Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge
3860 Tollgate Blvd, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34114
Telephone: 941/353 8442
Fax: 941/353 8640
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 1998
I
Table of Contents
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction ____________________________________________________ 1
Purpose of and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan ______ 1
Overview of the Fish and Wildlife Service _________________________ 2
Mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service ___________________________ 2
Description and Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System ______ 2
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge __________________________ 3
Refuge Location ________________________________________________ 3
Purpose of the Refuge __________________________________________ 4
The Florida Panther and Recovery Program _______________________ 4
History of the Refuge ___________________________________________ 8
Role of the Refuge ______________________________________________ 9
Refuge Function within the Ecosystem, and Ecosystem Priorities ____ 9
Legal Policy, Administrative Guidelines, and Other Considerations ___ 11
Planning Issues and Opportunities __________________________________ 12
Overview of the Public Involvement Process _______________________ 12
Scope of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ______________________ 12
Proposed Management Direction ___________________________________ 13
Refuge Mission _________________________________________________ 13
Refuge Vision Statement ________________________________________ 13
The Proposed Management Action ________________________________ 13
Refuge Management Goals ______________________________________ 17
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies to Support
the Proposed Management Action ________________________________ 18
Plan Implementation _____________________________________________ 28
Partnerships ___________________________________________________ 28
Annual Work Plans _____________________________________________ 28
Step-Down Plans _______________________________________________ 28
Funding _______________________________________________________ 29
Volunteers _____________________________________________________ 35
Staff __________________________________________________________ 35
Monitoring and Evaluation ______________________________________ 36
II
Appendices
APPENDIX A.
Draft Finding of No Significant Impact ____________________________ 37
Draft Environmental Assessment ________________________________ 39
Purpose and Need for Action_____________________________________ 39
Alternatives Including Proposed Action ___________________________ 40
Affected Environment __________________________________________ 45
Environmental Consequences ____________________________________ 56
Cumulative Impacts ____________________________________________ 64
Mitigation and Residual Impacts of the Proposed/Preferred Action ___ 64
APPENDIX B.
Legal Mandates ________________________________________________ 65
APPENDIX C.
Scoping and Public Involvement Process __________________________ 72
Part 1-Participants _____________________________________________ 75
Part 2-Stakeholders ____________________________________________ 75
Part 3-Service Responses to Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities _____ 75
Part 4-Mailing List _____________________________________________ 82
APPENDIX D.
Draft Interim Compatibility Determination ________________________ 85
APPENDIX E.
Draft Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation _________________________ 89
APPENDIX F.
References ____________________________________________________ 93
APPENDIX G.
Glossary of Terms ______________________________________________ 95
III
Figures
Figure 1. Organizational Chart of the Department of the Interior _______________________________________ 2
Figure 2. Refuge Vicinity Map ______________________________________________________________________ 3
Figure 3. Florida Panther Distribution Map __________________________________________________________ 4
Figure 4. Priority Panther Habitats Map _____________________________________________________________ 6
Figure 5. South Florida Ecosystem Map ____________________________________________________________ 10
Figure 6. Proposed Interpretive Foot Trail __________________________________________________________ 14
Figure 7. Proposed Waterbird/Wildlife Viewing Area _________________________________________________ 14
Figure 8. Proposed Multi-Agency Visitor Center _____________________________________________________ 15
Figure 9. Lands Eligible for Voluntary Conservation Easements _______________________________________ 16
Figure 10. Hierarchy of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies _____________________________________________ 17
Figure 11. Project Cost Summary __________________________________________________________________ 35
Figure 12. Organizational Structure for Future Management __________________________________________ 36
Figure 13. Issues and Alternatives Matrix ___________________________________________________________ 44
Figure 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges within the Big Cypress Watershed ____________________________ 46
Figure 15. Vegetative Habitats Map ________________________________________________________________ 48
Figure 16. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Wading Bird Roost and Rookery Locations___________ 50
Figure 17. Refuge Facilities and Prescribed Fire Compartments with Rotation-Year _____________________ 54
Figure 18. Summary Table of Environmental Consequences by Alternative _____________________________ 63
Figure 19. Survey Form ___________________________________________________________________________ 73
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Introduction
Purpose of and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Under the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, the Service is required to develop
comprehensive conservation plans for all lands and waters of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. These plans will guide management decisions
and set forth strategies for achieving the purposes of each refuge unit. The
National Environmental Policy Act ensures that the Service will assess
the environmental impacts of any actions taken as a result of implementing
the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and appended
Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge, Collier County, Florida. Its purpose is to
identify the role that the refuge will play in support of the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System; the South Florida Ecosystem; the
recovery of the Florida panther; and the goals of the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge and how it will address public concerns for more
access to the refuge.
The draft plan outlines issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed to
the Service during a series of public meetings. It also provides a
description of desired future conditions and proposes long-range guidance
to accomplish the purpose of the refuge. This guidance is presented in a
listing of refuge goals, objectives, and strategies resulting from an analysis
of possible management alternatives. An environmental assessment of
management alternatives may be found in Appendix A.
In its final form, the plan will serve as an operational guide for the refuge
manager over the next ten to fifteen years.
The plan is also needed to:
n provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions when refuge
purposes and goals are accomplished;
n provide refuge neighbors and visitors with a clear understanding of the
reasons for management actions on and around the refuge;
n ensure that management of the refuge reflects policies and goals of the
National Wildlife Refuge System;
n ensure that refuge management is consistent with federal, state, and
county plans;
n provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and
n provide a basis for operation, maintenance, and capital improvement
budget requests.
List of Preparers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Personnel
Jim Krakowski
Dennis Jordan
Ben Nottingham
Larry Richardson
Rick Kanaski
Andy Eller
Wendell Metzen
Roger Beckham
Jennifer Harris
Evelyn Nelson
James A. Clark
Alabama A&M University
Student Interns:
Fesaaha Grebremikal
Frederick Gardenier
Berrien Barks
Phillip West
Research Management
Consultants, Inc.
Louis J. Bridges
Panther tracks
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
2 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Overview of the Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service is a federal bureau operated under the
Department of the Interior, the Nation’s principal conservation agency.
The Department has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public
lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use
of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife,
preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and
historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor
recreation.
Lands and Minerals
Indian Affairs Management Water and Science Fish and Wildlife
and Parks
Department of the
Interior
Fish and Wildlife
Service
National Park
Service
National Wildlife
Refuges
Figure 1. Organizational Chart of the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior
Mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal organization through which
the Department of the Interior carries out its responsibilities to conserve,
protect, and enhance the nation’s fish and wildlife and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of people. The Service has major responsibility for
migratory birds, endangered species, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and certain marine mammals.
Description and Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
world’s largest collection of lands set aside specifically for the protection of
fish and wildlife populations and habitats. More than 510 national wildlife
refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of
mammals, birds, fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. These refuges also
play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened species as well
as offer a wide variety of recreational opportunities. Many have visitor
centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education programs.
Nationwide, more than 25 million visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, or participate in interpretive activities on national
wildlife refuges.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Location
The refuge is located approximately 20 miles east of Naples, Florida. The
south boundary of the refuge parallels Interstate 75 (Alligator Alley); the
east boundary follows State Road 29. Private lands border the refuge on
both the north and west. The refuge shares common boundaries with Big
Cypress National Preserve (east) and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve
(south).
Figure 2. Refuge Vicinity Map
4 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Purpose of the Refuge
The refuge was established to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants which are
listed as endangered and/or threatened species (Endangered Species Act
of 1973). In addition, the refuge was established for the development,
advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
The following two critical Service planning documents also played a
strong role in defining the purpose of the refuge:
n First, the need and mechanism for establishing the refuge was provided
in the 1985 “Fakahatchee Strand Environmental Assessment.” This
assessment clearly states that the refuge area should be acquired for the
benefit and recovery of the endangered Florida panther.
n Second, the Service’s 1995 “Florida Panther Recovery Plan,” a document
prepared by the interagency panther recovery team, states that the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is essential to the survival of
the panther and that the refuge should enhance habitat conditions for the
panther and the panther’s prey species.
Thus, the refuge’s purpose has strong ties to the protection and recovery
of the endangered Florida panther and its habitat. The refuge manager
will give the panther greater consideration than other refuge species in
management operations, and in making compatibility determinations
relating to secondary uses.
The Florida Panther and Recovery Program
The Florida panther, Puma (Felis) concolor coryi, is one of the most
endangered large mammals in the world. A single wild population in
southern Florida, estimated to contain 30-50 adults, is all that remains of
an animal that historically ranged throughout most of the southeastern
United States. This population utilizes landscapes totaling approximately
two million acres, approximately half of which is in private ownership.
Panthers utilize all available native landscapes from upland pine flatwood
and hardwood hammock forests to wetland systems dominated by wet
prairies and swamp forests. For this reason, the panther serves as a
“barometer” for the vast majority of other terrestrial plant and animal
species endemic to south Florida. Preservation and proper management of
habitats for the panther benefit vast numbers of other species indigenous
to the ecosystem.
The historical distribution of the panther is reported to have extended
west to Arkansas and Louisiana (possibly into eastern Texas); eastward
across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and the southern parts of
South Carolina and Tennessee. It has also been reported that the panther
intergraded with three other subspecies of the American puma; P.c.
stanleyana to the west, P.c. hippolestes to the northwest, and P.c. cougar
to the northeast. There are no historical population figures available.
However, using the current population density in southern Florida as a
basis for projection, the minimum historical population would have likely
numbered from two to four thousand adults.
Historical literature suggests that the Florida panther was extirpated
over much of its historical range by the late 1800s. Relentless human
persecution (hunting and trapping), not habitat destruction, initially led to
the endangered status of the panther.
By the time the panther was granted protection (State-1950 or Federal-
1973), the taxon was already in danger of extinction throughout its historic
range. Early recovery efforts focused around the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission’s Florida Panther Clearinghouse and associated
field surveys, initiated in the late 1970s. This effort focused on simply
attempting to determine if a population of panthers still existed. These
efforts led to the documentation of the population in southern Florida.
Florida panther
Photo by Don Pfitzer
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Intensive radio-instrumentation and monitoring was initiated in 1981.
Since that time, 70 panthers have been instrumented and monitored
producing a vast amount of biological and demographic information.
(See Figure 3) Demographically, the population appears to function similar
to mountain lion populations throughout occupied areas to the west.
Physiologically, the population exhibits numerous manifestations
attributed to generations of isolation and inbreeding. Environmental
contaminants may also be contributing to some of these conditions.
Threats to the panther generally fall into three basic categories:
1. Population Security
The single, small population provides little security against extinction.
In a population of this size, a disease outbreak or random fluctuations
could reduce the population to a level to which it would be unable to
sustain itself.
2. Population Viability
Population viability is threatened by numerous physiological and
reproductive abnormalities prevalent within the population. For the most
part, these conditions are considered manifestations of isolation and
inbreeding, and possible environmental contamination. These include a
high rate of abnormal sperm (90+ percent malformed), cryptorchidism (a
testicle descending abnormality affecting 30-60 percent of males),
congenital heart defects (including atrial septal defects), and possible
immune deficiencies.
3. Habitat Destruction/Fragmentation/Contamination
Remaining panther habitat in south Florida is under tremendous threat
from urban and agricultural conversion. Approximately half of the
occupied landscape is under private ownership. It appears that habitats
available to the radio-instrumented segment of the population in south
Florida are at, or approaching, carrying capacity for the panther.
In 1986, the Florida Panther Interagency Committee was formed to
provide for a cooperative, coordinated federal/state recovery program for
the panther. The committee is made up of the Service, the National Park
Service, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Recovery activities generally focus around the following three
areas of emphasis:
1. Actions to protect, enhance, and monitor the existing population in
south Florida, its associated habitats, and prey resources.
Agencies represented on the Florida Panther Interagency Committee
focus on actions on their respective lands to enhance conditions for the
panther. Approximately 900,000 acres of panther habitat on private lands
have been identified in the Florida Panther Preservation Plan (Logan
1993). The plan classifies habitats as either Priority 1 or Priority 2, based
on panther use and/or habitat quality (See Figure 4). Priority habitats are
used most frequently by the panther and contain lands of high quality
native habitat. Priority 2 habitats are used less frequently by the panther
and represent lands of lower quality native habitat interspersed with
intensive agriculture, serving as buffer zones to urban development and
other forms of encroachment. Efforts are underway to design cooperative
conservation programs that will compensate landowners for maintaining
panther habitat on their lands.
2. Actions to address population health.
A genetic restoration program, designed to restore natural gene flow lost
because of population isolation for a century or longer, was initiated in
1995. Eight P.c. stanleyana females were translocated into the population
from southwest Texas. To date, eight intercross litters containing 12
verified kittens have been produced. Geneticists project that within a few
generations, lost genetic variability and viability will be restored.
Florida panther kitten
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
Florida panther at rest
Photo by R. H. Barrett
6 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Florida Panther Distribution Map
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 4. Priority Panther Habitats Map
8 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
3. Actions to reestablish the panther into historic range areas.
The current recovery objective is to achieve a minimum of three viable,
self-sustaining populations within the historic range of the panther. To
reach this goal, at least two populations will have to be reestablished
populations. Fourteen candidate population reestablishment sites have
been identified in a preliminary site identification/evaluation effort. A
recently completed reintroduction feasibility study within a north Florida/
south Georgia candidate site, using Texas cougars as surrogate panthers,
concluded that reestablishment of additional panther populations is
biologically feasible. The study concluded that there are enough habitat
and prey available in this site to support a viable, self-sustaining
population of panthers. Based on preliminary evaluations, other candidate
sites also appear capable of supporting panther populations. It now
appears that the most significant remaining obstacle to advancing panther
recovery is effectively dealing with sociological/political issues related to
population reestablishment, which surfaced during the study. A program to
evaluate and address these issues was initiated in early 1998.
The future of the panther looks
brighter now than at any time since
recovery efforts began in the late
1970s. The genetic restoration
program proved successful and the
reintroduction feasibility study has
shown that habitats exist within the
panther’s historic range capable of
supporting reestablished
populations.
History of the Refuge
The Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge was established in
June 1989 by the authority of the
Endangered Species Act to protect
the important Florida panther.
The final recovery plan for the
panther was approved by the
Service in December 1981. The plan
stated “. . . it is vital to acquire the
remainder of the Fakahatchee Strand and the prairies and cypress forests
adjacent to it to ensure that a unified management strategy can be
effected between the Fakahatchee Strand, the Big Cypress National
Preserve, and the Everglades National Park.”
The Service purchased the initial 24,300 acres of the refuge from the
Collier Family (for which Collier County was named) for $10.3 million
through a series of fee title acquisitions. With the addition of lands from
the Collier Land Exchange on December 18, 1996, the refuge grew to
approximately 26,400 acres.
The refuge encompasses the northern origin of the Fakahatchee Strand
which is the largest cypress strand in the Big Cypress Swamp drainage
basin. Orchids and other rare swamp plants grow within the strand’s
interior. The refuge contains a diverse mix of pine forests, cypress domes,
marl prairies, hardwood hammocks, and lakes surrounded by swamps.
In addition to the panther, 20 other species of animals are found in the
refuge vicinity that are state or federally listed as endangered, threatened,
or species of special concern. The Florida black bear, alligator, wood stork,
roseate spoonbill, limpkin, eastern indigo snake, Florida grasshopper
sparrow, Everglades mink, and Big Cypress fox squirrel are a few
examples. Other resident wildlife include whitetail deer and feral hogs,
which are important panther prey species.
Florida sunset
Photo by D. W. Pfitzer
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Role of the Refuge
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge was established under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act to protect Florida panther
habitat. The refuge receives heavy use by this critically endangered
species. During any given month, 5-11 panthers utilize refuge habitat
areas. The refuge contains significant portions of the home ranges of
several panthers and also functions as a vital habitat linkage for panthers
utilizing adjacent portions of the Big Cypress National Preserve and
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. Several female panthers have denned
and raised kittens on the refuge in recent years. The refuge plays an
important role in the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem.
Refuge Function within the Ecosystem, and Ecosystem Priorities
The South Florida Ecosystem encompasses more than 16.5 million acres of
richly diverse habitats covering the 19 southernmost counties in Florida. It
is a subtropical region that lies between the Caribbean and temperate
North America. (See Figure 5) Environmental and economic impacts of
urbanization and agriculture, as well as other human activities, have
altered the critical natural balance between land and water, and the
region’s endemic flora and fauna. Today, the South Florida Ecosystem
faces substantial loss of habitat and fragmentation.
The Departments of Interior, Commerce, Army, Justice and Agriculture,
and the Environmental Protection Agency created the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force for the purpose of halting or reversing
ecological degradation. The task force has now expanded to include the
State, Native American tribes, and the Governor’s Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. The refuge plays an important role in
integrating the requirements of the Interagency Agreement on South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
The following priorities have been determined by the Service for the
South Florida Ecosystem, which includes the refuge:
n Protect and manage units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and
other national interest lands.
n Protect migratory birds and protect, restore, and manage their habitats.
n Protect, restore, and manage candidate, threatened, and endangered
species and their habitats.
n Protect, restore, and manage wetlands and other freshwater habitats.
n Protect, restore, and manage fish and other aquatic species and their
habitats.
n Protect, restore, and enhance coastal and estuarine habitats.
n Protect, restore, and manage for biodiversity.
Great egrets, Roseate spoonbills,
and Glossy ibis
Photo by Don Pfitzer
Common moorhen
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
10 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. South Florida Ecosystem Map
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Legal Policy, Administrative Guidelines, and Other Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is governed by various
International treaties, federal laws, Presidential Executive Orders and
regulations affecting land and water as well as the conservation and
management of fish and wildlife resources. Policies for management
options of the refuge are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and policy guidelines
established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of
the National Wildlife Refuge System and management of the refuge are
provided in Appendix B.
Refuge Agreements
The refuge also operates under the following agreements with other
federal, state, and local entities:
Cooperative Agreement between the South Florida Water Management
District and Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Golden Florida Resort, Inc., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Port of the
Islands Resort and Marina (for operation of multi-agency visitor center);
Cooperative Agreement between
the South Florida Water
Management District and
Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service for the
construction of a water control
structure on Merritt Canal. Project
designed to restore hydrology to
Lucky Lake and Stumpy strands.
Interagency Agreement between
the Department of the Interior, Big
Cypress National Preserve and
Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge (for law enforcement);
Local Operational Agreement
between the Big Cypress National
Preserve and Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge and Ten
Thousand Islands National Wildlife
Refuge (for wildfire suppression and
prescribed burning);
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior
and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (for
wildfire suppression and prescribed burning);
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior
and the State of Florida, Department of Agricultural and Consumer
Services, Florida Division of Forestry (for wildfire suppression and
prescribed burning).
Woodstorks
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
12 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Planning Issues And
Opportunities
Overview of the Public Involvement Process
Issue identification provides a sound basis for initiating the development of
management objectives and strategies. To ensure that the future
management of the refuge is reflective of the issues, concerns, and
opportunities expressed by the public, a variety of scoping mechanisms
was used.
n A survey was used to gather general information on current and
potential refuge operations.
n Personal interviews were conducted during public scoping meetings.
n Letters were mailed to affected and interested publics to inform them of
the planning process and invite their participation.
n A series of stakeholder meetings and community forums were held to
develop components of the draft plan. The meetings and forums also
allowed for consensus testing on the components of the plan developed
by the stakeholder group and Service team. All stakeholder meetings
and community forums were advertised and opened to the public.
A summary of the scoping and public involvement process is provided in
Appendix C.
Scope of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
The following key issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified
during the scoping process:
n Public Access - A major issue voiced by the public regarding access to
the refuge. Traditionally, the refuge has been closed to public access
with the exception of limited, small group tours. The public would like to
have access to the refuge.
n Cooperative Land Management and Partnerships - The refuge is one of
many public land management areas that along with private land
interests make up the Big Cypress Watershed. Management actions in
one part of the watershed may adversely impact other parts of the
system. There was an overwhelming stakeholder desire to have the
watershed cooperatively managed.
n Public Awareness - Survey respondents indicated an interest in knowing
more about the panther and refuge programs.
n Panther Habitat Protection on Private Lands - A sizeable portion of
important habitat used by the panther exists on private lands. Although
land owners are not interested in selling their land, they are interested
in maintaining natural areas.
n Refuge Research and Management - Research and habitat management
are considered important tools to successfully manage the refuge.
n Lack of Adequate Staffing - There are not enough staff members to
undertake initiatives needed to address Service responsibilities for the
refuge and/or the South Florida Ecosystem.
n Oil and Gas Exploration - Oil and gas exploration exists on the refuge
and produces an adverse affect on the resources.
All public issues, concerns, and opportunities for refuge management have
been addressed in Appendix C, and in the development of comprehensive
goals, objectives, and strategies. For the purposes of the draft
management plan, special emphasis is placed on refuge access.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Proposed Management
Direction
Refuge Mission
The mission of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is to conserve
and manage lands and waters in concert with other agency land efforts
within the Big Cypress Watershed, primarily for the Florida panther,
other endangered and threatened species, natural diversity, and cultural
resources for the benefit of the American people.
Refuge Vision Statement
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, as a vital link in the
recovery of the panther, will be managed for the conservation of the
panther, its habitat, other threatened and endangered species, natural
diversity, and compatible uses. The refuge will be a model of effective
collaboration in natural resource management and education among
diverse public interests, public and private landowners on a voluntary
basis, and agencies.
The Proposed Management Action
The proposed management action for the refuge is discussed in the
following pages. The alternatives considered and their impacts, along with
the impacts of the proposed action, are described in Appendix A.
Utilizing an Ecosystem Approach to manage the refuge is most preferred
as it ideally meets the needs of the resources, and allows some access to
the public for wildlife observation and environmental education. In
addition, the Service plans to study the compatibility and feasibility of
allowing hunting and fishing to occur on the refuge. The basis of this
proposed action was developed from stakeholder consensus and as a result
of public forums held during the planning process.
The end result is a set of goals, objectives, and strategies related to key
issues that will guide the management of the refuge.
Ecosystem Approach
Public Access:
The refuge was established to provide habitat for the endangered Florida
panther. The panther is the most endangered large animal in existence in
the United States. Secondary access and the level of use for activities such
as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
recreational and interpretive trails on the refuge would depend greatly on
their potential impacts to the panther and other resources. A decision to
allow or disallow secondary use activities would depend upon whether or
not these uses would have an adverse affect on the panther or other
natural resources of the refuge.
Utilizing an ecosystems approach, the day-to-day management of the
refuge would not change significantly. Opportunities for increased public
use and recreational activities would be evaluated for implementation.
However, three specific projects would be implemented to provide
increased access near or within the refuge.
n A short interpretive trail, 1/2 to 3/4 mile in length and placed in an area
of least use by panthers, would not adversely affect the animal and
would greatly promote awareness of refuge programs and the plight of
the panther. The trail would contain interpretive and educational
exhibits and would be for day-use only. Parking and waterless restroom
facilities would be provided at the trail head. This form of access would
be allowed and developed immediately.
Great egrets
USFWS Photo by B. Gill
14 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
n A second public access area would be developed in association with the
waterbird habitat project, which is located on the east side of the refuge
near SR 29. This project also would not adversely affect the panther and
would help educate the public of the many birds that use the refuge. This
project would include the development of a parking area, waterless
restroom facilities, interpretive exhibits, and observation decks. The
wildlife viewing area would also be for day-use only.
Figure 6. Proposed Interpretive Foot Trail
Figure 7. Proposed Waterbird/Wildlife Viewing Area
North
Proposed
Interpretive Trail
Florida Panther Refuge Boundary
Proposed Interpretive Foot Trail
Roads
Lakes
75 75
29
North
Florida Panther Refuge Boundary
Proposed Wildlife Viewing Area
Roads
Lakes
75 75
29
Proposed Viewing
Area
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
n The Service, in partnership with other agencies, is seeking to offer a
multi-agency visitor and environmental education center adjacent to the
SR 29 and I-75 interchange. Strategies have been developed in the plan
to pursue the installation of a facility of this nature.
The Service will review suggested public access programs/activities within
five years. Some decisions may take place before or after the 5-year period
depending upon the results of studies and monitoring. Most of this
research will be contracted out to universities. The Service cannot predict
whether or not studies will be funded; if they occur in a timely manner; or,
if the research will produce the results needed to make decisions.
Cooperative Land Management and Partnerships within the
Big Cypress Watershed:
Considerably more emphasis would be placed on working with the local
community, private landowners, non-governmental organizations, and
other agencies in southwest Florida. Primary emphasis would be placed on
developing partnerships with various entities that would lead to panther
habitat protection and overall land and watershed protection and
stewardship of the resources. More communication and coordination with
other land managers within the watershed must occur if we are to
effectively conserve the diverse resources of this ecosystem.
Habitat management on and off the refuge would be centered around
watershed resources for the protection and enhancement of native wildlife
populations, the panther, and other threatened, endangered, or candidate
species that rely on wetlands. These areas benefit humans by being flood
retention areas, water filters and drinking water recharge zones. A
geographic information specialist and a hydrologist would be recruited to
gather and evaluate watershed information.
Figure 8. Proposed Milti-Agency Visitor Center
North
Florida Panther Refuge Boundary
Visitor Center - Primary Site
Visitor Center - Secondary Site
Roads
Lakes
75 75
29
Multi-agency Visitor Center
Secondary Site
Multi-agency Visitor Center
Primary Site
16 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
aa Collier County
Lee County
Hendry CountyaNorth
75
29
29
Land Types
Easement Identified in the Fakahatchee Strand EA
Priority 1 Habitat
Priority 2 Habitat
Florida Panther NWR
State Land (Proposed)
State Land (Existing)
75
Public Awareness of the Panther and Refuge Programs:
More outreach efforts off the refuge would occur under this proposed
action. A public use/environmental education specialist would work with
the Collier County Environmental Education Consortium, school groups,
volunteers, and other agencies to educate both youth and adults of
southwest Florida about the panther and refuge activities. Furthermore, a
media specialist would ensure the same message was delivered to the
public by way of the media.
Protect Panther Habitat on Private Lands:
Habitat important to the panther is also critical to many other plants and
animals. Added protection of panther habitat would be facilitated through
conservation easements, tax breaks, mitigation banks, or some type of
monetary incentive for the landowner to keep critical panther habitat in its
natural state. The refuge would work in collaboration with public and
private landowners, on a voluntary basis, to help insure the protection of
370,000 acres of panther habitat north of the refuge in Collier and
Hendry counties.
Figure 9. Important Lands Eligible for Voluntary Panther Protection* as identified in the 1993 Florida Panther
Preservation Plan. Priority 1 and Priority 2 habitats have been identified on page 6.
*Map taken from the 1993 Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
This would be a voluntary program for landowners. Through a variety of
federal cost-share and wetland protection programs, the refuge would
promote and coordinate ecosystem restoration projects within the watershed
to include limited hydrologic restoration, the restoration of selected plant
communities, and the limited reintroduction of endangered species.
This collaborative effort will involve a cooperative effort between state,
federal, non-governmental organizations and private landowners to protect
panther habitats existing on private lands. The goal is to initiate a
conservation easement/lease program to protect essential panther habitat
identified in the 1993 Panther Habitat Protection Plan. This project has
two components. One part of the program would protect, through
conservation easement, approximately 10,000 acres of priority panther
habitat previously identified in the Fakahatchee Strand Environmental
Assessment of 1985. These lands lie adjacent to the present refuge
boundary to the north and west. The other part of the program would
target at least 360,000 acres to be protected under term easement, or
perpetual conservation easements. The project would involve only those
landowners who are willing participants. Some of these areas may be
considered for fee title ownership if they become available through
donation, mitigation bank, or sale. This project would work in concert with
other programs to protect habitats and wetlands within the Big Cypress
Watershed. The easements would be monitored by a biologist working on
the refuge staff. The estimated cost of the easements is $150 million.
The biologist’s salary, benefits, and equipment needs would require
$100,000/year.
Refuge Research and Management:
Prescribed burning and exotic plant control would also be continued for
ecosystem maintenance. Off-refuge efforts for prescribed burning, wildlife
suppression, and invasive exotic species control would be enhanced.
Refuge research and management would target topics that could be
applied to management or have utility to other land managers within the
ecosystem.
Lack of Adequate Refuge Staff:
With adequate staffing the refuge would meet Service and South Florida
Ecosystem responsibilities. Education and outreach programs would be
expanded. There would be increased coordination with land managers off
the refuge through the initiation of conservation easements for important
panther habitats. The biological and habitat monitoring program would be
enhanced to include floral and faunal species that have not been monitored.
Gas and Oil Exploration:
The refuge would carefully review and minimize gas and oil exploration
plans and operations, moreover, it would make every effort to gain mineral
rights to oil and gas resources found on the refuge.
Refuge Management Goals
1.0 Provide optimum habitat conditions for the Florida panther with
special consideration for other endangered and threatened species.
2.0 Restore and conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and
ecological function of refuge flora and fauna.
3.0 Develop and implement an educational program that will provide
an understanding and appreciation of the Florida panther, fish and
wildlife ecology, and human influence on ecosystems of south
Florida.
4.0 Promote interagency and private landowner cooperation for the
management of natural and cultural resources within the Big
Cypress Watershed.
5.0 Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with federal and
state historic preservation legislation and regulations.
6.0 Provide opportunities for compatible public use in accordance with
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
18 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies to Support the
Proposed Management Action
The following list of goals, objectives, and strategies will be used to
implement the proposed management action. They were developed to
reflect the needs of both the Service and the public (issues and
opportunities). The listing of goals, objectives, and strategies specifies
what the refuge manager will do, if funding requirements are met, as well
as the exact activities to produce the desired results. Thus, the breakdown
of activities forms a hierarchy for refuge management that also
encompasses the mission of the Service, the refuge system, ecosystem
priorities, the refuge’s purpose, and the expressed needs of the public.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Strategy 1.4.6
Strategy 1.4.5
Strategy 1.4.4
Strategy 1.4.3
Strategy 1.4.2
Strategy 1.4.1
Objective 1.4
Strategy 1.3.5
Strategy 1.3.4
Strategy 1.3.3
Strategy 1.3.2
Strategy 1.3.1
Objective 1.3
Strategy 1.2.8
Strategy 1.2.7
Strategy 1.2.6
Strategy 1.2.5
Strategy 1.2.4
Strategy 1.2.3
Strategy 1.2.2
Strategy 1.2.1
Objective 1.2
Strategy 1.1.6
Strategy 1.1.5
Strategy 1.1.4
Strategy 1.1.3
Strategy 1.1.2
Strategy 1.1.1
Objective 1.1
Goal 1.0
Figure 10. Hierarchy of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
1.0 Provide optimum habitat conditions for the Florida panther with
special consideration for other endangered and threatened species.
1.1 Achieve and maintain vegetative conditions on the refuge
and in southwest Florida that is preferred by the panther.
1.1.1 Increase staff in order to rehabilitate equipment and
maintain support facilities. Upgrade equipment as
needed in order to support field operations. (Special
Projects 1 and 2)
1.1.2 Using Geographic Information System (GIS)
technology and historic use data, characterize
vegetative characteristics of preferred panther habitat
(by use-type where possible, i.e., denning, day bedding,
hunting, travel corridors, important habitat linkages,
etc.).
1.1.3 Determine panther response to prescribed fire
management through ongoing funded research with
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division,
University of Tennessee. Obtain results and evaluate
findings by the end of 1998.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
1.1.4 Refine refuge prescribed fire program and other
habitat management tools to achieve and maintain
optimum vegetative conditions for panther habitation.
1.1.5 By 2005, strive to achieve perpetual protection of
approximately 10,000 acres of panther habitat adjacent
to the refuge through fee title or easement acquisition.
1.1.6 By 2010, strive to achieve limited and perpetual
protection of approximately 370,000 acres through
conservation easement or fee title acquisition.
1.2. Achieve and maintain optimum prey densities for the Florida
panther by the year 2007.
1.2.1 Conduct inventories to establish current deer density
estimates for the refuge.
1.2.2 Follow approved Fire Management Plan to maintain/
enhance deer habitat. Conduct prescribed burns in a
mosaic pattern within fire-evolved habitats to achieve a
minimum target goal of 6,000 acres annually.
1.2.3 By 1999, evaluate the feasibility and potential value of
establishing small ponds in areas where water is
seasonally absent or scarce. If feasible, a minimum of
10 ponds will be established by 2002.
1.2.4 Secure additional base maintenance funds by 2002 to
address arduous terrain conditions that adversely
impact heavy equipment and other off-road vehicles,
restricting capabilities to provide optimum habitat
conditions for the panther. (Special Project No. 1)
1.2.5 Evaluate research results from the University of
Florida Deer Forage Study. Utilize these and other
existing data to amend the Fire Management Plan to
guide the frequency, placement, and number of winter
versus summer mosaic burns. Use prescribed fire to
achieve optimum availability and nutritional quality of
deer forage by the year 2002.
1.2.6 Continually monitor and evaluate prey response to the
refuge burning program. Implement additional
research as needed to fill data gaps. Utilize results to
amend the Fire Management Plan.
1.2.7 Refine food plot management for deer. Reestablish
experimental food plots based on existing data.
Continue to evaluate the nutritional significance of food
plots through the use of radio-instrumented deer and
other measurements. Evaluate data by the year 2003,
and amend the food plot management program as
deemed appropriate.
1.2.8 Implement cabbage palm management to restore/
enhance forage composition and growth for deer and
other wildlife. Experimental sites where cabbage palm
encroachment is documented will be evaluated pre- and
post-palm removal to determine forage nutrient
benefits for deer by the year 2005. Utilize results to
guide further restoration of areas containing heavy
cabbage palm infestations.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
20 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
1.3 Identify and characterize panther responses to habitat
management and human activities. Hire a GIS specialist to
work on panther issues as well as southwest Florida
watershed analysis. (Special Project No. 3)
1.3.1 Continue to monitor panthers, relying primarily on
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission data.
Explore the availability/development of effective
methods to monitor panthers over a 24-hour period.
1.3.2 Expand information on panther prey activities using
telemetry or other methods through the year 2000. In
addition, expand data on panther den use, activity
patterns, and habitat use.
1.3.3 Have GIS specialist in place by 2002 to digitize panther
movements and habitat types in regard to management
activities on the refuge.
1.3.4 By 2004, compile regional GIS data on panther
responses to habitat management and human activities.
Share research findings with other agencies and the
public.
1.3.5 Develop GIS data information layers for southwest
Florida. Analyze and use data to evaluate and support
management decisions by 2004.
1.4 Implement management techniques to enhance other
threatened and endangered species.
1.4.1 Construct a greenhouse, with sterile flasking facility,
on the refuge and fund the propagation and
reintroduction of orchids to the refuge and other
depleted habitats by 2001. (Special Project No. 4)
1.4.2 Construct and erect within suitable refuge habitats a
minimum of 10 nesting boxes for Big Cypress fox
squirrels by 2001.
1.4.3 Develop a plan by the year 2001 that addresses the
management of water levels of I-75 canals and the
refuge for wood storks and other wading birds.
Implement the plan, with concurrence from the
Department of Transportation, the South Florida
Water Management District, and the Department of
Environmental Protection by the year 2005.
1.4.4 Improve feeding areas for wading birds near nest and
roost habitat. Using approved mechanical means and
herbicides, restore and enhance wetlands as foraging
habitat for wading birds in Lucky Lake Strand by 2002.
Other potential sites on the refuge will be identified
and enhancement activities implemented by 2005.
1.4.5 Continue to utilize the refuge as a reintroduction site
for eastern indigo snakes acquired through
rehabilitation and confiscations. By the year 2002,
establish and implement a protocol to radio-instrument
selected specimens for monitoring habitat use,
dispersal and survival. By 2009, evaluate results of data
to determine the feasibility of the refuge as a
repository for this species.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
1.4.6 Determine the feasibility of reintroducing red-cockaded
woodpeckers to suitable refuge habitats by
the year 2004, including evaluation of using Naples
stock sources. If feasible, reestablish three colonies on
the refuge by the year 2008.
2.0 Restore and conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and
ecological function of refuge flora and fauna.
2.1 Minimize the impact from oil and gas exploration and
extraction on the refuge.
2.1.1 Explore the potential of acquiring mineral rights on
the refuge.
2.1.2 Carefully review oil exploration plans to ensure that
adverse impacts to refuge natural and cultural
resources are minimized. Refuge staff must ensure the
plan employs Best Management Practices. Oil and gas
extraction, seismic work, and associated construction
will be conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts
to wildlife and other refuge resources.
2.1.3 Hire a temporary biologist to accompany seismic work
crews and monitor oil well road installation to minimize
adverse impacts.
2.1.4 Mitigate for direct and indirect exploration impacts to
refuge fauna and habitats through restoration projects.
2.2 Fully develop and implement a prescribed fire program to
restore and maintain healthy fire dependent communities by
the year 2002.
2.2.1 Implement the 1998 Fire Management Plan, with
annual reviews and updates to incorporate applied
research findings.
2.2.2 Continue fire research on the effects of burning
frequency, seasonality, and spatial distribution on the
refuge’s pine flatwood, mixed cypress, and wet prairie
systems. Produce at least 2 peer-reviewed scientific
papers on applied fire ecology by 2005.
2.2.3 Develop fire prescriptions and techniques to enhance
prairie orchids and protect the fire sensitive epiphytic
orchids.
2.2.4 Obtain funding by the year 2000 to investigate the
influence of prescribed fire on the growth and fruiting
of saw palmetto (Senora repens). Evaluate findings and
amend the Fire Management Plan, if deemed
appropriate, by the year 2004. (Special Project No. 5)
2.2.5 Obtain funding to investigate the impacts of prescribed
fire on reptile populations through the use of radio-telemetry
or other methods by the year 2008.
(Special Project No. 6)
2.3 Initiate the restoration of at least two native plant
communities by the year 2005.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
22 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
2.3.1 Develop a refuge Habitat Management Plan that
incorporates the following key restoration and
management strategies by 2003.
2.3.1.1 Restore a 513-acre fallow farm field in Fire
Compartments 44 and 42 that was clear-cut prior to
refuge establishment. Plant cypress, maple, etc., in
scattered domes to enhance edge habitat and
provide potential browse to benefit deer and
other wildlife.
2.3.1.2 Restore a 40-acre fallow farm field in Fire
Compartment 12 that was clear-cut prior to refuge
establishment. Plant cypress, maple, etc., in
scattered domes to enhance edge habitat and
provide potential browse to benefit deer and
other wildlife.
2.3.1.3 Restore approximately 800 acres in cooperation
with the South Florida Water Management
District, partially restore the winter hydroperiod to
Lucky Lake and Stumpy strands with the
installation of a water control structure in Merritt
Canal by 2000. This action will reduce the spread of
invasive exotic and drier successional plant species
that are invading the strands and reinvigorate
historic wetland plant species for the benefit of
wading birds and other wildlife.
2.4 Develop control and eradication programs for invasive exotic
species by the year 2003 and implement segments as
identified in the following strategies. (Special Project No. 7)
2.4.1 By 2000, identify the most problematic species and
areas of infestation. For plant species, apply mechanical
and herbicide techniques to these areas first.
2.4.2 By 2002, identify the most effective herbicide type,
application, dosage, and season of use for refuge
problematic plant species.
2.4.3 Work with neighbors, public and private, to control
exotic seed sources that threaten the refuge. Develop
cooperative initiatives by 2003 to address problem areas.
2.4.4 Develop and implement a control program for invasive
exotic fish, reptiles, and amphibians by 2003.
2.4.5 Continue to host and coordinate an annual southwest
Florida Invasive Exotic Plant Workshop for area land
managers. The workshop will focus on new invaders to
the area, control techniques, opportunities for control
equipment and labor cooperation, and other exotic
plant issues.
2.5 Implement management techniques to enhance other refuge
endemic fauna.
2.5.1 Restore a 50- 100-acre disturbed site adjacent to SR 29
as a moist soil management area. The area would be
managed for waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds
by water level management and tilling practices.
(Special Project No. 12)
2.5.2 Develop littoral zones and restore native vegetation
along pond edges at the Colding and Pistol ponds to
enhance habitat for fish, birds, and other fauna.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
2.5.3 Develop and implement a nesting box program for
wood ducks and prothonotary warblers.
2.5.4 Determine the distribution and population status of
the Big Cypress fox squirrel, Everglades mink, Florida
grasshopper sparrow, eastern indigo snake, long-tailed
weasel, and other declining species by the year 2007.
Incorporate the information into the GIS and
implement management actions as deemed appropriate.
2.5.5 Contract biologists to census populations of amphibians
and invertebrates to determine baseline levels and
trends by the year 2008. (Special Project No. 8)
2.6 Evaluate and monitor hydrologic conditions on the refuge for
developing and implementing strategies to restore and
maintain healthy water regimes.
2.6.1 Collaborate with the South Florida Water Management
District to complete the Lucky Lake Strand project to
restore the hydrologic regime to the west side of the
refuge.
2.6.2 Recruit a hydrologist by 2001 to compile historic data,
assess current water quality and quantity parameters,
determine the refuge water budget, and analyze the
watershed needs of the refuge complex. (Special
Project No. 9)
2.6.3 Develop and implement a hydrologic monitoring
program to assess surface and ground water levels,
surface flow, hydroperiod, and quality.
2.6.4 Establish and implement a water management
strategy for the refuge by 2004.
3.0 Develop and implement an educational program that will provide
an understanding and appreciation of the Florida panther, fish and
wildlife ecology, and human influence on ecosystems of south
Florida.
3.1 Develop facilities and associated amenities to promote public
education of the ecosystem, the panther, and the refuge
program by the year 2007.
3.1.1 Partnership with others in the development of a multi-agency
visitor and environmental education center at
the southwest corner of the SR-29 and I-75
interchange. Develop high quality, conventional
exhibits and progressive interactive media displays to
feature South Florida Ecosystem management, agency
restoration activities, and visitor use opportunities.
The center will provide an outdoor classroom in the Big
Cypress Watershed for students in Collier County and
south Florida. (Special Project No. 10)
3.2. Increase local awareness of the South Florida Ecosystem,
the refuge, and the panther through the development and
implementation of an outreach program by 2003.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
24 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
3.2.1 Add three new personnel to the Florida Panther refuge
complex staff. These include: 1) Media specialist to
coordinate news events, press releases, and
information transfer to local, state, and national news
outlets (Special Project No. 13); 2) Public use
specialist stationed at the refuge to coordinate
activities at the I-75 visitor center, refuge interpretive
displays, school outreach, and refuge volunteer
activities; and 3) Administrative assistant to help
process and coordinate the added functions of this
initiative. (Special Project No. 10)
3.2.2 Encourage the growth of the “Friends of the Panther
Refuge” support group (target of 100 members by
2000). Promote quarterly introspective evaluations of
the effectiveness of the group’s support efforts. The
group will assist with education programs on and off
the refuge.
3.2.3 Collaborate with various support groups: i.e.,
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, State of Florida
agencies, National Park Service, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Southwest Florida
Environmental Coalition, Native Plant Society,
Audubon Society, Sierra Club etc., to support refuge
outreach activities. Participate in at least 2 events
(National Wildlife Refuge Week, International
Migratory Bird Day, Earth Day, etc.) per year.
3.2.4 Develop at least 3 refuge specific lesson plans for local
school teachers and community organizations for
outreach programs. Subjects to include the panther,
refuge management, South Florida Ecosystem issues
and restoration efforts.
3.2.5 By 2000, develop teacher workshop material (lesson
plans) and host an annual teacher workshop for various
school districts.
4.0 Promote interagency and private landowner cooperation for the
management of natural and cultural resources within the Big
Cypress Watershed.
4.1 Increase communication and share knowledge on land use
management techniques with adjacent managers, landowners
and the public.
4.1.1 Coordinate and host an annual seminar for southwest
Florida land managers (private and public) on habitat
management, current research and monitoring, and
watershed issues.
4.1.2 Initiate a periodic newsletter on panther/habitat
management.
4.1.3 Expand Internet Web Page for the refuge, panther
management, and current issues by 1999.
4.1.4 Create a citizen’s group of interested parties to
promote private and governmental cooperation for the
management of the refuge by 1999.
4.2 Establish and maintain written agreements with cooperators
that will lead to better management of the ecosystem.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
4.2.1 Initiate a conservation easement/lease program to
protect critical panther habitat identified in the 1993
Panther Habitat Protection Plan. The variable term
easements would apply only to willing participants.
4.2.2 Participate in multi-agency mitigation banks to protect
panther habitat. These land banks provide for the
restoration and protection of key panther habitat.
The refuge would coordinate the formation of these
banks and manage the land after restoration has been
completed.
4.3 Inform and assist private landowners with federal cooperative
programs that will enhance or protect wildlife habitat.
4.3.1 Recruit a private lands biologist in 1998 to coordinate
the program.
4.3.2 Start an outreach effort to inform landowners of the
variety of federal and state programs available
including, but not limited to, “Partners For Wildlife,”
“Wetland Reserve Program,” “Conservation Reserve
Program,” and “Forest Stewardship Program.”
4.4 Facilitate partnerships to manage cultural resources with the
National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation
Office, professional archaeologists, Native American
communities, and the general public.
4.4.1 Procure from the National Park Service copies of
reports describing archaeological, anthropological, and
historical investigations at Everglades National Park
and Big Cypress National Preserve. (Regional
Archaeologist)
4.4.2 Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
National Park Service and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to enhance law enforcement
of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation
Act, and Section 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as well as to facilitate investigations of the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act violations
and unpermitted artifact collection on the refuge.
(Regional Archaeologist)
4.4.3 Approach the Miccosukee and Seminole nations for
information on and input into the management of
significant cultural and sacred sites located within the
refuge. (Regional Archaeologist)
4.4.4 Work with local Native American communities to
develop an education program regarding their cultural
heritage. (Regional Archaeologist)
4.4.5 Identify potential avenues of archaeological and
historic investigations and promote interdisciplinary
research such as the Southwest Florida Project
directed by Dr. Marquardt of the University of Florida,
Gainesville. (Regional Archaeologist)
4.4.6 Negotiate an agreement with the Florida State
Museum or other appropriate facilities for the
permanent curation of archaeological collections and
associated documentation derived from archaeological
investigations on the refuge. (Regional Archaeologist)
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
26 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
4.4.7 Work with the State Historic Preservation Office to
ensure confidentiality of cultural resource data within
the refuge and the State of Florida. (Regional
Archaeologist)
5.0 Protect refuge cultural resources in accordance with federal and
state historic preservation legislation and regulations.
5.1 Conduct a refuge-wide archaeological survey by the
year 2005.
5.1.1 Develop a scope of work for a comprehensive
archaeological survey of the refuge, a cost estimate,
and ranking factors for contractor selection by
December 1998 (Regional Archaeologist). Secure
funding by 2001.
5.1.2 Develop and implement a plan to protect identified
sites in consultation with federally recognized Native
American nations, the State Historic Preservation
Office, and the professional archaeological community.
5.1.3 Develop a GIS layer for the refuge’s archaeological and
historic sites. The archaeological/historic layer will
mesh with such existing layers for habitat type,
vegetative cover, hydrology, and soils being developed
by the refuge staff. Layer parameters will be defined
by 1999. (Regional Archaeologist)
5.1.4 Work with the State Historic Preservation Office to
formally establish which refuge management actions
are considered “undertakings” requiring its review and
comment by 1999. (Regional Archaeologist)
5.1.5 By 2000, compile a comprehensive literature review of
past archaeological, anthropological, and historical
investigations within and near the refuge. Produce an
annotated bibliography to document the region’s
history and the utility of the scientific methodology.
(Regional Archaeologist)
5.1.6 By 2000, all refuge law enforcement officers will have
taken the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
training course.
5.2 Determine the significance of known cultural resources.
5.2.1 Determine site limits, chronology, and the integrity of
archaeological deposits. (Regional Archaeologist)
5.2.2 The Regional Archaeologist, consulting with the State
Historic Preservation Office and the Keeper’s Office,
will determine each site’s eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
6.0 Provide opportunities for compatible public use in accordance with
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
6.1 Develop an interpretive trail to allow access and enhance
public understanding of the panther and the refuge by the
year 2002. (Special Project No. 11)
6.1.1 Construct a 3/4-mile interpretive foot trail in association
with the proposed visitor center at the I-75/Highway
29 interchange. The trail will utilize low-impact design,
be self-guiding, and feature interpretive signs.
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
6.1.2 Utilize partnerships (Friends of the Panther Refuge
and others) to fund, construct, and maintain the trail,
interpretive exhibits and associated facilities.
6.2 Develop a wildlife viewing area for the moist-soil
management area located adjacent to SR 29. Facilities will
include a gravel parking area, bathroom, viewing platforms,
and interpretive signs. (Special Project No. 12)
6.3 Determine compatibility and feasibility of a hunting program
on the refuge by accomplishing the following sequential
strategies.
6.3.1 Inventory refuge deer and feral hog populations in
order to establish baseline indices. Implement
techniques developed from a current University of
Florida study to index deer abundance and conduct hog
monitoring surveys by the year 2000.
6.3.2 Utilize existing panther and hunting data, information
from the current University of Tennessee study, and
24-hour activity monitoring studies to evaluate
potential impacts of hunting on the panther and prey
resources. (Special Project No. 14)
6.3.3 Evaluate potential impacts of hunting on other refuge
activities and programs (research, management,
maintenance, public use, etc.). (Special Project No. 15)
6.3.4 Evaluate potential impacts that “hunt administration”
could have on other refuge programs (competition for
manpower, equipment, funding, etc).
6.3.5 Evaluate hunter access issues (access limitations,
potential impacts to roads/trails, etc.).
6.3.6 Determine if hunting would be considered compatible
with the primary purpose for which the refuge was
established.
6.3.7 Determine if hunting on the refuge would be in the
public interest.
6.4 Determine compatibility and feasibility of fishing at two sites
on the refuge.
6.4.1 By 2000, determine the mercury level of fish in Pistol
and Colding ponds by enlisting the cooperation of the
Service’s Ecological Services Division on sampling and
contaminants analysis. (Special Project No. 16)
6.4.2 Inventory fishery resources in Pistol and Colding
ponds by employing electro shocking techniques
through cooperation of the Service’s Fisheries Division.
6.4.3 Evaluate the costs, logistics, and safety considerations
in creating suitable sites for fishing in Pistol and
Colding ponds. The evaluation will consider options of
partnership assistance to defray costs and/or gain
assistance for site development. (Special Project No. 17)
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
28 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Plan Implementation
The future of this refuge, like most national wildlife refuges, is dependent
upon a public constituency that is knowledgeable of refuge resources and
mandates, as well as environmental issues, and is willing to work towards
resolving them. The expanded educational, recreational, and partnership
opportunities proposed in this plan will help build and maintain this needed
constituency. Promoting the refuge as a natural and recreational asset of
Collier County will enhance the refuge’s image and help expand local support.
Partnerships
Implementation of this plan will rely on partnerships formed with
landowners in the watershed, volunteers and interested citizens, farm and
conservation organizations, and with appropriate government agencies.
Cooperating landowners within the refuge watershed would be offered
incentives and/or compensated through cost-sharing agreements for
applying conservation and environmental farming practices and for
creating, maintaining, or enhancing habitat for wildlife. Annual
management workshops and periodic newsletters will enhance the
cooperative management within the Big Cypress Watershed.
Annual Work Plans
Future annual work plans will be
written to reflect the priorities and
intent of the plan. When
discretionary funding and staff
resources are available, they will be
used to implement components of
the plan.
Step-Down Plans
The plan provides conceptual
guidance for potential future
expansion, management, and
development of the refuge. Before
implementing the strategies and
projects, additional step-down
plans will need to be prepared.
These range from habitat
management and site development
plans to updating the fire
management plan. Refuge staff will
look for innovative partnerships
with local professional and business
groups to assist in preparing and
implementing detailed step-down
plans.
This list of step-down plans for the refuge include:
Plan Required Completion Date
Fire Management Plan FY98
Habitat Management Plan FY01
Refuge Visitor Services/Interpretive Plan FY01
Little blue heron
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Funding
The refuge was allocated $747,000
in FY 1997. The fire program
represents almost 40 percent of the
dollars allocated to the refuge.
Without this program, the refuge
could not function because general
operating funds are not keeping up
with staff and basic operating costs
of the refuge.
The increased funding required by
this plan will come through a
variety of internal and external
sources. New projects will be
identified in the Refuge Operating
Needs System (RONS). The refuge
staff will look for ways of
leveraging and matching dollars
through new and innovative sources
(both public and private). The full
implementation of this plan will be
dependent on Congressional
allocations and new sources of
funding as a result of partnerships
and grants.
The following summary provides
a list of refuge projects:
Project 1. Additional Base
Maintenance Funds
Additional base funding is needed
to address the arduous terrain
conditions of the refuge that
adversely impact equipment and
vehicles. Habitat management,
research, biological monitoring, law
enforcement, and public access
depend upon the successful
maintenance of: 4 swamp buggies, 5 all-terrain vehicles, 2 tractors, 1 dozer,
1 dozer transport, 1 dump truck, 1 front-end loader, and numerous assorted
2 and 4 wheel drive vehicles. In addition, this station maintains 1 airboat
and 3 boats (18-22 ft.) with 80-200 horsepower outboards for Ten Thousand
Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Three new staff positions are needed for
this project. An automotive mechanic to maintain and repair engines on
the various pieces of equipment and a maintenance worker to address the
minor repairs and scheduled maintenance needs of the equipment. The
additional maintenance, biological, and management programs would also
require the recruitment of an assistant refuge manager to manage and
facilitate program management. This assistant would be shared with Ten
Thousand Islands refuge. The estimated cost for these three full-time
employees is approximately $300,000 per year including employee benefits.
In addition, $100,000 is needed in base maintenance funds to address
equipment breakdowns, scheduled maintenance, and preventive
maintenance needs.
Project 2. Roger Roth Work Center Rehabilitation
Equipment storage and maintenance support facilities are performed out
of an old house containing a rotting, wooden frame which presents unsafe
conditions for staff and visitors. The Service will contract out ($200,000)
for the construction of 2 metal buildings, 25’x30', for logistical support and
facilitation of maintenance operations and equipment storage. Part of the
project would include the construction of new bathroom facilities and
septic system to accommodate staff additions. Approximately $30,000 is
needed for annual maintenance needs for the work center.
Green-backed heron
USFWS Photo by Nick Milam
30 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Project 3. Enhance Habitat Assessment through Geographic
Information System Analysis
To meet the refuge goal of assessing panther responses to habitat
management and watershed analysis, a GIS specialist is needed. This
person would digitize panther movements and habitat types on and off the
refuge. This person would assist other staff members and cooperating
agencies with their GIS needs. New hardware would also be required
including digitizing equipment, computer, printer and plotter. The
estimated hardware costs are $100,000, and the estimated cost of the GIS
specialist is $100,000 including employee benefits.
Project 4. Rare Orchid Restoration Project
Over 46 species of orchids have been documented in the Fakahatchee
Strand. These plants contribute in making southwest Florida a truly
unique natural environment. Many of these orchids have been pilfered by
humans and are now rare. Through a combination agency and organization
partnership, this project would restore rare orchid species to suitable,
historic habitats in southwest Florida. Cooperating land management
entities include: Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress
National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Picayune Strand
State Forest, CREW lands, and National Audubon Society’s Corkscrew
Sanctuary. The project is supported by state and federal agencies, Florida
Native Plant Society, and the Florida Orchid Society. The project would
focus on the creation of a small greenhouse at the refuge where orchids
would be grown for eventual transplantation. Land managers would
provide seed pods from a select list of rare orchids. The seeds would be
flasked by an orchid grower and grown at the refuge greenhouse until
ready for transplantation to selected native habitats. The plants would be
mapped using GPS technology and monitored for health and survival. One-time
funding of $20,000 is needed for the greenhouse building and
equipment costs. In addition, recurring funding ($20,000) for a temporary
greenhouse caretaker is needed.
Night-scented orchid
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
Cigar orchid
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Project 5. Research Project on the Effects of
Prescribed Fire on Saw Palmetto
The saw palmetto is a very important plant for wildlife in south Florida.
Not only does its fruit provide food for a multitude of animals, but the
dense thickets of this plant provide resting and denning cover for panthers.
Research is needed to determine the effects of fire on this plants growth
and fruit production. Research results would be helpful to refuge
managers as well as other land managers in south Florida. The study
would be under contract to a university or the federal biological research
division for 3 years at $50,000/year. The end products would result in
management recommendations to benefit the panther, and a peer-reviewed
paper in a biological periodical.
Project 6. Research Project on the Effects of
Prescribed Fire on Reptile Populations
The refuge contains a large reptile population. One endangered species,
the eastern indigo snake, is present on the refuge. Prescribed fire effects
on reptile populations is not well known. Basic research is needed to
evaluate how prescribe burning parameters such as season, ignition
methods, and burn rotation affects refuge reptiles. Research results would
help refuge managers and other land managers in south Florida. The study
would be under contract to a university or the federal biological research
division for 3 years at $50,000/year. The end product would result in
management recommendations to benefit reptiles on the refuge, and a
peer-reviewed paper in a biological periodical.
Project 7. Invasive Exotic Plant Species Control
Invasive exotic plants are a major threat to the native plant communities
of south Florida. Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, cogon grass and climbing
fern are the refuge problem species. This project will help stop the
encroachment of these invasive plants by supporting a control program
containing the following elements: the acquisition of a 4-wheel drive, 75hp
Prescribed burn at Florida Panther Refuge
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
tractor ($50,000) to pull a herbicide spray rig; the initiation of a seasonal
plant control crew consisting of 2 seasonal workers ($20,000); maintenance
funds for spray equipment and personnel safety ($10,000); and $5,000 for
herbicide costs. In addition, $3,000 per year is needed for Service
sponsorship of an annual Invasive Exotic Plant Workshop. The Workshop
would provide a forum where state, federal, and private land managers of
southwest Florida could meet and discuss problem plants, successful
control techniques, equipment and project partnerships, and network on
the invasive exotic plant problem. The estimated cost for this project is
$88,000, with recurring costs of $38,000/year.
Project 8. Baseline Populations of Amphibians and Invertebrates
Knowledge on the animal diversity of an area is critical to habitat
management assessment and planning. These are the last of the animal
groups that have yet to be inventoried on the refuge. The plan proposes to
temporarily hire or contract out the inventory of these animals to
determine baseline levels. Data collection would include species lists and a
reference study collection which would take place over a period of a year
for each group. The estimated cost for these surveys is $30,000.
Project 9. Recruit a Hydrologist to Analyze Watershed Needs
It is clearly evident, as a result of information received during the planning
process, that watershed protection and a coordinated watershed
management effort is needed to protect the natural resources of southwest
Florida. The two Service refuges in Collier County are located within the
Big Cypress Watershed and are intimately involved in all planning that
will occur within the watershed. A hydrologist is needed to fully assess the
impacts of various surface projects planned on and off the refuge within
the watershed. One planned project is the re-hydration of the South
Golden Gate Estates, which will effect both refuges. The hydrologist would
also provide information to adjacent land managers, as well as county,
state, and federal land planning efforts for south Florida. This position
would be shared with Ten Thousand Islands refuge. The estimated cost for
this position is $100,000/year including employee benefits.
Project 10. Develop Education Facilities
As information from the public clearly pointed out during the planning
process, the key to success will be public education and support of refuge
programs and the panther recovery effort. The Service has no education/
interpretation facilities in Collier County aside from a temporary display
placed in the Southwest Florida Environmental Information Center. Two
sites are planned for refuge exhibits and environmental information
materials. One site will be located adjacent to the Florida Panther refuge
on Florida Department of Environmental Protection lands at the
intersection of highways I-75 and SR29. At this location, a multi-agency
visitor center is planned that will display the various land management
programs and restoration efforts underway for south Florida. The Service
will need an estimated $100,000 to create 4-8 exhibits. The site could also
serve as an environmental education center for the youth of Collier
County. Its central location between Everglades City, Naples, and
Immokalee, as well as access to the Big Cypress Swamp, offers an ideal
location for this venture. Another $100,000 is estimated as the Service’s
share needed for the building and educational materials. The second site is
at the Southwest Florida Environmental Information Center adjacent to
Ten Thousand Islands refuge and Port of the Islands Hotel. An estimated
$20,000 is needed to fund 4 exhibits that would include information on
Florida Panther refuge and the panther recovery effort. A public use
specialist would be recruited to plan, maintain, and coordinate staffing of
the centers, as well as coordinate volunteer activities on the refuge. The
extra administrative duties would also require an additional clerical
position for the refuge. These two positions would cost an estimated
$175,000/year with employee benefits.
Eastern indigo snake
Project 11. Develop an Interpretive Foot Trail
Through a combination of volunteer partnerships, multi-agency
coordination, and cost-share funding opportunities, construct a 1/2-3/4 mile
interpretive foot trail on the refuge. The trail would be located in the
southeast corner of the refuge where limited panther activity has
occurred. The trail would also be accessed from the proposed I-75 Visitor
Center. The trail would feature low-impact design and self-guiding
interpretive exhibits that would enhance public understanding of the
panther and refuge programs. Portions of the trail that are wet would have
boardwalks constructed over them. A gravel parking area and vault
bathroom facilities would be constructed at the trail head. The estimated
cost of this project is $40,000 with $10,000/year maintenance costs after the
first year.
Project 12. Develop Waterbird Habitat and a Wildlife Viewing Area
On the east side of the refuge, adjacent to SR29, lies a 400-acre disturbed
area that was farmed prior to refuge establishment. The cypress and other
mixed swamp tree species were cut to accommodate these farm fields. This
area now is a mixture of wetland grasses and shrub. This project proposes
to manage approximately 50-100 acres of the area as moist-soil
impoundments. Three or four cell units surrounding a hardwood hammock
would be managed at different water levels to benefit migrating and
resident waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds. The area would be
accessible to the public to view the birds and the successful management
operation. Collier County has limited opportunities for safe wildlife
viewing and such an area would be a tremendous asset for southwest
Florida. Because the area is so wet, it has limited use by panthers. Initial
costs include the restoration of farm field levees ($30,000), water pumping
facilities ($80,000), construction of parking area ($25,000), vault bathroom
($12,000), and interpretive signs ($15,000). The project would require
recurring maintenance costs of $20,000/year.
Project 13. Initiate a Panther and Ecosystem Outreach Program
Educating the public about refuge management, the plight of the panther,
and recovery efforts clearly is the key to a successful program. To
implement such a program will require a coordinated, cooperative effort
between federal, state, and private entities. The Service proposes to
enhance the refuge program by adding a media specialist to keep the news
outlets informed of current and planned events. In addition, the public use
specialist identified in Project 10 would develop and distribute panther
information to school program coordinators. The media specialist is
estimated to cost $100,000/year including employee benefits and will be a
shared position with Ten Thousand Islands refuge.
Project 14. Research Project - Potential Impacts of Hunting on
Panthers/24-Hour Activity Monitoring
More information is needed in order to make a compatibility determination
on whether hunting should be permitted on Florida Panther refuge. This
study would follow the same design as the current study by Professor Joe
Clark of the University of Tennessee, however, the data would be gathered
on panthers over a 24-hour activity period. GPS satellite telemetry would
have to be employed or another technology designed to gather the same
information. The refuge would again serve as a control site where hunting
does not occur. Research results would help refuge managers and other
land managers in south Florida to make compatibility determinations on
hunting. The study would be under contract to a university or the federal
biological research division for 3 years at $50,000/year. The end product
would be a peer-reviewed paper in a biological periodical.
Snowy egret with young
USFWS Photo by David Hall
34 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Project 15. Research Project - Potential Impacts of Hunting on Other
Refuge Programs
This study would also help management make a compatibility
determination on hunting for Florida Panther refuge. Data obtained from
Project 15 would be evaluated by refuge biologists in conjunction with
ongoing and planned research to determine if hunting activity may have an
adverse impact on refuge programs. The project would be undertaken with
existing resources and would not require additional funding resources.
Project 17. Research Project - Determine the Mercury Levels of Fish
in Pistol and Colding Ponds
Past fish collections from Pistol and Colding ponds have indicated varying
mercury levels, but all were high and some records exceeded human
consumption standards. To better understand the contamination level,
more sampling is prudent. This will be a cooperative effort requiring
fishery assistance (electro-shock boat) from either a state or federal
agency. In addition, $5,000-10,000 is needed to run the mercury tests.
Project 18. Evaluate the Safety and Feasibility of a Fishing Program
for Colding and Pistol Ponds
This study would also help management make a compatibility
determination on fishing on Florida Panther refuge. Colding and Pistol
ponds are not natural lakes. They are actually pits created after fill
material was excavated for SR29. The banks are not gradual, but steep
sided, with nearly a vertical drop of 10-15 feet around the entire bank. This
presents an extremely hazardous bank fishing situation, especially if small
children were involved. To remedy this hazard the bank slope would have
to be cut or filled. Another measure may include the construction of a
fishing pier. In addition, the existing fishery is extremely limited, thus the
reason for the shock boat requirement in Project 17. Refuge staff will
assess these various factors and determine if a fishing program is
compatible and worth the expense of initiating the program. No additional
costs will be incurred with this evaluation project.
Snowy egreta and Glossy ibis
USFWS Photo by Diane Borden-Billiot
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Volunteers
Volunteer assistance to the refuge grew appreciably during the last two
years due to substantial contributions of the AmeriCorps volunteers and to
various individuals working on biological projects. Not considering
AmeriCorps assistance, a total of 51 volunteers contributed 1865 hours in
three major areas in 1996; i.e., resource management, administration, and
public use support. Most assistance was gained in wildlife monitoring.
Volunteers will continue to play a critical role in assisting staff with
fulfilling the future vision of the refuge. In addition, while not required of
all those who participate in the group “Friends of the Panther Refuge,”
many of these interested citizens will be enlisted as volunteers to perform
various refuge activities.
Staff
A staff of thirteen permanent and six temporary/seasonal positions has
been approved for the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Nine additional positions are proposed to work specifically on
implementing the refuge comprehensive conservation plan. Five of these
positions will be shared with Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife
Refuge. These include an easement biologist, auto mechanic, maintenance
worker, public use specialist, administrative assistant (shared), GIS
specialist (shared), hydrologist (shared), assistant refuge manager
(shared), and a media specialist (shared). Figure 12 displays the
organizational diagram for the future management of Florida Panther and
Ten Thousand Islands refuges.
Figure 11. Project Cost Summary
Projects One Time Cost First-Year Need Recurring Base
1. Add Base Maintenance Funds $200,000 $400,000 $400,000
2. Replace Work Center Buildings 100,000 230,000 30,000
3. GIS Specialist 20,000 200,000 100,000
4. Orchid Restoration Project 150,000 40,000 20,000
5. Prescribed Fire/Saw Palmetto 150,000 150,000
6. Prescribed Fire/Reptiles 150,000 150,000
7. Exotic Plant Species Control 50,000 88,000 38,000
8. Amphibians and Invertebrates 30,000 30,000
9. Hydrologist/Watershed Needs 100,000 100,000
10. Develop Education Facilities 220,000 395,000 175,000
11. Interpretive Foot Trail 40,000 50,000 10,000
12. Waterbird Habitat / Viewing Area 172,000 192,000 20,000
13. Outreach Program 100,000 100,000
14. Panthers/24-Hour Monitoring 150,000 150,000
15. Impacts of Hunting on Programs 0 0
16. Mercury Levels in Ponds 10,000 10,000
17. Feasibility of Fishing Program 0 0
TOTALS $1,442,000 $2,285,000 $993,000
36 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Forestry Technician
GS-04
Forestry Technician
GS-04
Forestry Technician
GS-04
Forestry Technician
GS-04
Forestry Technician
GS-05
Forestry Technician
GS-05
Engine Equipment Operator
WG-08
Fire Control Officer
GS-07
Fire Management Officer
GS-11
Fire Management
Program
Public Use Specialist
GS-09**
Media Specialist
GS-11
Environmental Education/Outreach
Program
Law Enforcement Officer
GS-08
Law Enforcement
Program
Maintenance Worker
WG-07
Auto Mechanic
WG-09
Assistant Refuge Manager
GS-07/09**
Wildlife Biological Technician
GS-07**
Hydrologist
GS-11
GIS Specialist
GS-11
Easement Wildlife Biologist
GS-11**
Wildlife Biologist
GS-11**
Wildlife/Habitat Management
Program
Administrative Assistant
GS-05
Administrative Assistant
GS-08
Administration
Program
Deputy Refuge Manager
GS-13
Private Lands Biologist
GS-11/12**
Refuge Manager
GS-14
Monitoring and Evaluation
Extensive research and monitoring of natural resources have always been
a major part of the management of the refuge. Some of the studies target
the collection of baseline data on the environmental parameters of the
area. This knowledge will give managers a data base on which to judge
how habitat management, changes in water quantity and quality, or other
environmental changes have impacted refuge resources. A major objective
of research studies is that the products will benefit not only the refuge but
other land managers as well. Most research has centered on panthers,
deer, and the effects of the prescribed burning program on habitat and
wildlife.
The plan will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans to
address management actions in support of refuge goals and objectives and
to implement the identified strategies. Every five years the plan will be
revisited to document progress and reassess direction. Public involvement
in evaluating progress and plan implementation will be encouraged.
Figure 12. Organizational Structure
for Future Management
Note
(**) Indicates positions filled exclusively for Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and/or Refuge Easement Program. All other positions are shared with Ten
Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
APPENDIX A
Draft
Finding of No Significant Impact
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Collier County, Florida
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to publicly disclose the possible environmental consequences that
implementation of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan could have on
the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969.
The Service has analyzed the following alternatives to the proposal in an Environmental Assessment.
1). Alternative A (No Action) Advocates the refuge continue to be managed under its current management
direction. The refuge has been closed to public access except for limited, small group tours. Essentially, the
refuge is managed as inviolate sanctuary for the endangered Florida panther;
2). Alternative B (Ecosystem Approach) Meets the needs of the resources, and allows some access to the public
for wildlife observation and environmental education. The Service would also study the compatibility and
feasibility of allowing hunting and fishing to occur on the refuge; and,
3). Alternative C (Maximum Public Use Programs on the Refuge) Emphasizes public use and environmental
education programs on the refuge. Those activities would be allowed, coupled with research to determine their
impact on the endangered Florida panther.
The preferred alternative selected for implementation is Alternative B; implement the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and establish refuge management direction pursuant to the
goals, objectives, and strategies contained in the plan. This alternative was selected because it best meets the
primary purposes for which the refuge was established--protecting and enhancing panther habitat while
maintaining natural diversity. This alternative recognizes the importance of the refuge within the Big Cypress
Watershed and defines refuge actions to protect and enhance the natural features of this ecosystem.
Implementation of the agency’s decision would be expected to result in the following environmental, social, and
economic effects: This alternative will provide the public with limited access to the refuge, which has been a
major issue. This access will benefit refuge programs by informing the public about refuge programs, the plight
of the panther, and other wildlife that use the refuge. The conservation easement program will facilitate the
protection of panther habitats in south Florida and involve only willing private landowners. The program should
prove to be a major step in the conservation of critical resources within the South Florida Ecosystem.
Visitation will be monitored for its impacts on flora and fauna of the refuge. Development of new refuge facilities
will cause minimal disturbance to refuge lands. It will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species or
adversely impact wetlands, neither will it harm nor cause the loss or destruction of archaeological or historical
resources. The preferred alternative will restore 40 acres of disturbed wetlands in refuge compartment No. 12;
513 acres of disturbed wetlands within refuge compartment Nos. 42 and 44; 800 acres of wetlands within Lucky
Lake and Stumpy strands; and, achieve protection of 370,000 acres of priority panther habitat in southwest
Florida. This alternative will have a positive effect on visitor use, environmental education, conservation of
natural resources, and local communities.
Measures to mitigate and/or minimize adverse effects have been incorporated into the proposal. Where site
development activities will be proposed during the next 15 years, each activity would be given the appropriate
NEPA consideration. At that time, any required mitigation activities would be designed into the specific project
to reduce any significant adverse impacts to the environment. Long-term monitoring will help in determining
actual effects and how the Service should respond.
The proposal is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to
Executive Orders 11990 and 11988.
38 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Finding Of No Significant Impact
The preferred alternative has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. A list of
parties contacted may be found in Appendix C of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available by writing:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
It is my determination that the preferred alternative will not have a significant impact on the human environment
in accordance with Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, and in accordance with the
Service’s Administrative Manual (30 AM.9B(2)(d), and further conclude that an Environmental Impact Statement
is not necessary. This determination is based on the following factors (40 CFR 1508.27):
1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a significant
effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 58-61.)
2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental
Assessment, pages 58-61.)
3. The project will not significantly effect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as
proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
(Environmental Assessment, pages 58, 59, and 61.)
4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial.
(Environmental Assessment, page 58.)
5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human
environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 58-61.)
6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor does it
represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, pages
58-61.)
7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have
been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and in
foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, page 64.)
8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National
Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural,
or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, page 61.)
9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, or their habitats.
(Environmental Assessment, pages 59-60.)
10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of
the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 66-74.)
Supporting References:
Environmental Assessment
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
_________________________
Sam D. Hamilton
Regional Director
_________________________
Date
APPENDIX A - FONSI
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Draft Environmental
Assessment
for the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
August 1998
Purpose and Need for Action
Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the management of the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Collier, County, Florida, over the next
ten to fifteen years.
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to analyze and evaluate
the environmental effects of implementing a proposed alternative
management framework for the refuge.
The proposed action is to implement Alternative B: Ecosystem Approach,
as described in the Proposed Management Direction of the Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Formal consultation for this Environmental Assessment did not occur.
However, this planning effort and the refuge manager’s ongoing dialogue
with various federal and state jurisdictions, interest groups, and private
landowners, has provided important elements in the synthesis of the
proposed goals, objectives, and strategies found in the draft plan.
Implementation of the plan will necessitate further coordination and
cooperation with these entities.
APPENDIX A
White-tail deer fawn
Photo by the U.S. Forest Service
40 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Alternatives Including Proposed Action
The following alternatives address the major issues regarding Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge. Each alternative will be analyzed for its
appropriateness in meeting the needs of the public and purpose/mission of
the refuge. The end result is a set of goals, objectives, and strategies
related to each issue which would assist in making management decisions.
Alternative A: No Action
Access:
In this alternative, the plan would advocate that the refuge continue to be
managed under its current management direction. The refuge has been
closed to public access except for limited, small group tours. Essentially,
the refuge is managed as an inviolate sanctuary for the endangered
Florida panther.
Due to the sensitive nature of the endangered species associated with the
refuge, the environmental education and public use programs would not be
expanded, in that no interpretive or recreational trails would not be
developed, neither would there be a hunting nor a fishing program. The
refuge currently offers access for limited small group tours and outreach
opportunities for school groups off the refuge. Instead, this alternative
advocates more of an “off-refuge” approach which would still meet
interpretive and educational goals.
Cooperative Land Management and Partnerships within the
Big Cypress Watershed:
Currently, there are limited partnering opportunities with adjacent
landowners and governmental agencies to cooperatively manage the
watershed for the protection of hydrologic, ecological, and environmental
values of the system.
The manager is a trustee for the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed, a 50,000-acre proposed natural area north of the refuge. The
manager has also been a member of the State of Florida Big Cypress
Basin Ecological Management Area Team and the Big Cypress Basis
Project Coordination Team for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
effort. The manager is also an ex-officio member of the Natural Resources
Committee for the University of Florida Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences in southwest Florida. In addition, the manager
serves on the Big Cypress Basin Science Workshop Steering Committee
and the oversight committee for ecological monitoring of the proposed
hydrologic restoration of the South Golden Gate Estates. Lastly, the
manager serves as the chairman of the multi-agency committee to
establish an environmental information center at the Port of the Islands.
Public Awareness of the Panther and Refuge Programs:
The refuge would remain closed to public access. Due to the lack of a
visitor contact station at the refuge, the public would have limited means
of obtaining important information on the panther, its habitat, or refuge
programs. Opportunities for increased environmental education would not
be promoted, and partnering for better watershed management and
habitat conservation would not be pursued.
Protect Panther Habitat on Private Lands:
No incentives would be provided to encourage private landowners to sell
their land or maintain important panther habitat beyond the boundaries of
the refuge.
APPENDIX A - Environmental Assessment
Wood storks
Photo by John and Karen Hollingsworth
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Refuge Research and Management:
Research projects such as panther monitoring, prescribed fire impacts, and
plant, animal and hydrological baseline monitoring exist. Current
management practices would continue, but not modified or expanded. Day-to-
day operational activities would continue to revolve around intensive
field work regarding management of habitats for the panther and other
species of concern such as the wood stork. The refuge is currently used as
a control site (non-hunting area) for studies that are ongoing and planned
in the future to determine the impacts of human activities on the panther.
Routine field work includes monitoring and observing panther activities,
ecosystem assessments of water quality issues, prescribed burning, and
habitat manipulation to improve deer forage. There would be no public
use program.
Lack of Adequate Staff:
The refuge cannot successfully meet its Service or South Florida
Ecosystem responsibilities at current staffing levels. These responsibilities
go beyond habitat management on the refuge for the panther.
Gas and Oil Exploration:
Most of the refuge’s subsurface minerals are not owned by the
Government. Surface mineral exploration has not occurred since the
refuge was established. However, a plan for seismic work and oil well
exploration from Collier interests has been submitted to the refuge.
Exploration will have an impact on the resources of the refuge. The
Service will review the plan to minimize these impacts.
Supporting Management Goals:
1.0 Provide optimum habitat conditions for the Florida panther with
special consideration for other endangered and threatened species.
2.0 Restore and conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and
ecological function of refuge flora and fauna.
Wood storks and Great egrets
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
42 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative B: Ecosystem Approach (Proposed Action)
A description of the Ecosystem Approach may be found in the Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
APPENDIX A - Environmental Assessment
American aligator
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Alternative C: Maximize Public Use Programs on the Refuge
Access:
Maximum public use and environmental education programs would be
stepped up considerably. Facilities such as parking lots, paved roads,
trails, auto loops, and restrooms would be developed on the refuge to
accommodate increased public use. Secondary uses such as hunting,
fishing, and camping would also be allowed and coupled with some
research to determine if those uses are compatible with the purpose of the
refuge. Secondary uses on the
refuge would risk inflicting adverse
impacts on the panther and/or
jeopardizing habitat needs of the
panther. Research and monitoring
would be minimized because they
would conflict with public use
management. There would be no
need or regard for additional
research except for that which
would aid management in
determining whether to disallow or
increase secondary uses and
activities on the refuge.
Cooperative Land Management and
Partnerships Within
Big Cypress Watershed:
Less emphasis than Alternative B
will be placed on working with the
local community, private
landowners, and other jurisdictions.
General partnerships on
management and cooperation with various watershed entities that would
lead to overall land and watershed protection and stewardship of the
resources would be pursued. More communication and coordination with
the other land managers within the watershed would occur.
Public Awareness of the Panther and Refuge Programs:
Activities designed to educate the public would be limited to on-refuge
programs only. Plans to develop a multi-agency visitor center would
be pursued.
Protect Panther Habitat on Private Lands:
There would be no efforts to protect the panther on private lands. All
management efforts would be focused towards on-refuge activities.
Refuge Research and Management:
Current research practices would continue with the development of some
new partnerships for research to benefit refuge management specifically
targeting the effects of secondary use activities.
Lack of Adequate Staff:
Additional staff would be needed to enhance the education and outreach
program on the refuge.
Gas and Oil Exploration:
Resources would be managed to minimize the adverse impacts of gas and
oil exploration on the refuge.
Supporting Management Goals:
4.0 Promote interagency and private landowner cooperation for the
management of natural and cultural resources within the Big
Cypress Watershed.
6.0 Provide opportunities for compatible public use in accordance with
the National Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Waterfowl
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
44 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative A
No Action
Limit to current levels of small
group tours
No hunting or fishing
Limited on-refuge and off-refuge
activities
No multi-agency visitor center
Limited partnering for panther
habitat protection, watershed
protection, and ecosystem
restoration
No conservation easement
program
Limited off-refuge ecosystem
restoration
Continue existing research to
refine management programs
on the refuge
Maintain current staffing
Manage resources to help
minimize the adverse impacts
of gas and oil exploration
Alternative C
Maximum Public Use
Increase access
a) develop interpretive trail
b) develop waterbird viewing
area
c) develop additional hiking
with interpretation
c) develop additional wildlife
viewing areas along I-75 and
SR 29
Study compatibility of hunting
and fishing
Limited to on-refuge education
Develop multi-agency visitor
center
Develop partnerships to
protect panther habitat on
refuge
No conservation easement
program
Limited off-refuge ecosystem
restoration projects
Continue existing research to
refine management programs
on refuge
Increase staffing
Manage resources to help
minimize the adverse impacts
of gas and oil exploration
Alternative B
Ecosystem Approach
Increase access
a) develop interpretive trail
b) develop waterbird viewing
area
Study compatibility of hunting
and fishing
Increased education efforts on-refuge
and off-refuge
Develop multi-agency visitor
center
Develop partnerships to co-op;
manage watershed to protect
panther habitat, hydrology,
ecology, and environmental
values of the system
Maximum conservation
easement program;
10,000 acres adjacent to refuge;
360,000 acres in southwest
Florida
Develop off-refuge ecosystem
restoration projects
Implement new research and
develop new partnerships to
continually enhance refuge
research projects and
management programs on and
off the refuge
Increase staffing
Acquire mineral rights to
protect refuge surface
resources
Figure 13. Issues and Alternatives Matrix
Public Access
Outreach
Cooperative
Management
and Partnerships
Research and
Management
Lack of Adequate
Staffing
Oil and Gas
APPENDIX A - Environmental Assessment
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Affected Environment
The refuge encompasses the northern origin of the Fakahatchee Strand,
which is the largest cypress strand in the Big Cypress drainage basin.
Orchids and other rare swamp plants grow within the swamp’s interior.
The refuge contains a diverse mix of pine forests, cypress domes, marl
prairies, hardwood hammocks, and lakes surrounded by swamps.
In addition to the panther, 20 other species of animals are found in the
refuge vicinity that are either state or federally listed as endangered,
threatened, or species of special concern. The Florida black bear, alligator,
wood stork, roseate spoonbill, limpkin, eastern indigo snake, Florida
grasshopper sparrow, Everglades mink, and Big Cypress fox squirrel are a
few examples. Other resident wildlife include whitetail deer and feral hogs,
which are important panther prey species. Turkey and bobwhite quail are
also found on the refuge.
Climate
The subtropical climate is directly responsible for many of the refuge’s
features. It is warm enough to permit year-round growth of many forms
of plant life and wet enough to replenish the areas of standing water
during the rainy season. Temperatures occasionally fall below freezing in
winter and rise above 90°F during the summer with an average annual
temperature of about 73°F.
Physiography and Hydrology
The refuge lies within the Big Cypress Swamp physiographic region of
Florida. The Swamp covers more than 2,400 square miles of subtropical
area in southwest Florida. “Swamp” is a misnomer, for the land contains a
variety of wet and dry habitat types. However, the cypress tree is the
predominate tree of the area. The Tamiami Limestone formation
underlies all of the refuge and is approximately 6 million years old. The
formation is capped by hard rock under which are found sand, silts and
clays, shell marks, and shell-free, greenish clay. A thin layer of sand,
sandy marl, clay and fine shell cover prairie and flatwood areas, while a
thicker organic peat ranging in thickness to 7 feet can be found in the
hammocks and strands. The refuge is relatively flat, ranging from 11 to 16
feet above mean sea level, with drainage from north to south.
More than 75 percent of the rain normally falls during the six-month wet
season of May through October. Summer rains are usually intense,
frequent, and short in duration. Winter is a drier period, where rains are
usually the result of large frontal systems and are longer in duration, but
less intense. Rainfall averages 55 inches per year. During the summer
rainy season, shallow depressions fill with water and because of the poor
drainage, most of the water remains standing until it evaporates or slowly
drains. Thus, as much as 90 percent of the area is inundated to depths
ranging from a few inches to more than 3 feet at the height of the rainy
season. During the winter drydown, water is concentrated in depressions
formed by low spots in the bedrock or the deepest parts of the strands.
The refuge lies within the center of a major watershed that has
importance to man and the environment (Figure 13). The Corkscrew
Regional Ecosystem Watershed and the Okaloacoochee Slough form the
two northern origins of the watershed. Water from these wetlands flows
through the refuge and south through the Fakahatchee and Picayune
strands into the Ten Thousand Islands coastal area. These wetlands
provide flood protection to the urban and agricultural areas of southwest
Florida by filling up and holding water from the major rainfall events that
frequently occur in south Florida. These wetlands also filter and cleanse
these waters before they enter the aquifer and storage reservoirs that are
tapped for drinking water. In addition, they provide habitat for a diverse
system of plants and animals, unique to Florida and the United States.
Most of the remaining Florida panthers, Big Cypress fox squirrels, and
Florida black bear
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
46 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges within the Big Cypress Watershed
APPENDIX A - Environmental Assessment
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
Everglades minks can only be found in this system. Subtropical palms,
orchids and other selected tropical plants in this area are found no where else
in the United States.
A major agricultural area lies just north of the refuge. Large tracts of
lands have been cleared to produce vegetables and citrus. The quantity
and quality of the water draining from these operations are undergoing
long-term monitoring to determine their impacts on the refuge. Questions
persist as to how much of the watershed in private ownership can be
developed into agriculture, ranching, or urbanization before major
functions and attributes of the wetland ecosystem are lost.
Soils
Soils are predominantly organic peats in the mixed hardwood strand areas
ranging in thickness up to 7 feet. A thin layer of mineral soil, especially
marl and sand, is dominant on the prairies.
Vegetative Habitats
The Service and others are concerned for the refuge’s long-term
environmental health and wildlife productivity. Nationwide studies have
documented a declining status of numerous vegetative and wetland-dependent
wildlife populations. These declines have been attributed to
habitat loss and alteration. While the refuge was logged forty to fifty years
ago, cypress forests have regrown. However, the adjoining land use has
exerted influences to alter refuge habitats. Ditching for residential and
agricultural development near the refuge has altered refuge hydrology and
has promoted generally drier soils which has promoted an expansion of
cabbage palms. More and more it is recognized that the long-term
biological health of the refuge is highly dependent upon the ecological
health of the watershed.
Eight major habitat types have been described for the refuge
(Fakahatchee Strand Environmental Assessment 1985). These include:
Mixed Hardwood Swamp Forests:
This community is dominated by diverse hardwoods, including red maple,
sweet bay, pop ash, wax myrtle, cocoplum, dahoon holly, myrsine, willow,
red bay, and swamp bay. Pure stands of pond apple may grow in the
wettest areas, while live oak may dominate on higher ground.
Cypress Forests:
This community type consists of strand, dome, and cypress prairie forests.
Pond cypress may dominate, but bald cypress does occur. The strands are
common where there is sufficient water and flow to generate a depression
channel, but the gradient is low and actual water flow is seldom observed.
The strands are elongated, contiguous stands of cypress. Many hardwood
species (red bay, swamp bay, wax mrytle, cocoplum)may be interspersed.
Domes are characterized by dense, tall pond cypress. Domes occupy
depressions in the mineral soil underlain by marl and limestone bedrock.
Peat accumulates in the depressions and provides a substrate for the
cypress. Similar hardwood species as occur in the strands are also found in
the domes. The cypress prairies are also called hatrack or dwarf cypress,
because the cypress trees have a stunted growth form and are widely
spaced. Rainfall is the most significant source of water for the prairies
where vegetation density and diversity are low. Sawgrass, muhly grass,
and other herbs and grasses make up the ground vegetation of this prairie.
Prairies:
Prairies are associations of mixed grasses, sedges and other herbaceous
plants with few trees. Common species in wet prairie include maidencane,
blackhead rush, star dichhromena, muhly, water dropwort, and sawgrass.
Common species in dry prairies include saw palmetto, and some of the
grasses and sedges found in the pine forest.
Wood storks
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
48 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Hammocks:
Hammocks are composed of dense forests of hardwood trees, palms,
shrubs, vines, ferns, and numerous epiphytes. They represent climax
vegetation on the region and generally possess more tropical species than
any of the other community types. Individual hammocks are generally
characterized by maple and laurel oak in lower areas, with live oak and
cabbage palm on higher areas. Subtropical hammocks support the greatest
number of rare and threatened plants. Most of these are epiphytes from
the bromeliad, orchid, and fern families.
Mixed Pine and Cypress Forests:
These are open forests of pine, cypress, and cabbage palm. These forests
have mixed understory vegetation that ranges from herbaceous plants to
hardwood trees.
Pine Forests:
These communities are open forests of southern slash pine, cabbage palm,
saw palmetto, and scattered hardwood shrubs and trees.
Pop Ash or Pond Apple Sloughs and Ponds:
These plant communities occur in the deepest drainage area that meanders
through the center of the Fakahatchee Strand where, under natural
conditions, there would be some water standing year round. The dominate
trees are pop ash, pond apple, cypress, willow, and the bays. Plants in the
shrub and ground cover zones include buttonbush, leather fern, alligator
flag, whitevine and morning glory.
Lakes:
Many small (1-20 acre) lakes are scattered throughout the refuge. The
lakes or ponds are shallow (1-4 feet deep), except for Colding and Pistol
ponds which have depths of 10-15 feet. These two ponds were artificially
excavated for SR 29 road base material. Some common vegetation include
pickerel weed, alligator flag, floating lemna and wolffiella, and submergent
bladderwort and naiad. A few have emergent stands of giant cutgrass.
APPENDIX A Figure 15. Vegetative Habitats Map - Environmental Assessment
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
Water Resources
The refuge does not have any water control structures or means for water
control at this time. However, the Service is involved in a water
management project for the west side of the refuge. Lucky Lake Strand
and Stumpy Strand are two wetland features comprised of more than 3,000
acres of cypress swamp, mixed swamp, wet prairies, marshes and ponds.
The strands receive water from
direct rainfall, and runoff from
surrounding uplands and Camp
Keais Strand to the north. Natural
drainage of these strands changed
with the construction of the Golden
Gate Estates east of Naples in the
1960s. This project included the
excavation of 183 miles of canals to
drain wetlands for residential
development. South of the refuge,
Merritt Canal is one of four canals
which drain South Golden Gate
Estates into the Faka Union
system. In addition to draining
large areas along the canal south of
I-75, the canal’s northern origin is
the southern terminus of the Lucky
Lake Strand. This resulted in the
chronic drainage of both Lucky
Lake and Stumpy strands north of
the highway.
The Service has entered into an agreement with the South Florida Water
Management District to proceed with the construction of a low-head water
control structure on the south side of I-75 at the origin of Merritt Canal.
This control structure will be designed to slow the drainage within these
two strands to closely match their original hydroperiods. The restoration
of this wetland system will enhance the Lucky Lake and Stumpy strands
for endangered species, colonial wading birds and waterfowl.
Wildlife Resources
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is known for its diversity
and abundance of wildlife. A total of 126 breeding and non-breeding bird
species have been identified; an additional 35 species probably occur on the
refuge. Forty-six species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on
the refuge and another 15 species are known to occur in close proximity to
the refuge. Twenty-two species of mammals are known to occur on the
refuge and another 11 species are known to occur in close proximity to the
refuge. A variety of fish species, representing 13 families, occur in the area.
The Wildlife Inventory Plan, completed in August 1990, is in need of
revision to remove ineffective or logistically impractical surveys and
inventories and replace them with more accurate and cost effective
techniques. Trend data from surveys is still being run and will be evaluated
to assist with revisions to the inventory plan that are necessary to help
meet the mission of the refuge.
The following information lists some of the more common species of
wildlife found on the refuge:
Neotropical Birds
More than 116 species of neotropical migrants have been recorded in the
South Florida Ecosystem. Both resident and migratory passerine birds
utilize refuge habitats. The refuge is home to at least 25 species year round
with the great crested flycatcher, Carolina wren, northern mockingbird,
red bellied woodpecker, and cardinal being the most common species. More
than 30 migratory species comprise the majority of passerines that
frequent the refuge. Common migrants include tree swallows, American
robin, white-eyed vireo, black and white warbler, yellow rumped warbler,
palm warbler, and blue-gray gnatcatcher.
American alligator
USFWS Photo by Diane Border-Billiot
White ibis
USFWS photo by Larry W. Richardson
50 Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
The South Florida Ecosystem is located along one of the primary
migratory routes for bird species that breed in temperate North America
and winter in the tropics of the Caribbean and South America. To further
assess the species composition and the abundance of neotropical migrants,
the refuge has established a standardized survey across a mostly wooded
section of the refuge. This survey is coordinated with the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission to contribute to the Partners in Flight
Program. The survey route is monitored for a minimum of six weeks
during the spring and fall migrations. Though this survey route largely
traverses woodland habitats, the refuge has enlisted both researchers and
volunteers to document as many as 18 other migrant passerines that are
thought to occur on the refuge.
Waterfowl
Staff frequently see wood ducks in the ponds, swamps, and flooded buggy
trails on the refuge. Due to extensive logging of cypress in the
Fakahatchee Strand in the 1940s, there is a lack of nesting cavities. Ducks
Unlimited funded a nest box program in 1991 and the station purchased 25
cypress box kits, poles, and other materials. Since their installation in 1991,
no wood ducks have used the boxes; however, they have been used by
other birds such as screech owls and hooded mergansers.
Marsh and Water Birds
The refuge includes approximately 18,000 acres of wetlands that support a
variety of colonial and other wading birds. The most abundant species
include wood storks; great blue, little blue, tricolored, and green-backed
herons; black and yellow-crowned night-herons; great, snowy, and cattle
egrets; white ibis; anhingas; and double-crested cormorants.
Approximately six rookeries with 10-50 nests were active this