Title: ENFO
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000734/00001
 Material Information
Title: ENFO
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Florida Conservation Foundation
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: ENFO, December 14, 1985
General Note: Box 7, Folder 2 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 10
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000734
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text










































Lower Weklva River A proposed connection between extensive state lands around the river's headwaters and the St. Johns River.


WILDLIFE HABITATS

A Statewide System for Florida


Compiled from opinions expressed at the
first Central Florida Conference on
Developing a Habitat System, held at the
University of Florida, Gainesville, on
December 14, 198.

S "A EBSTER'S DICTIONARY de-
Sfines habitat as "the place or
type of site where a plant or animal
naturally or normally lives and grows"


- a simple-sounding definition that is
in reality far more complex. Habitat
transcends a particular geographic
spot such as a saltmarsh or a moun-
tainside. It can mean, for example, a
particular animal on which depends
the existence of other animals such as
insects. Or it can include the effects of
natural forces such as disease and
predation.


just as fish need water, wild mam-
mals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, in-
sects and other invertebrates, and
plants usually have many very specific
needs and cannot live "anywhere." In
addition, larger species often use
many different habitats depending on
the season, the available food, their
breeding activities, and their need for
shelter. As we increasingly encroach


ENFO is a publication of the Florida Conservation Foundation, researched aid edited by the Environmental
Information Center, 1203 Orange Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789.
William M. Partington, Director


6
.4, A'





2 ENFO
on the places that wildlife inhabits, we
do so at great risk, for each kind of
habitat is a vastly complicated arrange-
ment of dependencies about which
f we know very little.
A Vanishing Splendor
Accounts of the original Florida writ-
ten by its early explorers stressed the
abundance and variety of its wildlife,
the rich diversity of its natural com-
munities, and its uninterrupted natural
areas. During the 1800s, however, ex-
cessive hunting decimated some wild-
life, resulting in the first federal and
state laws to control or prohibit hunt-
ing species such as egrets, whose
numbers were rapidly declining. The
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission was created to develop
and enforce such laws.
By the 1960s, public concern had
grown over damage to wildlife by
pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
The damage done by exotic species
was recognized as a serious problem.
Public opposition also grew to dredg-
ing and filling wetlands, to large public
works projects, and to sales of state-
owned lands.
From the 1970s on, the growing list
of Florida's rare and endangered
species has been primarily caused by
Loss of habitat, now recognized as the
most serious threat to our wildlife. The
state's growth new communities,
more roads, wider urban sprawl, more
public facilities, and increased tourism
has broken all existing records. In
addition, winter freezes have en-
couraged citrus growers to move their
groves south, converting even more
native uplands. The areas they leave
behind, rather than being restored as
habitat, are often turned into new sub-
divisions.
Because so many thousands of acres
of natural Florida habitat are being

ENFO is published six or more times a
year. the statements expressed are those
of the authors, who are responsible for
their accuracy, and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the Florida Conser-
vation Foundation. Environmental writers
are invited to submit ideas or original ar-
ticles for publication to the editor:
Gerald Grow
809 Teague St.
Tallahassee, FL 32303
904/ 385-0383
S Editorial staff:
Bill Partington Car Thomason
Copyright,' 1986 Florida Conservation
Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(ISSN: 0276-9956)


developed, wildlife will become rarer
or even extinct unless we protect their
habitats. A few native species such as
gulls, mockingbirds, cardinals, and
some lizards can live in cities and
backyards. These are exceptions,
however; most native wildlife will not
survive under such altered conditions.
The animals that adapt the best to the


habitats humans prefer are domestic
species such as dogs and cats or
nuisances such as house sparrows,
Norway rats, cockroaches, and house-
flies. When native habitat is lost, these
less desirable exotic species often
replace the original species.
With fewer native species, the estab-
lished environmental system breaks
down, and habitat quality declines;
thus the incentive diminishes to pre-
serve a particular area. A site occupied
by rare or endangered species, or
many diverse species, thus has more
obvious value as a nature preserve. In
addition, well-balanced natural areas
supporting diverse species often pro-
vide many human benefits such as


water storage and purification, fish-
eries production, erosion control,
research and medicinal materials, and
recreation.
In contrast, encroaching develop-
ment creates "islands," isolating
wildlife populations that historically
were contiguous. These fragmented
populations may then die out because
they lack food, shelter, or reproduc-
tive opportunities. In addition, both
development and the accompanying
demands for more infrastructure
destroy the existing buffer zones
around parks and put pressure on
parklands, and increased park use
jeopardizes sensitive species.
Finally, as their habitats dwindle in
size, wide-ranging species decline or


disappear altogether. For example, the
Florida panther (the most publicized
of many similarly affected species) re-
quires a very large range and abun-
dant food such as deer to sustain a
healthy population.

Where To Begin
We must maintain existing habitat


under a system that encompasses
state, regional, and local governments
and their land planning, acquisition,
and management. Overall, we need to
improve continually on the amount of
lands and the degree to which they are
controlled and managed. Further-
more, we now have enough data -
although dispersed to design an ef-
fective connecting system, and we
must begin to formally protect the land
between existing preserves.
We also need to eliminate the dis-
jointed, unfocused approach to land
acquisition and management that cur-
rently exists. Local governments, for
example, usually react only to devel-
opment proposals. The current acqui-


sition programs of various agencies
and private groups are largely piece-
meal, are seldom coordinated, usually
seek unique areas with modest or no
buffer zones, and have little control
over development in immediately ad-
jacent areas.
A comprehensive habitat system of
parks and connecting areas needs
great flexibility both in types of land
and in degrees of ownership, regula-
tion, and management agreements.
The amount of land needed for wilder-
ness wildlife such as bears will not
always be available initially; we may
be able to scale down if necessary from
the ideal size and quality, if we can ex-
pect to improve on them later.
In urban or impoverished areas, we


In establishing a habitat system we will
make some errors, but these will be
minuscule compared with the amounts
of money misspent on certain canals,
roads, sewage treatment plants, and
other similar projects.


In contrast, encroaching development
creates "islands," isolating wildlife
populations that historically were con-
tiguous.






ENFO 3


must design for smaller species by in-
itially including, for example, aban-
doned railroad lines, reclaimed phos-
phate lands, transmission lines, com-
mercially managed forests, or pas-
tures. In areas like these we should
work to reclaim and restore already-
degraded lands, which are not im-
mediately ideal but can provide some
habitat.
In establishing a habitat system we
will make some errors, but these will
be minuscule compared with the
amounts of money misspent on cer-
tain canals, roads, sewage treatment
plants, and other similar projects.
Wildlife experts may disagree on
issues of emphasis such as small versus
large preserves and connected versus
separate parks; little or no disagree-
ment exists, however, on the fact that
we need more protected habitat.
Unless we can provide it, species that
we now take for granted will dwindle
in number and disappear; the relative
merits of various approaches scien-
tific, political, and economic will
then be irrelevant. In short, we can't
make things any worse by trying than
the way they're now going for most
species.

Mechanisms for Change
Most wildlife experts, conservation
groups, media, planners, and other in-
terested parties, as well as several
government agencies, support with
a great sense of urgency a statewide
habitat system that is interconnected
as much as possible. With broad


Meeting on
wildlife habitat
attracts sizeable
audience.




agreement on the system's goals,
much can be accomplished on region-
al and local levels with state guidance.
In developing a system, we can
begin by connecting or preserving
the connections between our ex-
cellent collection of publicly owned or
controlled lands (including parks; sea-
shores; forests; and Save Our Rivers,
Save Our Coasts, and Conservation
and Recreational Lands holdings) and
private preserves (including Audubon
sanctuaries and Nature Conservancy
lands).
The state should establish a habitat
system as a formal goal and determine
whether a single agency or more than
one agency will be in charge. In par-
ticular, it needs to be able to move
more quickly than it does now.
A group of officials, wildlife biolo-
gists, business people, and environ-
mentalists who meet periodically at
the Florida Conservation Foundation's
office in Winter Park feel that an office


such as the Governor's Office, an
agency such as the Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, or an inter-
agency group such as Conservation
and Recreational Lands needs authori-
zation to coordinate efforts, if only on
an interim basis. The staff would be
directed or advised by a steering com-
mittee of representatives of the major
state agencies responsible for acquir-
ing land, managing wildlife, pollution
control, and planning; as well as pri-
vate conservation groups; commercial
interests; and technical specialists.
Staff activities would include the
following:
Acquiring maps of public lands
and private preserves, showing ways
in which they could be enlarged or
connected.
Compiling data required by
governmental and nongovernmental
groups on additional habitat.
Identifying research needs and
recommending researchers. (In par-


THE FLORIDA PANTHER


A widespread, continuous or near-continuous system of
habitat is essential if the state animal, the Florida panther,,
is to survive. At a meeting in May 1986, the Florida Pan-
ther Technical Advisory Council, which was appointed by
Governor Graham, recommended to the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission that it establish public
land connections as a part of the impending comprehen-
sive statewide wildlife habitat system.
The council stressed that although the intital attempt to
establish such a habitat system failed in the 1986 legis-
lature, it would eventually become a reality. In the mean-
time, efforts could be made through the CARL program to
begin connecting large areas of public lands in close prox-
imity. The council initially recommended the following
three areas as candidates for connection:
1. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Corbett
Wildlife Management Area. Two panthers were killed il-
legally in recent years in or near the Corbett Wildlife
Management Area, which is separated by a few miles from
the large body of contiguous public lands constituting
much panther habitat in southern Florida. The value of
the area as panther habitat is obvious; so is the impor-


tance of preventing it from being "cut off" by develop-
ment. The commission should seek to encourage public
acquisition to prevent the loss of habitat between Corbett
and Loxahatchee; it should also try, through the CARL
program, to enlarge the Corbett Wildlife Management
Area to the greatest extent possible. Linking Corbett with
Loxahatchee may necessitate buying some agricultural
lands and restoring them to a natural state, a process that
will occasionally be necessary to establish a comprehen-
sive statewide habitat system. The experience will un-
doubtedly prove useful later.
2. Osceola National Forest Okeefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge.
3. Eglin Air Force Base Blackwater River State Forest.
These large areas of public land are being evaluated as
possible sites for reintroduction; preventing the loss of
wildlife habitat on the lands between them will be vital to
the long-term success of efforts to reintroduce the pan-
ther. Encouraging early public acquisition of lands to
guarantee habitat preservation will be a positive and far-
sighted move by the commission.





4,- ENFO
ticular, we must conduct more
research on species and habitats
where we lack data, including small,
local endangered native species as
well as larger, far-ranging migrants.)
Identifying desirable and vulner-
able private lands subject to develop-
ment that should be acquired, leased,
or otherwise protected; who owns
them; and their owners' intentions
and needs.
Seeking cooperation for a habitat
system from landowners through a co-
ordinated effort.
Establishing priorities to develop a
habitat system.
Developing management plans,
including the restoration of developed
lands.
Determining the costs of acquir-
ing or protecting desirable lands with
aid from land acquisition agencies.
Identifying sources of funding for


WHY DO WE NEED
BUFFERS?
Adjacent development will in-
timidate sensitive species because
of sound, sight, pollution, or even
disturbing visitation by humans
( and pets. Some species are espec-
ially sensitive to the following:
Air pollution (from cars or
industries). Fewer species of
lichens, for example, are found in
urban areas than in wild areas.
The extent of acid rain impact is
uncertain but many of Florida's
lakes are said to be highly suscep-
tible due to normally high acidity.
Storm runoff or stream pol-
lution from adjacent areas can
have a destructive impact on pre-
serves. It is important to prevent
or eliminate such pollution every-
where for health reasons, and
wildlife areas may be especially
vulnerable since some species are
even more sensitive than are
humans.
Agricultural areas usually ap-
ply pesticides and fertilizers that
drift or wash onto adjacent lands.
These lands and other develop-
ments also draw down ground-
water levels by constructing
drainage ditches, which often af-
Sfect lands off-site.
The sight, smell, and sound
of human activities will frighten
| sensitive, shy species, especially
large or more active ones such as
mammals or birds, in effect
"shrinking" the size of a preserve.


Panel at the Gainesville Conference James Layne,
George Willson, Kathy Blaha.


We must maintain existing habitat under
a system that encompasses state,
regional, and local governments and
their land planning, acquisition, and
management.


staffing, planning, research, acquisi-
tion, purchasing rights, and manage-
ment. (Funds could be raised, for ex-
ample, by increasing the real estate
transfer tax for land acquisition or tax-
ing a tourist-oriented source of reve-
nues, if one could be found.)
Identifying a permanent home for
the program.
Additional Mechanisms
The largest private landowners have
perhaps the greatest potential to help
develop a habitat system. Some for
example, large developments and
phosphate, utility, and forestry
businesses are already implemen-
ting the concept to some degree. In
general, such a system should help
private landowners meet their needs
through varied strategies, some new


WHO OWNS WHAT?
Currently, habitat is acquired
and maintained through a bewild-
ering variety of public agencies
and numerous private land-
owners:
Federal lands include national
parks, wildlife refuges (Depart-
ment of the Interior), national
forests (Department of Agricul-
ture), and military and space
bases.
State lands comprise state
parks and preserves, state forests,
wildlife management areas, aquat-
ic preserves, and Save Our Rivers
and Save Our Coasts acquisitions.
The governor's Save Our Ever-
glades program provides policy
and coordination for acquisition
and management as well as for
restoration projects carried out by
several state, regional, and local
governments; it appears to be an
ideal model that has the potential
to create a habitat system.


and unproven: these incentives in-
clude purchases, long-term leases,
transfer of development rights, and
agreements on the degree of public
access. The state can also further
create and encourage a system
through regulating process such as
control of dredge and fill, planning at
all levels, and developments of
regional impact (DRI) requirements.
Public education and education for
officials are crucial to success. While
great general public interest exists in
wildlife, many individuals still fail to
understand the need for native habi-
tat. In addition, existing habitats need
to be better protected or managed, a
fact that should be brought to the
public's attention. The creation of
parks alone is not enough.


Through the Department of
Environmental Regulation, the
state also regulates areas such as
wetlands and Outstanding Florida
Waters.
County and city lands contain
some local parks of significant size
and quality of habitat.
Private lands such as unde-
veloped areas, hunting preserves,
managed forests, nature sanc-
tuaries, and reclaimed mining
areas also provide significant
habitat.
Current Acquisition Programs
Federal and state acquisi-
tions in the Big Cypress Swamp.
Conservation and Recrea-
tional Lands, Save Our Rivers,
Save Our Coasts, and Save Our
Everglades programs.
Local park programs.
Private programs such as the
Nature Conservancy and the Trust
for Public Land.




ENFO 5

VI'I


The


r Biological


Basis


For


Corridors


By JOHN F. EISENBERG


Notes from the December 14, 1985,
conference.

BECAUSE SOME SEMANTIC con-
fusion clearly exists over the term
"corridor," we substituted the word
"connectivity" to address maintaining
present links or reestablishing past
inks between existing preserves.
Once reaching this consensus, we
agreed that enough data are available
for some species to indicate that
preserving connections or reestab-
lishing past links would benefit certain
species.
If we assume that by larger we mean
populations that are in balance with
their carrying capacity, then larger
populations of crucial indigenous
species are certainly better than
smaller ones to retain genetic
heterogeneity.
Connectivity may not enhance
population size but would permit
recolonization if there were local ex-
tinction. For example, connectivity
can help recolonize particular species
of plants and somewhat freely moving
animals on islands that are currently
species poor. It can also help maintain
higher levels of genetic heterozygosity
(that is, dissimilar pairs of genes that
protect against the weakening effects
of inbreeding) than if a population
were prevented from exchanging
,,genetic material.
In some instances, connectivity can
mitigate the effects of inbreeding in
isolated populations of large mam-
mals. In particular, it would facilitate
heterozygosity among large mammals
requiring large amounts of space. In


contrast, imposing barriers or breaking
existing links would in the long run
seriously diminish the heterozygosity
of large mammals trying to survive in
relatively small areas.
Rabies, pseudorabies, and other
diseases may threaten the livestock in-
dustry as well as urban and rural
populations. The spread of disease
from wild populations to domestic
stock or humans will probably not be
affected either way by establishing or
maintaining connections between
preserves. We will have to maintain
coping strategies that have already
been developed.
Maintaining the links between ex-
isting preserves or reestablishing con-
nections between preserves that are
not "islands" could also facilitate the
movement of large predators and bring


them into competition with animal
husbandry interests. Rational solutions
can, however, probably be found for
the problem.
Biologists can specify a minimal cor-
ridor width for a few species in terms
of actual footage or other measures
such as elevation and ecological
zones. Furthermore, for a few species
whose movement ecology is reason-
ably well known, ecological zones
could be designated to establish or
maintain connectivity.
However, we should conduct new
research especially on movement
ecology on species for which we
lack data and species that are
threatened, endangered, or otherwise
of concern. For example, what are
their preferred routes of movement?
How much of their movement pattern


WHAT HAPPENED TO "CORRIDORS"?


A year ago we published Dr.
Larry D. Harris's very popular EN-
FO, "Conservation Corridors, A
Highway System for Wildlife."
Everyone interested in the subject
subsequently used the term "cor-
ridors" but, as it turned out, it
quickly created serious misunder-
standings and misuse.
Some envisioned corridors only
as narrow strips, like sidewalks,
where wildlife would parade back
and forth between large refuges.
Those persons questioned reason-
ably whether such restrictions
wouldn't make animals easily ac-
cessible to hunters, collectors,
traffic, or urban harassment.
Participants at the Florida Con-


servation Foundation's two con-
ferences on the habitat system
have struggled to find suitable
synonyms such as "greenbelts" or
"connectors." Unfortunately,
those terms also imply narrow
links between preserves, which is
not the intent. The intent is to pro-
vide adequate habitat, however it
is shaped.
More recently we have empha-
sized developing a "statewide
habitat system," and this term ac-
commodates the concept of con-
nections of all sizes as well as
isolated "jewels." In the case of
the latter, however, it is hoped
that buffers or connections could
be added eventually.





6 ENFO
is influenced by tradition? How much
is guided by appropriate habitat?
Above all, we need to think not only in
terms of vegetative cover type but also


_N .


in terms of species that depend on
aquatic systems for movement and
species such as birds, which may fly
but need resting and feeding sites


along preestablished migratory routes.

John F. Eisenberg is a staff member of the
Florida State Museum.


A CONFLICTING VIEW
In a recent article, "Big Advantages of Small Refuges,"'
Daniel Simberloff raises some concerns about habitat
systems connected by corridors. Simberloff is a member
of the biology department at Florida State University.
"Catastrophes and epizootic diseases," writes
Simberloff, "would probably ... be less damaging to a sub-
divided population than to a single large one because the
disaster would not affect all individuals." As an example
of the dangers inherent in single populations, he cites the
decimation and extinction of the sole surviving population
of heath hens on Martha's Vineyard because of fire,
predation, and disease.
Simberloff suggests a network of small refuges might be
a better conservation strategy than a single large area -
assuming each refuge can support a large enough popula-
tion to prevent problems such as inbreeding depression
that might weaken and extinguish it altogether. "Connect-
ing the refuges by corridors might also be advantageous,"
he says, "but the advantages (especially lowering inbreed-
ing) and disadvantages (spreading of disasters such as tires
or contagious diseases) of such a design would have to he


balanced. The disadvantages may well be critical."
Other concerns expressed by Simberloff and his col-
leagues include whether or not narrow connections
would actually be used by the species targeted for assist-
ance, and the high cost of creating "corridors" such as the
highway underpasses being constructed under Alligator
Alley near Big Cypress. They feel that money may be bet-
ter invested in transplanting wildlife.
They also defend maintaining the integrity of small pop-
ulations of endemics restricted to certain islands, on
which point there is no disagreement. They go on to show
that some of those islands have been refuges resisting in-
vasions of destructive exotics such as cats, rats, goats, or
pigs, provided that none have been released by human
visitors.
Presumably these critics would not be opposed to en-
larging present refuges by formally adding buffers or con-
nections of existing adjacent undeveloped land, which is
the goal of those advocating the statewide habitat system.
Differences of opinion appear to be largely matters of
priorities and details.
'Natural History, Vol. 91, No. 4, 1982, pp. 6-14.


Is this what we
mean by "Wildlife
Corridors"?


I I





ENFO 7


Legal, Political, and

Financial Mechanisms


By MARILYN CROTTY


Notes from the April 26, 1986, conference.

HABITAT CORRIDORS could be
purchased under existing state
land acquisition programs. The Save
Our Rivers program is currently trying
to connect preserves. Not enough
money is available to purchase all the
needed lands, and so some alter-
natives should be examined, including
joint purchasing, pooling funds from
different programs, and matching
funds from local governments to
speed up the process.
Several mechanisms exist to en-
courage private landowners to donate
property including impact fee
credits, preservation zoning, overlay
districts, and tax incentives but
problems exist with some of them. At
the state level, we need firmer direc-
tion on zero assessments. Local pro-
e rty appraisers apparently have
discretion in assessing conservation
areas, and no uniformity exists across
the state. The constitutionality of
limiting property appraisers' authority
is also a problem, as is the cost of
maintaining donated lands. Funds are
not available for maintenance, and the
scope of the additional costs is often
not realized when the land is donated.
Some questions were raised about
the security of land acquired under
such agreements. Many felt that the
ten-year limit on covenants was too
short and should be extended to a
minimum of ninety-nine years. Some
were concerned, however, that
ninety-nine years was too long and
would discourage the donation of
easements. Conservation easements
are relatively new, and IRS regulations
have only recently defined how they
are to be treated. Different classifica-
tions exist for such easements, and
one should consult a knowledgeable
attorney when contemplating such a
donation.
Another option would be to estab-
sh wildlife management areas for
( connections, using a tax levy to raise
money that would reimburse owners
for the use of their land. Although it is
less clear how to raise the taxes, possi-
bilities include special "user" taxes on
items such as binoculars and birdseed,
or a tax levy on all citizens.


Public access to conservation ease-
ments discourages property owners
from donating land because of their
potential liability. We generally sup-
ported separating recreational from
conservation easements, although ran-
ching and timber uses might be ap-
propriate to save the state the costs of
administration and management.
Currently, when conservation ease-
ments are written, they spell out
whether access is denied to the public.
Although well-written easements can
control the problem, the IRS does re-
quire some access to certain classifica-
tions of donated lands to grant deduc-
tions.
No consensus existed on transfers of
development rights (TDRs) and pur-
chase of development rights (PDRs). In
some areas, TDRs are working well,
but in other areas they are seen as
ways to increase density and have rais-
ed citizen opposition. PDRs are not
being used in Florida. Although these
may be a better alternative, some
question exists about local govern-
ments' ability to pay for them. Ideally,
a combination of PDRs and TDRs
could be the solution to connecting
wildlife areas, but the concepts need
fine tuning.
Habitat connectors could also be in-
cluded in local governments' capital
improvement plans, regarded as infra-
structure, and funded in the same way
as roads and sewers. Such designa-
tions could also be included as part of
the development of regional impact
(DRI) process, but many DRIs are in
highly urbanized areas where connect-
ing links would be of little use. Also, if
regional planning councils are going to
include provisions for links in DRIs,
they need to educate the development
community about the concept and not
just spring it on developers as
"another costly roadblock." Because
DRIs are not yet looking at the crea-
tion of a statewide habitat system, they
cannot affect the larger picture but can
have some positive local effects.
Planning for corridors needs to be
part of the comprehensive state,
regional, and local plans. It is also
essential to maintain consistency be-
tween the levels of plans. At local
levels, if connectors are part of capital
improvement plans, appropriate zon-
ing would be established to ensure
their existence. Many local govern-


ments are moving away from tradition-
al zoning requirements to perfor-
mance-based codes that would create
more opportunities to designate con-
servation areas.
Marilyn Crotty is on the faculty of Valencia
Community College and a board member of
the East Central Florida Regional Planning
Council.




THANK YOU!
Florida Conservation Foundation
wishes to thank the following friends
for recent generous financial con-
tributions.
We wish to thank the Elizabeth
Ordway Dunn Foundation, Inc., for a
grant used in part to produce this EN-
FO Report.
Patrons:
Elizabeth Ordway Dunn
Foundation, Inc.
Florida Power and Light, Corp.
Nathaniel Pryor Reed
Philip S. Harper Foundation
The Kimball Foundation, Inc.
Donors
Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Edison
Supporting
Mr. & Mrs. Everett H. Clark
Mr. John Couse
Dean R. Fletcher
David L. Hanson
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Haynes
SHomasote Co.
Mrs. Dundas Leavitt
R.C. Long
Mrs. William G. McGagh
NW Orange County Improvement
Association
Mr. & Mrs. William M. Partington, Sr.
Mr. & Mrs. Bradford Patton
Many other friends recently sent
contributions for up to $50.00, for
which we also wish to express our
sincere appreciation.
For this ENFO
Linda Lord edited several papers
from FCF's 1985-86 conferences on
creating a statewide habitat system
to produce this update for ENFO.

Jeff Parker, whose illustrations are
featured in FCF's Calamity Calendar
and T-shirts, created the habitat
system map and the Corridor Cartoon.

411,0 0 8- eel





S8 ENFO

Now you manatee lovers can show your true colors ....


LONE MANATEE

T-SHIRTS ARE HERE!


0 P Be among the first to display this colorful rascal, who
Sdismantles boat propellers to save his precious hide!
Available from ENFO, 1203 Orange Avenue, Winter
S Park, FL 32789, for $6.00 each plus $2.00 for mailing up
to four T-shirts to the same address.
Example: 1 shirt, mailed: $8.00
2 shirts mailed to the same address: $14.00
3 shirts mailed to the same address: $20.00
o "* 4 shirts mailed to the same address: $26.00
SThe shirts have black print on blue 50150 polyester and cot-
ton (made in USA), and are available in S, M, L, XL.


NAME:


MAILING ADDRESS:


CITY:


STATE:_ ZIP:


I would like to order__ Lone Manatee T-shirts @ $6.00 each plus $2.00 for mailing up to four shirts to one address.


Example: 1 shirt, mailed $8.00
2 shirts to same address $14.00
3 shirts to same address $20.00
4 shirts to same address $26.00


I would like to have O X Large
0 Large
D Medium
O Small


_ W- iiiiii__ -- M- -- -M- -M -M "


-- ---------- ---- ----tl L;-


-ft a6 MA eW 9(Resh:A6N!








































By MICHAEL J. GILBROOK


Notes from the second Central Florida Con.
ference on Developing a Wildlife Habitat
System, April 26, 1986.

IVEN THE LIMITED FUNDING
that will be available to secure
connecting areas, it is crucial to
establish priorities for choosing the
preserves to be connected. Selecting
areas, as well as the links themselves,
should depend largely on how well
they address the objectives of a par-
ticular park, habitat, or species
management plan. For example, a
preserve whose goal is to maintain
diverse plant species might have dif-
ferent management needs than a park
designed primarily to preserve black
bears.
I 'sCriteria
' We identified thirteen unique cri-
teria but could not rank them because
their relative importance should be
assessed on the basis of an individual
area's management plans.
Size. The number of species cor-


A wildlife habitat system
connect existing prese
Credit:
relates positively with the size of an
area, suggesting that larger preserves
are more diverse and hence better
sources of immigrants to depopulated
preserves than smaller areas. Also,
larger areas typically support more in-
dividuals of a species. In some cases,
however, size may be less important
than other criteria that more directly
affect the success of a particular
management objective. It may also be
preferable to connect many small
preserves than to connect only a few
large ones; small preserves have often
been chosen for protection because
they are outstandingly richer in certain
species than other nearby lands.
Whether existing preserves are, in
themselves, large enough to accom-
modate the species that inhabit them
should also be considered. Presum-
ably, preserves that do not by them-
selves provide enough habitat for the
species the preserve is designed to
protect are high priorities for connec-
tors if they provide access to suit-
able habitat.
Shape. Traditionally, compact (that
is, rounded) parks are considered bet-


ENFO 9


PANAMA C ,,


J BUFFER AREAS

& CORRIDORS


| CORE PRESERVES
CLEARWATE
ST. PETERSBU I

SARASO


Choosing


Preserves and


Connecting Links


PALM BEACH

FORT
E UDERDALE



m could ,
erves. '


m c .c d

whethlParer its specific species or habitat






ing or increasing edge effects.
(I --

ter than elongated ones. However, the
large perimeter (or "edge") created by
an elongated or irregular shape can, in
some circumstances, be desirable. A
park's specific shape depends on
whether its specific species or habitat
management objectives call for reduc-
ing or increasing edge effects.
Distance Between Areas. For ob-
vious reasons, preserves that are close
together are better candidates for the
system than those that are far apart.
Diversity. Assuming that a pre-
serve's management objective is "to
maintain high biotic diversity," then
areas with diverse species are better
candidates for inclusion than less well-
endowed areas.
Number of Other Adjacent Pre-
serves. Land between two or more
preserves may deserve priority, since it
can be a nexus for several preserves.
Presence of Endangered Species.
Species that are threatened or en-





10-- ENFO
dangered by loss of habitat would
probably benefit by maintaining the
connections between different areas,
each of which provides suitable
rabitat.
Potential for Development. Parks
threatened by development on their
boundaries deserve consideration for
an expanded habitat protection pro-
gram, since they are in the greatest
danger of biological isolation.
Ease of Connection. Parks that are
already, or nearly, linked by publicly
owned or managed lands (through, for
example, easements or rights of way),
or that are protected from develop-
ment (through, for example, jurisdic-
tional wetlands) may be easier to link
than areas without such advantages.
Number of Owners Between Areas.
Land acquisition will probably be
easier and less expensive if fewer peo-
ple own the land.
Availability and Cost. No matter
what factors favor establishing a con-
nector, it cannot be established if an
intervening landowner does not want
to sell or enter into an alternative
agreement such as a conservation
easement. Exorbitant land prices may
reduce the desirability of connecting
two preserves; price may not be a
deciding factor, however, if the two
areas are highly desirable on the basis
of other criteria.
Existing Habitat Value. An area
may deserve high priority if it pos-
sesses habitat essential to the species
that inhabit it. Preserving the natural
connections between preserves may
do little good if the habitat in one or
both is too poor to accommodate the
range of species that might potentially
occur.
Commonality of Species and Com-
munity Types. Although it may be ad-
vantageous to maintain connections
between areas with dissimilar com-
munities, advantages clearly exist to
ensuring that two candidates for a cor-
ridor have sufficient commonality in
species. Parks with similar species will
prevent inbreeding and provide a
population to colonize areas with local
extinction.
Potential To Address Mutual
Habitat Management Objectives.
Parks may deserve priority if a connec-
tor allows the management objectives
of the individual preserves on either
end to be achieved.
Other Criteria. Factors that can pro-
vide advantages to certain lands in-
clude the availability of water (an ad-
vantage even in dry upland scrub) and
the fewest obstacles and intrusions


(such as roads or canals), the degree of
cooperation expected from land-
owners, and compatibility with the ex-
isting plans of various public and
private agencies.
Topography and Connectors
We identified four features whose
special characteristics can make them
good choices for connectors (assum-
ing that the features run in the right
direction).
Aquatic Systems. Rivers, streams,
and even some artificial canals are
good candidates both because of their
biological importance and because
their development is already regulated.
Utility Easements. The existence of
an easement suggests that landowners
may be willing to part with land on
either side, since they have done so
once before especially since the
existing restrictions may make devel-
opment on adjacent property unat-
tractive. Also, easements for power,
sewer, and telephone and cable lines
can sometimes be used to establish
connectors.
Transportation Systems. Natural
communities along road and railroad
rights of way may meet the objectives
of some connectors.


Compatible Land Uses. Hiking or
horse trails may be compatible with
some connectors and could provide
an inexpensive link if safeguards were
established against converting the land
to other uses.
Data Needs
The data needed for both parks and
corridors are essentially the same.
They include a floristic list or map of
plant communities, a faunal list high-
lighting protected species, topogra-
phic maps, land use (present and
future) and zoning maps, ownership
maps platss), aerial imagery (such as
color infrared, LANDSAT, and black-
and-white prints), literature on cor-
ridor programs from other areas, and
any additional data needed to address
specific concerns.
Much information for example,
on community types and species dis-
tributions may already exist in
databases maintained by both public
and private groups (see box for a
general listing). This should be compil-
ed and assessed before conducting
new studies.
Michael ilbrook is an environmental plan-
ner for the East Central Florida Regional Plan-
ning Council.


DATA SOURCES AND AGENCIES


Federal Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Geological Survey
State Agencies
Department of Natural
Resources
Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission
Department of Community
Affairs
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Transportation
Department of Agriculture
Regional Agencies
Water management districts
Regional planning councils


Local Governments
Planning offices
Tax assessor's offices
Private Groups
Nature Conservancy/Florida
Natural Areas Inventory
Audubon Society
Sierra Club
Hunting and fishing
associations
Utility Companies
Timber Companies
Polling Firms

Academic Institutions
State universities
Private colleges


ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT NEEDS
Any kind of hardware or software that will
assist us in using our IBM-PC computer including:

DISKETTES PROGRAMS
DOCUMENTATION HARDWARE
PAPER CUTTER SMALL MICRO-WAVE OVEN





ENFO 11


LEGISLATIVE UPDATE tee of at least seven members At a minimum, legislative action
all of whom would have knowl- for 1987 should authorize and
A 1986 bill by Senators Frank edge of and experience in wildlife fund a formal study of needs and
Mann and George Stuart to study to be appointed by the gover- goals, and recommend a respon-
the feasibility of developing an in- nor. The committee would have sible agency or agencies,
terconnecting wildlife habitat been responsible for preparing a schedules, and research topics to
system did not pass the state detailed report to the legislature, be addressed by studies. The
legislature. The bill would have We hope that a similar bill passes results would be reported back to
provided for an advisory commit- next year. the 1988 or 1989 legislature.


LANDOWNERS AND A STATE HABITAT SYSTEM:

The Other Side of the Coin
By PETER K. GOTTFRIED what is proposed on and abutting their properties.
________________ Incentives and compensation
Notes from the April 26, 1986, conference. must be a part of the program.
To ensure success, the program must offer outright pur-
Landowners have a right to use their property as they chase at fair market value, tax incentives, additional
choose so long as the public's health, welfare, and safety development rights, or other incentives. Landowners will
are not compromised. In Florida, however, individual probably fight any attempt to mandate either through
property rights are under assault as the population in- legislation or rule changes a "lockup" of their proper-
creases and regulations proliferate, ties.
It is not surprising that landowners are reluctant to sup- Landowners must be sold on the program.
port a habitat system if that system will or is perceived to Proponents of a statewide habitat system can "sell" the
affect their use of the land. For the system to work in program by asking what direct benefits will accrue to land-
Florida, the following points are crucial: owners, such as increased hunt club revenues, tourism
The landowner must be part of the process, and recreational income, and added value to other
No better way exists to kill a well-thought-out land ac- acreage.
quisition program than to irritate the landowners who will Peter K. Gottfried is president of Natural Systems Analysts, Inc. and a
eventually be part of it by keeping them in the dark about Winter Park City Commissioner.





THE FLORIDA CONSERVATION

FOUNDATION, INC.


F.C.F. OFFICERS
Dean Fletcher, President
Winter Park
Dr. John 0. Blackburn, Treasurer
Maitland
BOARD MEMBERS
Franklin B. Adams
Naples
Barry Allen, Ph.D.
Winter Park
Trudy W. Bernhard
Tequesta
Marjorie H. Carr
Micanopy
Andre Clewell, Ph.D.
Sarasota
John H. Couse
Ft. McCoy
Roberta Geanangel
Lake Alfred
Harlan Herbert
Lakeland
Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Tallahassee
Kenneth D. Morrison
Babson Park
Mo Rigante
Belle Isle


ANNUAL SPONSORSHIPS
Regular .. ............... $ 15
Family ................. .. 20
Sustaining ............... 30
Contributing ................ 50
Supporting ................ 100
Donor ..................... 300
Patron ............. $500- $1,000
Corporate Sponsors
$100.... $500.... $1,000
Organization Sponsors
$25.... $50.... $100


ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER
OF THE FLORIDA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, INC.


* Operates the Environmental Information Center
* Publishes 6 or more issues of ENFO Newsletter a year.
on environmental subjects of importance to Florida.
* Organizes conferences, training institutes, work-
shops, and other meetings on environmental matters.
* Sponsors the Florida Energy Coalition and assists other
public interest groups.
* Conducts Wanderlust Tours to areas of natural and
historic interest.
* Produces special publications and reports.
* Provides assistance for students, researchers, and
sponsors.

1203 ORANGE AVENUE
WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789


Yes, I want to support EIC. Enclosed is my contribution of $S_

Name: _-----

Address:


City:


State:___ Zip:


All contributions are tax-deductible. Checks should be made payable to the Florida Conservation Founda-
tion, Inc. Those giving $15.00 or more will receive the ENFO Newsletter for one year.
i Please mail a confirmation of my donation.


YesI wat t suportEIC.Enclsedis m cotribtio o$





S12 ENFO


from the staff and ( volunteers at(.
Environmental Information Center, the
operations office for Florida Conservation
Foundation, Inc.


Bill Partington, Director
June Lovelace, Office Assistant, Secretary
and Bookkeeper
Mary Carmichael, librarian and membership records
Bob Dean, computer operations and
word processing
Wyatt Gantt, engineer and communications
Vilma Hagemann, secretarial and word processing
Zell King, mailouts and typing
Linda Lord, editing and research
Joan Partington, word processing and
energy coalition
Doug Root, computer and energy consulting
Jim and Julia Rundell, mailouts
Jessie Schultz, general office and mailouts
wCecelia Storjohan, secretarial and mailouts
Jim Trulock, computer operations

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FLORIDA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION. INC. ARE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE NO

PUBLISHED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER
OFTHE
FLORIDA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, INC.
1203 ORANGE AVENUE, WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

December 1986
86-6








j| ;:"**l.~ fLi .


U.S. POSTAGE
WINTER PARK. FLA.
PERMIT NO. 3-358


Additional copies may be obtained for $2.00 each while supplies last.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs