The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/22/2025 Item #16A144/22/2025 Item # 16.A.14 ID# 2025-163 Executive Summary Recommendation to approve the properties on the January 2025 Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List (AAL) and direct staff to pursue the projects recommended within the A-Category, funded by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) approval to pursue A-category properties for acquisition. CONSIDERATIONS: On November 3, 2020, the Collier County electors approved the Conservation Collier Re- establishment Referendum with a 76.5% majority. Pursuant to Section 11 of Conservation Collier Ordinance No. 2002- 63, as amended, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (CCLAAC) recommends qualified acquisition proposals for the Active Acquisition List (AAL) to the Board for approval. Pursuant to prior Board direction to streamline the acquisition process, properties are now reviewed on an ongoing basis rather than on annual or bi-annual cycles. This new process started in April 2024 after the Board approved Ordinance No. 2002–63 revisions (BCC 3/26/2024, Agenda item 9.D). Accordingly, the AAL provided includes all properties reviewed by the CCLAAC in January 2025. On January 8, 2025, the CCLAAC selected acquisition proposals for inclusion in the AAL as follows: Property/Project Area Name Size (ac) Estimated Value Estimated Value per acre CCLAAC Recommended Category Edwards Trust 65.00 $390,000 $6,000 A Golden Land Partners 20.00 $100,000 $5,000 A A-list Total January 2025 85.00 $490,000 Karlsson 0.33 $750,000 $2,272,700 C A detailed summary of each property is attached to this item. The AAL above includes the CCLAAC recommendations. The AAL attached as Attachment 1 to this item provides detailed companion information about the properties on page 2, including whether the owner lives adjacent to the subject property and estimated maintenance costs. The proposed AAL has been separated into three (3) categories, A, B, and C, as required by Conservation Collier Ordinance (No. 2002-63, as amended) Section 10, which states that the Active Acquisition List shall separate proposals into three (3) categories: A (pursue acquisition); B (hold for re-evaluation for one calendar year); and C (no interest in acquiring). No properties were selected for the B-category during this ranking. Staff prepared and presented property reports, called Initial Criteria Screening Reports (ICSR), to aid the CCLAAC in evaluating each property. Each ICSR includes a scoring matrix based on researched and observed data. The ICSRs are attached to this item. Page 1267 of 6355 4/22/2025 Item # 16.A.14 ID# 2025-163 During the CCLAAC meeting, property ranking occurred after staff presented all property summaries and after public comments. A-CATEGORY PROPERTY • Edwards Trust – 65.00 acres • Golden Land Partners – 20.00 acres These parcels are immediately adjacent to each other, Picayune Strand State Forest, and private conservation easements within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Staff and the CCLAAC recommend these properties for the A-category as they would expand existing preserve land and provide habitat for the state-listed red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and the federally listed Florida panther. The Edwards Trust property has an estimated value of $390,000 ($6,000 per acre), while the Golden Land Partners property has an estimated value of $100,000 ($5,000 per acre). The lower per-acre estimated Value of the Golden Land Partners property reflects the fact that the first two Transfer of Development Right (TDR) credits have been stripped from it, limiting its allowable development. C-CATEGORY PROPERTY • Karlsson – 0.33 acres C-Category properties are not recommended for acquisition and are proposed to be removed from the AAL. Property owners may apply for consideration during a future cycle. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: On January 8, 2025, the CCLAAC held a public meeting and ranked acquisition proposals for Board consideration. The CCLAAC recommends two properties totaling 85.00 acres for the “A” list category. The projected acquisition cost for these A-list category CCLAAC recommended properties is $490,000. This item is consistent with the Collier County strategic plan objectives to preserve and enhance the character of our community and to protect our natural resources. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost of the properties under consideration is $490,000. In the FY25 budget, $34,726,643 is available for land acquisitions within the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund (1061). Properties pending acquisition in Cycles 11B, 12B, 2024, and 2025 total approximately $25,707,370. Funds for managing any lands acquired by the program are budgeted in the separate Conservation Collier Land Management Fund (1062), funded via a transfer from the net Conservation Collier ad valorem tax levy. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Fee-simple acquisition of conservation lands is consistent with and supports Policy 1.3.1(e) in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved for form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board action. - SAA RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve properties on the January 2025 Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List (AAL), direct staff to pursue the projects recommended within the A-Category and bring the Purchase Agreements to the Board for review and approval. Page 1268 of 6355 4/22/2025 Item # 16.A.14 ID# 2025-163 PREPARED BY: Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist I, Conservation Collier, Development Review Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025 Cycle BCC Ranking List_for BCC ranking Jan 2025 CCLAAC 2. Property Summaries January 2025 CCLAAC 3. Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners ICSR 4. Karlsson Trust ICSR Page 1269 of 6355 Conservation Collier January 2025 CCLAAC Properties for BCC Ranking Size (ac)Estimated Value Estimated Value per acre CCLAAC Recommended Category 65.00 $390,000 $6,000 A 20.00 $100,000 $5,000 A 85.00 $490,000 0.33 $750,000 $2,272,727 C 0.33 $750,000 A-LIST TOTAL January 2025 C-LIST TOTAL Property/Project Area Name Karlsson Edwards Trust Golden Land Partners 1 Page 1270 of 6355 Conservation Collier January 2025 CCLAAC Property companion information Size (ac)Does owner live adjacent? Property owner location/adjacent property information Estimated Annual Maintenance Cost/Acre for 1st 5 years 65.00 No Owner lives in Boca Raton, FL $112,650 20.00 No Owner lives in North Naples $34,600 85.00 0.33 No Owner lives in Naples, but not near parcel $78,400 0.33C-LIST TOTAL Karlsson Property/Project Area Name A-LIST TOTAL January 2025 Edwards Trust Golden Land Partners 2 Page 1271 of 6355 BCC Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Edwards Trust CCLAAC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Edwards Trust Owner(s): Gary R. Edwards Trust, 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 Target Protection Area: RFMUD-Sending-NRPA Acreage: 65.0 acres Estimated Market Value: $390,000 Highlights: •Location: West of Picayune Strand State Forest, just south of between Newman Dr. •4 of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria were met: Natural Communities, Water Resources, Biological and Ecological Value, Enhancement of Conservation Lands •Habitat: Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, Mesic Hammock, Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Melalecua forest •Listed Plants: None observed •Listed Wildlife: FL panther and potential for red cockaded woodpecker and listed wading birds •Water Resource Values: primarily wetlands that hold water during wet season •Connectivity: Parcels are adjacent to Picayune Strand State Forest and private conservation easements •Other Division Interest: Transportation - within study area of Benfield Road Extension. May be needed for ROW or ponds •Access: No vehicle access; accessible via Picayune yellow trail then through private parcels •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotic removal estimated at $55,250 and ongoing annual estimated at $9,750; cabbage palm reduction estimated at $18,400 •Partnership Opportunities: Prescribed fire and exotic plant coordination with Florida Forest Service •Zoning/Overlays: RFMUD-Sending-NRPA. Maximum density 1 unit per 40 acres; 90% native vegetation retention requirement •Surrounding land uses: Conservation; undeveloped land •All Criteria Score: 225 out of 400 •Acquisition Considerations: 2 of the 9 parcels are within the State’s FL Forever acquistion boundary; however, the State does not have interest in acquiring these properties at this time. 97 33 69 27 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 225/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Edwards Trust Page 1272 of 6355 BCC Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Edwards Trust CCLAAC Recommendation: A-list Page 1273 of 6355 Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Golden Land Partners Owner(s): Golden Land Partners, LLC. Acreage: 20.0 acres BCC CCLAAC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Golden Land Partners Target Protection Area: RFMUD-Sending-NRPA Estimated Market Value: $100,000 Highlights: •Location: West of Picayune Strand State Forest, just south of between Newman Dr. •4 of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria were met: Natural Communities, Water Resources, Biological and Ecological Value, Enhancement of Conservation Lands. •Habitat: Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods. •Listed Plants: None observed. •Listed Wildlife: FL panther and potential for red cockaded woodpecker and listed wading birds. •Water Resource Values: Primarily wetlands that hold water during wet season. •Connectivity: Parcel is adjacent to Picayune Strand State Forest. •Other Division Interest: Transportation - within study area of Benfield Road Extension. May be needed for ROW or ponds. •Access: No vehicle access; accessible via Picayune yellow trail then through private parcels. •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotic removal estimated at $17,000 and ongoing annual estimated at $3,000; cabbage palm reduction estimated at $5,600. •Partnership Opportunities: Prescribed fire and exotic plant coordination with Florida Forest Service •Zoning/Overlays: RFMUD-Sending-NRPA. First 2 TDRs stripped. Development not an allowable use. •Surrounding land uses: Conservation; undeveloped land •All Criteria Score: 187 out of 400; low vulnerability score •Acquisition Considerations: Parcel is within the State’s FL Forever acquistion boundary; however, the State does not have interest in acquiring the property at this time. 81 33 69 4 160 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: 187/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Golden Land Partners Page 1274 of 6355 BCC Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Golden Land Partners CCLAAC Recommendation: A-list Page 1275 of 6355 BCC Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Karlsson Trust CCLAAC Recommendation: C-list Property Name: Karlsson Trust Owner: Peter U Karlsson Rev Trust Target Protection Area: Urban Acreage: 0.33 acres Estimated Market Value: $750,000 Highlights: •Location: 1552 Bembury Dr., adjacent to the Gordon River Greenway •4 of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria were met: Natural Communities, Water Resources, Enhancement of Conservation Lands, within the Gordon River Greenway Target Protection Mailing Area •Habitat: Disturbed mangrove swamp within the southern third of the parcel •Listed Plants: None observed •Listed Wildlife: Potential for listed wading birds •Water Resource Values: Storm surge protection along Gordon River, moderate aquifer recharge potential, within 20-year wellfield protection zone •Connectivity: Parcel is adjacent to Gordon River Greenway along eastern boundary •Other Division Interest: None •Access: Roadway adjacent; no parking available or public access •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial exotic removal estimated at $25,000 and ongoing annual estimated at $300; debris removal estimated at $50,000; native plantings estimated at $2,000; signage estimated at $200 •Partnership Opportunities: No partnerships anticipated •Zoning/Overlays: (RMF-6). Maximum density is 6 unit per acre •Surrounding land uses: Residential; conservation; undeveloped land •All Criteria Score: 176 out of 400; high vulnerability score •Acquisition Considerations: Approximately half the property contains what appears to be historic construction debris – large concrete slabs with rebar and some asphalt. Seller will not remove debris as a condition of sale, but will discount sale price to $1,000,000 if appraised over $1,000,000. Seller has state and federal wetland permits that would allow construction of single family home on northern 2/3rds of parcel. 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 1276 of 6355 BCC Conservation Collier Property Summary January 2025 Karlsson Trust CCLAAC Recommendation: C-list Page 1277 of 6355 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 1278 of 6355 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 1279 of 6355 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 1280 of 6355 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 1281 of 6355 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 1282 of 6355 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 1283 of 6355 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 1284 of 6355 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 1285 of 6355 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 1286 of 6355 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 1287 of 6355 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 1288 of 6355 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 1289 of 6355 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 1290 of 6355 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 1291 of 6355 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 1292 of 6355 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 1293 of 6355 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 1294 of 6355 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 1295 of 6355 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 1296 of 6355 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 1297 of 6355 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 1298 of 6355 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 1299 of 6355 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 1300 of 6355 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 1301 of 6355 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 1302 of 6355 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 1303 of 6355 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 1304 of 6355 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 1305 of 6355 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 1306 of 6355 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 1307 of 6355 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 1308 of 6355 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 1309 of 6355 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 1310 of 6355 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 1311 of 6355 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 1312 of 6355 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 1313 of 6355 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 1314 of 6355 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 1315 of 6355 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 1316 of 6355 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 1317 of 6355 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 1318 of 6355 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 1319 of 6355 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 1320 of 6355 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 1321 of 6355 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 1322 of 6355 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 1323 of 6355 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 1324 of 6355 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 1325 of 6355 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 1326 of 6355 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 1327 of 6355 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 1328 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: Edwards Trust and Golden Land Partners Date: January 8, 2025 52 Golden Land Partners Page 1329 of 6355 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 1330 of 6355 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 1331 of 6355 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 1332 of 6355 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 1333 of 6355 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 1334 of 6355 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 1335 of 6355 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 1336 of 6355 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 1337 of 6355 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 1338 of 6355 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 1339 of 6355 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 1340 of 6355 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 1341 of 6355 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 1342 of 6355 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 1343 of 6355 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 1344 of 6355 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 1345 of 6355 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 1346 of 6355 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 1347 of 6355 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 1348 of 6355 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 1349 of 6355 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 1350 of 6355 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 1351 of 6355 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 1352 of 6355 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 1353 of 6355 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 1354 of 6355 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 1355 of 6355 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 1356 of 6355 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 1357 of 6355 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 1358 of 6355 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 1359 of 6355 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 1360 of 6355 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 1361 of 6355 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 1362 of 6355 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 1363 of 6355 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 1364 of 6355 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 1365 of 6355 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 1366 of 6355 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 1367 of 6355 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 1368 of 6355 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 1369 of 6355 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 1370 of 6355 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 1371 of 6355 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 1372 of 6355 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 1373 of 6355 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 1374 of 6355