Agenda 04/24/2018 Item #11B04/24/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review the Ninth Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and consider its
potential impact on program finances, to provide direction to the County Manager or his designee
after reviewing the staff presentation on the A-Category List, and to provide direction on future
cycles.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board of County Commissioners (Board) direction regarding the prospective
acquisition of land identified on the Ninth Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List (AAL),
CONSIDERATION: Section 11 of County Ordinance No. 2002-63 (the Conservation Collier
Ordinance) provides a legal framework for the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (CCLAAC) to recommend qualified acquisition proposals for the Active Acquisition List
(AAL) to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. On April 9th, 2018, the CCLAAC met and
selected qualified acquisition proposals for Board consideration as set forth in the attached AAL.
The recommended AAL has been separated into three (3) categories, A, B and C, pursuant to ordinance
direction. The A-category includes those properties the CCLAAC recommends the County Manager or
his designee to actively pursue. The A-category properties are also further prioritized the order in which
properties should be pursued by staff. The B-category includes those properties that the CCLAAC does
not recommend active pursuit of during the current acquisition cycle but are retained and automatically
re-ranked in the next acquisition cycle. The C-category properties are those for which the CCLAAC does
not recommend active pursuit and will not automatically be re -ranked in the next cycle, but for which an
owner may resubmit for consideration in a subsequent cycle.
The attached map shows the location of all proposed Cycle 9 properties along with currently owned
Conservation Collier properties. Additionally, the recommended AAL list shows two versions of a
proposed acquisition for the Half Circle L Ranch based on acreage size (alternatives were of fered by the
owner). Also, the recommendation for the SD Corp/Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC proposal
separates the three (3) parcels offered into two (2) separate categories and ranks them differently (despite
owner wishes to offer the three (3) parcels as a package.)
The process for evaluation by the CCLAAC began with a staff preparation and presentation of property
reports, called Initial Criteria Screening Reports (ISCR). Included in each ISCR was a scoring matrix
developed by staff and the CCLAAC, based on researched and observed data meant to compare objective
data across properties - as an apple to apples comparison. The CCLAAC reviewed these reports and
utilized the score as a tool, along with public input and other intangible criteria related to their individual
expertise, to evaluate and rank the properties.
Property Summary Sheets, summarizing report data and explaining how properties met Program criteria,
are provided as a backup to the Agenda Item along with full ICSRs. A notebook with ful l ISCRs, one-
page summaries and citizen project support letters has been provided in hard copy to the Commissioners
and the public for viewing in the Conservation Collier offices located in the Golden Gate Community
Park, Parks and Natural Resources Building, 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd, Naples, FL 34116. Both Summary
Sheets and ISCRs have been posted on the Conservation Collier website.
It should be noted that the CCLAAC was not asked to evaluate the properties with any fiscal limitation or
consideration for cash flow in the short term or long term. Staff recognizes that the Board has options and
evaluated several scenarios from do nothing to a full acquisition of the A-list. Approval of the full A-List
as recommended by CCLAAC will require Budget Amendments, staffing increases, and acquisition costs,
11.B
Packet Pg. 262
04/24/2018
estimated at $12,445,530 and transaction costs estimated at $232,000.
Staff also evaluated acquiring only the first four (4) projects on the A-List and the multi-parcel projects
(to be funded out of offsite preservation donation funds) and placing the remainder on the B-List. This
action is estimated at a cost of $2,667,670 with an estimated $115,450 in associated transaction costs.
This is a maximum number of projects that can be accommodated at current staffing levels.
Finally, staff evaluated purchasing the only property on the A-list that could face immediate development
pressure. Purchasing only the Hack Property on the A-List and the multi-parcel projects (to be funded out
of offsite preservation donation funds) and placing the remainder on the B-List is estimated at a total cost
of $108,000, with an estimated $6,750 in associated transaction costs. A table of expenditures and
corresponding maintenance burn rate scenarios has been included for reference.
In light of the fiscal impacts caused by Hurriucane Irma and in recognition of the effort that went into
developing a ranked list, staff recommends pursuing the Hack Property and multi-parcel projects (to be
funded out of offsite preservation donation funds). This option maintains the fund balance until such time
the County has time to replenish their reserves and has time to consider other funding sources.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Board previously discussed and a majority supported at that time the use of
existing Conservation Collier Fund (174) maintenance reserves which currently total $31,873,200 to
purchase any approved A-category properties. The recommended A-category properties discussed in this
report total 3,631.64 acres; represent a 90% increase over current holdings and are estimated to cost
$12,445,530 plus approximately $232,000 for closing costs. In addition, maintenance reserves would also
be used to fund exotic removal of any acquired properties which could total as much as $2,976,094.
Further, the additional property acquisition would require recurring personnel costs of one environmental
land manager specialist plus annual maintenance operational costs of about $657,400. One -time reduction
of perpetual maintenance reserves connected with the recommended strategy totals $15,653,600.
Also discussed by the Board was the replenishment of any expended maintenance reserves which would
occur upon a successful referendum reinstating the program or in the alternative, should a referendum be
unsuccessful, through a one-time increase in the general fund millage rate. The millage rate necessary to
raise $15.7 million based upon today’s taxable value is .1890 per $1,000 of taxable value.
If all parcels discussed in this report are acquired and reserves not restored, and no other funding or level
of service accommodations are provided, remaining reserves could be reduced to zero in as little as fifteen
(15) years.
The prudent fiscally conservative strategy from OMB's perspective is to accept staff's recommendation
which preserves maintenance dollars until the Conservation Collier program is officially restarted either
through referendum of action of the Board establishing a dedicated funding source. Further, expending
dollars in a manner recommended by the advisory committee when the County is still cash-flowing
expenses from Hurricane Irma and when cash may be necessary in the upcoming hurricane season is a
questionable strategy.
To execute the proposed acquisitions, Budget Amendments moving monies from Conservation Collier
Maintenance Fund (174) reserves to Conservation Collier Acquisition Fund (172) will be required. Initial
exotic removal costs will be requested in the FY19 and FY20 Budgets.
Approval of the attached AAL and direction to actively pursue the Cycle-9 recommended A-category
projects will require the Conservation Collier Program to expend funds for various acquisition costs
including appraisals, title commitments, interoffice billing for Real Estate Services staff time and,
11.B
Packet Pg. 263
04/24/2018
potentially, environmental audits, standard surveys, and upland/wetland surveys. The total cost for these
activities for the CCLAAC recommended A-List projects is estimated to be $232,000, to include
appraisals, necessary due diligence environmental site assessments, title commitment, title policy and
recording of deeds. If it is determined that the multi-parcel projects should also be funded out of reserves
instead of just donation funds, that would add another potential $47,500 to those acquisition costs. The
adopted FY18 Budget and the proposed FY19 Budget does not currently provide sufficient funds to
accommodate these expected costs and will require Budget Amendments.
To date, the Board has approved a total of approximately $104,405,402 worth of land purchases,
including those currently under contract for the multi-parcel projects. The addition of approximately
$12,445,530 for the Cycle-9 properties being recommended for the Board’s current action by the CCLAC
will result in a total cumulative authorization of approximately $116,850,900 in property value. If it is
determined that multi-parcel projects should also be funded out of reserves instead of just donation funds,
this number rises to $118,632,100.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Fee-simple acquisition of conservation lands is consistent with
and supports Policy 1.3.1(e) in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County
Growth Management Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Conservation Collier Ordinance (No. 2002-63, as amended), in
Section 11, provides a legal framework for the development of the Active Acquisition List.
Recommendation of an Active Acquisition List by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee for Board approval falls within this legal framework. Accordingly, this item is approved for
form and legality and requires a majority vote. - JAB
CCLAAC RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the recommended AAL,
Direct the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue the acquisition of those properties
listed within the A-category, and
Approve any necessary Budget Amendments, acquisition and transaction costs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Direct the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue the acquisition of the Hack
Property and the multi-parcel projects (to be funded out of offsite preservation donation funds),
and bring any resulting contracts back to the Board for future consideration.
Provide direction regarding future cycles.
Prepared By: Alexandra J. Sulecki, Coordinator, Conservation Collier Program
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. CCLAAC Recommended Cycle 9 (PDF)
2. BCC Property Summary Hack 2018 (DOCX)
3. BCC Property Summary-Green and Green (DOCX)
4. BCC Property Summary-Sanitation-Bethune (DOCX)
5. Gore property summary BCC 2018 (DOCX)
6. BCC Property Summary-Big Hammock II (DOCX)
7. BCC Property Summary-Berman (DOCX)
11.B
Packet Pg. 264
04/24/2018
8. BCC Property Summary-Half Circle L Ranch (PDF)
9. BCC Property Summary-Big Hammock 1 (DOCX)
10. BCC Property Summary-SD Corp (PDF)
11. BCC Property Summary-Red Maple Swamp (DOCX)
12. BCC Property Summary-Winchester Head (DOCX)
13. BCC Property Summary-Mayr (DOCX)
14. [Linked] Cycle 9 Initial Criteria Screening Reports (PDF)
15. Presentation Cycle 9 (PDF)
16. CC Fund Bal Trend Base-Full A List only 4-18-18 (PDF)
17. CC Fund Bal Trend Base-Full A List-4 parcel Alt 4-18-18 (PDF)
11.B
Packet Pg. 265
04/24/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.B
Doc ID: 5371
Item Summary: Recommendation to review the Ninth Conservation Collier Active Acquisition
List and consider its potential impact on program finances, to provide direction to the County Manager or
his designee after reviewing the staff presentation on the A-Category list, and to provide direction on
future cycles. (Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator, Conservation Collier Program)
Meeting Date: 04/24/2018
Prepared by:
Title: – Public Services Department
Name: Todd Henry
04/13/2018 4:09 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Department Head - Public Services – Public Services Department
Name: Steve Carnell
04/13/2018 4:09 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Procurement Services Opal Vann Level 1 Purchasing Gatekeeper Completed 04/13/2018 4:30 PM
Parks & Recreation Ilonka Washburn Additional Reviewer Completed 04/13/2018 5:09 PM
Procurement Services Ted Coyman Additional Reviewer Completed 04/14/2018 2:27 PM
Operations & Veteran Services Sean Callahan Additional Reviewer Completed 04/15/2018 3:13 PM
Parks & Recreation Barry Williams Additional Reviewer Completed 04/16/2018 8:22 AM
Public Services Department Todd Henry Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 04/16/2018 8:44 AM
Budget and Management Office Ed Finn Additional Reviewer Completed 04/16/2018 10:49 AM
Public Services Department Steve Carnell Level 2 Division Administrator Review Completed 04/17/2018 4:26 PM
County Attorney's Office Jennifer Belpedio Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 04/18/2018 9:00 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/18/2018 9:02 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/18/2018 9:06 AM
County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/18/2018 8:30 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/24/2018 9:00 AM
11.B
Packet Pg. 266
CCLAAC Cycle 9 Recommended
Active Acquisition List
April 9, 2018
Estimated
Value
Size (ac)
Estimated
Value per
acre
Proposed
List
Category
Priority Designation
for "A" Category
Properties
$108,000 28.46 $3,794 A 1
$631,400 28.70 $22,000 A 2
$1,117,100 400.58 $2,788 A 3
$811,170 180.00 $4,506 A 4
$6,900 2.34 $2,948 A 5
$2,266,760 37.16 $61,000 A**6
$5,760,000 1,920.00 $3,000 A***7
$545,200 235.00 $3,500 A 8
$1,199,000 799.40 $1,499 A 9
$12,445,530 3631.64
$813,670 98.00 $8,302 A
n/a - financed by
donations*
$967,500 77.40 $12,500 A
n/a - financed by
donations*
$1,781,170 175.40
$14,226,700 3807.04
$10,110,000 3,370 $10,110,000 B***
$4,212,000 77.99 $54,000 B**
$14,322,000 3447.99
$7,900 6.70 $1,179 C
$7,900 6.70
SD Corp/Cypress Landings II -
Parcel 1
A-LIST TOTAL
Barron Collier Partnership LLLC
Robert H. Gore Estate
Half Circle L Ranch - 1,920
Acres
Barron Collier Partnership
LLLC - Area I
Barron Collier Partnership
LLLC - Area II
* CCLAAC recommends that going forward, the Multi-parcel projects Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head
should be financed out of developer donations under the LDC offsite preservation option (LDC 3.05.07, H.1.f.
iii. a. and b.)
*** The owner advised late in the process that the offering could be reduced to 3 sections or 1,920 acres,
down from 3,370 acres. CCLAAC voted on both proposals, placing the 1,920 acre offering on the A List and the
3,370 acre offering on the B List.
**CCLAAC split up the parcels for the SD Corp/Cypress Landings II project, recommending parcels 2 and 3 for
the A List and parcel 1 for the B List.
Property Name
Green & Green Investments
Inc.
NGGE Unit 53 Multi-parcel
Project (remaining)
A-LIST SUBTOTAL
Cycle 8 & Multi-parcel Projects
total
Winchester Head Multi-parcel
Project (remaining)
I-75 - Mayr
Hack Living Trust
C-LIST SUBTOTAL
B-LIST SUBTOTAL
I-75 Berman Trust
SD Corp/Cypress Landings II -
Parcels 2 & 3
Half Circle L Ranch - 3,370 Acres
11.B.1
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: CCLAAC Recommended Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active Acquisition List)
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Hack Living Trust Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List - Priority #1
Parcel Name: Hack Living Trust Target Protection Area: Urban Acreage: Total 28.46 – 2 parcels
Total Assessed Value: $1,424 Total Estimated Market Value: $108,000 00388160002 – 17.85 acres
00394840002 – 10.61 acres
Highlights:
Location: These parcels are adjacent to the Royal Harbor community and the City of
Naples/Unincorporated County boundary. The west side of the property faces Sandpiper
Street and the north side faces Marlin Street. Sandpiper Bay Club Condominium is to the
east and the Haldeman Creek an intertidal waterway that is connected to the Naples Bay is to
the south.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met: 5 of 6 Criteria were met –
native habitat, human social values, water resource values, biodiversity, connectivity; not
within another agency’s project boundary.
Habitat - Mangrove forest
Listed Plants – Bromeliad
Listed Wildlife – Appropriate habitat for listed wading birds. Critical habit for manatee
and Florida bonneted bat. Wildlife observed: mangrove crabs, great egret and grey squirrel.
Water Resource Values – These parcels are an intertidal estuarine wetland
Connectivity - Parcels connected to the Naples Bay through Haldeman Creek. This parcel
is directly connected with other conserved lands and connects through them with more
conserved lands for a total of over 2,500,000 acres.
Utilities/Transportation interest? No interest known
Access: This parcel is could be appropriate for nature based access with a boardwalk and
parking. There is room for parking in the ROW but no zoning approval, would need to be
approved by Board. Access roads are public and paved.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: $6,000 for initial exotic sweep; Ongoing $4,200
annually; Boardwalk- $500,000 to $1M; Development costs for parking and boardwalk -
$168,000; Parking construction - $25,000. Total=$700,000 to $1.1 M.
Partnership Opportunities: Veterans group and neighbors
Zoning/Overlays: RMF-6-ST – 6 development units remain for the Sandpiper Bay Club.
The property is under contract option to a developer who believes he can build the remaining
6 units. No permits or approvals currently exist.
Surrounding land uses: Residential – urban
All Criteria Score: 264 out of 400.
Aerial map
11.B.2
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: BCC Property Summary Hack 2018 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Green & Green Property Cycle 9
April 24, 2108
Updated 3/2/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A-List – Priority #2
Parcel Name: Green & Green Investments Target Protection Area: Urban Acreage: 28.7
Total Assessed Value: $574,000 Total Estimated Market Value: $631,400
Highlights:
Location: Located adjacent to CR 951 south of US 41, adjacent to Rookery Bay lands
and Conservation Collier Shell Island Preserve
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met: Met 6 out of 6 Initial
Screening Criteria – Native habitat, human social values, biodiversity, connectivity,
within another agency boundary (Rookery Bay NERR).
Habitat - Fresh and saltwater marsh, mangrove swamp. Contains ordinance preferred
habitats – great for bird species.
Listed Plants: None observed
Listed Wildlife: Wood storks, little blue heron, tricolored heron, little blue heron,
American alligator. Potential listed species include Florida panther.
Water Resource Values: Entirely wetlands, depressional and tidal soils, moderate
surficial aquifer recharge.
Connectivity: Surrounded by Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and
adjacent to Shell Island Preserve.
Other Division Interest? None known
Access: Electrical utility easement on west side, potential for limited educational
access via easement, CR 951 access not envisioned but possible. No trails, would
require a boardwalk to access.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Minimal exotics. Est. cost for initial
management - $11,200 (exotics, signs). Annual est. cost - $1,500.
Partnership Opportunities: Possibly a management partnership with Rookery Bay
NERR to include prescribed fire.
Zoning/Overlays: Agricultural – no overlays.
Surrounding land uses: Conservation and residential across 951 (Marco
Shores/Fiddler’s Creek)
All Criteria Score: 276 out of 400.
11.B.3
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Green and Green (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP – Sanitation and Bethune Properties Cycle 9
4/24/18
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation – A List – Priority #3
Parcel Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Target Protection Area: Urban Acreage: 2 parcels offered as package
Total Assessed Value: Parcel a. - $689,475 Total Est. Market Value: Parcel a. - $737,100 Parcel a. - 289.5acres
Parcel b. – 833,100 Parcel b. - $380,000 Parcel b. – 111.08 acres
Highlights:
Location: Located within the boundaries of the town of Immokalee on the southwest side west of the
Casino along Bethune Road and Sanitation Road.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met: 5 out of 6 criteria met – Native habitat, Human
Social Values, Water resource Values, Significant Biological Values, Enhance Current Environmental
Lands.
Habitat: 7 distinct native habitats mapped – 6 directly observed. A priority native plant community is
present – tropical hardwood hammock.
Listed Plants: Bromeliads, Florida royal palm, Satin leaf, red stopper, hand fern
Listed Wildlife: Osprey observed, potential habitat for alligator, snail kite, little blue heron, American
kestrel, Florida bonneted bat, wood stork, Everglades mink, Florida Panther, eastern indigo snake. Known
wood stork colonies are close; properties are within foraging area. Within FWC primary panther habitat.
Water Resource Values: Properties approx. half wetland and half upland, includes Immokalee slough.
Wetland dependent wildlife (birds, apple snails, crawfish) and plants noted. Likely is taking flood waters
from surrounding developed residential lands. Surficial aquifer recharge area.
Connectivity: Connects westward through Immokalee slough with Pepper Ranch and 60,000 acres
CREW lands and SSA lands. Landscape connection east to Okaloacoochee Slough & other major
conservation lands.
Other Division interest? Utilities may want to partner for 100-acre refuse collection site.
Access: There is access from public paved Immokalee Road, Bethune Road and South 5th St.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: The site contains a 16-acre old County landfill – the Eustis
landfill. This was closed in 2012 and site samples show it met permit requirements. The landfill site was
leased originally, with the County holding liability. Initial exotics control est. at $328,000 plus parking
$25,000, fencing/gates $88,400, Trails $1,240 & signs $4,000. Total initial est. $446,640. Ongoing est.
maint. $68,525. These are worst case scenarios.
Partnership Opportunities: None known
Zoning/Overlays: Parcel a. – A-MHO-RLSAO (No SSA); Parcel b. Estates
Surrounding land uses: Residential single family, multi-family, PUD, and Utility (Immokalee Water and
Sewer District offices, wells and spray fields.
All Criteria Score: 280 out of 400.
11.B.4
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Sanitation-Bethune (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary Cycle 9
Robert H. Gore Estate
April 24, 2018
1
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – Priority #4
Parcel Name: Gore Target Protection Area: NGGE Acreage: 180.26 acres without Homesite
Total Assessed Value: $371,822 Total Estimated Market Value: $811,170 ($4,500 per acre)
69 separate folios offered (list attached);
This is a Cycle 8 Board “B” ranked property
Criteria Summary:
Location: Located just north of I-75 between Everglades Blvd. and Desoto Blvd. NGGE Units 91 and 92.
Met 5 of 6 Initial Screening Criteria: Native habitat; human social values; water resource values -;
biodiversity; connectivity; not within another Agency project boundary.
Habitat: cypress/ pine/ cabbage palm; wetland coniferous forest, approx. 1/3 upland soils, and 2/3 seasonal
wetlands.
Listed Plants: common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), reflexed wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana), giant
sword fern (Nephrolepis biserrata).
Listed Wildlife: FWC telemetry shows use by panthers. Habitat for Florida bonneted bats and Snail Kites.
Water Resource Values: hydric soils exist on just over 75% of the parcels; wetland indicators noted and
numerous wetland dependent plants species noted; mapped aquifer recharge: Moderate to high annual recharge
to the Surficial Aquifer System.
Restoration needs: extensive exotic removal/control needed. Exotics estimated to be 25-50% total (95%
along road edges) - primarily mature Brazilian pepper.
Connectivity: Parcel is within a historic wetland that connects with the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge (FPNWR) to the east, however it is separated by Desoto and the old Harley Davidson Test Track.
Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) is located across I-75 to the south and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve
to the SE across I-75. Ledges under Miller and FakaUnion canals connect to PSSF. Everglades Blvd. and
developable lots separate connectivity to the North Belle Meade sending lands.
Access: Good - 38th, 40th and 42nd Avenues SE – all unpaved, 40th and 42nd in poor condition, 42nd is FDOT
ROW – County does not maintain.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotics-$82,000, and $1,000 signage. Ongoing annual
maintenance estimated at $82,000 for some time.
Partnership Opportunities: The Cypress Cove Conservancy (501c3) has an option to buy the 10-acre
homesite and plans to run environmental programs.
Zoning/Overlays: No Overlays, no TDRs. Single family Estates zoning
Surrounding land uses: Undeveloped Estates residential
All Criteria Score: 251 out of 400.
11.B.5
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Gore property summary BCC 2018 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary Cycle 9
Robert H. Gore Estate
April 24, 2018
2
Highlighted parcels are not contiguous to the grouping. FolioLegal DescAcres2017 Assessed Value2009 Assessed Value141500040008NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 11.59$2,814$13,992241500080000NGGEUNit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft Tr 11.14$2,018$10,032341500120009NGGE Unit 91 E 150 Ft of Tr 12.27$4,018$19,976441500160001NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft Tr 21.14$2,018$10,032541500200000NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 21.59$2,814$34,980641500240002NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 21.14$2,018$10,032741500280004NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft of Tr 21.14$2,018$10,032841500320003NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 31.14$2,018$10,032941500360005NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 31.14$2,018$10,0321041500400004NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 32.73$4,832$24,0241141501320002NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 141.14$2,018$10,0321241501360004NGGE Unit 91 E 105 Ft of Tr 141.14$2,018$10,0321341501400003NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 142.27$4,018$19,9761541501480007NGGE Unit 91 Tr 165.00$8,850$44,0001641501520006NGGE Unit 91 Tr 17 5.00$8,850$44,0001741501600007NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 191.14$2,018$10,0321841501640009NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 191.14$2,018$10,0321941501680001NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 191.59$2,814$13,9922041501720000NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft of Tr 191.14$2,018$10,0322141501840003NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 201.14$5,045$45,6002241502680000NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 315.00$22,125$200,0002341502720009NGGE Unit 91 Tr 305.00$8,850$44,0002441502760001NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 312.28$4,036$20,0642541502800000NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 312.73$4,832$24,0242641502840002NGGE Unit 91 Tr 325.00$8,850$44,0002741502880004NGGE Unit 91 E 150 Ft of Tr 332.27$4,018$19,9762841502920003NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 332.73$4,832$24,0242941502960005NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 341.14$2,018$10,0323041503000003NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 342.73$4,832$24,0243141503080007NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 351.59$2,814$13,9923241504080006NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 461.14$2,018$10,0323341504120005NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 150 Ft of Tr 461.14$2,018$10,0323441504200006NGGE Unit 91 E 105 Ft Tr 461.59$2,814$13,9923541504240008NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 472.74$4,850$24,1123641504280000NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 472.27$4,018$19,9763741504400000NGGE Unit 91 W 416 Ft of Tr 503.15$5,576$27,7203841504440002NGGE Unit 91 E 264 Ft of Tr 502.00$3,540$17,6003941504520003NGGE Unit 91 N 75 Ft of Tr 511.17$2,071$10,2964041504560005NGGE Unit 91 S 180 Ft of Tr 512.81$4,974$24,7284141504600004NGGE Unit 91 Tr 525.15$9,116$45,3204241504680008NGGE Unit 91 N 150 Ft of Tr 532.34$4,142$20,5924341504720007NGGE Unit 91 Tr 545.15$9,116$45,3204441506600002NGGE Unit 91 N 150 Ft Tr 742.34$10,355$93,6004541507160004NGGE Unit 91 N 180 Ft of Tr 792.81$4,974$24,7284641507200003NGGE Unit 91 S 150 Ft of Tr 792.27$4,018$19,9764841510120002NGGE Unit 91 Tr 1095.00$22,125$200,0004941510640003NGGE Unit 91 Tr 1166.39$28,276$255,0005041560120007NGGE Unit 91A E 180 Ft of Tr 1223.81$6,744$33,5285141560160009NGGE Unit 91A W 159 Ft of Tr 1223.15$5,576$27,7205241560200008NGGE Replat 91A Tr 1236.99$12,372$61,5125341560320001NGGE Unit 91A W 180 Ft ofTr 1253.83$6,779$33,7045441616920009NGGE Unit 92 Tr 845.68$10,054$90,8805541616960001NGGE Unit 92 E 75 Ft of Tr 851.14$2,018$18,2405641617120002NGGEUnit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 862.73$4,832$43,6805741617960000NGGE Unit 92 W 150 Ft of Tr 972.27$4,018$36,3205841618000008NGGE Unit 92 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 971.14$2,018$18,2405941618080002NGGE Unit 92 E 180 Ft of Tr 982.73$4,832$43,6806041618200002NGGE Unit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 992.73$4,832$43,6806141618240004NGGE Unit 92 E 150 Ft of Tr 992.27$4,018$36,3206241618280006NGGE Unit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 1002.73$4,832$43,6806341618320005NGGE Unit 92 E 150 Ft of Tr 1002.27$4,018$36,3206441619200001NGGE Unit 92 W 75 Ft of Tr 1111.14$2,018$18,2406541619320004NGGE Unit 92 E 180 Ft of Tr 1122.73$4,832$43,6806641619360006NGGE Unit 92 W 150 Ft of Tr 1122.27$4,018$36,3206741661640004NGGE Unit 92A Tr 1385.00$8,850$44,0006841661680006NGGE Unit 92A Tr 1395.00$8,850$44,0006941661800006NGGE Unit 92A Tr 1425.00$8,850$44,000TOTAL180.26$371,822$2,455,79611.B.5
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Gore property summary BCC 2018 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP – Big Hammock Area II Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – Priority #9
Parcel Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Target Protection Area: RLSA Acreage: 799.4
Total Assessed Value: $1,447,713 Total Estimated Market Value: $1,854,608
This is a Cycle 8 Board “A” ranked property
Highlights:
Location: Area II is located south of the Pepper Ranch Preserve in Immokalee, Florida –
connects through Area I.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met – 6 out of 6. Native Habitat,
Human Social Values, Water Resource Values, Significant Biological Values, Enhance
Current environmental lands, Within Another Agency Acquisition Boundary (High priority
in Florida Forever CREW Project).
Habitat: 8 native plant communities present – 4 directly observed. Exotics 15%.
Listed Plants: Bromeliads and native orchids
Listed Wildlife: Florida panther, Florida sandhill crane, Little blue heron, Roseate spoonbill,
woodstork observed/documented. Habitat for more including Snail kite, Osprey and
Audubon’s crested caracara.
Water Resource Values: Recharge of surficial aquifer, protection of wetland species
habitat, buffers Corkscrew Marsh from development and non-point-source pollution.
Connectivity: Directly connected to 60,000 acres of CREW lands and through Camp Keais
Strand to Florida Panther NWR, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park,
and more of the millions of acres of conserved lands in eastern and southern Collier.
Other Division Interest? None known
Access: Access through Pepper Ranch Preserve and Area I – unpaved road and trail.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $655,508 and
ongoing annual estimated at $135,100. Owner wants to restore per SSA and remove
credits, subject to negotiation upon qualified offer.
Partnership Opportunities: Florida Forever currently has no funding until 2019 and title
policies prevent partnership.
Zoning/Overlays – AG-MHO-RLSAO–SSA#13. Area II also has
Surrounding land uses: Rural, farming, ranching, conservation
All criteria Score – 197 out of 400. Lower score due to presence of SSA overlay.
11.B.6
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Big Hammock II (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
I-75 Project – Berman Trust Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – Priority #5
Parcel Name: Richard F. Berman Revocable Living Trust Target Protection Area: NGGE Acreage: 2.34
Total Assessed Value: $20,534 Total Estimated Market Value: $16,146
This is a Cycle 8 Board “B” ranked property
Highlights:
Location: NGGE Unit 91, along Desoto Blvd. at 38th Ave SE.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met? 5 out of 6 criteria
were minimally met but this is limited in effect if acquired without the Gore
project.
Habitat: Mixed wetland hardwoods
Listed Plants: Bromeliad, giant sword fern
Listed Wildlife: FWC panther telemetry shows panther use. Potential listed
species - Florida bonneted bats
Water Resource Values: Moderate to high Surficial Aquifer System recharge.
Likely accepts floodwaters. Has karst topography, a wetland indicator.
Connectivity: Connected across Desoto Blvd with the Gore parcels.
Other Division Interest? None known.
Access: Access is from Desoto Blvd., a paved public road.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotics removal estimated at
$1,900, with $400 annual cost for maintenance.
Partnership Opportunities: None known.
Zoning/Overlays: Zoning is Estates – no overlays.
Surrounding land uses: Residential Estates single family
All Criteria Score: 223 out of 400.
11.B.7
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Berman (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active Acquisition
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Half Circle L Ranch Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – Priority #7
Parcel Name: Half Circle L Ranch Target Protection Area: RLSAO Habitat and Flowway Stewardship areas
Acreage: 3,370 acres offered (portions of 6 sections of land), Owners are willing to reduce offering to 3 sections of land or 1,920 acres.
Total Assessed Value: 3,370 acres - $5,709,410; 1,920 acres - $3,251,000
Total Estimated Market Value: 3,370 acres - $10,110,000; 1,920 acres - $5,760,000
Highlights:
• Location: Located approx. 8 miles east of Immokalee, north of CR 846. Part of the Okaloacoochee Slough.
• How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met: 6 out of 6 criteria were met significantly. This property is
within the boundaries of the Florida Forever 2018 Priority List – Project #8.
• Habitat: 16 separate plant communities are mapped, 6 were directly observed. This property is primarily slough
wetlands with some uplands in a mosaic pattern, mostly freshwater marsh.
• Listed Plants: No listed plant species were observed, but some areas were inaccessible due to water.
• Listed Wildlife: Many wetland dependent bird species observed. Sandhill crane, roseate spoonbill, Audubon’s crested
caracara, wood stork observed. Panther telemetry shows presence. A bird rookery was mapped on the site in 2008. Other
potential listed species include Florida bonneted bat, Everglades mink, little blue heron, Everglades snail kite.
• Water Resource Values: The property is wetlands and provides for moderate Surficial Aquifer System recharge. This
is a major slough and provides potential for overland filtration downstream for the Fakahatchee Strand and Big Cypress
National Preserve.
• Connectivity: There is a direct connection to the Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, inner Island Wildlife Management
Area and private conservation in Hendry County. Also, there is a direct connection to significant surrounding SSA lands.
• Other Division Interest? None known
• Access: Access is through Thorp Road, a private Road, and remainder of owner’s lands. Owner is agreeable to providing
access.
• Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotics removal estimated at $2,763,400 with another $25,000 for
parking, $5000 for access trails, and $5,000 for signs. Ongoing annual costs estimated at $569,500 annually. These are
maximum costs.
• Partnership Opportunities: State of Florida (Florida Forever) if they allowed for shared title, which they do not. Collier
would have to pay half, get no title, lease back and manage the land.
• Zoning/Overlays: A-MHO-RLSAO-ACST/ST. Additionally, this property is currently included in the Eastern Lands
HCP. Owners are willing to remove it.
• Surrounding land uses: Rural, ranching, farming, conservation
• All Criteria Score: 198 out of 400. High ecological and management score but lower overall primarily because you
can’t see it from a roadway and it is not particularly vulnerable to development.
11.B.8
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Half Circle L Ranch (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP – Big Hammock Area I Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CLAAC Recommendation: A List – Priority #8
Parcel Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Target Protection Area: RLSA Acreage: 235
Total Assessed Value: $425,585 Total Estimated Market Value: $545,200
This is a Cycle 8 Board “A” ranked property
Highlights:
Location: Area I is located adjacent to and south of the Pepper Ranch Preserve in
Immokalee, Florida
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met – 6 out of 6. Native Habitat,
Human Social Values, Water Resource Values, Significant Biological Values, Enhance
Current environmental lands, Within Another Agency Acquisition Boundary (High
priority in Florida Forever CREW Project).
Habitat: 7 native plant communities present – 5 directly observed. Exotics 10-24%.
Listed Plants: Bromeliads and native orchids
Listed Wildlife: Florida panther, Florida sandhill crane, Little blue heron, Roseate
spoonbill, woodstork observed/documented. Habitat for more including Snail kite,
Osprey and Audubon’s crested caracara.
Water Resource Values: Recharge of surficial aquifer, protection of wetland species
habitat, buffers Corkscrew Marsh from development and non-point-source pollution.
Connectivity: Directly connected to 60,000 acres of CREW lands and through Camp
Keais Strand to Florida Panther NWR, Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades
National Park, and more of the millions of acres of conserved lands in eastern and
southern Collier.
Other Division Interest? None known
Access: Access through Pepper Ranch Preserve – unpaved road.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $192,700
and ongoing annual estimated at $655,500. Owner has offered to remove exotics at
cost.
Partnership Opportunities: Florida Forever currently has no funding until 2019 and
title policies prevent partnership.
Zoning/Overlays – AG-MHO-RLSAO – no SSA over this property.
Surrounding land uses: Rural, farming, ranching, conservation
All criteria Score – 253 out of 400.
11.B.9
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Big Hammock 1 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
SD Corp of Naples, Inc./Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC, Revised 4/2/18 Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
1 – Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: Parcels 2 & 3 - A List – Priority #6; Parcel 1 - B List
Parcel Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc./Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC Acreage: 115.15 acres - 3 parcels offered as a package:
Target Protection Area: Urban Parcel 1 - 77.99 acres
Total Assessed Value: $2,793,072 Parcel 2 - 7.16 acres
Total Estimated Market Value: $6,479,000 Parcel 3 - 30 acres
Parcel 1 – 77.99 ac - $4,212,000 - $54,000/ac
Parcel 2 – 7.16 ac - $436,760 - $61,000/ac
Parcel 3 – 30 ac - $1, 830,000 - $61,000/ac
Highlights:
• Location: The parcels are in the Urban area, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road between
Santa Barbara Blvd and CR 951 (Collier Blvd.).
• How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met: 5 out of 6 criteria were met,
some to a greater degree than others. These properties re not within another agency’s
acquisition boundary.
• Habitat: Remnants of at least 6 native habitats remain, though severely impacted by
exotics. Wetlands are in better shape than mesic areas. Parcel 1 is invaded by exotics as
much as 85%. Other areas at least 25%. There are 2 known archeological sites.
• Listed Plants: Bromeliads, Florida royal palm, Simpson’s stopper, marsh fern butterfly
orchid, bird’s nest fern.
• Listed Wildlife: Little blue heron. Non- listed species seen include red bellied woodpecker,
red-tailed hawk, killdeer, banded water snake, numerous birds.
• Water Resource Values: The parcels are 82% wetlands and contribute moderately to
recharge of the Surficial Aquifer System. The Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
(LASIP) improvements regulate water locally to prevent flooding and drying out.
• Connectivity: Connected directly with the Serenity Park at NE corner, where a connective
trail is possible but requires a small bridge over the canal.
• Other Division Interest? The surrounding LASIP easement encompassing 10.9 acres was acquired
by the County in 2016 to construct storm water improvements to the Wing South/Sandy Lane
Interconnect segment of the LASIP (see map inset). It was acquired following an Order of
Taking and Board approved negotiated settlement of $1,200,000. The settlement was due to
11.B.10
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-SD Corp (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active Acquisition
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
SD Corp of Naples, Inc./Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC, Revised 4/2/18 Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
2 – Updated 4/13/18
the critical nature of the LASIP project and because a better result was not anticipated at trial. If the
Board elects to go forward with acquisition, the easement will be considered in the appraisal since it
limits the use of the property in those areas to drainage. No other interest is known.
• Access: Paved public road access via Whitaker Rd. Adkins Ave., Polly Ave. and Everett St.
Trails exist and could be reestablished, would require parking.
• Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotic control (including all parcels)
estimated at $382,000 with parking ($25,000), Trails creation ($1,200) and signs
($3,000) Total= $411,215. Annual recurring maintenance estimated at $13,700.
For just parcels 2 & 3, Initial exotics costs are estimated at $123,950, with ongoing
costs estimated at $4,255.
• Partnership Opportunities: Capital Project/Impact fee partnership for access across
LASIP canal to join Serenity Park to this property by trail.
• Zoning/Overlays: Parcel 1 is zoned PUD (Shadowood) and parcels 2 and 3 are zoned
Agricultural. A Special Treatment (ST) overlay exists over approx. 17 acres. One (1)
acre from parcel 1 and 16 acres from parcel 3.
• Surrounding land uses: PUD Planned Unit Development), Agriculture, RSF (Residential
Single Family) at 3 and 5 units per acre.
• All Criteria Score: 249 out of 400.
LASIP Easement
11.B.10
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-SD Corp (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active Acquisition
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Red Maple swamp Multi-parcel Project Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
1
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – To be funded out of offsite preservation donations
Parcel Name: Red Maple Swamp Multi-parcel Project Target Protection Area: NGGE Acreage Remaining to Acquire: 98
Total Approximate Remaining Assessed Value: $344,960 Total Estimated Remaining Market Value: $813,670
This is a Cycle 8 Board “A” ranked project
Parcel Folio Acres Estimated
Cost
Celsnak 39492560006 2.73 $15,698
Romak 39493520003 1.14 $6,555
Thurston 39493520003 1.14 $6,555
Totals 5.01 $28,808
Highlights:
Location: The Red Maple Swamp Preserve aka NGGE Unit 53, is a small undeveloped NGGE
Unit located west of Immokalee Road near the County fairgrounds.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met? 5 out of 6 criteria were met. This
project is on the edge of but not within the Florida Forever mapped CREW project lands.
Habitat: 50% mixed wetland hardwoods, 30% mixed wetland hardwood-shrubs, and 10%
cypress. Observations are of a native plant community of mixed wetland hardwoods over most of
the project area, and in the old farm field area the canopy is primarily red maple with secondary
dominance by cypress, which is persisting despite increasing invasion by exotic plant species now
at approx. 35-40% throughout with dense areas of old world climbing fern recently found.
Listed Plants: Bromeliads, royal fern, native orchids. Many wetland dependent plant species
seen here.
Listed Wildlife: Wood stork, little blue heron, panther (telemetry). Within FWC priority 1
panther habitat. Potential listed species include Everglades snail kite and Florida bonneted bats,
and wading bird species. Non-listed species include deer, bear, and birds.
Water Resource Values: This project is entirely wetlands, supports wetland dependent species,
is mapped to have high Surficial Aquifer System recharge, and can be expected to hold flood
waters.
Connectivity: Red Maple Swamp is connected on its north and west sides with the 60,000 acre
Florida Forever Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Project, which includes
Corkscrew Marsh, Bird Rookery Swamp, Flint Pen Strand and Audubon’s Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. Through them, Red Maple Swamp connects with the Pepper Ranch and Caracara
11.B.11
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Red Maple Swamp (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Red Maple swamp Multi-parcel Project Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
2
Updated 4/13/18
Prairie Preserves, private mitigation lands and lands protected under the County’s Rural
Lands Stewardship Program
Other Division Interest? None known.
Access: The project can be accessed by two unpaved public lime rock roads – Shady
Hollow Blvd, W (maintained up to Bird Rookery Swamp entrance) and 41st Ave NW
(unmaintained).
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Exotics are the primary management issue.
Currently, 53 acres on the western side and 4 donation parcels are under active
management with another 40 acres coming under management shortly. Current costs
are approx. $9,600/year. A portion of funding for management comes from donated
management funds. Estimated initial costs for remaining parcels is $44,630 with
estimated annual maintenance of $44,630 for some time.
Partnership Opportunities: There may be potential to partner with State land
managers for expanding trail opportunities.
Zoning/Overlays: Parcels are all zones Estates with no zoning overlays.
Surrounding land uses: Conservation, residential single-family Estates.
All Criteria Score: 225 out of 400.
Bird Rookery Swamp Trails
11.B.11
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Red Maple Swamp (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Winchester Head multi-parcel Project Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
1
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: A List – To be funded out of offsite preservation donations
Parcel Name: Winchester Head multi-parcel Project Target Protection Area: NGGE Acreage Remaining to acquire: 77.4
Total Approximate Assessed Value: $525,412 Total Estimated Market Value: $967,500
This is a Cycle 8 Board “A” ranked project
Parcels currently in acquisition process using donation funding:
Parcel Folio Acres Estimated
Cost
Mejia 39955400001 1.14 acres $14,250
Smith 39958080004 1.14 acres $14,250
Wallace 39959720004 1.14 acres $14,250
Ebanks 39959800005 1.14 acres $14,250
Bueno-Costa 39957760008 2.73 acres $34,000
Totals 7.29 acres $91,000
Highlights:
Location: Located just east of Everglades Blvd. And north of Oil Well Road, within NGGE
Units 62 and 65.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met? This project meets 5 out of 6 criteria,
though connectivity is marginal through undeveloped landscape connections with rural lands to
the east. This area is not within another agency’s acquisition boundary, though the Collier Soil
and Water Conservation District owns 2 parcels (2.28 acres) within Winchester Head.
Habitat: Cypress, Freshwater wetland, mixed wetland hardwoods, Cypress-pine-cabbage palm (at
edges). This is a roughly 200-acre cypress depressional wetland feature that is invaded by exotics
at its edges and along roads, but is relatively clean in the interior.
Listed Plants: Listed bromeliads and royal fern seen. Many wetland dependent plant species here.
Listed Wildlife: Swallow-tailed kite, bald eagle, Florida panther (telemetry). Other wildlife seen
includes bird species. Wildlife documented includes 11 frog species, Florida black bear and
alligators.
Water Resource Values: This site is entirely wetlands providing habitat for wetland dependent
species, it contributes to the Surficial Aquifer System, and holds flood waters away from
surrounding residential properties. It is within the proposed North Golden Gate Flowway
Restoration Project noted in the 2011 County Watershed Management Plan.
11.B.12
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Winchester Head (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Board of County Commissioners Conservation Collier Property Summary
Winchester Head multi-parcel Project Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
2
Updated 4/13/18
Connectivity: The property is not immediately contiguous to conservation land. Parcels in
between it and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge – which is southeast of the property –
are currently undeveloped.
Other Division Interest? Capital Planning has interest in the site remaining undeveloped to serve
as part of a flowway restoration project (see inset map from the 2011 County Watershed
Management Plan).
Access: The area can be easily accessed along paved public roads (37th and 39th Ave NE. A 1.14-
acre upland lot donated to Conservation Collier in 2016 at the southwest edge of the project can
provide parking. Access to interior areas would require a boardwalk.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Current management costs are approx. $10,400
annually. A significant portion of that is paid for with donation management funding. Estimated
remaining initial exotics costs once all parcels have been acquired is approx. $33,100, with annual
estimated management costs of $21,500 annually.
Partnership Opportunities: There may be potential for partnering with the Collier Soil and
Water Conservation District, as they have conservation interests within the project.
Zoning/Overlays: Parcels are all zoned Estates with no zoning overlays.
Surrounding land uses: Rural single family residential.
All Criteria Score: 261 out of 400.
11.B.12
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Winchester Head (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
CCLAAC Conservation Collier Property Summary
I-75 Project – Mayr Cycle 9
April 24, 2018
Updated 4/13/18
CCLAAC Recommendation: C List
Parcel Name: Mayr Target Protection Area: NGGE Acreage: 6.70
Total Assessed Value: $28,140 Total Estimated Market Value: $52,930
This is a Cycle 8 Board “B” ranked property
Highlights:
Location: NGGE Unit 92A, east of Everglades Blvd. along 42nd Ave SE.
How many of the 6 Initial Screening Criteria were met? 5 out of 6 criteria
were minimally met but this is limited in effect if acquired without the Gore
project.
Habitat: Cabbage palm, and slash pine with a small area of temperate
hardwood hammock.
Listed Plants: Bromeliad
Listed Wildlife: None observed. Non-listed wildlife seen included armadillo,
pileated woodpecker, red shoulder hawk and a white eyed vireo. Bear scat seen.
Water Resource Values: This parcel is a seasonal wetland. It is mapped as
contributing moderately to the Surficial Aquifer System.
Connectivity: This parcel is not connected to current conservation land, though
there is a ledge connection with the Picayune Strand State Forest under I-75 at
the Faka Union Canal.
Other Division Interest? None known.
Access: The parcel is accessible from 42nd Ave SE, an unpaved limestone road
within the I-75 ROW.
Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotics removal estimated at
$5,360, with annual estimated costs of $1,300 for maintenance.
Partnership Opportunities: None known.
Zoning/Overlays. Zoning is Estates – no overlays.
Surrounding land uses: Residential Estates single family
All Criteria Score: 212 out of 400.
11.B.13
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: BCC Property Summary-Mayr (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active Acquisition
Hack Living TrustCCLAAC Recommended A-1
11.B.15
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Green and Green Investments Inc.CCLAAC Recommended A-2
11.B.15
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP –Sanitation and Bethune
CCLAAC Recommended A-3 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Gore Trust
CCLAAC Recommended A-4 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
I-75 Project –Berman TrustCCLAAC Recommended A-5 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
SD Corp/Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC
Parcels 2 & 3
CCLAAC Recommended A-6
11.B.15
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Half Circle L Ranch –1,920 Acres
CCLAAC Recommended A-7 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP –
Big Hammock
Area I
CCLAAC Recommended A-8 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP –Big Hammock Area II
CCLAAC Recommended A-9 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
NGGE Unit 53 –Red Maple Swamp
CCLAAC Recommended A-No Priority Designation 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Winchester Head Multi-parcel Project
CCLAAC Recommended A-No Priority Designation 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Half Circle L Ranch –3,370 acres
CCLAAC Recommended B 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
SD Corp/Cypress Landings II of Naples LLC -Parcel 1
CCLAAC Recommended B 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
I-75 Project –Mayr
CCLAAC Recommended C 11.B.15
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
11.B.15
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Presentation Cycle 9 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle Active
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Property Name: Hack Living Trust
Folio Number(s): 00388160002, 00033484002
Staff Report Date: January 8, 2018
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 2 of 46
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 7
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ............................................ 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ...................... 15
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 16
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 18
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 19
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 20
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 20
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 20
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 22
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 23
Exhibit C. Aquifer Recharge-Wellfield Protection Maps ............................................ 24
Exhibit D. Zoning Map ................................................................................................. 25
Exhibit E. Historical Aerials (Source: 1953 and 1962 aerials - University of Florida
Digital Collections. 1980 aerial - Collier County Property Appraiser) ....................... 26
Exhibit F. FEMA Map ................................................................................................ 27
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 28
Exhibit H. CLIP4 Biodiversity Map ............................................................................. 29
Exhibit I. CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Map ........................................................ 30
Exhibit J. CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Map ....................................................................... 31
Exhibit K. CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Map ................................................. 32
Exhibit L. CLIP4 Landscape Integrity Map ................................................................. 33
Exhibit M. CLIP4 Surface Water Priorities Map.......................................................... 34
Exhibit N. CLIP4 Aggregate Priorities Map................................................................. 35
Exhibit O. USFWS Florida bonneted bat and West Indian manatee habitat areas ...... 36
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 37
Exhibit Q. Photographs ................................................................................................ 40
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 3 of 46
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation
Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle to meet requirements specified in the
Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes
of the Conservation Collier Program. It provides objective data to demonstrate how
properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. That is the sole purpose for this
report and it is not meant for any other use.
This report makes use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and
University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is
a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural
resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida
Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for
Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for
acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data layers which are
representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface water,
groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Potential Habitat Richness (Vertebrates)
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Following the first section, which looks more closely at initial criteria, additional sections
address potential for appropriate public use, assessment of management needs and costs,
potential for matching funds, and a summary of the secondary screening criteria.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 4 of 46
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to
describe how the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics
and to provide other general property information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Hack Living Trust A local developer holds an Options Contract
Folio Numbers 00388160002
00033484002
17.85 acres
10.61 acres
Target Protection
Area
Urban
Commission
District
4 Commissioner - Penny Taylor
Size none n/a
STR S11 T50 R25 and S14
T50 R25
Adjacent to the City of Naples but within Unincorporated
Collier County.
Zoning
Category/TDRs
RMF-6 -ST RMF-6=Residential Multi-family up to 6 units per acre – 6
units remain under Sandpiper development.
ST - Special Treatment Overlay exists over both parcels
FEMA Flood Map
Category
AE Area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-
chance-flood event. Base flood elevations, mandatory
flood insurance and floodplain management standards
apply.
Existing structures n/a No structures
Adjoining
properties and their
Uses
Single and multi-family
residential, PUD, open
space/conservation
North- Multi-family (Sandpiper Bay and Royal Arms)
East-Mobile Home (Naples land Yacht Harbor and other
residential
South-PUD-open space/conservation (Windstar)
West- Single family residential (Royal Harbor, City of
Naples)
Development Plans
Submitted
Developer with option
seeks to place 6
additional units on the
property
Based on property density, 6 more units might be possible
for construction on this property IF the ST Overlay were
removed.
A site assessment was done on the property in August 2015
by a local environmental consulting firm, which concluded
that this property would be difficult and expensive to
permit and develop because of its mangrove wetlands.
Known Property
Irregularities
Oil, Gas and Mineral
rights (OGMs)
OGMs not included
Other County Dept
Interest
Transportation,
Utilities, Solid Waste,
Parks and Recreation,
Environmental Services,
Housing, Coastal
systems, Zoning,
Engineering
No other County Division has expressed interest in these
parcels.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 5 of 46
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 6 of 46
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 7 of 46
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 8 of 46
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the
value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market
data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income
capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property
than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties
from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with similar site
characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection
was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the Real Estate Services
Department staff relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are
limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown
adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one
appraisal is required.
Assessed Value: * 00388160002 – 17.85 acres - $893.00
00394840002 – 10.61 acres - $531.00
Estimated Market Value: ** $108,000 for both parcels
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel.
This parcel is zoned RMF-6 (Residential Multi-family – up to 6 units per acre). It is also
within a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay and is marine wetlands. The implications for
acquisition are US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) wetland regulations and local (Collier County)
development rules present obstacles to its development. The ST Overlay, which removes
approximately 95% of developable value could be removed through a public process and
the State wetland protections could be overcome with enough mitigation. It would be
difficult and expensive, but the property might conceivably be developed for the remaining
6 units. The August 15, 2017 site Assessment by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc.
additionally advises that the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan would allow for docks
under limiting criteria from local, state and federal agencies.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department – date of value estimate – September
2010
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 9 of 46
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to provide a closer look at how the property meets initial criteria.
Conservation Collier Program staff conducted site visits on July 13, 2017 and December 21, 2017.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA-
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) Yes
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats YES – Mangrove
Swamp
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) and field
verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified: FLUCCS 6120 – Mangrove swamp
The following native plant communities were observed: 6120 - Mangrove swamp –
consisting of red, black and white mangroves (Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia germinans,
and Laguncularia racemosa) - covers almost the entire property. Mangrove swamp
associates such as buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera),
strangler fig (Ficus aurea) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) are present as well as non-
native invasive plant species. Invasive exotic and landscape plants dominate along the
edges and on the spoil piles. Mangroves are protected under the 1996 Mangrove Trimming
and Protections Act, Florida Statutes (F.S.) Sections 403.9321-403.0333. Mangroves
provide the following ecological function and services:
• Habitat for wetland dependent species of wildlife,
• Protection of coastal areas from storm surge and erosion,
• Protection of water quality, by filtering urban freshwater runoff before it reaches
open water,
• Acting as the food base for the estuarine food chain, which includes commercially
and recreationally important fish species and protected species,
• Absorption and reduction of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 10 of 46
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Ground Cover: Ground cover in undisturbed mangrove area is sparse, consisting of saltwort
(Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii) and coin vine (Dahlbergia
ecastophyllum). Groundcover on spoil mounds consists of invasive exotic plants like
Arrowhead (Syngomium podophyllum), bowstring hemp (Sansevieria sp.), carrot wood
(Cupaniopsis anacardioides), wedelia (Wedelia trilobata), beach naupaka (Scaevola
sericea), and rosary pea (Abrus precatorius).
Midstory: There is no midstory in mangrove areas. Spoil mounds have some Midstory
plants, mostly exotic species. Natives include cabbage palms, sea grape, strangler fig, and
beauty berry (Callicarpa Americana). Exotic and landscape plants include Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), climbing cassia (Senna pendula), carrotwood, Cuban
laurel (Ficus retusa), Scheffelera (Sheffelera actinophylla), banana (Musa sp.), areca palm
(Chrysalidocarpus lutescens), frangipani (Plumeria sp.), dracaena (Dracaena sp.), and
hibiscus (Hibiscus sp.),
Canopy: The canopy in mangrove areas is comprised of white, red and black mangroves
with scattered buttonwood. On spoil mounds, the canopy includes natives such as strangler
fig and buttonwood, the landscape tree mango (Magnifera sp.), and the invasive exotic
Australian pine (Casuarina sp.). Some trees along the edges and internally appeared to be
infected with Crown Gall, a disease vectored by a bacterium, Agrobacterium tumfaciens,
which is soil-borne and enters the plant through wounds in the bark.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 1: Although this property does not contain any
unique and endangered plant communities, it does contain a relatively intact mangrove
swamp community, one of the few remaining undeveloped in the urban area. Spoil piles
have allowed invasive exotic plants to get a toehold in the interior but they are limited to
the piles. The remainder of the mangrove forest appears to be functioning. The CLIP4
Priority Natural Communities Map (Exhibit J) shows mangroves to be a lower priority, but
still one of the few urban areas surrounding to have any type of priority at all.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 2: This property is approximately 2 miles from the
Gordon River Greenway, the closest Conservation Collier Property. Rookery Bay, a
publicly accessible State conservation area is approximately 3 miles south. There is
appropriate access for nature-based recreation along Sandpiper St. and Marlin St., however,
parking is currently not allowed within the Right of Way (ROW) along Marlin St., the
obvious choice for access, and developing a parking area in mangroves would be very
expensive. The Board of County Commissioners could grant permission to park in the
ROW, but approval is not assured. Access to the parcel itself for recreation would only be
possible with development of a boardwalk through the mangroves and a dock for fishing
or canoe/kayak access (Figure 2). The property can be seen along paved pubic streets
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 11 of 46
(Sandpiper and Marlin), and along the Haldeman Creek. With both perimeters included,
72% of its perimeter can be seen by the driving and boating public.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) YES
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: The National Wetlands Inventory classifies this property as an
intertidal wetland property within an estuarine system. Both properties are forested with
mangrove species. Mangroves are salt tolerant trees that generally grow in tidally
influenced locations along the coast. These mangroves are surrounded by development
with no undeveloped upland buffers. A pipe that flows into the mangroves is located on
the north-east corner. This pipe drains area storm water from surrounding developed areas.
A Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) map of the properties shows the elevation to be
between 5 and 6 feet above sea level – roughly the same level as Haldeman Creek (Exhibit
F).
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
Black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) none
White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa)
Red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle)
Glasswort (Salicornia bigelovii)
Saltwort (Batis maritima)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: Several mangrove crabs (Aratus
pisonii) and a great egret (Casmerodius albus) were observed.
Other Hydrologic indicators observed: Pneumatophores and prop roots were observed
throughout the property.
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soils are entirely Durban and Wulfert mucks, frequently flooded.
These soils are level, poorly drained and typically found in mangrove swamps. Natural
vegetation consists of red, black and white mangroves. These soils have severe limitations
for urban and recreational development (Exhibit B).
Aquifer recharge Potential: Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P.
and S. Hohner in 1995 and published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage)
throughout the South Florida Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20
(DRE # 327), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Lower Tamiami recharge capacity: The SFWMD model indicates that the Lower
Tamiami aquifer recharge potential for the property is low (0” to < 7” yearly),
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 12 of 46
however this may not be the case. Because of its coastal location and tidal activity,
it most likely does not contribute to the Lower Tamiami aquifer (Exhibit C).
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: This area is mapped as having a 31” to <
43” recharge rate for the surficial aquifer (Exhibit C).
Wellfield Protection: The closest wellfield protection zone is approximately 2
miles to the north (Exhibit C).
FEMA Flood map designation: The property is currently within Flood Zone AE, which
indicates an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. Base
flood elevations, mandatory flood insurance and floodplain management standards apply.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 3: These two parcels are both entirely estuarine tidal
wetlands with an intact mangrove forest cover. Mangrove forests are extremely productive
habitats, providing ecological value and services, and are protected by the State of Florida. There
is likely minimal aquifer recharge happening on the parcel, but the parcels are mapped as having
moderate surficial aquifer recharge capacity. One of the functions of mangroves is to act as a
natural filter for upland runoff. These properties likely provide some water quality benefits for the
Haldeman Creek by filtering storm water flowing in from surrounding residential areas. There are
wetland dependent species, both flora and fauna, using the property. Some measure of flood control
is also happening, as water flows into the mangroves from surrounding developed areas.
Additionally, during the recent hurricane Irma, several residents credit the mangroves with taking
the brunt of the wind and water and protecting their homes. The CLIP4 Surface Water Priorities
map (Exhibit L) shows this property to be a priority 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) YES
Listed Plant Species: The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. The Florida state lists of protected plants are
administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of
plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants.
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS FWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata SE
SE=State Endangered
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 13 of 46
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the FWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, respectively,
of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A list of protected Florida wildlife species
can be viewed at: http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/.
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery was observed.
GIS mapped species and habitats: This area is mapped by USFWS as critical habitat for
the Florida bonneted bat and the West Indian manatee (Exhibit N). The CLIP4 Aggregate
map (Exhibit M) shows this property to have a priority 3 and 4 on a scale of 1 to 5.
Non-listed species observed: Several mangrove crabs (Aratus pisonii), a great egret
(Casmerodius albus), and a grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) were observed and noise
was heard that was likely a raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Potential Listed Species:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ST
Reddish egret Egretta ruficens ST
Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
American crocodile Crocodylus acutus FT T
West Indian manatee* Trichechus manatus FT
FE=Federally Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FT=Federally Threatened; E=Endangered; T=Threatened;
SSC=Species of Special Concern
*The West Indian Manatee is also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
This area can also provide habitat for birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 2008 list.
Some of these possible species include:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act)
American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) (BCC)
Black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus) (BCC)
Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) (BCC)
Mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor) (BCC)
Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus) (BCC)
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 4: While no listed plant or animal species were
observed on the parcel, the CLIP4 Biodiversity layer (Exhibit G) identifies this area as a
priority 2 and 3 (out of 5). The CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness layer (Exhibit H)
identifies that 5 to 6 vertebrate species can be expected to use the habitat. The property is
within the USFWS consultation areas for the Florida bonneted bat and the West Indian
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 14 of 46
manatee. There is potential for use of the parcel for roosting by numerous bird species,
including several listed on the USFWS birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 2008 list .
Restoration potential is high with the removal of exotic plants. Coastal mangrove swamps
provide ecological quality because they are considered a base for the estuarine food web.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 5: The Hack parcels are located along the
Haldeman Creek, an intertidal area that is connected to the Naples Bay. This parcel is
directly connected with conserved lands and connects through them with other conserved
lands for a total of over 2,500,000 acres. These connected lands include:
• Windstar PUD preserves - 76 acres
• Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve – 110,000 acres
• Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge – 35,000 acres
• Collier Seminole State Park – 7,271 acres
• Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park – 85,000 acres
• Big Cypress National Park – 729,000 acres
• Everglades National Park – 1,500,000 acres
The CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Map (Exhibit I) identifies them as having both priority 2 and
5 lands, with 1 being the highest and 5 being the lowest. These are some of the few lands
in this urban area given any priority status at all. This property can be considered as
contributing to an ecological and habitat corridor connecting to larger protected estuarine
and other conserved areas to the south and east (Figure 3).
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project? NO
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel?
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 15 of 46
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential uses as defined in Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No.
2007-65, section 5.9:
Hiking: This property is not appropriate for hiking unless a boardwalk is built.
Nature Photography: Nature photography is an appropriate use for this property
Bird-watching: Bird watching is an appropriate use for this property.
Kayaking/Canoeing: If a boardwalk and dock is built here, this would be an appropriate
place to launch a kayak or canoe.
Swimming: Swimming is not an appropriate use.
Hunting: Hunting is not an appropriate use for this habitat and this sized parcel.
Fishing: If a boardwalk and dock is built here, this would be an appropriate place for
fishing.
Recommended Site Improvements: Construction of a small parking area along Marlin
Dr. and a boardwalk and small dock for fishing and canoe/kayak launch.
Access: Access to this parcel would necessarily involve development of a small parking
area, a sidewalk, a boardwalk and potentially a small dock, to fully take advantage of
appropriate public uses. Currently, there is no ability to park in the 25-foot ROW along
Marlin Dr., the most obvious access point. An exception could be granted by the Board of
County Commissioners, though it is not assured. Estimated costs for providing access are
approximately $1,088,000.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 16 of 46
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, and provide an estimate for funding needs for construction of a boardwalk to allow
the public to have access to selected portions of the property. The following assessment
addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management. These are very preliminary
estimates; Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No. 2007-65, requires a
formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation
Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Exotic, invasive species noted here are taken from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s
(FLEPPC) 2016 List of Invasive Plant Species (Category I and Category II). FLEPPC is
an independent incorporated advisory council created to support the management of
invasive exotic plants in Florida’s natural areas by providing a forum for exchanging
scientific, educational and technical information. Its members come primarily from public
educational institutions and governmental agencies. Annual lists of invasive plant species
published by this organization are used widely in the state of Florida for regulatory
purposes.
The current FLEPPC list (2016) can be viewed on-line at
http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Category I plants are those which are altering native
plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or
ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the
economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological
damage caused. Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency
but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I
species. These species may become Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated.
Category I and II plants found on this parcel in order of observed abundance:
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides
Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera
Arrowhead vine Syngoninium podophyllum
Australian pine Casuarina equisetifolia
Christmas senna Senna pendula
Shefflera Shefflera actinophylla
Rosary pea Abrus precatorius
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
Bowstring hemp Sansevaria hyacinthoides
Wedelia Wedelia trilobata
Pothos Epipremnum pinnatum
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 17 of 46
Staff observations are: Invasive exotic plants exist along the edges and on spoil mounds,
but not in other areas of the property.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
An estimate of the cost for initial exotic removal and follow-up maintenance was developed
based on costs incurred for exotic removals on a similar property (Shell Island Preserve).
Based on this estimate, initial costs for the level of infestation observed to treat exotics and
remove those along the edges and treat in place those on spoil mounds would be $200/acre,
or $6,000.
Costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually have been
estimated at $150 per acre, per year for a total of $4,200 for 28 acres. These costs could
decrease over time as the soil seed bank is depleted, and if a boardwalk were placed over
spoil mounds so staff could easily monitor and treat any regrowth.
Public Parking Facility:
The cost of design and construction of a shell or gravel parking lot to accommodate
approximately 3 cars would be approximately $25,000, including a stabilized handicapped
parking space, which would be required. Additional costs would include any other
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, design, review fees and permitting.
Public Access Trails:
The property could not accommodate trails due to its wetland nature, but a boardwalk could
be constructed to allow visitors to view the mangrove forest and reach a small fishing area
and canoe/kayak launch. Costs were estimated using the Gordon River Greenway costs as
guide. Depending on width, the cost would be between $510,000 and $900,000.
Security and General Maintenance:
General maintenance can be accomplished by staff or volunteers. Security may become
an issue as the preserve would be unstaffed for most of the time and it is in the middle of a
residential area. If a fishing platform were developed, a more frequent visitation than the
typical monthly would be required to keep the area clean. Cameras could provide some
added security and law enforcement would be closer as this is in an urban area.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 18 of 46
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management
Element
Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $6,000 $4,200 Based on Shell Island Preserve costs
Parking Facility $25,000 $100 Ongoing annual cost based on cost to
pressure wash one concrete parking spot and
repaint wheel stops as necessary.
Access Trails/ ADA n/a n/a Trails are not possible.
Fencing n/a n/a Fencing is not necessary
Boardwalk
$510,000 -
$900,000
Based on boardwalk costs for Gordon River
Greenway
Development costs for
parking and boardwalk
$168,000 t.b.d. Includes Site Improvement Plan (SIP)
consultant, required sidewalk, DEP
permitting, SFWMD review fee, and Collier
County review fee. Not included and
currently unknown are mitigation costs,
which are based on a UMAM evaluation.
Trash removal $0 $0 There is not much trash and staff could
handle initial and ongoing trash removal.
Signs $2,000 t.b.d. Large sign at parking area
Total $711,000 -
$1,101,000
$4,300 Additional ongoing costs for maintenance
of the boardwalk would be incurred but
no estimates are currently available.
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 19 of 46
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida Forever Program.
The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust (FCT) - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant
program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program:
Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has limited funds and is
concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list. This parcel is within
a Florida Forever priority project boundary, however, staff communications with the
Division of State Lands have determined that money is not available for this project now.
Additionally, the Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with
the Florida Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding
joint title between the governmental entities. The County Attorney has advised against a
partnership unless there is a shared title arrangement.
Other Potential Funding Sources:
There is potential for utilizing funding donations to the Conservation Collier program to
fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to the Collier County Land
Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently approximately $299,400 in this
fund, with $91,000 earmarked for multi-parcel project properties whose owners have
accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 20 of 46
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit H. A total score of 264 out of a possible 400 was achieved. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 63 63%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 93 93%
Vulnerability 100 30 30%
Management 100 78 78%
Total Score:400 264 66%
Percent of Maximum Score:66%
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 21 of 46
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score: 264 out of 400 possible points
Ecological: 63 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved because there is only one type of vegetative community on
the properties – mangrove forest. There is no Lower Tamiami recharge occurring and the
surficial recharge is moderate, if at all. The properties are not within a wellfield protection
zone. However, they do provide buffering for the adjacent Haldeman Creek and Naples
Bay and the site is entirely estuarine tidal wetlands, which could be providing some level
of flood protection for surrounding properties. Area water management includes an outfall
for storm water into the mangrove property. The CLIP4 potential Habitat Richness layer
indicates that 5-6 vertebrate species could be using the property, through only a squirrel
was seen and a raccoon heard. No listed wildlife species were observed or documented on
the property. One listed plant species was found. This parcel connects with and enhances
other conserved lands that form a corridor southward into Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 93 out of 100 possible points
A high score was achieved because the parcels have access from paved public roads, they
could offer fishing and canoe/kayak launching and environmental education if a boardwalk
is built. Additionally, they are highly visible to the public with 72% of the perimeter visible
from public thoroughfares including the Haldeman Creek, and they have water views and
a mature mangrove forest.
Vulnerability: 30 out of 100 possible points
A low score results from the tentative nature of the ability to develop the property. While
there is a contract for sale to a developer, and the developer has indicated intent to pursue
the apparently remaining 6 units. Mitigation makes development possible in mangrove
areas, however, the costs and time required for permitting and development can pose a
serious impediment. It is unclear whether development is likely but there may be a
possibility. An ST overlay exists on the property which further discourages development.
Management: 78 out of 100 possible points
A moderately good score was achieved because the property is clear of exotics except on
spoil mounds and along edges. While costs for developing access are significant,
management of the parcel is not expected to be overly expensive in the long run.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. There are no similar properties
offered in the current cycle.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 22 of 46
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 23 of 46
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 24 of 46
Exhibit C. Aquifer Recharge-Wellfield Protection Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 25 of 46
Exhibit D. Zoning Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 26 of 46
Exhibit E. Historical Aerials (Source: 1953 and 1962 aerials - University of Florida
Digital Collections. 1980 aerial - Collier County Property Appraiser)
1953
1962
1980
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 27 of 46
Exhibit F. FEMA Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 28 of 46
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 29 of 46
Exhibit H. CLIP4 Biodiversity Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 30 of 46
Exhibit I. CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 31 of 46
Exhibit J. CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 32 of 46
Exhibit K. CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 33 of 46
Exhibit L. CLIP4 Landscape Integrity Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 34 of 46
Exhibit M. CLIP4 Surface Water Priorities Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 35 of 46
Exhibit N. CLIP4 Aggregate Priorities Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 36 of 46
Exhibit O. USFWS Florida bonneted bat and West Indian manatee habitat areas
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 37 of 46
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: Hack Living Trust 2018 Folio Numbers: 00388160002, 00394840002
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
Urban
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10 6120 - Mangrove swamp
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 Most of the mangrove forest is in very good condition.
1.A. Total 100 15
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
Parcels would contribute moderately to surficial aquifer recharge
(31" to <43"), but minimally to Lower Tamiami aquifer recharge
(0" to < 7").
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75 75 Buffering for Haldeman Creek and Naples Bay
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 the property is estuarine tidal wetlands
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 80 Durban and Wulfert Mucks - tidal
b. Slough Soils 40
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 Parcel floods with the tides.
Subtotal 300 250
1.B Total 100 83 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25 25 6120 - Mangrove Swamp
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70 42
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories- 14 points for
each category. Property scored 3 out of 5. 3 X 14 = 42
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 38 of 46
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 75
Removal of exotics and of spoil mounds where exotics grow
would restore this property, but use of spoil mounds to locate a
boardwalk could be advantageous.
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 162
1.C Total 100 54 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100 100
Windstar conservation to the east and south, which leads to
Rookery Bay national Estuarine Research Reserve.
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 63 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 Sandpiper St. and Marlin Rd.
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100 100
If a boardwalk and dock were installed, visitors could fish in the
Haldeman Creek or launch kayaks and canoes in addition to
exploring a mangrove area. Environmental education could
occur in mangrove habitat.
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 58
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. Perimeter is 1.27 miles. If only street frontage is
counted, 30% of the property can be seen. Haldeman Creek is
also a public thoroughfare, and if that is counted (42%), there is
a total of 72% that can be seen by the public. 80 X 72%= 57.6.
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic Water view of Haldeman Creek.
Subtotal 300 278
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 93 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 39 of 46
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50
Zoning is RMF-6 with a Special Treatment Overlay. All but 6
units of development have been constructed. Development of
these units may be possible but would be difficult.
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20 -20 Site has an ST Overlay
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
No permits found in SFWMD or Collier County database
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 30
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75 75 Possible removal of spoil piles.
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 75
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80 Exotics exist on edges and on spoil piles only.
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 80
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80 80
Tidal action will maintain the property for the most part.
Maintenance of exotics on spoil piles and along edges is all that
would be necessary.
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 78 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 264
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 40 of 46
Exhibit Q. Photographs
Photo 1. Looking west at 25’ ROW along Marlin Dr. on north side of
property
Photo 2. Looking south along Sandpiper St.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 41 of 46
Photo 3. Excavated canal running down western edge of property
(Sandpiper St.)
Photo 4. Air potato along western edge of property (Sandpiper St.)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 42 of 46
Photo 5. Crown gall on white mangrove tree along western edge of
property (Sandpiper St.)
Photo 6. Area water management along west side of property
(Sandpiper St.) allowing storm runoff into mangroves
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 43 of 46
Photo 7. Water view of southwest side from Henderson Creek
Photo 8. Water view of southeast side from Henderson Creek
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 44 of 46
Photo 9. Hydrologic indicators - prop roots and pneumatophores
Photo 10. Great egret foraging on southwest side of property
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 45 of 46
Photo 11. Spoil mound with exotics arrowhead and areca palm
Photo 12. Common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) – State Threatened
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #:00388160002, 00033484002
Owner Name: Hack Lining Trust Date: January 8, 2018
Page 46 of 46
Photo 13. View of mangrove forest on south side near Henderson Creek
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Presented June 12, 2017
Property Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc.
Folio Number: 00742880009
Staff Report Date: June 5, 2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 2 of 32
Contents
............................................................................................................................................. 1
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 3
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 3
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 6
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .............................................. 7
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 8
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ..................... 13
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 14
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 15
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 16
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 17
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 17
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ......................................................................................... 19
Exhibit B. Soils Map ................................................................................................ 20
Exhibit C. Species Richness Map ............................................................................ 21
Exhibit D. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ................................ 22
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form .................. 23
Exhibit F. Photographs............................................................................................. 26
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 3 of 32
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property
describing its various physical characteristics and other general information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Green & Green
Investments, Inc.
n/a
Folio Number 00742880009 n/a
Target
Protection
Area
Urban
On the north side of and adjoining Shell Island
Preserve
Size 28.7 acres n/a
STR S 15, T 51S, R 26E n/a
Zoning
Category/TD
Rs
Agricultural/
No TDRs
No greater than 1 unit per 5 acres
FEMA Flood
Map Category
AE Area located within a special flood hazard area -
inundated by 100 year flood
Existing
structures
Utility tower Lee County Electric Cooperative
Adjoining
properties
and their Uses
Conservation;
Roadway
N and W – State owned conservation lands
(Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve) and an Outstanding
Florida Water
S – Conservation Collier land (Shell Island)
E – Across CR 951 - Residential and golf course-
Marco Shores/Fiddler’s Creek.
Other County
Dept. Interest
Unknown Waiting for other County Department to report
interest in this parcel
Known
Property
Irregularities
100’ easement on
western boundary
200’ County owned
ROW along SR951
Property is within a
State (Rookery
Bay) Project
Boundary
Lee County Electric Cooperative easement. Allows
for vehicle access because of Geo-web construction.
The county bought 83 feet of this parcel along SR
951 in cooperative agreement with state for a total
of 200 foot owned ROW.
Parcel can be removed from Rookery Bay NERR
Project Boundary by request from owner.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 4 of 32
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 5 of 32
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 6 of 32
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 7 of 32
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being appraised for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site,
and the value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of
market data. An appraisal of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches,
cost, income capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real
property than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three
properties from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with
similar site characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No
inspection was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the appraiser
relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions
exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy there would need to be two
appraisals done for this property.
Assessed Value: * Taxes are being paid on a value of $57,300 due to
property tax increase cap but the Land value has been assessed at
$574,000
Estimated Market Value: **to be provided
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 8 of 32
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
This property was originally offered to Conservation Collier in 2005. It was placed on
the Board-approved Active Acquisition List for Cycle 3 in February 2006. As offer was
made to the owners based on an independent appraisal for $1,120,000, which was
refused. The property was offered again in 2017, with the application received on March
24, 2017. Conservation Collier staff conducted a site visit on May 30, 2017.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA Yes
Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a)
Hardwood hammocks No
Xeric oak scrub No
Coastal strand No
Native beach No
Xeric pine No
Riverine Oak No
High marsh (saline) Yes
Tidal freshwater marsh Yes
Other native habitats Yes
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (2014 update) and field
verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified:
FLUCCS 642 – Saltwater marsh (This designation was given to both the tidal freshwater
marsh and the salt marsh on the property. The tidal freshwater marsh has a large amount
of spike rush (Eleocharis celuosa) in addition to saltgrass (Distichilis spicata), and black
rush (Juncus roemerianus) The salt marsh is primarily saltgrass, black rush, and fringe
rushes (Fimbristylis sp.).
FLUCCS 612 – Mangrove swamp
FLUCCS 617 – Mixed shrubs
The following native plant communities were observed:
FLUCCS 612 – Mangrove swamp
FLUCCS 642 – Saltwater marsh
FLUCCS 641 – Freshwater marsh
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 9 of 32
A preliminary FLUCCS map of the property created by Passarella and Associates, Inc. in
April 2004 also identifies FLUCCS 631 – Wetland scrub. Staff observed these areas and
found them to be row-like elevations throughout the property, but would not consider
them a separate FLUCCS. Dominant vegetation on these rises includes: buttonwood,
wax myrtle, salt-bush and melaleuca.
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
FLUCCS 612 – Mangrove swamp
Ground Cover: n/a
Midstory: n/a
Canopy: red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa)
and black mangroves (Avicennia germinans)
FLUCCS 641- Freshwater marsh
Ground Cover: black rush (Juncus roemerianus), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense),
spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), spider lilies (Hymenocallis sp.), cattails (Typha spp.), White-
top sedge (Dichromena spp.)
Midstory: buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and saltbush
(Baccharus halimifolia)
Canopy: n/a
FLUCCS 642 – Salt marsh
Ground Cover: saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), sea purslane (Sesuvium
maritimum), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
Midstory: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle)
Canopy: n/a
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data indicate that intact native plant communities exist on the parcel.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic
distribution, appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the
aesthetic setting of Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
The property is within the Urban Coastal Fringe and visible from a major thoroughfare.
It is also adjacent to other Conservation Collier land, a portion of which is accessible to
the public by a road.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values,
including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependant
species habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) Yes
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: Water is present over the entire property during the wet season.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 10 of 32
Wetland dependant plant and animal species were observed. Adjacent wetland buffers
are similar to the subject property.
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
Typha spp. Conocarpus erectus
Rhizophora mangle Spartina patens
Laguncularia racemosa Dichromena spp.
Juncus roemerianus Sesuvium maritimum
Hymenocallis sp.
Eleocharis spp.
Distichlus spicata
Cladium jamaicense
Avicennia germinans
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed:
Blue tillapia (Oreochromis aureus) nest, mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) (2005 site
visit)
Other Hydrologic indicators observed:
Limestone outcroppings, presence of periphyton throughout
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990). Mapped soils on this parcel were identified as mainly
depressional (Estero and Peckish) and 1/10 tidal (Durbin and wulfert mucks). Estero and
Peckish soils are in frequently flooded tidal marshes. Durbin and Wulfert mucks soils are
in frequently flooded mangrove swamps.
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity:
No Lower Tamiami recharge - -167" to -48" (0-7” is the lowest annual recharge rate.
The highest recharge rate is 21”-102” annually) This is a high discharge site.
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity:
Moderate surficial recharge - 43" to 56"(Low recharge is 31” to <43” annually and High
recharge is 56” to 76” annually.)
FEMA Flood map designation:
Zone AE, which indicates that the parcel is located within a high risk flood zone subject
to inundation by coastal storm surge with wave crest height less than 3 feet North
American Vertical Datum (NAVD).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 11 of 32
This parcel provides habitat for wetland dependent species, water quality enhancement
for the adjacent Rookery Bay, which has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water,
and will provide on-site attenuation of floodwaters.
Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) Yes
Listed Plant Species:
Listed plant species include those found in Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Section
5B-40.0055 Regulated Plant Index and in the Federal Register - Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, December 1999.
No listed plant species were observed on the site visit.
Listed Wildlife Species:
Listed wildlife species include those found in the Federal Register, Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, December 1999 (FWS) and
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species, FWC, Updated May 2017.
No listed animal species were observed during the site visit; however, staff has observed
numerous wading birds in the past on the property. Species observed include wood stork
(Mycteria americana), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula),
tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), and American
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).
Bird Rookery observed?
No
FWCC-derived species richness score:
The FWCC-derived species richness score ranged from 6 to 7 out of a possible 10,
representing a moderate to high level of habitat for listed species.
Non-listed species observed:
Red-winged black bird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) –
(2005 site visit)
Potential Listed Species:
These wetlands likely support mangrove rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus) and juvenile
common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) in addition to listed wading bird species.
Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) and panther (Felis concolor coryi)
telemetry points are also present on surrounding parcels.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 12 of 32
These observations confirm that the property provides habitat suitable for listed
species, supports biodiversity and has a high degree of ecological quality.
Restoration potential is high, as the only restoration necessary is the control of
scattered invasive exotic vegetation. Connectivity is discussed in criteria #5.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current
conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
The parcel is contiguous with the Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve and a
Conservation Collier property – Shell Island Preserve.
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project?
Yes
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel? No response on query yet
Without such funding circumstances, Conservation Collier funds shall not be available for purchase of these lands. Ord. 2002-
63, Sec. 10 (1)(f)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 13 of 32
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance 2002-63, section 5.9:
Hiking:
Limited opportunities for hiking due to the long hydroperiod of the wetlands.
Nature Photography:
Location adjacent to major road and the period of utilization by wading birds is in
the dry season when wetlands are drying down and our population is at its peak.
Bird-watching:
Very good for wading birds when wetlands are drying down.
Kayaking/Canoeing:
Boating is inappropriate due to the shallowness of the wetlands.
Swimming:
Swimming is inappropriate.
Hunting:
Hunting is inappropriate due to the close proximity of SR 951 and small size of the
parcel.
Fishing:
This area provides habitat for juvenile sportfish and their prey and would not be
suitable for recreational fishing.
Recommended Site Improvements:
The only site improvement necessary is the removal of exotic vegetation – scattered
melaleuca, Brazilian pepper along CR 951 and small amounts of torpedo grass.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 14 of 32
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
signage. The following assessment addresses the initial costs of management. Rookery
Bay NERR may partner for recurring management if the property is acquired. These are
very preliminary estimates; Ordinance 2002-63 requires a formal land management plan
be developed for each property acquired by Conservation Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius),
torpedo grass (Panicum repens)
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
The initial cost of exotic removal would be relatively low. Based on the cost of treatment
within the adjacent Shell Island Road Preserve, costs for the level of infestation observed
(25%) to treat exotics with herbicide in place would be $388 per acre.
Based on the acreage involved, total initial removal cost would be approximately
$11,100 for the entire parcel. The cost of treatment may be less due to the low density
of the plants that are also concentrated in specific areas.
Public Parking Facility:
Public parking is not recommended for this parcel.
Public Access Trails:
Trails are not recommended.
Security and General Maintenance:
Minimal management activities, like exotic maintenance and trash removal would be
accomplished through a Memorandum of Agreement with Rookery Bay NERR. Fencing
is not recommended at this point due to low accessibility of the parcel in general. The
utility easement road is gated and locked. A sign identifying the property as
Conservation Collier land could be placed near CR 951.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 15 of 32
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $11,100 N/A May be lower than estimate
Parking Facility N/A N/A
Access Trails N/A N/A
Fencing N/A N/A
Trash Removal t.b.d. N/A One large rusty tank observed on
property.
Sign $100 each t.b.d. 3’ X 1.5’ metal on post - uninstalled
Total $11,200 t.b.d.
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 16 of 32
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), The Florida Forever Program and
the Save Our Rivers Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust:
Potential does exist for a grant; however, these grants are offered on a yearly cycle and
are rarely coordinated with purchases to provide up-front partner funding. Application is
typically made for pre-acquired sites.
Applications for the current cycle were due in August 2016. Currently, no funds have
been appropriated by the State Legislature for conservation buying in 2017-18 other than
for the Rural and Family Lands Program.
Florida Forever Program:
The Florida Forever Program has all current funds committed through July 1, 2017, with
no funds forthcoming for 2017-18. This parcel is not inside a Florida Forever project
boundary and is unlikely to be selected for funding.
Save Our Rivers Program / South Florida Water Management District:
SFWMD staff had previously advised that Save Our Rivers funding partnerships are
unlikely unless parcels are part of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project
(CERP) boundaries. This parcel is not within CERP project boundaries.
SFWMD staff has advised that this parcel is not within a SFWMD project boundary and
funding partnerships are unlikely unless that is the case.
Other Potential Partner Funding Sources:
Since the parcel is within the Rookery Bay NERR project boundary, staff is seeking to
determine whether a funding partnership is possible.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 17 of 32
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit E. In 2005, A total score of 282 out of a possible 400 was
achieved. When updated in 2017 a total score of 276 out of 400 was achieved. This
slightly lower score is the result of removing 20 points in the Land Man agement Section
that were previously given because in 2005 Rookery Bay was receptive to managing this
parcel. At this time, Rookery Bay would not be receptive to managing the parcel, though
a partnership is possible in the future.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
2005 Scoring
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 81 81%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 63 63%
Vulnerability 100 45 45%
Management 100 93 93%
Total Score:400 282 71%
Percent of Maximum Score:71% 2017 Scoring
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 81 81%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 63 63%
Vulnerability 100 45 45%
Management 100 87 87%
Total Score:400 276 69%
Percent of Maximum Score:69%
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
2017 Scoring 2005 Scoring
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 18 of 32
Summary of factors contributing to score
Ecological: 81 This score was achieved because the parcel contains priority plant
communities, is contiguous with current conservation lands, offers listed species habitat
and provides for the conveyance, storage and some treatment for some of the storm water
entering Rookery Bay, and is in good ecological shape. The score was lowered slightly
because no listed species were observed on site, the parcel offers only moderate aquifer
recharge and the parcel contains only 3 different types of vegetation communities.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 63 This score was achieved because the parcel is located
within the Urban Coastal area adjacent to a major roadway and is highly visible. The
score was lowered slightly because the parcel is only accessible by an unpaved road and
it offers limited natural resource-based recreation opportunities.
Vulnerability: 45 This parcel is currently zoned for Agriculture, with a density of one
unit per five acres allowed.
Management: 87 Exotic plant coverage is minimal, and the natural communities present
will not require special management.
Parcel Size: Approximately 28.7 acres While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance
advises that based on comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 19 of 32
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 20 of 32
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 21 of 32
Exhibit C. Species Richness Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 22 of 32
Exhibit D. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 23 of 32
Property Name: Green & Green Folio Numbers:
742880009
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
Urban
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30 30
based on presence of sesuvium Portulacastrum and juncus
roemerianus - present over entire parcel
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20 20
based on the presence of cattails, Eleocharis sp., Hymenocallis
sp. cladium jamaicense. Present in certain areas
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10 mangrove
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional listed plant
community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 Outstanding example of brackish to fresh marsh
1.A. Total 100 65
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
moderate surficial recharge - 43" to 56", discharge for Lower
Tamiami - -167" to -48"
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal
location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100 100
Most OFWs are areas managed by the state or federal
government as parks, including wildlife refuges, preserves,
marine sanctuaries, estuarine research reserves, certain
waters within state or national forests, scenic and wild rivers, or
aquatic preserves. Generally, the waters within these managed
areas are OFWs because the managing agency has requested
this special protection.
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 80
(Prorate site based on area of Slough or Depressional Soils) -
9/10 are depressional (Estero and Peckish) and 1/10 are tidal
(Durban-wulfert mucks)
b. Slough Soils 40
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20
Subtotal 300 250
1.B Total 100 83 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75 75 mangrove, tidal marsh, freshwater marsh
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 If a. or b. are scored, then c. Species Richness is not scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70
Provide documentation source - Bear and panther telemetry
points on surrounding parcels
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 24 of 32
c. Species Richness score ranging from 10 to 70 70 48
Score is prorated from 10 to 70 based on the FFWCC Species
Richness map - 1/3 is 6 and 2/3 is 7
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 Parcel is in good ecological shape
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 223
1.C Total 100 74 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100 100 next to Shell Island and Rookery Bay NERR
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 81 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 75 Access is from FPL easement but parcel is also along 951
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75 potential for wildlife watching platform
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 20
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. - 25% can be seen from 951
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo document atioon of the
outstanding characteristic - mature pines and native orchids,
along with canal frontage make this an aesthetically appealing
parcel. - Outstanding marsh view
Subtotal 300 190
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 63 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 25 of 32
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45 45 Zoning is Agricultural
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 45
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100 no hydrologic changes necessary
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80
less than 25% Melaleuca - minimal torpedograss - some
Brazilian pepper on FPL easement and along 951
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 80
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80 80 wetland marsh
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 87 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 276
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 26 of 32
Exhibit F. Photographs
Photos 1 and 2. Typical view, center of property
6/30/2005
5/30/2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 27 of 32
Photo 3. One of several ridges of slightly higher elevation within the
property. Trees are primarily buttonwoods.
6/30/2005
Photo 4. Freshwater wetlands with black rush
6/30/2005
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 28 of 32
Photo 5. Photo shows average water depth found throughout property
6/30/2005
Photo 6. Depressional area on eastern edge of property
6/30/2005
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 29 of 32
Photos 7 and 8. Cattails lining the edge of freshwater marsh and
mangroves
6/30/2005
5/30/2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 30 of 32
Photo 9. Transitional zone between mangroves and freshwater marsh
with saltmarsh cordgrass
6/30/2005
Photo 10. Melaleuca along north end of parcel
5/30/2017
Photos 11 and 12. View of property looking west
6/30/2005
5/30/2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00742880009
Name: Green & Green Investments, Inc. Date: June 5, 2017
Page 32 of 32
Photo 13. View of property looking east from LCEC easement road
6/30/2005
Photos 14 and 15. Depressional area on eastern side of property
6/30/2005
5/30/2017
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
REVISED 2-7-18
Property Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP
Folio Number(s): 00132960005 and 00133240009
Staff Report Date: January 8, 2018
Revised 2-9-18 to add presence of tropical hardwood habitat
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 2 of 53
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Collier County Watershed Boundaries .......................................................... 13
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ...................... 18
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 18
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 21
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 22
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 23
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 23
Figure 5. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 23
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 25
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 26
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ..................................... 27
Exhibit D. Zoning Map ................................................................................................. 28
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial - 1940 ............................................................................... 29
Exhibit F. FEMA map................................................................................................... 30
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 31
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map .......................................................... 32
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map ................................................................. 33
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map .................................................. 34
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map ............................................................................. 35
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ....................................................... 36
Exhibit M: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map .................................... 37
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map ...................................... 38
Exhibit O. USFWS Wood Stork Foraging Area, Florida bonneted bat consultation and
focal areas and snail kite consultation area ................................................................... 39
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 40
Exhibit Q. Photographs ................................................................................................ 43
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 3 of 53
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation
Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle to meet requirements specified in the
Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes
of the Conservation Collier Program. It provides objective data to demonstrate how
properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. That is the sole purpose for this
report and it is not meant for any other use. This property was categorized as an “A” List
property (Exhibit Q) on January 25, 2011, by the Board of County Commissioner s. This
update simply uses more updated metrics.
This report makes use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and
University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is
a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural
resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida
Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for
Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for
acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data layers which are
representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface water,
groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Potential Habitat Richness (Vertebrates)
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Following the first section, which looks more closely at initial criteria, additional sections address
potential for appropriate public use, assessment of management needs and costs, potential for
matching funds, and a summary of the secondary screening criteria.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 4 of 53
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to
describe how the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics
and to provide other general property information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Barron Collier Partnership,
LLLP
2 adjoining properties
Commission
District
5 Commissioner – William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Folio Numbers 00132960005 – parcel a
00133240009 – parcel b
n/a
Target
Protection Area
Urban Both properties are within the Immokalee urban
boundary.
Size Parcel a – 289.57 ac
Parcel b – 111.08 ac
Total offered as a package - 400.65 ac
STR S9 T47 R29 Both properties are within the same Section, Township
and Range
Zoning
Category/TDRs
Parcel a – A-MHO-RLSAO
Parcel b – Estates
Parcel a -Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands
Stewardship Overlay
Parcel b -Estates in this case means low density
residential/limited agricultural activities
FEMA Flood
Map Category
AE, AH, and X AE – Area subject to inundation by 1-percent-annual-
chance flood event. Base flood elevations, mandatory
flood ins and floodplain management standards apply.
AH – Subject to inundation of by 1-percent-annual-chance
flood event where avg. depths are 1-3 feet. Base flood
elevation, flood insurance and floodplain management
standards apply.
X – Outside 500-year floodplain. Flood ins. not required.
Existing
structures
n/a No structures
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
Residential, single family,
Multi-family, and PUD,
utility
On the north side are various types of residential
properties - Estates, to Village Residential and Multi
family, east are lands owned by the Seminole Tribe of
Florida, south are agricultural lands, west are lands owned
by the Immokalee Water and Sewer Utility (wells and
spray fields), and in between parcels a and b are PUD and
single family residential properties.
Development
Plans Submitted
None known n/a
Known Property
Irregularities,
Leases
Oil, Gas and Mineral rights
(OGMs)
Leases
OGMs not included
Contains old Eustis Avenue Landfill –16 acres
Partial cabbage palm harvest – 2016
Grazing lease through 12/31/18 (term. With 30-day notice)
Recreation lease (term. 12/31/17)
Other County
Dept Interest
Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation, Environmental
Services, Housing, Coastal
systems, Zoning,
Engineering
No other Division responded with interest.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 5 of 53
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 6 of 53
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 7 of 53
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 8 of 53
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the
value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market
data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income
capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property
than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties
from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with similar site
characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection
was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the Real Estate Services
Department staff relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are
limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown
adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one
appraisal is required.
Assessed Value: * Parcel a. – $689,475
Parcel b. - $833,100
Estimated Market Value: ** Parcel a. - $737,100
Parcel b. - $380,000
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel.
Parcel a. is zoned Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay and is within the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. Parcel b. is zoned Estates. Additionally, a portion of
both are within a Special Treatment/Wellfield Protection Zone 4, or 20 year protection
zone.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department – date of value estimate –
October/November 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 9 of 53
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to provide a closer look at how the property meets initial criteria.
Conservation Collier Program staff conducted a site visit on October 30, 2017 and December
18, 2017.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA-
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) YES
i. Hardwood hammocks YES
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats YES
FLUCCS Communities mapped include: 4110 Pine flatwoods, 6170 Mixed wetland hardwoods,
6172 Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs, 6210 Cypress, 6216 Cypress-mixed hardwoods, 6300
Mixed wetland forest, and 6410 Freshwater marsh
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) and field
verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified in order of dominance:
FLUCCS Acres
4110 – Pine flatwoods 127
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods 68
6210 – Cypress 25
6172 – Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs 23
6410 – Freshwater marsh 9
6216 – Cypress-mixed hardwoods 5
6300 – Mixed wetland forest 1
Also identified were 16 acres of Landfill identified as 3100 – Dry prairie and 5 acres of 4224 - Brazilian
pepper.
The following native plant communities were observed:
FLUCCS
4110 - Pine Flatwoods
6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
6410 – Freshwater marsh
6210 – Cypress
6172 - Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs
4260 – Tropical hardwood hammock
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 10 of 53
There was no real hard demarcation between habitats. They blended into one another with
most areas indicative of an ecotone between wetland and upland habitats. Pine flatwoods
appeared to be transitioning into hardwood areas, likely due to lack of fire. The tropical
hardwood hammock observed had a canopy of mostly cabbage palms with scattered mature
live oaks and strangler fig. The midstory contained many tropical plant species.
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Ground Cover:
Pine flatwood: Groundcover consisted primarily of swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum),
woodwardia fern (Woodwardia virginica), sword fern (Nephrolepis sp.), bracken fern
(Pteridium acquilinum), sleepy morning (Waltheria indica), chocolate weed (Melochia
cordifolia), beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild coffee (Psychotiria nervosa and
P. sulznerii), coral bean (Erythrina herbecea), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), False
buttonweed (Spermacoce remota), southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis), frostweed
(Verbesena virginica), Spanish bayonet (Yucca aloifolia) with scattered toothpetal
(Habernaria odontopetala) and monk orchids (Oeceoclades maculata), with various
grasses and forbs. Exotic plants constituted approximately 35% - 45%, with edges being
the worst areas. Exotic plants observed included Brazilian pepper, air potato, guava,
bishopwood, rosary pea, woman’s tongue, Caesar’s weed, java plum, and climbing cassia.
Mixed wetland hardwood: Groundcover consisted mainly of swamp fern, but also
contained scattered strap fern (Campyloneurum phyllitidus), leather fern (Acrostichun
danaeifolium) morning glory (ipomea sp.), dayflower (Commelina difusa), pimpernel
(Samolus ebractus), swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina), false pimpernel (Lindernia spp.),
bay (Persea sp), coral bean (Erythrina herbecea), royal palm (Roystonea regia), shield fern
(Thelypteris dentata), hempvine (Mikania cordifolia), and ragweed (Ambrosia sp.). Exotic
plants observed in these areas constituted approximately 35-40% and included Brazilian
pepper, wedelia, shoebutton ardisia, Java plum, guava, strawberry guava, bishopwood,
Ceasar’s weed, climbing cassia, rosary pea, melaleuca, and one area of climbing fern.
Cypress: Very little groundcover existed in cypress areas, except strap fern, leather fern
and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).
Freshwater wetlands: Groundcover included swamp fern, duck potato (Sagittaria
lancifolia), alligator flag (Thalia geniculate), Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana),
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), maidencane (Panicum hemitomum), false nettle,
climbing aster (Aster carolinianus), yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.), bladderwort
(Utricularia sp.), fringe rush (Fimbristylis spp.), soft rush (Juncus sp.), willow (Salix sp.),
and scattered cattails (Typha latifolia). Exotic plants observed constituted approximately
60% in some areas and much less in others and included torpedo grass, Brazilian pepper
and melaleuca.
Tropical hardwood hammock: Groundcover consisted mainly of ferns, wild coffee,
poison ivy and vines.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 11 of 53
Midstory:
Pine flatwood: The midstory in the drier areas generally included myrsine (Myrsine
floridana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), buckthorn
(Sideroxylon sp.), and coral bean.
Mixed wetland hardwood: The midstory here generally included cabbage palm and
myrsine, with small amounts of persimmon, coral bean, bay, and dogwood scattered
throughout. A few royal palms (Roystonea sp.) were also seen. Vines were an important
part of the midstory, including fox grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Caloosa grape (Vitis
shuttleworthii), and greenbriar (Smilax spp.).
Cypress: Cypress areas had little to no midstory but included some cabbage palm.
Freshwater wetlands: The midstory here were sparse and generally included young red
maple (Acer rubrum) and cabbage palms.
Tropical hardwood hammock: The Midstory consisted of marlberry (Ardisia
escallonioides), cabbage palm, hog plum (ximenia americana), red stopper (Eugenia
rhombea), wild lime (Zanthoxylum fagara), satin leaf (Chrysophyllum oliviforme), bay
(Persea sp.), white stopper (Eugenia axillaris), and strangler fig (Ficus aurea). A butterfly
orchid (Encylia tampensis) was found in this area.
Canopy:
Pine flatwood: Canopy trees included slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm, laurel oak
(Quercus laurifoia), live oak (Quercus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum) and a cypress
(spp? )
Mixed wetland hardwood: Canopy trees here included cabbage palm, laurel oak, red
maple, popash (Fraxinus caroliniana) and cypress (Taxodium distichum).
Cypress: Cypress
Freshwater wetlands: These areas had little canopy, but there were scattered cypress and
popash.
Tropical hardwood hammock: The canopy consisted of primarily cabbage palm, with
scattered (large) live oak, strangler fig and a few royal palms (Roystonea regia).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 1:
These data indicate that there are at least 5 relatively intact native habitats present where
plants typical to the habitat exist, though exotic plant species are numerous and varied.
Those areas given a FLUCCS of pine flatwoods had a canopy of pines, and many pine
flatwood species were present; however, hardwoods (mostly laurel and live oaks) were
creeping in, likely due to lack of fire. There was some evidence of fire, but it was very old.
There were several types of hardwood -type habitats denoted in FLUCCS codes, but they
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 12 of 53
appeared of similar character throughout, with cabbage palms and laurel oaks as the
dominant tree species, with scattered red maples and cypress, until transitioning into deeper
wetlands where cypress dominated. The owner advises there is an area of tropical
hardwood hammock, a priority habitat, but staff was not able to access that area and will
go back when it is drier and more accessible to confirm this. Update: This area was visited
on 2/5/18, and tropical hardwood hammock species were observed. Species observed are
noted in the characterization of plant communities above.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 2: The parcels are within the urban boundary for
the town of Immokalee, slightly over 4 miles from Pepper Ranch Preserve, the closest
Conservation Collier property (Figure 3). They are accessible from various points along
paved roads, including Bethune Rd., South 5th St., and Immokalee Road (South 1st St./CR
846), and from the unpaved Sanitation Road. The Bethune road parcel (parcel b.) can be
seen from a major public thoroughfare – Immokalee Road. There are pine flatwoods along
Immokalee Road, so potentially, a small parking lot could be created here with trails
accessing the rest of the parcels south of the slough, at least in dry season. To traverse the
slough, a boardwalk would be necessary. The slough itself is an aesthetic feature in
addition to being an important wetland feature. The historic Eustis landfill on the property
was closed in 1992, with 20 years of monitoring completed in 2012. The landfill belonged
to the County even though the land belonged to private owners, so liability would remain
with the County if acquired. Groundwater samples obtained from Immokalee Water and
Sewer failed to provide indications of contamination because they were downgradient and
therefore in the wrong location. Samples taken from the middle of the landfill in 2012
showed that the site met permit requirements.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) YES
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 13 of 53
Figure 4. Collier County Watershed Boundaries
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
Bay (Persea sp.)
Fringe rush (Fimbristylis sp.)
Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) Day flower (Commelina diffusa)
Duck potato (Sagittaria lancifolia) Button weed (Diodia virginica)
Alligator flag (Thalia geniculata) Toothpetal orchid (Habernaria odontopetala)
Yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.) False pimpernel (Lindernia grandiflora)
Maiden-cane (Panicum hemitomon) Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Water pimpernel (Samolus ebractus) Royal palm (Roystonia sp.)
Rush (Juncus sp.) Shield fern (Thelypteris dentata)
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) Chain fern (Woodwardia virginica)
Popash (Fraxinus caroliniana) Hempvine (Mikania cordifolia)
Swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: A great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
three (3) white ibis (Eudocimus albus) and a snowy egret (Egretta thula) were observed.
An apple snail shell and an active crawfish burrow were found.
Other Hydrologic indicators observed: Cypress knees, adventitious rooting on palms,
watermarks on trees, and dark organic-rich soils were observed.
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990) and provided in order of dominance (Exhibit B). Fifty-six (56) %
of soils are Upland types and 44% are depressional types.
Soil Number and Name Acres Soil Type
37 Tuscawilla FS 131 Upland
25 Boca, Rivera, limestone sub and Copeland FS 109 Depressional
22 Chobee, Winder, and Gator 61 Depressional
29 Wabasso FS 43 Upland
20 Ft. Drum and Malabar high FS 27 Upland
38 Urban land-Matlacha-Boca complex 15 Upland
17 Basinger FS <1 Upland
7 Immokalee FS <1 Upland
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 14 of 53
34 Urban -Immokalee-Oldsmar, limestone sub, complex <1 Upland
400 ac*
*Acres are approximate
Aquifer recharge Potential: Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P.
and S. Hohner in 1995 and published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage)
throughout the South Florida Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20
(DRE # 327), South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity: Recharge capacity is mapped at 0” to <7”
annually. This indicates an area of low recharge and potential discharge of aquifer
waters (Exhibit C).
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: The surficial aquifer capacity is mapped as
31” to <43”, which is a moderate recharge rate (Exhibit C).
Wellfield Protection: The northern two-thirds of the parcel a. are within all 4
wellfield protection zones, and the northern half of parcel b. also has portions of all
4 wellfield protection zones, but it primarily is within the 20-year protection zone
(Exhibit C).
FEMA Flood map designation: The property is currently within Flood Zones AE, AH,
and X. The slough and its adjacent wetland buffers (slightly over half of the property) are
within AE Zone, which indicates an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-
chance flood event. Base flood elevations, mandatory flood insurance and floodplain
management standards apply. Under half is within AH Zone, which indicates it is subject
to inundation of by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event where average depths are 1-3
feet, and where base flood elevations, flood insurance and floodplain management
standards also apply. A 16-acre portion of the property, the landfill, is in Flood Zone X,
which is outside the 500-year floodplain and where flood insurance is not required (Exhibit
E).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 3: The properties are approximately half wetland
and half upland, in a mosaic pattern with the slough and its associated wetlands covering
the northern half of the properties. This slough flows from southeast to northwest and is
bounded by forested uplands that buffer its water and wildlife from adjoining urban lands.
The parcels are located within the core foraging areas of at least 4 wood stork colonies; it
is within primary panther habitat; and it lies within the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s
consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat, all state and federally listed species that
depend at least partly on wetlands. Wetland dependent plants and wildlife were observed
on the properties during two site visits. The slough is one of the primary overland sources
of water to lake Trafford, and it accepts significant water flows that spill out onto adjoining
forested lands as evidenced by water marks on cypress and other trees at above 2 feet.
Cypress knees reaching 2 feet were observed. Half the soils are depressional (Exhibit B),
corresponding with the slough area in the north and isolated freshwater wetlands dotting
the southern half. Surficial aquifer recharge (31” to <43”) is moderate, and Lower
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 15 of 53
Tamiami recharge (0 to <7”) is minor (Exhibit C), however, the properties lie within all
four wellfield protection zones for the Immokalee Water and Sewer wells and are
protecting and serving to recharge them. All areas connected with the slough are within
FEMA flood zone AE – an area prone to flooding. Residential areas surround the
easternmost parcel (parcel b.) and the property is likely providing some level of flood
control for those areas. The CLIP4 Surface Water Priorities map layer (Exhibit F) shows
this area to be priority 4 out of 5, so statewide, the connection to Lake Trafford is not seen
as a priority, but locally, this is an important waterway that feeds Lake Trafford.
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) YES
Listed Plant Species: The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. The Florida state lists of protected plants are
administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of
plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants.
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS USFWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata E
Northern needleleaf Tillandsia balbisiana T
Florida royal palm Roystonea regia E
Satin Leaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme T
Red stopper Eugenia rhombea E
E=Endangered, T=Threatened
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the FWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, respectively,
of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
A list of protected Florida wildlife species can be viewed at:
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 16 of 53
Listed species observed include:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
Osprey Pandion halialetus SSC
SSC=Species of Special Concern
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery was observed or is known.
GIS mapped species and habitats: Utilizing both FWC telemetry (1981-2016) maps for
Florida panthers, the CLIP4 Biodiversity (Exhibit I), and Potential Habitat Richness
(Exhibit J) GIS mapping layers, data shows that there are no panther telemetry points
located on the property, and the two closest are from 2001 and 2012; however, it is likely
that panthers do pass through the property. The most recent point was in 2016 about 2
miles northeast of the properties. The CLIP4 biodiversity map has both properties
categorized as Priority 1 (highest). The CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness maps the bulk
of the property as having potential for 5-6 vertebrate species, with the slough area having
potential for 7 vertebrate species. The southern portions of both properties have areas with
potential for 2-4 vertebrate species.
Non-listed species observed: A red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), 2 red-bellied
woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus), a downy woodpecker ( Picoides pubescens), 2
white ibis (Eudocimus albus), a snowy egret (Egretta thula), and a blue gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea) were observed during the December 18, 2017site visit.
Some Potential State and Federal Listed Species:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
American alligator Alligator Mississippiensis FT (S/A) T (S/A)
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ST
American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus ST
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
Wood stork
Everglades mink
Mycteria Americana
Neovison vison evergladensis
FT
ST
T
Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE E
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchoncorais couperi FT T
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 4: This property offers biological value for both
upland and wetland species. In slough areas, according to the CLIP4 Potential Habitat
Richness layer (Exhibit J), the habitat would support 7 vertebrate species. In other areas,
the habitats would support 2 to 6 vertebrate species. The CLIP4 Biodiversity layer (Exhibit
I) shows the slough and its adjoining buffer lands to be the highest priority. While panthers
have not been documented on the property, they likely use it to travel around the edges of
Immokalee. Known wood stork colonies are close, and the wetlands likely provide
foraging areas for them. The properties are within the consultation area for the Florida
bonneted bat and could provide habitat. The properties are connected westward with Lake
Trafford through the slough, which then connects to the 2,512-acre Pepper Ranch Preserve
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 17 of 53
and 60,000 acres of CREW lands. South from Lake Trafford there is a landscape
connection through the Camp Keais Strand and its SSAs with the 26,400 acre Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the 85,000 acre Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve State
Park and the 729,000-acre Big Cypress Preserve. Eastward, there is a connection through
undeveloped lands to the 32,370 acre Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, the 21,714-acre
Dinner Island Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and additional privately protected lands.
All in all, there is a connection with close to a million preserved acres. Restoration potential
is high, but may be costly. Exotic removal is the primary means of restoration considered.
The ecological quality is moderate at present, but with active habitat management could be
much higher.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: The property is directly adjacent to a 7.5-acre
conservation property owned by Collier County, received in mitigation for an adjacent
residential development. It is connected through the Immokalee slough to Lake Trafford
and its surrounding wetlands, and through them to close to 1,000,000 conserved acres,
including the following conservation lands north of I-75 (Figure 3):
• Pepper Ranch Preserve – 2,512 acres
• CREW and associated SFWMD lands – 60,000 acres
• SSA lands – approximately 30,000 acres
• Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge – 26,240 acres
• Big Cypress National Park – 729,000 acres
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project? NO
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel? NO
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 18 of 53
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No.
2007-65, section 5.9:
Hiking: Hiking would be an appropriate use once trails were installed. There are
currently no, or very faint, trails.
Nature Photography: This would be an appropriate use once trails were installed.
Bird-watching: This would be an appropriate use with trails and/or a boardwalk.
Kayaking/Canoeing: It is not realistic to consider kayaking or canoeing within the
slough itself as a public use, as the cypress forest is thick, but it is likely that a small
kayak could traverse it in wet season.
Swimming: There are likely alligators and venomous snakes present so this would not
be an appropriate use.
Hunting: This property is too small and close to the urban area for hunting to be a
reasonable use.
Fishing: This would not be an appropriate use as slough waters are not deep enough for
sport fishing.
Recommended Site Improvements: Access improvements, parking area and trails on the
southern portions of the properties are recommended. Trails should avoid the slough
except potentially a spot to view the wetlands. In the future, with funding, a boardwalk
could be placed through the slough.
Access: The parcel can be accessed from Bethune Road, 5th St. South, and 1th St. South.
There is also access at Sanitation Road, however, there has been a security concern
expressed by Immokalee Water and Sewer regarding public use of this lime rock road as it
leads to sensitive areas. Additionally, the Immokalee Water and Sewer indicated they
have an access easement over Sanitation Road and would need to continue to have this as
it is their only access to section 8, where their spray fields are located.
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, and provide an estimate for funding needs for construction of a boardwalk to allow
the public to have access to selected portions of the property. The following assessment
addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management. These are very preliminary
estimates; Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No. 2007-65, requires a
formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation
Collier.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 19 of 53
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Exotic, invasive species noted here are taken from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s
(FLEPPC) 2016 List of Invasive Plant Species (Category I and Category II). FLEPPC is
an independent incorporated advisory council created to support the management of
invasive exotic plants in Florida’s natural areas by providing a forum for exchanging
scientific, educational and technical information. Its members come primarily from public
educational institutions and governmental agencies. Annual lists of invasive plant species
published by this organization are used widely in the state of Florida for regulatory
purposes.
The current FLEPPC list (2016) can be viewed on-line at
http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Category I plants are those which are altering native
plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or
ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the
economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological
damage caused. Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency
but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I
species. These species may become Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated.
Category I and II plants found on this parcel in order of observed abundance:
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Bishopwood Bischofia javanica
Climbing cassia Senna pendula
Guava Psidium guajava
Strawberry guava Psidium cattleianum
Caesar’s weed Urena lobata
Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquinerva
Mimosa Albizia sp. (julibrissin or lebbeck)
Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera
Shoebutton ardesia Ardesia elliptica
Napier grass Pennisetum purpureum
Torpedo grass Panicum repens
Java plum Sysygium cumini
Arrowhead vine Syngonium podophyllum
Australian pine Casuarina sp.
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
Bowstring hemp Sansevieria hyacinthoides
Staff observations are that invasive exotic plants have a strong foothold in almost upland areas visited, but
less so in wetland and slough areas. Property edges have significant Brazilian pepper, and there are some
very large Brazilian pepper trees in internal areas as well. Adjacent to residential areas there is evidence of
house and landscape plant escapes, as stands of bowstring hemp, bishop wood, banana (Musa sp.), and
arrowhead vine were found.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 20 of 53
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
An estimate of the cost for initial exotic removal and follow-up maintenance was
determined based on actual costs for similar work at the Pepper Ranch Preserve. Based
on the actual cost for initial exotic removal at Pepper Ranch Preserve ($820/ac), costs for
the initial removal for 400 acres, killing exotics in place, would be $328,000. These costs
could be significantly less as slough areas may not have much infestation. This is a high
estimate.
Estimated costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually are
based on actual costs for follow-up exotic maintenance at Pepper Ranch Preserve ($169/ac)
and are estimated at a total of $67,700 annually for 400 acres. These costs could be less if
slough areas remain clean and could decrease over time as the soil seed bank is depleted.
Additionally, areas could be maintained on a rotating basis, reducing actual annual
maintenance outlays, but reducing treatment for each section from annually to biennially.
Public Parking Facility: The cost of design and construction of a shell or gravel parking
lot to accommodate approximately 5 cars would be approximately $25,000. Additional
costs would include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, permitting and
any required land clearing.
Public Access Trails: There were no maintained access trails observed. An aerial photo
from 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser website) (Exhibit E) shows Sanitation Road and
one or two other trails existed, but today, no other trails are obvious. Public access trails
would need to be designed with an access point in mind and traverse upland portions of the
property, or be seasonal. Clearing for trails would cost approximately $775/mile. A 1.6
mile trail as shown in Figure 2 would cost approximately $1,240 to install and about half
that to maintain, or $390/mile at $625 for each maintenance event.
Security and General Maintenance: A portion of the property is currently fenced, but
the exact amount and areas of fencing are currently unknown. Fencing along residential
areas might be advisable to prevent dumping, which was observed in these areas. Signs
advising of a conservation area can be placed at intervals along boundaries (except within
the slough) as necessary. Public use of Sanitation Road could become a security issue for
Immokalee Water and Sewer as the road leads to sensitive areas. Currently, Immokalee
Water and Sewer has an access easement over Sanitation Road, and maintains the road. It
might be best not to bring the public in that way, and allow the easement and maintenance
to continue as it currently is, and use that road for land management purposes only.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 21 of 53
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $328,000 67,700 These are high estimates, based on
treating every acre every year, which is
unlikely to occur. Additionally, actual
costs could be much lower depending on
whether slough areas are impacted or not,
and if maintenance rotation is planned.
Use of prescribed fire could reduce costs.
Parking Facility $25,000 t.b.d Based on Otter Mound
Access Trails/Non ADA
$1,240
$625
Based on a 1.6 mile trail.
Fencing/gates
$88,400
$200
$15/LF for field fencing – from estimate
provided to Conservation Collier for field
fencing at Nancy Payton Preserve in
2017. Gates are approx. $100 each. This
estimate anticipates fencing 1.12 miles
with 4 gates, representing the portion
along public roads.
Boardwalk
t.b.d
t.b.d
$300/LF
Trash Removal
t.b.d.
t.b.d
Request owner to remove trash before
conveyance. Pack-in, Pack-out afterward.
Signs
$4,000
t.b.d.
No trespassing signs must be no farther
than 500 feet apart. Placing signs 500
feet apart along boundaries would take 53
signs, or $2,000. An entry sign costs
approx. $2,000.
Total $446,640 $68,525
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 22 of 53
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
Conservation Collier ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida
Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program: Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has
limited funds and is concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list.
This parcel is not inside a Florida Forever priority project boundary. Additionally, the
Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida
Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title
between the programs.
Other Potential Funding Sources: There is potential for utilizing funding donations to
the Conservation Collier program to fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to
the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently
approximately $299,400 in this fund, with $91,000 earmarked for multi-parcel project
properties whose owners have accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 23 of 53
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit H. A total score of 280 out of a possible 400 was achieved. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Figure 5. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 97 97%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 71 71%
Vulnerability 100 45 45%
Management 100 67 67%
Total Score:400 280 70%
Percent of Maximum Score:70%
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 24 of 53
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score: 280 out of 400 possible points
Ecological: 97 out of 100 possible points
This high score was achieved because there are at least six reasonably intact native
vegetation communities on the parcels, including a slough with mature cypress in it and an
area of tropical hardwood hammock, a priority habitat. Both parcels are within the wellfield
protection zones for the Immokalee Water and Sewer wells and contribute to surficial
aquifer recharge. The parcels contain and provide buffering for an identified flow way, the
Immokalee slough, which connects with Lake Trafford. Wetlands exist onsite, including
wet forested areas and freshwater marshes. Listed plant species were found onsite and the
habitat would support listed, non-listed and wetland dependent species. Finally, the parcel
appears to be able to be restored to high ecological function with minimal alteration beyond
removal of invasive exotic plant species.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 71 out of 100 possible points
The parcel received a moderately high score as in has at least 3 access points from paved
public roads and one access by a private lime rock road. Public uses of the parcel could
include all land-based natural resource-based recreational and educational opportunities.
Approximately one quarter of the parcel scan be seen directly from a public road.
Additional points were achieved because the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristics (the mature cypress in the slough).
Vulnerability: 45 out of 100 possible points
The upland portions of the parcels are vulnerable to development. Parcel a. is currently
zoned Agricultural, with 1 unit per 5 acres, but parcel b. is currently zoned Estates, and
could be developed at 1 unit per 2.25 acres. There is a ST Overlay for well field protection,
but that is not a negative for residential development. Additionally, on the Immokalee
Future Land Use Map (Exhibit D), parcel a. is shown as “Low Residential Subdistrict,”
and parcel b. is shown as “Neighborhood Center Subdistrict,” indicting that uses could
intensify in the future.
Management: 67 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved for management needs. There were no specific hydrologic
changes that appear needed, however, there is a road traversing the slough, and future use
of that road could require evaluation of culverts. Removal of exotic plant species is a
significant need, and could be costly to achieve. For the most part, the properties are
surrounded by managed and semi-managed urban and agricultural landscapes. This limits
some exotics influence and elevates potential for invasion by others. There are some seed
sources remaining in adjacent lands to the NW, where there is no removal requirement.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This parcel is similar to the SD
Corp of Naples (115 acres) and Half Circle L Ranch (3,370 acres).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 25 of 53
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 26 of 53
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 27 of 53
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 28 of 53
Exhibit D. Zoning Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 29 of 53
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial - 1940
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 30 of 53
Exhibit F. FEMA map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 31 of 53
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 32 of 53
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 33 of 53
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 34 of 53
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 35 of 53
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 36 of 53
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 37 of 53
Exhibit M: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 38 of 53
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 39 of 53
Exhibit O. USFWS Wood Stork Foraging Area, Florida bonneted bat consultation
and focal areas and snail kite consultation area
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 40 of 53
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLC Folio Numbers: 00132960005, 00133240009
Sanitation and Bethune Roads
Geographical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
Urban area
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90 90
Owner believes there is Tropical Hardwood Hammock on the
property. Area too wet to visit in December but will check back
in March. Site visit done 2/5/18 Confirmed presence of
tropical hardwood plants
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
4110 - pine flatwoods; 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods; 6210 -
Cypress; 6410 -Freshwater marsh; 6300 - Mixed wetland forest;
6172 - Mixed wetland hardwood-shrubs.
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 The cypress slough has mature cypress trees in it.
1.A. Total 100 105
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100 100 both parcels are within the wellfield protection zone.
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50 50 Immokalee Slough runs through both parcels.
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 freshwater marshes exist onsite
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 80 44% of soils on both parcels are depressional
b. Slough Soils 40 less than 1 acre
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 slough area floods - evidence of high water seen on tree trunks.
Subtotal 300 275
1.B Total 100 92 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100 100
Staff observed 5 FLUCCS: 4110-Pine flatwoods. 6170-Mixed
wetland hardwoods, 6172-Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs,
6410-Freshwater marsh, 6210-Cypress
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 If a. or b. are scored, then c. Species Richness is not scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70 56
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories, each category
provides 14 points- This parcel scored 4 out of 5. 4X14=56
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Tillandsia fasciculata and T. balbisiana
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 41 of 53
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 Removal of exotics would be primary restorative work
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 276
1.C Total 100 92 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100 100 7.5 acre County mitigation parcel
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 97 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 Bethune Rd., South 5th St., South 1st St.
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 Sanitation Road
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75
All land based natural resource-based recreational and
educational opportunities exist.
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 18
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. The entire perimeter is 5 miles. The portion along
roads is 1.12 miles =22%
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic - the view at the slough is of mature
cypress in water.
Subtotal 300 213
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 71 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 42 of 53
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45 45
Parcel a. is Agriculturally zoned - 1 unit per 5 acres. On the
Immokalee Future Land Use Map (FLUM), it is shown as Low
residential subdistrict, with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas
overlay with wetlands connected to Lake Trafford. Parcel b. is
Estates zoned - 1 unit per 2.25 acres (from Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, 2. Estates Designation). On the Immokalee
FLUM, it is shown as Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and
urban infill. Future plans show uses to potentially intensify.
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
Thre is a ST for wellfield protection, but this is not the ST this
question asks about.
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 45
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100
No specific changes determined. There is a road bed over the
slough (Sanitation Road) which may flood in rainy season.
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60 60
On most aras of the property, exotics are between 25% and
50% of plant cover, some areas more, some areas less.
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required
-20 -10
some seed source exists to the NW along the slough, but
mostly, the site is surrounded by managed urban and
agricultural landscapes.
5.B Total 100 50
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Portions of both parcels (Pine flatwoods) would benefit from
prescribed fire but surrounding residential areas will make this
difficult to accomplish
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10 -10 Dumping was observed
5.C Total 100 50
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 67 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 280
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 43 of 53
Exhibit Q. Photographs
Photo 1. Parcel a. north side at Sanitation Road gate
Photo 2. Parcel a. Center of slough - crossing along Sanitation Road
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 44 of 53
Photo 3. Parcel a. Old Eustis Ave. landfill – south side of Sanitation
Road
Photo 4. Parcel a. Napier grass along Sanitation Road- Mixed wetland
hardwood community
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 45 of 53
Photo 5. Parcel a. - Mixed wetland hardwood community north of the
slough
Photo 6. Parcel a. – Mature Brazilian pepper
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 46 of 53
Photo 7. Parcel a. Mixed wetland hardwood with air potato
Photo 8. Parcel a. Toothpetal orchid (Habernaria odontopetala)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 47 of 53
Photo 9. Parcel a. slough with cypress knees
Photo 10. Parcel a. – Royal palm
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 48 of 53
Photo 11. Parcel a. - freshwater marsh – southwest side, with Melalueca
Photo 12. Parce a. - same freshwater marsh, another view
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 49 of 53
Photo 13. Parcel a. Pine flatwood - southwest side
Photo 14. Parcel b. Along Bethune Road – Mixed wetland forest
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 50 of 53
Photo 15. Parcel b. Mixed wetland hardwoods at slough edge – north
side of parcel b. Note water marks on cypress
Photo 16. Pine flatwood – south side parcel b.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 51 of 53
Photo 17. Property edge along southwest side of parcel b. – South 5th St.
adjacent to Collier Village PUD
Photo 18. Debris in pine flatwoods along South 5th St.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 52 of 53
Photo 19. Parcel b. - Pine flatwood on southwest side next to Collier
Village
Photo 20. Pine flatwood farther north next to Collier Village – some
areas better than others
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00132960005 and 00133240009
Owner Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP Date: January 2018
Page 53 of 53
Photo 21. A few of the tropical hardwood hammock plants observed on
2/5/18: L to R starting from the top: Encyclia tampensis, Eugenia
rhombea, Zanthoxylum fagara, Myrcianthes fragrans , Eugenia axillaris,
and Quercus virginiana
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Presented June 12, 2017
Property Name: Paul A. Gore, Trustee,
Robert H. Gore III Estate
Folio Numbers inside
Staff Report Date: Revised – May/June 2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
2
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Property Information 3
Table 1. Summary of Property Information 3
Figure 1. Location Map 4
Figure 2. Aerial Map 5
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial 6
Figure 4. Collier County Master Mobility Plan 2011 Wildlife Linkages Map 4-2 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates 7
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics 10
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements 16
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs 17
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs 18
V. Potential for Matching Funds 19
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria 20
Table 3. Tabulation of 2007 Secondary Screening Criteria 20
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring 20
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map 22
Exhibit B. Soils Map 23
Exhibit D. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps 25
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored 2017 Secondary Criteria Screening Form 26
Exhibit F. Photographs 29
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
3
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property
describing its various physical characteristics and other general information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Robert Gore Local owner
Folio Number 69 parcels – see
Folio list on Page 8
Paul A. Gore Trustee/ Robert H. Gore III Estate
Target
Protection
Area (TPA)
NGGE Located in Units 91 and 92
Size 69 parcels Of a total of 192.15 acres
STR S33 T49 R28 All parcels in same STR
Zoning
Category/TDRs
Estates
No TDRs
n/a
FEMA Flood
Map Category
AH and AE 95% of the project is in Flood Zone AH and 5% in
AE (in small random pockets). Both zones are
considered high risk flood zones and special flood
hazard areas.
Existing
structures
One residential
home
There is a residential home and open wooden
pavilion on one ten-acre parcel. The home could be
used as a visitor center or nature center possibly
run by the Cypress Cove Conservancy
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
Estates residential Mostly undeveloped; one adjoining home on 38th
Ave SE.
Development
Plans
None known No permits applied for in County system
Known
Property
Irregularities
Access Issues Property can be accessed via Desoto Blvd., 40th Ave
SE and 38th Ave SE. Desoto is paved, and the
others are unpaved, though 38th Ave SE is in better
condition than 40th Ave SE.
Other County
Dept Interest
Transportation
and Utilities
The Utilities Division has expressed no interest in
the properties. The Transportation Division has
not responded to the inquiry.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
4
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
5
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
7
Figure 4. Collier County Master Mobility Plan 2011 Wildlife Linkages Map 4-2
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
8
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and
the value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of
market data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches,
cost, income capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of
substitution that an informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a
particular real property than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally
desirable one. Three properties from within 3 miles of this property were selected for
comparison, each with similar site characteristics, utility availability, zoning
classification and road access. No inspection was made of the property or comparables
used in the report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relied upon information
provided by program staff. Conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the
Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one appraisal is required.
See next page for listing of folios.
Assessed Value: * Total - $418,572 for 70 parcels. Without the home site,
non-contiguous parcels, and FAK parcel - $311,066 for 65 parcels.
Estimated Market Value: ** To be provided.
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department, estimated value projected to January
2018.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
9
Gore Properties
Folio Legal Desc Acres
2017
Assessed
Value
2007
Assessed
Value Comments
1 41500040008 NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 1 1.59 $2,814 $13,992
2 41500080000 NGGEUNit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft Tr 1 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
3 41500120009 NGGE Unit 91 E 150 Ft of Tr 1 2.27 $4,018 $19,976
4 41500160001 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft Tr 2 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
5 41500200000 NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 2 1.59 $2,814 $34,980
6 41500240002 NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 2 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
7 41500280004 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft of Tr 2 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
8 41500320003 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 3 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
9 41500360005 NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 3 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
10 41500400004 NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 3 2.73 $4,832 $24,024
11 41501320002 NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 14 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
12 41501360004 NGGE Unit 91 E 105 Ft of Tr 14 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
13 41501400003 NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 14 2.27 $4,018 $19,976
14 41501440005 NGGE Unit 91 All of Tr 15 & Tr 18 10.00 $44,250 $372,201 Homesite
15 41501480007 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 16 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
16 41501520006 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 17 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
17 41501600007 NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 150 Ft of Tr 19 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
18 41501640009 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 19 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
19 41501680001 NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 19 1.59 $2,814 $13,992
20 41501720000 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 180 Ft of Tr 19 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
21 41501840003 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 20 1.14 $5,045 $45,600
22 41502680000 NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 31 5.00 $22,125 $200,000
23 41502720009 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 30 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
24 41502760001 NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 31 2.28 $4,036 $20,064
25 41502800000 NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 31 2.73 $4,832 $24,024
26 41502840002 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 32 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
27 41502880004 NGGE Unit 91 E 150 Ft of Tr 33 2.27 $4,018 $19,976
28 41502920003 NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 33 2.73 $4,832 $24,024
29 41502960005 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of Tr 34 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
30 41503000003 NGGE Unit 91 W 180 Ft of Tr 34 2.73 $4,832 $24,024
31 41503080007 NGGE Unit 91 W 105 Ft of Tr 35 1.59 $2,814 $13,992
32 41504080006 NGGE Unit 91 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 46 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
33 41504120005 NGGE Unit 91 E 75 Ft of W 150 Ft of Tr 46 1.14 $2,018 $10,032
34 41504200006 NGGE Unit 91 E 105 Ft Tr 46 1.59 $2,814 $13,992
35 41504240008 NGGE Unit 91 E 180 Ft of Tr 47 2.74 $4,850 $24,112
36 41504280000 NGGE Unit 91 W 150 Ft of Tr 47 2.27 $4,018 $19,976
37 41504400000 NGGE Unit 91 W 416 Ft of Tr 50 3.15 $5,576 $27,720
38 41504440002 NGGE Unit 91 E 264 Ft of Tr 50 2.00 $3,540 $17,600
39 41504520003 NGGE Unit 91 N 75 Ft of Tr 51 1.17 $2,071 $10,296
40 41504560005 NGGE Unit 91 S 180 Ft of Tr 51 2.81 $4,974 $24,728
41 41504600004 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 52 5.15 $9,116 $45,320
42 41504680008 NGGE Unit 91 N 150 Ft of Tr 53 2.34 $4,142 $20,592
43 41504720007 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 54 5.15 $9,116 $45,320
44 41506600002 NGGE Unit 91 N 150 Ft Tr 74 2.34 $10,355 $93,600
non-
contiguous
45 41507160004 NGGE Unit 91 N 180 Ft of Tr 79 2.81 $4,974 $24,728
46 41507200003 NGGE Unit 91 S 150 Ft of Tr 79 2.27 $4,018 $19,976
47 41507320006 NGGE Unit 91 N 75 Ft of Tr 80 1.17 ac
Titled to Robert
Guerra
48 41510120002 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 109 5.00 $22,125 $200,000
non-
contiguous
49 41510640003 NGGE Unit 91 Tr 116 6.39 $28,276 $255,000
non-
contiguous
50 41560120007 NGGE Unit 91A E 180 Ft of Tr 122 3.81 $6,744 $33,528
51 41560160009 NGGE Unit 91A W 159 Ft of Tr 122 3.15 $5,576 $27,720
52 41560200008 NGGE Replat 91A Tr 123 6.99 $12,372 $61,512
53 41560320001 NGGE Unit 91A W 180 Ft ofTr 125 3.83 $6,779 $33,704
54 41616920009 NGGE Unit 92 Tr 84 5.68 $10,054 $90,880
55 41616960001 NGGE Unit 92 E 75 Ft of Tr 85 1.14 $2,018 $18,240
56 41617120002 NGGEUnit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 86 2.73 $4,832 $43,680
57 41617960000 NGGE Unit 92 W 150 Ft of Tr 97 2.27 $4,018 $36,320
58 41618000008 NGGE Unit 92 W 75 Ft of E 180 Ft of Tr 97 1.14 $2,018 $18,240
59 41618080002 NGGE Unit 92 E 180 Ft of Tr 98 2.73 $4,832 $43,680
60 41618200002 NGGE Unit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 99 2.73 $4,832 $43,680
61 41618240004 NGGE Unit 92 E 150 Ft of Tr 99 2.27 $4,018 $36,320
62 41618280006 NGGE Unit 92 W 180 Ft of Tr 100 2.73 $4,832 $43,680
63 41618320005 NGGE Unit 92 E 150 Ft of Tr 100 2.27 $4,018 $36,320
64 41619200001 NGGE Unit 92 W 75 Ft of Tr 111 1.14 $2,018 $18,240
65 41619320004 NGGE Unit 92 E 180 Ft of Tr 112 2.73 $4,832 $43,680
66 41619360006 NGGE Unit 92 W 150 Ft of Tr 112 2.27 $4,018 $36,320
67 41661640004 NGGE Unit 92A Tr 138 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
68 41661680006 NGGE Unit 92A Tr 139 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
69 41661800006 NGGE Unit 92A Tr 142 5.00 $8,850 $44,000
SUB TOTAL 190.26 $416,072 $2,827,997 15%
FAK 877960001 Off Janes Senic Drive 2.50 $2,500
TOTAL 192.76 $418,572
166.53 $311,066
180.26 $371,822
Legend
: Non-Contiguous parcels
:Not counted- Titled to another entity
: Off Janes Senic Drive
-Without homesite and FAK
parcel
Without homesite, non-
contiguous and FAK parcels
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
10
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
This property was originally proposed for acquisition in 2007. The property remained on
the “B” List until 2011, the last Active Acquisition List of the initial 10-year buying
period 2003-2013. Collier County Environmental Resources Department staff conducted
site visits in 2005, on 2007, 2008 and most recently, in May and June, 2017.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA Yes
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the
property? Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a)
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats Yes – 6170-Mixed
Wetland hardwoods; 6216-
Cypress-Mixed Hardwoods;
6172-Mixed shrubs; 6210-
Cypress; Reported Hardwood
hammocks.
Vegetative Communities: Staff used two methods to determine native plant
communities present; review of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
electronic databases for Department of Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and
Forms (FLUCCS) (2011/2012) and field verification of same. Electronic data was
updated from photo-interpretation from 2011-2013 aerial photography and classified
using the SFWMD modified FLUCCS classification system. Features were interpreted
from the county-based aerial photography. The update was completed on 11/13/2014.
A neighbor and environmental professional, Linda Weinland, is familiar with the
property and reports that there are scattered patches of higher ground dominated by
mature laurel oak, maple, strangler fig, dahoon holly, white stopper and other species,
indicating presence of hardwood hammocks. She reports that the Gore property was
designated a Stewardship Forest by the Florida Forest Service. This information is being
verified. Additionally, there are at least 2 pointer trees (also called “thong” trees) near
the trails. They are trail markers left by Indians and early settlers. There is a photo of one
of them in this report (Photo 8).
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified: (in order of predominance)
6170- Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
6216 – Cypress – Mixed Hardwoods
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
11
6172 – Mixed Shrubs
6210- Cypress
The following native plant communities were directly observed:
6170 – Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
6216 – Cypress – Mixed hardwoods
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Ground Cover: Ground cover species observed were swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum),
sword fern (Nephrolepis sp.), giant sword fern (Nephrolepis biserrata), strap fern
(Campyloneurum sp.), gold-foot fern (Phlebodium aureum), match head (Phyla
nodiflora), Arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), Cyperus sp., muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia) and pepper vine (Ampelopsis arborea). Also reported by Linda Weinland:
resurrection fern (Pleopeltis polypodioides, shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata), and
woodsgrass (Oplismenus hirtellus).
Midstory: Midstory species included marlberry (Ardesia escallonioides), wild coffee
(Psychotria nervosa and P. sulzneri), myrsine (Myrsine floridana), Carolina willow
(Salix caroliniana), pond apple (Annona glabra), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis). Also reported by Linda Weinland: dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), hog plum
(Ximenia Americana), firebush (Hamelia patens), rouge plant (Rivina humilis), pop ash
(Fraxinus Americana, and white stopper (Eugenia axillaris).
Canopy: The canopy for most of the parcels consists of, in order of abundance, a mix of
cypress (Taxodium distichum) cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), red maple (Acer rubrum),
bay (Persea sp.) (many of these were dead) and, and slash pine (Pinus elliottii). In
depressional areas, pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) was observed. Also reported by Linda
Weinland: laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and red mulberry (Morus rubra).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: These data indicate that while the Ordinance-
identified endangered plant communities are not present on the parcel, intact native plant
communities are present. Many of the plants observed are wetland species, with areas of
upland species on the northeast side, at 38th Ave. SE and Desoto Blvd. This observation
loosely corresponds to mapped soil types, indicating that the historic native plant
communities are still present.
2. Does the land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic
distribution, appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the
aesthetic setting of Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: This group of parcels has access from four public
roads: Desoto Blvd., 38th Ave. SE, 40th Ave. SE and 42nd Ave. SE. Desoto is paved road,
both 38th Ave. SE and 40th Ave. SE are unpaved but passable by vehicle. Forty-second
Ave. SE, which runs north of I-75, is not passable by vehicle. The southern-most parcels
abut the I-75 canal and are within the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) I-75
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
12
right of way but are not visible from I-75. All properties except for three are contiguous
and could accommodate seasonal outdoor recreation with some clearing for trails.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependant species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) Yes
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers:
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) red maple (Acer rubrum)
cypress (Taxodium distichum)
pond apple (Annona glabra)
pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
swamp bay (Persea palustris)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: No wetland-dependent wildlife species
were observed.
Other hydrologic indicators observed: Mature cypress tress are present on the
properties, with bases as wide as 4 feet in diameter at breast height (DBH), and cypress
knees are commonly found. No surface water was observed at the time of the May 2017
site visit.
Soils: Soils data is from a digital soil survey and generally is the most detailed level of
soil geographic data developed by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Collier County
soils data comes from the United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource
Conservation Service 1990 Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida.
Approximately one-half of the properties are mapped as consisting of depressional Boca,
Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland fine sands. These soils are hydric, very
poorly drained and found in depressions, swamps, and marshes. Typical vegetation
includes cypress, pickerel weed, and alligator flag. Another approximate one-quarter is
mapped as Hallandale and Boca fine sands, a slough soil. This soil type is nearly level,
poorly drained and found in sloughs and drainageways. The natural vegetation consists
of scrub cypress, sand cordgrass, wax myrtle and maidencane. The remaining one-
quarter is mapped as containing Hallandale fine sand. This soil type is poorly drained and
typical of flatwoods. Slash pine, saw palmetto, and creeping bluestem are often found in
it.
The vegetation observed on the properties is somewhat consistent, though more forested,
with what is expected on these soils, with the difference that no scrub cypress was
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
13
observed on the areas mapped as Hallandale and Boca fine sands. The size/age of some
of the cypress trees indicates that the area has historically contained wetlands.
Karst, a formation of limestone, was observed in the central and southern portions of the
parcels. Karst is a wetland indicator.
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity: Low, mapped in GIS at 0-7" annually. (0-7” is the
lowest annual recharge rate. The highest recharge rate is 21”-102” annually)
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: Moderate - mapped at 43 to 56” annually. (Low
recharge is 31” to <43” annually and High recharge is 56” to 76” annually.)
Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) Flood map designation: The
property is primarily within Flood Zone AH, with a small area of Flood Zone AE in
scattered pockets comprising about 5% of the whole. Zone AH indicates an area subject
to inundation by 1-percent-annual-chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding)
where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Zone AE indicates an area subject to
inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. Both Zones are considered high
risk flood zones.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: The plant communities found on the properties
were mostly consistent with mapped soils, and the properties contain wetlands and
wetland plant communities. As such, they provide habitat for wetland-dependent species.
The properties are not mapped as contributing significantly to the Tamiami Aquifer, but
they are mapped as contributing moderately to the Surficial Aquifer. Wetlands can serve
as a buffer to filter contaminated water. Since surface water in this area flows towards the
I-75 canal, and wetlands on the parcels may help to clean runoff before it enters the I-75
canal. These parcels hold water during wet season and can be expected to contribute to
flood control in the local area. The presence of hydrologic indicators such as cypress
knees, karst and water marks on buttressed cypress trunks provides evidence of seasonal
flooding.
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed
species habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) Yes
Listed Plant Species: Listed plant species include those found in Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.) Section 5B-40.0055 Regulated Plant Index and in the Federal Register -
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, December
1999, 50 CFR17.11 and 17.12.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
14
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
State Federal
giant sword fern Nephrolepis biserrata T
common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata E n/a
reflexed wild pine Tillandsia balbisiana T n/a
giant air plant Tillandsia utriculata E? E?
E=Endangered; T=Threatened
Although not all listed, the following native orchid species were reported as present by
neighbor/friend Linda Weinland:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
State Federal
toothpetal orchid Habenaria odontopetala n/a n/a
Threadroot orchid Harisella porrecta T n/a
ladiestresses Cyclopogon cranichoides n/a n/a
Florida butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis CE n/a
vanilla orchid Vanilla phaeantha E n/a
CE=Commercially Exploited; T=Threatened; E=Endangered
Listed Wildlife Species: Listed wildlife species include those found in the Federal
Register, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12,
December 1999 (FWS) and Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species, FWC,
Updated May 2017.
Listed Wildlife Observed: No listed wildlife species were observed by staff during any
site visits. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission panther telemetry data
show panther presence on the parcels, most recently from late 2016. Linda Weinland,
neighbor/friend, has personally seen 5 panthers on the property since 2012 and noted a
sighting of a female with kittens in 2014. Ms. Weinland was told by FWC staff that the
habitat is favorable for females with young. Although not currently listed in Florida, Ms.
Weinland has seen dozens of black bears in the last 5 years, including females with cubs.
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery has been observed by staff; however,
Ms.Weinland reported that she has observed nests of pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus
pileatus) and barred owls (Strix varia).
FWCC-derived species richness score: The parcels scored 7 out of 10, except along
roads, where the scores are 5 or 6, indicating potential for above average species
diversity.
Non-listed species observed: A red-shouldered hawk was heard calling during the 2007
visit. In 2007 the owner (Robert H. Gore) had reported observations of bobcats,
opossums, raccoons, deer, nine-banded armadillos and ibis on the parcels. Neighbor
Linda Weinland reports seeing bobcats, spotted skunks, raccoons, bats, mice, grey
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
15
squirrels, yellow rat snakes, red rat snakes, black racers, scarlet king snakes, coral snakes,
pigmy rattlesnakes, diamondback rattlesnakes, ringneck snakes and green anoles.
Potential Listed Species: The observed habitat and location would support the presence
of the following listed species: Florida panther (Felis concolor coryii, Everglades mink
(Mustela vison evergladensis), Florida brown snake (Storeria victa), tricolor heron
(Egretta tricolor), and little blue heron (Egretta caerulea).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: These parcels are mapped as having above-
average biodiversity. Collared Florida panthers have been tracked on them and in the
immediate area and observed by the former owner and nei ghbor, Linda Weinland.
Because they are infested with Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) they would
need extensive restoration for native wildlife to make best use of the area. Neighboring
properties are similarly infested and could make restoration difficult to maintain.
However, these parcels provide significant wildlife habitat due to size.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) Yes.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: These properties are within a historic wetland
area that connects on the east side with the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
(FPNWR) via the Ford Test Track, about a mile and a half away. The Gore properties
would enhance or protect the FPNWR primarily by acting as a buffer and providing a
reasonably large sized wild land addition north of I-75. There are Wildlife underpasses at
the FakaUnion and Miller Canal.
Just south of FPNWR and the I-75 corridor, is the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve,
about 2.5 miles from the properties. Panthers who utilize the existing 2 underpasses under
I-75 (the Faka Union and Miller canals) could access the preserve.
A little over 2 miles to the west are the North Belle Meade sending lands. In 2007,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) biologists did not encourage
use of the area to corridor panthers farther west into North Belle Meade due to increasing
development in that area. At present, FWC would support the acquisition of this property
for panther habitat, but cautions about defining a westward corridor because there is no
master plan that identifies it as such and there are developed lands west of Everglades
Blvd. Potential for a future Everglades access to I-75 is also a noted obstacle in the way
of a habitat corridor (Personal Comm. with Darrell Land 6-5-17).
The Picayune Strand State Forest is directly to the south across I-75. Panthers could
move south from the Fakaunion canal, just south of the properties, into the Picayune
creating an ecological link and habitat corridor. The Gore properties are located within a
Primary Panther Habitat Zone (See Fig. 4).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
16
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project?
No
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel?
No
Without such funding circumstances, Conservation Collier funds shall not be available for purchase of these lands. Ord. 2002-63,
Sec. 10 (1)(f)
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance 2002-63, section 5.9:
Hiking: This property would provide opportunities for hiking. Old trails exist on the
parcels and a current tenant in the stilt home on the home site parcel is working to reopen
them.
Nature Photography: This property provides opportunities for nature photography,
however the property is currently difficult to access.
Bird-watching: This property provides opportunities for bird-watching, though such
activity is limited due to dense vegetation.
Kayaking/Canoeing: This property does not provide opportunities for kayaking or
canoeing.
Swimming: This property does not provide opportunities for swimming.
Hunting: Hunting is not permitted in Golden Gate Estates.
Fishing: This property does not provide opportunities for fishing.
Recommended Site Improvements: Existing trails could be restored to allow hiking
access to the property, with additional access points developed. The Cypress Cove
Conservancy, a local 501C3 Land Trust, has suggested that the home site could be
acquired by them and they could partner with Conservation Collier and Collier County by
providing central access to the trails with establishment of a Nature Center in the existing
stilt home.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
17
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, signage, the construction of a trail system to allow the public to have access to
selected portions of the property and a small public parking area. The following
assessment provides estimates of both the initial and recurring costs of management.
These are very preliminary estimates; Ordinance 20027-63, as revised (Ordinance 2007-
65), requires a formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by
Conservation Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present: The properties are infested by significant amounts of
invasive exotic plants. The interior areas are approximately 15-35% infested with mature
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Along roadsides and at the home site parcel,
the infestation is at approximately 95%, and includes air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera),
ceasarweed (Urena lobate), lantana (Lantana camara), arrowhead (Syngonium
podophyllum), and balsam apple (Momordica charantia). There are likely other exotic
species in interior locations that were not directly observed.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control: The initial cost of exotic removal would be
substantial due to the amount present, the density of the vegetation and the difficulty of
accessing some areas. Based on 2016 exotic removal contracts for the similar
Winchester Head wetland areas, costs for the level of infestation observed to treat with
herbicide in place are estimated at approx. $427 per acre. Considering this likely per-
acre cost, exotic removal for these parcels (193 acres) could cost approximately $82,000.
Costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually would be
similar. Conventional understanding that these costs could decrease over time as the soil
seed bank is depleted have not completely borne out. The current observed trend is for
additional plant species to invade. This could keep management costs high for some
time.
Public Parking Facility: Considering the size of the parcels, a preserve at this location
could be a destination for hikers. All trails start at the home site parcel, making
development of a small parking area at that location appropriate. The Cypress Cove
Conservancy has expressed interest in acquiring this parcel and may be interested in
developing parking.
Public Access Trails: Trails exist on the property. These have not been mapped and it is
currently unknown exactly how long the trails are or where they are located. Existing
trails can be mapped and additional trails could be developed. If a wheelchair-
accessible, or ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) compliant portion of the trail is
required, this would need to be contracted. If crushed shell is used for wheelchair
accessible portions, this could cost up to $40.00 per foot. Other materials, such as
asphalt or concrete, could be less costly.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
18
Security and General Maintenance: It may be desirable to fence this group of
properties to reduce opportunities for dumping and trespass, however, this could be
problematic if private parcels remain interspersed within preserve parcels. Field fencing,
similar to that used by FL DOT along I-75 could be used. Costs, including installation,
for this type of fencing, based on similar fencing done at Rivers Road Preserve in 2015,
are approx. $6.00 per foot. Gates are approx. $800 each. A sign could be placed at the
intersection of Desoto Blvd and 38nd Ave SE, directing visitors to the property, and on
the property itself. Minimal management activities, like trash removal and trail
maintenance can be accomplished using both contracted and volunteer labor, though this
could be expensive and/or problematic due to the remote location.
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
t.b.d. To be determined; costs are unknown at this point.
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $82,000 $82,000 Kill in place at $427 per acre for 193 acres.
This estimate is based on kill in place work
done in 2016 at Winchester Head.
Some areas not directly observed may have
more or less infestation levels. Annual
recurring cost would likely remain high for 10
years.
Parking Facility $20,000 t.b.d. Current estimates are $20,000 minimum for a
small parking lot. Additional costs would
include engineering, permits and clearing.
Access Trails/ ADA t.b.d. t.b.d. Clearing existing trails and expanding them
could be done for minimal cost. ADA trails
would cost significantly more.
Fencing $78,500 t.b.d. Field fencing - $6.27 per foot
Gates - $800 ea. Considers fencing approx
12,000 feet, representing core preserve parcels
only. Estimate includes 4 gates.
Trash Removal $5,000 t.b.d. No solid waste observed on parcels but
dumping is chronic in this area. Estimate is
placeholder value.
Signs $1,000 t.b.d. Standard Preserve Sign cost estimate.
Total 186,500+ $82,000+
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
19
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), The Florida Forever Program and
the Save Our Rivers Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust: Potential does exist for a grant; however, these grants are
offered on a yearly cycle and are rarely coordinated with purchases to provide up-front
partner funding. Application is typically made for pre-acquired sites.
Applications for the current cycle were due in August 2016. Currently, no funds have
been appropriated by the State Legislature for conservation buying in 2017-18 other than
for the Rural and Family Lands Program.
Florida Forever Program: The Florida Forever Program has all current funds
committed through July 1, 2017, with no funds forthcoming for 2017-18. This parcel is
not inside a Florida Forever project boundary and is unlikely to be selected for funding.
Save Our Rivers Program / South Florida Water Management District: SFWMD
staff had previously advised that Save Our Rivers funding partnerships are unlikely
unless parcels are part of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP)
boundaries. This parcel is not within CERP project boundaries, although it is north of
CERP project lands directly across I-75.
Big Cypress Basin (BCB) has been queried for partnership potential. The BCB supports
acquisitions which provide dispersed water storage opportunities within the Naples Bay
watershed. Their coming budget is not likely to allow for a financial partnership on the
Gore properties as they would not serve that goal.
Other Potential Partner Funding Sources:
No other potential partner funding sources are known at this time.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
20
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit E. In 2007, A total score of 239 out of a possible 400 was
achieved. When updated in 2017 a total score of 251 out of 400 was achieved.
Additional points were provided in 2017 to acknowledge reported hardwood hammock
habitat, a reported ancient cypress tree, additional FLUCCS vegetative communities
determined, and reported sightings of Florida panthers on the property.
The chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of 2007 Secondary Screening Criteria
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points Scored Points
Percent
of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 46 46%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 79 79%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 63 63%
Total Score: 400 239 60%
Percent of Maximum
Score: 60%
Tabulation of 2017 Secondary Screening Criteria
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points Scored Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 50 50%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 78 78%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 73 73%
Total Score: 400 251 63%
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
2007 2017
63
50
79
46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Management
Vulnerability
Human Values/Aesthetics
Ecological
Secondary
Criteria
Categories
Category Scores
239Total Score:
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
21
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score: 239 out of 400
Ecological – 46 out of 100:
The property scored average in the ecological section. Staff did not see any tropical
hardwood hammock, one of the preferred plant communities, onsite but small pockets of
this habitat type were reported by a neighbor who knows the property. Hydrological
indicators and soil type indicate that area is part of a wetland system and native wetlands
plant communities were observed on the site. The site contributes minimally to the Lower
Tamiami Aquifer and moderately to the Surficial Aquifer. Biodiversity on the site is
scored by FWC as above average. However, it would need significant work to remove
exotics and restore it to a high level of ecological function. It is approximately 1.5 miles
from the FPNWR, 2.5 miles from the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve and just north of
the Picayune Strand State Forest across I-75. There are 2 known connections to Picayune
and Fakahatchee lands, south of I-75; at the FakaUnion and Miller canal crossings. There
is a landscape ecological link with FPNWR across the Ford Test Track.
Human Values/Aesthetics – 79 out of 100:
The property scored above average in this category primarily due to access from a paved
road (Desoto Blvd.), because its size would accommodate hiking and because area roads
(38th, 40th and 42nd Aves SE) make a large portion visible from a public thoroughfare.
The properties are also accessible on foot via 42th Ave. SE, which is an unimproved
gravel road traversing the FDOT I-75 right of way. An historic agreement between the
State Department of Transportation and the original NGGE developer grants legal access
to property owners along 42nd Ave. SE, although this access is not maintained by the
County Road Department.
Vulnerability –50 out of 100: The parcels include 69 separate lots that could be
developed. Fifteen lots could be subdivided once, making a total of 84 homes that could
be built on the parcels. No development permits have been applied for, other than one
for the homesite parcel (10 acres).
Management –63 out of 100:
The slightly above-average score for this section is a result of the lack of alterations
necessary to sustain the area’s hydrologic functions. The score was depressed, however,
by the need to remove the severe Brazilian pepper infestation. Adjacent properties would
serve as seed banks, and any trails created on the parcel would need to be maintained
regularly through mechanical removal of exotics, as burning is not appropriate to the area
because of the presence of wetland hardwoods and difficulties due to proximity to I-75.
Parcel Size: 192.15 acres
While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on comparative size,
the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This group of parcels is significant in size and is
comparable with other multi-parcel projects within the North Golden Gate Estates, such
as Winchester Head and NGGE Unit 53.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
22
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
23
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
24
Exhibit C. Species Richness Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
25
Exhibit D. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
26
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored 2017 Secondary Criteria Screening Form
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
6170-Mixed
Wetland hardwoods; 6216-Cypress-Mixed Hardwoods; 6172-
Mixed shrubs; 6210- Cypress; Reported Hardwood hammocks.
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional FNAI critically
imperilled to rare listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each 5 Reported Hardwood hammocks S3 (State listed as rare)
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 Reported ancient cypress
1.A. Total 100 20
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50 0-7" Lower Tamiami aquifer; 43-56" surfical aquifer
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 soils are 100% hydric
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 72 90% depressional soils - Boca Riviera Copeland FS (25)
b. Slough Soils 40 4 10% slough soils - Hallandale and Boca FS (49)
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 watermarks on cypress indicate approx. 2'
Subtotal 300 171
1.B Total 100 57 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75 75
6170-Mixed Wetland hardwoods; 6216-Cypress-Mixed
Hardwoods; 6172-Mixed shrubs; 6210- Cypress; Reported
Hardwood hammocks.
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
27
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 70 Florida panther,
c. Species Richness score ranging from 10 to 70 70
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Tillandsia fasciculata, Tillandsia utriculata
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50 50
significant amount of Brazilian pepper and other invasive exotic
plants exist at edges and scattered throughout
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 215
1.C Total 100 72 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50 50
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge located approx 1.5
miles to the east.
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 50
1. Ecological Total Score 100 50 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 Desoto Blvd.
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75 hiking and wildlife observation /photography
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 40
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. 50% of the perimeter can be seen from 38th Ave.
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20 mature cypress reported
Subtotal 300 235
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 78 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
28
Exhibit E. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50 single family - Estates
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 50
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100
No hydrologic changes anticipated to sustain site
characteristics
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60 60
Approx. 15-35% Brazilian pepper in interior areas; 75%
Brazillian pepper and other exotics along roadways
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20 -20 adjacent undeveloped lots contain significant seed source
5.B Total 100 40
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80 80 Minimal maintenance required beyond exotics control
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 73 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 251
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
29
Exhibit F. Photographs
Photo 1. Looking west along 40th Ave SE from Desoto Blvd. Gore
parcels on right and left. Photo taken May 30, 2017.
Photo 2: Looking North along Desoto Blvd., from the corner of 40th Ave
SE – Gore parcels on left. Edge parcels have significant Brazilian
pepper on perimeter. Photo taken May 30,
2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
30
Photo 3: Significant Syngonium and air potato infestation on home site
parcel. Photo from May 30, 2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
31
Photo 4: Gore home site structure. Photo taken May 30, 2017.
Photo 5. Tall cypress knees on homesite parcel. Photo taken Nov. 2005
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
32
Photo 6. Entrance to home site parcel. Photo taken May 30, 2017.
Photo 7. Rough trails starting at home site. Photos taken May 30, 2017
and June 5, 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
33
Photo 8. Pointer or “thong” tree – Photo taken Nov. 2005.
Photo 9. Interior open area in north/center of parcels. Photo taken
May 30, 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
34
Photo 10. Typical interior north/center of parcels. Phot taken May 30,
2017.
Photo 11. Depressional area with popash (Fraxinus caroliniana) – Note
water marks on tree trunks at approx. 1.5 feet showing typical wet
season water levels. Photo taken June 5, 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 69 folios total
Name: Gore Properties Date: Revised – May 2017
35
Photo 12. Karst topography. Photo taken May 30, 2017.
Photo 13. Old trail enhancements. Photo taken May 30, 2017.
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Property Name: Berman Trust and Mayr – I-75 Project
Folio Number(s): Berman Trust – 41506800006 – 2.34 acres
Mayr – 41661080004 – 6.7 acres
Staff Report Date: February 12, 2018
Berman Trust Mayr
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 2 of 51
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3
I. Summary of Property Information ..................................................................................4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .......................................................................... 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 8
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ............................................ 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ................................................................................................9
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements .......................18
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs............................................................19
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 21
V. Potential for Matching Funds .......................................................................................22
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ................................................................23
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 23
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 23
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map and CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Map.................. 26
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ..................................... 28
Exhibit D. Zoning Map ................................................................................................. 29
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser) .................................. 30
Exhibit F. FEMA Map .................................................................................................. 31
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 32
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map .......................................................... 33
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map and map showing what a North Belle
Meade connection could look like ................................................................................ 34
Exhibit J. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map with FWC panther telemetry 1981-2016 ............. 35
Exhibit K. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ...................................................... 36
Exhibit L: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map ...................................... 37
Exhibit M. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map...................................... 38
Exhibit N. USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps ..................... 39
Exhibit O. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form - Berman Trust
....................................................................................................................................... 40
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form – Mayr ........... 43
Exhibit Q. Photographs ................................................................................................ 46
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 3 of 51
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land acquisition and
management program approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) in
2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The Program was active in acquisition
between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program
was in management mode. In 2017, the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier
to seek additional lands (2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation Collier
Program in its 9th acquisition cycle to meet requirements specified in the Conservation Collier
Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes
of the Conservation Collier Program. It provides objective data to demonstrate how properties
meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. That is the sole purpose for this report and it is not
meant for any other use.
This report makes use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and University of
Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is a collection of spatial
data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural resources in Florida. It was
developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the
University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever
Program to evaluate properties for acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural
resource data layers which are representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, la ndscapes,
surface water, groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Potential Habitat Richness (Vertebrates)
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Following the first section, which looks more closely at initial criteria, additional sections address potential
for appropriate public use, assessment of management needs and costs, potential for matching funds, and a
summary of the secondary screening criteria.
The I-75 Project is not an approved multi-parcel project, but included 12 properties that have been grouped
together due to location. These properties were on the 2011 conservation Collier AAL as B-List properties.
Letters were sent to owners in June 2017 asking if they were still willing t o sell. Staff received 3 positive
responses: Faust, Berman Trust, and Mayr. The Faust parcel was rejected for the cycle by the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (CCLAAC) on August 14, 2017. This report evaluates only the
Berman Trust and Mayr parcels.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 4 of 51
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to
describe how the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics
and to provide other general property information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name (Richard F.) Berman Trust
(Brunhild) Mayr
Offered independently
Folio Numbers Berman Tr-4150680006
Mayr - 41661080004
2.34 ac
6.70 ac
Target
Protection Area
Both – North Golden Gate
Estates (NGGE)
Offered independently
Commission
District
5 Commissioner – William McDaniels
Size 7.04 acres total Berman Trust – 2.34 ac
Mayr – 6.7 ac
STR Berman Tr - 33-49-28
Mayr - 32-49-28
Just north of I-75 in NGGE
Zoning
Category/TDRs
Estates Both parcels are located within the NGGE
FEMA Flood
Map Category
Both - AH AH – Subject to inundation of by 1-percent-
annual-chance flood event where avg. depths are
1-3 feet. Base flood elevation, flood insurance
and floodplain management standards apply.
(Moderate flooding)
Existing
structures
n/a No structures
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
NGGE, Interstate Highway,
State Forest
North, East and West - Estates residential,
mostly undeveloped. The closest developed
property to Mayr is 650’ to the east, the next
closest ¾ of a mile west. The closest developed
property to Berman Trust is adjoining on its
east side. Other than that, the closest developed
property is the Gore homesite parcel.
South – I-75, Picayune Strand State Forest
Development
Plans Submitted
None known
Known Property
Irregularities
Oil, Gas and Mineral rights
(OGMs)
OGMs not included
Other County
Division Interest
Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation, Environmental
Services, Housing, Coastal
systems, Zoning,
Engineering
No interest from other Divisions noted.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 5 of 51
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 6 of 51
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 7 of 51
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 8 of 51
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the value
of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market data. A value
of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income capitalization and sales
comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an informed purchaser would pay
no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property than the cost of acquiring, without
undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties from within 3 miles of this property were
selected for comparison, each with similar site characteristics, utility availability, zoning
classification and road access. No inspection was made of the property or comparables used in the
report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relied upon information provided by program
staff. Conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known
or unknown adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one
appraisal is required.
Assessed Value: * Berman Trust - $20,534
Mayr - $28,140
Estimated Market Value: ** Berman Trust - $16,146 ($6,500/ac) (2008 Estimated Value –
$42,500 or $18,000/ac)
Mayr - $52,930 ($7,900/ac) (2007 Estimated Value - $201,000
or $30,000/ac)
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE PROVIDED
BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF AND
SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. These
parcels are both zoned Estates. They are not within an established growth management and/or
other type of overlay. There are no limitations other than zoning regulations to bar their
development.
The Florida Wildlife Federation requested that CCLAAC explore how purchase of the Gore
and I-75 Properties can complement Collier County’s 2012 Master Mobility Plan, 2011
Watershed Management Plan, and wildlife compensation/wetland mitigation obligations
resulting from planned county infrastructure projects. Acquisition of the Gore and I-75
properties would support the efforts and design solutions for water quality and open space identified
in each of those documents by providing for adequate areas of aquifer and groundwater recharge
within an eastern area of the County that growth and development pressures are starting to encroach
upon. Further, the Conservation Collier ownership will further establish the goals within the
Recreational and Open Space Element of the Collier GMP by increasing public ownership of
environmentally valuable properties while also enhancing public access availability. Additionally,
as suggested within the Master Mobility Plan, the acquisition of the identified properties would
allow for protection of environmentally lands located within areas that contribute to ecological
connectivity that supports a landscape scale approach to environmental protection.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department – date of value estimate – September
2010
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 9 of 51
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to provide a closer look at how these properties meet initial criteria.
Conservation Collier Program staff conducted a site visit to both properties on January 26, 2018.
Previous site visits were made by staff to Mayr in 2007 and Berman Trust in 2008.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA-
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) Yes
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats YES - both
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) (Exhibit A)
and field verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The 2009 electronic database identified: 6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods on both as the
primary vegetative community present on both the Berman Trust and Mayr parcels.
The Mayr parcel was also mapped with just over 1 acre of Mixed wetland hardwoods-
shrubs on the north side (Exhibit A).
The following native plant communities were observed:
Berman Trust: 6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods – all portions of the parcel
Mayr – 4280 - Cabbage palm and a slash pine component with small areas of 4250 -
Temperate hardwood hammock.
Characterization of Plant Communities present -A combination of 2007 (Mayr), 2008
(Berman Trust), and 2018 site visits to both:
Mayr
Ground Cover: Ground cover vegetation includes in order of dominance: Various
grasses, bluestem (Andropogon sp.), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wild coffee
(Psychotira nervosa and P. sulznerii), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), spanish
needles (Bidens alba), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia),, common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia) poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), toothpetal orchid (Habernaria sp.), dodder (Cuscuta sp.), semaphore
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 10 of 51
(Eupatorium mikanioides), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), southern river sage
(Salvia misella), and passionvine (Passiflora sp.). In the temperate hardwood
hammock, additions were Bidens (Bidens alba), Mikania (Mikania cordifolia) and
beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana). Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and
Ceasar’s weed (Urena lobata) were also found in the hammock areas.
.
Midstory: Midstory vegetation includes, in order of dominance: saw palmetto (Serenoa
repens), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), wild coffee (both Psychotria nervosa and P.
sulznerii), beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana), marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides),
sumac (Rhus copallina) and buttonbush-few (Cephalanthes occidentalis). Epiphytic
ferns include shoelace fern (Vittaria lineata), golden foot fern (Phlebodium aureum),
and resurrection fern (Polypodium polypodioides).
Canopy: Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) dominated the canopy vegetation, with the
following scattered throughout: slash pines (Pinus elliottii), bay (Persea sp.), live oak
(Quercus virginiana) and strangler fig (Ficus aurea). In the temperate hardwood
hammock, canopy species include cabbage palm, live oak and bay.
Berman Trust
Ground Cover: Ground cover species observed were swamp fern (Blechnum
serrulatum), sword fern (Nephrolepis sp.), wild coffee (both P. nervosa and P.
sulznerii), Jack-in-the-bush (chromoaelena odorata), giant sword fern (Nephrolepis
biserrata), strap fern (Campyloneurum sp.) Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),
maiden fern (Thelypteris sp.) and golden polypody (Phlebodium aureum). Vines
include: Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), Vitis sp., Smilax spp. and vetch (Vicia sp.).
Midstory: Midstory species included marlberry (Ardesia escallonioides), wild coffee
(P. nervosa and P. sulzneri), cabbage palm, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), hog plum
(Ximenia americana), myrsine (Myrsine floridana), Strangler fig (Ficus aurea) and
Wild lime (Zanthoxylum fagara).
Canopy: Cypress (Taxodium distichum), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), live oak
(Quercus virginiana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), red maple (Acer rubrum), slash
pine, and bay (Persea sp.)
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data indicate that while the Ordinance-identified endangered plant communities are
not present on both parcels, intact native plant communities are present.
The Mayr parcel appeared to be succeeding slightly in that there was more underbrush
present in the recent site visit than in 2007, and some larger hardwoods in open areas were
dead. The soil type on Mayr would naturally support a pine flatwood. There were pines
present but the numerous cabbage palms observed may have invaded over the last 40 years
possibly due to hydrology changes in the Estates.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 11 of 51
On the Berman Trust parcel Many of the plants observed in the central and eastern
portions of the parcel are obligate and facultative wetland plant species, with more upland
species dominating the western side of the parcel. This observation loosely corresponds to
mapped soil types, indicating that the historic native plant communities are still present.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
Mayr: The property abuts 42nd Ave SE, an unpaved road within the I-75 right-of way
(ROW). There is appropriate access for nature-based recreation as a recorded agreement
gives property owners along the ROW a legal right to access. Trails could be developed
on the property. Approximately 300 feet of the south end of the property is visible from
the highway through a fringe of vegetation bordering the canal. As such, it minimally
enhances the aesthetics of Collier County. This parcel is located near a group of other
parcels that have been targeted, Gore parcels. This group of parcels is geographically
distinct from other Conservation Collier projects, the closest of which, Nancy Payton
Preserve, is approximately 7 miles to the northwest. The Winchester Head multi-parcel
project is approximately 10 miles north.
Berman Trust: This parcel offers access from DeSoto Blvd – a paved public road. This
property could accommodate outdoor recreation, particularly if combined with others in
this area have been that have been nominated to Conservation Collier (Gore parcels).
Nominated properties in this location were first placed on Conservation Collier’s “B” list
in cycle 5 (2007) awaiting determination of a projected I-75 access from Everglades Blvd.
That effort is not still underway, but is likely to resurface in the future as the NGGE builds
out more. The Nancy Payton Preserve (approx. 10 miles NW of the parcels) is the closest
Conservation Collier property.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) YES to both for aquifer
recharge. Marginal to Mayr for wetland species protection .
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: The Mayr parcel is situated between 9 and 11 feet in elevation and
the Berman Trust parcel is at close to 11 feet in elevation according to LIDAR mapping
(Light Detection and Ranging) (Exhibit G). No hydrologic indicators were observed on
the Mayr parcel. The Berman Trust parcel contained karst features. Karst is a landscape
underlain by limestone that has been eroded by dissolution, producing ridges, sinkholes
and other characteristic landforms. While no standing water was observed on Berman
Trust parcel, the interior was moist with many ferns in the ground cover vegetation.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 12 of 51
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed on the Mayr parcel:
OBL FACW
Bay (Persea sp) swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed on the Berman Trust
parcel:
OBL FACW
Bay (Persea sp) Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Cypress (Taxodium distichum) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) Sword fern (Nephrolepis sp.)
Giant sword fern (Nephrolepis biserrata)
Wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa and P. sulznerii)
wild coffee (Psychotria sulznerii)
Strangler fig (Ficus aurea)
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Vetch (Vicia sp.)
Maiden fern (Thelypteris sp.)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed:
Mayr: None observed.
Berman Trust: A native apple snail (Pomace asp.) shell was found on the parcel.
Other Hydrologic indicators observed:
Mayr: None observed.
Berman Trust: Karst topography was found at the Berman Trust parcel. Karst
topography is a landscape of distinctive dissolution patterns in the surface rock – in this
case calcium carbonate - often marked by underground drainages and sometimes
indicative of the presence of caves. Karst is a wetland indicator.
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990).
Mayr: Soils are mapped as 100% upland soils – Hallandale fine sands (11) These soils
are typically found in conjunction with pine flatwoods. Natural vegetation consists of
slash pine, saw palmetto, and grasses. The vegetation observed corresponded
somewhat with mapped soils, but was dominated by oaks and cabbage palms instead
of slash pines (Exhibit B).
Berman Trust: Approximately two-thirds of the eastern portion of the property is
mapped as consisting of Hallandale and Boca fine sands; these are poorly drained soils
found in sloughs and drainageways. Natural vegetation typical of these soils includes
scrub cypress, sand cordgrass, waxmyrtle, and maidencane. The western one-third is
mapped as having Hallandale Fine Sands, an upland soil type where cabbage palm and
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 13 of 51
palmetto are typically found. Vegetation observed corresponds somewhat with what
would be expected on these soils (Exhibit B).
Neither parcel contained CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities (Exhibit A).
Aquifer recharge Potential: Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P.
and S. Hohner in 1995 and published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage)
throughout the South Florida Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20
(DRE # 327), South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity:
Both Mayr and Berman Trust: 0” to <7” annually (Exhibit C)
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity:
Both Mayr and Berman Trust: 43” to <56” annually (Exhibit C)
Wellfield Protection: The closest wellfield protection zone for both the Mayr and
Berman Trust parcels in approximately 2 miles to the north. The next closest one
is approximately 3 miles northwest. No wellfield protection zones overlap either
property (Exhibit C).
FEMA Flood map designation: Both the Mayr and Berman Trust parcels are within
Flood Zone AH (Exhibit F), which indicates they are subject to inundation of by 1-percent-
annual-chance flood event where avg. depths are 1-3 feet. Base flood elevation, flood insurance
and floodplain management standards apply. (i.e., Moderate flooding potential).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: Does the property offer opportunities for protection
of water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of
wetland dependent species habitat, and flood control? The Mayr and Berman Trust parcels
considered equal under various maps but may not actually be equal when it comes to wetland
protection. The Mayr parcel can, at best, appeared to be a seasonal wetland based on existing soils
and plant communities. There were some wetland species, there, notably bay and buttonbush, but
many of the bays were dead, showing indications of infection by red-bay ambrosia beetles
(Xyleborus glabratus) and its lethal fungus associate Raffaelea lauricola, and buttonbush was last
seen in 2007, but not seen during the 2018 site visit. The Mayr parcel does contribute moderately
to surficial aquifer system recharge at 43” to < 56” annually, though it does not specifically recharge
the Lower Tamiami aquifer, which maybe joined within the surficial aquifer system at this location.
There are no developed properties nearby, so the parcel is likely not contributing to much flood
control beyond remaining undeveloped and allowing sheet flow. However, CLIP4 Surface Water
Priorities layer maps both parcels as priority 2 out of 5 and both parcels are considered
wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS IPaC Information for Planning and
Consultation website), which categorizes both parcels as palustrine, or non-tidal, wetlands
in an area dominated by woody vegetation.
The Berman Trust parcel has more wetland dependent plant species and contains karst
topography, which is a wetland indicator, despite soils that indicate that wetland may be
also be seasonal. The mapped recharge rate for the surficial aquifer system is the same as
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 14 of 51
for the Mayr parcel’s, with moderate surficial aquifer recharge mapped no recharge
mapped for the Lower Tamiami aquifer. The Berman parcel has a developed property
connected to its eastern edge and may be providing some minor level of flood control for
that property, when the karst topography holds some of its seasonal surface waters. Both
parcels are providing minimal water quality enhancement beyond accommodating sheet
flow into the I-75 canal in their respective locations.
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) YES
Listed Plant Species: The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. The Florida state lists of protected plants are
administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of
plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants.
The following listed plant species were observed on the Mayr property:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS FWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata E
E=Endangered
The following listed plant species were observed on the Berman Trust property:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS FWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata E
Giant sword fern Nephrolepis biserrata T
E=Endangered, T=threatened
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the FWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, respectively,
of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
A list of protected Florida wildlife species can be viewed at:
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/.
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery was observed on either parcel.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 15 of 51
GIS mapped species and habitats: Based on information provided by USFWS, there are
no critical habitats on the Mayr and Berman Trust parcels, however, there are 2 mammals
and 25 species of migratory and other birds which could potentially use this general area.
Mammals include the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and the Florida bonneted bat
(Eumops floridanus). Additionally, both the Mayr and Berman Trust parcels are mapped
within FWC priority one panther habitat. Panther Telemetry shows that panthers have used
the Berman Trust Property as recently as 2014 (Panther #195), but there is no Telemetry
from the Mayr parcel, and the most recent point near the property was from 2013 (Panther
#219 - the same one that was on the SD Corp property and is now deceased (Exhibit N).
Both parcels are within mapped consultation and focal area for the Florida bonneted bat
and there is appropriate habitat on both parcels. County GIS maps for wood stork colonies
and their foraging areas show both parcels to be within 18-mile foraging areas for known
colonies, with the closest one approximately 13 miles to the northeast (Exhibit N).
The CLIP4 Biodiversity (Exhibit J) layer maps these parcels as the highest priority (1 out
of 5). The CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Conservation Area layer also maps the parcels as being
in the highest priority. The Potential Habitat Richness (Exhibit K) layer maps the Mayr
parcel as having the potential for 5-6 vertebrate species, and the Berman Trust parcel as
having potential for between 5 and 13 vertebrate species, based on the mapped habitat.
Non-listed species observed:
Mayr: Evidence of nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) observed, pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) observed, both white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) and
red shoulder hawk (Buteo lineatus) were heard calling during the 2007 site visit. No
wildlife was observed during the January 2018 site visit but fresh bear scat was seen.
Berman Trust: During the 2008 site visit a red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and
numerous blue-gray gnatcatchers (Polioptila caerulea) were heard calling. No wildlife was
observed during the January 2018 site visit.
Potential Listed Species for both properties:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
Audubon’s Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii FT T
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Cape sable seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirbilis FE E
Florida grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum floridaus FE E
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
Wood stork Mycteria Americana FT T
Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE E
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchoncorais couperi FT T
Big Cypress fox squirrel Scurius niger avicennia ST
T=Threatened, E=Endangered, FT=Federally Threatened; FE=Federally Endangered,
ST=State Threatened
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: Both the Mayr and Berman parcels are similar and
both offer biological values; however, by themselves the parcels are too small for those
values to be deemed “significant.” The Berman Trust parcel is adjacent to the Gore project
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 16 of 51
and could add to the biological values of that project, though the Berman Trust parcel is
across Desoto Blvd from the bulk of the Gore parcels. If the Mayr parcel is the start of a
multi-parcel project and parcels can be acquired to connect it to Gore, the Mayr parcel
could add also to the biological values of the Gore project. Panther telemetry shows
panther use this area, though the most recent telemetry point on the Mayr parcel was from
2014. Both properties are within the forage area for known wood stork colonies, though
the Berman property is too heavily vegetated to be much use for wood stork foraging, and
the Mayr parcel did not have ponded wetlands at the time of the visit. The I-75 project
properties are within the USFWS Snail Kite Consultation Area and the consultation and
focal area for the Florida bonneted bat (Exhibit J). The CLIP4 Biodiversity layer maps the
project in a priority one area, as does the CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Conservation Area layer
(Exhibit L). The CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness layer (Exhibit K) shows the Mayr
parcel as having the potential for 5-6 vertebrate species, and the Berman Trust parcel as
having potential for between 5 and 13 vertebrate species. The CLIP4 Landscape Integrity
layer maps the parcels as a priority 3 out of 5 (It carves out the NGGE from Priority 1 lands
likely due to its residential zoning status) (Exhibit I). These data show that these parcels
can be considered to have biodiversity, listed species habitat and ecological quality, though
this is limited in effect if they are acquired individually. There is restoration potential by
removal of invasive exotic plant species, however, many neighboring parcels have no
requirement to remove exotics and present a significant seed source that would continue to
be present making long-term exotic maintenance challenging. The CLIP 4 Aggregated
Conservation Priorities layer maps these parcels in a priority one area, as is most of Collier
County (Exhibit M).
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: The interest in the I-75 project, a “B-List” project
began in 2007, and coincides with the proposal for the Gore project, which also was
proposed first in 2007. One idea was to accumulate properties at the south side of NGGE
just north of I-75, where there were concerns of flooding due to a large proposed pump
installation at the Merritt canal, as part of the South Golden Gate Estates restoration
(Picaynue Strand Restoration Project). Pumps were installed in 2013 and flooding has not
occurred. Another idea for the proposed acquisitions was to connect properties westward
across the old 530-acre Harley Davidson Test Track (which has since been acquired by
FCA US LLC) with the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR), providing
more panther habitat. In this scenario the Gore holdings (190 acres) are necessary
components to provide the size needed to make an impact. Currently, there has been
discussion of developing a wildlife corridor utilizing Gore, I-75 and other NGGE parcels
just north of I-75 between the FPNWR and North Belle Meade to protect wildlife
movement. This idea also incorporates connection benefits from recently developed
wildlife crossing improvements at the Miller and Faka Union canals that connect NGGE
with the Picayune Strand State Forest to the south across I-75 (see photo below). Without
Gore, and more parcels, individual parcels within the I-75 project do not provide significant
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 17 of 51
connective benefits for conservation. Over 100 acres /60 parcels would need to be acquired
to make a minimal connection (see map below for view of possible wildlife corridor
between FPNWR and North Belle Meade). With them, assuming more can be acquired,
there may be some opportunity. Acquisitions in this location could protect connections to
the south across I-75 with the Picayune Strand State Forest (78,000 ac) and various
conservation and easement lands to the south, including Rookery Bay (110,000 ac), 10,000
Islands National Wildlife Refuge (35,000 acres), Collier Seminole State Park (7,271 acres),
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park (85,000 acres), and Everglades National Park
(1,500,000 acres). To the east, across the test track are connections to the Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge (26,400 acres) and Big Cypress National Preserve (729,000
acres). To the northeast are SSA lands, which connect via FPNWR, and to the west are
North Belle Meade conservation easement lands. All in all, the potential is to enhance and
protect connections to over 2.5 million acres of conserved lands (Figure 3).
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project? NO
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel? NO
Wildlife Crossing Improvements – Miller Canal and
I-75
View of possible wildlife corridor between FL
Panther NRW and North Belle Meade
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 18 of 51
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No.
2007-65, section 5.9:
Hiking: Hiking is appropriate for these parcels if trails are built on them.
Nature Photography: Nature photography is an appropriate use for both parcels.
Bird-watching: Bird watching is an appropriate use for both parcels.
Kayaking/Canoeing: There are no water bodies on either parcel, so kayaking and
canoeing would not be appropriate uses.
Swimming: There are no water bodies on either parcel, so swimming would not be an
appropriate use.
Hunting: By themselves, the parcels are too small for hunting purposes, and they are
within the Golden Gate Estates, where discharge of weapons is prohibited.
Fishing: There are no water bodies on either parcel, so fishing would not be an
appropriate use.
Recommended Site Improvements: No site improvements recommended for these
parcels beyond removal of invasive exotic plants. They are not adjacent to the bulk of the
Gore properties, where trails are contemplated.
Access: Both parcels are accessible from public roads, though the Berman parcel is
accessible from the paved Desoto Blvd., and the Mayr parcel is accessible from a lime
rock road (42nd Ave. SE). The Berman Trust parcel is adjacent across Desoto Blvd. from
the Gore project and could be easily joined to it. The Mayr parcel is farther east with the
Faka-union canal between it and the Gore project.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 19 of 51
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, and provide an estimate for funding needs for construction of a boardwalk to allow
the public to have access to selected portions of the property. The following assessment
addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management. These are very preliminary
estimates; Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No. 2007-65, requires a
formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation
Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Exotic, invasive species noted here are taken from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s
(FLEPPC) 2016 List of Invasive Plant Species (Category I and Category II). FLEPPC is
an independent incorporated advisory council created to support the management of
invasive exotic plants in Florida’s natural areas by providing a forum for exchanging
scientific, educational and technical information. Its members come primarily from public
educational institutions and governmental agencies. Annual lists of invasive plant species
published by this organization are used widely in the state of Florida for regulatory
purposes.
The current FLEPPC list (2016) can be viewed on-line at
http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Category I plants are those which are altering native
plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or
ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the
economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological
damage caused. Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency
but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I
species. These species may become Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated.
Category I and II plants found on this parcel in order of observed abundance:
Berman Trust
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Ceasar’s weed Urena lobata
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
Balsam apple Momordica charantia
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 20 of 51
Mayr
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Ceasar’s weed Urena lobata
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
Shrubby false buttonweed Spermacoce verticillata
Staff observations are: Brazilian pepper is the most common invasive exotic plant seen on
both parcels. The Berman Trust parcel has a larger percentage of exotic plants present than
the Mayr parcel.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
An estimate of the cost for initial exotic removal and follow-up maintenance was developed
by using actual costs for initial exotic removal at the Pepper Ranch Preserve, which has a
similar hardwood forest. Based on this estimate, costs for the level of infestation observed
to cut and treat the exotics and leave them in place would be $800 per acre. For the Berman
Trust parcel, initial exotic removal is expected to cost $1,900, and for the Mayr parcel,
the cost is expected to be $5,360.
Costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually have been
estimated at $170 per acre, per year for a total of $400 annually for the Berman Trust
parcel and a total of $1,200 annually for the Mayr parcel. These costs could decrease
over time as the soil seed bank is depleted.
Public Parking Facility:
Public parking for the Gore project, which would be where visitors would start, is already
existing. No parking is contemplated for these parcels.
Public Access Trails: No trails are currently existing on these two parcels. There are trails
on the Gore project which would be likely used instead of developing new trails.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 21 of 51
Security and General Maintenance:
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $800/ac $170/ac Costs could decrease over time
Parking Facility n/a n/a No parking contemplated
Access Trails/ ADA n/a n/a No trails are contemplated on these
parcels
Fencing n/a n/a No fencing is contemplated
Trash Removal t.b.d. t.b.d. No trash noted
Signs t.b.d t.b.d. No signs contemplated at this time
Berman Trust Total $1,900 $400 2.34 ac
Mayr $5,360 $1,200 6.70 ac
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 22 of 51
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
Conservation Collier ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida
Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program: Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has
limited funds and is concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list.
This parcel is not inside a Florida Forever priority project boundary. Additionally, the
Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida
Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title
between the programs.
Other Potential Funding Sources: There is potential for utilizing funding donations to
the Conservation Collier program to fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to
the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently
approximately $299,400 in this fund, with $91,000 earmarked for multi-parcel project
properties whose owners have accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 23 of 51
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit H. A total score of 223 out of a possible 400 was achieved for the
Berman Trust parcel, and a score of 212 out of 400 was achieved for the Mayr parcel. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the scores.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Berman Trust
Mayr
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Berman Trust
Mayr
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 46 46%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 61 61%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 67 67%
Total Score:400 223 56%
Percent of Maximum Score:56%
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 43 43%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 45 45%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 73 73%
Total Score:400 212 53%
Percent of Maximum Score:53%
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 24 of 51
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score: Berman Trust – 223 out of 400 possible points
Mayr – 212 out of 400 possible points
Berman Trust:
Ecological: 46 out of 100 possible points
A relatively low ecological score was achieved due to there being only 1 vegetation
community on the parcel, the parcel contributing to the surficial aquifer but not being
within a wellfield protection zone, having a wetland feature (karst) but property not
contiguous with other surface waters. Points were achieved because panther telemetry
(2014 cat #195) has been located on the property, and because lands between this parcel
and the closest conservation lands (Picayune Strand State Forest and Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge) are undeveloped.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 61 out of 100 possible points
Average points were achieved because the parcel has access from a paved public road
(Desoto Blvd), the parcel is small and will offer limited opportunities for nature-based
recreation by itself (it was scored based on adding it to the Gore project), and because 9%
of the perimeter is visible from a paved public road.
Vulnerability: 50 out of 100 possible points
An average score was achieved because zoning (Estates) allows for single family
development.
Management: 60 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved because the parcel will require moderate maintenance
and management and circumstances do not favor burning – as it has a hardwood habitat
where fire is not typically applied and it has a developed property adjacent.
Mayr:
Ecological: 43 out of 100 possible points
A relatively low ecological score was achieved due to there being only 2 vegetation
communities on the parcel, the parcel contributing to the surficial aquifer but not being
within a wellfield protection zone, and the parcel having no wetlands onsite but being
contiguous with and buffering the I-75 canal. Points were lost because no listed wildlife
has been seen or documented on the property, and because lands between this parcel and
the closest conservation lands (Picayune Strand State Forest and Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge) are undeveloped. Some points were gained because while only exotic
removal is needed, with an infestation estimated at 25%, the parcel can be restored to high
ecological function with minimal alteration.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 41 out of 100 possible points
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 25 of 51
Low to average points were achieved because the parcel has access from a public lime
(unpaved) road (42nd Ave SE), the parcel is small and will offer limited opportunities for
nature-based recreation by itself, and because 14% of the perimeter is visible from a public
road. There is a canal between this parcel and the Gore project, so this parcel was scored
on its own.
Vulnerability: 50 out of 100 possible points
An average score was achieved because zoning (Estates) allows for single family
development.
Management: 73 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved because the parcel will require moderate maintenance
and management and circumstances do not favor burning – as it is adjacent to I-75 and
smoke management would be a concern.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. The Berman parcel is 2.34 acres
in size and the similar Mayr parcel is 6.70 acres in size.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 26 of 51
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map and CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 27 of 51
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 28 of 51
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 29 of 51
Exhibit D. Zoning Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 30 of 51
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 31 of 51
Exhibit F. FEMA Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 32 of 51
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 33 of 51
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 34 of 51
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map and map showing what a North Belle
Meade connection could look like
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 35 of 51
Exhibit J. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map with FWC panther telemetry 1981-2016
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 36 of 51
Exhibit K. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 37 of 51
Exhibit L: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 38 of 51
Exhibit M. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 39 of 51
Exhibit N. USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 40 of 51
Exhibit O. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form - Berman
Trust
Berman Trust Folio Number: 41506800006
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
North Golden Gate Estates
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10 FLUCCS 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5
1.A. Total 100 10
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
43" to <56" annually recharge to the Surficial Aquifer System. 0
to < 7 inches annually to the Lower Tamiami Aquifer
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 Karst topography observed onsite
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80
b. Slough Soils 40
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 Karst will hold water
Subtotal 300 95
1.B Total 100 32 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25 25 FLUCCS 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 70
Provide documentation source - FWC Panther telemetry,
2014, Cat#195
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Tillandsia fasciculata SE; nephrolepis biserrata ST
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 41 of 51
Exhibit O. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form - Berman
Trust (Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 Exotic removal - infestation at approx 45%
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 215
1.C Total 100 72 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50 50
Considering Picayune Strand State Forest and Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge as the closest conservation lands
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20 20
1.D Total 100 70
1. Ecological Total Score 100 46 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 Desoto blvd.
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75
This is a small parcel that by itself offers limited opportunities for
natural-resource recreation. Score is based on it's being added
to the Gore Project.
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 7
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. Perimeter=1,600 ft. Frontage=143 ft Frontage
=9%. 9% of 80=7
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic
Subtotal 300 182
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 61 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50 Estates zoning
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 50
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 42 of 51
Exhibit O. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form – Berman
Trust (Continued)
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100 No hydrologic changes necessary to sustain site qualities.
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60 60 Brazilian pepper, ceasar's weed, balsam apple - 45%
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20 -20
adjacent parcels contain substantial seed source with no
requirement to remove until developed
5.B Total 100 40
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Exotic removal maintenance - =ircumstances do not favor
burning - Wetland hardwoods are not typically burned and a
developed property is adjacent to the east.
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 60
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 67 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 223
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 43 of 51
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form – Mayr
Property Name: Mayr Folio Number: 41661080004
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
North Golden Gate Estates
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10 4280 - Cabbage palm and 4250 - Temperate hardwood hammock
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5
1.A. Total 100 10
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
43" to <56" annually recharge to the Surficial Aquifer System. 0
to < 7 inches annually to the Lower Tamiami Aquifer
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75 75 I-75 canal
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80
b. Slough Soils 40
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 0 parcel not strategic to floodplain management
Subtotal 300 125
1.B Total 100 42 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50 50 4280 - Cabbage palm and 4250 - Temperate hardwood hammock
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70 42
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-63 out of 5 so
3X14=42
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Tillandsia fasciculata SE
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 44 of 51
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form – Mayr
(Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100
exotic removal - Brazilian pepper, Ceasar's weed, Shrubby false
buttonweed, infestation at approx 25%
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 212
1.C Total 100 71 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50 50
Considering Picayune Strand State Forest and Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge as the closest conservation lands
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 50
1. Ecological Total Score 100 43 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 75 Limerock Road - 42nd Ave SE
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50 50
This is a small parcel by itself and there is a canal between this
parcel and the Gore Project
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 11
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. Perimeter=2,400 ft; Frontage=330 ft. Frontage
=14% 80X14%=11
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic
Subtotal 300 136
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 45 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50 Estates zoning
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 50
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 45 of 51
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form – Mayr
(Continued)
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100 no hydrologic changes necessary
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80
estimated at close to 25% - Brazilian pepper, Ceasar's weed,
and false shrubby buttonweed
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20 -20
adjacent parcels contain substantial seed source with no
requirement to remove until developed
5.B Total 100 60
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Parcel could be burned but it is adjacent to I-75 so
circumstances do not favor burning
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 60
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 73 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 212
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 46 of 51
Exhibit Q. Photographs
Photo 1. Berman Trust 2018 - view along Desoto Blvd.
Photo 2. Berman Trust 2008 - view along Desoto Blvd.
Photo 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 47 of 51
Photo 4. Berman Trust 2018 – Interior
Photo 5. Berman Trust 2008 – Interior
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 48 of 51
Photo 6. Berman listed plants – Nephrolepis biserrata (L) and Tillandsia
fasciculata ( R) with Strap fern
Photo 7. Berman Trust Karst topography – Hydrologic Indicator
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 49 of 51
Photo 8. Mayr 2007– View along 42nd Ave SE
Photo 9. Mayr 2018 – Just north of 42nd Ave SE
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 50 of 51
Photo 10. Mayr – Listed pLants – Tillandsia fasciculata on hardwood
Photo 11. Mayr – southern portion of parcel
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # Berman Trust: 41506800006
Folio # Mayr: 41661080004
Owner Name: I-75 Project – Berman Trust and Mayr Date: February 12, 2018
Page 51 of 51
Photo 12. Mayr - South side of parcel
Photo 13. Mayr – Temperate hardwood hammock – central part of
parcel
Photo 14. Mayr – North side of parcel
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Revised 4/2/18 to add ST Overlay
Property Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. (Parcels 1 and 2) and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC (Parcel 3)
Folio Number(s):
Parcel 1 (77.99 acres) – 00418640007
Parcel 2 (7.16 acres) – 00425920008
Parcel 3 (30 acres) - 00419160007
Staff Report Date: February 12, 2018
Update 4/2/18
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 2 of 54
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 8
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ............................................ 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ...................... 18
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 19
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 21
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 22
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 23
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 23
Figure 5. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 23
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 25
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 26
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ..................................... 27
Exhibit D. Zoning and LASIP Easement Maps ........................................................... 28
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser) .................................. 29
Exhibit F. FEMA Map .................................................................................................. 30
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 31
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map and Groundwater Flow (Florida
Atlantic University and SFWMD, 2008) ...................................................................... 32
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map ................................................................. 33
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map .................................................. 34
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map ............................................................................. 35
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ....................................................... 36
Exhibit M: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map .................................... 37
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map ...................................... 38
Exhibit O. USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps ..................... 39
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 40
Exhibit Q. Photographs ................................................................................................ 43
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 3 of 54
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation
Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle to meet requirements specified in the
Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes
of the Conservation Collier Program. It provides objective data to demonstrate how
properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. That is the sole purpose for this
report and it is not meant for any other use.
This report makes use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and
University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is
a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural
resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida
Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for
Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for
acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data layers which are
representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface water,
groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Potential Habitat Richness (Vertebrates)
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Following the first section, which looks more closely at initial criteria, additional sections address
potential for appropriate public use, assessment of management needs and costs, potential for
matching funds, and a summary of the secondary screening criteria.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 4 of 54
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to
describe how the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics
and to provide other general property information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name SD Corp of Naples, Inc.
and Cypress Landings II
of Naples, LLC
SD Corp of Naples owns parcels 1 (77.99 ac) and 2 (7.16
ac). Cypress Landings of Naples, LLC owns parcel 3 (30
ac). The principals of both entities are the same.
Folio Numbers 00418640007
00425920008
00419160007
Parcel 1 – 77.99 acres
Parcel 2 – 7.16 acres
Parcel 3 – 30 acres
Target Protection
Area
Urban Within the coastal urban area
Size 115.15 acres Offered as a group
STR S 16 T50S R26E All properties within same STR
Zoning
Category/TDRs
PUD and Agriculture Parcel 1 – PUD (Shadow Wood), Parcels 2 and 3 –
Agriculture. Approximately 17 acres (1 acre over Parcel 1
and 16 acres over Parcel 3) have an ST Overlay.
FEMA Flood Map
Category
AH with small areas of
AE
AH – Subject to inundation of by 1-percent-annual-chance
flood event where avg. depths are 1-3 feet. Base flood
elevation, flood insurance and floodplain management
standards apply. (Moderate flooding)
AE – Area subject to inundation by 1-percent-annual-
chance flood event. Base flood elevations, mandatory
flood ins and floodplain management standards apply.
(Flooding likely)
Existing
structures
n/a No structures
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
PUD Planned Unit
Development),
Agriculture, RSF
(Residential Single Family
3 and 5 (units per acre)
To the North is the Naples Heritage Development,
Agricultural and 10 acres belonging to Collier County ,
East is Naples Lakes Country Club, Wing South and
Shadowood Park. To the west is Agriculturally zoned
lands with single family residential. To the South is
residential single and multi-family residential.
Development
Plans Submitted
Development plans were developed for Shadowood but the
development was not built due to access costs required
Known Property
Irregularities
Oil, Gas and Mineral
rights (OGMs)
Abandoned building
OGMs not included.
There is a portion of an abandoned utility building on
parcel 2. This building is the subject of a Code
Enforcement case and will be removed prior to any
potential acquisition.
Other County
Dept. Interest
Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation,
Environmental Services,
Housing, Coastal systems,
Zoning/Planning,
Engineering
Capitol Project Planning provided feedback advising that
Collier County had purchased an easement on this
property encompassing 10.9 acres for the LASIP Project
in a lengthy and difficult legal procedure for $1.7 Million
in 2016 (Exhibit D).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 5 of 54
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 6 of 54
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 7 of 54
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 8 of 54
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the
value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market
data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income
capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property
than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties
from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with similar site
characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection
was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the Real Estate Services
Department staff relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are
limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown
adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, two
appraisals are required.
Assessed Value: * $2,793,072
Estimated Market Value:** $6,479,000 total rounded value
Parcel 1 – 77.99 ac - $4,212,000 - $54,000/ac
Parcel 2 – 7.16 ac - $436,760 - $61,000/ac
Parcel 3 – 30 ac - $1, 830,000 - $61,000/ac
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel.
This parcel is zoned Agriculture and PUD. Parcel 1 has a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay
of 1 acre and Parcel 3 has an ST Overlay of approximately 16 acres. The purpose of the
“ST” designation is to assure the preservation and maintenance of environmental and
cultural resources and the encourage the preservation of the intricate ecological
relationships within the systems. Development rights cannot be severed and sold in
advance. Easements may also affect the value of a property. A full evaluation of easements
will occur if the property is selected for acquisition. Currently known easements include
Stormwater easements for 10.9 acres around the northern and eastern portions of the
property (Exhibit D). These easements were acquired by the County in 2016 to construct
Stormwater improvements to the Wing South/Sandy Lane Interconnect segment of the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP). They were acquired following an Order
of Taking and a payment of $1,715,000, which the County contested but ultimately settled
because of the critical nature of the project. These easements will remain in perpetuity.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department – date of value estimate – December
2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 9 of 54
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to provide a closer look at how the property meets initial criteria.
Conservation Collier Program staff conducted a brief site visit on November 9, 2017, and a more
comprehensive site visit on January 11, 2018.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA-
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) Yes
i. Hardwood hammocks Some remnant was found,
recorded as present by others in
2017
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats YES
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) (Exhibit A)
and field verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The 2009 electronic database identified in order of dominance:
FLUCCS Acres
4240 – Melaleuca 66
4280 – Cabbage palm 26
4200 – Upland hardwood forest 11
7400 – Disturbed lands 4
6172 – Mixed wetland hardwoods 2
5300 – Reservoirs 1
The following native plant communities were observed in order of dominance:
FLUCCS
6240 – Pine/Cypress
6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
4280 – Cabbage palm
6210 – Cypress
6417 – Freshwater marsh/shrubs, brush & vines
6180 - Willow
All portions of the site were heavily invaded by exotic plant species. Some areas at approx.
25% and some as much as 75-100%. Parcel 1 is about 85% melaleuca.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 10 of 54
An environmental assessment done in March 2017 found small areas of pine flatwoods,
tropical hardwoods, live oak, and hydric pine in addition to the ones noted above. An
Archeological Assessment done also in 2017 notes the presence of hardwood hammock.
These habitat types were not seen by staff during the site visit, possibly because t hey are
small areas or were in areas not visited. The south side of parcel 3 has several tropical
understory species as a component along with significant amounts of exotic and escaped
landscape plants, and a large gumbo limbo that had been recently felled by Hurricane Irma.
There may have been a more intact tropical hardwood habitat here at one time, but it
possibly has been invaded so significantly, that only some of the shrubs and ground-cover
component species remain. Because tropical plants were seen and a recent survey found
tropical hardwood habitat, points were awarded.
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Parcel 1
Ground Cover: Ground cover consisted of scattered native and exotic species. Natives
included Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), wild coffee (both Psychotria nervosa and P.
sulznerii), young cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), butterfly
bush (Hamelia patens), young slash pines (Pinus elliottii), gulf croton (Croton puncatatus),
myrsine (Myrsine cubana), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), royal fern (Osmunda
regalis), salt bush (Baccharis halimifolia), white top sedge (Dychromena colorata), wood
fern (Thelypteris sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and marsh pink (Sabatia stellaris).
Parcel 1 is heavily invaded by the following invasive exotic plant species: Melaleuca
(Melaleuca quinquinerva), Earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius), old world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), and snake
plant (Sansevaria sp.).
Midstory: The Midstory is sparse but includes scattered wax myrtle, myrsine, and the
occasional landscape palm.
Canopy: The canopy in parcel 1 contains primarily Melaleuca, but also Earleaf acacia
along with scattered slash pines.
Parcel 2
Ground Cover: Parcel 2 contains large depressional areas. One of these depressional areas
was visited. It contains primarily smartweed (Polygonum sp.), an obligate wetland (OBL)
species, with clearweed (Pilea sp.), a facultative wetland (FW) plant, at the edges. The
groundcover in these areas probably changes annually based on water levels. In non-
depressional areas the groundcover was characterized by swamp fern.
Midstory: The Midstory in parcel 2 contained willow (Salix caroliniana) which encircles
the depressional area, with myrsine, wax myrtle, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
and salt bush surrounding.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 11 of 54
Canopy: There was no canopy in the depressional areas, but surrounding this area were
slash pines and cypress (Taxodium distichum) with melaleuca also a major component. A
royal palm (Roystonea regia) was observed here.
Parcel 3
Ground Cover: Parcel 3 had several different areas. FLUCCS codes identified it as a
cabbage palm habitat, and there were numerous cabbage palms, particularly on the
southern side. But it appeared that cabbage palms may have invaded the site, and that the
original habitat may have been more tropical in nature. One tropical groundcover plant
observed was indigo berry (Randia aculeata). Other ground cover species noted were
swamp fern, Chain fern (Woodwardia sp.), Wood fern (Thelypteris sp.), Southern shield
fern (Dryopteris sp.), Thoroughwart (Eupatorium sp.), Camphor-weed (Pluchea sp.),
Beggarticks (Bidens alba), butterfly bush, wild coffee (both species) and saw grass
(Cladium jamaicense). Farther west, groundcovers included scattered strap fern
(Campyloneurum phyllitidis) and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica). Water lettuce
(Pistia stratioides) covered the surface of a small depressional pond.
Th south side of parcel 3 is heavily invaded by landscape and other exotic plants. Among
the swamp fern, maiden fern, butterfly bush, wild coffee and indigo berry were large
patches of wandering jew (Trascadentia sp.), arrowhead (Syngonium podophyllum),
Ceasar’s weed (Urena lobata), bitter melon (Momordica charantia) and Surinam cherry
(Eugenia uniflora).
Midstory: It was in the midstory on the southern side of Parcel 3 that a tropical component
was most noted, with red stopper (Eugenia rhombia) and marlberry (Ardiaia
escallonioides) being significant components. Fire bush, Pokeweed (Phytolacca
Americana) and Yellow elder (Tecoma stans) (a non-native tropical) were also present.
Farther west, the habitat appears more like a seasonal wetland, with Dahoon holly (Ilex
cassine), Bay (Persea sp.), Hog plum (Ximenia americana) and willow present as major
midstory components. There were significant exotic species present in the midstory, here,
including Java plum (Syzygium cumini), Brazillian pepper. Earleaf acacia, Melaleuca, Air
potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and umbrella tree (Scheffelera actinophylla).
Canopy: On the southeastern side of parcel 3 the canopy was primarily cabbage palms
and Melaleuca, with natives scattered among them, including strangler fig (Ficus aurea),
Laurel oak (Quercus virginiana), and Bay. Farther west, the canopy included more
cypress and small depressional areas of popash (Fraxinus caroliniana). The canopy in
the northern part of parcel 3 appeared to be a mixture of slash pines, laurel oaks, cypress
and melaleuca. A downed gumbo limbo (Bursera simaruba) was noted on the south side.
There are likely seedlings existing though the vegetation was very thick and none were
specifically noted. A royal palm was observed.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: These data indicate that remnants of native habitats
remain on the parcels, even though they are severely invaded by exotic plants. Wetlands
appear more intact than uplands, with the large mesic areas appearing the most invaded,
primarily with melaleuca, but also with many other invasive plant species. Young pines
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 12 of 54
were observed growing in heavily invaded areas, so a native seed bank still exists. The
entire area appeared to be drying slightly, as evidenced by moss growing at the base of
some cypress and even on cypress knees, where water lines indicated that water had, in
past times, covered the landscape at about 16-18 inches during wet season. There were
some very large cypress trees on the western side of Parcel 3. In cypress and popash ponds,
native orchids (Encyclia tampensis) were observed in the trees. A 2017 Environmental
Assessment and Archeological Assessment both recorded hardwood hammock habitat,
though it was not seen by staff during the site vis it as staff did not visit all areas. These
data suggest that native habitats are present even though severely impacted, so this criterion
was met.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: These parcels are located within the urban area (as
identified on the 2012-25 Future Land Use Map) with residential lands surrounding them.
They are approximately 6 miles from the closest Conservation Collier Preserve (Gordon
River Greenway), but adjacent to a 100-acre public preserve area (Serenity Park). There
is paved public road access to several areas of the properties from Whitaker Road, Adkins
Ave, Polly Ave., and Everett St, where a small parking area could be developed. There are
no developed trails on the property, but aerials from earlier years show Parcel 1 has several
trails that could be re-established and used for hiking along with the LASIP easement area
that borders the parcels on the east side. Downed trees from Hurricane Irma throughout
present an obstacle for trail development. A cultural assessment was performed on the site
in March/April 2017 by The Archeological and Historic Conservancy, Inc., which explored
a midden site previously recorded on the south side of parcel 3, and found a new site, also
on the south side of Parcel 3, that was characterized as a black earth midden. Therefore,
there are archeological resources on the property that can be protected.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c)
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: The property is situated between 8 and 10.5 feet in elevation (Exhibit
G). Soils in some areas (mostly in parcels 2 and 3) appeared dark and organic, like they
have been submerged. Cypress knees were observed in Parcel 3, along with watermarks
on trunks indicating that at some time in the past the area was submerged between 16 and
18 inches, but that had not happened in recent years, as moss was growing on the cypress
trunks and knees all the way down to the soil. One shallow depressional area in parcel 2
was already dried out, while other depressional areas farther south and west appeared to
potentially hold water year round, based on plant species observed. Upland buffers were
severely impacted by invasive exotic plant species. The National Wetlands Inventory
classifies these parcels as palustrine (or non-tidal) wetlands with upright herbaceous
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 13 of 54
vegetation in a “persistent” (or normally remaining standing until the next growing season)
growth pattern, or forested with a semi permanently flooded water regime, and a notation
that they are partially drained/ditched (USFWS IPaC Planning and Consultation website,
http://ecos.fws.gov.ipac). A 1940’s aerial (Collier County Appraiser) shows this parcel to
be part of a significant cypress flow way (Exhibit E).
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
Cypress (Taxodium distichum) Rose gentian (Sabatia stellaris)
Bay (Persea sp.) Chain fern (Woodwardia sp.)
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) Wood fern (Thelypteris sp.)
Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) Southern Shield fern (Dryopteris sp.)
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) White-top sedge (Dichromena colorata)
Smartweed (Polygonum sp.) Clearweed (Pilea asp.)
Willow (Salix sp.) Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Royal palm (Roystonea elata)
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: A few species of wetland dependent
wildlife were observed, including little blue heron (Egretta caerula), great egret
(Casmerodius albus) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) and a banded water snake (Nerodia
fasciata pictiventris), though it may have been dead. These were observed on parcel 1 in
the LASIP canal.
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soils included, in order of dominance:
Soil Number and Name Acres Soil Type
14 Pineda fine sand, Limestone substratum 82 Hydric, slough
31 Hilolo, Jupiter, and Margate fine sands 15 Hydric
25 Boca, Rivera, Limestone substratum, Copeland FS 8 Hydric, depressional
21 Boca fine sand 5 Upland – seasonally wet
11 Hallendale fine sand 4 Upland – seasonally wet
Aquifer recharge Potential: Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P.
and S. Hohner in 1995 and published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage)
throughout the South Florida Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20
(DRE # 327), South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Most
people in Collier County get their drinking water from the surficial aquifer, but many also
have wells to the Lower Tamiami aquifer, a slightly deeper aquifer. This property lies
within the Rookery Bay watershed, with groundwater flowing from the north east to the
southwest (Exhibit H).
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity: The mapped Lower Tamiami aquifer
recharge is -16” to -1” annually. These parcels are well inside of this mapped area
which suggests that in this area the Lower Tamiami aquifer has no confining layer
between it and the surficial aquifer system (Exhibit C). Protection of this site in an
undeveloped state will help to protect the Lower Tamiami aquifer.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 14 of 54
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: The mapped surficial aquifer recharge for
these parcels is 31” to <43” annually. They lie near the edge of the mapped area,
with the nearby zone mapped at 43” to < 56” annually. These parcels contribute
moderately to significantly to the surficial aquifer (Exhibit C).
Wellfield Protection: The closest wellfield and wellfield protection zones are 1.5
miles to the south. There is also wellfield 3 miles to the north east and one 5 miles
to the northwest. This property does not intersect any of the wellfield protection
zones (Exhibit C).
FEMA Flood map designation: The property is currently within Flood Zone AH, with
small areas of AE mapped where in deeper pockets (Exhibit F). The AH zone designation
indicates the property is subject to inundation of by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood
event where average depths are 1-3 feet, and where base flood elevations, flood insurance
and floodplain management standards apply. Deeper wetland areas are within the AE zone
which indicates areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event,
with depths not defined. Base flood elevations, mandatory flood insurance and floodplain
management standards apply here as well.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These properties are primarily wetlands (82%), with small areas of uplands (18%), based
on mapped soils and vegetation observed onsite. The parcels are classified as Palustrine
non-tidal wetlands and semi-permanently flooded by the National Wetlands Inventory
(Exhibit H). SFWMD aquifer recharge maps identify these parcels as not contributing to
recharge of the Lower Tamiami aquifer, but contributing moderately to recharge of the
surficial aquifer. The parcels lie within the Rookery Bay Watershed, which flows from the
northeast to the southwest, but are not adjacent to the main canal system that shuttles water
to the coastal areas. They may, however, contribute in a minor way to water quality in the
Rookery Bay area by remaining undeveloped and allowing sheet flow. The wetland
habitats, while existing on the parcel, are severely impacted by invasive exotic plants and
may not be providing significant wetland dependent species habitat; however, ponded areas
and the LASIP water management system provide habitat for wading bird species.
Likewise, the ponded areas along with the LASIP water management system are providing
flood control for surrounding residential properties. The LASIP canal was also designed
with a weir that protects the groundwater levels in adjacent properties such as this one so
they don’t dry out (Pers. Comm. Robert Wiley, Project Manager, Collier County GMD,
January 29, 2018).
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d)
Listed Plant Species: The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. The Florida state lists of protected plants are
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 15 of 54
administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of
plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants.
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS USFWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata SE
Northern needleleaf Tillandsia balbisiana ST
Soft -leaved wild pine Tillandsia variabilis ST
Florida royal palm Roystonea regia SE
Simpson’s Stopper Myrcianthes fragrans ST
Marsh fern Thelypteris serrata SE
Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis CE
SE=State Endangered, ST=State Threatened, CE=Commercially Exploited
Additionally, a consultant assessment of the site in early 2017 found bird’s nest fern
(Asplenium serratum) (State E) and giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata) (State E).
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the USFWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, respectively,
of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
A list of protected Florida wildlife species can be viewed at:
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/.
One listed bird species was observed during the January 11, 2018 site visit within the
LASIP canal - Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea).
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery was observed.
GIS mapped species and habitats: Based on information provided by USFWS, there are
no critical habitats at this location, however, there are 2 mammals and 25 species of
migratory and other birds which could potentially use this site. Mammals include the
Florida panther (Puma cncolor coryi) and the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus).
The CLIP4 biodiversity Map shows 30 or so panther telemetry points from 2013 and 2015
on or near the property, and east of CR 951, that are the same panther (#219), however that
panther is known to have been killed in a vehicle collision in 2015 (Personal comm. Darrell
Land, FWC, January 2018). This project is not within primary panther habitat but primary
habitat is approximately 1 mile to the east, across CR 951. USFWS may consider the site
as suitable panther habitat based on past telemetry showing panther presence on the site
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 16 of 54
and an intact ecological link through Serenity par k to CR 951. The project is also within
the USFWS consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat. No bats were observed onsite
but the habitat is appropriate for bat roosting and foraging. A known wood stork (Mycteria
Americana) colony exists within 18.6 miles, placing this site within the core foraging area
for wood storks. Additionally, the site is located just under 1 mile from the closest known
red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) colony and contains habitats suitable for RCW foraging
(Exhibit O). Finally, there is the potential for presence of 25 bird species that are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act. These
include Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephala), Black whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus),
and Red headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus).
Non-listed species observed: The following non-listed species were observed during the
January 11, 2018 site visit: Red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), grey catbird
(Dumetella caroliniensis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), belted kingfisher (Ceryle
alcyon), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata
pictiventris), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), blue-grey gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), great egret (Casmerodius albus) and several monarch butterflies (Danaus
plexippus). Cabbage palms on the south side of parcel 3 had multiple woodpecker holes in
them, but no birds were seen entering or leaving. An eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus)
was observed during the November 9, 2017 site visit.
Some Potential State and Federal Listed Species:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
American alligator Alligator Mississippiensis FT (S/A) T (S/A)
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ST
American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus ST
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
Wood stork
Everglades mink
Mycteria Americana
Neovison vison evergladensis
FT
ST
T
Florida panther Puma concolor coryi FE E
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchoncorais couperi FT T
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Red cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis FE E
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: This property offers biological value for both
upland and wetland species. The CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness layer (Exhibit L)
identifies this property has potentially supporting 5-6 vertebrate species. The CLIP4
Biodiversity layer shows this are to be a priority 2 out of 5, with Priority One panther
habitat just 1 mile to the east across CR 951 (Exhibit K). Panther telemetry data through
2016 added to this map shows that the site was used by one panther between 2013 and
2015. That panther is no longer living, but it shows the habitat is acceptable for use. The
parcel is also near known RCW colonies, within the core foraging area for a wood stork
colony, and within the consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat, all listed species
(Exhibit O). The parcels connect with the 99-acre Serenity Park conservation area and
another 170 acres of South Florida Water Management District Conservation Easements
on the north and east sides (Figure 3). Restoration may be challenging and costly. Exotic
plant removal and downed tree removal will be the primary needs for restoration, but
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 17 of 54
supplemental plantings may be necessary in areas that are currently solid melaleuca. The
ecological quality is relatively low at present, but with active habitat management it could
be much higher.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: The property is adjacent on its north and east sides
with SFWMD Conservation Easements, including the 99-acre public Serenity Park. The
Surrounding Lands Aerial map (Figure 3) shows that there is an ecological connection,
although it crosses CR 951, with the Picayune Strand State Forest. The CLIP4 Landscape
Integrity layer (Exhibit I) shows these properties to be in a lower priority area (3 and 4 on a
scale of 1- 10), however FWC Florida panther telemetry indicates that there is an ecological
connection for panthers coming from lands east of CR 951 (Exhibit K), because cat #219
was found on both sides of CR 951. The CLIP4 Strategic Habitat Conservation Area map
(Exhibit M) identifies the properties as a priority 2 area that is directly connected to a priority
1 area. The CLIP4 Aggregated Conservation Priorities classifies the properties as a priority
2, out of 1-5 categories (Exhibit N).
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project? NO
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel? NO
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 18 of 54
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No.
2007-65, section 5.9:
Hiking: Hiking would be an appropriate use for this property. Historic trails can be
reopened or new trails developed but they may not be usable in wet season. Visitors could
also hike the perimeter along the mowed Lely water management easement.
Nature Photography: This would be an appropriate use.
Bird-watching: This would be an appropriate use.
Kayaking/Canoeing: Canoeing or kayaking could occur on the 1-acre lake on parcel 1,
though it may be too small for realistic use. Canoes/kayaks would not be permitted in the
Lely water management easement canals as it is too small for recreational use.
Swimming: The excavated pond and isolated wetlands would not be appropriate for
swimming due to the potential presence of alligators and venomous snakes.
Hunting: This property is too small and close to the urban area for hunting to be a realistic
use.
Fishing: Fishing could be an appropriate use at the 1-acre excavated lake.
Recommended Site Improvements: Access improvement, parking area and trails through
parcels 1, 2 and 3.
Access: The parcels have access from paved public roads at 4 points: along Polly Ave.,
including the north side of Polly, the south side of Polly, at the intersections of Polly Ave.
and Whitaker Road, the eastern end of Adkins Ave, and at the eastern end of Everett St .
The most likely access point is at the end of Adkins Ave.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 19 of 54
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, and provide an estimate for funding needs for construction of a boardwalk to allow
the public to have access to selected portions of the property. The following assessment
addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management. These are very preliminary
estimates; Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No. 2007-65, requires a
formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation
Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Exotic, invasive species noted here are taken from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s
(FLEPPC) 2017 List of Invasive Plant Species (Category I and Category II). FLEPPC is
an independent incorporated advisory council created to support the management of
invasive exotic plants in Florida’s natural areas by providing a forum for exchanging
scientific, educational and technical information. Its members come primarily from public
educational institutions and governmental agencies. Annual lists of invasive plant species
published by this organization are used widely in the state of Florida for regulatory
purposes.
The current FLEPPC list (2017) can be viewed on-line at
http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Category I plants are those which are altering native
plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or
ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the
economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological
damage caused. Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency
but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I
species. These species may become Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated.
Category I and II plants found on this parcel in order of observed abundance:
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquinerva
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Earleaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis
Java plum Sysygium cumini
Bishopwood Bischofia javanica
Caesar’s weed Urena lobata
Air potato Dioscorea bulbifera
Rosary pea Abrus precatorius
Old world climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum
Surinam cherry Eugenia uniflora
Arrowhead vine Syngonium podophyllum
Umbrella tree Scheffelera actinophylla
Wild taro Colocasia escuelenta
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 20 of 54
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
Bitter melon (Momordica charantia)
Staff observations are: Melaleuca is the most common exotic plant species and parcel 1
is mostly melaleuca. Parcels 2 and 3 also have large stands of melaleuca. Melaleuca can
displace native plant communities and associated wildlife, disturb natural water flow, and
alter soil conditions. Additionally, Melaleuca can have a strong negative impact on
migrating bird species and render habitats no longer suitable for wood storks and Florida
panthers, two species that could utilize this property. There is also significant Brazilian
pepper, including large and well-established plants, along with many other FLEPPC
category 1 exotic species. Exotic removal will be costly and challenging, as this is
considered a wetland and machinery will likely not be allowed. One of the concerns will
be getting biomass from exotics off the property or reduced. Large stands of melaleuca
can present concerns for fire, as these plants contain volatile oils. Melaleuca can be
removed from edges of the property and cut, sprayed and stacked in the interior per
SFWMD guidelines (removal within 100 ft. of perimeter and stacking in interior areas).
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
An estimate of the cost for initial exotic removal and follow-up maintenance was developed
by averaging costs for removing thick melaleuca infestations on two Conservation Collier
preserves (Alligator Flag and Logan Woods), which cost, respectively, $1,700/ac and
$5,000/ac. The value derived is $3,350/ac. Based on this estimate, costs for the level of
infestation observed to treat exotics, remove plants on the perimeter and cut, spray and
stack in the interior would be $382,000.
Costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually have been
estimated in the same way (using averaged actual costs from Alligator Flag Preserve and
Logan Woods Preserve) at $115/ac for a total of $13,100 annually for 114 acres. These
costs could decrease over time as the soil seed bank is depleted.
Public Parking Facility:
The cost of design and construction of a shell or gravel parking lot to accommodate
approximately 5 cars would be approximately $25,000. Additional costs would include
design, permitting and any required land clearing.
Public Access Trails: Trails are evident on aerial photographs from the early 2000’s.
These could be re-cleared and contribute to a new trail system beginning at the Adkins
Ave. entrance where a small parking area could be developed. Hikers could access portions
of all parcels from this parking area. Clearing for trails would cost approximately
$775/mile. A 1.5-mile trail as shown in Figure 2 would cost approximately $1,200 to
install and about half that to maintain, or $390/mile at $600 for each maintenance event.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 21 of 54
Security and General Maintenance:
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $382,000 $13,100 This is assuming treatment of 114 acres
annually. Estimated from actual costs
from similar areas (Alligator Flagg and
Logan Woods Preserves)
Parking Facility $25,000 t.b.d. Small gravel/shell parking area with one
paved handicapped space
Access Trails/ Non
ADA
$1,200 $600 Based on a 1.5 miles trail at $775/mile to
clear and $600/mile to maintain – costs
from Pepper Ranch trail maintenance.
Fencing t.b.d. t.b.d. Some fencing is in place, but much of it is
not in good condition.
Trash Removal t.b.d. t.b.d. Request owner to remove trash before
conveyance. Some trash noted, including
an abandoned boat at the excavated pond.
Signs $3,015 t.b.d. Entry sign and trespassing signs every
500 feet along perimeter. For the
perimeter, 29 signs are needed at $35.00
each for a cost of $1,015. An entry sign
cost approx. $2,000.
Total $411,215 $13,700
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 22 of 54
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
Conservation Collier ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida
Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program: Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has
limited funds and is concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list.
This parcel is not inside a Florida Forever priority project boundary. Additionally, the
Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida
Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title
between the programs.
Other Potential Funding Sources: There is potential for utilizing funding donations to
the Conservation Collier program to fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to
the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently
approximately $299,400 in this fund, with $91,000 earmarked for multi-parcel project
properties whose owners have accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 23 of 54
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit H. A total score of 249 out of a possible 400 was achieved. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Figure 5. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Property Name:0
Target Protection Area:0
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 79 79%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 65 65%
Vulnerability 100 55 55%
Management 100 50 50%
Total Score:400 249 62%
Percent of Maximum Score:62%
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 24 of 54
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score 249 out of 400 possible points
Ecological: 79 out of 100 possible points
A high score was achieved due to several factors. First is the presence of tropical hardwood
hammock habitat, a preferred ordinance habitat along with 6 other native habitat types that
were observed. The property can be considered to protect wetland resources as it
contributes to the surficial aquifer, and contains 92% wetland soils with 82 acres of slough
soils and 8 acres of depressional soils with obligate wetland plant species noted. Numerous
hydrologic indicators were also observed. Points were gained because the property is
contiguous with Serenity Park and an intact, though separated by CR 951, ecological link
with FWC Priority One panther habitat. Points were lost due to the significant exotic plant
presence.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 65 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved overall. This property is quite accessible for public use
and could be used for hiking, nature photography, fishing and education. Points were lost
because the uses are primarily terrestrial except for one small 1-acre pond that could be
used for fishing.
Vulnerability: 55 out of 100 possible points
Vulnerability of this parcel is scored as moderate, because even though a portion of the
property has been rezoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD), there are significant
access issues that bar its development for multi-family residential uses, including a Special
Treatment (ST) Zoning Overlay over 17 acres of the property.
Management: 50 out of 100 possible points
The property scored moderately in the management category due to the significant
infestation with exotic plant species, difficulty in removal and presence of some
dumping, including an old boat. It gained points because no hydrologic changes are
anticipated.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This parcel is like the 400-acre
Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Sanitation /Bethune proposal, as it is urban, of substantial
size and significantly impacted by exotic plant species.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 25 of 54
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 26 of 54
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 27 of 54
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 28 of 54
Exhibit D. Zoning and LASIP Easement Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 29 of 54
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 30 of 54
Exhibit F. FEMA and Groundwater Flow Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 31 of 54
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 32 of 54
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map and Groundwater Flow (Florida
Atlantic University and SFWMD, 2008)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 33 of 54
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 34 of 54
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 35 of 54
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 36 of 54
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 37 of 54
Exhibit M: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 38 of 54
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 39 of 54
Exhibit O. USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 40 of 54
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and Cypress Landings
II of Naples LLC Folio Numbers: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area): Urban
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90 90
Awarded based on finding some tropical hardwood hammock
component plants and having this habitat reported by 2
assessment reports done in 2017
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
Pine/cypress, Cabbage palm, mixed wetland hardwoods,
Cypress, Freshwater marsh, Willow
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5
1.A. Total 100 100
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
surficial aquifer recharge rate: 31" to < 43" annually - adjacent to
mapped hugher recharge area (43" to < 56" annually)
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25
Soils are 92% wetland soils and obligate wetland plants were
observed
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 6 8 ac depressional /114 ac total = .07% 80 X .07 = 5.6 (or 6)
b. Slough Soils 40 33 82 ac slough/114 ac total = 72% 40 X 72% = 32.8 (or 33)
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20
Hydrologic indicators onserved - cypress knees, flared tree
trunks, water marks on tree trunks, organic soils
Subtotal 300 134
1.B Total 100 45 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100 100 6 native plant communities were observed onsite
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored. Little Blue Heron - ST
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20
Tillandsia fasiculata, T. balbisiana , T. variabilis , Roystonea
regia, Myrcianthes franrans, Thelypteris serrat, Encyclia
tampensis
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 41 of 54
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15 15
The habitats are significantly (25-100%) invaded by exotic plants
and there is significant blowdown from hurricane IRMA.
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 215
1.C Total 100 72 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100 100
Contioguous with the Serenity Park and an intact, though
separated by CR 951, ecological link with the Picayune Strand
State Forest.
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 79 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 Whitaker Road, Adkins Ave, Polly Ave., and Everett St.
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 80
hiking, birdwatching, nature photography, education and fishing -
5 points were given for fishing
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 6
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. .234 miles can be seen from Polly Ave. The
entire perimeter is 2.96 miles, so 2.96 X .08 = 6.4 (or 6)
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 10 Mature cypress trees (Photo 12)
subtotal 300 196
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 65 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 42 of 54
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50
The larger prtion (77.99 acres) are zoned PUD, but the site has
significant access problems for residential development. The
larger portion of the site was used for scoring and Ag lands also
allow single family development.
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20 -20 Added 4/2/18
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25 25 The larger parcel (77.99 ac) has been rezoned to PUD
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 55
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100 No hydrologic changes anticipated
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40 40
some areas have 25% and others nealry 100% exotics, but this
is a good average.
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20 -20 Significant areas will require extensive removal
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 20
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40 40
This parcel will require substantial maintenance and
management to chemically remove exotic plant infestations. If
downed trees and exotics need to be removed to develop trails,
significant work will need to be done and the property is a
wetland so machinery may not be allowed.
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10 -10
Some debris exists, including tires and an old boat, but site is
currently fenced and gated.
5.C Total 100 30
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 50 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 249
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 43 of 54
Exhibit Q. Photographs
Photo 1. West side of parcel 3
Photo 2. Old water treatment facility – to be removed
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 44 of 54
Photo 3. LASIP canal along west side of parcel 3
Photo 4. Southwest side of parcel 3 – large fallen gumbo limbo
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 45 of 54
Photo 5. Woodpecker habitat – south side parcel 3
Photo 6. Exotic taro plant
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 46 of 54
Photo 7. Cabbage palms with hammock plants and invasive landscape
plants – south side parcel 3
Photo 8. Large dead Bay tree with evidence of Redbay Ambrosia beetle
and Raffaellea lauricola fungus
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 47 of 54
Photo 9. Parcel 3 – large infestation of Syngonium - houseplant
Photo 10. Listed plants (L to R)– Tillandsia balbisiana, Encyclia
tampensis Tillandsia variabilis, and Thelypteris serrata
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 48 of 54
Photo 11. Interior south side parcel 3
Photo 12. Large cypress and cypress knee – south west side of parcel 3
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 49 of 54
Photo 13. Pond with water lettuce – southwest side of parcel 3
Photo 14. Royal palm southwest side of parcel 3
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 50 of 54
Photo 15. Popash depression southwest side of parcel 3
Photo 16. West edge of parcel 2 with Climbing fern
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 51 of 54
Photo 17. Freshwater marsh surrounded by willow – center of parcel 2
Photo 18. South side of parcel 1
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 52 of 54
Photo 19.Southeast side of parcel 1, interior – note sawgrass in
foreground
Photo 20. East side of parcel 1 – downed melaleuca – scattered pines
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 53 of 54
Photo 21. Young slash pines in understory of parcel 1
Photo 22. Northwest side of parcel 1
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #: 00418640007, 00425920008, 00419160007
Owner Name: SD Corp of Naples, Inc. and
Cypress Landings II of Naples, LLC Date: February 12, 2018
Page 54 of 54
Photo 23. 1 acre excavated pond on parcel 1
Photo 24. Debris at excavated pond on parcel 1
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Property Name: Half Circle L Ranch (3,370 +/- acre portion)
Folio Number(s): Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007, 00089520006, 00089560008,
00089960006, 00090120000, 00090160002
Staff Report Date: December 11, 2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 2 of 54
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of General Property Information ..................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 8
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ............................................ 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Collier County Watershed Boundaries .......................................................... 12
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ...................... 18
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 19
Figure 5. Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest Map ...................................................... 21
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 21
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 23
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 24
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 24
Figure 6. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 24
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 26
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps .................................... 28
Exhibit D. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map ......................................................... 29
Exhibit E. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map ............................................................... 30
Exhibit F. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map ................................................. 31
Exhibit G. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map ............................................................................ 32
Exhibit H. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ...................................................... 33
Exhibit I. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map ...................................... 34
Exhibit J. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map........................................ 35
Exhibit K. USFWS Adjacent Protected Lands ............................................................. 36
Exhibit L. Wood Stork Consultation Area .................................................................... 37
Exhibit M. Bonneted Bat Consultation Area ................................................................ 38
Exhibit N. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 39
Exhibit M. Photographs ............................................................................................... 42
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 3 of 54
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendums. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program ceased acquiring, except for donations
and “very good deals,” and was in management mode. In 2017, the Collier County Board
of County Commissioners reauthorized Conservation Collier to open a cycle to seek
acquisition of additional conservation lands (2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation
Collier Program in its current ( 9th ) acquisition cycle to meet requirements specified in the
Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended. It provides
objective data to demonstrate how properties meet the criteria provided by the ordinance.
That is the sole purpose for this report and it is not meant for any other use.
In addition to Collier County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) data layers, this report makes use of GIS data layers
from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and University of Florida Critical Lands and
Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is a collection of spatial data that identify
statewide priorities for a broad range of natural resources in Florida. It was developed
through a collaborative effort between the Florida Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the
University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning,
and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). It is used in the
Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a
set of core natural resource data layers which are representative of 5 resource categories:
biodiversity, landscapes, surface water, groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories
have also been combined into the Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 overall priority
levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Potential Habitat Richness (Vertebrates)
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Following the first section, which looks more closely at initial criteria, additional sections address
potential for appropriate public use, assessment of management needs and costs, potential for
matching funds, and a summary of the secondary screening criteria.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 4 of 54
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to describe how
the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics and to provide other
general property information.
Table 1. Summary of General Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Dane Thorp Scofield
Miles Lewis Scofield
Michael Kipling Scofield
The property is known locally as the Half Circle L Ranch
Folio Numbers Portions of:
00089480007
00089520006
00089560008
00089960006
00090120000
00090160002
The portions offered are not currently segregated out and
are part of 6 Sections of land.
Target Protection
Area
Within Rural Lands
Stewardship Areas – Flow
way and Habitat
Stewardship
Just over half is within the Flowway Stewardship Sending
Area and slightly less than half is within the Habitat
Stewardship Sending Area
Size 3,370 acres +/- No credits have been severed.
STR Multiple Sections in
Township 46, Range 30
The proposal covers portions of 6 sections: 13, 14, 15, 22,
26 and 27
Zoning
Category/TDRs/
Credits/Mitigation
A-MHO-RLSAO-
ACSC/ST
PHU – 25,000 to 30,000
estimated PHUs
Wetland Mitigation – 950
to 1,100 estimated credits
Agriculture with Mobile Home, Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay, Area of Critical State
Concern Overlay/Special Treatment. The County would
not be able to bank and sell RLSA Credits that may be
associated with the property. Mitigation value was
estimated by a consultant in 2007 using the US Fish and
Wildlife Services Panther Habitat (PHU) tool and the
Florida Unified Mitigation Assessment Tool (UMAM) for
a larger area, and prorated for the acres offered. Wood
stork mitigation is a potential also.
FEMA Flood Map
Category
A Areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance
flood event – no detailed analysis re flood depths done.
Mandatory Flood Insurance requirement.
Existing structures n/a No structures
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
State Conservation,
Agriculture of different
intensities under SSAs
North – Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
East – Hendry County – Agriculture and open land
South – SSA-3– A mixture of active and passive Ag
West – SSA-11 and SSA-5 – A mixture of passive Ag
Development Plans
Submitted
n/a This property is currently used for cattle grazing and
hunting.
Known Property
Irregularities
Oil, Gas and Mineral
rights (OGMs)
OGMs not included
Other County
Dept Interest
Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation,
Environmental Services,
Housing, Coastal systems,
Zoning, Engineering
No other Division responded to a request for future
possible interest.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 5 of 54
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 6 of 54
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 7 of 54
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 8 of 54
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the
value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market
data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income
capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property
than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three similar
sized rural South Florida properties were selected for comparison, each with similar site
characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection
was made of the property or comparable properties used in the report and the Real Estate
Services Department staff relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or
unknown adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy,
two appraisals are required for a property of this estimated value.
Assessed Value: * $1,693/acre or $5,705,410
Estimated Market Value: ** $10,110,000
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel.
This parcel is zoned A-MHO-RLSAO-ACSC/ST. It is within an established growth
management and/or other type of overlay. The implications for acquisition are that there
are obstacles to its development and development rights can be severed and sold in advance
in the form of RLSA Stewardship Credits, which remove development and other uses. At
this time, only private owners can achieve Stewardship Credits through SSA designation,
and no entity has been created as yet to allow the County to hold and sell Stewardship
Credits. Therefore, it is currently not realistic to envision the County buying the property
with all the credits attached and then severing and selling them. The more likely scenario
would be that if the County were to buy the property, the credits would no longer exist.
* Property Appraiser’s Website – Since the offered acreage is not segregated out as a unified parcel and
some offered sections of land include active agriculture (which is not offered), this value was estimated by
averaging the Assessed Value per acre over the 3 unfarmed sections of land making up the main slough
area.
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department – date of value estimate – October 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 9 of 54
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
The purpose of this section is to provide a closer look at how the property meets initial criteria.
Conservation Collier Program staff conducted a site visit on August 22, 2017.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA-
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the property?
Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) Yes
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. Riverine Oak No
vii. High marsh (saline) No
viii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
ix. Other native habitats YES
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) updated (2002) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) and partial field
verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified 16 native plant communities (excluding improved
pastures -160 ac) in order of dominance:
1 - 6411 – Freshwater marshes -graminoid – 899 ac
2 - 6210 – Cypress – 347 ac
3 - 4110 - Pine Flatwoods – 302 ac
4 - 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods – 290 ac
5 - 6215 – Cypress domes/heads – 289 ac
6 – 6430 – Wet prairies – 279 ac
7 – 4340 – Hardwood-conifer mixed – 261 ac
8 – 2130 - Woodland pastures – 201 ac
9 - 4200 – Upland hardwood forests – 170 ac
10 - 3200 - Upland shrubs and brush – 40 ac
11 – 6216 – Cypress – Mixed hardwoods - 51
12 – 6250 - Wet Pinelands/ Hydric pine – 39 ac
13 – 6200 – Wet coniferous forests – 31 ac
14 – 3100 – Herbaceous dry prairie – 20 ac
15 – 2120 – Unimproved pastures – 22 ac
16 – 6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods – 3 ac
A FLUCCS map provided by the owner, prepared by a local consultant in 2002, identified
similar vegetation types.
The following native plant communities were directly observed during the site visit:
6411 – Freshwater marshes - graminoid
6210 – Cypress
6430 – Wet prairies
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods
4110 - Pine flatwoods
4340 – Hardwood conifer mixed
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 10 of 54
Staff did not visit all vegetation communities. On the day of the site visit, the property was
very wet. Staff was driven by swamp buggy beginning at the FPL easement on the south
side, through the eastern and northern sections of the offered lands.
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Ground Cover: In open marsh, unimproved pasture and wetland areas the ground cover
included musky mint (Hyptis alata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), spiderlilly
(Hymenocallis latifolia), string lily (Crinum americanum), swamp mallow (Hibiscus
grandiflorus), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum fasciculatum), climbing aster (Aster
carolinianus), False-fiddle leaf (Hydrolea corymbosa), water-willow (Justicia angusta),
Alligator flag (Thalia geniculata), Glades morning glory (Ipomea sagittata), and
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and many species of grasses and sedges. These are
native plants in the appropriate wetland communities. These areas also contained invasive
exotics including primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), torpedo grass (Panicum repens)
and significant areas of Wrights nutrush (Scleria lacustris). West Indian marsh grass
(Hymenachne amplexicaulis) may also be present within the FPL easement but was not
verified.
Hardwood forest edges included Musky mint (Hyptis alata), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
greenbriar (Smilax spp.), myrsine (Myrsine floridana), blueheart (Buchnera Americana),
yellowtop (Flavaria linearis), Florida elephants foot (Elephantopus elatus), beauty berry
(Callicarpa americana), and young cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), indicating more
upland habitats. These areas also contained significant populations of invasive exotic
plants including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Caesar’s weed (Urena lobata),
and occasional patches of climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum).
Midstory: Some Midstory plants observed in open wet pastures and forest edge areas
included wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), myrsine (Myrsine floridana), dahoon holly (Ilex
cassine), bay (Persea Spp.), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and palmetto (Serenoa
repens). Midstory plants observed were mostly appropriate for habitats, with areas of wax
myrtle possibly signaling past disturbance by farming activities or past clearing. Cattle
were observed.
Canopy: Canopy species observed included Cypress (Taxodium distichum), live oak
(Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), bay
(Persea Spp.), and slash pine (Pinus elliotti). It appeared that there were more cabbage
palms than previously noted in 2002 FLUCCS work, and the owner did advise that the
incidence of cabbage palms as a landscape component has increased, which can indicate
long term shifting drainage patterns in the southwest Florida landscape, with some
landscapes getting drier overall. Although it is the State tree, the cabbage palm is
sometimes considered to be invasive as it can invade open pine habitats that are not
receiving enough water and create dense, nearly impenetrable stands that drive out forage
plants for deer which, in turn, affects populations of the Florida panther (Richardson, L.,
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge biologist, 2009).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 11 of 54
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 1:
FLUCCS map provided by the owner’s consultant Wilson Miller (done in 2002) describes
17 -22 separate vegetation communities on the offered portions, including FLUCCS for
improved pasture and row crops. The South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) FLUCCS (2002 update) GIS layer shows 16 native plant communities (not
including 160 acres of improved pastures). The most prevalent habitat is freshwater marsh,
with cypress, pine flatwoods, and mixed wetland hardwoods in a mosaic pattern over much
of the parcel. These extensive native habitats were observed by staff during the site visit.
They appear intact, particularly the cypress areas, though the open freshwater marshes were
significantly impacted by the invasive exotic -Wright’s nutrush. Upland habitats were not
visited in the interiors, but some forest edges appeared impacted by invasive exotics
including Brazilian pepper, climbing fern and Caesar’s weed.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) YES, with potential access challenges noted.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 2: The property is directly south of the 32,370 acre
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest (OK Slough) and west of the 21,714 acre Dinner Island
Wildlife Management Area. This location would provide an enlarged conservation area for
potential public visitation and possibly hunting. There is no direct connection to Dinner
Island WMA, but there is with the OK Slough State forest. There do not appear to be existing
trail connections from the OK Slough but conversations with OK Slough staff indicate that
they could be established. Otherwise, access appears to be through the farmed portion of the
Half Circle L Ranch property via Thorp Road, a private lime rock road, which turns north
off CR 846, and potentially via the Florida Power and Light (FPL) easement cutting north
west from Thorp Road to and across the south side of the subject property (Fig. 2). FPL has
indicated that public access along the easement is possible through an application process
that costs $500. To utilize an easement from Thorp Road, however, would require obtaining
a public access easement through property that does not belong to the owner and which has
not been offered. Staff is working to see if an access easement is possible. If the property
can be accessed, based on the presence of intact native vegetation communities, this property
contains vista and habitat views that would enhance the aesthetic setting of Collier County.
However, the property cannot be seen from a public roadway. Regarding geographic
distribution, the property is located approximately 10 miles from the Pepper Ranch Preserve,
and the Program does not already have property in this general location. There are also 2
known archeological sites on the property.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) YES
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: The property was very wet at the time of the site visit with
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 12 of 54
approximately 18 inches of water on most parts of the parcel, except for some upland areas.
Wetland obligate plant species and wading birds observed during the site visit indicate that
this area provides habitat for wetland dependent species. The property is within a
recognized slough, the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is within the Okaloacoochee/State
Road 29 and Fakahatchee watershed (Figure 4). The 2011 Collier County Watershed
Model Update and Plan Development (Watershed Plan) provides an Average Functional
Value (Performance Score) giving this watershed of 431,410 acres of non-urban lands a
relatively high functional score, indicating that this watershed has a greater similarity to
pre-development conditions (Watershed Plan, 2011. Table ES-1, Pg. 20) than other County
watersheds. The report gives the average annual runoff at approximately 10 inches,
flowing south into the FakaUnion and Fakahatchee Canals (Watershed Plan, 2011. Figure
1-7, Pg. 38). Adjacent upland buffers include farmed lands to the east and natural and
farmed lands to the west, in SSAs 3, 5 and 11, where there is a combination of agricultural
intensities ranging from passive with restoration, to active and more intense (Figure 3).
Figure 4: Collier County Watershed Boundaries
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW***) observed:
OBL (Obligatory) FACW (Facultative Wetland)
Swamp mallow (Hibiscus grandiflorus)
Spider lilly (Hymenocallis lancifolia)
St. John’s-wort (Hypericum fasciculatum)
Rose-gentian (Sabatia Spp.)
Musky mint (Hyptis alata)
Tickseed (Coreopsis Spp.)
Climbing aster (Aster carolinianus)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)
Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine)
Bay (Persea sp.)
Alligator flag (Thalia geniculata)
False-fiddle leaf (Hydrolea corymbosa)
Water-willow (Justicia angusta)
***Vegetative and Hydric Soil Field Indicators lists for Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., Wetland Evaluation and Delineation
Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 13 of 54
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: Wading birds were observed on the
property at the time of the staff site visit. These included:
Wetland Dependent Birds Observed
Limpkin (Aramus guarana)
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
Green heron (Butorides striatus)
Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) State Listed – ST
Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus)
Roseate spoonbill (Ajaja ajaja) State Listed – ST
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Delisted due to recovery
Other Hydrologic indicators observed: Flared bases of cypress trees, watermarks on
cypress bases at about 2 to 2 1/2 feet in some areas and cypress knees were observed. These
indicated that water routinely floods these areas and that surface water levels have been
even higher in past years.
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soil types mapped on the property include 77% hydric (including
depressional and slough) soils and 23% upland soils (Exhibit B).
Soil Name Acres Soil type
Winder Rivera, Limestone Sub, and Chobee Soils 628 Depressional
Boca, Rivera, Limestone Sub and Copeland Fine Sand 840 Depressional
Holopaw and Okeelanta Soils 16 Depressional
Chobee, winder and gator Soils 325 Depressional
Chobee, Limestone Sub and Dania Mucks 8 Depressional
Pineda and Rivera Fine Sands 166 Slough
Holopaw Fine Sand 118 Slough
Basinger Fine Sand 22 Slough
Malabar Fine Sand 350 Slough
Hilolo Limestone Sub, Jupiter and Margate Soils 103 Hydric
Tuscawilla fine Sand 614 Upland
Wabasso Fine Sand 5 Upland
Ft Drum and Malabar, High Fine Sands 38 Upland
Oldsmae Fine Sand 124 Upland
3,357 ac
Overall, there are 14 soil types mapped on the property, with 10 out of the 14, or 77%, of
them being hydric soils types, and 23% being upland soil types. Out of the total hydric
soils, 70% of those are depressional, 26% are slough and another 4% are just hydric. There
are a majority of depressional soils types on the property. Wetlands on the property are
included in the National Wetlands Inventory (Exhibit K).
Aquifer recharge Potential: Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P.
and S. Hohner in 1995 and published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage)
throughout the South Florida Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20
(DRE # 327), South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. This
data was used to develop GIS layers on provided maps (Exhibit E), however, because of
the large-scale nature and many assumptions made in the source databases, the resulting
map layers are intended to be used as regional ground -water resources management
planning aids, but nor site specific assessments. Much of the drinking water in Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 14 of 54
County comes from the surficial acquifer, with some also coming from the semi-confined
Lower Tamiami aquifer.
Lower Tamiami recharge: Capacity: 0” to <7” annually.
This indicates an area of low recharge and potential discharge of aquifer waters.
The very eastern edges of the property have an even more significant negative
recharge value of -16 to <-1 indicating an area of aquifer discharge (Exhibit E).
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: The surficial aquifer capacity is mapped as
31” to <43” in the southern half of the property, and a more significant 43” to <56”
in the northern half (Exhibit E).
Wellfield protection: This property is not within a wellfield protection zone
(Exhibit E).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood map designation: The
property is currently within Flood Zone A, which indicates areas subject to inundation by
the 1% annual chance flood event with no detailed analysis regarding flood depths done.
A mandatory flood insurance requirement exists for this property, if developed.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 3: The property is primarily wetlands per FLUCCS
and soils data, therefore it would provide protection of wetland species habitat. Additionally,
wetland dependent species, both flora and fauna, are documented and were observed on the
property. There is mapped between 31” and <56” of surficial aquifer recharge occurring,
even though very little and some discharge is mapped as occurring for the Lower Tamiami
Aquifer. There are no developed properties nearby for concerns about flood control, though
the property is subject to annual flooding according to FEMA. This area is part of the
Okaloacoochee Slough and there is potential for water quality protection through overland
filtration downstream for the Fakahatchee Strand and Big Cypress Preserve down to the
10,000 Islands if this property remains in its natural state, based on County watershed basin
mapping indicating direction and flow of surface waters (Figure 4).
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) YES
Listed Plant Species: The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and published in 50 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. The Florida state lists of protected plants are
administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of
plants can be viewed from a link provided at http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-
Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-
Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-Endangered-Plants.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 15 of 54
No listed plant species were directly observed by staff. Reviewing the DOACS list for
Endangered, Threatened, and Commercially Exploited plants that utilize the existing
habitats, showed approximately 27 species of endangered plants potentially present (many
were orchids, ferns and air plants),12 Threatened plants (including orchids, ferns, air plants
and some herbaceous species), and 6 Commercially Exploited plant species (including
orchids, mosses, ferns and Florida coontie). The following listed plant species were
observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS FWS
None seen.
E=Endangered, T=Threatened
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the USFWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, respectively,
of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A list of protected Florida wildlife species
can be viewed at: http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/
The following Listed Species were observed during the staff site visit:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC USFWS
Sandhill crane
Roseate spoonbill
(Grus canadensis)
(Ajaja ajaja)
ST
ST
Under review
n/a
A 2008 species map of the site in 2008 done by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. identified
Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii – Federally Threatened), wood stork (Mycteria
Americana – Federally Threatened), and white ibis (Eudocimus alba) on the property.
Bird Rookery observed? No, however, a mixed bird rookery was mapped on the property
by an environmental consultant in 2008, and staff spoke to the ecologist who observed the
rookery (pers. Comm. Tim Hall, Turrell hall and Associates, Inc. Nov. 2017).
GIS mapped species and habitats: Utilizing both FWC telemetry (1981-2016) maps for
Florida panthers and the CLIP4 Biodiversity and Potential Habitat Richness GIS mapping
layers, data shows that Florida panthers utilize the property, with telemetry data from 2016,
and that this property is mapped as having very high biodiversity with the potential for 2
to 7 vertebrate species using the habitat. Wood stork colonies exist 3-5 miles south and 19
miles southwest of the property, and it is within USFWS mapped wood stork foraging areas
(Exhibit J). The property is also near the mapped USFWS bonneted bat consultation area.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 16 of 54
Non-listed species observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Cattle Egret
Limpkin
Wild turkey
Bubulcus ibis
Aramus guarauna
Meleagris gallopavo
Great blue heron
Green heron
Red shouldered hawk
Glossy ibis
White ibis
Purple martin
Pileated woodpecker
White-tailed deer
Ardea Herodias
Butorides striatus
Buteo lineatus
Plegadis falcinellus
Eudocimus alba
Progne subis
Dryocopus pileatus
Odocoileus virginianus
Some Potential State and Federal Listed Species:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FWC
USFWS
American alligator Alligator Mississippiensis FT (S/A) T (S/A)
Audubon’s crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii FT T
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ST
Southeastern American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus ST
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
Wood stork
Everglades Mink
Mycteria Americana
Neovison vison evergladensis
FT
ST
T
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 4: This property is mapped under CLIP4 as having
high biodiversity (Exhibit G) and potential for 2 to 7 vertebrate species using it (Exhibit
H). The property is shown as having priority 1 and 2 lands in the CLIP4 Strategic Habitat
Conservation Areas Map (Exhibit I). Two listed bird species were observed by staff during
a site visit, and others were documented during a 2008 environmental review by a
consultant. The property is near the USFWS consultation area for the Florida bonneted
bat, and within the consultation area for wood storks and Florida panthers. Known colonies
of wood storks occur nearby and the property is mapped by USFWS as foraging area.
Florida panthers are mapped by FWC telemetry as using the property as recently as 2016.
The property is directly connected to the 32,370 acre Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
on its north side, is near the 21,714 acre Dinner Island Wildlife Management Area (WMA)
to the east in Hendry County (which is connected to an 11,596 acre private conservation
area), and has Rural Lands Stewardship Sending Areas on its west and south sides.
Restoration potential is high as there are no major alterations required to maintain a high
ecological function other than exotic removal.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 17 of 54
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) YES
Statement for satisfaction of criteria 5: The property is adjacent on its north side to the
32,370 acre Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, on the west and south sides are over 6,600 acres
of SSAs (Figure 3):
• SSA 11 lands -3,699 acres passive ag lands with restoration
• SSA 16 - 2,876 acres active ag and more intense,
• SSA 3 lands - 704 acres active ag and more intense
• SSA 5 -1,852 acres passive ag
There is an ecological link with lands connected to the OK Slough further east including the 21,714
acre Dinner Island WMA and private conservation land totaling 11,596 acres (having a National
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation easement over them) (Exhibit K). The CLIP4
Landscape Integrity Map (Exhibit E) indicates first and second priority connections to protected
lands to the north.Acquiring this property would provide a buffer for, link to and provide habitat
corridors to these protected lands.
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project? YES
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel? NO. The entire Half Circle L Ranch, 9,819 acres, is #11 on the Florida
Forever acquisition list and a medium priority property. The Collier County Attorney
recommends not partnering with Florida Forever unless resulting title can be shared.
Currently, there is no shared title provision and Florida Forever staff have reviewed the
proposal and responded that no funds are currently available for partnership.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 18 of 54
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No.
2007-65, section 5.9:
Hiking: Hiking would be an appropriate use; however, it may be only seasonably
possible.
Nature Photography: This would be an appropriate use.
Bird-watching: This would be an appropriate use.
Kayaking/Canoeing: There are no water bodies to kayak or canoe in, so this would not
be an appropriate use.
Swimming: There are no water bodies large enough for swimming, so this would not be
an appropriate use.
Hunting: Hunting could be an appropriate use.
Fishing: This is not an appropriate use, as there are no water bodies for fishing.
Recommended Site Improvements: Access improvements, parking area and dry season
trails are recommended.
Access:
A private lime rock road, Thorp Road, is the only road access to the property, however, it
does not access the offered portion of the property directly. Thorp Road crosses areas of
the Half Circle L Ranch property not proposed for sale to Conservation Collier and adjacent
to working farm fields. The owner has indicated that access could be provided through
these lands. Another option is the FPL easement that runs from Thorp Road to the property
but that runs over a parcel that is under another ownership from the proposed seller (Figure
2). There is a process by which FPL allows limited use of its easement, with a $500
application fee, however, that would not include lands directly off Thorp Road in between
the road and the subject property, which are owned by another party. Conservation Collier
might need to acquire an access easement and construct a lime rock road to achieve public
access. Cost of building a lime rock road comparable to those in the Golden Gate Estates
could easily run upwards of $1,000,000/mile. These costs would include easement costs,
design, permitting, project management, mitigation, clearing and grubbing, debris removal
and construction. Maintenance of 1 mile of lime rock road could cost approximately
$10,000/mile/year (Pers. Comm. Joe Delate, Project Manager for Collier County Road and
Bridge, Dec. 2017).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 19 of 54
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, and provide an estimate for funding needs for construction of a boardwalk to allow
the public to have access to selected portions of the property. The following assessment
addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management. These are very preliminary
estimates; Ordinance No. 2002-67, as amended by Ordinance No. 2007-65, requires a
formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation
Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Exotic, invasive species noted here are taken from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s
(FLEPPC) 2017 List of Invasive Plant Species (Category I and Category II). FLEPPC is
an independent incorporated advisory council created to support the management of
invasive exotic plants in Florida’s natural areas by providing a forum for exchanging
scientific, educational and technical information. Its members come primarily from public
educational institutions and governmental agencies. Annual lists of invasive plant species
published by this organization are used widely in the state of Florida for regulatory
purposes.
The current FLEPPC list (2017) can be viewed on-line at
http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Category I plants are those which are altering native
plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or
ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the
economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological
damage caused. Category II invasive exotics have increased in abundance or frequency
but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I
species. These species may become Category I if ecological damage is demonstrated.
Category I and II plants found on this parcel in order of observed abundance:
Category I
Common Name Scientific Name
Wright’s nutrush Scleria lacustris
Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius
Peruvian primrose willow Ludwigia peruviana
Ceasar’s weed Urena lobata
Climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum
Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquinerva (shown on 2002 FLUCCS map)
Category II
Common Name Scientific Name
None seen
Staff observations are: The observed portions of the property contained roughly 25%
exotics in the upland areas and along upland edges. Wetland areas observed were heavily
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 20 of 54
invaded by Wright’s nutrush to approx. 60%. West Indian marsh grass may also be present.
Cypress areas appeared free of exotics.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
An estimate of the cost for initial exotic removal and follow-up maintenance for 3,370
acres was determined based on actual initial exotic removal costs experienced at Pepper
Ranch Preserve, including $820 per acre for initial removal and $169 per acre for ongoing
maintenance.
Based on this estimate, costs for the initial removal for the level of infestation observed,
treating exotics in place would be $2,763,400. Many areas may not need treatment, so
this is a maximum value.
Costs for follow-up maintenance, done anywhere from quarterly to annually are estimated
at $569,500 per year. These costs could decrease over time as the soil seed bank is
depleted, and it is unlikely that every acre would be treated every year, further reducing
actual costs.
Public Parking Facility:
The cost of design and construction of a shell or gravel parking lot to accommodate
approximately 10 cars would be approximately $25,000. Additional costs would include
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, design, project management,
permitting and any required land clearing.
Public Access Trails: There are a few access trails used by the owners traversing portions
of the property. These trails utilize uplands. Public access trails would need to be designed
with the public access point in mind, and installed following an acquisition. There are
trails on the Ok Slough State Forest to the north, but they do not reach as far as this property.
Forest Service staff queried advised that there is potential to expand the Mustang Loop trail
on the south side of the Forest to connect with a trail on the Half Circle L Ranch property,
but that the area such trail would traverse is very wet and would be only hike-able during
dry season (Figure 5 – Mustang Loop circled).
Security and General Maintenance: The area offered is fenced along the north, west and
southern boundaries. The need for additional fencing has not been evaluated. Signs
advising of a conservation area can be placed at intervals along upland area boundaries, if
necessary.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 21 of 54
Figure 5. Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 22 of 54
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring
Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $2,763,400 $569,500 Estimated costs based on exotics control at
Pepper Ranch Preserve. It is unlikely that
every acre would be treated every year, so
these are maximum costs.
Parking Facility $25,000+ $3,000 Initial cost does not include ADA
requirements, design, project management,
permitting or land clearing.
Access Trails $5,000 $2,000 Rough trails initially cleared and mowed
annually. This depends on the length of
trails
Access Road $1,000,000 $10,000 Could require easements. Ballpark cost
only. Estimated cost includes cost of
easement, design, permitting, project
management, and construction.
Fencing unk unk
Undetermined where fencing is located.
Trash Removal n/a n/a Pack in-Pack out.
Signs $5,000 unk No trespassing signs must be no farther
than 500 feet apart. Placing signs 500 feet
apart along just the north, south, and west
boundaries would take 95 signs, or $3,000.
An entry sign costs approx. $2,000.
Total $3,798,4000 $584,500
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 23 of 54
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida Forever Program.
The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust (FCT) - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant
program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has been awarded for this cycle.
There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the 2017-
18 budget.
Florida Forever Program:
Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has limited funds and is
concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list. This parcel is within
a Florida Forever priority project boundary, however, staff communications with the
Division of State Lands have determined that money is not available for this project now.
Additionally, the Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with
the Florida Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding
joint title between the governmental entities. The County Attorney has advised against a
partnership unless there is a shared title arrangement.
Other Potential Funding Sources:
There is potential for utilizing funding donations to the Conservation Collier program to
fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to the Collier County Land Development
Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently approximately $120,000 in this fund, with
approximately $91,000 earmarked for Multi-parcel Project acquisitions. An additional
$180,000 is expected but not yet realized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 24 of 54
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit H. A total score of 198 out of a possible 400 was achieved. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points Scored Points
Percent
of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 80 80%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 32 32%
Vulnerability 100 20 20%
Management 100 67 67%
Total Score: 400 198 50%
Percent of Maximum
Score: 50%
Figure 6. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 25 of 54
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score: 198 out of 400 possible points
Resource Ecological/Biological Value: 80 out of 100 possible points
The parcel achieved a high score because it has significant ecological and biological values.
Components of this score included habitats, aquifer recharge, presence within a known
slough, presence of wetlands, presence of wetland soils, having 16 habitat types mapped,
presence of listed species, good restoration potential, and its location adjacent to significant
areas of current conservation lands.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 32 out of 100 possible points
This score was lower than average due to access problems, but the property does have
potential for land based recreational opportunities and hunting. Additional points were
achieved due to vista views and an archeological site.
Vulnerability: 20 out of 100 possible points
This score was low because although its zoning allows for agriculture, the property is part
of the RLSA with potential for protection under the Stewardship Credit Program and is has
an Area of Critical State Concern /Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC-ST). The Areas of
Critical State Concern Program was created by the "Florida Environmental Land and Water
Management Act of 1972." The program is intended to protect resources and public
facilities of major statewide significance, within designated geographic areas, from
uncontrolled development that would cause substantial deterioration of such resources. The
Department reviews all local development projects within the designated areas and may
appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any local development
orders that are inconsistent with state guidelines and local comprehensive plans and
regulations. The Collier County Land Development Code Section 4.02.14 states that site
alteration within ACSC-ST areas is limited to 10% of the total site size, in this case, 330
acres, but this does not apply to site alterations in conjunction with agricultural uses of the
property.
Management: 67 out of 100 possible points
This better than average score was achieved partly because the property is part of an
existing flowway that is protected on its northern boundary. While some habitats had
minimal amounts of invasive exotic plants, it lost points because it is heavily invaded by
Wright’s nutrush in its open wetland areas, which is difficult to remove. No points were
removed because lands surrounding may have some exotic removal and maintenance
occurring.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This is the largest parcel in
Cycle 9. It is similar t o but larger than the 1,034 acre proposal for the Big Hammock
Island parcels under review.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 26 of 54
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 27 of 54
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 28 of 54
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 29 of 54
Exhibit D. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 30 of 54
Exhibit E. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 31 of 54
Exhibit F. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 32 of 54
Exhibit G. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 33 of 54
Exhibit H. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 34 of 54
Exhibit I. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 35 of 54
Exhibit J. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 36 of 54
Exhibit K. USFWS Adjacent Protected Lands
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 37 of 54
Exhibit L. Wood Stork Consultation Area
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 38 of 54
Exhibit M. Bonneted Bat Consultation Area
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 39 of 54
Exhibit N. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: Half Circle L Ranch
Folio Numbers: 00089480007, 00089520006, 00089560008,
00089960006, 00090120000, 00090160002
Geographical Distribution (Target Protection Area): RLSA Habitat and Flowway Stewardship Areas
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
16 native habitats identified under 2002 FLUCCS layer, (not
including improved pastures) including unimproved pastures,
woodland pastures, herbaceous dry pastures, pine flatwoods,
cypress, upland hardwood forest, hardwood-conifer mixed,
wetland hardwoods, upland shrubs and brush, wet coniferous
forests, cypress domes-heads, wet pinelands hydric,
herbaceous dry prairie, freshwater marshes-graminoids, wet
prairies.
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) G1 to G3 or S1-S3 listed plant community
found on the parcel 5 each 20 Wet Prairie G2/S2; Slough marsh G3/S3; Dry prairie G2/S2;
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 Mature wetland forest
1.A. Total 100 35
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100 n/a
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
Lower Tamiami - 0"to<7" and -16" to-1" (minimally) Surficial 31"
to<43" and 43" to <56" (moderately)
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100 n/a
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75 n/a
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50 50 Okaloacoochee Slough
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 flowway wetlands
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0 n/a
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 80
Boca Rivera limestone substratum and copeland fine sand;
Chobee limestone substratum,a nd dania mucks; Chobee,
winder and gator soils; Holopaw and Okeelanta soils; Winder,
Rivera, Limestone Substratum, and chobee soils
b. Slough Soils 40 40
Basinger fine sand; Holopaw fine sand; Malabar fine sand;
Pineda and Rivera fine sands; Rivera fine sand, Limestone
substratum; Rivers, Limestone substratum-Copeland fine sands.
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 Parcel is within a known flowway.
Subtotal 300 265
1.B Total 100 88 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100 100 16 native plant communities are mapped on the site.
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 40 of 54
Exhibit N. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 80
Sandhill crane (State ST under review) and roseate spoonbill
(State- ST)
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score ranging from 10 to 70 60
Score is based on the CLIP4 habitat Richness (Vertebrate)
map and rovides up to 100 points for most prevalent category (in
this case 5-6 species species). IA small area was mapped as
potnetially having 8-13 speceis, which iis the highest category.
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10 10
A snowy egret and ibis rookery was located on the south side of
the property and observed there sin 2008 - Pers. Comm. Tim
Hall, Sr. Ecologist, Turell, Hall and Associates, Inc.
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 removal of exotic plants would be primary retoration
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 290
1.C Total 100 97 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100 100
Contiguous on the north side with the32,370 acre
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, and through there with the
21,714 acres Dinner Island WMA and an 11,596 acre private
conservation area.
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 80 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0 0
Parcel does not have roads to access it except through other
private property
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75
There are no water bodies present. While much of the property
is a wetland, there are some upland areas. Hunting could be a
potential use.
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 0
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. The perimeter cannot be seen from a public
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic - The site contains vista views and an
archealogical site.
Subtotal 300 95
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 32 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 41 of 54
Exhibit N. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form (Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40 40
Agriculture with Mobile Home, Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay, Area of Critical State Concern Overlay/Special Treatment;
RLSA Stewardship Overlay
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20 -20 Area of Critical State Concern Overlay/Special Treatment
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 20
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100
The property is part of an existing flowway that is protected on
its northern boundary.
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60 60
primarily due to vast areas of Wright's nutrush observed in wet
prairies and open marshes.
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20f. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20 -20 Wright's Nutrush is difficult to remove.
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required
-20
The property is surrounded by active ag and SSAs, where some
exotic removal is required and in the rest permitted under the
SSA, and on the north side, Exotic removal is done in OK
Slough State Forest.
5.B Total 100 40
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Maintenance will be required for plant communities in wet
prairies and open pastures.
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10 0 None seen
5.C Total 100 60
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 67 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 198
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 42 of 54
Exhibit M. Photographs
Photo 1. Traveling from farmed areas westward to access the property
Photo 2. Scenic Vista View of Wet Prairie
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 43 of 54
Photo 3. Access trail through Wet Prairie
Photo 4. Group of wading birds including ibis, egret and roseate
spoonbill
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 44 of 54
Photo 5. Small Cypress Head
Photo 6. Upland Hardwoods Forest
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 45 of 54
Photo 7. Cattle
Photo 8. Freshwater Marsh
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 46 of 54
Photo 9. Wright’s Nutrush in Freshwater Marsh
Photo 10. Woodland Pastures/Freshwater Marsh
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 47 of 54
Photo 11. Cypress
Photo 12. Cypress Strand
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 48 of 54
Photo 13. Raised FPL Easement Access track
Photo 14. Freshwater Marsh with Wetland Conifereous Forest
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 49 of 54
Photo 15. Cypress
Photo 16. Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 50 of 54
Photo 17. Pine Flatwoods
Photo 18. Pine Flatwoods with Cabbage Palm Extraction
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 51 of 54
Photo 19. Wet Pinelands
Photo 19. Wet Pinelands
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 52 of 54
Photo 20. Wet Pinelands
Photo 21. Mixed Wetland hardwoods and Woodland Pastures
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 53 of 54
Photo 22. Wet Prairies
Photo 23. Upland Mixed Conifer
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio #s: Portions of 6 folios: 00089480007,
00089520006, 00089560008, 00089960006,
00090120000, 00090160002
Owner Name: Half Circle L Ranch Date: December 11, 2017
Page 54 of 54
Photo 24. Cypress Dome
Photo 26. Upland Hardwood Forest
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Updated from 2009
Staff Report Date: March 12, 2018
Property Name: Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP
Area 1 – 235 Acres
Area II – 799.4 acres
Areas offered comprise portions of folio numbers:
00113760004
00113840005
00113880007
II
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 2 of 59
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 5
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 6
Figure 1. Location Map .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 8
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .............................................. 9
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Topographic map (http://www.digital-topo-maps.com/) .............................. 14
Figure 5. Collier County drainage sub-basin map ........................................................ 15
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ..................... 21
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 22
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 23
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 24
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 25
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 25
Figure 7. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring .......................................................... 25
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 28
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit C. Wellfield protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ...................................... 30
Exhibit D. Zoning Map ................................................................................................ 31
Exhibit E. Historical Aerials – 2017 and 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser) ............. 32
Exhibit F. Flood Zone Map .......................................................................................... 33
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ............................................................................................... 34
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map .......................................................... 35
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map.................................................................. 36
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map .................................................. 37
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map ............................................................................ 38
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ....................................................... 39
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map ..................................... 40
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map ....................................... 41
Exhibit O. USFWS Listed Species Consultation and Focal Areas .............................. 42
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 3 of 59
Exhibit P. Oil and Gas Map .......................................................................................... 43
Exhibit Q. 2011 Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List .................................... 44
Exhibit R. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 1 ......... 45
Exhibit S. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 2 .......... 48
Exhibit T. - Photographs ............................................................................................... 51
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 4 of 59
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This updated Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the
Conservation Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle for purposes of the Conservation
Collier Program. It provides an update to the ICSR that was prepared for this property in
2009 demonstrating how this property meet the criteria as defined by the ordinance (2002-
63, as amended). That is the sole purpose for this report and it is not meant for any other
use. This property was categorized as an “A” List property (Exhibit Q) on January 25,
2011, by the Board of County Commissioners. This update simply uses more updated
metrics.
One of the updates is to make use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
and University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4
is a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural
resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida
Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for
Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for
acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data layers which are
representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface water,
groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
Biodiversity
Surface Water Priorities
Landscape Integrity
Priority Natural Communities
Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Additional updated metrics are FLUCCS code GIS layers and sources for listed species
plants and animals and updated state and federal protected species lists.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 5 of 59
I. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Barron Collier
Partnership LLLP
Both Area 1 and Area 2 are south of the Pepper Ranch Preserve
In the previous 2009 offering, the property owner was Barron
Collier Investments, Inc. (BCI). A Certificate of Merger
recorded at OR 4998 PG 865 merged BCI with Barron Collier
Partnership LLLP (BCP LLLP), the current owner.
Folio Numbers Parts of 3 separate
folios
00113760004
00113840005
00113880007
Portions offered not legally segregated at present
Target Protection
Area
Rural Lands
Stewardship Area:
Habitat (H.SA) Flow-
way (FSA) and Open
Acreages are approximate:
Area 1 (235 acres)-135 acres H.SA/ 100 acres Open
Area 2 (799.4 acres)-393 acres H.SA/ 338 acres FSA
Size Area 1 – 235 acres
Area 2–799.4 acres
The 799.4 acres includes approx. 30 acres over Lake Trafford.
These acres are more-or-less and subject to adjustment upon
survey.
STR Sections 3,4 &,5 in T47
/ R28
Parcels offered are portions within these sections.
Zoning
Category/TDRs
Agriculture
SSA #13 over portion
of Area II
Ag/MHO (RLSA overlay District)
SSA #13 (7,414 ac total) covers approx. 730 acres of Area II and
none of Area 1- SSA #13 expired Dec 15, 2017. Owner has
received an extension through 12/15/20 (BCC Agenda 12/12/17
Agenda Item 16.A.27).
FEMA Flood
Map Category
AH and AE AH – Area 1 – Subject to periodic inundation
AE – Area 2 - Subject to periodic ponding 1-3 feet
Existing
structures
n/a All structures are impermanent or in the nature of debris
Adjoining
properties and
their Uses
Conservation,
agriculture, vacant
land, rural residential
N – Pepper Ranch Preserve – rural residential (Trafford Oaks Rd.)
E – Lake Trafford
S - Agricultural and/or vacant Ag zoned
W – Agricultural/vacant Ag zones and Conservation
(SFWMD/CREW and Audubon lands)
Development
Plans Submitted
n/a Property currently used for cattle grazing and hunting.
Known Property
Irregularities
Oil, Gas and Mineral
Rights;
(OGM)/Archeological
site;
Owner offers to
remove exotics at cost.
OGM rights over both Areas would be retained by owner -
which is not BCP LLLP but an entity with multiple partners;
Area II contains a known archeological site. If both Areas 1
and II are acquired, the existing access easement in favor of
BCI would be released. If only Area 1 is acquired, the existing
easement through Pepper Ranch would be retained; in
addition, a new easement through Area 1 to reach Area II
would be required by BCP LLLP.
Other County
Dept Interest
Transportation,
Utilities, Solid Waste,
Parks and Recreation,
Environmental
Services, Housing,
Coastal systems,
Zoning, Engineering
Area 1, but not Area II, would be a potential source for Panther
Habitat Unit (PHU) mitigation Credits. No other dept. has advised
of conflicts or partnership interest, in general or for PHUs.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 6 of 59
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 7 of 59
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 8 of 59
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 9 of 59
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being valued for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site, and the
value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of market
data. A value of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches, cost, income
capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal of substitution that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property
than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties
from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with similar site
characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection
was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the Real Estate Services
Department staff relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are
limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown
adverse conditions exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, two
appraisals are required.
Estimated Assessed Value: *
Folio Acreage Assessed Value
Area 1 235 $425,585
Area 2 799.4 $1,447,713
Total 1034.4 $1,873,298
*Assessed values have been estimated using the average of the values of the parent
parcels, as both Area 1 and Area 2 are not segregated out yet and comprise portions of all
three parent parcels. The average per acre value used is $1,811 per acre. Calculation
below.
Folio# 00113880007 - $1,500 per acre
Folio# 00113840005 - $2,055 per acre
Folio# 00113760004 - $1,877 per acre
$5,432 per acre/3 = $1,811 per acre average
Estimated Market Value: **
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY ENTITY.
Folio Acreage Estimated Value Range*
Area 1 235 $545,200
Area 2 799.4 $1,854,608
Total 1034.4 $2,400,504
The Estimated Market Value was based on the entire acreage at $2,320 per acre.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Collier County Real Estate Services Department
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 10 of 59
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel.
Area 1 is zoned Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay and is within the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay. Area 2 is zoned Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay and
is part of a 7,414-acre Stewardship Sending Area #13 Overlay. Designation of the property
provided the owner 27,515.3 Stewardship Credits, of which 6,599.2 are given for
restoration and only when stewardship success criteria are met. No restoration credits have
been sought as yet. In total, the stewardship credits will entitle 3,439.4 acres for
development within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area District.
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
Collier County Conservation Collier Program staff originally conducted site visits to this
property on March 18 and 27, 2009. Staff attempted a site visit on October 23, 2017, but
the area was too wet. A second planned visit on December 18, 2017 resulted in the same
wet conditions. A site visit was conducted on February 5, 2018.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA Met 6 out of 6
Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the
property? Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a) Yes
Area 1
Hardwood hammocks Yes
Xeric oak scrub No
Coastal strand No
Native beach No
Xeric pine No
Riverine Oak No
High marsh (saline) No
Tidal freshwater marsh No
Other native habitats Yes – Upland
hardwood forests, cabbage palm, mixed
hardwoods/conifers, mixed wetland
hardwoods, and cypress
Area 2
Hardwood hammocks Yes - dominant
Xeric oak scrub No
Coastal strand No
Native beach No
Xeric pine No
Riverine Oak No
High marsh (saline) No
Tidal freshwater marsh No
Other native habitats Yes – cabbage
palm, mixed hardwoods/conifers, mixed
wetland hardwoods, cypress, emergent
aquatic vegetation and freshwater marshes
Vegetative Communities:
Staff typically uses two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic mapping data for
Department of Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS, 2009) and
field verification of same. In the case of both BCP submittals, staff relied upon the
SFWMD 2009 map layer data, and field observations made by staff during the October
2017 site visit, with comparison to a FLUCCS map prepared by Wilson Miller for the
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 11 of 59
owner in 2009. The major difference noted was the emergence of cabbage palm as a larger
plant community.
FLUCCS: The electronic database identified, in order of dominance:
Area 1
4340 – Hardwood – conifer mixed – 81 ac
2110 – Improved pasture – 72 ac
2130 – Woodland pasture – 46 ac
4200 – Upland hardwood forests – 13 ac
4280 – Cabbage palm – 13 ac
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods – 5 ac
6216 – Cypress – 5 ac
6172 - Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs – 3 ac
Area 2
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods – 221 ac
6410 – Freshwater wetlands – 199 ac
4280 – Cabbage palm – 107 ac
6440 – Emergent aquatic vegetation – 88 ac
6216 – Cypress – mixed hardwoods – 43 ac
4340 – Hardwood – conifer mixed – 16 ac
6172 - Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs – 25 ac
5200 – Lake – 14 ac
2110 – Improved Pasture – 13 ac
6210 – Cypress – 10 ac
The following native plant communities were observed, in order of dominance:
Area 1
4340 – Hardwood – conifer mixed
2110 – Improved pasture
2130 – Woodland pasture
4280 – Cabbage palm
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods
Other plant communities were not directly
observed.
Area 2
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods
6410 – Freshwater wetlands
4280 – Cabbage palm
2110 – Improved Pasture
Other plant communities were not
directly observed.
Characterization of Dominant Native Plant Communities present:
FLUCCS Ground cover Midstory Canopy
4340 – Hardwood-
conifer mixed
Forbs, chain fern,
wild coffee, wax
myrtle, smilax
Wax myrtle,
beautyberry,
galberry,
Live and laurel oak,
slash pine, cabbage
palm, bay
6170 – Mixed
Wetland hardwoods
Swamp fern, false
nettle, aster, wild
coffee, pellitories,
yellow cress, forbs
Dahoon holly,
myrsine,
Live and laurel oak,
cabbage palm, bay,
red maple, pop ash
4280 – Cabbage palm Grasses, poison ivy,
vines, wild coffee
Myrsine, wax
myrtle
Cabbage palm, live
oak
6410 – Freshwater
Wetlands
Pickerelweed,
arrowhead, alligator
flag,
Dog fennel None
Emergent aquatic
vegetation
Alligator flag,
pickerelweed, pond
apple
Willow None
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 12 of 59
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data indicate that at least 6 native plant communities and more likely 11 exist
(excluding improved pasture and lake) on the parcels. Not all habitats were observed
directly. Cabbage palms appear to be invading areas where mixed wetland hardwoods used
to dominate. At least 5 of the 7 distinct types of native vegetation communities (excluding
improved pasture) were observed in Area 1. At least 4 out of 8 types of native vegetation
communities (excluding improved pasture and lake) were directly observed in Area 2,
along with many transitional areas containing a mix of vegetation types. Exotics appear to
be primarily along forest edges but interior areas viewed also have exotics throughout,
including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Caesar’s weed (Urena lobata) and
guava (Psidium guajava). Exotics are estimated at 10-24% in Area 1 with some areas at
25% - 75%. Area 2 appeared to have fewer exotics. A general global observation is 15%
or slightly more.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic
distribution, appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the
aesthetic setting of Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
A purchase of the Area 1 and/or Area 2 BCI properties would be additional large acreage
purchases in the Immokalee area, where 2,512 acres have already been purchased. As such
they may not be considered to further the goal of “equitable geographic distribution” of
acquired lands. However, appropriate access for nature-base recreation is available
through the Pepper Ranch Preserve, though access roads are not paved. Access
throughout the Pepper Ranch Preserve is facilitated by a main interior unpaved lime rock
road running east to west and an offshoot north/south unpaved track, which is the access
easement for the ranching activities that are currently occurring on the Area 1 parcel. The
main ranch road can easily accommodate street vehicles. The north /south branch is
rougher, however street vehicles currently access it. Areas 1 and 2 have many trails
already existing that could be used for hiking, biking and horseback riding during dry
season. Because the offered lands are varied in habitat, with large open areas providing
scenic vistas, acquisition could enhance the aesthetic setting of Collier County.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values,
including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland
dependent species habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c)
Yes
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland /wetland
buffers: General characteristics are taken from examination of aerial photographs, area
topographic maps (available on the Internet at http://www.digital-topo-maps.com/ ),
Collier County Stormwater Management Dept. maps (available on the Collier County
Website at http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=499 ), and a Florida Natural Area
Inventory Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 map layer (Exhibit H). Aerial photos show
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 13 of 59
vegetation patterns on what is mapped as Big Hammock Island, in the Corkscrew Swamp
west of Lake Trafford. Big Hammock Island comprises 100% of Area 1 and approximately
60% of Area 2. Aerial maps show Big Hammock Island as upland and lands surrounding
and to the south and west as swamp (Figure 2). Onsite observations confirm that Area 1 is
pasture and forest and that Area 2 contains forest and marsh wetlands. Collier County
watershed basin maps (Figure 5) show both Area 1 and Area 2 to be within both the
Corkscrew Marsh and Fakahatchee Strand Basins, with surface waters flowing in different
directions. A 2016 examination of the Lake Trafford watershed boundary by the
University of Florida and IFAS, determined that lands on the southwest side of lake
Trafford, where these parcels are, generally drain west into the Corkscrew Slough and the
Corkscrew Marsh Basin (Figure 6), where waters flow west and then southwest.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping indicates that while recharge into the
Lower Tamiami aquifer may be relatively low at 0 to <7” annually, recharge of the surficial
aquifer is moderate to high at 43 to <56” annually.
On-site staff observations of open marsh areas in the south of Area 2 in April 2009 showed
the area lacking surface water, but having wetland dependent plants and numerous species
of wetland dependent bird species present. This area had standing water present in
February 2018. Collier County Soil Survey Maps identify slough soils (Riviera fine sand,
limestone substratum) in this area. Flood control capacity is unknown.
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
Area 1:
OBL FACW
Alligator flag (Thalia geniculata) Beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.)
Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) Pennywort (Hydrocotle sp.)
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) Musky mint (Hyptis alata)
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Swamp bay (Persea sp.) Tickseed (Coreopsis sp.)
Buttonweed (Diodia virginica)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Area 2:
OBL FACW
Alligator flag (Thalia geniculata) Chain fern (Woodwardia viriginica)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) Leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium)
Butterweed (Senecio glabellus) Musky mint (Hyptis alata)
Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) Pennywort (Hydrocotle sp.)
Iris (Iris hexagona) Semaphore (Eupatorium mikanoides)
Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)
Bay (Persea sp.)
Popash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica)
Canna lilly (Canna sp.)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 14 of 59
Willow (Salix sp.)
Pond apple – (Annona glabra)
Yellow-cress (Rorippa sp.)
Wetland dependent wildlife observed by staff include: ibis, roseate spoonbills, blue
heron, wood stork and kingfisher.
Other Hydrologic indicators observed: Water lines on pop ash trees in Area 1 were
observed indicating seasonal water depth of 1.5-2 feet high in one depressional area.
United States Geological Service (USGS) Topo Maps identify the Big Hammock Area 1
parcel as partial uplands and mostly wetlands (Figure 4). Light Detection and Radar
(LIDAR) maps show the elevation to be approx. 17-18 Ft. above sea level (Exhibit G).
Figure 4. Topographic map (http://www.digital-topo-maps.com/)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 15 of 59
Figure 5. Collier County drainage sub-basin map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 16 of 59
Figure 5. 2016 Revised watershed basin around Lake Trafford. (Lake Trafford 2016
Revised Watershed Boundary, UF-IFAS Shukla & Wallace, 2016)
Soils: Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida
(USDA/NRCS, 1990) (Figure 9). Soil numbers correspond to those mapped in the survey.
Mapped soils include both hydric and upland soils types, with upland soils the dominant
type in Area 1 and hydric soils the dominant type in Area 2. The following is a list of the
major soil types mapped in each area, whether they are upland or wetland soil types, the
percentage of the parcel they occur in, and the plants typically associated with them.
Observed conditions generally reflect mapped plant communities.
Area 1: 81% Upland soil types and 20% Hydric Slough soil types.
Soil Type Typical Vegetation
37 – Tuscawilla FS – Upland (central and
southern hammock areas) – 38%
oaks, cabbage palm, red maple, red bay,
slash pine, wax myrtle, and native grasses
20 – Ft. Drum and Malabar, high, fine
sands – Upland - 43%
Slash pine, saw palmetto, live oak,
cabbage palm, wax myrtle, and grasses
18 – Riviera fine sand, limestone
substratum –Slough - 11%
Slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, wax
myrtle, sand cordgrass, gulf muhly, blue
maidencane, South Florida bluestem and
chalky bluestem
6 – Riviera Limestone substratum –
Copeland FS – Slough – 8%
Natural vegetation consists of cypress, red
maple, ferns and other wetland plants.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 17 of 59
Area 2: 97% Wetland slough & depressional soil types and 3% upland soil types.
Soil Type Typical Vegetation
6 – Riviera, Limestone Substratum –
Copleand FS - Hydric Slough (buffering
flow-way habitat area) – 51%
cypress, red maple, ferns and other
wetland plants
43 – Winder, Riviera, Limestone
Substratum and Chobee FS, Hydric
Depressional (adjacent to Lake Trafford)
– 46%
sawgrass, maidencane, pickerelweed,
alligator flag, willow and other wetland
plants
20 – Ft Drum and Malabar, high, fine
sands, Upland – 3%
Slash pine, saw palmetto, live oak,
cabbage palm, wax myrtle, and grasses
18 – Riviera fine sand, limestone
substratum – Hydric Slough - <1%
Slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, wax
myrtle, sand cordgrass, gulf muhly, blue
maidencane, South Florida bluestem and
chalky bluestem
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity: Both Area 1 and Area 2 have a moderate to high
mapped surficial aquifer recharge rate of 43” to <56” annually.
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: Both Area 1 and Area 2 have a low mapped Lower
Tamiami aquifer recharge rate of 0 to <7” annually.
Oil Gas and Mineral Rights: The owner proposes to retain the Oil Gas and Mineral
(OGM) Rights on both Areas 1 and II. These rights are owned by a partnership including
various entities. Companies interested in exploration or production of oil and gas in Florida
are regulated pursuant to Chapter 377 Florida Statutes and related rules implemented by
the Oil and Gas Program within Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The existing oil pad site is listed by DEP as well #1208 within the Lake Trafford Field. Its
symbol on the Oil and Gas Map (Figure 12) shows it to be a “dry hole.” The pad site is
currently not in use for oil exploration or extraction.
FEMA Flood map designation: The property is within Flood Zones AH and AE, both
subject to periodic inundation.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: Acquisition of this property would offer
opportunities for protection of water resource values, including moderate recharge of the
surficial aquifer and protection of wetland dependent species habitat. A moderate surficial
recharge rate would indicate habitat for wetland dependent species is present most of the
year. Soils data shows that wetland soils are present. Wetland dependent species have
been observed on the property, including those listed by the state as endangered and
threatened. A primary benefit to preserving the offered lands in an undeveloped state
would be protection of the Corkscrew swamp and marsh complex and wetlands associated
with Lake Trafford. The Corkscrew swamp and marsh complex provides recharge for the
Lower Tamiami aquifer, a source of drinking water for many County and private wells east
of County Road 951. Acquisition of both Area 1 and Area 2 would protect the quality of
this water source by buffering the Corkscrew slough from development and non-point
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 18 of 59
source pollution. As there are no nearby residential properties, it is unknown what benefits
acquisition of the property would have for flood control, though it is subject to periodic
flooding. There are 20% hydric slough soils on Area 1 and 97% on area 2 (Exhibit B).
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed
species habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d) Yes
Listed Plant Species – Data Resources: The federal authority to protect land-based plant
species is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 23. Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/ad-hoc-species-
report?kingdom=P&status=E&status=T&status=EmE&status=EmT&status=EXPE&statu
s=EXPN&status=SAE&status=SAT&fcrithab=on&fstatus=on&fspecrule=on&finvpop=o
n&fgroup=on&ffamily=on&header=Listed+Plants .
The Florida state lists of protected plants, which are designated Endangered, Threatened,
and Commercially Exploited, are administered and maintained by the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants/Endangered-Threatened-and-Commercially-Exploited-Plants-of-
Florida .
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON
NAME
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
STATUS BCI PARCELS
AREA FDA FWS
Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis CE n/a 2
Common wild
pine
Tillandsia
fasciculata E n/a 1 & 2
Inflated wild
pine
Tillandsia
balbisiana T n/a 1 & 2
E=Endangered, T=Threatened, CE=Commercially Exploited
Listed Wildlife Species: Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the FWS
with specific authority published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed
on-line at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ . FWC maintains the Florida state list of
protected wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005,
respectively, of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
A list of protected Florida wildlife species (updated 2017) can be viewed at:
http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened-endangered-species.pdf .
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 19 of 59
The following listed species have been observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS BCI
PARCELS
AREA
FWC USFWS
Florida panther* Felis concolor coryi FE E 1 & 2
Florida sandhill
crane**
Grus acnadensis
pratensis ST n/a 1
Little blue heron*** Egretta caerulea ST n/a 1 & 2
Roseate spoonbill** Platalea ajaja ST n/a 2
Woodstork** Mycteria americana FT E 2
E-Endangered; FE-Federally Designated Endangered; FT-Federally Designated Threatened; ST-State
Threatened; SSC-Species of Special Concern
*FWC Telemetry
**County staff
***Wilson Miller 2009 Listed Species Survey
Potential Listed Species: The observed habitat and location would support the presence
of the following listed species: All of the species listed in the table above adding Snail kite
(Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) (FE); Osprey (Pandion halietus) (SSC), and Audubon’s
crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii) (FT).
Non-listed species observed and potential: Staff observed the following non-listed
species: Florida white-tailed deer, wild turkey, hogs, swallowtail kite, red-shoulder hawk,
great blue heron, alligators and belted kingfisher. Potential non-listed species include:
Florida black bear, a managed species in Florida, bobcat and numerous species of wading
birds.
Bird Rookery observed? No bird rookery was observed.
Biodiversity, Connectivity, Restoration potential, and ecological quality: Both areas 1
and 2 are mapped by Florida Natural Areas Inventory and University of Florida’s Critical
Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4) as within the highest priority lands for
biodiversity (Exhibit K). These parcels are also within lands identified by FWC as a priority
habitat zone for protection of the Florida Panther (Exhibit O). Area 1 is directly connected
to the Pepper Ranch Preserve (County Conservation lands) and Area 2 is connected through
Area 1. Connectivity in this area includes existing SSA #13, the Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed, state lands, and Audubon lands. Restoration potential is good
because these are functioning natural wetlands without topographical alterations.
Restoration would primarily consist of removal of invasive exotic plants. Currently, Area
1 (and Area 2 in dry season) are used for a leased cattle operation. The presence of cattle
and invasive exotic plants affects ecological quality, though if acquired, staff would likely
continue use of the property for a cattle lease until active restoration of pasture areas can
be planned.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 20 of 59
Statement for satisfaction of criteria: Both Area 1 and Area 2 offer significant biological
values, listed species habitat, restoration potential and moderate to high ecological quality.
Staff observations and species surveys performed by Wilson Miller in Feb. 2009 show that
wildlife is present. Both Areas I and 2 are located within FWC Priority Panther Habitat
and are shown as the highest priority lands for biodiversity in the state CLIP4 mapping
layers. Telemetry points and presence of prey species indicate both areas are used by
panthers. Many other native wildlife species have been documented on the parcels. There
is significant restoration potential for pasture lands and for forested areas now impacted by
invasive exotic plants. Area 1 is directly adjacent to significant County, State and private
conservation lands. Acquisition of Area 2 without also acquiring Area 1 would not
provide connectivity with Pepper Ranch Preserve.
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current
conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
Preservation and restoration of these lands would protect the value of the Corkscrew Marsh
and the Camp Keais Strand, functioning as buffer to the 60,000 South Florida Water
Management District conserved lands that include the CREW Marsh wetlands and as
ecological link and corridor for the Camp Keais Strand and other conservation lands to the
south.
6. Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project?
Yes
The CREW Project lands as defined by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, extend from the Corkscrew Marsh area south along the Camp Keais Strand to
the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. This project area (CREW Lands) is #7 out
of 30 on the Florida Forever Partnership and Regional Incentives Projects List.
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or
funding priority for the parcel? Currently, No, due to lack of funding
in the state budget for Florida Forever Program in fiscal year 2017-18 (Personal
Communication with Lynda Godfrey, Bureau Chief, bureau of Real Estate Services,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, December 2017).
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 21 of 59
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance 2002-63, section 5.9:
Hiking: There is significant potential for hiking on this property. Many trails already exist
through forest and pasture lands.
Nature Photography: There is significant potential for nature photography on this parcel.
In addition to the abundant wildlife present, the large size of the property provides natural
vistas of hardwood forests, marshes, and meadows. Wildlife presence would attract nature
photographers.
Bird-watching: Numerous species of birds are present in the marsh area.
Kayaking/Canoeing: There is potential for kayaking and canoeing on Lake Trafford,
though the presence of numerous alligators in the lake may make the use of larger types of
boats more advisable.
Swimming: There is little potential for swimming in Lake Trafford. The presence of
alligators would make this activity unadvisable.
Hunting: There is potential for hunting on Area 1. These lands can be added with the
Pepper Ranch Preserve to the existing CREW Wildlife and Environmental Area and
included in the Pepper Ranch Hunt Program. Area 2 is marsh wetlands and would be
inaccessible for parts of the year, but may provide some potential for hunting.
Fishing: There is significant potential for fishing on Lake Trafford. Much of that potential
is still in the future, as the lake is currently undergoing restoration. However, in the past,
Lake Trafford was known for excellent bass fishing. There are plans to restock the lake
with bass as part of restoration efforts.
Horseback trails: There is significant opportunity for equestrian uses during the dry
season.
Recommended Site Improvements:
Trail identification and marking. Possibly an access to lake Trafford can be developed,
though that is likely to be expensive.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 22 of 59
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control, access by the public and maintenance of trails. If acquired, both or either Area 1
and/or Area 2 would be joined to the Pepper Ranch Preserve for management purposes.
Currently, Pepper Ranch Preserve is open to the public on non-hunt weekends between
November and June each year. These are very preliminary estimates; Ordinance 2002-63
requires a formal land management plan be developed for each property acquired by
Conservation Collier.
Exotic, invasive plants present, in order of observed abundance:
Category 1 - Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2017 List: Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), guava (Psidium guajava), Ceasar’s weed (Urena lobata), and tropical
soda apple (Solanum viarum).
Category II - Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2017 List: None were specifically noted.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control:
Initial exotics removal estimated at $192,700 for Area 1 ($820 per acre for 235 acres) and
Area 2 at $655,508 ($820 per acre for 799.4 acres). This estimate is based on the acreage
offered, actual costs for similar work at Pepper Ranch Preserve, and the least expensive
removal method - killing exotics in place. The owner has offered to remove the exotics at
cost.
Costs for ongoing annual maintenance are estimated to be $169 per acre. Area I is upland
and maintenance would be for the total acreage. Annual maintenance for Area 1 is
estimated at $39,715 ($169 X 235 acres). Area II has a large area of fresh water marsh
that appears to be free of exotic infestation. Annual maintenance for Area II is estimated
at $135,099 ($169 X 799.4 acres). These are worst case scenario costs for Area II, as
many acres may not need treatment. Additionally, costs could decrease over time as the
soil seed bank is depleted, but a decrease is not assured.
Public Parking Facility: Public parking facility is not currently contemplated on either
area 1 or Area II. Public parking would be accommodated on the Pepper Ranch Preserve.
Public Access Trails: Rough trails and interior roads to most areas of the property already
exist. Trails will require maintenance. It may be possible to use volunteer labor for some
trail maintenance.
Security and General Maintenance: Area 1 is connected to the Pepper Ranch Preserve
and fenced along its northern boundary. Area II is protected by Area 1 on its northern
boundary, Lake Trafford on its eastern boundary, and surrounded by vast areas of marsh
(Camp Keais Strand) on the southern and western boundaries. The need for additional
fencing has not been evaluated but appears unnecessary. Signs denoting a conservation
area can be placed at intervals along upland area boundaries, if necessary. A routine on-
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 23 of 59
site presence would be ideal, though currently that function is fulfilled by a cattle lease
operation, and that may be continued for the short term if the properties are acquired.
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
* t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Management
Element
Initial Cost Annual Recurring
Costs
Comments
Area 1 Area II Area 1 Area II
Exotics
Control
$192,700
$655,508 $39,715 $135,099 This estimate is based on similar work
done on the adjoining Pepper Ranch
Preserve. Area 1 calculated on 235 acres
for initial @$820 per acre and 235 acres
at $169 per acre for ongoing
maintenance. Area 2 calculated on 799.4
acres of marsh and forested lands.
Initial cost -$820 per acre Recurring
costs – $169 per acre.
Access
Trails
$1,600 $2,250 $1,600 $2,250 Estimated using GIS with simulated trail
for both Areas X $.10 per foot (cost of
fire line mowing). Area 1 = 1,600 ft;
Area II =22,500 ft. Estimate assumes
trails mowed once annually.
Fencing n/a n/a t.b.d.* t.b.d. Fencing is not initially needed as
surrounding wetlands and remote area
protect from casual trespass.
Trash
Removal
n/a n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. Initial solid waste in Area 1 to be
removed by owner. Signs would be
posted for visitors to carry out their own
trash.
Signs $1,200 $1,500 t.b.d. t.b.d Trail signage would be needed. This
estimate considers one $50 sign every
1,000 feet of trail length.
Total $195,500 $659,258 $41,315 $137,349
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 24 of 59
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
Conservation Collier ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida
Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program: Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has
limited funds and is concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list.
This parcel is not inside a Florida Forever priority project boundary. Additionally, the
Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida
Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title
between the programs.
Other Potential Funding Sources: There is potential for utilizing funding donations to
the Conservation Collier program to fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to
the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently
approximately $299,400 in this fund, with $91,000 earmarked for multi-parcel project
properties whose owners have accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 25 of 59
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored the property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit E. This form was revised by the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee A total score of 253 for Area 1 and 197 for Area II,
each out of a possible 400, was achieved. The chart and graph below show a breakdown
of the specific components of these scores.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Area 1
Area II
Figure 7. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Area 1
Area II
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 64 64%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 65 65%
Vulnerability 100 45 45%
Management 100 78 78%
Total Score: 400 253 63%
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 60 60%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 57 57%
Vulnerability 100 0 0%
Management 100 80 80%
Total Score: 400 197 49%
Percent of Maximum Score: 49%
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 26 of 59
Summary of factors contributing to score
Area 1 – 235 acres
Total Score: 253 out of 400 possible points
Ecological: 64 out of 100 possible points
Area 1 scored moderately in this category for several reasons. Although it has 7 native
plant communities, none are the preferred habitats described in the ordinance. However,
additional points were gained as the wetland hardwood forest and freshwater marsh are
mature examples of these type of vegetation community. Acquisition of the parcel would
protect water resources by buffering the Corkscrew Marsh area, Lake Trafford and the
Camp Keais Strand. Moderate to high aquifer recharge is mapped for the Surficial aquifer,
though there is low recharge mapped for the lower Tamiami aquifer. Wetlands exist on
site. Listed and non-listed species of wildlife are present on the parcel. Ecological quality
is high, though marred by exotic plant presence, primarily, but not limited to, Brazilian
pepper. Connectivity exists with Pepper Ranch Preserve lands.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 65 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved in this category primarily because Area 1 has no perimeter
that can be seen by the public. However, it has unpaved access over the Pepper Ranch
Preserve and potentially extensive uses including hunting and water access. It may be
possible to develop a small boat launch and fishing access to Lake Trafford, but this will
be very expensive to accomplish.
Vulnerability: 45 out of 100 possible points
The parcel achieved a moderate to low score in this category, based on the existing zoning,
which is agricultural with a mobile home overlay allowing development at one unit per
five aces. Owners have indicated they intend to sell only the surface rights to Conservation
Collier, and to retain oil, gas and mineral rights.
Management: 78 out of 100 possible points
A moderate to high score was achieved for management due to several reasons. Minimal
hydrologic changes appear necessary, except possibly some minor re-grading of ditches
out of old farm fields, though possibly not needed to sustain overall site characteristics.
Exotic plants are present on between 15% and 25% of the entire site, with some localized
areas of infestation to 75%. Brazilian pepper was observed growing along most forest
edges, and young Brazilian peppers were observed to be scattered within those forested
areas examined. Existing trails would require maintenance.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on
comparative size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This parcel by itself is of
moderate size (235 ac) but added with Area 2 (799.4), it is significant. It is similar to but
smaller than the Half Circle L Ranch property and similar to but larger than the Barron
Collier Partnership LLLP Sanitation/Bethune Road parcels.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 27 of 59
Area II – 799.4 acres
Total Score: 197 out of 400 possible points
Ecological: 60 out of 100 possible points
Area II scored moderately in this category for several reasons. The property does not have
the preferred habitats described in the ordinance; however, it gained points as it contains 8
FLUCCS habitat types, has mature vegetation and contains native orchids (Habernaria sp).
Acquisition of the parcel would protect water resources by buffering the Camp Keais
Strand, Corkscrew Marsh and Lake Trafford. The site contains 97% wetland soils and
wetland habitat for wetland dependent wildlife species. Moderate to high annual aquifer
recharge (43” - <56”) is mapped for the Surficial aquifer, while low annual recharge (0-
<7”) is mapped for the Lower Tamiami aquifer. Listed and non-listed species of wildlife
and listed plant species are present on the parcel, both observed and documented.
Ecological quality is high, though marred by presence of Brazilian pepper on forest edges
and within pastures.
Human Values/Aesthetics: 57 out of 100 possible points
A moderate score was achieved in this category because Area II is not immediately
adjoining conservation land, though if Area 1 is acquired, it will be adjoining. Should the
only Area 2 be acquired, there is no established access through Area I. A small portion of
Area II is connected to Lake Trafford and could provide boat launch and fishing access,
but developing these will be expensive. The site also contains a known archeological site.
Points were lost because the property is not visible from a public roadway.
Vulnerability: 0 out of 100 possible points
The parcel achieved no points because its zoning classification favors conservation under
Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) #13. Owners have indicated they intend to sever
stewardship credits and offer only the remaining surface rights to Conservation
Collier, retaining the oil, gas and mineral rights.
Management: 80 out of 100 possible points
A moderate to high score was achieved for management due to several reasons. Exotic
plants are present on between 15% and 25% of the entire site, with some localized areas of
infestation to 75%. Brazilian pepper was observed growing along most forest edges, and
young Brazilian peppers were observed to be scattered within those forested areas
examined. Existing trails would require maintenance. The owner has offered to remove
exotics at cost.
Parcel Size: While parcel size was not scored, the ordinance advises that based on comparative
size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This parcel is of significant size and larger than most
offered to Conservation Collier. It is similar to but smaller than the Half Circle L Ranch and similar
to but larger than the Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Sanitation/Bethune Road properties.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 28 of 59
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 29 of 59
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 30 of 59
Exhibit C. Wellfield protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 31 of 59
Exhibit D. Zoning Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 32 of 59
Exhibit E. Historical Aerials – 2017 and 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser)
1940
2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 33 of 59
Exhibit F. Flood Zone Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 34 of 59
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 35 of 59
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 36 of 59
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 37 of 59
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 38 of 59
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 39 of 59
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 40 of 59
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 41 of 59
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 42 of 59
Exhibit O. USFWS Listed Species Consultation and Focal Areas
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 43 of 59
Exhibit P. Oil and Gas Map
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Program Maps, Interactive
map – Oil and Gas. Source: https://ca.dep.state.fl.us/mapdirect/?focus=oilandgas
Permit #1208, shown as
a “dry hole.”
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 44 of 59
Exhibit Q. 2011 Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 45 of 59
Exhibit R. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 1
Property Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Area 1 - 235
acres
Folio Numbers: Parts of 00113760004, 00113840005, and
00113880007
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
portion in Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) -
Habitat Stewardship Area
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline) 30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
FLUCCS 4340 Hardwood-conifer mixed; 2130 Woodland
pasture; 4200 Upland hardwood forests; 4280 Cabbage palms;
6216 Cypress; 6172 Mixed wetland harwoods-shrubs
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
None listed by FNA higher than S4=Apparently secure
statewide, may be rare in some part so of range
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc. 5 5
mature example of wetland hardwood forest and freshwater
marsh
1.A. Total 100 15
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
GIS maps show this property contributes primarily to the
surficial aquifer is 43" to <56" annually; contribution to Lower
Tamiami mapped at 0-<7" annually.
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal loca 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75 75
Parcel buffers Camp Keais Strand and a small portion of Lake
Trafford
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25
Wetlands exist on site - approx. 60 % of site contains wetland
forest
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 0
b. Slough Soils 40 8 Area 1 has 20% Hydric Soils
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20
Pasture areas and some forest are covered with water in wet
season
Subtotal 300 178
1.B Total 100 59 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100 100 Area has 7 FLUCCS vegetation communities
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 46 of 59
Exhibit R. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 1, Cont’d
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored. Woodstork, Little Blue heron, Roseate Spoonbill,
Sandhill crane
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by 70 Provide documentation source -
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 poi 20 20 Tillandsia fasciculata, T. balbisiana
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography. 50 50
Exotics 10-24% on 138 acres and between 25-75% in other
areas. General global observation - 15% or slightly more.
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function. 15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 250
1.C Total 100 83 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement. 100 100 Adjoining south of Pepper Ranch Preserve
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped. 50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 64
Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 75 Parcel has access through Pepper Ranch Preserve
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easem 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing. 100 100
Small portion borders Lake Trafford. Though not appropriate for
swimming, a boat launch, fishing, hiking, nature photography,
bird watching, and hunting are possible uses, but may be
expensive to accomplish.
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography. 75
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 0
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare.
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic mature oak groves, wildflowers
Subtotal 300 195
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 65 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 47 of 59
Exhibit R. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 1, Cont’d
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or comme 50
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45 45 A-MHO-RLSAO
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 un 40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 45
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75 75
some old farm ditches exist. They may interfere with hydrology
minimally but likley do not need to be removed.
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 75
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80
Exotics are estimated at 10-24% in Area 1 with some areas at
25% - 75%.
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle) -20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 80
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Parcel contains trails that would require maintenance and fire
may not be appropriate in the hardwood forests, but would be
fine on the pastures.
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 20 Owner has offered to remove exotics at cost.
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 78 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 253
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 48 of 59
Exhibit S. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 2
Property Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP
Folio Numbers: Parts of 00113760004, 00113840005 and
00113880007
799.4 acres - Area II
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
Rural Lands Stewardship Area - Habitat
Stewardship/Flowway Stewardship Areas
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline) 30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
FLUCCS 6170 Mixed wetland hardwoods; 6410 Freshwater
westlands; 4280 Cabbage palm; 6440 emergent aquatic
vegetation; 6216 Cypress; 4340 hardwood-conifer mixed; 6172
Mixed wetland hardwoods-shrubs; 6210 Cypress
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc. 5 5 Mature vegetation, orchids (Habernaria species)
1.A. Total 100 15
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
Mapped as contributing primarily to surficial aquifer - 43" to <56"
annually
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal loca 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75 75
Lake Trafford is just to the east and parcel is surrounded by
Camp Keais Strand marsh wetlands
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25
Site is almost entirely wetlands based on plants, soils presence
of standing groundwater
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 37 Depressional soil types make up 46% of Area II
b. Slough Soils 40 21 Slough soil types make up 52% of Area II
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20
Onsite water during wet season has been observed over multiple
years.
Subtotal 300 228
1.B Total 100 76 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100 100 Area II has 8 FLUCCS native plant communities - see above
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 49 of 59
Exhibit S. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 2, cont’d
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Potential Habitat Richness is not
scored. Roseate spoonbills
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by 70 Provide documentation source -FWC Panther Telemetry
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 poi 20 20 Encyclia tampensis, Tillandsia fasciculata, T. balbisiana
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 Removal of exotics and removal of cattle over time
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography. 50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function. 15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 300
1.C Total 100 100 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement. 100
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped. 50 50
Parcel is nearly adjoining Pepper Ranch Preserve, parcel
between this and Pepper Ranch has also been offered - Area 1
(235 acres)
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 50
1. Ecological Total Score 100 60
Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 75 Upaved old oil well road - goes to oil pad
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easem 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing. 100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography. 75 75
hunting, hiking, photography, education, and primitive camping
are possible public uses
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 0
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare.
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic O utstanding Vista views over the
marsh, flowering native plants, and archeological site
Subtotal 300 170
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 57 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 50 of 59
Exhibit S. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form- Area 2, cont’d
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or comme 50
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 un 40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 0 Area is within SSA#13
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 0
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100
No known hydrologic changes necessary to maintain site
characteristics.
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80
WilsonMiller has mapped approx half the 799 acres as having 10-
24% exotics. A small portion (half an acre) is mapped at 25-
49% exotics. Onsite inspections shows significant Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius ) on all forest and pasture edges
and within pasture "islands." Young BP are through out forested
areas examined. Scattered Guava (Psidium cattleianum),
tropical soda apple (Soalnum Viarum) and Ceasar weed (Urena
lobata ) are also present. Wilson Miller's estimates still seem
OK.
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle) -20 -20
BP will require significant removal and maintenance effort and is
within a wetland so must be done by hand.
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 60
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Exotic maintenance necessary in remote location, parcel
contains trails that will require maintenance
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 20 Owner has offered to remove exotics at cost
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10 0 none seen
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 80 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 197
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 51 of 59
Exhibit T. - Photographs
Photo 1. Access point from Pepper Ranch Preserve
Photo 2. Pasture on northern side of Area 1 – March 2009 (Left), February 2018 (Right)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 52 of 59
Photo 3. Habitat type – Palm hammock with scattered oaks - Area 1 - 2009
Photo 4. Improved pasture 2018 - Area 1
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 53 of 59
Photo 5. Forest edge– Brazilian pepper 2018 – Area 1
Photo 6. Area 1 Pasture & forest canopy 2009 - mixed hardwoods and pines
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 54 of 59
Photo 7. Area 1 pasture and oil exploration pad site 2009 (Top in March) and 2018
(Bottom in October)
Photo 8. Area 1 stock pond 2018
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 55 of 59
Photo 9. Area 1 – Deer 2018
Photo 10. Area II – Cabbage palm 2018
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 56 of 59
Photo 11. Area II - existing trails through Area 2 – 2009 (Left), 2018 (Right)
Photo 12. Area II – Edge between forested area and marsh wetlands – March 2009
(Left), February 2018 (Right)
Photo 13. Area II – Marsh overlook February 2018
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 57 of 59
Photo 14. Area II - Hog damage near edge of marsh 2009
Photo 15. Area II – Listed Plant Species
Photo 16. Area II – Listed wildlife Species
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 58 of 59
Photo 17. Area II – Mixed wetland hardwoods with Cabbage palm intrusion
Photo 18. Area II – Native flowering plants - Blue flag Iris – Iris hexagonia
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio: currently undivided portions of 3 folios
Name: Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Date: Revised 10-21-17
Page 59 of 59
Photo 19. Area 2 - Hydrologic indicator 2018 – flared trunk with watermark at 18 inches
Photo 20. Area 1 2018 Woodland pasture (along fence with Conservation Collier lands to
the left
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Update 2018
Property Name: North Golden Gate Estates - Unit 53 a.k.a Red Maple Swamp
Multi-parcel Project
Currently offered properties:
Staff Report Date: March 12, 2018
Thurston – 39491680000 – 1.14 acres
Celsnak – 39492560006 – 2.73 acres
Romak – 39493520003 – 1.14 acres
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 2 of 50
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 5
Figure 1. Location Map .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. County Watershed Boundaries ...................................................................... 12
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ..................... 16
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 17
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 20
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 21
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring .......................................................... 21
Summary of factors contributing to score ..................................................................... 22
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 23
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 24
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps ..................................... 25
Exhibit D. Zoning map ............................................................................................... 26
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser) .................................. 27
Exhibit F. FEMA Flood Zones Map ............................................................................. 28
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 29
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map .......................................................... 30
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map ................................................................... 31
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map .................................................. 32
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map ............................................................................. 33
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ....................................................... 34
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map ..................................... 35
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map ........................................ 36
Exhibit O. FWC and USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps ..... 37
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 38
Exhibit Q. Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List Approved by The Board of County
Commissioners January 25, 2011 ................................................................................. 40
Exhibit R. Photographs ................................................................................................ 42
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 3 of 50
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This updated Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the
Conservation Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle for purposes of the Conservation
Collier Program. It provides an update to the ICSR that was prepared for this property in
2003 demonstrating how this property meet the criteria as defined by the ordinance
(2002-63, as amended). That is the sole purpose for this report and it is not meant for
any other use. This property was categorized as an “A” List property (Exhibit Q) on
January 25, 2011, by the Board of County Commissioners. This update simply uses more
updated metrics.
One of the updates is to make use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
and University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4).
CLIP4 is a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of
natural resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the
Florida Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and
Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate
properties for acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data
layers which are representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface
water, groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
Biodiversity
Surface Water Priorities
Landscape Integrity
Priority Natural Communities
Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Additional updated metrics are FLUCCS code GIS layers and sources for listed species
plants and animals and updated state and federal protected species lists.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 4 of 50
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property to
describe how the property meets each Program criteria in its various physical characteristics
and to provide other general property information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Three Properties currently
offered
Celsnak – 2.73 acres
Romak 1.14 acres
Thurston – 1.14 acres
Folio Number Celsnak-39492560006
Romak – 39493520003
Thurston - 39491680000
2.73 acres
1.14 acres
1.14 acres
Size The Red Maple Swamp
multi-parcel project
incorporates 105 parcel and
305.69 acres.
Currently acquired are 75 parcels
totaling 209.11 acres – or 68%.
Zoning Category Estates (single family) n/a
Existing structures none No building permits issued in entire
unit as of 2/21/18
Adjoining properties
and their Uses
All adjoining properties are
vacant and undeveloped
n/a
Development Plans
Submitted
none A review of Citiview planning and
development software finds no
building permits associated within
NGGE Unit53/Red Maple Swamp
Known Property
Irregularities
Current use
Historic use
There is one parcel, not contiguous
with the subject parcels, where
livestock are present. There is
possibly a hunting camp on another
parcel. No building except one
fence permit.
The center of the 1/3 unit (approx.
100 acres) was historically cleared
and farmed (until late 1960s)
Other Dept. interest Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation, Environmental
Services, Housing, Coastal
systems, Zoning/Planning,
Engineering
No other County Departments have
expressed interest in this area
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 5 of 50
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
Values have been calculated based on acquisition of each separate parcel.
The interest being appraised for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site,
and the value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of
market data. A market study was performed on NGGE Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp in
July 2017 using 2 independent appraisal firms routinely contracted by Collier County.
Each property falls into the category of below $500,000 and therefore, pursuant to the
Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one appraisal is required for each parcel. The
entire area was appraised as one project to save time and money. Therefore, two
independent appraisals were secured and the offer amount for each is the average of the
two values or $5,750 per acre.
Assessed Value: *
Celsnak – Folio # 39492560006 – 2.73 acres - $21,431
Romak – Folio # 39493520003 – 1.14 acres - $8,949
Thurston – Folio # 39493520003 – 1.14 acres - $8,949
Market Value: **
Celsnak – Folio # 39492560006 – 2.73 acres - $15,698
Romak – Folio # 39493520003 – 1.14 acres - $6,555
Thurston – Folio # 39493520003 – 1.14 acres - $6,555
Total $28,808
“ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE” IS SOLELY AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE
PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY REAL ESTATE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY
ENTITY.
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning for these and all parcels within the Red Maple Swamp multi-parcel project is
Estates (E). The purpose and intent of the estates district “E” is to provide lands for low
density residential development in a semi-rural to rural environment, with limited
agricultural activities. In addition to low density residential development with limited
agricultural activities, the E district is also designed to accommodate as conditional uses,
development that provides services for and is compatible with the low density residential,
semi-rural and rural character of the E district. There are no zoning overlays covering the
Red Maple Swamp/NGGE Unit 53 multi-parcel project.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Market values are the average of values provided by a Market Study from two
independent appraisers, performed in July 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 6 of 50
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 7 of 50
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 8 of 50
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 9 of 50
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
Collier County Environmental Resources Department staff conducted a site visit on
August 22, 2003, and following project approval, approximately 4-5 times annually
through 2017. Material for this update was gathered by examining the Project site
management log and photographs taken throughout the tome this project has been in
existence. No additional site visit was made for this report.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA - Yes
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the
property? Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a)
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. High marsh (saline) No
vii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
viii. Other native habitats Yes
Vegetative Communities:
The following identifies what native plant communities were observed: Red maple (Acer
rubrum) and cypress (Taxodium distichum) swamp with willow (Salix spp.), bay (Persea
spp.), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) scattered
throughout. Unit 53 is an excellent example of a wetland hardwood forest community
and contains many mature red maples in areas outside of those historically farmed.
Even farmed areas show significant red maple re-growth.
FLUCCS:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) and field
verification of same. The electronic database identified:
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods 50%
6172 – Mixed wetland hardwoods – shrubs – 30%
6210 – Cypress – 10%
Staff observed:
6170 – Mixed wetland hardwoods. This differentiation was made between this
FLUCCs code and 6172 (Mixed wetland hardwoods- where no species achieves
dominance) because there is a clear dominance by red maple, with secondary
dominance by cypress.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 10 of 50
Characterization of Plant Communities present:
Ground Cover: Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), Wild coco orchid (Eulophia
alta), saltbush (Bacharris halimifolia), Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginica),
Broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata),
sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), False
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), rushes (Juncus ssp.), and royal fern (Osmunda
regalis).
Midstory: The Midstory includes wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saltbush,
cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), bay (Persea sp.), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine)
swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina), and willow (Salix. Sp.).
Canopy: The canopy is primarily composed of red maple (Acer rubrum) and
cypress (Taxodium distichum). Additional canopy plants include bay (Persea
sp.), pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto).
All portions of Red Maple Swamp are invaded by exotic plant species. The percent
coverage was estimated at 25% in 2004. Since then, in most areas, the percent coverage
seen has increased to approximately 35-40%, with some areas having lower and higher
concentrations. Primary species observed are Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius),
creeping signalgrass (Urochloa plantaginea), air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) and old
world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), with an increase in all species.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data confirm that a native plant community of mixed wetland hardwoods exists
over the project area and is persisting despite increasing invasion by exotic plant species.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) Yes
A Phase 1 Site Assessment done by the Pollution Control & Prevention Department was
performed in December 2004 and found no evidence of recognized environmental
conditions on the project site. As a result, there was no objection to the acquisition of
these properties with the stipulation that the County be given adequate indemnification
that it will be held harmless against any contamination which may have occurred prior to
acquisition. Indemnification language regarding environmental contamination is in the
standard agreements.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These parcels are in a Target Protection Area, the Golden Gate Estates subdivision.
Unpaved roads exist, as the property was platted for single-family residential
development. The project is located approximately 3 miles north of the Rivers Road
Preserve and 5 miles west of the Winchester Head multi-parcel project (Figure 1). Lime
rock roads provide access to the area, though it somewhat seasonal access, as the roads
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 11 of 50
can be flooded and inaccessible at the western end of the unit during rainy season. Future
parking may be along the road, as all parcels are considered wetland and a parking area
might not be permitted. Visitors can park at the Bird Rookery Swamp parking area on
South Florida Water Management District (District) property, where future plans are to
connect seasonal trails on Red Maple Swamp Preserve with the District’s 12 miles of
existing trails (Figure 3).
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) Yes
Hydrological Characteristics:
Groundwater:
Staff has observed water flowing southward over the surface of the landscape and across
the unpaved roads. Older aerials show that the center of the unit (approximately 100
acres representing 1/3 of the area) was cleared for farming, indicating that, historically, at
least this portion of the unit was likely seasonally flooded. Summer site visits show
flooded conditions with healthy cabbage palms growing in 12-inches of water indicating
flooding remains seasonal. The abundance of obligate (OBL) and facultative/wet
(FACW) wetland plants, including Juncus spp., Sagittaria spp., Swamp fern (Blechnum
serulatum), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), observed indicates the area remains moist even
during the dry season.
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
OBL FACW
Cypress (Taxodium distichum) Wild coco (Eulophia alta)
Bay (Persea sp.) Buttonweed (Diodia virginica)
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis)
Broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)
Willow (Salix sp.)
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)
Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense)
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Swamp dogwood (Cornus foemina)
Rush (Juncus ssp.)
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed: Wetland dependent bird species have
been observed regularly at the Red Maple Swamp Preserve. Species seen include wood
storks (Mycteria Americana), little blue herons (Egretta caerula), snowy egrets (Egretta
thula), white ibis (Eudocemus alba), and red shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus).
Aquifer Recharge Potential:
Aquifer recharge map data was developed by Fairbank, P. and S. Hohner in 1995 and
published as Mapping recharge (infiltration and leakage) throughout the South Florida
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 12 of 50
Water Management District, Technical publication 95-20 (DRE # 327), South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Most people in Collier County
get their drinking water from the surficial aquifer, but many also have wells to the Lower
Tamiami aquifer, a slightly deeper but connected aquifer. This property lies within
Golden Gate Naples Bay watershed (Figure 4), with groundwater flowing from the north
east to the southwest.
Figure 4. County Watershed Boundaries
Recharge capacity for the entire Golden Gate Estates Unit 53 is moderate to high -
between 7 and 14 inches per year.
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity: The mapped Lower Tamiami aquifer
recharge is moderate at 7” to <14” annually. Protection of this site in an
undeveloped state will help to protect the Lower Tamiami aquifer (Exhibit C).
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity: The mapped surficial aquifer recharge
for this project is high at 56” to 67” annually. They lie near the edge of the
mapped area, with the nearby zone mapped at 43” to < 56” annually. These
parcels contribute significantly to the surficial aquifer (Exhibit C).
Wellfield Protection: The closest wellfield and wellfield protection zones are 1.5
miles to the southeast. There is also wellfield 3 miles to the southwest. This
project area does not intersect with any of the wellfield protection zones (Exhibit
C).
FEMA Flood map designation: The property is currently within Flood Zone AH
(Exhibit F). The AH zone designation indicates the property is subject to inundation of
by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event where average depths are 1-3 feet, and where
base flood elevations, flood insurance and floodplain management standards apply.
Soils:
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 13 of 50
Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (USDA/NRCS,
1990).
Mapped soils on this parcel include, in order from larger to smaller area covered:
Soil Number and Name Acres Soil Type
25 Boca, Rivera, Limestone Sub, & Copeland FS 230 Depressional
27 Holopaw Fine Sand 74Hydric, slough
21 Boca fine sand 2 Upland with seasonal wetness
Areas having Boca, Riviera etc., soils are typically cypress swamps and marshes. Natural
vegetation includes cypress, pickerelweed, rushes, alligator flag, saw grass and willow.
These soils generally indicate a collecting basin for the area and have standing water for
at least six months out of the year.
In areas of Holopaw Fine Sands, the water table is typically within a depth of twelve
inches of the surface for three to six months of the year. In very dry times, surface water
can recede to a depth of 40 inches. During wet periods, the soil can be covered by
shallow, slow moving water for about seven days. The natural vegetation consists of
slash pine, cypress, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, wax myrtle and grasses. The historically
100-acre farmed area was entirely on Holopaw Fine Sands.
Boca fine Sand is considered an upland soil type but is also poorly drained and prone to
seasonal droughtiness and wetness. Typical vegetation on this soil type is slash pine,
cabbage palm, palmetto, wax myrtle and grasses. The vegetation here is mixed wetland
forest, like the rest of this area.
Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including aquifer
recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species habitat, and
flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c)
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
This project is entirely wetlands, based on observed seasonal groundwater presence,
mapped soils (Exhibit B), aquifer recharge rates (Exhibit C) and vegetation (Exhibit A).
This project area additionally satisfies the initial criteria relating to potential for flood
control, as slough and depressional soils may be expected to hold and channel
groundwater and floodwater away from surrounding developed properties. These
properties provide forage for wetland dependent bird species, as numerous white ibis
(Eudocimus albus), wood storks (Mycteria Americana), great blue herons (Ardea
Herodias), and various other wading birds have been observed during site visits. The
project is not within a wellfield protection zone and opportunities for water quality
enhancement are minimal, as the Red Maple Swamp Preserve area is in the upper reaches
of the Golden Gate Naples Bay watershed (Figure 4).
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d)
Yes
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 14 of 50
The CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness layer (Exhibit L) identifies between five and
thirteen vertebrate species mapped as potentially using this area. Thirteen vertebrate
species is the highest number mapped.
Listed Plant Species:
The federal authority to protect land-based plant species is administered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and published in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 23.
Lists of protected plants can be viewed on-line at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
The Florida state lists of protected plants are administered and maintained by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS) via chapter 5B-40, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This list of plants can be viewed from a link provided at
http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-
Services/Bureau-of-Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-
Endangered-Plants.
The following listed plant species were observed:
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DOACS FWS
Common wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata En/a
Royal fern Osmunda regalis CE n/a
Pine pink orchid Bletia purpurea Tn/a
E=Endangered, T=Threatened, CE=Commercially Exploited
Listed Wildlife Species:
Federal wildlife species protection is administered by the USFWS with specific authority
published in 50 CFR 17. Lists of protected wildlife can be viewed on-line at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. FWC maintains the Florida state list of protected
wildlife in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005,
respectively, of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
A list of protected Florida wildlife species can be viewed at:
http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/.
The only listed wildlife species observed has been wood storks (Mycteria Americana)
and little blue herons (Egretta caerula) feeding in the canal along Shady Hollow Blvd.,
however, bear scat and deer have been observed throughout the years Conservation
Collier has been visiting the area and the entire project area is within FWC Priority One
panther habitat (Exhibit O). FWC panther telemetry shows panthers using the property in
2001 and 2002, however, there are a significant number of panthers that are not fitted
with telemetry collars and panthers likely utilize the property, based on the presence of
game species.
Potential Listed Species:
According to the USFWS IPaC Information for Planning and Consulting website
(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) , the following listed species could potentially occur:
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 15 of 50
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
State Federal
Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus FE E
Florida panther Puma concolor coryiFEE
Everglades snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FE E
FE-Federally Endangered, E-Endangered
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data confirm that this parcel satisfies the initial criteria relating to listed species,
though only minimally directly observed. Listed wetland dependent birds, including
wood storks, snowy egrets, ibis and little blue herons have been observed during site
visits to this area throughout the years. The entire unit is considered part of Primary
Zone panther habitat by the FWC. Deer have been observed in the area and Florida Black
bears are known to inhabit adjoining public lands. The CLIP4 Biodiversity map layer
(Exhibit K) identifies the area of the project lands as priority one – the highest priority –
and the area is within FWC Priority One panther habitat (Exhibit O).
The ecological value of the parcel is related to its wetland characteristics and location in
relation with surrounding wetland conservation lands. Restoration potential is high, as
there has been no development in the unit. The CLIP4 Aggregated Conservation
Priorities map (Exhibit N) identified this area as the highest conservation priority.
Connectivity is discussed in Criteria #5
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
Red Maple Swamp is connected on its north and west sides with the 60,000 acre Florida
Forever Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Project, which includes
Corkscrew Marsh, Bird Rookery Swamp, Flint Pen Strand and Audubon’s Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary. Through them, Red Maple Swamp connects with the Pepper Ranch
and Caracara Prairie Preserves, private mitigation lands and lands protected under the
County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Program. Conservation Collier acquisitions within
NGGE Unit 53 would enhance, protect, and buffer these already conserved lands (Figure
3).
6. Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project?
No
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel?
N/A
Without such funding circumstances, Conservation Collier funds shall not be available for purchase of these lands. Ord. 2002-63,
Sec. 10 (1)(f)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 16 of 50
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance 2002-63, section 5.9:
Hiking: Hiking could be done in the dry season and a trails connection could be made
with surrounding CREW lands.
Nature Photography: Nature photography would be a likely use.
Bird-watching: Bird watching would be a likely use.
Kayaking/Canoeing: No water bodies are available for canoeing and kayaking.
Swimming: No water bodies are available for swimming.
Hunting: Hunting could be an appropriate use and is allowed on nearby CREW Wildlife
and Environmental Area (WEA) lands between July and the following June. Hunting
includes limited quotas for deer, turkey, and small game animals. There is no limit on
hogs.
Fishing: No opportunity for fishing exists.
Recommended Site Improvements:
Grade unpaved roads back to surface grade and reduce existing roads to trails. Provide a
seasonal trail that travels through forested areas from Shady Hollow Blvd to 41st St NE
and back. Look for an appropriate place to develop a small parking area and trailhead, or
lacking suitable uplands, work with SFWMD to share existing parking for Bird Rookery
Swamp boardwalk and trail system.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 17 of 50
Photo taken March 18, 2015
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal and
control. The following assessment addresses both the initial and recurring costs of
management. Costs provided are actual costs incurred by Conservation Collier between
2013 and 2017.
Exotic, Invasive Plants:
Exotic invasive plants observed on project lands include Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius) Climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), creeping signalgrass (Urochloa
plantaginea) and Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera). The Brazilian pepper is heaviest
along the roadways and in the 100-acre area previously cleared for agriculture and now
overgrown with vegetation. In the previously farmed areas, a monoculture of mature
Brazilian pepper with a fern understory was observed. Climbing fern was observed in
large patches in the natural sections of the project, and appears to be gaining a significant
foothold in the area. Air potato was observed in the tree canopy on the east side of the
unit. No other invasive exotics were observed, but it is likely that others are present.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
In 2003, staff estimated that initial removal costs would likely range from $150 per hour
to $600 per hour for the initially offered 21 acres (10 parcels). Costs for follow-up
maintenance, were estimated at between $100 and $450 per acre, per year. Control of
both air potato and climbing fern were problematic, as air potato tubers continue to sprout
until bulbils are gone and climbing fern spreads by airborne (and possibly waterborne)
spoors. Actual costs for the initial treatment of 53 acres on the west side of the project in
2014 were $120 per acre, for a total of $6,455 for the 53-acre area. Follow-up treatment
in 2015 was $118 per acre ($6,300), and in 2016 was $146 per acre ($7,749). This area
was not treated in 2017. Therefore, the value of $146 per acre is considered a current
actual cost.
Exotic wildlife:
In March 2015, a Tegu lizard was photographed crossing
Shady Hollow Blvd. A subsequent survey was performed
during a volunteer workday of the area by the Southwest
Florida Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area
(CISMA) group. No tegus were observed, but it is likely they
are there.
Public Parking Facility:
The property would not require an area for visitor parking now, as not enough parcels
would be acquired to provide a resource destination.
Public Access Trails:
Construction of trails would also not be feasible now.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 18 of 50
Security and General Maintenance:
At this time, staff has been advised that ATV riders use the unit, apparently accessing it
by 41st and 43rd Avenues NW and trails cut through some properties, though staff did
not directly observe this. Properties would need to be posted with signs and
arrangements made for law enforcement to occasionally visit and monitor activities,
though fencing these properties does not seem an efficient use of resources until a larger
contiguous group of parcels could be acquired.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 19 of 50
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost Annual
Recurring Costs
Comments
Exotics Control $44,630 $44,630 In-place chemical
treatment - $146 per acre
for initial and
maintenance events.
Costs calculated for
entire 305.69 acres and
on treating every acre.
Parking Facility Not at this time
Access Trails t.b.d.
Fencing Not at this time
Signs $100 each 3’ X 1.5 metal sign on
post
Basic Maintenance /
Trash Removal
t.b.d. t.b.d Community Service
available
*Total $44,630 $44,630
t.b.d. To be determined
Not at this time: Construction of trails, parking and placement of fencing would be best
postponed until more properties are acquired.
*These costs were calculated for the entire project area. Currently, Conservation Collier
has acquired 208 acres, out of which approximately 13 donation acres have been initially
treated by donors with maintenance funds provided for approx. 7 years of treatment each,
and 53 acres that have been treated nearly annually since 2013. Once an area is initially
treated, follow-up maintenance is necessary or exotics will regrow, wasting the initial
investment. No other parcels besides the donation parcels and the western 53 acres are
currently being treated. An additional 5 acres are currently offered for acquisition, but
exotic removal is not planned for them until larger contiguous areas are acquired.
Therefore, the current annual maintenance cost is approximately $9,600.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 20 of 50
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
Conservation Collier ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The
Florida Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as
communicated by agency staff:
Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant
program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program:
Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has limited funds and is
concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list. This parcel is not
inside a Florida Forever priority project boundary. Additionally, the Conservation
Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida Forever Program
due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title between the
programs.
Other Potential Funding Sources:
There is potential for utilizing funding donations to the Conservation Collier program to
fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to the Collier County Land
Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently approximately $133,400 in this
fund, with $105,000 proposed for multi-parcel project properties (Including Red Maple
Swamp and Winchester Head) whose owners have accepted the County’s offers.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 21 of 50
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored this project using the current Secondary Criteria Screening Form and has
attached the scoring form as Exhibit P. A total score of 225 out of a possible 400 was
achieved. The chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of
the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 55 55%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 74 74%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 47 47%
Total Score: 400 225 56%
Percent of Maximum Score: 56%
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 22 of 50
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score 225 out of 400 possible points
Ecological 55 out of 100: This moderate score was achieved because none of the
preferred plant communities from the ordinance were found and diversity of habitats was
low, though the red maple swamp was a fine example of a native habitat. Only a few
listed plant or animal species were directly observed, but more are likely present. Points
were gained for aquifer recharge and because the project site is a wetland, has listed
plants and documentation of listed wildlife and is immediately contiguous to
conservation land. A few points were lost due to significant exotic plant presence.
Human Values/Aesthetics – 74 out of 100: This score was achieved primarily because
the parcels are accessible, even though by unpaved roads, and offer land-based
opportunities for natural resource recreation with an opportunity to connect with existing
12 miles of CREW trails. A few points were gained because native terrestrial orchid
species can be found along the unpaved roads.
Vulnerability – 50 out of 100: These parcels are zoned for Single-family Estates
residences at 1 residence per lot if under 2.5 acres or 1 home per 2.5 acres. The only
thing in the way of developing these lots is their wetland nature. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) wetland determinations map 2016 identifies the entire
NGGE Unit 53 as a wetland.
Management – 47 out of 100: The parcel scored relatively well because even though
there is considerable Brazilian pepper, air potato and Climbing fern present. The type of
exotic management that is most feasible, chemical treatment-in place, is lower in cost
than the cutting, treating and debris removal that would be necessary in more urban lands.
Points were lost because trespass issues exist and use of prescribed fire would not be
advisable in a wetland hardwood forest.
Parcel Size: The entire project size for this multi-parcel project is 305.69 acres. While
property size is not scored, the ordinance advises that based on comparative size, the
larger of similar parcels is preferred. This project is similar to the 158.67-acre
Winchester Head Multi-parcel project and the 192.15-acre Gore project.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 23 of 50
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 24 of 50
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 25 of 50
Exhibit C. Wellfield Protection and Aquifer Recharge Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 26 of 50
Exhibit D. Zoning map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 27 of 50
Exhibit E. Historical Aerials 2017 and 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser)
1940
2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 28 of 50
Exhibit F. FEMA Flood Zones Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 29 of 50
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 30 of 50
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 31 of 50
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 32 of 50
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 33 of 50
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 34 of 50
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 35 of 50
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 36 of 50
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 37 of 50
Exhibit O. FWC and USFWS Listed Species Focal and Consultation Areas Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 38 of 50
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: NGGE Unit 53 aka Red Maple Swamp
Preserve Folio Numbers: numerous
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
NGGE
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline) 30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parc el 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc. 5 5 Mature red maples in areas outside of those historically farmed.
1.A. Total 100 15
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50
Lower Tamimi Recharge is mapped at 7" to <14" annually
(moderate); Surficial aquifer recharge is mapped at 56" to 67"
annually (high)
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal loca 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek ,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25 The entire project site is wetlands
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 20 25% of soils are depressional. 80 X 25% = 20
b. Slough Soils 40 30 75% of soils are slough 40 X 75% = 30
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20
Project area is routinely flooded to the point of water flowing over
the road during rainy season
Subtotal 300 145
1.B Total 100 48 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25 25 6170 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by 70 70
Provide documentation source - FWC panther telemetry 2002
(cat #99) and 2003(cat #92)
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 poi 20 20
Osmunda regalis (ST), Bletia purpurea (ST), and Tillandsia
fasciculata (SE)
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 39 of 50
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography. 50 50
Significant exotic removal work is needed and roads may need
to be graded back to a natural grade
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function. 15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 165
1.C Total 100 55 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement. 100 100 CREW lands to north and west
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped. 50
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 100
1. Ecological Total Score 100 55
Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75 75 Access roads are unpaved lime rock and dirt roads
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easem 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing. 100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography. 75 75
Opportunity to connect with CREW lands & to enhance public
access to those lands
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource bas ed
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare80 51
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. 6 4% of the perimeter can be seen by people
driving the 2 access roads. 80 X 64% = 51
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic Native flowering terrestrial orchids -
Bletia purpurea and Eulophia alta along roadways
Subtotal 300 221
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 74 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 40 of 50
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or comme 50 50 Estates Zoning - single family
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 ac res 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 un 40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 50
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50 50 scrape roadways down to natural ground level
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 50
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 6060
Brazilian pepper, climbing fern, air potato and creeping
signalgrass
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle) -20 -20
There are significant exotics and many areas are hard to access
where machinery is not allowed due to wetlands
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 40
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60 60
Once exotics are removed, maintenance will be moderate but
since it is a wetland, no machinery will be allowed. All work
must be done by hand. Prescribed fire is not appropriate for this
habitat.
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 200
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10 -10
ATVs are used in the area, access is easy and no one is around
- a recipe for dumping.
5.C Total 100 50
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 47 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 225
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 41 of 50
Exhibit Q. Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List Approved by The Board of County
Commissioners January 25, 2011
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 42 of 50
Exhibit R. Photographs
Photo 1. 41st Avenue NW at the beginning of the east end looking
towards the west
Photo 2. The west end of 41st Ave. NW – Water level covering unpaved
roadway. Willow growing in previously cleared and farmed area along
south side of 41st Ave. NW
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 43 of 50
Photo 3. Mature Red Maple forest on east side of GGE Unit 53
Photo 4. Interior of Beardsley parcel (3.79 acres, Tract 43). Water level
is approx 12 inches. Note Cabbage palm growing at right of photo.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 44 of 50
Photo 5. Climbing fern 2003 and 2018
Photo 6. Wild Coco (Eulophia alta) – terrestrial orchid in vegetative
stage, observed on east side. State Threatened.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 45 of 50
Photo 7. Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) observed on east side of GGE
Unit 53. State listed as Commercially Exploited.
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 46 of 50
Photo 8. Mature Dahoon Holly tree on west side of GGE Unit 53, south
of 41st Ave. NW
Photo 9. Air potato in canopy on east side of GGE Unit 53
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 47 of 50
Photo 10. Brazilian pepper along sides of 43rd Ave. NW – at west side of
GGE Unit 53
Photo 11. Center of GGE Unit 53 looking west on 43rd Ave. NW
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 48 of 50
Photo 12. Water flowing over the road surface to the south over 43rd
Ave. NW. Note mature Brazilian pepper canopy. This is on the
previously farmed portion.
Photo 13. Deer along Shady Hollow Drive 2015
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 49 of 50
Photo 14. Entrance to Bird Rookery Swamp parking and Trail 2015
Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio # - Numerous
Name: North Golden Gate Estates – a.k.a. Unit 53/Red Maple Swamp Preserve Date: March 12, 2018
Page 50 of 50
Photo 15. 41st Ave. NW looking west from 9th St. NW 2016, 2017 & 2018
Photo 16. Wildlife markings on cypress 2018
2017
2018
Conservation Collier
Initial Criteria Screening Report
Update 2018
Project Name: Winchester Head Multi-parcel Project
Currently offered properties:
Mejia – 39955400001 - 1.14 acres
Smith – 39958080004 - 1.14 acres
Wallace – 39959720004 - 1.14 acres
Bueno-Costa – 39957760008 - 2.73 acres
Ebanks – 39959800005 - 1.14 acres
Staff Report Date: March 12, 2018
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 2 of 44
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Summary of Property Information ................................................................................. 4
Table 1. Summary of Property Information ................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Location Map.................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Aerial Map ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial .............................................................................. 7
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates .......................................... 8
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics ............................................................................................... 9
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements ..................... 15
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs........................................................... 16
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs ................................. 17
V. Potential for Matching Funds ...................................................................................... 18
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................... 19
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria .................................................. 19
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring.......................................................... 19
Summary of factors contributing to score ..................................................................... 20
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map ............................................................................................. 21
Exhibit B. Soils Map .................................................................................................... 22
Exhibit C. Aquifer Recharge and Wellfield Protection Maps ..................................... 23
Exhibit D. Zoning Map ............................................................................................... 24
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 2017 and 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser) .................. 25
Exhibit F. FEMS Flood Zones map .............................................................................. 26
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map ................................................................................................ 27
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map .......................................................... 28
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map................................................................... 29
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map .................................................. 30
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP2 Map ............................................................................. 31
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map ....................................................... 32
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map ..................................... 33
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map ........................................ 34
Exhibit O. FWC and USFWS Listed Species focal and Consultation Areas ............... 35
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form ...................... 36
Exhibit Q. Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List Approved by The Board of County
Commissioners January 25, 2011 ................................................................................. 39
Exhibit R. Photographs ................................................................................................ 40
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 3 of 44
Introduction
The Conservation Collier Program (Program) is an environmentally sensitive land
acquisition and management program approved by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) in 2002 and by Collier County Voters in 2002 and 2006. The
Program was active in acquisition between 2003 and 2011, under the terms of the
referendum. Between 2011 and 2016, the Program was in management mode. In 2017,
the Collier County Board reauthorized Conservation Collier to seek additional lands
(2/14/17, Agenda Item 11B).
This updated Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the
Conservation Collier Program in its 9th acquisition cycle for purposes of the Conservation
Collier Program. It provides an update to the ICSR that was prepared for this property in
2004 demonstrating how this property meet the criteria as defined by the ordinance
(2002-63, as amended). That is the sole purpose for this report and it is not meant for
any other use. This property has already been categorized as an “A” List property
(Exhibit Q). This update uses more updated metrics.
One of the updated metrics is use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory
and University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4).
CLIP4 is a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of
natural resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the
Florida Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and
Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate
properties for acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data
layers which are representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface
water, groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the
Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation.
Not all CLIP4 Layers were used in this report. Those used include:
• Biodiversity
• Surface Water Priorities
• Landscape Integrity
• Priority Natural Communities
• Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas
• Aggregated Conservation Priorities
Additional updated metrics are FLUCCS code GIS layers and sources for listed species
plants and animals and updated state and federal protected species lists.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 4 of 44
I. Summary of Property Information
The purpose of this section is to provide information concerning the subject property
describing its various physical characteristics and other general information.
Table 1. Summary of Property Information
Characteristic Value Comments
Name Winchester Head 200-acre depressional cypress
and marsh wetland
Folio Number Numerous 114 total parcels
Size 158.67 acres This includes only the project
area, the entire head is approx.
200 acres
Zoning Category Estates (single family) 1 dwelling unit per 2.25 acres
FEMA Flood Map
Category
Existing structures None Both 39th and 37th Ave. NE are
paved
Adjoining properties
and their Uses
Golden Gate Estates
single-family
residential parcels
The property is surrounded
entirely by North Golden Gate
Estates parcels – many of which
have yet to be developed.
Everglades Blvd. is west of the
property and Fakaunion canal is
east of the property.
Development Plans
Submitted
None to date Building permits were issued on
2 parcels and subsequently
cancelled. One other building
permit application was applied
for, but rejected and ultimately
cancelled. DEP has denied a
wetland impact permit in one
case.
Property Irregularities 2 roads cross directly
through the property
37th Ave. NE and 39th Ave. NE
traverse the property east to
west.
Other Division Interest Transportation, Utilities,
Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation,
Environmental Services,
Housing,
None known
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 5 of 44
Figure 1. Location Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 6 of 44
Figure 2. Aerial Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 7 of 44
Figure 3. Surrounding Lands Aerial
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 8 of 44
Summary of Assessed Value and Property Costs Estimates
The interest being appraised for this estimate is fee simple for the purchase of the site,
and the value of this interest is subject to the normal limiting conditions and the quality of
market data. An appraisal of the parcel was estimated using three traditional approaches,
cost, income capitalization and sales comparison. Each is based on the principal that an
informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real
property than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three
properties from within 3 miles of this property were selected for comparison, each with
similar site characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No
inspection was made of the property or comparables used in the report and the appraiser
relied upon information provided by program staff. Conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions
exist. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy one property appraisal would
be required for each parcel.
Assessed Value: *
Mejia – 39955400001 - 1.14 acres - $15,134
Smith – 39958080004 - 1.14 acres - $15,134
Wallace – 39959720004 - 1.14 acres - $15,134
Ebanks – 39959800005 - 1.14 acres - $15,134
Bueno-Costa – 39957760008 - 2.73 acres - $36,241
Market Value: **
Mejia – 39955400001 - 1.14 acres - $14,250
Smith – 39958080004 - 1.14 acres - $14,250
Wallace – 39959720004 - 1.14 acres - $14,250
Ebanks – 39959800005 - 1.14 acres - $14,250
Bueno-Costa – 39957760008 - 2.73 acres - $34,000
Total $91,000
Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays
Zoning for these and all parcels within the Winchester Head multi-parcel project is
Estates (E). The purpose and intent of the estates district “E” is to provide lands for low
density residential development in a semi-rural to rural environment, with limited
agricultural activities. In addition to low density residential development with limited
agricultural activities, the E district is also designed to accommodate as conditional uses,
development that provides services for and is compatible with the low density residential,
semi-rural and rural character of the E district. There are no zoning overlays covering the
Winchester Head multi-parcel project.
* Property Appraiser’s Website
** Market values are the average of values provided by a Market Study from two
independent appraisers, performed in July 2017.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 9 of 44
II. Statement for satisfying Initial Screening Criteria, Including Biological and
Hydrological Characteristics
Collier County Environmental Services Department staff conducted a site visit on May
24, 2004, and following project approval, approximately 4 to 7 times per year through
2017. No site visits have been made yet during 2018.
MEETS INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA Yes
1. Are any of the following unique and endangered plant communities found on the
property? Order of preference as follows: Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(a)
i. Hardwood hammocks No
ii. Xeric oak scrub No
iii. Coastal strand No
iv. Native beach No
v. Xeric pine No
vi. High marsh (saline) No
vii. Tidal freshwater marsh No
viii. Other native habitats Yes
Vegetative Communities:
Staff used two methods to determine native plant communities present; review of South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) electronic databases for Department of
Transportation’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms (FLUCCS) (1994/1995) and field
verification of same.
FLUCCS:
The electronic database identified:
• FLUCCS 6172 – Mixed wetland hardwoods, mixed shrubs
• FLUCCS 6210 – Cypress
• FLUCCS 6410 – Freshwater Marshes - Graminoid
The following native plant communities were observed:
• FLUCCS 6172 - Mixed wetland hardwoods
• FLUCCS 6210 - Cypress
• FLUCCS 6240 - Cypress, Pine, Cabbage Palm (at edges)
• FLUCCS 6410 - Freshwater marsh
Plant Species present:
Ground Cover: Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical),
arrowhead (sagittaria spp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), royal fern (Osmunda
regalis), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), cattail (Typha spp), and numerous species
of native wetland grasses.
Midstory: Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Canopy: Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), Willow (Salix spp.)
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 10 of 44
Roadway edges and the upland areas surrounding the central wetland feature are invaded
by exotic plant species, primarily Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and old
world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum). There are dense patches of old World
climbing fern in parcels along 37th Ave NE on the southwestern side of the project area,
which have been treated since 2016. All donation parcels have been treated initially and
once again as follow-up. The center portions of Winchester Head appear to be in
relatively good condition.
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data confirm that native plant communities exist on the property.
2. Does land offer significant human social values, such as equitable geographic distribution,
appropriate access for nature-based recreation, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of
Collier County? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(b) Yes
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
The entire site is within North Golden Gate Estates, a target protection area. Three
different roads, one of which is paved, can access the site and from these roads half of the
property can be viewed. The mature cypress and seasonally changing marsh enhance the
aesthetic setting of Collier County.
3. Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including
aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species
habitat, and flood control? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(c) Yes
General Hydrologic Characteristics observed and description of adjacent upland
/wetland buffers: The entire site is wetlands and is seasonally flooded. Standing water
was observed throughout the site in mid-March 2004. The site was dry but moist in late
May 2004. High water marks on cypress trees were 2.5 feet above the ground elevation.
The surrounding lands buffering the core parcels appear to be transitional disturbed
wetland communities. Plant communities in transitional edges include the following
species: Bay (Persea spp.), cabbage palm (sabal palmetto), bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), slash pine seedlings (Pinus elliotti) and red maple
(Acer rubrum). Quite a bit of button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and bumelia
(Bumelia spp.) are present within the midstory, along with wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
dogwood (Cornus spp.), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia) and sumac (Rhus copallina).
Ground cover species included: poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), camphor-weed
(Pluchea spp.), finger grass, brake fern (Pteris tripartite), muscadine grape (Vitus
munsoniana), tickseed (Coreopsis spp.), muhly grass (Muhlenbergia capillaries), mist
flower (Conoclinium coelestinum), swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) and beakrush
(Rhynchospora spp.). Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius) were also present within the buffer area.
Wetland dependent plant species (OBL/ FACW) observed:
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 11 of 44
Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) OBL
Cattail (Typha spp) OBL
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) OBL
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) OBL
False nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical) OBL
Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) OBL
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) OBL
Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) OBL
Swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum) FACW
Willow (Salix spp.) OBL
Wetland dependent wildlife species observed:
Crayfish molts and burrows were observed throughout the property. Apple snail shells
were present on the ground, and apple snail eggs were observed on several plants . The
FrogWatch1 network has had volunteers performing monitoring of the Corkscrew Route,
which includes Winchester Head since the early 2000’s. The monitor reported to staff
that during the 2017 season, Winchester Head had a total of 4 species of frogs identified
and this area is consistently more productive than other monitoring stations located in
more developed areas throughout the NGGE. Since 2013, 11 species have been heard,
which is considered a maximum for the local area (Pers. Comm. Maureen Bonness,
Frogwatch, Feb 2018) Wetland dependent species observed include Green tree frog
(Hyla cinerea), swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), red shoulder hawk (Buteo
lineatus), and a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) with nest observed on the project
site in 2016.
Other Hydrologic indicators observed:
Cypress buttressing, algal mats, watermarks and elevated lichen lines on cypress trees
were all present at the site.
Soils:
Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (USDA/NRCS,
1990). Mapped soils within the project area are entirely depressional and include, in
order from larger to smaller area covered, (25) – Boca, Riviera, Limestone Substratum
and Copeland Fine Sand Depressional and (22) – Chobee, Winder and Gator Soils,
Depressional.
Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland fine sands soils are level and very
poorly drained. They are found in depressions, cypress swamps and marshes. Under
natural conditions, these soils are ponded for 6 months or more each year. During the
other months, the water table is within a depth of 12 inches and it recedes to a depth of 12
to 40 inches during extended dry periods. These soils are in landscape positions that act
as collecting basins.
1 FrogWatch is a volunteer group of SW Florida citizens that monitors amphibians
under North American Amphibian Monitoring Program protocols. Website: http://www.frogwatch.net/
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 12 of 44
Chobee, Winder and Gator soils are level, very poorly drained soils found in
depressions and marshes. Under natural conditions, these soils are ponded for 6 months
or more each year during most years. During the other months, the water table is within a
depth of 12 inches and it recedes to a depth of 12 to 40 inches during extended dry
periods. These soils are in landscape positions that act as collecting basins.
Aquifer Recharge:
Lower Tamiami recharge Capacity:
The parcels contribute minimally to the recharge of the Lower Tamiami Aquifer
(0” – 7” annually) (Exhibit C).
Surficial Aquifer Recharge Capacity:
The parcels contribute to the recharge of the Surficial Aquifer (43” - <56”
annually) (Exhibit C).
Wellfield Protection: The Winchester Head project is not within a Wellfield
Protection Zone. The closest wellfield protection zones are approximately 1 mile
south and 2 lies west (Exhibit C).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood map designation: The
center of the project area is currently within Flood Zone AE, which indicates areas
subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood event with no detailed analysis
regarding flood depths done. A mandatory flood insurance requirement exists for this
property, if developed. The outer edges of the property are within Flood Zone AH, which
indicates areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood event with average
depths less than 3 feet (Exhibit F).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
The property is comprised entirely of wetlands, based on mapped soils (Exhibit B),
aquifer recharge rates (Exhibit C) and vegetation (Exhibit A). Evidence onsite and data
from the FrogWatch monitor indicate it is used by wetland dependent species. Wetland
indicators are observed on the project site along with many species of obligate wetland
plants. Although it contributes only minimally to aquifer recharge, the area is a
depressional feature in the landscape that holds water during the rainy season, offering
flood protection to adjacent lands.
4. Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity, listed species
habitat, connectivity, restoration potential and ecological quality? Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(d)
Yes
Listed Plant Species:
Listed plant species include those found on either the Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, December 1999 (FWS) or the Florida
Department of Agriculture, August 1997 (FDA).
The following listed plant species were observed:
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 13 of 44
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
FDA FWS
Reflexed Wild Pine Tillandsia balbisiana T NL
Fuzzy Wuzzy Air Plant Tillandsia pruinosa E NL
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis) C NL
E=Endangered, T=Threatened, C=Commercially Exploited, NL=Not Listed
Listed Wildlife Species:
Listed wildlife species include those found on either the Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, December 1999 (FWS) or the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) (formerly the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission), August 1997 (identified on official lists as GFC).
A Florida panther (cat #231) was tracked on the parcel 4 times by FWC with telemetry in
2014. Winchester Head is within FWC secondary panther habitat (Exhibit O).
No bird rookeries were observed.
Clip4 potential habitat richness score: ranged from 2 – 7 out of a possible 13,
representing average diversity.
Non-listed species observed:
The following non-listed wildlife species were observed during the site visit: Green tree
frog (Hyla cinerea), swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), red shoulder hawk (Buteo
lineatus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus). A bald eagle nest and eagle were observed on the project site in
2016. Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) have been documented along the
edges of the property by FWC.
Potential Listed Species:
The observed habitat and location would support the presence of the following listed
species: American alligator (Alligator misissippiensis) (listed due to similarity of
appearance with the American crocodile), and wood stork (Mycteria Americana). The
project site is within the USFWS consultation areas for Everglades snail kites
(Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) and the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus).
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
These data confirm that this parcel satisfies the initial criteria relating to listed species.
Listed plant species were observed, and a listed wildlife species (Florida panther) was
documented on the project property numerous times in 2014. The project area is within
FWC secondary panther habitat. The project also provides potential habitat for other
listed species. The ecological value of the parcel is related to its wetland characteristics.
Restoration potential is high. Very little management would be required to maintain the
ecological integrity of the site. Connectivity is discussed in Criteria #5.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 14 of 44
5. Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation
lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor?
Ord. 2002-63, Sec. 10 (1)(e) Yes, marginally
Statement for satisfaction of criteria:
The property is not immediately contiguous to conservation land. Parcels in between it
and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge – which is southeast of the property –
are currently undeveloped. CREW lands are closer to the northwest, but are separated
from the property by Immokalee Road.
Is the property within the boundary of another agency’s acquisition project?
No
If yes, will use of Conservation Collier funds leverage a significantly higher rank or funding
priority for the parcel?
N/A
Without such funding circumstances, Conservation Collier funds shall not be available for purchase of these lands. Ord. 2002-63,
Sec. 10 (1)(f)
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 15 of 44
III. Potential for Appropriate Use and Recommended Site Improvements
Potential Uses as Defined in Ordinance 2002-63, section 5.9:
Hiking: Walking along the 37th Ave. NE, 39th Ave. NE and 41st Ave. NE would provide
some limited hiking opportunities. In the future a raised boardwalk could be constructed
through the property beginning in the southwest portion of the project where an upland
lot was donated in 2016 (PNC parcel) that can be used for parking. Although the project
area is dry enough to walk through during the late dry season, trails would not be
recommended due to the damage they may cause to the wetland soils and vegetation.
Nature Photography: Photography is a potential use of the site. The marsh, cypress and
possible wildlife would provide good subjects for photography
Bird-watching: Larger wading birds and soaring birds such as hawks and kites would
most likely be present at this site.
Kayaking/Canoeing: Kayaking/Canoeing would not be recommended at this site.
Swimming: Swimming would not be recommended at this site.
Hunting: Hunting would not be recommended at this site.
Fishing: Fishing would not be recommended at this site.
Recommended Site Improvements:
Invasive exotic vegetation removal and maintenance would be required on the edges of
the property. Possible future improvements may include a raised boardwalk through the
wetland with an observation platform and an educational kiosk at the beginning of the
trail. The boardwalk and platform would be subject to funding availability, permitting
and mitigation requirements. For now, the only site improvement contemplated is
removal of exotic plants.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 16 of 44
IV. Assessment of Management Needs and Costs
Management of this property will address the costs of exotic vegetation removal. The
following assessment addresses both the initial and recurring costs of management.
These are very preliminary estimates; Ordinance 2002-63 requires a formal land
management plan be developed for each property acquired by Conservation Collier.
Exotic, Invasive Plants Present:
Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) are
present around the edges of the entire project area – in a density of approximately 15 –
20%. Lots currently offered for sale may have minimal to no exotics present.
Exotic Vegetation Removal and Control
Exotic control would likely not be cost effective until larger contiguous parcels can be
assembled. Costs for initial removals done in 2014 were $663/acre. Costs for follow-up
annual maintenance were $430 per acre in 2017.
Public Parking Facility:
The property would not require an area for visitor parking at this time, as not enough
parcels are acquired to provide a resource destination. A 1.14-acre upland parcel was
acquired by donation in 2016 at the southwest edge of the project area (PNC parcel).
This parcel can be utilized for a parking area in the future.
Public Access Trails:
Because of the wetland nature of the site, a raised boardwalk would be the best public
access opportunity. Because multiple parcels must be acquired before a raised boardwalk
can be constructed, and funding for a boardwalk has not been secured, the boardwalk
would not be proposed until sometime in the future of the project.
Educational Kiosk
In the future, an educational kiosk could be placed along one of the roads through the
property. It would contain information on wetlands and on the preservation of the area.
Security and General Maintenance:
Signs can be placed at boundaries along 37th and 39th St. NW. Minimal management
activities, like trash removal can be accomplished using both contracted and volunteer
labor.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 17 of 44
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Management Needs and Costs
Management Element Initial Cost for
remaining
parcels
Annual
Recurring
Costs for all
parcels*
Comments
Exotics Control $33,100 $21,500 $663 per acre for initial
removals for approx. 1/3
(approx.. 50 acres) of the
parcels - around the edge.
Interior parcels have few
exotics. $430 per acre for
ongoing. Costs from recent
exotic removals.
Raised boardwalk t.b.d. t.b.d. Would not be constructed for
several years. Costs for
constructing the Gordon River
Greenway boardwalk were
$300 per linear foot.
Trash Removal t.b.d. t.b.d. Large items to be done on a
lump sum contract basis with
cost being site specific.
Staff does not recommend
providing trash barrels at this
time.
Signs $1,600 n/a 2 conservation area &
prohibited activities signs
($800 each)
Educational kiosk $34,700 $21,500 Very rough cost estimate
Total
*Once all parcels have been acquired. Current annual maintenance funding for
Winchester Head is $10,400. Funds of approximately $4,000 per acre were donated for
management of each of 7 parcels acquired by donation under the Land Development
Code (LDC) offsite preservation option.
t.b.d. To be determined; cost estimates have not been finalized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 18 of 44
V. Potential for Matching Funds
The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the
ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), and The Florida Forever Program.
The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as communicated by agency
staff:
Florida Communities Trust (FCT) - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant
program:
Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from
the time of acquisition. The Florida Legislature appropriated $10 million in Florida
Forever funding in fiscal year 2016-17 to FCT. Funding has not been awarded for this
cycle. There is currently no funding available until the Florida Legislature determines the
2017-18 budget.
Florida Forever Program:
Staff has been advised that the Florida Forever Program has limited funds and is
concentrating on parcels already included on its ranked priority list. This parcel is within
a Florida Forever priority project boundary, however, staff communications with the
Division of State Lands have determined that money is not available for this project now.
Additionally, the Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering
with the Florida Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues
regarding joint title between the governmental entities. The County Attorney has advised
against a partnership unless there is a shared title arrangement.
Other Potential Funding Sources:
There is potential for utilizing funding donations to the Conservation Collier program to
fulfill requirements for off-site preserves pursuant to the Collier County Land
Development Code, Section 3.05.07. There is currently approximately $133,000 in this
fund for Multi-parcel Project acquisitions. Applications are currently submitted for 11
acres at a cost of approximately $106,000. An additional $211,000 is expected from
monetary donations but not yet realized.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 19 of 44
VI. Summary of Secondary Screening Criteria
Staff has scored property on the Secondary Criteria Screening Form and attached the
scoring form as Exhibit A. A total score of 261 out of a possible 400 was achieved. The
chart and graph below show a breakdown of the specific components of the score.
Table 3. Tabulation of Secondary Screening Criteria
Secondary Screening Criteria
Possible
Points
Scored
Points
Percent of
Possible
Score
Ecological 100 53 53%
Human Values/Aesthetics 100 78 78%
Vulnerability 100 50 50%
Management 100 80 80%
Total Score:400 261 65%
Percent of Maximum Score:65%
Figure 4. Secondary Screening Criteria Scoring
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 20 of 44
Summary of factors contributing to score
Total Score 261 out of 400 possible points
Ecological - 53 out of 100: This score was achieved primarily because of the diversity
of habitats and wetlands found on site and the capability for aquifer recharge and flood
control. None of the endangered plant communities were found, though the wetland
marsh was a fine example of a native habitat. Only a few listed plant and animal species
were observed.
Human Values/Aesthetics – 78 out of 100: This relatively high score was achieved
because the property has access from a paved road, and half of the property can be
viewed from public thoroughfares. The parcel offers land-based, natural resource-based
recreation opportunities and the mature cypress and seasonally changing marsh enhance
the aesthetic setting of Collier County. It also offers potential for floodwater attenuation
for surrounding developed properties, which is a primary reason the Big Cypress Basin is
interested in assisting with its purchase.
Vulnerability – 50 out of 100: This parcel is zoned for single-family Estates homes at a
density of 1 dwelling unit per 2.25 acres. At least one DEP wetland impact permit has
been denied in this area.
Management 80 out of 100: The parcel scored well in this category, because there is
very little management necessary to maintain the site. Points were deducted for minimal
exotic infestation on the edges of the property and exotic plant seed sources on adjacent
properties.
Parcel Size: The entire project area for this multi-parcel project is approximately 158
acres. While project size is not scored, the ordinance advises that based on comparative
size, the larger of similar parcels is preferred. This project is similar to the 305.69-acre
Red Maple Swamp multi-parcel project and the 192.15-acre Gore project.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 21 of 44
Exhibit A. FLUCCs Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 22 of 44
Exhibit B. Soils Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 23 of 44
Exhibit C. Aquifer Recharge and Wellfield Protection Maps
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 24 of 44
Exhibit D. Zoning Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 25 of 44
Exhibit E. Historical Aerial 2017 and 1940 (Source: Property Appraiser)
1940
2017
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 26 of 44
Exhibit F. FEMS Flood Zones map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 27 of 44
Exhibit G. LIDAR Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 28 of 44
Exhibit H. Surface Water Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 29 of 44
Exhibit I. Landscape Integrity CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 30 of 44
Exhibit J. Priority Natural Communities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 31 of 44
Exhibit K. Biodiversity CLIP2 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 32 of 44
Exhibit L. Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 33 of 44
Exhibit M. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 34 of 44
Exhibit N. Aggregated Conservation Priorities CLIP4 Map
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 35 of 44
Exhibit O. FWC and USFWS Listed Species focal and Consultation Areas
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 36 of 44
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
Property Name: Winchester Head Multi-parcel Project 2018
Update Folio Numbers: Numerous
Geograhical Distribution (Target Protection Area):
NGGE
1. Confirmation of Initial Screening Criteria (Ecological)
1.A Unique and Endangered Plant Communities
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
Select the highest Score:
1. Tropical Hardwood Hammock 90
2. Xeric Oak Scrub 80
3. Coastal Strand 70
4. Native Beach 60
5. Xeric Pine 50
6. Riverine Oak 40
7. High Marsh (Saline)30
8. Tidal Freshwater Marsh 20
9. Other Native Habitats 10 10
Cypress, wetland hardwoods, marsh, pine/cypress/cabbage
palm
10. Add additional 5 points for each additional Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI) listed plant community found on the parcel 5 each
11. Add 5 additional points if plant community represents a unique
feature, such as maturity of vegetation, outstanding example of
plant community, etc.5 5 Wetland marsh - Red maple swamp
1.A. Total 100 15
1.B Significance for Water Resources
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Aquifer Recharge (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is within a wellfield protection zone 100
b. Parcel is not in a wellfield protection zone but will contribute
to aquifer recharge 50 50 Surficial aquifer 43-56"; Lower Tamiami 0-7"
c. Parcel would contribute minimally to aquifer recharge 25
d. Parcel will not contribute to aquifer recharge, eg., coastal location 0
2. Surface Water Quality (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
Outstanding Florida Waterbody 100
b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek,
river, lake or other surface water body 75
c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an
identified flowway 50
d. Wetlands exist on site 25 25
wetland marsh system - National Wetlands Inventory classifies
this as a freshwater emergent forested wetland
e. Acquisition of parcel will not provide opportunities for surface
water quality enhancement 0
3. Strategic to Floodplain Management (Calculate for a and b;
score c if applicable)
a. Depressional soils 80 80 All soils are depressional
b. Slough Soils 40
c. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide
onsite water attenuation 20 20 Have observed water attenuation in marsh areas
Subtotal 300 175
1.B Total 100 58 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
1.C Resource Ecological/Biological Value
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Biodiversity (Select the Highest Score for a, b and c)
a. The parcel has 5 or more FLUCCS native plant communities 100
b. The parcel has 3 or 4 FLUCCS native plant communities 75 75
6210 (Cypress); 6240 (Cypress, Pine ,Cabbage Palm); 6172
(Mixed wetland hardwoods); 6410 (Freshwater marsh)
c. The parcel has 2 or or less FLUCCS native plant communities 50
d. The parcel has 1 FLUCCS code native plant communities 25
2. Listed species
a. Listed wildlife species are observed on the parcel 80
If a. or b. are scored, then c. Spotential Habitat Richness is not
scored.
b. Listed wildlife species have been documented on the parcel by wildlife professionals70 70
Provide documentation source - FWC panther telemerty maps
show panther #231 on the project in 2014
c. Habitat Richness score 5 categories 70
Score is prorated from 14 to 70 based on the highest of the 5
CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness categories-
d. Rookery found on the parcel 10
e. Listed plant species observed on parcel - add additional 20 points 20 20 Tillandsia balbisiana & T. pruinosa , Osmunda regalis
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 37 of 44
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
3. Restoration Potential
a. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function with
minimal alteration 100 100 Exotic plant removal is the primary restoration action needed
b. Parcel can be restored to high ecological function but will
require moderate work, including but not limited to removal of
exotics and alterations in topography.50
c. Parcel will require major alterations to be restored to high
ecological function.15
d. Conditions are such that parcel cannot be restored to high
ecological function 0 explain limiting conditions
Subtotal 300 265
1.C Total 100 88 Divide the subtotal by 3
1.D Protection and Enhancement of Current Conservation
Lands
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Proximity and Connectivity
a. Property immediately contiguous with conservation land or
conservation easement.100
b. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in between it
and the conservation land are undeveloped.50 50
undeveloped lands lie between this area and FPNWR. CREW
lands are closer but have Immokalee Road in between
c. Property not immediately contiguous, parcels in-between it
and conservation land are developed 0
d. If not contiguous and developed, add 20 points if an intact
ecological link exists between the parcel and nearest
conservation land 20
1.D Total 100 50
1. Ecological Total Score 100 53 Sum of 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D then divided by 4
2. Human Values/Aesthetics
2.A Human Social Values/Aesthetics
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Access (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel has access from a paved road 100 100 both 37th Ave Neand 39th Ave NE are paved
b. Parcel has access from an unpaved road 75
c. Parcel has seasonal access only or unimproved access easement 50
d. Parcel does not have physical or known legal access 0
2. Recreational Potential (Select the Highest Score)
a. Parcel offers multiple opportunities for natural resource-based
recreation consistent with the goals of this program, including
but not limited to, environmental education, hiking, nature
photography, bird watching, kayaking, canoeing, swimming,
hunting (based on size?) and fishing.100
b. Parcel offers only land-based opportunities for natural
resource-based recreation consistent with the goals of this
program, including but not limited to, environmental education,
hiking, and nature photography.75 75 Land based opportunities only
c. Parcel offers limited opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation beyond simply accessing and walking on it 50
d. Parcel does not offer opportunities for natural-resource based
recreation 0
3. Enhancement of Aesthetic Setting
a. Percent of perimeter that can me seen by public. Score
based on percentage of frontage of parcel on public thoroughfare 80 40
Score between 0 and 80 based on the percentage of the parcel
perimeter that can be seen by the public from a public
thoroughfare. Half the project can be seen from public roads
b. Add up to 20 points if the site contains outstanding aesthetic
characteristic(s), such as but not limited to water view, mature
trees, native flowering plants, or archeological site 20 20
Provide a description and photo documentation of the
outstanding characteristic Mature cypress, seasonally changing
marsh
Subtotal 300 235
2. Human Social Values/Aesthetics Total Score 100 78 Obtained by dividing the subtotal by 3.
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 38 of 44
Exhibit P. Completed and Scored Secondary Criteria Screening Form
(Continued)
3. Vulnerability to Development/Degradation
3.A Zoning/Land Use Designation
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 50 50 Estates Zoning
2. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 45
3. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres40
4. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0
5. If parcel has ST overlay, remove 20 points -20
6. Property has been rezoned and/or there is SDP approval 25
7. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been issued 25
8. A rezone or SDP application has been submitted 15
9. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for 15
3. Vulnerability Total Score 100 50
4. Feasibility and Costs of Management
4.A Hydrologic Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. No hydrologic changes are necessary to sustain qualities of
site in perpetuity 100 100 No changes anticipated
2. Minimal hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such a cut in an existing berm 75
3. Moderate hydrologic changes are required to restore function,
such as removal of existing berms or minor re-grading that require
use of machinery 50
4. Significant hydologic changes are required to restore function,
such as re-grading of substantial portions of the site, placement of
a berm, removal of a road bed, culvert or the elevation of the water
table by installing a physical structure and/or changes unlikley 0
5.A Total 100 100
4.B Exotics Management Needs
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Exotic Plant Coverage
a. No exotic plants present 100
b. Exotic plants constitute less than 25% of plant cover 80 80 Exotics roughly 15-20% - mostly around edges
c. Exotic plants constitute between 25% and 50% of plant cover 60
d. Exotic plants constitute between 50% and 75% of plant cover 40
e. Exotic plants constitute more than 75% of plant cover 20 -20 undeveloped surrounding estates lots present a seed sourcef. Exotic characteristics are such that extensive removal and
maintenance effort and management will be needed (e.g., heavy
infestation by air potato or downy rosemytle)-20
g. Adjacent lands contain substantial seed source and exotic
removal is not presently required -20
5.B Total 100 60
4.C Land Manageability
Possible
points
Scored
points Comments
1. Parcel requires minimal maintenance and management,
examples: cypress slough, parcel requiring prescribed fire where
fuel loads are low and neighbor conflicts unlikely 80 80 Cypress marsh area requires minimal maintenance
2. Parcel requires moderate maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains trails, parcel requires prescribed fire
and circumstances do not favor burning 60
3. Parcel requires substantial maintenance and management,
examples: parcel contains structures that must be maintained,
parcel requires management using machinery or chemical means
which will be difficult or expensive to accomplish 40
4. Add 20 points if the mainenance by another entity is likely 20 0
5. Subtract 10 points if chronic dumping or trespass issues exist -10
5.C Total 100 80
4. Feasibility and Management Total Score 100 80 Sum of 5A, 5B, 5C, then divided by 3
Total Score 400 261
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 39 of 44
Exhibit Q. Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List Approved by The Board of County
Commissioners January 25, 2011
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 40 of 44
Exhibit R. Photographs
Photo 1. Freshwater marsh with native wetland grasses and cypress in
background
Photo 2. Cypress forest area
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 41 of 44
Photo 3. 37th Ave NE
Photo 4. Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm community along edge of wetland
feature
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 42 of 44
Photo 5. Royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Note perched location.
Photo 6. PNC Parcel for future parking
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 43 of 44
Photo 8. Winchester Head marsh south of 39th Ave NE - 2016
Photo 9. Winchester Head marsh between 37th and 39th Ave NE – 2016
Photo 10. Winchester Head Eagle Nest observed in 2016
Initial Criteria Screening Report – 2018 Update Folio # multiple
Name: Winchester Head Date: March 12, 2018
Page 44 of 44
$0$5,000,000$10,000,000$15,000,000$20,000,000$25,000,000$30,000,000$35,000,0002018 BB 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031YearsConservation Collier Fund Balance Trend FY18 through FY32 15 Years Baseline ‐ No Major AcquisitionsA List Cycle 9 Parcels‐ no restoration of reservesWorst case scenario ‐ Cycle 9 acquisitions and exotic control proceed with reserve funds and reserves are subsequently not restored, available fund balance potentially reaches zero in as little as 15 yearsBeginning Fund Balance for combined Conservation Collier funds is $34,782,100. After netting out the Caracara Preserve escrow reserve of $1,702,300 the generally available Conservation Collier beginning fund balance is approximately $33,079,800. Draw down on Conservation Collier reserves reflects the Cycle 9 A‐List recommended acquisitions of $12,445,53011.B.16Packet Pg. 299Attachment: CC Fund Bal Trend Base-Full A List only 4-18-18 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth Cycle
$0$5,000,000$10,000,000$15,000,000$20,000,000$25,000,000$30,000,000$35,000,0002018 BB 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031YearsConservation Collier Fund Balance Trend FY18 through FY32 15 Years Baseline ‐ No Major AcquisitionsA List Cycle 9 Parcels‐ no restoration of reservesA List Cycle 9 Top 4 Parcels ‐ no restoration of reservesWorst case scenario ‐ Cycle 9 acquisitions and exotic control proceed with reserve funds and reserves are subsequently not restored, available fund balance potentially reaches zero in as little as 15 yearsBeginning Fund Balance for combined Conservation Collier funds is $34,782,100. After netting out the Caracara Preserve escrow reserve of $1,702,300 the generally available Conservation Collier beginning fund balance is approximately $33,079,800. Draw down on Conservation Collier reserves reflects the Cycle 9 A‐List recommended acquisitions of $12,445,530Alternative draw down reflects top 4 parcels from cycle 9 list with estimated cost of $2,667,70011.B.17Packet Pg. 300Attachment: CC Fund Bal Trend Base-Full A List-4 parcel Alt 4-18-18 (5371 : Conservation Collier Ninth