The Issue:
Survival and recovery of threatened & endangered species
and their habitat

The Need:
Protection of essential habitats for threatened & endangered species on private lands throughout the U.S.

Where:
Initial focus: one million acres in southwest Florida
Expanded application: essential habitats on private agricultural lands in DeSoto County, Florida and other sites.
Potential application: private agricultural & forestry lands cover more than 50% of the surface area of the U.S.

How:
Implementation of a "Resource Conservation Agreement" that will provide incentives (and new revenue streams) to private landowners to maintain, restore and improve essential habitats for 20-, 40- and 60-year periods, while allowing the continuation (and, with some reasonable limitations, the expansion)
of agricultural and forestry operations.

| Top | bottom | home |

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 local economies. That's why it's important that we work with these landowners today ... before decisions are made that can never be undone.

| Top | bottom | home |

This is the third phase of the Panthers & Private Lands project, a collaborative effort between a 27-member Landowner Working Group and 109-member Review Committee (representing land management and wildlife agencies, conservation groups, local government and farm groups) to create a new conservation tool to give landowners incentives to protect essential habitat of the endangered Florida Panther on one million acres of private, largely agricultural lands in south Florida.

Because the project has the potential for application far beyond the Florida panther and southwest Florida, it is being renamed: Private Lands: Partners in Conserving America's Resources.

Florida Stewardship Foundation (FSF) was formed in 1995 by members of the Phase 1 Landowner Working Group and Review Committee specifically to pursue continuation of Panthers & Private Lands and related projects.

FSF projects are targeted principally to private agricultural and forestry lands, since more than 50 percent of the land area in Florida -- and more than 50 percent of the land area of the entire U.S. -- is controlled by private landowners engaged in agriculture or forestry operations (sources: Florida Statistical Abstract; 1992 Census of Agriculture; U.S. Forest Service).

These lands contain a rich array of natural resources and diverse habitats that are critical to the survival of many threatened and endangered species. But many of these resources and habitats -- and thus, many threatened and endangered species -- are at risk. As an April 16, 1995 editorial in the Tampa Tribune observed:

| Top | bottom | home |

The Florida panther has been virtually eliminated from most of its range in the southeastern United States. A century of habitat destruction has reduced the subspecies to a single population of only 30 to 50 adults. They roam over 3.1 million acres of land in Collier, Dade, Hendry, Lee, Desoto, Glades, Sarasota and Highlands counties in South Florida.

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

This land also includes valuable wetlands and habitat for many other imperiled wildlife populations, including sandhill cranes, swallow-tailed kites, wood storks, Florida black bears and crested caracaras. (For a list of other species that share habitat with the Florida panther, see Endangered Species on Private Lands.)

The majority of the Priority 1 and Priority 2 habitat (which accounts for more than 1.6 million acres) is owned by 164 closely held private companies or individuals.

As Calvin Lloyd, one of the landowners, has said: "We have problems and environmentalists have problems. We need to get together to solve each other's problems."

That is the purpose of the Panthers & Private Lands and Private Habitats projects. An attempt also will be made to keep the programs simple, and not allow the conservation agreements that are being proposed as a conservation tool to become over regulated with monitoring and data gathering requirements.

One problem with most government incentive and less-than-fee programs, according to Dr. Bernie Lester of Alico, Inc., who represents one of the area's largest landowners, is that "[the programs] come with just as much regulatory baggage as we have now. If I'm going to get that much regulatory baggage, I might as well stay where I am now and fight the battle as best I can. If an agency is satisfied with the way we are doing things, as they say they are, and they want to encourage us to keep doing it, then they have to buy off on that without a lot of additional monitoring, testing or other requirements."

| Top | bottom | home |

The landowner working group proposed a conceptual plan that would establish a framework of standard procedures to guide preservation of essential habitat for the panther in south Florida. The goals of the landowners' plan are to:

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

| Top | bottom | home |

The conceptual plan seeks to compensate landowners for giving up non-agricultural development rights -- those rights not related to or required for agricultural production -- for a minimum of 20-years ... long enough to determine if the Florida panther can be saved and to work out long-term protection strategies.

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

| Top | bottom | home |

The conceptual plan would:

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

Leasing or purchasing non-agricultural development rights would be the primary means to protect essential panther habitat on private lands. If landowners choose to lease these rights, they would enter a 20-year legal agreement not to develop their land for non-agricultural use.

| Top | bottom | home |

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

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

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

The conceptual plan would offer three levels of possible compensation:

Second level: After the first level, landowners submitting an application to expand use of their property for agricultural purposes would be compensated if they are denied that agricultural use for habitat preservation reasons; and

Third level: If the land must be returned to its natural state, landowners would be compensated for the cost of restoration and for the economic impact associated with the loss of that farming activity.

| Top | bottom | home |

In other words, landowners would no longer have to deal with scores of different agencies at a variety of different times. They would do it once. This team-permitting process would result in a single, comprehensive farm management plan that would satisfy all permitting requirements for the entire 20-year period of the lease.

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

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

| Top | bottom | home |

The Conceptual Plan will be implemented through a Resource Conservation Agreement. This agreement is presently being drafted through input on this web site and via application to a test parcel of property in DeSoto County, Florida.  To view the agreement, or to participate in the discussions about its various provisions, you may visit the Lease Discussion Group.

The Resource Conservation Agreement is designed to appeal to a large number of private landowners. It is neither coercive or invasive; instead, it is 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 Resource Conservation Agreement is a long-term service contract and management agreement. It is for a limited term (20, 40 or 60 years). But it automatically renews itself, unless notice to terminate is given within a certain time period prior to its expiration date, in which case a five-year transition period is mandated. It contains incentives for landowners to convert the agreement into a permanent conservation easements and/or provide government agencies with the right of first refusal when the land is offered for sale. It also rewards landowners for entering into longer term agreements (40 or 60 years instead of 20) and for taking actions that will improve habitats on their property so the habitats will support additional species and expanded populations of threatened and endangered species.

(Again, for further information, visit the Lease Discussion Group. )

| Top | bottom | home |

An economic analysis completed as part of Phase 2 shows that the Resource Conservation Agreement  is less expensive than conservation easements and public land purchases. Of course, the agreement is for a limited term, so does not provide a guarantee of long-term habitat protection. But it also is a flexible document, providing the opportunity for government agencies negotiating on behalf of the public's interest to buy more protection for additional compensation to an individual landowner. As a result, the agreement truly offers a way for the public to get exactly what it pays for.

Results from economic analysis for Phase 2 can be viewed by clicking on: Executive Summary & Findings or on Methodology & Calculations. The Full Report, which can be ordered from the publications page in this web site, includes the Endnotes, where all sources of information for the study are cited, and the Spreadsheets where the calculations used in the study are shown in detail.

For More Information on this project please visit the following links:
| Objectives - Phase 3 | Action Steps Phase 3 | Timeline Phase 3 |
| Why Support This Project? | Project Partners | Further Information |
| Project Funders |