Alachua County Cattle Grazing Business Plan

Alachua County Eagenda.NET (FP1) Page 1 of 3

back to agenda composer help

Item Author : View Agenda Item

Agenda January 24, 2012 Regular BoCC Meeting

Category Governmental Units

Sub-Category Community Planning Group

Item Type

Title Approval of the Cattle Grazing Business Plan for Alachua County Forever Preserves. (Amended)

Amount n/a

Description Staff requests the Board approve the Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan.

Recommendation The BoCC should approve the Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan and the associated principles, policies and directives.

Alternative(s) BoCC should not approve the Plan.

Requested By Ramesh P. Buch 264-6804

Originating Department Environmental Protection

Attachment(s) Description Exhibit 1: Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan. Exhibit 2: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 050928. Exhibit 3: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060217. Exhibit 4: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060717. Exhibit 5: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 070907. Exhibit 6: Stewardship Leveraging 2010.Exhibit 7: License Agreement to Graze Watermelon Pond Metzger Tract. Exhibit 8: Costs for Metzger Tract

Documents Requiring Action Exhibit 1: Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan

Executive Summary Staff requests the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopt the attached Business Plan (Exhibit 1) to guide licensing grazing rights on ACF Preserves as an interim management strategy and cost-saving measure. Site-specific goals are contained in that site's BoCC-approved Management Plan and this Business plan is intended to provide the County with additional tools to appropriately manage property in tough fiscal times. If any Management Plan allows for grazing, then this Business Plan lays out the principles and strategies, and the use of the resulting proceeds from that operation.

Background Alachua County has acquired environmentally significant properties over the last decade to protect, improve and manage water resources, wildlife habitats, and to provide natural areas for resource-based recreation. Acquisitions were financed through two voter-approved initiatives: Alachua County Forever (ACF) in 2000 and Wild Spaces & Public Places in 2008. To guide stewardship of these preserves, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopts a Management Plan for each Preserve. In that Plan, the overall vision for the site is articulated. Each Plan furthers the

http://eagenda.alachua.fl.us/AgendaComposer/ViewAgendaItem.aspx?id=1BCDE093-8CA... 1/9/2012 Alachua County Eagenda.NET (FP1) Page 2 of 3

Guiding Principles adopted by the BoCC at their February 26th, 2002 regular commission meeting. Among these were a “no loss of conservation values” stewardship philosophy and a directive that any stewardship be consistent with Alachua County Forever’s primary goal of preserving, restoring and enhancing environmental values. Several preserves acquired by the County contain semi-improved and improved pasture which if left un-managed, may become infested with exotic plants and be more expensive to manage in the long term. It is appropriate in some cases to continue recent grazing activities so long as it does no additional degradation to the property and can offset initial management costs to the County. The grazing rights are a commodity with economic value subject to unique market forces. It is appropriate to take advantage of this opportunity and derive income from these rights. However, as there is likely to be high initial investment on the part of a licensee, the County may trade years of grazing rights to compensate the rancher. Following along previously established policies, the County seeks first to continue an existing or recent lease on the same property rather that initiate an RFP process. It is faster, continues an existing relationship between tenant and land, and allows time to get a better handle on the site's conservation values. This Plan focuses on the process of Cattle Grazing and the use of the proceeds. It is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of ranching, restoration nor resource management. This Business Plan does not supplant or replace any of the objectives of the individual preserve management plans as approved by the BoCC. This document is intended to establish certain principles to guide a decision on grazing a preserve. This Business Plan has been reviewed by the Community Planning Group, the Financial Planning Group, the Rural Concerns Advisory Committee, the Land Conservation Board, and the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee.

Issues Taking advantage of the revenues from grazing rights is one of many mechanisms that ACF staff employs to fund and implement site stewardship. Each of these tools is part of a larger strategy to minimize the Program's dependence on the General Fund. Details of this strategy and its effectiveness have been communicated to the BoCC over the years (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5). Recently the BoCC approved the Timber Harvesting Plan, guiding timber harvesting. An update is provided here also (Exhibit 6) on the effectiveness of the stewardship leveraging which was recognized this year at the Annual Transforming Local Government/Florida City and County Managers Association Conference. Through this strategy, the Program has offset nearly $1 million in stewardship costs; equivalent to $5.35 of offset for every $1 of County expense since FY2008. We expect that ratio to increase as the grazing agreements get underway over the next few years. It is important to consider the general fund portion of the funding as the "seed money" without which, none of the offsets could be realized and none of the stewardship implemented. The County may be grazing on conservation lands to further certain goals in the BoCC-adopted Management Plan. Grazing may seem contradictory in a preserve setting, may even continue ecological damage and necessitate closures of portions of the property during grazing. However, with proper planning, oversight and execution, staff is confident that these activities ultimately lead to better ecological function, cost offsets and additional revenue to further the County’s preserve stewardship goals. County staff recommends the BoCC adopt the five policy directives (page 4 of the Plan, Exhibit 1) to staff to further the BoCC's adopted Principles for stewardship of ACF preserves and to enhance the County’s ability to efficiently manage the Cattle Grazing and the revenues generated by these operations. These are: 1. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that well- managed nature preserves contribute to the community’s quality of life by protecting water resources, protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats, and providing natural areas suitable for resource-basedrecreation. 2. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that grazing appropriate areas of a preserve can be a valuable stewardship tool and directs that cattle grazing on these Alachua County Forever preserves shall be allowed when the following conditions can be met:- only on improved or semi-improved (rough) pasture- only where grazing has recently occurred- only on an interim basis until habitat restoration activities can occur- only as a prescribed management tool consistent with the goals of the adopted preserve management plan- only where the preserve’s conservation values will not be degraded3. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that conversion of natural areas to grazing range is not consistent with Alachua County Forever and Wild Spaces & Public Places referenda.4. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that grazing rights are a commodity, with economic value subject to market forces, and directs that they should be leased at market value. The Board also recognizes that offsetting County property management expenses can be a valuable substitute for cash proceeds.5. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes it is beneficial for the County to re-invest any grazing revenues in the stewardship of the Alachua County Forever portfolio of preserves and directs that these funds supplement existing stewardship funding. Staff has also attached as Exhibit 7, the first license agreement negotiated with a rancher to illustrate the implementation of this Plan. It will be a part of an acquisition decision (Watermelon Pond - Metzger) for the BoCC to consider later. Attached (Exhibit 8) as an example of the savings are the cost estimates for the Metzger Tract with and without the grazing agreement.

Fiscal Recommendation Additional source of revenue for ACF preserve stewardship

Fiscal Alternative(s) ACF stewardship will continue to rely on County General Fund, referendum proceeds and grants for stewardship

Funding Sources Cattle Grazing Proceeds

Account Code(s) Funds 326 and 302

Attachments: (list)

Exhibit 1 ACF Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Cattle Grazing Stewardship Stewardship Stewardship

http://eagenda.alachua.fl.us/AgendaComposer/ViewAgendaItem.aspx?id=1BCDE093-8CA... 1/9/2012 Alachua County Eagenda.NET (FP1) Page 3 of 3

Business Plan Strategy Memo to Strategy Memo to Strategy Memo to 120104.pdf the BoCC the BoCC the BoCC 050928.pdf 060217.pdf 060717.pdf

Exhibit 6 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 7 WAT Exhibit 8 Metzger BoCC120124 Stewardship Stewardship Metzger Cattle Costs.pdf Cattle Leveraging Strategy Memo to Grazing License Plan.pptx 2010.pdf the BoCC Agreement 070907.pdf 120105.pdf

Audit Data Date & Time Agenda Item Added by Ramesh Buch 1/5/2012 1:07:57 PM Exhibit 1 ACF Cattle Grazing Business Plan 120104.pdf added as an attachment by Ramesh 1/5/2012 1:08:11 PM Buch Exhibit 2 Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 050928.pdf added as an attachment by 1/5/2012 1:08:16 PM Ramesh Buch Exhibit 3 Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060217.pdf added as an attachment by 1/5/2012 1:08:20 PM Ramesh Buch Exhibit 4 Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060717.pdf added as an attachment by 1/5/2012 1:08:26 PM Ramesh Buch Exhibit 6 Stewardship Leveraging 2010.pdf added as an attachment by Ramesh Buch 1/5/2012 1:08:30 PM Exhibit 5 Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 070907.pdf added as an attachment by 1/5/2012 1:08:43 PM Ramesh Buch Exhibit 7 WAT Metzger Cattle Grazing License Agreement 120105.pdf added as an 1/5/2012 1:08:46 PM attachment by Ramesh Buch Exhibit 8 Metzger Costs.pdf added as an attachment by Ramesh Buch 1/6/2012 4:59:23 PM Agenda Item Revised by Ramesh Buch 1/6/2012 5:00:42 PM BoCC120124 Cattle Plan.pptx added as an attachment by Ramesh Buch 1/6/2012 5:22:03 PM Agenda Item Revised by Ramesh Buch 1/6/2012 5:22:05 PM Agenda Item Revised by Chris Bird 1/9/2012 10:19:32 AM Agenda Item Approved by Chris Bird 1/9/2012 10:20:23 AM

Close Edit Delete

Ramesh Buch - (Environmental Program Manager) Change Role | log out Role : Item Author

http://eagenda.alachua.fl.us/AgendaComposer/ViewAgendaItem.aspx?id=1BCDE093-8CA... 1/9/2012

ALACHUA COUNTY CATTLE GRAZING BUSINESS PLAN

DRAFT Version 12/04/2011

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 1

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Figures and Tables ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Recommended Policy Directives ...... 4 Cattle Ranching in Florida1 ...... 5 Cattle Grazing as a Resource Management Tool ...... 6 Grazing Range Evaluation Process ...... 8 Grazing License Agreement Development and Management ...... 9 Grazing Revenues ...... 10 The Business Plan ‐ A Static Document for Specific Management of Dynamic Ecosystems ...... 10 Glossary of Selected Terms used in this Plan ...... 11 Citations ...... 12

List of Figures and Tables

Table 1. Inventory of potential grazing sites ...... 7

Cover photos, clockwise from top left:

 Florida Cracker cow and calf (http://commons.wikimedia.org)  Jersey cattle at fair ‐ Alachua County, Florida 191x (Florida Memory. Florida Department of State, Div. of Library & information Services http://www.floridamemory.com)  Loading cattle onto train ‐ Kissimmee, Florida. 191x (Florida Memory. Florida Department of State, Div. of Library & information Services http://www.floridamemory.com)  Black Angus herd, Chitty‐Stardust Ranch, Alachua County, Florida (ACF File photo)  Fighting over a stolen herd. Remington, Frederic, 1861‐1909. Included in an article entitled, "Cracker Cowboys of Florida" published in Harper's new monthly magazine v.91, issue 543, August 1895. (Florida Memory. Florida Department of State, Div. of Library & information Services http://www.floridamemory.com);  Two cowboys wearing handguns‐ Gainesville, Florida. Rough and Ready, two cowboys wearing handguns and boots, are two Gainesville residents. Archie L. Jackson, left, was the son of a Confederate veteran and grandfather of an Alachua County rancher. Thomas McDonald, right, had a son, Harrison H. McDonald, who was a county judge for many years. This photo was taken in the 1890s, after the two men had driven a herd of cattle from Old Town, forded the Suwannee River, and brought the herd close to Gainesville for grazing. This shot is taken about one block west of the courthouse, behind Steenberg's Hardware Store, later Thomas Hardware. (Florida Memory. Florida Department of State, Div. of Library & information Services http://www.floridamemory.com)

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 2

Executive Summary Alachua County has acquired environmentally significant properties over the last decade to protect, improve and manage water resources, wildlife habitats, and to provide natural areas suitable for resource‐based recreation. Acquisitions were financed through two voter‐approved initiatives: Alachua County Forever (ACF) in 2000 and Wild Spaces & Public Places in 2008. These preserves provide County residents with the satisfaction of protecting lands that they know improve their quality of life and the quality of life for future generations. The same reasons that led to the conservation of these lands become more important over time as population increases and the landscape fragments. Conscientious stewardship of these lands protects this public investment and further enhances its long‐ term value to the community

To guide stewardship of these preserves, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopts a management plan for each preserve. In that plan, the overall vision for the site is articulated. Each plan furthers the Guiding Principles adopted by the BoCC on February 26th, 2002. Among these were a “no loss of conservation values” stewardship philosophy and a directive that any stewardship be consistent with Alachua County Forever’s primary goal of preserving, restoring and enhancing environmental values. This Cattle Grazing Business Plan is intended to elaborate on one discrete aspect of land stewardship. It does not supplant or replace any of the objectives of the individual preserve management plans as approved by the BoCC. Rather, it is intended to accompany them, to tease out the issues and provide staff‐recommended policy directives for BoCC adoption. This Plan is also not intended to apply to Conservation Easements unless the County has acquired grazing rights as part of the transaction.

Cattle ranching has occurred in north‐central Florida for centuries and continues to be an important land use today in this region. As such, Alachua County Forever may acquire properties that have had a long history of ranching right up to the County’s acquisition of the property. The County finds that on certain lands, continuing this use can be an important land management tool, providing a suite of benefits, such as maintaining the current ecological quality and conservation values, land management cost reduction, generating revenue or offsetting resource management costs, reducing wildfire risk, providing site security, and preserving the County's rural heritage

The purpose of this Cattle Grazing Business Plan is to:

 Articulate principles that guide grazing and leasing cattle grazing range on Alachua County Forever (ACF)‐managed lands  Develop criteria to evaluate which lands would benefit from grazing  Describe principles to be followed in contracting out grazing rights on ACF‐managed lands  Recommend sound business practices that will guide cattle grazing on these lands to the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)

As detailed later, in terms of this Plan, “benefits” accrue to both of the ecology of the site, and the economy of the County. This Plan is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of cattle grazing and ranching.

A glossary of key terms is included at the end of this Plan.

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 3

Recommended Policy Directives The BoCC adopted the following Guiding Principles at their February 26th, 2002 regular commission meeting (Item # 42R‐022602).

1. Certain administrative and operating expenses of the program may be borne by the General Fund. There are competing needs for County services using the General Fund and the services and benefits of land conservation to the community must be considered in the context of those other public needs. Additional sources of program support may need to be developed to support the operating costs, e.g. user fees.

2. Commercial Pooled Paper should be used to initially acquire properties until the appropriate time to issue the ACF Bonds. All costs directly related to the acquisition of a project, whether or not it is successfully consummated, are reimbursable from the Bonds.

3. The ACF program will use the existing contracts where appropriate and develop new contracts or the internal capacity where there is a deficiency in expertise or resources in the community. The BoCC recognizes the great value of using ACF funds to leverage partnerships in the protection of the county’s sensitive lands. The County has the fiduciary responsibility for ACF funds and therefore will require BoCC approval prior to any application being made regarding committing funds in such partnerships.

4. The BoCC is aware that there are long term stewardship costs associated with projects selected but no funding source other than the General Fund Reserves has been identified. To minimize stewardship expenses while the Program is in this initial acquisition phase, staff will use a strategy of “no loss of conservation values” stewardship. The initial stewardship program will reflect this strategy. As the program dmatures an other funding sources materialize, the stewardship program may be enhanced.

5. Any stewardship of ACF sites shall be consistent with the ACF’s primary goal of preserving, restoring and enhancing environmental values. A stewardship plan will be developed within 12months of acquisition and made available for public comment prior CCto Bo approval.

In furtherance of these general Principles and to enhance the County’s ability to efficiently manage cattle grazing on the acquired preserves and appropriately record and use the revenues generated by these operations, County staff recommends the BoCC adopt the following principles specific to grazing on ACF preserves:

1. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that well‐managed nature preserves contribute to the community’s quality of life by protecting water resources, protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats, and providing natural areas suitable for resource‐based recreation. 2. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that grazing appropriate areas of a preserve can be a valuable stewardship tool and directs that cattle grazing on these Alachua County Forever preserves shall be allowed when the following conditions can be met:  only on improved or semi‐improved (rough) pasture  only where grazing has recently occurred  only on an interim basis until habitat restoration activities can occur  only as a prescribed management tool consistent with the goals of the adopted preserve management plan  only where the preserve’s conservation values will not be degraded 3. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that conversion of natural areas to grazing range is not consistent with Alachua County Forever and Wild Spaces & Public Places referenda.

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 4

4. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes that grazing rights are a commodity, with economic value subject to market forces, and directs that they should be leased at market value. The Board also recognizes that offsetting County property management expenses can be a valuable substitute for cash proceeds. 5. The Board of County Commissioners recognizes it is beneficial for the County to re‐invest any grazing revenues in the stewardship of the Alachua County Forever portfolio of preserves and directs that these funds supplement existing stewardship funding.

Cattle Ranching in Florida1 Florida's cattle industry, one of the oldest and largest in the nation, is vital to the state's well‐ being. Ranching, considered an iconic American tradition, was practiced for the first time in North America here in Florida. Ranching in Florida has evolved from many different cultural traditions, though the most important sources were the marshy coastal areas of Andalusia, Spain, and the hill regions of Britain and Ireland. The Spanish and British colonialists took their cattle ranching traditions to the West Indies, where they were adapted to the tropical climate and combined to create ranching systems used throughout the Americas.

Some scholars believe that Florida's cattle brought by the expeditions of Ponce de Leon in 1521 and Don Diego de Maldonado in 1540 escaped and survived in the wild. Organized ranching began with the founding of St. Augustine in 1565, when cattle from Spain and Cuba formed the basis of herds that fed the garrison and surrounding communities. In addition to herds owned by the Spanish and Indians, wild cattle flourished in the rangelands and prairies.

By 1700, Florida contained approximately 34 ranches and 20,000 head of cattle. After British and Creek Indian raids in 1702 and 1704 devastated Florida’s cattle ranchers, Native Americans sustained cattle herds in Florida. Many had established large herds of wild cattle and stock acquired from the Spanish. By 1740, the followers of the Oconee Creek leader Cowkeeper (ca. 1710‐1783) established Florida's largest settlement in the Micanopy area. Heavily involved in a cattle economy, by 1775 the Seminoles were working 7,000 to 10,000 head of cattle on Paynes Prairie using trained cow dogs. They remained Florida's major livestock producers throughout most of the 1700s. During British rule (1763‐1783), English planters and Creek Indians in west Florida owned substantial herds. Cowmen from Georgia and the Carolinas spread into north Florida during that period. In early Florida, Europeans, Americans, and Indians stole cattle from each other. Rustling became particularly widespread by the second half of the 18th century, and was one of the elements that led to the Seminole Wars. Continued aggressions between the Seminoles and European‐American settlers over cattle and grazing lands contributed significantly to starting the Second (1835‐1842) and Third Seminole Wars (1855‐1858).

When the U.S. took possession of Florida in 1821, it was described as a "vast, untamed wilderness, plentifully stocked with wild cattle." Florida "scrub" or Cracker cattle were descended from the mix of Spanish and British breeds. These hardy creatures survived on native forage, tolerated severe heat, insect pests, and acquired immunity to many diseases. Early Florida cowmen survived in difficult conditions. They fought off panthers, wolves, bears, and cattle rustlers. From central Florida, they sometimes drove cattle as far as Jacksonville, Savannah, and Charleston. This gradually changed in the 1830s when the cattlemen re‐established trade with Cuba, and Tampa, and Punta Gorda and Punta Rassa became important export ports.

The number of cattle increased rapidly from the 1840s until the Civil War. Florida was second only to Texas in per capita value of livestock in the South. After the Armed Occupation Act of 1842,

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 5

cattlemen from the overstocked states of Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas homesteaded 200,000 acres in Florida. Some seized range territory that the Seminoles had been forced to relinquish as a consequence of the Seminole Wars. The newcomers often brought foundation herds that interbred with wild scrub cattle. Few cattlemen owned grazing land since there was extensive open range. By mid‐ century, ranchers were running large herds on the extensive open range in central and south Florida.

Wars provided an economic boost for Florida cattlemen, who provisioned armies during the Seminole, Civil, and Spanish American Wars. Although the Civil War disrupted then Cuba trade, Florida cowmen became beef suppliers to both armies. Hides, tallow, and meat from Florida were so important for the Confederacy that a Cow Cavalry was organized to protect herds from Union raiders. After the Civil War there were still wild cattle in Florida, as well as attractive markets to the north and south. During the next three decades, trade boomed with Cuba, Key West, and Nassau, and Florida became the nation's leading cattle exporter. From 1868 to 1878, ranchers received millions of dollars in gold doubloons for over 1.6 million cattle exported to Cuba. The Cuban commerce provided income to cattlemen, merchants, and shippers, and contributed to the state's recovery from Reconstruction‐era depression.

The 20th century brought changes affecting cattle ranching infrastructure and occupational traditions. As Cuban demand declined early in the century, ranchers turned to domestic markets and cattle were shipped by rail throughout the country. Modern technology brought many positive changes. As early as 1858, ranchers attempted to improve the quality of their herds with Brahman cattle, originally from India. Since the 1930s, ranchers have successfully cross‐bred native cattle with Brahman, Angus, Hereford, Shorthorn, Charolais, and Limousin to improve size, resistance to heat and insects, hardiness, and meat quality. This led to the development of hybrids such as the Braford and Brangus breeds.

The new era of Seminole cattle ranching began in the 1930s, when the Dania and Brighton Seminoles acquired starter herds. The Seminole Tribe established the Indian Livestock Association in 1939. In 1944, they created separate cattle enterprises for Brighton and Big Cypress, with the Central Tribal Cattle Organization providing general supervision. Seminoles banded with other Native American stockmen in 1974 to form the National American Indian Cattlemen's Association. Today, the Seminole Tribe is one of Florida's leading beef producers.

In January 2008, there were over 1.7 million cattle in Florida, including nearly 1 million head of beef cows. Florida was 12th in the nation for beef cattle and 18th for total cattle and calves. Industry officials assess the annual economic impact of beef cattle ranches at nearly $4 billion.

Ranching remains an important part of the landscape and economy in Alachua County. Alachua County currently ranks 13th in the state in the numbers of cattle with 44,000 head, and 8th in the numbers of beef cattle with 26,000 head3. In 2007, there were 172,843 acres in farmland ‐‐ 20,975 acres in forage ‐‐ 3rd in the state behind Marion and Suwannee Counties4. In 2007 in the County, livestock, poultry and their products generated $27 million in revenues, averaging $35,000 per farm4.

Cattle Grazing as a Resource Management Tool As we have seen, cattle grazing has occurred in north‐central Florida over the last five centuries and continues to be an important land use today. It is reasonable then for some part of the ACF portfolio of preserves to reflect this historic use. In fact, the initial ecosystem condition of the ACF portfolio of

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 6

properties does reflect the previous owners’ tenure and management objectives. These ranged from ranching, silviculture, row‐cropping, recreation, investment, to simply providing a valued place to live and raise a family. Many landowners altered the existing natural communities to achieve their objectives on the land they owned.

There are not many ranching landscapes reflected in the ACF portfolio. The reason is that the Program’s site selection criteria tends to eliminate heavily‐used and therefore environmentally impacted property. While some acquired preserves may have been ranched in their history, most ceased ranching well before the County’s purchase; sometimes several decades ago. Since then, sites have changed ecologically, and ranching infrastructure has deteriorated or been removed. Re‐ introducing cattle on these properties would set back the restoration process, degrade their conservation values, and violate the “acquire, improve and manage” mandate of the referendum. Therefore, these sites are not considered appropriate for grazing today.

In some instances, cattle grazing can be appropriate. A few Alachua County Forever preserves have had recent active cattle operations. On a number of these properties, portions were cleared entirely of their native community and the grazing range improved. On these sites, it is appropriate to consider grazing on improved and rough pastures as a potential resource management tool only when cattle impacts will not conflict with the natural resource stewardship and public use goals. Similar to hunting leases and timber thinning, cattle grazing can be a valuable part of a larger land stewardship plan, providing another method for managing public lands in an efficient and cost effective manner. Table 1 lists the sites purchased through the Program that had recent cattle grazing, have pasture and where grazing could be appropriate.

Table 1. Inventory of potential grazing sites

Site Year Area potentially Year 2011 Acquired available for last Status grazing (acres) grazed Paynes Prairie – Edwards 2009 70 2011 Managed by State, Leased San Felasco Additions – Rolling Meadows 2011 150 2011 Managed by State Watermelon Pond – Metzger 2012 500 2011 Available

There are many possible ecological and economic benefits to the County when appropriate areas of a preserve are grazed. These include maintaining the current condition of the conservation values of the preserve, land management cost reduction, control of invasive and non‐native plant species, realizing revenue from nongovernmental sources, wildfire risk reduction, improvement in site security, and preserving the County's rural heritage. While restoration of the entire site may be the overall goal, restoration of grazing range pasture can be time consuming, resource intensive and costly. It is also generally the most impacted portion of the preserve and the last area to be restored. Left un‐ grazed, range, especially improved pasture can deteriorate into exotic plant‐infested landscapes that become wildfire hazards and sources for infestation of adjacent preserves or properties. On the other hand, some rough pasture and grazed woodlands need only for the cattle to be removed and their native understory will recover with minimal assistance.

In general, cattle grazing on ACF preserves shall be allowed only on improved or rough pasture, where grazing has recently occurred, as a management tool prescribed in the preserve management plan, and on an interim basis until habitat restoration activities can be implemented. Grazing is not appropriate when it does not benefit the preserve and may degrade the site’s

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 7

conservation values. The adopted land stewardship plan shall remain the primary focus and all grazing activities shall be consistent with the adopted goals of that plan.

Grazing Range Evaluation Process This Plan’s aim is to facilitate the appropriate use of cattle grazing as a land management tool with minimum impact on existing and proposed land uses and the property’s conservation values. The Plan’s success depends on determining which sites would benefit from grazing, how much grazing is sustainable, and what the value is of that grazing privilege. There are a number of factors that make lands attractive to ranchers and therefore increase their value for ranching. The presence of non‐native pasture grasses is a benefit to ranchers, generally because of its superior nutritive value over native plant communities. The lack of a forest canopy and good quality soils provide more productive lands for cattle forage. The presence of existing water sources for cattle, the presence of adequate fencing, and good access are all elements needed for successful ranching, and can require significant investment to establish. Many properties that were recently ranched already have these attributes. With the economics of ranching today, significant inputs for development of ranching infrastructure may limit interest in leasing lands without ranching infrastructure even if grazing is ecologically beneficial.

An important consideration when evaluating whether grazing is appropriate for an Alachua County Forever Preserve is the potential for impacts to water bodies – surface and sub‐surface. Protection of water resources is a primary ACF goal and any activity must respect this mandate.

A process, described below, has been developed to assist with answering these criteria and ensuring a mutually beneficial outcome for both the County and the rancher. As the County will be using a License Agreement, the rancher will be referred to as the Licensee.

Step 1. IDENTIFY GOALS ‐ Identify land stewardship goals and long term objectives for the preserve. Step 2. REVIEW OPTIONS ‐ Evaluate all land management options for achieving land stewardship goals, including, but not limited to mowing, herbicide application, prescribed fire, and grazing. Step 3. ASSESSMENT ‐ assess cattle grazing as a management technique for the selected areas, taking into consideration the following criteria: a) Consistency with goals of acquisition and/or adopted land management plan b) Pasture condition and history of grazing c) Impact to preserve conservation values d) Ecological sensitivity of grazing range e) Ecological sensitivity of adjacent properties f) Adjacent land uses g) Prevention of impacts to water resources h) Wildfire risk reduction i) Improvement in site security j) Land management cost reduction or revenue generation k) Ease of access for licensee l) Presence of infrastructure to support grazing m) Forage quality n) Preserving the County's rural heritage

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 8

o) Other factors the site manager deems significant. Step 4. SELECT MANAGEMENT TECHINIQUES ‐ Select the most environmentally sound and economically viable strategies to achieve established stewardship goals. If cattle grazing is appropriate, go to Step 5. Step 5. DEVELOP GRAZING PLAN‐ Staff and Licensee develop a detailed, site‐specific Grazing Plan in coordination with appropriate agencies and incorporating appropriate State of Florida Best Management Practices. Step 6. DEVELOP GRAZING MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS – Incorporating the recommendations of the Grazing Plan, develop Grazing Management Terms that will be incorporated in the Grazing License Agreement. Step 7. SELECT LICENSEE – depending on the recent grazing history of the property a) NEGOTIATE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH PREVIOUS TENANT/OWNER – Where the property was recently grazed, and the previous rancher has a good ranching and land stewardship record on the specific property, County staff may negotiate a Licensee Agreement with them for a specified interim period while the preserve is in transition. Or, b) SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR BIDS/PROPSOALS ‐ Submit a Request for Bids/Proposals according to applicable County ordinances and this policy and negotiate a Licensee Agreement with winning bidder Step 8. IMPACT MONITORING ‐ Conduct inspections to track Grazing License Agreement obligations and compliance issues, and to ensure management objectives, including erosion and nutrient impacts, are being met. Frequency determined by site sensitivity, potential for impact, or other relevant factors. Keep records. Step 9. EVALUATE RESULTS ‐ After implementation of management practices, use findings to evaluate whether action taken has been successful in achieving cost effective management goals. Step 10. Renew/amend/terminate Grazing License Agreement as necessary.

Grazing License Agreement Development and Management Individual Grazing License Agreements will govern the County’s relationship with specific ranchers on its preserves. The County’s generally adopted contract management and procurement procedures and processes will govern the development of these Agreements. In general, the negotiated Grazing License Agreement should address the following issues:

 Site and herd security using gates and fences  Maintenance of all required fencing in the grazing area  Maintenance of grazing area according to specifications  Fire management including prescribed burning, installation and maintenance of firebreaks according to County‐provided location and specifications  Frequency of inspections  Exotic plant control and removal in the grazing area  Quarantine of cattle and supplemental feed  Insurance  Fertilizer use  Mowing required

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 9

 Strategies for minimizing nutrient impacts and erosion  Requirements for seeding with forage species  Suspension of grazing activities for certain County management activities  Phasing out of grazing range to facilitate restoration  Revenues or rents for grazing rights  Renewal and termination  Compatible public access and recreation  Hunting and feral hog removal

Grazing Revenues One of the most important benefits Grazing License Agreements will provide is the value of the land management work the Grazing Licensee performs as part of the consideration for the grazing privilege. Types of work performed may include fence, road and other structural maintenance, fire break development and maintenance, vegetation reduction, invasive or exotic plant species monitoring and control, property security, and pasture and trail mowing. These "in kind services" will be the main economic benefit of Grazing Licenses. Grazing Licenses may also have the potential to generate revenue for the County through the collection of rents. The amount of revenue generated on a site depends on a multitude of factors such as forage quality, water sources, shade, capital improvements and herd security, pasture size, and obligations of the Licensee to the County.

Revenues generated by these Grazing Licenses should be used for stewardship of the Alachua County Forever‐managed preserves. This is appropriate since these rights are attached to these properties and were a part of the bundle of rights when the property was purchased.

It is also appropriate to spend the proceeds on a different preserve if the grazed site does not need the revenues to achieve the BoCC‐approved goals. The disposition of the funds will depend on the legal constraints and funding covenants that govern the range and a preserve. For example, according to the recorded Grant Covenants, revenues from properties that were acquired with Florida Communities Trust grants must be used on management activities that occur on the same property.

The proceeds should be deposited in the appropriate revenue account. The accounts will be identified by the preserve‐specific accounting nomenclature sequence in use by the County for Alachua County Forever‐managed preserves. For example, fund 271‐5563.XXX.XX‐00 would deposit the proceeds in a fund specifically from the Watermelon Pond Preserve.

The Business Plan ‐ A Static Document for Specific Management of Dynamic Ecosystems This Plan will be amended by staff as budgets, policies, market forces or other events require. The Plan will also be amended as additional site information is gathered, sites are acquired or resource management and site stewardship needs change. New markets for different grazing animals may create new and better opportunities for preserve management. These opportunities will be evaluated as they arise and implemented as appropriate.

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 10

Glossary of Selected Terms used in this Plan

Alachua County are those lands that were acquired, and are managed, to fulfill the purposes of the Forever preserves Alachua County Forever referendum of 2000 and the Wild Spaces and Public Places referendum of 2008 Appropriate stocking is the number of cattle (or more typically cow/calf units) per acre for a specific site rate that would accomplish vegetation management goals without over‐grazing or significantly impacting the conservation values of the property Cattle domesticated quadrupeds of the genus Bos held as property or raised for use; specifically: bovine animals on a farm or ranch Critical habitat is habitat that is determined to be important to the survival of a listed species, to general environmental quality, or for other reasons as designated by the County, State or Federal government; is a conservation value of the property Forage4 Browse and herbage which is available and may provide food for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding. Grazing plan is a site‐specific plan, which is developed from scientific methods by qualified personnel and incorporates appropriate best management practices Grazing range is the geographic extent on which cattle have access to ground cover forage. Improved pasture5 Dominated by planted non‐native or domesticated native forage species and evidence of current or recent pasture activity and/or cultural treatments (mowing, grazing, burning, fertilizing). Improved pastures have been cleared of their native vegetation. Most improved pastures in Florida are planted with bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and to a lesser extent with Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) or pangolagrass (Digitaria eriantha). Weedy native species are often common in improved pastures in Florida and include dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), many species of flatsedge (Cyperus spp.), carpetgrasses (Axonopus spp.), crabgrasses (Digitaria spp.), and rustweed (Polypremum procumbens) among many others. License agreement is a formally‐executed contract between the County and the Licensee, in which the County authorizes the Licensee’s use or access to property for a specific purpose. Licensee does not have a possessory interest, cannot assign or share their use rights, and is usually terminable with short or no notice. Rough pasture See Semi‐improved Pasture Semi‐improved Dominated by a mix of planted non‐native or domesticated native forage species pasture6 and native groundcover, due to an incomplete conversion to pasture, not regeneration. Semi‐improved pastures have been cleared of a significant percentage of their native vegetation and planted in non‐native or domesticated native forage species, but still retain scattered patches of native vegetation with natural species composition and structure (most often small areas of mesic flatwoods) among the pastured areas. The planted areas are usually dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and can resemble improved pastures. Seeding of bahiagrass can also occur within areas of native groundcover.

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 11

Citations 1 Florida Memory. Florida Department of State, Div. of Library & information Services. Link. 2 FDACS 2011 Florida Agriculture by the Numbers Directory. Link. 3 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cattle and Calves inventory, 2011. Link 4 USDA Census of Agriculture. Link. 5 Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management. IFAS Extension Circular 951. Link. 6 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2010. Guide to the natural communities of Florida: 2010 edition. Link.

Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Page 12

Summary of Special Commission Meeting Stewardship of Alachua County Forever Lands May 24, 2007. 3:00 p.m. Alachua County Environmental Protection Department 201 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 201 Gainesville, Florida 32601

Attendees: Commissioner Lee Pinkoson Commissioner Mike Byerly Dave Wagner, County Attorney Chris Bird, Director, Alachua County EPD Ramesh P. Buch, Alachua County EPD Sandra Vardaman, Alachua County EPD Sean McClendon, Alachua County EPD Kathleen Pagan, Alachua County Growth Management Robert Simons, member of the Alachua County Land Conservation Board Robert Hutchinson, Alachua Conservation Trust Bill Brown, County Extension Office Mark van Sostenbergen, University of Florida Office of Sustainability Deedee Delongpre, University of Florida Office of Sustainability

Commissioner Pinkoson opened the meeting with a statement that he supported Alachua County Forever and was interested in developing a dedicated source of funding to maintain and enhance the preserved lands. Further he was interested in finding out if there was a way to generate enough revenue from the preserves to allow them to be self-reliant.

Commission Byerly stated that he supported this discussion and stated two of his principles: these preserves are public assets and should not be viewed any differently from other public assets and their need for maintenance. He agreed that the County should take advantage of appropriate opportunities to generate revenue for maintenance.

Commissioners continued to discuss various options to raise revenues including silviculture, ranching and harvesting pine straw. Commissioner Pinkoson said this discussion was important in light of the revenue uncertainties facing the County arising from the various State initiated property-reform proposals. Commissioner Byerly agreed and said that any revenue-generating options should always be secondary to preserving the conservation values of the properties. Commissioner Pinkoson said that it may be necessary to put a portion of a property in revenue- generation to support the remainder of the properties.

Ramesh said that staff supported the Commission in this discussion. He said that they had been very busy over the last 5 years buying lands and had not formally laid out the long term management strategy. He then asked Sandra to present the status of the ACF program, its stewardship principles and philosophy, revenue generation options and policy questions as potential points on which to continue the discussion.

Page 1 of 10

Sandra handed out Attachment 1 to the attendees which highlighted the policy and legislative framework for the ACF program. She pointed out the mission statement, the ballot language, the guiding principles adopted by the Commission in 2002, and the comprehensive plan directives.

As examples of efforts to reduce costs to the County she stated that of the approximately 11,000- acre ACF portfolio, about 6,000 acres are managed by partners saving the County over $150,000 annually. In addition, she said ACF is working on License Agreements with private entities to accomplish maintenance, security and educational objectives that will save the County about $47,000 in General Fund expenses. She mentioned using inmate labor and other departments to clean up about13 tons of solid waste saving an additional $3,000, and noted that, thus far in 2007 there have been over 416 volunteer hours logged on ACF sites saving an additional $2,500. She said ACF has applied for a $51,000 Bureau of Invasive Plant Management grant and is developing a $10,000 grant for understory restoration at Sweetwater Preserve. Staff has worked with agency staff and consultants to explore mitigation opportunities on ACF lands.

Sandra presented some of the other options staff has investigated (Attachment 2) to generate revenue. Timber revenues over the next 7 years from thinning existing pine plantations and for restoration activities should yield about $20,000 in 2008 from Lake Alto Preserve, a couple of years later thinning at Phifer should yield about $60,000 and in the next 5 or so years Mill Creek Preserve should generate approximately $160,000. She cautioned that these estimates are dependant on market stability and no major beetle outbreaks or natural disasters that reduce the value of the timber. She said these revenues are generated as a by-product of stewardship and are consistent with the Program goals and that as the program transitions to stewardship over the next year this information will be further refined. Sandra said that while these activities will reduce ACF’s impact on the general fund, they will not eliminate the need for some general fund assistance.

Sandra next discussed the possibility of entering into hunt leases for revenue generation. She said that the license agreements staff is working on are very conservative and trade hunting privileges for stewardship services. The County retains a great deal of control over the properties and can cancel the agreements within 3 days. It is also understood that these agreements will end when the sites are opened to the public. However, should the County need to generate additional funding, a property like Barr Hammock could be leased for over $20,000 per year. Competitive bidding and promotion should raise the amount. The downside is that this would be an interim arrangement until the property was opened to the public and it would limit what the public can do on the property. As a Florida Communities Trust-funded site, it has to be open to the public eventually and hunting may not be compatible. She said that Mill Creek is also a potential hunting site albeit less revenue would be generated.

She mentioned sale of Carbon Credits as an ecologically sensitive way to raise revenue but the market is not fully developed yet. She said staff looked at leasing out property for cattle grazing. The St. Johns River Water Management District receives about $10 per acre for improved pasture; however none of the ACF sites have improved pasture, only very rough pasture and natural areas. The literature says it takes between 6 and 40 acres of native forage per cow-calf unit. The potential cons are aggressive bulls, cattle escaping enclosed areas, damage to natural areas and the cost of required fencing. She said grazing would be difficult to implement and manage, and would have a greater ecological impact and yield significantly less profit than

Page 2 of 10 timber. Chris stated that we would lose the Carbon Credit value of the lands because cows contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

Sandra also looked into palmetto frond and berry harvesting. Palmetto frond harvesting maybe viable for areas where we are trying to reduce palmetto cover. Palmetto berry harvesting was not recommended because the berries are an important wildlife food source. She mentioned pine straw harvesting, but said harvesting pine straw removes important nutrients from the property and requires maintenance of open ground under the pines which is not consistent with our goal of restoring native groundcover.

Ramesh wrapped up staffs presentation by reiterating that staff has been working on ways to reduce the program’s reliance on the general fund, and will continue to pursue these options as the program transitions to stewardship over the next year. He stated that staff intent was that each year’s budget request would reflect revenues and expenditures and any general fund request would be the net. He said that he anticipated some years would be better and surplus revenues should be carried over to offset the next year’s costs.

Commission Pinkoson asked if a special trust fund could be established to allow for the carry forwards and make sure the funds remained available for the program. Dave Wagner, Ramesh and Sandra all said it was possible to create an interest bearing trust fund, and indeed F&A, the bond covenants and various grants would require that. Commissioner Pinkoson said it was important that any revenues stay with the Program. Commissioner Byerly said he supported that idea and that he thought that it could be supplemented with general fund revenues.

Ramesh concluded by saying that in staff’s mind, each property was located on a conservation integrity continuum from degraded to pristine. He said that one operating principle was that the County should be moving each property up the continuum in the direction of increasing the conservation values. It may be acceptable in times of restricted funding to cycle in place and not move up, but it would be unacceptable to backtrack. He pointed to this as the first policy question for the Commission (to affirm Principle #4 that there should be no net loss of conservation values).

Dave asked why cell towers were not included as they can be designed to minimize impacts to the ecology and they generate a lot of revenue. Ramesh said that philosophically locating a cell tower changes the land use of the property. Practically they impact the lands by its footprint and impact on birds and wildlife. He said it is a trade-off and that while they can be designed to minimize impacts they are not without impacts. He said that if the County purchased a property with a tower, he would be in favor of continuing that use. Dave said that the County Library District was investigating locating cell towers on library buildings. He said ACF should follow the progress of the towers and determine if that was an appropriate revenue source. Sandra asked if the bond covenants would permit the location of the tower on ACF lands. Dave said that it could so long as it did not adversely affect the water quality, wildlife habitat or affect natural recreation. Kathleen asked if the Comp Plan prohibited cell towers on preservation lands. Dave responded by saying that the Plan says they should be avoided not “shall be”. Ramesh said that locating towers on buildings was not inconsistent with that land uses unlike preservation areas. Ramesh said that the legal concerns about the location and appropriateness of cell towers would be addressed by Dave, but the remaining ecological, aesthetic and public concerns remain to be addressed as tradeoffs on a case by case basis. Commissioner Pinkoson added that there

Page 3 of 10 may be public safety benefit by adding towers to areas deficient in service that would also benefit preserve users who needed phone service. Commissioner Byerly said he was open to locating cell towers if several criteria were kept in mind including access roads, guy wires, lights, and ecological impacts. He wanted signage that explained why the County allowed the installation of the tower.

Commissioner Pinkoson asked what the ACF annual stewardship expenditure projections were. Commission Byerly said that that amount was dependant on the goals for the properties. He said that it would be helpful to have some kind of projection that maintained the conservation values and proposed enhancements to the properties and revenue sources if the Commission wanted to fund those enhancements. He asked how much we need to sustain the properties. Sandra responded by saying that the budget requests reflected that perspective and that the FY2008 request was $78,000 and FY2009 request was $92,000 in non-personnel resource management costs only, (with personnel costs funded through the general fund). Bill asked if the management costs included invasive plant control. Sandra said it did. She said that the numbers will be higher initially and decrease as the sites get into maintenance condition.

Commissioner Pinkoson asked for confirmation that the Bond could be used for initial improvements. Ramesh said it was and said that raised a second policy question: should the County set aside the 10% of the Bond Proceeds (equal to $2.9 million) for capital improvements as allowed under the referendum. Commissioner Byerly said he wanted to spend the bond dollars on acquisition since lands would become expensive to buy. Ramesh said we could either advise the board when we were bringing them a contract that may dip into the last 10% or make that policy decision now. Commissioner Byerly said he was confident that the public would support spending money on infrastructure from the general fund. Commissioner Pinkoson said he remained concerned that the County would purchase more than it could afford to maintain and that extension beyond our means would affect the lands and public support. He said he was shocked that the cost was less than $100,000. Chris said that the current stewardship strategy for these properties is minimal and does not include a lot of programming and those costs will drive up the operating costs in the future.

Robert Hutchinson commented that ACF was proposed by the citizens and they thought 10% was enough, which he said remains to be seen. He said he believes that acquisitions should remain a priority for the Bond proceeds. Except for some exotic control, the money should be reserved for land buying. He also said he wanted to disclose that Alachua Conservation Trust (ACT) may be managing some of the County’s preserves in the future if the concerns of County staff and his Board could be resolved. He also agreed that any revenue remain in the program. He said that silviculture revenue should be realized when possible under proper stewardship. He said he was concerned that the number of the properties not open to the public was a concern for any potential future referenda to extend the program. He said that his experience was that a “friends of” program with a solicitation of donations and naming rights is needed. He said that ACT has received over $100,000 for naming rights. He mentioned Gopher Tortoise and wetlands mitigation opportunities are also available and should be investigated. Commissioner Byerly commented that as far as tortoise re-location was concerned, there were issues with site suitability and ongoing obligations. Robert said he was concerned that the current staff that handled the acquisitions so successfully may have a problem transitioning to stewardship.

Page 4 of 10 Mark commented that there may be opportunities in the future to sell carbon credits off of the County preserves. He provided some background on the nature of carbon sequestration and the incipient demand from utilities, industry, commercial interests and individuals who want or need to offset their carbon impacts. He said that the County could use existing inventories of land and that the current market of about $4/ac/yr may help offset the $11/ac/yr cost of management. He said the accounting models are in place in California and the Northeast as examples for southeast forests. Chris said that the University has committed to becoming carbon neutral and need to offset their carbon and they may be the driver for this market. Mark mentioned that regional utilities were also looking to secure carbon credit sellers and were looking to pay about $10/ton of carbon. Chris said there is a need for credentialing to ensure honesty and that is not in place yet and that is where governments with their transparency have an advantage.

Commissioner Byerly asked for what the vision was for ACF lands. He said his was that the long-term goal was no harvesting. He said that he looked to the National Parks model of wilderness with no or minimal human management. Bob Simons said that was one model on the spectrum of forest management, but some of the nicest ecological properties are on public and private lands that are managed for timber. He said that you can cycle through uneven aged timber harvest and still have really healthy forest. He said the most important issue was not where you were on the spectrum, but rather maintaining a healthy ecosystem which may require a lot of management input such as prescribed fire and exotic control. He said if you have enough general fund revenue to sustain this level of management then you do not have to do any silviculture. He said if you don’t, you may have to do some silviculture to generate enough revenue to do the other required management and end up with a healthier ecosystem than struggling with insufficient funding. Commissioner Byerly commented that if money were no object, then the management goal should be to restore the large wilderness-type landscapes that are free from silviculture. Bob agreed but reiterated that an approximate condition can be reached with some sustainable harvesting. Commissioner Byerly said the County needs to make a fundamental decision about the long-term vision of the property and how to get there. He stressed that there must be a goal in the management plans for an end result of no timber harvesting, but that he would support some timber harvest in getting to that goal. Bob stated that this discussion refers to only pine systems and they are a small percentage of the ACF portfolio. He said he did not believe that harvesting other systems such as, wetlands or hammocks would be appropriate.

Commissioner Pinkoson concluded by repeating his desire to see a budget for stewardship showing revenue generation and various levels of expense reflecting various stewardship options from a bare bones no loss of conservation values through enhanced access. He also said he supports the idea of fundraising through a “friends of” group. Commissioner Byerly agreed and stated that a minimum amount of maintenance funding should be required as the county already does for active parks and any enhancements above that is part of the budget discussion. Commissioner Pinkoson asked staff to present the cost of the improvements when the Commission meets to decide whether to reserve the 10% for Capital Improvements. Commissioner Byerly concluded by saying that of all the programs the County has, ACF has the strongest mandate – a direct vote by over 62% to implement the program.

Bill Brown asked that if any property included uplands that were appropriate for grazing that staff considers that and also that exotic control on the lands is critical if nothing else is

Page 5 of 10 accomplished. Commissioner Pinkoson asked staff to make sure that was included in budget projections. Ramesh said it was and would continue to be.

There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Page 6 of 10 Attachment 1. Alachua County Forever Background Information 5-24-2007

1) Alachua County Forever Mission Statement:

To acquire, improve and manage environmentally significant lands to protect water resources, wildlife habitats and natural areas suitable for resource-based recreation.

2) Ballot Language OFFICIAL BALLOT COUNTY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA BOND REFERENDUM ELECTION - NOVEMBER 7, 2000

APPROVAL OF “ALACHUA COUNTY FOREVER” BONDS TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LANDS.

Shall Alachua County be authorized to issue bonds to acquire, improve and manage environmentally significant lands to protect water resources, wildlife habitats and natural areas suitable for resource-based recreation in one or more series not exceeding a total principal amount of $29,000,000 payable from an annual ad valorem tax not exceeding one-quarter of one mill maturing not later than 20 years and bearing interest at a rate not exceeding the maximum legal rate. For bonds Against bonds

______

3) Guiding Principles

The BoCC agreed to adopt the following Guiding Principles at the Land Conservation workshop held on January 14th, 2002. The BoCC formally adopted the following Guiding Principles at their February 26th, 2002 regular commission meeting (Item # 42R-022602).

Page 7 of 10 3. The ACF program will use the existing contracts where appropriate and develop new contracts or the internal capacity where there is a deficiency in expertise or resources in the community. The BoCC recognizes the great value of using ACF funds to leverage partnerships in the protection of the county’s sensitive lands. The County has the fiduciary responsibility for ACF funds and therefore will require BoCC approval prior to any application being made regarding committing funds in such partnerships.

4. The BoCC is aware that there are long term stewardship costs associated with projects selected but no funding source other than the General Fund Reserves has been identified. To minimize stewardship expenses while the Program is in this initial acquisition phase, staff will use a strategy of “no loss of conservation values” stewardship. The initial stewardship program will reflect this strategy. As the program matures and other funding sources materialize, the stewardship program may be enhanced.

6. Every effort must be made to maintain the public’s confidence and trust so that this Program may be sustained.

4) Relevant Comprehensive Plan Sections

Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020 Effective 5/2/05 Conservation and Open Space

6.0 LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM 6.2 ALACHUA COUNTY FOREVER Objective 6.2: Implement the Alachua County Forever program.

Policy 6.2.3 The emphasis of Alachua County Forever shall be to increase the acreage of environmentally significant lands managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes.

Policy 6.2.7 Resource-based recreation may be considered on and adjacent to land acquired through Alachua County Forever provided the associated activities do not have significant adverse impacts on the ecological integrity or ecological or historical values of the resources in these areas.

6.6 MANAGEMENT Objective 6.6: Improve the environmental stewardship of all preservation, conservation and recreation areas within Alachua County.

Policy 6.6.5 The County shall restore and enhance degraded natural areas on County-owned preservation, conservation and recreation lands, including removal of invasive non-native plants

Page 8 of 10 and animals, reforestation, re-establishment of burn regimes for fire-adapted ecosystems, and restoration of shorelines and natural hydrology, as needed.

Policy 6.6.6 The County shall manage and maintain County-owned preservation, conservation and recreation areas to ensure the ongoing conservation of desirable plants and animals and their associated ecosystems, and to control the invasion and spread of undesirable nonnative plants and animals.

Policy 6.6.9 Multiple use opportunities, including resource-based recreation, shall be considered in County-owned preservation and conservation areas where consistent with conservation of wildlife habitat, watershed protection, erosion control, maintenance or enhancement of water quality, and aquifer recharge protection.

Policy 6.6.10 The County shall manage, and support stewardship strategies that maximize biodiversity at the species, natural community, and landscape levels.

Policy 6.6.11 The County shall provide continued funding for ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with County-owned lands.

Page 9 of 10 Attachment 2. Memo from staff to Board of County Commissioners dated May 7, 2007

Page 10 of 10 Alachua County Forever: Making your money stretch farther, greener, faster.

One of the well‐documented successes of the Alachua County Forever Program is its ability to leverage OPM… Other People’s Money. But most people are only aware of the acquisition side of the house; and justifiably so. To date, the County has been able to raise two dollars of OPM for each dollar of local tax spent on the Acquisition List.

But did you know the Program has been even more successful leveraging Stewardship dollars? For the last few fiscal years, the resource‐management budget for the Program was $62,000. Using that as seed money for grants and staff time for coordination, the Program was able to leverage almost $1 million in stewardship costs (table 1). Over five dollars returned in OPM for every general fund dollar invested. TABLE 1 Offsets Partners’ Total Expenditures FY2008 $71,690 $412,917 $484,607 FY2009 $142,053 $52,088 $194,941 FY2010 $166,306 $144,843 $311,149

Note: Offsets are avoided costs to the County by using volunteers etc. Partners’ Expenditures means these are real expenditures by our management partners on jointly owned lands thus minimizing the County’s expenditures.

There are myriad ways the Program has creatively leveraged its costs. We have negotiated agreements with the St. Johns River Water Management District and the City of Gainesville to manage jointly‐owned sites. We have used License Agreements with neighbors, hunters, previous lease‐holders and tenants to continue their care and stewardship of the property on the taxpayers’ behalf. Program staff has hosted Community Service Workers and volunteer groups at special events – often on weekends – to pull weeds and exotic plants, clear trash and re‐plant native vegetation.

It is especially gratifying to see the diversity of groups that approaches us to volunteer their time. This past year alone we worked alongside a group from Trinity United Methodist Church and the U.F. Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers. Each has “adopted” a site and we know we can call on them as the need arises to assist us take care of these assets. Jim Kauffman, Joel and Polly Smith, who have served as caretakers for Barr Hammock since the 1970s, continue in that same role for us today.

One of the Program’s goals in the coming year is to build a Volunteer Conservation Corps where staff is able to match interested groups and individuals to tasks and sites. To volunteer yourself or a group, please contact the Alachua County Forever Program ([email protected] or (352) 264‐6800).

To do this on our own would be cost‐prohibitive, inefficient and perhaps even a little selfish. Each of these relationships benefits the County not only in avoiding a direct cost but also to build a sense of place and strengthen our shared commitment to that investment. So we thank our partners and those in the community who have volunteered their time and energy, and we look forward to continuing our tradition of rooting people in the ground. LICENSE AGREEMENT For Cattle Grazing Watermelon Pond Preserve - Metzger Tract

THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ______day of

______, 20__, (“Effective Date”) by and between Alachua County, a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as “County”, and ______, hereinafter referred to as “Licensee”;

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Watermelon Pond Preserve - Metzger Tract, hereinafter referred to as the “Property”, was acquired on ______by the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) under the Alachua County Forever (ACF) Program to protect, improve and manage its environmentally sensitive lands to protect water resources, wildlife habitats and to provide natural areas suitable for resource-based recreation for future generations; and

WHEREAS, one of the Guiding Principles adopted by the BoCC on February 25, 2002 for the ACF Program was “…To minimize stewardship expenses while the Program is in this initial acquisition phase, staff will use a strategy of “no loss of conservation values” stewardship; and

WHEREAS, on ______, 2012, the County adopted the Alachua County Forever

Cattle Grazing Business Plan. The Plan’s intent is to establish principles to guide appropriate management of County-owned pastures through environmentally sound private-party grazing and thereby off-set maintenance costs; and

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 1

WHEREAS, the Licensee has been a conscientious lessee of the property under the previous owner and has demonstrated their willingness to work with the County to further the goals of the Alachua County Forever Program; and

WHEREAS, the Licensee, in their capacity as an Independent Contractor to the County as described in Paragraph 3 of this Agreement, wishes to assist Alachua County with maintenance, mowing, harrowing, exotic species control, security, hog removal and other site management services on the Property in exchange for limited cattle grazing privileges in furtherance of the Alachua County Forever Program goals; and

WHEREAS, the County finds that this use would be beneficial to the County by providing site management services described above at no cost to the County; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into a license agreement to establish rights and obligations with regard to the use of the Property;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereto do mutually covenant and agree as follows:

1) Site Location.

The 635-acre Metzger parcel was acquired by the County on ______, 2012. The parcel is

located in southwest Alachua County on SW 250th Street, directly across from the Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Watermelon Pond Wildlife and

Environmental Area (Barry’s Ranch), and the Alachua County Watermelon Pond Boat Ramp

Park

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 2 There are approximately 390 acres of improved pasture, approximately 75 acres of semi-

improved or rough pasture, and approximately 120 acres of forested area available for

grazing (“grazing area”). Areas identified as “non-grazing area” are those areas of the

Metzger Tract excluded from the grazing area as depicted in the site map (Exhibit A).

2) Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from ______, 20___ through ______,

20___. The parties agree that this Agreement will automatically renew for five (5) additional

one-year periods on the anniversary of its Effective Date, unless terminated as provided for

in paragraph 12 herein.

3) Property. This Agreement is for the use of Watermelon Pond Preserve - Metzger Tract,

hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and as depicted by the map contained in Exhibit A to

this Agreement and made a part thereof.

4) Independent Contractor Status. In the performance of this Agreement, the Licensee is acting

in the capacity of an Independent Contractor and not as an agent, employee, partner, joint

venturer or associate of the County. The Licensee is solely responsible for the means,

method, technique, sequence, and procedure utilized by the provider in the full performance

of this Agreement. As a service provider outside the construction industry with fewer than

four employees choosing not to secure worker's compensation coverage under the Florida

Workers' Compensation Act, the Licensee verifies that he has posted clear written notice in a

conspicuous location accessible to all employees telling employees and others of their lack of

entitlement to worker's compensation benefits.

5) Use of Property. Licensee agrees to use the Property exclusively for:

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 3 a) Performance of site management services, as specified in the Cattle Grazing License

Agreement Scope of Services (Exhibit B).

b) Cattle grazing.

c) Hay production.

d) Removal of feral hogs from the Property.

e) Limited hunting on the Property.

6) Payment. Licensee agrees to provide these services to the County in exchange for limited

cattle grazing privileges described in paragraph 5 above and at no cost to the County.

7) Grant. The County grants to Licensee:

a) The right to graze cattle, engage in other limited agricultural practices and to perform site

management services on the Property described in paragraph 5 above.

b) The right to access to the Property to accomplish the services agreed upon herein.

c) The right to use their own equipment on the Property for the purposes of implementing

this Agreement.

d) Limited cattle grazing privileges described in paragraph 5 above.

e) The right to limited hunting on the Property.

The rights granted to the Licensee hereunder will not affect, and are subservient to, the

County’s rights and obligations in the implementation of the management and other

activities on the Property necessary to accomplish the goals of the Alachua County

Forever Program.

8) Duties and Restrictions.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 4 a) The Licensee agrees to provide all materials and supplies necessary to implement their

responsibilities under this Agreement.

b) The County through the Environmental Protection Department shall be provided keys to

any gates on the property and shall be immediately notified should any lock be added,

changed, replaced or removed.

c) The Licensee shall assist in the protection of the Property against trespassers, poachers,

and vandals to the best of his ability and report all acts of trespass and vandalism to the

County and to the proper authorities.

d) The Licensee shall notify County staff, and the Alachua County Sheriff’s Office or

Alachua County Fire Rescue if circumstances warrant, including hazardous, dangerous or

destructive conditions, trespassers, wildfires, vandalism to County property, or

unauthorized damage to the natural resources protected onsite,

e) As specified in the Cattle Grazing License Agreement Scope of Services attached as

Exhibit B hereto, Licensee shall survey the Property and notify the County within 24

hours of any issues that may affect the County’s management of the Property or the

Licensee’s rights and obligations under this Agreement.

f) As specified in the Cattle Grazing License Agreement Scope of Services attached as

Exhibit B hereto, the Licensee shall provide the County with written logs describing the

activities performed under this Agreement for the previous month, including maintenance

and security activities, numbers of cow-calf units on the property and number of hogs

removed.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 5 g) Licensee agrees to abide by all Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission rules

and regulations when hunting and that any violation of these rules will result in the

immediate removal of the individual from this Agreement.

h) Licensee agrees that there shall be no defacing, molesting or cutting of live or dead trees,

including cabbage palm, except for those interfering with personal safety or access to the

property, or as otherwise agreed upon in writing between the parties. Licensee agrees that

there shall be no dumping or placing of any garbage or refuse on the Property.

i) Other than prescribed fires as coordinated with County staff, Licensee agrees that there

shall be no building of fires on the Property.

j) The Licensee shall maintain a working phone number at which he may be reached by

County staff at all times.

k) The Licensee shall remove all their equipment, materials and debris upon termination of

this Agreement.

l) The Licensee shall not stay overnight on the property and shall not establish any

structures intended for camping on the property, except as agreed upon in writing

between the parties.

m) The Licensee agrees to control feral hogs on the Property by hunting and trapping

throughout the year, as necessary to control the population. Should it become necessary,

up to one dog per hunter may be used for hunting hogs, provided prior approval in

writing is given by County Staff.

n) The Licensee shall not establish any new trails on the Property without the express

written authorization of the County.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 6 o) Licensee agrees that he shall not establish or maintain additional structures and other

man-made alterations to the Property without prior written authorization of the County.

p) Licensee agrees that no illegal, unlawful, offensive or immoral activities will take place

on the subject Property.

q) Licensee agrees to file a Notice of Intent to follow Florida Cow/Calf Water Quality Best

Management Practices with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services and to comply with additional grazing range management procedures that may

be prescribed from time to time by the County, including but not limited to removal of

pasture available to the Licensee.

r) Licensee agrees to comply with wildlife management procedures that may be prescribed

from time to time by the County, including but not limited to harvest quotas based on

periodic population surveys.

s) Only the Licensees and a maximum of one guest are allowed to hunt on the property at

any one time. Guest must be accompanied by the Licensee on the property.

9) Right of Assignment, Licensee shall not have the right to assign this Agreement or its

equipment on the property without the written consent of the County.

10) Notices. All notices shall be in writing and sent to the County:

Alachua County c/o Ramesh Buch, Program Manager, 408 W. University Avenue, Suite 106 Gainesville, Florida 32601

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 7 and to: ______Licensee

A copy of any notice hereunder shall also be sent to:

Clerk of the Court Alachua County Florida Post Office Box 939 Gainesville, Florida 32602-939 Attn: Finance and Accounting

And to

Office of Management and Budget 105 SE 1st Avenue, Suite 6 Gainesville, FL 32601 Attn: Contracts

11) Indemnification. Licensee shall indemnify, save harmless and defend the County and all its

agents, officials and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action

of every description brought against the County that arise from or in connection with the

execution, performance, or exercise of any rights, privileges, or uses allowed or granted in

this Agreement. In the event the County is alleged to be liable on account of alleged acts or

omissions, or both, of Licensee, its subcontractors or agents, then Licensee will defend such

allegations through counsel mutually agreed to by the County and the licensee. Furthermore,

Licensee will pay all costs, fees and expenses of any defense, including but not limited to, all

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 8 attorneys fees and expenses, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses. This

indemnification provision will survive the termination of this Agreement. Nothing contained

herein shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver of sovereign immunity of the State of

Florida or of the County beyond the waiver provided in Florida Statue 768.28.

12) Insurance. The Licensee will procure and maintain insurance throughout the entire term of

this Agreement of the types and in the minimum amounts detailed in Exhibit C.

13) Termination. This License Agreement may be revoked, with thirty (30) days written notice,

at any time by the Director of the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.

14) Laws & Regulations. Licensee will comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and

building code requirements applicable to the work required by this Agreement. Licensee is

presumed to be familiar with all state and local laws, ordinances, code rules and regulations

that may in any way affect the work outlined in this Agreement, including Florida

Administrative Code Chapter 39 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) and

current Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Best Management

Practices for cattle grazing. If Licensee is not familiar with state and local laws, ordinances,

code rules and regulations, Licensee remains liable for any violation and all subsequent

damages or fines.

15) Third Party Beneficiaries - This Agreement does not create any relationship with, or any

rights in favor of, any third party.

16) Conflicts of Interest. Licensee warrants that neither it nor any of its employees have any

financial or personal interest that conflicts with the execution of this Agreement. Licensee

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 9 shall notify the County of any conflict of interest due to any other clients, contracts or

property interest.

17) Severability Clause. If any provision of this Agreement is declared void by court of law, all

other provisions will remain in full force and effect.

18) Non Waiver - The failure of any party to exercise any right in this Agreement shall not be

considered a waiver of such right.

19) Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement is governed in accordance with the laws of the

State of Florida. Venue is in Alachua County.

20) Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by mutual written agreement of

the parties.

21) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes all prior

written or oral agreements, understandings, or representations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this License Agreement to be executed for the uses and purposes therein expressed on the day and year first above-written.

ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA

By: County Manager WITNESSES:

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Alachua County Attorney

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 10 LICENSEE

Mr. Danny Holder:

NOTARY

Dated this day of , 20__. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS day of , 20__, by , who is personally known to me/ produced as identification.

Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My Commission expires:

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 11 Exhibit A. Map of the Property

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 12 Exhibit B. Scope of Services 1. BACKGROUND: 1.1. On ______, 2012, the County adopted the Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan. The Plan’s intent is to establish principles to guide appropriate management of County-owned pastures through environmentally sound private-party grazing and thereby off-set maintenance costs.

2. SITE HISTORY, CHARACTERISTICS, CAPACITIES, AND CONSIDERATIONS:

2.1. The 635-acre Metzger parcel was acquired by the County on ______, 2012. The parcel is located in southwest Alachua County on SW 250th Street, directly across from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Watermelon Pond Wildlife and Environmental Area (Barry’s Ranch), and the Alachua County Watermelon Pond Boat Ramp Park. Prior to acquisition, the majority of the property was historically grazed by cattle and consists of improved and rough (semi-improved) pasture. A portion of the improved pasture was recently managed for hay production. Active gopher tortoise burrows occur within the pasture areas, however they are not abundant. Sherman’s fox squirrels have been observed onsite and in agricultural fields adjacent to the pasture areas. Burrowing owls were documented to occur in the pasture. The central portion of the property consists of xeric hammock, mesic flatwoods, remnant sandhill, and a series of sinkhole ponds, most of which are currently dry. One of the sinkhole ponds contains water. The flatwoods and remnant sandhill areas contain some remaining mature longleaf pine, as well as patches of persistent native groundcover including wiregrass, lupine, and Adam’s needle. Active gopher tortoise burrows are scattered throughout the remnant sandhill. The southwestern quadrant of the property contains part of Watermelon Pond, a sandhill upland lake with widely fluctuating water levels. Much of the lake basin is frequently dry, with isolated ponds of water surrounded by prairie and marsh vegetation. Maidencane, broomsedge, redroot, and sand cord grass are abundant in currently the dry lakebed, and the natural communities within the lake basin are considered to be in good condition.

2.2. Per this agreement, there are approximately 390 acres of improved pasture, approximately 75 acres of semi-improved or rough pasture, and approximately 120 acres of forested area available for grazing (“grazing area”). Areas identified as “non-grazing area” are those areas of the Metzger Tract excluded from the grazing area as depicted in the site map (Exhibit A of the License Agreement). The improved pasture consists of a mixture of non-native forage grasses and native forbs and grasses. The semi-improved pasture consists mostly of native forbs and grasses with scattered patches of non-native forage grasses. Hardwood species including pawpaw, persimmon, sweetgum, live oak, sand live oak, and turkey oak occur naturally in forested areas adjacent to the pastures. Seedlings and saplings of these species occur throughout the improved and semi- improved pasture areas. In addition to encroaching hardwoods, tropical soda apple and

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 13 coffee weed have been observed growing sporadically within the grazing area. Additional exotic plant species are likely to occur on the property.

2.3. Primary access to the grazing area is via SW 250th Street, shown in the site map (Exhibit A of the License Agreement). Physical improvements onsite include a centrally located hay barn, perimeter fencing and gates, interior cross-fencing, portions of an old cattle pen, and four wells, also shown in the site map (Exhibit A of the License Agreement).

3. LICENSEE RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1. In lieu of monetary payments, the LICENSEE shall provide the land management services detailed below and summarized in Table 1. These services shall be completed in accordance with the specifications that follow.

3.2. The LICENSEE shall record all land management activities on a Monthly Site Activity Report, to be submitted at the end of each calendar month to the County.

3.3. The LICENSEE shall be bound to all responsibilities outlined in the Cattle Grazing Business Plan and the Watermelon Pond Preserve Management Plan (when adopted).

3.4. Any subcontractor hired by the LICENSEE must meet all County requirements for insurance as described in the attached Insurance Requirements and, if applicable, be licensed and pre-approved by the County. 3.5. In coordination with the COUNTY, develop a site-specific Grazing Plan, following standards as set forth in the Water Quality Best Management Practices for Florida Cow/Calf Operations, 2008 Edition (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Agricultural Water Policy). Include in the Grazing Plan all aspects of pasture and cattle management including: mowing, fertilizing, herbiciding, hay harvesting, supplemental feeding and watering of cattle, herd limits, and rotations.

3.6. Adhere to established Best Management Practices (BMPs) in all aspects of cattle management on the property.

3.7. Provide the following site maintenance:

3.7.1. Mow approximately 390 acres of improved pasture twice (2) annually as needed.

3.7.2. Mow approximately 75 acres of semi-improved pasture annually as needed.

3.7.3. Mow and clear approximately 3.5 miles of roads/trails twice (2) annually as needed.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 14

3.7.4. Harrow approximately 11.5 miles of fire breaks once (1) annually as needed.

3.7.5. Regularly inspect and repair boundary fencing, cross fencing and gates, and install and maintain “NO TRESPASSING” signs on the property boundary.

3.8. Maintain and secure existing wells onsite.

3.9. Regularly monitor for and control exotic plant species on the property. For the purposes of this Agreement, exotic plant species are any that are listed in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s 2011 Invasive Plant Species list (http://www.fleppc.org/list/11list.html).

3.9.1. Note observations (species, density, location, treatment) on the Monthly Site Activity Report.

3.9.2. Spot-treat all exotic plants utilizing herbicides approved by County staff, in strict compliance with herbicide labels.

3.10. Control feral hogs on the Property by hunting and trapping throughout the year, as necessary to control the population.

3.11. Properly dispose of deceased animals in a timely manner in accordance with all local, federal and state laws and regulations in locations approved by the County.

3.12. Erect and maintain holding or quarantine pens, as needed, in locations approved by COUNTY.

3.13. Locate supplemental hay only in specified quarantine area.

3.14. Quarantine cattle for a period of seven (7) days after entering the property or after receiving offsite hay.

3.15. Maintain a herd no larger than 100 cow-calf units.

3.16. Maintain general herd health. Using the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Body Condition Score Index to assess herd health in the fall season, no cows will score lower than three (3).

3.17. Repair damaged fencing as-needed.

3.18. Coordinate with County staff to draft annual burn plans, and to relocate or secure cattle with adequate advanced notice to safely conduct prescribed burning on the property.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 15

4. MOWING SPECIFICATIONS: 4.1. Roads/trails should be mowed to a height of no more than six (6) inches.

4.2. Roads/trails should be mowed at a minimum width of ten (10) feet.

5. HARROWING SPECIFICATIONS: 5.1. Harrowing shall be interpreted to refer to the maintenance of fire breaks using harrows or similar mechanical equipment to expose bare mineral soil.

5.2. Harrowing should expose mineral soil but penetrate no deeper than six (6) inches.

5.3. Fire breaks should be harrowed at a minimum width of eight (8) feet.

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 16 Task Description Extent Target Date

Complete within 60 days of Grazing Plan Develop a Grazing Plan for the property. Entire Tract effective date of Agreement Perform site security checks Entire Tract Weekly Site Security Complete and submit Monthly Site Activity Report Entire Tract Monthly Maintain existing fences, gates and boundary posting Entire Tract As needed sufficient to secure property and cattle SW Grazing Install east fence on SW grazing exclusion area June 2012 Exclusion Area SW Grazing Install north fence on SW grazing exclusion area June 2013 Fencing Exclusion Area Black Pot Reconfigure fence on Black Pot grazing exclusion Grazing June 2014 area to minimize erosion Exclusion Area Install temporary quarantine fences as needed Designated Area As needed Mow roads/trails twice annually (~3.5 miles) as Entire Tract June and October needed Mow improved pasture twice annually (~390 acres) Mowing Grazing Area As needed as needed Mow semi-improved pasture annually (~75 acres) as Grazing Area As needed needed Harrow fire breaks twice annually (~11.5 miles) as Annually in late Harrowing Entire Tract needed fall/early winter Monitor property for the occurrence of exotic plant Grazing Area Monthly species Treat FLEPPC Category I or II exotic species using County-approved herbicides in strict compliance Grazing Area As needed Exotics Control with herbicide labels

Note species, location, density and treatment of Grazing Area As needed exotic plant species on Monthly Site Activity Report Control feral hogs on the Property by hunting and Entire Tract As needed trapping

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 17 Exhibit C. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Alachua County Watermelon Pond Preserve – Metzger Tract Licensee’s Ins.

Licensee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the Licensee’s operation and use of the licensed premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the Licensee.

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

Coverage must be afforded under a per occurrence form policy for limits not less than $1,000,000 General Aggregate, $1,000,000 Products / Completed Operations Aggregate, $1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury Liability, $1,000,000 each Occurrence, $100,000 Fire Damage Liability and $5,000 Medical Expense.

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY (While Operating Vehicles on County Owned Property)

Coverage must be afforded including coverage for all Owned vehicles, Hired and Non-Owned vehicles for Bodily Injury and Property Damage of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY (While on County owned Property)

Coverage to apply for all employees at STATUTORY Limits in compliance with applicable state and federal laws; if any operations are to be undertaken on or about navigable waters, coverage must be included for the USA Longshoremen & Harbor Workers Act. Employer’s Liability limits for not less then $100,000 each accident; $500,000 disease policy limit and $100,000 disease each employee must be included.

OR:

As an independent contractor outside the construction industry with fewer than four employees choosing not to secure worker’s compensation coverage under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, the Licensee may chose to post clear written notice in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees telling employees and others of their lack of entitlement to work’s compensation benefits.

LIQUOR LIABILITY (While on County owned Property)

Coverage must be afforded when a licensee, vendor, concessionaire, independent contractor, or subcontractor is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, serving or

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 18 furnishing alcoholic beverages while on County property. Coverage must be afforded for Bodily Injury and Property Damage of not less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit each occurrence.

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS

The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

I Commercial General Liability Coverages

a. The Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, its officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as an Additional Insured as respects: Liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Licensee and premises owned, leased or used by the Licensee.

b. The Licensee’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the County, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County, it’s officials, employee’s or volunteers shall be excess of Licensee’s insurance and shall be non- contributory.

II Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability Coverages

The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the County, its officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Licensee for the County.

III All Coverages

The Licensee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance to the County with a Thirty (30) day notice of cancellation. The certificate shall indicate if cover is provided under a “claims made” or ”per occurrence” form. If any cover is provided under a claims made form the certificate will show a retroactive date, which should be the same date of the contract (original if contact is renewed ) or prior.

SUBCONTRACTORS, VENDORS, CONCESSIONAIRES

Licensee shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies. All coverages for subcontractors, vendors, concessionaires and independent contractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. Certificate Holder: Alachua County Board of County Commissioners c/o Risk Management P.O. Box 1467 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Revision Date: January 5, 2012 19 Cost Estimates

Acquisition Estimates

Table A. Pre-Contract Costs Pre-Acquisition Services Land Project Acres Purchase Cost Appraisals Boundary Sketch Title Report sub-total Watermelon Pond - Metzger 635 2,142,700 13,000 - 150 $ 13,150

Table B. Post-Contract Costs Due Diligence and Closing Services GRAND Project Title Environmental Surveys Closing sub-total Insurance Audit TOTAL Watermelon Pond - Metzger 7,932 12,366 2,522 1,000 $ 23,820 $ 2,179,670

Stewardship Estimates

Physical Average Annual Average Annual Total Costs Project Acres Improvements Recurring Recurring/Acre for initial 10 (BOND) (General Fund) years Watermelon Pond - Metzger 635 $ 2,650 $ 8,058 $ 12.69 $ 83,230

*Note: These estimates are net of the stewardship offset from the grazing license.

110927 Metzger acq costs COSTS 1/6/2012 4:51 PM Watermelon Pond Metzger & Metzger 635 acres

Improvements $875* Exotic Plant Control (GF) $2,500 Informational Kiosk (Bond) $7,125 Prescribed Fire (GF) $150 Regulatory Signs (Bond) $34,200* Pasture Maintenance (GF) Total $2,650 $500* Fence, Gate, Boundary Maintenance (GF) $4,325* Road/Fire Break Maintenance (GF) $300* Trail Maintenance (GF) $933 Monitoring (GF) $7,140* Security (GF) Total $55,398*

*cost may be offset with a cattle grazing lease ($47,340/yr)

Average Annual Management Costs The property has historically been grazed, and managed cattle grazing will be considered to maintain the property in its current open condition until restoration is feasible. Potential annual cattle grazing revenue is $17,550, which will help offset management costs.

Parking/Kiosk/Signage (Parking and access will be via the adjacent Watermelon Pond County Park) Informational Kiosk = $2,500 Regulatory Signs = $150 Bond = $2,650

Exotic Plant Control Year 1 = $1,500 Year 2-3 = $1,000 Year 4-10 = $750 10 Year Total = $8,750 or $875/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) General Fund

Prescribed Fire (estimate based on Florida Division of Forestry MOA) Burning ~285 acres at $25/acre annually 10 Year Total = $71,250 or $7,125/year General Fund

Pasture Maintenance (estimates provided based on contractor price) Mowing improved pasture 390 acres at $40/acre x 2 times/year = $31,200/year Mowing semi-improved pasture 75 acres at $40/acre x 1 time/year = $3,000/year 10 Year Total = $342,000 or $34,200/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease)

Fence, Gate and Boundary Maintenance $500/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) 10 Year Total = $5,000 General Fund

Road/ Fire Break Maintenance (estimates provided based on contractor price) Road Mowing 3.5 miles at $125/mile x 2 times/year = $875/year Fire break Maintenance 11.5 miles at $150/mile x 2 times/year = $3,450/year 10 Year Total = $43,250 or $4,325/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) General Fund X:\County I drive\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Watermelon Pond\WAT site specific evaluations\Metzger\WATMetzgerMgtcosts revised 01062012.doc

Trail Maintenance $300/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) 10 Year Total = $3,000 General Fund

Monitoring 20 hours of staff time plus supplies Project oversight, contractor oversight, grazing lease management, photopoints, inspections, record keeping $933/year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) 10 Year Total = $9,330 General Fund

Security (Based on SJRWMD contract) Security Contractor = $27.95/hour x 4 hours/week = $111.80/week x 52 weeks = $5,814/year $0.51/mile x 50 miles/week = $25.50/week x 52 weeks = $1,326/year 10 Year Total = $71,400 or $7140 /year (may be offset with cattle grazing lease) General Fund

X:\County I drive\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Watermelon Pond\WAT site specific evaluations\Metzger\WATMetzgerMgtcosts revised 01062012.doc