t have data, providing us the data should be prerequisite to getting mitigation credits or even being eligible for them. So we can build a system where the first step is you submit enough data so we can judge the management level according to our criteria. If you haven’t done that, then we assume nothing, and you’re not eligible for mitigation credit.

MITIGATION FRAMEWORK

JS The purpose of this presentation is to give the basic framework that we’ve come up with for the mitigation plan. It’s going to be short because I’m really hoping to have an open discussion about it and get feedback from you all.

In my mind, the two questions that we’re trying to answer are: 1) How are individual projects going to be evaluated when they come in the door at DEP, and 2) How are we going to take the resources from those projects and implement a mitigation program?

In terms of when a CCCL application comes in the door, and assuming that project has take associated with it, we see 3 options for them. The first two are what we hope to be unlikely or rare occurrences, and the third one is the main option. The first option is they can completely opt out of the HCP. With that, they would be responsible for obtaining an individual ITP, which would be a bigger burden on the applicant as well as the USFWS.

GA What if they say, “I’m just not getting an ITP”?

JS Then they wouldn’t have take authorization, and I would presume that the CCCL program wouldn’t issue them the permit until they show that they have an ITP.

BP I think the key to this is that there would be some required changes to how DEP does business.

28

GC I think that application would be processed similar to how it’s processed today. So there would be consultation with the Commission, and then based on the ITP issued by the Service, I think Kipp would be in an excellent position to construct a letter that would advise DEP that this application would cause take. And then that would require DEP to act according to 379.

BP It might be helpful for us to spell out the procedures for each of these options in the HCP. And part of the procedure for the first option could be that DEP will not issue a CCCL permit without proof of take coverage.

FA Something that I challenged in the first FBHCP meeting I attended, and I still challenge, is that this is under the assumption that there is take. I think the property owner should have the right to come in and demonstrate that there will not be take. I think that’s a critical part of the opt-out option.

GA Right, if they wanted to put in their seawall way landward of the toe of the dune, for example. They could change their design such that it doesn’t cause take and they would no longer need to opt-in to the HCP or get their own ITP.

JS These options up here are assuming that they’ve gone to DEP with their application and it has been determined that their project will cause take. But I’m hearing that we may need to define a process by which an applicant would have an opportunity to demonstrate that no take is occurring as a result of their project.

BE One thing to consider here is that we’re also addressing indirect impacts, so it’s not just a matter of where they place the seawall. Those indirect impacts that occur in another space or at a later time also have to be considered. With sea level rise and shoreline erosion and so forth, any wall – even though it may not cause loss of habitat when it’s installed – could have impacts at some time over the term of the permit.

JM And there are going to be situations where there isn’t going to be take, and if there’s no take, then they’re not going to be assessed a mitigation fee. But all of the permits will be subject to the minimization measures, and there should be a lot of scenarios where if you follow all of the minimization measures, then there’s no take and therefore no mitigation requirement. If there’s a situation where they don’t want to do any mitigation or minimization because they don’t think they’re causing take, I don’t know how that would work because the minimization measures will be permit conditions.

RT Well, remember that the minimization measures are based on existing conditions that are used for these activities now.

JS The second option is an option that was suggested by the Steering Committee members before, which was if an applicant didn’t want to pay a mitigation fee but wanted to implement a mitigation project on their own, then there would be a process for that. A statewide model that we’re familiar with that we think could be adapted for this scenario is the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) model, which is used for wetland mitigation projects. The third option is the one that we’re putting the most effort into, and

29

that’s opting into the HCP. We feel this option will have the lowest burden on the applicant.

For the first option – opt-out – DEP would either deny or withhold the permit until an ITP is issued. And this would place a very heavy burden on the applicant in terms of both time and money for them to obtain an individual ITP from the Service.

KF Wouldn’t that require an additional legislative change? I thought DEP couldn’t withhold a permit on the basis of requiring another permit.

RT If I remember correctly, it was modified to say that no construction could occur until incidental take was authorized.

KF So maybe you get your permit, but you don’t get your notice to proceed until you have authorized take?

GC That has been done but not recently.

KF Anyway, this may be something to check with legal about.

JM And it may be easier to deny it if FWC is calling take on it or the HCP is calling take on it. But in terms of temporarily withholding it conditionally, that’s a different scenario.

JS We need to look more into that, because if DEP can’t legally hold up a permit on that basis, then I guess its enforcement is left up to the Service.

Looking at the second option where the applicant can decide to mitigate on their own rather than pay a fee, we would certainly need to evaluate their proposal. We think using something like an adapted UMAM would be the easiest path forward. This process would be more burdensome to the applicant; they may have to perhaps hire a consultant, come up with their own mitigation project, and make sure it’s addressing the impacts to the species that their project is impacting. It’ll also be burdensome on the state agency staff to review that proposal, and that would likely fall on FWC. And then there would need to be follow up – monitoring to make sure that the mitigation project is completed and successful.

The third option, which we hope everyone opts for, is where the CCCL application is assessed for aerial, species, and habitat quality impacts, using GIS, to determine a mitigation fee. That fee would be paid prior to permit issuance, and then that applicant is covered under the ITP. The HCP staff would then take mitigation fees and implement regionally-based mitigation projects.

GA Is it inconceivable to have a standard mitigation fee for everybody? Why does a mitigation fee have to be unique to a permit? I’m not saying it should, I’m just wondering.

JM I think we’d get a lot of pushback, because the activities that are permitted under the CCCL program are so varied – some very small projects and some very large – and so the impacts will vary so widely from project to project. I’m not sure it would be very fair.

30

GA I completely understand that argument, but there must be programs in the state where we assess everybody across the board regardless of what the cost is of what they’re asking for.

FA Nothing comes to mind, but general permits which generally have a minimal impact anyway.

GA So ERP permit fees are tailored to the project itself?

FA Yes.

JM It might be worth looking into what an across-the-board fee would be, because if the difference isn’t that great, then that would be easier.

GA Or even having categories of permits would make it less cumbersome. I’m just saying we should at least look at it as an option.

TO I don’t think it’ll go like that. If someone comes in with a beach raking application, they’ll get funneled into that chute and you say, okay you can minimize everything away. It’s going to be the more complicated permits that will probably be fewer in number that will drop down out of the system. Something else that will be more complicated is if they can’t minimize everything away, and then there’s going to be a slug of mitigation and they’re going to have all these options to go to. So I think having one single fee for everybody would be more cumbersome for the permitting staff.

GA Okay, I’ll take that back and stress the sub-grouping, then.

TO Robbin, Jennifer and I have been working on a kind of flow chart that the permits could follow. Hopefully we can have that by the next meeting.

DM I think if you have a flat fee, you have a really strong chance of having the funding you receive being disconnected from the take you’ve used up.

JS The fees associated with these have got to be two-fold. One is a flat fee to pay for the administration of the HCP, because that is something that is based on the number of permits. And then if you have take, that would be the customized fee.

DM We have talked about that, but there are fees associated with a CCCL permit application, and my understanding is that changing that would be extremely difficult. The program hasn’t been collecting enough revenue to offset its costs, and changing the cost of those application fees sounded like it would require another change from the Legislature. So the plan was to keep those application fees and then there would be a separate mitigation fee that would be collected based on the type and level of take that’s associated with the CCCL permit.

JS Now I’m going to get into how we think we’ll be implementing the mitigation program statewide. Back in December and January we started scanning the state to look for potential mitigation opportunities by reaching out to land managers on the federal, state, and local level. We ended up with a pretty long list of ideas. We haven’t finished quantitatively assessing it, but qualitatively we’ve got a general idea of areas where can mitigation. For

31

example, we had a lot of suggestions in the northeast region for breeding and non-breeding shorebird mitigation.

GA What’s the process for getting more project ideas? Just reaching out again?

JS Yes, absolutely, and if you have suggestions, of course we’d like to hear those as well. And if we get through a quantitative assessment and decide that we don’t have enough fully defined projects to meet the take, we’ll have to identify, as specifically as possible, the project type and estimated costs for those projects so that they can be included in the plan. And then the specific projects will have to be identified as we move forward.

GA I think a really important part of this process is identifying projects that are good, bigger projects that you can put this mitigation into, rather than have a lot of smaller, individual projects. So taking the time to get some of these big projects is critically important.

KF Some of them are being done as a result of Deepwater Horizon funding, which is a good thing. But there are a lot of environmental restoration projects that are being developed or are in play that are coming from a different funding source, so we’ll have to keep looking hard.

JS As far as our outreach, I just wanted to highlight some of the things we’ve found. We talked with some land managers doing spoil island restoration, which is doing some good for breeding birds. A lot of land managers mentioned predator control as an ubiquitous need. The Archie Carr Working Group was very explicit in their suggestions. The actually gave us a prioritized list of parcels for acquisition. We got some specific lighting retrofit projects from a few local folks. And another common one we heard was need for beach stewardship and public outreach programs.

This slide goes back to some investigating that was done mainly by Lisa Robertson before she left the working group, and it looks at the possible funding vehicle. We looked at how permit fees are collected now and whether that’s a viable option. We found that it’s really not a viable option because those fees are put into a trust fund, and those funds can be used for a multitude of purposes – whatever the Legislature sees fit. We don’t think that would meet the issuance criteria from the Service, because they require that we have a protected fund that is used solely for HCP related activities. So when Lisa met with some folks from the Office of General Counsel in late 2014, they identified some options that could be used. State bonds, escrow funds from the Department of Financial Services, or a third party trust fund were some suggestions. They also mentioned that the Water Management Districts have had success in raising funds for specific projects and using those funds solely for those intended projects. So they offered these options, and then said they couldn’t tell us which one would be the best option until they had more information about the HCP. What they would need to know is: cash flow analysis per year; start-up funding needed; and a plan for dealing with funding fluctuations and continuous administrative funding. So we’re working on gathering this information as we move through the development process, because we need to know what the mitigation plan is going to be before we can get a cash

32

flow analysis, for instance. I wanted to bring this up just to let you know that we’re looking at it, and to see if you have any recommendations or thoughts.

Now I’d like to open up a discussion, but I do have a couple of specific areas I’d like to get your feedback on. The first has to do with the individual mitigation project scenario. Is the UMAM-type assessment appropriate? If so, do you have any recommendations on how it can be adapted for the beach and dune habitat? Would FWC evaluate these projects? How would we track them? The second area relates to the implementation of the mitigation program. Ideas for additional projects? If quantitative analysis reveals insufficient mitigation, is it acceptable to define just the type and location of future projects? And finally, I’d like some feedback on the funding mechanism for administration of mitigation funds.

JM When trying to project if we’re going to have adequate mitigation to offset take, how do you (the Service) review and evaluate that? Especially with the more subjective types of mitigation.

KF I’m confused. If you’re thinking on a project by project basis, you’ve got take and whatever can’t be minimized you have to mitigate for. And in many cases, mitigation will be shown by dollar signs, because somebody pays some fee for mitigation. That money goes into a fund and then gets distributed to these good conservation projects we’ve identified and laid out. In the HCP, 25-year basis, I’m assuming there will be some amount we come up with for the total cost of mitigation. Are you saying that in the plan, all the specifics of the good conservation and mitigation need to be predicted into the future?

MF Yes.

KF So that’s what I don’t understand. I thought you create a funding source for the application to develop conservation projects – and they do change depending on all kinds of things that happen along the shoreline – that you implement those and you have this understanding that the conservation lift would be continuing. So I guess it’s a new thought for me that we’re supposed to predict the conservation lift per project for a 25-year period.

JM One of the reasons I asked is because we’ve talked about if during the 5-year review we find that we’re missing the mark, then we can adjust, because it’s hard to figure these things out over a 25-year period. But in terms of monitoring, we have to be able to determine if our mitigation is appropriate and accurately offsetting the take coverage that was issued.

BP For example, we have two HCPs that are in implementation right now, and they both cover impacts that cause loss of habitat. Both of those HCPs identified land acquisition as part of their mitigation plan, and identified potential acquisition parcels. That land acquisition was a finite number for their anticipated take over the course of 20-25 years. So we annually track the amount of take they’ve permitted, as well as the amount of mitigation they’ve done. It may be that at the end of 25 years, they’ve only used half of the take that they

33

projected, but at the same time they’ve only had to provide half of the mitigation they planned for.

RP That’s a very straightforward example, though, and I think we’ve all agreed that land acquisition isn’t going to be very feasible, at least as a primary mitigation option, for this HCP. So how do you quantify things like lighting or enforcement of ordinances?

TO I think we know some of the stressors that these animals are under, like lighting. We have a good idea of how many nests or individuals are being impacted by lighting. So I think you can kind of work up stream – if you minimize lighting by 50%, that’s going to push turtles in the right direction.

KF I think what we’ve concluded here today is that this is a topic that we really need to hone and allow some time so that the Steering Committee can really wrap their minds around it. And that’s not going to happen today.

JM We’ll definitely have this on the agenda for our next meeting.

KF Any comments from the public?

(none)

Meeting adjourned 3:00 pm

34