CLAM committee advances priority list; five parcels move toward county-commission review as public urges inclusion of Callahan Woodlands

Nassau County—s Conservation Land Acquisition and Management (CLAM) Committee met to review staff and consultant rankings of nominated parcels and to collect public input on properties that residents want the county to consider for conservation.

The committee heard that five high-priority projects are advancing toward a possible Board of County Commissioners decision in November and took public testimony urging the committee to add the Crawford Diamond railroad parcel, also called Callahan Woodlands, to the priority list. Staff and consultants explained the committee—s role is advisory and that placement on CLAM—s priority list does not guarantee county funding.

The CLAM committee, an advisory body to the Board of County Commissioners, uses a GIS-based scoring system and qualitative review to group project areas into priority, eligible and non-eligible categories. Josh Macbeth, senior planner in Nassau County Strategic Advancement, told the committee the ranking form and an interactive map are on the county website for public review and that the committee—s numeric rankings will be collected, averaged and forwarded to the county clerk for consideration by the commission.

Ramesh Butch, a consultant with North Florida Land Trust, said five projects are moving forward toward commission consideration and provided acreage figures: Piney Island (39 acres), a United Methodist Church parcel (about 5.5 acres), the Rainier property (45 acres), Saint Mary—s Farm (640 acres) and a smaller addition to the Egan—s Creek Greenway (identified in staff notes as Twentr/Twinter, about 0.25 acre). "We have 5 projects that are all moving forward, hopefully, to a board decision, a Board of County Commission decision sometime in November," Butch said.

Butch and county staff also described outreach to other funding partners. Representatives of the federal REPI program (Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration), who attended a recent Piney Island site visit, are exploring conservation easements to reduce incompatible uses near the Kings Bay submarine base, consultants said.

During public comment, residents raised several nomination requests and operational notes. Mike Pacula asked whether a roughly 40-acre parcel on the southeast side of State Road 200 near the bridge had been nominated; staff said it had not been formally nominated and encouraged residents to file the county nomination form. Jeff Robinson, chair of the Amelia Walk Community Development District, said four parcels tied to the district have existing maintenance and service contracts that would need to be considered if the county sought to acquire them; staff confirmed one large parcel tied to Amelia Walk appears in the Lofton Creek viewshed priority area.

Myra Jones urged the committee to move forward with the Crawford Diamond/Callahan Woodlands nomination, saying, "This easement represents over 400 acres that is rich in ecological, hydrological, and cultural significance." Jones and another speaker argued the site sits at the headwaters of Thomas Creek and should be protected to benefit downstream flooding and water quality. Staff responded that the parcel she referenced scored 11.6 in the CLAM GIS analysis and was placed in the non-eligible category for this cycle. Staff also said the land lies within an area designated in the county—s growth-management plan as a future employment center and that recommending it for conservation would conflict with those adopted comprehensive-plan designations. County staff recommended leaving Callahan Woodlands in the non-eligible pool and said the owner or nominator may supply new information in a future ranking cycle.

Committee members asked for clarifications on how project-area scores are calculated, how landowner responsiveness affects placement on the list, and why some long-standing projects shifted position. Staff and consultants said changes resulted from owner requests to remove properties, owner inactivity, and additions of new nominations that adjusted average project scores; they emphasized that priority-group placement signals staff to pursue conversations with owners but does not obligate purchase.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded routine procedural votes to approve minutes from prior meetings. The transcript records committee approval for the minutes of Feb. 20, March 25 and May 15; each motion passed by voice vote and the chair announced the motions passed.

Next steps: The committee recessed to complete individual ranking forms. Staff will collect the completed ranking forms, compute averaged project-area scores, and return a recommended ordered list to the committee and the county clerk; the earliest staff expects commission-level action on the moving projects is November. Public nominators and owners may supply additional information at future cycles if they want a non-eligible property reconsidered.

This session was advisory; no acquisition contracts or county funding approvals were made at the meeting.