Partners in Conserving America's Resources

Issues

Criteria for Evaluating Private Lands

From (name): Martin B. Main, Ph.D.
Organization: University of Florida, SW Florida Research and Education Center
City and State (or City and Province): Immokalee, Florida
E-mail Address: mbma@icon.imok.ufl.edu
Comments on: See subject line above

Comments

During the May 1998 workshop there was discussion regarding how to evaluate and/or prioritize candidate parcels for conservation agreement. For the purposes of discussion, I've provided some comments and a general schematic of how the evaluation/prioritization process might proceed. I hope these comments are useful.

Prioritization of areas for conservation purposes requires some set of evaluation criteria. There exist basic principles of landscape management that are the foundation of successful conservation and may serve as criteria to evaluate and prioritize areas for inclusion in conservation programs (Noss et al., 1997). It is important to recognize that criteria may be prioritized differently by management and regulatory agencies with different missions. For instance, an agency with water management as a primary responsibility may develop evaluation criteria that prioritize habitats differently than an agency whose primary objective is to manage for endangered species. I have provided a set of 7 broad criteria with which to evaluate and prioritize candidate areas for inclusion into a conservation agreement. These criteria were developed with preserving the Florida Panther as the primary objective, but could be modified for endangered species in general, or for other criteria as appropriate.

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CANDIDATE LANDS
Primary Objective: Preservation of the Florida Panther

1. Location - do the candidate lands occur in areas of known, suspected, or potential use by the Florida panther?

2. Size - what is the size of the contiguous area encompassed by natural areas within the candidate lands? Do these natural areas possess habitats known to provide for the needs of the panther (panther home range: female = 75 sq mi; male = 200 sq mi.)?

3. Fragmentation - what is the patch density of natural areas and the ratio of natural areas to other land-use types in the area under consideration?

4. Connectivity - what is the inter-patch distance among natural areas within the candidate lands? What is the distance of candidate lands to other protected natural areas (public or private) that support panther habitat? Do barriers exist to panther movement among these areas?

5. Quality - what is the condition of the candidate lands under consideration? Are these habitats in degraded ecological condition due to fire suppression, invasion by exotic plants, clear-cutting, over-grazing, pollution, or other factors?

6. Human activity - what is the intensity of human activity (residential…) within and surrounding candidate lands and will this negatively affect use or travel among these areas by panthers? Can a habitat management program (prescribed fire…) be effectively implemented on the candidate lands?

7. Other ecological attributes (secondary criteria) - do the candidate lands provide other ecological attributes such as habitat for threatened and endangered plants and wildlife, important hydrological functions, or other ecological attributes and services that are important components to management of the ecosystem.

Literature Cited: Noss, R. F., O'Connell, M. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 246 pp.

Martin B. Main, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Southwest Florida Research and Education Center
University of Florida
2686 State Rd. 29
North Immokalee, Florida 34142

Please note whether your interest is as a Landowner, Government Agency, Conservation Organization organization or Other Interest

Last changed: October 16, 2003