| Lake Forest Creek
Draft date: Februrary 14, 2003 |
|
|
| CATEGORY |
Criterion |
WEIGHTING |
Enter Criteria Value Based on Site Inspection |
Average Criteria Score |
Average
Criteria Score Multiplied by Relative Importance |
|
|
| (I-1) PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES |
A. Whether the property has
geologic/hydrologic conditions that would easily enable contamination of
vulnerable aquifers that have value as drinking water sources; |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| B.
Whether the property serves an important groundwater recharge
function; |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| 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; |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| D.
Whether the property serves an important flood management function. |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| (I-2) PROTECTION OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND LANDSCAPES |
A. Whether the property contains a diversity
of natural communities; |
|
5 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| B. Whether the natural communities present on
the property are rare; |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| C.
Whether there is ecological quality in the communities present on the
property; |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| D.
Whether the property is functionally connected to other natural
communities; |
|
5 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| E.
Whether the property is adjacent to properties that are in public
ownership or have other environmental protections such as conservation
easements; |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| F.
Whether the property is large enough to contribute substantially to
conservation efforts; |
|
5 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| G.
Whether the property contains important, Florida-specific geologic
features such as caves or springs; |
|
2 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| H. Whether the property is relatively free
from internal fragmentation from roads, power lines, and other features that
create barriers and edge effects. |
|
2 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| (I-3) PROTECTION OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES |
A. Whether the property serves as documented
or potential habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species or species
of special concern; |
|
5 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| B.
Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for
species with large home ranges; |
|
5 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| C. Whether the property contains plants or
animals that are endemic or near-endemic to Florida or Alachua County; |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| D.
Whether the property serves as a special wildlife migration or
aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting,
or over-wintering; |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| E.
Whether the property offers high vegetation quality and species
diversity; |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| F.
Whether the property has low incidence of non-native invasive species. |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| (I-4) SOCIAL AND HUMAN VALUES |
A. Whether the property offers opportunities
for compatible resource-based recreation, if appropriate; |
|
5 |
|
|
0.6667 |
11% |
| B.
Whether the property contributes to urban green space, provides a
municipal defining greenbelt, provides scenic vistas, or has other value from
an urban and regional planning perspective. |
|
5 |
|
|
0.6667 |
11% |
| |
AVERAGE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN VALUES |
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
| |
RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE |
1.3333 |
|
|
5.2 |
|
|
| (II-1) MANAGEMENT ISSUES |
A. Whether it will be practical to manage the
property to protect its environmental, social and other values (examples
include controlled burning, exotics removal, maintaining hydro-period, and so
on); |
|
3 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| B.
Whether this management can be completed in a cost-effective manner. |
|
4 |
|
|
#REF! |
#REF! |
| (II-2) ECONOMIC AND ACQUISITION ISSUES |
A. Whether there is potential for purchasing
the property with matching funds from municipal, state, federal, or private
contributions; |
|
5 |
|
|
0.1667 |
3% |
| B.
Whether the overall resource values justifies the potential cost of
acquisition; |
|
4 |
|
|
0.1667 |
3% |
| C. Whether there is imminent threat of losing
the environmental, social or other values of the property through development
and/or lack of sufficient legislative protections (this requires analysis of
current land use, zoning, owner intent, location and |
|
4 |
|
|
0.1667 |
3% |
| 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. |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
| |
AVERAGE FOR
ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT VALUES |
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
| |
RELATIVE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE |
0.6667 |
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
| |
TOTAL SCORE |
|
|
|
7.42 |
|
| NOTES |
|
|
|
General Criteria Scoring Guidelines |
|
|
|
1 = Least beneficial, 2 =
Less Beneficial than Average, 3 = Average, 4 = More Beneficial than Average,
5 = Most Beneficial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|