Kanapaha Prairie                                          Draft date December 11, 2002, April 8, 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;   5     #REF! #REF!
B.  Whether the property serves an important groundwater recharge function;   5     #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;   3     #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;   3     #REF! #REF!
E.  Whether the property is adjacent to properties that are in public ownership or have other environmental protections such as conservation easements;   3     #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;   4     #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;   2     #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;   4     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     3.8  
  RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE 1.3333     5.1
(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);   2     #REF! #REF!
B.  Whether this management can be completed in a cost-effective manner.   5     #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;   4     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     3.2  
  RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CRITERIA SET IN THE OVERALL SCORE 0.6667     2.1
  TOTAL SCORE       7.18
NOTES
General Criteria Scoring Guidelines
1 = Least beneficial, 2 = Less Beneficial than Average, 3 = Average, 4 = More Beneficial than Average, 5 = Most Beneficial
top 20 qu = 66.7%