with funding from the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and a grant recommended by the Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education using a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the Manatee and Florida panther license plates.

Forty-seven percent of this land is publicly owned; the remaining 53 percent is privately held. Of the land in private ownership, biologists have designated 926,300 acres as essential, or priority habitat for preservation and recovery activities. More than half of the panthers -- and some of the healthiest -- live on these private, generally agricultural lands. Biologists believe preservation of panther habitat on these private lands is essential if the animal is to avoid extinction.

This land also includes valuable wetlands and habitat for many other imperiled wildlife populations, including sandhill cranes, swallow-tailed kites, wood storks, Florida black bears and crested caracaras.

This project builds on 18 months of work by a nine-member Landowner Working Group and 44-member Review Committee by taking the next steps to implement a "conceptual plan" developed by private landowners and published by Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in a November 1995 document entitled A Landowners' Strategy for Protecting Florida Panther Habitat on Private Lands in South Florida: A Project Report.

| Top | bottom | home |

| Top | bottom | home |

1. The Phase 1 project report was presented to landowners whose property contains panther habitat (This was completed during a February 18, 1997 workshop at the Hendry County Extension Service.)
   
   
2. Landowners were asked to appoint a new Landowner Working Group (The Phase 2 working group was expanded to include 21 landowners.)
   
   
3. The Review Committee was expanded to represent a broader number of interests (The Phase 2 Review Committee was made up of 74 individuals from local, regional, state and federal agencies; conservation organizations; property rights groups; farm organizations and others from throughout the nation with an interest in the impact of endangered species on private lands.)
   
   
4. The diverse groups interested in -- and affected by -- the panthers' survival were brought together in a two-day, May 1997 workshop, which was conducted by 3 professional facilitators. The participants in the workshop were invited to work together to refine the conceptual plan and become involved in carrying it out so the Florida panther -- and other wildlife species and natural habitats -- could be protected by:

5. Three working committees -- Issues, Lease and Public Education/Policy -- were established to continue work on issues raised during the workshop. An all-day organizing meeting, conducted by a professional facilitator, was held for members of these committees in October 1997, where action plans and time frames were developed to guide each committee's work.
   
   
6. An extensive economic analysis was conduced to compare the costs of the conceptual plan with the costs and benefits with other wildlife protection options -- including public acquisition of private lands. A summary of this analysis can be viewed by clicking on Economic Considerations.
   
   
7. One farm in southwest Florida was selected as test a parcel. (A draft lease agreement was drawn up as a guide for setting compensation levels and implementing the conceptual plan. This lease agreement was reviewd at the May 1997 workshop, refined by the Lease Committee and is now being tested on the farm, prior to being finalized.)

| Top | bottom | home |

Duke Hammond, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) , says the effort has the potential to be:

Patricia Glick, a senior fellow with the Sierra Club, concurs: "There is significant potential for economic incentive mechanisms to achieve gains in endangered species preservation on private lands." She goes on to add:

As Calvin Lloyd said at the workshop: "We have problems and environmentalists have problems. We need to get together to solve each other's problems."

That is the purpose of the Panthers & Private Lands project. An attempt also will be made to keep the program simple, and not allow the 25-year leases to become over regulated with monitoring and data gathering requirements. One problem with current less-than-fee incentive programs, Dr. Bernie Lester of Alico, Inc. said at the landowner workshop is that they come with "just as much regulatory baggage as we have now. If I'm going to get just as much regulatory baggage, I might as well stay where I am now and fight the battle as best I can. If an agency is satisfied with the way we are doing things, as they say they are, and they want to encourage us to keep doing it, then they have to buy off on that without a lot of additional monitoring, testing or other requirements."

These two points were discussed throroughly at the May 1997 workshop -- and are key to the evolution of the Private Habiat Conservation Lease. For more information on philosophical points of difference and agreement, please visit the Issues Discussion Group and the Priority Issues being considered by the Issues Committee.

| Top | bottom | home |

1. Protect essential habitat of the Florida panther on privately owned lands;
   
   
2. Provide economic incentives to landowners for protecting essential panther habitat; and
   
   
3. Improve cooperation and consistency between private landowners and government agencies.
   

| Top | bottom | home |

During this period of habitat protection and management, scientific research would continue regarding the status of the remaining panther population and its specific management and habitat needs. The plan's primary objective is to protect essential habitat so the panthers' opportunities for survival will be enhanced. The plan also would incorporate an ecosystem management approach that would retain the region's biodiversity, protect its water resources and promote aquifer recharge.

The conceptual plan would:

1. Build on existing panther preservation efforts by planning for the entire project area as described in the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan;
   
   
2. Lease or purchase non-agricultural development rights (i.e...rights for any development that is not related to or required for agricultural production);
   
   
3. Allow agricultural development on leased land to occur in a mosaic pattern except where panthers would be threatened, in which case the plan would also lease agricultural development rights (i.e...the rights to establish improved pasture, row crops, citrus, or other agricultural operations);
   
   
4. Improve the permitting process for these lands and extend the duration of permits for the length of the lease;
   
   
5. Assure the integrity of the region's hydrology;
   
   
6. Establish farm plans that integrate non-agricultural, farm and conservation land uses into a mosaic pattern; and
   
   
7. Take a holistic approach to resource and natural systems management on a property.
   
   

Leasing or purchasing non-agricultural development rights would be the primary means to protect essential panther habitat on private lands. If landowners choose to lease these rights, they would enter a 25-year legal agreement not to develop their land for non-agricultural use.

| Top | bottom | home |

There would be three ways to compensate for leased or purchased rights:

1. Pay property owners cash for the value of the rights;
   
   
2. Provide income tax and estate tax credits; or
   
   
3. Provide other methods of payment, including either cash or non-cash, agreeable to both parties.
   
   

The landowner working group recommended using estate and income tax relief as the primary form of compensation because these taxes are the two biggest economic impacts on landowners from the federal government.

The conceptual plan would offer three levels of possible compensation:

In other words, landowners would no longer have to deal with scores of different agencies at a variety of different times. They would do it once. This team-permitting process would result in a single, comprehensive farm management plan that would satisfy all permitting requirements for the entire 25-year period of the lease.

No agency would lose any of its regulatory authority. Instead, all parties would participate in a formal process through which the actions of agencies at all government levels can be coordinated. Each agency would only comment on those parts of the farm management plan that pertain to its interests. It would have no say over any other agency's actions -- unless there is an inherent conflict or a duplication of regulatory authority. In this case, the team permitting process would provide a means for resolving conflicts between agencies and avoiding duplication -- without passing the problem on to the landowner.

Water allocation also is important. The ecological system supporting the panther and the region's agriculture both depend on a reliable source of water. Neither may survive if water is siphoned off to urban development and exported out of the watershed basin. The water management district would be requested to maintain this balance in two ways: (1) through a long-term water use permit that would remain in effect during the term of lease; and (2) by prohibiting transfers of water out of the basin.

| Top | bottom | home |

For further information on this project, contact: