The URL can be used to link to this page

McDanielEx parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel. Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA J U N E 8, 2021 913 *** This item and companion items will be heard immediately following item 10A. This item was continued from the May 25, 2021 BCC meeting to the June 8, 2021 BCC meeting. *** This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in, Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.74 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,750 residential dwelling units, of which a minimum of 10% will be multi- family dwelling units, 10% will be single family detached and 10% will be single family attached or villa; a minimum of 68,750 and maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial development in the village center context zone; a minimum of 27,500 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses in the village center context zone; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities limited to 300 units and no commercial uses in the neighborhood general context zone; and 14.86 acres of amenity center site; all subject to a maximum pm peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 6742 Stewardship Credits are being utilized by the designation of the Bellmar Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located approximately 4 miles south of Oil Well Road, east of Desoto Boulevard between 4th Avenue NE and 8th Avenue SE in Sections 2, 3, 10 and 11, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (This is a Companion Item to 11A and 11F) [PL20190001837] (James Sabo, AICP Comprehensive Planning Manager) ❑ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls All information has been filed electronically with Minutes and Records Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA JUNE 8, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA 16A1 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the amended final plat of Hacienda Lakes Parkway, Application Number PL20200002273 (fka Hacienda Lakes Business Park), approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 16A2 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Naples Coastal Shoppes, Application Number PL20200002470. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel. Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA JUNE 8, 2021 16A3 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Avalon Park Phase 4, (Application Number PL20210000173) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 16A4 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Valencia Trails Naples - Plat Two (Application Number PL20210000056) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel. Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA JUNE 8, 2021 16A14 This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit PL20200002472 to excavate and remove an additional 23,924,047 cubic yards of material from the expansion of the existing approved Stewart Mine. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 17A This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the General Commercial (C-4) Zoning District within the Immokalee Area Overlay and the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-3 and W-4, and Airport Overlay, to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district within the Immokalee Area Overlay and the Main Street Overlay Subdistrict, Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-3 and W-4, and Airport Overlay for a project known as Immokalee 7- Eleven CPUD. The project will allow development of a gasoline service station including a food store and car wash. The property is located at the northwest corner of Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, Immokalee in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.04t acres; and by providing for partial repeal of Ordinance No. 94-33; and by providing an effective date. (PL20200000756) (This is a companion to Item 17B ASW-PL20190001744) ❑ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls All information has been filed electronically with Minutes and Records Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA JUNE 8, 2021 17B This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Board members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a waiver from the minimum required separation of 500 feet between facilities with fuel pumps pursuant to Section 5.05.05.13 of the Land Development Code, for property located on the northwest corner of Main Street (SR 29) and North 9th Street, Immokalee, also known as Lot 1, 7-Eleven #1045471 Subdivision, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (PL20190001744) (This is a companion to Item 17A PUDZ- PL20200000756) ❑ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls All information has been filed electronically with Minutes and Records 17C This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20200002465, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage and utility easement located along the southerly border of Lot 14, Corporate Square as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 27 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida and to accept Petitioner's grant of a 10-foot drainage easement to replace the vacated drainage easement. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls ��iStritt 1 nistrict 2 District 3 _ "Distract 4 — I)fatrtcf 5 _ IV F.0 JUN 0 7 2021 OFFICES OF CQL UER COU"' BOARD COUP` r,OMIsStO1`IERs OF TrochessettAimee From: Patricia Forkan <pforkan@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 12:56 PM To: TaylorPenny; Burt.Sanders@colliercountyfl.gov; McDanielBill; SolisAndy, Rick LoCastro Cc: TrochessettAimee; CapizziAixa Subject: review of materials regarding the RLSA/Eastern Lands EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Dear Commissioners, The League of Women Voters has assembled a number of statements, news clips, etc to serve as a refresher for your upcoming Bellmar/Longwater decision on June 8th. I left copies for each of you with Aimee Trochessett to distribute. We hope you find the material useful. Thank you for your hard work on the whole Eastern Lands situation. We hope you can find a way to say no to the current proposal. The League is not opposed to growth. Rather, we support smart growth along with protecting the endangered species found there. Sincerely, Patricia Forkan Board member, LWVCC Chair, Environmental Affairs Committee RECEIVED SUN 0 3 NZI TY O p,OF COU►`d" COMM �1�0 �Cf1S For Your Review: 11°�' -- INDIVIDUAL COMMENTARY PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE on Tuesday, May 25", 2021 In opposition to the approval of two additional villages to be built in the ... Rural Lands Stewardship Area RLSA of Eastern Collier County, Florida. A • The League of Women Voters of Collier County • Registered voters and concerned citizens • The Conservancy of South West Florida f_ • The Calusa Group of the Sierra Club Florida • South Florida Wildlands Association (to follow) • The Center for Biological Diversity (to follow) • Earlier LWV testimony • Guest editorials 6/02/2021 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS of Collier County Intro and overview on behalf of the LWV of Collier County Good morning Commissioners. My name is Charlotte N ck . I'm here on behalf of the Collier County League of Women Voters as past president, as a member of the environmental community and as a member of the Florida LWV board of Directors. We endorse quality development that simultaneously preserves critical lands, wildlife, and water quality to benefit current and future generations. To accomplish this, best practices need to be used by the County in the analysis of the latest scientific data, county demographics, and budgetary data. If done properly, the result will be a fair balance of the burden of growth between citizens, the environment and developers. We believe a fair balance currently does not exist with Longwater and Bellmar. The numbers don't add up putting too much of the burden on the residents of Collier County, not only in increased taxes, but more traffic and a diminished quality of life. ~ There are also major inconsistencies with the goals of the RLSA. These problems need to be addressed today. I would like to remind you League members have been very .� involved in the RLSA program for MANY years --- some from the initiation of the RLSA program, through the Five -Year ^ Review, and through the recent Two -Year Review process. As concerned citizens, they will be discussing in detail the following topics: Fiscal neutrality will not be achieved when the economic assessment uses unrealistically low population estimates. The water and sewer infrastructure is far from fiscally neutral. The County is asked to sign off on a conceptual town plan. that is not a formal application for a town. This is an attempt `to sidestep fundamental procedures and would set a terrible ,precedent for future development in the RLSA. _ The "town" envisioned in the "town agreement" is fragmented into non-contiguous sections and is nothing more than a sprawling development all along Big Cypress Parkway, exactly contrary to the goals of the RLSA to avoid sprawl. Developers must commit to building village centers upfront otherwise the county will pay the cost of increased pressure on existing infrastructure. Charlotte Nycklemoe LWVCC, Past President LWVFL, Board of Directors L O a� L 0 2 Ln E v O V 4-1 m cn lao Q� t V Q O L• N m a1 k2 n `b a -0 u m o LA d c m •E =_ w (p w p L p L a� _ M n = 3 3 = — m°" o = a y y o E N "p o N 9 o O f6 o C a+ p L 41 0` N CC a L f6 a+ C m N O L E Q O N u p j p m 0O N v C Q% 00 r A N 4p C (U b+ N � — Q 4= C C y ?' •m m ate+ N ` N � aJ m m m t'i 0.= E a� OM m m- •= m d O c to G} a� c i N +� = u E 2 — N� L s f4 L Q a -a m �v as a n `m = � � u � Y c m v m M -a w V� Q a u •j Q = Y , FA Q p w u _ Q, • • • � s • Y • 3 j `� j H 0. m �? �n 4�cu E y y m Q. 4- L a1 •� � is � yam,, a.+ i..i aJ •aJ Qf O1 c m ro a, Q. m a E c mo vo c c diN w mC O E O U C O L L U .4Q aj m - c 3 m 0= L VI V 3 - Qw-_'> m c L m +� u C `v -a c V$ V p to m L 'd a ii 1L io Fr- is FO- m L Q� u C O V 4.- O e L. aci Q f0 O L Q1 L a ++ U m ra +� V1 li a H F O c� T � M 44 a tio M w a+ V m0 Z V 4 e m m fe a o M C1 E m y. cQ 6m m O ss N ar y Sao, Q04^'='q *' >� OO sr ,,,!, •�D""" J n "` ', i " ?+ "` ti rl ¢ .Q a . m �v cy #� v Q -^ 'r �.� Vic°, m-0 C U u Vy i 3 O 'er x cJ cu m O ei O U a 41 t30omo�cimo`"�mcgi� °emu°'gym CJ ?AC3 i•. a. ',A' �tu O I aq-' --qx m O "` U U3 •a N cq Q'i 6] W �"' L' C]. m U m a+ "t �. 2r G5 ...: G: ,.. t. ci y c r. �rrifl,CCaz0c�ay�3.�o�ciuv>ma°.��=c 3Go ° A u 0 `dw'� 9 m m� O +' a u bD mwL2 O 0 ECS co 40- ++ ++ m GA to No 7�i m G, � � .., vi ++ V C `� m C � co O m .a A.� a .., qJ r w L u V c3 •°-� .L �v mR cqi > .`aCSa�imma�iE °%'�,c�bV %• °,u DDoL) > � c •o eo �1 q R. �� a� Lycu��a. OSCg 3°p�o u wv°7 wu°yam �°°'. �c� iA O CA aa) L is i uF V O y y +' oo Oa )14 p iq U 'B N 04 V V O +.. � � � VV+ .0 O .'" p � u •5 0 .5 = .v L U m N L ++ 'O is m O 4,�•+ W Wes" s.� is ca y Ci3 "� V •�` 3 ,Q +' V u°'X"'doo°' ci°N0� u�u✓a+o45cti:a ems; '�. i 7m o +4+ E0.w Aa0 � (aR c D G0S V •� � 5= a O@ A O N ^' +'° a ate+ IR c 7 O J•d4 a'O+ ' '�' m " `G V 'q 0 •o � � � GA O V �.i. cu � a' � O Q O ,Q; 0 W •° �w S: �:+ y off.. N ;G 0.O +>.� Q .� t" = y cn 4i m d U ow,"y o' sue.. °` vm° OP.o� w o ^Gmm'0o v c> o W one 4. m a m a m o �-a ' o at o +' 4 #AA N v a, Gi 3 E« N rno 'G a: O %. �% O m a., u y !] O !� O w a.�ar��v4��utsa•.. L'R — 7 tJ " w +� .n d aQ u G •' t:R ,.. �" a rr• co s � O Q D 'a`.q�`.• w 'tK C5A z i V S - x rath v m ca t Tj :, an m En B: o61ni �. to o �ca�CW m m E41 r x C C p .$o.e' aYia�' Q •F+ LU G I E m : 3 t7D m ca u tm. cua v 0.0 U 4� O — m "0 O ::cis, w al cq Qy O r� r •.�. GG +-' ,- a pA a O C �� y U p o U y w cam. 'T ` ~h C m. N �`+ fc- �. "t • •". q i••' •.� b% q 'Q Y C" V 'A 4d Y t v u 'L3 C • L} •N-e X. ° P. Q cOU 41ca dCOQ'� 0 Xm r.rmw Fy" e6 6�� •�` _L'^. .^.. �. } cc 0 .w c' te0 J0+� az c+m"10—mi a?c3�•' c�c ��• F5 m O •.[ CL C4 F. 4 i m 0 sLst. O G� acRi O saw, ca 0) ?C ca 0. > •'� '' O w C � CJ Aya,m u mm^�owE� = m CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. '— Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural ehvironmenf and quality of life ... now and forever_ May 28, 2021 The following is a summary list of issues regarding Longwater Village SRA, Bellmar Village SRA, and the Town Agreement. • The Goal of the RLSA is to direct development or intensification away from listed species and their habitat. Contrary to the RLSA's goal, 2,000 acres of Longwater and Bellmar's sites would be directly within primary panther habitat, which is some of the last remaining habitat of our state animal and symbol of Florida. The Town of Big Cypress, would increase the total loss of primary panther habitat to over 3,200 acres. • Longwater and Bellmar will result in a $92.2 Million deficit for traffic improvements based on the percentage of improvements the developments' traffic will consume and after impact fee rates. • An economic assessment is only as good as its inputs. Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments include a high vacancy rate, which is unlikely for rural areas, and provides a low number of persons per housing unit. These inputs underestimate the village populations, which ~' ultimately understates costs for services such as fire, EMS, police, and schools. • The developer failed to include in their economic assessment an analysis of Longwater's and Bellmar's fiscal impact on water and wastewater, which is clearly required per RLSA Policy 4.18 and 4.08.071. Just because the CCWSD is an enterprise fund which impacts ratepayers, does not abdicate the developer from providing this required assessment. Ratepayers are also Collier County taxpayers. • Collier County staff provided conflicting analyses of Longwater and Bellmar's impacts on water and wastewater at the BCC and CCPC hearings. The Conservancy still believes that Longwater and Bellmar are not fiscally neutral for impacts to water and wastewater, as is legally required. • It is unfair to ratepayers that the CCWSD will reimburse Collier Enterprises $2.7 Million for upsizing transmission mains between Rivergrass and Longwater. This is a costs that should be paid by the developer. • The Overlay requires that villages demonstrate they are fiscally neutral or positive as a whole to Collier County and its tax base, which is unique only to SRAs. Longwater and Bellmar must be — treated differently than PUDs when assessing the project's fiscal impacts. However, staff stated that they are using an existing framework for assessing SRAs. As example, they are pulling from a "basket of funding" sources, such as fuel taxes, to pay for road improvements. This should not be allowed as all costs for SRAs must be paid for by the SRA and the developer. • The Town Agreement is meant to fix serious traffic issues that will be caused by the villages by creating a Town Core and keeping residents local. However, the Town Core provides no timing -- or phasing mechanism which requires the developer to provide retail, office or employment opportunities. It all depends on market conditions, which could be after 20 years, or after all homes are built within the villages. Paragraph 3, is a weak attempt to fix the issue, because the Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 4,Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator Is America's largest and most respected independent evaluator of charities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239,262,0304 1 Fax 239,262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org only requirement of the developer is to hold a public hearing for the Town SRA. Once that hearing is held, there is no binding stipulation requiring that the developer begin construction of the town. • The Town Core and Village Centers lack any plans to demonstrate whether they meet the requirements of the RLSA. The Village Centers and the Town Core are supposed to be the vibrant centers or the "heart" of the communities. However, the applicant provides no drawings as to the street layout or design. • The Collier MPO's 2045 LRTP predicts serious traffic congestion issues on Immokalee Rd, even after committed improvement are completed. This recent survey provided by Collier County transportation department corroborates the fact that Immokalee Road will have serious unresolved traffic issues: httos://www.surveymonkey.com/r/338CB6M • Contrary to staff and the applicant's comments, the Villages will be using Big Cypress Parkway frequently. Our traffic expert found that 86% of vehicle trips on Big Cypress Parkway will be from village traffic. Collier County taxpayers will be subsidizing Big Cypress Parkway. • Collier County Planning Staff stated that Longwater and Bellmar's designs depict typical suburban development, rather than a village. Substantial changes were not made to Longwater and Bellmar's master plans to solve the laundry list of design issues mentioned by staff in previous reviews. • Longwater and Bellmar's traffic will exacerbate failing road segments, even after planned road improvements are considered. • The RLSA's goal is to prevent the premature conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. However, Longwater and Bellmar's loss of agricultural lands equates to 10% of the state's total yearly loss. • The sprawling development pattern of the villages, and the strip commercial Town Core design is opposite of the intent of the RLSA to create compact, pedestrian -friendly SRAs. As example, the village centers and the Town Core are located along Big Cypress Parkway, to capture vehicular drive by traffic, but the centers and cores are vast distances from most neighborhoods. -- Furthermore, lake sizes within Longwater and Bellmar far exceed the allowable square foot per the LDC, creating sprawling plans. Comments from Bonnie Michaels, BCC meeting for Longwater, Bellmar and the Town concept. May 25, 2021 I'm Bonnie Michaels speaking for the League of Women Voters. I've been a taxpayer in Collier County for over 20 years and I have a great interest in where I live. I have attended all the RLSA meetings. I have one important message. "Be sure you have no doubt that all the information presented by staff and Collier Enterprises is 10090", accurate." -- Remember the concerns of those who spoke before me. You have a monumental decision that will change CC forever. The most - important thing you can do is to be absolutely sure about the details about the crucial issues that have been disputed. If you have any doubt about what others pointed out such as: • Increased traffic • Costs of roads • Fragmenting of floways -- • Fiscal neutrality impossible as impact fees won't cover costs • Development directed toward instead of away from listed species habitat...How can you have a development a mile away from the Panther Refuge? Vote to get more input. Ask yourself, will we have real walkable and bikeable - neighborhoods or more of the same gated ones? Where is the smart growth and innovation? You are asked to sign off on a conceptual town plan that is not a formal application for a town. This is a terrible precedent and attempt to sidestep fundamental procedures. It feels like the cart before the horse. And then there is the timing ... when? Everyone loves the land conservation perk but much of that land under the RLSA rules couldn't be developed anyway. Restoration and panther corridors are popular but it will be the last thing on the list...15-20 years before that is complete. It is also very expensive. What happens to wildlife in the meantime? Guess they will be roaming in neighborhoods looking for shelter and food. Landowners already are publicizing the town, before approval, with sleek brochures and are pushing to move on quickly. What difference does a day, a week or month make to get it right? Commissioners have come and gone over the years and during this process. Good information, decisions, and dialogue have gone by the wayside. For example, there was some agreement back in 2008 until the surprise announcement of the increase of 16,000 acres to 45,000 acres without public input. This makes me wary and not so trustful until all info is vetted. Staff has left and been replaced as well. Kris Van Langen is gone and so are many of the white paper suggestions. Staff recommendations have changed through the years as well. Staff today says they are using up to date science for panthers. What does that mean and why are there discrepancies and differences of opinion? Details, details. Before they dig up the earth and displace gopher tortoise homes, bird nests, take away forging for bears, deer and panthers, and more, be sure you have no absolutely no doubt that all the information is 100% accurate. Have courage to make the decision that makes Collier County a good model for growth and not a disaster. Our quality of life and your legacy is on the line. -- Fiscal Neutrality comments „on Understatement of Population in Longwater and Bellmar May 25, 2021 Good afternoon Commissioners. I am Lynn Martin, a full-time resident of Collier County and a member of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the League of Women Voters. In looking at the Economic Assessments for L.ongwater and Bellmar, I question whether these new developments will actually be fiscally neutral to the tax base of the County, as required. The SRA Application shows a commitment of 90% single family homes and 10% multi -family while the economic assessment shows 58 % single family and 42% multi -family. The multifamily homes assume 1.05 permanent residents while the single-family homes assume 2.21 permanent residents. If the applicant builds 90% single family homes instead of 58%, there will be over 1,000 additional permanent residents. The persons per household is inconsistent with the Collier County average of 2.45 persons per household used in impact fee studies which is the BEBR 2017 estimate. The Florida Impact Fee Statute requires the use of the most recent and localized data. The 2045 LRTP which uses recent and audited TAZ data, estimates between 3 and 3.75 persons per household specifically in the RLSA. Even with the 38% vacancy rate used by DPFG, the numbers don't work. By assuming a greater percentage of multifamily homes, and not using recent and localized data, the total number of residents and the number of children is undercounted in the economic assessment. 669 students in a community of 2,750 homes in eastern collier doesn't make sense. This understatement impacts the cost of providing all the services required to support the community: water, wastewater, schools, law enforcement, fire, ems, library materials; traffic would be understated with more cars on the road per household. .. With more people than planned, additional costs will be incurred to add infrastructure to maintain the required county level of service. The villages will use more of the capacity of the new water and wastewater treatment plant than projected. The level of service for water was lowered by the county in 2020 to increase the capacity of the current system and move the capital expenditures for the new facilities beyond the 10 year horizon of the study. Will it be lowered again? And while Collier Enterprises should be paying a higher impact fee since Longwater and Bellmar aren't included in the Impact Fee Study, instead, the County will be paying Collier Enterprises up to $2.7 million to upsize the pipes in Rivergrass to serve as a conduit to Longwater. And, shouldn't the economic assessment at least use the same level of service for Longwater and Bellmar as was used for Rivergrass? The economic assessment must use the most recent localized population data to make sure the developer is paying their fair share of the costs of growth from this village. With a discrepancy in population, these villages will not achieve fiscal neutrality as required without an additional assessment. My name is Rhonda Roff and I will be commenting today on behalf of the 2000 SWFL members of the Calusa Group of Sierra Club Florid 'including our almost 700 members in Collier County. The Sierra Club opposes the proposed developments far Longwater and Bellmar as they are not aligned with the original intent of the RLSA program, will cause more traffic congestion within our County, and will put the taxpayers of Collier County on the hook for tens of millions of dollars. Let's be clear about what the Villages being considered today really are: they are taxpayer subsidized communities that are fraught with muddled land use planning. If the County Commissioners move forward with these two Villages it will also create a requirement for new and expanded roadways. Some estimates show that Longwater and Bellmar will result in more than $90 million deficit traffic impacts. Already Collier County has significant traffic congestion and Longwater and Bellmar will cause significant traffic impacts on the already stranded Immokalee Road. Collier County already has several failing roadways and moving forward with these projects will further deteriorate the county's existing infrastructure. Having to create more roadways will only strain the County's budget for years to come, adding traffic congestion to the region, and killing wildlife such as the Florida panther and the FL black bear with additional road collisions. Furthermore, the proposed developments of Longwater and Bellmar will result in the destruction of over 2,000 acres of primarily panther habitat. It is quite simple: the fiscal costs to taxpayers and environmental costs of these developments far exceed any of the perceived economic benefits. New since the RLSA and the proposal of these villages: 1. Climate concerns including forced migration from the coasts 2. New pressures on listed species including other new development in Panther and bear habitat, expanded use in BCNP and proposed VSP in FPNWR 3. Simultaneously and serendipitously, fl voters passed the LWC amendment, improperly spent until recently, but, thanks to Carlton Ward and Gov DeSantis, $300M will be targeted toward protecting wildlife corridors including agricultural land and heritage. 4. Another bill Gov DeSantis recently signed will allocate $200M for resiliency planning, mainly to - protect people and property from sea level rise and increasingly intense storms. 5. Gov DeSantis recently authorized the buyout of 20,000 acres in western broward county which was owned by the Kanter family to avert their proposal to explore and possibly drill or frack for oil and gas. So .... the county wants the revenue, Collier enterprises wants to sell the land, and society has a collective need to preserve what is left of the wildlands for the myriad benefits they afford all of us collectively. Housing to accommodate our burgeoning population must be planned much more smartly, clustered in less sensitive habitat, preferably by infill. Can you see that this is all possible using a better paradigm? In closing, the Sierra Club respectfully urges you to not move forward with approving the villages of Longwater and Bellmar. Doing so will only create more sprawling, low density developments within Collier County that are antithetical to smart growth principles. Instead we invite you to be on the right side of history and protect the remaining working and wild lands of rural Collier County for the benefit of future generations. I am Susan Calkins, and I am speaking to the issue of the town agreement you are being asked to approve. It isn't a town plan but rather a promise to submit one (comprised of these villages) sometime in the future. No application has been !' submitted and there has been no substantive staff analysis of consistency with the RLSAO. Moreover, this "town," as depicted in Collier Enterprises -- advertisements, is fragmented into non-contiguous sections and is really nothing more than a sprawling development of gated "villages" strung out along Big Cypress Parkway — villages which, in the words of county staffs own consistency memorandum, are "essentially a suburban development plan placed in the RLSA and contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO." This proposed town doesn't avoid sprawl, it IS sprawl. It doesn't discourage automobile trips, it necessitates them. Additionally, this "agreement" shifts many of the costs of the town to the County — again, contrary to RLSA policies. In this agreement the County pays for a Community Park, despite the fact the RLSA requires the applicant to provide the community park. Similarly, the County is paying some permit fees and mitigation costs normally paid by the applicant. You had better be sure this agreement is not — "giving away" other requirements of the RLSAO. Furthermore, this Agreement makes no promises. The 515 acres added by the _ Town Agreement will be primarily a commercial area ("town core") spread out along Big Cypress Parkway. However, the Town Agreement states that "There shall be no timing conditions placed on the development of the Town Core which will be developed based on market conditions." Timing on building a commercial area is key to the self-sufficiency intended for towns in the RLSA, yet Collier -- Enterprises may not build the proposed town core for decades — or maybe market conditions will never support such a proposal. As I said, Collier Enterprises has not yet submitted a town application but rather a promise to submit one under certain conditions favorable to Collier Enterprises. in effect; this proposal makes a mockery of the RLSA program by side-stepping _ fundamental procedures and setting a terrible precedent for the future development of the 36,000 acres remaining to be developed within the RLSA. As stated earlier, we are witnessing just the beginning of development within the RLSA — this is no time to be sloppy. No time to ignore the intent of the RLSA program. This is the time to get it right. We know what towns look like (think Ave Maria and Babcock Ranch) — and this proposal surely won't create one. Good Evening Commissioners, I'm Gaylene Vasaturo and a member of the LWVCC. _ Bellmar Village will be oust a mile and a quarter from the Panther Refuge. Bellmar and Longwater will be built directly on habitat identified as essential for the survival of the panther. How can this be consistent with the RLSA's requirement to direct - development away from listed species habitat? The Applicant's environmental consultant (or Collier Enterprises) concluded in essence that the sites for Longwater and Bellmar have _ little to no value as panther habitat. That's because Collier Enterprises ignores the best available science on panther habitat —such as the 2006 Kautz Study and the USFWS descriptive land cover types for panthers. An Applicant is required to update the natural resource scoring for its proposed SRA-- Collier Enterprises updated its panther surveys and the telemetry data, but refuses to consider the panther studies that have specifically delineated primary panther habitat. Collier Enterprises says it does not need to consider these studies because their sites are not listed as "preferred" panther habitat in the 2002 LDC. However, panther scientists now consider more land cover types than those listed in the 2002 LDC to be preferred panther habitat. Locating Longwater and especially Bellmar in these areas will adversely impact long-term survival of panthers. _ Second In return for 3 villages and a town Collier Enterprises says that the County is getting restoration of Camp Keais Strand flowway and 12,300 acres of land preserved. However, Collier Enterprises removed the wetlands restoration from its plan that is critical to restoring the Camp Keais flowway. Two months _ ago, USFWS Panther Refuge Manager Kevin Godsea wrote the Collier County Planning Commission explaining how important restoration of this flow way is for downstream conservation lands such as the panther refuge and asked the County to require hydrological restoration of Camp Keais Strand. Mr. Godsea pointed out that two farm fields in SSA 15 restrict the flowway to a narrow point and that restoring these farm fields to wetlands is necessary to restore the flowway. He noted that the SSA restoration plan had included restoring these farm fields, but then Collier Enterprises removed this from its plan. The letter concludes "we believe that [this wetlands restoration] should [be included] as it was clearly the intent when the RLSA was established." Before making your decision on these villages, please ask Collier Enterprises to put restoration of these farm fields back into its restoration plan, [or to stand behind its promise by stating in the SSA that it is not entitled to restoration credits until the flow -way has been restored.] Also Collier Enterprises is not really givingup rights to develop the 12,300 acres because the RLSA Program already prohibits residential development on the maiority of these acres. You can't put 1 house per 5 acres in most of the areas set aside as SSAs because they are nearly all FSAs, HSAs and WRAs. The RLSA program prohibits development, mining and recreation in these areas. More importantly, while CE is setting aside "environmentally sensitive" land, it will be fragmenting this land by constructing roads through the Water Retention area that is SSA 17 and 18 and surrounding large portions of this WRA with houses, roads, people and lights. Scientific studies show that such fragmentation and disturbances will constrain wildlife movement and seriously degrade the WRA. Finally, How can Longwater and Bellmar be considered fiscaliv neutral when County Staff acknowledges that impact fees will not cover the costs of infrastructure necessary to support these villages and Staff relies on other funding such as gas taxes rants sales tax bonds to make up the shortfall? The RLSA Program requires an Applicant to show that its project will be fiscally neutral to the County at build -out. It is not appropriate for a -- RLSA Developer to rely on funds from taxpayers or other County funding sources to meet this requirement. [In return for being allowed -- to develop this rural area where infrastructure costs will be much higher than for developed areas of the County, the Program requires Landowners to show that they will cover the costs for needed infrastructure.] Ask County Staff how Longwater and Bellmar can be considered fiscally neutral under the requirements of the RLSA Program. j LEAGUE OF L WOMEN voTEW of Collier County Judy HushoR - Comments on Bellmar /Longwater for the BCC, May 25, 2021 As you know Bellmar, Longwater and Rivergrass together make up the Big Cypress Stewardship District, one of only two privately owned Special Stewardship Districts authorized by the State of Florida to be formed in Collier County. The other is the Ave Maria Stewardship District. The Big Cypress Stewardship District Act has distinct purposes and requirements: (1) to provide the landowner, Collier Enterprises, with the ability to fund basic infrastructure and services required for developments within the District through, for example, the issuance of revenue bonds repaid solely by the land/property owners in the District; and (2) to ensure that Collier County and its cieneral tax a ers are not burdened with the infrastructure costs and services of those private developments As was required of Barron Collier in the development of the Ave Maria Stewardship District, Collier Enterprises should also pay for ALL infrastructure within its Big Cypress Stewardship District without expecting one cent from Collier County or its Taxpayers. When Barron Collier developed Ave Maria, it independently arranged for the funding, maintenance and operation of all infrastructure improvements including public roadways, water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, etc. with an estimated cost of over $650 Million through the issuance of revenue bonds which did not in anyway impact Collier County or its general taxpayers. In fact, the only aspect of the development of Ave Maria which impacted County taxpayers and for which the County's Impact Fee methodology was employed was in connection with the widening of a regional road, Oil Well Road. The cost to the County was $20M for which, over the past 20-years, the Ave Maria Stewardship District has repaid $7Million through impact fees payable to the County as homes are occupied in Ave Maria. The landowner infrastructure -funding requirement that applied to the Ave Maria Stewarship District (and frankly to all such other privately -owned and managed Stewarship Districts in the State of Florida) should also apply to Collier Enterprises and its development of Bellmar as well as all of its developments within its Big Cypress Stewardship District. In 2004, Big Cypress sought and was granted permission, at its sole cost and expense, to install and oversee the infrastructure for water, wastewater and stormwater within its borders, in addition to other functions. Until August of 2018 plans were underway to install wells, etc. - Then, as a result of negotiations between Collier Enterprises and the Collier County Water and Sewer District, things changed and the County expanded its service territory into the rural undeveloped areas of the County to construct the approximately $76M Northeast Utility Facility (NEUF) required to serve new customer growth in the proposed new villages. We need to keep things in focus. Ave Maria also has a state approved Stewardship District and the landowners, at their sole cost and expense, installed wells, treatment plants, piping, internal roadways, etc. To finance this, they floated $651M in Ave Maria Bonds. Neither Collier Enterprises nor the Commissioners have a right to ignore the requirements of State Law and burden the County and its Taxpayers with Collier Enterprises' infrastructure funding obligations within the boundaries of its own Stewardship District. Collier Enterprises should have similar debt obligations for their developments to those of Ave Maria. The County is relying on impact fees to pay back the County s utility investments. Mark Issacson stated at a Feb 24 public meeting that "impact fees do not and are not intended to pay for growth; the general fund must loan the impact fee fund hundreds of millions to cover the impact fee fund debt." This is especially true for development in rural areas, not for infill. For the NEUF, for example, 66% of the water will go to the three Collier Enterprises villages, but the amount paid in impact fees falls short of costs by $43M. There are other expenses associated with piping from the NEUF to the developments which the developer is not picking up. The County's impact fee formulas are not, and were never intended to be, applicable to rural areas where there is no existing infrastructure. The County should not be relying on impact fees to cover development in areas without some existing infrastructure. These are three de novo — communities. Lucy Gallo of DPFG, the creator of Collier Enterprises' own economic impact assessments for Bellmar, Longwater and Rivergrass, was part of an impact fee assessment team in Sarasota County that concluded that "impact fees do not cover development in rural areas," and that two different types of impact fee calculations are required when determining the true impact of a development in urban infill versus rural areas. `~ Per RLSA Rules, Collier Enterprises is required to provide a fiscal analysis for the impacts of each of these villages on the Collier County Water & Sewer District. However, this analysis was never provided by the developer. There is a way to keep the taxpayers of Collier County whole. V, The GMP 4.08.071.2 states that "If a negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of local government is identified, the landowner will accede to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall." The rules of the County are clear and say that when there is a shortfall, the developer is responsible for paying the difference. In this case the BCC should request this payment. You should also require a more open and verifiable model for calculating fiscal neutrality with separate options for infll and rural development. In addition to the impact fees not covering development, the impact fee calculations are biased to the low side for population and transportation which benefits the developer. Lynn Martin has explained this further, suffice it to say that the input values to the model are under -valued resulting in an unreasonable calculation of fiscal neutrality This all means that a developer's contribution of at least $180M is required in addition to Impact Fees for these developments. This is $50M for each of the three developments. This developer's contribution needs to be calculated and assessed before construction and must consider the NEW and the fact that the development is not fiscally neutral. Taxpayers should not be required to cover this. As Commissioners it is your obligation to see that neither he County Taxpayers nor the NE Rate Payers are not burdened with the development expenses for these developments and development should be paused until ways are negotiated to ensure that this happens. Reference: GMP Section 4.08.071.2 Imposition of Special Assessments. If the Report identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project to a unit of local government referenced above, the landowner will accede to a special assessment on his property to offset such a shortfall or in the alternative make a lump sum payment to the unit of local government equal to the present value of the estimated shortfall. The BCC may grant a waiver to accommodate affordable housing. 3 VILLAGE CENTERS —NO GUARANTEE THEY WILL BE BUILT TIMELY, IF EVER The question I raise today is, how committed are developers to building village centers in a timely manner, If at all. This is a very serious issues for the County, especially when considering the cumulative effect of multiple developments in the RLSA. Without village centers, the burden of increased traffic and pressure on existing amenities will fall on the shoulders of the County and its residents. When reviewing the Longwater and Belmar applications, staff added a village center trigger point at approximately 2/3 occupancy. Two previously approved RLSA developments, Rivergrass and Hyde Park, do not have village center trigger points. They could go as high as 100% occupancy before ever building a village center. So, what do those numbers look like? For Longwater and Belmar that translates to approximately 3, 500 homes. For Rivergrass and Hyde Park, 4,300 homes. The total for all four villages, is 7,800 homes without any village -- center commitments. These numbers are estimates, but you get the idea. One might suggest that the likelihood of this scenario playing out is slim. Surely, developers will build a village center sooner. Maybe, but they have no obligation to do so. We've learned from history that build -out predictions cannot be trusted. Homes in Ava Maria have been selling for 15 years and to date less than half of the homes have been sold. If using the parameters set forth for Longwater and Belmar, theoretically Ava Maria would not yet be required to build a village center. However, Ava Maria committed to a village center upfront, investing in the best — interests of future residents. Longwater and Bellmar residents could spend 10 to 15 years driving long distances for goods and services. Where do they go? To Golden Gate Estates or other parts of Collier County. The applicant suggests their developments and proposed village centers will help Golden Gate residents but in reality, it is doing just the opposite by adding pressure on a community already struggling for lack of amenities and increasing traffic on an already overloaded road system. When it comes to the timing of village centers, we've heard the phrase "based on market conditions". Sounds good but it is just a way of avoiding making a commitment. Without upfront village center commitments for Longwater and Belmar, the County could be facing huge infrastructure costs down the road. We have to do better, and we need to do it today, League of Women Voters Loralee LeBoeuf 1590 Galleon Drive Naples, FL 34102 CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and .forever. -- Longwater and Bellmar Villages: A grand deal or a raw deal for Collier County? What are Longwater and Bellmar? On Tuesday, May 25, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will cast the final vote on two proposed 1,000-acre villages, called Longwater and Bellmar, located in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) of eastern Collier County. The —landowner-developer is Collier Enterprises. The location of both 1,000-acre villages is east of Golden Gate Estates and south of Oil Well Rd. Longwater is proposed less than a quarter mile east of De Soto Blvd N and would extend from Oil Well Road to the north to about 12th Ave NE to the south. Bellmar is proposed about a half mile east of De Soto Blvd N and would extend from about 4th Ave NE to the north to about 81h Ave SE to the south. The developer has plans to combine Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass (their third village) into an even larger town, called Town of Big Cypress, by connecting all three villages with a _ 515-acre Town Core along a new road, called Big Cypress Parkway. The $111 million Big Cypress Parkway' will be mostly be funded by Collier County's taxpayers. How Many Homes and People are anticipated? According to the developer's plans, the two villages would add approximately 5,300 homes and 11,000 permanent and seasonal residents to Collier County. When Rivergrass' population is included, approximately 16,000 new residents would live in the developer's three villages just east of Golden Gate Estates? 1 Total estimated cost of Big Cypress Parkway is $110,854,883 from Collier MPos 2040 LRTP Amendment Adoption Report -Table 5 — Cost of LRTP Amendment Needs Projects. ' Hyde Park Village is another village off of De Soto Blvd and Oil well Road from a different developer. Hyde Park was recently approved and it will add 1,800 more homes and an additional 4,300 residents, according to the developer's plan. If all four villages are approved, they would equate to approximately 20,000 new residents in the same vicinity of eastern Collier. Page 11 16 Additional housing within the Town Core will add even more people. The estimated build out date of all three villages is twelve years from approval or approximately year 2032-2033. The developer states that the Town Core will be built based on market conditions. However, it is nearly certain that the Town Core will not be built until the taxpayer -funded Big Cypress Parkway is built. Is the 12,300 acre preserve a fair exchange for a new town comprised of three villages? At the hearings and in their advertising, Collier Enterprises proudly exclaims that in exchange for the County's approval of three 1,000-acre villages and a 515-acre _ town core, that 12,300-acres will be preserved. The developer's website states: "Collier Enterprises will preserve more than 12,000 environmentally sensitive acres as part of the plan for the Town of Big Cypress and the villages of Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar."3 However, that statement leaves out a lot of information regarding the preserve that you should know. In reality the County is getting a raw deal. Here is what Collier Enterprises is not telling you: • IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PRESERVE, THE DEVELOPER CAN BUILD SIX VILLAGES, NOTTHREEI In exchange for those 12,300 acres, the landowner generates enough credits to not only build Rivergrass, Longwater and Bellmar Villages plus the 515-acre Town Core, but they can build three additional villages of nearly 1,000-acre each!' That's a total of six villages, 3 TownofBigCypress.com. Accessed April 30, 2021. The applicant earns credits for preserving areas called "Stewardship Sending Areas" or SSAs. These SSAs generate credits toward Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). SRAs include villages and towns. The developer will generate 52,295 credits for setting aside SSA14, SSA15, SSA17, and SSA18. (SSA14 = 12,893 credits; SSA 15 = 31,367 credits; SSA 17 = 4,528 credits; SSA 18 = 3,507 credits) Those SSAs equate to 12,372 acres (SSA14 =1,713 acres; SSA 15 = 5,253 acres; SSA 17 = 3,148 acres; SSA 18 = 2,258 acres). The developer is using credits right now from those SSAs toward three villages totaling 3,000 acres: Rivergrass, Longwater, and Bellmar. Rivergrass -. Resolution 2020-024 shows that 6,198 credits were used; Longwater's Submittal 5 -SRA Credit agreement shows that 6,697 credits will be used; Bellmars's Submittal 6 - SRA Credit agreement shows that 6,742 credits will be used. Total Credits applied toward 3,000 acres for 3 villages = 19,637. The proposed Town Core would consume an estimated 3,559 credits (515.1 acres —159.2 acres for public benefit acres which do not consume credits Per Amendment 4.20 = 355.9 acres); 355.9 acres x 10 credits = 3,559 credits). Credits used for villages=19,637 + estimated 3,559 credits used per Town Core = 23,196 estimated credits consumed. Therefore, there are 29,099 remaining credits (52,295 — 23,196 = 29,099 remaining credits.) Based on the proposed RLSA Amendments, 10 4 credits per SRA acre would be required. So 29,009 acres / 10 credits = 2,909 remaining SRA acres. This means that Page 2116 plus the town core! Should Collier Enterprises choose to build villages that are less than 1,000 acres, they could build far more than six villages. Another option the landowner has, in exchange for the credits generated from the 12,300-acre preserve, is to build Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass Village and the 515-acre Town Core plus an additional 2,909 acre Town! • DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY PROHIBITED WITHIN 86% OF THE 12,300 ACRE PRESERVE SITE. Collier Enterprises' is not giving up rights to develop all 12,300 acres by placing those lands in preservation. The 12,300-acre property is located in an area of the RLSA that strictly limits development. In other words, even if the developer wanted to develop the 12,300 acres, most of it is protected anyway. Nearly all of the developer's 12,300 acres are located in a Flowway Stewardship Area (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs), or .— Water Retention Areas (WRAs). The RLSA program includes Policy 5.3.1, which states that only 20% of FSAs, HSAs, and WRAs' sites can be cleared — and altered, thus, 80% cannot be cleared and altered. Also, Policy 5.1 prohibits all residential uses, general conditional uses, mining, and recreational uses within FSAs, unless the lands have an NRl score of 1.2 or less. Under these policies, 10,625 acres or 86% of the 12,300 acre preserve would be off limits to development and mining by virtue of the property's location within the RLSA.' Furthermore, since the preserve is an agricultural preserve, the landowner may continue to use the lands for ._ farming and ranching operations. • IF THE DEVELOPER DID NOT SET ASIDE THE PRESERVE THEY COULD BUILD LESS THAN 2,500 HOMES. USING CREDITS FROM THE PRESERVE THE DEVELOPER COULD BUILD MORE THAN 20,000 HOMES, from the 12,300 acres of preserves there are enough credits for an additional 2,909-acre Town or three additional 970 acre villages, in addition to Longwater, Bellmar, and Rivergrass and the 515-Town Core. s Math: SSA14, 15, 17, and 18 = 5,057.2 acres of WRAs; 4,260.4 acres of FSAs; and 2,996.4 acres of HSAs. Policy 5.1 prohibits development and mining within all FSAs, unless the acre has an NRI score of 1.2 or less. There are 77 acres within the acres of FSAs that score 1.2 or less. Thus, 4,183 acres of the total 4,260.4 acres of FSAs is protected. Policy 5.3.1 prohibits site clearing and alteration in FSAs, WRAs, and HSAs within 80% of the property, -- unless lands are to be used for agriculture. Since FSAs are already protected, then we will apply Policy 5.3.1 to the remaining 8,053 acres of WRAs and HSAs. 8,053 x 80% = 6,442 acres. Thus, there are approximately 6,442 acres of WRAs and HSAs which are protected, plus 4,183 acres of FSAs=10,525 total areas of the 12,372 site Is already protected simply by being located within the RLSA. 10,625 / 12,372 = 86%. Page 3116 Developers who choose to utilize benefits of the RLSA program can earn a 20-fold increase in residential density over the baseline zoning. Instead of building one home per 5 acres, they can build up to 4 homes per acre. This is accomplished through a credit system. In exchange for the 12,300 acre preserve, Collier Enterprises will generate enough credits to entitle more -- than 20,918 homes over 5,230 acres, should they choose to maximize allowable density of 4 homes per acre.' Furthermore, the developer can continue to utilize the 12,300 acre preserve for agricultural uses, in the same way they have being using the land for decades. However, if the _ developer chooses to build under the baseline zoning of one home per 5 acres and not set aside the preserved lands, Collier Enterprises would be allowed to build less than 2,500 homes over a 12,300 acre footprint.' • THE DEVELOPER STATES THEY ARE RESTORING FLOWWAYS WITHIN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND, WITHIN THE 12,300 ACRE PRESERVE, BUT THE -- RESTORATION IS INADEQUATE FOR HYDROLOGIC RESTORATION. Kevin Godsea, Refuge Manager of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR), states in a letter' to the Collier County Planning commission that the USFWS is _ concerned that the villages' conservation plan omits important wetland restoration activities necessary to improve and restore hydrology in the Camp Keais Strand flow way: "The application does not address the need for hydrologic restoration of the adjacent Camp Keias Strand Flowway Stewardship Area. — Hydrologic restoration of the Camp Keais Strand is clearly a component of the RLSA Stewardship Sending Areas, and is critically important for downstream conservation lands such as the FPNWR ... r, Math: Footnote 4 shows that 55A14, 15, 17, and 18=12,372 total acres and will generate 52,295 total credits for Collier Enterprises. If the RLSA Amendments are approved, then 10 credits per acre are required. Landowners who opt to use the RLSA program can build up to 4 homes per acre. Thus, 52,295 credits / 10 credits per acre = 5,229.5 SRA acres x 4 homes = 20,918 homes. If the RLSA Amendments are not approved, then 8 credits per acre is required. 52,295 credits / 8 credits per acre = 6,537 acres for SRAs. 6,537 acres x 4 = 26,147 homes. Although the applicant is choosing to build less than 4 homes per acre for the villages, averaging about 2.6 homes per acre; the applicant is still building far more homes per acre utilizing credits generated from the preserve than the than 1 home per 5 acres allowed under baseline zoning. Furthermore, the three villages will only consume some of the 52,295 credits generated from the preserve. All other villages and/or Towns can be built at 4 homes per acre. One home per 5 acres = .20 or 20%. 12,372 acres x 20% = 2,474 homes. 8 United States Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Letter to Collier County Planning Commission, dated May 2, 2021 from Kevin Godsea, Refuge Manager Page 4 116 The applicant's original plans for the Town of Rural Lands West included restoring these approximately 935 acres of farmland in the middle of Camp Keois Strand Stewardship flowway in SSA15, to benefit the hydrology of downstream conservation lands. This wetlands restoration was not included in the plans for Rivergrass Village, Longwater Village or Bellmar Village, and we believe that it should, as this type of wetland restoration was clearly the intent when the RLSA was established." • LONGWATER AND BELLMAR ARE JUST ONE PART OF A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FORTH E RLSA. Development plans do not stop at Longwater and Bellmar. Twelve landowners, including Collier Enterprises, comprise a group called Eastern — Collier Property Owner or ECPO. ECPO has plans for 45,000 acres of development is enormous. Forty-five thousand acres is about the same �. geographic extent as two Fort-Lauderdales or one Washington D.C. Longwater and Bellmar fail to be fiscally neutral: Per the RLSA's rules, villages are required to be "planned and designed to be — fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County ... i10 In other words, developers cannot rely on funds from taxpayers to cover costs for infrastructure and services necessary to support the villages. This strict fiscal neutrality rule is unique to RLSA developments because the RLSA is 20 to 30 miles from the _ coast, making costs for pipes, roads, and services, such as school bussing, more expensive than for developments within the County's urban boundary. • A BUSINESS -AS -USUAL APPROACH IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ESTIMATING THE VILLAGES' COSTS. Despite the RLSA's unique but stringent rule for fiscal neutrality, Collier County planning staff stated that they are using an existing framework for calculating the villages' fair share of costs. A business -as -usual approach to _ calculating a developer's fair share of costs for infrastructure and services is not appropriate for RLSA development miles past the urban boundary. 9 Stantec Consulting Services (2018, August) Eastern Collier Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 11 Collier County Future Land Use Element RLSA Overlay Policy 4.18 Page 5116 Longwater and Bellmar must be held accountable to meet the RLSA's strict fiscal neutrality rules not using the existing framework. • LONGWATER AND BELLMAR WILL RESULT IN A $92.2 MILLION DEFICIT FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS. The Conservancy's traffic expert, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., estimates that Longwater will result in a $48.4 million deficit and Bellmar will result in a $43.8 million deficit for transportation improvements based on the percentage of improvements the developments' traffic will consume and after impact fee revenues are paid by the developer.11 County staff - believes they are charging the highest costs per current impact fee rates. However, Villages are required to be held to a higher standard of fiscal neutrality and cover all costs associated with the developments. Even if staff correctly assumed that they cannot charge the developer any more, per the RLSA's rules, staff should have recommended denial of the projects because they are not fiscally neutral. • COLLIER COUNTY ERRONEOUSLY DISREGARDS VILLAGE TRAFFIC AS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WHEN ASSESSING FAIR SHARE OF COSTS FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. How is the developer getting away with not paying their fair share of impact fees for traffic? Collier County staff is failing to require the developer to pay for traffic improvements due to population increases caused by the Villages, Staff claims that many of the road improvements that the county is planning for, such as new and widened roads, are due to background --- traffic from general population growth, rather than traffic from the individual villages. However, the Long Range Transportation Plan provides evidence which proves that the Longwater and Beilmar's traffic is the background traffic causing the need for some of the roadway improvements. The County must acknowledge that the villages are the cause of many of the planned road improvements and the developer must pay for their portion of the road improvements. • TAXPAYERS WILL SUBSIDIZE A NEW ROAD USED PRIMARILY BY TRAFFIC FROM THE DEVELOPER'S VILLAGES. lI Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility Inc. in a presentation to the Collier County Planning commission for Longwater on February 18, 2021. Page 6J 16 Traffic expert, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, estimates that 86% of the vehicle miles traveled on Big Cypress Parkway will originate and/or end in one of the three villages." Even though Big Cypress Parkway will primarily serve the villages, the $111 million road is on the County's Long Range Transportation Plan to be paid for by the Collier County taxpayers, not the developer. Big Cypress Parkway is needed by the developments, so the developer must pay for the road, not taxpayers. ._ • IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO USE FUEL TAXES AND GRANTS TO SUBSIDIZE TRANSPORATION IMPROVEMENTS NECESSITED BY VILLAGE TRAFFIC. Collier County staff stated at the Longwater and Bellmar hearings that they can apply fuel tax revenue and grant monies to fund road improvements that are needed due to projected population growth in eastern Collier. However, because RLSA rules require that each development must be fiscally neutral or positive to the county's tax base, it is inappropriate to use fuel taxes to fund the road improvements caused by Longwater and Bellmar, unless it can be demonstrated that the fuel tax revenue is generated solely by the villages. Furthermore, grant monies should not be used to fund road improvements necessitated by village traffic. Grant funds should be used to cover other projects, outside of the RLSA. • THE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS UNDERSTIMATE POPULATIONS OF THE VILLAGES THEREBY UNDERESTIMATING COSTS OF THE VILLAGES: Because of the RLSA's fiscally neutrality requirement, an accurate economic assessment is imperative to demonstrate that impact fees cover the -- projects' costs not only for infrastructure, but also for services such as emergency medical services (EMS), fire, schools, and sheriff protection. However, Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments underestimate the village populations two ways: _ (1) DPFG INCLUDES HIGH VACANCY RATE: Collier Enterprises' economic consultant (DPFG) stated at the hearings that they included Collier County's vacancy rate of 38% when determining person's per housing unit.13 This vacancy rate of 38% is much higher than both Immokalee at 27% and Golden Gate at 11%, " Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility Inc. Review of Rivergrass Village SRA Traffic Impact Statement. -� 13 March 0, 2021 testimony from Lucy Gallo of DPFG. Hearing video 2:39:37. Page 7 116 which are rural areas, like the RL5A, and adjacent to the RLSA.14 Because Naples has a high percentage of seasonal second homes and vacation homes, the County"s overall rate equates to a higher vacancy rate than the other two locations. Immokalee's rate is likely higher than Golden Gate, because the area has a high concentration of seasonal farm workers. Even though Immokalee and Golden Gate are adjacent to the RL5A, the consultant chose to use Collier County's overall higher vacancy rate. Also, the 2045 MPO provides a map of vacancy rates. The map shows that Longwater and Bellmar are predicted to have a vacancy rate of 15 to 25% in 2045". Ultimately, a higher vacancy rate equates to a lower population for the villages, which means costs are understated in the fiscal neutrality assessment. (2) OLD DATA: The second way the developer underestimates population of the villages and impact fees is by using old county data that provides fewer people per home than more recent w county data showing more residents per home." Ultimately, an underestimation of populations within the economic assessments equates to a lower representation of costs to provide Longwater and Bellmar with infrastructure and services. 14 Collier County 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan and 2016-2017 Annual Action Plan. Vacancy rates found on page 86. The document states that the County's overall vacancy rate is 371%, however, at the March 4, 2021 hearing for Longwater, Ms. Gallo of DPFG stated they applied a vacancy rate of 38%. The report states that Immokalee's rate is likely higher than Golden Gate's because there Is a high percentage of seasonal migrant workers. 11 Collier MPo 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan, Technical Compendium, p. 23. Figure 16. 16 Longwater and Bellmar's economic assessments state that only 1.05 persons per housing unit will reside in the multi -family homes and 2.21 person's per housing unit will reside in the single family homes (permanent populations), This data is from Collier County's 2016 Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update, which in turn, gets Its data from a 2011 American Housing Survey and 2013 American Community Survey. So the data is approximately ten years old. Ms. Gallo, the DPFG consultant stated, that they are using data from the County's most recent impact fee data. However, we found numerous more recent sources from the county. Even though the newer data provides person's per household, which excludes the vacancy rate, the numbers could be adjusted to reflect vacancy. The more recent data includes the following: The Collier County Fiscal Year 2019 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study, which provided data showing between 2.25 and 2.55 person's will live per household in Collier County; the 2020 Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report provides an average of 2.5 person's per household for Collier County; and the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) shows that 2.01 to 3.00 person's per household will live in the area of Longwater or Bellmar. DPFG argued that their study included only permanent populations and accounted for housing types. However, the LRTP's and the other studies could be adjusted to include a vacancy rate and housing types. Page 8116 « THE DEVELOPER FAILED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACTS. Per RLSA Policy 4.18, Collier Enterprises is required to provide a fiscal analysis for Longwater and Bellmar's impacts on the Collier County Water Sewer District. However, this analysis was never provided by the -- developer. According to the AUIR, the County is building a new water and wastewater treatment plant in the Northeast Service Area to serve the villages, and a few other nearby developments, at a cost of $156.4 million, for just phase one.17 Also, the 2020 AUIR shows that $28 million will be spent for storage tanks and pipelines for an interim wastewater facility that will be decommissioned once phase one of the new plant is operational. Longwater and Bellmar will consume over 41% of the capacity for phase one �of the new plant,l$ making it even more imperative to provide an analysis to correctly assess the developer's fiscal impact on those plants. However, instead of requiring the developer to provide the legally required analysis for water and wastewater, Collier County accepted the developer's flawed — methodology, which not only excluded this important analysis, but excluded a third party review. The County provided their own fiscal impact analysis during the Longwater and Bellmar hearing using previously — undisclosed sources and data. The Conservancy has yet to fully review the new analysis. THE COUNTY COULD COLLECT MORE IMPACT FEES IF THEY WANTED TO. Collier County could collect more impact fees from the developer. At the — March 18, 2021 Longwater hearing, the Collier County Attorney stated: "We do not charge the full impact fees that we can. That's a policy decision [by the Board of County Commissioners]." "If you really want to be fiscally neutral you would set impact fees, and I mean all the impact fees as high as legally possible. We don't do that." The Villages will result in severe traffic issues: "Collier County 2019 and 2020 AUIR/Capital Improvement Element Schedule Update on Public Facilities provided cost for Phase 1 water and wastewater plant. ie Longwater and Bellmar's SRA Public Facilities Impact Assessments. The two projects will consume 41% of the capacity of the 4MGD wastewater plant and 43% of the capacity of the water plant. Note: This includes the potable water and wastewater demand for residential, commercial, and civic uses. Page 9116 Because the projects are not designed according to the RLSA's rules which require self-sufficient walkable/bikeable communities, traffic from the 11,000+ new _ residents will pour out of Longwater and Bellmar and head west towards Naples. Village residents will be compelled to drive toward existing coastal communities to seek out goods, services, entertainment and employment opportunities that the villages will not provide. The additional traffic will exacerbate the county's existing traffic congestion issues. • IMMOKALKEE ROAD WILL BE AN "AVOIDABLE TRAIN WRECK". Longwater and Bellmar will cause significant traffic impacts to deficient Immokalee Road. Traffic expert, Norm Marshall of Smart Mobility, Inc., reviewed development plans for Longwater and Bellmar and stated that Immokalee Rd will be "An Avoidable Train Wreck." The 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan confirms Mr. Marshall's prediction. Figure A-9 from the — 2045 LRTP depicts several segments along Immokalee Road that will fail, even with planned projects that are supposed to alleviate congestion. Figure 1: Collier County LRTP Network Deficiency Plot (from LRTP Figure A-9) Key: Red extremely deficient (V/C > 1.15), Orange deficient (V/C 1.0 to 1.15) and Yellow barely adequate (V/C 0.9 to 1.0). The blue highlights in the figure show planned MPO road expansion projects which are generally designed to serve development as discussed below. • LONGWATER AND BELLMAR WILL ADD TRAFFIC TO FAILING ROADS EVEN -' AFTER COMMITTED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETE. At the March 18, 2021 Longwater hearing, Collier County staff admitted that -- there are several roadways that are projected to fail capacity limits even before the projects are built; however the villages' traffic will make those Page 10116 same roads even worse. Although the County has committed roadway improvement plans to alleviate traffic congestion on some of the roadway _ segments, not all failing road segments will be cured. Logic follows that more traffic should not be added to failing roads. Regardless, staff is still recommending approval. • COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STAFF STATED THAT THE CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM THE VILLAGES WILL BE SIGNIFICANT. In their August 15, 2020 Review of Longwater, Collier County Planning Staff stated, "Given the close proximity of these four proposed developments [includes Hyde Park] and the relatively limited roadway network in the surrounding area, it seems very likely that the cumulative impact of all this traffic will result in level of service deficiencies for multiple roadway segments and intersections." Why then did staff ultimately recommend approval? What are the environmental concerns? • LONGWATER AND BELLMAR WOULD DESTROY 2,000 ACRES OF PRIMARY PANTHER HABITAT. The endangered Florida panther is our state animal and a symbol of Florida. Longwater and Bellmar would result in destruction of 2,000 acres of primary panther habitat. The newly proposed Town of Big Cypress increases the loss of primary panther habitat to over 3,200 acres.19 This _ would be a tragic loss for the panther as the species is already restricted to less than 5% of its historic range and only 120 to 230 panthers are left in existence. The loss of additional primary habitat from these two villages places the panther closer toward the brink of extinction. • THE PROJECTS'WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF ADULT BREEDING PANTHER HABITAT The panther will also lose very important adult breeding habitat not only within Longwater and Bellmar's sites, but also within the adjacent 19 GlS data from USFWS shows the following impacts to Primary Zone Panther habitat: Longwater —1,000 acres; Bellmar —1,000 acres, Rivergrass — 739 acres; Town Core — 515 acres. The total impact within the SRA boundaries is 3,254 acres. There are additional impacts to primary panther habitat outside of the boundaries for lake tracts that we did not include in the total acres. Page 11 1 16 preserves due to the light, noise, and traffic from the developments. Leading panther habitat modeler Dr. Robert Frakes explains why Adult Breeding Habitat is so important to the panther: "This population may already be at or close to carrying capacity, yet the panther population is probably below what is required for long- term genetic viability. Therefore, protection of the remaining breeding habitat in south Florida is essential to the survival and recovery of the subspecies and should receive the highest priority by regulatory agencies. "20 • THE VILLAGE PLANS FAIL TO ADDRESS LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY FOR WILDLIFE. Bellmar's site is located only about 1.25 miles from the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and serves as part of a critical wildlife corridor to the panther refuge. The refuge was established in 1989 to aid in the recovery of endangered species, including the Florida panther. The Refuge Manager is concerned that Longwater and Bellmar's plans do not "Address the landscape connectivity needs of wildlife such as the Florida panther and black bear." • VILLAGE RESIDENTS COULD PRESSURE PANTHER REFUGE TO HALT _ PRESCRIBED BURNING. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) manager states that they use "prescribed burning to manage the fire -adapted ecosystems for the benefit of wildlife and to reduce high fuel loads".22 The villages are within the path of the smoke that will emanate from some of the prescribed burns. Even if residents and businesses sign an agreement acknowledging the need for prescribed burning, we are concerned that village residents and business owners will eventually pressure the Refuge to _ stop this necessary management tool, which would impact the ecosystem health of tens of thousands of acres of conservation lands. 2° Frakes RA, Belden RC, Wood BE, James FE (2015) Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133044. doi:10.1371Aournal.pone.0133044 21 United States Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Letter to Collier County Planning Commission, dated May 2, 2021 from Kevin Godsea, Refuge Manager . _ 22 ibid. Page 12116 • AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF PRIMARY PANTHER HABITAT. Do not be fooled by those who argue that the endangered Florida panther _ does not use agricultural lands within designated primary panther habitat. This claim is simply untrue and it is unsupported by the best available science. The science clearly shows that agricultural lands within primary panther habitat, such as Longwater and Bellmar, provide the Florida panther with core life cycle needs for the purposes of prey support, hunting and stalking, and landscape connections to forested habitats and movement corridors. Loss of Agricultural Lands will be significant: The goal of the RLSA's Group 2 policies is to "protect agricultural lands from premature conversion" to other uses, such as development, and to "continue the viability of agricultural production through the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay." However, Longwater and Bellmar provide evidence that productive agricultural lands are not being adequately protected. • THE VILLAGES WILL CONTRIBUTE TO 10% OF THE STATES' ANNUAL LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. Agricultural lands are a finite resource. However, each year nearly 20,000 acres of Florida's agricultural lands are converted to development or are compromised.23 Longwater and Bellmar alone would contribute to a loss ^' equivalent to nearly 10% of the states' total yearly loss of agricultural lands. The majority of the village's sites are used for active row crops.24 This is -- very unfortunate, because agricultural lands provide long-term food security for the region, more access to healthy foods, significant '5 American Farmland Trust. 2020 Farms Under Threat. The State of the States, Agricultural Land Conversion Highlight Summary: Florida. From 2001-2005, 298,400 acres of farmlands were developed or compromised. That equates to 19,893 acres per year over 15 years. Longwater and Bellmar will convert 1,911 acres of agricultural lands to development, which is 10% of the state's yearly average of 19,893. 24 The Conservancy viewed GlS land cover data of the village sites April 28, 2021. The GIS data shows that the developments of Longwater and Bellmar Villages would result in a loss of 1,911 acres of agricultural lands, which includes 1,511 of row crops and 360 acres of improved pastures. (1,911/approx. 20,000 acres of state loss = .0955 or 10%) Page 13116 contributions to the economy, employment, water recharge, habitat for listed species and habitat connections, and flood risk reduction. • 71% OF THE LANDS TARGETED FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE RLSA ARE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. As previously mentioned, Collier Enterprises, along with eleven other RLSA landowners have plans to develop 45,000 acres of the RLSA. Most of the 45,000-acres worth of development would convert agricultural lands. The Town of Ave Maria, which is partially built, is included in the 45,000 acres. Excluding 5,027 acres for Ave Maria, 39,973 acres remain for development under the landowners plan.25 Of those 39,973 acres, 28,319 acres or 71% of the lands targeted for development in the RLSA are farmlands used for production." This equates to a great loss of agricultural jobs and rural character of Collier County. Longwater and Bellmar are not villages: Because of the RLSA's vast distance from the County's existing urban area where most of the infrastructure, road network and services are already provided, the RLSA has stricter rules for development. All RLSA development is required to be innovative, compact, self-sufficient, pedestrian -friendly and adhere to smart growth standards. Instead, Longwater and Bellmar are sprawling, auto -centric developments, and typical of most gated suburban developments within Southwest Florida. Longwater and Bellmar must be denied as they do not meet the RLSA's design standards. Collier County planning staff made strong negative statements about Longwater and Bellmar's designs. — • COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING STAFF STATED THAT LONGWATER'S DESIGN DEPICTS A TYPICAL SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT, RATHER THAN A VILLAGE. — Here is what staff stated: "The Longwater Village SRA does not fully meet other requirements of, and does not reflect the innovative planning tools ... _ pertaining to design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of I lbid, Table 4-3 p.88; Covered (development and reining) activities equate to 39,973 acres (29,596.5 acres within — Primary Zone Panther habitat and 20,376.5 acres within Secondary Zone) 26 Stantec Consulting Services (2018, August) Eastern Colller Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Table 4-3 p.88 shows that 19,467 acres of citrus groves, 8,722 acres of row crops, and 130 acres of pecan farms — would be converted to development. This totals 28,319 acres. Page 14116 uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, etc. In staffs view, this SRA is with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO.i27 Even though very minimal changes were made to Longwater's design since the statement was made, staff ultimately — recommended approval of the projects. The question is: Why? • COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING STAFF STATED THAT BELLMAR'S DESIGN DEPICTS A TYPICAL SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN A VILLAGE. Here is what planning staff stated:"The Bellmar Village SRA still does not _ fully meet the intent of the policies in the RLSAO pertaining to innovative design, compactness, housing diversity, walkability, mix of uses, use density/intensity continuum or gradient, interconnectness, etc. In staffs view, this SRA is, with some exceptions, a suburban development plan typical of that in the coastal urban area placed in the RLSA and is contrary to what is intended in the RLSAO... "28 Again, even though very minimal changes were ultimately made to Bellmar's design since the statement was made, staff ultimately recommended approval of the projects. The question is: Why? To summarize here is the real deal that the County and Collier Enterprises are negotiating: In summary, the real deal that the developer is offering to the county is 12,300 acres of mostly non -developable lands, lacking in adequate flow -way restoration in exchange for credits that would allow the developer to build SIX 1,000-acre villages! Longwater and Bellmar Villages alone would significantly increase the county's population, create severe traffic impacts, contribute to 10% of the states' total yearly loss of agricultural lands, pass tens of millions of dollars of costs on to taxpayers, and destroy two thousand acres of primary panther habitat of the endangered Florida panther. Instead of a grand deal, as portrayed by the 27 Collier County Consistency Review Memorandum for Longwater Village SRA. February 11, 2020, p. 19 of 20 28 Collier County Consistency Review Memorandum for Bellmar Village SRA. May 27, 2020, p. 11 of 11. Page 15116 developer, Collier County would be getting a raw deal by approving Longwater and Bellmar. Please help us to not let this happen. What can you do? Collier County is at a crossroads and its future hangs in the balance. Please help us to ensure that Longwater and Bellmar Villages are not the model for all other RLSA _ development. After all, they are just the beginning of a colossal development plan by twelve eastern Collier landowners to cover much of eastern Collier County with a patchwork of towns and villages. As members, supporters, volunteers, and concerned citizens, we urge you to Act Now before the quality of life that we enjoy so much in Collier County is nothing more than a distant memory. Page 16116 TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA FORKAN •. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, COLLIER COUNTY Chair, Environmental Affairs Committee Collier County Planning Commission, March 4, 2021 Good morning Commissioners. My name is Patricia Forkan and I'm here on behalf of the Collier County League of Women Voters where I serve on the Board of Directors and as chair of the Environmental Committee. We are here to present reasons why you should not approve the applications, as proposed, for the construction of over five thousand homes to be located in two villages identified as Longwater and Belmar. The League has already submitted two detailed analyses (Feb 15 and 26) with all the main reasons why you should oppose these massive developments. 1 In our submissions we show they will be built the middle of panther habitat, and will adversely impact traffic, pollution, wetlands and water retention areas. In addition, Collier taxpayers will be obligated to pay tens of millions of dollars in costs for the required public facilities for the benefit of private developers You have heard, or will hear, other speakers address you as concerned private citizens, including specialists in water issues, panthers, fiscal responsibility, roads, traffic, etc. I'm here to promote sound environmental policies and wise management of natural resources in the public interest, and to promote public understanding and participation in all levels of governmental decision making. As a nonpartisan political organization, our mission is to empower and inform voters to influence public policy through education and advocacy. E Here in Collier County, we have been actively engaged in opposing bad planning and more sprawl, but not growth itself. Indeed, we support, smart, responsible growth. Our concerns with the two amended submissions before you are coming right on the heels of the County's approval of Rivergrass while approval for yet another nearby rural village of 3000 more homes is pending. We wonder if the County's Growth Management department is adequately representing the public interest. County planners review project submissions to assure they comply with RLSA requirements, then present their original recommendations. Afterward, they work closely with developers and send you a final review which they expect you to approve. That document often ignores many RLSA standards, 3 _ One example: initial concerns by staff that the proposed location of Longwater's commercial area "cannot be considered as a Village Center." This finding was dropped from the subsequent consistency review. WHY? The public is becoming aware of the threat posed by runaway and unnecessary growth and is looking to its elected and appointed leaders to get serious about the County's future. While the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is not in the public's immediate view, the decisions made now will impact all county residents if you do not require the stringent development rules of the RLSA as originally agreed to by the Eastern landowners. 4 It is clear from our own studies, and according to a communication that you have received from the Arnold & Porter law firm, that many of these rules have not been followed. Their exhaustive analysis of the Belmar and Longwater applications is in the public record. It is as scathing an indictment of a development project as we've ever seen. We also want to remind you, and our fellow citizens, that County law requires that growth pay for growth and that Collier County taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize private development in rural Collier County. Belmar and Longwater will require enormous public subsidies of utility infrastructure from roads to fire stations to water and waste- water treatment facilities. When the citizens learn of how they are going to be squeezed by private developers and landowners, they are not going to be happy. As a public -interest organization, we speak for them. 5 _ Developers propose building gated communities comprised of 90% single-family homes, without town centers, and with no attention paid to walkability, bikeability, affordability....and, yes, even liveability. It is clear to the League, and we have stated so in our submitted reviews, neither project is consistent with the RLSA Overlay or the long - outdated Land Development Code. Finally, the problems with Longwater and Belmar cannot be fixed by dangling the proposed Town agreement in front of you, and it should have no bearing on your decisions regarding the two Villages. The proposed town agreement is extremely inconsistent with the RLSA program. You must ask yourselves do these proposals reflect the standards, spirit and vision contained in the RLSA and the public re -study recommendations? We don't think they do. Eastern Collier County is one of Florida's last frontiers and it should not be subject to poor land planning and design. We ask you to vote against proposals as they are now written. Thank you. 7 1 z w O U cm 0 a0 U cc g LL O Se uj w N TM a a�Q1 t t �r rq 67 rn O cE i c •.. ♦+ t i o v o u �„ o'er a � o w � � 3� a o��.a �;'� '� o w � �•3 � � � a � Is av too v ° v a° �3 v�� p v � a �� ao•� �,r� n,o y,v� o �.� �'c4ao�w'��a��'vac�'��a�'u o•�ca �n a a� co a -Iu � �. w � ��.� � �, S o �.�+ �•A a. o v T � o� O C4 v ... •sn ,.°, a ��u � n'a•o='ua�,� o��au a �u�� anon' v o V Fcvdvak ,cQcryny•�av a C a y r'S b u C1 G' E .� c7 , ` �✓ v T y Dn i a+ t J °� � a o `a° °off °�' 3: -cc �°'a a °ice y ro.d o�•� oiac d �.� o �.n u° a Q o v 5 C o' �•O�3o•,o.r�� ci•L„°w'�ooaca a- a, •��ov�..,�a�uo1O•oC7Y�, le w chi sU, B. � o vai oo capG�ccq 3' > "° �'a3 �0 3"aoi0>oony�3 � L o,� �'� v ors � v u, � •� u 3 '" o .� �, '° � o .� ER '.� � �' ,� � � :� •� � u ° o ps °u' �''Ei 6J •"�.. G!44U .ui On •d V1 V N .i: In �" •° ° rn O -baen .aE•y�5m�ooU bva wv ,y vC;G; ,r�° c y>, o :q$ �cn 03c4� uO p i n °,.D3 N 'D - � o la.1 Cc, - ' �,�c c �` It �'" -° o gyp' �• a .Y � do �. �U a� � �:'. u �'•'°c,°� `" a°rID ° � w rz trn 4. e� O 4s C, O td y v 6i Ly d M O U "O c IUD v v R iV u. �i .� to F r� •4J' ° u Ls L n ems; �pb �� v �� a,°`° c aow §� �, W � �, u 2? ° ,ti •� `� ° w o •d o ��' a � .0 ..� � � o w v o co ,wry o 'a, � ° •� usn ' crs o •Jv i�OC°io 3 5V %O m n . L•�Q Ln ors plo � � o rr�'�Cj � 3�.�4�•0 3 � v.5 ° v v�, 3 a a ��_� -a " 2 a09 >r2 I °C7 I° w Florida Audubon Wildlife WESTERN EVERGLADES Federation www.audubonwe.org Since 1936 Rural Land Stewardship: Success to Build On ONE OF LARGEST PRIVATE LAND CONSERVATION PRESERVES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RLSA Plan and 5-Year Review Amendments: The Rural Land Stewardship Program (RLSP) is an ongoing county project which Audubon Western Everglades and Florida Wildlife Federation helped create, to protect huge swaths of privately -owned lands in Eastern Collier County. In exchange for voluntary protection of the vast majority of wetlands, endangered species habitats and farms, landowners may build new villages and towns on less environmentally -sensitive, cleared farm fields. The nearly 20 year old RLSP has already protected over 55,000 acres of habitats. That is twice the size of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. If the currently proposed county 5-Year Review and other amendments to the RLSP are adopted, up to five times the size of the Panther Refuge will be protected, making it one of the largest private conservation preserves in the eastern U.S. Also, instead of a piecemeal approach to endangered species permitting, the federal government requires the landowners to come up with an acceptable plan (called a Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP) to assure the Florida panther and 18 other listed species are not harmed by new developments in the RLSP. Why is this the RLSP and the proposed amendments important? • PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE LANDS — Nearly all of the land in the RLSP area is privately owned. Scientists agree that large, connected, private lands are essential to the survival of numerous imperiled wildlife, especially wide-ranging species like panthers, bears and wood storks. The 5-Year Review and RLSP together create incentives for landowners to protect 75% of the 182,000 acre RLSP area, and to restore thousands of acres of wildlife corridors and links throughout the region. • RLSP PROTECTS VITAL HABITATS FROM POPULATION GROWTH — With over 800 people moving to Florida every day, and many coming to Collier County, the eastern areas will grow over the coming decades, regardless of the RLSP or HCP. Having no plan doesn't mean nothing happens. The County estimates that the RLSP plan will allow modest growth by 2070 vs. the growth from currently allowed one house/5 acres zoning (116,000 people vs. 90,000). But, under that existing sprawl zoning, without Rural Land Stewardship directing development away from the most important wildlife migration routes and breeding areas, many species and water resources will be lost or greatly diminish. • HCP ADDS $150 MILLION FOR WILDLIFE — The HCP requires private landowners to pay an additional $ 150 million over 50 years for habitat acquisition, wildlife road crossings, research and evaluation not otherwise available under any regulation, mitigation requirement or law. It is important that this money can only be used for conservation initiatives that go above and beyond permit requirements. None of the $150 million will be used for permit mitigation. • WATER USE WOULD DECREASE BY 30 — 45% - Current agricultural operations use much more water than any village or town that could be proposed by the landowners (data from two development permits considered by the county in the RLSP area). • ROADS, SEWER, WATER, SCHOOLS PAID BY DEVELOPERS — The RLSP requires that new developments cost taxpayers nothing or even save taxpayers money by being fiscally neutral (RLSP Policy 4.18). Fiscal neutrality takes years to achieve. At the front end of development, there tends to be more tax contribution, but on the back end, the developer carries the burden to compensate. The Smart Growth America (SGA) study looked at development only over a 20 year period in Collier County. In comparing the RLSA to principles in the SGA study, it is only fair to give the RLSA sufficient time to achieve the fiscal neutrality that is anticipated. What is the alternative? • SPRAWL AND PIECEMEAL PROJECTS — If the county does not adopt the RLSP amendments and the federal government does not approve the HCP, the remaining 90,000 acres could look like either Golden Gate Estates or western Palm Beach County: Golden Gate Estates is an urban sprawl area the size of Washington DC, with its vast, block -by -block networking of roads and houses built on narrow, deep lots. The cost to fit the Estates with proper stormwater runoff and sewers would be $ 112,000 per household, according to county records. And this suburban sprawl area has been a disaster for listed species and large roaming wildlife. Western Palm Beach County, with its random, sprawling, piecemeal gated communities has cut off wildlife migration routes. These communities are the poster children for why planning for larger, regional watershed and wildlife migration routes is urgently needed. • $1.2 BILLION TO BUY THE NEEDED PRESERVE LANDS — Without incentives to preserve, many private farms will be developed over the coming decades, much like agricultural lands which were converted piecemeal to housing in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The county and state would need to find $1.2 billion to buy up the RLSP area that would be protected through the RLSP, an unheard-of amount for a single public acquisition project. • RELY ON REGULATIONS — While wetland and wildlife rules are vital, they have not proven to be effective on regional scales. Historically, Collier County was about 83%. But despite regulatory processes to protect wetlands, wetland and habitat losses in Florida have accelerated since 2006 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Part of the RLSP is designated an Area of Critical State Concern, but that will do nothing to reduce sprawl because of the existing zoning. Misconceptions and misinformation • It has been purported that the RLSA (inclusive of the proposed amendments) will bring 300,000 people to Collier County. Florida will continue growing by more than 300,000 people/year according to the 2020 state economists report. With current population projections under the current zoning (based on the Collier Interactive Growth Model), extensive development will occur in eastern Collier County with or without the recommended amendments to the RLSP. The RLSP (inclusive of the proposed amendments) isn't bringing 300,000 people as purported by the media and some stakeholder testimony; it's planning for them, and that number isn't likely until after the turn of the next century, if ever. • It has been stated that the proposed amendments are a `carbon copy' of the 5-year review amendments. This is a good thing; the 5-year review amendments were vetted through a very thorough public process and increase preserves and restoration from 92,000 to 134,000 acres. These amendments need to be adopted. In addition to the 5-year review amendments, there are also policy amendments that are being proposed (i.e., policies protecting the night-time environment, and to reduce wildlife conflicts). • The Planning Commission was asked to reject policy 1.22 and there is a recent request to undertake a costly credit analysis. Policy 1.22 caps both acres and credits. This policy is critical to ensure the development footprint will not exceed 45,000 acres. Also, if there is a concern regarding the abundance of credit potential in the system, this policy addresses it by implementing a cap on credits. A credit analysis to be conducted by a third parry will only delay implementation of needed amendments. • It has been purported that there is no real public benefit because the preserved land isn't in complete conservation and restoration hasn't happened. The program does not speak to putting all of the RLSP SSAs into conservation. Preservation of agriculture has an immense value to the landscape. It is valid and concerning that restoration has largely not yet occurred across the landscape through this program. However, the proposed amendments address this issue. It reduces the R1 (designation) credits by 75% and provides a better incentive to actually complete the restoration (R2 credits). The Rivergrass village, which is under the current program, has over 2,500 acres of actual restoration being completed (R2 credits). With the proposed amendments, there will be far less credits provided for designating land for restoration, and, instead, credits will be more appropriately earned for actually completing the restoration. Scenario 105,000 people in RLS area in 2070 129,000 acres developed 50,000 acres protected 116,000 people in RLS area in 2070 (243,000 180 years) 45,000 acres developed 134,000 acres protected (107,000 acres by Based on Collier County Interactive Growth Model BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I 18-133 available at www.sciencedirect.com SCIENCE(/ DIRECT® rT c�IER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther Randy Kautz',*, Robert Kawulaa, Thomas Hoctorb, Jane Comiskey`, Deborah Jansend, Dawn Jenningse, John Kasbohmf, Frank Mazzottig, Roy McBrideh, Larry Richardson', Karen Rooti aFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600, USA bUniversity of Florida, Department of Landscape Architecture, P.O. Box 115704, Gainesville, FL 32611-5704, USA `The Institute for Environmental Modeling, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA dBig Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141, USA 'US Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 South Point Drive South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, FL 32216, USA fUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1502 S.E. Kings Bay Drive, Crystal River, FL 34429, USA gFort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, 3205 College Avenue, Davie, FL 33314, USA hBox 178, Ochopee, FL 34141, USA 'US Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, 3860 Tollgate Boulevard, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34114, USA IDepartment of Biology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403-0212, USA A R T I C L E I N F O ABSTRACT Article history: Received 10 February 2005 Received in revised form 29 November 2005 Accepted 14 December 2005 Available online 3 February 2006 Keywords: Florida panther Puma concolor coryi Conservation planning Habitat Corridors The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) is an endangered, wide-ranging predator whose habitat needs conflict with a rapidly growing human population. Our goal was to identify specific regions of the south Florida landscape that are of high conservation value to sup- port a self-sustaining panther population. We used compositional and Euclidean distance analyses to determine relative importance of various land cover types as panther habitat and to investigate the role of forest patch size in habitat selection. A model of landscape components important to Florida panther habitat conservation was created. The model was used in combination with radio telemetry records, home range overlaps, land use/land cover data, and satellite imagery to delineate Primary and Secondary zones that would comprise a landscape mosaic of cover types sufficient to support a self-sustaining popula- tion. The Primary Zone generally supports the present population and is of highest conser- vation value, while the Secondary Zone is of lesser value but could accommodate expansion of the population given sufficient habitat restoration. Least -cost path models identified important landscape linkages, and model results were used to delineate a Dis- persal Zone to accommodate future panther dispersal outside of south Florida. We deter- mined that the three habitat zones could support 80-94 panthers, a population likely to persist and remain stable for 100 years, but that would be subject to continued genetic problems. The Primary, Dispersal and Secondary zones comprise essential components of a landscape -scale conservation plan for the protection of a viable Florida panther popu- lation in south Florida. Assessments of potential impacts of developments should strive to . Corresponding author: Present address: Breedlove, Dennis and Associates, Inc., 2625 Neuchatel Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32303-2249, USA. Tel.: +1 850 5624849; fax: +1 850 5624828. E-mail addresses: rkautz@bda-inc.com, randykautz@earthlink.net (R. Kautz). 0006-3207/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.007 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 119 achieve no net loss of landscape function or carrying capacity for panthers within the Pri- mary Zone or throughout the present range of the Florida panther. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The Florida panther (Puma concolor cory17 is a wide-ranging predator whose current breeding population is restricted to an area of approximately 10,000 km2 in southern Florida, USA, south of Lake Okeechobee. The habitat of the Florida panther is an extensive landscape comprised of a mix of nat- ural, semi -natural, and agricultural land uses (Maehr and Cox, 1995; Comiskey et al., 2002). Due to past persecution and ongo- ing habitat loss, the Florida panther is listed as an endangered species by the State of Florida and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Sullivan, 2004). The Florida panther population was previously estimated at 30-50 individuals (Maehr, 1992), but recent counts place the population at 80-100 adults and sub -adults (Land and Lacy, 2000; McBride, 2001, 2002, 2003). Habitat loss remains the greatest threat to the Florida pan- ther. Large areas of natural habitat have been converted to agricultural and urban uses to support the rapidly growing human population in south Florida (Kautz, 1994) and state- wide (Kautz, 1998). Further loss of natural areas may be ex- pected as the population of the 5-county south Florida region supporting most of the current panther population (i.e., Lee, Hendry, Collier, Miami -Dade, Broward) is projected to increase 55% between 2000 and 2030 (BEBR, 2001). Agencies involved in reviewing proposed development projects in areas inhabited by Florida panthers are keenly aware that contin- ued development will result in the loss of additional habitat, and they recognize that the consequences of permitting deci- sions may further compromise panther population viability. However, attempts to protect panther habitats through regu- latory programs often are confounded by the wide-ranging nature of the species, low population density that makes it difficult to target specific locations for protection, the large landscapes needed to support a viable population, private landowner concerns, and limitations inherent in laws and rules that regulate the incidental take of endangered species. Although land acquisition programs have brought almost 200,000 ha of panther habitat into public ownership over the past decade, previous spatially -explicit conservation plans (Logan et al., 1993; Cox et al., 1994) indicate that much more habitat needs to be protected to ensure panther survival. The range -wide recovery objective for the Florida panther is to achieve 3 viable, self-sustaining populations within the historic range of the animal. The first priority of the recovery plan is to secure the population in south Florida (USFWS, 1995), which is the only existing Florida panther population. Our goal was to identify those portions of the south Florida landscape needed to ensure the long-term persistence of the Florida panther in south Florida. To accomplish this, we conducted a series of geographic information system (GIS) analyses. First, we completed several analyses of land cover types and forest patch sizes associated with telemetry loca- tions and panther home ranges, and we used the results to develop a new spatially explicit model of habitat components important to Florida panther habitat conservation needs. Next, using the spatial model, Florida panther telemetry and home ranges, land use/land cover data, and satellite imagery as guides, we identified areas of suitable habitat that have been consistently occupied by panthers in the past 20 years (Primary Zone), adjacent areas that would be most likely to be occupied by an expanding panther population (Secondary Zone), and areas that would best facilitate dispersal and pop- ulation expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River (Dis- persal Zone). Finally, we used the results of previous population viability analyses to evaluate the potential for the landscape we delineated to support a population large en- ough to remain viable. 1.1. Study area The entirety of our study area covered 60,256 km2 of central and south Florida, and comprised all or portions of 25 coun- ties (Fig. 1). This large region was selected as the study area because it contained all telemetry location records for radio - collared panthers through 30 March 2001 (Fig. 2), and because habitats north of Lake Okeechobee were likely destinations for dispersing panthers. However, most of our analyses fo- cused on the landscape south of Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River, the region where reproducing panthers were found and where 99% of telemetry records have been collected (Fig. 2). Rapidly growing urban areas characterized both coasts of the study area. Dominant land uses of interior regions in- cluded pastureland, citrus production, croplands, and scat- tered smaller urban and residential lands. Throughout much of the study area, natural areas consisting of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) flatwoods, hardwood hammocks, dry prairies, and forested and herbaceous wetlands were interspersed among lands that have been converted to more intensive hu- man uses. Public land south of Lake Okeechobee contained approximately 73% of the area known to support the Florida panther. Big Cypress National Preserve (2950 km2) in the southwestern portion of the region south of Lake Okeechobee consisted of a vast system of forested and herbaceous wet- lands interspersed with smaller upland islands dominated by slash pine and hardwood forests. The Everglades of south- eastern Florida consisted predominantly of herbaceous fresh- water wetlands interspersed with numerous small tree islands. 2. Methods 2.1. Land use and land cover data We created a statewide land cover data set by merging land use/land cover data available from Florida's 5 water 120 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 7 s yI Caloosahatchee River77 �. — �Pinelands;ti;-.,,-.1 Upland hardwoods ❑ Dry prairie Y ., ❑ Shrub and brush Cypress swamp r E ❑ Hardwood swamp P ❑ Freshwater marsh ® Coastal wetlands ;- ❑ Cropland $: ❑ Pasture V, ■ Citrus _ Urban Mining water 5© 0 50 Kilometers r1' Fig. 1 - South Florida study area for modeling and mapping habitats important to the conservation of the Florida panther. While the current reproducing population is found south of the Caloosahatchee River, the entire study area extends through south central Florida to include all records of radio -collared panthers. management districts (WMD). Each WMD data set was in vec- tor format and derived from 1995 aerial photography, and each had been subjected to ground-truthing and accuracy assessment prior to release to the public. The land use/land cover data had minimum mapping units (MMU) of 2 ha for all classes except wetlands. Wetlands were mapped with a 0.2 ha MMU in all areas except south Florida where the wet- lands MMU was 0.8 ha. We converted the vector data sets to 30 m pixel grids, and then we merged the 5 grids into a single statewide grid. The combined statewide data set contained 298 Level III/IV land use/land cover classes (Anderson et al., 1976; as modified for Florida by Kuyper et al., 1981), but simi- lar cover types were grouped to produce a data set with 44 classes. We accomplished this by grouping 101 classes repre- senting residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational areas into five urban lands classes; 15 types of extractive land uses into a single mined lands class; 35 types of cropland, feeding operations, groves, nurseries, vineyards, specialty farms, and rural open lands into four agricultural lands classes; nine types of pasture and rangeland into five pasture and rangeland classes; 18 water classes into a single open water class; 10 types of barren land into two barren land classes; 21 types of transportation facilities into a single transportation class; four types of communications facilities into a single communications facilities class; 10 types of util- ities into a single utilities class; four types of tree planta- tions into a single plantation class; four non-native plants classes into a single exotics class; and 61 natural community types into 21 natural community classes. We acknowledge that the results of our analyses might be different if we used land cover data that were contemporane- ous with Florida panther telemetry records. However, earlier land cover data sets (Kautz et al., 1993; WMD 1988 land use/ land cover) used different classification schemes that were not always consistent over time. In addition, most telemetry records were collected from radio -collared panthers inhabit- ing remote areas of public lands where land use changes have been minimal, and we suspect that use of land cover data sets closer to the dates of telemetry would yield only minor or even insignificant differences in the results we obtained. 2.2. Analysis of habitat use We used 2 methods to assess Florida panther habitat use within the landscape (Fig. 1), compositional analysis (Aebi- scher et al., 1993) and Euclidean distance analysis (Conner BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 121 lk r• ' if rt •L 4 • .Fr . IN. •.yif � Caloosahatchee'• River ; •• •f � s Compositional Analysis.; Study Area •❑ Radio -telemetry record. Public lands (March 2005) Freshwater marsh y '�r w N „4 r 50 0 50 Kilometers F Fig. 2 - Florida panther radio -telemetry locations (n = 55,542) collected between February 22, 1981, and March 30, 2001, and the compositional analysis study area boundary. The study area used to determine characteristics of the landscape used by panthers was defined by a minimum convex polygon containing 46,350 telemetry records for 79 panthers >2 years of age for which >50 telemetry records were available. and Plowman, 2001). Although both methods use a similar statistical technique (i.e., MANOVA) to test for differences in habitat use, each method uses a different technique for deter- mining used habitats relative to telemetry locations. We used compositional analysis to determine the composition of land cover types within home ranges relative to the study area. We used Euclidean distance analysis to determine habitat use by comparing distances from each radio -telemetry location of individual Florida panthers to each land cover class and dis- tances from random locations to each land cover class. Our master set of Florida panther radio -telemetry records consisted of data collected between February 1981 and March 2001 (n = 55,542) (Fig. 2). However, our determinations of Flor- ida panther home ranges and our analyses of relative impor- tance of various land cover types as panther habitat were limited to telemetry records for 79 Florida panthers that oc- curred south of the Caloosahatchee River (n = 46,350) to coin- cide with the region occupied by the reproducing population. Methodology for collection of telemetry locations was de- scribed by Belden et al. (1988). Spatial accuracy of telemetry data (i.e., 95th percentile) has been estimated to be within 230 In (Belden et al., 1988; Dees et al., 2001). Telemetry records were acquired between 0600 and 1000 hours when panthers usually were not active, and thus the majority of locations were recorded when individuals were at or near daytime rest- ing sites (Comiskey et al., 2002; Beier et al., 2006). The compositional analysis study area was delimited as a minimum convex polygon containing 46,350 telemetry re- cords south of the Caloosahatchee River (Fig. 2). We calcu- lated fixed kernel home ranges (Worton, 1989) with the software program KERNELHR (Seaman et al., 1998) using the least squares cross -validation (LSCV) method for choos- ing the kernel smoothing parameter. Home ranges (n = 79) were calculated for radio -collared panthers >2 years old and for which >50 radio locations were determined. The age limitation was applied to ensure individuals were inde- pendent of their mothers and to reduce the effect of dispers- ing juveniles on home ranges. The criterion for minimum number of locations follows the recommendation of Seaman et al. (1999) to reduce effects of small sample sizes on the kernel estimator. We used compositional analysis (Aebischer et al., 1993) to identify proportions of land cover types within the fixed ker- nel home ranges that differed from proportions of land cover types within the study area. All land cover types were not represented in each home range, thus land cover types were 122 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 further combined into 16 habitat classes to reduce effects of inflated Type I error rates on our results (Bingham and Bren- nan, 2004). If proportions of land cover types differed (p < 0.05; PROC GLM, SAS Institute, 1999), land cover types were ranked according to the number of positive differences between pairs. Paired t-tests were then used to determine dif- ferences (p < 0.05) between ranked land cover types. Results from these analyses were then incorporated in our GIS mod- els below. We used Euclidean distance analysis to identify differ- ences in mean distances from each of the 16 land cover types to radio -telemetry locations of individual Florida panthers and to random locations (n = 5000) within the study area. The methodology used to determine statistical differences in habitat use was identical to that described for composi- tional analysis above. 2.3. Forest patch size metrics We also used compositional analysis to assess the effect of forest patch size on panther habitat use within the study area south of the Caloosahatchee River (Fig. 2). We accom- plished this by reclassifying upland and wetland forest types into one forest class, determining patch size, and assigning individual forest patches to size classes according to an equal area increment function. Similar to constraints put on the number of different habitat classes above, the num- ber of forest patch size classes was limited by availability of each class within each fixed kernel home range. Conse- quently, to reduce effects of absence of specific patch size classes in individual home ranges and the resultant effect of inflated Type I error rates (Bingham and Brennan, 2004), 13 forest patch size classes were used. Differences in propor- tions of forest patches within each home range relative to the entire study area were tested using the same methodol- ogy described above for the compositional analysis of land cover types. 2.4. Spatially explicit model of important habitat components Based on results from our compositional analyses of land cov- er types and forest patch sizes, and based on reviews of Bel- den et al. (1988) and Maehr et al. (1991), we created a spatially explicit raster model of habitat patches potentially suitable for use by panthers for cover. The model was based on the following criteria: (1) all forest patches >2 ha regardless of forest type were included in the model, and (2) all non -ur- ban cover types within 200 m of forest patches >2 ha were in- cluded. This model reflected panther use of all types of upland and wetland forest patches, regardless of size, and it also reflected the minimum mapping unit of 2 ha for upland forests in the land cover database. The model accounts for spatial error in the telemetry data by allowing for inclusion of other natural or disturbed cover types in close proximity to forest patches. This model was needed as a basis for delin- eating boundaries around a landscape that links together the most important components of panther habitat with inter- vening cover types (e.g., agricultural and pasture lands) pres- ent in the landscape. 2.5. Primary zone Our principal goal was to identify south Florida lands essen- tial to the long-term viability and survival of the Florida pan- ther. Survival is defined as "the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age clas- ses, genetic heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment providing all requirements for completion of the species' entire life cycle, including reproduction, suste- nance, and shelter' (USFWS and NMFS, 1998; page xix). We called lands that met this goal the Primary Zone. To delineate Primary Zone boundaries, we overlaid panther telemetry data on the model of important landscape compo- nents, overlapping minimum convex polygons of panther home ranges that identified areas with heaviest use by pan- thers from 1981 to 2001 as described by Comisky et al. (2002), and WMD land use/land cover data. We then screen -digitized a line around the outer edges of habitat patches in the land- scape components model in a manner that (1) encompassed most telemetry locations of currently monitored panthers in areas of highest home range overlap and (2) incorporated a mix of non -urban land cover types (e.g., citrus groves, crop- lands, pastureland, freshwater marsh) in areas between patches of forest in which the preponderance of telemetry data occurred. The landscape delineated in this manner con- sisted of forest patches panthers would most likely select as daytime resting sites and den sites, and would use as cover for stalking prey. Moreover, other natural and non -urban dis- turbed land cover types between forest patches served as landscape connections that accommodate panther home range and dispersal movements (Maehr et al., 2002b), and they contributed to the support of prey species. After the first draft of the Primary Zone boundary had been completed, we ad- justed the boundary slightly to account for changes to inten- sive land uses (e.g., suburban or urban development) found through visual interpretation of the draft boundary in relation to recent satellite imagery (i.e., Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper sa- tellite imagery dated December 26,1999 [US Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA]). 2.6. Landscape linkage model and dispersal zone Since 1998, three radio -collared male panthers have dispersed into south central Florida, and telemetry records indicate that all crossed the Caloosahatchee River (Fig. 1) near the same location (Maehr et al., 2002b). At the same time, the growing human population of southwest Florida is expanding east from Ft. Myers along the State Road 80 corridor immediately south of the Caloosahatchee River, and development is ex- pected to reach the area where the panthers crossed the river. To maintain future opportunities for an expanding Florida panther population to disperse out of south Florida, our sec- ond goal was to identify lands that should be protected from urban development to serve as a dispersal corridor. We called lands that met this goal the Dispersal Zone. We used ArcView GIS° version 3.3 and ArcView Spatial Analyst' version 2 (Environmental Systems Research, Inc., BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 123 Redlands, CA, USA) to construct a set of least -cost path mod- els to identify optimum panther dispersal corridor(s). The least -cost path models operated on 2 cost surfaces that ranked suitability of the landscape for use by dispersing pan- thers under the assumption that habitat suitability influences the routes likely to be taken by dispersing panthers. The 2 cost surfaces were 30 In pixel grids produced from the results of our compositional and Euclidean distance analyses of hab- itat types. We scored the 16 land cover types from 1 to 11 and 1 to 10 based on results of pair -wise comparisons of habitat types in the compositional and Euclidean distance analyses, respectively, with lower scores indicating higher likelihood of use by dispersing panthers (Table 1). It is worth noting that the urban lands class, which included residential and com- mercial areas as well as roads and power lines, appeared in the habitat suitability ranking because this class occurred within some panther home ranges and within the study area used for the compositional analysis. We also performed sensitivity analyses to determine whether higher cost scores for roads and water, which may provide greater impedance to panther movements, would af- fect the outputs of the model. We assigned water a score of 15 in each of the 2 cost surfaces to indicate that water is less likely to be used by dispersing panthers than vegetated up- lands or wetlands. We assigned major roads a score of 20 in each cost surface as an indication that, even though dispers- ing panthers can and do cross highways, the cost of dispers- ing along a highway would accumulate rapidly relative to the cost of crossing perpendicular to a road. To run least -cost path models, it is necessary to designate specific habitat sources and destinations for dispersing pan- thers. Based on radio -telemetry locations and overlap of fixed kernel home ranges, we selected all of Florida Panther Na- tional Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and patches of potential hab- itat within Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) north of I-75 as source areas for dispersing panthers (Fig. 3). We then se- lected patches of potential panther habitat within various large parcels of public land in central Florida as destinations. We made no attempt to model dispersal paths between occu- pied habitats in BCNP and Everglades National Park because these areas were protected by public ownership, and the goal of this effort was to find one or more dispersal pathways into central Florida. The 4 cost surfaces (i.e., 1 from each of habitat rankings analyses; 1 from each analysis modified to test ef- fects of roads and water) were used to find a set of one -pix- el -wide least -cost paths from source patches to destination patches. We reviewed the resulting set of least -cost paths (Fig. 3) in relation to recent Landsat satellite imagery (26 December 1999; 3 April 2001), 1995 land use/land cover data, the spatially explicit model of important landscape compo- nents, apparent paths followed by three radio -collared males known to have dispersed out of south Florida since 1998, and literature recommendations for possible corridor widths (Har- rison, 1992; Noss, 1992; Beier, 1995). We screen -digitized a 3.0- 7.8 km wide boundary of a Dispersal Zone to encompass a mosaic of suitable land cover types in an area east of the town of LaBelle, Hendry County, FL. 2.7. Secondary zone Our final goal was to identify additional natural and disturbed lands in south Florida that may be important to transient sub - adult male panthers and have potential to support an expand- ing panther population, especially if habitat restoration were Florida the CA study panther habitat use area (Fig. 2) and Euclidean as determined by distance compositional analysis (EDA) of pantherand Habitat rank Compositional analysis Euclidean distance Habitat type Rank Cost surface Habitat type Rank Cost surface differencesa score differencesa score 15 Upland forest A 1 Cypress swamp A 1 14 Hardwood swamp A 1 Pineland AB 2 13 Pineland AB 2 Hardwood swamp BC 3 12 Scrub B 3 Upland forest CD 4 11 Cypress swamp B 3 Dry prairie DE 5 10 Shrub and brush C 4 Pasture/grassland EF 6 9 Freshwater marsh CD 5 Unimproved pasture F 7 8 Dry prairie CD 5 Shrub and brush F 7 7 Barren land DE 6 Urban G 8 6 Unimproved pasture E 7 Cropland G 8 5 Urban EF 8 Coastal wetlands G 8 4 Pasture/grassland F 9 Orchard/citrus grove G 8 3 Cropland F 9 Freshwater marsh H 9 2 Open water G 10 Barren land H 9 1 Orchard/citrus grove G 10 Scrub H 9 0 Coastal wetlands H 11 Open water I 10 Fixed kernel polygon home ranges were determined using 46,350 telemetry locations for 79 panthers that were >2 years old and for which >50 telemetry records were available. Land cover source data was derived from a composite of 1995 water management district land use/land cover data. Results from the CA and EDA were used to assign values to cost surface grids used in determining a landscape linkage across the Caloosahatchee River, FL, USA. a Pairwise t-tests indicated habitat types with the same letter code were not different (p > 0.05) from each other. 124 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 Fig. 3 - Least -cost paths most likely to be taken by Florida panthers dispersing out of south Florida. The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) and occupied habitat patches in the northeastern corner of Big Cypress National Preserve were used as source areas for dispersal. Destinations for dispersing panthers were patches of apparently suitable habitat on parcels of public land in peninsular Florida north of the Caloosahatchee River. Scores for cost surfaces derived from the results of compositional analysis (CA) and Euclidean distance (ED) analysis. possible. We called lands that met this goal the Secondary Zone. We sketched a preliminary boundary of a Secondary Zone on a hard copy map, and the boundary was screen - digitized utilizing the panther potential habitat map, recent satellite imagery, and telemetry locations as guides. We then conducted a GIS-based assessment of landscape context in- side the draft Secondary Zone to provide direction to the pro- cess of creating a final boundary. We used a ranking method that involved subjective quantitative estimates of various landscape variables to score lands within the draft Secondary Zone based on presumed indicators of potential suitability to panthers. We evaluated the landscape context of the draft Secondary Zone by combining a set of 30-m pixel grids created to mea- sure three habitat -related variables (i.e., proximity to Primary Zone, proximity to a forest plus buffer patch, forest plus buf- fer patch size) and three land -use variables (i.e., proximity to urban lands, intensity of land use, and road type and density). We used WMD data as the source of land cover classes input to each layer except roads, which derived from 1:24,000-scale digital line graph (DLG) coverages for the region. We assigned each pixel in the six data layers with scores of 1-10, with 10 representing the best case for panthers, and then we added the grids together to rank the landscape within the draft Sec- ondary Zone. We developed scores for proximity to the Primary Zone by first determining the maximum perpendicular distance of the draft Secondary Zone boundary from the Primary Zone boundary, which was found to be 17.53 km. Scores were as- signed in increasing increments of distance from the Primary Zone based on this maximum distance. To develop scores for proximity to a forest plus buffer patch, Florida panther telem- etry locations were overlaid on the model of important land- scape components, and numbers of locations were tallied in increments of 100 m from patches of potential habitat. Scores were assigned as an increasing function of distance from for- est plus buffer patches. Scores for forest plus buffer patch size were assigned as an increasing function of size under the assumption that larger patches would likely be more impor- tant to panthers in the more disturbed landscape of the Sec- ondary Zone. We assigned scores for proximity to urban lands based on a review of Beier (1995), who provided some information about cougar behavior in the vicinity of urban areas, and by BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I 18-133 125 evaluating the distribution of telemetry locations in 100 m increments from urban lands. We buffered urban lands by 300 m (98.5% of telemetry locations were >300 m from urban lands), and we assigned lands within this buffer al. We then assigned lands between 300 and 1000 m from urban areas scores of 2-9 in loom increments, and we assigned lands >1000 m from urban areas a score of 10. To develop a ranked data layer for land use intensity, we grouped land use/land cover classes into natural, low, moderate, and high land use intensity categories, and we assigned scores to pixels as fol- lows: natural = 0, low = 1, moderate = 2, and high = 3. We then computed the mean value of each pixel in the grid by averag- ing all scores within a 1.0 km x 1.0 km window of each pixel. The range of mean land use intensity values (i.e., 0.0-3.0) was divided by 10, and scores were assigned in increments of 0.3. To develop scores for road type and density, we first as- signed scores to road segments in the 1:24,000-scale DLG cov- erage for Florida as follows: major highways =10, major arterial roads = 7, other paved roads = 4, and minor rural roads =1. Next, an empty 90 m pixel grid was created, and the DLG road coverage that had been scored by road types was overlaid on the grid. Then, a value for each pixel in the grid was calculated by multiplying the total length of road segments within a 1610 m radius of a pixel by the type score of each road segment. Pixel values in the resulting grid ranged 0-167 and represented a measure of road type -length within 1610 In of a pixel. Regions of the grid with low values con- tained few or no roads, whereas higher values indicated re- gions with a high density of busy multi -lane highways. Panther radio telemetry locations were overlaid on the road type -length grid to produce a histogram of number of loca- tions associated with each pixel value. A score of 10 was as- signed to road type -length units of 0 (i.e., cells with no roads within 1610 m), and a score of 1 was assigned to road type -length units >23. Lacking empirical evidence for relative contribution of each data layer to landscape context, we tested 2 approaches to assigning weights to the data layers. First, we assumed each data layer had equal weight. Second, authors were polled for their recommendations for assigning weights be- tween 0 and 1 to each of the six variables, and mean weights suggested by the authors were assigned to each layer. We added the six weighted data layers using both equal weights and mean weights suggested to by authors to create final landscape context layers that were rescaled to 1-10. Differ- ences between equal weights and author assigned weights were negligible. We then intersected panther telemetry loca- tions with the landscape context grids to generate frequency distributions of number of telemetry points by values in the grid. Finding that 99% of telemetry locations were associated with pixels having scores _>6, we created a final Secondary Zone boundary by adjusting the draft boundary to eliminate most areas with scores <6. 2.8. Florida panther population density We generated minimum convex polygons of panther home ranges for all Florida panthers by year (n = 49,889 telemetry locations, 1981-2000). Each polygon was converted to a 100 In pixel grid, and resulting grids were summed to pro- duce a grid in which the value of each pixel represented the number of overlapping home range polygons that had occurred at that place over the period of record. Assuming that minimum convex polygons derived from transient males that may have used an area only once or twice over- estimated the region of south Florida most consistently occupied by Florida panthers over time, we subtracted pixels with values of 1 or 2 from the grid to generate a grid that we defined as the region of most consistent panther occupancy for the period of record. To estimate population density, the total land area within the resulting region of panther occu- pancy was divided by 62, the panther population count in 2000 (McBride, 2000), which was the year of the most recent telemetry data used to define minimum convex polygon home ranges. To evaluate the extent to which the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal zones contribute to survival of the Florida pan- ther, the number of panthers that each could potentially sup- port was estimated. Density estimates of one panther per 11,000 ha (Maehr et al., 1991) and one panther per 12,919 ha (this paper) were used to calculate a range of estimated pop- ulation sizes as a function of the total land area of each zone. These population estimates assume that habitat quality was homogeneous throughout the landscape, which it was not. Habitat quality in the Secondary Zone was estimated to be 34.53% of that in the Primary Zone based on relative propor- tions of potentially suitable habitat patches in each zone. To account for this difference, the estimated carrying capacity of the Secondary Zone was adjusted downward accordingly. Population size estimates were reviewed in relation to a sug- gested set of population viability guidelines assembled from a review of the Florida panther population viability analyses (PVA) that have been conducted to date (Ballou et al., 1989; Seal and Lacy, 1992; Ellis et al., 1999; Kautz and Cox, 2001; Maehr et al., 2002b; Root, 2004). 3. Results 3.1. Compositional and Euclidean distance analyses Comparison of the composition of land cover types found in fixed kernel home ranges relative to the composition of land cover types within the compositional analysis study area indi- cated that habitat use was disproportionate to availability (Wilk's A = 0.0297, df = 15, P < 0.001). The 3 highest ranked hab- itat types found within home ranges included upland hard- wood forest, hardwood swamp, and pinelands, respectively (Table 1). Habitats that were found to be disproportionately lower in home ranges than available within the study area in- cluded coastal wetlands, orchards/citrus groves, open water, cropland, and pasture/grassland. Comparison of mean distances between telemetry loca- tions and random locations indicated that habitat use was non-random (Wilk's � = 0.0016, df =16, P < 0.001). Florida pan- ther locations during morning hours were within or closer to forested cover types, particularly cypress swamp, pinelands, hardwood swamp, and upland hardwood forests than would be expected based on random locations (Table 1). Conversely, daytime sites were farther from freshwater marsh, barren 126 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 land, scrub, and open water than would be expected from random locations. Use of forest patches within fixed kernel home ranges also differed significantly from random (Wilk's 7 = 0.0475, df =12, P < 0.001). Generally, patches in the smallest forest patch size classes occurred within home ranges in higher proportions relative to their availability than larger forest patches (Table 2). With the exception of the largest forest patch, which had an intermediate rank, pairwise comparisons of patch size differ- ences indicate that forest patch sizes 3.2-8.5 ha were found in highest proportions relative to their availability, and forest patches 4886.9-5647.7 ha were used less than their availability within the compositional analysis study area. 3.2. Model of important components of the landscape The map of landscape components important to the Florida panther (Fig. 4), the criteria for which were based on the find- ings from compositional and Euclidean distance analyses, indicated that the greatest extent of forest plus buffer patches occurs in southwest Florida, the principal area supporting the current panther population. Large areas of habitat are in pub- lic ownership (i.e., Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahat- chee Strand Preserve State Park, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, and Picayune Strand State Forest). These landscape components tend to become progressively more fragmented and isolated north of these parcels of public land as well as in the southeastern portions of the Everglades. 3.3. Primary, Dispersal, and Secondary zones The Primary, Dispersal, and Secondary zones (Fig. 5) included a total area of 1,258,823 ha (Table 3). The Primary Zone Forest patch Habitat rank Differences size class (ha) in ranksa 3.2-8.5 12 A 2.0-3.1 11 A B 21.3-47.7 10 A B 117.3-253.0 9 A B 8.6-21.1 8 B 23,973.7+ 7 B C 47.8-115.0 6 B C 254.9-439.1 5 B C 3520.4-4706.6 4 C 505.1-847.8 3 C 848.1-1515.7 2 C 1538.4-3235.2 1 D 4886.9-5647.7 0 D Fixed kernel polygon home ranges were determined using 46,350 telemetry locations for 79 panthers that were >2 years old and for which >50 telemetry records were available. Land cover source data was derived from a composite of water management district land use/land cover data. a Pairwise t-tests indicated forest patches size classes with the same letter code were not different (p > 0.05) from each other. covered 918,895 ha, of which 671,654 ha (73%) were in public ownership and 247,241 ha (27%) were in private ownership (Table 4). Forests accounted for 45% of Primary Zone cover types; freshwater marshes for 41%; prairie and shrub lands for 2.6%; and agricultural lands for 7.6%. Urban lands com- prised only 0.52%. Privately owned lands within the Primary Zone included more areas in agricultural use but less area of freshwater marsh. Land cover types modeled as potentially suitable habitat patches accounted for 64.3% of the Primary Zone. The least -cost paths output from the 2 cost surfaces based on the original scores from the compositional and Euclidean distance analyses resulted in multiple routes that Florida panthers might follow when dispersing out of south Florida across the Caloosahatchee River (Fig. 3). There were no dis- cernable differences in the sensitivity analysis least -cost paths that were produced from versions of the cost surfaces that incorporated higher impedance scores for roads and water. Paths west of LaBelle, FL, were rejected as candidate sites for the location of the Dispersal Zone because they passed through dense urban or intensive agricultural areas by following one -pixel -wide paths unlikely to be used by pan- thers on a regular basis. The path just west of Lake Okeecho- bee was not a feasible location for the Dispersal Zone because it passed through large expanses of open agricultural lands. The site we selected for the Dispersal Zone incorporated the paths that passed just east of of LaBelle, FL. The Dispersal Zone covered 11,284 ha; ranged 3.0-7.8 km wide; had a mean width of 5.3 km; extended about 20 km north from the Pri- mary Zone; and included a 6 km segment of the Caloosahat- chee River that averaged about 100 m across. Immediately north of the Dispersal Zone was a large area mapped as hav- ing habitat conditions potentially important for Florida pan- thers (Logan et al., 1993; Cox et al., 1994), and the entire area was in a single private ownership. Just within the eastern boundary of the Dispersal Zone was an abandoned railroad grade that may facilitate dispersal (Maehr et al., 2002b). For- ests accounted for 29% of the Dispersal Zone; freshwater marshes for 7.5%; prairie and shrub lands for 8.8%; agriculture (primarily improved pasture and citrus groves) for 49%; and barren and urban land for 5.1%. Land cover types modeled as potentially suitable habitat patches accounted for 59.9% of the Dispersal Zone. The Secondary Zone covered 328,654 ha, of which 124,898 ha (38%) were in public ownership and 196,151 ha (60%) were in private ownership. Only 11% of the Secondary Zone was forest, the highest ranking cover types in the com- positional analysis. A large percentage (43%) consisted of freshwater marsh, the dominant plant community of the Florida Everglades, most of which is in public ownership. Prai- rie and shrub lands and agricultural lands accounted for 42% of the Secondary Zone, and a small percentage (2.3%) con- sisted of low -density residential areas and open urban lands. Land cover types modeled as potentially suitable habitat patches accounted for 22.2% of the Secondary Zone. 3.4. Florida panther population density The region of most consistent panther occupancy from 1981 through early 2000 covered 800,951 ha. Based on the BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 Fig. 4 - A model of landscape components (i.e., forest patches >2 ha surrounded by 200 m non -urban buffers) significant to Florida panther conservation throughout the southern portion of the Florida peninsula. estimated panther population of 62 individuals (McBride, 2000), population density was one panther per 12,919 ha in 2000. 4. Discussion 4.1. Habitat analyses Previous investigators have reported that Florida panthers are strongly associated with forested habitats, especially in the morning hours of 0600-1000 when telemetry data are typi- cally collected (Belden et al., 1988; Maehr et al., 1991; Land, 1994; Maehr and Cox, 1995; Kerkhoff et al., 2000). Composi- tional analyses of Florida panther habitat in this study con- firmed previous findings that forest patches comprise an important component of Florida panther habitat in south Florida. Our compositional analysis also confirms previous findings that other natural (e.g., freshwater marsh) and dis- turbed (e.g., agricultural and pasture lands) cover types are also present in the large landscapes that support panthers, but these cover types rank lower in importance as panther habitats (Belden et al., 1988; Maehr et al., 1991; Comiskey et al., 2002). Similarly, Euclidean distance analysis, which ranks the mean distances of telemetry records to the nearest instance of each land cover type, also confirms that forest cover types are either selected by Florida panthers as daytime sites, or they are very close to the sites selected. On the other hand, daytime sites typically are farthest away from freshwa- ter marsh, barren land, scrub, and open water. The differences in the results in Table 1 are because com- positional analysis and Euclidean distance analysis measure two different but related aspects of Florida panther use of the landscape. Compositional analysis measures the relative importance of various land cover types within home ranges. Euclidean distance, on the other hand, ranks land cover types according to whether or not they are selected or are near to sites selected by panthers as daytime rest sites. Thus, not only are panther home ranges composed to a large extent of forest cover types, but forest cover types also are typically se- lected as daytime sites, or they are at least near to the sites selected. However, freshwater marsh is an example of a land cover type that is fairly abundant within panther home ranges, but sites selected during the daytime tend to be more distant from freshwater marsh. Contrary to information reported by Maehr and Cox (1995) and Maehr and Deason (2002) that Florida panthers tend to avoid forest patches <500 ha in size, our analyses showed that the smallest classes of forest patches were the highest ranked forest patch sizes within panther home ranges. This 128 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 Fig. 5 - Locations of Primary, Dispersal, and Secondary zones identified as important lands for conservation of Florida panther habitat. Whereas the model in Fig. 4 indicates habitat patches providing important cover for panthers, the zones integrate the patches into a connected landscape mosaic of land cover types needed to support the population. Land cover type Primary zone (ha) Dispersal zone (ha) Secondary zone (ha) Total (ha) Wetland forest 350,306 1872 18,639 370,817 Upland forest 65,173 1440 16,984 83,597 Freshwater marsh 374,356 844 140,654 515,854 Prairie and shrub lands 23,553 992 20,163 44,707 Agriculture 70,155 5527 119,271 194,953 Barren, urban, exotics 15,236 576 10,864 26,675 Coastal wetlands 17,470 - 18 17,488 Aquatic 2646 34 2062 4742 Total area 918,895 11,284 328,654 1,258,834 finding demonstrates that, not only are forests cover types important to panthers, but forest patches of all sizes appear to be important components of the landscapes inhabited by Florida panthers, not just the larger forest patches. There are several reasons why small forest patches could be important to Florida panther conservation. First, this finding may sim- ply be indicative of the presence of numerous small tree is- lands in a matrix of freshwater herbaceous wetlands characteristic of the Florida Everglades as well as small for- est patches interspersed within agricultural landscapes occupied by some panthers. Second, small forest patches may be important for sub -adult Florida panthers that have not yet established their own breeding territories, but need a place to hunt and disperse in the interim. Additionally, a more heterogeneous landscape characterized by an inter- spersion of forest and non -forest patches may be more favorable to the production of prey species, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus viriginianus) and wild hogs (Sus scrofa), or perhaps prey ambush success is greater under such conditions. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 129 Zone Ownership Area (ha) Potential number of panthers (1/11,000 ha)a Potential number of panthers (1/12,919 ha)b Primary Public land (April 2001) 671,654 61 52 Private land 200,356 18 15 Tribal land 46,886 4 4 Total area 918,895 84 71 Secondary Public land (April 2001) 124,898 11 10 Private land 196,151 18 15 Tribal land 7605 1 1 Total area 328,654 30 25 Effective area (34.5%) 113,480 10 9 Dispersal Public land (April 2001) 0 0 0 Private land 11,284 1 0 Tribal land 0 0 0 Total area 11,284 1 0 a Density estimate from Maehr et al. (1991). b Density estimate derived in this study. 4.2. Primary zone The Primary Zone is the most important of the three zones identified in this project because preservation of these lands will contribute most to the long-term persistence of the Flor- ida panther in the wild. The Primary Zone, which consisted of 86% natural cover types, could support an estimated 71-84 panthers based on estimates of population density (Table 4). The Florida panther population was estimated at 30-50 indi- viduals throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (Maehr, 1992). However, the population has been growing since the mid- 1990s when 8 Texas females (P. c. stanleyana) were introduced into south Florida, and major sources of roadkill mortality were eliminated with the installation of underpasses along Interstate 75 and State Road 29. If the population continues to grow, it seems likely that additional sub -adult males may eventually disperse outside of currently occupied lands. How- ever, the chances of female dispersal, especially across the Caloosahatchee River, without human intervention remain in doubt. The most likely areas of dispersal are into the Sec- ondary Zone and through the Dispersal Zone to privately owned lands to the north. A population of 71-84 panthers has a high probability of persistence for 100 years (Table 5) assuming no further loss of habitat. Available PVA models indicate that a population of this size may either remain stable or decline gradually, per- haps by as much as 25%, over the next 100 years; and genetic problems associated with inbreeding depression and loss of heterozygosity are likely to continue without management intervention. Translocation of 2 females into the population every 10 years would minimize the effects of inbreeding depression and loss of heterozygosity in a population of this size (Ellis et al., 1999; Maehr et al., 2002a), but genetic stability would still fall short of the level provided by a population of 300 individuals (Maehr et al., 2002a). Thus, it appears that the Primary Zone, a large landscape consisting of a matrix of natural and disturbed cover types, provides just enough space to support a population that is barely viable demo - Population Viability size <50 Extinction highly probable in less than 100 years - demographic instability - Ne<50 - high levels of inbreeding 60-70 Barely viable - low probability of extinction in 100 years - expect 25 % population decline in 100 years -Ne<50 - declining heterozygosity - no habitat loss or catastrophes can be tolerated 80-100 Stable population likely for 100 years - low probability of extinction in 100 years - expect population to remain stable over 100 years -NQ>50 - slowly declining heterozygosity - no habitat loss or catastrophes can be tolerated >240 High probability of persistence - low probability of extinction in 100 years - expect population to remain stable over 100 years - Ne > 50 - able to retain 90% of heterozygosity - some habitat loss or mild catastrophes can be tolerated graphically as long as the habitat base remains stable. A pop- ulation of 71-84 panthers would just meet the criteria for survival (USFWS and NMFS, 1998) with the exception of ge- netic heterogeneity. The Primary Zone takes on additional significance in that it supports the only known breeding 130 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 panther population, a population that should be viewed as the essential foundation for one of three self-sustaining pop- ulations needed for the recovery of the species (USFWS, 1995). 4.3. Dispersal zone Our second priority for conservation of panther habitats was the Dispersal Zone, an area intended to function as a land- scape linkage maintaining connectivity to potentially suitable habitat north of the Caloosahatchee River. Due to the rapid rate of urban development in the region, the opportunity for panthers to disperse out of south Florida eventually will be precluded if a landscape connection cannot be maintained. Moreover, should a breeding population become established north of the Caloosahatchee River, effectively forming a metapopulation (Wiens,1996), a landscape connection would facilitate exchange of dispersing individuals between the two sub -populations, thereby increasing genetic and demographic viability of the entire south Florida population (Ellis et al., 1999). Logan et al. (1993) and Cox et al. (1994) identified about 150,000 ha immediately north of the Caloosahatchee River as being potentially important for the long-term conservation of Florida panther habitats. However, there is no certainty that potential habitats north of the Caloosahatchee River actually can support a sub -population of panthers. The Dispersal Zone includes 113 km2, an area considerably smaller than the average home ranges of adult male and fe- male panthers (i.e., 416.5 km2 and 156.1 km2, respectively [Land et al., 2004]). Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that the Dispersal Zone could support permanent occupancy by adult Florida panthers. However, Beier (1995) reported that dispersing sub -adult males occupied transient home ranges 2-30% the size of adult home ranges for short periods of time. Assuming transient home ranges of sub -adult male Florida panthers were 30% the size of the average adult male, tran- sient home ranges would be 125 km2, a number only slightly larger than the size of the Dispersal Zone. Thus, the Dispersal Zone may be large enough accommodate infrequent tempo- rary use by dispersing males even though it is not large en- ough to support permanent occupancy. Regardless of its small area, the Dispersal Zone may be ex- pected to function as a landscape linkage (Harris and Scheck, 1991; Hoctor, 2003). Mean maximum dispersal distance was 68.4 km for males and 20.3 km for females (Maehr et al., 2002b), suggesting that both males and females could easily traverse the 20 km length of the Dispersal Zone. Although sub -adult females tend to set up home ranges immediately adjacent to their mother's home range (Maehr et al., 2002a), Logan and Sweanor (2001) reported that a sizable minority of female pumas in New Mexico did not settle near their mother, suggesting that use of the Dispersal Zone will not be limited to males. The potential appears to exist for female Florida pan- thers to eventually disperse over the Caloosahatchee River in an attempt to establish new territories to the north. As to the widths needed to accommodate dispersal, Beier (1995) reported that mountain lions dispersed through corri- dors of suitable habitat that were 0.5-1.0 km wide over a dis- tance of 6.0 km. In a California setting of wild lands surrounded by urban areas, Beier (1995) recommended that corridors with a length <0.8 km should be >100 m wide; corri- dors extending 1-7 km should be >400 m wide; and corridor width should increase as length increases. Noss (1992) sug- gested that, as a rule -of -thumb, a regional corridor connect- ing larger hubs of habitat should be at least 1.6 km wide with no bottlenecks <400 m wide. With widths ranging 3.0- 7.8 km, the Dispersal Zone appears to be wide enough to facil- itate panther dispersal out of south Florida. The Dispersal Zone appears to be strategically located. Three radio -collared sub -adult males have been documented to have crossed the Caloosahatchee River in the approximate vicinity of the Dispersal Zone (Maehr et al., 2002b). In addition, the southern boundary is contiguous with Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, a parcel of public land that supported a denning female in 2001 (Comiskey et al., 2002) and again in 2005 (Land, D., personal communication). Thus, a portion of the breeding population was proximal to the southern termi- nus of the Dispersal Zone in recent years, suggesting that it is likely that dispersing panthers can find this landscape link- age in the future. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before pressure from an increasing population forces a young female to disperse to the north across the Caloosahatchee River. Immediately north of the Dispersal Zone is a very large parcel of privately owned ranch land containing large areas of habitat potentially suitable for Florida panthers. Our anal- ysis of potential habitats and past evaluations (Logan et al., 1993; Cox et al., 1994; Kautz and Cox, 2001) indicate that these lands possess qualities that may be suitable for panthers. Just within the eastern boundary of the Dispersal Zone is an aban- doned railroad grade, a landscape feature likely to accommo- date panther dispersal (Maehr et al., 2002b) The Dispersal Zone includes a 6.0 km segment of the Caloosahatchee River that averages 100 In across, thus making this area accessible for panthers to cross. In addition, development intensity in this segment of the river is relatively low. 4.4. Secondary zone Our third priority for Florida panther habitat conservation was the Secondary Zone, a set of lands immediately adjacent to the Primary Zone but containing lower quality habitat and few re- cords of panther use. Due to its position in the landscape, the Secondary Zone is the area most likely to be encountered by panthers ranging out of the Primary Zone. Areas within the Secondary Zone also may provide temporary habitat or refuge for sub -adult male panthers prior to their recruitment into the population as breeders on established territories. Even though radio -collared panthers previously have been tracked in por- tions of the Secondary Zone, no panthers are known to inhabit the area on a regular basis. Many areas within the Secondary Zone do not now contain suitable panther habitat (e.g., inten- sive agricultural lands, low density residential areas), but many areas could feasibly support panthers on a permanent basis if habitat restoration were to occur. Based on area alone, the Secondary Zone has the capacity to support 25-30 Florida panthers (Table 4). However, under current conditions, habitat quality within the Secondary Zone probably is not sufficient to support that many panthers. Cover types modeled as being important landscape components for panthers (Fig. 4) comprised only 22.2% of the Secondary Zone compared to 64.3% in the Primary Zone. If the proportion of BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 131 potentially suitable habitat patches in each zone is an indica- tor of quality, the effective area of the Secondary Zone is about 34.5% of that in the Primary Zone. Applying this ratio to adjust for differences in habitat quality, the Secondary Zone probably can support no more than 9-10 panthers in its current condition (Table 4). However, this estimate is clearly speculative because there is no evidence that panthers consistently occupy the Secondary Zone at the present time. 5. Conservation implications The Primary, Dispersal, and Secondary zones comprise essen- tial components of a landscape -scale conservation plan for the protection of a viable Florida panther population in south Flor- ida. Taken together, the three zones in their current condition apparently have the capacity to support approximately 80-94 Florida panthers. A population of this approximate size has a high probability of persistence for 100 years and has a good chance of remaining stable or perhaps declining only slightly over the planning period. However, this conclusion assumes that (1) further loss of habitat in all 3 zones, but especially in the Primary Zone, is minimized, (2) the existing population will expand into areas of the Secondary Zone where habitat condi- tions are presently suboptimal and panthers are only occasion- ally known to occur, and (3) unforeseen catastrophes do not affect the population. These conditions may not be met as new developments occur within all zones. Moreover, the pan- ther population is currently experiencing an outbreak of feline leukemia, the ultimate consequences of which remain to be seen. Despite the high chance of persistence, a population of 80-94 panthers is nevertheless likely to experience genetic problems associated with inbreeding depression and decreas- ing heterozygosity, and future management intervention will likely be needed to resolve these problems. The Primary Zone, which supports the existing panther population and comprises predominantly natural cover types, is the most important of the lands mapped in this project to panther habitat conservation. The maintenance of existing home ranges and habitat function within the Primary Zone is essential to maintaining a viable Florida panther popula- tion. Assessments of potential impacts of proposed develop- ments within the Primary Zone should strive to achieve no net loss of landscape function or carrying capacity for pan- thers within the Primary Zone. Loss of function or carrying capacity within the Primary Zone may be affected by: (1) reduction or degradation of the habitat base, (2) reduction in the areal extent of the Primary Zone, (3) increasing landscape fragmentation, and (4) land use intensification (e.g., moving along a gradient from natural conditions to pasture, to crop- land, to urban). Critical aspects of a functioning landscape for panthers include use by panthers for home ranges, breed- ing access, resting and denning sites, stalking cover, dispersal routes, transient ranges of non-resident males, support for prey, and natural areas that buffer against indirect impacts associated with adjacent urban and industrial uses. Habitat quality, functionality, and availability for panthers must be maintained to ensure that no net loss of function or carrying capacity occurs. When adverse land uses within the Primary Zone are unavoidable, affected lands should be compensated by the restoration or enhancement of habitat that maintains or increases the potential carrying capacity for panthers else- where within the Primary Zone. In addition, maintaining the total areal extent of the Primary Zone may require expanding the boundaries of the zone in appropriate locations (e.g., into the Secondary Zone adjacent to protected habitat within the Primary Zone) to compensate for loss of area. In such cases, lower quality areas should be restored to land cover types and landscape configurations that promote healthy prey den- sities, connectivity, and habitat context to compliment con- servation efforts within the Primary Zone. If the Florida panther population continues to expand, dis- persal outside of the Primary Zone is likely. The Dispersal Zone is the second most important area mapped because it will play a key role in maintaining a landscape connection between south Florida and potential habitats to the north should a sec- ond breeding sub -population become established. The most important conservation action that could be taken for the Dis- persal Zone is to secure it as a public conservation area using fee -simple acquisition or the purchase of conservation ease- ments. Most of the Dispersal Zone is privately owned; however, 11% has been placed under publicly funded conservation ease- ments, and most of the remainder is proposed for public acqui- sition under the State's Florida Forever land protection program. In addition, habitats within the Dispersal Zone need to be restored to conditions more suitable for panthers to in- crease the chances that this corridor will be used for dispersal. Although pumas and panthers have been observed to disperse through areas that are not developed to intensive urban uses (Beier, 1995; Maehr et al., 2002b), habitat restoration within the Dispersal Zone would improve chances for dispersal. An- other management action that can be taken is for public land managers to maintain high quality habitat conditions within Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest immediately south of the Dispersal Zone. Continued successful reproduction and growth of the panther population in this portion of the range may be the pressure needed to push a female panther through the Dis- persal Zone to habitats north of the Caloosahatchee River. The Secondary Zone is the lowest priority for panther con- servation. Even though the Secondary Zone is immediately adjacent to occupied areas of the Primary Zone, much of the Secondary Zone is in intensive agricultural use, and some areas are interspersed with low -density residential subdivi- sions and golf course communities. Restoration of natural cover types would have to occur in many areas of the Second- ary Zone before the area could contribute meaningfully to the recovery of the Florida panther. Therefore, although habitat restoration and protection opportunities should be pursued within the Secondary Zone whenever possible, these efforts should not detract from the goal of protecting and enhancing habitats within the Primary Zone. Presently, state and federal government programs are ac- tively engaged in obtaining new areas for protection of Florida panther habitat. The State's Florida Forever land acquisition program and the South Florida Water Management District's Save Our Rivers program have purchased almost 200,000 ha of panther habitat over the last decade, and another 118,000 ha are on proposed acquisition lists. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reviews proposed development projects in South Florida for potential impacts to Florida pan- ther habitat under Sections 7 and 10 of the US Endangered 132 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2006) I18-133 Species Act (ESA). As a result of USFWS project reviews con- ducted under the ESA between 1 September 2003, and 5 May 2005, over 4850 ha have been conserved in the Primary and Dispersal zones (Slack, J., USFWS, personal communication). The results of this study could aid in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs by providing information needed to determine which lands should be subject to regula- tory programs and to target specific areas for protection, either through fee -simple acquisition or purchase of less - than -fee conservation easements. Integration of all conservation efforts will be required to support a self-sustaining population of the Florida panther in South Florida. An ambitious, comprehensive strategy for working with private landowners to protect, enhance, and re- store panther habitat within the Primary, Dispersal, and Sec- ondary Zones is essential. Public agencies responsible for land use planning, transportation planning, and land man- agement on public lands must also make decisions that maintain or enhance the ability of South Florida to support a viable population of the Florida panther. Trends in human population growth, habitat loss and fragmentation, agricul- tural conversions, and transportation planning all indicate that these recommended conservation actions need to begin immediately. The future of the Florida panther will likely be determined in the next 2 decades, and without concerted conservation efforts that future is uncertain. Acknowledgement This work is a product of the Florida panther sub -team of the Multi -species Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team (MERIT), a committee appointed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, FL, USA. The primary purpose of MERIT is to guide implemen- tation of recovery actions for endangered and threatened spe- cies in south Florida. Sam Hamilton and Jay Slack (USFWS) were instrumental in overseeing the process. USFWS employ- ees Kalani Cairns, Grant Webber, Gloria Bell, Kim Dryden, and Andy Eller participated in some team meetings, as well as did Darrell Land, David Maehr, and Rebecca Meegan. Private citi- zens who regularly participated in team meetings include Tom Jones, Tim Durham, Bruce Johnson, Kris Thoemke, and Sydney Maddock. We are grateful to Paul Beier, Tom Logan, and three anonymous peer reviewers whose comments and suggestions led to improvements in the final draft. The GIS analyses for this project were performed in the facilities of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Of- fice of Environmental Services and Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in Tallahassee, FL, USA. The senior author is grateful to Mike Dennis of Breedlove, Dennis & Associates, Inc., for making time available to complete this work. REFERENCES Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A., Kenward, R.E., 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio -tracking data. Ecology 74 (5), 1313-1325. Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., Witmer, R.E., 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC, USA. Ballou, J.D., Foose, T.J., Lacy, R.C., Seal, U.S., 1989. Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi). Population Viability Analysis and Recommendations. Species Survival Commission, Captive Breeding Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Beier, P., 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59 (2), 228-237. Beier, P., Conroy, M.J., Vaughn, M.R., Quigley. H., 2006. Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther. Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (1), in press. Belden, R.C., Frankenberger, W.B., McBride, R.T., Schwikert, S.T., 1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 52 (4), 660-663. Bingham, R.L., Brennan, L.A., 2004. Type I error rates and resource selection. Journal of Wildlife Management 68, 206-212. Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). 2001. Projections of Florida population by county, 2000-2030. Florida Population Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, Bulletin 128. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Comiskey, E.J., Bass, Jr., O.L., L.J. Gross, McBride, R.T., Salinas. R., 2002. Panthers and forests in South Florida: an ecological perspective. Conservation Ecology 6(1):18. [online] URL: http:H www.consecol.org/vol6/issl/artl8. Conner, L.M., Plowman, B.W., 2001. Using Euclidean distances to assess nonrandom habitat use. In: Millspaugh, J.J., Marzluff, J.M. (Eds.), Radio Tracking and Animal Populations. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 275-290. Cox, J., Kautz, R., MacLaughlin, M., Gilbert, T., 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Dees, C.S., Clark, J.D., Van Marten, F.T., 2001. Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 65 (1), 141-147. Ellis, S., Lacy, R.C., Kennedy-Stoskopf, S., Wildt, D.E., Shillcox, J., Byers, O., Seal, U.S., editors. 1999. Florida panther population and habitat viability assessment and genetics workshop report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA. Harris, L.D., Scheck, J.,1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor approach to the conservation of biological diversity. In: Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J. (Eds.), Nature Conservation 2: the Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 189-220. Harrison, R.L., 1992. Toward a theory of inter -refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology 6 (2), 293-295. Hoctor, T.S. 2003. Regional landscape analysis and reserve design to conserve Florida's biodiversity. Ph.D. dissertation, Univesity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Kautz, R. 1994. Historical trends within the range of the Florida panther. In: Jordan, D.B., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 285-296. Kautz, R.S., 1998. Land use and land cover trends in Florida 1936-1995. Florida Scientist 61 (3-4), 171-187. Kautz, R.S., Cox, J.A., 2001. Strategic habitats for biodiversity conservation in Florida. Conservation Biology 15 (1), 55-77. Kautz, R.S., Gilbert, D.T., Mauldin, G.M., 1993. Vegetative cover in Florida based on 1985-1989. Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery. Florida Scientist 56, 135-154. Kerkhoff, A.J., Milne, B.T., Maehr. D.S., 2000. Toward a panther -centered view of the forests of south Florida. Conservation Ecology 4(1):1. [online] URL: http://www. consecol.org/vol4/issl/artl. Kuyper, W.H., Becker, J.E., Shopmyer, A., 1981. Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System: A Technical manual. Florida BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 130 (2oo6) I 18-133 133 Department of Transportation, State Topographic Office, Remote Sensing Center, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Land, E.D., 1994. Panther use of the southern Florida landscape. In: Jordan, D.B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 278-284. Land, E.D., Lacy, R.C., 2000. Introgression level achieved through Florida panther genetic restoration. Endangered Species UPDATE 17 (5), 99-103. Land, D., Cunningham, M., Lotz, M., Shindle, D., 2004. Florida panther genetic restoration and management Annual report 2003-2004. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Logan, K.A., Sweanor, L.L., 2001. Desert Puma. Island Press, Washington, DC. Logan, T., Eller Jr., A.C., Morrell, R., Ruffner, D., Sewell, J., 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan: south Florida Population. Florida Panther Interagency Committee, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL, USA. Maehr, D.S., 1992. Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. In: Humphrey, S.R. (Ed.), Mammals, Vol. I. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, pp. 176-189. Maehr, D.S., Cox, J.A., 1995. Landscape features and panthers in Florida. Conservation Biology 9 (5), 1008-1019. Maehr, D.S., Deason, J.P., 2002. Wide-ranging carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi -scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy 3, 398-406. Maehr, D.S., Land, E.D., Roof, J.C., 1991. Social ecology of Florida panthers. National Geographic Research and Exploration 7 (4), 414-431. Maehr, D.S., Lacy, R.C., Land, E.D., Bass Jr., O.L., Hoctor, T.S., 2002a. Evolution of population viability assessments for the Florida panther: a multi -perspective approach. In: Beissinger, S.R., McCullough, D.R. (Eds.), Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 284-311. Maehr, D.S., Land, E.D., Shindle, D.B., Bass, O.L., Hoctor, T.S., 2002b. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106, 187-197. McBride, R.T. 2000. Current panther distribution and habitat use: A review of field notes, fall 1999-winter 2000. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, FL, USA. [online] URL: http://www.panther.state.fl.us/news/pdf/ report.pdf. McBride, R.T. 2001. Current panther distribution, population trends, and habitat use: Report of field work, fall 2000-winter 2001. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, FL, USA. [online] URL: http://www.panther.state.fl.us/news/pdf/rtm200l.pdf. McBride, R.T. 2002. Current panther distribution and conservation implications: Highlights of field work, fall 2001-winter 2002. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero Beach, FL. [online] URL: http://www.panther.state.fl.us/news/ pdf/rtm2002.pdf. McBride, R.T. 2003. Documented panther population and its current distribution. In: Shindle, D., Cunningham, M., Land, D., McBride, R., Lotz, M., Ferree, B. (Eds.), Florida Panther Genetic Restoration Annual Report 2002-2003. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, USA. [online] URL: http:// www.panther.state.fl. us/news/pdf/FWC2002- 2003PantherGeneticRestorationAnnualReport.pdf. Noss, R.F. 1992. The wildlands project land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (special issue): pp. 10-25. Root, K.V., 2004. Using models to guide recovery efforts for the Florida panther. In: Akgakaya, H.R., Burgman, M., Kindvall, O., Wood, C.C., Sjogren-Gulve, P., Hatfield, J., McCarthy, M. (Eds.), Species Conservation and Management: Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 491-504. SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT users's guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA. Seal, U.S., Lacy, R., 1992. Genetic Management Strategies and Population Viability of the Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi). Report of a Workshop to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, IUCN, Apple Valley, MN, USA. Seaman, D.E., Griffith, B., Powell, R.A., 1998. KERNELHR: a program for estimating animal home ranges. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, 95-100. Seaman, D.E., Millspaugh, J.J., Kernohan, B.J., Brundige, G.C., Raedeke, K.J., Gitzen, R.A., 1999. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 63 (2), 739-747. Sullivan, J.D., Jr. 2004. Florida's endangered species, threatened species and species of special concern. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, USA. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Second revision Florida panther recovery plan, Atlanta, GA, USA. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Act consultation handbook: procedures for conducting section 7 consultations and conferences, Washington, DC, USA. Wiens, J.A., 1996. Wildlife in patchy environments metapopulations, mosaics, and management. In: McCullough, D.R. (Ed.), Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 53-84. Worton, B.J., 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home -range studies. Ecology 70, 164-168. Florida Panther Recovery Plan Photo by Mark Lotz, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 3rd Revision FLORIDA PANTHER RECOVERY PLAN (Puma concolor coiya) THIRD REVISION Original Approval: December 17, 1981 First Revision Approved: June 22, 1987 Second Revision Approved: March 13, 1995 Prepared by The Florida Panther Recovery Team and South Florida Ecological Services Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Approved: Regional Director, U./Fish and Wildlife Service Date: t/_,Cw•. L_' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate actions which the best available science indicates are required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti -Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the FWS. They represent the official position of the FWS only after they have been signed by the Regional Director. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Florida Panther Recovery Plan (Puma concolor• coryi), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 217pp. ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 772-562-3909 Recovery plans can be downloaded from http://www.fws.gov/endangered or http://www.fws.gov/verobeach ii RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS Buddy Baker South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Sonny Bass National Park Service/Everglades National Park Chris Belden* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Skip Bergmann U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Debbie Blanco* Sarasota County Natural Resources Dana Bryan* Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mary Bryant The Nature Conservancy Jimmy Bullock International Paper Company Barbara Cintron U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joe Clark* U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Mark Cunningham* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Don Cuozzo National Association of Home Builders Kipp Frohlich* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Skip Griep* U.S. Forest Service Karen Gustin National Park Service/Big Cypress National Preserve Dennis Hardin* Florida Division of Forestry Deborah Jansen* National Park Service/Big Cypress National Preserve Tom Jones Barron Collier Partnership F. K. Jones Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Nick Kapustin* Jacksonville Zoo Robert Lacy Chicago Zoological Society Current members, alternates, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participants who actively contributed by attending meetings. iii Darrell Land* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Dwight LeBlanc U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS, Wildlife Services Gary Lester Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Laurie Macdonald* Defenders of Wildlife Dave Maehr University of Kentucky Frank Mazzotti University of Florida Roy McBride* Livestock Protection Company Brian Murphy Quality Deer Management Association Erin Myers* Natural Resources Conservation Service Stephen O'Brien National Cancer Institute Tim O'Meara* Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Jim Ozier Georgia Wildlife Resources Division Pedro Ramos National Park Service/Big Cypress National Preserve Richard Rummel Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks Mark Sasser Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries David Shindle* Conservancy of Southwest Florida Mel Sunquist University of Florida David Thompson White Oak Conservation Center Steve Williams* Florida Panther Society Ed Woods* Seminole Tribe of Florida Wesley Woolf* National Wildlife Federation Recovery Team Member Alternates: IV Phillip Brouse* Monika Dey* Elizabeth Fleming* Margaret Trani (Griep)* Sarah Grubs* Laura Hartt* Sarasota County Natural Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Defenders of Wildlife U.S. Forest Service Seminole Tribe of Florida National Wildlife Federation Karen Hill* Florida Panther Society Jon Moulding* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cynthia Ovdenk* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mike Owen Florida Department of Environmental Protection Nancy Payton Florida Wildlife Federation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Participants: Paula Halupa* South Florida Ecological Services Field Office Layne Hamilton Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Larry Richardson* Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Cindy Schulz* South Florida Ecological Services Field Office Paul Souza* South Florida Ecological Services Field Office Meeting Facilitators — Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium: Chris Pedersen Orlando Tom Taylor Tallahassee v Previous Recovery Team members that attended meetings were Lincoln Bormann (The Nature Conservancy), Pete David (South Florida Water Management District), Thomas Eason (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), John Kasbohm (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Jeff Norment (Natural Resources Conservation Service), and Jora Young (The Nature Conservancy). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The initial work (2001 - 2004) on this third revision of the Florida Panther Recovery Plan was led by John Kasbohm with the assistance of Dawn Jennings (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Jora Young guided the Team through the threats analysis process and produced the Threats Analysis tables. Building upon that early work, Chris Belden and Cindy Schulz led the team through to completion of this revision. Many people contributed to this revision, and some spent countless hours working on specific sections. The Overview and much of the Background Sections were initially written by John Kasbohm. Parts of the Background Section were updated and added to by Chris Belden, Mark Cunningham, Elizabeth Fleming, Paula Halupa, Laura Hartt, Karen Hill, Nick Kapustin, Darrell Land, Laurie Macdonald, Roy McBride, Tim O'Meara, Cindy Schulz, and Wes Woolf. The Recovery Strategy was drafted by Laura Hartt and Karen Hill with assistance from Larry Richardson, Wes Woolf, and Steve Williams. The Recovery Action Outline and Narrative Section and Implementation Schedule were a Team effort, but specific parts were provided by Kipp Frohlich, Margaret Trani (Griep), Tim O'Meara, and Karen Hill. Karen Hill provided the majority of the Public Awareness and Education parts of these sections. vi The major editing for this revision was done by Cindy Schulz, Chris Belden, and Paula Halupa. Editorial suggestions were also provided by Laura Hartt, Deborah Jansen, Elizabeth Fleming, Karen Hill, Tim O'Meara, Joe Clark, Dana Bryan, Laurie Macdonald, and Mark Cunningham. We want to thank Chris Pederson and Tom Taylor for keeping us focused by facilitating our meetings. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Species Status The Florida panther is the last subspecies of Puma still surviving in the eastern United States. Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States, today the panther is restricted to less than 5% of its historic range in one breeding population located in south Florida. The panther population has increased from an estimated 12-20 (excluding kittens) in the early 1970s to an estimated 100 - 120 in 2007. However, the panther continues to face numerous threats due to an increasing human population and development in panther habitat negatively impacts recovery. The panther is federally listed as endangered (see Appendix A for definitions) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and is on the State endangered lists for Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The panther has a recovery priority number of 6c. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors Panthers are wide ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities. They require large contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. Panther habitat selection is related to prey availability (i.e., habitats that make prey vulnerable to stalking and capturing are selected). Dense understory vegetation provides some of the most important feeding, resting, and denning cover for panthers. Telemetry monitoring and ground tracking indicate that panthers select forested habitat types interspersed with other habitat types that are used in proportion to their availability. viii Limiting factors for the Florida panther are habitat availability, prey availability, and lack of human tolerance. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation is the greatest threat to panther survival, while lack of human tolerance threatens panther recovery. Panther mortality due to collisions with vehicles threatens potential population expansion. Potential panther habitat throughout the Southeast continues to be affected by urbanization, residential development, road construction, conversion to agriculture, mining and mineral exploration, and lack of land use planning that recognizes panther needs. Public support is critical to attainment of recovery goals and reintroduction efforts. Political and social issues will be the most difficult aspects of panther recovery and must be addressed before reintroduction efforts are initiated. Recovery Strategy The recovery strategy for the Florida panther is to maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida, expand this population into south-central Florida, reintroduce at least two additional viable populations within the historic range outside of south and south-central Florida, and facilitate panther recovery through public awareness and education. The panther depends upon habitat of sufficient quantity, quality, and spatial configuration for long-term persistence, therefore the plan is built upon habitat conservation and reducing habitat -related threats. Range expansion and reintroduction of additional populations are recognized as essential for recovery. Similarly, fostering greater public understanding and support is necessary to achieve panther conservation and recovery. ix Recovery Goal The goal of this recovery plan is to achieve long-term viability of the Florida panther to a point where it can be reclassified from endangered to threatened, and then removed from the Federal List of endangered and threatened species. Recovery Objectives 1. To maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida and expand the breeding portion of the population in south Florida to areas north of the Caloosahatchee River. 2. To identify, secure, maintain, and restore panther habitat in potential reintroduction areas within the historic range, and to establish viable populations of the panther outside south and south-central Florida. 3. To facilitate panther recovery through public awareness and education. Recovery Criteria Reclassification will be considered when: 1. Two viable populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years (two panther generations; one panther generation is six years [Seal and Lacy 1989]). 2. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. A viable population, for purposes of Florida panther recovery, has been defined as one in which there is a 95% probability of persistence for 100 years. This population may be distributed in a metapopulation structure composed of subpopulations that total 240 individuals. There must be exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations. For reclassification, exchange of individuals and gene flow can be either natural or through management. If managed, a commitment to such management must be formally documented and funded. Habitat should be in relatively unfragmented blocks that provide for food, shelter, and characteristic movements (e.g., hunting, breeding, dispersal, and territorial behavior) and support each metapopulation at a minimum density of 2 to 5 animals per 100 square miles (259 square kilometers) (Seidensticker et al. 1973, Logan et al. 1986, Maehr et al. 1991 a, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Spreadbury et al. 1996, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Kautz et al. 2006), resulting in a minimum of 4,800 12,000 square miles (12,432 — 31,080 square kilometers) per metapopulation of 240 panthers. The amount of area needed to support each metapopulation will depend upon the quality of available habitat and the density of panthers it can support. Delisting will be considered when: 1. Three viable, self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years. xi 2. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. For delisting, exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations must be natural (i.e., not manipulated or managed). Interim Recovery Goal Due to the challenging nature of attaining the recovery criteria, an interim recovery goal has been established to assist in determining progress towards the ultimate goals of reclassification and delisting. This interim goal is to achieve and maintain a minimum of 80 individuals (adults and subadults) in each of two reintroduction areas within the historic range and to maintain, restore, and expand the south / south-central Florida subpopulation. The interim goal will be met when: 1. The south / south-central Florida panther subpopulation has been maintained, restored, and expanded beyond 80 to 100 individuals (adults and subadults). 2. Two subpopulations with a minimum of 80 individuals each have been established and maintained within the historic range. 3. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these three subpopulations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. xii There must be exchange of individuals and gene flow among these subpopulations. This exchange of individuals and gene flow can be either natural or through management. Actions Needed 1. Maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida. 2. Expand the breeding portion of the population in south Florida to areas north of the Caloosahatchee River. 3. Identify potential reintroduction areas within the historic range of the panther. 4. Reestablish viable panther populations outside of south and south-central Florida within the historic range. 5. Secure, maintain, and restore habitat in reintroduction areas. 6. Facilitate panther conservation and recovery through public awareness and education. Total Estimated Cost of Recovery Cost estimates reflect costs for specific actions needed to achieve Florida panther recovery. Estimates do not include costs that agencies or other entities normally incur as part of their mission or normal operating expenses. The following table provides cost estimates for five years for recovery actions listed in the Implementation Schedule of this document. These costs reflect an estimate of funding that could come from FWS and / or its many partners listed in the Implementation Schedule. Costs for some recovery actions were not determinable; therefore, the total cost for recovery during this period is higher than this estimate. Estimated Cost of Recovery for Five Years by Recovery Action Priority (Dollars x 1,000): Year Priority 1 Action Priority 2 Actions Priority 3 Actions Total 1 875 1,981 1,713.5 4,569.5 2 875 11696 1,506.5 4,077.5 3 835 1,561 1,231.5 3,627.5 4 835 921 981.5 2,737.5 5 835 921 981.5 2,737.5 Total 4,255 7,080 6,414.5 17,750 Date of Recovery If all actions are fully funded and implemented as outlined, including full cooperation of all partners needed to achieve recovery, criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened could be accomplished within 30 years; criteria for delisting could be accomplished within 45 years following reclassification. However, due to the challenging nature of panther recovery these are estimates that will be reevaluated as recovery actions are implemented. xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER.............................................................................................................................. ii RECOVERY TEAM MEMBERS................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................. vi EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................... viii CurrentSpecies Status........................................................................................................................viii Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors....................................................................................viii RecoveryStrategy.................................................................................................................................. ix RecoveryGoal......................................................................................................................................... x RecoveryObjectives...............................................................................................................................x RecoveryCriteria................................................................................................................................... x ActionsNeeded.....................................................................................................................................xiii Total Estimated Cost of Recovery......................................................................................................xiii Dateof Recovery..................................................................................................................................xiv LBACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ I A. Overview............................................................................................................................................ 3 B. Description.........................................................................................................................................5 C. Taxonomy..........................................................................................................................................7 D. Population Trends and Distribution............................................................................................. 12 E. Life History / Ecology.....................................................................................................................16 F. Habitat Characteristics / Ecosystem..............................................................................................26 G. Habitat and Prey Management.....................................................................................................31 H. Response to Management Activities.............................................................................................33 I. Reasons for Listing / Threats Assessment......................................................................................34 J. Past and Current Conservation Efforts.........................................................................................58 K. Population Viability Analysis........................................................................................................ 77 H. RECOVERYSTRATEGY......................................................................................................87 III. RECOVERY GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA ..................................................... 95 RecoveryGoal.......................................................................................................................................95 RecoveryObjectives.............................................................................................................................95 RecoveryCriteria.................................................................................................................................96 A. Reclassification to Threatened.....................................................................................................................97 B. Delisting.......................................................................................................................................................99 C. Interim..........................................................................................................................................................99 XV IV. RECOVERYACTION OUTLINE AND NARRATIVE .................................................... 101 ExistingPopulation.............................................................................................................................101 SouthFlorida..................................................................................................................................................101 Expansion into South -Central Florida.........................................................................................................114 Reintroduction....................................................................................................................................115 SelectReintroduction Sites............................................................................................................................115 Reintroduce Panthers into Suitable Sites.....................................................................................................117 Actions Once Populations Are Established..................................................................................................119 Public Awareness and Education......................................................................................................119 Design and Develop Materials and Programs.............................................................................................120 Provide Materials and Programs..................................................................................................................123 Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................125 V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.................................................................................... 127 VI. LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................... 156 FIGURES................................................................................................................................... 175 APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS............................................................................................... 181 APPENDIX B. THREATS ANALYSIS USING THE FIVE LISTING FACTORS .............. 183 APPENDIX C. Summary of Comments Received................................................................... 202 APPENDIX D. List of Peer Reviewers..................................................................................... 216 xvi I. BACKGROUND The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) was listed as endangered throughout its range in 1967 (32 FR 4001) and received Federal protection under the passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). Because it is listed pursuant to the ESA, the panther and its habitat are protected by the ESA. The ESA establishes policies and procedures for identifying, listing, and protecting species of plants, fish, and wildlife that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The purposes of the ESA are "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species...." The ESA defines an "endangered species" as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A "threatened species" is defined as any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Under the definition of "species" in the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can apply the protections of the ESA to any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, or any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that meets the definition of endangered or threatened. The Secretary of the Department of the Interior is responsible for administering the ESA's provisions as they apply to the Florida panther. Day-to-day management authority for endangered and threatened species under the Department's jurisdiction has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). To help identify and guide species recovery needs, section 4(f) of the ESA directs the Secretary to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. Such plans are to include: (1) a description of site -specific management actions necessary to conserve the species; (2) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, will allow the species or populations to be removed from the endangered and threatened species list; and (3) estimates of the time and funding required to achieve the plan's goals and intermediate steps. Section 4 of the ESA and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement its listing provisions also set forth the procedures for reclassifying and delisting species on the Federal lists. A species can be delisted if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the species no longer meets the endangered or threatened status based upon the five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Further, a species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR Part 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species or population is neither endangered nor threatened for one of the following reasons: (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) original data for classification of the species were in error. The FWS has lead responsibility for recovery of the Florida panther, and all Federal agencies including FWS are responsible for contributing to panther conservation pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. In 1981, FWS issued the initial recovery plan, and the plan was revisited in the mid-1980s culminating in the first major revision in 1987. A minor revision to incorporate a 2 task to address genetic restoration and management was approved in 1995. In 1999, the FWS approved the South Florida Multi -species Recovery Plan (MSRP) (FWS 1999) that identified recovery needs of 68 threatened and endangered species in south Florida. The MSRP included recovery actions for the panther, but only for the portion of its range in south Florida. The FWS acknowledges that portions of the MSRP are now outdated and the habitat descriptions need to be clarified to more accurately describe panther habitat. In 2001, the FWS initiated the process to revise the overall recovery plan for a third time. A new Florida Panther Recovery Team, consisting of representatives of the public, agencies, and groups that have an interest in panther recovery and / or could be affected by proposed actions, was established to assist with this revision. Since approval of the original recovery plan in 1981 (FWS 1981), significant research has been conducted and important conservation and recovery activities have been accomplished primarily by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]). This third revision of the recovery plan reflects many of those accomplishments, addresses current threats and needs, addresses the planning requirements of the ESA, and supersedes previous recovery plans including the Florida panther component of the MSRP. A. Overview The Florida panther, is the last subspecies of Puma (also known as mountain lion, cougar, puma, painter, or catamount) still surviving in the eastern U.S (throughout this document the Florida panther will be referred to as "panther" and "puma" will be used for all other subspecies). Historically occurring throughout the southeastern U.S., today the remaining 100 - 120 panthers are restricted to less than 5% of their historic range (Figure 1). The breeding component of this population is located on approximately 3,548 square miles (mil) (9,189 square kilometers [km2]) (Kautz et al. 2006) south of the Caloosahatchee River in southern Florida. The population density ranges from approximately 2.0 to 2.8 animals per 100 mil (0.8 to 1.1 per 100 km2) (Maehr et al. 1991 a; Kautz et al. 2006; R. McBride, Livestock Protection Company, pers. comm. 2006) Attempts to eradicate panthers in the past and prey decline resulted in a population threatened with extinction. Prior to 1949, panthers could be killed in Florida at any time of the year. In 1950, FWC declared the panther a regulated game species due to concerns over declining numbers. The FWC removed panthers from the game animal list in 1958 and gave them complete legal protection. On March 11, 1967, the FWS listed the panther as endangered (32 FR 4001) throughout its historic range. The Florida Panther Act (State Statute 372.671), a 1978 Florida State law, made killing a panther a felony. The States of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi list the Florida panther as endangered. FWS uses recovery priority numbers, ranging from a high of I to a low of 18, to assign recovery priorities to listed species. The criteria on which the recovery priority number is based are degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic distinctiveness, and presence of an actual or imminent conflict between the species and development activities. The FWS has assigned the panther a recovery priority number of 6C. This priority number identifies the panther as a 2 subspecies with a high degree of threat of extinction, but low recovery potential because recovery is in conflict with construction, other development projects, or other forms of economic activity (48 FR 43098). Habitat loss and fragmentation continue to threaten the panther's existence. Survival and recovery of the Florida panther are dependent upon maintaining, restoring, and expanding the panther population and its habitat in south Florida and facilitating panther conservation and recovery through public awareness and education. In addition, recovery requires expanding the breeding portion of the population into south-central Florida (Figure 2), identifying potential reintroduction areas within the historic range, and establishing and maintaining at least two additional viable populations with associated habitats outside of south and south-central Florida. B. Description An adult Florida panther is unspotted and typically rusty reddish -brown on the back, tawny on the sides, and pale gray underneath. There has never been a melanistic (black) puma documented in North America (Tinsley 1970, 1987). Adult males can reach a length of seven feet (ft) (2.1 meters [m]) from their nose to the tip of their tail and may exceed 161 pounds (lbs) (73 kilograms [kg]) in weight; but, typically adult males average around 116 lbs (52.6 kg) and stand approximately 24 - 28 inches (in) (60 - 70 centimeters [cm]) at the shoulder (Roelke 1990). Female panthers are smaller with an average weight of 75 lbs (34 kg) and length of 6 ft (1.8 m) (Roelke 1990). The skull of the Florida panther is unique in that it has a broad, flat, frontal region, and broad, high -arched or upward -expanded nasal bones (Young and Goldman 1946). 5 Florida panther kittens are gray with dark brown or blackish spots and five bands around the tail. The spots gradually fade as the kittens grow older and are almost unnoticeable by the time they are six months old. At this age, their bright blue eyes slowly turn to the light -brown straw color of the adult (Belden 1988). Three external characters —a right angle crook at the terminal end of the tail, a whorl of hair or cowlick in the middle of the back, and irregular, white flecking on the head, nape, and shoulders —not found in combination in other subspecies of Puma (Belden 1986), were commonly observed in Florida panthers through the mid- 1990s. The kinked tail and cowlicks were considered manifestations of inbreeding (Seal 1994a), whereas the white flecking was thought to be a result of scarring from tick bites (Maehr 1992, Wilkins et al. 1997). Four other abnormalities prevalent in the panther population prior to the mid- 1990s included cryptorchidism (one or two undescended testicles), low sperm quality, atrial septal defects (the opening between two atria fails to close normally during fetal development), and immune deficiencies and were also suspected to be the result of low genetic variability (Roelke et al. 1993a). A plan for genetic restoration and management of the Florida panther was developed in September 1994 (Seal 1994a) and eight non -pregnant adult female Texas pumas (Puma concolor stanleyana) were released in five areas of south Florida from March to July 1995. Since this introgression, rates of genetic defects, including crooked tails and cowlicks, have dramatically decreased (Land et al. 2004). In addition, to date neither atrial septal defects nor cryptorchidism have been found in introgressed panthers (M. Cunningham, FWC, pers. comm. 2005). The effects of genetic restoration on color and cranial and dental measures have not been evaluated. 2 C. Taxonomy Since the first classification of felids by Linnaeus (1758), there have been a number of reclassifications. A brief review of cat species classification history is presented by Werdelin (1996) and shows a record of extremes in both "splitting" and "lumping" (Nowell and Jackson (1996). The most recent evaluation of the felid family is Wozencraft's (1993) classification (Werdelin 1996). A considerable amount of work is still required before consensus can be reached regarding felid systematics and the consensus must involve both morphological and molecular work (Werdelin 1996). A consensus molecular, morphological, and ethological classification scheme would provide a framework for conservation programs and will become increasingly important as wild populations become smaller and increasingly isolated (O'Brien 1996a). Although there is general agreement among felid taxonomists regarding recognition of cat species, there is considerable confusion with regards to subspecies, debate on subspecies definition, and debate on whether or not the traditional taxonomic concept is valid in the light of contemporary knowledge of population biology and genetics (Nowell and Jackson 1996). There is general agreement that too many subspecies of cats have been described in the past on the basis of slim evidence (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Mayr (1940, 1963, 1970) defined a subspecies as "a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species" (cited in O'Brien 1996b). O'Brien and Mayr (1991) and O'Brien (1996b) provide criteria for subspecies classification. Following their criteria, a subspecies includes members that share a unique geographic range or habitat, a group 7 of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. The Florida panther was first described by Charles B. Cory in 1896 as Felis concolor floridana (Cory 1896). The type specimen was collected in Sebastian, Florida. Bangs (1899) believed that the Florida panther was restricted to peninsular Florida and could not intergrade with other Felis spp. Therefore, he assigned it full specific status and named it Felis coryi since Felis floridana had been used previously for the bobcat (Lynx rufus). The taxonomic classification of the Felis concolor group was revised and described by Nelson and Goldman (1929) and Young and Goldman (1946). These authors differentiated 30 subspecies using geographic and morphometric (measurement of forms) criteria and reassigned the Florida panther to subspecific status as Felis concolor coryi. This designation also incorporated F. arundivaga which had been classified by Hollister (1911) from specimens collected in Louisiana into F. c. coryi. The puma was originally named Felis concolor by Linneaus in 1771, but in 1834 Jardine renamed the genus Puma (Wozencraft 1993). Later taxonomists lumped most of the smaller cat species, including the puma, into subgenera under the genus Felis (Nowak and Paradiso 1983). Wozencraft (1993) promoted the subgenera of the old genus Felis to full generic status and placed a number of former Felis species, including the puma, in monotypic genera (Nowell and Jackson 1996). The taxonomic classification of the puma is now considered to be Puma concolor (Wozencraft 1993), making the accepted name for the Florida panther P. c. coryi. A comprehensive molecular genetic analysis of pumas in southern Florida using mitochondrial DNA and nuclear markers reported by O'Brien et al. (1990) indicated the existence of two distinct genetic stocks with concordant morphological phenotypes. The close phylogenetic proximity of the southwest Florida population segment with representatives of other North American subspecies indicated this population segment was descended from historic P. c. coryi. The population segment in southeastern Florida, however, appeared to have evolved in South or Central America. This was accounted for by the release of seven captive animals (including three females) into Everglades National Park (ENP) between 1957 and 1967 (unpublished archives, ENP, National Park Service [NPS], Washington, D.C., cited in O'Brien et al. 1990). The subpopulation in ENP became effectively extirpated with the death of three resident females in June and July 1991 (Bass and Maehr 1991). As people exterminated puma in eastern North America, the only population that remained was in peninsular Florida and they became isolated from other puma populations, eliminating gene flow. As the Florida panther was reduced to a small breeding population in southern Florida, the lack of gene flow and small population size fostered a high rate of inbreeding as seen in reduced allozyme variation relative to other puma subspecies (Roelke et al. 1993a) and eight fixed loci (Culver et al. 2000). The inbreeding condition and reduction of genetic diversity appeared to have occurred during the 20th century as Culver et al. (2000) found museum samples from the Florida population dating to the turn of the 19th century that had higher heterozygosity levels. The consequences of inbreeding included spermatozoal defects, cryptorchidism, cardiac abnormalities, and reduced immunity to infectious diseases (Roelke et al. 1993a). 0 Through the late 1980s and early 1990s, the frequency of individuals exhibiting physiological abnormalities increased. Approximately 90% of males born after 1990 had one or both testicles undescended (Pimm et al. 2006a). The FWS (1994a) became concerned that the overall genetic health of the Florida panther was at a point where the panther's continued existence was doubtful without a proactive genetic restoration program. A plan for genetic restoration and management was developed (Seal 1994a). The level of introgression required to reverse the effects of inbreeding and genetic loss required the release of eight Texas puma into areas occupied by Florida panther (Seal 1994a). These eight female Texas puma were released in 1995, five of which produced a total of 20 offspring (Land et al. 2004). The desired 20% introgression level was achieved (Land and Lacy 2000) and the genetic rescue of the Florida panther was determined to be successful (Pimm et al. 2006a). Three times as many introgressed kittens appear to reach adulthood as do uncrossed Florida panthers and introgressed adult females have lower mortality rates (Pimm et al. 2006a). Subspecies can interbreed as a natural process whenever they are in contact (O'Brien and Mayr 1991) and this was the basis for choosing Texas pumas (the closest extant adjacent subspecies) for genetic restoration of the Florida panther (FWS 1994a). Prior to making the decision to conduct genetic augmentation to facilitate the recovery of the Florida panther, FWS made the determination that any resulting offspring would receive the full protections of the ESA. This determination was the result of a rigorous policy and legal review at the highest levels of the agency (FWS 1994b). 10 Culver et al. (2000) speculated that the moderate level of genetic variability found in North American puma was due to their extirpation during Pleistocene glaciations and then recolonization some 10,000 years ago. Modern puma eventually covered practically the entire North American continent (excluding the most northern latitudes) and had the largest range of any native mammal species in the Western Hemisphere (Hall and Kelson 1959). Within this extensive range, geographic variation was present and involved subtle differences in body measurements, pelage characteristics, and skeletal features. When puma subspecies were first described, it was this geographic variation that was used to delineate each subspecies. Characters previously used to describe P. c. corgi were quantified and re-evaluated using statistical methods by Wilkins et al. (1997). All historic and recent specimens from the southeastern U.S. (n = 79) were examined for pelage color, cranial profile and proportions, and other morphological traits. These specimens were compared to a sample of North and South American specimens. The characters measured provide a basis from which to describe the Florida population and discriminate between it and other populations (Wilkins et al. 1997). Recent molecular genetic analyses have found that pumas in North America are very similar to each other (Culver et al. 2000, Sinclair et al. 2001, Anderson et al. 2004). Culver et al. (2000) examined subspecies of puma by using three mitochondrial genes and ten microsatellite loci in biological samples collected from 315 pumas from throughout their range. They could not confirm the previous classification of 32 subspecies and, based on the subspecific criteria suggested by O'Brien and Mayr (1991), could only recognize six subspecies of Puma. Culver et al. (2000) suggested all North American pumas be reclassified as a single subspecies (P. c. couguar) due to lack of genetic structure. However, Culver et al. (2000) determined that the 11 Florida panther was one of several smaller populations that had unique features, the number of polymorphic microsatellite loci and amount of variation were lower, and it was highly inbred (eight fixed loci). The degree to which the scientific community has accepted the use of genetics in puma taxonomy is not resolved at this time. The existing Florida panther population represents the last remaining population of Puma in the eastern United States, and is therefore important to the genetic representation of pumas in North America. Additional research is needed to understand genetic and morphological similarities and differences of puma across North America. The Florida panther is listed under the ESA and any change in its listing status based on best available science would require completing the formal rulemaking process pursuant to the ESA. The panther and its habitat continue to receive ESA protections. D. Population Trends and Distribution The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern U.S. from Arkansas and Louisiana eastward across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and parts of South Carolina and Tennessee (Young and Goldman 1946) (Figure 1). Historically, the panther intergraded to the north with P. c. cougar, to the west with P. c. stanleyana, and to the northwest with P. c. hippolestes (Young and Goldman 1946). 12 Although generally considered unreliable, sightings of panthers regularly occur throughout the Southeast. However, no reproducing populations of panthers have been found outside of south Florida for at least 30 years despite intensive searches to document them (Belden et al. 1991, McBride et al. 1993, Clark et al. 2002). Survey reports and more than 70,000 locations of radio - collared panthers recorded between 1981 and 2004 clearly define the panther's current breeding range (Figure 1). Reproduction is known only in the Big Cypress Swamp / Everglades physiographic region in Collier, Lee, Hendry, Miami -Dade, and Monroe Counties south of the Caloosahatchee River (Belden et al. 1991). Although confirmed panther sign, male radio - collared panthers, and uncollared males killed by vehicles have been recorded outside of south Florida, no female panthers have been documented north of the Caloosahatchee River since 1973 (Nowak and McBride 1974, Belden et al. 1991, Land and Taylor 1998, Land et al. 1999, Shindle et al. 2000, McBride 2002, Belden and McBride 2006). Puma are wide ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities. However, their tracks, urine markers, and scats are readily found by trained observers, and resident populations are easily located. Van Dyke et al. (1986a) determined that all resident puma, 78% of transient puma, and 57% of kittens could be detected by track searches in Utah. During two month -long investigations — one late in 1972 / early 1973 and another in 1974 — funded by the World Wildlife Fund to determine if panthers still existed in Florida, McBride searched for signs of panthers in portions of south Florida. In 1972, McBride authenticated a road -killed male panther in Glades County and a female captured and released from a bobcat trap in Collier County (R. McBride, pers. comm. 2005). In 1973, McBride captured one female in Glades County (Nowak and McBride 1974). Based on this preliminary evidence, Nowak and McBride (1974) estimated 13 the "population from the Lake Okeechobee area southward to be about 20 or 30 individuals." In 1974, McBride found evidence of two additional panthers in the Fakahatchee Strand and suggested that there could be as few as ten panthers in the area around Lake Okeechobee and southward in the state (Nowak and McBride 1975). This initial survey documented that panthers still existed in Florida and delineated areas where a more exhaustive search was warranted. After this initial investigation, comprehensive surveys on both public and private lands were completed (Reeves 1978; Belden and McBride 1983a, b; Belden et al. 1991). Thirty panthers were identified during a wide-ranging survey in 1985 in south Florida (McBride 1985). Maehr et al. (1991a) provides the only published estimate of population density based on a substantial body of field data (Beier et al. 2003). Maehr et al. (1991a) estimated a density of 1 panther / 43 mil (110 (km2) based on 17 concurrently radiocollared and four uncollared panthers. They extrapolated this density to the area occupied (1,946 mil [5,040 km2]) by radio -collared panthers during the period 1985 - 1990 to achieve a population estimate of 46 adult panthers for southwest Florida (excluding ENP, eastern Big Cypress National Preserve [BCNP], and Glades and Highlands Counties). Beier et al. (2003), however, argued that this estimate of density, although "reasonably rigorous," could not be extrapolated to other areas because it was not known whether densities were comparable in those areas. McBride (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003) documented panther counts (i.e., number known alive) based on panthers treed with hounds, physical evidence (e.g., tracks where radio -collared panthers were not known to occur), documentation by trail -camera photos, and sightings of uncollared panthers by a biologist or pilot from a monitoring plane or via ground telemetry. He counted 62, 78, 80, 14 and 87 panthers (which include adult and subadult panthers but not kittens at the den) in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively. The number of documented panthers was 78, 82, and 97 in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (R. McBride, pers. comm. 2007). McBride (pers. comm. 2007) documented an increase in the number of uncollared panthers captured each year between 2000 and 2006 relative to 1981 through 1999, while FWC (2006) reported data showing an apparent increase in the number of panthers killed by vehicles and number of known den sites since 1999. These data, along with an increase in the number of male panthers dispersing north of the Caloosahatchee River (Belden and McBride 2006), indicate an increasing trend in the panther population. Although the breeding segment of the panther population occurs in south Florida, panthers were documented north of the Caloosahatchee River over 125 times between February 1972 and May 2004. This has been confirmed through field sign (e.g., tracks, scrapes, scats), camera -trap photographs, seven highway mortalities, four radio -collared animals, two captured animals (one of which was radiocollared), and one skeleton. From 1972 through 2004, panthers have been confirmed in 11 counties (Flagler, Glades, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Sarasota, Volusia) north of the river (Belden et al. 1991, Belden and McBride 2006). However, no evidence of a female or reproduction has been documented north of the Caloosahatchee River in over 30 years (Belden and McBride 2006). 15 E. Life History / Ecology Reproduction --Male Florida panthers are polygynous, maintaining large, overlapping home ranges containing several adult females and their dependent offspring. The first sexual encounters for males normally occur at about three years based on 26 radio -collared panthers of both sexes (Maehr et al. 1991a). Based on genetics work, some males may become breeders as early as 17 months (W. Johnson, National Cancer Institute, pers. comm. 2005). Breeding activity peaks from December to March (Shindle et al. 2003). Litters (n = 82) are produced throughout the year, with 56 - 60% of births occurring between March and June (Jansen et al. 2005, Lotz et al. 2005). The greatest number of births occurs in May and June (Jansen et al. 2005, Lotz et al. 2005). Female panthers have bred as young as 18 months (Maehr et al. 1989a) and successful reproduction has occurred up to 11 years old. Mean age of denning females is 4.6 ± 2.1 (standard deviation [sd]) years (Lotz et al. 2005). Age at first reproduction for 19 known - aged female panthers averaged 2.2 ± 0.246 (sd) years and ranged from 1.8 - 3.2 years. Average litter size is 2.4 ± 0.91 (sd) kittens. Seventy percent of litters are comprised of either two or three kittens. Mean birth intervals (elapsed time between successive litters) are 19.8 ± 9.0 (sd) months for female panthers (n = 56) (range 4.1 - 36.5 months) (Lotz et al. 2005). Females that lose their litters generally produce another more quickly; five of seven females whose kittens were brought into captivity (see Captive Breeding section of F. Conservation Efforts) successfully produced another litter an average of 10.4 months after the removal of the initial litter (Land 1994). Den sites are usually located in dense, understory vegetation, typically saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) (Maehr 1990a, Shindle et al. 2003). Den sites are used for up to two months by female 16 panthers and their litters from birth to weaning. Independence and dispersal of young typically occurs at 18 months, but may occur as early as one year (Maehr 1992). Survivorship and Causes of Mortality--Intraspecific aggression accounts for 42% of all mortalities among radio -collared panthers (Jansen et al. 2005, Lotz et al. 2005). Unknown causes and collisions with vehicles account for 24 and 19% of mortalities, respectively. From 1990 to 2004, mean annual survivorship of radio -collared adult panthers was greater for females (0.894 ± 0.099 sd) than males (0.779 ± 0.125 sd) (Lotz et al. 2005). Most intraspecifc aggression occurs between male panthers; but, aggressive encounters between males and females, resulting in the death of the female, have occurred. Defense of kittens and / or a kill is suspected in half (5 of 10) of the known instances through 2003 (Shindle et al. 2003). Female panthers are considered adult residents if they are older than 18 months, have established home ranges, and bred (Maehr et al. 1991 a). Land et al. (2004) reported that all 24 female panthers radiocollared when still dependent juveniles greater than six months of age survived to become residents and 19 (79.2%) produced litters. Male panthers are considered adult residents if they are older than three years and have established a home range that overlaps with females. Thirty-one male panthers were captured as kittens and 12 (38.7%) of these cats survived to become residents (Jansen et al. 2005, Lotz et al. 2005). "Successful male recruitment appears to depend on the death or home -range shift of a resident adult male" (Maehr et al. 1991 a). Turnover in the breeding population is low with documented mortality in radio -collared panthers being greatest in subadults and non-resident males (Maehr et al. 1991a, Shindle et al. 2003). 17 One hundred thirty-two female panther den sites have been documented since 1985 (FWC 2006). For 38 of these litters, Land et al. (2004) estimated Florida and introgressed panther kitten survival to six months to be 52 and 72%, respectively. Pimm et al. (2006a, 2006b) reported a better than twofold advantage for introgressed kitten survival (P = 0.01). Survival of kittens greater than six months old was determined by following the fates of 55 radio -collared dependent -aged kittens, including 17 introgressed panthers from 1985 - 2004. Only one of these 55 kittens died before reaching independence, resulting in a 98.2% survival rate (Land et al. 2004). The FWC and NPS are continuing to compile and analyze existing reproductive and kitten data. Dispersal --Panther dispersal begins after a juvenile becomes independent from its mother and continues until it establishes a home range. Dispersal distances are greater for males (n = 18) than females (n = 9) (42.5 mi [68.4 km] vs. 12.6 mi [20.3 km], respectively) and the maximum dispersal distance recorded for a young male Florida panther was 139.2 mi (224.1 km) over a seven -month period followed by a secondary dispersal of 145 mi (233 km) (Maehr et al. 2002a). Male Florida panthers disperse an average distance of 25 mi (40 km); females typically remain in or disperse short distances from their natal ranges (Comiskey et al. 2002). Female dispersers are considered philopatric because they usually establish home ranges less than one average home range width from their natal range (Maehr et al. 2002a). Maehr et al. (2002a) reported that all female dispersers (n = 9) were successful at establishing a home range whereas only 63% of males (n = 18) were successful. Young panthers become independent at 14 months on average for both sexes, but male dispersals are longer in duration than for females (9.6 months and 7.0 months, respectively) (Maehr et al. 2002a). Dispersing males usually go through a period as transient (non-resident) subadults, moving through the fringes of the resident population and often occupying suboptimal habitat until an established range becomes vacant (Maehr 1997a). Most panther dispersal occurs south of the Caloosahatchee River with only four radio -collared panthers crossing the river and continuing north since 1981 (Land and Taylor 1998, Land et al. 1999, Shindle et al. 2000, Maehr et al. 2002a, Belden and McBride 2006). Western subspecies of Puma have been documented crossing wide, swift -flowing rivers up to a mile in width (Seidensticker et al. 1973, Anderson 1983). The Caloosahatchee River, a narrow (295 - 328 ft [90 - 100 m]), channelized river, probably is not a significant barrier to panther movements, but the combination of the river, State Route (SR) 80, and land uses along the river seems to have restricted panther dispersal northward (Maehr et al. 2002a). Documented physical evidence of at least 15 uncollared male panthers have been confirmed north of the river since 1972, but no female panthers nor reproduction have been documented in this area since 1973 (Belden and McBride 2006). Home Range Dynamics and Movements --Panthers require large areas to meet their needs. Numerous factors influence panther home range size including habitat quality, prey density, and landscape configuration (Belden 1988, Comiskey et al. 2002). Home range sizes of 26 radio - collared panthers monitored between 1985 and 1990 averaged 200 mil (519 km2) for resident adult males and 75 mi2 (193 km2) for resident adult females; transient males had a home range of 240 mi2 (623 km2) (Maehr et al. 1991 a). Comiskey et al. (2002) examined the home range size for 50 adult panthers (residents greater than 1.5 years old) monitored in south Florida from 1981 - 2000 and found resident males had a mean home range of 251 mi2 (650 km2) and females had a 19 mean home range of 153 mil (396 km2). Beier et al. (2003) found home range size estimates for panthers reported by Maehr et al. (1991a) and Comiskey et al. (2002) to be reliable. Annual minimum convex polygon home range sizes of 52 adult radio -collared panthers monitored between 1998 and 2002 ranged from 24 - 459 mil (63 - 1,188 km2), averaging 140 mil (362 km2) for 20 resident adult males and 69 mi2 (179 km2) for 32 resident adult females (Land et al. 1999; Shindle et al. 2000, 2001; Land et al. 2002). Home ranges of resident adults tend to be stable unless influenced by the death of other residents; however, several males have shown significant home range shifts that may be related to aging (D. Jansen, NPS, pers. comm. 2005). Home -range overlap is extensive among resident females and limited among resident males (Maehr et al. 1991 a). Activity levels for Florida panthers are greatest at night with peaks around sunrise and after sunset (Maehr et al. 1990a). The lowest activity levels occur during the middle of the day. Female panthers at natal dens follow a similar pattern with less difference between high and low activity periods. Telemetry data indicate that panthers typically do not return to the same resting site day after day, with the exception of females with dens or panthers remaining near kill sites for several days. The presence of physical evidence such as tracks, scats, and urine markers confirm that panthers move extensively within home ranges, visiting all parts of the range regularly in the course of hunting, breeding, and other activities (Maehr 1997a, Comiskey et al. 2002). Males travel widely throughout their home ranges to maintain exclusive breeding rights to females. 20 Females without kittens also move extensively within their ranges (Maehr 1997a). Panthers are capable of moving large distances in short periods of time. Nightly panther movements of 12 mi (20 km) are not uncommon (Maehr et al. 1990a). Intraspecific Interactions --Interactions between panthers occur indirectly through urine markers or directly through contact. Urine markers are made by piling ground litter using a backwards -pushing motion with the hind feet. This pile is then scent -marked with urine and occasionally feces. Both sexes make urine markers, apparently males use them as a way to mark their territory and announce presence while females advertise their reproductive condition. Adult females and their kittens interact more frequently than any other group of panthers. Interactions between adult male and female panthers last from one to seven days and usually result in pregnancy (Maehr et al. 1991a). Aggressive interactions between males often result in serious injury or death. Independent subadult males have been known to associate with each other for several days and these interactions do not appear to be aggressive in nature. Aggression between males is the most common cause of male mortality and an important determinant of male spatial and recruitment patterns based on radio -collared panthers (Maehr et al. 1991a, Shindle et al. 2003). Aggressive encounters between radio -collared males and females also have been documented (Shindle et al. 2003, Jansen et al. 2005). Food Habits --Primary panther prey are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and feral hog (Sus scrofa) (Maehr et al. 1990b, Dalrymple and Bass 1996). Generally, feral hogs constitute the greatest biomass consumed by panthers north of the Alligator Alley section of Interstate 75 (I- 21 75) while white-tailed deer are the greatest biomass consumed to the south (Maehr et al. 1990b). Secondary prey includes raccoons (Procyon lotor), nine -banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris) (Maehr et al. 1990b) and alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) (Dalrymple and Bass 1996). No seasonal variation in diet has been detected. A resident adult male puma generally consumes one deer -sized prey every 8 - 11 days; this frequency is 14 - 17 days for a resident female; and 3.3 days for a female with three 13-month- old kittens (Ackerman et al. 1986). Maehr et al. (1990b) documented domestic livestock infrequently in scats or kills, although cattle were readily available on their study area. Infectious Diseases, Parasites, and Environmental Contaminants -- Viral Diseases --Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) is common in domestic cats (Felis catus), but is quite rare in non -domestic felids. Routine testing for FeLV antigen (indicating active infection) in captured and necropsied panthers had been negative since testing began in 1978. However, between November 2002 and February 2003, two panthers tested FeLV antigen positive (Cunningham 2005). The following year, three more cases were diagnosed. All infected panthers had overlapping home ranges in the Okaloacoochee Slough ecosystem. Three of the panthers died due to suspected FeLV-related diseases (opportunistic bacterial infections and anemia) and the two others died from intraspecific aggression. Testing of serum samples collected from 1990 - 2005 for antibodies (indicating exposure) to FeLV indicated increasing exposure to FeLV beginning in the late 1990s and concentrated north of I-75. There was apparently minimal exposure to FeLV during this period south of I-75. Positive antibody titers in different areas at different times may indicate that multiple introductions of the virus into the panther population may have occurred. These smaller epizootics were apparently self-limiting 22 and did not result in any known mortalities. Positive antibody titers, in the absence of an active infection (antigen positive), indicate that panthers can be exposed and overcome the infection (Cunningham 2005). Management of the disease includes vaccination as well as removal of infected panthers to captivity for quarantine and supportive care. As of June 1, 2005, approximately one-third of the population had received at least one vaccination against FeLV (FWC and NPS, unpublished data). No new positive cases have been diagnosed since July 2004. Pseudorabies virus (PRV) (Aujeszky's disease) causes respiratory and reproductive disorders in adult hogs and mortality in neonates, but is a rapidly fatal neurologic disease in carnivores. At least one panther died from PRV infection presumably through consumption of an infected feral hog (Glass et al. 1994). At least one panther has also died of rabies (Taylor et al. 2002). This panther was radiocollared but not vaccinated against the disease. Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is a retrovirus of felids that is endemic in the panther population. Approximately 28% of panthers were positive for antibodies to the puma lentivirus strain of FIV (Olmstead et al. 1992); however, the prevalence may be increasing. Between November 2004 and April 2005, 13 of 17 (76%) were positive (M. Cunningham, FWC, unpublished data). The cause of this increase is unknown but warrants continued monitoring and investigation. There is also evidence of exposure to Feline panleukopenia virus (PLV) in adult panthers (Roelke et al. 1993b) although no PLV-related mortalities are known to have occurred. Serological evidence of other viral diseases in the panther population includes feline calicivirus, feline herpes virus, and West Nile virus (WNV). However these diseases are not believed to 23 cause significant morbidity or mortality in the population. All panthers found dead due to unknown causes are tested for alphaviruses, flaviviruses (including WNV), and canine distemper virus. These viruses have not been detected in panthers by viral culture or polymerase chain reaction (FWC, unpublished data). Other Infectious Diseases --Bacteria have played a role in free -ranging panther morbidity and mortality as opportunistic pathogens, taking advantage of pre-existing trauma or FeLV infections (FWC, unpublished data). Dermatophytosis (ringworm infection) has been diagnosed in several panthers and resulted in severe generalized infection in at least one (Rotstein et al. 1999). Severe infections may reflect an underlying immunocompromise, possibly resulting from inbreeding depression or immunosuppressive viral infections. Parasites --The hookworm, Ancylostoma pluridentatum, is highly prevalent in the panther population. Hookworm infections in domestic kittens can cause significant morbidity and mortality resulting from blood loss. Hookworm infection in one panther kitten taken into captivity was believed to have resulted in anemia and poor body condition; improvement in hematological parameters and condition followed anthelmintic treatment (Dunbar et al. 1994). The impact of this parasite on panther kittens in the wild is unknown. Other parasites identified from live -captured or necropsied panthers include eight arthropod species, eight nematode species, three cestode species, two trematode species, and three protozoa species (Forrester et al. 1985, Forrester 1992, Wehinger et al. 1995, Rotstein et al. 1999, Land et 24 al. 2002). Of these, only an arthropod (Notoedres felis) caused significant morbidity in at least one panther (Maehr et al. 1995). Environmental Contaminants --Overall, mercury in south Florida biota has decreased over the last several years (Frederick et al. 2002). However, high mercury concentrations are still found in some panthers. At least one panther is thought to have died of mercury toxicosis and mercury has been implicated in the death of two other panthers in ENP (Roelke 1991). One individual panther had concentrations of 150 parts per million (ppm) mercury in its hair (Land et al. 2004). Elevated levels of p, p'— DDE (a breakdown product of DDT, an organochlorine pesticide) and polychlorinated biphenyls were also detected in fat from that panther. The role of mercury and / or p, p'— DDE in this panther's death is unknown and cause of death was undetermined despite extensive diagnostic testing. Elevated mercury concentrations have also been found in panthers from Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR). Two sibling neonatal kittens from this area had hair mercury concentrations of 35 and 40 ppm and did not survive to leave their natal den. Although other factors were believed to have been responsible for the kitten mortalities, neonates may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of mercury (Berglund and Berlin 1969). Consistently high hair mercury values in ENP and FPNWR and the finding of elevated values in some portions of BCNP warrant continued monitoring (Land et al. 2004). Other environmental contaminants found in panthers include polychlorinated biphenyls (e.g., Aroclor 1260) (Dunbar 1995, Land et al. 2004). 25 F. Habitat Characteristics / Ecosystem Landscape Composition --Noss and Cooperrider (1994) considered the landscape implications of maintaining viable panther populations. Assuming a male home range size of 215 mi 2 (558 km2) (Maehr 1990a), an adult sex ratio of 50:50 (Anderson 1983), and some margin of safety, they determined that a reserve network as large as 15,625 — 23,438 mil (40,469 - 60,703 km2) would be needed to support an effective population size of 50 individuals (equating to an actual adult population of 100 - 200 panthers [Ballou et al. 1989]). However, to provide for long-term persistence based on an effective population size of 500 individuals (equating to 1,000 - 2,000 adult panthers [Ballou et al. 1989]), could require as much as 156,251 - 234,376 mil (404,687 - 607,031 km2). This latter acreage corresponds to roughly 60 - 70% of the Florida panther's historical range. Although it is uncertain whether this much land is needed for panther recovery, it does provide some qualitative insight into the importance of habitat conservation across large landscapes for achieving a viable panther population (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). The FWS created the Multi-species/Ecosystem Recovery Implementation Team (MERIT) to assist with implementation of the MSRP after it was signed in 1999. The Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT developed a landscape -level strategy for the conservation of the panther population in south Florida, which was not finalized. Many of the Panther Subteam members refined the methodology, further analyzed the data, and better defined the results of this landscape -level strategy (Kautz et al. 2006). Data from radio -collared panthers collected from 1981 through 2000 were used to delineate home ranges, which were geo-referenced with land cover and other relevant data. 26 Compositional analysis was performed to evaluate the relative frequency of occurrence of various land cover types within panther habitat. A spatially -explicit raster model that identified forest patches potentially suitable for use by panthers as cover was used to refine the outer boundaries of the occupied zone, represented as overlapping minimum convex polygons of panther home ranges, and as a first step to identifying zones of potential use elsewhere. Cover components were combined with a least cost path analysis to delineate a dispersal zone connecting occupied habitat in southern Florida to the Caloosahatchee River. Three priority zones were identified as important for panther habitat conservation: (1) Primary Zone — lands essential to the long-term viability and persistence of the panther in the wild; (2) Secondary Zone - lands contiguous with the Primary Zone, currently used by few panthers, but which could accommodate expansion of the panther population south of the Caloosahatchee River; and (3) Dispersal Zone - the area which may facilitate future panther expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River (Kautz et al. 2006), (Figure 3). The Primary Zone is currently occupied and supports the breeding population of panthers. Although panthers move through the Secondary and Dispersal Zones, they are not currently occupied by resident panthers. Some areas of the Secondary Zone would require restoration to support panthers. These zones vary in size, ownership, and land cover composition. The Primary Zone is 3,548 mil (9,189 km2) in size, 73% of which is publicly owned, and includes portions of the BCNP, ENP, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park (FSPSP), FPNWR, Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest (OSSF), and Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF). This zone's composition is 45% 27 forest, 41 % freshwater marsh, 7.6% agriculture lands, 2.6% prairie and shrub lands, and 0.52% urban lands (Kautz et al. 2006). The Secondary Zone is 1,269 mil (3,287 km2) in size, 38% of which is public land. This zone's composition is 43% freshwater marsh, 36% agriculture, 11% forest, 6.1% prairie and shrub lands, and 2.3% low -density residential areas and open urban lands (Kautz et al. 2006). The Dispersal Zone is 44 mi2 (113 km2) in size, all of which is privately owned. This zone's composition is 49% agriculture (primarily improved pasture and citrus groves), 29% forest (wetland and upland), 8.8% prairie and shrub land, 7.5% freshwater marsh, and 5.1 % barren and urban lands (Kautz et al. 2006). Habitat Use --Between 1981 and 2007, more than 80,000 locations on more than 148 VHF radio - collared panthers have been collected. The majority of data from VHF radio -collars have been collected during daytime hours (generally 0700 - 1100) for logistical and safety reasons, even though panthers are most active during crepuscular and night time hours. However, recent developments in Global Positioning System (GPS) radio -collar technology is beginning to provide a more thorough analysis of panther habitat use (Land et al. in press). Radio -collar data and ground tracking indicate that panthers use the mosaic of habitats available to them. Forested cover types, particularly cypress swamp, pinelands, hardwood swamp, and upland hardwood forests are the habitat types most selected by panthers (Belden 1986, Belden et al. 1988, Maehr 1990a, Maehr et al. 1991a, Maehr 1992, Smith and Bass 1994, Kerkhoff et al. 2000, Comiskey et al. 2002, Cox et al. 2006). Compositional analyses by Kautz et al. (2006) showed that forest patches comprise an important component of panther habitat in south Florida, and that other natural and disturbed cover types are also present. GPS data has shown that panthers (n = 12) use all habitats contained within their home ranges by selecting for forested habitat types and using all others in proportion to availability (Land et al. in press). Kautz et al. (2006) found that the smallest class of forest patches (i.e., 9 - 26 ac [3.6 - 10.4 ha]) were the highest ranked forest patch sizes within panther home ranges. The diverse woody flora of forest edges probably provides cover suitable for stalking and ambushing prey (Belden et al. 1988, Cox et al. 2006). Also, dense understory vegetation comprised of saw palmetto provides some of the most important resting and denning cover for panthers (Maehr 1990a). Shindle et al. (2003) found that 73% of panther dens were in palmetto thickets. Prey Habitat Use --Panther habitat selection is related to prey availability (Janis and Clark 1999, Dees et al. 2001) and, consequently, prey habitat use. Duever et al. (1986) calculated a deer population of 1,760 in BCNP, based on Harlow's (1959) deer density estimates of 1 / 210 ac (85 ha) in pine forest, 1 / 299 ac (121 ha) in swamps, 1 / 1,280 ac (518 ha) in prairie, 1 / 250 ac (101 ha) in marshes, and 1 / 111 ac (45 ha) in hammocks. Schortemeyer et al. (1991) estimated deer densities at 1 / 49 - 247 ac (20 - 100 ha) in three management units of BCNP based on track counts and aerial surveys. Labisky et al. (1995) reported 1 / 49 ac (20 ha) in southeastern BCNP. Using track counts alone, McCown (1994) estimated 1 / 183 - 225 ac (74 - 91 ha) on the FPNWR and 1 / 133 - 200 ac (54 - 81 ha) in the FSPSP. 29 Hardwood hammocks and other forest cover types are important habitat for white-tailed deer and other panther prey (Harlow and Jones 1965, Belden et al. 1988, Maehr 1990a, Maehr et al. 1991 a, Maehr 1992, Comiskey et al. 1994, Dees et al. 2001). Periodic understory brushfires (Dees et al. 2001) as well as increased amounts of edge (Miller 1993) may enhance deer use of hardwood hammocks, pine, and other forest cover types. Open marshes, dry-prairie/grasslands, and other vegetation types can also support high deer densities. However, the importance of these habitat types to panthers is dependent upon the availability of stalking and ambush cover. Travel and Dispersal Corridors --In the absence of direct field observations / measurements, Harrison (1992) suggested that landscape corridors for wide-ranging predators should be half the width of an average home range size. Following Harrison's (1992) suggestion, corridor widths for Florida panthers would range 6.1 - 10.9 mi (9.8 - 17.6 km) depending on whether the target animal was an adult female or a transient male. Beier (1995) suggested that corridor widths for transient male puma in California could be as small as 30% of the average home range size of an adult. For Florida panthers, this would translate to a corridor width of 5.5 mi (8.8 km). Without supporting empirical evidence, Noss (1992) suggests that regional corridors connecting larger hubs of habitat should be at least 1.0 mi (1.6 km) wide. Beier (1995) makes specific recommendations for very narrow corridor widths based on short corridor lengths in a California setting of wild lands completely surrounded by urban areas; he recommended that corridors with a length less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) should be more than 328 ft (100 m) wide, and corridors extending 0.6 - 4 mi (1 - 7 km) should be more than 1,312 ft (400 m) wide. The Dispersal Zone encompasses 44 mi2 (113 km2) with a mean width of 3.4 mi (5.4 km). Although it is not 30 adequate to support even one panther, the Dispersal Zone is strategically located and expected to function as a critical landscape linkage to south-central Florida (Kautz et al. 2006). Transient male panthers currently utilize this zone as they disperse northward into south-central Florida. Within south-central Florida, corridors have been identified to connect potential panther habitat patches (Thatcher et al. 2006a). G. Habitat and Prey Management Land management agencies in south Florida are implementing fire programs that attempt to mimic a natural fire regime through the suppression of human -caused wildfires and the application of prescribed natural fires. Periodic understory brushfires (Dees et al. 2001) as well as increased amounts of edge (Miller 1993) may enhance deer use of hardwood hammocks, pine, and other forest cover types. However, winter fires may increase the probability of endangering neonates (Land 1994). Eight public land areas within the Primary Zone are managed by five Federal or State agencies and one non -governmental organization (NGO). The annual prescribed fire goals of these public land areas total 166 mil (430 km2). Two -to -five year fire rotations and burn compartments less than 10 mi2 (25 km) are recommended to increase habitat heterogeneity (Schortemeyer et al. 1991). However, fire prescriptions vary based on fuel conditions, weather conditions, and historic fire frequency. Compartment size will vary based on site conditions, including the use of existing fire breaks or reluctance to establish new fire breaks that would reduce native habitats, fragment native habitats, and serve as vectors for the spread of invasive plants. For example, FPNWR, the only area managed specifically for panthers, uses existing swamp buggy 31 trails and highways as burn compartment boundaries. FPNWR is divided into 54 burn compartments that range in size from 0.47 — 1.72 mil (1.22 — 4.45 km2). A range of 8 - 12 mi2 (20 - 32 km2) is burned annually depending on weather conditions. The fire program at BCNP averages 47 - 62 mi2 (121 - 162 km2) burned annually (4 - 5% of the total area) as many habitats are adapted to long fire intervals. Chemical, biological, and mechanical control of invasive plants is also conducted to maintain and restore native habitat types. Invasive non-native vegetation has the capacity to replace native plant communities and drastically change the landscape both visually and ecologically. The invasive plants of most concern in south Florida are melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), old-world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and downy rose -myrtle (Rhodomytrus tomentosus). The effect of invasive plants on panther habitat utilization is unknown. However these species may reduce the panther's prey base by disrupting natural processes such as water flow and fire and by significantly reducing available forage. All public lands in south Florida have active invasive plant treatment programs. As of 2002, over 243 mi2 (630 km2) of invasive plants had been treated, with an estimated 579 mi2 (1,500 km2) yet untreated. No studies have been conducted to determine the effects of invasive plant management on panthers. Management for panther prey consists of a variety of approaches such as habitat management and regulation of hunting and off -road vehicle (ORV) use. Prey management has been accomplished by regulating harvest using a variety of strategies. ENP, FSPSP, and FPNWR are closed to hunting. Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, PSSF, OSSF, and BCNP allow 32 hunting. Only BCNP allows ORV use by hunters. It also has the longest deer and hog hunting season (95 days), whereas the other three areas allow hunting for 35 days or less annually. A combination of hunter and vehicle use quotas, restrictions on hunting methods, and harvest limits are used in BCNP to regulate impacts on the panthers' prey base. Over the past 25 years, the annual deer and hog harvest reported at check stations has averaged 210 and 127, respectively, representing a sample of deer and hogs actually harvested. Hunter pressure during that time period has averaged 15,809 "hunter -days" annually (Adams and Bozzo 2002). H. Response to Management Activities Few studies have examined the response of panthers to various land / habitat management activities. Dees et al. (2001) investigated panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire and found that panther use of pine habitats was greatest for the first year after the area had been burned and declined thereafter. Prescribed burning is believed to be important to panthers because prey species (e.g., deer and hogs) are attracted to burned habitats to take advantage of changes in vegetation structure and composition, including exploiting hard mast that is exposed and increased quality or quantity of forage (Dees et al. 2001). Responses of puma to logging activities (Van Dyke et al. 1986b) indicate that they generally avoid areas within their home range with intensification of disturbance. There is the potential for disturbance to panthers from recreational uses on public lands. Maehr (1990a) reported that indirect human disturbance of panthers may include activities associated with hunting and that panther use of Bear Island (part of BCNP) is significantly less during the hunting season. Schortemeyer et al. (1991) examined the effects of deer hunting on panthers at 33 BCNP between 1983 and 1990. They concluded that, based on telemetry data, panthers may be altering their use patterns as a result of hunting. Janis and Clark (2002) compared the behavior of panthers before, during, and after the recreational deer and hog hunting season (October through December) on areas open (BCNP) and closed (FPNWR, FSPSP) to hunting. Variables examined were: (1) activity rates, (2) movement rates, (3) predation success, (4) home range size, (5) home range shifts, (6) proximity to ORV trails, (7) use of areas with concentrated human activity, and (8) habitat selection. Responses to hunting for variables most directly related to panther energy intake or expenditure (i.e., activity rates, movement rates, predation success of females) were not detected. However, panthers reduced their use of Bear Island, an area of concentrated human activity, and were found farther from ORV trails during the hunting season, indicative of a reaction to human disturbance. Whereas the reaction to trails was probably minor and could be related to prey behavior, decreased use of Bear Island most likely reflects a direct reaction to human activity and resulted in increased use of adjacent private lands. I. Reasons for Listing / Threats Assessment The Florida panther was listed as endangered throughout its range in 1967 (32 FR 4001), pursuant to the Endangered Species Preservation Act, and received Federal protection under the passage of the ESA in 1973. The 1967 document did not address the five factor threats analysis. However, we address these factors in the summary below. 34 Threats Assessment --A detailed threats assessment for the panther was conducted by the Florida Panther Recovery Team using The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) planning approach (TNC 2000) (Appendix B). Using this approach, the stresses (the types of degradation and impairment) for each factor were identified and evaluated in terms of severity and scope; sources of stresses were evaluated in terms of contribution and irreversibility. Separate analyses were conducted for the panther population in south Florida and for reintroduction in the Southeast. Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range --The panther's current occupied range is significantly reduced from its historic range from Louisiana and Arkansas east to South Carolina and southward through Florida. The breeding portion of the panther population occurs only in south Florida, less than 5% of its historic range (Figure 1). Because of their wide-ranging movements and extensive spatial requirements, panthers are sensitive to habitat fragmentation (Harris 1984). Land Use Changes in Southeastern States --Based on the current trends of urbanization across the Southeast, it is likely that forested habitats will continue to be permanently altered, and the amount of available forest habitat will decrease in some areas (Wear and Greis 2002). Compared to earlier periods, land use in the Southeast has been fairly stable since 1945, with the most notable exception of Florida, where developed land uses have expanded substantially (Wear and Greis 2002). Two dominant forces strongly influenced recent land use changes: (1) urbanization driven by population and general economic growth and (2) changing economic returns from agriculture relative to timber production; both of these influences are expected to continue (Wear and Greis 2002). As a result of anticipated population and economic growth, rural land will be 35 converted to urban uses. Forecasts of land uses indicate that the Southeast could experience a net loss of from 12,500 - 18,750 mil (32,375 - 48,562 km2) of forest land (roughly 5 - 8%) between 1992 and 2020 (Wear and Greis 2002). Potential panther habitat throughout the Southeast continues to be affected by urbanization, residential development, conversion to agriculture, mining and mineral exploration, lack of land use planning, and other sources of stress (Appendix B). With human population growth and increased human disturbance, the extent of potentially suitable habitat remaining in the Southeast is expected to decrease. Habitat loss, fragmentation, degradation, and disturbance from human activity throughout the Southeast are expected to remain among the greatest threats to reintroduced panther populations. As development pressure and population growth continue, the opportunity for panther reintroduction in the Southeast diminishes. Land Use Changes in Florida --Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, and associated human disturbance are the greatest threats to panther survival and among the greatest threats to its recovery. These threats are expected to continue in Florida and throughout the Southeast. Throughout Florida, between 1936 and 1987, cropland and rangeland increased 6,609 mil (17,118 km2) or 30%, urban areas increased by 6,172 mil (15,985 km2) or 538%, while herbaceous wetlands declined by 6,063 mil (15,702 km2) or 56% and forests declined by 6,719 mil (17,402 km2) or 2 1 % (Kautz et al. 1993, Kautz 1994). Assuming that all of the forest lost was panther habitat, Kautz (1994) estimated that the 2 1 % loss of forests was the equivalent of 35 - 70 male panther home ranges and 100 - 200 female panther home ranges. Between 1985 — 1989 and 2003 an additional 5,019 mil (13,000 km2) (13%) of natural and semi -natural lands 36 (including panther habitat) in the state were converted to urban / developed and agricultural uses (Kautz et al. 2007). Continued expansion of urban areas on the coasts and the spread of agricultural and urban development in the interior of Florida continue to replace, degrade, and fragment panther habitat, placing the panther at greater risk. Over 83% of the 2,500 mil (6,475 km2) of agricultural land in southwest Florida has been categorized as rangeland. In southwest Florida between 1986 and 1990, row crop acreage increased by 14 mi2 (36 km2) or 21%; sugarcane increased by 25 mi2 (65 km2) or 21%; citrus increased by 84 mi2 (219 km2) or 75%; and rangeland, much of it suitable for panther occupation, decreased by 250 mi2 (647 km2) or 10% (Townsend 1991). Rangeland losses were about evenly divided between agricultural and urban development (Townsend 1991). The extent of land use conversions for southwest Florida (Collier, Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, and Glades Counties) between 1986 and 1996 was estimated using a change detection analysis performed by Beth Stys (FWC, unpublished data). The area of disturbed lands increased 31% in these five counties between 1986 and 1996, with the greatest increases in disturbed lands occurring in Hendry and Glades Counties. Most (66%) of the land use change over the 10-year period was due to conversion to agricultural uses. Forest cover types accounted for 42% of land use conversions, dry prairies accounted for 37%, freshwater marsh accounted for 9%, and shrub and brush lands accounted for 8%. Randy Kautz (FWC, pers. comm. 2003) estimated panther habitat loss to be 0.8% per year between 1986 and 1996 using a composite of three different methodologies. These included: (1) review of U.S. Forest Service forest data between 1936 and 1995 using loss of forest as an index of the rate of panther habitat loss, (2) analysis to detect 37 changes in land cover in five south Florida counties (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee) between 1986 and 1996 using classified Landsat imagery, and (3) using the Cox et al. (1994) panther habitat model, and based on 1986 Landsat data, 1996 Landsat landcover data was overlaid and then areas originally mapped as panther habitat and subsequently converted to other uses over the 10-year period were tabulated. Randy Kautz (Breedlove, Dennis, and Associates, pers. comm. 2005) believes the estimated annual habitat loss since 1996 may be 2 to 3 times higher than that calculated for the previous period. More recently, Stys calculated the extent of semi -natural and natural lands that have been converted to agricultural and urban / developed in Florida between 1985 - 1989 and 2003 (B. Stys, FWC, pers. comm. 2005). Based upon this analysis, approximately 570 mil (1,476 km2) of natural and semi -natural lands in Glades, Hendry, Lee, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and Miami - Dade Counties were converted during this time period (FWC, unpublished data). Of these, approximately 340 mil (880 km2) were conversions to agricultural uses and 230 mil (596 km2) to urban uses. Rapid development in southwest Florida has compromised the ability of landscapes to support a self-sustaining panther population (Maehr 1990b, 1992). Maehr (1990b) reported that there were approximately 3,401 mil (8,810 km2) of occupied panther range in south Florida and that approximately 50% is comprised of landscapes under private ownership. In 2005, Kautz found that approximately 22% of the land in the Primary Zone, 60% of the land in the Secondary Zone, and 100% of the land in the Dispersal Zone is in private ownership (R. Kautz, pers. comm. 2005). Maehr (1990b) indicated that development of private lands may limit panther habitat to landscapes under public stewardship. Given the panther's reliance on public land, the rising cost of land is an impediment to habitat protection and therefore panther recovery. Highways in wildlife habitat are known to result in loss and fragmentation of habitat, traffic related mortality, and avoidance of associated human development. As a result, small populations may become isolated, subjecting them to demographic and stochastic factors that reduce their chances for survival and recovery. Two-lane 108 ft (33 m) and four -lane 328 ft (100 m) cleared rights -of -way, respectively, occupy 2.0 and 6.2% of each 640 ac (259 ha) of land through which they pass (Ruediger 1998). Highways can also stimulate land development as far away as 2 mi (3.2 km) on either side (Wolf 1981). Thus, for each 1 mi (1.6 km) a highway is extended, 2,500 ac (1,012 ha) are potentially opened to new development (Wolf 1981). Belden and Hagedorn (1993) observed that Texas pumas introduced into northern Florida established home ranges in an area with one-half the road density of the region in general, and tended to avoid crossing heavily traveled roads. Female Florida panthers rarely establish home ranges in areas bisected by highways (Maehr 1997b). Because home ranges of resident males typically encompass the ranges of multiple female panthers, males are less likely than females to find sufficiently large areas devoid of major roads. Males tend to cross highways more frequently than females and suffer more vehicle -related injuries and mortalities (see Factor E). In addition to a direct loss and fragmentation of habitat, constructing new and expanding existing highways may increase traffic volume and impede panther movement within and between frequently used habitat blocks throughout the landscape (Swanson et al. 2005). Increases in 39 traffic volume, increasing size of highways (lanes), and habitat alterations adjacent to key road segments may limit the panther's ability to cross highways and may ultimately isolate some areas of panther habitat (Swanson et al. 2005). Past land use activity, hydrologic alterations, and lack of fire management (Dees et al. 1999) have also affected the quality and quantity of panther habitat. The effect of invasive plants on panther habitat utilization is unknown. As the remaining forested uplands are lost, sloughs containing cypress, marsh, and shrub wetlands comprise a greater percentage of the remaining habitat available relative to habitat historically available to panthers. Human Population Growth --Insight can be gained into expected rates of habitat loss in the future by reviewing human population growth projections for the south Florida region. Smith and Nogle (2001) developed low, medium, and high population growth projections for all Florida counties from 2000 through 2030. Using their medium projections, which they believe provide the most accurate forecasts, Smith and Nogle (2001) estimate that the human population of the 10 counties in south Florida will increase from 6.09 to 9.52 million residents by 2030, an increase of 56%. Human population in the southeastern U.S. has increased 10-fold since 1850, expanding from 4.7 million to over 48 million in 2000 (Swanson et al. 2005). In Florida, the population increased from 87,000 to over 17 million (Swanson et al. 2005, U.S. Census Bureau 2004). From 1990 - 2004, the population in Collier County increased from 152,099 to 296,678 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002, 2004). During the same time period, the population in Lee County increased from 335,113 M to 514,295 (U.S. Census Bureau 2002, 2004). The population of southwest Florida, particularly Collier and Lee Counties, is projected to increase 2 1 % by 2010 (Swanson et al. 2005). Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes — There are no commercial or recreational uses of panthers. In rare cases where a panther is unable to survive in the wild, it may be captured and used for conservation education purposes. Panthers are routinely captured and monitored for scientific purposes. Risks are associated with capture and monitoring, but the overall threat to the panther is considered low (Appendix B). Capturing and radiocollaring panthers and handling neonate kittens at dens may result in unintentional take relative to three factors. First, mortality or injury may result from the capture event because of capture -induced trauma or an adverse reaction to immobilizing chemicals. Routine capture activities include the use of trained hounds to pursue and tree panthers and the subsequent anesthetization with remotely - injected immobilizing drugs. These activities may result in hyperthermia, hypothermia, dog bite wounds, drowning, fractures, lacerations, seizures, head and spinal trauma, penetration of the abdomen or thorax with dart, vomiting, aspiration, pneumothorax, respiratory depression or arrest, shock, cardiac arrest, or complications associated with treatment of the above conditions. However, the incidence of these injuries, especially serious injuries and mortalities, has been low over the last 25 years of panther capture work in part because of stringent capture and handling protocols developed and implemented by FWC, NPS, and FWS. Since 1981, the FWC has captured and immobilized 133 panthers over 296 times with only one fatality, two panthers 41 suffering broken legs that resulted in their temporary removal to captivity for rehabilitation and the successful return to the wild, and the holding of one other panther for 24 hours to treat an injury involving a needle embedded in bone (D. Land, FWC, pers. comm. 2004). NPS staff in BCNP have been capturing adult panthers and handling kittens at dens since 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, the NPS handled 19 adult or dependent juvenile panthers with no injury or mortality (Jansen et al. 2005). Second, capture and handling events can result in abandonment of kittens, other disruptions of family structure, or injury to a kitten that requires its removal from the wild for rehabilitation. Further, the injury or death of an adult female with dependent -aged kittens (those less than 1 year of age) could result in the death of the kittens or the need to raise them in captivity. Neonate kittens are handled at den sites when the kittens are older than 2 weeks of age and when the mother is not present. These activities do not require anesthesia of the kittens. Handling activities could result in injury or death to the kitten or the abandonment of one or more of the kittens. From 1986 - 2004, the FWC has captured and radiocollared 59 dependent -aged kittens ranging in age from 4 - 18 months (D. Land, pers. comm. 2004). These captures resulted in the abandonment of two kittens. One was subsequently reared in captivity and released. The other died of an infection in captivity shortly after its capture. Early break-up of family groups may have occurred on a few other occasions. For this reason, dependent -aged kittens less than one year are no longer captured. Between 1992 and 2005, FWS and NPS handled 195 kittens at 82 dens with no injury, mortality, or den abandonment (Jansen et al. 2005, Lotz et al. 2005). 42 Third, the loss of contact with or access to young radio -collared panthers whose collars need to be resized to accommodate growth may result in the collar becoming embedded in the panther's neck. If the panther cannot be recaptured to remove (e.g., if a radiocollar prematurely fails) or resize the collar, infection and eventual death could occur. In September 2001, the FWC and NPS began fitting young panthers with break -away radiocollars. This change in protocol has greatly reduced the risks associated with radiocollaring young panthers (D. Land, pers. comm. 2004). If stringent capture and handling protocols continue to be followed and refined, injury levels are expected to remain low and are not expected to significantly affect important demographic parameters at the population level, including mortality and reproductive rates or recruitment of juveniles. Handling panthers is important for research, management, and monitoring of the population, and overall the risks are low. Factor C: Disease or Predation --The Florida panther is susceptible to a number of infectious diseases and parasites some of which are of population significance while others are important only to the individual. Some diseases have not been diagnosed in panthers but remain a potential threat. As a single contiguous population, there is potential for an infectious disease to have a catastrophic impact on the panther. Although FeLV is common in domestic cats, it is quite rare in non -domestic felids. The recent outbreak of this disease in the panther population shows the potential of this disease to be of population significance. Another viral disease potentially of population significance is PRV. PRV causes respiratory and reproductive disorders in adult hogs and mortality in neonates, but is 43 a rapidly fatal neurologic disease in carnivores. Approximately 35% of feral hogs are seropositive for PRV in Florida (van der Leek et al. 1993). The virus is actively shed by only a small percentage of infected hogs at any given time; however, stress can increase the percentage that shed the virus (Murphy et al. 1999). Feral hogs are an important prey species for panthers (Maehr et al. 1990b), and there is potential for significant mortality in panthers due to PRV. Raccoons are a common prey item for panthers (Maehr et al. 1990b) and are the most important reservoir for rabies in the Southeast (Burridge et al. 1986). As panthers are now vaccinated against rabies at capture, only uncollared panthers are at significant risk. PLV causes significant mortality in domestic kittens. The virus is also carried by raccoons and is quite stable in the environment. However, kittens are at greatest risk of infection and causes of mortality in this cohort are largely unknown. An epizootic of PLV caused significant mortality among radio -collared bobcats in the late 1970s in south-central Florida (Wassmer et al. 1988), suggesting that the panther population may also be at risk. Hookworm infections in domestic kittens can cause significant morbidity and mortality resulting from blood loss. The impact of this parasite on panther kittens in the wild is unknown. Some individual panthers have been shown to be at risk from exposure to mercury in the food chain (Newman et al. 2004). Mercury bioaccumulates through the aquatic food chain reaching high concentrations in higher trophic level carnivores such as raccoons and alligators. Panthers preying on these species are at risk for accumulating high tissue mercury concentrations. Neonates may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of mercury (Berglund and Berlin 1969). Disease and parasites have not been documented to be a major mortality factor in the panther population (Maehr et al. 1991b, Taylor et al. 2002). However, this observation is largely based on the captured and vaccinated sample of the population. Disease expression and mortality events for the unmarked and unvaccinated segment of the population, including kittens, may be higher, especially for those diseases included in the vaccination regimen. Further, as the panther population density increases there is an increased risk of diseases transmitted by direct contact. The FeLV outbreak demonstrated the potential impact of infectious diseases on the population. Should a virulent pathogen enter the population, there is no absolute barrier in south Florida that could prevent such a disease from impacting the entire population (Beier et al. 2003). Consequently, until additional populations of panthers can be established elsewhere in their historic range, infectious diseases and parasites remain a threat. Finally, infectious diseases, parasites, and environmental contaminants, even of low pathogenicity, may work synergistically to reduce panther fitness and reproduction. Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms --The panther is federally listed as endangered and is on the State endangered lists for Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The protection provided by Federal (ESA, Clean Water Act [62 Stat. 1155, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376] [CWA], National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [83 Stat. 852, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43471 [NEPA], Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [48 Stat. 45 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.] [FWCA]) and State (Florida protective provisions specified in Rules 68A-27.0011 and 68A-27.003) laws help conserve the panther and its habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that all Federal agencies consult with FWS to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a project will not jeopardize the continued existence of a species but may result in incidental take of the species, FWS works with the action agency and any applicants to find ways to minimize the effects of the take. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 4(a)(3) requires the designation of critical habitat for listed species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 9 prohibits unlawful acts, including unauthorized take. As discussed in Factor A, development pressure in southwest Florida has been high; for example, data for Collier, Lee, and Hendry Counties, a stronghold for the panther population, indicate that from 1985 through 2003 more than 223 mil (578 km2) of natural and semi -natural lands were converted to agriculture (FWC, unpublished data). In addition, more than 145 mil (375 km2) of semi -natural and natural lands in this three -county area have also been lost to development (FWC, unpublished data) (see Factor A). While not all of these habitat losses and conversions involved panther habitat, many projects involved wetland impacts, requiring permit review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) pursuant to section 404 of the CWA and / or coordination among regulatory agencies pursuant to the FWCA. For projects with a Federal M nexus, consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA was needed for actions that may affect the panther. Through compensation for some of these projects, FWS helped secure conservation of 62 mi2 (161 km2) in the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones from September 2003 to June IN Mr. Section 10(a)(1) allows for the issuance of permits for scientific or enhancement of survival purposes, provided that certain terms and conditions are met. Section 10(a)(2) allows for the issuance of permits, provided that the taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful action, adequately minimized and mitigated, appropriately funded, and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Through 2007, no Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) have been finalized under section 10(a)(2) of the ESA and no incidental take permits have been issued for the panther. Section 10, however, provides opportunities for large-scale and regional approaches to panther habitat conservation, and can be a valuable tool at the county or regional level. Florida Statute 373.414 requires that activities permitted in wetlands and surface waters of the state are not contrary to the public interest. If it is determined that an activity will adversely affect panthers or panther habitat, the governing board (Water Management District [WMD]) or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) can consider measures (e.g., on -site mitigation, off -site mitigation, purchase of credits from mitigation banks) that will mitigate the effects of the regulated activity. In addition to the impacts of individual projects, the FDEP and WMD shall take into account cumulative impacts on water resources (Section 373.414(8), F.S.). Cumulative impacts can be 47 considered unacceptable when they provide unacceptable impacts to functions of wetlands, including the utilization of the wetlands by wildlife species (Sections 4.2.8 through 4.2.8.2 of the South Florida Water Management District Basis of Review). In practice, evaluating cumulative impacts of development in southwest Florida on panthers has not been sufficient to prevent significant loss of panther habitat. Since the majority of panther habitat in southwest Florida has significant wetland components, provisions of 373.414 are usually a part of the review of proposed development. The State wetlands permitting authorities can also assess whether a regulated activity will cause adverse secondary impacts to aquatic or wetland dependent species, such as panthers, including where the site does not have a wetland component (Section 4.2.7 of the South Florida Water Management District Basis of Review). The FWC may exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the State with respect to wild animals, including panthers. The FWC has responsibility for conserving and managing these species and their habitat; however the FWC does not provide regulatory protection for listed species habitat. The FWC provides comments regarding potential impacts to panther habitat to FDEP and WMDs under the authority of Chapter 20.331 Florida Statutes. Because of the project -specific focus of regulatory programs, statutorily set processing time frames, and other constraints such as high workloads, local, State, and Federal regulatory agencies sometimes find it difficult to complete the cross -government review that would be ideal to thoroughly review and effectively assess all potential impacts to panthers. In addition, local, State, and Federal agencies sometimes have difficulty monitoring permit compliance and tracking the precise impact on species and habitat from authorized actions, as well as tracking the impact from unauthorized actions. Assessing current baseline conditions and accurately predicting future impacts are also challenging because the panther is a wide-ranging species that uses a wide array of habitat types. Furthermore, baseline conditions for the panther are continually changing (e.g., impacts from development, conservation actions). Rigorous assessments and close coordination and scrutiny of project impacts by local, State, and Federal agencies during the planning phase could help maximize conservation benefits for the panther. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence -- Mortality, Trauma, and Disturbance --Florida panthers were hunted for bounty during the 1800s and for sport until the 1950s. Nine illegal shootings were documented in south Florida between 1978 and 2005, three of which were not fatal. Education, self -policing among hunters, and regulation are the tools by which shootings are minimized. All free -ranging puma in Florida are treated as Endangered because they closely resemble the Florida panther and are therefore protected by a "similarity of appearance" provision pursuant to the ESA. Records on documented mortality of uncollared panthers have been kept since February 13, 1972. Records on mortality of radio -collared panthers have been kept since February 10, 1981. Eighty-four radio -collared panthers have died since 1981, and intraspecific aggression was the leading cause, accounting for 42% of these mortalities (Lotz et al. 2005). Unknown causes and collisions with vehicles accounted for 24% and 19% of mortalities, respectively. Other factors (7%), infections (5%), and diseases (4%) caused the remaining mortalities (Land et al. 2004). One -hundred fifty-three panther mortalities were documented from February 1972 through June 2004, with at least 58 (41 %) of known deaths occurring in the last four-year period (Land et al. 2004). Overall, documented mortality (n = 105) of radiocollared and uncollared panthers averaged 3.4 per year through June 2001. However, from July 2001 through June 2004, documented mortality (n = 48) increased with an average of 16.0 per year (Land et al. 2004). This increase in panther mortality (e.g., intraspecific aggression, collisions with vehicles) corresponds with increases in the panther population observed in recent years. From February 1972 through June 2004, 36 documented panther mortalities were the result of intraspecific aggression (Land et al. 2004). Although most of these encounters are male -male, from July 2001 through June 2004, at least nine females were killed in encounters with males (Land et al. 2004). Defense of kittens and / or a kill is suspected in five of these instances that occurred through 2003 (Shindle et al. 2003). From February 1972 through June 2004, 27 documented panther mortalities were from unknown causes (Land et al. 2004). While a couple of deaths from unknown causes occur each year, five deaths occurred in various areas in 2000 and six deaths occurred in Seminole game and safari pens in 2003 (Land et al. 2004). Eighty-six panther -vehicle collisions were documented between 1972 and 2005 of which 80 (52%) resulted in panther deaths (Lotz et al. 2005). Panther -vehicle collisions were identified as the third most important source of mortality among radiocollared panthers (19%) (Land et al. 2004). Fifty-six percent (48) of panther -vehicle collisions have occurred since 2000 with all but 50 two being fatal to the panther (Lotz et al. 2005). Approximately 53% of documented panther - vehicle collisions have occurred within the Primary Zone through 2004 (Swanson et al. 2005). Panther -vehicle collisions are a significant source of mortality and pose an on -going threat. In addition, new and existing roads, expansion of highways, and increases in traffic volume and speed contribute to loss of panther habitat and impede movement within and between high use habitat blocks throughout the landscape (Swanson et al. 2005) (see Factor A). New and expanded highways could to increase the threat of panther mortality and injuries due to collisions if they are not accompanied by adequate fencing and crossings. Wildlife crossings and continuous fencing were required during the conversion of two-lane SR 84 (Alligator Alley) into four -lane I-75. Until August 12, 2007, no panther mortalities had been documented in these protected areas since completion of I-75 in 1992. Similarly, six wildlife crossings and some fencing were required along SR 29 as a prerequisite to the SR 29 / I-75 interchange. All six of these crossings are now complete; however panther -vehicle collisions occur both where the fencing ends and when panthers enter the fenced area and become trapped. In addition, two crossings were required on County Road 858 (Oil Well Road) to offset projected traffic increases from development. In the absence of crossings and fencing, the remaining stretches of SR 29 and I-75 as well as several other roads continue to pose a serious mortality risk to panthers, including U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), SR 82, and County Roads 850 (Corkscrew Road), 858, 846 (Immokalee Road), 832, and 833. Through May 2007, 85 of 107 mortalities or injuries from panther -vehicle collisions occurred along these unsecured roads (Swanson et al. 2005, FWC unpublished data). 51 Florida's human population has been steadily growing and as a result, urban / suburban areas now interface with panther habitat. Extensive developments planned in Collier County, such as the Ave Maria University and associated town, will expand local road networks and extend the human / panther interface into primary panther habitat (Swanson et al. 2005). In recent years, there has been an increase in human -panther interactions and hobby livestock depredations that have resulted in management responses. For example, in 2004, aversive conditioning was used on panthers observed near areas of human habitation in the Pinecrest area within BCNP, and a juvenile dependent male panther was subsequently relocated to OSSF. If human -panther interactions and livestock depredations increase, the potential for complaints from the public and, in some cases, the need for subsequent management responses could result in take of panthers in the form of harassment through aversive conditioning in an attempt to teach individuals to avoid humans. However, if the panther's location presents a possible threat to public safety (e.g., a dispersing male panther wanders into an urban neighborhood and can not find its way out) or there is a threat to the survival of the panther (e.g., a panther wanders into an area that contains numerous physical hazards), depending on specific circumstances, the panther may be captured and relocated, or removed to an approved captive facility. If a panther's behavior indicates a threat to human safety, it will be permanently removed from the wild. In extreme circumstances, euthanasia may be necessary. Currently, the FWS, FWC, and NPS are working on a document titled Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan. This plan will provide guidance on methods for minimizing the potential for human -panther interactions and help ensure consistency in use of potential management responses. 52 There is the potential for disturbance to panthers from recreational uses on public lands. Maehr (1990a) and Schortemeyer et al. (1991) reported that panthers may be altering their use patterns as a result of hunting. Janis and Clark (2002) compared the behavior of panthers before, during, and after the recreational deer and hog hunting season on areas open and closed to hunting. Responses to hunting for variables most directly related to panther energy intake or expenditure were not detected (Janis and Clark 2002). However, panthers reduced their use of an area of concentrated human activity, and were found farther from ORV trails during the hunting season, indicative of a reaction to human disturbance (Janis and Clark 2002). Whereas the reaction to ORVs was probably minor and could indirectly be related to prey behavior, decreased panther use of high human activity areas and increased use of adjacent private lands most likely reflects a direct reaction. Additional habitat loss on those private lands could exacerbate the negative consequences of this pattern of use (Janis and Clark 2002). Loss of Genetic Diversitx--Natural genetic exchange with other panther populations ceased when the Florida panther became geographically isolated over a century ago (Seal 1994a). Isolation, habitat loss, reduced population size, and associated inbreeding resulted in loss of genetic variability and diminished health. Data on polymorphism and heterozygosity, along with records of multiple physiological abnormalities, suggest that the panther population has experienced inbreeding depression (Roelke et al. 1993a, Barone et al. 1994). Measured heterozygosity levels indicate that the Florida panther had lost about 60 - 90% of its genetic diversity (Culver et al. 2000). Genetic problems in the Florida panther included heart murmurs, a high rate of unilateral cryptorchidism, low testicular and semen volumes, diminished sperm motility, and a high percentage of morphologically abnormal sperm. 53 To address these threats, a genetic management program was implemented with the release of Texas pumas into south Florida in 1995 (see Conservation Efforts Section). The results of genetic restoration have been successful as indicated by an increasing population, signs of increased genetic health, recolonization of areas in BCNP and ENP recently unoccupied, and increased dispersal (McBride 2000, 2001, 2002; Maehr et al. 2002a). To date, neither atrial septal defects nor cryptorchidism have been found in introgressed panthers (M. Cunningham, pers. comm. 2005). Semen examination of two introgressed panthers indicated that sperm volume, motility, and count were higher than for an uncrossed Florida panther. A preliminary assessment of genetic restoration suggested that the desired 20% introgression level had been achieved, but the contributions were primarily from two of the released females (Land and Lacy 2000). Genetic introgression is also reducing the occurrence of kinked tails and cowlicks in intercross progeny (Land et al. 2004). Human Dimension --Human intolerance has the potential to be a major challenge to panther recovery. Recently, human -panther interactions have been on the rise in southwest Florida along the interface of urban and wild lands. From December 2003 through June 2007 there was one area of repeated sightings (Pinecrest area within BCNP), two encounters (an unexpected direct meeting between a human and a panther in which the panther displayed a lack of wariness to humans and did not approach, or show signs of curiosity, but retreated), a threat (this was the result of repeated depredations and significant behavioral changes by one panther that was ultimately removed from the wild), and 16 depredations (domestic livestock or pets being attacked or killed by a panther). 54 Previous recovery plans have called for the establishment of additional populations within the historic range of the panther (FWS 1981, 1987, 1995). The FWC studied the possibility of establishing additional populations within the historic range (Belden and Hagedorn 1993, Belden and McCown 1996). Between 1988 and 1995, 26 Texas pumas were released near Okefenokee NWR and Osceola National Forest. Study animals, monitored by radiocollars at least three days per week, established large home ranges, killed large prey at expected frequencies, and generally adapted well to their new environment (Belden and McCown 1996). When these studies were terminated, the remaining panthers were captured and removed from the wild. Experimental releases of Texas pumas indicated that habitat and prey availability in northern Florida and southern Georgia were sufficient to support a panther population (Belden and McCown 1996). However, although there appeared to be support for reintroduction among the general public in Florida, local landowners tended to oppose having panthers on their property. Political and social issues will be the most difficult aspect of panther reintroduction and must be addressed (Belden and Hagedorn 1993, Belden and McCown 1996). Habitat assessment studies have been conducted to identify potential sites for reintroduction of the panther in the Southeast (Thatcher et al. 2006b). The purpose of these studies was to identify prospective sites for panther reintroduction within the historic range based on quantitative landscape assessments. Nine potential reintroduction sites of sufficient size to support a panther population were identified including: Ozark National Forest region, Ouachita National Forest region, southwest Arkansas, and Felsenthal NWR region in Arkansas; Kisatchie National Forest 55 region in Louisiana; Homochitto National Forest region in Mississippi; southwest Alabama; Apalachicola National Forest region in Florida; and Okefenokee NWR region in Georgia (Thatcher et al. 2006b). Sociopolitical obstacles to large carnivore reintroduction are often more daunting than biological ones (Clark et al. 2002). A lack of public support and tolerance could prevent the reintroduction of panthers anywhere outside of Florida. Public support is critical to reintroduction efforts and attainment of recovery goals. Contaminants --Because the panther is a top carnivore, bioaccumulation of environmental contaminants remains a concern (Dunbar 1995, Newman et al. 2004), with the threat of mercury toxicity considered medium (see Appendix B). However, mercury in the Everglades ecosystem has decreased over the last several years (Frederick et al. 2002). Other environmental contaminants found in panthers include polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclor 1260) and organochlorines (Dunbar 1995, Land et al. 2004). Continued monitoring for contaminants, especially mercury and organochlorines, in panthers, their prey, and sentinel species is warranted (see E. Life History / Ecology). Prey availability --The size, distribution, and abundance of available prey species are critical factors to the persistence of panthers in south Florida and often determine the extent of panther use of an area. A resident adult male puma generally consumes one deer -sized prey every 8 - 11 days; this frequency is 14 - 17 days for a resident female; and 3.3 days for a female with three 13-month-old kittens (Ackerman et al. 1986). 56 Historically, hunting in the Big Cypress physiographic region has been a major traditional activity with many hunt camps throughout the region. With establishment of national and state parks, the numbers of hunt camps were decreased and additional hunting regulations that reduced hunting pressure on deer were implemented. Although deer densities are difficult to determine, the deer population appears to have steadily increased. Using aerial surveys, Schemnitz (1974) estimated the deer population in the 3,438 mil (8,903 km2) area south of the Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee at 20,000 in 1972, and stated that the deer population had decreased in the Water Conservation Areas (WCA) due to deeper water levels and submersion of tree islands. Fleming et al. (1994) compared deer density estimates in WCA 2 and 3 in the 1950s with those from 1985 - 1988 and found a 67% reduction in the deer herd. They surmised that this reduction was due to habitat degradation from impoundment and associated water management. ENP and portions of the WCAs are within the Primary Zone. Smith and Bass (1994), however, stated that fire and water, which drive the Everglades system, appear to have little effect on the long-term dynamics of the ENP deer population. Few studies have been done on the hog component of the panthers' prey base (e.g., Maehr et al 1989b). However, the mean checked hog harvest of 29 in BCNP for 2003 - 2005 has fallen well below the previous 22-year average of 144, probably due to a combination of factors, including high water events and predation by panthers (D. Jansen, pers. comm. 2005). 57 Although the exact status of prey in different portions of the panther's occupied range is not known at this time, assessment of overall panther health and their success in raising young indicate that the prey base is adequate to support the current panther population. Adequate prey elsewhere within the historic range would be needed to establish populations in other areas. J. Past and Current Conservation Efforts Habitat Conservation and Protection --Habitat protection has been identified as being one of the most important elements to achieving panther recovery. While substantial efforts have been made to secure a sufficient habitat base (Figure 4), continued action is needed to obtain additions to and inholdings for public lands, assure linkages are maintained, restore degraded and fragmented habitat, and obtain the support of private landowners for maintaining property in a manner that is compatible with panther use. Conservation lands used by panthers are held and managed by a variety of entities including FWS, NPS, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, FWC, FDEP, Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF), WMDs, NGOs, counties, and private landowners. Public Lands --Public lands in south Florida that benefit the panther are listed below and shown in Figure 4: • In 1947, ENP was established with 2,356 mil (6,102 km) and in 1989 was expanded with the addition of 163 mil (421 km2). • In 1974, Congress approved the purchase and formation of BCNP, protecting 891 mil (2,307 km2); later 228 mil (591 km2) were added. • In 1974, the State of Florida began acquiring land for the FSPSP, which encompasses over 125 mil (324 km2). Efforts are underway to acquire approximately 26 mi2 (68 km2). • In 1985, acquisition of PSSF and Wildlife Management Area (WMA) began with the complex Golden Gate Estates subdivision buyouts and now comprises over 119 mi2 (308 km2). The Southern Golden Gate Estates buyout through State and Federal funds is complete. The South Belle Meade portion of Picayune Strand is about 90% purchased and although the State is no longer purchasing in South Belle Meade, Collier County's Transfer of Development Rights program is helping to secure the inholdings. • In 1989, FWS' FPNWR was established and now protects 41 mi2 (107 km2). • In 1989, the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, a public / private partnership, was established and to date has coordinated the purchase of 42 mi2 (109 km2). • In 1996, the South Florida WMD, purchased the 50 mi2 (130 km2) OSSF. • In 2002 Spirit of the Wild WMA, consisting of over 11 mi2 (28 km), was taken into public ownership by the State of Florida and is managed by FDOF. • In 2003, Dinner Island Ranch WMA consisting of 34 mi2 (88 km2) in southern Hendry County was taken into public ownership by the State of Florida and is managed by FWC. Tribal Lands --Lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida encompass over 547 mi2 (1,416 km2) in south Florida. Of these, 181 mi2 (469 km2) are used by panthers, and comprise 5% of the Primary Zone (R. Kautz, pers. comm. 2005). These lands are not specifically managed for the panther and are largely in cultivation. 59 Private Lands --A variety of Federal, State, and private incentives programs are available to assist private landowners and other individuals to protect and manage wildlife habitat. Voluntary agreements, estate planning, conservation easements, land exchanges, and mitigation banks are methods that hold untapped potential for conserving private lands. In 1954, the National Audubon Society established the nearly 17 mi2 (45 km2) Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. However, little additional private land has been protected south of the Caloosahatchee River for panther conservation. A number of properties identified by the State Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC) for purchase by the Florida Forever Program are used by panthers (e.g., Devil's Garden, Half Circle F Ranch, Pal Mal, Panther Glades). North of the Caloosahatchee River, Fisheating Creek Conservation Easement, 65 mi2 (168 km2) in Glades County is a private holding used by panthers. Habitat Protection Plans -- The Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan, South Florida Population --Released in 1993 by the Florida Panther Interagency Committee (Logan et al. 1993) and drafted to guide habitat acquisition, this document contains useful baseline information about lands that constitute important panther habitat. FWS MSRP--Released by the FWS in 1999, the panther portion of the MSRP outlines how south Florida contributes to the rangewide recovery objective, but does not replace the approved 1995 recovery plan for the panther. While it provides a comprehensive, general overview of panther biology in south Florida, parts that have become outdated will be replaced by this recovery plan. Florida Panther Subteam-- The FWS created MERIT to assist with implementation of the MSRP after it was signed in 1999. In 2000, the FWS formed the Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT to develop a landscape level conservation strategy for the panther in south Florida that could be applied in the planning and regulatory context. The Subteam produced a draft report, "Landscape Conservation Strategy for the Florida Panther in South Florida" (Landscape Conservation Strategy) in December 2002. The document includes a panther habitat map of Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, and outlines recommendations for protection of these areas. Some portions of the science and findings in the Landscape Conservation Strategy have been challenged. As of 2005, the FWS no longer distributes the document as a result of a Data Quality Act (Section 515 of Public Law 106-554) challenge. Many of the Panther Subteam members refined the methodology, further analyzed the data, better defined, and published the results of the Landscape Conservation Strategy (Kautz et al. 2006). Regulatory Tools— COE Panther Key --In 2000, FWS issued to the COE its final interim Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) for conducting consultations between the FWS and the COE for permit applications that may affect panthers. The COE and FWS also co - developed a number of conservation measures that may, where appropriate and on a case -by -case basis, be incorporated into project designs to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the ESA. The COE and FWS revised the key in 2007. The COE and FWS plan to revise the SLOPES and other related documentation as needed and appropriate to incorporate new science developed in the future to conserve the panther. 61 FWS Panther Habitat Methodology --In 2002, FWS developed a draft Panther Habitat Assessment methodology to help guide the agency in evaluating permit applications for projects that could affect panthers and their habitat. This draft methodology was a way to assess the level of impacts to panthers expected from a given project, and to evaluate the effect of any proposed compensation offered by the project applicant. The draft methodology evolved over time to incorporate new information, and will continue to evolve in the future as new information is attained. FWS did not finalize an assessment methodology document but instead describes the methodology used to evaluate each project in detail in biological opinions. The habitat framework serves one important role in broader conservation efforts to maintain a panther population, and is complemented by activities such as fee -title acquisition, easements, and other local, State, and Federal conservation tools. The benefits from each of these conservation tools can be enhanced through coordination. For example, local, State, and Federal land conservation programs could identify and protect areas adjacent to parcels preserved through regulatory review, thereby increasing the size of connected, high -quality habitat for the panther. Federal and State Project Planning --Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, FWS consults with Federal agencies proposing actions that may affect the panther. In addition, FWC provides comments regarding potential impacts to panther habitat to FDEP and WMDs under the authority of Chapter 20.331 Florida Statutes. Many of the impacts from development have been compensated through habitat protection in recent years. Using the evolving panther habitat methodology described above, FWS helped secure 62 mi2 (161 km2) in the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones from September 2003 to June 2008. In addition to habitat conservation, regulatory review allows other important compensation strategies to be considered and 62 implemented. For example, new roads can be configured to direct traffic away from panther habitat. In addition, to help offset impacts from increases in traffic within panther habitat, project sponsors can construct crossings that allow panthers to pass safely from one side of a road to another, thereby minimizing the likelihood of vehicular collisions. New advances in science such as FWC's report entitled "Use of Least Cost Pathways to Identify Key Highway Segments for Panther Conservation" (Swanson et al. 2005) help identify optimal locations for crossings by depicting where vehicular collisions have occurred in the past. This allows agencies to set priorities and guide project sponsors to offset their impacts by providing crossings in areas with a history of problems. FWS Panther Conservation Banks--FWS has initiated a conservation banking program in south Florida to address the impact of habitat loss on the Florida panther. Banks are expected to play a role in filling gaps in the current conservation lands network. By selecting optimum sites among willing participants the banking program provides opportunities to maintain traditional land uses, such as ranching, that are compatible with panther conservation while realizing value from protecting lands from future development. When a development project has an adverse impact to panther habitat, compensation can be put forward to offset this impact. For small projects, land acquisition and restoration is typically difficult to accomplish, and not economically feasible. In addition, small pieces of compensation tend to fragment the conservation landscape making it of less value to the panther. Conservation banks are assigned a number of credits based on the location in the landscape and the habitat value to the panther. This bank of credit can be drawn upon by projects impacting panther habitat through payment to the banker. There is cost certainty in the banking credit value that 63 allows potential development projects to evaluate the cost before making expensive development decisions while directing the compensation toward the best available lands for the panther. By protecting the land in perpetuity and restoring ecological function where feasible, the banks allow consolidation of numerous small impacts into more unified and connected conservation lands that provide to best ecological value to the panther. Advisory Councils and Committees -- Florida Panther Technical Advisory Council --Chapter 38-172, Laws of Florida, established the Florida Panther Technical Advisory Council in 1983. The Council members represent State and Federal agencies and private and professional resource organizations. The Council serves in an advisory capacity to FWC on technical matters of relevance to the panther program, provides a forum for technical review and discussion of the status and development of the panther program, and provides a communications liaison between the technical agencies and organizations represented on the Council. Florida Panther Interagency Committee (FPIC1--FWS, FWC, NPS, and FDEP established FPIC in May 1986. The FPIC was comprised of the Executive Directors of FWC and FDEP and the Regional Directors of FWS and NPS. The purpose of FPIC was to provide guidance and coordination on panther research and management activities. A Technical Subcommittee, composed of mid -level administrators, was appointed by FPIC to provide proposals and other information to be acted upon. FPIC and the Technical Subcommittee are no longer active. Transportation Planning and Improvements— Z Regional, Landscape Level Transportation Plans --Recent least -cost pathways analyses (e.g., Swanson et al. 2005) that identify highway segments crossed by panthers have compiled information that can be used to help avoid and reduce injury and mortality to panthers from collisions with vehicles. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is developing a method of early proposal review through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process that can help assure landscape level protection is addressed, maintain habitat and population connectivity, and protect wildlife and human safety. The State's Strategic Intermodal System Plan and Florida Transportation Plan 2025 focus on mobility and economic development yet include strengthened habitat and wildlife protection provisions. Federal, State, and local agency coordination, as well as public involvement, is needed in regional transportation planning so that expansions, extensions, or new roads; mass transit; and ports minimize fragmentation and degradation of panther habitat. Reducing Vehicle Mortality -- Wildlife Crossings, Underpasses--FDOT's installation of underpasses and accompanying fencing in 1993 along the section of I-75 (Alligator Alley) successfully eliminated panther -vehicle collisions in that area. Incidents of panther -vehicle collisions have also been minimized in four additional areas where crossings and fencing have been installed on SR 29 (two north and two south of I-75). FDOT completed two additional underpasses along SR 29 in 2007. 65 Wildlife crossings increase initial road costs and require permanent conservation designation of the lands on both sides of the structure. However, the burgeoning human population with accompanying increases in personal and commercial vehicles necessitates many more road improvements to reduce the number of panther -vehicle collisions, as well as to help achieve greater human safety. Reduced Speed Limits --Reduced nighttime speed zones have been in effect along many roads since July 1985 to minimize the likelihood of panther -vehicle collisions, however, compliance is a continuing problem. In addition, panther -vehicle collisions have occurred despite drivers following the legal speed limit. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these zones in reducing such collisions could help determine if further adjustments to the speed limits are warranted. Research, Monitoring, and Management -- Research and Monitoring --The FWC began research on the panther with the development of a Florida Panther Record Clearinghouse in 1976. This was the first step in identifying whether or not this species existed in Florida and where it occurred. A total of 4,620 observations were reported to the Clearinghouse, but only 91 of these were confirmed to be a panther (Belden et al. 1991). The majority of the confirmations came from Collier, Hendry, and Miami -Dade Counties. Capture and radio -collaring work by FWC began in 1981 and by NPS in 2001. Monitoring of radio -collared panthers has been done by NPS in ENP and BCNP since 1986 and 1988, respectively. The objectives of research and monitoring have been directed toward understanding the basic biology and habitat needs of the species. This research included movements, home range size and habitat use, morphological descriptions, food habits, mortality causes, and reproduction. Panther prey studies, including population dynamics, deer herd health and reproduction, and deer mortality have also been accomplished. Concurrent with these studies, genetics work was being conducted by Dr. Stephen O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute, and collaborations with the Conservation Breeding Specialists Group were begun. Consultations with these experts on small population dynamics and inbreeding depression yielded a strategy to manage the panther population via genetic restoration. A genetic restoration plan was written in 1994 (Seal 1994a) and implemented in 1995 with the goal of improving the genetic health of the panther population. From 1995 through 2003, most panther capture and monitoring activities were directed towards evaluating genetic restoration. In addition, the goals of the BCNP research and monitoring work include determining the area's potential to support panthers, evaluating the effects of restoration projects and management strategies on the panther population within BCNP, and the extent of connectivity with the panthers in ENP. Capture, handling, and biomedical sample collection by FWC and NPS follow established protocols to ensure safety and thoroughness. Radio -collared panthers are typically monitored by fixed -wing aircraft three times per week to determine location, habitat use, movements, interactions, births, and deaths. Several types of GPS collars are being field-tested by both FWC and NPS in order to obtain data on nocturnal movements and habitat use by panthers (Land et al. in press). 67 Since 1990, Florida panther research by FWC has been funded through the Florida Panther Research and Management Trust Fund, which receives its monies from the purchase of Florida panther specialty license plates. Through 2004, nearly 1.4 million panther license plates have been issued, generating nearly $40 million. Eighty-five percent of the proceeds from the extra $25.00 per license plate collected annually go into this trust fund. To obtain the money, FWC must submit a budget request each year to the Florida Legislature for approval. The NPS in ENP and BCNP supports its panther work within its annual budgets or special funding requests. Captive Breeding --In 1984, John Lukas, Director of Conservation and Curator of Gilman Paper Company's White Oak Plantation, expressed an interest in breeding Florida panthers in captivity. At the time, a male Florida panther was convalescing at the FWC Wildlife Research Laboratory from injuries sustained when he was hit by a vehicle. These events led to the formalization of a plan to captive -breed panthers with the eventual goal of reestablishing them in unoccupied portions of their historic range. In May 1985, FWC and Gilman Paper Company signed an agreement to breed panthers in captivity and to make suitable animals available for reintroduction. The captive -breeding facilities were constructed at White Oak in 1985 and 1986. The convalescing male panther was the first animal moved to these facilities. Three wild -caught female Texas pumas were brought to Florida in 1986 to be used as surrogates for Florida panthers. 68 The Florida Panther Viability Analysis and Species Survival Plan Workshop held in 1989 further defined the need to establish a captive Florida panther population as security against extinction and for the long-term preservation of the remaining gene pool (Seal and Lacy 1989). Establishment of a captive population with minimal impacts on the wild population and maximum genetic representation included the removal of selected kittens and adults from the wild over a three- to six -year period, not to exceed six kittens and two adults per year. The goal was to achieve a total panther population of 500 breeding adults (combination of all wild and captive populations) to retain 90% of the current genetic diversity for 100 years or longer (Seal and Lacy 1989). After an extensive environmental review process, FWS determined that removal of these animals from the wild was not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined under provisions of NEPA. However, The Fund for Animals, Inc., and Holly Jensen filed a lawsuit against FWS requesting a court injunction to prevent issuance of the subpermits needed to capture and remove panthers from the wild. An out -of -court settlement reached on February 6, 1991, identified a number of specific elements to be addressed in a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA). These elements were to explore and evaluate a genetic enrichment (augmentation) alternative; compare environmental, legal, and regulatory impacts of the proposed action and the genetic enrichment (augmentation) alternative; provide a thorough, expanded analysis on the issue of the feasibility and impact of reintroduction of captive -bred Florida panthers to the wild; and provide a thorough, expanded analysis of the impacts posed to the remaining wild population from the removal of Florida panthers (Jordan 1991). Once the Supplemental EA had been developed and subpermits issued, six Florida panther kittens were brought into captivity in the spring of 1991 for use in the captive breeding program. Four additional kittens were removed from the wild in 1992. Two of these were taken to Lowry Park Zoological Garden in Tampa and two to Jacksonville Zoological Gardens. The plan was to pair these panthers for maintaining maximum genetic variability and viability when they matured. However, kitten removal from the wild ceased in 1992. The genetic health of the Florida panther population had deteriorated to a point where continued survival was questionable, even with selective breeding within a captive population, and plans were being formulated for genetic restoration by simulating natural gene flow by introducing animals from western puma populations (Seal l 994b). Therefore, captive breeding was not initiated and the captive animals were maintained for conservation education. Genetic Restoration --A plan for genetic restoration and management of the panther was developed in September 1994 (Seal 1994a). The level of introgression required to reverse the effects of inbreeding and genetic loss required the release of eight female Texas pumas into areas occupied by Florida panthers (Seal 1994a). These eight female Texas pumas were released in 1995, five of which produced a total of 20 offspring (Land et al. 2004). None of the original eight Texas pumas remain in the population today (Land et al. 2004). A preliminary assessment of genetic restoration suggested that the desired 20% introgression level had been achieved, but the contributions were primarily from two of the released females (Land and Lacy 2000). The genetic restoration program appears to have been successful as determined by increased kitten 70 and adult female survival, an increasing population, and an expansion in occupied range (Pimm et al. 2006a). Reestablishment of panther populations in the southeastern U.S.-- Reintroduction Feasibility Studies in North Florida--FWC conducted two studies, from 1988 - 1989 (Belden and Hagedorn 1993) and from 1993 - 1995 (Belden and McCown 1996), to evaluate feasibility of reintroducing panthers into unoccupied areas of their historic range. The studies also identified the need to address social issues surrounding reintroduction. In 1988, seven pumas captured in west Texas were released in north Florida as surrogates for evaluating the feasibility of translocating Florida panthers. The pumas included three adult males, three adult females, and one yearling female. They were monitored from 1988 - 1989. The pumas established overlapping home ranges, killed large prey at predicted frequencies, and settled into routine movement and feeding patterns before the hunting season. Three pumas died during the study, the cause of death was unknown for one found floating in the Suwannee River, and shooting was suspected or documented for the other two deaths. Results indicated methods for reducing puma -human interactions, such as placing release pens as far as possible from humans and livestock, which occurred most frequently during the immediate post -release period and during subsequent excursions from home ranges (Belden and Hagedorn 1993). Belden and Hagedorn (1993) recommended additional research on the feasibility of panther translocation with a larger initial stocking rate of 10 - 20 pumas to ensure that a social structure can be established if some of the animals do not survive. 71 In 1993, 19 pumas were released into north Florida, including 11 females and eight vasectomized males. Six of the pumas were born and raised in captivity, 10 were captured in the wild in western Texas and translocated to Florida, and three were captured in the wild in western Texas and held in captivity in Florida for two to eight years prior to release. The study concluded that reintroduction is biologically feasible, that is, pumas can successfully establish territories and sustain themselves when reintroduced. This study showed that home ranges for females in north Florida were approximately half the size of home ranges for female panthers in south Florida, likely due to more productive habitat in north Florida and southern Georgia (Belden and McCown 1996). The Belden and McCown (1996) study also highlights the need for an effective and comprehensive public education and outreach program that occurs well ahead of releasing panthers into reintroduction sites. Habitat Assessment to Identify Potential Reintroduction Sites in the Southeastern U.S.--Jordan (1994) evaluated 24 sites in the southeastern U.S. based on biological and anthropogenic criteria and concluded that 14 sites should be evaluated further as potential panther reintroduction sites. These were assessed and ranked based on four criteria (area size, forest area, human population density, road density). Jordan (1994) indicated that additional analyses would be needed. Thatcher et al. (2006b) identified and ranked nine potential reintroduction sites based on models that utilized three landscape and four human -influence variables on the landscape. These variables included 1) percentage of natural land cover, 2) spatial aggregation of natural land - cover patches, 3) habitat patch density, 4) human population density, 5) minor road density, 6) major road density, and 7) percentage of urban land cover. Thatcher et al. (2006b) recommended 72 that the top three sites identified should be considered for further evaluation as potential reintroduction sites. They recommend field surveys of local habitat conditions (e.g., assessment of localized prey densities and the availability of understory vegetation or varied topography for stalking and denning cover) and evaluation of sociopolitical information such as public attitudes towards carnivore reintroduction in the chosen reintroduction sites. Education and Outreach -- Panther Net Website--A multidisciplinary interactive website (www.panther. state. fl.us) was launched and funded by FWC in 1999 with proceeds of the Florida panther license plate. The site includes information for adults and school children on the natural history of the panther, its habitat, threats to its survival, research, management, and conservation efforts. Northeast Florida Panther Education Program (Cramer 1995)--From September 1994 to November 1995 during the Florida Panther Reintroduction Feasibility Study, FWC sponsored this program that reached approximately 1,000 northeast Florida residents through a pamphlet, slide presentations, a county fair display, and a telephone survey. Results revealed a large base of support (75%) for reintroduction of panthers into the Osceola National Forest region. Results also identified specific community concerns, and made suggestions for addressing these through education and outreach. The results from the program can be applied to develop an effective communications program to address community concerns well in advance of subsequent reintroduction efforts. 73 Statewide Survey (Duda and Young 1995)--FWC sponsored a 1995 statewide attitudinal survey about Florida panthers. The survey revealed that 83% of Floridians surveyed support panther reintroduction efforts. Public Workshops and Acceptability of Florida Panther Reintroduction --Three years after the 1993 - 1995 Florida Panther Reintroduction Feasibility Study ended, FWC sponsored a series of workshops in 1998 to address Public Acceptability of Florida Panther Reintroduction (Taylor and Pederson 1998). The study focused on residents in Columbia County because of their experience with earlier reintroduction feasibility studies. The goal was to engage residents in an exploration of concerns and possible ways to address them. However, while the working group was intended to represent a variety of interests, it consisted mostly of local opposition to reintroduction and consensus was not reached. The results demonstrated the need to engage a wider variety of interests in the process. Recent Panther Outreach Initiatives --A variety of panther outreach initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to assist residents in southwest Florida learn to live safely and responsibly with the Florida panther and other wildlife. FWS coordinates a panther outreach team that collaborates to produce informational materials and hold outreach events about living and recreating safely in panther habitat. FWS, NPS, and FWC have led "Living with Panther" town hall meetings in communities experiencing human -panther interactions. Many members of the outreach team participated in the construction of predator -proof enclosures for livestock and pets to demonstrate proper husbandry for domestic animals while avoiding attracting predators. In recent years, a number of celebrations, field trips, educational talks, and other events have 74 been held each March in southwest Florida to coincide with Save the Florida Panther Day (Florida Statute 683.18 designates the third Saturday of March of each year as "Save the Florida Panther Day." Conservation Organizations --A number of conservation organizations are working to conserve and recover the panther through education, outreach, and advocacy. These include Defenders of Wildlife (www.defenders.org, www.biodiversitypartners.org), Florida Panther Society (www.panthersociety.org), Friends of the FPNWR (www.floridapanther.org), National Wildlife Federation (www.nwf.org), its state affiliate the Florida Wildlife Federation (www.fwfonline.org), and The Nature Conservancy (www.natureconservancy.org). Programs encompass public education and awareness initiatives, habitat conservation, transportation and land -use planning, compensation for livestock depredation, landowner incentive initiatives, and projects aimed at fostering human -panther coexistence. Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan--FWC, FWS, and NPS established a Florida Panther Interagency Response Team in June 2004 to manage human -panther interactions while promoting human safety and assuring the continued existence and recovery of the panther. This team, comprised of panther experts and agency representatives, was tasked with developing a panther response plan to provide guidance for the agencies so that human / panther interactions would be dealt with consistently and quickly while addressing the primary objective of public safety and balancing the needs of recovering an endangered species. Additionally, the plan needed to address public education and outreach concerning panther interactions. The draft plan is being finalized. 75 Scientific Reviews -- Analysis of Scientific Literature Related to the Florida Panther and Panther Habitat --In 2002, FWC and FWS commissioned an independent Scientific Review Team (SRT) to complete an analysis of scientific literature related to the panther. Completed in 2003, the SRT report (Beier et al. 2003) found that a quarter -century of research strongly supported many published conclusions, including that forests are important as daytime rest sites of panthers, that white- tailed deer and feral hogs are the most important panther prey, that the most important threats to panther persistence include limited habitat area and continued habitat loss and fragmentation, and that recovery of the panther depends most critically on establishing additional populations outside of south Florida. Beier et al. (2003) also found poorly supported inferences regarding panther use of large forest patches, the quality of habitat in ENP and BCNP, and some vital rates used in inflexible population viability analysis (PVA) software. Information Quality Act Challenge --The scientific process by design continually advances our collective understanding of the species and its needs for recovery. In 2004, an Information Quality Act challenge identified certain inconsistencies and shortcomings in some panther science. In response, FWS completed a series of tasks to clarify the record and collect, incorporate, and clearly describe new scientific information in its analyses. FWS remains committed to maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information it disseminates to the public. Furthermore, FWS welcomes input from colleagues to improve the quality of scientific information and optimize the conservation benefits achieved through the agency's programs. 76 K. Population Viability Analysis Introduction-- PVA estimates the risk of extinction for a given population over a given time period (Shaffer 1981, Gilpin and Soul6 1986, Beissinger and Westphal 1998). In general, PVA models are relatively simple and rarely reflect the exact dynamics of a real population (Fieberg and Ellner 2000). PVA models are dependent upon quality input data (Doak et al. 1994) and how effectively the model itself reflects the life history of the species being modeled. However, PVA models used in conjunction with genetic and other benchmarks may help determine minimum population sizes (Shaffer 1981, Shaffer and Sampson 1985, Morris and Doak 2002) as well as metapopulation structure necessary to offset habitat fragmentation, catastrophes, and other threats (Pulliam et al. 1992, Hanski 2002). A population is "viable" when it has the "capacity to maintain itself without significant demographic or genetic manipulation for the foreseeable ecological future —usually centuries — with a certain, agreed on, degree of certitude" (Soul6 1987). Shaffer (1981) first defined the "minimum viable population" for a given species in a given habitat as "the smallest isolated population having a 99% chance of remaining extant for 1000 years despite the foreseeable effects of demographic, environmental and genetic stochasticity and natural catastrophes." As Shaffer, Sou16, and others note, the choice of both the time horizon and the threshold is in fact arbitrary (Shaffer 1981, Soul6 1987, Boyce 1992, Grimm and Wissel 2004). Nonetheless, a literature review of empirically derived PVAs suggests that thresholds set at a 95 or a 99% chance of persistence (corresponding to a 5 or 1 % chance of true extinction) over a 100-year 77 time horizon are often used (Hamilton and Moller 1995, Horino and Miura 2000, Kelly and Durant 2000, Parysow and Tazik 2002, Kohlmann et al. 2005). Even populations that persist beyond the stipulated time period may experience a reduction in population size or genetic variation rendering such populations vulnerable to inbreeding depression and / or genetic drift in subsequent generations. Thus, to offset declining mean population fitness as a result of inbreeding depression, Franklin (1980) and Sou16 (1980) recommended effective population sizes (Ne) of 50 or more individuals, and Sou16 et al. (1986) argued for a genetic threshold of no more than a 10% loss of heterozygosity over 200 years. To offset the erosion of genetic variability due to genetic drift, however, Franklin (1980) and Sou16 (1980) recommended an effective population size of at least 500 individuals (see also Lande and Barrowclough 1987, Ewens 1990, Franklin and Frankham 1998). Based on empirical observations that detrimental mutations outnumbered beneficial and neutral ones, Lande (1995) argued for even larger effective population sizes on the order of 5,000 (but see Franklin and Frankham 1998). Finally, effective population sizes of between 10,000 and 100,000 may be necessary to maintain particularly beneficial traits (e.g., single -locus disease resistance factors) (Lande and Barrowclough 1987, Lande 1988). These varied estimates highlight the species - specific nature of the question. The effective population size is substantially lower than the actual population size because of spatial structure, variance in family size, unequal sex ratios, and temporal fluctuations in population size (Wright 1969, Falconer 1989, Frankham 1995, Waples 2002). "However, one fairly well -substantiated generality is that for many birds and mammals Ne / N z one-half to two - in thirds, where N is the total population size of reproductive adults (Nunney 1993, Nunney and Elam 1994), arguing for a quasi -extinction threshold of at least 100 breeding adults" (Morris and Doak 2002). As Morris and Doak (2002) note, however, "this approach still basically ignores inbreeding problems and will always result in somewhat optimistic answers about population viability." Furthermore, metapopulation substructure is important because the total effective population size is not equal to the sum of the subpopulations and is most likely to be much higher than the sum (Wright 1943, Waples 2002). Previous Florida Panther PVAs-- There have been at least six PVAs for the Florida panther (Seal and Lacy 1989, Seal and Lacy 1992, Cox et al. 1994, Ellis et al. 1999, Kautz and Cox 2001, Maehr et al. 2002b, Root 2004). The earliest of these, Seal and Lacy (1989) and Seal and Lacy (1992), used the VORTEX program to perform the PVA. The 1989 version predicted that "wholly isolated populations of less than 50 adult panthers (about 80 total adults, subadults, and juveniles) are not demographically stable even if the mean population growth rate, r, is positive." Even assuming that inbreeding has no deleterious effects on viability and reproduction, the predicted probability of extinction within 100 years was more than 14% (Seal and Lacy 1989). If inbreeding depression is assumed, the predicted probability of extinction within 50 years was "virtually certain" (Seal and Lacy 1989). Largely based on this PVA, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Captive Breeding Specialist Group recommended a vigorous captive breeding program. 79 In 1992, Seal and Lacy revised the VORTEX panther PVA, based on newer data for mortality and reproduction. Like the 1989 version, the 1992 version predicted the panther had a significant chance of extinction in 100 years and reduced genetic viability. For example, simulations of a population of 50 adult panthers with a positive mean population growth rate showed up to a 15% chance of extinction within 100 years in the absence of inbreeding and as much as a 35% chance with inbreeding (Seal and Lacy 1992). Cox et al. (1994) and Kautz and Cox (2001) performed PVAs for 11 wildlife species, including the panther. Their models built on the earlier work of Shaffer (1987) by including catastrophic events. The Cox et al. (1994) PVA followed adult females only and incorporated a range of fecundity and survival values to simulate "favorable," "moderate," and "harsh" environmental conditions over 200 years. Under the "favorable" environment scenario (high survival and fecundity), 63 panthers had a 90% chance of persistence for 200 years. Under the "moderate" scenario (medium levels of survival and fecundity) 76 panthers and under the "harsh" scenario (low survival and fecundity) 84 panthers had the same chance of persistence. Kautz and Cox (2001) added a genetic component to the Cox et al. (1994) PVA by using the technique described in Reed et al. (1988). Kautz and Cox estimated the size of a total population needed to obtain an effective population size of 50. The authors acknowledged that effective populations on the order of 100 - 1,000 times greater than 50 may be needed to ensure genetic variability over the long term; nonetheless, Kautz and Cox (2001) focused on the smallest population sizes likely to persist in the short term. By comparison, Reed et al. (2003) performed PVAs in VORTEX for 102 vertebrate species, including the panther, to estimate minimum viable populations (MVPs). Based on a subset (n = 38) of these species, Reed et al. (2003) determined that 5,800 adult animals were needed for a 95% chance of persistence over 40 generations, 4,700 for a 90% chance of persistence, and 550 for a 50% chance of persistence. Ultimately, Reed et al. (2003) concluded that management programs should conserve habitat capable of supporting approximately 7,000 adult vertebrates to ensure long-term persistence. This number was larger than other MVP estimates cited therein (Franklin 1980 [4,500], Newmark 1987 [greater than 3,250], Thomas 1990 [5,500], Schultz and Lynch 1997 [-2,000], Reed and Bryant 2000 [greater than 2,000], Whitlock 2000 [-2,000]). Kautz and Cox (2001) assumed that as long as the effective population size does not drop below 50, opportunities will arise later for achieving larger populations and avoiding genetics problems through patch recolonization, translocation of individuals, or removal of environmental constraints on a population through management. Based on these assumptions, Kautz and Cox (2001) estimated that a census population of panthers in the range of 100 - 200 individuals is needed to achieve an effective population size of 50. However, this conclusion is based in part upon equating total metapopulation size with effective population size (see Wright 1943, Waples 2002). Maehr et al. (2002b) used a "consensus" model, whereby five coauthors each provided initial conditions and parameter values for separate runs in VORTEX. These five "wildly divergent models produced divergent estimates of extinction risk" (Beier et al. 2003). If "discrepancies were more than slight, each author was asked to justify the variable in question" (Maehr et al. 2002b). The "agreement among 4 of 5 estimates of extinction risk was due to drastically differing, but fortuitously offsetting, assumptions between modelers" (Beier et al. 2003). If "a single view did not prevail, compromise was sought by averaging the five versions of the contentious variable" (Maehr et al. 2002b). This consensus model suggested a 98% chance of persistence for 100 years (Maehr et al. 2002b). According to Beier et al. (2003), this more "optimistic" outcome was due to some combination of 4 factors: (1) kitten mortality was simulated at 20% compared to 50% in earlier PVAs; (2) initial population size was set as 60 compared to 50 in earlier PVAs; (3) they assumed no loss of habitat compared to 1% annually in earlier PVAs; and (4) they assumed population augmentation in the form of two females per decade compared to none in earlier PVAs. Ellis et al. (1999) reviewed the Seal and Lacy (1989), Seal and Lacy (1992), and Maehr et al. (2002b)' PVA models. Their review included a comparison of the parameter inputs for the three models as well as additional sensitivity analyses to explore expansion prospects and the effects of habitat loss on the south Florida population (Ellis et al. 1999). In general, their analysis demonstrated that these PVA models are fairly sensitive to changes in first -year mortality (i.e., kitten survival) (Ellis et al. 1999). For example, with low carrying capacity (100 - 200 individuals) and low first -year mortality (20 - 40%), the PVA models showed positive population growth, low probabilities of extinction (0 - 3%), and moderate losses of genetic diversity (15 - 27%) (Ellis et al. 1999). However, when first -year mortality is increased (50 - 60%), the probability of extinction rises dramatically (48 - 100%), and loss of genetic diversity is further accelerated (28 - 50%, 100% for the extinction scenario) (Ellis et al. 1999). ' Although Maehr et al. (2002b) was published in 2002, the actual PVA model was first presented in 1999. See Ellis et al. (1999). MN Ellis et al. (1999) also determined that in some circumstances, the south Florida population could remain viable given low levels of emigration from the current population (i.e., 1% per year). However, viable expansion required members of the newly established population immigrating back into the current population as well as low first -year mortality (Ellis et al. 1999). Finally, simulations incorporating cumulative habitat losses of 25% and 50% over 25 years yielded significant probabilities of extinction for all but the lowest value of first -year mortality, ranging from 10% (assuming 30% first -year mortality and 25% habitat loss) to 98% (assuming 50% first - year mortality and 50% habitat loss) (Ellis et al. 1999). Beier et al. (2003) recommended against the use of "canned programs" (e.g., VORTEX, RAMAS) and urged that future models take into account uncertainty in model parameters and functional relationships via sensitivity analyses. With the exception of Cox et al. (1994) and Kautz and Cox (2001), all of the panther PVA models were based on these canned programs. The PVA by Maehr et al. (2002b) did not include a sensitivity analysis. As Beier et al. (2006) note, understanding the sensitivity of PVA models to parameter changes may be more important than a precise estimate of extinction risk. Beier et al. (2003) also recommended that rigorous estimates of reproduction rates, survival rates, and variation in these rates, be incorporated into future PVAs. Finally, Beier et al. (2003) discouraged against "consensus" approaches (e.g., Maehr et al. 2002b) for inputting values because they lead to a "false sense of reliability." Recent Florida Panther PVA -- In 2002, Root constructed a PVA model to determine the minimum population size necessary for long-term persistence (100 years). Root's PVA model was constructed using RAMAS GIS, a spatially -explicit PVA software program. Relying on less optimistic fecundity and survival values from Seal and Lacy (1989), Root's PVA model determined that there was no feasible number of panthers that would produce persistence probabilities greater than 75%, even if the initial population size was more than 1,000 females (or 2,000 total panthers, assuming a sex ratio of 1:1). Using more optimistic fecundity and survival values from Seal and Lacy (1989) corresponding to values needed to produce finite population growth rates much greater than 1.05, Root's PVA model determined that 25 females (50 total panthers) would provide a 95% probability of persistence for the next 100 years. Using input parameter estimates needed to produce finite growth rates near 1.05, the population size needed for long-term persistence increased to 51 females (102 total panthers). When the input parameter estimates were modified to reduce the finite growth rate still further to 1.03, Root's PVA model revealed that a panther population comprised of at least 120 females (240 total panthers) was required for long-term persistence. Some of the PVA work done by Root in 2002 is now published (Root 2004), but the publication does not discuss specific target population sizes necessary for long-term persistence or include a sensitivity analysis. Similar to Cox et al. (1994) and Kautz and Cox (2001), Root's model only followed females and examined three basic sets of parameters. For the latter, Root (2004) used parameter values similar to those in Seal and Lacy (1989), Seal and Lacy (1992), and Maehr et al. (2002b). Root (2004) ran several variations of each set of parameters, including "different density dependence or none, various levels of habitat loss, intermittent catastrophes or epidemics, or scheduled translocations or reintroductions." In particular, Root (2004) calculated the potential impact on the panther population of a loss of 25% of habitat (1% per year for 25 years), or roughly the amount of private land within the Primary Zone. After 100 years under a moderate scenario with this habitat loss assumption, Root (2004) estimated a decrease in mean final abundance of 26%, and a 1 % increase in the likelihood of extinction. However, even under the optimistic scenario she found the 25% habitat loss variation noted above greatly decreased mean final abundance. Root (2004) also explored emigration (i.e., annual dispersal of female panthers to empty patches north of the Caloosahatchee River), finding that under the Seal and Lacy (1992) set of parameters, the probability of extinction actually increases over what it would have been without emigration. These preliminary results suggest the importance of carefully considering metapopulation structure not only in terms of subpopulation size, but also in terms of dispersal rates, prior to deriving MVPs (see also Sweanor et al. 2000, Frank 2005, Hellgren et al. 2005, McCarthy et al. 2005). The FWS believes that Root (2004) represents the most current, reliable, and objective PVA model available today. We recognize that any model is only as good as the data / parameters estimates used. We are also aware of the deficiencies of this model (e.g., use of a "canned program", lack of sensitivity analysis) and realize that while the model included a variation for habitat loss approximating all private lands in the Primary Zone, several of the assumptions in the basic model (e.g., no change in amount, quality, or configuration of habitat; no difficulty finding mates; no catastrophies; no additional human -induced mortality) may be unrealistic. Recognizing these limitations, we believe the PVA analysis by Root (2004) represents the best available science at this time. Therefore, the Root (2004) PVA was used by the Recovery Team and FWS to aid in developing the population numbers for the reclassification and delisting criteria. Implications -- There is insufficient habitat in south Florida to sustain a viable panther population and population expansion into south-central Florida will be difficult. Therefore, to achieve a viable population of 240 and to reclassify or delist the species, additional populations will have to be reintroduced into other areas within the panther's historical range. Unfortunately, the distances from the occupied range to potential reintroduction sites (Thatcher et al. 2006b) may far exceed the species' capability for demographic and genetic interchange. In the absence of migration between populations, each panther population will remain isolated and therefore vulnerable to environmental, demographic, and genetic stochasticity as well as catastrophic events (Gilpin and Soul6 1986). These isolated populations will be vulnerable to extinction in the short-term. However, the long-term persistence of the panther will depend on multiple populations that are spatially discrete and able to fluctuate independently from one another in response to catastrophic or other environmental perturbations. If each of these reestablished populations had a moderately low probability of extinction, localized environmental perturbations, and population fluctuations remained asynchronous, all other things being equal, it is highly improbable that the extinction of the panther would result from a simultaneous extinction of all populations (Seal and Lacy 1989, Carlson and Edenhamn 2000, Kendall et al. 2000, Reed 2004, Li et al. 2005). In some cases, managed translocation among separate populations may be a cost-effective means of achieving multiple, viable populations (Goodman 1987, Lubow 1996). However, biological concerns such as landscape connectivity (Noss 1987, Root 1998, Beier 1993, Swart and Lawes 1996, Carroll et al. 2004, Kramer-Schadt et al. 2005), disease outbreaks (Hedrick et al. 2003), migration rates among populations (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977, Mills and Allendorf 1996), demographic impacts on the donor populations (Saenz et al. 2002, Root 2004), population bottlenecks (Ralls and Ballou 2004), Allee effects (Mooring et al. 2004), inbreeding depression (Swinnerton et al. 2004), and random genetic drift (Gautschi et al. 2003) must be carefully considered prior to reintroduction. Furthermore, financial (Margan et al. 1998, van Heezik and Ostrowski 2001, Lindsey et al. 2005), socio-political (Musiani and Paquet 2004) and / or other factors may impose additional constraints on the efficacy of reintroducing multiple populations. II. RECOVERY STRATEGY The biological constraints that have to be taken into consideration when planning Florida panther conservation and management actions include the need for large, contiguous landscapes, the need for large prey for successful reproduction, very low population density, and low reproductive and colonization rates. The fact that the panther is a large predator requires human social considerations in its conservation and management. Panthers are large, solitary carnivores and require large ranges to obtain the necessary prey (white-tailed deer and feral hogs) to meet energy needs required for health and reproduction. Their social and reproductive behavior requires access to large contiguous areas of suitable habitat to maintain viable breeding populations. Social intolerance (mutual avoidance), prey abundance, and specific habitat features are thought to regulate panther density. Females normally have a litter of kittens every other year. When the kittens are 14 - 24 months of age, the family bond is broken and the kittens leave their mother. Subadult males generally disperse and become somewhat nomadic, whereas subadult females generally set up home ranges very close to their natal ranges. For this reason, it can take a considerable amount of time for a population to colonize new areas. Panthers are sometimes thought of as a wilderness indicator species, not because they require wilderness to live or cannot live in proximity to people, but because people will not usually tolerate panthers living in close proximity to them. People have historically been fearful of panthers due to concern for their livestock as well as their own lives. As humans encroach in panther habitat the likelihood of human -panther interactions increases. People's perceptions and attitudes about panthers will be a major determining factor in the success of panther recovery. The recovery strategy for the Florida panther is to maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida, expand this population into south-central Florida, reintroduce at least two additional viable populations within the historic range outside of south and south-central Florida, and facilitate panther recovery through public awareness and education. The panther depends upon habitat of sufficient quantity, quality, and spatial configuration for long-term persistence, therefore the plan is built upon habitat conservation and reducing habitat -related threats, but also addresses other key issues such as genetic viability. Range expansion and reintroduction of additional populations are recognized as essential for panther recovery. Similarly, fostering greater public understanding and support is necessary to achieve panther recovery. Maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida Before delisting can occur, sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration must be maintained and protected in the long-term to support multiple viable populations. Consequently, habitat conservation will be necessary for recovery. Leading sources of panther mortality (vehicular collisions and intra-specific aggression), impediments to population expansion and subsequent gene flow, and biological constraints on population growth and other life history traits also are habitat -related. Therefore, those actions that maintain, restore, and expand panther habitat generally are critical for conservation and recovery. The Primary Zone supports the only breeding panther population. To prevent further loss of population viability, habitat conservation efforts should focus on maintaining the total available area, quality, and spatial extent of habitat within the Primary Zone. The continued loss of habitat functionality through fragmentation and loss of spatial extent pose serious threats to the conservation and recovery of the panther. Therefore, conserving lands within the Primary Zone and securing biological corridors are necessary to help alleviate these threats. The Secondary Zone consists of lands that have the potential to support an expanding panther population. However, these lands contain lower quality habitat comprised of high intensity agriculture, a patchwork of residential subdivisions, and golf course communities. Restoration would need to occur to allow this area to contribute meaningfully to panther recovery. Because these lands require extensive restoration in some areas and may not contribute to panther recovery for some time, their conservation is considered a lower priority than conservation of the Primary and Dispersal Zones (Kautz et al. 2006). Roads are a significant source of panther mortality and habitat fragmentation in south Florida. Therefore, necessary actions include the identification and prioritization of locations needing crossing and fencing installation, as well as collaborative efforts by transportation agencies, landowners, and local communities to ensure that future roads and road expansion projects are designed and constructed with regard to panther conservation. Several highway segments are particularly problematic for panthers because the adjacent lands are privately owned. Installation of highway crossings and fencing along sensitive highway segments will require cooperation with private landowners. Approximately one-fourth of the Primary Zone, two-thirds of the Secondary Zone, and nearly all of the Dispersal Zone are in private ownership (R. Kautz, pers. comm. 2005). Therefore, conservation and restoration of Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zone habitat will require cooperation with private landowners not only as willing sellers, but also as willing participants in conservation easements or other habitat management programs for the panther. Actions that emphasize cooperative efforts and landowner incentives, particularly those designed to discourage conversion of land to less suitable habitat are important. The majority of the Primary Zone is on public lands, and panther survival will depend upon public land managers to ensure that panthers and their prey are considered in management 91 efforts. Important tools for success will include development and implementation of best management practices for panther habitat; formalizing a network of south Florida public land managers; preparation, review, and implementation of State and Federal habitat management plans for public lands; and a tracking system to determine the effects of habitat loss and conversion on panthers. Although the genetic restoration program initiated in 1995 was successful (Pimm et al. 2006a), the existing population size is not sufficient to offset genetic drift in the long-term. At current population levels, the loss of donor individuals to future expansion and / or reintroduction efforts may pose an added risk to the existing population (Root 2004). Therefore, developing and implementing a genetics management program to determine appropriate protocols for translocating or removing panthers as well as gauging the progress of the restoration effort is important. Related to this effort is the need to continue monitoring physical and physiological characteristics correlated with inbreeding and loss of genetic variability. A PVA model is being developed by FWC that should assist in ensuring that these management actions do not impair the long-term persistence of existing and future panther populations. The small size and high degree of isolation of the existing panther population also makes it vulnerable to catastrophic events such as disease or parasite outbreaks. Actions that support continued monitoring and determination of the presence, infection rate, mortality rate, and consequences of known and unknown diseases and parasites are important. Provide for the expansion of the breeding population into south-central Florida 91 Dispersing male panthers from the south Florida population have immigrated into south-central Florida, but an absence of females has inhibited expansion of the breeding population into this area (Belden and McBride 2006). The primary considerations to expanding the breeding population of panthers into south-central Florida are to determine whether suitable habitat exists, whether people there will accept panthers, if there are sufficient panther numbers in the age and sex classes necessary for expansion, and methods of expanding the population. Studies by Belden and McBride (2006) and Thatcher et al. (2006a) evaluated habitats in south-central Florida and identified areas that might provide favorable habitat conditions (Figure 5). Even though some suitable panther habitat remains in this region, it occurs in widely scattered and relatively small patches that are fragmented by major highways and agricultural and urban development. It is estimated that these areas could support 20 to 40 panthers (Belden and McBride 2006, Thatcher et al. 2006a). Development pressure and human population growth will decrease the opportunity for panther expansion north of the Caloosahatchee River. The Dispersal Zone requires protection from development to provide a corridor to facilitate dispersal from south Florida to potentially suitable habitat north of the Caloosahatchee River. Maintaining connectivity is important not only to facilitate dispersal, but to enhance population exchange once female panthers have been reestablished in south-central Florida. Given the limited dispersal rates of female panthers and the present lack of suitable habitat conditions in the Dispersal Zone, it is likely that human intervention will be required to establish females north of the Caloosahatchee River (Thatcher et al. 2006a). In this case, the feasibility of panther translocation will need to be evaluated, including an EA or Environmental Impact 92 Statements (EIS) under the NEPA process if necessary, and a translocation plan developed. This plan should include an evaluation of public acceptance, consideration of the effects on potential reintroductions elsewhere in the historic range, and consideration of the effects on the south Florida breeding population. Any expansion plan should include education and outreach to increase public understanding of panther behavior and recovery needs prior to, during, and after the translocation of panthers. Establish viable populations of the panther in potential reintroduction areas The panther has been restricted to less than 5% of its historic range and the current panther population is not considered viable. Recovery will require reintroduction to establish viable populations in other parts of its historic range. The strategy is to utilize existing studies and computer models along with field surveys to confirm potential reintroduction sites. These potential reintroduction sites will be further refined in coordination with agencies and the public in other southeastern states. This will include conducting preliminary public scoping, conducting field surveys, and using the NEPA process to develop and refine the appropriate reintroduction alternatives. Once a site is chosen, protocols will need to be developed to determine the number of panthers from each age and sex class that are needed and which individuals are the best candidates for release, methods of release, and monitoring. Education and outreach efforts will be needed to address social concerns before and after panthers are released. Identify, secure, maintain, and restore habitat in potential reintroduction areas 93 The strategy for conserving habitat in potential reintroduction areas will need to mirror that for conserving habitat in the currently occupied range. The ability of potential reintroduction sites to support panthers will depend on land managers to ensure that the needs of both panther and prey are adequately considered. It will be important to develop and implement best management practices for panther habitat; formalize local networks of land managers; prepare, review, and implement habitat management plans; and develop a tracking system to determine the effects of habitat management on panthers. Those actions that prevent habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation as well as maximize connectivity and spatial extent in reintroduction areas are important for reintroduction. Actions that involve identification and prioritization of areas for road crossing and fencing installation are essential. Similarly, collaborative transportation planning efforts that ensure future roads and road expansion projects are designed and constructed with regard to panther conservation are high priorities. Facilitate panther recovery through public awareness and education Public awareness and support are essential for panther conservation and management activities, as well as for reintroduction efforts. Previous social surveys and biological field research related to panther recovery efforts have identified the importance of public education and outreach programs, including development of a media plan. The strategy is to build support through education and outreach programs that increase public understanding of panther behavior and recovery needs. Social science research will identify public opinion and knowledge levels which are important in developing materials and programs; these will be provided to local planning organizations, decision makers and elected officials, the public, major landowners, residents living in and adjacent to panther habitat, the realtor community, and other audiences. Education and outreach efforts will be evaluated, especially to assess human attitude and behavior changes toward panthers. III. RECOVERY GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA Recovery Goal The goal of this recovery plan is to achieve long-term viability of the Florida panther to a point where it can be reclassified from endangered to threatened, and then removed from the Federal List of endangered and threatened species. Recovery Objectives 1. To maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida and expand the breeding portion of the population in south Florida to areas north of the Caloosahatchee River. 2. To identify, secure, maintain, and restore panther habitat in potential reintroduction areas within the historic range, and to establish viable populations of the panther outside south and south-central Florida. 3. To facilitate panther recovery through public awareness and education. 95 Recovery Criteria The quantitative criteria for the interim goal, reclassification, and delisting are based upon threats to the panther, PVAs, and the need to address representation, resiliency, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000 cited in National Marine Fisheries Service 2004). Representation is conserving the breadth of the genetic makeup of the species to conserve its adaptive capabilities. Resiliency is ensuring that each population is sufficiently large to withstand stochastic events. Redundancy is ensuring a sufficient number of populations to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. Kautz et al. (2006) developed population guidelines based on the results of the previous Florida panther PVA (i.e., Root 2004). Following these guidelines, populations of greater than 240 have a high probability of persistence, low probability of extinction over 100 years, are able to retain 90% of their heterozygosity (representation), and can tolerate some habitat loss or mild catastrophes. Populations within the 80 to 100 range are likely stable with a low probability of extinction for 100 years, have slowly declining heterozygosity, and are vulnerable to habitat loss or catastrophes. According to Root (2004), these models indicate that unless we are able to safeguard the current condition, amount, and configuration of the occupied panther habitat, the long-term viability of the panther is not secure. In addition, Kautz et al. (2006) suggests that unavoidable losses in the Primary Zone should be offset by habitat restoration or enhancement of habitat elsewhere in the Primary Zone, thereby increasing the functional value and carrying capacity of the remaining habitat. As a result, it is clear that conservation strategies should be used to maximize protection and restoration, if needed, in the Primary Zone. The south Florida panther population, which documented panther counts suggest is roughly 100 - 120 individuals, M is obviously the foundation for all efforts to expand and/or reintroduce panthers into other parts of the species' historic range. We have seen the panther population increase since the genetic restoration effort, and protecting and maintaining habitat in the appropriate configuration to support a stable population is a necessary component of recovery efforts in the future. PVA models are no better than the data upon which they are based, and it cannot be overemphasized that the Root (2004) basic models assume no difficulties in finding mates, no additional human -induced mortality, and no intermittent catastrophic events. In addition, aside from the 25% habitat loss variation that approximates the loss of all privately owned land in the Primary Zone, the Root (2004) models assume that there was no change in amount, quality, or configuration of habitat during 100 years of simulation. Since many of these unrealistic assumptions represent a significant departure from conditions in south Florida and the Southeast, recovery criteria need to include more than one population (resiliency and redundancy) to safeguard against habitat loss (a major threat) and stochastic catastrophic events (e.g., disease outbreaks or major hurricanes). It is difficult to predict the extent to which future catastrophic events will impact the panther. However, two viable populations would be sufficient for reclassification and three viable populations would provide an adequate margin of safety for full recovery. Meeting these criteria would indicate that threats are ameliorated, the panther is sufficiently genetically represented, and its security is achieved through resiliency and redundancy. A. Reclassification to Threatened Reclassification will be considered when: 97 1. Two viable populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years (two panther generations; one panther generation is six years [Seal and Lacy 1989]).. 2. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. A viable population, for purposes of Florida panther recovery, has been defined as one in which there is a 95% probability of persistence for 100 years. This population may be distributed in a metapopulation structure composed of subpopulations that total 240 individuals. There must be exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations. For reclassification, exchange of individuals and gene flow can be either natural or through management. If managed, a commitment to such management must be formally documented and funded. Habitat should be in relatively unfragmented blocks that provide for food, shelter, and characteristic movements (e.g., hunting, breeding, dispersal, and territorial behavior) and support each metapopulation at a minimum density of 2 to 5 animals per 100 square miles (259 square kilometers) (Seidensticker et al. 1973, Logan et al. 1986, Maehr et al. 1991 a, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Spreadbury et al. 1996, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Kautz et al. 2006), resulting in a minimum of 4,800 — 12,000 square miles (12,432 — 31,080 square kilometers) per metapopulation of 240 panthers. The amount of area needed to support each metapopulation will depend upon the quality of available habitat and the density of panthers it can support. M B. Delisting Delisting will be considered when: 1. Three viable, self-sustaining populations of at least 240 individuals (adults and subadults) each have been established and subsequently maintained for a minimum of twelve years. 2. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these populations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. For delisting, exchange of individuals and gene flow among subpopulations must be natural (i.e., not manipulated or managed). C. Interim Due to the challenging nature of attaining the recovery criteria, an interim recovery goal has been established to assist in determining progress towards the ultimate goals of reclassification and delisting. This interim goal is to achieve and maintain a minimum of 80 individuals (adults and subadults) in each of two reintroduction areas within the historic range and to maintain, restore, and expand the south / south-central Florida subpopulation. The interim goal will be met when: 1. The south / south-central Florida panther subpopulation has been maintained, restored, and expanded beyond 80 to 100 individuals (adults and subadults). 2. Two subpopulations with a minimum of 80 individuals each have been established and maintained within the historic range. 3. Sufficient habitat quality, quantity, and spatial configuration to support these three subpopulations is retained / protected or secured for the long-term. There must be exchange of individuals and gene flow among these subpopulations. This exchange of individuals and gene flow can be either natural or through management. 100 IV. RECOVERY ACTION OUTLINE AND NARRATIVE Existing Population To maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida and expand the breeding portion of the population in south Florida to areas north of the Caloosahatchee River to maximize the probability of the long-term persistence of this metapopulation. South Florida 1.1. Maintain, restore, and expand the panther population and its habitat in south Florida. South Florida Habitat 1.1.1. Maintain the ability of the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, as identified in Kautz et al. (2006), to contribute to a viable population. Maintain the quantity and quality of habitat in the Primary Zone, maintain the quantity and improve the quality in the Secondary Zone, and increase the quantity of protected acres and enhance the quality of the Dispersal Zone. The Dispersal Zone needs to provide the connection between south and south-central Florida and provide for expansion of the population. This indicates the need for an accounting of habitat in Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones, tracking acres lost and restored over time. This leads to a need for a mechanism to mitigate impacts. Non -Regulatory Incentive Programs 1.1.1.1. Use and coordinate all non -regulatory incentive programs to maintain and secure habitat on private lands. 1.1.1.1.1. Develop Safe Harbor Agreements with willing landowners. 1.1.1.1.2. Focus available incentive programs to restore and enhance habitat. Coordinate implementation of existing programs (e.g., Farm Bill, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Landowner Incentive Program, Rural Land Stewardship Program, Stewardship America Program) within and among agencies. 1.1.1.1.3. Explore the creation of new panther conservation incentive programs that compensate, pay, or otherwise provide economic incentives for landowners to provide for panthers and panther habitat on their lands. 101 1.1.1.1.4. Continue to secure lands, both fee simple and conservation easements, through existing and / or new land acquisition programs including Federal, State, county, and non -governmental organization programs. Ensure terms of conservation easements address panther needs and are consistent among agencies. 1.1.1.1.4.1. Revise and implement the preliminary project proposal developed for expansion of FPNWR incorporating the landscape conservation strategy maps (Kautz et al. 2006) and the results of Collier County's land use planning efforts. 1.1.1.1.4.2. Modify existing land appraisal procedures to allow government agencies to offer more than the appraised value for private lands that support panthers. Higher acquisition costs may be justifiable based on quality habitat because of greater long- term costs of both purchase and restoration of degraded habitat. 1.1.1.1.4.3. Conduct an annual review of Florida Forever projects and rate them with respect to panther conservation values. This report should be sent to the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida. 1.1.1.1.5. Identify and support local initiatives to protect habitat and purchase development rights. Encourage, assist, and provide resources to local governments to develop and implement land use plans that complement and advance panther recovery. Regulatory Programs 1.1.1.2. Appropriately use local, State, and Federal regulatory programs to maximize their ability to maintain the overall quality, quantity, and functionality of habitat. 1.1.1.2.1. Create a Federal / State working group to coordinate permit review and consultation. The purpose of this group would be to ensure coordination and cooperation between Federal and State programs that provide biological opinions and recommendations to permitting authorities. 1.1.1.2.2. Track permits, especially incidental take and compensation received, issued through Federal and State regulatory programs to determine the impacts on panthers of landscape and land use changes. 1.1.1.2.3. Develop and implement regulatory procedures and guidance that avoid habitat loss, degradation, and / or fragmentation as a result of federally funded or authorized projects and actions. If 102 incompatible development, conversion of natural habitat types, and / or land use intensification cannot be avoided then such procedures and guidance should ensure that equivalent habitat protection and restoration are provided, especially within the Primary Zone, to compensate for both the quantity and functional value of the lost habitat. 1.1.1.2.3.1. Ensure that panther conservation and protection of habitat is included in the State Clearinghouse (SAI) reviews of Federal activities and identify any actions that would be inconsistent with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Plan and NEPA. 1.1.1.2.3.2. Ensure that the section 7 consultation process is utilized and that the best available science is used in development of biological opinions. 1.1.1.2.3.3. Avoid adverse effects to habitat (including prey) attributable to CERP and other water management projects. Identify and monitor effects of water management projects; adverse effects should be avoided. If that is not possible, they should be minimized and appropriate compensation provided. 1.1.1.2.4. Develop and implement regulatory procedures and guidance that avoid habitat loss, degradation, and / or fragmentation as a result of State or locally authorized projects that are not a part of a Federal review process. 1.1.1.2.4.1. Provide review and recommendations to FDEP, Department of Community Affairs, WMDs, and other State agencies on permit applications that can potentially impact habitat. 1.1.1.2.4.2. Work with counties and municipalities to modify and amend Comprehensive Plans to include the goal of no net loss of quantity, quality, or functionality of habitat in Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones. 1.1.1.2.4.3. Develop a mechanism for providing compensation for projects that affect small acreages (e.g., single family residences) of habitat. An effective mechanism will address loss of habitat and also cumulative degradation of habitat and could include panther conservation banks and / or regional off - site mitigation banks. 1.1.1.2.4.4. Initiate and encourage landscape level HCPs where proposed non -Federal actions or projects will impact panthers or their habitat. Explore partnering with counties through their growth 103 management plans to develop HCPs. Priority for conservation should be directed towards the Primary Zone. Habitat Fragmentation, Connectivity, and Spatial Extent 1.1.1.3. Prevent habitat fragmentation, promote connectivity, and maintain spatial extent within panther habitat. 1.1.1.3.1. Identify, restore, maintain, and enhance habitat corridors to facilitate movements by resident panthers, promote dispersal, and prevent peripheral areas from becoming further isolated from habitat in the Primary Zone. 1.1.1.3.1.1. Quantitatively assess factors that define dispersal corridors and use least -cost pathways analysis to identify potential habitat corridors. 1.1.1.3.1.2. Restore habitat in potential corridors identified by least -cost pathways analysis. 1.1.1.3.1.3. Maintain and enhance existing habitat corridors. 4.1.4.3.4.3.1. Secure the Dispersal Zone through fee simple acquisition, compensation, or conservation easements. 1.1.1.3.1.3.2. Secure Camp Keais Strand to maintain connectivity from FPNWR to Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed. 1.1.1.3.1.3.3. Secure a corridor between BCNP and Okaloacoochee Slough to assure this pathway is not degraded or severed. 1.1.1.3.1.3.4. Consider maintenance of habitat corridors for panthers during Everglades restoration to avoid isolation of the ENP subpopulation. High water levels in Shark River Slough may prevent panthers from moving in and out of ENP, thus separating them from the rest of the population. 1.1.1.3.2. Maintain spatial extent and arrangement of habitat. Areas currently used by panthers and habitat conditions within the Primary Zone should be maintained. According to Root (2004), "Unless the current condition, amount, and configuration of the currently occupied panther habitat are safeguarded, the long-term viability of the panther is not secure." In addition, Kautz et al. (2006) suggests that unavoidable losses in the Primary Zone should be offset by habitat restoration or enhancement of habitat elsewhere in the Primary Zone, thereby increasing the functional value and carrying capacity of the 104 remaining habitat. Restoration of the Secondary Zone will help maintain spatial extent. Negative Impacts of Roads on Panther Habitat — South Florida 1.1.4.4. Prevent and minimize the negative impacts of roads to panther habitat. Least cost path analysis, individual based models, and other modeling tools may be used to predict highway stretches that panthers are likely to cross (Carroll et al. 2004, Wikramanayake et al. 2004, Kramer-Schadt et al. 2005, Swanson et al. 2005). These same models may characterize habitat use adjacent to dangerous stretches of highway. This information should then be combined with field observations, home range data, and panther -vehicle collision data to identify and prioritize locations for wildlife crossings, to cluster habitat restoration and mitigation adjacent to these crossing areas, to identify other adjacent habitat used by panthers that needs added protection, and to connect the crossing areas and adjacent habitat with corridors to safer habitat. 1.1.1.4.1. Ensure that panther habitat needs are incorporated in the planning of new roads and road expansion projects. Examine future land use projections to assess expected effects of habitat fragmentation from roads. Utilize the ETDM process. Ensure early and continued coordination among agencies and local governments for all road projects in panther habitat. Develop Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and / or refine pre -coordination procedures with State Department of Transportation and local governments for proactive assessment and pre -planning of road projects. 1.1.1.4.2. Identify current and planned roads that could affect panthers, eliminate roads where possible, and retrofit priority areas with crossings and fencing as appropriate to promote connectivity and dispersal. Develop and distribute recommendations on improvements needed for specific road segments. 1.1.1.4.3. Secure habitat adjacent or contiguous to areas of high risk for panther -vehicle collisions. 1.1.1.4.4. Determine the impacts of roads on range expansion and dispersal. Habitat Restoration in Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones 1.1.2. Restore habitat in the Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones. 1.1.2.1. Identify and prioritize tracts suitable for restoration. 105 1.1.2.2. Provide incentives and mechanisms for restoration of agricultural and rangelands. 1.1.2.3. Develop / expand funding mechanisms and other incentives for habitat restoration. 1.1.2.4. Develop and disseminate information on cost-effective restoration techniques. 1.1.2.4.1. Facilitate and conduct habitat restoration research. 1.1.2.4.2. Monitor and evaluate restoration projects and report the reasons for successes and failures. Habitat Management — South Florida 1.1.3. Encourage habitat management that provides for the needs of panthers and their prey. 1.1.3.1. Develop, disseminate, and implement best management practices for managing habitat. Develop in coordination with Federal, State, local and private entities. Public Land Management — South Florida 1.1.3.2. Ensure that panthers and their prey are adequately considered and provided for in management of public lands. Management of public lands should include, but is not limited to, restoration and maintenance of natural habitat through prescribed fire, invasive plant control, regulation of ORV use as appropriate, restoration and maintenance of hydrologic quality and quantity, and regulation of recreational hunting to ensure that it does not negatively impact the panthers' prey base. 1.1.3.2.1. Formalize a network of south Florida public land managers to encourage exchange of panther information and facilitate the development and implementation of effective land management actions. This group should consider the need for interagency panther habitat management strike teams to capitalize on and share existing resources to implement habitat management priorities on the various public lands in south Florida (e.g., cooperative efforts for prescribed burning and invasive plant control). 1.1.3.2.2. Prepare, review, and implement habitat management plans for public lands to ensure that panthers and their prey are adequately considered and provided for. Plans should include active, state-of-the- art management tools including prescribed fire where appropriate. 106 4.1.3.2.3. Track habitat management activities and their effects on panthers by developing and distributing annual reports that summarize land management accomplishments and effects. Private Land Management — South Florida 1.1.3.3. Encourage habitat management on private lands to adequately provide for panthers and their prey. 1.1.3.3.1. Provide incentives and assistance to willing landowners (see 1.1.1.1.2 and 1.1.1.1.3) to manage their lands for panthers and their prey using tools such as prescribed fire and invasive plant control. Focus and coordinate existing incentive programs within panther habitat. 1.1.3.3.2. Provide incentives and work with landowners to encourage them not to convert their lands to less suitable habitat. 1.1.3.3.3. Review and comment on county stewardship plans. Monitoring Habitat — South Florida 1.1.4. Monitor habitat quantity and quality, land use changes, and response of the population to these changes (e.g., distribution, density, dispersal, reproductive success, mortality). Track land protection and habitat restoration with an emphasis on identifying where habitat is lost and restored. 1.1.4.1. Quantify 24-hour habitat use and movement patterns. More data are needed during hours of peak activity. Obtain and analyze data on nocturnal locations of panthers throughout their range to get a complete picture of panther habitat use. 1.1.4.2. Update Kautz et al. (2006) maps every five years to assess trends in habitat quantity and spatial configuration. South Florida Population 1.1.5. Achieve and maintain the largest possible healthy panther population in south Florida using management practices that are consistent with ecosystem conservation. In addition to habitat conservation measures referenced in other sections of the plan the following measures are appropriate. Demographics 1.1.5.1. Continue to monitor population viability. 107 1.1.5.1.1. Convene a group of agency and independent experts to conduct an appropriate PVA (existing or customized) and corresponding sensitivity analysis. Obtain independent peer -review. 1.1.5.1.2. Continue to determine and monitor demographic variables including age- and sex -specific reproduction and survival rates, litter size, recruitment, age at first reproduction, birth interval, proportion of individuals breeding, age and sex specific causes of mortality (including intraspecific aggression), dispersal, density, and minimum documented population size. Identify, evaluate, and use the least intrusive monitoring techniques or indices as appropriate (e.g., hair / genetics sampling, scats, cameras). 1.1.5.1.3. Develop and implement annual capture and monitoring work plans Genetic Diversity 1.1.5.2. Maintain and enhance genetic diversity. 1.1.5.2.1. Continue to monitor physical and physiological characteristics correlated with inbreeding and depletion of genetic variability including kinked tails, cowlicks, cryptorchidism, sperm morphology, heart defects, immune function, and reproductive success. 1.1.5.2.2. Develop and implement a genetics management plan. Convene a working group of geneticists, reproductive physiologists, veterinarians, and population biologists to develop a genetics management plan. Use field observations, existing data, and results from the genetic restoration and management project initiated in 1995. The plan might include protocols and triggers (e.g., specific alleles, physical attributes, percent representation, studbook) for translocating, adding, or removing animals; a protocol for managing / preventing overrepresentation by specific lineages; the disposition of animals that may need to be removed; and specific monitoring needs. 1.1.5.2.3. Develop a population model to predict future genetic consequences of management proposals and actions. Harassment, Injury, and Mortality 1.1.5.3. Monitor and take action to prevent harassment, injury, and mortality. Harassment 1.1.5.3.1. Reduce and eliminate illegal harassment and implement management strategies to prevent future harassment stemming from human activity. Harass is defined by the FWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harassment is considered a form of "take" as defined in the ESA. This does not include activities permitted by the FWS for panther management. Such permits may be issued by FWS to other Federal land management agencies or State conservation agencies. 1.1.5.3.1.1. Identify harassment activities. These could include, but are not limited to, illegal stalking of panthers, chasing panthers with dogs, pursuing panthers with ORVs, destruction of denning sites in an effort to relocate an animal, intentionally drawing a panther into an area (whether by baiting with live prey, illegal feeding, or other means) for photography or other purpose, and excessive noise -making activities. 1.1.5.3.1.2. Implement active management measures designed to inhibit and / or cease illegal harassment activities on public lands. Active management measures that can be implemented on public lands may include: 1.1.5.3.1.2.1. Manage public access to minimize harassment opportunities. 1.1.5.3.1.2.2. Develop ORV management plans where ORVs are allowed. Plans should contain actions that minimize impacts to panthers. 1.1.5.3.1.2.3. Enforce regulations and statutes regarding discharge of firearms, explosive devices, or other loud noise sources. 1.1.5.3.1.3. Increase compliance with existing Federal and State laws and regulations prohibiting harassment. 1.1.5.3.1.3.1. Post and maintain regulatory and informational signs. The effective use of on -site regulatory and informational signs is essential in providing the public with information on prohibited harassment activities (including the legal consequences and fines). This may contribute to better compliance. 1.1.5.3.1.3.2. Enforce existing laws and regulations to prohibit harassment. 109 Illegal Killing 1.1.5.3.2. Enforce existing Federal and State laws and regulations to minimize and prevent illegal killing. Road Mortalities 1.1.5.3.3. Minimize and prevent injuries and mortalities by modifying conditions on existing roads and implement appropriate actions to protect panthers during the planning, permitting, and construction of new roads and highway expansion projects. 1.1.5.3.3.1. Identify and address existing and potential panther -vehicle collision areas to develop recommendations on improvements needed for specific road segments. 1.1.5.3.3.1.1. Convene a working group to prioritize and address actions needed in panther -vehicle collision areas. 1.1.5.3.3.1.2. Secure funding for and install wildlife crossings and fencing in high risk areas. 1.1.5.3.3.1.3. Evaluate and implement other mechanisms to prevent mortalities on roads including installing signs, creating wider shoulders, slower speed limits and speed zones, changing road elevations, and reducing traffic volume with no truck zones or adjusting tolls to encourage alternative routes (e.g., removing tolls on I-75 to reduce traffic on U.S. 41). 1.1.5.3.3.2. Build mechanisms into permits for road projects to provide for adaptive management for panther mortality and / or other unforeseen problems. These could include conditions for when the FWS will reinitiate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA or require additional project alterations to avoid impacts. 1.1.5.3.3.3. Develop new strategies to prevent road mortalities or injuries including alternative technologies and new fencing designs that might be more aesthetically acceptable. 1.1.5.3.3.4. Enforce existing speed zones, monitor effectiveness, and modify as needed. Research Caused Injuries and Mortality 110 1.1.5.3.4. Minimize harassment, injury, and mortality that could result from research, management, and monitoring programs. Ensure that research, management, and monitoring are directed at achieving priority needs of the recovery program and are conducted using the least intrusive and risky methods necessary to meet the objectives of the plan. Allow only highly trained and experienced individuals to capture panthers. 1.1.5.3.4.1. Provide adequate resources and facilities for rehabilitation of panthers that might be injured or orphaned during capture and monitoring efforts. 1.1.5.3.4.2. Develop, implement, review, and revise protocols (i.e., research, monitoring, capture, handling) as needed to minimize risks to panthers. Diseases and Parasites 1.1.5.4. Monitor diseases and parasites and develop and implement appropriate management strategies. 1.1.5.4.1. Devise appropriate biomedical strategies to limit population level disease threats. 1.1.5.4.1.1. Continuously evaluate the value of specific vaccinations and review all vaccination protocols annually. 1.1.5.4.1.2. Revise vaccination protocols as appropriate considering new disease threats as they arise. 1.1.5.4.2. Determine and monitor the presence, infection rate, mortality rates, and consequences of diseases and parasites in the population. 1.1.5.4.2.1. Collect appropriate tissue and blood samples from all panthers handled, both live and dead, and analyze them for the presence of priority diseases and parasites, summarize and report results annually. 1.1.5.4.2.2. Evaluate the disease threats presented by other species including bobcats and domestic cats and identify any needed management intervention. 1.1.5.4.2.3. Implement appropriate management strategies for disease and parasite monitoring and control. 111 Environmental Contaminants 1.1.5.5. Identify and minimize the detrimental effects of environmental contaminants. 1.1.5.5.1. Produce a summary report and database of contaminants in panthers and their environment in south Florida. Identify contaminants and sources of concern and determine management implications. 4.1.5.5.2. Continue to monitor contaminants, especially mercury and endocrine disruptors, in panthers and their prey by collecting and analyzing appropriate tissue samples, summarize and report results. 1.1.5.5.3. Implement actions necessary to remediate contaminants in high risk areas. Prey Base 1.1.5.6. Ensure an ample, healthy, and diverse prey base. Work with managers of public, private, and Tribal lands. Deer 4.1.5.6.4. Continue active management of white-tailed deer populations. 1.1.5.6.1.1. Assess and monitor the status of deer populations in panther habitat. 1.1.5.6.1.2. Develop deer harvest regulations that do not compromise the panther prey base and take into consideration food requirements of the panther. 1.1.5.6.1.3. Continue to monitor the impacts on panthers of hunting on public and private lands in panther habitat including BCNP and State lands in south Florida. Hogs 1.1.5.6.2. Encourage management / control of feral hog populations that does not threaten the panther. Develop a long-term strategy for hog management on public lands given potentially conflicting needs of the panther and agency policy to eradicate exotic species. Continue to assess the role of hogs in the panther prey base as this strategy is implemented. 112 Prey Diseases 1.1.5.6.3. Monitor prey diseases and attempt to prevent possible spread into south Florida. 1.1.5.6.3.1. Continue statewide monitoring for chronic wasting disease and other emerging wildlife and domestic animal diseases and implement available eradication or control methods. 1.1.5.6.3.2. Identify, map, and appropriately monitor and regulate exotic animal operations that could serve as a source of infection for wild populations. 1.1.5.6.3.3. Coordinate with the southeastern States to review protocols and regulations that require imported ungulates to be disease -free. Captive Management 1.1.5.7. Address issues related to captive panthers and their potential for positively impacting the wild population. 1.1.5.7.1. Develop guidance for the removal of panthers from the wild. This guidance will address removal of individuals for disease containment and survival (e.g., orphaned or abandoned kittens, injured individuals). Appropriate protocols will be generated for the specific reason for removal (e.g., hand -rearing protocols for kittens). 1.1.5.7.2. Evaluate the need for and establish, if necessary, a captive breeding program. This program would be for the maintenance of a captive population (if indicated) and / or for individuals for reintroduction (see 2.2.1.3.). 1.1.5.7.3. Evaluate the role of alternative breeding strategies including artificial insemination and surrogate mothers that could provide a source of panthers to increase numbers or distribution. 1.1.5.7.4. Develop and implement a captive management plan for panthers held in captivity. 1.1.5.7.4.1. Form a captive management working group. This working group should consist of one representative from each institution maintaining or likely to maintain Florida panthers, the panther project veterinarian, and a representative of the FWS, FWC, and 113 NPS. Institutional representatives will consist of veterinarians, curators, or other staff involved in panther husbandry. 1.1.5.7.4.2. Develop a captive management plan. The captive management team should develop a plan as a guide for the placement and maintenance of panthers held in captivity. This plan should include preventative health, husbandry, reproduction, and captive population management. 1.1.5.7.4.3. Implement the captive management plan. Participating institutions will be signators of a MOU relative to adherence to this plan. 1.1.5.7.5. Establish research priorities for captive panthers which can be applied to management of the free -ranging population. Investigations could include such topics as vaccination protocols, baseline reproductive physiology, assisted reproduction technologies, and appropriate diseases. 1.1.5.7.6. Incorporate interpretative education at public facilities where captive panthers are held and prepare public information materials. See 3.1.3.6. and 3.2.7. Expansion into South -Central Florida 1.2. Provide for the expansion of the breeding population of panthers in south Florida into south-central Florida. The potential for the persistence of the existing population in south Florida can be enhanced by its expansion into south-central Florida. Feasibility and Habitat Identification 1.2.1. Continue to evaluate the potential for habitat in south-central Florida to support a breeding population. Evaluate the quantity and quality of existing panther habitat; likely future habitat trends with respect to human population growth; and patterns of public land ownership, highway expansions, and changing land use practices. Facilitating Natural Population Expansion 1.2.2. If there is potential for habitat in south-central Florida to support a breeding population, determine if there are management steps that can be taken to facilitate natural expansion of female panthers into south-central Florida. Translocation 114 1.2.3. If natural expansion of female panthers into south-central Florida is not likely, evaluate the feasibility of translocation to establish a breeding population, including an EA or EIS under the NEPA process if necessary. 1.2.4. If natural expansion is not likely, develop an expansion plan to guide translocation into south-central Florida. The plan should include education and outreach (implement actions in Section 3), consider the effects of translocations into south-central Florida on potential reintroductions elsewhere in the historic range, and consider the effects of translocations on the south Florida population. Suitable Habitat 1.2.5. Secure, maintain, and restore suitable habitat for panthers that are dispersing into south-central Florida to support continued dispersal and settlement. 1.2.5.1. Secure a dispersal area north of Caloosahatchee River that maintains connection with habitat south of river. 1.2.5.2. Conserve lands buffering the Caloosahatchee River by fostering compatible land uses and riparian habitat protection directly along the river in order to maintain enough characteristics of panther habitat to allow dispersal northward and genetic exchange should female panthers be successfully established north of the river. 1.2.5.3. If establishment of a breeding population in south-central Florida is feasible, provide for the conservation and enhancement of other lands necessary for persistence of a population in south-central Florida. 1.2.6. Implement appropriate actions in Section 2. 1.2.6.1. If the population is expanded into south-central Florida, implement appropriate actions in Section 1.1. Reintroduction 2. Within the historic range, identify, secure, maintain, and restore habitat in potential reintroduction areas and reestablish viable populations of the panther outside of south and south-central Florida. Select Reintroduction Sites 2.1. Select reintroduction areas in cooperation / coordination with the southeastern States within the historic range of the panther. Use top three sites identified by Thatcher et al. (2006b) as a starting point. 115 2.1.1. In cooperation / coordination with the southeastern States select potential reintroduction areas to be evaluated. 2.1.2. Develop and conduct preliminary public scoping to allow effective preplanning of the NEPA process. This could include the use of focus / stakeholder meetings and opinion and attitude surveys in the Southeast and will build on knowledge gained from previous feasibility studies. 2.1.3. Identify State and Federal laws, regulations, or policies that could conflict with reintroduction and resolve any potential conflicts such as predator control policies that conflict with reintroduction. 2.1.4. Conduct field surveys of selected reintroduction areas. These evaluations should address habitat quality variables including prey density, available habitat types, distribution, connectivity, topography and understory vegetation for stalking and denning cover, hydroperiods and potential for inundation, future trends in land use, accessibility to humans, and recreational uses. 2.1.5. Determine if puma are present in selected reintroduction areas in the Southeast in order to understand any possible conflicts with reintroduction goals. This will be done by checking for sign of existing puma, identifying potential conflicts related to captive puma, and collecting and analyzing genetic samples from suspected wild puma encountered to determine their point -of -origin, if needed. 2.1.6. Evaluate possible disease and parasite problems in selected reintroduction areas prior to releasing panthers. Implement actions under 1.1.5.4. 2.1.7. Consider contaminant issues when evaluating selected reintroduction areas. Implement actions under 1.1.5.5. 2.1.8. Use the NEPA process to develop and refine the appropriate reintroduction alternatives and recommend the preferred alternative (e.g., number of sites). 2.1.8.1. Coordinate with the southeastern States, stakeholders, and the public for reintroduction site selection. 2.1.8.2. Collect, compare, and analyze sociopolitical data (including public attitudes / opinions regarding panthers, predators, risks, and support) for identified potential reintroduction areas to help formulate and choose among alternatives. 2.1.8.3. Using the information obtained in 2.1.8.1 and 2.1.8.2. use the NEPA process to develop and refine appropriate reintroduction alternatives and recommend the preferred alternative. 116 Reintroduce Panthers into Suitable Sites 2.2. Reestablish viable populations outside of south and south-central Florida within the historic range when a suitable reintroduction site is selected. Source of Panthers for Reintroduction 2.2.1. Determine the number of panthers from each age and sex class that are needed for a reintroduction program. 2.2.2. Evaluate removal of panthers from the wild. 2.2.2.1. Select individual panthers that could be removed for reintroduction without negatively affecting the persistence of the existing population. Removal of individuals cannot jeopardize the panther pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Create a mechanism to expedite genetic analysis of all panthers genetically sampled to provide data for prudent and timely decision -making. Review of this data should occur annually relative to reintroduction decisions. Use a PVA model to evaluate the affect of translocation on the existing population. 2.2.2.2. Develop a protocol for translocation of panthers from the wild. 2.2.3. Evaluate the need for and establish, if necessary, a captive breeding program. This program would be to produce individuals for reintroduction. 2.2.4. Evaluate the role of alternative breeding strategies and / or source populations, including artificial insemination and surrogate mothers or puma outside of Florida that could provide a source of panthers. Reintroduction Incentives 2.2.5. Identify and provide incentives and remove disincentives to Federal, State, and local governments and agencies to participate in reintroduction. 2.2.5.1. Identify and provide incentives to Federal, State, and local governments and agencies to participate in reintroduction. 2.2.5.2. Address the legal liability issues for State participation in a reintroduction program. Identify the existing State laws and immunities and obtain a state solicitor's opinion regarding liability, if needed. 2.2.5.3. Provide resources to assist with reintroduction. 117 Human Dimensions of Reintroduction 2.2.6. Address human dimensions of reintroduction (including conflicts between stakeholders and panthers) with education, incentives, compensation, and regulatory mechanisms. Social issues include landowner rights, safety for pets and livestock, effects on deer populations, and human safety. Implement actions under Section 3. 2.2.6.1. Develop and implement a protocol and response plan for handling human -panther interactions. Use existing protocols, including the draft Interagency Florida Panther Response Plan being prepared by FWC, NPS, and FWS. 2.2.6.2. Evaluate the need for and, if appropriate, designate experimental populations. Under section 100) of the ESA, FWS can designate reintroduced populations established outside the species' current range but within its historical range as "experimental." Designation of a population as experimental increases flexibility and discretion in managing reintroduced listed species. 2.2.6.3. Develop a compensation program for the depredation of livestock in reintroduction areas. An effective compensation program should have two components: proactive measures to prevent or reduce conflict between livestock and panthers, and a method for compensating livestock owners after a confirmed depredation by a panther. Programs established by other States and entities, such as Defenders of Wildlife, could be referenced for guidelines. 2.2.6.3.1. Develop and distribute a landowner, land manager, and lessees panther handbook. The handbook should include recommendations designed to minimize potential problems. 2.2.6.3.2. Provide assistance to landowners, land managers, and lessees to identify and address potential conflicts on their property. 2.2.6.3.3. Develop and implement a compensation program. Minimize procedural requirements for compensation when payment is warranted (once depredation by a panther has been determined and landowner protective efforts have been demonstrated). Partner with stakeholders to determine who receives compensation. Ensure that all individuals are adequately trained in confirming panther depredation. 2.2.6.4. Address concerns of hunters in reintroduction areas. 118 2.2.6.4.1. Understand hunting pressure and methods in potential reintroduction areas to identify possible conflicts, including a real or perceived decline in deer populations. 2.2.6.4.2. Partner with hunters and hunting lease holders, including timber companies, to address panther, hunter, and prey issues. Release of Panthers 2.2.7. Develop a protocol and release panthers into selected reintroduction sites. Monitoring Reintroduced Panthers 2.2.8. Develop and implement monitoring plans for the selected reintroduction areas. 2.2.9. Minimize and monitor illegal killing. 2.2.9.1. Enforce existing Federal and State laws and regulations regarding illegal killing. 2.2.9.2. Extend ESA "similarity of appearance" protection to puma in applicable portions of the historic range prior to reintroduction. Section 4(e) of the ESA and implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.50- 17.52), authorize the treatment of an unlisted species as endangered or threatened if the species so closely resembles in appearance a listed endangered or threatened species that law enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species. 2.2.9.3. Implement a toll free telephone tip number in reintroduction areas as reintroduction is attempted and provide rewards to those that report illegal killing of panthers. Coordinate with existing State programs to avoid duplication. Actions Once Populations Are Established 2.3. As additional populations are established, implement appropriate actions in Section 1. Public Awareness and Education 3. Facilitate panther conservation and recovery through public awareness and education. Build support for the recovery effort through education and outreach programs that increase public understanding of panther behavior and recovery needs. 119 Design and Develop Materials and Programs 3.1. Design and develop education and outreach materials and programs. Education Working Group 3.1.1. Form a working group to design and develop education and outreach materials and programs. The group should include social scientists, environmental educators, university academics, conservation organizations, county extension agents, agencies involved in panther recovery, other local groups and community leaders. Organizations can link together in various ways to bring unified, educational, public relations messages to groups of people concerned with panther conservation and recovery. Social Science Research 3.1.2. Conduct social science research to identify public attitudes, knowledge levels, and concerns about panthers and panther recovery efforts. Draw on expertise of university academics, environmental educators, and social scientists. 3.1.2.1. Identify target audiences, content, strategic messages, and methods of getting the message out using social science research. Existing social science research on panthers and other carnivores such as wolves and bears can also be used. Audiences can include hunt clubs, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, area landowners, livestock organizations, area leaders, and groups that attract women and minorities (Cramer 1995). Production of Materials and Programs 3.1.3. Produce necessary materials and programs for public awareness and education. Natural History, Recovery, and Reduction of Threats to Panthers 3.1.3.1. Produce information on natural history, place in the ecosystem, panther facts, benefits of recovery, and ways to reduce threats to panthers and their habitat. These materials should be produced in English and Spanish. This can include concepts such as umbrella species, predator -prey relationships, food web dynamics, cultural importance, only population of pumas remaining in the eastern U.S., historic and current range, attempts at eradication that led to original population declines, timeline of events in panther history, and biology and behavior. Habitat Conservation and Management 120 3.1.3.2. Produce materials and programs regarding panther habitat conservation and management. 3.1.3.2.1. Compile information and produce materials and programs on landowner incentives. See Action 1.1.1.1. for information on incentives and ways to increase economic revenue for private lands. 3.1.3.2.2. Identify ecotourism values and economic incentives related to panthers and develop materials for ecotourism programs. 3.1.3.2.3. Compile information on land management techniques. 3.1.3.2.4. Develop a panther habitat management handbook for public and private land managers based on the best management practices produced under Action 1.1.3.1. Evaluate whether separate handbooks are needed for public and private land managers. South Florida Population 3.1.3.3. Produce materials and programs regarding the south Florida population and its management. 3.1.3.3.1. Develop materials to inform the public and decision makers about methods for reducing panther -vehicle collisions, including the success of wildlife crossings, crossing design standards, road placement, and speed and volume of traffic. Use existing materials and programs, such as those produced by conservation organizations, wherever appropriate. Human / Panther Interactions 3.1.3.4. Produce materials and programs regarding human / panther interactions. 3.1.3.4.1. Develop educational material to address human social issues related to panther conservation and recovery. These could include: human safety, safety for pets and livestock, landowner rights, and effects on deer populations. Identify appropriate individuals to distribute information. This can be a mass media campaign including TV, billboards, mailings, and presentations to homeowner groups similar to the FWC Bear Aware education and outreach program. 3.1.3.4.2. Develop a Living With Panthers outreach program. Inform stakeholders about panthers and ways to reduce potential conflicts. Implement this program statewide, especially where panthers live and disperse. Use the media, hunting license sales, pamphlets, signs, and 121 other outlets. Model programs on other successful "living with wildlife" efforts such as the FWC Bear Aware program. Address topics such as biology and behavior of panthers, human -panther interactions, factors that affect interactions, how to reduce the likelihood of interactions, protecting pets and livestock, tips for recreation in panther country, and what to do if you encounter a panther. 3.1.3.4.3. Develop materials and programs to address hunting concerns, such as a real or perceived decline in the deer population. Draw on organizations experienced with hunting issues, such as the Quality Deer Management Association. 3.1.3.4.4. Include panther conservation issues in ORV educational materials. Materials should include regulations and reasons for staying on designated trails. Utilize U.S. Forest Service education and outreach program for ORV use in National Forests. Population Expansion and Reintroduction 3.1.3.5. Produce materials and programs regarding population expansion and reintroduction. 3.1.3.5.1. Examine sociological information, such as public attitudes in and around reintroduction sites. 3.1.3.5.2. Develop a media plan. This process calls for oversight of logistical, public affairs, and biological aspects of a situation. Public affairs staff will be able to predict what would happen with reintroduction and plan public affairs events, coordinate logistics with other team members, and hold practice sessions of media relations activities. The process also includes regular briefings of staff on key topics and incorporates an assessment of the information needs of mass media news organizations and a media plan for release of panthers (for example see Jacobson 1999:301). Displays and Programs in Public Environmental Education Centers 3.1.3.6. Design education displays and programs for public environmental education centers, such as zoos and natural history museums. Partners can also include the AZA and other affiliated organizations. Use existing programs such as the Panther Glades exhibit at Caribbean Gardens in Naples, Florida, as an example. Programs and Materials for School Children 122 3.1.3.7. Develop education programs and materials for school children. This can include curriculum, participation in panther education and recovery actions, and panther awareness events. 3.1.3.8. Develop materials to promote Florida Panther Day. Provide Materials and Programs 3.2. Provide materials and programs. Provide information to local planning organizations, decision makers and elected officials, the public, major landowners living in and adjacent to panther habitat, potential new residents and the realtor community, and other audiences as identified by social science research. Include positive proactive programs to keep people interested, involved, and a part of conservation and recovery programs. Programs can be also geared toward achieving voluntary behavior changes as an alternative to restrictions. Communications Teams 3.2.1. Form communication teams to give presentations to audiences in and adjacent to panther habitat and in selected reintroduction sites. Media /Public Relations Training for Agency Personnel 3.2.2. Provide media / public relations training for agency personnel who will be on -the -ground and interfacing with the public (including private landowners) and media. This includes staff and law enforcement officers. This can be provided in a workshop and a 5 - 10 page manual. Distribute Materials and Provide Programs 3.2.3. Distribute materials and information to the public, landowners, and stakeholders. 3.2.3.1. Distribute information on landowner incentives. 3.2.3.2. Provide existing ecotourism facilities and the Visit Florida tourism promotion program with updated information on panthers that they can include in their programs. Ecotourism facilities in south Florida include boat tours, swamp buggy rides, and minibus tours. 3.2.3.3. Distribute information on land management techniques and provide technical assistance to public and private land managers regarding techniques to maintain and increase the value of habitat to panthers and their prey. 123 3.2.3.4. Inform the public, landowners, and decision makers about the needs and benefits of invasive species control / management and prescribed fire. Identify and work with existing programs that address invasive species control / management and the value of prescribed fire to panthers and their prey. 3.2.3.5. Distribute information on prey management techniques (including exotic game) on public and private lands. 3.2.3.6. Distribute materials to promote Florida Panther Day. This could include the media, schools, environmental education facilities, and others. South Florida Population 3.2.4. Provide materials and programs regarding the south Florida panther population and its management. 3.2.4.1. Provide information on genetic restoration. This should be directed at clearing up misinformation about genetic restoration as well as informing the public about the benefits and potential needs for genetic restoration. Include historical information on Puma subspecies, how the plan was formulated and implemented, and results of the program. 3.2.4.2. Provide information on panther conservation issues in ORV educational materials. 3.2.4.3. Educate sportsmen groups and the public about the legal consequences of illegal harassment. This includes the need for recognizing harassment activities, the detrimental effects that may result from harassment (physical injury, physiological stress, reduced litter size, morbidity), and the importance of preventing actions that constitute harassment. 3.2.4.4. Provide information on panther management, including monitoring. Human /Panther Interactions 3.2.5. Provide materials and programs regarding human / panther interactions. 3.2.5.1. Provide education and outreach to residents living in and adjacent to panther habitat. Include the realtor community. Include tips for living in panther habitat. 3.2.5.2. Provide tips for recreating in panther habitat. 3.2.5.3. Provide information on protecting livestock and pets. Outreach efforts need to reassure livestock owners that the chance of their livestock being 124 taken by a panther can be minimized, and if it does happen, they may be compensated through a depredation fund. 3.2.5.4. Provide outreach materials to address hunting concerns. Include information regarding the effects of panthers on hunted prey species and hunting success. Provide information to hunters and hunt clubs. Use results from social science research. Population Expansion and Reintroduction 3.2.6. Provide materials and programs regarding population expansion and reintroduction. 3.2.6.1. Engage and provide materials to landowners and the public in south- central Florida to build support for restoring and maintaining habitat and for expansion and reintroduction. 3.2.6.2. Target education at reintroduction sites to address social issues in advance of releasing panthers. Opinion surveys and conservation education should be the cornerstone of reintroduction. 3.2.6.3. Continue education and outreach efforts after panthers are released into a reintroduction site. Include regular contacts with area residents / landowners about the program. Continually reinforce and address panther conservation messages, especially as problems arise. 3.2.6.4. Identify existing ecotourism facilities and State ecotourism boards in or near selected reintroduction sites and provide them with updated panther information. Information can be provided on an on -going basis in a format that is simple for the facilities to include in their programs. Displays and Programs in Public Environmental Education Centers 3.2.7. Identify and work with existing environmental education facilities to provide or enhance panther education displays and programs. This includes Jacksonville Zoo, Lowry Park Zoo, the Tallahassee Museum, Caribbean Gardens, and Busch Gardens. Programs and Materials for School Children 3.2.8. Distribute education programs and materials to school children. Evaluation 3.3. Evaluate outreach and educational materials and programs. Monitor the programs as they are implemented. Evaluate education and outreach efforts, especially to assess 125 changes in human behavior and attitude. A good example of program evaluation is the FWC Bear Aware Black Bear Public Education Program. Evaluation data should be compared to preliminary social science research (pre-program measurement) to provide a post -program measurement. 3.4. Revise materials where evaluation indicates a need. 126 V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The Implementation Schedule that follows outlines actions and estimated costs for the recovery program for the Florida panther, as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a guide for meeting the recovery goal and criteria outlined in this plan. This schedule indicates action priorities, action numbers, action descriptions, duration of actions, the parties potentially responsible for actions (either funding or carrying out), and estimated costs. Parties believed to have authority or responsibility for implementing a specific recovery action are identified in the Implementation Schedule. When more than one parry has been identified, the proposed lead party is indicated by an asterisk (*). The listing of a party in the Implementation Schedule does not require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for implementing the action(s). Priority Number Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population, habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact short of extinction. Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. Work on or completion of priority 1, 2, or 3 actions may take place concurrently. 127 Participants and Other Parties Referenced in the Implementation Schedule COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers counties South Florida counties DCA Department of Community Affairs EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOF Florida Division of Forestry FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHP Florida Highway Patrol FHwA Federal Highway Administration FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Science local governments City and county agencies NGO Non -governmental organization NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service private Private industry, landowners, etc. State agencies State natural resource agencies Tribes Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and Seminole Tribe of Florida universities Public and private universities USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WMD Water Management Districts located in south Florida 128 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Existing Population South Florida Habitat Non-Regulato Incentive Programs Develop Safe Harbor Cost included in standard 3 1.1.1.1.1. Agreements Continuous FWS*, private operating budget of Federal agency. FWS*, FWC*, Focus available incentive NRCS, NGO, Cost included in standard 3 1.1.1.1.2. programs to restore and Continuous FDOF, IFAS, 60 60 60 60 60 operating budgets of enhance habitat counties, agencies. private FDEP, FWC, Explore the creation of new FWS, NRCS, 1.1.1.1.3. panther conservation 3 years counties, local 10 10 10 3 incentive programs governments, NGO, private Revise and implement the 1 1.1.1.1.4.1. preliminary project 10 years FWS* Cost dependent upon land proposal developed for prices. expansion of FPNWR 1.1.1.1.4.2. Modify existing land 5 years Local 10 10 10 10 10 3 appraisal procedures governments Conduct an annual review of Florida Forever projects FWC*, FWS, 3 1.1.1.1.4.3. and rate them with respect Continuous NPS NGO 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 to panther conservation ' values Identify and support local initiatives to protect habitat FWS, FWC, 1 1.1.1.1.5. and purchase development Continuous counties, local 10 10 10 10 10 rights governments Re ulato Pro rams 1.1.1.2.1. Create a Federal / State 1 year FWS, FWC, Cost included in standard 2 workinggroupto FDEP, COE, operating budgets of 129 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments coordinate permit review EPA, NRCS, agencies. and consultation FDOF, WMD, NPS, FDOT, FHwA, USFS, local governments FWS* FWC Cost included in standard Track permits, especially FDEP, ROE, operating budgets of incidental take and EPA, NRCS, agencies. 2 1.1.1.2.2. compensation received, Continuous FDOF, WMD, 5 5 5 5 5 issued through Federal and NPS, FDOT, Much of the information is State regulatory programs available, but needs FHwA, USFS interagency coordination. Ensure that panther conservation and protection Cost included in standard 2 1.1.1.2.3.1. of habitat is included in the in the Continuous FWC*, FDEP operating budgets of State Clearinghouse reviews of Federal agencies. activities Ensure that the section 7 consultation process is FWS*, COE, Cost included in standard 1 1.1.1.2.3.2. utilized and that the best Continuous EPA NPS operating budgets of available science is used in FHwA, NRCS, development of biological USFS agencies. opinions Cost for identifying effects Avoid adverse effects to FWS*, COE, is included in standard habitat (including prey) FDEP, FWC, operating budgets of 2 1.1.1.2.3.3. attributable to CERP and 10 years NPS, WMD, 200 200 200 200 200 agencies. other water management projects FDOF Additional funds are needed for monitoring. 2 1.1.1.2.4.1. Provide review and Continuous FWC*, FDEP, Cost included in standard recommendations to FDEP, WMD operating budgets of 130 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Department of Community agencies. Affairs, WMDs, and other State agencies on permit applications that can potentially impact habitat Work with counties and municipalities to modify and amend Comprehensive Cost included in standard Plans to include the goal of FWC*, FDEP, operating budgets of 2 1.1.1.2.4.2. no net loss of quantity, Continuous counties, local quality, or functionality of governments agencies. habitat in Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones Develop a mechanism for providing compensation for FWS*, FWC, 1 1.1.1.2.4.3. projects that affect small 2 years COE, local 10 10 acreages (e.g., single family governments residences) of habitat Initiate and encourage FWS*, FWC, landscape level HCPs counties, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.1.2.4.4. where proposed non- Continuous private, local operating budgets of Federal actions or projects will impact panthers or governments, agencies. their habitat NGO Habitat Fra mentation, Connectivity, and S atial Extent Quantitatively assess factors that define dispersal FWC*, NPS, 1 1.1.1.3.1.1. corridors and use least -cost 2-3 years FWS, USGS, 30 30 30 pathways analysis to universities identify potential habitat corridors 1 1.1.1.3.1.2. Restore habitat in potential Continuous FWC*, FWS*, Cost dependent upon corridors identified b FDEP*, NGO, number of willing 131 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments least -cost pathways analysis private, FDOF, landowners. WMD, local government Continuous FWC*, FWS, Cost dependent upon FDEP*, NGO, number of willing 1 1.1.1.3.1.3.1. Secure the Dispersal Zone private, FDOF, landowners and land prices. WMD, local government Continuous FWC*, FWS, Cost dependent upon FDEP*, NGO, number of willing 1 1.1.1.3.1.3.2. Secure Camp Keais Strand private, FDOF, landowners and land prices. WMD, local government FWC*, FWS*, Secure a corridor between FDEP*, NPS, Cost dependent upon 1 1.1.1.3.1.3.3. BCNP and Okaloacoochee Continuous NGO, private, number of willing Slough FDOF, WMD, landowners and land prices. local government Consider maintenance of habitat corridors for FWS*, COE, 2 1.1.1.3.1.3.4. panthers during Everglades 30 years FDEP, FWC, 5 5 5 5 5 restoration to avoid NPS, WMD isolation of the ENP sub o ulation FWC*, FWS, NPS, NGO, Cost dependent upon land Maintain spatial extent and NRCS FDEP* , prices. 1 1.1.1.3.2. Continuous FDOF, WMD, arrangement private, counties, local governments Negative Impacts o Roads on Panther Habitat — South Florida 2 1.1.1.4.1. 1 Ensure that panther habitat I Continuous I FWS, FWC, 10 10 10 10 10 132 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments needs are incorporated in FDOT, FHwA, the planning of new roads counties, local and road expansion government, projects. NGO, COE, FDEP, DCA Identify current and FWS*, FWC, planned roads that could NPS FDOT affect panthers, eliminate FHwA Cost to retrofit priority 1 1.1.1.4.2. roads where possible, and Continuous counties, local 15 15 15 15 15 areas will be site -specific. retrofit priority areas with crossings and fencing as government, appropriate to promote NGO, COE, connectivityand dispersal FDEP, DCA FDEP*, FWS, Secure habitat adjacent or FWC*, NPS, 1 1.1.1.4.3. contiguous to areas of high Continuous FDOT counties, local Cost will be site -specific. risk for panther -vehicle collisions government, NGO, COE, DCA Determine the impacts of FWC*, NPS, 3 1.1.1.4.4. roads on range expansion 3 years FWS, 50 50 50 and dispersal universities, USGS Habitat Restoration in Primary, Secondary, and Dispersal Zones FWC*, NRCS, 3 1.1.2.1. Identify and prioritize tracts 3 years USGS FNAI 50 50 50 suitable for restoration universities, FWS Provide incentives and NRCS, FWC, Costs to be determined for 2 1.1.2.2. mechanisms for restoration of agricultural and range Continuous FWS, FDEP, 30 30 30 remaining years. lands FDACS 2 1.1.2.3. Develop / expand funding Continuous I NRCS, FWC, 30 30 10 10 10 133 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants FYl I FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments mechanisms and other FWS, FDEP, incentives for habitat NGO, private restoration FWC*, NRCS, Facilitate and conduct USGS, FWS, 3 1.1.2.4.1. habitat restoration research 10 years universities, 200 200 200 200 200 NGO FWC, NRCS, 3 1.1.2.4.2. Monitor and evaluate Continuous USGS FWS 30 30 30 30 30 restoration projects universities, NGO Habitat Management — South Florida Develop, disseminate, and FWS, FWC, Much of the information implement best NPS NRCS needed is available but 2 1.1.3.1. management practices for 2 years FDEP, FDOF, 25 25 needs interagency managing habitat counties, local coordination. governments Public Land Mana ement — South Florida FWS*, FWC, Formalize a network of NPS, FDEP, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.3.2.1. south Florida public land < 1 year FDOF, WMD, operating budgets of managers counties, local agencies. governments Prepare, review, and FWS, FWC, implement habitat NPS, FDEP, 2 1.1.3.2.2. management plans for Continuous FDOF, WMD, 100 100 100 100 100 public lands counties, local governments FWC*, FWS, Track habitat management NPS, FDEP, 2 1.1.3.2.3. activities and their effects Continuous FDOF,FNAI, 30 30 30 30 30 on panthers , counties, local governments 134 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $OOOs) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Private Land Mana ement — South Florida FWS, FWC, Provide incentives and NRCS, FDOF, 2 1.1.3.3.1. assistance to willing Continuous IFAS, 60 60 60 60 60 landowners counties, private, NGO Provide incentives and FWS, FWC, work with landowners to NRCS, IFAS, 1 1.1.3.3.2. encourage them not to Continuous FDOF, Costs will be site -specific. convert their lands to less counties, suitable habitat private, NGO FWS*, FWC, Review and comment on NRCS, Cost included in standard 3 1.1.3.3.3. county stewardship plans Periodic FDEP operating budgets of counties, agencies. private, NGO MO itoring Habitat — South Florida 2 1.1.4.1. Quantify 24-hour habitat 3 years FWC*, NPS 450 450 450 use and movement patterns Update Kautz et al. (2006) FWS, FWC, 2 1.1.4.2. maps every five years Periodic USGS, 60 universities South Florida Population Demo ra hits Convene a group of agency FWS*, FWC, 2 1.1.5.1.1. and independent experts to 2 years NPS, USGS, 30 30 conduct an appropriate PVA universities Continue to determine and FWC*, NPS, 1 1.1.5.1.2. monitor demographic Continuous FWS 750 750 750 750 750 variables Develop and implement FWC*, NPS, Costs included in item 2 1.1.5.1.3. annual capture and Continuous FWS 1.1.6.1.2. monitoringwork plans 135 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $OOOs) Priority Number Description Duration Participants FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Genetic Diversity Continue to monitor physical and physiological 1 1.1.5.2.1. characteristics correlated Continuous FWC*, NPS, Costs included in item with inbreeding and FWS 1.1.6.1.2. depletion of genetic variability FWS*, FWC, 1 1.1.5.2.2. Develop and implement a Continuous NPS 30 30 Costs for remaining years genetics management plan universities, to be determined. private Develop a population model to predict future FWS, FWC, 2 1.1.5.2.3. genetic consequences of 3 years NPS, USGS, 50 50 50 management proposals and universities actions Harassment, 'ury, and Mortality 2 1.1.5.3.1.1. Identify harassment Continuous FWS, FWC, 10 10 10 10 10 activities NPS FWS, FWC, Manage public access to NPS, FDEP, 2 1.1.5.3.1.2.1. minimize harassment Continuous WMD, FDOF, 1 1 1 1 1 opportunities counties, local governments FWS, FWC, Develop ORV management NPS, FDEP, 3 1.1.5.3.1.2.2. plans where ORVs are Periodic WMD, FDOF, 10 10 10 10 10 allowed counties, local governments Enforce regulations and FWS, FWC, statutes regarding discharge NPS, FDEP, Cost included in standard 3 1.1.5.3.1.2.3. of firearms, explosive Continuous WMD, FDOF, 1 1 1 1 1 operating budgets of devices, or other loud noise counties, local agencies. sources governments 136 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments FWS, FWC, Post and maintain NPS, FDEP, 3 1.1.5.3.1.3.1. regulatory and Continuous WMD, FDOF, 15 15 15 15 15 informational signs counties, local governments FWS, FWC, Enforce existing laws and NPS, FDEP, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.5.3.1.3.2. regulations Continuous WMD, FDOF, operating budgets of counties, local agencies. governments Enforce existing Federal FWS, FWC, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.5.3.2. and State laws and Continuous NPS, FDEP, operating budgets of regulations to minimize and WMD, FDOF agencies. prevent illegal killing Convene a working group FWS, FWC, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.5.3.3.1.1. to prioritize and address 2-3 years NPS, FDOT, operating budgets of actions needed in panther- counties, NGO, agencies and groups. vehicle collision areas private Secure funding for and FDOT*, FWS, 2 1.1.5.3.3.1.2. install wildlife crossings Continuous FWC, NPS, Costs will be site -specific. and fencing in high risk counties, NGO, areas FHwA, private FWC*, FDOT, Evaluate and implement FWS, NPS, Cost depends on 2 1.1.5.3.3.1.3. other mechanisms to Continuous FHwA, mechanism and site. prevent mortalities on roads counties, NGO, private Build mechanisms into permits for road projects to FWC*, FWS, Cost included in standard 2 1.1.5.3.3.2. provide for adaptive Continuous FDOT, COE, operating budgets of management for panther FHwA agencies. mortality and / or other unforeseen problems 2 1.1.5.3.3.3. Develop new strategies to Continuous FDOT, FWS, Cost depends upon 137 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments prevent road mortalities or FWC, NPS, technology. injuries counties, NGO, private Enforce existing speed FHP, counties, Cost included in standard 3 1.1.5.3.3.4. zones, monitoreffectiveness, and modify Continuous FWC, FWS, operating budgets of as needed NPS agencies. Provide adequate resources and facilities for FWS, FWC, Cost depends in part upon 3 1.1.5.3.4.1. rehabilitation of panthers Continuous NPS, NGO, individual operating costs that might be injured or private for each facility. orphaned during capture and monitoring efforts Develop, implement, review, and revise protocols Cost included in standard 3 1.1.5.3.4.2. . (ie., research, monitoring, Continuous FWC*, operating budgets of capture, handling) as NPS, FWS needed to minimize risks to agencies. anthers Diseases and Parasites Continuously evaluate the value of specific FWC* Cost included in standard 3 1.1.5.4.1.1. vaccinations and review all Continuous NPSFWS operating budgets of vaccination protocols , agencies. annually Revise vaccination Cost depends on threat, 1 1.1.5.4.1.2. protocols as appropriate As needed FWC*, included in standard considering new disease NPS, FWS operating budgets of threats as they arise agencies. Collect appropriate tissue and blood samples from all FWC 1 1.1.5.4.2.1. panthers handled, both live Continuous ' NPS, FWS 60 60 60 60 60 and dead, and analyze them for the presence of priority 138 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments diseases and parasites Evaluate the disease threats presented by other species FWC, NPS, 2 1.1.5.4.2.2. including bobcats and 3 years FWS, USGS, 60 60 60 domestic cats and identify universities any needed management intervention Implement appropriate 1 1.1.5.4.2.3. management strategies for As needed FWC, NPS, Case -specific costs. disease and parasite FWS monitoring and control Environmental Contaminants Produce a summary report and database of FWS, FWC, 3 1.1.5.5.1. contaminants in panthers 2 years EPA, FDEP, 30 30 and their environment in universities south Florida Continue to monitor contaminants, especially FWC Cost included in standard 2 1.1.5.5.2. mercury and endocrine Continuous NPS FWS operating budgets of disruptors, in panthers and agencies. their prey EPA, FDEP, Implement actions FWS, NPS, necessary to remediate COE, FWC, 2 1.1.5.5.3. contaminants in high risk As needed FDACS, Cost will be site -specific. FDOF, FDOT, areas counties, local governments Prey Base Assess and monitor the FWC, FWS, 2 1.1.5.6.1.1. status of deer populations in Continuous NPS FWS, 70 70 70 70 70 panther habitat Tribes, FD FDEP, WMD 139 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Develop deer harvest regulations that do not FWC, NPS, 3 1.1.5.6.1.2. compromise the panther Continuous FWS, Tribes, 5 5 5 5 5 prey base and take into FDOF, FDEP, consideration food WMD requirements of the panther Continue to monitor the FWC*, NPS, impacts on panthers of FWS, Tribes, 2 1.1.5.6.1.3. hunting on public and Continuous FDOF, FDEP, 5 5 5 5 5 private lands in panther WMD habitat Encourage management / FWC NPS 2 1.1.5.6.2. control of feral hog Continuous FWS, Tribes 20 20 20 Costs to be determined for populations that does not FDOF, WMD remaining years. threaten the panther Continue statewide monitoring for chronic wasting disease and other FWC, FWS, 3 1.1.5.6.3.1. emerging wildlife and Continuous NPS, USDA, 117 117 117 117 117 domestic animal diseases FDACS and implement available eradication or control methods Identify, map, and appropriately monitor and 3 1.1.5.6.3.2. regulate exotic animal Continuous FWC USDA 75 75 75 75 75 operations that could serve FDACS, FWS as a source of infection for wild populations Coordinate with the southeastern States to FWS, USDA, 3 1.1.5.6.3.3. review protocols and Continuous State agencies 2 2 2 2 2 regulations that require imported ungulates to be 140 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants IFY1 IFY2 IFY3 IFY4 IFY5 I Comments disease -free Captive Management Develop guidance for the FWC, FWS, 2 1.1.5.7.1. removal of panthers from 1-2 years NPS, NGO, 10 10 the wild universities Evaluate the need for and As needed / FWS, FWC, Costs to be determined. 3 1.1.5.7.2. establish, if necessary, a Continuous NPS, private captive breedingprogram Evaluate the role of As needed / FWS FWC Cost included in item 3 1.1.5.7.3. alternative breeding Continuous NPS, private 1.1.7.7.4.2. strategies Form a captive FWS FWC Cost included in standard 3 1.1.5.7.4.1. management working group < I yr NPS, private operating budgets of agencies. 3 1.1.5.7.4.2. Develop a captive 1-2 years FWS FWC 10 10 management plan NPS, private 3 1.1.5.7.4.3. Implement the captive As needed / FWS FWC Costs to be determined. mana ement plan Continuous NPS, private Establish research priorities for captive panthers which FWS, FWC, Cost included in item 3 1.1.5.7.5. can be applied to 1 year NPS, private 1.1.7.7.4.2. management of the free - ranging o ulation Incorporate interpretative education at public NGO*, Private, 3 1.1.5.7.6. facilities where captive 2 years FWS, FWC, 30 30 panthers are held and NPS, prepare public information universities materials Expansion into South -Central Florida Feasibility and Habitat Identification Continue to evaluate the FWS, USGS, 2 1.2.1. potential for habitat in 1 year universities 50 south-central Florida to 141 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants M IFY2 IFY3 IFY4 IFY5 Comments support a breeding population Fac litating Natural Population Expansion If there is potential for habitat in south-central Florida to support a breeding population, Cost included in standard 2 1.2.2. determine if there are 1 year FWC, FWS operating budgets of management steps that can be taken to facilitate natural agencies. expansion of female panthers into south-central Florida Taanslocation If natural expansion of female panthers into south- central Florida is not likely, evaluate the feasibility of FWS FWC Cost included in standard 3 1.2.3. translocation to establish a 3-5 years NPS ' operating budgets of breeding population, agencies. including an EA or EIS under the NEPA process if necessary If natural expansion is not likely, develop an FWS FWC Cost included in standard 3 1.2.4. expansion plan to guide 1 year NPS ' operating budgets of translocation into south- agencies. central Florida Suitable Habitat Secure a dispersal area FWS, FWC, north of Caloosahatchee WMD, FDEP, 2 1.2.5.1. River that maintains 5 years FDOF, Costs will be site -specific. connection with habitat counties, south of river private 142 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments FWS, FWC, Conserve lands buffering WMD, FDEP, Cost included in standard 3 1.2.5.2. the Caloosahatchee River Continuous FDOF, NGO, operating budgets of counties, agencies. private If establishment of a breeding population in south-central Florida is FWS, FWC, feasible, provide for the WMD, FDEP, 3 1.2.5.3. conservation and Continuous FDOF, NGO, Costs will be site -specific. enhancement of other lands counties, necessary for persistence of private a population in south- central Florida If the population is FWS, FWC, expanded into south-central WMD, FDEP, Costs dependent upon 3 1.2.6.1. Florida, implement Continuous FDOF, actions needed. appropriate actions in counties, Section 1.1 private Reintroduction Select Reintroduction Sites In cooperation / coordination with the FWS, State Cost included in standard 2 2.1.1. southeastern States select 1-2 years agenciesUSFS , operating budgets of potential reintroduction agencies. areas to be evaluated Develop and conduct FWS, State preliminary public scoping 2 2.1.2. to allow effective 1-2 years agencies, 50 50 preplanning of the NEPA USGS, USFS, universities process Identify State and Federal FWS*, State Cost included in standard 3 2.1.3. laws, regulations, or 1-2 years agencies, operating budgets of policies that could conflict USGS, USFS, agencies. 143 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M I FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments with reintroduction and universities resolve any potential conflicts Conduct field surveys of FWS*, State 3 2.1.4. selected reintroduction 3 years agencies, 100 100 100 USGS, USFS, areas universities Determine if puma are FWS*, State 3 2.1.5. present in selected 1-2 years agencies, 40 40 reintroduction areas USGS, USFS, universities Evaluate possible disease FWS*, State and parasite problems in 3 2.1.6. selected reintroduction 1-2 years agencies, 30 30 areas prior to releasing USGS, USFS, anthers universities Consider contaminant FWS*, State issues when evaluating agencies, 3 2.1.7. selected reintroduction 1-2 years USGS, USFS 30 30 universities, areas EPA FWS*, state Coordinate with the agencies and southeastern States, local Cost included in standard 2 2.1.8.1. stakeholders, and the public 2 years governments, operating budgets of for reintroduction site USDA, USFS, agencies. selection universities, private, NGO FWS*, State agencies and 3 2.1.8.2. Collect, compare, and 2 years local 50 50 analyze sociopolitical data governments, USGS, USFS, universities, 144 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments NGO Using the information obtained in 2.1.8.1 and 2.1.8.2. use the NEPA FWS*, State Cost included in standard 3 2.1.8.3. process to develop and 1-2 years agencies, operating budgets of refine appropriate USFS, NGO agencies. reintroduction alternatives and recommend the referred alternative Reintroduce Panthers into Suitable Sites Source o Panthers or Reintroduction FWS*, FWC, Determine the number of State agencies 2 2 2 1 panthers from each age and 1 year and local 30 sex class that are needed for governments, a reintroduction program USGS, NPS universities Select individual panthers that could be removed for FWS, FWC, Cost included in standard 2 2 2 2 1 reintroduction without 1 year NPS, USGS, operating budgets of negatively affecting the universities agencies. persistence of the existing population Develop a protocol for FWS*, FWC, Cost included in standard 3 2.2.2.2. translocation of panthers 1 year NPS, USGS, operating budgets of from the wild universities agencies. Cost for evaluation included in standard Evaluate the need for and FWS FWC operating budgets of 3 2.2.3. establish, if necessary, a 1-2 years NPS, private agencies. Costs for captive breeding program establishment to be determined. 3 2.2.4. Evaluate the role of 1 year FWS, FWC, Cost included in standard 145 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments alternative breeding NPS, private operating budgets of strategies and / or source agencies. populations Reintroduction Incentives Identify and provide FWS, State Cost included in standard incentives to Federal, State, agencies, local operating budgets of 2 2.2.5.1. and local governments and 1-2 years agencies to participate in governments, agencies. reintroduction county, USFS Address the legal liability 3 2.2.5.2. issues for State 1 year FWS, State Cost dependent on solution. participation in a agencies reintroduction program Provide resources to assist FWS, State 3 2.2.5.3. with reintroduction Continuous agencies, NGO, State / site -specific costs. private Human Dimensions o Reintroduction Develop and implement a FWS, State 3 2.2.6.1. protocol and response plan Continuous agencies, NGO, 7 7 7 7 7 for handling human -panther USFS, NPS interactions Evaluate the need for and, Cost included in standard 3 2.2.6.2. if appropriate, designate 1-2 years FWS operating budget of agency. experimental nonessential populations Develop and distribute a FWS, State 3 2.2.6.3.1. landowner, land manager, 2 years agencies, NGO, 10 20 and lessees panther USDA, private, handbook USFS, NPS Provide assistance to Cost included in standard landowners, land managers, FWS, State operating budgets of 3 2.2.6.3.2. and lessees to identify and Continuous agencies, NGO, address potential conflicts NRCS, private agencies. on their property 146 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Develop, fund, and FWS, State 3 2.2.6.3.3. implement a compensation Continuous agencies, NGO, State / site -specific costs. program USDA, private Understand hunting pressure and methods in potential reintroduction FWS, State 3 2.2.6.4.1. areas to identify possible 2 years agencies, NGO, 5 5 conflicts, including a real or private perceived decline in deer populations Partner with hunters and hunting lease holders, FWS, State 3 2.2.6.4.2. including timber Continuous agencies, NGO, State / site -specific costs. companies, to address USDA, private panther, hunter, and prey issues Release o Panthers Develop a protocol and FWS, State 1 2.2.7. release panthers into Continuous agencies, NGO, State / site -specific costs. selected reintroduction sites / As needed private, USGS, universities MO itoring Reintroduced Panthers Develop and implement FWS, State 3 2 2 8 monitoring plans for the Continuous agencies, 100 100 100 100 100 selected reintroduction USGS, USFS areas universities Enforce existing Federal Cost included in standard 3 2.2.9.1. and State laws and Continuous FWS, State operating budgets of regulations regarding illegal agencies, USFS agencies. killing Extend ESA "similarity of Cost included in standard 3 2.2.9.2. a appearance" protection to 2 years FWS operating budget of agency. puma in applicable portions of the historic range prior to 147 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments reintroduction Implement a toll free FWS, State 3 2.2.9.3. telephone tip number in Continuous 2 2 2 2 2 reintroduction areas agencies Actions Once Populations Are Established As additional populations Duration, participants, and 3 2.3. are established implement As needed costs depend on actions as appropriate actions in well as State /site selection. Section 1 Public Awareness and Education Design and Develop Materials and Programs Education WorkingGrou FWS*, FWC, Form a working group to NPS, USDA, 2 3.1.1. design and develop Continuous NRCS, FDEP, 10 10 10 10 10 education and outreach FDOF, WMD, materials and programs State agencies, NGO Social Science Research Identify target audiences, FWS, FWC, content, strategic messages, NPS, USFS, 2 3.1.2.1. and methods of getting the 1 year NRCS, FDOF, 30 message out using social WMD, State science research agencies, NGO Production o Materials and Programs Natural Histo , Recovery, and Reduction o Threats to Panthers FWS, FWC, Produce information on FDEP, NPS, natural history, place in the NRCS, FDOF, 3 3.1.3.1. ecosystem, panther facts Continuous USFS,WMD 50 50 50 50 50 benefits of recovery, and NGO, State ways to reduce threats to agencies, panthers and their habitat counties, local governments, Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants M IFY2 IFY3 IFY4 IFY5 Comments universities, private Habitat Conservation and Management FWS, FWC, FDEP, NPS, NRCS, FDOF, Compile information and USFS, WMD, 3 3.1.3.2.1. produce materials and Continuous NGO, State 10 10 10 10 10 programs on landowner agencies, incentives counties, local governments, universities, private Identify ecotourism values FWS, State and economic incentives agencies, NGO, 3 3.1.3.2.2. related to panthers and 1-2 years 25 develop materials for private, ecotourism programs universities Compile information on FWS, FWC, 3 3.1.3.2.3. land management 1-2 years NRCS, FDEP, 30 30 techniques FDOF, WMD, NGO Develop a panther habitat FWS, FWC, management handbook for NRCS, FDEP, 3 3.1.3.2.4. public and private land 1-2 years FDOF, WMD, Costs included in 3.1.3.2.3. managers based on the best NGO management practices South Florida Population Develop materials to FWS, FWC, inform the public and NPS, USDA, 3 3.1.3.3.1. decision makers about Continuous NRCS, FDOF, Costs included in 3.1.3.1. methods for reducing WMD, State anther -vehicle collisions agencies, NGO Human /Panther Interactions 149 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments FWS, FWC, FDEP, NPS, Develop educational NRCS, FDOF, material to address human USFS, WMD, 3 3.1.3.4.1. social issues related to Continuous NGO, State 20 20 20 20 20 panther conservation and agencies, counties, local recovery governments, universities, private FWS, FWC, 2 3.1.3.4.2. Develop a Living With 1 year NPS, Tribes, 15 Panthers outreach program NRCS, NGO, State agencies Develop materials and FWS, FWC, programs to address NPS, USGS, 3 3.1.3.4.3. hunting concerns, such as a 2-3 years universities, 10 10 10 real or perceived decline in State agencies, the deer population NGO FWS, FWC, Include panther NPS, USFS, 3 3.1.3.4.4. conservation issues in ORV Continuous NRCS, FDOF, 1 1 1 1 1 educational materials WMD, State agencies, NGO Population Expansion and Reintroduction Examine sociological FWS, USGS, 2 3.1.3.5.1. information such as public 2-3 years universities 30 30 30 attitudes in and around State agencies, reintroduction sites NGO FWS, FWC, 2 3.1.3.5.2. Develop a media plan 1 year NPS, Tribes, 100 NGO, State agencies Displays and Programs in Public Environmental Education Centers 150 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments Design education displays FWS, FWC, and programs for public NPS, Tribes, 3 3.1.3.6. environmental education Continuous NGO, State 50 5 5 5 5 centers, such as zoos and agencies, natural history museums private Programs and Materials or School Children FWS, FWC, Develop education NPS, Tribes, 3 3.1.3.7. programs and materials for 1 year NGO, State 100 school children agencies, private Develop materials to FWC*, NPS, 3 3.1.3.8. promote Florida Panther 1 year FWS, NGO, 30 Day State agencies, private Provide Materials and Programs Communications Teams Form communication teams FWS, FWC, NPS, USFS, to give presentations to NRCS, FDEP, 3 3.2.1. audiences in and adjacent to Continuous FDOF, WMD, 5 5 5 5 5 panther habitat and in State agencies, selected reintroduction sites NGO Media /Public Relations Trainingfor Agency Personnel Provide media / public NRCS, FWS, relations training for FWC, NPS, agency personnel who will NRCS, Tribes, 2 3.2.2. be on -the -ground and Continuous NGO, State 5 5 5 5 5 interfacing with the public (including private agencies, landowners) and media private Distribute Materials and Provide Programs 3 3.2.3.1. Distribute information on Continuous FWS FWC , F- Costs included in 3.2.3.3. landowner incentives FDEP, NPS, 151 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s) Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments NRCS, FDOF, USFS, WMD, NGO, State agencies, counties, local governments, universities, private Provide existing ecotourism facilities and the Visit NPS, FWS, 3 3.2.3.2. Florida tourism promotion Continuous FWC, Tribes, 7 5 5 5 5 program with updated private, NGO information on panthers Distribute information on land management techniques and provide FWS, FWC, technical assistance to NRCS, FDEP, 2 3.2.3.3. public and private land Continuous FDOF, WMD, 300 300 300 300 300 managers regarding NGO techniques to maintain and increase the value of habitat to panthers and their prey Inform the public, FWS, FWC, landowners, and decision NPS, USDA, Costs included in standard 3 3.2.3.4. makers about the needs and Continuous NRCS FDEP operating budgets of benefits of invasive species counties, NGO, control / management and DCA, IFAS, agencies. prescribed fire USFS Distribute information on FWS, FWC, Costs included in standard prey management NPS, USDA, operating budgets of 3 3.2.3.5. techniques (including Continuous NRCS, FDEP, FDOF, WMD, agencies. exotic game) on public and State agencies, private lands counties, local Costs included in 3.2.3.3. 152 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments governments, NGO Distribute materials to FWC*, NPS, 3 3.2.3.6. promote Florida Panther Continuous FWS, NGO, 10 10 10 10 10 Day State agencies South Florida Population Provide information on FWS, FWC, 3 3.2.4.1. Continuous NPS, NGO, Costs included in 3.1.3.1. genetic restoration private Provide information on FWS, FWC, panther conservation issues NPS, USFS, 3 3.2.4.2. in ORV educational Continuous NRCS, FDOF, Costs included in 3.1.3.1. materials WMD, State agencies, NGO Educate sportsmen groups FWS, FWC, and the public about the NPS, USDA, 3 3.2.4.3. legal consequences of Continuous NRCS, FDOF, Costs included in 3.1.3.1. illegal harassment WMD, State agencies, NGO FWC, FWS, Provide information on NPS, USDA, 3 3.2.4.4. panther management, Continuous NRCS, FDOF, Costs included in 3.1.3.1. including monitoring State agencies, NGO Human I Panther Interactions Provide education and FWS, FWC, outreach to residents living NPS, USDA, 2 3.2.5.1. in and adjacent to panther Continuous NRCS, FDOF, 50 50 50 50 50 habitat WMD, State a encies, NGO FWS, FWC, 3 3.2.5.2. Provide tips for recreating Continuous NPS, USFS, Cost included in 3.2.5.1. in panther habitat NRCS, FDEP, FDOF, WMD, 153 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants M FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Comments State agencies, NGO FWS, FWC, Provide information on NPS, USFS, Cost included in 3.2.5.1. 3 3.2.5.3. protecting livestock and Continuous NRCS, FDOF, pets WMD, State agencies, NGO FWS, FWC, Provide outreach materials NPS, USDA, Cost included in 3.2.5.1. 3 3.2.5.4. to address hunting concerns Continuous NRCS, FDOF, WMD, State agencies, NGO Population Expansion and Reintroduction Engage and provide materials to landowners and FWS, FWC, the public in south-central NRCS FDOF 2 3.2.6.1. Florida to build support for Continuous WMD Costs included in 3.2.3.3. restoring and maintaining ' counties, NGO habitat and for expansion and reintroductions Target education at FWS, State reintroduction sites to 2 3.2.6.2. address social issues in agencies, 50 50 50 50 50 advance of releasing Continuous NRCS, USFS, anthers NGO, private Continue education and FWS, State 3 3.2.6.3. outreach efforts after Continuous agencies, Cost included in 3.2.6.2. panthers are released into a NRCS, USFS, reintroduction site NGO, private Identify existing ecotourism facilities and State FWS, State 3 3.2.6.4. ecotourism boards in or Continuous agencies, Costs included in 3.2.3.2. near selected reintroduction private, NGO sites and provide them with 154 Florida Panther Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule Action Recovery Action Action Estimated Fiscal Year Costs $000s Priority Number Description Duration Participants M IFY2 IFY3 IFY4 IFY5 Comments updated panther information Displays and Pro rams in Public Environmental Education Centers Identify and work with existing environmental NPS, FWS, education facilities to FWC FDEP 3 3.2.7. provide or enhance panther Continuous Tribes, private, 50 50 50 50 50 education displays and NGO programs Programs and Materials or School Children FWS, FWC, Distribute education NPS, Tribes, 3 3.2.8. programs and materials to Continuous NGO, State 20 20 20 20 20 school children agencies, private Evaluation Evaluate outreach and FWS, FWC, 3 3.3. educational materials and Continuous NPS, Tribes, 15 15 15 15 15 NGO, State programs a encies FWS, FWC, 3 3.4 Revise materials where Continuous NPS, Tribes, 150 150 150 150 150 evaluation indicates a need NGO, State agencies 155 VI. LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, B. B., F. G. Lindzey, and T. P. Hemker. 1986. Predictive energetics model for cougars. Pages 333-352 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett (eds). Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Washington, D. C. and Kingsville, TX. Adams, B., and J. A. Bozzo. 2002. Big Cypress National Preserve deer and hog annual report 2001 — 2002. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Anderson, C. R. Jr., F. G. Lindzey, D. B. McDonald. 2004. Genetic structure of cougar populations across the Wyoming Basin: metapopulation or megapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy 85:1207-1214. Ballou, J. D., T. J. Foose, R. C. Lacy, and U. S. Seal. 1989. Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) population viability analysis and recommendations. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, MN. Bangs, O. 1899. The Florida puma. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 13:15-17. Barone, M. A., M. E. Roelke, J. Howard, J. L. Brown, A. E. Anderson, and D. E. Wildt. 1994. Reproductive characteristics of male Florida panthers: comparative studies from Florida, Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American Zoos. Journal of Mammalogy 75:150-162. Bass, O. L., and D. S. Maehr. 1991. Do recent panther deaths in Everglades National Park suggest and ephemeral population? Research & Exploration 7:426-427. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. Beier P., M. R. Vaughan, M. J. Conroy, and H. Quigley. 2003. An analysis of scientific literature related to the Florida panther. Final report, Project NGO1-105, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Beier P., M. R. Vaughan, M. J. Conroy, and H. Quigley. 2006. Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:236-245. 156 Beissinger, S., and M.1. Westphal. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:821- 841. Belden, R. C. 1986. Florida panther recovery plan implementation - a 1983 progress report. Pages 159-172 in S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett (eds). Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Washington, D.C. and Kingsville, TX. Belden, R. C. 1988. The Florida panther. Pages 515-532 in Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Belden, R. C., and B. W. Hagedorn. 1993. Feasibility of translocating panthers into northern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:388-397. Belden, R. C., and R. T. McBride. 1983a. Florida panther surveys — Big Cypress National Preserve. Final report to Hughes and Hughes Oil and Gas Company, Wichita Falls, TX. Belden, R. C., and R. T. McBride. 1983b. Florida panther surveys — South Florida Indian Reservations. Final report to Natural Resources Management Corporation, Eureka, CA. Belden, R. C., and R. T. McBride. 2006. Florida panther peripheral areas survey final report 1998-2004. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Belden, R. C., and J. W. McCown. 1996. Florida panther reintroduction feasibility study. Final Report 7507. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Belden, R. C., W. B. Frankenberger, R. T. McBride, and S. T. Schwikert. 1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:660-663. Belden, R. C., W. B. Frankenberger, and J. C. Roof. 1991. Florida panther distribution. Final Report 7501, E-1 II-E-1. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Berglund, F., and M. Berlin. 1969. Risk of methylmercury cumulation in man and mammals and the relation between body burden of methylmercury and toxic effects. In M. W. Miller and G. G. Berg (eds). Chemical fallout. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. Boyce, M. S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:481-506. Brown, J. H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445-449. Burridge, M. J., L. A. Sawyer, and W. J. Bigler. 1986. Rabies in Florida. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, FL. 157 Carlson, A., and P. Edenhamn. 2000. Extinction dynamics and the regional persistence of a tree frog metapopulation. Proceedings for the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267:1311-1313. Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, P. C. Paquet, and N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Extinction debt of protected areas in developing landscapes. Conservation Biology 18:1110-1120. Clark J. D., D. Huber, and C. Servheen. 2002. Bear reintroductions: lessons and challenges. Ursus 13:335-345. Comiskey, E. J., L. J. Gross, D. M. Fleming, M. A. Huston, O. L. Bass, Jr., H. Luh, and Y. Wu. 1994. A spatially -explicit individual -based simulation model for Florida panther and white-tailed deer in the Everglades and Big Cypress landscapes. Pages 494-503 in D. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Comiskey, E. J., O. L. Bass, Jr., L. J. Gross, R. T. McBride, and R. Salinas. 2002. Panthers and forests in south Florida: an ecological perspective. Conservation Ecology 6:18. Cory, C. B. 1896. Hunting and fishing in Florida. Estes and Lauriat, Boston, MA. Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida's wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Cox, J. J., D. S. Maehr, and J. L. Larkin. 2006. Florida panther habitat use: New approach to an old problem. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1778-1785. Cramer P. 1995. The northeast Florida panther education program. Final report to Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Culver, M., W. E. Johnson, J. Pecon-Slattery, and S. J. O'Brien. 2000. Genomic ancestry of the American puma (Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity 91:186-197. Cunningham, M. W. 2005. Epizootiology of feline leukemia virus in the Florida panther. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Dalrymple, G. H., and O. L. Bass. 1996. The diet of the Florida panther in Everglades National Park, Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 39:173-193. Dees, C. S., J. D. Clark, and F. T. van Marten. 1999. Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire at Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve. Final report to Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 158 Dees, C. S., J. D. Clark, and F. T. Van Marten. 2001. Florida panther habitat use in response to prescribed fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:141-147. Doak, D. F., P. Kareiva, and B. Klepetka. 1994. Modeling population viability for the desert tortoise in the Western Mojave Desert. Ecological Applications 4:446-460. Duda, M., and K. Young. 1995. Floridian's knowledge, opinions, and attitudes toward panther habitat and panther -related issues. Florida Advisory Council on Environmental Education, Tallahassee, FL. Duever, M. J., J. E. Carlson, J. F. Meeder, L. C. Duever, L. H. Gunderson, L. A. Riopelle, T. R. Alexander, R. L. Myers, and D. P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report 8. National Audubon Society, New York, NY. Dunbar, M. R. 1995. Florida panther biomedical investigations. Annual performance report. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Dunbar, M. R., G. S. McLaughin, D. M. Murphy, and M. W. Cunningham. 1994. Pathogenicity of the hookworm, Ancylostoma pluridentatum, in a Florida panther (Felis concolor corgi) kitten. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30:548-551. Ellis, S., R. C. Lacy, S. Kennedy-Stoskopf, D. E. Wildt, J. Shillcox, O. Byers, and U. S. Seal (eds). 1999. Florida panther population and habitat viability assessment and genetics workshop report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN. Ewens, W. J. 1990. The minimum viable population size as a genetic and demographic concept. Pages 307-316 in J. Adams, D. A. Lam, A. I. Hermalin, and P. E. Smouse (eds). Convergent issues in genetics and demography. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Third edition. Longman, NY. Fieberg, J., and S. P. Ellner. 2000. When is it meaningful to estimate an extinction probability? Ecology 81:2040-2047. Fleming, M., J. Schortemeyer, and J. Ault. 1994. Distribution, abundance, and demography of white-tailed deer in the Everglades. Pages 247-274 in D. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Annual report on the research and management of Florida panthers: 2005-2006. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Naples, FL. Forrester, D. J. 1992. Parasites and diseases of wild mammals in Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 159 Forrester, D. J., J. A. Conti, and R. C. Belden. 1985. Parasites of the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 52:95-97. Frank, K. 2005. Metapopulation persistence in heterogeneous landscapes: lessons about the effect of stochasticity. American Naturalist 165:374-388. Frankham, R. 1995. Effective population size / adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genetical Research 66:95-107. Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135-149 in M. E. Soul6 and B. A. Wilcox (eds). Conservation biology: an evolutionary -ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Franklin, I. R., and R. Frankham. 1998. How large must populations be to retain evolutionary potential? Animal Conservation 1:69-70. Frederick, P. C., M. G. Spalding, and R. Dusek. 2002. Wading birds as bioindicators of mercury contamination in Florida, USA; annual and geographic variation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:163-167. Gautschi, B., J. P. Muller, B. Schmid, and J. A. Shykof£ 2003. Effective number of breeders and maintenance of genetic diversity in the captive bearded vulture population. Heredity 91:9-16. Gilpin, M. E., and M. E. Soul6. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction. Pages 19-34 in M. E. Soul& (ed). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. Glass, C. M., R. G. McLean, J. B. Katz, D. S. Maehr, C. B. Cropp, L. J. Kirk, A. J. McKeirnan, and J. F. Evermann. 1994. Isolation of pseudorabies (Aujeszky's disease) virus from a Florida panther. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30:180-184. Goodman, D. 1987. Consideration of stochastic demography in the design and management of biological reserves. Natural Resources Modeling 1:205-234. Grimm, V., and C. Wissel. 2004. The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analyzing persistence and viability of populations. Oikos 105:501-511. Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. 2 vols. Ronald Press, New York, NY. Hamilton, S., and H. Moller. 1995. Can PVA models using computer packages offer useful conservation advice? Sooty shearwaters Puff nus griseus in New Zealand as a case study. Biological Conservation 73:107-117. 160 Hanski, I. 2002. Metapopulations of animals in highly fragmented landscapes and population viability analysis. Pages 86-108 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough (eds). Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Harlow, R. F. 1959. An evaluation of white-tailed deer habitat in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Technical Bulletin 5, Tallahassee, FL. Harlow, R. F., and F. K. Jones. 1965. The white-tailed deer in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Technical Bulletin 9, Tallahassee, FL. Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Harrison, R. L. 1992. Toward a theory of inter -refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology 6:293-295. Hedrick, P. W., R. N. Lee, and C. Buchanan. 2003. Canine parvovirus enteritis, canine distemper, and major histocompatibility complex genetic variation in Mexican wolves. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:909-913. Hellgren, E. C., D. P. Onorato, and J. R. Skiles. 2005. Dynamics of a black bear population within a desert metapopulation. Biological Conservation 122:131-140. Hollister, N. 1911. The Louisiana puma. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 24:175-178. Horino, S., and S. Miura. 2000. Population viability analysis of a Japanese black bear population. Population Ecology 42:37-44. Jacobson, S. K. 1999. Case study of public communications for the gray wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park. Appendix in Communication Skills for Conservation Professionals. Island Press, Washington, DC. Janis, M. W., and J. D. Clark. 1999. The effects of recreational deer and hog hunting on the behavior of Florida panthers. Final report to Big Cypress National Preserve, National Park Service, Ochopee, FL. Janis, M. W., and J. D. Clark. 2002. Responses of Florida panthers to recreational deer and hog hunting. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:839-848. Jansen, D. K., S. R. Schulze, and A. T. Johnson. 2005. Florida panther (Puma concolor corgi) research and monitoring in Big Cypress National Preserve. Annual report 2004-2005. National Park Service, Ochopee, FL. 161 Jordan, D. B. 1991. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment — A proposal to establish a captive breeding population of Florida panthers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. Jordan, D. B. 1994. Identification and evaluation of candidate Florida panther population reestablishment sites. Pages 106-153 in D. B. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Kautz, R. S. 1994. Historical trends within the range of the Florida panther. Pages 285-296 in D. B. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida panther conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Kautz, R. S., and J. A. Cox. 2001. Strategic habitats for biodiversity conservation in Florida. Conservation Biology 15:55-77. Kautz, R. S., D. T. Gilbert, and G. M. Mauldin. 1993. Vegetative cover in Florida based on 1985-1989 Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery. Florida Scientist 56:135-154. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation 130:118-133. Kautz, R., B. Stys, and R. Kawula. 2007. Florida vegetation 2003 and land use change between 1985-89 and 2003. Florida Scientist 70:12-23. Kelly, M. J., and S. M. Durant. 2000. Viability of the Serengeti cheetah population. Conservation Biology 14:786-797. Kendall, B. E., O. N. Bjomstad, J. Bascompte, T. H. Keitt, and W. F. Fagan. 2000. Dispersal, environmental correlation, and spatial synchrony in population dynamics. American Naturalist 155:628-636. Kerkhoff, A. J., B. T. Milne, and D. S. Maehr. 2000. Toward a panther -centered view of the forests of south Florida. Conservation Ecology 4:1. Kohlmann, S. G., G. A. Schmidt, D. K. Garcelon. 2005. A population viability analysis for the Island Fox on Santa Catalina Island, California. Ecological Modelling 183:77-94. Kramer-Schadt S., E. Revilla, and T. Wiegand. 2005. Lynx reintroductions in fragmented landscapes of Germany: projects with a future or misunderstood wildlife conservation? Biological Conservation 125:169-182. Labisky, R. F., M. C. Boulay, K. E. Miller, R. A. Sargent, Jr., and J. M. Zultowskil. 1995. Population ecology of white-tailed deer in Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. Final report to National Park Service, Ochopee, FL. 162 Land, E. D. 1994. Response of the wild Florida panther population to removals for captive breeding. Final Report 7571. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Land, E. D., and R. C. Lacy. 2000. Introgression level achieved through Florida panther genetic restoration. Endangered Species Update 17:99-103. Land, D., and S. K. Taylor. 1998. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 1997-98. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Land, D., B. Shindle, D. Singler, and S. K. Taylor. 1999. Florida panther genetic restoration annual report 1998-99. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Land, D., M. Cunningham, R. McBride, D. Shindle, and M. Lotz. 2002. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 2001-02. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Land, D., D. Shindle, M. Cunningham, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. 2004. Florida panther genetic restoration and management annual report 2003-04. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Land, E. D., D. B. Shindle, R. J. Kawula, J. F. Benson, M. A. Lotz, and D. P. Onorato. In press. Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455-1460. Lande, R. 1995. Mutation and conservation. Conservation Biology 9:782-791. Lande, R., and G. F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. Pages 87-124 in M.E. Soule (ed). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, MA. Li, Z., M. Gao, C. Hui, X. Han, and H. Shi. 2005. Impact of predator pursuit and prey invasion on synchrony and spatial patterns in metapopulation. Ecological Modelling 185:245-254. Lindsey, P. A., R. Alexander, J. T. Du Toit, and M. G. L. Mills. 2005. The cost efficiency of wild dog conservation in South Africa. Conservation Biology 19:1205-1214. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, loth edition. Stockholm, Sweden. Logan, K. A., L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:648-654. 163 Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington. Logan, T., A. C. Eller, Jr., R. Morrell, D. Ruffner, and J. Sewell. 1993. Florida panther habitat preservation plan: south Florida population. Florida Panther Interagency Committee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Lotz, M., D. Land, M. Cunningham, and B. Ferree. 2005. Florida panther annual report 2004- 05. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Lubow, B. C. 1996. Optimal translocation strategies for enhancing stochastic metapopulation viability. Ecological Applications 6:1268-1280. Maehr, D. S. 1990a. Florida panther movements, social organization, and habitat utilization. Final Performance Report 7502. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Maehr, D. S. 1990b. The Florida panther and private lands. Conservation Biology 4:167-170. Maehr, D. S. 1992. Florida panther. Pages 176-189 in S.R. Humphrey (ed). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I: mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Maehr, D. S. 1997a. The comparative ecology of bobcat, black bear, and Florida panther in south Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 40:1-176. Maehr, D. S. 1997b. The Florida panther: Life and death of a vanishing carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Maehr, D. S., J. C. Roof, E. D. Land, and J. W. McCown. 1989a. First reproduction of a panther (Felis concolor coryi) in southwestern Florida, U.S.A. Mammalia 53: 129-131. Maehr, D. S., J. C. Roof, E. D. Land, J. W. McCown, R. C. Belden, and W. B. Frankenberger. 1989b. Fates of wild hogs released into occupied Florida panther home ranges. Florida Field Naturalist 17:42-43. Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, J. C. Roof, and J. W. McCown. 1990a. Day beds, natal dens, and activity of Florida panthers. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44:310-318. Maehr, D. S., R. C. Belden, E. D. Land, and L. Wilkins. 1990b. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:420-423. Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and J. C. Roof. 1991 a. Social ecology of Florida panthers. National Geographic Research & Exploration 7:414-431. 164 Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, and M. E. Roelke. 1991b. Mortality patterns of panthers in southwest Florida. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45:201-207. Maehr, D. S., E. C. Greiner, J. E. Lanier, and D. Murphy. 1995. Notoedric mange in the Florida panther (Felis concolor corgi). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31:251-254. Maehr, D. S., E. D. Land, D. B. Shindle, O. L. Bass, and T. S. Hoctor. 2002a. Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biological Conservation 106:187-197. Maehr, D. S., R. C. Lacy, E. D. Land, O. L. Bass, Jr., and T. S. Hoctor. 2002b. Evolution of population viability assessments for the Florida panther: a multi -perspective approach. Pages 284-311 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough (eds). Population Viability Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Margan, S. H., R. K. Nurthen, M. E. Montgomery, L. M. Woodworth, E. H. Lowe, D. A. Briscoe, and R. Frankham. 1998. Single large or several small? Population fragmentation in the captive management of endangered species. Zoo Biology 17:467- 480. McBride, R. T. 1985. Population status of the Florida panther in Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. Report to National Park Service in fulfillment of Contract #RFP 5280-84 04, Homestead, FL. McBride, R. T. 2000. Current panther distribution and habitat use: a review of field notes, fall 1999-winter 2000. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL. McBride, R. T. 2001. Current panther distribution, population trends, and habitat use: report of field work: fall 2000-winter 2001. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL. McBride, R. T. 2002. Current panther distribution and conservation implications -- highlights of field work: fall 2001 -- winter 2002. Report to Florida Panther Subteam of MERIT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL. McBride, R. T. 2003. The documented panther population (DPP) and its current distribution from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. Appendix IV in D. Shindle, M. Cunningham, D. Land, R. McBride, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual report 93112503002. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. McBride, R. T., R. M. McBride, J. L. Cashman, and D. S. Maehr. 1993. Do mountain lions exist in Arkansas? Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:394-402. 165 McCarthy, M. A., C. J. Thompson, and H. P. Possingham. 2005. Theory for designing nature reserves for single species. American Naturalist 165:250-257. McCown, J. W. 1994. Big Cypress deer/panther relationships: deer herd health and reproduction. Pages 197-217 in D. B. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Miller, K. E. 1993. Habitat use by white-tailed deer in the Everglades: tree islands in a seasonally flooded landscape. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Mills, L. S., and F. W. Allendorf. 1996. The one -migrant -per -generation rule in conservation and management. Conservation Biology 10:1509-1518. Mooring, M. S., T. A. Fitzpatrick, T. T. Nishihira, and D. D. Reisig. 2004. Vigilance, predation risk, and the Allee effect in desert bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:519-532. Morris, W. F., and D. F. Doak. 2002. Quantitative conservation biology: Theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Murphy, F. A., E. P. J. Gibbs, M. C. Horzinek, and M. J. Studdert. 1999. Veterinary virology. Academic Press, New York, NY. Musiam, M., and P. C. Paquet. 2004. The practice of wolf persecution, protection, and restoration in Canada and the United States. BioScience 54:50-60. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Interim endangered and threatened species recovery planning guidance. Silver Springs, MD. Nelson, E. W., and E. A. Goldman. 1929. List of the pumas with three described as new. Journal of Mammalogy 10:345-350. Newman, J., E. Zillioux, E. Rich, L. Liang, and C. Newman. 2004. Historical and other patterns of monomethyl and inorganic mercury in the Florida panther (Puma concolor corgi). Archives of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology 48:75-80. Newmark, W. D. 1987. A land -bridge island perspective on mammalian extinctions in western North American parks. Nature 325:430-432. Noss, R. F. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation Biology 1:159-164. Noss, R. F. 1992. The wildlands project land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue):10-25. Noss, R. F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Nowak, R. M., and R. T. McBride. 1974. Status survey of the Florida panther. Project 973. World Wildlife Fund Yearbook 1973-74:237-242. Nowak, R. M., and R. T. McBride. 1975. Status of the Florida panther. Project 973. World Wildlife Fund Yearbook 1974-75:245-46. Nowak, R. M., and J. L. Paradiso. 1983. Walker's mammals of the world, Volume II. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Nowell, K., and P. Jackson. 1996. Status survey and conservation action plan: Wild cats. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Burlington Press, Cambridge, U.K. Nunney, L. 1993. The influence of mating system and overlapping generations on effective population size. Evolution 47:1329-1341. Nunney, L., and D. R. Elam. 1994. Estimating the effective population size of conserved populations. Conservation Biology 8:175-184. O'Brien, S. J. 1996a. Molecular genetics and phylogenetics of the Felidae. Pages xxiii-xxiv in K. Nowell and P. Jackson. Status survey and conservation action plan: Wild cats. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Burlington Press, Cambridge, U.K. O'Brien, S. J. 1996b. Subspecies identification incorporating molecular genetics. Pages 210- 211 in K. Nowell and P. Jackson. Status survey and conservation action plan: Wild cats. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Burlington Press, Cambridge, U.K. O'Brien, S. J., and E. Mayr. 1991. Bureaucratic mischief. Recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science 251:1187-1188. O'Brien, S. J., M. E. Roelke, N. Yuhki, K. W. Richards, W. E. Johnson, W. L. Franklin, A. E. Anderson, O. L. Bass, R. C. Belden, and J. S. Martin. 1990. Genetic introgression within the Florida panther Felis concolor corgi. National Geographic Research 6:485- 494. Olmstead, R. A., R. Langley, M. E. Roelke, R. M. Goeken, D. Adger -Johnson, J. P. Goff, J. P. Albert, C. Packer, M. K. Laurenson, T. M. Caro, L. Scheepers, D. E. Wildt, M. Bush, J. S. Martenson, and S. J. O'Brien. 1992. Worldwide prevalence of lentivirus infection in wild feline species: epidemiologic and phylogenetic aspects. Journal of Virology 66:6008-6018. 167 Parysow, P., and D. J. Tazik. 2002. Assessing the effect of estimation error on population viability analysis: an example using the black -capped vireo. Ecological Modelling 155:217-229. Pimm, S. L., L. Dollar, and O. L. Bass Jr. 2006a. The genetic rescue of the Florida panther. Animal Conservation 9:115-122. Pimm, S. L., O. L. Bass Jr., and L. Dollar. 2006b Ockham and Garp. Reply to Maehr et al.'s (2006) response to Pimm et al. (2006). Animal Conservation 9:133-134. Pulliam, H. R., J. B. Dunning, and J. Liu. 1992. Population dynamics in complex landscapes: a case study. Ecological Applications 2:165-177. Ralls, K., and J. D. Ballou. 2004. Genetic status and management of California condors. Condor 106:215-228. Reed, D. H. 2004. Extinction risk in fragmented habitats. Animal Conservation 7:181-191. Reed, D. H., and E. H. Bryant. 2000. Experimental tests of minimum viable population size. Animal Conservation 3:7-14. Reed, D. H., J. J. O'Grady, B. W. Brook, J. D. Ballou, and R. Frankham. 2003. Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biological Conservation 113:23-34. Reed, J. M., P. D. Doerr, and J. R. Walters. 1988. Minimum viable population size of the red - cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:239-247. Reeves, K. A. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the Florida panther in Big Cypress Swamp. Unpublished report. Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. Roelke, M. E. 1990. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Final Performance Report 7506. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Roelke, M. E. 1991. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Annual performance report, Study no. 7506. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Roelke, M. E., J. S. Martenson, and S. J. O'Brien. 1993a. The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther. Current Biology 3:340-350. Roelke, M. E., D. J. Forrester, E. R. Jacobsen, G. V. Kollias, F. W. Scott, M. C. Barr, J. F. Evermann, and E. C. Pirtle. 1993b. Seroprevalence of infectious disease agents in free - ranging Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29:36-49. Root, K. 1998. Evaluating effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecological Applications 8:854-865. Root, K. 2004. Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi): Using models to guide recovery efforts. Pages 491-504 in H. R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman, O. Kindvall, C. C. Wood, P. Sjogren- Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M. McCarthy (eds). Species Conservation and Management, Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417-426. Rotstein, D. S., R. Thomas, K. Helmick, S. B. Citino, S. K. Taylor, and M. R. Dunbar. 1999. Dermatophyte infections in free -ranging Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 30:281-284. Ruediger, B. 1998. Rare carnivores and highways moving into the 21st century. Pages 10-16 in Evink, G. L., P. Garrett, and J. Berry (eds). Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation. FL-ER-69-98, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Saenz D., K. A. Baum, R. N. Conner, D. C. Rudolph, and R. Costa. 2002. Large-scale translocation strategies for reintroducing red -cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:212-221. Schemnitz, S. D. 1974. Populations of bear, panther, alligator, and deer in the Florida Everglades. Florida Scientist 37:157-167. Schortemeyer, J. L., D. S. Maehr, J. W. McCown, E. D. Land, and P. D. Manor. 1991. Prey management for the Florida panther: a unique role for wildlife managers. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:512-526. Schultz, S. T., and M. Lynch. 1997. Mutation and extinction: the role of variable mutational effects, synergistic epistasis, beneficial mutations, and degree of outcrossing. Evolution 51:1363-1371. Seal, U. S. (ed). 1994a. A plan for genetic restoration and management of the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). Report to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, MN. Seal, U. S. 1994b. Florida panther population viability analysis. Pages 434-439 in D. Jordan (ed). Proceedings of the Florida Panther Conference (Fort Myers, Florida, USA). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL. Seal, U. S., and R. C. Lacy (eds). 1989. Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) viability analysis and species survival plan. Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, MN. 169 Seal, U. S., and R. C. Lacy (eds). 1992. Genetic management strategies and population viability of the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Apple Valley, MN. Seidensticker, J. C., IV, M. G. Hornocker, W. V. Wiles, and J. P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho primitive area. Wildlife Monographs 35:1-60. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31:131- 134. Shaffer, M. L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. Pages 69-86 in M. E. Soule (ed). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Shaffer M. L., and F. B. Sampson. 1985. Population size and extinction: a note on determining critical population size. American Naturalist 125:144-152. Shindle, D., D. Land, K. Charlton, and R. McBride. 2000. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 7500. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Shindle, D., D. Land, M. Cunningham, and M. Lotz. 2001. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 7500. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Shindle D., M. Cunningham, D. Land, R. McBride, M. Lotz, and B. Ferree. 2003. Florida panther genetic restoration and management. Annual Report 93112503002. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Sinclair, E. A., E. L. Swenson, M. L. Wolfe, D. C. Choate, B. Gates, and K. A. Cranall. 2001. Gene flow estimates in Utah's cougars imply management beyond Utah. Animal Conservation 4:257-264. Smith, T. R., and O. L. Bass, Jr. 1994. Landscape, white-tailed deer, and the distribution of Florida panthers in the Everglades. Pages 693-708 in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds). Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. Delray Beach, FL. Smith, S. K., and J. M. Nogle. 2001. Projections of Florida population by county, 2000-2030. Florida Population Studies Bulletin 128. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Soul6, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages 151-160 in M. E. Soul6 and B. A. Wilcox (eds). Conservation biology: an evolutionary -ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 170 Soule, M. E. 1987. Introduction. Pages 1-10 in M. E. Soule (ed). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Soule, M. E., M. Gilpin, W. Conway, and T. Foose. 1986. The Millennium Ark: How long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers? Zoo Biology 5:101-113. Spreadbury, B. R., K. Musil, J. Musil, C. Kaisner, and J. Kovak. 1996. Cougar population characteristics in southeastern British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:962-969. Swanson, K., D. Land, R. Kautz, and R. Kawula. 2005. Use of least cost pathways to identify key highway segments for panther conservation. Pages 191-200 in R. A. Beausoleil and D. A. Martorello (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth Mountain Lion Workshop, Olympia, WA. Swart, J., and M. J. Lawes. 1996. The effect of habitat patch connectivity on samango monkey (Cercopithecus mitis) metapopulation persistence. Ecological Modelling 93:15-74. Sweanor, L. L., K. A. Logan, and M. G. Hornocker. 2000. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conservation Biology 14:798-808. Swinnerton, K. J., J. J. Groombridge, C. G. Jones, R. W. Burns, and Y. Mungroo. 2004. Inbreeding depression and founder diversity among captive and free-living populations of the endangered pink pigeon Columba mayeri. Animal Conservation 7:353-364. Taylor, T. A., and C. Pedersen. 1998. Public acceptability of Florida panther reintroduction, final report based on input from community workshops in Columbia County. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Taylor, S. K., C. D. Buergelt, M. E. Roelke-Parker, B. L. Homer, and D. S. Rotstein. 2002. Causes of mortality of free -ranging Florida panthers. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38:107-114. Thatcher, C. A., F. T. van Marten, and J. D. Clark. 2006a. An assessment of habitat north of the Caloosahatchee River for Florida panthers. University of Tennessee and U.S. Geological Survey, Knoxville, TN. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, FL. Thatcher, C. A., F. T. van Manen, and J. D. Clark. 2006b. Identifying suitable sites for Florida panther reintroduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:752-763 The Nature Conservancy. 2000. The five-s framework for site conservation: a practitioner's handbook for site conservation planning and measuring conservation success. Volume I, Second Edition. Arlington, VA. 171 Thomas, C. D. 1990. What do real population dynamics tell us about minimum viable population sizes? Conservation Biology 4:324-327. Tinsley, J. B. 1970. The Florida panther. Great Outdoors Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, FL. Tinsley, J. B. 1987. The puma: legendary lion of the Americas. Texas Western Press, University of Texas, El Paso, TX. Townsend, D. 1991. An economic overview of the agricultural expansion in southwest Florida. Unpublished report. Hendry County Extension Office, LaBelle, FL. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Table CO-EST2001-12-12 — time series of Florida intercensal population estimates by county: April 1, 1990 to April 1, 2000. Washington, D.C. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Population estimates, census 2002, 1990 census. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Florida panther recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Final environmental assessment: genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Gainesville, FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Proposed genetic restoration program for the Florida panther. Memorandum dated June 13, 1994, from Director Beattie (Washington, D.C.) to the Regional Director (Atlanta, GA). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Second revision Florida panther recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi -species recovery plan. Atlanta, GA. van der Leek, M. L., H. N. Becker, E. C. Pirtle, P. Humphrey, C. L. Adams, B. P. All, G. A. Erickson, R. C. Belden, W. B. Frankenberger, and E. P. J. Gibbs. 1993. Prevalence of pseudorabies (Aujeszky's disease) virus antibodies in feral swine in Florida. Journal Wildlife Diseases 29:403-409. Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, and H. G. Shaw. 1986a. Use of road track counts as indices of mountain lion presence. Journal Wildlife Management 50:102-109. Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, H. G. Shaw, B. B. Ackerman, T. P. Hemker, and F. G. Lindzey. 1986b. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:95-102. 172 van Heezik, Y., and S. Ostrowski. 2001. Conservation breeding for reintroductions: assessing survival in a captive flock of houbara bustards. Animal Conservation 4:195-201. Waples, R. 2002. Definition and estimation of effective population size in the conservation of endangered species. Pages 147-168 in S. R. Beissinger and D. R. McCullough (eds). Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Wassmer, D. A., D. D. Guenther, and J. N. Layne. 1988. Ecology of the bobcat in south-central Florida. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 33:159-228. Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis (eds). 2002. Southern forest resources assessment. General Technical Report SRS-53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. Wehinger, K. A., M. E. Roelke, and E. C. Greiner. 1995. Ixodid ticks from Florida panthers and bobcats in Florida. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 31:480-485. Werdelin, L. 1996. The history of Felid Classification. Pages xviii-xxiii in K. Nowell and P. Jackson. Status survey and conservation action plan: Wild cats. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Burlington Press, Cambridge, U.K. Whitlock, M. C. 2000. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54:1855-1861. Wikramanayake, E., M. McKnight, E. Dinerstein, A. Joshi, B. Gurung, and D. Smith. 2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human -dominated environments. Conservation Biology 18:839-844. Wilkins, L., J. M. Arias-Reveron, B. Stith, M. E. Roelke, and R. C. Belden. 1997. The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi): a morphological investigation of the subspecies with a comparison to other North and South American cougars. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 40:221-269. Wolf, P. 1981. Land in America: its value, use and control. Pantheon Books, New York, NY. Wozencraft, W. C. 1993. Order Carnivora. Pages 286-346 in D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, (eds.). Mammal species of the world, 2nd edition. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C. Wright, S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114-138. Wright, S. 1969. The theory of gene frequencies. Vol.2, Experimental results and evolutionary deductions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 173 Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman. 1946. The puma -mysterious American cat. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 174 FIGURES 175 Figure 1. Historic and current range of the Florida panther. 176 South-( Figure 2. Delineation between south and south-central Florida. 177 0 O 9b� O 9 J� o Figure 3. Florida panther zones in south Florida (Kautz et al. 2006). 178 0 n Figure 4. Conservation areas of south and south-central Florida. 179 Potential Panther Habitat Patches North of the Caloosahatchee River Interstate Highways Current Breeding Range Potential Habitat Patches o- o Figure 5. Potential panther habitat patches identified by Thatcher et al. (2006a). APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS ALLEE EFFECTS — Inverse density dependence; for smaller populations, the reproduction and survival of individuals decrease; reproduction, finding a mate in particular, may be increasingly difficult as the population density decreases. EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE (Nei — A theoretical population with a 1:1 sex ratio that would result in the same amount of inbreeding or genetic drift as the actual population. Denoted as Ne, the effective population size is usually less than the actual population size. ENDANGERED — Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. HABITAT — The physical space within which an animal lives. The various factors commonly recognized as components of habitat — cover, food, water, and such — are contained within this area. Panther habitat includes all areas required for the panther to live out its full life -cycle, including areas providing food and shelter and supporting characteristic movement such as hunting, breeding, dispersal, and territorial behavior. INBREEDING (individual) — The mating of related individuals (e.g., brother -sister, father - daughter, mother -son). INBREEDING (population) — A population in which matings occur between relatives at a frequency greater than expected by chance. INBREEDING DEPRESSION — Reduction in reproduction, survival, or other fitness characters due to inbreeding. INTROGRESSION — The incorporation of genes of one subspecies into the gene pool of another. LEAST -COST PATHWAYS ANALYSES — a modeling method to measure effective distance between habitat patches and connectivity between existing or potential reserves. Maps routes of least resistance or travel cost between habitat patches. METAPOPULATION — Two or more partially isolated populations, called subpopulations, which are linked by dispersal events. PHILOPATRY — The tendency of an individual to return to or stay in its home area. Female panthers tend to be more philopatric than males. POLYGYNOUS — A pattern of mating in which a male has more than one female partner. 181 POPULATION — A group of interbreeding individuals living in the same geographic area at the same time and sharing a common gene pool. SELF-SUSTAINING POPULATION — A population that is able to sustain itself independently. SPATIAL CONFIGURATION — Refers to how patches of habitat are arranged on the landscape with respect to one another as well as their degree of connectivity and relative land cover composition. An extensive arrangement of contiguous tracts of land that incorporates connectivity to support panther life history needs (e.g., appropriate cover, spatial extent, landscape configuration, prey densities, mating access, dispersal routes, minimizing human disturbance). SPECIES (ESA definition) — includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. SUBPOPULATION — Each distinct population in a metapopulation. THREATENED — Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. VIABLE — A viable species is one that can reasonably be expected to avoid extinction over a long period of time. Viability is the ability of a population or species to persist over time. A viable panther population is considered to have a 95% probability of persistence for 100 years. 182 APPENDIX B. THREATS ANALYSIS USING THE FIVE LISTING FACTORS SOUTH FLORIDA Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Florida panther's habitat or range. Stress Loss of ability for Population isolation & natural expansion of Habitat destruction Habitat fragmentation Habitat degradation lack of connectivity range o o o o o > VX CX Stress rank > � UX Stress rank > U0 UX Stress rank > cn cun Stress rank > CIO V� Stress rank V V Very high V H High V H High H H High H M Medium 0 0 0 0 0 co co Factor A 14 Threat > Threat > Threat > Threat > Threat overall threat Source of stress U � rank �j rank U rank U p4 rank U rank rank Transportation projects H H H Very high L V M Medium V V V High M V H High Very high Lack of suitable habitat V H V Very high - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Very high Water managemen & conversion to water (includes CERP) - - - - M H M Medium M V H High M V H High L M L Low IHigh Residential development - - V V V High H V H High - - - High Inadequate habitat patch size - - M V H High High Mining and mineral exploration - L V M Medium IL IV IM Medium I - I - L IL IL JLow Medium Conversion of habitat to agriculture L - - - IL H M IMedium IL L L Low 11M H M Low JIMedium 183 Factor A continued Stress Loss of ability for Population isolation & natural expansion of Habitat destruction Habitat fragmentation Habitat degradation lack of connectivity range 0 0. 0 a. a. V')CX Stress rank � � Stress rank � Cn Stress rank jo cn' Stress rank X X Stress rank V V Very high V H High V H High H H High H M Medium Factor A Threat Threat Threat > Threat > Threat overall threat Source of stress j rank j t rank j t rank z j t rank t j t rank rank Major ditches - - - - - - - L V M Medium - - - - - Medium Caloosahatchee River as a barrier L M L Medium - - - - - - - - Medium Intensification of agricultural uses - - - L M L Low - L H M Low Low Invasive exotic plant species - - - - - M IM M Low Low Lack of or poor habitat management - - - - - - - - - - M M M Low Low .11 SOUTH FLORIDA Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes. Stress Overutilization for scientific purposes Y Stress rank L L Low oFactor y B overall Source of > Threat threat stress j rank rank Impacts of capture and monitoring L L L Low Low SOUTH FLORIDA Factor C: Disease and predation. Stress Disease a Stress rank L IL ILow o Factor C overall Source of Threat threat stress u rank rank Feline ne leukemia M L IM M Medium Medium IL IL Low Low SOUTH FLORIDA Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Recovery Team believed regulatory mechanisms were more appropriately considered as strategies underlying the other stresses and sources. Therefore, they chose not to evaluate Factor D. 187 SOUTH FLORIDA Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting the Florida panther's continued existence. Stress Loss/lack of support for Panther mortality Loss of genetic diversity Decline of prey base Genetic swamping panther conservation > V) O U, Stress rank > � O � Stress rank > � O UX Stress rank > UX O UX Stress rank > cn O c/'� Stress rank H H High M H Medium M M Medium L V Low L V Low 0 0 0 0 o Factor E overall Source of u> Threat Threat Threat Threat Threat threat stress Qj rx rank � j 914 rank � j .2 rank � j 04 rank � j r4 rank rank Intraspecific IV IH aggression H High - - - - - - High Mercury toxicity L V M Medium - - - - Medium Road kills H M M Medium - - - - Medium Illegal kills L H M Medium - - - - Medium Disease L H M Medium - - - - - - Medium Effect of small population size - - V M H Medium - - - - Medium Lack of suitable habitat - - V V V Medium - -F - - - Medium Lack of corridors for dispersal - - M H M Low - - - - Low Escape of captive pumas - - - - L H M Low - Low Managed releases of pumas - - - M M M Low - Low Ungulate disease - - - L H M Low - - - Low Factor E continued Stress Loss/lack of support for Panther mortality Loss of genetic diversity Decline of prey base Genetic swamping panther conservation U, U, Stress rank vi U, Stress rank vi vi Stress rank vi vi Stress rank U, vi Stress rank H H High M H Medium M M Medium L V Low L V Low 0 0 0 0 o Factor E co re co overall Source of > Threat > Threat > ,4 Threat Threat > Threat threat stress z j rank j1:4 rank U p4 rank U Q rank z j p4 rank rank Water management or conversion to water - - - - - - M M M Low - - - - Low Natural climate or environmental change I - - - - - - L IV IM Low - - - - - - Low Lack of or poor prey management (e.g, over hunting) - - - - - L L L Low - Low Prey habitat los / degradation - - - - - - - M H M Low - - - - Low Exotic prey management - - - - - - L L L Low IlLow Change in the legal description V V H V Low Low 189 Factor E continued Stress Loss/lack of support for Panther mortality Loss of genetic diversity Decline of prey base Genetic swamping panther conservation 211 v, v, Stress rank V) U, Stress rank V) � Stress rank v, v, Stress rank v, v, Stress rank H H Hi h M H Medium M M Medium L V Low L V Low 41 0 0 0 0 o Factor E overall Source of > Threat > Threat > Threat u Threat > Threat threat stress z j rank j rank j rank j 04 rank z j 04 rank rank Public fear of panthers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L IM IL Low Low Landowner fear of regulation, lost property rights, and negative economic consequences - - - - - - - - - - H IM IM Low Low MI REINTRODUCTION Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Florida panther's habitat or range. Stress Incompatible Unidentified potential Incompatible management Habitat fragmentation Habitat destruction management of private habitat of public lands lands > o > o > o > o > o �, U, Stress rank U, C, �, U, Stress rank Cn CX Stress rank � Ln Stress rank V V Veryhigh V V :MH H High ILNL—m Medium L M Low o o o � o > o Factor A Y Y Y 72 �� Y � 2 �� Y � 7� overall Threat > Threat > ,4 Threat � Threat > Threat threat Source of stress U rank U rank �j rank U rank U rank rank Urbanization - - - - M V H Very high M V H High - - - - - - - - Very high Transportation projects - - - - V V V Very high H H H High - - - - - - - Very high Low density residential development - - - V H V Very high V H V High - - - - - - - Very high Lack of land use planning - - - - H V H Very high - - - - - - - - - - Very high Inadequate evaluation of potential habitat in historic range V L H Very high - - - - - - - - - - Very high Lack of prioritization system among areas V L H Very high - - - - - - - - - - - - - Very high Conversion of habitat to agriculture I - M IM IM lHigh M M M Medium - - - - - - - High Human recreational uses in panther habitat - - - - M IM IM High M I M IM Medium - - - - M M M ILow High Invasive exotic plant species - L H M High L H M Medium - - - - - - - High Large public works projects (e.g, dams) - - L V M High L V M Medium 191 Factor A continued Stress Incompatible Unidentified potential Incompatible management Habitat fragmentation Habitat destruction management of private habitat of public lands lands U, v, Stress rank Ln CA' Stress rank rn � Stress rank UO UX Stress rank En UO Stress rank V V Very high V V Very high H H High I-M M Medium L M Low o o o o o Factor A overall Threat > Threat v Threat v Threat > Threat threat Source of stress z j t rank j P4 rank � j rank U t p4 rank U t p4 rank rank Lack of incentives to maintain / restore panther habitat - - - - H M M High H M M Medium H M M Low - - - High Lack of complete data in historical range M M M High - - - - - - - - - - - - High Right of ways - L V M High - - - - - - - - High Conversion of habitat to silviculture - L L L Medium L L L Low - - - - - - Medium Mining and mineral exploration L M L Medium L M L Low - - - - - - - - Medium Conflicting mandates - - - - - - - - - H H H Medium L H M Low Medium Conflicting management IL of other species - - - - - - - - L L L Low L L Low Low Lack of implementation of IL management plans - - - - - - - - H M M Low L M Low Low 192 REINTRODUCTION Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes. Stress Overutilization for scientific purposes o U, Stress rank L H Low o Factor B overall -4 Threat threat Source of stress U 914 rank rank Impacts of capture and monitoring L L L Low Low Impacts of removals for reintroductions to donor populations L L L I Low Low 193 REINTRODUCTION Factor C: Disease and predation. Stress Disease Parasites Predation � CX Stress rank Cn rn Stress rank U0 � Stress rank L H Low L H Low I L L Low o o o Factor C 2 overall Source of > Threat Threat > Threat threat stress � j t� p4 rank t j rank L j � P4 rank rank Feline leukemia M L M Medium - - - - - - - Medium Rabies M M M Low - - - - - - - - Low Pseudorabies H M M Low - - - - - - - Low Hookworm - H M M Low - - - - Low Manges H M M Low - - - - Low Unknown / other L L L Low L L L Low - - Low All sources of predation - - - - V IM IH Low ILow 194 REINTRODUCTION Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Stress Inadequate land use Lack of agency Inconsistent state planning or regulation coordination regulation or protection Y > O > O > O rn Stress rank Stress rank Stress rank V V Veryhigh tH V Hi h H L Low 0 0 o Factor D overall Threat Threat Threat threat Source of stress U rank U rank U rank rank Inadequate development, implementation, and enforcement of comprehensive plans and zoning V H V Very high - - - - - - Very high Inadequate growth management planning and implementation V H V Very high - - - - - - Very high Little or no protection of upland habitats H H H Very high - - - - - - - Very high Inadequate development, and implementation of corridor / greenway planning V IH V I Very high - - - - Very high Lack of cumulative impacts evaluation H H H Very high - - I Very high Inadequate land conservation of acquisition programs H H IH Very high I - - IlVery high 195 Factor D continued Stress Inadequate land use Lack of agency Inconsistent state planning or regulation coordination regulation or protection 211 U, Stress rank Stress rank U, Stress rank V V Very high H V High H L Low 0 0 o Factor D = overall Threat '>j Threat > Threat threat Source of stress z j rank zj rank t j rank rank Lack of public awareness of environmental issues and needs H H H Very high - - - - - - Very high Conflicting laws, regulations, mandates, or policies M M M High - - - - H M IM ILow High No mechanism for agency communication or coordination IH IL M Medium H L M Low Medium Lack of a mutually defined common goal - - H L M Medium H L M Low Medium Interagency distrust and lack of relationships and partnerships - - M M M Medium - - - Medium 196 REINTRODUCTION Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting the Florida panther's continued existence. Stress Public / landowner Political and agency Human / panther Genetic viability and Conflicting prey Conflicts with Competition with resistance to resistance to interactions Panther mortality population connectivity management escaped pumas other species reintroduction reintroduction Stress Stress Stress Stress � a rank 'A'rank o Cn o UX Stress rank > � o � Stress rank > o I Stress rank > Cn o Cn Stress rank > o rank a rank V Very hi V V Very high H V High H V High M H Medium M H Medium L M Low L H Low x o y x o Y x Y x x o y x o Y x x Factor E 72 r 5r2 r � s. � a Cd a p p ' p p ' ' ' overall threat of stress i7 y A 4 F o y'L7 d F o y r 4 o C o U dE* A c E* = o U y r C oSource A rank Public perception, misconception, and lack of Very Very knowledge V M H high V M H High H M M Low high Conflicts with livestock (attacks Very Very Very on) M H high V M H high M M M Medium - high Public fear of panthers (including fear of attacks / Very Very Very mortality) V H V high V H V high F W W - high Distrust of government Very Very Very agencies H H high H H H high - high Agency funding and resource Very Very constraints V M H I high - high Lack of incentives for Very Very states H H H high - high 197 Factor E continued Stress Public / landowner Political and agency Human / panther Genetic viability and Conflicting prey Conflicts with Competition with resistance to resistance to interactions Panther mortality population connectivity management escaped pumas other species reintroduction reintroduction , y > a Stress O 'OE o Stress > a > a > a > a a Stress o a Stress > o rank > 0rank o > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o rank > o rank V Very hi V V Very high H V High H V High M H Medium M H Medium L M Low L H Low o o x a o o y x a o o x a o x a o x a o o y x a o o x a o x a Factor E L L L L L L 1E L 1E %. C N > R m C N > x� d r N > R d Y N > R d Y N > x C > > x r > > d Y > > x R d overall threat Source of stress U 94 F U �4 F U ate' x U F* U 04 x U ate4 F U r� F U r4 F. rank Agency's fear of liability (political financial, and Very Very professional) V M H high - - - high Public official's fear of losing constituent's Very Very support I - H H H high F high Influence of opposing special interest groups on Very Very public officials V V V high I - - F I- - high Conflicts with hunters and hunting H M M High H M M High H M M Medium - H M M Low - High Landowner fear of regulation, lost property rights, and negative economic consequences H M M High H M M High - High 198 Factor E continued Stress Public / landowner Political and agency Human / panther Genetic viability and Conflicting prey Conflicts with Competition with resistance to resistance to interactions Panther mortality population connectivity management escaped pumas other species reintroduction reintroduction > a Stress E 'E) o Stress > a > a > a > a a Stress o a Stress > o rank > o rank > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o Stress rank > o rank > o rank V Very hi V V Very high H V High H V High M H Medium M H Medium L M L H Low o a o a o a o a o t'�'t'�' a o a o a o x a Factor E sue. L i p i a> ' i y i' y > y > c i a c i o > '� s°' y ,°', overall threat Source of stress o U o U c4 F. o o U F. o U x r o U a F o U a a o U s [ o U rank Media sensationalism and panther myths M M M High M M M High- W High Relationships among potential supporting landowners and their neighbors IM IM IMIHigh M IM IM lHigh - - - - - - - High Lack of panther information dissemination to public officials and agencies - H L M High - - - - M L L I Low High Road kills H H H High F F F F F F - High Illegal kill H M M Medium - Medium Accidental death (including contaminants) L H M Medium - Medium 199 Factor E continued Stress Public / landowner Political and agency Human / panther Genetic viability and Conflicting prey Conflicts with Competition with resistance to resistance to interactions Panther mortality population connectivity management escaped pumas other species reintroduction reintroduction a Stress a Stress a a a a a Stress a Stress > V) o � rank > V) o � rank > V) o � Stress rank > o � Stress rank > rA o � Stress rank > � o cn Stress rank > V) o � rank > o � rank V Very hil V V Very high H V High H V High M H Medium M H Medium L M Low L H Low Y A Y Y a 0 o Y :: a 0 0 o :-. c Factor E overall • a y R i a y ' R is a y R is •y y „ ' R i •y y c R s°'. a y X s. a y > R is •y y > CC threat Source of stress o U r o U F o U F. o U r o U 4 F o U � c � 94 .n F o U � � U � rank Natural catastrophes L V M Medium - Medium Small number of founder panthers available M IH IMedium - - - - Medium Unidentified or secured pathways for dispersal F F F F F - H H H Mcdium - Medium Deer managemen - - - - V IM IH IMedium - - - Medium Intraspecific aggression or I I predation L M L Low L M L Low Low Removal of panthers for management purposes F F F F I L M L Low - Low 200 Factor E continued Stress Public / landowner Political and agent Human /panther Genetic viability and Conflicting prey Conflicts with Competition with resistance to resistance to interactions Panther mortality population connectivity management escaped pumas other species reintroduction reintroduction a Stress a Stress a a a a a Stress a Stress > V) o � rank > V) o � rank > � o � Stress rank > rA o � Stress rank > rA o � Stress rank > A o � Stress rank > � o � rank > o � rank V Very hil V V Very high H V High H V High M H Medium M H Medium L M Low L H Lo i o Y a o a o Y a o Y a o a o a a o Y a = o ? a Factor E overall y R a y R o y R s°'. •y y '� R •y y eC ►°7 0 y ► y R s°'. •y y R threat Source of stress o U r o U a CG . F o U L G o r a o U r o U o 4 F o U � � � F G o U � � � rank Panther visibility to local public L L Low Low Inadequate regulation or understanding of distribution and occurrence of pet puma H M M Low Low Competition with other large predators L L L Low Low Feral hog management M M Low Low 201 APPENDIX C. Summary of Comments Received The FWS received comments on the Technical / Agency Draft from 33,739 individuals / organizations. Of these, 33,676 individuals commented through the Defenders of Wildlife website. These comments were faxed to the FWS South Florida Field Office in Vero Beach, Florida. With few exceptions, these comments were identical and followed the suggested wording on the website. The remaining 63 individuals / organizations offered 299 comments. Support for the Recovery Plan and suggested edits to text Ten commenters stated that they were supportive of the Recovery Plan and offered no changes. One -hundred twenty-two comments regarded suggested edits to the text. FWS Response The FWS considered all suggested edits and incorporated those that were appropriate. Criteria and need for interim goals and supporting actions Seven commenters offered 11 comments concerning the recovery criteria and the need of interim goals. These commenters believed that the recovery criteria have little or no chance of being realized. It was suggested that achievable goals or benchmarks be set that would reduce the risk 202 of extinction to acceptable levels and suggested a target of establishing 3 separate populations of approximately 80 animals (a total of 240). FWS Response The population size of 240 for a viable Florida panther population was derived from the most recent PVA. The Recovery Team believes that 3 populations are needed for redundancy and resiliency. FWS agreed that an interim goal of 3 subpopulations of 80 animals each was needed to show that progress towards the recovery criteria is being achieved. This interim goal and associated criteria were added. Panther Range and Taxonomy Five commenters offered 10 comments questioning the accuracy of Young and Goldman's 1946 range map for the Florida panther in regards to taxonomic status. Commenters further stated that given the arbitrary nature of the estimated historic range and new information regarding genetic ancestry and the current state of the science, the plan appears to rest on a rather weak foundation. FWS Response 203 The map in Young and Goldman (1946) is the most current and best available historic range map for the Florida panther. The degree to which the scientific community has accepted the use of genetics in puma taxonomy is not resolved at this time. Additional research is needed to understand genetic and morphological similarities and differences of puma across North America. Panther Habitat Development / Habitat Protection --The majority of the 36 comments received from 24 commenters concerning panther habitat had little to do with the Recovery Plan and were directed at the FWS's regulatory process. It was suggested that FWS place primary emphasis on protecting and restoring panther habitat in Florida by not permitting development in panther habitat. They felt that too often developers have been permitted to build developments that directly impact the survival of the panther. FWS Response Through section 7 of the ESA, as amended, the FWS works with Federal agencies to ensure that any action that is federally funded, authorized, or carried out that may affect the Florida panther does not jeopardize the continued existence of the panther. The FWS works with Federal agencies to emphasize the identification of potential conflicts in the early stages of project 204 planning and advises the agencies and applicants on means to avoid adverse impacts. In addition to habitat conservation, important compensation strategies include the configuration of new roads to direct traffic away from panther habitat and the construction of wildlife crossings aimed primarily at allowing panthers to pass safely from one side of a road to another. The section 7 process can be complemented by activities such as fee -title acquisition, easements, and other local, State, and Federal conservation tools to achieve maximum benefits. Critical Habitat --Four commenters suggested the need to designate critical habitat for the Florida panther. FWS Response When the panther became a listed species pursuant to the ESA in 1973, critical habitat was not designated. Designation of critical habitat for a species could occur only through a rulemaking process that would include opportunity for public comment. Because it is listed as endangered pursuant to the ESA, the panther and its habitat receive protection whether or not they are in an area designated as critical habitat. Panther Management and Research 205 Annual counts or other census techniques --One commenter stated that the Recovery Plan should explicitly commit the three agencies to coordinate efforts to conduct annual verified counts or other appropriate census techniques to track progress made towards achieving a self-sustaining, viable population. A second commenter stated that the Population Trends and Distribution section would benefit from a description of the extensive annual field surveys conducted since 1981 by McBride for the FWC. FWS Response An FWS recovery plan does not commit other agencies to conduct specific tasks; it does however recommend which agencies / organizations would be best suited to accomplish certain tasks. Since 1981, an annual count of documented panthers has been conducted. Roy McBride drafted the Population Trends and Distribution section for the Recovery Plan and more details about annual field surveys discussed therein can be found in the literature. Provide crossing_ points on the Caloosahatchee River and create a panther corridor to North Florida and South Georgia--28 comments were received from 17 commenters suggesting that the Recovery Plan address providing panther crossing points along the Caloosahatchee River to facilitate movement to the north and create a panther corridor that would connect habitat in south Florida with habitat in north Florida and Georgia by linking the Ocala National Forest and Okeefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 206 FWS Response As described in the Recovery Plan, the Dispersal Zone encompasses 44 mi2 (113 km2) with a mean width of 3.4 mi (5.4 km). The Dispersal Zone is strategically located and expected to function as a critical landscape linkage to south-central Florida (Kautz et al. 2006). Transient male panthers currently utilize this zone as they disperse northward into south-central Florida. Within south-central Florida, corridors have been identified to connect potential panther habitat patches (Thatcher et al. 2006a). The Florida Ecological Greenways Network (Hoctor 2004) identifies and prioritizes landscape corridors that would also serve as panther travelways. Growingtransportation ransportation threats --Sixteen commenters offered 19 comments concerning panthers and highways. Some felt that the Recovery Plan trivializes the impact that transportation has had and continues to have on the current population. Suggestions were made to "Prohibit road development in panther habitat and retrofit existing highways that experience panther mortality with crossing underpasses similar to I-75." Others, however, felt that too much emphasis was placed on highway underpasses and that "...it would be misleading to infer that crossings can adequately substitute for sound transportation and land use planning that realistically assess the harm suffered by wildlife and for landscape level habitat protection." FWS Response 207 FWS agrees that roads are one of the major sources of mortality for the panther population as well as limiting their ability to disperse and travel across the landscape. We believe that the potential impact of roads to the conservation and recovery of the panther is adequately addressed in the Recovery Plan and we are working closely with public and private entities to help minimize these impacts. Genetics managementplan--One comment was received encouraging the continued monitoring of physical and physiological characteristics correlated with inbreeding and depletion of genetic variability along with the development and implementation of a genetics management plan that would detect levels of heterozygosity that may trigger future introgressions of genetic material into the southern Florida population. FWS Response FWC continues to monitor panther physical and physiological characteristics correlated with inbreeding and depletion of genetic variability. The genetics data collected over the past two decades is being analyzed and published and will be used to help map future panther management actions. Captive breeding program --One commenter suggested that a limited captive breeding program be considered as a hedge against sudden extinction. FWS Response The history of Florida panther captive breeding is presented in the Recovery Plan. The captive breeding program for panthers was discontinued in the early 1990s due to the fact that the genetic health of the Florida panther population had deteriorated to a point where continued survival was questionable, even with selective breeding within a captive population. Genetic restoration by simulating natural gene flow through introducing animals from western puma populations has proven to be more successful. This plan does consider the establishment of a captive breeding program to address other issues, however. Monitor prey densities --Two commenters made 2 comments to the effect that prey animals should be monitored along with panthers as part of the recovery program. FWS Response FWS agrees that prey animals should be monitored along with panthers, and one of the actions in the Recovery Plan is to assess and monitor the status of deer populations in panther habitat. 209 PVA--One individual commented that the continued focus on panther demographics is strongly warranted and that the key vital rates for data collection should be kitten survival and adult female survival. However, they were not sure that convening another group of experts to conduct a PVA with existing data would be worthwhile unless solid new data are obtained on vital rates and variation in those rates. Also, they were uncertain whether Root's PVA was based on the Florida panther population only or on a hypothetical metapopulation of Puma as would be meaningful for the entire southeast region. FWS Response FWS and FWC are cooperatively funding a new PVA project that is analyzing new as well as reanalyzing old data. This PVA project should be completed by the end of 2008. The Root model was based on the Florida panther population as well as a hypothetical metapopulation and would be meaningful for the entire southeast region. Independent scientific review of recovery program --One individual recommended that the Recovery Plan "provide for an independent scientific review panel of the recovery program that would issue annual reports on panther recovery." FWS Response 210 There is no requirement for FWS to provide for an independent scientific review panel. FWC, NPS, and FWS prepare scientifically based annual updates on the status of panther recovery; however, these updates are not reviewed by an independent scientific panel. Add research questions that need to be addressed --One individual commented that "the paper by Janis and Clark (2002) on the effects of ORV use and hunting on panthers is exemplary for its experimental design. This Plan should recommend more such studies about other subjects. The plan is particularly weak in its lack of attention to the identification of important questions that could be addressed with experimental management approaches." FWS Response Almost any recovery action mentioned in this plan could be addressed with experimental management approaches. The purpose of this plan is to outline the actions necessary to recover the panther to the extent that it can be reclassified and eventually delisted. Panther Translocation / Reintroduction Opposed / supports translocation / reintroduction --Ten comments were received from 8 commenters that were opposed to reintroduction into Arkansas (3), into Arkansas as it affects Missouri (2), Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (1), and Georgia (1). Seven comments by 4 211 commenters were supportive of the need to expand the breeding portion of the Florida panther population into south-central Florida and to establish viable populations in two areas in the southeastern U.S. outside of Florida. FWS Response The numbers of panthers required to obtain reclassification and delisting thresholds will require expansion of the existing population as well as the reintroduction of additional populations. Prior to any translocation / reintroduction efforts extensive cooperation / coordination will occur. Clarify the relative priorities and the process for translocation of panthers into central Florida versus other portions of the historic range --Because the pool of individuals available for translocation into central Florida and other portions of the panther's historic range is limited, one individual felt that any decision to physically move cats out of the currently occupied range must be made in light of the competing goals involving range expansion and establishment of additional populations. They felt that the best available science indicates that translocation of panthers into central Florida would not only impede recovery but also would jeopardize panther survival. Two other commenters made 3 comments suggesting that any translocation of panthers would be considered a population "augmentation" versus a "reintroduction." FWS Response 212 FWS will proceed cautiously by preparing an EIS that explores a reasonable range of translocation scenarios into central Florida and other portions of the historic range, and adequately presents the scientific information concerning habitat suitability for these areas and the biological limitations of the south Florida source population. Panthers and habitat suitabilitv north of the Caloosahatchee River-- Two commenters were concerned about a lack of activity by FWS in exploring the possible existence of a small but viable population of panthers in south-central Florida, especially in the western portion of this region. They suggested that an immediate systematic survey be conducted. Another commenter requested that additional information be provided about the land uses, potential conflicts, and size and connectivity of blocks of potential panther habitat in south-central Florida. FWS Response FWC conducted a systematic survey from July 1998 to June 2004 to determine the occurrence and status of panthers in south-central Florida and to evaluate the area's potential for expansion of the breeding population from south Florida (Belden and McBride 2006). No evidence of a breeding population of panthers was found. Dispersing males from the southern Florida population have immigrated into south-central Florida, but an absence of females has inhibited expansion of a breeding population into this area. This study suggested that three segments of 213 remaining habitat possibly could support small numbers of panthers. A model to identify potential panther habitat in south-central Florida was also developed by Thatcher et al. (2006b). Panther Effects on Humans Increased potential for adverse human -panther encounters --One individual commented that they were uncertain about the socio-political feasibility of the Recovery Plan. Two other commenters recommended that due to the rapidly escalating significance of people -panther interactions, that the Human Dimensions discussion be expanded beyond the north Florida reintroduction research to include a brief synopsis of south Florida issues and the extant population. Another individual commented that FWS needs to clarify what is meant both by `extreme' and `permanent.' FWS Response FWS agreed and this section of the Recovery Plan was updated. Recovery Plan threatens hunting_/ public access --Thirty-two comments were received from four commenters suggesting that more panthers would result in a loss in outdoor recreation to near zero, particularly hunting and use of ORVs. They believed that the Recovery Plan was intentionally focused upon doing away with the traditional cultural community associated with the Gladesman folk culture of southern Florida. 214 FWS Response The majority of outdoor recreational activities are compatible with panther recovery if they are conducted in a manner consistent with existing local, state, and Federal laws and regulations. The Recovery Plan is not aimed at any culture or traditional cultural practices. Our mandate was to write a plan that outlined actions necessary to recover the panther to the extent that it can be reclassified and eventually delisted. 215 APPENDIX D. List of Peer Reviewers Dr. Eric Hellgren Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab Mailcode 6504, Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 Dr. Fran James Department of Biological Sciences Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 Dr. Robert A. Kluson University of Florida — Sarasota County Extension Twin Lakes Park 6700 Clark Rd. Sarasota, FL 34241 Dr. Kenny Logan Colorado Division of Wildlife 2300 South Townsend Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 Dr. Clay Nielsen Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab Mailcode 6504, Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 Linda Sweanor Colorado Division of Wildlife 2300 South Townsend Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 216