Inside Look at the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan

ANDREW C. ELLER - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3860 Tollgate Blvd., Suite 37 Naples, FL 33942.

The habitat preservation plan is a landscape scale planning document that was prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively known as the Florida Panther Interagency Committee). The planning effort began in April of 1991. By the spring of 1992 a working draft had been completed. By the spring of 1993 a public draft was released and comments were taken during a sixty day period.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received 450 letters, 75 percent of which were in favor of the plan, and 25 percent opposed. The plan was approved in January of 1994. Now, as to what the plan does; 1) it identifies and characterizes occupied and potential panther habitat, 2) it identifies threats to panther habitat, and 3) it identifies a variety of habitat preservation options.

The plan also made public the need for a community effort to preserve panther habitat and FACEE, the Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education, rose to the occasion. They awarded two, in my opinion, very significant grants. The first grant was made to the American Farmland Trust and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission who, together with eight members from the Gulf Citrus Growers Association, are working to develop incentives for habitat preservation. The Trust and the Commission are picking up essentially where the habitat preservation plan left off. You will be hearing more about that from Craig Evans later today.

A second grant was made to the Florida Farm Bureau, who has put together two educational displays that are being sent around the state to county fairs. They are going to hold some workshops. And they are going to use news, radio and newspaper public service announcements to foster a cooperative relationship between their hundred thousand members, government agencies and the general public in matters regarding panther habitat preservation.

Some people might ask - why save panther habitat? We heard yesterday from the Seminole Indian Tribe that the panther is a key component of their historical culture. Then there are economic reasons. Babcock Ranch, up in Charlotte County, gets a tremendous amount of traffic from people traveling down 1 75, that come down here on vacation, and go on the swamp buggy tour. I wonder how many people might stop by if they did not advertise panthers on their billboards?

Another reason to save panther habitat is to preserve other wildlife. The panther is a wide ranging animal. It is considered an umbrella species for southwest Florida wildlife. And in the continental United States, Florida ranks second only to California in the number of endangered species.

Wetlands within the range of the panther help store flood waters, purify water and recharge aquifers from which humans draw water for urban, industrial, and agricultural uses. Wetlands, and uplands, provide a recreational relief valve for humans seeking escape from urban stress. A 1991 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed that Americans spent $59 billion dollars on outdoor activities .

Based on the concurrent tracking of 17 panthers in 1990 Dave Maehr and other biologists estimated a population of 46 adult panthers in the western Big Cypress basin.

The Florida Panther Viability Analysis and Species Survival Plan indicates that habitat capable of supporting at least 50 adult panthers is needed for a self-sustaining population.

The first priority of the 1987 Florida Panther Recovery Plan is to secure a viable population of panthers in south Florida. Habitat preservation is necessary to achieve that goal.

Characterization of Occupied and Potential Habitat

Even though suitable panther habitat may exists throughout Florida, and the southeast, the focus of the plan is on occupied and potential panther habitat in south Florida. The study area originally was 22,000 square miles in nineteen counties. Based on field reports and telemetry data the study area was narrowed down to about 10,000 square miles in nine counties.

The majority of the occupied habitat and potential habitat is found within the boundaries of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and also within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District.

Most of the information used to characterize occupied and potential habitat is based on research done by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Areas of 500 square miles or larger, dominated by preferred forest types such as oak hammock; pine flatwoods, cypress forest, cabbage palm hammock, with an abundance of white-tailed deer, a housing density of less than ten units per square mile, a paved road density of less than one tenth of a mile per square mile, and connected by corridors would characterize occupied and potential habitat suitable for the panther.

Between 1981 and 1991 the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the National Park Service collected 17,386 telemetry data points on 43 panthers. The combined home ranges of these animals totaled 3.1 million acres, of which 53% is privately owned, and 47% publicly owned.

Based on satellite photography, collected between 1985 and 1989 and analyzed by the Game and Fish Commission, forested areas of 250 acres in size were identified. Future land use maps were also used in determining occupied and potential habitat. As part of the Florida Growth Management Act all counties were required to project future land uses through the year 2010. These maps were used to anticipate urban development. All potential habitats in the coastal counties of Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota and Manatee west of 1-75 were excluded from the study area.

Land ownerships were identified using the most current plat books available. It is interesting to note, from a planning perspective, that nearly 70 percent of the panther habitat in south Florida is owned by 80 individuals in tracts of 640 acres or more. Using the above information, occupied and potential habitats were delineated on aerial photographs called Mark Hurds. The lands most frequently used by the panther and/or lands of high quality native habitat were designated Priority 1. Lands less frequently used by the panther and/or land of lower quality native habitat interspersed with agriculture can serve as buffer zones to urban development and were designated Priority 2.

The end result is the habitat preservation map (Figure 1) which shows eleven ecological units totaling about 926,300 acres in Charlotte, Collier, Dade, DeSoto, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Sarasota and Manatee Counties.

Threats to Occupied and Potential Habitat

The second aspect of the plan addressed the alteration and loss of panther habitat associated with the increased population growth in Florida. Florida's population has doubled nearly every twenty years since the first census in 1830. Not only has the population grown, but it has shifted. In 1900 only 5 percent of the State's population lived in south Florida. As of the 1990 census approximately 50 percent of the state's population, or 6.3 million people, lived in south Florida.

Based on 1990 zoning densities the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council predicts that a doubling of population growth by the year 2010 will create the need for another 292 square miles of urban land.

Severe freezes during the mid 1980s has caused the citrus industry to shift south. The average acreage of citrus developed annually in southwest Florida increased from about 3,500 acres in 1984-85 to over 16,000 acres in 1990-91. The good news, as Randy Kautz pointed out in his presentation, is that 60 to 70 percent of the citrus planted during the last decade was planted primarily on improved pasture or abandoned farm fields. The bad news is that a study by the University of Florida showed that about 46 percent of this one and a half million acre study area (Figure 2) is suitable for citrus conversion.

The economics of winter vegetable production are such that no more than 1,000 acres per year are expected to be put into production during the next two decades and most of that will occur on lands formerly cleared for vegetables.

Can anyone here tell me what is missing in this picture? This is a loaded question for one person in particular - Kim? Thank you. The pines. If you take a close look at the slide, you can see how the vegetation is kind of beat up. When you step back from the area you notice what I call "whip trees". These are tall, slender, scrawny looking trees that were unmerchantable when the area was last cut so the loggers just left them. Now, there is still plenty of cover here for wildlife, but historically logging is a prelude to further land changes. The time lapse between this slide and the previous slide is about three years. The land use changes in this instance are gradual and by no means catastrophic. Conversion to extensive monocultures can adversely impact panther habitat. However, pastures can be designed and managed in such a way as to be beneficial for cattle and wildlife.

Oil and gas activities produce localized disturbance of vegetation and wildlife. All weather roads provide access to formerly remote areas and fragment habitat.

Although panthers may coexist with open pit limerock mines, the pit can never be reclaimed. There are about 13,000 acres of land permitted for limerock mining in eastern Lee County.

Until the advent of wildlife underpasses, highways were the primary source of panther mortality. Road upgrades and extensions continue to fragment panther habitat.

Inappropriate types and levels of recreation may render habitat less than suitable for panther occupation.

Mercury, attributed to the death of one panther and implicated in two others, has rendered portions of Everglades National Park less than suitable for panther habitation.

Based on 17,386 panther telemetry locations collected on 43 cats between 1981 and 1991, we know that the occupied range of the Florida panther is about 3.1 million acres, 53% of which is privately owned, and 47% publicly owned.

We also know that of the 43 panthers monitored during that decade; 1) only 4 panthers had home ranges entirely on public land, 2) 24 panthers had greater than 20 percent of their home range on private land, and 3) 14 panthers had greater that 50 percent of their home range on private land.

According to Dave Maehr, former Game and Fish Commission biologist, if the panther habitat on private lands were lost, the public lands in south Florida are capable of supporting only 9 to 22 adult panthers.

Recommendations to Preserve Occupied and Potential Habitat

The Florida Panther Interagency Committee came up with ten recommendations to try and preserve panther habitat.

Recommendation #1 was to develop site specific preservation strategies for 468,600 acres south of the Caloosahatchee River. These lands are considered essential to maintaining the existing panther population. Habitat preservation strategies will emphasize retention of land ownership by private individuals. Those strategies most likely to preserve panther habitat will also tend to preserve the traditional rural lifestyles of interior south Florida. Implementing Recommendation #1 would preserve 97 percent of the lands used by 43 panthers between 1981 and 1991.

Recommendation #2 was to develop site specific preservation strategies for 457,700 acres north of the Caloosahatchee River. These lands would contribute significantly to the goal of achieving a viable and self-sustaining panther population.

Recommendation #3 was to support current acquisition programs. Recommendation #4 was to evaluate the need to designate critical habitat.

Recommendation #5 was to establish a full time position within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote, coordinate and monitor multi-agency implementation of the plan. Also part of this recommendation was for the Game and Fish Commission to work with landowners in developing management/conservation plans for lands identified in Recommendations 1 and 2.

Recommendation #6 was to design and develop landowner incentives. I wish I had more time to talk about this. There are four broad classes, fee title, less than fee title, incentives, and - the politically correct term for regulation - disincentives. The agencies are going to work on initiatives that may include tax reforms that require State or Federal legislative action. There was a bill that was introduced in the 103rd Congress to modify the inheritance tax laws, something that I think would be very beneficial for habitat preservation .

Recommendation #7 was to review and coordinate compliance with existing wetland regulations .

Recommendation #8 was to utilize sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Endangered Species Act where applicable. Immediately following this presentation Rick Gooch will talk to you about habitat conservation planning under section 10.

Recommendation #9 was to develop a plan for working with Florida's Growth Management Act. The Act is probably going to be rather limited in panther preservation. I think the Act has already done everything it can do. The greatest accomplishment being to stop the large scale subdivision of lands that occurred with Golden Gate Estates, Rotunda, Lehigh Acres and other areas.

And the final Recommendation, #10, was to provide habitat preservation data to the Game and Fish Commission's Forest Stewardship Coordinator for plans prepared on lands essential to panther recovery.

QUESTIONS:

MR. BRIAN SCHERF: One of the things that I see missing in the habitat preservation plan is the use of corridors. You know, it seems like it would be very time intensive, expensive, and put a lot of additional trauma on the animals to try and translocate them all the time to prevent inbreeding. And I was wondering why the corridors were left out. And my second question is, why was eminent domain dropped as an acquisition tool for preserving panther habitat?

MR. ELLER: Where in particular are you talking about the corridors, between areas north and south of the river?

MR. SCHERF: Yes, like between the Myakka area and other areas north of Caloosahatchee and south of the River between the Fakahatchee and the Big Cypress area.

MR. ELLER: Between the Myakka River and Telegraph Swamp area, we didn't designate a corridor, and I'm not sure that one exists. So I don't think I can answer your question on that. Maybe it's something we need to go back and look at. Now, as far as the areas north and south of the river, I think someone from the Game and Fish Commission could better answer that. But it's my understanding that cats are not known to cross between those two areas, possibly because of the existence of the river, and also Highway 80, which runs just south of the river. And the landscape there is also fairly well disturbed. There's a lot of agriculture right along side the road, and some urban development.
Now, as far as eminent domain, that is a power that the government can use. But it's used wisely and discreetly. Each agency has a different philosophy on how to use it, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation all have no compunction about using eminent domain. The Fish and Wildlife Service, however, has a policy of not using it. They deal with landowners on a willing seller basis only. And I think out of all the transactions that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved in throughout their history, less than 1% involved eminent domain. And it was mutual. The parties agreed to go to court to settle a dispute over land value.

MR. LOU HINDS: We don't have many panthers over there on Sanibel. But something that recently bothered me a lot, you had mentioned about stopping large scale development. Recently this whole issue over the Tenth University has hit the air waves and * it's become a thing between panthers and kids going to college. And just out of curiosity, why did we not -- why did we let it get to that stage, because it was never an issue between kids going to college and panthers? There are other suitable sites for that university. It didn't have to go into panther habitat.

MR. ELLER: Sure. And that's something I think people need to keep in mind, there are other sites in southwest Florida that are available for a university. I'm not sure where the process is at this point. It might be a question of where or when the university goes in, not if. So, it's not a panthers versus kids type of issue.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Andy, I think you did a great job giving us an overview of the habitat preservation plan. I just had a question, particularly, what is the legal significance of this document? I read the Endangered Species Act, there's a provision for a recovery plan, and you've alluded to a recovery plan in your presentation. What is this document? I've heard it called a plan to do a plan.

MR. ELLER: I think you just summed it up very well.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: A plan to do a plan?

MR. ELLER: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Well, my concern, that being said, is that one of the justifications that I've heard is the no jeopardy opinion on the university site is that this is Priority 2 habitat under the habitat preservation plan. So it seems to me that it may be a little bit more than just a planning document, using it for some type of justification.

MR. ELLER: The biological opinion, even though it relied on data from the habitat preservation plan, was not counted by the habitat preservation plan. There are some larger issues here that we tried to address. And I'm not sure that we did an adequate job. The university site is only 760 acres in size. But based on a land survey that I did in eastern Lee County, I'm projecting that the university will have a development impact about seven miles away from the actual site, which is well into the habitat preservation areas, just for reference. And the reason I say that, I surveyed properties that were for sale. And these properties are being advertised as being within an easy driving distance of the university. And this goes far beyond the planned 3,300 acre university village. That's only about a three mile radius.

MR. MAYNARD HISS: If this is a plan to be a plan, when is the plan going to be adopted? And do you have specific timetables to achieve the goals that are set out in the plan?

MR. ELLER: Yes, we do.

MR. HISS: And what are those deadlines or those dates?

MR. ELLER: I couldn't enumerate them all. We have an implementation schedule that we've drawn up. It Is scheduled to be reported on quarterly. One report has gone out, the 2nd one is past due now. What we found out is the time frames were a little ambitious . We' re having to adjust them. What was the first part of your question again?

MR. HISS: You said this was a plan to be a plan. And I was wondering when the plan was going to be adopted?

MR. ELLER: Let me elaborate on that just a little bit. There are a variety of mechanisms that have been identified in this plan, some of which are going to require further legislation. So that's -- to say that it's just a plan to make plans is not absolutely correct. It is the base for which other things will be done.