WEC368

Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Panther on Private Lands1 Elizabeth F. Pienaar and Melissa M. Kreye2

Introduction for the panther be conserved on both public and private lands throughout Florida (Kautz el al. 2006; Thatcher et al. This document provides a brief overview of existing 2009; USFWS 2008). Private rangelands in southwest and regulatory and voluntary approaches used by federal, state, south central Florida provide important habitat and prey and local government agencies to assist in Florida panther for the Florida panther (Pienaar and Rubino 2014; Pienaar conservation on private lands. et al. 2015). These lands also play a key role in conserving other native species (e.g., gopher tortoises, bob white quail, turkeys, deer, vultures, scrub jays, cranes, black bears, and bobcats).

Listed as endangered in 1967 under the Act (ESA), the Florida panther currently exists as a single breeding population in south Florida (Main et al. 2004; USFWS 2008; Van de Kerk et al. 2015) (Figure 1). The panther utilizes state and federal lands (e.g., the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the Big Cypress National Preserve, the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, and the Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary). However, because panthers are a wide-ranging species, the amount of habitat available on public lands is insufficient for species recovery efforts. The 2008 Panther Recovery Plan by the US Figure 1. Current panther range and predicted expansion area on Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requires that habitat lands south and north of the Caloosahatchee River. Credits: Melissa Kreye

1. This document is WEC368, one of a series of the Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date September 2016. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2. Elizabeth F. Pienaar, assistant professor; and Melissa M. Kreye, post-doctoral associate; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county’s UF/IFAS Extension office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension. Unfortunately, these rangelands are under increasing dispersal, secondary, and other) were identified and as- development pressure as the human population in Florida signed a value based on how important the lands are for continues to grow. Between 2010 and 2014 the Florida panther conservation (Figure 2). The primary and dispersal human population increased by 5.8% (which is higher than zones are the most important lands for panther conserva- the national average of 3.3%). In 2014, Florida surpassed tion (and are assigned a value of 1). The secondary zone is New York as the third most populous state in the United assigned a value of 0.69, and the other zone is assigned a States. Multiple policy approaches have been put in place by value of 0.33. This means that 1.45 acres of habitat in the local, state and federal governments to address habitat loss secondary zone (or 3 acres of habitat in the other zone) on private lands and to secure natural resources in Florida. should be protected to offset the loss of one acre of the same Below we outline programs that assist in panther conserva- habitat in the primary or dispersal zones. tion efforts. Regulatory Approaches for Conserving Habitat There are laws that help protect wildlife in Florida (Schaefer et al. 2012). The ESA is one important regulatory approach that helps protect species that are at a high risk of going extinct (USFWS 2013). The USFWS is responsible for determining which species are at risk of extinction, and authorizes the listing of these species as either Endangered or Threatened under the ESA.

According to ESA Section 9, the USFWS can intervene if land-use changes will negatively impact panther habitat to the extent that the panther’s ability to breed, hunt, or find shelter is undermined. Land-use changes that negatively impact panther habitat are classified asincidental take under the ESA. Landowners who require federal permits to develop or convert lands, or who receive federal funds, must obtain an incidental take permit from the USFWS Figure 2. Panther Focus Area with primary, secondary, and dispersal zones in south Florida and predicted expansion area in central Florida. (under ESA Section 7). The incidental take permit is Credits: Melissa Kreye provided if a plan to mitigate habitat loss is developed to offset loss of habitat associated with the land-use change or Each habitat is also assigned a value, from zero (lowest development project. Mitigation actions typically include quality habitat, e.g., urban land) to 10 (highest quality the permanent protection of habitat (that is of equal value habitat, e.g., pineland forest). Based on these metrics, to the panther) in another location (in exchange for the loss Panther Habitat Units (PHUs) are calculated for each acre or conversion of habitat to development, mining, or other of land in each zone in the Panther Focus Area. Developers uses that do not support panther conservation). and landowners who require a federal permit to convert panther habitat to other uses must secure and permanently The USFWS uses the Panther Habitat Assessment Meth- protect habitat with an equal PHU value elsewhere in the odology to determine how much mitigation is required for Panther Focus Area. land-use changes in the Panther Focus Area, which is the documented breeding range for the Florida panther (i.e., Mitigating Habitat Loss to Obtain an lands south of the Caloosahatchee River) (FWC 2010). Incidental Take Permit Panther Habitat Assessment Methodology Landowners and developers can mitigate habitat loss each time they require an incidental take permit by purchasing The USFWS developed the Panther Habitat Assessment land and putting it in permanent protection for the panther. Methodology to calculate the ecological value of panther Alternatively, they can implement a larger-scale Habitat habitat in the Panther Focus Area (Kautz 2006; USFWS Conservation Plan (HCP), or purchase credits from a 2008). Within the Panther Focus Area, four zones (primary, Habitat Conservation Bank (HCB).

Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Florida Panther on Private Lands 2 A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is a legal document wildlife reserves and enhance habitat connectivity, which is that describes how the landowner will mitigate for habitat important for panther recovery (USFWS 2003). conversion or loss, and how mitigation will be funded. Typically, a HCP applies to a large area of land and can Three conservation banks have been finalized within the apply to multiple species. For example, the proposed panther’s breeding range. These include the Florida Panther Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Conservation Bank I (1,920 acres), the Florida Panther Plan (ECMSHCP) would apply to 152,124 acres of land in Conservation Bank II, (additional 472 acres), and the northeastern Collier County, Florida, and would provide Panther Passage Conservation Bank (4,000 acres) (Kreye a 50-year incidental take permit for the Florida panther and Pienaar 2015). and seven other ESA-listed species (Florida scrub-jay, Audubon’s crested caracara, wood stork, red-cockaded Mitigating Habitat Loss through Local woodpecker, Everglade snail kite, eastern indigo snake, Government Regulations and Florida bonneted bat). The HCP would also cover the Although not specifically designed to protect panthers, gopher tortoise, the burrowing owl, eastern diamondback local ordinances and zoning rules have been used to control rattlesnake, Florida sandhill crane, little blue heron, change in Florida, and may benefit the panther. Southeastern American kestrel, tricolored heron, and the Big Cypress fox squirrel. In 2007, a Tradable Development Rights (TDR) program was approved by Collier County as part of the county’s Participants in an HCP will enroll part of their land in a growth management plan. In a TDR program, lands are permanent conservation easement program or purchase designated as “sending” or “receiving” areas. Land use in land to use for habitat conservation (USFWS 2011). Once the sending areas is restricted to certain activities (e.g. the HCP has been reviewed and approved by the USFWS, agriculture), and the development rights attached to that an incidental take permit is issued. The advantage of the land are sold to landowners in the receiving areas where HCP to landowners is that it provides certainty in planning development is permitted (Kaplowitz et al. 2008; Machemer (for the species included in the HCP). Once a permit is and Kaplowitz 2002; McConnell et al. 2003). This allows provided, landowners are assured that they will not be developers to increase development density on land in the required to engage in any additional conservation related receiving areas (through the purchase of additional devel- to the species that are the focus of the HCP, provided that opment rights), while ensuring that lands in the sending they comply with the original HCP, permits, and associated areas are kept as agricultural lands and wildlife habitat. documents. This is referred to as the “no surprises” policy, Landowners in the sending areas are compensated for the a regulatory assurance that reduces the costs of habitat restrictions on their land use by the income they receive conservation to landowners, in particular the costs of from selling the development rights attached to their lands. uncertainty and regulatory costs. The certainty provided by the HCP is a key reason why landowners and developers The Collier Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) is a will apply for and develop an HCP. Certainty allows for TDR program that assists in panther habitat conservation planning of future business activities to maximize profits. (RLSA 2015). The trading area is distributed across 195,000 The disadvantage of the HCP process is that it is complex contiguous acres surrounding the town of Immokalee, FL, and time consuming and requires multiple stages of review. and includes the designation of 2,300 acres as wildlife corridors, which are utilized by the Florida panther. Landowners who are not interested in applying for a HCP can purchase credits, or PHUs, from a Habitat Conserva- tion Bank (HCB). HCBs are privately owned properties Voluntary Approaches to that protect, restore, and manage strategically important Conserving Habitat on Private Florida panther habitat in perpetuity. HCBs are owned by entrepreneurs who have put these lands into a conservation Lands easement. The USFWS determines what the PHU value of Safe Harbor Agreements the bank is, and the owner is able to sell these PHU credits Landowners are generally resistant to actions that encour- to individuals, who must mitigate for habitat conversion. age ESA listed species to utilize their lands out of concern The money earned from selling the credits is used to that the USFWS will increase restrictions on how they manage the property for the panther, and to invest in may use their land (Wilcove and Lee 2004). One way to additional HCBs. Conservation banking can help establish encourage landowners to conserve habitat is to remove the

Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Florida Panther on Private Lands 3 risk of regulation under the ESA through the provision of References Cited Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs). The USFWS agrees to not Ferraro, P. J., and A. Kiss. 2002. “Direct payments to regulate landowners who manage their lands for ESA-listed conserve biodiversity.” Science, 298(5599), 1718–1719. species if the landowner maintains the population of the species or species habitat at a designated baseline (Wilcove FPPP. 2014. Florida Panther Protection Program. Retrieved and Lee 2004). For more information about Safe Harbor April 14, 2015 from http://www.floridapantherprotection. Agreements see Safe Harbor Agreement: A Regulatory com/ Assurance under the Endangered Species Act. FPRIT. 2014. “Incentivizing Panther Conservation on In 2014, the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Working Lands in the Panther Focus Area.” Retrieved July Team (FPRIT) proposed that a panther SHA be made 15, 2015 from http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/FloridaPan- available north of the Caloosahatchee River (in the panther therRIT/20150218%20Florida%20Panther%20PES%20 expansion range). The proposed SHA would be based on Pilot%20Program.pdf habitat conserved, rather than number of panthers. The baseline habitat quality would be quantified using PHUs. FWC. 2010. “Questions and Answers – Critical Habitat Under this agreement, landowners would not be subject for the Florida Panther.” Retrieved on April 14, 2014 from to regulations if they maintained the PHU value of their http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/MammalsPDFs/Question- property at the baseline. The FPRIT has put a hold on the sAndAnswersCriticalHabitatfortheFloridaPanther.pdf development of the SHA program at this time, focusing instead on a payment program (Kreye and Pienaar 2015). Kaplowitz, M. D., P. Machemer, and R. Pruetz. 2008. “Plan- ners’ experiences in managing growth using transferable Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) development rights (TDR) in the United States.” Land Use Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a relatively new Policy 25, 378–387. policy approach in the United States and provides landown- ers with direct payments for the environmental benefits Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, produced through good land stewardship (Ferraro and Kiss D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. 2002). In 2014, the USFWS proposed a pilot PES program Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. “How much is enough? (funded through the 2006 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther.” Act) that would provide cattle producers in south Florida Biological Conservation 130: 118–133. with payments for managing habitat for panthers on private rangelands (FPRIT 2014). Kreye, M., and E. F. Pienaar. 2015. “A critical review of efforts to protect Florida panther habitat on private lands.” The pilot program focuses on habitat conservation in the Land Use Policy. 48: 428–436. primary and dispersal zones within the Panther Focus Area. Cattle ranchers would receive a per-acre payment Kreye, M, E. F. Pienaar, R. K. Boughton, and L. Wiggins. for habitat enrolled in the program in return for engaging 2015. Safe Harbor Agreement: A Regulatory Assurance under in land-management practices that improve or maintain the Endangered Species Act. WEC358. Gainesville: Univer- panther habitat. Payment levels are dependent on habitat sity of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. quality and the prescribed management activities. The http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw403 program would be implemented over a five-year period, Machemer, P. L., and M. D. Kaplowitz. 2002. “A frame- providing the USFWS with time to further refine the work for evaluating transferable development rights program and to explore other panther conservation incen- programmes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and tives and programs. Management, 45(6), 773–795. In 2016, the Natural Resource Conservation Service Main, M. B., G. M. Allen, and M. E. Sunquist. 2004. (NRCS) agreed to provide $630,000 to fund this pilot Florida’s Large Carnivores. WEC 183. Gainesville: Univer- program through their Regional Conservation Partnership sity of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Program (RCPP). Retrieved April 14, 2015 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw201

Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Florida Panther on Private Lands 4 McConnell, V., E. Kopits, and M. Walls. 2003. How well can van de Kerk, M, D. P. Onorato, and K. O. Madan. 2015. markets for development rights work? Evaluating a farmland The Florida Panther: Past, Present and Future. WEC 357. preservation program. Discussion Paper 03-08, Resources Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and for the Future, , D.C. 50 pp. Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw402 Pienaar, E. F., and E. C. Rubino. 2014. Habitat Requirements of the Florida Panther. WEC 345. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ uw390

Pienaar, E. F., M. M. Kreye and C. E. Jacobs. 2015. “Con- flicts between cattlemen and the Florida panther: insights and policy recommendations from interviews with Florida cattlemen.” Human Ecology – An Interdisciplinary Journal, 43(4), 577-588.

RLSA. 2015. Rural Lands Stewardship Area. Downloaded on April 4, 2014 from http://www.colliergov.net/index. aspx?page=1515

Schaefer, J., J. Tucker, and M. McGuire. 2012. Laws that Protect Florida Wildlife. WEC 48. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ uw076

Thatcher, C. A., F. T. van Manen, and J. D. Clark. 2009. “A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expan- sion into central Florida.” Journal of Mammology. 90(4), 918–925.

USFWS. 2003. Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks. Memorandum to the Regional Directs (Regions 1–7) and the Manager ( Nevada Operations). United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 19 pp.

USFWS. 2008. Florida Panther Recovery Plan (Puma concolor coryi), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 217 pp.

USFWS. 2011. “Habitat Conservation Plans Under the Endangered Species Act.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service En- dangered Species Program. Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved on July 13, 2015 from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ esa-library/pdf/hcp.pdf.

USFWS. 2013. “ESA Basics.” Retrieved on July 13, 2015 from https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ ESA_basics.pdf

Government Efforts to Protect Habitat for the Florida Panther on Private Lands 5