10/17/97 Issues Committee Actions

ISSUES COMMITTEE

Ray March elected chair and Rebecca Jetton elected vice-chair

Action Plans

Purpose: Prioritize issues
Action: Determine which issues need the greatest amount of attention, which need moderate attention,which can be ignored, and which should be delegated to other committees
Steps:
1. Issues prioritized at 10/17/97 meeting. To review, click on: priority issues.
2. Issues pertinent to other committees delegated to those committees on 10/17/97. To review, click on: key issues: lease committee and key issues: public education/policy committee.
3. Committee to work on Priority 1 issues first, using Internet and e-mail to communicate.
4. When committee is ready to work on Priority 2 issues, will contact the project's economic team to obtain input and guidance.
5. Priority 3 issues will be discussed only after the Priority 1 and Priority 2 issues are resolved.

Purpose: Find as much common ground and agreement as possible
Action: Develop list of common ground issues
Steps:
1. Review priority issues
2. Develop statement of vision to guide committee work (done: see guiding vision below)
3. Develop list of issues on which there is agreement within the committee (done: see issues on which there is agreement, below
3. Work via Internet to expand list of issues on which there is agreement
4. Identify issues that need further discussion
5. Set up chat room on Internet for resolving issues
6. Use discussions groups and chat room on Internet, combined with conference call, to discuss solutions to resolve issues.

GUIDING VISION
This project does not replace public land acquisition. This project supplements, and adds to, public land acquisition. The two concepts -- private habitat conservation leases and public land acquisition -- have to work together from a management objective.

ISSUES ON WHICH THERE IS AGREEMENT WITHIN THE COMMITTEE
1. This project does not pre-empt public land acquisitions
2. Public access to private lands subject to the Private Habitat Conservation Leases is not acceptable and is not on the agenda.
3. It is agreed that some level of monitoring is necessary; however, the specific details governing of how much monitoring will be permitted or required, at what intervals and under what circumstances should be site specific, and negotiated with each individual landowner.
4. Eligibility for a private landowner to participate in the program will not be limited solely to parcels of property with Priority 1 or Priority 2 Florida panther habitat. Other species should be considered.
5. Joint cooperation is encouraged between landowners, environmental groups and agency personnel to work at the state level for reauthorization of P-2000, with funding after the year 2000 to be used to further public land acquisitions, as well as less-than-fee acquisitions and Private Habitat Conservation Leases.
6. Some areas of the economic analyses that have been conducted to date on this project need further investigation. For example: the per acre cost for management of public lands, as calculated by Dr. Fritz Roka and Dr. Martin Main of the University of Florida, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, appears low, due to the vast amounts of acreage that were included in the analysis which receive little or no management.

KEY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION OVER THE NEXT 30-60 DAYS
1. Refine which lands are eligible. Look at types of habitat, compensation policy, monitoring, types of development allowed, measurements for success and whole system approach. Need to develop guidelines to look at compensation on a level playing field.
2. Need to determine the status of the (click on your choice) Conservation Farm Option and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which were authorized for funding under the 1996 Farm Bill. Need information on how to apply, eligibility, criteria, application dates for next meeting.
3. We need to begin inviting Congressional and State Legislative aides to our meetings.
4. We need information on charitable contributions and how that impacts income tax.
5. We need to assign someone to search the Internet for other programs that have goals and objectives similar to ours, particularly in California, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia and North Carolina. Need to review the programs and pull out the information that would benefit our program.

Last changed: August 29, 2003