Analysis of Data and Scientific Publications Related to the Florida Panther

Principal Investigator: Dr. Michael J. Conroy, Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2152

Collaborating Investigator: Dr. Michael Vaughan, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

Justification and Need:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appointed a new Florida panther recovery team to revise the panther recovery plan. A first step toward developing an effective revised plan that will contain true recovery program priorities and actions is for the team to understand and agree on the current state of knowledge regarding panthers by conducting a critical review of existing data and previous data analyses. The best means to achieve an unbiased review is to commission a scientific review team to 1) identify strengths and weaknesses of existing panther data and previously conducted analyses, 2) identify incorrect or incomplete analyses and interpretation of such data, 3) identify critical data gaps and questions that need to be examined, and 4) provide recommendations and a framework for how these gaps and questions should be addressed. The review likely will need to be conducted in two phases. In phase one, existing data and analyses will be reviewed. If warranted, phase two would be conducted based on recommendations from the review team to address any deficiencies in existing data and analyses identified in phase one. This scope of work addresses phase one.

Scope of Work:

The Principal Investigator and Collaborating Investigator will be members of a scientific review team (SRT) that will assist the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of data used to support recovery efforts for panthers. The investigators will:

• Assist in compiling, summarizing, and evaluating the entire existing panther data set and all previously published panther literature. The review will include 1) a determination of what raw data have been collected, what form they are in (i.e., field notes, data collection forms…etc) and where and how they are stored, 2) an evaluation of the methods used to collect the data, and 3) an evaluation of previous data analyses in terms of the over all approach to these analyses, especially the hypotheses tested, the appropriateness and robustness of the method used, the justifications of which data were used including exclusions or subsetting of the data set, and the validity and weaknesses of the conclusions and interpretations resulting from the analyses.
• The investigators' review will cover the following topical areas:
• Demography
• Habitat relationship
• Genetic
• Health, including contaminants and diseases

3. Work with the team to identify data gaps and overlooked issues critical to panther management and recovery, recommend future data collections and analyses, and suggest appropriate approaches for any needed reanalysis of existing data.

4. Participate in SRT meetings in November 2002 and March 2003. Work with the team to submit a Draft Report to FWS, and to agency representatives present at the meeting of 29 April 2002, by 1 April 2003. This Draft Report will be reviewed by FWS and other parties designated by FWS, such as FWC, NationSal Park Service, and the Florida panther recovery team.

5. Following any revisions agreed by the team, work with the team to submit a Final Report to FWS by 30 June 2003. After this submission, team members retain the right to revise material from the Final Report and submit this material for publication in appropriate journal(s).

6. Produce an annotated bibliography of Florida panther literature by 15 December 2002.

FWS agrees to:

• Distribute copies of relevant published and unpublished reports to the science team.
• Promptly consult with the team concerning any logistical problems.
• Facilitate involvement of other individuals, including FWC and NPS staff or previous panther researchers, as technical consultants regarding data collection and analyses, as requested by the team.

Timetable and Deliverables

1. Read literature in areas agreed to by SRT and provide recommendations for readings to other SRT members - 31 August 2002

2. Read remaining literature (suggested by other SRT members) by 1 November 2002

3. Meet with SRT- November 2002

4. In collaboration with SRT write a consensus chapter on assigned topics and distribute to othe SRT members - 28 Feb 2003

5. Review other SRT chapters - prior to March 2003

6. Meet with SRT- late March 2003

7. Electronic copy of chapters and contact information to proposed reviewers- 1 April 2003

8. Revise following reviewer comments-final draft chapter, 30 June 2003

Budget (attached)

Page _______ of _______

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. 621 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center Athens, Georgia 30602-7411	CooperativeAgreement No. 1434-HQ-97-RU-01551
	RWO No.:	Mod No.:
Project Title:

Category	June 2002- June 2003			Total
Salaries:
Graduate Students	1000			1000
Temporary Techs				0
Biweekly Employees				0
Postdoctoral Associate				0
Benefits:				0
Graduate Students (0%)	0			0
Temporary Techs (10%)	0			0
Biweekly Employees (34%)	0			0
Monthly (27%)	0			0
Supplies:	200			200
Travel for PI and Collaborating Investigator	7500			7500
Total Direct Costs	8700			8700
Equipment:				0
Indirect costs: 15% of direct cost excluding equipment	1305			1305
TOTAL BUDGET	10005			10005