As a scientist and outdoorsman I as well as the community at large, strongly opposes Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge you all, the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements are established to provide lasting protection for environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitat, and ecological connectivity. Releasing these easements to facilitate roadway construction conflicts with the very purpose of these protections and risks undermining public trust in long-term conservation commitments made on behalf of Florida’s residents.
Split Oak Forest is a valuable natural resource and a critical wildlife corridor in Central Florida. Its mature habitats support biodiversity, ecological resilience, and landscape connectivity that have developed over decades. While replacement lands may be proposed as mitigation, newly protected acreage cannot fully replicate the ecological functions, established habitats, and connectivity provided by existing protected lands. Once fragmented, these ecosystems often experience impacts that are difficult or impossible to reverse.
In addition to habitat fragmentation, the proposed roadway would bring increased vehicle traffic through and around sensitive natural areas, resulting in higher rates of wildlife mortality. Countless animals, including turtles, snakes, mammals, birds, and other native species, are likely to be killed by vehicle strikes as traffic volumes increase. Wildlife road mortality is a well-documented consequence of roadway expansion and can significantly reduce local populations, particularly for species that rely on movement through connected habitats. The loss of these animals represents not only a direct ecological impact but also a degradation of the natural resources that conservation easements were intended to protect.
Approving these easement releases would also set a troubling precedent by signaling that conservation protections can be weakened or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should be reserved only for circumstances demonstrating an overwhelming public benefit and a clear showing that no feasible alternatives exist. Allowing protected lands to be sacrificed for a toll road raises serious concerns about the permanence and reliability of conservation commitments throughout Florida.
Furthermore, public officials have a responsibility to carefully consider and respect the voices of the citizens they serve. A substantial number of residents, conservation advocates, scientists, and community stakeholders have expressed strong opposition to this project and have consistently voiced concerns regarding its environmental impacts and the loss of protected lands. Public participation is a cornerstone of responsible governance, and decisions affecting irreplaceable natural resources should reflect the overwhelming concern expressed by members of the public who seek to preserve these lands for future generations.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board honor the intent of the conservation easements, safeguard the ecological integrity of Split Oak Forest, respect the concerns of the public, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Thank you for your consideration and commitment to protecting Florida’s natural resources for future generations.
Agenda. 15/16: I’m against the releasing of conservation easement on Split Oak Preserve. This CFX project will only benefit the wealthy land owners to the East of this property, Travis stock, Mormon corporation, a.k.a. Deseret. Please note CFX is a quasi government organization to produce a private road, its a toll road, not a Public freeway. Being designed strictly the support expansion of Urban Sprawl.
This was mitigation property bought in 1994 if released; Propose mitigation ratio is only 5 to 1. NOTE This is double Jeopardy: I would expect a much higher ratio of mitigation somewhere 50 to 1. Creating the Split Oak CFX Toll expressway will destroy the Uplands; As noted Split Oak Preserve is high and dry perfect for tortoises where many live today while the KPB Cattle Ranch is a massive wetland not even the same type of Eco tone.
If this is released, not only is this 51 acres removed but additionally, the preserve is tainted because of road going through will we restrict the management of the land control burns will be highly unlikely to be executed because of the road additionally, not even mentioning the noise pollution that will go out for miles around this area. Recentlyas a member of the Public, who had input at the 10 year split plan, we learned there were only gonna be only three small underpasses (2-100ft, 200ft) along this section. The majority of the road will be at surface level. Unlike Wekiva Parkway, which is all elevated with a mile underpass. If this board does choose to release this property, I highly encourage encourage that you request that this road will be built exactly like the Wekiva Parkway elevated with a large underpass.
Please vote NO on agenda 15/16 Split Oak preservation means FOREVER!! not until deep pockets/politically connected comes along
I am writing to express my strong opposition to agenda items 15 and 16. The proposed granting of SFWMD easements for the SR 534 project through Split Oak Forest and surrounding conservation lands.
The maps provided in the agenda materials (Exhibits A and B) clearly illustrate the alarming extent to which this proposed infrastructure project encroaches upon protected environmental areas. Split Oak Forest is a vital ecological resource, and the path of the SR 534 Preferred Alternative represents an unacceptable destruction of conservation land that is essential for local biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and the overall hydrological health of the region.
The proposed easements—which traverse critical wetland and swamp areas—are not merely minor adjustments; they facilitate a project that prioritizes road infrastructure over the long-term protection of public conservation land. Once this infrastructure is placed, the damage to these ecosystems will be irreversible.
It is deeply concerning that public land, once set aside for protection and restoration, is being considered for release to facilitate development that primarily serves private interests at the expense of our natural heritage. Conservation lands are meant to be shielded from exactly this type of industrial and infrastructural exploitation.
I urge the Governing Board to prioritize its mandate to protect these environmental assets and deny the requests for these easements. We must stop treating conservation land as a reserve for future development corridors.
I respectfully oppose Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements are established to provide lasting protection for environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitat, and ecological connectivity. Releasing these easements to facilitate roadway construction conflicts with the very purpose of these protections and risks undermining public trust in long-term conservation commitments made on behalf of Florida’s residents.
Split Oak Forest is a valuable natural resource and a critical wildlife corridor in Central Florida. Its mature habitats support biodiversity, ecological resilience, and landscape connectivity that have developed over decades. While replacement lands may be proposed as mitigation, newly protected acreage cannot fully replicate the ecological functions, established habitats, and connectivity provided by existing protected lands. Once fragmented, these ecosystems often experience impacts that are difficult—or impossible—to reverse.
Approving these easement releases would also set a troubling precedent by signaling that conservation protections can be weakened or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should be reserved only for circumstances demonstrating an overwhelming public benefit and a clear showing that no feasible alternatives exist.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board honor the intent of the conservation easements, safeguard the ecological integrity of Split Oak Forest, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Thank you for your consideration and commitment to protecting Florida’s natural resources for future generations.
Agenda Items 15 & 16: I object to the release of conservation easements on public conservation lands as proposed in agenda items 15 and 16. CFX should not be requesting release of conservation easements where they have zero title interest. Allowing so degrades the public trust held in the District by allowing developers (CFX & Deseret) to cancel conservation easements where they hold no title interest for their own benefit. Furthermore, acreage purchased by CFX for their own future mitigation purposes required by their construction project should not offset loss of a perpetual easement that has protected public lands for decades.
Most importantly, it is premature to release a publicly held conservation easement that was originally granted for mitigation purposes, without receiving evidence that the land owned by CFX is protected for conservation or has the financial wherewithal to restore and manage newly acquired private land. The expressway authority is not a conservation agency nor is there any legal protection in place to ensure protection/conservation of the purchased land.
For these reasons, I request that the Governing Board deny these easement release requests until the CFX-acquired land assessed for ecological value and its conservation status is 100% secure by fee donation to the District. This will ensure like-for-like restoration/management and public access in the future.
I respectfully oppose Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements exist to provide long-term protection for environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife habitat. Releasing these easements for roadway construction undermines the purpose of those protections and weakens public confidence in conservation commitments made to Florida taxpayers.
Split Oak Forest serves as an important wildlife corridor and natural resource for Central Florida. While replacement acreage may be offered, newly protected lands cannot fully replace the ecological value, habitat connectivity, and mature ecosystems that already exist within protected areas. Once these habitats are fragmented, the impacts are often permanent.
Approving these easement releases would also establish a concerning precedent that protected conservation lands can be reduced or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should require an extraordinary public benefit and a clear demonstration that no reasonable alternatives exist.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board uphold the intent of the conservation easements, protect Split Oak Forest, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Written Objection to Agenda Item 16 – Resolution No. 2026-0603
I respectfully object to Agenda Item 16, which would authorize the release of up to 51.23 acres of conservation easements in Orange and Osceola Counties for Phase II of the Osceola Parkway Extension (SR 534).
Unlike Agenda Item 15, this proposal involves the release of more than fifty acres of conservation easements, representing a substantial reduction in lands currently protected through legally recorded conservation instruments. Such a significant release warrants heightened scrutiny and a clear demonstration that the public interest in maintaining the easements has been fully considered.
The staff report concludes that the KPB Cattle Ranch mitigation plan is sufficient to offset up to 55.52 acres of conservation easement impacts associated with Phases I and II of the project. However, the materials do not demonstrate that the proposed mitigation provides equivalent ecological value to the easements being released. Conservation easements are intended to protect existing resources, not simply acreage totals. The loss of protected habitat, wildlife corridors, hydrologic functions, and landscape connectivity cannot be measured solely by comparing acreages.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding habitat fragmentation. Construction of a four-lane limited-access toll road through environmentally sensitive areas creates impacts that extend beyond the roadway footprint itself, including wildlife mortality, edge effects, invasive species introduction, noise, lighting, and long-term degradation of habitat quality. These indirect impacts are not adequately addressed by the acreage-based mitigation rationale presented in the agenda materials.
Furthermore, approval of this release would establish a troubling precedent that conservation easements may be modified whenever they conflict with future development objectives. Public agencies routinely assure taxpayers, conservation organizations, and stakeholders that conservation easements provide enduring protection. Releasing more than fifty acres of conservation easements for a transportation project undermines confidence in those commitments and weakens the integrity of conservation programs throughout Florida.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Governing Board reject Resolution No. 2026-0603 or postpone consideration until an independent analysis demonstrates that the release is necessary, that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, and that the proposed mitigation provides true ecological equivalency to the conservation resources being lost.
As a scientist and outdoorsman I as well as the community at large, strongly opposes Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge you all, the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements are established to provide lasting protection for environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitat, and ecological connectivity. Releasing these easements to facilitate roadway construction conflicts with the very purpose of these protections and risks undermining public trust in long-term conservation commitments made on behalf of Florida’s residents.
Split Oak Forest is a valuable natural resource and a critical wildlife corridor in Central Florida. Its mature habitats support biodiversity, ecological resilience, and landscape connectivity that have developed over decades. While replacement lands may be proposed as mitigation, newly protected acreage cannot fully replicate the ecological functions, established habitats, and connectivity provided by existing protected lands. Once fragmented, these ecosystems often experience impacts that are difficult or impossible to reverse.
In addition to habitat fragmentation, the proposed roadway would bring increased vehicle traffic through and around sensitive natural areas, resulting in higher rates of wildlife mortality. Countless animals, including turtles, snakes, mammals, birds, and other native species, are likely to be killed by vehicle strikes as traffic volumes increase. Wildlife road mortality is a well-documented consequence of roadway expansion and can significantly reduce local populations, particularly for species that rely on movement through connected habitats. The loss of these animals represents not only a direct ecological impact but also a degradation of the natural resources that conservation easements were intended to protect.
Approving these easement releases would also set a troubling precedent by signaling that conservation protections can be weakened or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should be reserved only for circumstances demonstrating an overwhelming public benefit and a clear showing that no feasible alternatives exist. Allowing protected lands to be sacrificed for a toll road raises serious concerns about the permanence and reliability of conservation commitments throughout Florida.
Furthermore, public officials have a responsibility to carefully consider and respect the voices of the citizens they serve. A substantial number of residents, conservation advocates, scientists, and community stakeholders have expressed strong opposition to this project and have consistently voiced concerns regarding its environmental impacts and the loss of protected lands. Public participation is a cornerstone of responsible governance, and decisions affecting irreplaceable natural resources should reflect the overwhelming concern expressed by members of the public who seek to preserve these lands for future generations.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board honor the intent of the conservation easements, safeguard the ecological integrity of Split Oak Forest, respect the concerns of the public, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Thank you for your consideration and commitment to protecting Florida’s natural resources for future generations.
Agenda. 15/16: I’m against the releasing of conservation easement on Split Oak Preserve. This CFX project will only benefit the wealthy land owners to the East of this property, Travis stock, Mormon corporation, a.k.a. Deseret. Please note CFX is a quasi government organization to produce a private road, its a toll road, not a Public freeway. Being designed strictly the support expansion of Urban Sprawl.
This was mitigation property bought in 1994 if released; Propose mitigation ratio is only 5 to 1. NOTE This is double Jeopardy: I would expect a much higher ratio of mitigation somewhere 50 to 1. Creating the Split Oak CFX Toll expressway will destroy the Uplands; As noted Split Oak Preserve is high and dry perfect for tortoises where many live today while the KPB Cattle Ranch is a massive wetland not even the same type of Eco tone.
If this is released, not only is this 51 acres removed but additionally, the preserve is tainted because of road going through will we restrict the management of the land control burns will be highly unlikely to be executed because of the road additionally, not even mentioning the noise pollution that will go out for miles around this area. Recentlyas a member of the Public, who had input at the 10 year split plan, we learned there were only gonna be only three small underpasses (2-100ft, 200ft) along this section. The majority of the road will be at surface level. Unlike Wekiva Parkway, which is all elevated with a mile underpass. If this board does choose to release this property, I highly encourage encourage that you request that this road will be built exactly like the Wekiva Parkway elevated with a large underpass.
Please vote NO on agenda 15/16 Split Oak preservation means FOREVER!! not until deep pockets/politically connected comes along
To the Governing Board,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to agenda items 15 and 16. The proposed granting of SFWMD easements for the SR 534 project through Split Oak Forest and surrounding conservation lands.
The maps provided in the agenda materials (Exhibits A and B) clearly illustrate the alarming extent to which this proposed infrastructure project encroaches upon protected environmental areas. Split Oak Forest is a vital ecological resource, and the path of the SR 534 Preferred Alternative represents an unacceptable destruction of conservation land that is essential for local biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and the overall hydrological health of the region.
The proposed easements—which traverse critical wetland and swamp areas—are not merely minor adjustments; they facilitate a project that prioritizes road infrastructure over the long-term protection of public conservation land. Once this infrastructure is placed, the damage to these ecosystems will be irreversible.
It is deeply concerning that public land, once set aside for protection and restoration, is being considered for release to facilitate development that primarily serves private interests at the expense of our natural heritage. Conservation lands are meant to be shielded from exactly this type of industrial and infrastructural exploitation.
I urge the Governing Board to prioritize its mandate to protect these environmental assets and deny the requests for these easements. We must stop treating conservation land as a reserve for future development corridors.
I respectfully oppose Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements are established to provide lasting protection for environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife habitat, and ecological connectivity. Releasing these easements to facilitate roadway construction conflicts with the very purpose of these protections and risks undermining public trust in long-term conservation commitments made on behalf of Florida’s residents.
Split Oak Forest is a valuable natural resource and a critical wildlife corridor in Central Florida. Its mature habitats support biodiversity, ecological resilience, and landscape connectivity that have developed over decades. While replacement lands may be proposed as mitigation, newly protected acreage cannot fully replicate the ecological functions, established habitats, and connectivity provided by existing protected lands. Once fragmented, these ecosystems often experience impacts that are difficult—or impossible—to reverse.
Approving these easement releases would also set a troubling precedent by signaling that conservation protections can be weakened or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should be reserved only for circumstances demonstrating an overwhelming public benefit and a clear showing that no feasible alternatives exist.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board honor the intent of the conservation easements, safeguard the ecological integrity of Split Oak Forest, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Thank you for your consideration and commitment to protecting Florida’s natural resources for future generations.
Agenda Items 15 & 16: I object to the release of conservation easements on public conservation lands as proposed in agenda items 15 and 16. CFX should not be requesting release of conservation easements where they have zero title interest. Allowing so degrades the public trust held in the District by allowing developers (CFX & Deseret) to cancel conservation easements where they hold no title interest for their own benefit. Furthermore, acreage purchased by CFX for their own future mitigation purposes required by their construction project should not offset loss of a perpetual easement that has protected public lands for decades.
Most importantly, it is premature to release a publicly held conservation easement that was originally granted for mitigation purposes, without receiving evidence that the land owned by CFX is protected for conservation or has the financial wherewithal to restore and manage newly acquired private land. The expressway authority is not a conservation agency nor is there any legal protection in place to ensure protection/conservation of the purchased land.
For these reasons, I request that the Governing Board deny these easement release requests until the CFX-acquired land assessed for ecological value and its conservation status is 100% secure by fee donation to the District. This will ensure like-for-like restoration/management and public access in the future.
I respectfully oppose Agenda Items 15 and 16 and urge the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board to deny the proposed conservation easement releases associated with the SR 534 toll road project.
Conservation easements exist to provide long-term protection for environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife habitat. Releasing these easements for roadway construction undermines the purpose of those protections and weakens public confidence in conservation commitments made to Florida taxpayers.
Split Oak Forest serves as an important wildlife corridor and natural resource for Central Florida. While replacement acreage may be offered, newly protected lands cannot fully replace the ecological value, habitat connectivity, and mature ecosystems that already exist within protected areas. Once these habitats are fragmented, the impacts are often permanent.
Approving these easement releases would also establish a concerning precedent that protected conservation lands can be reduced or exchanged when development pressures arise. Such actions should require an extraordinary public benefit and a clear demonstration that no reasonable alternatives exist.
I respectfully request that the Governing Board uphold the intent of the conservation easements, protect Split Oak Forest, and deny Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Thank you for your consideration.
Written Objection to Agenda Item 16 – Resolution No. 2026-0603
I respectfully object to Agenda Item 16, which would authorize the release of up to 51.23 acres of conservation easements in Orange and Osceola Counties for Phase II of the Osceola Parkway Extension (SR 534).
Unlike Agenda Item 15, this proposal involves the release of more than fifty acres of conservation easements, representing a substantial reduction in lands currently protected through legally recorded conservation instruments. Such a significant release warrants heightened scrutiny and a clear demonstration that the public interest in maintaining the easements has been fully considered.
The staff report concludes that the KPB Cattle Ranch mitigation plan is sufficient to offset up to 55.52 acres of conservation easement impacts associated with Phases I and II of the project. However, the materials do not demonstrate that the proposed mitigation provides equivalent ecological value to the easements being released. Conservation easements are intended to protect existing resources, not simply acreage totals. The loss of protected habitat, wildlife corridors, hydrologic functions, and landscape connectivity cannot be measured solely by comparing acreages.
The proposal also raises concerns regarding habitat fragmentation. Construction of a four-lane limited-access toll road through environmentally sensitive areas creates impacts that extend beyond the roadway footprint itself, including wildlife mortality, edge effects, invasive species introduction, noise, lighting, and long-term degradation of habitat quality. These indirect impacts are not adequately addressed by the acreage-based mitigation rationale presented in the agenda materials.
Furthermore, approval of this release would establish a troubling precedent that conservation easements may be modified whenever they conflict with future development objectives. Public agencies routinely assure taxpayers, conservation organizations, and stakeholders that conservation easements provide enduring protection. Releasing more than fifty acres of conservation easements for a transportation project undermines confidence in those commitments and weakens the integrity of conservation programs throughout Florida.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Governing Board reject Resolution No. 2026-0603 or postpone consideration until an independent analysis demonstrates that the release is necessary, that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, and that the proposed mitigation provides true ecological equivalency to the conservation resources being lost.