 |
|
An Exchange of Views Between Sidney Maddock and Craig Evans
You may scroll down to read this exchange of views in its entirety, print it out to read at another time, or click on the choices below to read selections of particular interest to you. Each comment made by Sidney Maddock is answered by a response from Craig Evans. You also will have the opportunity to comment on any part of the exchange. Just click on the "comment" button at the bottom of the selection that interests you.
| Opening Comments - Craig Evans | Statement of Position - Sidney Maddock | 1. Sound science | 2. Getting what we pay for | 3. All "mosaics" are not equal | 4. Public participation | 5. Agency approval | 6. Public enforcement | 7. Invertebrates and plants are important, too | 8. Roads and panthers don't mix | 9. Panther research | 10. Permit denial | 11. Accurate economics | 12. Article 1 legal description | Conclusions | Dear Sidney:I sincerely appreciate the thought you gave to your letter of October 14, 1997 and the positions you presented. Please understand that my role in this project is as a facilitator, convener of meetings and devil's advocate. I cannot speak for the individual landowners who are involved with -- or will be affected by -- the project. I cannot speak for the various government agencies that are involved, from local government up through the federal agencies concerned about endangered species, the environment, agriculture, the management of our national forests and parks (and the relationships they have with adjacent private landowners). Nor can I speak for any of the environmental organizations or other interests that have been involved up to this point.
What I've tried to do is bring as much information and thinking and points of view together as possible and provide a non-emotional setting in which one group can understand another's motivations, aspirations and limitations -- and work for consensus among these diverse groups.
I am not an unbiased observer. But I often side with different groups -- usually to force one group to better understand or appreciate another group's position, or to better articulate or think out its position. I often advocate the landowners' position, especially when I am with environmental interests or government agencies. But I constantly remind landowners that, like it or not, the positions of environmental groups cannot be ignored and, again, like it or not, government is having more and more say in their lives.
In the end, my objective is to find a win-win solution that will work for private landowners, government agencies, American taxpayers and the natural resources we need to sustain a quality existence for all species of life on this planet.
I hope this project will lead to a practical, workable, cost-effective tool that will gain widespread acceptance and use by private landowners to retain as much wildlife habitat and other natural resources as possible, ensure good management of these resources, respect a landowner's right to the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of his or her property, and reward good stewardship efforts on the part of private landowners who wish to be responsible custodians of the important natural resources on their properties. I believe the major threat to all of our efforts is the continued rapid urbanization of Florida -- and the financial motivations landowners have to intensify development and urbanize, rather than retain and protect the natural amenities of their properties -- a point you seem to overlook in your letter.
Before I respond directly to the points you raise in your letter, I would like to make
four general observations.
First, I want to make it clear that I am dedicated to working with you, Holly Jensen, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, as well as all private landowners, government agencies and other interests involved in this project to work toward consensus on how we can develop a practical, workable, cost-effective tool that will have widespread appeal to private landowners. The key here is to gain widespread acceptance and use of this tool by private landowners.
That brings me to my second point. You've heard the analogy about honey and vinegar. Your
letter is well thought out and considered in its content. But I found its tone in several
places to be demanding and strident. Much of what you say in your letter is reasonable.
But you have a very strong way of saying it. You also make some misstatements, but insist
on them as fact. This put me off the first time I read your letter. I also gave copies of
your letter to all the participants in the October 17, 1997 committee meetings. I heard
later from some private landowners who had read your letter. The tone of your letter and
some of its "demands" managed to create animosity and opposition where,
previously, none was present. As a result, the points you made that were valid and the
fact that you made it clear you support the general concept of providing incentives to
landowners -- which I consider significant by itself -- were discounted. An opportunity to
advance dialog was therefore lost. Next time, I might suggest more honey and less vinegar.
Also, if every "demand" made in your letter was granted I doubt that you would find a single landowner among the group that has worked on this project to accept the resulting agreement. Hence, the underlying purpose of this project -- to create an incentive approach that will gain broad acceptance -- would be defeated.
Point number three: It is worth remembering that, according to the 1994 Florida
Statistical Abstract and 1992 Census of Agriculture, Florida:
Florida's agriculture and forestry landowners own virtually
... every acre to be used for future development,
... every acre to be protected, and
... every acre to be to remain in ag and forestry.
The decisions these landowners make today will greatly affect Florida's future. In fact, if urban and suburban build out proceeds according to the local comprehensive plans that are already approved and contained in state law ... all ag and forestry will disappear ... along with its open spaces, natural resources and economic contributions to the state and local economies. That's why it's important that we work with these landowners today ... before decisions are made that can never be undone.
This project's purpose is to provide landowners with incentives to make decisions that will allow open spaces and natural areas to be retained -- and not paved over.
Private landowners are not the enemy; the threat comes from continued urban development -- and the governmental policies at the federal, state and local levels that fuel and abet continued development.
Finally, point number four: As an April 16, 1995 editorial in the Tampa Tribune
observed:
Florida cannot afford to either buy or manage every tract of land that contributes to its environmental welfare. Attempting to outlaw all destructive uses of these lands would certainly incite the wrath of property owners and generate costly lawsuits. The surest way to preserve Florida's natural heritage is to show landowners that conservation is in their best interest. By doing that, [this project] is not only helping to preserve a critical ... Florida resource but serving as a model for how to save the best of Florida.
With this explanation as background, I'd now like to
respond to the points you raised in your letter.
Sidney Maddock, Holly Jensen, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation submit the following comments on the proposal to provide landowners with incentives to protect panther habitat. These comments are based on the "Landowners Strategy For Protecting Florida Panther Habitat of Private Lands in South Florida" (1997)("strategy"), the proposed lease, as well as statements which were made by various participants at the May 1997 workshop.
To put our comments below in proper perspective, we would first note that
we strongly support the general concept of providing additional incentives to landowners
to advance species conservation. Nevertheless, any incentives program must meaningfully
advance recovery of all endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Simply making
millions of dollars of payments to preserve the status quo -- which, in southwest Florida,
is a badly degraded ecosystem -- is not acceptable. As drafted, the proposal clearly does
not contain sufficient standards and requirements to ensure that the status of the panther
and other listed wildlife and plant species is advanced.
Response:
I am delighted that you support the general concept of providing additional incentives to landowners to advance species conservation.The second half of your statement, however, is open to debate. I've had several biologists and administrators at Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission tell me during the course of this project that: "All we in the GFC have ever hoped for is that we could maintain the status quo on Priority 1 habitat. Panthers select those private lands today because of their quality. We don't need to improve them -- we need to prevent their deterioration due to escalating land uses. If we can come up with a program that maintains the status quo on Priority 1 panther habitat, we will be light years in front of whatever else government is doing to protect habitat on private lands!"
The focus of the proposed incentive program will be on ensuring the viable function and integrity of natural habitats, not on the health or numbers of specific species. While there is still disagreement on this point among some members of the project's Review Committee, there is unanimity among all landowners and agreement among many members of the conservation community that the project should focus only on protecting essential habitat. The factors involved with the Florida panthers' genetics and other factors affecting the species' health are beyond the control of any single private landowner. The best that can be hoped is that, as a result of this project, large numbers of landowners will be willing to commit to long-term management plans that will ensure: (1) essential habitats are not destroyed as a result of ever-encroaching urban development or the need to intensify and expand agricultural operations to keep these operations economially competitive and viable; (2) these habitats are well-managed so they maintain their ecological functions in a manner that is at least equal to, if not better than, what is found on these properties today; and (3) that these habitat protection objectives can be incorporated into existing agricultural operations in a manner that is both practical and profitable for ag enterprises.
1. Sound science
Florida Game Fresh Water Fish Commission biologists have clearly established that Florida panthers avoid intensive agricultural lands such as citrus, sugar cane, or vegetable fields, and that converting native habitat to agricultural or residential lands adversely impacts the panther. These facts are based on a decade of careful field research and radio telemetry studies. Continuing statements by agricultural interests to the contrary -- such as the compatibility of orange groves with panther usage -- are simply incorrect. We can talk about "consensus" all day long, but meaningful dialogue is not advanced by failing to recognize biological reality.If any incentives proposal is to receive the support of the environmental
community, the process must utilize sound science. Whether in drafting the general
proposal, considering the terms of the lease, reviewing a proposed farm plan, or reviewing
development proposals, all parties must recognize that certain forms of human activity are
incompatible with advancing the recovery of the panther. Unfortunately, at this point, we
are very concerned that the best available data clearly contradicts or does not support
many of the statements or conclusions which underlie the incentives proposal.
Response:
I agree. Every step that is taken must be based on sound science. However, I don't believe selective science should be used to buttress a particular point of view or to oppose approaches or alternatives that bear investigation or consideration. We need to be honest with our science. State what is known. State what is not known. And state what is our own opinion.I currently am reading David Maehr's latest book, The Florida Panther: Life and Death of a Vanishing Carnivore (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997). A couple of interesting points emerge from his long field experience studying panthers. First, Dr. Maehr makes it clear that habitat is the key to the panthers' survival. Period. Also, contrary to what you state above, he clearly observed panthers using private agricultural lands (and areas with fragmented habitat) for denning, rearing young and hunting.
I have spoken to other biologists at Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Here's what I was told: "GFC biologists would never trade natural areas for citrus. But we recognize that row crops, citrus, etc. attract a prey base that supports panthers. We have documented denning and rearing of young in small isolated natural cover areas completely surrounded by citrus. This wouldn't occur if citrus wasn't providing some basic need."
Please do not make the mistake of assuming all agricultural development is bad. As Dr. Maehr says in the conclusion of his book (p. 221):
"Presumably the recovery of endangered species is for the public good. Thus it is not unreasonable to count on public dollars to make it happen. Owners of land that supports panthers should not be penalized for having panther habitat. Without these lands as an integral part of the panther core, all the millions of dollars spent on research, public land management, and underpasses will have been wasted. We seem quite willing to pay $5 an acre per panther on a federal refuge. Why shouldn't we be prepared to spend a comparable amount on private lands?
"As former Panther Refuge Manager Todd Logan has observed, all we need is the money spent for one B-1 bomber to buy all the land needed for panther conservation in south Florida. With the same number of dollars, however, we could leave this land in private ownership, subsidize panther management on it -- and probably increase the range of the Florida panther as well. The private sector holds all the keys to panther recovery; its creativity, honed by wrestling with free market problems, will save the panther if we give it the opportunity to do so. [Emphasis added.]
"What panthers need is space. The two million acres or so still available to them may well be the barest minimum. Ideally, their home should be mostly a forested landscape that can be shared with people. Neither species needs to be excluded. Certainly, panthers will blissfully pursue their day-to-day business in preserves totally devoid of human activity just as they did before humans arrived in Florida thousands of years ago. But they can get along just as well with certain types of human activity. Although intensive development would eliminate them, a variety of land management strategies have been shown to be compatible with panthers. The path to panther recovery, therefore, ends on private land."
2. Getting what we pay for
One of our most serious concerns regarding the strategy and the proposed lease is that payments will be made to landowners who are not advancing the recovery of the panther. Under Article 3 of the proposed lease, the first level of payment is for the landowner to forego non-agricultural development. Many people may think that protecting family farms is a laudable goal, but such a goal can clearly conflict with panther conservation. Whether panther habitat is converted to residential developments or converted to citrus, vegetables, or sugar cane makes very little difference from the standpoint of the panther; in either case, people have destroyed panther habitat. Payments should not be made for non-agricultural rights when the landowner can then cause similar adverse impacts though agricultural activities and ask for a second level of compensation.In addition, non-agricultural development rights payments suffer from an additional problem: payments can be required even when the landowner has no intention of developing a particular area. Paying someone to not do something that they would not have done anyhow certainly is not a good use of limited funds. Where else does "the market" operate in this manner?
Response:
The approach being discussed in the Panthers & Private Lands and Private Habitats: Havens for Threatened and Endangered Species project is designed specifically to ensure that American tax payers will, as you say, "get exactly what they pay for."An economic analysis was conducted in 1997 comparing the costs of the conservation lease strategy with conservation easements and public land purchases on an annualized and per acre basis. The analysis, which was conducted by Florida Stewardship Foundation in collaboration with the Acting Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Economic Division and the University of Florida, IFAS, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, shows that the annualized cost of the strategy ranges from one-quarter to one-third the cost of a public land purchase and from less than one-half to three-quarters the annualized cost of a conservation easement. Plus it keeps land on local property tax roles and in economic production.
You will not buy as much "protection" with the proposed strategy, but you also won't pay as much. Other studies conducted by Florida Stewardship Foundation show that agricultural lands require very few public services; hence, for every dollar in revenue that is collected, they often generate as much as a 70-cent surplus for county governments and schools, even under the low Greenbelt rates at which agricultural properties are taxed.
As proposed, the lease document will be neither coercive or invasive; instead, it will be based on the principle of rewarding private landowners for conservation practices through tax credits and/or annual payments. Because it will provide landowners with a reduction in operating costs and/or a revenue stream for maintaining natural habitats, it will offset the economic incentives (and temptation) a landowner might have for converting these habitats to other uses.
The basic lease document will not include provisions for monitoring or data gathering, except on a very limited, non-invasive basis. But it will provide the flexibility and opportunity to negotiate arrangements with individual landowners to conduct research on one or more species -- in return for additional compensation over and above that contained in the basic lease agreement.
For this reason, a sliding scale payment option is being considered for inclusion in the lease, to accommodate the desires of all interests concerned with threatened and endangered species, land management and the way in which public funds are expended, while providing landowners with the right to peaceably and quietly enjoy all the rights of private ownership, so long as no action is taken on the part of the landowner that will interfere or conflict with the intent of maintaining the ecological function of essential habitats for the Florida panther and other species.
Payments to landowners will start out at the same cost per acre per year that public land managing agencies now spend to manage their properties. Our research indicates this cost averages $11 per acre per year for public lands in southwest Florida, not including administrative costs. The "farm plan" that accompanies the lease agreement will set forth guidelines for managing the habitats covered by the lease. In most cases, the basic lease will be offered to landowners with priority habitat who already are doing a good job of maintaining and managing those habitats. Hence, at its first, basic level, the lease will be a long-term management agreement. The cost to the public for this habitat management will be the same as would be paid to a government agency for the same service. The property also will remain in economic production and on local property tax roles -- and the public will not have to pay to purchase it.
Payments to landowners will increase as more services are requested or as more requirements are placed on them. The economic analysis we conducted in 1997 calculated the annualized cost of the "conceptual plan" at $33 to $35 per acre. Hence, there is a lot of room to move up the scale from a simple management-only agreement, with limited access, to an agreement that also allows for data gathering, wildlife research and activities that will advance recovery of the panther. And at each step up the scale, the public will be getting exactly what it pays for -- no more, and no less.
Moreover, as Ernie Caldwell, Vice President of Government and Environmental Affairs for Berry Holding Corporation and a member of the Landowner Working Group, observes:
"The lease document is something most landowners and producers are going to be willing to accept, even want to accept, because of the way it is written and because it will pay them to carry out the type of management practices that will benefit both the environment and their operations. I know of producers who don't carry out some management practices now, even though they could, because the expense is too great and there is no way of passing on any of these costs to the consumer. In fact, the only way to cover these costs is to take them out of the bottom line. The way the bottom line is in ag these days, there simply is no room for any expense or requirement that doesn't pay its way."
3. All "mosaics" are not equal
The concept of "mosaic" is central to the strategy; yet, this word is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Thus, the Strategy notes that "the key is in ensuring that other land uses alternate with or incorporate a connected mosaic of natural habitat which provides cover for the panther and other wildlife." To some, this statement may sound nice; however, it completely fails to provide meaningful guidance regarding the level of human alteration which is compatible with panther use. Some "mosaics" will benefit panthers; others will be tolerated; and still others will be completely useless.
We also would note that in Dennis Jordan's June 14, 1997 comments, he proposed that the definition of mosaic be modified to: "Aggregate of native and agricultural landscapes that provide suitable habitat for survival and recovery of the Florida panther while providing for continued agricultural activities." This is clearly an improvement; nevertheless, it would still allow new activities to occur which would adversely impact the panther. Continuing destruction and fragmentation of panther habitat is consistent neither with panther recovery nor with the concept of "paying people to grow panthers."
As proposed, sufficient safeguards do not exist in the strategy and lease
to ensure that panthers really will benefit and the money will not be wasted. If we are to
be providing millions of dollars in incentives payments to landowners, the lease must not
simply make payments to continue the existing landscape of "mosaics" which are,
in reality, badly degraded habitat. Instead, any payments can only be for the protection
of existing, high quality habitat and the restoration of degraded and destroyed lands so
that panther range actually increases.
Response:
Yes. You're correct. The term "mosaic" needs to be defined in such a way so its meaning is clear. However, Priority 1 is Priority 1, even though not all Priority 1s are equal. The lease will spell out the terms of the protected "mosaic." It is the development of this language, and those terms, that are critical. I will look forward to your input to help us in developing this language.4. Public participation
The incentive proposals which are advanced in the strategy and implemented in the draft lease are missing a crucial element: public participation. Currently, no process has been proposed which would allow interested members of the public to review and comment on a proposed lease or "whole farm plan," nor is there any requirement that public comments be considered by whatever entity is reviewing and approving a proposed plan or lease. As the public will be paying for the incentive program in the form of tax revenues which are not being recouped by the treasury or tax payments from the public to the landowner-- the public certainly deserves the right to provide input regarding the soundness of particular plans. Secret, backroom deals between the landowner and the approval entity will undercut public support for any incentive program and may raise fears that such a program is yet one more example of corporate welfare. In addition, we could not support any program which is not, to borrow a phrase from state government, conducted "in the sunshine."
Response:
There will be a direct, inverse relationship between the amount of public participation that is allowed and/or required in the lease negotiations, and the number of leases that are completed. Public agencies have been established and operate at considerable taxpayer expense to act on the public's behalf. I would suggest that we ask these agencies to represent our interests in negotiating and entering into leases, and to make sure the process they follow is as simple and straight forward as possible. That way, the public's money can be spent on negotiating as many leases as possible to ensure essential habitats are well managed, rather than on endless, protracted process that will serve as an obstacle and deterrent to landowner participation.All leases will be public documents that will be available for review. I would suggest that the energies of "watchdog" groups representing the wide and diverse spectrum of public interests would be better spent encouraging agencies to negotiate and complete as many leases as possible, to cover as much acreage and as many different habitats as possible, and on reviewing the results of the agency actions, rather than micro-managing each individual negotiation. Every person and point of view that is added to the negotiating table will add to the time, complexity and cost of the negotiations and will reduce the number of lease negotiations that are completed -- or even started in the first place.
At least two documents will be developed and refined during the course of this project: the Private Habitat Conservation Lease, and a set of guidelines to assist government agencies, land trusts and private landowners in negotiating leases and applying the lease concept to individual parcels of property. These guidelines will be key in ensuring that the variety of public interests affected by the lease concept are properly represented. I look forward to working with you to develop these documents so that, taken together, they will address your concerns.
5. Agency approval
We strongly question the proposal's choice of the South Florida Water Management District as the appropriate entity to be the lessee. The proposed incentive program will be based largely on relief from federal taxes. Likewise, environmental laws which protect the panther are almost all based on federal, as opposed to state, provisions. It is not clear why the Florida Panther Interagency Committee -- a much more obvious choice -- was not utilized. Another alternative would be the creation of a new multi-jurisdictional entity which includes the Service and other appropriate federal and state agencies. Of course, any such entity would have to be balanced in composition, and any approval meetings would have to be advertised and open to the public.Response:
The Private Habitat Conservation Lease concept will encompass many more species than the Florida panther ... so the Interagency Committee would not be the best choice. The South Florida Water Management District originally was suggested as the lead agency by the Landowner Working Group because that is the agency that issues most of the permits governing the agricultural operations that encompass Priority 1 and Priority 2 panther habitat. Because federal laws are involved, and because the program is being expanded to encompass other species and habitats in other parts of the U.S., The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service was mentioned as a possible lead agency during the October 1997 committee meetings.I will be proposing still another alternative at the May 11-12 workshop: development of a model lease document and set of guidelines that can be used by any private land trust, or any government agency, at any level of government in any state. The intent here is to allow any government entity that has leasing or contract authority to utilize existing funds and spending authorities to enter into agreements with as many private landowners as possible to provide long-term management and, where possible, enhancement of: (1) habitats that support threatened and endangered species, (2) wetlands, (3) groundwater resources, (4) surface water resources, (5) riparian zones, (6) estuaries ... or any other natural resource that contributes to this country's environmental health and welfare.
More than half of the total land area in the U.S. is controlled by private individuals or corporations that are engaged in agricultural or forestry operations. With the right approach, it may be possible to create long-term public-private partnerships to ensure the continued integrity and ecological functions of a vast array of natural resources and habitats on these properties.
One government agency, or one multi-jurisdictional entity, would be able to negotiate acceptable leases covering only a fraction of this property -- especially if this agency or entity is hobbled by all the requirements you've proposed in your letter -- even after working non-stop for decades. Hence, I will be proposing that the lease agreement and guidelines be kept as simple and straightforward as possible, designed so they can build on, supplement and expand existing programs, and utilize existing funds and spending authorities at all levels of government. My hope is that we can work together to create a practical, workable, cost-effective tool that will have widespread appeal to private landowners and can gain widespread acceptance and use by private land trusts and government agencies throughout the U.S.
6. Public enforcement
Currently, if a landowner harms the panther, the landowner is subject to a citizen's suit to enforce the Endangered Species Act. However, the incentives proposal, as it is based on a contract, would apparently allow only the approval entity to enforce the terms of the lease. As is clear to anyone who has worked on panther recovery issues, the Service and other resource agencies are overworked, understaffed, and completely under-budgeted. Perhaps more importantly, these agencies clearly have been reluctant to enforce the law in controversial land development situations, and the panther has continued to lose habitat as a result.The ability of interested members of the public to enforce the terms of a
lease is absolutely necessary. This could be done by including certain
environmental organizations with a longstanding dedication to the panther conservation as
parties to the lease. Or, perhaps other statutory changes could be proposed which would
provide standing to environmental organizations and citizens to enforce the lease.
Regardless of which approach is pursued, adequate citizen enforcement provisions must be
included.
Response:
It's curious that you tried to make the Interagency Committee the Lessee in number 5 above, but now argue that these agencies are overworked. Which way is it? As to citizen enforcement of lease terms -- that would kill the program. Citizens just will have to hold government's feet to the fire.7. Invertebrates and plants are important, too
The strategy focuses solely on the Florida panther. While we understand that this emphasis stems from a desire to provide a new mechanism to implement the Panther Habitat Protection Plan, we nevertheless remain very concerned that sufficient safeguards do not exist to ensure that biological needs of other federal and state listed species -- as well as all the species which merit listing -- will be considered. For example, the lease states that it "does not preclude the standard use of 'restricted use' pesticides." Such use could have extensive harmful effects on invertebrates; yet, the lease would not prevent such activities. Likewise, issues relating to run-off from private agricultural lands could affect numerous species, as well as the integrity of public lands; yet, the lease does not ensure that water quality and quantity issues are even addressed.If the public is to be providing incentives payments to landowners, these
payments must not result in activities that harm other sensitive species, but the lease
does not preclude such a result.
Response:
The strategy now focuses on habitats -- which, in turn, sustain a multitude of plant and animal species -- on private lands. The strategy also has the potential to be extended to address the long-term management and enhancement of other types of natural or constructed resources: surface or subsurface water resources, aquifer recharge areas, water retention or detention areas, flood plains, flow ways, wetlands, estuaries, etc. The extension of the lease concept to these other resources may be possible because its underlying principle would remain the same: payment to a private landowner to maintain and manage a specific resource in its natural state and not replace it with a more intense form of development, while causing minimal interference with the landowner's ability to conduct normal agricultural operations and quietly and peaceably enjoy his or her property. However, if we begin adding long lists of restrictions and limitations to the program in an attempt to turn it into a solution to all problems, it will interfere with the landowner's ability to conduct normal agricultural operations and quietly and peaceably enjoy his or her property ... and it will fail.8. Roads and panthers don't mix
There is an extensive scientific literature on the adverse impacts of roads on panthers. Most people know about panthers being killed by vehicles, but roads have additional adverse impacts. Female panthers avoid crossing certain kinds of roads, so roads serve as an important source of habitat fragmentation. In addition, roads provide access to areas which otherwise would, for all practical purposes, be inaccessible to people. Thus, roads can allow excessive levels of human activity. Accordingly, Article 9, section 2, of the proposed lease must be amended to prohibit the construction of new roads. In addition, removal of existing roads and restoration of native habitat should be pursued in areas were incentive payments are being provided. Finally, in those very limited instances where a road must remain, adequate modifications must be made to the road so that use is restricted to only authorized personnel.Response:
Finding sufficient funds for habitat maintenance and restoration will be a challenge. Adding the costs of road removal simply may not be possible ... or necessary. As David Maehr says in The Florida Panther: Life and Death of a Vanishing Carnivore:"After fifteen years of research, those of us most intimate with the Florida Panther are convinced that all of its problems can be traced to landscape management issues -- primarily the conversion of forests to farms and urban development. But these are not issues that generate much popular support. It is far easier to sensationalize the drama of roadkills, disease, and starvation -- none of which has really affected the panther's current status" (p. xvii).
Maehr goes on to say:
"Panthers apparently avoid certain landscape features, both natural and human, regardless of the cover that darkness may provide. During the year immediately after we radio-collared subadult Male 28, his wide-ranging movements covered a three-county area. Although he traveled across busy highways, suburban areas, airports, small streams, and railroad beds, Male 28 never crossed the 100-yard-wide Caloosahatchee River ... (p. 79)
"From the perspective of panther evolution, highways are a significant but novel landscape feature in south Florida ... Adult males frequently crossed highways, and subadult males such as Numbers 10, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 34 also crossed many paved roads during their dispersals. Interestingly, none of these panthers were struck by vehicles. (p. 80)
"Female panthers, however, have much smaller home ranges and seem to avoid paved roads ... [However,] Experience may increase a panther's ability to negotiate highways successfully ... (p. 80) Even road improvement activities such as the realignment of State Road 29 and construction of wildlife underpasses along Alligator Alley did not appear to alter panther movements or home range characteristics. On several occasions the tracks of Number 12 were found in underpasses that were under construction, and they could be found winding in and out of parked equipment along a one-mile stretch of State Road 29." (p. 81)
Moreover, Maehr states:
"In sum, then, our observations of panther reaction to disturbance indicated that members of this endangered subspecies form quite a tolerant lot. Florida panthers, like their cougar kin, make excellent wilderness creatures, but they do not require wilderness for their survival ... Moreover, a broad range of human activity is endured by panthers so long as food and cover are adequate." (p. 161)
These quotes from Maehr's research on the panther are meant to underscore my earlier point about selective science. Let's focus on the real problems, and work to solve them, and forget the small, not fully substantiated and "red herring" problems that could be potentially divisive.
This program is aimed at ensuring that existing habitats will continue to provide adequate food and cover for the panther. In addition, the program will provide incentives for landowners to establish forest cover along irrigation canals, fence lines and other corridors to re-connect habitats that have become fragmented and isolated.
If the program is loaded down with limitations and restrictions, it never will be accepted by landowners. However, if the program is kept simple and focused on providing incentives to landowners to maintain -- and, where possible, enhance -- existing habitats, it will be much more widely accepted. The more widely it is accepted, the more the program will reduce the risk that essential habitats will be lost to urban expansion. That, in turn, also will mean fewer roads will be built.
9. Panther research
Article 9, section 2, unacceptably restricts the ability of the lessee to enter the property. Designated agents of the lessee -- such as Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission employees -- must have the authority to enter the property to search thoroughly for panthers and radio-collar any panthers which are found on the property. In addition, there must be provisions which allow reentry whenever it is necessary to recollar a panther (the batteries in the collars expire after several years); inspect the health of a particular animal; and remove panthers who have died.Response:
As stated in my response to #2, Getting what we pay for, the lease will provide the flexibility and opportunity to negotiate arrangements with individual landowners to gain access to the property for all the purposes you've stated. It simply will be a matter of coming to agreement on how much access is needed, for what purposes, under what conditions, what type of notice is required, and how much additional compensation the landowner will receive. Again, the public will be able to get exactly what it pays for -- little access for little cost in the basic lease, more access for more cost in a negotiated agreement with mutually acceptable terms.10. Permit denial
Article 5 of the proposed lease provides that additional payments would be made if a landowner does not receive a permit to expand a proposed agricultural activity. Based on existing law, we are very concerned that this wording unduly restricts the review of a wide range of human activities which adversely impact the panther. For example, agricultural businesses have learned to convert native uplands to crops while avoiding dredging or filling wetlands; thus, a Clean Water Act permit from the Corps is not required and the Service is never involved in an Endangered Species Act consultation. Likewise, while the South Florida Water Management District is involved in reviewing requests to modify surface water flows or to withdraw ground water, this agency's regulatory provisions to protect the panther are extremely limited. Unquestionably, a landowner could conduct many activities which are detrimental to the panther without a permit denial ever occurring.If panther conservation is to be advanced, an accurate baseline must be established regarding the existing native habitat and agricultural operations on the property. We agree with the July 14, 1997 comment of Dennis Jordan that a "farm operation document" should be prepared by the landowner which establishes the baseline. Any changes to the operation document that involve destruction or fragmentation of native habitat or human activities which may adversely affect the panther must be made through a modification to the operation document.
Response:
I agree. A "farm plan" or "farm operation document" that establishes the baseline should be a part of the lease. This document will be used to determine what activities can be conducted by the lessor as part of his or her normal operations, without any notification to the lessee, and which could adversely affect the integrity of the habitats covered by the lease. Those activities that could adversely affect the habitats will require discussion with the lessee so a mutually acceptable way can be found to accommodate (and/or modify) the activities to assure the continued integrity of the habitats.11. Accurate Economics
In previous comments, we have voiced our strong concerns about paying individuals or companies to comply with the requirement of the Endangered Species Act. Putting these issues aside for the moment, and, for the sake of discussion, addressing issues pertaining to an incentives proposal, we have serious concerns about the data and analysis which underlie the Strategy's conclusions regarding the financial benefits for an incentive program. Theses concerns include:A. the cost of purchasing 25 years of rights will be a large percentage of what the cost would be to purchase the rights permanently;
B. The proposed incentives -- including tax credits and inheritance tax credits --could over compensate landowners. If a market value approach is used, the compensation must be no more than what the market would give up.
C. Owners should not be paid for everything they might possibly do in the future. The strategy proposes to compensate landowners basing the value of the agricultural rights purchased as the difference between its proposed restricted use and the value of land sold on the open market, fully permitted for the most intensive agricultural use feasible. This assumes that all lands that could have citrus groves on them have the value of a fully permitted grove, and that simply is not true. The market does not operate in this manner, and structuring payments in this manner will provide a windfall to landowners.
D. the leasing entity must be able to bargain in as hard nosed a manner with each private landowner. The landowners should submit bids, and the entity be able to pick those areas which provide the most panther protection for the lowest cost.
E. just as a landowner does not have to agree to a lease, the leasing entity should have the flexibility to go farm by farm. The entity should not be required to lease all lands that are covered by the panther habitat protection plan;
F. farm budget studies may overstate the market values for agricultural land.
Any incentives proposal must be based on sound economics, and at this point, we continue to have serious concerns about the economics analysis. Any proposal, before it is finalized, should be reviewed by environmentalists who are experts on farming budgets.
Response:
What is your objective here: to see how difficult and onerous you can make the negotiation and lease process and, hence, ensure that, at best, years will be spent in completing a handful of scattered leases, or at worse, landowners will simply refuse to participate? Or do you want to seek out and work toward points of agreement and accommodation to develop win-win agreements that will make people want to work together, and ensure that long-term management agreements can be established that cover as much panther habitat on private lands as possible?I really do not understand why are you so concerned that a landowner might get a few dollars per acre "too much" to manage panther habitat.
Private landowners are not the enemy; the threat to the panther comes from continued urban development -- and the governmental policies at the federal, state and local levels that fuel and abet continued development.
The economic reality in south Florida today is that, even though some landowners go to extraordinary lengths to nurture the resources on their property and conduct their activities in a manner that is sustainable and compatible with these resources, they must make a profit ... or go out of business.
No mechanism now is in place to help the vast majority of Florida farmers pass on the costs of environmental protection to the public. They produce 253 agricultural commodities, of which only five -- tobacco, peanuts, cotton, milk and sugar -- qualify for federal subsidies or price supports (per the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Information Services). For the balance, the market sets their price, and that price is constantly changing. The costs of maintaining land that produces little or no economic return, of installing conservation systems, of hiring consultants and attorneys to comply with regulations whittle away at profit margins ... and make the Florida farmer less competitive with foreign producers.
The market currently pays Florida farmers to produce vegetables, citrus, timber and homesites. But it does not pay for the other "products" for which they are the custodians -- open space, wildlife habitat, water resources, wetlands and more.
And therein lies the dilemma: As much as agricultural landowners may want to protect wetlands or wildlife, they have a powerful inducement not to do so.
The market economy offers landowners a strong incentive to manage their holdings for the highest and best economic return. And that can translate into intensive development that may be at odds with natural resource protection. Of course, landowners are not forced to seek the highest profit obtainable. That is their choice. But if it is profitable to convert land from native habitat to agriculture and from agriculture to condominiums, chances are land will be converted.
All land in Florida is valued on the basis of how many housing units it will accommodate ... not on how effectively it will grow our food ... or how important it is for aquifer recharge ... or as wildlife habitat ("Assessments," Florida Statutes, Chapter 193, Section 001). In fact, there presently is no way within the market economy to assign a dollar value to the land's ability to grow food ... or to the natural resources and wildlife it harbors.
Also, unlike developed uses, such as professional buildings, auto show rooms, and single-family homes, agricultural land operates under a dual system of taxation. The same piece of agricultural land can be taxed on its current use, or on its potential to be converted to another land use. The only way agricultural landowners can avoid being driven out of business by high property taxes -- and fulfilling the property assessment law's premise, which carried to its full extent would cover every parcel of land in Florida with housing units -- is to apply for and maintain an agricultural "exemption" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 193, Sections 011 and 46).
As a result of these policies, Florida literally is "driving with the brakes on." Public policies are being enacted and expenditures made that are in conflict with each other -- "stepping on the accelerator" to promote the market economy, and "stepping on the brakes" to constrain its undesirable effects.
Is it any surprise, then, that many Floridians tend to view green, open land as a temporary holding pattern ... awaiting conversion to a "higher and better use," such as condominiums?
Farmers (and other landowners) often are caught in the middle. They may enjoy the natural resources on their property, but the market economy does not reward them for giving up development of their land so wetlands, wildlife species or any other environmental resource can be conserved.
Laurie Ann Macdonald, a St. Petersburg zoologists/ecologist, once said: "Ecological systems will exist in the absence of a human economy. But human economic systems cannot exist without a reasonably healthy environment." That may be true. But the question is: what is the best way to motivate a landowner to care for these resources?
When economics and natural resource protection come into conflict -- as in the case of efforts to preserve the Everglades and essential habitat for the endangered Florida panther -- many landowners feel they have only two choices: sell their land to the government so its resources can be protected or live with more regulations that may ultimately drive them out of business.
These policies have led to the destruction of many agricultural and natural resources, a trend that is continuing in Florida ... and throughout the U.S. Because of the false (or incomplete) economics created by our current land appraisal process, these lands are under constant pressure to be converted to other uses.
Nationwide, we lose almost 1 million acres of productive farmland to urban conversion every year. In Florida, the conversion rate has averaged 150,000 acres per year since 1980. That's 17 acres ... or about 13 football fields ... every hour (according to data reported in: Mapping & Monitoring of Agricultural Lands Project, Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Community Affairs, 1984; Major Land Uses, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1992; and Florida Agriculture, Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1995).
Some people think the solution is stronger zoning regulations ... and more rules. Unfortunately, zoning can be changed by a simple majority vote. And it often is changed ... usually because someone can make more money selling land for development than farming it or keeping it in its natural state. As a result, zoning has not worked as a means of protecting farmland ... or natural resources.
Farm Bureau members often have said: "The best way to preserve farmland is to preserve profits." They are right.
It's time to stop driving with the brakes on ... and consider a new approach.
First, we should think of wetlands, endangered species, water recharge areas, and open space as "environmental products." Next, we should develop a means to compensate landowners for producing or caring for these products ... on our behalf. This, in turn, will reduce the chance that a landowner might want to replace wetlands or natural habitats that are essential for the survival of an endangered species with a more traditional commodity that will earn a profit, or sell out so the land can be developed for a higher cash return.
This may require a new way of looking at environmental protection and the market economy. But it is one many landowners can easily understand. When one landowner in southwest Florida was asked what he would say if he was paid to grow habitat for the endangered Florida panther, he responded immediately by saying, "Here, kitty, kitty ..."
Finding workable ways to tie good stewardship to good business decisions is important. The intent is to turn wetlands, endangered species and other natural resources into an asset for landowners ... to encourage them to grow and maintain these resources just like any other crop that they might produce on their land ... and to provide them with an economic return for doing so.
This is the premise behind the Panthers & Private Lands and Private Habitats: Havens for Threatened & Endangered Species projects: to develop an incentive program that rewards landowners for entering into long-term contracts and lease agreements to retain, manage and protect natural resources on their properties.
The approach makes sound economic sense. The study conducted by Florida Stewardship Foundation in 1997, The Florida Panther & Private Lands, An Economic Analysis: The Landowners' "Conceptual Plan" Compared With Other Conservation Alternatives, that was cited in my response to #2, Getting what we pay for, indicates it is cheaper to keep land on property tax roles and in economic production while paying landowners for stewardship efforts than it is to buy land, take it off tax roles and maintain it at public cost. It also is cheaper to pay incentives to a landowner to encourage proper stewardship, than to let a resource degrade and pay to fix it or clean it up later.
Contrary to what you state in #11-A, above, this study shows that the direct, annualized cost of the proposed incentive program will range from one-quarter to one-third the cost of a public land purchase and from less than one-half to three-quarters the annualized cost of a conservation easement. In addition, it will keep land on local property tax roles and in economic production. This last point is particularly important from an economic standpoint: The study shows that if all the agricultural lands within the priority panther habitat area were purchased by the government, or if the landowners were required to take them out of agricultural production, the annual loss to the region's economy would be over 9,000 jobs, $114.8 million in earnings by those employees and almost $500 million in economic output. The economic output generated by these agricultural lands averages $1,074 per acre per year. That becomes quite significant over the economic life of the land which, if the land is well managed, is virtually unlimited (some agricultural lands in Europe, for example, have been in production for over 1,000 years).
If these lands were purchased by the government, these figures would be offset by any economic impact that is generated by public access to these lands (recreation, hunting, fishing, camping fees, etc.). A study being done by Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University Center for Environmental and Urban Problems for Everglades National Park, however, shows that the annual economic impact (weighted average) generated by public use from federally owned areas is only $63 per acre.
As I pointed out in my answer to #2, above, you will not buy as much "protection" with this proposed strategy, but it also won't cost as much.
Payments to landowners will start out at the same cost per acre per year that public land managing agencies now spend to manage their properties. Our research indicates this cost averages $11 per acre per year for public lands in southwest Florida, not including administrative costs. Payments to landowners will then increase as more services are requested or as more requirements are placed on them. Our study calculated the annualized cost of the "conceptual plan" (which includes the costs you refer to in #11-B and #11-C above) at $33 to $35 per acre. Hence, there is a lot of room to move up the scale from a simple management-only agreement, with limited access, to an agreement that also allows for data gathering, wildlife research and activities that will advance recovery of the panther. At each step up the scale, the public will be getting exactly what it pays for -- plus the neighboring lands that remain in agricultural production will continue contributing to local economies and property tax roles.
David Maehr concurs with this position in The Florida Panther: Life and Death of a Vanishing Carnivore. He states:
"Landowners must want to help in the recovery of the Florida panther. Coercion will not generate authentic support. Many of them would like to help, but few can afford it. In order to pay their taxes and maintain their quality of life, property owners must make their land produce income. If it is truly agreed that forests on private land must be part of the future panther landscape, then their owners deserve to be compensated for sacrificing income or the potential to earn income on their land. What we really [need is] the appointment of a panther habitat lobbyist -- someone knowledgeable about panthers, south Florida, ranch owners, and local politics -- who could develop proposals to local, state, and federal governments that would provide tax incentives, cash, or other compensation for the voluntary protection of key habitat. Such a program is not only feasible, it is necessary. (p. 200)
"This, I believe, is the crux of the panther's plight. Extinction will result, not from poaching or roadkills or inbreeding or disease or competition with hunters, but from habitat loss. Given the pattern of landownership in Florida, it is clear that the private sector holds all the keys to panther recovery ..." (p. 200)
"Ironically, many owners of large ranches in south Florida are proud to have panthers on their land. Not once, in nearly nine years of dealing with ranchers in Collier and Hendry counties, did I hear disparaging remarks about panthers killing livestock or eating too many deer ... to most landowners, the panther is one more reason their ranches are special places ... But when landowners perceive that overregulation threatens their livelihood, then suddenly the panther becomes a costly liability and its future on private land is cast in doubt." (p. 201)
12. Article 1 legal description
The proposed description of the property includes a section excluding "areas which contain residential units, barns, administrative buildings, or which are planned for non-agricultural use:_________". While we can understand the concept of excluding a farmer's home from the lease, we question the expansive exclusion provisions included in the proposed lease. "Residential units" are not agriculture, and, depending on the location, density, and design, could adversely impact panther use. Similar concerns exist regarding barns, buildings, or non-agricultural areas. Any lease should include all areas other than a principal residence (which should be restricted in size to a reasonably limited area). Other commercial areas should be included in the lease description, and the lease provisions can be amended to provide that the lessee does not have any right beyond which exists under existing law to enter buildings.
Response:
These areas are "excluded" because the landowner will not be paid under the lease for maintaining buildings; payments only will be made for maintaining habitat.Your comment troubles me for another reason, however. You seem to be inclined to load the agreements down with restrictive language that will cover every possible contingency and eventuality. I disagree with this approach. In fact, I believe the exact opposite approach should be taken. As David Maehr observes: "members of this endangered subspecies form quite a tolerant lot ... a broad range of human activity is endured by panthers so long as food and cover are adequate." If we focus on creating agreements that will provide panthers with adequate food and cover, we won't have to worry about the buildings ... or roads ... or some of the other issues you've raised ... so long as the habitat that is necessary for the panthers' food and cover is not damaged or replaced by buildings. Why, then, create issues over farm-related buildings or roads or other eventualities, which could easily become sticking points during negotiations and, in turn, could deter landowners from entering into the agreements? Buildings, roads and other improvements will be plotted as part of the baseline data and described in the "farm plan" accompanying the lease. The purpose of the leases will be to ensure the integrity of the habitats that provide food and cover for listed species, and to ensure that the landowner is free to take any action he or she wishes to take on the property, so long as it does not interfere with the integrity of the habitat that is covered under the agreement. Actions that advance this purpose will be encouraged. Actions that interfere with this purpose will be discouraged, or will require notification and discussion with the lessee. That's the crux of the agreement. There's nothing to be gained by making it any more complicated than that. In fact, a lot could be lost if the agreements do become too cumbersome or onerous.
Conclusions
We would strongly welcome an effective program to provide incentives to private landowners to conserve all state and federally listed species in south and central Florida. Yet, we are very concerned that the proposed lease will result in a financial windfall to landowners with at best limited assurances to ensure the recovery of the panther and other sensitive species. Paying people millions of dollars to continue the conditions on a fragmented and degraded landscape is unacceptable. We will lose the panther to extinction unless a more visionary approach is pursued.
So far, the incentives proposal has been drafted and discussed in relative
anonymity. Yet, if an incentives program to protect the panther and other species is ever
implemented, the public will certainly be watching. The program -- whether it is this or
another one -- better be effective, for there may not be another chance. Because of the
high stakes for dozens of species in Florida, we have requested the modifications that we
have discussed above. Changes must be made to ensure that the incentives money is not
wasted.
Response:
We can't expect panthers to "recover" due to this program. What we can expect, is that habitats on private land will be maintained ... and that panthers won't become extinct because of our failure to prevent development of these habitats.If you are not satisfied with this program yet, that's fine. We're still in the design phase. I look forward to your continued input -- and that of Holly Jensen and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation -- to help us create a practical, workable, cost-effective incentives program that will gain widespread acceptance and use by private landowners to retain as much wildlife habitat and other natural resources as possible, ensure good management of these resources, respect a landowner's right to the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of his or her property, and reward good stewardship efforts on the part of landowners who wish to be responsible custodians of the important natural resources on their properties.
| Top
| Home Page | Publications
| Project Partners | Project
Funders |
| Photos of Panthers & Their Habitat | Search | Send E-mail | Help Support This Project |
Designed & Maintained by Florida Stewardship Foundation || Photos &
drawings by David Maehr
Copyright 2002 by Florida Stewardship Foundation || All rights reserved.
