exhibit d
EXHIBIT C PROXIMITY TO OTHER PUBLIC LANDS
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT D OPTIMAL BOUNDARY MAP
Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Optimum Management Boundary Map
Exhibit D
This map is the product of the Florida Division of Forestry. No warranties are made as to the fitness of this map for any unlisted purpose, for data therein, its use or its interpretation.
EXHIBIT E MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP MEETING SUMMARY
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES January 21, 2010 6:00 PM Members Present: Andy Hirko Nicholas Carter Timothy Keyser Ernie Ash Willy the Losen
Plum Creek Timber Company (adjacent property owner) Treasurer, Putnam County Land Conservancy Private Property Owner (adjacent property owner) Division of Forestry, Waccasassa Forestry Center Putnam County Environmental Council (alternate for Ahlers)
Members Absent: Karen Ahlers Chip Laibl Jordan Matthews Alex Pries
President, Putnam County Environmental Council Commissioner, Putnam County Board of County Commissioners Supervisor, Putnam Soil & Water Conservation District Northeastern Region Conservation Biologist, FWC
Staff Present: Bill Korn Scott Crosby Charlie Pedersen Paula Lott
DOF Director’s Office Forestry Supervisor II, ECSF, CDMSF&P and WeSF Biologist, WaFC OPS Secretary Specialist, ECSF
The Public Meeting of the Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Management Plan Advisory Group was called to order at 6 PM by Bill Korn in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Introductions were given by those present and their affiliation with the CDMSF&P. Tim Keyser stated that Willy the Losen had been asked to represent Karen Ahlers who was unable to attend. It was stressed to Willy the Losen, to contact Karen Ahlers and have her send any written comments about the plan to Scott Crosby before the 9:30 AM meeting in the morning, which he agreed to do. An introduction was given by Bill Korn as he explained the purpose of the meeting was to go over the ground rules of how the public hearing would be handled that was to follow at 6:30 PM. He explained the role of the group was to represent the public, different user groups and assist the land manager with the plan before it goes to the director who has the final say of what goes into the plan. Scott Crosby explained the posting of the Public Notification for the Public Meetings were administered through several ways. Ernie Ash, had presented the information of the meetings at the Putnam County Commissioners meeting in December and an ad had been taken
E-1
out in the Palatka Daily News. Plus, Public Notification had been placed at three locations at Etoniah Creek State Forest: Holloway Day Use Area kiosk, Longleaf Pine kiosk and at the ECSF Office. A notice was also posted on the Up and down Lake Nature Trail kiosk/trailhead on the North Tract of CDMSF&P. Korn said notification had also been listed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Crosby added that area residents and liaison committee members had been notified by email. Korn advised the group of the Sunshine Law, stating that the meetings were open to the public and if they had any comment or disagreement with something in the plan to address this as a group and not speak individually. Korn informed the group that statutes require that public land with 1,000 acres or more have a land management review of the management plan every 5 years. He also commented that the Carl Duval Moore tracts were unique because they were not owned by Trustees, but by DOF. Tim Keyser said he thought the Trustees owned the south tract of CDMSF&P. DOF staff said no, it was owned by DOF. Korn stated that the group needed to appoint a chairperson to run the public hearing. Ernie Ash said he would do it. Tim Keyser nominated Ernie as chairperson and the other members of the group that were present agreed. It was advised that those wishing to speak at the Public Hearing be limited to 5 minutes. However, since there were only two people that were not on the Advisory Committee in attendance, speaking time might be extended. It was explained that minutes would be taken of tonight’s meetings and presented to the group for their approval. Plus, these minutes would become a part of the exhibits in the management plan. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 PM.
E-2
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES January 21, 2010 6:31 PM The Public Meeting/Hearing was called to order by Bill Korn of the DOF Director’s Office at 6:31 PM in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Since all those present were in the 6 PM meeting, introductions and rules of the hearing were omitted. Bill Korn informed those in attendance that there were two phases to the public hearing, which consisted of Question and Answers and Informational. Scott Crosby presented a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation giving a description of the property, summarizing management activities that had taken place under DOF management and providing information on future management activities. In reference to (Exhibit D) the “Optimal Management Boundary Map”, Tim Keyser asked if the red border line represents the desired areas of acquisitions or just possible future acquisitions. Ernie explained that these are areas that might be purchased if they became available in the future. If they are included in the optimal boundary it facilitates the acquisition process. DOF will not necessarily pursue the purchase of these properties. Charlie Pedersen asked Scott to show where the Caravelle Ranch tract was located in reference to CDMSF&P south tract. A question was asked if future land acquisitions around the tracts would be for connecting public lands. During the PowerPoint presentation Charlie Pedersen gave an explanation of community types and how the types are decided. He also explained the difference between Baygall and Scrubby Flatwoods. Scott informed the group that on the north tract there is a kiosk and parking area on the west side on West Street. Plus, on the north side there is a small parking lot that is accessible through the Lake Estates. He added that there is an observation deck on the lake and Tree ID’s on the trail. Charlie Pedersen spoke on the Gopher Tortoise Survey that was conducted in 2006. Keyser asked if the north tract could be considered as a reserve for relocating gopher tortoise. Pedersen said No, as there are 2 ½ active burrows per acre. Keyser remarked that he knew Carl Duval Moore personally and he loved gopher tortoise, as well as forestry and wildlife. Scott informed those at the hearing that the planned prescribed burn for this fiscal year is 35 acres in dormant season and 84 acres in the growing season. Willy the Losen asked how DOF decides to burn during dormant or growing seasons. After much discussion on prescribed
E-3
burns, Bill Korn said the “Tall Timbers” idea is to not go more than 2 ½ years without a burn on a unit. Tim Keyser offered for DOF to use his fireline on the east side that is already established, to help in implementing future Rx Burns on the north tract. Scott said he would take that into consideration. Scott continued his presentation by saying that as far as recreation is concerned on the two CDM tracts, the north tract has all that the forest can support at the moment. Plus, the south tract has no dedicated access for recreational use. He added that although the south tract is closed to public access, if anyone wants to visit the tract call the ECSF Office and arrangements can be made to access it, with a DOF employee accompanying the individual or group. Keyser asked if there had been any turpentine scars found on any trees. He added that the north tract was where Carl Duval Moore had lived. Korn stated that there were not any known archeological finds on the two tracts, but something maybe to consider. Keyser said he knew of one site and that was a WPA ditch that was hand dug to drain Up & Down Lake into Lake Ida. Bill Korn said from the two Speaker/Comment forms only Willy the Losen had requested to make comments. Willy said the concern he had was if the plan addressed connecting the south end of CDMSF&P with Caravelle, so it does not become isolated. He also said he had hiked the north tract and the boardwalk was a good addition. The other person present was Carlis Lott (an adjacent landowner) who did not choose to speak. Korn asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak even though they had not requested to speak. Tim Keyser said he would like to, but declined after he was informed that all the meetings were having minutes taken. He said he would save his comments for tomorrow’s meeting when more people were there. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 PM.
E-4
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES January 22, 2010 9:30 AM Members Present: Ernie Ash Andy Hirko Chip Laibl Jordan Matthews Timothy Keyser Nicholas Carter
Division of Forestry, Waccasassa Forestry Center Plum Creek Timber Company (adjacent property owner) Commissioner, Putnam County Board of County Commissioners Supervisor, Putnam Soil and Water Conservation Private Property Owner (adjacent property owner) Treasurer, Putnam County Land Conservancy
Members Absent: Karen Ahlers Alex Pries
President, Putnam County Environmental Council Northeastern Region Conservation Biologist, FWC
Staff Present: Bill Korn Scott Crosby Charlie Pedersen Paula Lott
DOF Director’s Office Forestry Supervisor II, ECSF, CDMSF&P and WeSF Biologist, WaFC OPS Secretary Specialist, ECSF
The Public Meeting of the Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Management Plan Advisory Group was called to order at 9:36 AM by Bill Korn in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Each member was given a copy of the Minutes of the pre-Hearing Advisory Group Meeting and subsequent Public Hearing that were held the previous night. Plus, they were given a copy of the written comments submitted by Alex Pries, Northeastern Region Biologist, FWC that had been emailed to Scott Crosby. Bill Korn went over the members on the Management Plan Advisory Group and their affiliation with the Cal Duval Moore State Forest & Park tracts. He explained that he was acting facilitator and Ernie Ash had been appointed as chairperson for the group and would handle the meeting. In addition, he reminded the group that until the plan is approved, if they had any comment or disagreement with something in the plan to address this as a group and not speak individually with each other to avoid a Florida Sunshine violation. An introduction was given by Bill Korn as he explained the purpose of the meeting, how it would be conducted and what was required from the group. He explained the role of the group was to represent the public, different user groups and assist the land manager with the plan before it goes to the DOF director who has the final word on what goes into the plan.
E-5
Korn also explained the posting of the Public Notification for the Public Meetings were administered through several ways. They were noted at the Putnam County Commissioners meeting in December and a legal ad had been taken out in the Palatka Daily News. Plus, Public Notification had been placed at three locations at Etoniah Creek State Forest, and one at the North Tract of CDMSF&P. He said notification had also been listed in the Florida Administrative Weekly plus, area residents and liaison committee members had been notified by email. Korn turned the meeting over to Chairperson, Ernie Ash. Ernie asked Charlie Pedersen to read the suggestions for changes to the plan which were submitted from Alex Pries (FWC). Charlie explained that he had read through the suggestions and marked what he considered substantive and important. He stated that the document from Pries would be added to the management plan Exhibit section. The following are changes that Alex Pries asked to be changed or clarified in the plan. Alex Pries: Page 6—Suggested the plan give a better definition of restoration and add performance measurements. Jordan Matthews said it looks like these guidelines and other things might need to be done, but Scott Crosby (DOF) should have the right to be able to use his own judgment. He added that he did not want to see the plan so complex that Scott would find it hard to manage the site on the ground. Andy Hirko agreed the plan should not be so complex and stated that the guideline was a nice size for a 300-acre forest. Bill Korn explained that there were eight key areas (goals) of resource management that each agency now must report to Land Management Uniform Accounting Council. If the guideline gets too detailed, Scott will have to report on every area each year, such as budget requirements for every area. Charlie stated that the issue is Mr. Pries wants more detail in ground cover. Ernie said he recommended not adding a percentage. Andy added that you are going to have to verify what is restored. The group decided to add the performance measure: “Estimate of percent native ground cover”. Page 6, Objective 4—Suggested including the phrase “and annual revision” to the performance measure for Objective 4. “Annually” was placed at the end of the performance measure. Page 7, Objective 7—Suggested to include a phrase about replanting longleaf pine and the appropriate densities. “With adequate survival” was added to the performance measure of Acres of Longleaf pine planted.
E-6
Page 7, Objective 9—Suggested to define vegetative-based performance measure. Charlie stated that Mr. Pries is asking for some kind of measure. Carter added that Mr. Pries wants it more detailed for each community and habitat structure. Page 9, Goal 6, Objective 5—Suggested to define when/how new firebreaks are created. Group decided it was already covered in the plan. Page 10, Goal 8, Objective 3—Suggested performance measures to track and respond to results of the monitoring protocols. Mr. Carter added that Mr. Pries seems to want a performance measure that says an inventory/assessment of monitoring results should be done. Group decided to monitor and report the results. Wording “and report of results prepared” was added to the performance measure. Page 14, Sec. 4—Suggested that this particular area is too small for general gun hunting, but possibility for archery hunting. Matthews stated that because of the size of the tract (just over 300 acres), be best to keep it a non-hunting tract. Even though archery would be safe it would be too complex to manage. Carter added that with the isolation of the north tract and houses all around, deer would probably not return if hunting was allowed. Page 17—Suggested to change the phrase “if a nest returns” to “if re-nesting occurs.” Wording “Eagles have re-nested in a different site on the north-east boundary of the North tract. Nest monitoring will be coordinated with FWC each breeding season” was added to the performance measure. Page 17—Suggested to include Florida Mice in its monitoring and/ or performance measures for restored sites. Group decided to eliminate Florida black bear and add Florida mouse to this section. Page 19, Last Paragraph—Asked what the target BA at which stands will be thinned at. Jordan Matthew said as long as DOF is following good sound management with silviculture, don’t make the plan too complex to hinder the management of it. Scott added that he had a state forest handbook that he had to follow. Andy Hirko asked Scott for more information about the state handbook he had mentioned. Scott elaborated on some of the guidelines in the handbook that each state forest uses in managing the forest. Tim Keyser informed those present that there was a unique feature on the north tract that it contained a cedar stand, which was from an old Christmas tree farm. He stated that DOF should think about thinning it and expanding it.
E-7
Page 22, Third Paragraph—Suggested to emphasize frequency of fire and not only seasonal. Ernie emphasized that DOF needs to do more burning and to do it year-round. Matthews commented that industrially and in the private sector, at times they tend to have problems getting burning authorizations, whereas DOF is in a unique position to burn more frequently because they can get permission to burn easier. Page 23—Suggested clarification of “maintenance stage”. Wording was changed to “Slightly less than half of the pyrogenic communities have been burned during the last planning period. The remaining units will still require an initial burn to reduce fuel loading.” Page 23—Suggested moving the bullet list up under the first paragraph It was decided to move the bullet list up to under first paragraph. Page 25, 2nd Paragraph—Suggested seeing sandhill stands with BA’s less than 60-70. Group decided that this was covered earlier. Page 31—Asked if there were specific examples of species that may have been extirpated from the site. Charlie said that with the fragmented 300 acres - the forest would probably be too small to reintroduce, but might be considered for small projects. Page 32—Suggested adding how/where DOF will propose to monitor/verify the presence of indicator wildlife species. Group decided that this was already covered on page 10 of plan. Page 34—Suggested stating why the xeric hammock will not be restored. Group decided that it was. addressed adequately with the current language. Page 38—Suggested going down to something like a 9x12 for reforestation. Group did not agree and decided that the plan should not be so specific as specifying an initial planting density. Jordan Matthews: Jordan Matthews said over all the plan was good and had taken a lot of thought and he believed it was a manageable plan. He also believes it would be effective, achieve the objectives and be
E-8
manageable in the field. The only thing he did want to address was that the burn unit exhibit should show how many acres of each item there were in each unit and they should add up to the total for the tract. He used an example of this on Exhibit L, stating that he would like to see how many acres the lake had, so that it all adds up to the total of what it says the tract consists of. Ernie added that every component of the map ought to have a number of how many acres it contains. Matthews added the key to these two tracts is to be aggressive with burning. Tim Keyser: Tim Keyser said he wanted to compliment on the past management practices and particularly the planting of longleaf pines. He stated that he personally knew Carl Duval Moore and he was supportive of forestry and wildlife. He did suggest instead of using herbicides in controlling the exotic species to ask for volunteer groups to remove the exotics by hand. Chip Laibl: Chip Laibl stated the management plan was very intriguing and that we can not make this plan too hard to manage. He said that from experience as a county commissioner, we are “over planned” in government, but he believed this plan was manageable. Ernie asked him if there were anything the city or county would like to see developed as far as recreation. Laibl said the only request that they have had is for more hunting. He added that in the future with the public becoming more health conscious and the Rails to Trails, there might be more demand for bike riding. Again, Bill Korn added that although the south tract was not open to the public, if anyone wanted to visit the tract - arrangements could be made by contacting Mr. Crosby at the ECSF office. He said that there was signage on the north tract on Hwy 20 and there would be signage added as soon as DOF can get entrance easement to the south tract. Nicholas Carter: Nicholas Carter said he thought the plan was a great plan and liked the way the north tract looked. He stated that on page 21, “Planned Activity” he would like to add a third to take a look at primitive camping. He said he would like to see a campsite added near the boardwalk on the north tract. Andy Hirko: Andy Hirko said he was impressed with the plan, thought it was an excellent plan and DOF had done a good job in minimizing the plan. He did state that from an industrial perspective all he had to say was that a slash pine is not a “bad” tree, but that he understood DOF striving for longleaf pines trying to base it on old historical photos. Ernie Ash: Ernie Ash said that as far as the plan, his remarks were mainly editorial.
E-9
Mr. Korn added that later that afternoon DOF would be going over the draft and making editorial changes and changes decided on in the meeting. Minutes from the meetings the night before were handed out and looked over for any discrepancies. With all in agreement, the minutes were accepted with corrections to be made before the final version goes into the plan. Mr. Korn also said that the minutes from the meeting today would be emailed to them, along with another version of the plan (blue line changes). He requested that the group go over the minutes and plans and if there were any corrections to notify Mr. Crosby and he would notify the director. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 AM.
E - 10
EXHIBIT F LETTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY COMPREHNSIVE PLAN
EXHIBIT G SOILS MAPS
Exhibit G
Exhibit G
There are twelve different soil series found on CDMSFP, ranging from excessively drained to very poorly drained soils. A general description of each soil series follows. When site index is used in reference to soil series, it indicates the productivity capacity of an area of forestland for a pine species. Candler fine sand is an excessively drained soil, nearly level to gently sloping soil on ridges, knolls and broad uplands. Slopes are level to 5%. The water table is below a depth of 80 inches. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine with a site index ranging from 65 to 71. Millhopper sand is a moderately well drained soil, nearly level to gently sloping soil is on upland ridges and side slopes. Slopes are level to 5%. The water table is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 4 months during most years. It may be at a depth of 30-40 inches for just a few days after heavy rains. This soil is suited for slash pine production. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Tavares fine sand is a moderately well drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on uplands and on knolls and ridges in the flatwoods. Slopes are level to 5%. The high water table is at a depth between 40 and 80 inches for more than 6 months in most years. It recedes to depths of greater than 80 inches during dry seasons. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Pomona fine sand is a poorly drained, nearly level soil is on broad flatwoods areas. The water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for 1 to 3 months and at a depth between 10 and 40 inches for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77-83. Spar sand is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soil is on low side slopes in the uplands, along well defined drainage ways in the flatwoods and on low knolls and ridges in the flatwoods. The high water table is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches for 1 to 4 months in most years. This soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Adamsville sand is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil on low knolls in the flatwoods and on low side slopes in the uplands. The high water table is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months in most years. It is at a depth of 10 to 20 inches for up to 2 weeks in some years. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine with a site index ranging from 77 to 83. Palmetto fine sand is a poorly drained, nearly level soil is on broad, low flatwoods areas and long narrow bands bordering streams and drainage ways. This soil is suited for the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Samsula muck is a very poorly drained organic soil formed in moderately thick beds of water-loving non-woody plant remains. This soil is found in depressional areas. The
G-3
water table is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Hontoon muck is a very poorly drained, organic soil that formed in thick beds of waterloving, non-woody plant remains. This soil is found in depressional areas. Typically, the muck layer is more than 80 inches thick. The water is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. The Placid-Pompano association consists of a very poorly and poorly drained, nearly level soils in regular and repeating patterns in narrow to broad drainage ways in the flatwoods and uplands. The Placid soils make up about 55 percent of the association. This soil is frequently flooded for brief periods during the rainy seasons. When not flooded, the water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for 4 to 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Holopaw fine sand is a very poorly drained soil in depressional areas in the flatwoods. The water table is above the surface for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Placid fine sand is a very poorly drained, nearly level soil is in depressional areas in the flatwoods and uplands. The water table is above the surface for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Samsula muck is a very poorly drained, organic soil that formed in thick beds of waterloving, non-woody plant remains. This soil is in depressional areas. Typically, the surface layer is dark reddish brown to black muck approximately 29 inches thick. The water is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees.
G-4
EXHIBIT H MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES AND PROPERTIES ON STATE-OWNED OR CONTROLLED LANDS
Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on StateOwned or Controlled Properties (revised February 2007)
These procedures apply to state agencies, local governments, and non-profits that manage state-owned properties. A.
General Discussion
Historic resources are both archaeological sites and historic structures. Per Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, ‘Historic property’ or ‘historic resource’ means any prehistoric district, site, building, object, or other real or personal property of historical, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. These properties or resources may include, but are not limited to, monuments, memorials, Indian habitations, ceremonial sites, abandoned settlements, sunken or abandoned ships, engineering works, treasure trove, artifacts, or other objects with intrinsic historical or archaeological value, or any part thereof, relating to the history, government, and culture of the state.” B.
Agency Responsibilities
Per State Policy relative to historic properties, state agencies of the executive branch must allow the Division of Historical Resources (Division) the opportunity to comment on any undertakings, whether these undertakings directly involve the state agency, i.e., land management responsibilities, or the state agency has indirect jurisdiction, i.e. permitting authority, grants, etc. No state funds should be expended on the undertaking until the Division has the opportunity to review and comment on the project, permit, grant, etc. State agencies shall preserve the historic resources which are owned or controlled by the agency. Regarding proposed demolition or substantial alterations of historic properties, consultation with the Division must occur, and alternatives to demolition must be considered. State agencies must consult with Division to establish a program to location, inventory and evaluate all historic properties under ownership or controlled by the agency. C.
Statutory Authority
Statutory Authority and more in depth information can be found in the following: Chapter 253, F.S. – State Lands Chapter 267, F.S. – Historical Resources Chapter 872, F.S. – Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves
H-1
Other helpful citations and references: Chapter 1A-32, F.A.C. – Archaeological Research Chapter 1A-44, F.A.C. – Procedures for Reporting and Determining Jurisdiction Over Unmarked Human Burials Chapter 1A-46, F.A C. – Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings D.
Management Implementation
Even though the Division sits on the Acquisition and Restoration Council and approves land management plans, these plans are conceptual. Specific information regarding individual projects must be submitted to the Division for review and recommendations. Managers of state lands must coordinate any land clearing or ground disturbing activities with the Division to allow for review and comment on the proposed project. Recommendations may include, but are not limited to: approval of the project as submitted, pre-testing of the project site by a certified archaeological monitor, cultural resource assessment survey by a qualified professional archaeologist, modifications to the proposed project to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects. Projects such as additions, exterior alteration, or related new construction regarding historic structures must also be submitted to the Division of Historical Resources for review and comment by the Division’s architects. Projects involving structures fifty years of age or older, must be submitted to this agency for a significance determination. In rare cases, structures under fifty years of age may be deemed historically significant. These must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Adverse impacts to significant sites, either archaeological sites or historic buildings, must be avoided. Furthermore, managers of state property should make preparations for locating and evaluating historic resources, both archaeological sites and historic structures. E.
Minimum Review Documentation Requirements
In order to have a proposed project reviewed by the Division, the following information, at a minimum, must be submitted for comments and recommendations. Project Description – A detailed description of the proposed project including all related activities. For land clearing or ground disturbing activities, the depth and extent of the disturbance, use of heavy equipment, location of lay down yard, etc. For historic structures, specific details regarding rehabilitation, demolition, etc.
H-2
Project Location – The exact location of the project indicated on a USGS Quadrangle map, is preferable. A management base map may be acceptable. Aerial photos indicating the exact project area as supplemental information are helpful. Photographs – Photographs of the project area are always useful. Photographs of structures are required. Description of Project Area – Note the acreage of the project, describe the present condition of project area, and any past land uses or disturbances. Description of Structures – Describe the condition and setting of each building within project area if approximately fifty years of age or older. Recorded Archaeological Sites or Historic Structures – Provide Florida Master Site File numbers for all recorded historic resources within or adjacent to the project area. This information should be in the current management plan; however, it can be obtained by contacting the Florida Master Site File at (850) 245-6440 or Suncom 205-6440. *
*
*
Questions relating to the treatment of archaeological and historic resources on state lands should be directed to: Susan M. Harp Historic Preservation Planner Division of Historical Resources Bureau of Historic Preservation Compliance and Review Section R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone: Suncom: Fax:
(850) 245-6333 205-6333 (850) 245-6438
H-3
EXHIBIT I WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND NEAR CDMSFP
Listed species and species tracked by Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) or government agencies found near Carl Duval Moore State Forest and Park.
Species
Common Name
FNAI State Rank
State Status
Federal Status
Current Management Actions
S3
LT
N
1,2,3,5,11,12
Grus canadensis pratensis
Southeastern American Kestrel Florida sandhill crane
S2, S3
LT
N
1,4,11,12
Lycosa ericeticola
Rosemary wolf spider
S1
N
N
1,2,5,9,10,11,12
Stylisma abdita
Scrub stylisma
S2, S3
LE
N
1,2,3,5,11,12
Drymarchon corais couperi
Eastern Indigo Snake
S3
LT
LT
1,2,3,5,11,12
Gopherus polyphemus
Gopher tortoise
S3
LT
X
1,2,3,5,11,12
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Florida scrub jay
S3
LT
LT
1,2,13
Procambarus pictus
Black Creek crayfish
S2
LS
N
9
Falco sparverius paulus
X=No status, LE=Endangered, LT=Threatened, SSC=Species of special concern, MC=Management Concern, C=Commercial Collection Limited, S1=Critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity, S2=Imperiled in Florida because of rarity, S3=Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted range N=Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened
Current Management Actions: 1=Prescribed Fire, 2=Growing Season Prescribed Fire, 3=Sandpine Restoration to Longleaf Pine sites, 4=Burning Transition Zones Around Wetlands, 5=Uneven Aged Longleaf Pine Management, 6=Habitat Restoration in Corridor Areas Adjacent to Other Public Lands, 7=Nesting Boxes, 8=Burning Seeps Adjacent to Sandhills, 9=Field Survey, 10=Frequent & Random Fire Return Intervals(2-4 years), 11=Exotic Species Control, 12=Restoring Firelines to Prescribe Burn Larger Blocks, 13=Prescribed burning scrub habitat
I-1
I-2
I–3
I-4
EXHIBIT J FNAI NATURAL COMMUNITIES MAPS
Exhibit J
Exhibit J
EXHIBIT K RECREATIONAL TRAILS MAP
Exhibit K
Exhibit K
EXIBIT L BURN UNIT MAP
Exhibit L1
Exhibit L2
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT D OPTIMAL BOUNDARY MAP
Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Optimum Management Boundary Map
Exhibit D
This map is the product of the Florida Division of Forestry. No warranties are made as to the fitness of this map for any unlisted purpose, for data therein, its use or its interpretation.
EXHIBIT E MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP MEETING SUMMARY
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES January 21, 2010 6:00 PM Members Present: Andy Hirko Nicholas Carter Timothy Keyser Ernie Ash Willy the Losen
Plum Creek Timber Company (adjacent property owner) Treasurer, Putnam County Land Conservancy Private Property Owner (adjacent property owner) Division of Forestry, Waccasassa Forestry Center Putnam County Environmental Council (alternate for Ahlers)
Members Absent: Karen Ahlers Chip Laibl Jordan Matthews Alex Pries
President, Putnam County Environmental Council Commissioner, Putnam County Board of County Commissioners Supervisor, Putnam Soil & Water Conservation District Northeastern Region Conservation Biologist, FWC
Staff Present: Bill Korn Scott Crosby Charlie Pedersen Paula Lott
DOF Director’s Office Forestry Supervisor II, ECSF, CDMSF&P and WeSF Biologist, WaFC OPS Secretary Specialist, ECSF
The Public Meeting of the Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Management Plan Advisory Group was called to order at 6 PM by Bill Korn in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Introductions were given by those present and their affiliation with the CDMSF&P. Tim Keyser stated that Willy the Losen had been asked to represent Karen Ahlers who was unable to attend. It was stressed to Willy the Losen, to contact Karen Ahlers and have her send any written comments about the plan to Scott Crosby before the 9:30 AM meeting in the morning, which he agreed to do. An introduction was given by Bill Korn as he explained the purpose of the meeting was to go over the ground rules of how the public hearing would be handled that was to follow at 6:30 PM. He explained the role of the group was to represent the public, different user groups and assist the land manager with the plan before it goes to the director who has the final say of what goes into the plan. Scott Crosby explained the posting of the Public Notification for the Public Meetings were administered through several ways. Ernie Ash, had presented the information of the meetings at the Putnam County Commissioners meeting in December and an ad had been taken
E-1
out in the Palatka Daily News. Plus, Public Notification had been placed at three locations at Etoniah Creek State Forest: Holloway Day Use Area kiosk, Longleaf Pine kiosk and at the ECSF Office. A notice was also posted on the Up and down Lake Nature Trail kiosk/trailhead on the North Tract of CDMSF&P. Korn said notification had also been listed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Crosby added that area residents and liaison committee members had been notified by email. Korn advised the group of the Sunshine Law, stating that the meetings were open to the public and if they had any comment or disagreement with something in the plan to address this as a group and not speak individually. Korn informed the group that statutes require that public land with 1,000 acres or more have a land management review of the management plan every 5 years. He also commented that the Carl Duval Moore tracts were unique because they were not owned by Trustees, but by DOF. Tim Keyser said he thought the Trustees owned the south tract of CDMSF&P. DOF staff said no, it was owned by DOF. Korn stated that the group needed to appoint a chairperson to run the public hearing. Ernie Ash said he would do it. Tim Keyser nominated Ernie as chairperson and the other members of the group that were present agreed. It was advised that those wishing to speak at the Public Hearing be limited to 5 minutes. However, since there were only two people that were not on the Advisory Committee in attendance, speaking time might be extended. It was explained that minutes would be taken of tonight’s meetings and presented to the group for their approval. Plus, these minutes would become a part of the exhibits in the management plan. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 PM.
E-2
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES January 21, 2010 6:31 PM The Public Meeting/Hearing was called to order by Bill Korn of the DOF Director’s Office at 6:31 PM in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Since all those present were in the 6 PM meeting, introductions and rules of the hearing were omitted. Bill Korn informed those in attendance that there were two phases to the public hearing, which consisted of Question and Answers and Informational. Scott Crosby presented a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation giving a description of the property, summarizing management activities that had taken place under DOF management and providing information on future management activities. In reference to (Exhibit D) the “Optimal Management Boundary Map”, Tim Keyser asked if the red border line represents the desired areas of acquisitions or just possible future acquisitions. Ernie explained that these are areas that might be purchased if they became available in the future. If they are included in the optimal boundary it facilitates the acquisition process. DOF will not necessarily pursue the purchase of these properties. Charlie Pedersen asked Scott to show where the Caravelle Ranch tract was located in reference to CDMSF&P south tract. A question was asked if future land acquisitions around the tracts would be for connecting public lands. During the PowerPoint presentation Charlie Pedersen gave an explanation of community types and how the types are decided. He also explained the difference between Baygall and Scrubby Flatwoods. Scott informed the group that on the north tract there is a kiosk and parking area on the west side on West Street. Plus, on the north side there is a small parking lot that is accessible through the Lake Estates. He added that there is an observation deck on the lake and Tree ID’s on the trail. Charlie Pedersen spoke on the Gopher Tortoise Survey that was conducted in 2006. Keyser asked if the north tract could be considered as a reserve for relocating gopher tortoise. Pedersen said No, as there are 2 ½ active burrows per acre. Keyser remarked that he knew Carl Duval Moore personally and he loved gopher tortoise, as well as forestry and wildlife. Scott informed those at the hearing that the planned prescribed burn for this fiscal year is 35 acres in dormant season and 84 acres in the growing season. Willy the Losen asked how DOF decides to burn during dormant or growing seasons. After much discussion on prescribed
E-3
burns, Bill Korn said the “Tall Timbers” idea is to not go more than 2 ½ years without a burn on a unit. Tim Keyser offered for DOF to use his fireline on the east side that is already established, to help in implementing future Rx Burns on the north tract. Scott said he would take that into consideration. Scott continued his presentation by saying that as far as recreation is concerned on the two CDM tracts, the north tract has all that the forest can support at the moment. Plus, the south tract has no dedicated access for recreational use. He added that although the south tract is closed to public access, if anyone wants to visit the tract call the ECSF Office and arrangements can be made to access it, with a DOF employee accompanying the individual or group. Keyser asked if there had been any turpentine scars found on any trees. He added that the north tract was where Carl Duval Moore had lived. Korn stated that there were not any known archeological finds on the two tracts, but something maybe to consider. Keyser said he knew of one site and that was a WPA ditch that was hand dug to drain Up & Down Lake into Lake Ida. Bill Korn said from the two Speaker/Comment forms only Willy the Losen had requested to make comments. Willy said the concern he had was if the plan addressed connecting the south end of CDMSF&P with Caravelle, so it does not become isolated. He also said he had hiked the north tract and the boardwalk was a good addition. The other person present was Carlis Lott (an adjacent landowner) who did not choose to speak. Korn asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak even though they had not requested to speak. Tim Keyser said he would like to, but declined after he was informed that all the meetings were having minutes taken. He said he would save his comments for tomorrow’s meeting when more people were there. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 PM.
E-4
CARL DUVAL MOORE STATE FOREST & PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY GROUP PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES January 22, 2010 9:30 AM Members Present: Ernie Ash Andy Hirko Chip Laibl Jordan Matthews Timothy Keyser Nicholas Carter
Division of Forestry, Waccasassa Forestry Center Plum Creek Timber Company (adjacent property owner) Commissioner, Putnam County Board of County Commissioners Supervisor, Putnam Soil and Water Conservation Private Property Owner (adjacent property owner) Treasurer, Putnam County Land Conservancy
Members Absent: Karen Ahlers Alex Pries
President, Putnam County Environmental Council Northeastern Region Conservation Biologist, FWC
Staff Present: Bill Korn Scott Crosby Charlie Pedersen Paula Lott
DOF Director’s Office Forestry Supervisor II, ECSF, CDMSF&P and WeSF Biologist, WaFC OPS Secretary Specialist, ECSF
The Public Meeting of the Carl Duval Moore State Forest & Park Management Plan Advisory Group was called to order at 9:36 AM by Bill Korn in the Ag Center/Extension Office, located at 111 Yelvington Road, East Palatka, Florida. Each member was given a copy of the Minutes of the pre-Hearing Advisory Group Meeting and subsequent Public Hearing that were held the previous night. Plus, they were given a copy of the written comments submitted by Alex Pries, Northeastern Region Biologist, FWC that had been emailed to Scott Crosby. Bill Korn went over the members on the Management Plan Advisory Group and their affiliation with the Cal Duval Moore State Forest & Park tracts. He explained that he was acting facilitator and Ernie Ash had been appointed as chairperson for the group and would handle the meeting. In addition, he reminded the group that until the plan is approved, if they had any comment or disagreement with something in the plan to address this as a group and not speak individually with each other to avoid a Florida Sunshine violation. An introduction was given by Bill Korn as he explained the purpose of the meeting, how it would be conducted and what was required from the group. He explained the role of the group was to represent the public, different user groups and assist the land manager with the plan before it goes to the DOF director who has the final word on what goes into the plan.
E-5
Korn also explained the posting of the Public Notification for the Public Meetings were administered through several ways. They were noted at the Putnam County Commissioners meeting in December and a legal ad had been taken out in the Palatka Daily News. Plus, Public Notification had been placed at three locations at Etoniah Creek State Forest, and one at the North Tract of CDMSF&P. He said notification had also been listed in the Florida Administrative Weekly plus, area residents and liaison committee members had been notified by email. Korn turned the meeting over to Chairperson, Ernie Ash. Ernie asked Charlie Pedersen to read the suggestions for changes to the plan which were submitted from Alex Pries (FWC). Charlie explained that he had read through the suggestions and marked what he considered substantive and important. He stated that the document from Pries would be added to the management plan Exhibit section. The following are changes that Alex Pries asked to be changed or clarified in the plan. Alex Pries: Page 6—Suggested the plan give a better definition of restoration and add performance measurements. Jordan Matthews said it looks like these guidelines and other things might need to be done, but Scott Crosby (DOF) should have the right to be able to use his own judgment. He added that he did not want to see the plan so complex that Scott would find it hard to manage the site on the ground. Andy Hirko agreed the plan should not be so complex and stated that the guideline was a nice size for a 300-acre forest. Bill Korn explained that there were eight key areas (goals) of resource management that each agency now must report to Land Management Uniform Accounting Council. If the guideline gets too detailed, Scott will have to report on every area each year, such as budget requirements for every area. Charlie stated that the issue is Mr. Pries wants more detail in ground cover. Ernie said he recommended not adding a percentage. Andy added that you are going to have to verify what is restored. The group decided to add the performance measure: “Estimate of percent native ground cover”. Page 6, Objective 4—Suggested including the phrase “and annual revision” to the performance measure for Objective 4. “Annually” was placed at the end of the performance measure. Page 7, Objective 7—Suggested to include a phrase about replanting longleaf pine and the appropriate densities. “With adequate survival” was added to the performance measure of Acres of Longleaf pine planted.
E-6
Page 7, Objective 9—Suggested to define vegetative-based performance measure. Charlie stated that Mr. Pries is asking for some kind of measure. Carter added that Mr. Pries wants it more detailed for each community and habitat structure. Page 9, Goal 6, Objective 5—Suggested to define when/how new firebreaks are created. Group decided it was already covered in the plan. Page 10, Goal 8, Objective 3—Suggested performance measures to track and respond to results of the monitoring protocols. Mr. Carter added that Mr. Pries seems to want a performance measure that says an inventory/assessment of monitoring results should be done. Group decided to monitor and report the results. Wording “and report of results prepared” was added to the performance measure. Page 14, Sec. 4—Suggested that this particular area is too small for general gun hunting, but possibility for archery hunting. Matthews stated that because of the size of the tract (just over 300 acres), be best to keep it a non-hunting tract. Even though archery would be safe it would be too complex to manage. Carter added that with the isolation of the north tract and houses all around, deer would probably not return if hunting was allowed. Page 17—Suggested to change the phrase “if a nest returns” to “if re-nesting occurs.” Wording “Eagles have re-nested in a different site on the north-east boundary of the North tract. Nest monitoring will be coordinated with FWC each breeding season” was added to the performance measure. Page 17—Suggested to include Florida Mice in its monitoring and/ or performance measures for restored sites. Group decided to eliminate Florida black bear and add Florida mouse to this section. Page 19, Last Paragraph—Asked what the target BA at which stands will be thinned at. Jordan Matthew said as long as DOF is following good sound management with silviculture, don’t make the plan too complex to hinder the management of it. Scott added that he had a state forest handbook that he had to follow. Andy Hirko asked Scott for more information about the state handbook he had mentioned. Scott elaborated on some of the guidelines in the handbook that each state forest uses in managing the forest. Tim Keyser informed those present that there was a unique feature on the north tract that it contained a cedar stand, which was from an old Christmas tree farm. He stated that DOF should think about thinning it and expanding it.
E-7
Page 22, Third Paragraph—Suggested to emphasize frequency of fire and not only seasonal. Ernie emphasized that DOF needs to do more burning and to do it year-round. Matthews commented that industrially and in the private sector, at times they tend to have problems getting burning authorizations, whereas DOF is in a unique position to burn more frequently because they can get permission to burn easier. Page 23—Suggested clarification of “maintenance stage”. Wording was changed to “Slightly less than half of the pyrogenic communities have been burned during the last planning period. The remaining units will still require an initial burn to reduce fuel loading.” Page 23—Suggested moving the bullet list up under the first paragraph It was decided to move the bullet list up to under first paragraph. Page 25, 2nd Paragraph—Suggested seeing sandhill stands with BA’s less than 60-70. Group decided that this was covered earlier. Page 31—Asked if there were specific examples of species that may have been extirpated from the site. Charlie said that with the fragmented 300 acres - the forest would probably be too small to reintroduce, but might be considered for small projects. Page 32—Suggested adding how/where DOF will propose to monitor/verify the presence of indicator wildlife species. Group decided that this was already covered on page 10 of plan. Page 34—Suggested stating why the xeric hammock will not be restored. Group decided that it was. addressed adequately with the current language. Page 38—Suggested going down to something like a 9x12 for reforestation. Group did not agree and decided that the plan should not be so specific as specifying an initial planting density. Jordan Matthews: Jordan Matthews said over all the plan was good and had taken a lot of thought and he believed it was a manageable plan. He also believes it would be effective, achieve the objectives and be
E-8
manageable in the field. The only thing he did want to address was that the burn unit exhibit should show how many acres of each item there were in each unit and they should add up to the total for the tract. He used an example of this on Exhibit L, stating that he would like to see how many acres the lake had, so that it all adds up to the total of what it says the tract consists of. Ernie added that every component of the map ought to have a number of how many acres it contains. Matthews added the key to these two tracts is to be aggressive with burning. Tim Keyser: Tim Keyser said he wanted to compliment on the past management practices and particularly the planting of longleaf pines. He stated that he personally knew Carl Duval Moore and he was supportive of forestry and wildlife. He did suggest instead of using herbicides in controlling the exotic species to ask for volunteer groups to remove the exotics by hand. Chip Laibl: Chip Laibl stated the management plan was very intriguing and that we can not make this plan too hard to manage. He said that from experience as a county commissioner, we are “over planned” in government, but he believed this plan was manageable. Ernie asked him if there were anything the city or county would like to see developed as far as recreation. Laibl said the only request that they have had is for more hunting. He added that in the future with the public becoming more health conscious and the Rails to Trails, there might be more demand for bike riding. Again, Bill Korn added that although the south tract was not open to the public, if anyone wanted to visit the tract - arrangements could be made by contacting Mr. Crosby at the ECSF office. He said that there was signage on the north tract on Hwy 20 and there would be signage added as soon as DOF can get entrance easement to the south tract. Nicholas Carter: Nicholas Carter said he thought the plan was a great plan and liked the way the north tract looked. He stated that on page 21, “Planned Activity” he would like to add a third to take a look at primitive camping. He said he would like to see a campsite added near the boardwalk on the north tract. Andy Hirko: Andy Hirko said he was impressed with the plan, thought it was an excellent plan and DOF had done a good job in minimizing the plan. He did state that from an industrial perspective all he had to say was that a slash pine is not a “bad” tree, but that he understood DOF striving for longleaf pines trying to base it on old historical photos. Ernie Ash: Ernie Ash said that as far as the plan, his remarks were mainly editorial.
E-9
Mr. Korn added that later that afternoon DOF would be going over the draft and making editorial changes and changes decided on in the meeting. Minutes from the meetings the night before were handed out and looked over for any discrepancies. With all in agreement, the minutes were accepted with corrections to be made before the final version goes into the plan. Mr. Korn also said that the minutes from the meeting today would be emailed to them, along with another version of the plan (blue line changes). He requested that the group go over the minutes and plans and if there were any corrections to notify Mr. Crosby and he would notify the director. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 AM.
E - 10
EXHIBIT F LETTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY COMPREHNSIVE PLAN
EXHIBIT G SOILS MAPS
Exhibit G
Exhibit G
There are twelve different soil series found on CDMSFP, ranging from excessively drained to very poorly drained soils. A general description of each soil series follows. When site index is used in reference to soil series, it indicates the productivity capacity of an area of forestland for a pine species. Candler fine sand is an excessively drained soil, nearly level to gently sloping soil on ridges, knolls and broad uplands. Slopes are level to 5%. The water table is below a depth of 80 inches. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine with a site index ranging from 65 to 71. Millhopper sand is a moderately well drained soil, nearly level to gently sloping soil is on upland ridges and side slopes. Slopes are level to 5%. The water table is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 4 months during most years. It may be at a depth of 30-40 inches for just a few days after heavy rains. This soil is suited for slash pine production. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Tavares fine sand is a moderately well drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on uplands and on knolls and ridges in the flatwoods. Slopes are level to 5%. The high water table is at a depth between 40 and 80 inches for more than 6 months in most years. It recedes to depths of greater than 80 inches during dry seasons. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Pomona fine sand is a poorly drained, nearly level soil is on broad flatwoods areas. The water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for 1 to 3 months and at a depth between 10 and 40 inches for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77-83. Spar sand is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soil is on low side slopes in the uplands, along well defined drainage ways in the flatwoods and on low knolls and ridges in the flatwoods. The high water table is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches for 1 to 4 months in most years. This soil is suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Adamsville sand is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil on low knolls in the flatwoods and on low side slopes in the uplands. The high water table is at a depth of 20 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months in most years. It is at a depth of 10 to 20 inches for up to 2 weeks in some years. The soil is suited to the production of slash pine with a site index ranging from 77 to 83. Palmetto fine sand is a poorly drained, nearly level soil is on broad, low flatwoods areas and long narrow bands bordering streams and drainage ways. This soil is suited for the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 77 to 83. Samsula muck is a very poorly drained organic soil formed in moderately thick beds of water-loving non-woody plant remains. This soil is found in depressional areas. The
G-3
water table is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Hontoon muck is a very poorly drained, organic soil that formed in thick beds of waterloving, non-woody plant remains. This soil is found in depressional areas. Typically, the muck layer is more than 80 inches thick. The water is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. The Placid-Pompano association consists of a very poorly and poorly drained, nearly level soils in regular and repeating patterns in narrow to broad drainage ways in the flatwoods and uplands. The Placid soils make up about 55 percent of the association. This soil is frequently flooded for brief periods during the rainy seasons. When not flooded, the water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for 4 to 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Holopaw fine sand is a very poorly drained soil in depressional areas in the flatwoods. The water table is above the surface for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Placid fine sand is a very poorly drained, nearly level soil is in depressional areas in the flatwoods and uplands. The water table is above the surface for more than 6 months in most years. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees. Samsula muck is a very poorly drained, organic soil that formed in thick beds of waterloving, non-woody plant remains. This soil is in depressional areas. Typically, the surface layer is dark reddish brown to black muck approximately 29 inches thick. The water is at or above the surface of the soil except during extended dry periods. This soil is not recommended for the production of pine trees.
G-4
EXHIBIT H MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES AND PROPERTIES ON STATE-OWNED OR CONTROLLED LANDS
Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on StateOwned or Controlled Properties (revised February 2007)
These procedures apply to state agencies, local governments, and non-profits that manage state-owned properties. A.
General Discussion
Historic resources are both archaeological sites and historic structures. Per Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, ‘Historic property’ or ‘historic resource’ means any prehistoric district, site, building, object, or other real or personal property of historical, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. These properties or resources may include, but are not limited to, monuments, memorials, Indian habitations, ceremonial sites, abandoned settlements, sunken or abandoned ships, engineering works, treasure trove, artifacts, or other objects with intrinsic historical or archaeological value, or any part thereof, relating to the history, government, and culture of the state.” B.
Agency Responsibilities
Per State Policy relative to historic properties, state agencies of the executive branch must allow the Division of Historical Resources (Division) the opportunity to comment on any undertakings, whether these undertakings directly involve the state agency, i.e., land management responsibilities, or the state agency has indirect jurisdiction, i.e. permitting authority, grants, etc. No state funds should be expended on the undertaking until the Division has the opportunity to review and comment on the project, permit, grant, etc. State agencies shall preserve the historic resources which are owned or controlled by the agency. Regarding proposed demolition or substantial alterations of historic properties, consultation with the Division must occur, and alternatives to demolition must be considered. State agencies must consult with Division to establish a program to location, inventory and evaluate all historic properties under ownership or controlled by the agency. C.
Statutory Authority
Statutory Authority and more in depth information can be found in the following: Chapter 253, F.S. – State Lands Chapter 267, F.S. – Historical Resources Chapter 872, F.S. – Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves
H-1
Other helpful citations and references: Chapter 1A-32, F.A.C. – Archaeological Research Chapter 1A-44, F.A.C. – Procedures for Reporting and Determining Jurisdiction Over Unmarked Human Burials Chapter 1A-46, F.A C. – Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings D.
Management Implementation
Even though the Division sits on the Acquisition and Restoration Council and approves land management plans, these plans are conceptual. Specific information regarding individual projects must be submitted to the Division for review and recommendations. Managers of state lands must coordinate any land clearing or ground disturbing activities with the Division to allow for review and comment on the proposed project. Recommendations may include, but are not limited to: approval of the project as submitted, pre-testing of the project site by a certified archaeological monitor, cultural resource assessment survey by a qualified professional archaeologist, modifications to the proposed project to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects. Projects such as additions, exterior alteration, or related new construction regarding historic structures must also be submitted to the Division of Historical Resources for review and comment by the Division’s architects. Projects involving structures fifty years of age or older, must be submitted to this agency for a significance determination. In rare cases, structures under fifty years of age may be deemed historically significant. These must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Adverse impacts to significant sites, either archaeological sites or historic buildings, must be avoided. Furthermore, managers of state property should make preparations for locating and evaluating historic resources, both archaeological sites and historic structures. E.
Minimum Review Documentation Requirements
In order to have a proposed project reviewed by the Division, the following information, at a minimum, must be submitted for comments and recommendations. Project Description – A detailed description of the proposed project including all related activities. For land clearing or ground disturbing activities, the depth and extent of the disturbance, use of heavy equipment, location of lay down yard, etc. For historic structures, specific details regarding rehabilitation, demolition, etc.
H-2
Project Location – The exact location of the project indicated on a USGS Quadrangle map, is preferable. A management base map may be acceptable. Aerial photos indicating the exact project area as supplemental information are helpful. Photographs – Photographs of the project area are always useful. Photographs of structures are required. Description of Project Area – Note the acreage of the project, describe the present condition of project area, and any past land uses or disturbances. Description of Structures – Describe the condition and setting of each building within project area if approximately fifty years of age or older. Recorded Archaeological Sites or Historic Structures – Provide Florida Master Site File numbers for all recorded historic resources within or adjacent to the project area. This information should be in the current management plan; however, it can be obtained by contacting the Florida Master Site File at (850) 245-6440 or Suncom 205-6440. *
*
*
Questions relating to the treatment of archaeological and historic resources on state lands should be directed to: Susan M. Harp Historic Preservation Planner Division of Historical Resources Bureau of Historic Preservation Compliance and Review Section R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone: Suncom: Fax:
(850) 245-6333 205-6333 (850) 245-6438
H-3
EXHIBIT I WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND NEAR CDMSFP
Listed species and species tracked by Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) or government agencies found near Carl Duval Moore State Forest and Park.
Species
Common Name
FNAI State Rank
State Status
Federal Status
Current Management Actions
S3
LT
N
1,2,3,5,11,12
Grus canadensis pratensis
Southeastern American Kestrel Florida sandhill crane
S2, S3
LT
N
1,4,11,12
Lycosa ericeticola
Rosemary wolf spider
S1
N
N
1,2,5,9,10,11,12
Stylisma abdita
Scrub stylisma
S2, S3
LE
N
1,2,3,5,11,12
Drymarchon corais couperi
Eastern Indigo Snake
S3
LT
LT
1,2,3,5,11,12
Gopherus polyphemus
Gopher tortoise
S3
LT
X
1,2,3,5,11,12
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Florida scrub jay
S3
LT
LT
1,2,13
Procambarus pictus
Black Creek crayfish
S2
LS
N
9
Falco sparverius paulus
X=No status, LE=Endangered, LT=Threatened, SSC=Species of special concern, MC=Management Concern, C=Commercial Collection Limited, S1=Critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity, S2=Imperiled in Florida because of rarity, S3=Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted range N=Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing as Endangered or Threatened
Current Management Actions: 1=Prescribed Fire, 2=Growing Season Prescribed Fire, 3=Sandpine Restoration to Longleaf Pine sites, 4=Burning Transition Zones Around Wetlands, 5=Uneven Aged Longleaf Pine Management, 6=Habitat Restoration in Corridor Areas Adjacent to Other Public Lands, 7=Nesting Boxes, 8=Burning Seeps Adjacent to Sandhills, 9=Field Survey, 10=Frequent & Random Fire Return Intervals(2-4 years), 11=Exotic Species Control, 12=Restoring Firelines to Prescribe Burn Larger Blocks, 13=Prescribed burning scrub habitat
I-1
I-2
I–3
I-4
EXHIBIT J FNAI NATURAL COMMUNITIES MAPS
Exhibit J
Exhibit J
EXHIBIT K RECREATIONAL TRAILS MAP
Exhibit K
Exhibit K
EXIBIT L BURN UNIT MAP
Exhibit L1
Exhibit L2
