Attach__No__1B_-_GopherTorto_Cand_Conserv_Agreem.pdf

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

FOR THE GOPHER TORTOISE

(GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS)

EASTERN POPULATION

November 2008

(Photo Source: http://www.wildherps.com/species/G.polyphemus.html; Photo taken April 8, 2004 at Oscar Scherer State Park, Sarasota County, Florida) http://www.wildherps.com/species/G.polyphemus.html

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE GOPHER TORTOISE

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. BACKGROUND

3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4. PARTIES

4.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

4.2. STATE AND TRIBAL AGENCIES

4.3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

5. THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE LANDOWNER

6. AUTHORITY

6.1. FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORITIES

6.1.1. Department of Defense

6.1.2. Army

6.1.3. Navy

6.1.4. Air Force

6.1.5. Marine Corps

6.1.6. Forest Service

6.1.7. Fish & Wildlife Service

6.2. STATE AND TRIBAL AGENCY AUTHORITIES

6.2.1. Alabama

6.2.2. Florida

6.2.3. Georgia

6.2.4. South Carolina

6.2.5. Poarch Band of Creek Indians

6.3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

6.3.1. American Forest Foundation

7. CCA MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

7.1. GOPHER TORTOISE TEAM ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP

7.2. ASSESSING AND MANAGING THE AGREEMENT

7.3. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

8. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE GOPHER TORTOISE

8.1. DESCRIPTION

8.2. LIFE HISTORY

8.3. HABITAT

8.4. DISTRIBUTION

9. PROBLEMS FACING THE GOPHER TORTOISE

9.1. THE PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR CURTAILMENT

OF THE SPECIES’ HABITAT OR RANGE

9.2. OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR

EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

9.3. PREDATION AND DISEASE

9.4. EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS

9.5. OTHER MANMADE OR NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES’ CONTINUED

EXISTENCE

10. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND COMMITMENTS

10.1. HABITAT CONSERVATION COMMITMENTS

10.1.1. Landscape Level Conservation

10.1.2. Local Level Conservation

10.2. AGENCY-SPECIFIC HABITAT CONSERVATION ACTIONS

10.2.1. Army

10.2.2. Navy

10.2.3. Air Force

10.2.4. Marine Corps

10.2.5. Forest Service

10.2.6. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

10.2.7. Alabama

10.2.8. Florida

10.2.9. Georgia

10.2.10. South Carolina

10.2.11. Poarch Band of Creek Indians

10.2.12. American Forest Foundation

10.3. FUNDING COMMITMENTS

11. DURATION AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT

12. EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT IN EVENT OF LISTING DECISION

13. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

13.1. REMEDIES

13.2. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

13.3. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES

APPENDIX A: SIGNATURE PAGES.................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES – HABITAT

MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND TRANSLOCATION.....................................B-1

APPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: REFERENCES............................................................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL PARTIES TO THE GOPHER TORTOISE

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ..........................................................E-1 iv

1. INTRODUCTION

This Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA or Agreement) for the gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, has been developed as a cooperative effort among state, federal, non-governmental, and private organizations. The purpose of this Agreement is to collectively implement proactive gopher tortoise conservation measures across its eastern range. With this Agreement, the Parties (see Section 4) hope to organize a cooperative, range-wide approach to gopher tortoise management and conservation. This Agreement will allow the Parties to leverage knowledge and funding within a common conservation approach and framework. The Agreement is voluntary and flexible in nature, and has been developed so different conservation and management actions can be agreed to and implemented at different levels.

Under Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency are to carry out their environmental and natural resource programs in a manner that facilitates cooperative conservation. This Agreement is an example of a such a cooperative conservation approach. The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with applicable federal and state law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the authority of the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to fulfill its responsibilities under federal laws.

Additionally, nothing in this Agreement is intended to supersede applicable state authorities. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Consistent with the specific commitments by, and the available resources of, the Parties, conservation actions set forth in this Agreement will be implemented and will remain in effect for the duration of the Agreement.

2. BACKGROUND

Initial efforts to create a gopher tortoise conservation agreement between multiple parties began in June 2005. Out of these efforts, the Gopher Tortoise Team (GTT) was established, currently consisting of the organizations listed in Section 4. This group came together to address suspected decline in the tortoise population and explore conservation measures that could create an environment throughout the eastern range of the gopher tortoise for its population to thrive.

One of the team’s first initiatives included the development of a Memorandum of Intent (MOI), Conservation of the Gopher Tortoise in its Eastern Distribution, signed in 2006. The aim of the MOI was to foster an increased level of communication, collaboration, and conservation among the signatories to actively manage and conserve gopher tortoise populations and habitat. In the MOI the signatories agreed that:

• Gopher tortoise populations and habitat are in need of assistance

• Action is needed to improve gopher tortoise status throughout its range

• Each party could benefit from reversing the declining trend in gopher tortoise populations

Organizations involved in the MOI development were the Department of Defense (DoD), Southern Regional Environmental Office (SREO), USFWS, and US Forest Service (USFS), state Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs) or equivalent, The Nature Conservancy, Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, the Gopher Tortoise Council, and The Conservation

November 2008 1

Fund. The MOI allows any public or private entity or landowner within the range of the gopher tortoise to become a cooperating Party to the agreement.

In January of 2006, the USFWS received a petition to list the eastern population of the gopher tortoise as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A listing decision can create considerable regulatory constraints for both public and private landowners, a situation which prompted the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) to adopt the efforts of the GTT to better resource and enhance gopher tortoise conservation efforts. Established in 2005, SERPPAS is a partnership of state and federal environmental and natural resource officials from across the southeast that was formed to promote better collaboration in making resource-use decisions. The SERPPAS mission is to coordinate and leverage partner resources to promote sustainable use of natural resources balanced with the health and safety of the environment and surrounding communities, while promoting economic development and military readiness.

The states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina signed the original MOI. While the MOI was developed to increase the level of communication, collaboration, and conservation among the signatories to actively manage and conserve gopher tortoise populations and habitat, those commitments are general in nature. This CCA is focused on outlining more specific conservation commitments. With this Agreement, the Parties hope to implement an organized, range-wide approach with conservation actions that all can adhere to.

3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals and objectives of this Agreement fall into two main categories.

1. Range-wide Conservation and Management: By addressing gopher tortoise conservation holistically across its eastern range, the Parties hope to more effectively identify and conserve gopher tortoise habitat and populations; develop and implement management strategies that maintain or enhance gopher tortoise habitat; and monitor the response of the species to conservation and management.

2. Cooperation and Collaboration: By managing gopher tortoise conservation actions in a proactive and collaborative manner, the Parties plan to highlight existing individual gopher tortoise conservation actions and efforts and to share knowledge and information across a wide range and diverse collection of organizations. This also allows for an organized conservation approach that encourages uniform actions and reporting, integrates monitoring and research efforts with management, and supports partnership formation.

By striving for and achieving these goals and objectives, the Parties believe that the gopher tortoise and its habitat can be conserved in its non-federally listed distribution in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina such that any current or potential threats are significantly reduced. These actions would be considered in any future determination to list the gopher tortoise and may make it unnecessary to list the gopher tortoise in the foreseeable future.

The Parties also believe that numerous listed and at-risk animal and plant species associated with the gopher tortoise will benefit from this Agreement and that implementation of this Agreement

November 2008 2 may significantly reduce or eliminate threats to species such as the gopher frog and federally listed indigo snake.

4. PARTIES

4.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

• Department of Defense (DoD)

• United States Army

• United States Navy

• United States Air Force (USAF)

• United States Marine Corps (USMC)

• United States Forest Service (USFS)

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

4.2. STATE AND TRIBAL AGENCIES

• Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR)

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

• Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR)

• South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR)

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians

4.3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

• American Forest Foundation (AFF)

The Parties listed above share a common interest in gopher tortoise conservation. Each state comprising the geographic area of the gopher tortoise’s eastern range is represented, as are non-governmental organizations (NGOs), tribal agencies, and federal agencies such as the Military Services. The Parties share a desire to conserve gopher tortoise populations and habitat in order to prevent regulatory constraints and carry out their missions to the best of their ability, be it training missions on military installations or forest management on USFS lands. Additional Parties that fit into the above categories are welcome to sign on at any time, at which point they shall provide legal authority and specific conservation commitment input to the GTT. This input will be incorporated into Appendix E. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Parties, the management actions outlined in this document will be implemented where appropriate and as funding allows.

5. THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE LANDOWNER

To meet the goals and objectives of this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge and recognize the value and role of private landowner(s) within the geographic scope of this Agreement. It is generally agreed that significant conservation opportunities on private lands exist and that the overall status and trend of the gopher tortoise and its habitat will depend upon the individual and collective actions of private landowners. Thus, the Parties expect that this Agreement will provide guidance and a framework within which interested private landowners can participate in gopher tortoise conservation in a voluntary and proactive manner. Other tools and programs will

November 2008 3 emerge as a result of implementation of this Agreement whose sole purpose will be to assist landowners conserve gopher tortoise habitat. The tools include, but are not limited to, the development of CCAs with Assurances (CCAAs) – either at the local or landscape levels.

The CCAA program is an aspect of the USFWS’s implementation of the ESA that is intended to facilitate the conservation of proposed and candidate species, and species that may become candidates, by giving non-federal property owners incentives to implement conservation measures for declining or at-risk species. The incentives available through CCAAs include providing property owners certainty that no further land, water, or resource use restrictions beyond those agreed to in the CCAA will be imposed if the species later becomes listed under the ESA. Further, a level of incidental take is provided to landowners within the CCAA.

Implementation of the stated conservation measures within the CCAA should produce a level of benefit, assuming that conservation measures are also implemented on other necessary properties, that would preclude or remove any need to list the covered species. “Other necessary properties” are other properties on which conservation measures would have to be implemented in order to preclude or remove any need to list the covered species.

By precluding or removing any need to list a species through early conservation efforts, property owners can maintain land use and development flexibility. In addition, initiating or expanding conservation efforts before a species and its habitat are critically imperiled increases the likelihood that simpler, more cost-effective conservation options will still be available and that conservation will ultimately be successful. The CCAA has been an effective mechanism for conserving declining species, particularly candidate species, and have, in some instances, precluded or removed any need to list some species. Currently, CCAA development is already underway in Georgia between GaDNR, USFWS and Georgia Power Company at Plant Vogtle.

A CCAA will involve the USFWS, one or more non-federal property owners, and possibly other cooperators. State fish and wildlife agencies, which have primary jurisdiction over species that are not federally listed, may be a cooperator in any program and some of the states participating in this Agreement are contemplating the implementation of programmatic CCAAs. Other potential cooperators include neighboring property owners, state or local agencies, tribal governments, federal property owners, or NGOs. However, it is important to note that only non-federal property owners may receive regulatory assurances offered in the CCAA programs.

6. AUTHORITY

The Parties enter into this Agreement under authority provided by federal and state law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the authority of the USFWS to fulfill its responsibilities under federal laws. Nothing in this Agreement is to imply that any Party is in any way abrogating or ceding any responsibility or authority inherent in its sovereign ownership of, jurisdiction over, and control of its property interests or wildlife. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

November 2008 4

6.1. FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORITIES

6.1.1. Department of Defense

The Sikes Act, 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 670a-670o, requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement integrated natural resource management plans (INRMPs) for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. These plans reflect mutual agreement between the USFWS and the head of each appropriate state fish and wildlife agency concerning conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife resources.

DoD may enter into cooperative agreements with states, local governments, nongovernmental organizations and individuals to provide for the maintenance and improvement of natural resources on, or to benefit natural and historic research on, DoD installations.

An INRMP is a comprehensive plan used to manage installation natural resources by providing and ensuring the sustained use of a landscape necessary to support the military mission in accordance with accepted stewardship principles. It replaces the need for separate management plans for particular natural resources (for example, endangered species management, forest management, wetlands management, and fish and wildlife management). The INRMP describes how natural resources will be managed for military mission needs and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. It ensures that management of natural resources does not result in a “net loss” of mission training land and describes how ecosystems will be managed to create and maintain certain landscape characteristics needed to enhance military training opportunities.

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.3, Environmental Conservation Program, provides guidance to the Services for the integrated management of natural resources on property under DoD control. It also states that natural resources under the stewardship and control of the DoD shall be managed to support and be consistent with the military mission, while protecting and enhancing those resources for multiple use, sustainable yield, and biological integrity.

Additionally, Section 2684(a) of Title 10 U.S.C., known as the buffering authority, authorizes the Services to enter into partnerships with private conservation organizations or state and local governments to preserve land and prevent incompatible development around military installations.

6.1.2. Army

Sections of Department of the Army Regulation (AR) 200-1 set forth policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the conservation, management, and restoration of land and natural resources consistent with the military mission and in consonance with national policies. In fulfilling their conservation responsibilities, paragraph 4-3d(5)(v) authorizes installations to participate in regional/habitat-wide efforts to conserve candidate species and Army-designated species at risk (SAR). Paragraph 4-3d(6) provides authority for managing SAR and their habitats. Specific SAR guidance is found in Army Species at Risk Policy and Implementing Guidance, dated 15 September 2006. This Army SAR policy memorandum specifically identifies the gopher tortoise as a priority Army species at risk. The SAR policy encourages proactive management efforts for SAR and their habitats, before federal protection under the ESA is necessitated, and

November 2008 5 further encourages installations to capitalize on partnerships and agreements when managing for such species.

The DoD buffering authority mentioned above is implemented by the Department of the Army with the Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) Program. Installations with approved ACUB plans have authority to work with partners to protect and restore habitat outside the installation if those activities are deemed beneficial to sustaining the installation's military mission.

Installations with pending or approved ACUB plans within the geographic extent of this CCA include Fort Stewart, Camp Blanding, Fort Gordon, Fort Benning, and Fort Rucker.

6.1.3. Navy

Operational Navy Instruction OPNAV 5090.1C, Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual, provides installation requirements for the implementation of The Sikes Act regarding the management of natural resources on Navy lands. Additionally, the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Guidance for Navy Installations, April 2006 provides Navy natural resource managers with information necessary to prepare, update, and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs). Natural resources at Navy installations are managed in accordance with installation INRMPs which are developed cooperatively with USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies as stakeholders and are reviewed annually by the stakeholders for content, project implementation, and updates.

6.1.4. Air Force

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7064, Integrated Natural Resources Management, provides guidance to manage natural resources on USAF installations and ranges. In addition, AFI 13- 212, Range Planning and Operations, provides specific guidance for range management. These resources are managed in accordance with the relevant federal laws, including the Sikes Act, using an INRMP as the principal tool under AFI 32-7064 and the sole tool under AFI 13-212.

The INRMP is developed in cooperation with the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries (for installations that include or border marine environments), and the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency for the state in which the Air Force installation is located. Changes in an INRMP affecting its goals and objectives (including addition and/or deletion of projects) must be coordinated within and among appropriate USAF personnel, and should be coordinated with USFWS and the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency before they are implemented.

6.1.5. Marine Corps

Marine Corps Order (MCO) P5090.2A Change 1 (22 Jan 08), Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, establishes Marine Corps policy and responsibilities for compliance with both statutory/regulatory requirements and the management of Marine Corps programs, to include the preservation of natural resources. As with the other Military Services, all Natural Resource management activities at Marine Corps installations are conducted under that installation’s INRMP. In accordance with Chapter 11 of MCO 5090.2A, Natural Resource Management, Marine Corps installations will survey and take other appropriate actions to document the presence of state rare and endangered species. Marine Corps installations should also inventory and monitor state-listed species as NEPA may require the consideration of a

November 2008 6 proposed action’s impact on these species, and because state laws and regulation may govern their possession, propagation, sale, or taking on an installation. Additionally, Marine Corps installations will inventory and monitor candidate species to evaluate and document any effects that military activities may have upon them. MCO 5090.2A also allows the Marine Corps to execute cooperative agreements to exchange information, conduct research, or study projects that contribute to an installation’s INRMP.

6.1.6. Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service has recognized the need to implement special management direction for rare species on the lands it administers. The Regional Forester may designate these species as Sensitive as described in the Forest Service Manual 2670.22. The objectives of management for such species are to ensure their continued viability throughout their range on National Forest lands, and to ensure that they do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. The gopher tortoise is designated Sensitive on the Regional Forester's Sensitive list.

6.1.7. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sections 2, 6, and 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C §§ 1531-1544, authorize the USFWS and other federal parties to enter into this Agreement. Section 2 of the ESA states that encouraging parties to develop and maintain conservation programs is a key to safeguarding the nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants. Section 2(c)(1) of the ESA, (16 U.S.C. 1531(c)(1)), states “the policy of Congress is that all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes.” Under Section 6 of the ESA, the “Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent with the States...”, 16 U.S.C. §1535(a). Further, under Section 6, the Secretary may authorize under cooperative agreement with a state program, a state agency to establish conservation initiatives; and may provide financial assistance to the state to monitor the status of a species within a state to prevent significant risk to the well-being of any such species, 16 U.S.C. §1535(c). Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to review programs that they administer and to utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. Entering into this Agreement is an important and proactive initiative that follows the intent of Section 7 to provide for the conservation of the nation’s fish, wildlife, and plants.

In addition to the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 provides that the Secretary shall "...take such steps as may be required for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...". The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act states that the Secretary is authorized "to provide assistance to, and cooperate with, Federal, State, and public or private agencies and organizations in the development, protection, rearing, and stocking of all species of wildlife, resources thereof, and their habitat...".

Lastly, the Sikes Act requires DoD installations to develop INRMPs to support the military mission in cooperation with USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies.

Perhaps the largest driving force behind the USFWS’s authority to conserve wildlife and habitat is the National Wildlife Refuge System and the laws and regulations that established and manage this system. Refuges are special places where the USFWS and its partners restore, protect, and manage habitat for America’s wildlife.

November 2008 7

A history of laws directs the USFWS’s administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Early legislative acts laid the groundwork for President Roosevelt’s 1903 Executive Order establishing the first refuge, and acts of Congress as recent as 1997 continue to shape the administration of our Nation’s refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 requires that each National Wildlife Refuge create a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).

This Refuge planning process is consistent with the provisions of various Acts, including but not limited to: the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 94321 et seq.); the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 5706); the Estuary Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1221-1226); the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464); the Acts listed in the paragraphs above; and various Executive Orders and internal Federal Policy and Procedure Memoranda.

In addition, The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the USFWS to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. In this context, gopher tortoise is frequently a focus species for managing and restoring open woodlands and savannas, as well as xeric scrub habitats represented on National Wildlife Refuges.

6.2. STATE AND TRIBAL AGENCY AUTHORITIES

6.2.1. Alabama

In Alabama, the gopher tortoise is a protected non-game species. Populations west of the Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers are federally listed as Threatened. Additionally, under the Nongame Species Regulation 220-2-92, the gopher tortoise is on the list of species in Alabama that legally prohibits the take, capture, kill, or attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, sell, trade for anything of monetary value, or offer to sell or trade for anything of monetary value, the nongame wildlife species on that list (or any parts or reproductive products of such species) without a scientific collection permit or written permit from the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which shall specifically state what the permittee may do.

6.2.2. Florida

In 2007, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission) released its updated Gopher Tortoise Management Plan in accordance with the Threatened and Endangered Species regulation, Florida Administrative Code, Rule 68A-27. The gopher tortoise is designated as a threatened species within the state of Florida effective November 2007. Rule 68A-27.004 states that “No person shall take, attempt to take, pursue, hunt, harass, capture, possess, sell or transport any gopher tortoise or parts thereof or their eggs, or molest, damage, or destroy gopher tortoise burrows, except as authorized by Commission permit or when complying with Commission approved guidelines for specific actions which may impact gopher tortoises and their burrows. A gopher tortoise burrow is a tunnel with a cross-section that closely approximates the shape of a gopher tortoise. Permits will be issued based upon whether issuance would further management plan goals and objectives.”

November 2008 8

6.2.3. Georgia

The state of Georgia has regulations (GaDNR Rules Chapter 391-4-10) for the protection of plant and animal species, including the gopher tortoise, which is listed as threatened within the state. GaDNR may issue permits for the collection, transportation, and/or possession of gopher tortoise for scientific or educational use only. Such permits do not alleviate the responsibility to acquire specific federal permits, if required. Georgia law specifically states that rules and regulations related to the protection of state protected species shall not affect rights on private property. Prohibitions are limited to the capture, killing, or selling of protected species and the protection of the habitat of these species on public lands. GaDNR has statutory and regulatory authority to enter into cooperative agreements with federal agencies and other states' agencies in carrying out its objectives, including management programs for the purpose of conserving any endangered or threatened species (O.C.G.A. §§ 12-2-6 & 27-1-6; Board Rule 391-4-10-.05).

6.2.4. South Carolina

The gopher tortoise is listed by the state of South Carolina as a critically endangered species within the state of South Carolina. This state designation requires that the federal ESA is observed in reference to gopher tortoise, meaning it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale or shipment, and for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife that is endangered within the state. Very few tortoises reside in South Carolina, but known populations are protected on wildlife management areas, where it is illegal to take tortoises without written permission from the Department of Natural Resources (Wildlife Management Area Regulation 11.1).

6.2.5. Poarch Band of Creek Indians

The gopher tortoise is a culturally significant species for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

Tortoises have historically been part of cultural and religious practices as well as a food and utilitarian use source for thousands of years. The Tribe protects gopher tortoise populations according to federal laws and regulations on the Tribal Reservation and Trust lands.

Additionally, the Tribe protects gopher tortoises on "fee lands" according to federal and appropriate state laws and regulations. Tribal members also have certain protections for collecting native flora and fauna for cultural and religious practices covered under federal laws and regulations. Tribal Code, Chapter 26, Environmental Protection, covers the regulations for protecting wildlife habitat and improving it to benefit wildlife.

6.3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

6.3.1. American Forest Foundation

AFF is a private, not for profit organization organized under U.S.C. 501.c.3, that works with forest owners across the nation to promote sustainable forest management on family forest lands.

AFF’s Center for Conservation Solutions works with partners and family forest owners to conserve and create habitat for imperiled species. Through the promotion of conservation incentives and regulatory assurances, AFF engages family forest owners and encourages their active habitat management for the gopher tortoise and associated species. The organization is

November 2008 9 uniquely qualified to develop educational materials for and outreach to family forest owners and other interested stakeholders regarding the gopher tortoise.

7. CCA MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

In order to meet the objectives of this Agreement, the GTT will manage, administer, and periodically review this Agreement. The responsibility of this team is to coordinate the implementation and administration of the Agreement without superseding the jurisdictional authorities of any party. The GTT will develop and make recommendations for the conservation and research needs of the gopher tortoise and identify new threats in its eastern distribution.

7.1. GOPHER TORTOISE TEAM ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP

The GTT will consist of one or more designated representatives from each Party to this Agreement and may include technical and legal advisors and other members as deemed necessary. Parties may have multiple sub-organizations involved; e.g., Wildlife, Forestry, and Endangered Species divisions of a state. The GTT will be chaired by participating state representatives only. On 1 July of each year the Chair with be succeeded by the Vice Chair.

Alabama will hold the first chairmanship followed by Florida; the states will follow in alphabetical order. The GTT’s organizational structure is outlined below in Figure 7.1 and will be updated as needed.

Figure 7.1: Gopher Tortoise Team’s Organizational Structure

7.2. ASSESSING AND MANAGING THE AGREEMENT

The GTT is responsible for the coordination of the conservation activities and monitoring of the conservation actions being conducted by the Parties to encourage all actions to be in accordance with the Agreement. The GTT will develop an annual assessment of the Parties’ progress towards implementing the conservation actions described in this Agreement. This assessment will be comprised of an annual report and recommendations for CCA revisions and actions. The annual report will be based on input provided to the GTT by the Parties. The GTT will devise a

November 2008 10 standardized reporting format for the Parties to use when providing input. Following the annual assessment, the GTT will publish an announcement that details the progress made to date on implementation of conservation actions described in the Agreement.

7.3. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

The GTT will assess the need to develop and/or distribute outreach materials to promote gopher tortoise conservation. Parties that develop new outreach materials related to the gopher tortoise and/or its habitat will share the materials with other GTT members. Outreach materials include, but are not limited to, pamphlets, newsletter articles and announcements, fact sheets, and other educational materials. In addition, the GTT will reach out to and utilize partnering organizations such as SERPPAS or the Partnership for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation for support.

The GTT will also create a repository or utilize an existing repository for gopher tortoise conservation research and information (e.g., a GTT website). This repository will include items such as gopher tortoise research, habitat management strategies, population densities, and outreach materials. Each Party to this Agreement will post gopher tortoise information and/or links to other appropriate sites on the information repository as well as their own internal websites if applicable.

8. STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE GOPHER TORTOISE

8.1. DESCRIPTION

The gopher tortoise is a member of the Class Reptilia, Order Testudines, and Family Testudinidae. Of four North American tortoise species (genus Gopherus), the gopher tortoise is the only one that occurs east of the Mississippi River. The gopher tortoise is a moderately-sized terrestrial turtle, averaging 23–28 centimeters in length. The species is identified by its stumpy, elephantine hind feet and flattened, shovel-like forelimbs adapted for digging. The shell is oblong and generally tan, brown, or gray in coloration.

8.2. LIFE HISTORY

The gopher tortoise is slow to reach sexual maturity, has low fecundity, and has a long life span.

Females reach sexual maturity at 9–21 years of age, depending on local resource abundance and latitude; males mature at a slightly younger age. The breeding season is generally April– November. Nests are constructed (often in burrow mounds) from mid-May to mid-June, and only one clutch is produced annually. Clutch size is usually five to nine eggs, with an average of six. Predation on nests and hatchlings is heavy.

Gopher tortoises feed primarily on broadleaf grasses, wiregrass, grass-like asters, legumes, and fruits, but they are known to eat more than 300 species of plants. Tortoise densities and movements are affected by the amount of herbaceous ground cover. Generally, feeding activity is confined to within 50 meters of the burrow, but a tortoise may travel up to 100 meters from its burrow for specific forage requirements. Home range size varies with habitat type, season, and sex of the tortoise; moreover, considerable individual variation has been found. Reported annual average home ranges for males have varied from 0.5 to 1.9 hectares. Females generally have

November 2008 11 smaller home ranges, with reported averages ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 hectares. Multiple burrows are typically used, which complicates estimates of population density.

8.3. HABITAT

The gopher tortoise typically inhabits relatively well-drained, sandy soils. The gopher tortoise is generally associated with longleaf pine, xeric oak sandhills but also occurs in scrub, xeric hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grasslands and dunes, mixed hardwood-pine communities, and a variety of disturbed habitats. Gopher tortoises excavate burrows that average 4.5 m in length and 2 m in depth. These burrows, which provide protection from temperature extremes, desiccation, and predators, serve as refuges for approximately 360 other species, including federally listed species such as the Mississippi gopher frog (Rana capito) and Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi).

8.4. DISTRIBUTION

The gopher tortoise occurs in the southeastern Coastal Plain from southeastern South Carolina to extreme southeastern Louisiana. The gopher tortoise is endemic to the United States, and Florida represents the largest portion of the total range of the species.

Figure 8.4: Gopher Tortoise Distribution (Source: Gopher Tortoise Management Plan, Florida, September 2007)

9. PROBLEMS FACING THE GOPHER TORTOISE

The success of any conservation or recovery effort depends on reducing or eliminating threats to the continued existence of the species. The following summarizes the five listing factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA which must be considered by the USFWS in evaluating current threats to the gopher tortoise.

November 2008 12

9.1. THE PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR CURTAILMENT OF THE

SPECIES’ HABITAT OR RANGE

The primary threats to gopher tortoises in the Southeastern U.S. are habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation. Causes of these threats include, but are not limited to;

urbanization and development, intensive forestry practices, agriculture, dam construction, invasive exotic plant establishment, sand extraction, mining, land-use requiring vegetation clearance, fire suppression, agriculture, and human predation. Most gopher tortoise habitat exists on privately owned lands, rendering threats to habitat quality an important issue for private landowners. Additionally, federal and state lands are comprised of gopher tortoise habitat, and this Agreement focuses on these areas.

9.2. OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR EDUCATIONAL

PURPOSES

Human collection and consumption is the primary way in which gopher tortoise populations are overutilized. Human predation on gopher tortoises has occurred throughout the Southeastern U.S. Harvesting of gopher tortoises is now prohibited by all states throughout its range;

however, illegal commercial hunters continue to collect gopher tortoise for their meat. For example, the effects of human predation on tortoise populations in longleaf pine-turkey oak habitat in the Florida Panhandle has resulted in a low density of tortoise populations, as compared to higher densities of tortoises found in similar habitat in Peninsular Florida.

Although tortoise protection and decreased tortoise populations have reduced human consumption rates, some tortoise populations may still be depleted by sustained human predation.

9.3. PREDATION AND DISEASE

In the wild, gopher tortoise eggs and hatchlings are preyed upon by mammals, birds, and snakes.

Approximately 80–90% of nests are typically depredated, primarily by mammalian predators. It is believed that more than 90% of hatchlings may not survive their first year. Adults are not usually subject to predation, but there is evidence that they can succumb to dogs and coyotes.

Gopher tortoise populations can typically withstand natural predation pressure, with only one to three of every 100 eggs probably producing a breeding adult. However, predator populations, such as raccoons and crows, can be artificially high in some habitats because of anthropogenic factors. Also, potential new tortoise predators have invaded the Southeast (nine-banded armadillo, coyote, monitor lizards, feral hogs, and red imported fire ant) via human transport or habitat alteration.

Beginning in the 1990s, upper respiratory tract disease (URTD) was identified as a potential threat to the gopher tortoise, and relatively large die-offs (100–300+ shells) that might be linked to URTD were documented on several public lands in Florida. In addition to at least two Mycoplasma species responsible for URTD, gopher tortoises also may have herpesvirus and iridovirus. Pathogens may be partially responsible for recent declines in some gopher tortoise populations, but URTD may have a long evolutionary history as a gopher tortoise disease. It is possible that Mycoplasma agassizii may be detected in virtually every population, if enough tortoises are sampled. There are several possibilities why URTD has only been discovered

November 2008 13 recently: 1) increased research on the species, 2) increased stress on gopher tortoise populations from habitat fragmentation and degradation has lowered their resistance to pathogens, 3) a more virulent form of the pathogen has evolved, or (4) URTD was introduced by humans via exposure to infected captive tortoises. On Sanibel Island, 87% of tortoises tested were seropositive for exposure to the pathogen, and at least one population there appears to have experienced a 25– 50% reduction in breeding age adults. However, it has been found that observed declines in the demographic well-being of gopher tortoise populations did not appear to be related to the presence of Mycoplasma agassizii.

9.4. EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS

The species is federally listed west of the Tombigbee/Mobile Rivers with no federal and some state protection east of these rivers. While the gopher tortoise is currently state protected in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, state protection varies greatly, and there is no coordinated or comprehensive framework for conservation or protection currently in place. For more state-specific regulatory information, see Section 6.2.

9.5. OTHER MANMADE OR NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES’ CONTINUED

EXISTENCE.

There are no other known manmade or natural factors affecting the species continued existence.

However, increased conversion to agricultural lands could cause increased use of and tortoise exposure to agricultural chemicals.

10. CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND COMMITMENTS

The strategy for organizing a cooperative, range-wide approach to gopher tortoise management and conservation is focused on establishing a baseline of conservation commitments that all Parties agree to, and then collectively accounting for specific agency conservation actions across the region. It also establishes a starting-point for private landowner involvement in gopher tortoise conservation and management activities. Key components of this strategy are based on the premise that this Agreement, in the near term, is focused on reducing the deteriorating status of the species by improving, organizing, and implementing specific management actions, and in the long term, will facilitate the development of a network of managed gopher tortoise populations across its range.

The commitment and actions outlined in this Section focus on conservation, improvement, and ongoing management of gopher tortoise habitat. The landscape and local level conservation actions are designed to be adaptable and implementable by all Parties in a collaborative environment, and the agency-specific actions describe the specific actions that each Party will conduct to effectively manage the species and reduce habitat and population loss. The results of these actions will be observed through monitoring the response of tortoise populations.

Information obtained from surveys and monitoring will increase the understanding of the gopher tortoise and its management needs. This knowledge will be applied using the concepts of Adaptive Management that periodically assess and modify conservation actions.

November 2008 14

10.1. HABITAT CONSERVATION COMMITMENTS

Each of the Parties is bound by certain guiding agency requirements which establish their mission, goals, and responsibilities while also managing and conserving the habitat of various species (e.g., the gopher tortoise) in the Southeastern U.S. This section addresses general measures that will be taken by the Parties to conserve gopher tortoise and its habitat at the landscape and local level. Best practices for habitat management, monitoring, and translocation of tortoises are contained in Appendix B.

10.1.1. Landscape Level Conservation

This section describes general conservation efforts that all Parties agree to implement at the regional or landscape level, in accordance with their respective authorities and their individual missions. These common and comprehensive efforts and actions include:

• Identifying suitable or potentially suitable gopher tortoise habitat/sites/areas, and documenting those that are exceptional ecosystems known to support high biodiversity and/or numerous federal-and-state listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species.

• Identifying areas occupied by gopher tortoises.

• Identifying areas of potential agency mission – gopher tortoise habitat conflict.

• Identifying and reducing dispersal barriers between gopher tortoise populations.

• Developing and implementing best management practices for avoiding/minimizing/mitigating impacts to suitable and occupied habitats.

• Identifying and collaborating with landowners (private and public) on conservation/management efforts needed to minimize impacts to or sustain gopher tortoise habitat.

• Making gopher tortoise information available to promote appropriate data sharing, conservation, and partnering.

• Assessing and evaluating gopher tortoise habitat or population trends related to actions associated with development/agriculture/etc or conservation/restoration.

• Avoiding/minimizing impacts to suitable, unoccupied gopher tortoise habitat to allow for occupation of gopher tortoises in such areas, and managing these areas appropriately (e.g., prescribed fire).

10.1.2. Local Level Conservation

This section describes general conservation efforts that all Parties agree to implement at the local, installation or property level, consistent with their respective authorities and in accordance with their individual missions. These common and site-specific efforts and actions include:

• Considering the effects of actions on gopher tortoise during the planning process, and avoiding or minimizing impacts on habitat where practical.

• Identifying presence/absence of gopher tortoises in proposed action areas where the action will disturb soils in suitable habitat.

• Avoiding when practical or otherwise minimizing adverse effects on gopher tortoise habitat during land management activities.

November 2008 15

• Considering translocation of gopher tortoises for projects that will adversely and permanently degrade/fragment/destroy occupied habitat and where all other management options have been exhausted. If translocation is selected as an action, developing a translocation plan.

• Avoiding where practical or otherwise minimizing adverse effects of actions that isolate existing gopher tortoise populations.

10.2. AGENCY-SPECIFIC HABITAT CONSERVATION ACTIONS

The following section details specific gopher tortoise conservation and management actions that have been implemented, are being implemented or are being considered for implementation by:

• United States Army

• United States Navy

• United States Air Force (USAF)

• United States Marine Corps (USMC)

• United States Forest Service (USFS)

• United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

• State of Alabama

• State of Florida

• State of Georgia

• State of South Carolina

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians

• American Forest Foundation (AFF)

10.2.1. Army

The gopher tortoise occurs on Camp Blanding, FL; Fort Benning, GA; Fort Gordon, GA; Fort Rucker, AL; and Fort Stewart, GA. Specific management objectives and activities for gopher tortoise management are included in the INRMP for each installation. Conservation of the gopher tortoise and other species is part of a broader goal to conserve biological diversity on Army lands consistent with the Army’s mission. Biological diversity and the long-term survival of species such as the gopher tortoise ultimately depend upon the health and sustainability of the ecosystem in which they reside. Therefore, installation-specific gopher tortoise management strategies will promote ecosystem integrity.