The URL can be used to link to this page

CCLAAC Agenda 01/08/2025AGENDA CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 8, 2025, 9:00 A.M. Growth Management Community Development Conference Room 609/610 All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak. Individuals who would like to participate in person must complete and submit a speaker form. Members of the public who would like to participate remotely should register HERE to complete the online speaker registration form. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. Individuals who register online will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. For additional information about the meeting, please call 239-252-2961 or email conservationcollier@colliercountyfl.gov 1. Roll Call A. Approval of CCLAAC members attending the meeting remotely 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of December 4, 2024, Meeting Minutes 4. Old Business A. Acquisition Updates Current Acquisition Status report is updated monthly in advance of CCLAAC meeting and provided as part of the meeting packet. The report is posted online under Acquisition News at: www.conservationcollier.com B. Initial Criteria Screening Reports (ICSRs) and Rankings 1. Karlsson – Gordon River Greenway TPMA C. Gore Nature Center updates presentation 5. New Business A. Committee Member Applications B. Initial Criteria Screening Reports (ICSRs) and Rankings 1. I-75 and Everglades Blvd. TPMA a. Berman – Parcel 1 b. Berman Parcel 2 c. Echavarria d. Family Onyxx LLC e. Morales 2. Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners – near Picayune 6. Subcommittee Reports A. Lands Evaluation & Management – Chair, Ron Clark – last meeting June 5, 2024 B. Outreach – Chair, John Courtright - last meeting June 13, 2024 C. Ordinance, Policy and Rules – Chair, Michele Lenhard - last meeting December 18, 2023 Page 1788 of 2001 7. Coordinator Communications A. Miscellaneous B. Vote for Chair and Vice Chair in February (after members voted on by BCC) C. BCC Items Related to Conservation Collier 1. Previously Heard a. 12/10/2024 Railhead Scrub Final Land Management Plan 10-Yr Update; Extension to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Florida Wildlife Corridor Foundation (FWCF) 2. Upcoming a. 1/14/2025 Purchase Agreements – JOL Property Ventures (Panther Walk) & Fernandez (Winchester Head); Cypress Cove Conservancy (Gore Nature Center); 2024 Active Acquisition List b. 1/28/2025 Purchase Agreements – Hendrix House (I-75 TPMA); Descoteau (Gore), Fish (Panther Walk); Barfield Burrows naming c. 2/11/2025 Purchase Agreements – HK Investment, Van Cleef (both Marco Island) 8. Chair and Committee Member Comments 9. Public Comments 10. Staff Comments 11. Next Meeting February 5, 2025 12. Adjourn Committee Members: Please notify Summer Araque at 239-252-2979 no later than noon Monday, January 6, 2025, if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on an agenda topic. Page 1789 of 2001 Conservation Collier 2024 Active Acquisition List Updated 12/6/2024 Size (ac)Estimated Value Estimated Value per acre CCLAAC Recommended Ranking CCLAAC Ranking Date Board Ranking Board Ranking Date 1,410.00 $11,980,000 $8,496 A 4/3/2024 A 5/14/2024 Santamaria 61.10 N/A N/A A 4/3/2024 16.25 $138,000 $8,492 5.00 $44,000 $8,800 A 9/11/2024 A 10/22/2024 6.25 $50,000 $8,000 A 9/11/2024 A 10/22/2024 5.00 $44,000 $8,800 A 11/6/2024 TBD 1/14/2025 1,426.25 $12,118,000 8,496.41 10.00 $120,000 $12,000 B 5/1/2024 B 6/25/2024 2.73 $87,360 $32,000 B 10/2/2024 TBD 1/14/2025 12.73 $207,360 $16,289 21.68 $9,900 $457 C 7/3/2024 C 10/22/2024 0.86 $2,500,000 $2,906,977 C 9/11/2024 C 10/22/2024 2.50 $260,000 $104,000 C 9/11/2024 C 10/22/2024 1063 Shadowlawn 1.89 $2,200,000 $1,164,021 C 12/4/2024 TBD 1/14/2025 26.93 $4,969,900 $184,549 Property withdrawn C-LIST TOTAL Williams Farms Wilson A-LIST TOTAL Bacon Property/Project Area Name Durr/Roemer B & G Landholdings North Belle Meade D & J Investors Golden Land Partners Dively Trust Parang Trust B-LIST TOTAL 1 Page 1790 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Total Acres Appraised or Estimate Value* Purchase Price or Estimated Value* Total number of properties 703.87 $15,968,055 $15,537,669 103 2,332.95 $26,240,680 $26,086,130 20 *Estimated Value used in calculations until Purchase Agreement is signed by Seller and scheduled for Collier County Board of County Commissioners meeting SUMMARY PAGE ACQUISITION SUMMARY OF ALL CYCLE 10, 11A, 11B, and 12A PROPERTIES ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (CYCLE 10, 11A, 11B, and 12A) PROPERTIES PENDING ACQUISITION* (CYCLE 11B, 12A, 12B, and 2024) Page 1791 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Closing Amount Acquisition Status Varney, Gail Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 1.14 $14,250 $14,250 Closed 2/14/22 Caberera, Mercedes Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 9.16 $114,500 $114,500 Closed 3/21/22 McLaughlin Trust, Geraldine Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 4.61 $57,625 $57,625 Closed 3/21/22 Setser, Carrie, Larry, and Ruby Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 5.00 $62,500 $62,500 Closed 3/21/22 Dessing, Carol A.Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.14 $18,810 $18,810 Closed 3/28/22 Gonzalez, Isabel Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $50,000 $50,000 Closed 6/16/22 Rudnick, Carol - Donation Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.59 N/A N/A Closed 6/30/22 Gorman, Herman and Alice Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.14 $18,810 $18,810 Closed 9/26/22 Popp, Joe Rivers Road Preserve 10 19.40 $630,000 $630,000 Closed 9/26/22 Selvig, Maribeth - Donation Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 N/A N/A Closed 9/26/22 Hussey Trust North Belle Meade Preserve 10 256.00 $2,072,500 $2,072,500 Closed 11/14/22 Burns, Sandra Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Closed 1/30/23 Johnson, Tim R Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Closed 1/30/23 Meyer Trust Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.59 $72,000 $72,000 Closed 1/30/23 Sanchez, PS & NE Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $63,000 $63,000 Closed 1/30/23 Thommen, William F Panther Walk Preserve 10 5.00 $100,000 $100,000 Closed 1/30/23 Wright, David Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Closed 1/30/23 Zhuang, Joseph Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $63,000 $63,000 Closed 1/30/23 Aguilar, Jorge Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $40,000 $40,000 Closed 2/13/23 Pena, John Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.27 $52,000 $52,000 Closed 2/13/23 Hofmann, Adelaida Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.59 $36,000 $36,000 Closed 2/27/23 D & J Investors Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $40,000 $40,000 Closed 6/9/23 Joyce, David Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.27 $52,000 $52,000 Closed 6/9/23 Arnay, Henrietta Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Closed 6/16/23 Behnke, Lois Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $57,000 $57,000 Closed 6/16/23 Grossman, Barry Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $63,000 $63,000 Closed 6/16/23 Charles, Paulette Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.14 $25,100 $22,500 Closed 6/30/23 Toro, Michael Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.59 $39,800 $35,820 Closed 6/30/23 Blocker, Brian Pepper Ranch Preserve 10 24.50 $220,000 $220,000 Closed 7/7/23 ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (February 2022 - Present) 2 Page 1792 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Closing Amount Acquisition Status Guerra, Sigrid Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 1.14 $20,500 $20,500 Closed 7/7/23 Ruben Trust Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.59 $39,800 $39,800 Closed 7/7/23 Zani, Paul Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 2.27 $49,900 $49,900 Closed 7/7/23 Castillo, Jose Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 5.41 $89,300 $84,835 Closed 7/14/23 Quevedo, Odalys Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.14 $28,000 $26,600 Closed 7/14/23 Sparkman Tamara Gibson Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $33,000 $33,000 Closed 7/14/23 Joyce, Martin and Elizabeth Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.27 $61,300 $55,170 Closed 8/17/23 Martinez, Abel Chavez Red Maple Swamp Preserve 10 2.27 $40,900 $36,000 Closed 8/17/23 Rodriguez (f.k.a. Lopez), Terri Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.59 $42,900 $38,610 Closed 8/17/23 Salgado, Julio Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $73,700 $70,110 Closed 8/17/23 Fesser, Ivan Winchester Head Preserve 10 2.27 $56,800 $53,960 Closed 9/1/23 Trofatter, Frederick Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.14 $28,000 $25,650 Closed 9/7/23 Berman Trust, R F Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11A 1.14 $30,000 $28,500 Closed 9/15/23 Craparo, Stephen Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.64 $44,000 $39,600 Closed 9/15/23 Fleming, Albert Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.64 $39,000 $37,500 Closed 9/15/23 Repola, Andrea Panther Walk Preserve 11A 1.14 $45,000 $42,800 Closed 9/15/23 Vaz, Maurice J Panther Walk Preserve 11A 1.59 $57,500 $57,000 Closed 9/15/23 Bailey, Charles E Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 1.14 $25,000 $25,000 Closed 9/20/23 Arias, Eladio Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 3.16 $63,000 $52,900 Closed 9/22/23 Arias, Eladio Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 3.78 $66,000 $63,200 Closed 9/22/23 Moody Crawford, Jim H Pepper Ranch Preserve 10 59.79 $505,000 $505,000 Closed 9/22/23 McGinnis, Patricia Panther Walk Preserve 11A 1.14 $45,000 $42,800 Closed 11/17/23 Scalley, William J and Martha Panther Walk Preserve 11A 1.14 $45,000 $42,800 Closed 11/17/23 Trigoura, Delsina Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11A 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Closed 11/17/23 Perona, Barbara Winchester Head Preserve 11A 1.59 $39,800 $39,800 Closed 12/1/23 Scotti, Mary North Belle Meade Preserve 11A 8.74 $135,500 $128,700 Closed 12/1/23 Fontela, Maricel Aleu Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11A 1.14 $25,700 $25,700 Closed 12/8/23 Sponseller, Robert North Belle Meade Preserve 11A 5.00 $90,000 $90,000 Closed 12/8/23 VanCleave, Matthew Rivers Road Preserve 11A 0.50 $52,500 $52,500 Closed 12/8/23 Weir Trust, Celine Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11B 2.27 $39,500 $37,500 Closed 12/8/23 ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (February 2022 - Present), cont'd 3 Page 1793 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Closing Amount Acquisition Status Wilson Trust Winchester Head Preserve 11B 1.59 $39,800 $39,800 Closed 12/8/23 Brewer, Richard N/A 11B 14.78 $451,000 $405,900 Closed 12/15/23 Dibala Wood Trust Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11B 18.28 $275,000 $261,300 Closed 12/15/23 Hackmann, Charles Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $70,000 $63,000 Closed 12/15/23 Annecy Marco LLC / Barfield Marco Island 11A 2.13 $3,140,000 $3,140,000 Closed 1/5/24 Perez Castro, Pedro Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11A 1.17 $29,000 $27,600 Closed 1/5/24 South Terra Corp Marco Island 11A 0.56 $1,720,000 $1,620,000 Closed 1/5/24 Geren, Jonathan North Belle Meade Preserve 11A 7.84 $129,500 $129,500 Closed 1/12/24 Gutierrez, Michael North Belle Meade Preserve 11A 4.88 $85,400 $81,100 Closed 1/12/24 Bailey, Scott and Christopher Winchester Head Preserve 11B 1.59 $39,800 $38,500 Closed 1/19/24 Dredge Management Assoc LLC Shell Island Preserve 11B 18.73 $1,592,500 $1,512,875 Closed 1/19/24 English Trust Pepper Ranch Preserve 11B 59.01 $515,000 $463,500 Closed 1/19/24 Williams Nancy Payton Preserve 11B 0.50 $60,000 $60,000 Closed 1/19/24 Mooney/Hankins-Colon Winchester Head Preserve 11B 1.59 $39,800 $39,800 Closed 2/16/24 A & T Kleinberger Rev Trust Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 5.00 $110,000 $104,500 Closed 3/15/24 Rodriguez, Mario & Gisela Panther Walk Preserve 12A 5.46 $158,400 $158,400 Closed 7/12/24 Murawski Trust North Belle Meade Preserve 12A 4.87 $45,000 $42,750 Closed 7/24/24 Land Genie LLC Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.73 $62,790 $62,790 Closed 8/9/24 Taylor, Ernesto & Ana Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 5.00 $103,750 $98,650 Closed 8/9/24 Whittingham Corporation Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.59 $46,110 $45,990 Closed 8/16/24 Walsh, Nancy Red Maple Swamp Preserve 12A 1.14 $20,520 $19,494 Closed 8/21/24 Arnold Trust Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 7.16 $148,570 $141,140 Closed 8/23/24 Beckert, Marc & Elizabeth Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 1.14 $26,220 $24,910 Closed 8/23/24 Granados, Nelson Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 5.15 $106,860 $106,860 Closed 8/23/24 JA Moulton Trust Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 7.17 $148,780 $141,340 Closed 8/23/24 Woodworth, Richard Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.27 $52,210 $49,600 Closed 8/23/24 CDL Naples Investment LLC Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.73 $62,790 $59,650 Closed 8/30/24 Langell Trust Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.81 $61,120 $58,060 Closed 9/6/24 Hughes, Jeffrey & Melissa Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.59 $46,110 $46,110 Closed 9/11/24 ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (February 2022 - Present), cont'd 4 Page 1794 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Closing Amount Acquisition Status Sardinas, Martha Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.34 $53,820 $53,820 Closed 9/13/24 Volpe Trust North Belle Meade Preserve 12A 8.50 $109,000 $103,550 Closed 9/13/24 Wilson, Kyle & Lisa Mason Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.59 $46,110 $46,110 Closed 9/20/24 Aristizabal McIlvane Marsh Preserve 12A 5.00 $20,000 $20,000 Closed 10/25/24 Arndt, Linda Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.14 $31,920 $30,320 Closed 11/1/24 Ayra, Anacely Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 3.18 $69,170 $65,710 Closed 11/1/24 Erickson, Gerald Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 1.14 $26,220 $24,910 Closed 11/7/24 Ebanks, Marvin Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.14 $31,920 $31,920 Closed 11/8/24 Cassity, Cina Lu Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.59 $46,110 $46,110 Closed 12/6/24 Catania, James Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.14 $31,920 $30,320 Closed 12/6/24 SD Orange Blossom - Donation Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 1.14 N/A N/A Closed 12/16/24 SD Orange Blossom - Donation Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.14 N/A N/A Closed 12/16/24 James F. Dinwiddie Rev Trust Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.14 $33,060 $33,060 Closed 12/19/24 Radel, Mark Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.14 $33,060 $33,060 Closed 12/19/24 Seepersad, Kausil Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 1.14 $26,220 $24,910 Closed 12/19/24 TOTAL ACQUIRED PROPERTIES 703.87 $15,968,055 $15,537,669 Total number of properties = 103 ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (February 2022 - Present), cont'd 5 Page 1795 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised/Estimate d Value Purchase Price/Estimated Acquisition Status Dennison, Robert Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.73 $62,790 $62,790 Purchase Agreement approved on 10/22/2024; Closing scheduled for 1/17/2025 Ngo/Huynh/Lieu Panther Walk Preserve 12B 2.73 $87,360 $87,360 Purchase Agreement approved on 11/12/24; Closing scheduled for 1/17/2025 Stone Trust Panther Walk Preserve 12B 5.00 $141,250 $141,250 Purchase Agreement approved on 11/12/24; Closing scheduled for 1/17/2025 Vikon Corporation Panther Walk Preserve 12B 1.59 $50,880 $50,880 Purchase Agreement approved on 11/12/24; Closing scheduled for 1/23/2025 Symphony Properties N/A 12A 150.00 $4,015,000 $4,015,000 Purchase Agreement approved on 10/22/2024; Closing scheduled for 6/18/2025 Williams Farms N/A 2024 1,410.00 $11,980,000 $11,980,000 Purchase Agreement approved by BCC 5/28/24; Closing pending 1,572.05 $16,337,280 $16,337,280 Subtotal number of properties = 6 Cypress Cove Conservancy Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 10.00 $721,000 $648,900 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/14/2025 BCC Fernandez, Erik Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.59 $44,520 $44,520 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/14/25 BCC JOL Property Ventures Panther Walk Preserve 12B 1.14 $36,480 $36,480 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/14/2025 BCC Martinez, Abel Chavez Panther Walk Preserve 12B 1.14 $36,480 $36,480 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/14/2025 BCC Descoteau, Donn & Donna Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11B 1.14 $25,100 $25,100 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/28/2025 BCC Hendrix House N/A 12B 17.66 $502,500 $502,500 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/28/2025 BCC Fish, Monica Panther Walk Preserve 12B 1.14 $36,480 $36,480 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 1/28/2025 BCC HK Investment Marco Island 12B 0.37 $646,500 $646,500 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 2/11/25 BCC Van Cleef Marco Island 12B 0.43 $824,500 $742,050 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement scheduled for 2/11/20254 BCC Lautz, Cameron Panther Walk Preserve 12B 2.27 $72,640 $72,640 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement pending Wildcat Acres*N/A 12B 73.60 $1,357,800 $1,357,800 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement pending Golden Land Partners North Belle Meade Preserve 2024 6.25 $33,000 $33,000 Offer accepted; Purchase Agreement pending Wildflowerz Ranch*N/A 12B 639.17 $5,522,400 $5,522,400 Offer made; In negotiation D & J Investors*North Belle Meade Preserve 2024 5.00 $44,000 $44,000 Offer made; awaiting Seller response 760.90 $9,903,400 $9,748,850 Subtotal number of properties = 14 2,332.95 $26,240,680 $26,086,130 Total number of properties = 20 Subtotal - Properties with Board Approved Purchase Agreements Subtotal - Properties with Board Approval of Purchase Agreements Pending TOTAL PROPERTIES PENDING ACQUISITION PROPERTIES PENDING ACQUISITION 6 Page 1796 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Final Offer Amount Acquisition Status Amaranth Trust, Forrest G N/A 10 71.16 N/A N/A Property withdrawn Anderson, Charles Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.27 $64,000 $64,000 Offer not accepted Anderson, Charles Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 N/A N/A Sold to another Argay, Lorraine D Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 7.05 $81,000 $81,000 Offer not accepted Arnold, Emily Pepper Ranch Preserve 10 5.00 N/A N/A Property withdrawn Arnold, Vanette Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Offer not accepted Big Hammock - Area I (Barron Collier Partnership) Pepper Ranch Preserve 10 257.3 $900,000 $900,000 Offer not accepted Casasierra Realty LLC Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.14 $25,650 $25,650 Property withdrawn Cedeno, Kenneth Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 2.81 $56,000 $56,000 Offer not accepted Dahche, Ahmand Panther Walk Preserve 10 5.00 $130,000 $130,000 Offer not accepted D'Angelo, Eugene Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 10 5.00 $100,000 $100,000 Offer not accepted Erjavec, Eugene Rivers Road Preserve 10 4.92 $200,000 $200,000 Offer not accepted Eschuk, Shari Rivers Road Preserve 10 4.78 $180,000 $180,000 Offer not accepted Fischer Trust, Addison Marco Island 10 0.63 N/A N/A Property withdrawn Haughton, Veronica Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 N/A N/A Sold to another Higdon Trust, Garey D Winchester Head Preserve 10 1.59 $39,800 $35,820 Selling to another Macrina, Kathleen Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 N/A N/A Sold to another Moylan, Paul E Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $63,000 $63,000 Offer not accepted Ortega, Berardo Panther Walk Preserve 10 1.14 $30,000 $30,000 Property withdrawn Three Brothers Panther Walk Preserve 10 2.73 $63,000 $63,000 Offer not accepted WISC Investment - Inlet Dr Marco Island 10 0.39 $429,000 $429,000 Purchase Agreement not approved by BCC Agua Colina Marco Island 11A 0.63 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Purchase Agreement not approved by Board Berman Rev Trust, R F Panther Walk Preserve 11A 1.17 $46,000 $43,700 No longer interested in selling Chestnut, Diane Marco Island 11A 0.53 $627,500 $627,500 Offer not accepted Colon, Donna & Patricia Mack Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11A 2.27 $39,500 $39,500 Selling to another S & B Properties of Marco LLC Marco Island 11A 0.50 $570,000 $570,000 Offer not accepted Starnes, Hugh Caracara Prairie Preserve 11A 4.54 $250,000 $250,000 Offer not accepted Buckley Enterprises Nancy Payton Preserve 11B 80.00 $780,000 $780,000 Offer not accepted Khoury Otter Mound Preserve 11B 0.43 N/A N/A Sold to another Lie, Run He Nancy Payton Preserve 11B 0.50 $80,000 $80,000 Offer not accepted A-LIST PROPERTIES THAT WILL NOT BE ACQUIRED AT THIS TIME 7 Page 1797 of 2001 Conservation Collier Cycle 10, 11, 12, and 2024 Property Status Updated December 20, 2024 Property Name Preserve Cycle Size (ac)Appraised Value Final Offer Amount Acquisition Status Owl Hammock N/A 11B 7,378.00 TBD TBD On-hold pending State of Florida acquisition Relevant Radio, Inc.McIlvane Marsh Preserve 11B 10.46 $126,350 $126,350 Offer not accepted Sit/Chew Nancy Payton Preserve 11B 3.00 $390,000 $390,000 Offer not accepted Smith & Montgomery Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 11B 2.73 N/A N/A Property withdrawn Bleka, Joseph & Christina Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12A 2.34 $53,820 $53,820 On-hold until title is clear Veneziano, Steve Panther Walk Preserve 12A 1.14 $33,060 $33,060 Offer not accepted Wilson, Rebecca Winchester Head Preserve 12A 1.14 $29,000 $29,000 Offer not accepted Eid Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 2.27 $52,210 $49,600 Offer not accepted Lynch Winchester Head Preserve 12B 1.14 $31,920 $30,320 Offer not accepted Parraga Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 2.81 $61,120 $58,060 Offer not accepted Pritchard Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 2.27 $52,210 $49,600 Offer not accepted Sunny Florida Investments, Inc Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve 12B 1.14 $26,220 $24,910 Offer not accepted Santamaria Caracara Prairie Preserve 2024 61.10 N/A N/A Property withdrawn 7,941.90 $6,760,360 $6,742,890 Total number of properties = 43TOTAL PROPERTIES THAT WILL NOT BE ACQUIRED AT THIS TIME A-LIST PROPERTIES THAT WILL NOT BE ACQUIRED AT THIS TIME, cont'd 8 Page 1798 of 2001 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report Karlsson Trust Owner Name: Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Size: 0.33 acres Folio Number: 00268410005 Staff Report Date: December 4, 2024 (revised 12/9/2024) 67 20 23 67 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 176/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1799 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Summary of Property ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview ...........................................................................................5 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up ...........................................................................................................6 2.1 Summary of Property Information ....................................................................................................7 Table 1 – Summary of Property Information ..............................................................................7 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score ............................................................................................8 Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary .............................................................................8 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates ..............................................................9 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value .........................................................................................9 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ....................................................9 2.3 Summary of Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) ........... 10 3. Initial Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Ecological Values ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities ....................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 13 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 14 Figure 6 – Brazilian pepper inside parcel ................................................................................. 15 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities ............................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) .................................................... 16 Figure 8 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness ............................................................................. 17 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones .............................. 19 Figure 10 - Collier County Soil Survey ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 11 LIDAR Elevation Map ............................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 12 - Conservation Lands ............................................................................................... 23 3.2 Human Values ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 24 Page 1800 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 3 3.3 Restoration and Management ....................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1 Vegetation Management ...................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................ 25 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security .............................................................................................. 25 3.3.3 Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 25 3.4 Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................... 25 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 13 - Zoning .................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 14 – Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 27 3.4.2 Development Plans ............................................................................................................... 28 4. Acquisition Considerations .................................................................................................................. 28 5. Management Needs and Costs .............................................................................................................. 28 Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management ................ 28 6. Potential for Matching Funds .............................................................................................................. 28 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form ......................................................................................................... 29 8. Additional Site Photos ......................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions ...................................... 42 Page 1801 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 4 1. 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). On November 3, 2020, the Collier County electors approved the Conservation Collier Re-establishment referendum with a 76.5% majority. This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation Collier Program to meet requirements specified in the Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes of the Conservation Collier Program. The sole purpose of this report is to provide objective data to demonstrate how properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. The following sections characterize the property location and assessed value, elaborate on the initial and secondary screening criteria scoring, and describe potential funding sources, appropriate use, site improvements, and estimated management costs. Page 1802 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1803 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1804 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Karlsson Trust Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Folio Number 00268410005 Target Protection Area Urban Within the Gordon River Greenway Target Protection Mailing Area Size 0.33 acres Section, Township, and Range S34, Twn 49, R25 Zoning Category/TDRs RMF-6 Maximum density is 6 units per acre FEMA Flood Map Category AE High-risk flood zone with a 1% annual chance of flooding Existing structures None Adjoining properties and their Uses Conservation, undeveloped RMF- 6, developed RMF- 16, and developed RSF-4 Gordon River Greenway to the east; Goodlette Arms apartment complex to the south, undeveloped RMF-6 parcels to the west, developed single family homes to the north Development Plans Submitted ACOE permit ACOE permit application approved Known Property Irregularities Debris Approximately half the property contains what appears to be old construction debris – large concrete slabs with rebar and some asphalt Other County Dept Interest None known Page 1805 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 8 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 67 160 42% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 15 53 28% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 23 27 85% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 13 53 25% 2 - Human Values 20 80 25% 2.1 - Recreation 0 34 0% 2.2 - Accessibility 17 34 50% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 23 80 29% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 21 55 38% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 2 23 10% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 67 80 83% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 58 58 100% 4.2 - Development Plans 9 22 40% Total 176 400 44% 67 20 23 67 160 80 80 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 176/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1806 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 9 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates The interest being appraised is fee simple “as is” for the purchase of the site. A value of the parcel was estimated using only one of the three traditional approaches to value, the sales comparison approach. It 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 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 this report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relied upon information solely provided by program staff. The valuation conclusion is limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions exist. If the Board of County Commissioners choose to acquire this property, appraisals by separate independent Real Estate Appraiser will be obtained at that time. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, two appraisals are required for the Karlsson parcel, which has an initial estimated valuation over $500,000; 2 independent Real Estate Appraisers will value the subject property and the average of those two appraisal reports will be used to determine the offer made to the seller. Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value Property owner Address Acreage Assessed Value* Estimated Value** Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust 1552 Bembury Dr, Naples, FL 34102 0.33 $409,208 TBD * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. **The Estimated Value for the parcel will be obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department prior to BCC ranking. 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. This parcel is zoned Residential Multi Family – 6 (RMF-6). Maximum density is 6 units per acre. Page 1807 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 10 2.3 Summary of Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) Criteria 1: CLIP Priority 1 Natural Community Does the property contain Upland Hardwood Forest, Scrub, Coastal Upland, Dry Prairie, or Upland Pine? NO Criteria 2: CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community Does the property contain Pine Flatwoods or Coastal Wetlands? NO Criteria 3: Other Native, Natural Communities Does the property contain other native, natural communities? YES Parcel contains disturbed mangrove swamp. Criteria 4: Human Social Values Does the property offer cultural values, appropriate access for natural resource-based recreation, and the enhancement of the aesthetic setting of Collier County? NO The property is visible from Bembury Dr., but is inaccessible for natural resource-based recreation. Criteria 5: Water Resources Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species habitat, wildfire risk reduction, storm surge protection, and flood control? YES Yes, contains wetlands and would provide storm surge protection. Also within a 20-year well protection zone. Criteria 6: Biological and Ecological Value Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity and listed species habitat? NO The parcel provides little to no habitat for wildlife. Criteria 7: Enhancement of Current Conservation Lands Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link, or habitat corridor? YES Parcel is adjacent to the Gordon River Greenway. Page 1808 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 11 Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? YES The parcel is within the Gordon River Greenway Target Protection Mailing Area The Karlsson Trust parcel met 4 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1809 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 12 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities Disturbed mangrove swamp exists within the southern section of the parcel and accounts for approximately one-third of the property. The remaining two-thirds of the parcel contains exotic vegetation, primarily Brazilian pepper. The disturbed mangrove swamp contains red mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) in the canopy with a few giant leatherfern (Acrostichum danaeifolium) in the understory. Australian pine and Brazilian pepper are also present, but not dominant. Non-native, invasive plants observed include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), lead tree (Leucaena leucocephala), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), Australian pine (Casuarina sp), air- potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and fivefingers (Syngonium angustatum). No listed plant species were observed on the parcel. Page 1810 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 13 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1811 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 14 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1812 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 15 Figure 6 – Brazilian pepper inside parcel 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities The parcel could provide limited foraging habitat for listed wading birds. No listed wildlife was observed or previously noted on the property. Page 1813 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 16 Figure 7 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1814 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 17 Figure 8 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1815 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 18 3.1.3 Water Resources The parcel holds water year-round and is tidally influenced. It is within a 20-year wellfield protection zone, provides moderate aquifer recharge capacity, and provides storm surge protection. Although soils within the entire parcel are mapped as hydric “Durbin and Wulfurt Mucks, Frequently Flooded”, about half the property has been filled. Page 1816 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 19 Figure 9 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1817 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 20 Figure 10 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1818 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 21 Figure 11 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1819 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 22 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity This parcel is adjacent to the Gordon River Greenway along its eastern boundary. Page 1820 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 23 Figure 12 - Conservation Lands Page 1821 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 24 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation Although this parcel is visible from Bembury Dr., it would not be accessible due to its wetland nature. Trails within the adjacent Gordon River Greenway Park provide public access to the same habitat. 3.2.2 Accessibility The site is directly accessible from Bembury Dr.; however, public access and on-site parking would be discouraged at this location. 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement This parcel provides no outstanding Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement. Page 1822 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 25 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Invasive vegetation infestation rates appear to be over 75% on this parcel. The entire northern two- thirds of the parcel is covered in mature Brazilian pepper. Lead trees and a few Australian pines are also present. The southern one-third of the parcel contains scattered Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The exotic vegetation should be completely removed from site where it is a monoculture in order to allow for planting of natives. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire This parcel does not contain fire-maintained plant communities. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security The parcel requires exotic plant removal and re-planting of natives. Removal of historic construction debris that has been on the property for decades may be a potential restoration project which would most likely require wetland permitting. 3.3.3 Assistance No management assistance is anticipated with this parcel. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use This parcel is zoned RMF-6, which allows 6 units per acre. Page 1823 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 26 Figure 13 - Zoning Page 1824 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 27 Figure 14 – Future Land Use Page 1825 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 28 3.4.2 Development Plans The seller has received permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill 0.07 acres of wetlands and from the FL Department of Environmental Protection to fill 0.21 acres of wetlands in order to construct a single-family residence within the parcel. The Seller has paid the required mitigation to Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank in the amount of $65,000. A building permit application has been submitted to Collier County, however, the Seller indicated that he will not be moving forward with the builder that applied for the permit. 4. Acquisition Considerations Staff would like to bring the following items to the attention of the Advisory Committee during the review of this property. The following does not affect the scoring. The following are items that will be addressed in the Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners if this property moves forward for ranking. The Seller will not remove the historic debris from the parcel but will discount the parcel to a sale price of $1,000,000 should the parcel appraise over $1,000,000. 5. Management Needs and Costs Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management Management Element Initial Cost Annual Recurring Cost Comments Invasive Vegetation Removal $25,000 $300 Initial removal assumes cutting and removing from site. Debris removal $50,000 N/A Native Planting $2,000 N/A Signage $200 N/A Total $77,200 $300 6. Potential for Matching Funds There are no known matching funds or partnership opportunities for acquisition in this area. Page 1826 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 29 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form Property Name: Karlsson Trust Target Protection Mailing Area: Gordon River Greenway Folio(s): 00268410005 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 67 42 2 - Human Value 80 20 25 3 - Restoration and Management 80 23 29 4 - Vulnerability 80 67 83 TOTAL SCORE 400 176 44 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 55 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 Page 1827 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 30 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 85 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 50 Page 1828 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 31 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 250 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 67 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 0 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 60 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 Page 1829 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 32 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 d. No public parking available 0 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 70 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 20 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 45 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 5 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 Page 1830 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 33 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 5 Large amount of old construction debris d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 50 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 23 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 130 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 20 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 Page 1831 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 34 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 150 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 67 8. Additional Site Photos View of parcel looking south off Bembury Dr. Page 1832 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 35 View of parcel looking south along eastern boundary – mangroves on left are on County parcel View of southern interior Page 1833 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 36 Pile of large concrete slabs Berm Page 1834 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 37 Edge of berm looking west Large Brazlian pepper interior of property Page 1835 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 38 Cement debris berm Cement Debris berm Page 1836 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 39 Looking west on top of berm Page 1837 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 40 Australian pine behind Brazilian pepper Brazilian pepper on interior of property Page 1838 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 41 View looking south from south end of berm Page 1839 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 42 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions 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. Below is a description of each of the three CLIP4 data layers used in this report. Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Consists of 12 priority natural community types: upland glades, pine rocklands, seepage slopes, scrub, sandhill, sandhill upland lakes, rockland hammock, coastal uplands, imperiled coastal lakes, dry prairie, upland pine, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, or coastal wetlands. These natural communities are prioritized by a combination of their heritage global status rank (G-rank) and landscape context, based on the Land Use Intensity Index (subset of CLIP Landscape Integrity Index) and FNAI Potential Natural Areas. Priority 1 includes G1-G3 communities with Very High or High landscape context. Priority 2 includes G1-G3 Medium and G4 Very High/High. Priority 3 includes G4 Medium and G5 Very High/High. Priority 5 is G5 Medium. This data layer was created by FNAI originally to inform the Florida Forever environmental land acquisition program. The natural communities were mapped primarily based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, which is a compilation of best-available land cover data for the entire state. The CLC is based on both remote-sensed (from aerial photography, primarily from water management district FLUCCS data) and ground-truthed (from field surveys on many conservation lands) data. Figure 8 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness This CLIP version 4.0 data layer is unchanged from CLIP v3.0. FWC Potential Habitat Richness. Because Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA)s do not address species richness, FWC also developed the potential habitat richness layer to identify areas of overlapping vertebrate species habitat. FWC created a statewide potential habitat model for each species included in their analysis. In some cases, only a portion of the potential habitat was ultimately designated as SHCA for each species. The Potential Habitat Richness layer includes the entire potential habitat model for each species and provides a count of the number of species habitat models occurring at each location. The highest number of focal species co-occurring at any location in the model is 13. Page 1840 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Karlsson Trust Folio No: 00268410005 Owner Name(s): Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Date: December 4, 2024 (rev. 12/9/2024) 43 Figure 9 - CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones High priorities indicate high potential for recharge to an underlying aquifer system (typically the Floridan aquifer but could be intermediate or surficial aquifers in some portions of the state). The highest priorities indicate high potential for recharge to springs or public water supplies. This figure also includes Wellfield Protection Zones. Collier County Wellfield Protection Zones are referenced in the Land Development Code and updated in 2010 by Pollution Control and Prevention Department Staff. The public water supply wellfields, identified in section 3.06.06 and permitted by the SFWMD for potable water to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 average gallons per day (GPD), are identified as protected wellfields, around which specific land use and activity (regulated development) shall be regulated under this section. Page 1841 of 2001 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Parcels Owner Names: RF Berman Trust; Andres Echavarria & Lianet Garcia; Family Onyxx, LLC; Miguel Diaz Morales Folio Numbers: 41710760000, 41715560001, 41660040003, 41613880003, 41614280000 Size: 5 parcels totaling 14.64 acres Staff Report Date: January 8, 2025 Page 1842 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Summary of Property ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview .........................................................................................................5 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up .........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Summary of Property Information ....................................................................................................7 Table 1 – Summary of Property Information .....................................................................................7 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score ....................................................................................................8 Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary .....................................................................................8 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates ........................................................... 10 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value ............................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ................................................. 11 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) ................................ 12 3. Initial Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Ecological Values ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 15 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 16 Figure 6 – Mixed Wetland Hardwoods .................................................................................... 17 Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 3 – Listed Wildlife Detected ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 8 –Gopher tortoise burrow on Berman Parcel 1 .......................................................... 18 Figure 9 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) .................................................... 19 Figure 10 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness ........................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones ............................ 22 Figure 12 - Collier County Soil Survey ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 13 LIDAR Elevation Map ............................................................................................... 24 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 14 - Conservation Lands ............................................................................................... 25 3.2 Human Values ................................................................................................................................. 26 Page 1843 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 3 3.2.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 27 3.3 Restoration and Management ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Vegetation Management ...................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................ 27 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security .............................................................................................. 27 3.3.3 Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 27 Figure 15 – Zoning ................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 16 – Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 29 3.4.2 Development Plans ............................................................................................................... 30 4. Acquisition Considerations ................................................................................................................... 30 5. Management Needs and Costs .............................................................................................................. 31 Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management ............................. 31 6. Potential for Matching Funds .............................................................................................................. 31 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form ......................................................................................................... 32 8. Additional Site Photos ......................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions ...................................... 60 Page 1844 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 4 1. 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). On November 3, 2020, the Collier County electors approved the Conservation Collier Re-establishment referendum with a 76.5% majority. This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation Collier Program to meet requirements specified in the Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes of the Conservation Collier Program. The sole purpose of this report is to provide objective data to demonstrate how properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. The following sections characterize the property location and assessed value, elaborate on the initial and secondary screening criteria scoring, and describe potential funding sources, appropriate use, site improvements, and estimated management costs. Page 1845 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1846 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1847 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Berman; Echavarria; Family Onyxx; Morales RF Berman Trust; Andres Echavarria & Lianet Garcia; Family Onyxx, LLC; Miguel Diaz Morales Folio Numbers Multiple Berman - 41710760000, Berman - 41715560001, Echavarria - 41660040003, Family Onyxx - 41613880003, Morales - 41614280000 Target Protection Area NGGE I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Target Protection Mailing Area Size 14.64 acres total Berman - 5.00 acres Berman - 1.59 acres Echavarria - 3.05 Family Onyxx - 2.73 Morales - 2.27 Section, Township, and Range S31 and 32, Twn 49, R28 Zoning Category/TDRs Estates 1 unit per 2.25 acres FEMA Flood Map Category AH 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Existing structures None Adjoining properties and their Uses Undeveloped; Developed, rural single family homes All parcels except for the Echavarria parcel are bordered on at least one side by a single family residence. Development Plans Submitted None Known Property Irregularities None Other County Dept Interest Transportation Parcels are in the study area for the I-75 interchange between Everglades and Desoto Blvds. Page 1848 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 8 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary Berman Parcel 1: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 65 160 41% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 32 53 60% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 24 27 90% 1.3 - Water Resources 3 27 10% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 7 53 13% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 43 80 54% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 34 55 63% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 60 80 75% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 4 22 20% Total 206 400 51% 40 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 185/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Echavarria 65 37 43 60 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 206/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 1 37 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 183/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx 44 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 189/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Morales Page 1849 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 9 Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 37 160 23% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 0 53 0% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 183 400 46% Echavarria: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 40 160 25% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 11 27 40% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 0 53 0% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 185 400 46% Page 1850 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 10 Morales: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 44 160 28% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 7 53 13% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 189 400 47% 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates The interest being appraised is fee simple “as is” for the purchase of the site. A value of the parcel was estimated using only one of the three traditional approaches to value, the sales comparison approach. It 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 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 this report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relies upon information solely provided by program staff. The valuation conclusion is limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions exist. Possible access concerns or limits to uses within the property unknown at the time of estimation will be taken into consideration at time of appraisal. If the Board of County Commissioners chooses to acquire these properties, appraisals by independent Real Estate Appraisers will be obtained at that time. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one appraisal is required for each of these parcels, which each have an initial valuation less than $500,000; 1 independent Real Estate Appraiser will value the subject property and that appraisal report will determine the actual value of the subject property. Page 1851 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 11 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value Property owners Folio # Acreage Assessed Value* Estimated Value** Parcel 1 - RF Berman Trust 41710760000 5.00 $187,500 TBD Parcel 2 - RF Berman Trust 41715560001 1.59 $59,625 TBD Parcel 3 - Andres Echavarria & Lianet Garcia 41660040003 3.05 $80,825 TBD Parcel 4 - Family Onyxx, LLC 41613880003 2.73 $87,019 TBD Parcel 5 - Miguel Diaz Morales 41614280000 2.27 $85,125 TBD TOTAL 14.64 $500,094 TBD * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. The Assessed Value is based off the current use of the property. **The Estimated Market Value for the I-75 and Everglades Blvd. properties will be obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department prior to Board of County Commissioners ranking. 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. The parcels are zoned Estates and have an allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres. Page 1852 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 12 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) Criteria 1: CLIP Priority 1 Natural Community Does the property contain Upland Hardwood Forest, Scrub, Coastal Upland, Dry Prairie, or Upland Pine? NO Criteria 2: CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community Does the property contain Pine Flatwoods or Coastal Wetlands? YES Berman Parcel 1 contains Mesic Flatwoods. Criteria 3: Other Native, Natural Communities Does the property contain other native, natural communities? N/A The parcels also contain Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, but already contain CLIP Priority 2 Natural Communities. Criteria 4: Human Social Values Does the property offer cultural values, appropriate access for natural resource-based recreation, and the enhancement of the aesthetic setting of Collier County? YES The parcels visible and readily accessible from a public roadway and can be accessed year-round. Criteria 5: Water Resources Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species habitat, wildfire risk reduction, storm surge protection, and flood control? YES Hydric soils exist on the majority of the parcels and, except for Berman Parcel 1, wetland plant communities are found throughout the parcels. Criteria 6: Biological and Ecological Value Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity and listed species habitat? NO Because of their small size, each parcel individually does not offer significant biological values. . Page 1853 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 13 Criteria 7: Enhancement of Current Conservation Lands Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor? NO These parcels are not adjacent to any conservation lands. Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? YES I-75 and Everglades Blvd. TPMA The Berman Parcel 2, Echavarria, Family Onyxx, and Morales parcels met 4 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. The Berman Parcel 1 met 3 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1854 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 14 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities The parcels are mapped as Cabbage Palm, Mesic Flatwoods, Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, and Hydric Pine Flatwoods; however, staff observed Mesic Flatwoods on Berman Parcel 1 and Mixed Wetland Hardwoods on the Berman Parcel 2, Echavarria, Family Onyxx, and Morales parcels. Cabbage palms are also present in high densities within all the parcels. The Mesic Flatwoods consist of cabbage palm (Sabal Palmetto) and sparse slash pine (Pinus elliottii ) in the canopy; saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), galberry (Ilex glabra), rusty lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), winged-sumac (Rhus copallinum) and American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) in the midstory; wild pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida), shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites) and wiregrass (Aristida stricta) are in the groundcover. The Mixed Wetland Hardwoods consist of cypress (Taxodium distichum) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) in the canopy with myrsine (Myrsine cubana), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), cabbage palm, and occasional firebush (Hamelia patens) in the midstory and primarily swamp fern Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 10% on Berman Parcel 1 and between 25%- 50% - at varying densities throughout the other parcels. The Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx parcels are more heavily infested than the other 3 parcels. The primary invasive plant observed was Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). Other exotics observed were earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), torpedograss (Panicum repens), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), and shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata) Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) was observed during the site visit on all the parcels except the Berman Parcel 1. Page 1855 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 15 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1856 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 16 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1857 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 17 Figure 6 – Mixed Wetland Hardwoods Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood Page 1858 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 18 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities Multiple Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) telemetry points have been noted around the parcels. Table 3 – Listed Wildlife Detected Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Mode of Detection Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Threatened N/A Active burrow observed Figure 8 –Gopher tortoise burrow on Berman Parcel 1 Page 1859 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 19 Figure 9 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1860 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 20 Figure 10 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1861 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 21 3.1.3 Water Resources Four of the parcels significantly protect water resources. They are comprised of a majority of wetland plant communities, contain Karst topography, hold significant amounts of water during the rainy season, and provide important habitat for many wetland dependent species. Berman Parcel 1 is mapped as containing hydric soils but does not contain wetlands. Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soils mapped on this parcel primarily hydric. Mapped hydric soils include “Hallandale and Boca Fine Sands” (nearly level, poorly drained soils in sloughs and poorly defined drainageways) and “Boca, Riviera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland FS, Depressional” (level, very poorly drained soils in depressions, cypress swamps, and marshes). Non-hydric soils include “Boca Fine Sand” and “Hallandale Fine Sand”. Both these soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils associated with flatwoods. Page 1862 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 22 Figure 11 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1863 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 23 Figure 12 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1864 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 24 Figure 13 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1865 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 25 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity These parcels are not directly adjacent to conservation lands; however, undeveloped or rural developed lands exist between these parcels and private conservation lands to the west and between these parcels and the Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve to the east. Picayune Strand State Forest is to the south across I-75 with an wildlife underpass west of these parcels, along the eastern side of the Miller Canal. Figure 14 - Conservation Lands Page 1866 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 26 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation These parcels could provide year-round access for passive, recreational activities including equestrian, and hiking. 3.2.2 Accessibility The parcels are all accessible via paved roads. Parking is available along the street. Page 1867 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 27 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement The parcels are visible from a public road. 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 10% on Berman Parcel 1 and between 25%- 50% - at varying densities throughout the other parcels. The Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx parcels are more heavily infested than the other 3 parcels. The primary invasive plant observed was Brazilian pepper. Other exotics observed were earleaf acacia, torpedograss, cogongrass, Caesarweed, and shrubby false buttonweed. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire The mesic flatwoods within Berman Parcel 1 would benefit from fire; however, due to its small size and location, prescribed fire is not likely. The other parcels that contain Mixed Wetland Hardwoods do not contain plant communities that burn on a regular basis. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security No site security issues appear to exist within the parcel. 3.3.3 Assistance No management assistance is anticipated. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use The parcels are zoned Estates and have an allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres. Page 1868 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 28 Figure 15 – Zoning Page 1869 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 29 Figure 16 – Future Land Use Page 1870 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 30 3.4.2 Development Plans None of the parcels are currently planned for development. 4. Acquisition Considerations Staff would like to bring the following items to the attention of the Advisory Committee during the review of this property. The following items may not have significantly affected the scoring but are worth noting. These parcels are within the study area for the I-75 interchange. The properties in this location could be impacted by future right-of-way needs or for stormwater ponds to support the right-of-way. If these properties are approved for the A-List, staff will take this information into consideration when planning amenities and public access on the site. Additionally, when applicable, language will be memorialized in the Purchase Agreements and related closing documents to ensure Collier County Transportation will be able to purchase a portion of the properties from Conservation Collier for future right-of-way, if and when needed, at the original per-acre acquisition cost. Several large tires were observed within the Echavarria parcel. These tires should be removed prior to Conservation Collier acquisition. Page 1871 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 31 5. Management Needs and Costs Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management Management Element Initial Cost Annual Recurring Cost Comments Invasive Vegetation Removal $12,500 $2,200 Initial assumes $850/acre; recurring assumes $150/acre Cabbage Palm Treatment $5,900 n/a Assumes $400/acre TOTAL $18,400 $2,200 6. 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 - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program: The FCT Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program provides grant funds to local governments and nonprofit organizations to acquire conservation lands, urban open spaces, parks and greenways. Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from the time of acquisition. The Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program assists the Department of Environmental Protection in helping communities meet the challenges of growth, supporting viable community development and protecting natural resources and open space. The program receives 21 percent Florida Forever appropriation. Florida Forever Program: This parcel is within the Belle Meade Florida Forever Project Area boundary, and state Real Estate Services staff has expressed interest in pursuing the property, depending on owner expectations of process and price. 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. Additional Funding Sources: There are no additional funding sources known at this time. Page 1872 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 32 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form BERMAN PARCEL 1 Property Name: Berman Parcel 1 Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41710760000 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 65 41 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 43 54 4 - Vulnerability 80 60 75 TOTAL SCORE 400 206 51 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 120 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 60 Mesic Flatwoods c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 Page 1873 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 33 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 90 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 80 gopher tortoise b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 10 adjacent to undeveloped land that is adjacent to North Belle Meade west of Miller Canal c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 10 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) Page 1874 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 34 a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 80% hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 25 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 245 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 65 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 Page 1875 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 35 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 75 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) Page 1876 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 36 a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 small acreage and location would make prescribed fire difficult 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 95 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 43 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 Page 1877 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 37 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 10 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi-unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 135 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 60 BERMAN PARCEL 2 AND FAMILY ONYNXX Property Name: Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onynxx Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41715560001 and 41613880003 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 37 23 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 183 46 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 Page 1878 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 38 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 Page 1879 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 39 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 0 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 140 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 37 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 Page 1880 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 40 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 Page 1881 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 41 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 Page 1882 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 42 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 ECHAVRRIA Property Name: Echavarria Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41660040003 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 40 25 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 185 46 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 100 Page 1883 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 43 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 40 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 Page 1884 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 44 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 0 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 150 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 40 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 Page 1885 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 45 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) Page 1886 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 46 a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 Page 1887 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 47 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 MORALES Property Name: Morales Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41614280000 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 44 28 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 189 47 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) Page 1888 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 48 a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) Page 1889 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 49 a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 25 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 165 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 44 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) Page 1890 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 50 a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 Page 1891 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 51 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 Page 1892 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 52 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 Page 1893 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 53 8. Additional Site Photos Berman Parcel 1 – View from roadway Berman Parcel 1 Page 1894 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 54 Berman Parcel 1 Berman Parcel 2 view from roadway Page 1895 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 55 Berman Parcel 2 Echavarria parcel view from roadway Page 1896 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 56 Echavarria parcel Echavarria parcel Page 1897 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 57 View of Family Onyxx from roadway Family Onyxx parcel Page 1898 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 58 View of Morales parcel from roadway Morales parcel Page 1899 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 59 Morales parcel Page 1900 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 60 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions 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. Below is a description of each of the three CLIP4 data layers used in this report. Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Consists of 12 priority natural community types: upland glades, pine rocklands, seepage slopes, scrub, sandhill, sandhill upland lakes, rockland hammock, coastal uplands, imperiled coastal lakes, dry prairie, upland pine, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, or coastal wetlands. These natural communities are prioritized by a combination of their heritage global status rank (G-rank) and landscape context, based on the Land Use Intensity Index (subset of CLIP Landscape Integrity Index) and FNAI Potential Natural Areas. Priority 1 includes G1-G3 communities with Very High or High landscape context. Priority 2 includes G1-G3 Medium and G4 Very High/High. Priority 3 includes G4 Medium and G5 Very High/High. Priority 5 is G5 Medium. This data layer was created by FNAI originally to inform the Florida Forever environmental land acquisition program. The natural communities were mapped primarily based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, which is a compilation of best-available land cover data for the entire state. The CLC is based on both remote-sensed (from aerial photography, primarily from water management district FLUCCS data) and ground-truthed (from field surveys on many conservation lands) data. Figure 10 - Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map This CLIP version 4.0 data layer is unchanged from CLIP v3.0. FWC Potential Habitat Richness. Because SHCAs do not address species richness, FWC also developed the potential habitat richness layer to identify areas of overlapping vertebrate species habitat. FWC created a statewide potential habitat model for each species included in their analysis. In some cases, only a portion of the potential habitat was ultimately designated as SHCA for each species. The Potential Habitat Richness layer includes the entire potential habitat model for each species and provides a count of the number of species habitat models occurring at each location. The highest number of focal species co-occurring at any location in the model is 13. Page 1901 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 61 Figure 11 - CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones High priorities indicate high potential for recharge to an underlying aquifer system (typically the Floridan aquifer but could be intermediate or surficial aquifers in some portions of the state). The highest priorities indicate high potential for recharge to springs or public water supplies. This figure also includes Wellfield Protection Zones. Collier County Wellfield Protection Zones are referenced in the Land Development Code and updated in 2010 by Pollution Control and Prevention Department Staff. The public water supply wellfields, identified in section 3.06.06 and permitted by the SFWMD for potable water to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 average gallons per day (GPD), are identified as protected wellfields, around which specific land use and activity (regulated development) shall be regulated under this section. Page 1902 of 2001 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Owner Names: Gary R. Edwards Tr/Section Land Tr/Section 12-A Tr/Section 12-F Land/Section 12-G Land Tru/Section 12-J Land Tr/Triangle Land Tr /Circle Land Tr and Golden Land Partners, LLC Folio Numbers: 00411840008, 00412040001, 00412160004, 00412360008, 00412400007, 00413040000, 00413200002, 00413520009, 00413600000, and 00412200003 Size: 85 acres Staff Report Date: January 8, 2025 97 33 69 27 160 80 80 80 020406080100120140160180 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 225/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Edwards Trust 81 33 69 4 160 80 80 80 020406080100120140160180 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 187/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Golden Land Partners Page 1903 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Summary of Property ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview .........................................................................................................5 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up .........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Summary of Property Information ....................................................................................................7 Table 1 – Summary of Property Information .....................................................................................7 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score ....................................................................................................8 Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary .....................................................................................8 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates ..............................................................9 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value ............................................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ................................................. 10 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) ................................ 11 3. Initial Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Ecological Values ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities ....................................................................................................... 13 Table 4 – Mapped Native Vegetative Communities ................................................................ 13 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 15 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 16 Figure 6 – Wet Flatwoods ....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 5 – Listed Wildlife Detected ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 8 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) .................................................... 19 Figure 9 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness ............................................................................. 20 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 10 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones ............................ 22 Figure 11 - Collier County Soil Survey ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 12 LIDAR Elevation Map ............................................................................................... 24 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 13 - Conservation Lands ............................................................................................... 25 3.2 Human Values ................................................................................................................................. 26 Page 1904 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 3 3.2.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 14 – Picayune Strand State Forest Trail System ........................................................... 26 Figure 15 – Picayune Strand State Forest Newman Dr. Trailhead and Parking Lot ................. 27 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 16 – View looking north along trail within Golden Land Partners parcel ..................... 27 3.3 Restoration and Management ....................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Vegetation Management ...................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................ 28 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security .............................................................................................. 28 3.3.3 Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 28 3.4 Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 17 – Zoning Overlay ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 18 – Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 31 3.4.2 Development Plans ............................................................................................................... 32 4. Acquisition Considerations ................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 19 – Florida Forever Boundary and TDR Agreements .................................................. 33 5. Management Needs and Costs .............................................................................................................. 34 Table 6 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management .............................. 34 6. Potential for Matching Funds .............................................................................................................. 34 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form ......................................................................................................... 35 8. Additional Site Photos ......................................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions ...................................... 53 Page 1905 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 4 1. 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). On November 3, 2020, the Collier County electors approved the Conservation Collier Re-establishment referendum with a 76.5% majority. This Initial Criteria Screening Report (ICSR) has been prepared for the Conservation Collier Program to meet requirements specified in the Conservation Collier Implementation Ordinance, 2002-63, as amended, and for purposes of the Conservation Collier Program. The sole purpose of this report is to provide objective data to demonstrate how properties meet the criteria defined by the ordinance. The following sections characterize the property location and assessed value, elaborate on the initial and secondary screening criteria scoring, and describe potential funding sources, appropriate use, site improvements, and estimated management costs. Page 1906 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1907 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1908 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Edwards Trust - Gary R. Edwards Trust and Section 12-J Land Trust Golden Land Partners – Golden Land Partners LLC Folio Numbers Multiple Edwards Trust - 00411840008, 00412040001, 00412160004, 00412360008, 00412400007, 00413040000, 00413200002, 00413520009, 00413600000 Golden Land Partners – 00412200003 Target Protection Area RFMUD Not within a Target Protection Mailing Area Size 85 acres 70 contiguous acres – 50 Edwards Trust acres and 20 Golden Land Partners acres; 10-acre and 5-acre Edwards Trust stand-alone parcels Section, Township, and Range S12, Twn 50, R26 Zoning Category/TDRs A-RFMUD-NRPA - Sending Agricultural - Rural Fringe Mixed Use District – Natural Resource Protection Area – Sending Lands; Zoning allows 1 unit per 40 acres; 90% native vegetation preservation requirement; Golden Land Partners has first 2 TDRs stripped from their 20-acre parcel FEMA Flood Map Category AH 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Existing structures None Adjoining properties and their Uses Conservation; undeveloped The parcels are adjacent to private conservation easements, Picayune Strand State Forest, and undeveloped Sending Lands Development Plans Submitted None Known Property Irregularities None Other County Dept Interest Transportation Parcels are in the proposed Benfield Road Extension area which is included in the LRTP as a need from The Lords Way to City Gate Blvd. N. These properties in this location could be impacted by future right-of-way needs or for stormwater ponds to support the right-of-way. Page 1909 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 8 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary Edwards Trust: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 97 160 61% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 29 53 55% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 27 27 100% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 33 53 63% 2 - Human Values 33 80 41% 2.1 - Recreation 23 34 67% 2.2 - Accessibility 9 34 25% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 1 11 13% 3 - Restoration and Management 69 80 86% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 23 23 100% 3.3 - Assistance 2 2 100% 4 - Vulnerability 27 80 33% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 24 58 42% 4.2 - Development Plans 2 22 10% Total 225 400 56% 97 33 69 27 160 80 80 80 020406080100120140160180 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 225/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Edwards Trust 81 33 69 4 160 80 80 80 020406080100120140160180 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 187/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Golden Land Partners Page 1910 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 9 Golden Land Partners: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 81 160 51% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 29 53 55% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 27 27 100% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 17 53 33% 2 - Human Values 33 80 41% 2.1 - Recreation 23 34 67% 2.2 - Accessibility 9 34 25% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 1 11 13% 3 - Restoration and Management 69 80 86% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 23 23 100% 3.3 - Assistance 2 2 100% 4 - Vulnerability 4 80 6% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 2 58 4% 4.2 - Development Plans 2 22 10% Total 187 400 47% 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates The interest being appraised is fee simple “as is” for the purchase of the site. A value of the parcel was estimated using only one of the three traditional approaches to value, the sales comparison approach. It 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 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 this report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relies upon information solely provided by program staff. The valuation conclusion is limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions exist. Possible access concerns or limits to uses within the property unknown at the time of estimation will be taken into consideration at time of appraisal. If the Board of County Commissioners chooses to acquire these properties, appraisals by independent Real Estate Appraisers will be obtained at that time. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, two appraisals are required for the Edwards Trust property, which has an initial valuation greater than $500,000; 2 independent Real Estate Appraisers will value the subject property and the average of the two appraisal reports will determine the actual value of the subject property. Page 1911 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 10 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value Property owners Folio # Acreage Assessed Value* Estimated Value** Gary R. Edwards Trust/Triangle Land Trust 00411840008 5.00 $27,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section Land Trust 00412040001 10.00 $54,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-G Land Trust 00412160004 10.00 $54,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-F Land Trust 00412360008 5.00 $27,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-J Land Trust 00412400007 5.00 $27,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-F Land Trust 00413040000 10.00 $54,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Circle Land Trust 00413200002 5.00 $27,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-G Land Trust 00413520009 10.00 $54,000 TBD Gary R. Edwards Trust/Section 12-A Trust 00413600000 5.00 $27,000 TBD Edwards Tr. TOTAL 65.00 $351,000 TBD Golden Land Partners, LLC 00412200003 20.00 $2,000 TBD * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. The Assessed Value is based off the current use of the property. **The Estimated Market Value for the Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners properties will be obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department prior to Board of County Commissioners ranking. 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. The parcels are zoned Agricultural but in Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) with a Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay. All the parcels, except for the Golden Land Partners parcel, have an allowable density of 1 unit per 40 acres with a 90% native preservation requirement. The Golden Land Partners parcel has had the first 2 TDRs / 5 acres stripped. Therefore, development within the parcel is not an allowable use. Page 1912 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 11 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) Criteria 1: CLIP Priority 1 Natural Community Does the property contain Upland Hardwood Forest, Scrub, Coastal Upland, Dry Prairie, or Upland Pine? NO Criteria 2: CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community Does the property contain Pine Flatwoods or Coastal Wetlands? YES Both properties contain Hydric pine flatwoods and Mesic pine flatwoods. Criteria 3: Other Native, Natural Communities Does the property contain other native, natural communities? N/A The parcels also contain other native natural communities, but already contain CLIP Priority 2 Natural Communities. Criteria 4: Human Social Values Does the property offer cultural values, appropriate access for natural resource-based recreation, and the enhancement of the aesthetic setting of Collier County? NO The parcels are not visible or readily accessible from a public roadway. They are accessible via a rough trail that traverses other private parcels. Criteria 5: Water Resources Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species habitat, wildfire risk reduction, storm surge protection, and flood control? YES Hydric soils exist on the majority of the parcels and wetland plant communities are found throughout the parcels. Criteria 6: Biological and Ecological Value Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity and listed species habitat? YES FWC Species Richness Maps show potential for 2-6 species to utilize the properties including federally endangered Florida panther, red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat, and state-threatened Florida gopher tortoise and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Panther telemetry (from 1986-2020) shows consistent utilization of the site by radio-collared individuals. The property is Page 1913 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 12 included within known historic nesting/foraging habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Criteria 7: Enhancement of Current Conservation Lands Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor? YES These parcels are adjacent Picayune Strand State Forest and private conservation lands. Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? NO The Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners parcels met 4 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1914 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 13 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities The parcels are mapped as Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, and Mixed Hardwood Coniferous Swamps; however, staff observed Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, Mesic Hammock, Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, and Melaleuca Forest. Due to 2017 Lee-Williams Fire, a significant thermal thinning of the slash pine (Pinus elliotti var. densa) canopy exists throughout all the parcels. Areas within the Melaleuca Forest, Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, and Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm where the Florida slash pine canopy was removed by fire are dominated by a cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) midstory. Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 25% - at varying densities throughout. The melaleuca forest, wet flatwoods, and cypress/pine/cabbage palm communities are more heavily infested than other areas of the properties. Primary invasive plants observed were melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa). Other exotic plants present include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), torpedograss (Panicum repens), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), and shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata) No listed plant species were observed during the site visit. Table 4 – Mapped Native Vegetative Communities Community Location Description Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm Edwards Trust - Parcel 1 Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Cabbage Palm (Sabal palmetto), and very sparse slash pine (Pinus elliottii) in canopy; primarily earleaf acacia in midstory with some myrsine (Myrsine cubana), American beauty berry (Callicarpa americana), and cabbage palm; saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wire grass (Aristida stricta), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) in groundcover Melaleuca Forest Edwards Trust – Parcel 5 Melalueca canopy, cabbage palm midstory, swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum) groundcover Page 1915 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 14 Wet Flatwoods Golden Land Partners and Edwards Trust – Parcels 2-9 Very sparse slash pine canopy; cabbage palm and melaleuca understory with some earleaf acacia, downy rosemyrtle, wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and saw palmetto; wire grass, maidencane (Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum) yellow-eyed grasses (Xyris spp.), broom-sedge (Andropogon sp.), cogongrass, and torpedo grass in ground cover Mesic Flatwoods Golden Land Partners and Edwards Trust – Parcels 4,6,7,8, and 9 Very sparse slash pine canopy; saw palmetto, galberry (Ilex glabra), rusty lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), winged-sumac (Rhus copallinum) American beautyberry and occasional earleaf acacia in mid-story; wild pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida) and in wiregrass groundcover Mesic Hammock Edwards Trust – Parcels 8 and 9 Occasional cabbage palm in canopy; myrsine, white indigoberry (Randia aculeata), wax myrtle, firebush (Hamelia patens), Florida bully (Sideroxylon tenax), red bay (Persea borbonia) in midstory; snowberry (Chiococca alba), bracken fern, wiregrass, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), sand cordgrass ( Spartina bakeri), golden rod (Solidago sp.) in ground cover Page 1916 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 15 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1917 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 16 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1918 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 17 Figure 6 – Wet Flatwoods Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood Page 1919 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 18 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities The parcel is just outside the western edge of Picayune Strand State Forest. Multiple Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) telemetry points have been noted in and around the parcels. The parcels are also within known historic nesting/foraging habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Table 5 – Listed Wildlife Detected Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Mode of Detection Florida panther Puma concolor coryi Endangered Endangered Telemetry points Page 1920 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 19 Figure 8 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1921 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 20 Figure 9 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1922 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 21 3.1.3 Water Resources The parcels significantly protect water resources. They are comprised of a majority of wetland plant communities, holds significant amounts of water during the rainy season, and provides important habitat for many wetland dependent species. Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soils mapped on this parcel primarily hydric. Mapped hydric soils include “Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum” (a poorly drained soil associated with sloughs and poorly defined drainageways). Non-hydric soils include “Boca Fine Sand” and “Oldsmar Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum”. Both these soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils associated with flatwoods. Page 1923 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 22 Figure 10 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1924 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 23 Figure 11 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1925 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 24 Figure 12 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1926 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 25 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity Picayune Strand State Forest lies to the north, east, and south of these parcels – with undeveloped parcels between them and Picayune, with the exception of Edwards Trust parcel 1 and the Golden Land Partners parcel, which are both adjacent to Picayune. Edwards Trust parcels 2, 3, 4, and 8 are also adjacent to private conservation easements to the west and north. Figure 13 - Conservation Lands Page 1927 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 26 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation These parcels could provide seasonal access for a variety of recreational activities including hunting equestrian, cycling, and hiking. The area is flooded during the wet season. 3.2.2 Accessibility The parcels are somewhat accessible via the Picayune Strand State Forest yellow trails (Figure 15). The parcels are located approximately 1 mile south of the Picayune trailhead and parking area off Newman Dr. and could be incorporated into the Picayune trail system if Conservation Collier were to acquire four parcels between the yellow trail and the parcels. Figure 14 – Picayune Strand State Forest Trail System Approximate location of parcels Page 1928 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 27 Figure 15 – Picayune Strand State Forest Newman Dr. Trailhead and Parking Lot 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement The parcels contain scenic vistas that enhance the aesthetics of Collier County. Figure 16 – View looking north along trail within Golden Land Partners parcel Page 1929 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 28 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 25% - at varying densities throughout. The melaleuca forest, wet flatwoods, and cypress/pine/cabbage palm communities are more heavily infested than other areas of the properties. Primary invasive plants observed were melaleuca, earleaf acacia, and downy rosemyrtle. Other exotic plants present include Brazilian pepper, torpedograss, cogongrass, Caesarweed, and shrubby false buttonweed. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire The Lee-Williams Fire burned through the parcels in 2017, killing a majority of the slash pine canopy. Prescribed fire would be an important management tool for this property. Thinning of cabbage palms would be necessary within portions of Staff would work with the Florida Forest Service (FFS) to ensure coordinated fire management. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security No site security issues appear to exist within the parcel. 3.3.3 Assistance Prescribed fire assistance from the FFS and other agencies is anticipated. Staff would also seek to incorporate the property into the Picayune Strand Wildlife Management Area in order to facilitate hunting and coordinate exotic plant and RCW management. Staff would also pursue funding assistance through the FWC Invasive Plant Management Section to offset exotic plant control costs. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use The parcels are zoned Agricultural and are Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) with a Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay. All the parcels, except for the Golden Land Partners parcel, have an allowable density of 1 unit per 40 acres with a 90% native preservation requirement. The Golden Land Partners parcel has had the first 2 TDRs stripped / 5 acres stripped. Therefore, development within the parcel is not an allowable use. LDC section 2.03.08.A provide the description of Sending Lands: RFMU sending lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. RFMU sending lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation. Density may be transferred from RFMU sending lands as provided in section 2.03.07 D.4.c. All NRPAs within the RFMU district are also RFMU sending lands. LDC section 2.03.08.B provide the description of NRPAs: The purpose and intent of the Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay District (NRPA) is to: protect endangered or potentially endangered species by directing incompatible land uses Page 1930 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 29 away from their habitats; to identify large, connected, intact, and relatively unfragmented habitats, which may be important for these listed species; and to support State and Federal agencies' efforts to protect endangered or potentially endangered species and their habitats. NRPAs may include major wetland systems and regional flow-ways. These lands generally should be the focus of any federal, state, County, or private acquisition efforts. Accordingly, allowable land uses, vegetation preservation standards, development standards, and listed species protection criteria within NRPAs set forth herein are more restrictive than would otherwise be permitted in the underlying zoning district and shall to be applicable in addition to any standards that apply tin the underlying zoning district. Page 1931 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 30 Figure 17 – Zoning Overlay Page 1932 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 31 Figure 18 – Future Land Use Page 1933 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 32 3.4.2 Development Plans None of the parcels are currently planned for development. 4. Acquisition Considerations Staff would like to bring the following items to the attention of the Advisory Committee during the review of this property. The following items may not have significantly affected the scoring but are worth noting. These parcels are within the proposed Benfield Road Extension area which is included in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a need from The Lords Way to City Gate Blvd. N. The properties in this location could be impacted by future right-of-way needs or for stormwater ponds to support the right-of-way. If these properties are approved for the A-List, staff will take this information into consideration when planning amenities and public access on the site. Additionally, when applicable, language will be memorialized in the Purchase Agreements and related closing documents to ensure Collier County Transportation will be able to purchase a portion of the properties from Conservation Collier for future right-of-way, if and when needed, at the original per-acre acquisition cost. Edwards Trust Parcels 1 and 6 and the Golden Land Partners parcel are within the state’s FL Forever Acquistion Boundary; however, the state is not currently acquiring land within this area of Florida. Page 1934 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 33 Figure 19 – Florida Forever Boundary and TDR Agreements Page 1935 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 34 5. Management Needs and Costs Table 6 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management Management Element Initial Cost Annual Recurring Cost Comments Invasive Vegetation Removal $72,250 $12,750 Initial assumes $850/acre; recurring assumes $150/acre Cabbage Palm Treatment $24,000 n/a Assumes $400/acre for 60 acres TOTAL $96,250 $12,750 6. 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 - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program: The FCT Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program provides grant funds to local governments and nonprofit organizations to acquire conservation lands, urban open spaces, parks and greenways. Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from the time of acquisition. The Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program assists the Department of Environmental Protection in helping communities meet the challenges of growth, supporting viable community development and protecting natural resources and open space. The program receives 21 percent Florida Forever appropriation. Florida Forever Program: This parcel is within the Belle Meade Florida Forever Project Area boundary, and state Real Estate Services staff has expressed interest in pursuing the property, depending on owner expectations of process and price. 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. Additional Funding Sources: There are no additional funding sources known at this time. Page 1936 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 35 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form EDWARDS TRUST Property Name: Edwards Trust Target Protection Mailing Area: N/A Folio(s): 00411840008, 00412040001, 00412160004, 00412360008, 00412400007, 00413040000, 00413200002, 00413520009, 00413600000 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 97 61 2 - Human Value 80 33 41 3 - Restoration and Management 80 69 86 4 - Vulnerability 80 27 33 TOTAL SCORE 400 225 56 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 110 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 60 Mesic and hydric flatwoods c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 20 mesic hammock, mesic and hydric flatwoods b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 Page 1937 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 36 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 100 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 Page 1938 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 37 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 125 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 75 65 acres c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 50 Private CE and Picayune b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 365 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 97 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 80 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 30 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 Page 1939 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 38 d. No public access 0 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 20 c. Street parking available 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 5 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 115 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 33 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and cabbage palms c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Page 1940 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 39 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 50 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 5 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 150 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 69 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 55 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 5 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 Page 1941 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 40 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi-unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 60 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 27 GOLDEN LAND PARTNERS Property Name: Golden Land Partners Target Protection Mailing Area: N/A Folio(s): 00412200003 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 81 51 2 - Human Value 80 33 41 3 - Restoration and Management 80 69 86 4 - Vulnerability 80 4 6 TOTAL SCORE 400 187 47 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 110 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 60 Mesic and Hydric Flatwoods c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 Page 1942 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 41 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 100 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 80 FL panther b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 20 20 acres adjacent to Picayune b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 Page 1943 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 42 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 65 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 50 Picayune b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 305 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 81 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 80 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 30 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 Page 1944 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 43 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 20 c. Street parking available 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 5 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 115 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 33 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Invasives and cabbage palms c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 Page 1945 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 44 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 50 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 5 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 5 Forestry b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 150 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 69 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 5 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 5 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) Page 1946 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 45 a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 10 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 4 Page 1947 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 46 8. Additional Site Photos Eastern Boundary of Edwards Trust Parcel 1 Edwards Trust Parcel 1 Page 1948 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 47 Edwards Trust Parcel 5 Tall melaleuca of Edwards Trust Parcel 5 in background Page 1949 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 48 Picayune Strand State Forest Yellow Trail that leads to parcels Edwards Trust Mesic Hammock Page 1950 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 49 Area of thicker melaleuca within Wet Flatwoods Mesic Pine Flatwoods Page 1951 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 50 Transition area between wet and mesic flatwoods Wet flatwoods Page 1952 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 51 Wet flatwoods showing extent of dead pines Golden Land Partners Page 1953 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 52 Golden Land Partners Page 1954 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 53 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions 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. Below is a description of each of the three CLIP4 data layers used in this report. Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Consists of 12 priority natural community types: upland glades, pine rocklands, seepage slopes, scrub, sandhill, sandhill upland lakes, rockland hammock, coastal uplands, imperiled coastal lakes, dry prairie, upland pine, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, or coastal wetlands. These natural communities are prioritized by a combination of their heritage global status rank (G-rank) and landscape context, based on the Land Use Intensity Index (subset of CLIP Landscape Integrity Index) and FNAI Potential Natural Areas. Priority 1 includes G1-G3 communities with Very High or High landscape context. Priority 2 includes G1-G3 Medium and G4 Very High/High. Priority 3 includes G4 Medium and G5 Very High/High. Priority 5 is G5 Medium. This data layer was created by FNAI originally to inform the Florida Forever environmental land acquisition program. The natural communities were mapped primarily based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, which is a compilation of best-available land cover data for the entire state. The CLC is based on both remote-sensed (from aerial photography, primarily from water management district FLUCCS data) and ground-truthed (from field surveys on many conservation lands) data. Figure 9 - Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map This CLIP version 4.0 data layer is unchanged from CLIP v3.0. FWC Potential Habitat Richness. Because SHCAs do not address species richness, FWC also developed the potential habitat richness layer to identify areas of overlapping vertebrate species habitat. FWC created a statewide potential habitat model for each species included in their analysis. In some cases, only a portion of the potential habitat was ultimately designated as SHCA for each species. The Potential Habitat Richness layer includes the entire potential habitat model for each species and provides a count of the number of species habitat models occurring at each location. The highest number of focal species co-occurring at any location in the model is 13. Page 1955 of 2001 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 54 Figure 10 - CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones High priorities indicate high potential for recharge to an underlying aquifer system (typically the Floridan aquifer but could be intermediate or surficial aquifers in some portions of the state). The highest priorities indicate high potential for recharge to springs or public water supplies. This figure also includes Wellfield Protection Zones. Collier County Wellfield Protection Zones are referenced in the Land Development Code and updated in 2010 by Pollution Control and Prevention Department Staff. The public water supply wellfields, identified in section 3.06.06 and permitted by the SFWMD for potable water to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 average gallons per day (GPD), are identified as protected wellfields, around which specific land use and activity (regulated development) shall be regulated under this section. Page 1956 of 2001