Lizzie Robinson Draft Lizzie Robinson Rapid Ecological Project Assessment Alachua County Forever Draft Date: June 23, 2005 Matrix Score: 5.93 Size: 57.5 acres Number of parcels: 3 Number of owners: 1 Number of Buildings: 1 Parcel Numbers: 05254-007-000, 05254-006-000, 05254-006-001 S-T-R: 32-11-18

Location / Description: The 58-acre Lizzie Robinson (LIZ) Project is located south of the City of Archer, one third of a mile west of County Road 241 and half a mile north of the Alachua – Levy County border, Map 1. The project was nominated by the owner, Lizzie Robinson Jenkins of the Rosewood Foundation. This property is rich in history for Mrs. Jenkins’ family, and she wishes to have it preserved to keep her family’s legacy alive. Relatives of Mrs. Jenkins were survivors of the Rosewood massacre, and this land was their safe haven after they were forced to evacuate Rosewood. Mrs. Jenkins and her siblings were raised on this land. She plans to put some of the property back into agriculture, and is interested in having school classes take fieldtrips to her property to see where their food comes from. She is a retired elementary school teacher, and in the past has taken her classes on tours of the property. A site assessment by Alachua County Forever staff revealed that the site consists of rough pasture, second growth upland mixed forest, prairie hammock, and a highly disturbed sink hole.

Protecting Water Resources: The LIZ project is located in the unconfined aquifer zone of Alachua County. This is an area where the Floridan aquifer system is overlain by highly permeable, and generally thin, undifferentiated sands. It is a low, flat area of high aquifer recharge that allows pollutants direct access to the aquifer (Macesich 1998). The St. Johns River Water Management District’s (SJRWMD) Aquifer Recharge Map for Alachua County shows that 100% of the LIZ project is in a high aquifer recharge area where 12 inches or more of water is recharged to the aquifer on a yearly basis. According to the USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4057, the LIZ project is located in an area where greater than ten inches of water is recharged to the Floridan Aquifer System per year (Aucott 1988). According to the data layers there are almost no wetlands, hydric soils, or FEMA 100 or 500 year flood hazard areas within the LIZ project (approximately .002% of the total acreage). The landowner pointed out one sink hole on the property, but it had been filled with solid waste.

I:\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Lizzie Robinson\LIZ REPA\LIZ REPA.doc - 1 - Lizzie Robinson Draft Protecting Natural Communities and Landscapes: Natural Communities Upland Mixed Forest 11 acres 19% good - fair Disturbed Sinkhole < 1 acre <1% poor Prairie Hammock 2.5 acres 4% good Other: Rough Pasture 36.5 acres 64% House and yard area 2.5 acres 4% Forested Windbreak 5 acres 9%

The above list of natural communities is from a site visit conducted by Alachua County staff on June 2, 2005. The ecological quality of the natural communities ranges from good to poor. The LIZ project is a small, isolated parcel of land located in an agricultural area south of Archer. It is not connected to any large natural areas. The nearest large conservation area is Goethe State Forest, approximately 1.5 miles away. The upland mixed forest is in good to fair condition, and appears to be second growth both from the site visit and historical aerials. This community is found on the northern areas of the two larger parcels. From historical aerial photographs there appears to be a lake to the northwest of this property, and some of the prairie hammock fringe remains although the lake is considerably smaller than in the past. This indicates hydrological modifications to the area. There is one sink hole on the property, but it has been filled with solid waste. Due to its location in the county the sinkhole is likely to be a karst feature, but in its present condition staff could not tell. The majority of this property is rough pasture dominated by bahiagrass and blackberries. The pasture has not been cleared recently; other species present include croton, rumex, passionfruit, and pawpaw. A wild turkey sitting on its nest was observed by staff in the rough pasture, and several other wild turkeys were observed in a windbreak. None of the LIZ project is within the Florida Ecological Greenways Network (FEGN). The Florida Ecological Greenways Network is a decision support model to help identify the best opportunities to protect ecological connectivity statewide. It was developed by the for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. GIS data on land use and significant ecological areas were integrated in a process that identified a statewide Ecological Greenways Network containing all of the largest areas of ecological and natural resource significance and the landscape linkages necessary to link these areas together in one functional statewide network (Hoctor et al. 2002). There are no Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas within the LIZ project. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas were developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). They are private lands containing habitats critical to the continued survival of populations of inadequately protected plants and animals (Cox et al. 2000). These lands are essential to providing some of state’s rarest animals, plants, and natural communities with the land base necessary to sustain populations into the future (Cox et al.1994). The LIZ site does not fall within the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Habitat Conservation Priorities. FNAI’s Habitat Conservation Priorities prioritize places on the landscape that would protect both the greatest number of rare species and those species with the greatest conservation need (Florida Natural Areas Inventory, June 2001).

I:\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Lizzie Robinson\LIZ REPA\LIZ REPA.doc - 2 - Lizzie Robinson Draft The LIZ site does not contain any FNAI Under-represented Natural Communities. Under-represented Natural Communities are those natural community types that were inadequately represented on conservation lands in Florida. A natural community is considered to be inadequately represented if less than 15% of the original extent of that community is on existing conservation lands. Under-represented natural communities include, seepage slope, upland hardwood forest, pine rockland, tropical hardwood hammock, sandhill, scrub, upland glades, and pine flatwoods. These data were developed by the Office of Environmental Services, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and FNAI (FNAI, December 2001).

Protecting Plant and Animal Species: Common Name Endemic/ Large Fed/State FCREPA/FNAI Observed Home-Range Status Designation Reptiles American Alligator -/- T/SSC -/S4 SM Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake -/- -/- -/S3 SM Eastern Indigo Snake -/- T/T SSC/S3 SM Florida Crowned Snake X/- -/- -/- SM Florida Pine Snake -/- -/SSC SU/S3 SM Peninsula Mole Skink X/- -/- -/- SM Birds Black Rail -/- -/- R/S3 SM Great Egret -/- -/- SSC/S4 SM White Ibis -/- -/SSC SSC/S4 SM Wild Turkey X/L -/- -/- S Mammals Florida Mouse X/- -/SSC T/S3 SM Northern Yellow Bat -/- -/- SU/- SM Amphibians Eastern Tiger Salamander -/- -/- SU/S3 SM Gopher Frog -/- -/SSC T/S3 SM

X= Endemic, L=species with large home ranges according to the Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat System, S= observed by Alachua Co. EPD staff and/or an LCB subcommittee member, SM= documented on the Species Models maps created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, F= Focal species used for the most detailed analyses in the Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1994, N= Florida Natural Areas Inventory Element Occurrence, P= potential for species based on habitat types, K=documented in the Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project.

No listed species were observed during the site inspection. The only exotic invasive plants staff observed on the property were a few Chinaberry and mimosa trees along the edges of the pasture on the southern part of the property (near the house). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission data shows one bald eagle nest approximately one mile from the project site. None of the LIZ site falls within Regional Biodiversity Hotspots. The purpose of the Regional Biodiversity Hot Spots maps developed by FWC is to “convey more detailed information on the known locations of as many components of biological diversity as possible, regardless of whether or not they fall within proposed Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas, to help meet the need for conservation information at regional and local levels” (Cox et al. 1994).

I:\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Lizzie Robinson\LIZ REPA\LIZ REPA.doc - 3 - Lizzie Robinson Draft Management: The LIZ property would require a great deal of restoration to return the rough pasture (which covers approximately 64% of the property) to natural communities. Ms. Jenkins would consider restoring a portion of the pasture to natural areas, however she would need assistance from the county or another entity to accomplish this. Minimal effort would be needed to control the exotic mimosa and chinaberry trees.

Achieving Social and Human Values: The LIZ project is not within a Natural Resource-based Recreation Area (Knight, et al. 2000) as delineated on the Natural Resource-based Recreation map developed by FNAI in collaboration with FWC, the Florida Department of Environmental Resources and the Florida Division of Forestry. The recreation potential of a site depends on available road access, presence of a water body or beach, proximity to urban areas, and size of the site. “These criteria were applied to Potential Natural Areas delineated by FNAI using aerial photography and revised using the 1995 Water Management District land cover data. Sites were ranked by recreation potential.” (Knight, et al. 2000). If acquired, the LIZ project would become part of the Emerald Necklace Land Conservation Initiative – a publicly accessible, connected, and protected network of trails, greenways, open space, and waterfronts surrounding the Gainesville urban area. Although this property would most likely be acquired by a conservation easement, the owner expressed her interest in having supervised school classes use her property for educational and recreational purposes. Mrs. Jenkins intends to put some of the rough pasture back into agriculture to use as an educational tool for students visiting the property. This property is rich in history for Mrs. Jenkins’ family, and she wishes to have it preserved to keep her family’s legacy alive. Relatives of Mrs. Jenkins were survivors of the Rosewood massacre, and this land was their safe haven after they were forced to evacuate Rosewood. Mrs. Jenkins and her siblings were raised on this land.

Economic & Acquisition: The 57.5-acre LIZ property has one owner and three parcels, and contains one building according to the Alachua County Property Appraiser. The ACPA’s 2005 Just Value or land value for the entire project is $88,600 or $1,540/ acre. These figures are for comparative purposes between nominated properties, and are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the true cost of the property if acquired by the Alachua County Forever Program. Currently, in the area of the LIZ project, the supply of available land and housing meets or exceeds demand for single-family residential use. Within approximately one mile of this site there are numerous smaller residential parcels and a few rural large-lot subdivisions. The property is approximately 4 miles south of the City of Archer, and has access to CR 241 from county road SW 10-B. The project has a zoning of agriculture and a Future Land Use of Rural/Agriculture. The three parcels have development potential for single-family detached (including manufactured or mobile home) residential use. Based on current zoning, the property has the potential to be subdivided at a density as high as 1 unit per 5 acres, as a rural agricultural subdivision totaling approximately 11 units for the project area. There is a sink hole on the property, but the natural features present do not appear to constrain development potential on the project area.

I:\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Lizzie Robinson\LIZ REPA\LIZ REPA.doc - 4 - Lizzie Robinson Draft The development review is based on a limited desk-top review and relates to only the current Land Development Regulations, as well as policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan, which went into effect May 2005.

Other: There is one archaeological site listed on the Florida Master Site File maintained by the Division of Historical Resources a quarter of a mile from the site, and two others within a two mile radius.

Literature Citations: Aucott, W. 1988. Water Resources Investigation Report 88-4057. USGS.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation System, Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.

Cox, J. and R. Kautz. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. June 2001. Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment Technical Report

Hoctor, T.S., J. Teisinger, M.G. Carr., P.C, Zwick. 2002. Identification of Critical Linkages Within the Florida Ecological Greenways Network. Final Report. Office of Greenways and Trails, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL.

Knight, G., A. Knight, and J. Oetting. 2000. Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment Summary Report to the Florida Forever Advisory council. Florida Natural Areas Inventory.

KBN, A Golder Associates Company. 1996. Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project. Prepared for Alachua County Department of Growth Management, Gainesville, Florida.

Macesich, M. 1988. Geologic Interpretation of the Aquifer Pollution Potential in Alachua County, Florida, Open File Report – 21. Florida Geologic Survey, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. December 2001. Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment Version 1.1 Supplement to the technical Report June 2001. Tallahassee, Florida.

I:\Land Conservation\Land Conservation Matrix\Lizzie Robinson\LIZ REPA\LIZ REPA.doc - 5 - Lizzie Robinson Draft Date: June 23, 2005 WEIGHTING

Enter Criteria Value Average Average Criteria CATEGORY Criterion Based on Site Criteria Score Multiplied by Inspection Score Relative Importance

A. Whether the property has geologic/hydrologic conditions that would easily enable contamination of vulnerable aquifers that have value as drinking water sources; 5 (I-1) PROTECTION OF B. Whether the property serves an important groundwater recharge function; 5 WATER RESOURCES C. Whether the property contains or has direct connections to lakes, creeks, rivers, springs, sinkholes, or wetlands for which conservation of the property will protect or improve surface water quality; 1 D. Whether the property serves an important flood management function. 1 A. Whether the property contains a diversity of natural communities; 1 B. Whether the natural communities present on the property are rare; 2 C. Whether there is ecological quality in the communities present on the property; 2 (I-2) PROTECTION D. Whether the property is functionally connected to other natural communities; 2 OF NATURAL E. Whether the property is adjacent to properties that are in public ownership or have other environmental COMMUNITIES AND protections such as conservation easements; 2 LANDSCAPES F. Whether the property is large enough to contribute substantially to conservation efforts; 3 G. Whether the property contains important, Florida-specific geologic features such as caves or springs; 3 H. Whether the property is relatively free from internal fragmentation from roads, power lines, and other features that create barriers and edge effects. 2 A. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species or species of special concern; 3 B. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for species with large home ranges; 3 (I-3) PROTECTION C. Whether the property contains plants or animals that are endemic or near-endemic to Florida or Alachua County; OF PLANT AND 2 ANIMAL SPECIES D. Whether the property serves as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering; 2 E. Whether the property offers high vegetation quality and species diversity; 2 F. Whether the property has low incidence of non-native invasive species. 2 A. Whether the property offers opportunities for compatible resource-based recreation, if appropriate; 2 (I-4) SOCIAL AND B. Whether the property contributes to urban green space, provides a municipal defining greenbelt, provides scenic HUMAN VALUES vistas, or has other value from an urban and regional planning perspective. 4 AVERAGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN VALUES 2.45 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE 1.3333 3.27 A. Whether it will be practical to manage the property to protect its environmental, social and other values (examples (II-1) MANAGEMENT include controlled burning, exotics removal, maintaining hydro-period, and so on); ISSUES 2 B. Whether this management can be completed in a cost-effective manner. 5 A. Whether there is potential for purchasing the property with matching funds from municipal, state, federal, or private contributions; 4 B. Whether the overall resource values justifies the potential cost of acquisition; 4 (II-2) ECONOMIC C. Whether there is imminent threat of losing the environmental, social or other values of the property through AND ACQUISITION development and/or lack of sufficient legislative protections (this requires analysis of current land use, zoning, owner ISSUES intent, location and 4 D. `Whether there is an opportunity to protect the environmental, social or other values of the property through an economically attractive less-than-fee mechanism such as a conservation easement. 5 AVERAGE FOR ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT VALUES 4.00 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE 0.6667 2.67 TOTAL SCORE 5.93

Lizzie Robinson REPA Matrix Recommended BW