The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/22/2025 Item #16A154/22/2025 Item # 16.A.15 ID# 2025-615 Executive Summary Recommendation to approve the properties on the February 2025 Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List (AAL) and direct staff to pursue the projects recommended within the A-Category, funded by 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 of County Commissioners (Board) for approval. Pursuant to prior Board direction to streamline the acquisition process, properties are now reviewed on an ongoing basis rather than in 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 February 2025. On February 5, 2025, the CCLAAC selected acquisition proposals for inclusion in the AAL as follows: Property/Proje ct Area Name Size (ac) Estimate d Value Estimate d Value per acre CCLAAC Recommend ed Category Lucarelli 5.00 $2,500,00 0 $500,000 A North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA 38.9 4 $350,460 $9,000 Simmons Trust 38.9 4 $350,460 $9,000 A I-75 and Everglades TPMA 14.6 4 $696,700 $47,589 Berman Trust parcel 1 5.00 $325,000 $65,000 A Berman Trust parcel 2 1.59 $140,000 $88,050 A Echavarria 3.05 $86,000 $28,197 A Family Onyx 2.73 $80,000 $29,304 A Morales 2.27 $65,700 $28,943 A A-LIST TOTAL 58.5 8 $3,547,16 0 $60,552 Page 1375 of 6355 4/22/2025 Item # 16.A.15 ID# 2025-615 February 2025 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 or C-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. During the CCLAAC meeting, property ranking occurred after staff presented all property summaries and after public comments. A-CATEGORY PROPERTY • Lucarelli – 5.00 acres This parcel is within urban, residential North Naples and is immediately adjacent to private conservation easements on its north and south boundaries. Staff and the CCLAAC recommend this property for the A-category as it would provide important stormwater storage benefits and provide habitat for wildlife currently inhabiting the parcel, such as FL black bear, bobcat, and raccoon. There is a proposed subdivision plat for this property in review with Collier County. A fourth submittal was submitted in January 2025 and is awaiting payment. The current plan proposes the development of eight single-family homes within the 5.00-acre parcel. Additionally, there is an open code violation case associated with the property because of the presence of prohibited exotic vegetation within 200 feet of improved property. Should the property be pursued for acquisition, Conservation Collier Program staff will coordinate with Code Enforcement staff to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to resolve the case prior to closing. The Lucarelli property has an estimated value of $2,500,000 ($500,000 per acre). • Simmons Trust – 38.94 acres This parcel is immediately adjacent on its north and west boundaries to the Conservation Collier 296-acre North Belle Meade Preserve within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Staff and the CCLAAC recommend this property for the A- category as it would expand an existing preserve and provide habitat for the state-listed red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and the federally listed Florida panther. The Simmons Trust property has an estimated value of $350,460 ($9,000 per acre). • Berman Trust parcel 1 – 5.00 acres • Berman Trust parcel 2 – 1.59 acres • Echavarria – 3.05 acres • Family Onyx – 2.73 acres Page 1376 of 6355 4/22/2025 Item # 16.A.15 ID# 2025-615 • Morales – 2.27 acres These parcels are between 36th Ave SE and 42nd Ave SE within North Golden Gate Estates on the east and west sides of Everglades Blvd. S., immediately north of I-75. All five parcels are within I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Target Protection Mailing Area. Staff and the CCLAAC recommend these properties for the A-category as they would serve to connect protected lands within North Belle Meade, Picayune Strand State Forest, and Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve, and they would provide habitat for the federally listed Florida panther and state-listed gopher tortoise. Berman Trust parcel 1 has an estimated value of $325,000 ($65,000 per acre). Berman Trust parcel 2 has an estimated value of $140,000 ($88,050 per acre). The Echavarria parcel has an estimated value of $86,000 ($28,197 per acre). The Family Onyx parcel has an estimated value of $80,000 ($29,304 per acre). The Morales parcel has an estimated value of $65,700 ($28,943 per acre). ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: On February 5, 2025, the CCLAAC held a public meeting and ranked acquisition proposals for Board consideration. CCLAAC recommends seven properties, for a total of 58.58 acres, for the “A” list category. The total projected acquisition cost for these A-list category CCLAAC recommended properties is $3,547,160. 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 $3,547,160. 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 February 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. PREPARED BY: Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist I, Conservation Collier, Development Review Division ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2025 Cycle BCC Ranking List_February 2025 CCLAAC 2. Property Summaries February 2025 CCLAAC 3. Lucarelli ICSR 4. North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA ICSR 5. I-75 Parcels ICSR Page 1377 of 6355 Conservation Collier February 2025 CCLAAC Properties for BCC Ranking Size (ac)Estimated Value Estimated Value per acre CCLAAC Recommended Category 5.00 $2,500,000 $500,000 A 38.94 $350,460 $9,000 38.94 $350,460 $9,000 A 14.64 $696,700 $47,589 5.00 $325,000 $65,000 A 1.59 $140,000 $88,050 A 3.05 $86,000 $28,197 A 2.73 $80,000 $29,304 A 2.27 $65,700 $28,943 A 58.58 $3,547,160 $60,552A-LIST TOTAL February 2025 Property/Project Area Name Lucarelli Simmons Trust I-75 and Everglades TPMA Berman Trust parcel 1 Berman Trust parcel 2 Echavarria Family Onyx Morales North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA 1 Page 1378 of 6355 Conservation Collier February 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 5.00 No Owner lives less than 500 feet NE of the parcel off Willowick Dr.$13,000 38.94 No Owner lives in Pompano Beach $57,200 43.94 5.00 No Owner lives in a different area of Naples $10,500 Property/Project Area Name Lucarelli Simmons Trust A-LIST TOTAL February 2025 I-75 and Everglades TPMA Berman Trust parcel 1 2 Page 1379 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Lucarelli Owner(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Target Protection Area: Urban Acreage: 5.0 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $2,500,000 Highlights: •Location: North Naples, west end of Erie Dr., north of Immokalee Rd., west of Livingston Rd. •Met 4 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values, protection of water resources; conservation land enhancement •Habitat: Cypress and Hydric Flatwoods •Listed Plants: Giant air plant (Tillandsia utriculata); Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) •Listed Wildlife: No listed wildlife observed on site; potential habitat for listed wading birds •Water Resource Values: Wetlands on parcel, aquifer recharge, and onsite water storage •Connectivity: adjacent to small conservation easements to the north and south •Access: Erie Dr.; no parking available •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $5,000 and ongoing annual estimated at $1,000 •Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants •Zoning/Overlays: RMF-3 – allows for 3 units per acre •Surrounding land uses: Residential homes; conservation •All Criteria Score: 177 out of 400; high vulnerability score •Other Division Interest: None •Acquisition Considerations: SFWMD wetland permit has been obtained for development of 8 homes; subdivision plan is under review with Collier County 53 31 25 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: 177/400 Awarded Points Possible Points 1 of 15 Page 1380 of 6355 2 of 15 Page 1381 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Simmons Trust Owner(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Target Protection Area: RFMUD – NBMO – NRPA – Sending; North Belle Meade Acreage: 38.94 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $350,460 Highlights: •Location: Adjacent to Conservation Collier’s North Belle Meade Preserve •Met 5 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; protection of water resources; biological and ecological value; conservation land enhancement; within a target area •Habitat: Mesic flatwoods and hydric flatwoods •Listed Plants: Giant air plant (Tillandsia utriculata) •Listed Wildlife: Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) observed on adjacent parcels - historic nesting/foraging habitat for endangered RCW; Panther telemetry indicates significant utilization •Water Resource Values: Wetlands on portions, aquifer recharge, and sheet flow on property •Connectivity: Contributes to an important wildlife corridor connecting species from the Florida Panther Refuge, Golden Gate Rural Estates, Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve, as well as the Picayune Strand State Forest and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve to the south through wildlife underpasses under I-75. Provides an ecological link to the northern range expansion goals of the RCW Recovery Plan •Access: Currently no public right of way access •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $15,600 and ongoing annual estimated at $6,000; Cabbage Palm thinning and native re-planting estimated at $15,600 •Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants •Zoning/Overlays: Agricultural; Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-North Belle Meade Overlay-Sending within Natural Resource Protection Area (A-RFMUO- NBMO-NRPA-Sending); No TDRs stripped •Surrounding land uses: Agricultural; conservation •All Criteria Score: 221 out of 400; high ecological and human value scores 123 60 30 9 160 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: 221/400 Awarded Points Possible Points 3 of 15 Page 1382 of 6355 •Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department regarding the Wilson Boulevard extension that may be aligned through the area •Acquisition Considerations: o Red Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) has become quite rare in Collier County due to increased development. Property also has high utilization by the Florida panther. o LDC section 2.03.08.A describes that RFMU Sending Lands and are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity; and are the principal target for preservation and conservation. o LDC section 2.03.08.B. states: 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 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. These lands generally should be the focus of any federal, state, County, or private acquisition efforts. 4 of 15 Page 1383 of 6355 5 of 15 Page 1384 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Berman Parcel 1 Owner(s): R F Berman Rev Trust of 2012 Target Protection Area: North Golden Gate Estates; I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Acreage: 5.00 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $325,000 Highlights: •Location: North of I-75; east and west of Everglades Blvd. S; north off 38th Ave. SE •Met 3 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values; within a target area •Habitat: Mesic flatwoods •Listed Plants: None observed •Listed Wildlife: Panther telemetry on adjacent parcels; gopher tortoise burrow present on parcel •Water Resource Values: No wetlands on parcel, very minimal aquifer recharge •Connectivity: Not immediately contiguous to conservation land, but land between parcel and private conservation easements to the west are undeveloped •Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $4,250 and ongoing annual estimated at $750; Cabbage Palm thinning estimated at $2,000 •Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants •Zoning/Overlays: Estates - allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres •Surrounding land uses: undeveloped and developed Estates lots •All Criteria Score: 206 out of 400; high vulnerability score •Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department as this parcel is within the I-75 interchange study area •Acquisition Considerations: No other acquisition considerations 65 37 43 60 160 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: 206/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 1 6 of 15 Page 1385 of 6355 7 of 15 Page 1386 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Berman Parcel 2 Owner(s): R F Berman Rev Trust of 2012 Target Protection Area: North Golden Gate Estates; I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Acreage: 1.59 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $140,000 Highlights: • Location: North of I-75; east and west of Everglades Blvd. S; north off 40th Ave. SE • Met 4 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values; water resources; within a target area • Habitat: Mixed wetland hardwoods • Listed Plants: Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) • Listed Wildlife: Panther telemetry on adjacent parcels • Water Resource Values: Wetlands on parcel, very minimal aquifer recharge • Connectivity: Not immediately contiguous to conservation land • Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $1,350 and ongoing annual estimated at $250; Cabbage Palm thinning estimated at $650 • Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants • Zoning/Overlays: Estates - allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres • Surrounding land uses: undeveloped and developed Estates lots • All Criteria Score: 183 out of 400; relatively high restoration and vulnerability scores • Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department as this parcel is within the I-75 interchange study area • Acquisition Considerations: No other acquisition considerations 37 37 53 56 160 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: 183/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 2 8 of 15 Page 1387 of 6355 9 of 15 Page 1388 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Echavarria Owner(s): Andres Echavarria Target Protection Area: North Golden Gate Estates; I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Acreage: 3.05 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $86,000 Highlights: • Location: North of I-75; east and west of Everglades Blvd. S; north off 42nd Ave. SE • Met 4 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values; water resources; within a target area • Habitat: Mixed wetland hardwoods • Listed Plants: Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) • Listed Wildlife: Panther telemetry on adjacent parcels • Water Resource Values: Wetlands on parcel, very minimal aquifer recharge; buffers I-75 canal • Connectivity: Not immediately contiguous to conservation land • Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $2,600 and ongoing annual estimated at $450; Cabbage Palm thinning estimated at $1,200 • Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants • Zoning/Overlays: Estates - allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres • Surrounding land uses: undeveloped and developed Estates lots • All Criteria Score: 185 out of 400; relatively high restoration and vulnerability scores • Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department as this parcel is within the I-75 interchange study area • Acquisition Considerations: Staff recommends that several large tires within the parcel be removed prior to Conservation Collier acquisition. 40 37 53 56 160 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: 185/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Echavarria 10 of 15 Page 1389 of 6355 11 of 15 Page 1390 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Family Onyx Owner(s): Family Onyxx, LLC Target Protection Area: North Golden Gate Estates; I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Acreage: 2.73 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $80,000 Highlights: • Location: North of I-75; east and west of Everglades Blvd. S; north off 40th Ave. SE • Met 4 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values; water resources; within a target area • Habitat: Mixed wetland hardwoods • Listed Plants: Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) • Listed Wildlife: Panther telemetry on adjacent parcels • Water Resource Values: Wetlands on parcel, very minimal aquifer recharge • Connectivity: Not immediately contiguous to conservation land • Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $2,300 and ongoing annual estimated at $400; Cabbage Palm thinning estimated at $1,100 • Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants • Zoning/Overlays: Estates - allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres • Surrounding land uses: undeveloped and developed Estates lots • All Criteria Score: 183 out of 400; relatively high restoration and vulnerability scores • Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department as this parcel is within the I-75 interchange study area • Acquisition Considerations: No other acquisition considerations 65 37 43 60 160 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: 206/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 1 37 37 53 56 160 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: 183/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Family Onyx 12 of 15 Page 1391 of 6355 13 of 15 Page 1392 of 6355 CCLACC Recommendation: A-list Property Name: Morales Owner(s): Miguel Diaz Morales Target Protection Area: North Golden Gate Estates; I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Acreage: 2.27 acres Total Estimated Market Value: $65,700 Highlights: • Location: North of I-75; east and west of Everglades Blvd. S; south off 36th Ave. SE • Met 4 out of 8 Initial Screening Criteria: Native plant communities; human social values; water resources; within a target area • Habitat: Mixed wetland hardwoods • Listed Plants: Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) • Listed Wildlife: Panther telemetry on adjacent parcels • Water Resource Values: Wetlands on parcel, very minimal aquifer recharge • Connectivity: Not immediately contiguous to conservation land, but land between parcel and private conservation easements to the west are undeveloped • Management Issues / Estimated Costs: Initial Exotic Removal estimated at $1,900 and ongoing annual estimated at $350; Cabbage Palm thinning estimated at $900 • Partnership Opportunities: Potential for state funding assistance to treat exotic plants • Zoning/Overlays: Estates - allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres • Surrounding land uses: undeveloped and developed Estates lots • All Criteria Score: 189 out of 400; relatively high restoration and vulnerability scores • Other Division Interest: Conservation Collier is coordinating with the Transportation Department as this parcel is within the I-75 interchange study area • Acquisition Considerations: No other acquisition considerations 44 37 53 56 160 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: 189/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Morales 14 of 15 Page 1393 of 6355 15 of 15 Page 1394 of 6355 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report Lucarelli Owner Name: Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Size: 5.00 acres Folio Number: 00163080006 Staff Report Date: February 5, 2025 53 31 25 67 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 177/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1395 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 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 .........................................................................................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 Table 4. Listed Plant Species.................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 13 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 14 Figure 6 – View from west end of Erie Dr. ............................................................................... 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 Page 1396 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 3 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 24 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 5 - 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 ...................................... 38 APPENDIX 2 – FLUCCS and Subdivision Plans ............................................................................................ 40 Page 1397 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 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 1398 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1399 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1400 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Lucarelli Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Folio Number 00163080006 Target Protection Area Urban Not within a Program Target Protection Mailing Area Size 5.00 acres Section, Township, and Range S24, Twn 48, R25 Zoning Category/TDRs RMF-3 Maximum density is 3 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 and developed RSF-3 Small private conservation easements to the north and south; developed single family homes to the east and west; golf course maintenance area on the southwest corner Development Plans Submitted SFWMD permit and pending subdivision application with Collier County SFWMD wetland permit obtained to impact 2.89 acres of wetlands and subdivision plans submitted with County. Plans include 8 single family residences on the north side of the parcel, extension of Erie Dr. through the middle of the parcel running E/W, a 1.39-acre conservation area within the SE portion, and a 0.48 water retention area in the SW corner. The permit also requires the purchase of 1.15 freshwater forested mitigation credits. Known Property Irregularities None Other County Dept Interest None Transportation does not have any interest in the parcel, but staff stated that preservation of the parcel could help with flooding, depending on the current condition of the parcel. Page 1401 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 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 53 160 33% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 27 53 50% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 0 27 0% 1.3 - Water Resources 13 27 50% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 13 53 25% 2 - Human Values 31 80 39% 2.1 - Recreation 6 34 17% 2.2 - Accessibility 20 34 58% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 6 11 50% 3 - Restoration and Management 25 80 31% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 23 55 42% 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 177 400 44% 53 31 25 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: 177/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1402 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 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 Lucarelli 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** Angelo and Gail Lucarelli No site address 5.00 $1,040,354.00 $2,500,000 * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. **The Estimated Value for the parcel was obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department. 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 – 3 (RMF-3). Maximum density is 3 units per acre. Page 1403 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 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? YES Hydric Pine Flatwoods Criteria 3: Other Native, Natural Communities Does the property contain other native, natural communities? N/A Parcel also contains cypress, but already contains CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community. Criteria 4: Human Social Values Does the property offer cultural values, appropriate access for natural resource-based recreation, and the enhancement of the aesthetic setting of Collier County? YES The property is accessible to pedestrians or bicyclists from Erie Dr. – a public road, no parking is available. 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 holds water during the wet season. 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 wildlife habitat due to its small size; however, it does provide refuge to racoons, black bears, and bobcats. Removal of exotic vegetation would provide foraging habitat for listed wading bird species. 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 Page 1404 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 11 Parcel is adjacent to small conservation easements to the north and south. Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? NO The Lucarelli parcel met 4 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1405 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 12 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities The parcel consists of Cypress, Melaleuca Forest, and Hydric Pine Flatwoods. Nearly half the parcel contains Cypress, which has a canopy of cypress (Taxodium sp.) with a few scattered melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia); a midstory of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Pond apple (Annona glabra), Peruvian primrosewillow (Ludwigia peruviana), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia); and groundcover consisting of alligatorflag (Thalia geniculata), swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum), and Asiatic pennywort (Centella asiatica). Melaleuca Forest rings the Cypress along its north and west side. The Melaleuca Forest consists of a canopy of cypress and melaleuca; a midstory of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco); and groundcover containing sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and swamp fern. Hydric Pine Flatwoods rings the Melalecua Forest with slash pine (Pinus elliottii) earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and melaleuca in the canopy; cabbage palm, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), strangler fig (Ficus aurea), and cocoplum in the midstory; and very little groundcover vegetation including shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata). The primary non-native, invasive plants within the parcel are melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. Other invasives observed include carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), old-world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), earleaf acacia, shrubby false buttonweed, and fivefingers (Syngonium angustatum). Table 4. Listed Plant Species Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Giant air plant Tillandsia utriculata Endangered Not Listed Cardinal air plant Tillandsia fasciculata Endangered Not Listed Page 1406 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 13 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1407 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 14 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1408 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 15 Figure 6 – View from west end of Erie Dr. 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities The parcel could provide limited foraging habitat for listed wading birds after the removal of invasive exotic species. No listed wildlife was observed on the property. Neighbors have observed bobcats, black bears, and raccoons within the property. Several years ago, a neighbor observed a Florida panther within the property. The panther and her kitten were later hit by a vehicle in the same area. Page 1409 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 16 Figure 7 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1410 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 17 Figure 8 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1411 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 18 3.1.3 Water Resources The parcel holds water during the rainy season and is several feet lower than surrounding developments. Water marks on trees on the outer edges of the parcel show evidence of sustained water levels of at least 3 feet. Water would be even deeper towards the center of the property. Water from the parcel drains towards a control structure kitty-corner to the parcel on the southwest corner. The parcel also provides moderate aquifer recharge capacity. More than 80% of the parcel is mapped as having hydric “Chobee, Limestone Substratum and Dania Mucks, Depressional” soils - level, very poorly drained soils associated with cypress swamps and marshes. Non-hydric “Immokalee Fine Sand” soil – a nearly level, poorly drained soil associated with flatwoods – is mapped within the western 20% of the parcel. Page 1412 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 19 Figure 9 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1413 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 20 Figure 10 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1414 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 21 Figure 11 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1415 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 22 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity This parcel is adjacent to small conservation easements to the north and the south. Additionally, a wooded undeveloped drainage easement lot belonging to Falcon Ridge is adjacent to the western boundary of the parcel on its south end. Page 1416 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 23 Figure 12 - Conservation Lands Page 1417 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 24 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation The property could be used for limited, seasonal hiking as it holds water for most of the rainy season. 3.2.2 Accessibility The site is directly accessible from Erie Dr.; however, street parking would be discouraged at this location due to the residential nature of the street, and creation of on-site parking would be discouraged due to considerable wetland impacts. A trail could be accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists from the end of Erie Dr. 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement This parcel is visible from a paved, public road. It contains very good examples of mature cypress trees and provides a scenic vista of a cypress swamp. Page 1418 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 25 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Invasive vegetation infestation rates are between 50-75% on this parcel, with varying densities throughout. Mature Brazilian pepper is present in much of the midstory. Large melaleuca trees occur in varying densities throughout with some large earleaf acacia present within the hydric pine flatwoods portions of the parcel. Tall exotic vegetation should be removed from site or cut and stacked where it could fall on surrounding homes. Interior exotic vegetation can be treated in place. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire Although the Hydric Pine Flatwoods could benefit from prescribed fire, the parcel’s size and location surrounded by residential development would not allow for the use of prescribed fire. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security The parcel requires exotic plant removal and potentially re-planting of natives if the existing seed source does not encourage significant recruitment of natives. Site security issues could include trespass, but is not anticipated to be unmanageable. 3.3.3 Assistance No management assistance is anticipated with this parcel, but staff may seek funding assistance from the state’s Invasive Plant Management Section. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use This parcel is zoned RMF-3, which allows 3 units per acre. Page 1419 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 26 Figure 13 - Zoning Page 1420 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 27 Figure 14 – Future Land Use Page 1421 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 28 3.4.2 Development Plans The seller has received a permit from the South Florida Water Management District (District) to impact 2.89 acres of wetlands and has submitted subdivision plans to Collier County to build 8 single family residences on the north side of the parcel, extend Erie Dr. through the middle of the parcel running E/W, preserve a 1.39-acre conservation area within the SE portion of the parcel, and create a 0.48 water retention area in the SW corner. The District permit also requires the purchase of 1.15 freshwater forested mitigation credits. 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. No additional acquisition considerations. 5. Management Needs and Costs Table 5 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management Management Element Initial Cost Annual Recurring Cost Comments Invasive Vegetation Removal $5,000 $1,000 Initial removal assumes a combination of cutting and removing from site, cutting and stacking, and treat in place – average cost estimated to be $1,000 per acre. Recurring cost estimated to be $200 per acre. Signage $200 N/A Total $5,200 $1,000 6. Potential for Matching Funds There are no known matching funds or partnership opportunities for acquisition in this area. Page 1422 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 29 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form Property Name: Lucarelli Target Protection Mailing Area: N/A Folio(s): 00268410005 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 53 33 2 - Human Value 80 31 39 3 - Restoration and Management 80 25 31 4 - Vulnerability 80 67 83 TOTAL SCORE 400 177 44 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 100 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 Wet 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 cypress c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 20 Page 1423 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 30 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 0 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 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 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 50 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 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 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 50 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 Page 1424 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 31 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 600 200 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 53 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 20 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 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 70 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 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 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 Page 1425 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 32 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 20 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 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 280 110 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 31 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 50 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 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 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 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 5 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 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity Page 1426 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 33 a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 55 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 25 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 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 Page 1427 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 34 8. Additional Site Photos South side of eastern border of parcel North side of western border of parcel Page 1428 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 35 Cypress with some melaleuca in canopy and Brazilian pepper in midstory Water mark on cypress Page 1429 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 36 Cypress Cypress with melaleuca in background Page 1430 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 37 Earleaf acacia on west side of south border behind houses Slash pines on west side of south border behind houses Page 1431 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 38 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 1432 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 39 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 1433 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – Lucarelli Folio No: 00163080006 Owner Name(s): Angelo and Gail Lucarelli Date: February 5, 2025 40 APPENDIX 2 – FLUCCS and Subdivision Plans Page 1434 of 6355 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Target Protection Area Parcels and Acreage: 33 parcels (256.1 ac) Applied Parcel Owner(s), Acreage, and Folios: Mary V. Simmons Trust Est (38.94 ac.; 00344720004) Original Staff Report Date: August 3, 2022 (Revised 8/26/22; 3/8/23; 9/11/24; 2/5/25) 123 60 30 9 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 221/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1435 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 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, Sec. 12) ................................. 10 3. Initial Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Ecological Values ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities ....................................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Listed Plant Species.................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 13 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 14 Figure 6 – Cypress and slash pine forest that has been subjected to stand replacing wildfire 15 Figure 7 – Good condition hydric pine flatwood ..................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities ............................................................................................................ 16 Table 5 – Listed Wildlife Detected ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 8 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) .................................................... 17 Figure 9 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness ............................................................................. 18 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones ............................ 20 Figure 11 - Collier County Soil Survey ...................................................................................... 21 Figure 12 LIDAR Elevation Map ............................................................................................... 22 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 23 Figure 13 - Conservation Lands ............................................................................................... 24 3.2 Human Values ................................................................................................................................. 25 Page 1436 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 3 3.2.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 25 Figure 14 – Flooded hydric pine flatwoods ............................................................................. 25 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 ............................................................................................................ 26 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security .............................................................................................. 26 3.3.3 Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 26 3.4 Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................... 26 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 15 - Zoning .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 16 - Zoning Overlays ..................................................................................................... 29 Figure 17 – Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 30 3.4.2 Development Plans ............................................................................................................... 31 4. Acquisition Considerations .................................................................................................................. 31 5. Management Needs and Costs .............................................................................................................. 31 Table 6 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management ................ 31 6. Potential for Matching Funds .............................................................................................................. 31 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form ......................................................................................................... 32 8. Additional Site Photos ......................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions ...................................... 39 Page 1437 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 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 1438 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1439 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1440 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Multiple Current applicant – Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Folio Number Multiple Current application – 00344720004 Target Protection Area North Belle Meade Preserve RFMUD Sending Size 256.1-acres total 33 parcels ranging from 2.50 - 38.94-acres Section, Township, and Range S33, Twn 49, R27 Zoning Category/TDRs A-RFMUD-Sending- NBMO with east side NRPA Agricultural base zoning in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. All parcels are Sending with a North Belle Meade Overlay – Eastern parcels also have a Natural Resource Protection Area Overly Existing structures None Adjoining properties and their Uses Agriculture, Conservation Parcels to the north are agricultural but will be mined in future. Parcels to west are owned by county and may be developed for a variety of uses. Many parcels to east are private conservation land Development Plans Submitted None Known Property Irregularities None known Other County Dept Interest Transportation Potential for Wilson corridor extension to go through this area Page 1441 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 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 123 160 77% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 32 53 60% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 27 27 100% 1.3 - Water Resources 11 27 40% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 53 53 100% 2 - Human Values 60 80 75% 2.1 - Recreation 34 34 100% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 30 80 37% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 21 55 38% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 9 80 11% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 2 58 4% 4.2 - Development Plans 7 22 30% Total 221 400 55% 123 60 30 9 160 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: 221/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Page 1442 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 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, an appraisal by one independent Real Estate Appraisers will be obtained at that time. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one appraisal is required for the parcel, which has an initial estimated valuation less than $500,000; one independent Real Estate Appraiser will value the subject property and that appraisal report will be used to determine the offer made to the seller. Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value Property owner Address Acreage Assessed Value* Estimated Value** Mary V. Simmons Trust Est No address 38.94 $492,591 $350,460 * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. The Assessed Value is based off the current use of the property. **The Estimated Value for the parcel was obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department. 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. These parcels are within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay (RFMUO) – Sending with a North Belle Meade Overlay (NBM)), and approximately half of the eastern parcels are covered with a Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay. Page 1443 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 10 2.3 Summary of Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, 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 TPMA does not contain CLIP Priority 1 Natural Community. Parcels contain Hydric pine flatwoods, Mixed shrub wetland, Cypress, Mesic pine flatwoods. Criteria 2: CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community Does the property contain Pine Flatwoods or Coastal Wetlands? YES Parcels 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 Mixed shrub wetland and Cypress, 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. There is potential access in the future but there is currently no public right of way to access the property. The County Manager’s agency recently acquired the 960 acres to the west and Conservation Collier recently acquired the adjacent 256 acres. 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 just over 87% of the parcels and wetland plant communities are found throughout the parcels. Page 1444 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 11 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 4-7 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 included within known historic nesting/foraging habitat for endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers and a red-cockaded woodpecker was observed by Conservation Collier staff on the adjacent A-list parcels. 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 to the 287-acre Conservation Collier North Belle Meade Preserve. These parcels also contribute to an important wildlife corridor connecting species from the Florida Panther Refuge, Golden Gate Rural Estates, Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve, as well as the Picayune Strand State Forest and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve to the south through wildlife underpasses under I-75. Currently there is habitat connectivity between this site and the Conservation Collier Nancy Payton Preserve. This property provides an ecological link to the northern range expansion goals of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? YES The North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA met 5 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1445 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 12 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities North Belle Meade Preserve parcels contain a variety of vegetative communities displaying varied successional states and overlap of species. The early successional state is primarily the result of a wildfire that recently passed through the area, causing severe canopy and mid-story mortality. The overlap of species between plant communities can be partly contributed to an altered hydroperiod caused by the I-75 canal drainage. The major plant communities present are hydric flatwoods (CLIP Priority II Natural Community), mesic flatwoods (CLIP Priority II Natural Community), and cypress/cabbage. Due to wildfire, the seasonally drier mesic flatwoods had a significant thermal thinning of the slash pine (Pinus elliotti var. densa) canopy. Areas where the Florida slash pine canopy was removed by fire are dominated by a cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) midstory, now acting as the overstory; this cabbage palm midstory already existed before the wildfire. The mesic flatwoods groundcover is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), grasses and herbaceous plants, and bare patches of sand. Hydric flatwoods seemed to be less severely impacted by wildfire, as mature Florida slash pine still form a scattered canopy in the lower, wetter areas. The hydric flatwood midstory is dominated by cabbage palm and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Ground cover in the hydric flatwoods is composed of scattered saw palmetto and small wax myrtle, along with grasses, sedges, and herbaceous plants. The cypress/cabbage plant community had a mix of cypress (Taxodium spp.) and Florida slash pine overstory before the wildfire occurred. Most of the slash pine trees were lost in the fire. Most cypress trees were top killed; they are resprouting from the base but are only a few feet tall. The midstory in this plant community is dominated by cabbage palms, now acting as the canopy. The cypress/cabbage groundcover is dominated by saw palmetto, grasses, sedges, and herbaceous plants. Invasive plants encountered include cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), Caesar weed (Urena lobata), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), rattlebox (Crotalaria spp.), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), and shrubby false buttonwood (Spermacoce verticillata). Cogon grass, Caesar weed, Brazilian pepper, and rattlebox are restricted to the drier upland sites, while melaleuca is present in wet and dry areas. There are large stands of top-killed melaleuca saplings that are resprouting from the base. The shrubby false buttonwood appears in disturbed, cleared areas and has begun to spread into the drier mesic flatwoods. Table 4. Listed Plant Species Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Giant air plant Tillandsia utriculata State Endangered Not Listed Page 1446 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 13 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1447 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 14 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1448 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 15 Figure 6 – Cypress and slash pine forest that has been subjected to stand replacing wildfire Figure 7 – Good condition hydric pine flatwood Page 1449 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 16 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities CLIP4 Species Richness Maps show potential for 5-10 focal 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, most recently a breeding female with kittens. FWC panther road mortality data along Interstate 75 indicates there is movement of Florida panther between the property and the Picayune Strand State Forest, with the most recent road mortalities between the site and the state forest occurring in March 2020. The property is included within known historic nesting/foraging habitat for endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers. There has been agricultural clearing including logging of cypress and pine within the property. Site inspection indicates recruitment of young pines is occurring within the logged area. The presence of six-lined racer runners (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus) indicates a scrubby component to some of the mesic flatwoods. Table 5 – Listed Wildlife Detected Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Mode of Detection Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered Observed on site visit Florida Panther Puma concolar coryi Endangered Endangered FWC Telemetry Page 1450 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 17 Figure 8 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1451 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 18 Figure 9 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1452 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 19 3.1.3 Water Resources The mixed scrub/shrub wetlands, cypress, and hydric pine flatwoods hold shallow surface water during the wet season. These wet areas provide seasonal habitat for wetland dependent species, especially wading birds. These areas contain depressional soils, primarily Riviera fine sand with limestone substratum. These parcels do not provide significant aquifer recharge capacity, but the northern areas protect the 20-year wellfield protection zone. Page 1453 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 20 Figure 10 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1454 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 21 Figure 11 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1455 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 22 Figure 12 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1456 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 23 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity These parcels directly connect to North Belle Meade Preserve, a large block of conservation easements to the east, the Picayune Strand State Forest via wildlife underpasses to the south, and to the remaining undeveloped portions of the Golden Gate Estates to the north and west. Telemetry data show Florida panther use this area to cross between the Nancy Payton Preserve in the Golden Gate Estates and larger conservation areas to the south and the east. These parcels also provide an ecological link to the northern range expansion goals of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. Protecting habitat on both sides of I-75 may provide opportunities to install additional wildlife crossings. Page 1457 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 24 Figure 13 - Conservation Lands Page 1458 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 25 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation These parcels provide year-round access for a wide variety of recreational activities including but not limited to hunting, fishing, equestrian, cycling, hiking. The open landscape provides excellent opportunities for wildlife watching. There is an established trail network on site with minimal alteration could provide miles of hiking trails. 3.2.2 Accessibility Currently the site is accessed through a gate on Blackburn Rd which is closed to the public. Future development on the adjoining counting owned parcel on the western border as well as the proposed Wilson corridor extension may provide easy paved access. 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement These parcels currently provide green space along I-75. Figure 14 – Flooded hydric pine flatwoods 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Invasive plants encountered include cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), Caesar weed (Urena lobata), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), rattlebox (Crotalaria spp.), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), and shrubby false buttonwood (Spermacoce verticillata). Melaleuca seedlings infest Page 1459 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 26 large swaths of wetland habitat. The disturbed nature of the site makes it vulnerable to additional infestations, especially cogon grass. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire Despite a recent history of stand replacing wildfire, these parcels would still benefit from regular prescribed burning. The proximity to I-75 limits, but not bar, the application of prescribed fire. Although native, the high density of cabbage palms creates an obstacle to restoration by overcrowding more desirable species and creating fuel loads that other species cannot tolerate when burned. When occurring at sufficient density, cabbage palms burn at high temperatures that kill the overstory trees. This reduction in canopy cover creates desirable conditions for cabbage palm recruitment which in turn increases intensity of subsequent fires. Cabbage palms will have to be chemically or mechanically thinned and then burned on a short return interval in order the restore the slash pine and cypress canopy. Existing trails, right of ways, and bulldozer lines may be utilized as fire breaks. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security This site requires major canopy rehabilitation in the form of replanting due to past wildfires, logging, grazing, clearing, and off-roading. Invasive species and cabbage palms will need to be controlled before planting occurs. There are numerous off-road vehicle trails crossing the parcels primarily around the perimeter and leading to private inholdings. One individual is currently residing on the Cycle 10 parcels but is scheduled to leave with his belongings before closing. The remoteness of the parcels and existing perimeter barbwire fencing limits trespass. Most off-road traffic within the parcels is suspected to be done by those accessing private inholdings within the TPMA. There have been reports of poaching on the parcels in the recent past. 3.3.3 Assistance Assistance is not predicted. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use These parcels are Sending Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay (RFMUO) with a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), and approximately half are covered with a North Belle Meade Overlay. 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 away Page 1460 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 27 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 be applicable in addition to any standards that apply in the underlying zoning district. Page 1461 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 28 Figure 15 - Zoning Page 1462 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 29 Figure 16 - Zoning Overlays Page 1463 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 30 Figure 17 – Future Land Use Page 1464 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 31 3.4.2 Development Plans Zoning favors conservation within the TPMA, however the Wilson Corridor Extension may be aligned through the property. Once the corridor is constructed surrounding lands may transition from agricultural to more intensive forms of use. 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. These properties could be within the alignment of the future Wilson Benfield Road Extension. 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. 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 $102,400 $38,400 $400/acre initial, $150/acre recurring. 256-acres Cabbage Palm Treatment $102,400 N/A $400/acre Native Plant Installation $22,175 N/A $70/1,000 slash pine seedlings, $225/1,000 cypress seedlings. $1/tree installation. 15,000 pines, 5,000 cypress Trail/Firebreak Installation and Maintenance $5,000 $1,000 Connecting established trails and installing firebreaks along property boundaries Interpretive Signage $1,000 N/A Total $232,975 $39,400 6. Potential for Matching Funds There are no known matching funds or partnership opportunities for acquisition in this area. Page 1465 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 32 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form Property Name: North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Target Protection Mailing Area: North Belle Meade Preserve Folio(s): Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 123 77 2 - Human Value 80 60 75 3 - Restoration and Management 80 30 37 4 - Vulnerability 80 9 11 TOTAL SCORE 400 221 55 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 120 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 60 Hydric and Mesic Pine 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 Hydric Pine Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, Cypress, Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Glades Marsh, Mixed Scrub-Shrub Wetlands, b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 Page 1466 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 33 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 Tillandsia utriculata d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 100 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 80 Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Florida 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 Protects foraging habitat for RCW 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 40 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 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) Page 1467 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 34 a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 Riviera fine sand, limestone substratum 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 200 200 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 150 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 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 50 Conservation easements to the east, PSSF to the south 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 600 460 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 123 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 120 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 20 b. Fishing 20 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 20 d. Biking 20 20 Page 1468 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 35 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 20 Paved access may become available once Wilson Corridor extension is completed d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 Improves aesthetics from I-75 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 Page 1469 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 36 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 210 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 60 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 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 ATV trespass issues predicted c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 Page 1470 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 37 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 65 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 30 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 15 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 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi-unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 20 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 9 Page 1471 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 38 8. Additional Site Photos Representative habitat photos taken on Cycle 10 parcels Page 1472 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 39 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 1473 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report – North Belle Meade Preserve TPMA Owner Name(s): Mary V. Simmons Trust Est Date: 8/3/2022 (Rev. 8/26/22, 3/8/23, 9/11/24, & 2/5/25) 40 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 1474 of 6355 Conservation Collier Initial Criteria Screening Report I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Parcels Owner Names: RF Berman Trust; Andres Echavarria; Family Onyxx, LLC; Miguel Diaz Morales Folio Numbers: 41710760000, 41715560001, 41660040003, 41613880003, 41614280000 Size: 5 parcels totaling 14.64 acres Staff Report Date: January 8, 2025 (revised February 5, 2025) Page 1475 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Summary of Property ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview .........................................................................................................5 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up .........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Summary of Property Information ....................................................................................................7 Table 1 – Summary of Property Information .....................................................................................7 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score ....................................................................................................8 Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary .....................................................................................8 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates ........................................................... 10 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value ............................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays ................................................. 11 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) ................................ 12 3. Initial Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Ecological Values ............................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities ....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities ........................................................................ 15 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System ............................................ 16 Figure 6 – Mixed Wetland Hardwoods .................................................................................... 17 Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 3 – Listed Wildlife Detected ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 8 –Gopher tortoise burrow on Berman Parcel 1 .......................................................... 18 Figure 9 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) .................................................... 19 Figure 10 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness ........................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 11 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones ............................ 22 Figure 12 - Collier County Soil Survey ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 13 LIDAR Elevation Map ............................................................................................... 24 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity ........................................................................................................ 25 Figure 14 - Conservation Lands ............................................................................................... 25 3.2 Human Values ................................................................................................................................. 26 Page 1476 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 3 3.2.1 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement ......................................................................................... 27 3.3 Restoration and Management ....................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Vegetation Management ...................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................ 27 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security .............................................................................................. 27 3.3.3 Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Vulnerability .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use ............................................................................................................. 27 Figure 15 – Zoning ................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 16 – Future Land Use ................................................................................................... 29 3.4.2 Development Plans ............................................................................................................... 30 4. Acquisition Considerations ................................................................................................................... 30 5. Management Needs and Costs .............................................................................................................. 31 Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management ............................. 31 6. Potential for Matching Funds .............................................................................................................. 31 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form ......................................................................................................... 32 8. Additional Site Photos ......................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions ...................................... 60 Page 1477 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 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 1478 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 5 2. Summary of Property Figure 1 - Parcel Location Overview Page 1479 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 6 Figure 2 - Parcel Close-up Page 1480 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 7 2.1 Summary of Property Information Table 1 – Summary of Property Information Characteristic Value Comments Name Berman; Echavarria; Family Onyxx; Morales RF Berman Trust; Andres Echavarria & Lianet Garcia; Family Onyxx, LLC; Miguel Diaz Morales Folio Numbers Multiple Berman - 41710760000, Berman - 41715560001, Echavarria - 41660040003, Family Onyxx - 41613880003, Morales - 41614280000 Target Protection Area NGGE I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Target Protection Mailing Area Size 14.64 acres total Berman - 5.00 acres Berman - 1.59 acres Echavarria - 3.05 Family Onyxx - 2.73 Morales - 2.27 Section, Township, and Range S31 and 32, Twn 49, R28 Zoning Category/TDRs Estates 1 unit per 2.25 acres FEMA Flood Map Category AH 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Existing structures None Adjoining properties and their Uses Undeveloped; Developed, rural single family homes All parcels except for the Echavarria parcel are bordered on at least one side by a single family residence. Development Plans Submitted None Known Property Irregularities None Other County Dept Interest Transportation Parcels are in the study area for the I-75 interchange between Everglades and Desoto Blvds. Page 1481 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 8 Figure 3 - Secondary Criteria Score Table 2 - Secondary Criteria Score Summary Berman Parcel 1: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 65 160 41% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 32 53 60% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 24 27 90% 1.3 - Water Resources 3 27 10% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 7 53 13% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 43 80 54% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 34 55 63% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 60 80 75% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 4 22 20% Total 206 400 51% 40 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 185/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Echavarria 65 37 43 60 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 206/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 1 37 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 183/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx 44 37 53 56 160 80 80 80 0 50 100 150 200 1 - Ecological Value 2 - Human Value 3 - Restoration and Management 4 - Vulnerability Total Score: 189/400 Awarded Points Possible Points Morales Page 1482 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 9 Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 37 160 23% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 0 53 0% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 183 400 46% Echavarria: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 40 160 25% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 11 27 40% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 0 53 0% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 185 400 46% Page 1483 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 10 Morales: Criteria Awarded Weighted Points Possible Weighted Points Awarded/Possible Points 1 - Ecological Value 44 160 28% 1.1 - Vegetative Communities 13 53 25% 1.2 - Wildlife Communities 16 27 60% 1.3 - Water Resources 8 27 30% 1.4 - Ecosystem Connectivity 7 53 13% 2 - Human Values 37 80 46% 2.1 - Recreation 11 34 33% 2.2 - Accessibility 23 34 67% 2.3 - Aesthetics/Cultural Enhancement 3 11 25% 3 - Restoration and Management 53 80 66% 3.1 - Vegetation Management 43 55 79% 3.2 - Remediation and Site Security 9 23 40% 3.3 - Assistance 0 2 0% 4 - Vulnerability 56 80 69% 4.1 - Zoning and Land Use 56 58 96% 4.2 - Development Plans 0 22 0% Total 189 400 47% 2.2 Summary of Assessed Value and Property Cost Estimates The interest being appraised is fee simple “as is” for the purchase of the site. A value of the parcel was estimated using only one of the three traditional approaches to value, the sales comparison approach. It is based on the principal of substitution that an informed purchaser would pay no more for the rights in acquiring a particular real property than the cost of acquiring, without undue delay, an equally desirable one. Three properties were selected for comparison, each with similar site characteristics, utility availability, zoning classification and road access. No inspection was made of the property or comparables used in this report and the Real Estate Services Department staff relies upon information solely provided by program staff. The valuation conclusion is limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions that no other known or unknown adverse conditions exist. Possible access concerns or limits to uses within the property unknown at the time of estimation will be taken into consideration at time of appraisal. If the Board of County Commissioners chooses to acquire these properties, appraisals by independent Real Estate Appraisers will be obtained at that time. Pursuant to the Conservation Collier Purchase Policy, one appraisal is required for each of these parcels, which each have an initial valuation less than $500,000; 1 independent Real Estate Appraiser will value the subject property and that appraisal report will determine the actual value of the subject property. Page 1484 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 11 Table 3. Assessed & Estimated Value Property owners Folio # Acreage Assessed Value* Estimated Value** Parcel 1 - RF Berman Trust 41710760000 5.00 $187,500 $325,000 Parcel 2 - RF Berman Trust 41715560001 1.59 $59,625 $140,000 Parcel 3 - Andres Echavarria & Lianet Garcia 41660040003 3.05 $80,825 $86,000 Parcel 4 - Family Onyxx, LLC 41613880003 2.73 $87,019 $80,000 Parcel 5 - Miguel Diaz Morales 41614280000 2.27 $85,125 $65,700 TOTAL 14.64 $500,094 $696,700 * Assessed Value is obtained from the Property Appraiser’s Website. The Assessed Value is based off the current use of the property. **The Estimated Market Value for the I-75 and Everglades Blvd. properties were obtained from the Collier County Real Estate Services Department. 2.2.1 Zoning, Growth Management and Conservation Overlays Zoning, growth management and conservation overlays will affect the value of a parcel. The parcels are zoned Estates and have an allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres. Page 1485 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 12 2.3 Initial Screening Criteria Satisfaction (Ord. 2002-63, as amended, Sec. 12) Criteria 1: CLIP Priority 1 Natural Community Does the property contain Upland Hardwood Forest, Scrub, Coastal Upland, Dry Prairie, or Upland Pine? NO Criteria 2: CLIP Priority 2 Natural Community Does the property contain Pine Flatwoods or Coastal Wetlands? YES Berman Parcel 1 contains Mesic Flatwoods. Criteria 3: Other Native, Natural Communities Does the property contain other native, natural communities? N/A The parcels also contain Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, but already contain CLIP Priority 2 Natural Communities. Criteria 4: Human Social Values Does the property offer cultural values, appropriate access for natural resource-based recreation, and the enhancement of the aesthetic setting of Collier County? YES The parcels visible and readily accessible from a public roadway and can be accessed year-round. Criteria 5: Water Resources Does the property offer opportunities for protection of water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water quality enhancement, protection of wetland dependent species habitat, wildfire risk reduction, storm surge protection, and flood control? YES Hydric soils exist on the majority of the parcels and, except for Berman Parcel 1, wetland plant communities are found throughout the parcels. Criteria 6: Biological and Ecological Value Does the property offer significant biological values, including biodiversity and listed species habitat? NO Because of their small size, each parcel individually does not offer significant biological values. . Page 1486 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 13 Criteria 7: Enhancement of Current Conservation Lands Does the property enhance and/or protect the environmental value of current conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link or habitat corridor? NO These parcels are not adjacent to any conservation lands. Criteria 8: Target Area Is the property within a Board-approved target protection mailing area? YES I-75 and Everglades Blvd. TPMA The Berman Parcel 2, Echavarria, Family Onyxx, and Morales parcels met 4 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. The Berman Parcel 1 met 3 out of the 8 Initial Screening Criteria. Page 1487 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 14 3. Initial Screening Criteria 3.1 Ecological Values 3.1.1 Vegetative Communities The parcels are mapped as Cabbage Palm, Mesic Flatwoods, Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, and Hydric Pine Flatwoods; however, staff observed Mesic Flatwoods on Berman Parcel 1 and Mixed Wetland Hardwoods on the Berman Parcel 2, Echavarria, Family Onyxx, and Morales parcels. Cabbage palms are also present in high densities within all the parcels. The Mesic Flatwoods consist of cabbage palm (Sabal Palmetto) and sparse slash pine (Pinus elliottii ) in the canopy; saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), galberry (Ilex glabra), rusty lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), winged-sumac (Rhus copallinum) and American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) in the midstory; wild pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida), shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites) and wiregrass (Aristida stricta) are in the groundcover. The Mixed Wetland Hardwoods consist of cypress (Taxodium distichum) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) in the canopy with myrsine (Myrsine cubana), wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), cabbage palm, and occasional firebush (Hamelia patens) in the midstory and primarily swamp fern Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 10% on Berman Parcel 1 and between 25%- 50% - at varying densities throughout the other parcels. The Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx parcels are more heavily infested than the other 3 parcels. The primary invasive plant observed was Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). Other exotics observed were earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), torpedograss (Panicum repens), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), and shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata) Cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata) was observed during the site visit on all the parcels except the Berman Parcel 1. Page 1488 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 15 Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Page 1489 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 16 Figure 5 - Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System Page 1490 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 17 Figure 6 – Mixed Wetland Hardwoods Figure 7 –Mesic flatwood Page 1491 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 18 3.1.2 Wildlife Communities Multiple Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) telemetry points have been noted around the parcels. Table 3 – Listed Wildlife Detected Common Name Scientific Name State Status Federal Status Mode of Detection Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Threatened N/A Active burrow observed Figure 8 –Gopher tortoise burrow on Berman Parcel 1 Page 1492 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 19 Figure 9 - Wildlife Spatial Data (i.e., telemetry, roosts, etc) Page 1493 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 20 Figure 10 - CLIP4 Potential Habitat Richness Page 1494 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 21 3.1.3 Water Resources Four of the parcels significantly protect water resources. They are comprised of a majority of wetland plant communities, contain Karst topography, hold significant amounts of water during the rainy season, and provide important habitat for many wetland dependent species. Berman Parcel 1 is mapped as containing hydric soils but does not contain wetlands. Soils data is based on the Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida (USDA/NRCS, 1990). Soils mapped on this parcel primarily hydric. Mapped hydric soils include “Hallandale and Boca Fine Sands” (nearly level, poorly drained soils in sloughs and poorly defined drainageways) and “Boca, Riviera, Limestone Substratum and Copeland FS, Depressional” (level, very poorly drained soils in depressions, cypress swamps, and marshes). Non-hydric soils include “Boca Fine Sand” and “Hallandale Fine Sand”. Both these soils are nearly level, poorly drained soils associated with flatwoods. Page 1495 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 22 Figure 11 - CLIP Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones Page 1496 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 23 Figure 12 - Collier County Soil Survey Page 1497 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 24 Figure 13 LIDAR Elevation Map Page 1498 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 25 3.1.4 Ecosystem Connectivity These parcels are not directly adjacent to conservation lands; however, undeveloped or rural developed lands exist between these parcels and private conservation lands to the west and between these parcels and the Dr. Robert H. Gore III Preserve to the east. Picayune Strand State Forest is to the south across I-75 with an wildlife underpass west of these parcels, along the eastern side of the Miller Canal. Figure 14 - Conservation Lands Page 1499 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 26 3.2 Human Values 3.2.1 Recreation These parcels could provide year-round access for passive, recreational activities including equestrian, and hiking. 3.2.2 Accessibility The parcels are all accessible via paved roads. Parking is available along the street. Page 1500 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 27 3.2.3 Aesthetic/Cultural Enhancement The parcels are visible from a public road. 3.3 Restoration and Management 3.3.1 Vegetation Management 3.3.1.1 Invasive Vegetation Exotic plants are present at a total estimated density of 10% on Berman Parcel 1 and between 25%- 50% - at varying densities throughout the other parcels. The Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onyxx parcels are more heavily infested than the other 3 parcels. The primary invasive plant observed was Brazilian pepper. Other exotics observed were earleaf acacia, torpedograss, cogongrass, Caesarweed, and shrubby false buttonweed. 3.3.1.2 Prescribed Fire The mesic flatwoods within Berman Parcel 1 would benefit from fire; however, due to its small size and location, prescribed fire is not likely. The other parcels that contain Mixed Wetland Hardwoods do not contain plant communities that burn on a regular basis. 3.3.2 Remediation and Site Security No site security issues appear to exist within the parcel. 3.3.3 Assistance No management assistance is anticipated. 3.4 Vulnerability 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use The parcels are zoned Estates and have an allowable density of 1 unit per 2.25 acres. Page 1501 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 28 Figure 15 – Zoning Page 1502 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 29 Figure 16 – Future Land Use Page 1503 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 30 3.4.2 Development Plans None of the parcels are currently planned for development. 4. Acquisition Considerations Staff would like to bring the following items to the attention of the Advisory Committee during the review of this property. The following items may not have significantly affected the scoring but are worth noting. These parcels are within the study area for the I-75 interchange. The properties in this location could be impacted by future right-of-way needs or for stormwater ponds to support the right-of-way. If these properties are approved for the A-List, staff will take this information into consideration when planning amenities and public access on the site. Additionally, when applicable, language will be memorialized in the Purchase Agreements and related closing documents to ensure Collier County Transportation will be able to purchase a portion of the properties from Conservation Collier for future right-of-way, if and when needed, at the original per-acre acquisition cost. Several large tires were observed within the Echavarria parcel. These tires should be removed prior to Conservation Collier acquisition. Page 1504 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 31 5. Management Needs and Costs Table 4 - Estimated Costs of Site Remediation, Improvements, and Management Management Element Initial Cost Annual Recurring Cost Comments Invasive Vegetation Removal $12,500 $2,200 Initial assumes $850/acre; recurring assumes $150/acre Cabbage Palm Treatment $5,900 n/a Assumes $400/acre TOTAL $18,400 $2,200 6. Potential for Matching Funds The primary partnering agencies for conservation acquisitions, and those identified in the ordinance are the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) and The Florida Forever Program. The following highlights potential for partnering funds, as communicated by agency staff. Florida Communities Trust - Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program: The FCT Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program provides grant funds to local governments and nonprofit organizations to acquire conservation lands, urban open spaces, parks and greenways. Application for this program is typically made for pre-acquired sites up to two years from the time of acquisition. The Parks and Open Space Florida Forever grant program assists the Department of Environmental Protection in helping communities meet the challenges of growth, supporting viable community development and protecting natural resources and open space. The program receives 21 percent Florida Forever appropriation. Florida Forever Program: This parcel is within the Belle Meade Florida Forever Project Area boundary, and state Real Estate Services staff has expressed interest in pursuing the property, depending on owner expectations of process and price. Additionally, the Conservation Collier Program has not been successful in partnering with the Florida Forever Program due to conflicting acquisition policies and issues regarding joint title between the programs. Additional Funding Sources: There are no additional funding sources known at this time. Page 1505 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 32 7. Secondary Criteria Scoring Form BERMAN PARCEL 1 Property Name: Berman Parcel 1 Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41710760000 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 65 41 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 43 54 4 - Vulnerability 80 60 75 TOTAL SCORE 400 206 51 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 120 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 60 Mesic Flatwoods c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 Page 1506 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 33 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 90 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 80 gopher tortoise b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 10 adjacent to undeveloped land that is adjacent to North Belle Meade west of Miller Canal c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 10 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) Page 1507 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 34 a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 80% hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 25 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 245 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 65 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 Page 1508 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 35 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 75 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) Page 1509 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 36 a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 small acreage and location would make prescribed fire difficult 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 95 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 43 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 Page 1510 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 37 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 10 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi-unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 135 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 60 BERMAN PARCEL 2 AND FAMILY ONYNXX Property Name: Berman Parcel 2 and Family Onynxx Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41715560001 and 41613880003 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 37 23 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 183 46 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 Page 1511 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 38 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 Page 1512 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 39 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 0 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 140 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 37 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 Page 1513 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 40 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 Page 1514 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 41 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 Page 1515 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 42 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 ECHAVRRIA Property Name: Echavarria Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41660040003 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 40 25 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 185 46 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 100 Page 1516 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 43 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 40 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 Page 1517 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 44 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 0 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 150 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 40 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 Page 1518 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 45 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) Page 1519 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 46 a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 Page 1520 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 47 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 MORALES Property Name: Morales Target Protection Mailing Area: I-75 and Everglades Blvd. Folio(s): 41614280000 Secondary Criteria Scoring Possible Points Awarded Points Percentage 1 - Ecological Value 160 44 28 2 - Human Value 80 37 46 3 - Restoration and Management 80 53 66 4 - Vulnerability 80 56 69 TOTAL SCORE 400 189 47 1 - ECOLOGICAL VALUES (40% of total) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 1.1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES 200 50 1.1.1 - Priority natural communities (Select highest score) Page 1521 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 48 a. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 1 communities (1130 - Rockland Hammock, 1210 - Scrub, 1213 - Sand Pine Scrub, 1214 - Coastal Scrub, 1312 - Scrubby Flatwoods, 1610 - Beach Dune, 1620 - Coastal Berm, 1630 - Coastal Grasslands, 1640 - Coastal Strand, or 1650 - Maritime Hammock) 100 b. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 2 communities (22211 - Hydric Pine Flatwoods, 2221 - Wet Flatwoods, or 1311 - Mesic Flatwoods) 60 c. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 3 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp, or 5240 - Salt Marsh) 50 d. Parcel contains CLIP4 Priority 4 communities (5250 - Mangrove Swamp) 25 1.1.2 - Plant community diversity (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥ 3 CLC native plant communities (Florida Cooperative Land Cover Classification System native plant communities) 20 b. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC native plant communities 10 10 c. Parcel has 0 CLC native plant communities 0 1.1.3 - Listed plant species (excluding commercially exploited species) (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has ≥5 CLC listed plant species 30 b. Parcel has 3-4 CLC listed plant species 20 c. Parcel has ≤ 2 CLC listed plant species 10 10 d. Parcel has 0 CLC listed plant species 0 1.1.4 - Invasive Plant Infestation (Select highest score) a. 0 - 10% infestation 50 b. 10 - 25% infestation 40 c. 25 - 50% infestation 30 30 d. 50 - 75% infestation 20 e. ≥75% infestation 10 1.2 - WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES 100 60 1.2.1 - Listed wildlife species (Select the highest score) a. Listed wildlife species documented on the parcel 80 b. Listed wildlife species documented on adjacent property 60 60 FL panther c CLIP Potential Habitat Richness ≥5 species 40 d. No listed wildlife documented near parcel 0 1.2.2 - Significant wildlife habitat (Rookeries, roosts, denning sites, nesting grounds, high population densities, etc) (Select highest score) a. Parcel protects significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 20 b. Parcel enhances adjacent to significant wildlife habitat (Please describe) 10 c. Parcel does not enhance significant wildlife habitat 0 0 1.3 - WATER RESOURCES 100 30 1.3.1 - Aquifer recharge (Select the highest score) Page 1522 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 49 a. Parcel is located within a wellfield protection zone or within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 1 area 40 b. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 2 or 3 area 30 c. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 4 or 5 area 20 d. Parcel is located within a CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority 6 area 0 0 1.3.2 - Surface Water Protection (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an Outstanding Florida Waterbody 30 b. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for a creek, river, lake, canal or other surface water body 20 c. Parcel is contiguous with and provides buffering for an identified flowway 15 d. Wetlands exist on site 10 10 e. Parcel does not provide opportunities for surface water quality enhancement 0 1.3.3 - Floodplain Management (Select all that apply) a. Parcel has depressional or slough soils 10 10 majority hydric soils b. Parcel has known history of flooding and is likely to provide onsite water attenuation 10 10 c. Parcel provides storm surge buffering 10 d. Parcel does not provide floodplain management benefits 0 1.4 - ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIVITY 200 25 1.4.1 - Acreage (Select Highest Score) a. Parcel is ≥ 300 acres 150 b. Parcel is ≥ 100 acres 100 b. Parcel is ≥ 50 acres 75 c. Parcel is ≥ 25 acres 25 d. Parcel is ≥ 10 acres 15 e. Parcel is < 10 acres 0 0 1.4.2 - Connectivity (Select highest score) a. Parcel is immediately contiguous with conservation lands 50 b. Parcel is not immediately contiguous, but parcels between it and nearby conservation lands are undeveloped 25 25 c. Parcel is isolated from conservation land 0 ECOLOGICAL VALUES TOTAL POINTS 600 165 ECOLOGICAL VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*160) 160 44 2 - HUMAN VALUES (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 2.1 - RECREATION 120 40 2.1.1 - Compatible recreation activities (Select all that apply) Page 1523 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 50 a. Hunting 20 b. Fishing 20 c. Water-based recreation (paddling, swimming, etc) 20 d. Biking 20 e. Equestrian 20 20 f. Passive natural-resource based recreation (Hiking, photography, wildlife watching, environmental education, etc) 20 20 g. Parcel is incompatible with nature-based recreation 0 2.2 - ACCESSIBILITY 120 80 2.2.1 - Seasonality (Select the highest score) a. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation year round 20 20 b. Parcel accessible for land-based recreation seasonally 10 c. Parcel is inaccessible for land-based recreation 0 2.2.2 - Vehicle access (Select the highest score) a. Public access via paved road 50 50 b. Public access via unpaved road 30 c. Public access via private road 20 d. No public access 0 2.2.3 - Parking Availability (Select the highest score) a. Minor improvements necessary to provide on-site parking 40 b. Major improvements necessary to provide on-site parking (Requires site development plan) 25 b. Public parking available nearby or on adjacent preserve 20 c. Street parking available 10 10 d. No public parking available 0 2.2.4 - Pedestrian access (Select the highest score) a. Parcel is easily accessible to pedestrians (within walking distance of housing development) 10 b. Parcel is not easily accessible to pedestrians 0 0 2.3 - AESTHETICS/CULTURAL ENHANCEMENT 40 10 2.3.1 - Aesthetic/cultural value (Choose all that apply) a. Mature/outstanding native vegetation 5 b. Scenic vistas 5 c. Frontage enhances aesthetics of public thoroughfare 10 10 d. Archaeological/historical structures present 15 e. Other (Please describe) 5 f. None 0 HUMAN VALUES TOTAL SCORE 280 130 HUMAN VALUES WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 37 Page 1524 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 51 3 - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 3.1 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 120 95 3.1.1 - Invasive plant management needs (Select the highest score) a. Minimal invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (<30%) 100 b. Moderate invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (30-65%) 75 75 Exotics and Cabbage Palm reduction c. Major invasive/nuisance plant management necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 50 d. Major invasive/nuisance plant management and replanting necessary to restore and maintain native plant communities (>65%) 25 e. Restoration of native plant community not feasible 0 3.1.2 - Prescribed fire necessity and compatibility (Select the highest score) a. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is compatible with prescribed fire or parcel does not contain fire dependent plant communities 20 20 Not fire dependent b. Parcel contains fire dependent plant communities and is incompatible with prescribed fire 0 0 3.2 - REMEDIATION AND SITE SECURITY 50 20 3.2.1 - Site remediation and human conflict potential (Dumping, contamination, trespassing, vandalism, other) (Select the highest score) a. Minimal site remediation or human conflict issues predicted 50 b. Moderate site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 20 20 Potential ATV trespass c. Major site remediation or human conflict issues predicted (Please describe) 5 d. Resolving site remediation or human conflict issues not feasible 0 3.3 - ASSISTANCE 5 0 3.4.1 - Management assistance by other entity a. Management assistance by other entity likely 5 b. Management assistance by other entity unlikely 0 0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TOTAL SCORE 175 115 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 53 4 - VULNERABILITY (20%) Possible Points Awarded Points Comments 4.1 - ZONING AND LAND USE 130 125 Page 1525 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 52 4.1.1 - Zoning and land use designation (Select the highest score) a. Zoning allows for Single Family, Multifamily, industrial or commercial 100 100 b. Zoning allows for density of no greater than 1 unit per 5 acres 75 c. Zoning allows for agricultural use /density of no greater than 1 unit per 40 acres 50 d. Zoning favors stewardship or conservation 0 4.1.2 - Future Land Use Type (Select the highest score) a. Parcel designated Urban 30 b. Parcel designated Estates, Rural Fringe Receiving and Neutral, Agriculture 25 25 c. Parcel designated Rural Fringe Sending, Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5 d. Parcel is designated Conservation 0 4.2 - DEVELOPMENT PLANS 50 0 4.2.1 - Development plans (Select the highest score) a. Parcel has been approved for development 20 b. SFWMD and/or USACOE permit has been applied for or SDP application has been submitted 15 c. Parcel has no current development plans 0 0 4.2.2 - Site characteristics amenable to development (Select all that apply) a. Parcel is primarily upland 10 b. Parcel is along a major roadway 10 c. Parcel is >10 acres 5 d. Parcel is within 1 mile of a current or planned commercial or multi- unit residential development 5 VULNERABILITY TOTAL SCORE 180 125 VULNERABILITY WEIGHTED SCORE (Awarded Points/Possible Points*80) 80 56 Page 1526 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 53 8. Additional Site Photos Berman Parcel 1 – View from roadway Berman Parcel 1 Page 1527 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 54 Berman Parcel 1 Berman Parcel 2 view from roadway Page 1528 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 55 Berman Parcel 2 Echavarria parcel view from roadway Page 1529 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 56 Echavarria parcel Echavarria parcel Page 1530 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 57 View of Family Onyxx from roadway Family Onyxx parcel Page 1531 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 58 View of Morales parcel from roadway Morales parcel Page 1532 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 59 Morales parcel Page 1533 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 60 APPENDIX 1 – Critical Lands and Water Identification Maps (CLIP) Definitions This report makes use of data layers from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and University of Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP4). CLIP4 is a collection of spatial data that identify statewide priorities for a broad range of natural resources in Florida. It was developed through a collaborative effort between the Florida Areas Natural Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). It is used in the Florida Forever Program to evaluate properties for acquisition. CLIP4 is organized into a set of core natural resource data layers which are representative of 5 resource categories: biodiversity, landscapes, surface water, groundwater and marine. The first 3 categories have also been combined into the Aggregated layer, which identifies 5 priority levels for natural resource conservation. Below is a description of each of the three CLIP4 data layers used in this report. Figure 4 - CLIP4 Priority Natural Communities Consists of 12 priority natural community types: upland glades, pine rocklands, seepage slopes, scrub, sandhill, sandhill upland lakes, rockland hammock, coastal uplands, imperiled coastal lakes, dry prairie, upland pine, pine flatwoods, upland hardwood forest, or coastal wetlands. These natural communities are prioritized by a combination of their heritage global status rank (G-rank) and landscape context, based on the Land Use Intensity Index (subset of CLIP Landscape Integrity Index) and FNAI Potential Natural Areas. Priority 1 includes G1-G3 communities with Very High or High landscape context. Priority 2 includes G1-G3 Medium and G4 Very High/High. Priority 3 includes G4 Medium and G5 Very High/High. Priority 5 is G5 Medium. This data layer was created by FNAI originally to inform the Florida Forever environmental land acquisition program. The natural communities were mapped primarily based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, which is a compilation of best-available land cover data for the entire state. The CLC is based on both remote-sensed (from aerial photography, primarily from water management district FLUCCS data) and ground-truthed (from field surveys on many conservation lands) data. Figure 10 - Potential Habitat Richness CLIP4 Map This CLIP version 4.0 data layer is unchanged from CLIP v3.0. FWC Potential Habitat Richness. Because SHCAs do not address species richness, FWC also developed the potential habitat richness layer to identify areas of overlapping vertebrate species habitat. FWC created a statewide potential habitat model for each species included in their analysis. In some cases, only a portion of the potential habitat was ultimately designated as SHCA for each species. The Potential Habitat Richness layer includes the entire potential habitat model for each species and provides a count of the number of species habitat models occurring at each location. The highest number of focal species co-occurring at any location in the model is 13. Page 1534 of 6355 Initial Criteria Screening Report Folio Number: multiple Owner Names: I-75 parcels Date: January 8, 2025 (rev. 2/25/25) 61 Figure 11 - CLIP4 Aquifer Recharge Priority and Wellfield Protection Zones High priorities indicate high potential for recharge to an underlying aquifer system (typically the Floridan aquifer but could be intermediate or surficial aquifers in some portions of the state). The highest priorities indicate high potential for recharge to springs or public water supplies. This figure also includes Wellfield Protection Zones. Collier County Wellfield Protection Zones are referenced in the Land Development Code and updated in 2010 by Pollution Control and Prevention Department Staff. The public water supply wellfields, identified in section 3.06.06 and permitted by the SFWMD for potable water to withdraw a minimum of 100,000 average gallons per day (GPD), are identified as protected wellfields, around which specific land use and activity (regulated development) shall be regulated under this section. Page 1535 of 6355