Blackwater River State Forest 10yr Resource Management Plan … · Blackwater River State Forest B - 1 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 Reforestation

EXHIBIT A

Location Map

Exhibit A1

Exhibit A2

EXHIBIT B

Five-Year Management Accomplishment Summary

Management Accomplishment Summary for Blackwater River State Forest

B - 1

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13

Reforestation & Timber Stand Improvement

Longleaf Bareroot No. 50,000 0 0 0 481,338

Acres 62 0 0 0 663

Containerized Longleaf No. 654,126 871,200 183,000 1,560,900 946,704

Acres 901 1,200 230 2,150 1,304

Banded Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Broadcast Acres 767 0 0 0 0

Mechanical Treatments Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Mowing Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Chopping Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Fire Wildfire

No. 18 12 51 9 3

Acres 225.2 240.8 1,145.60 249.7 765

Prescribed Burning Acres 52,843 59,932 50,344 45,486.00 61,363

Boundary Maintenance Maintenance/Marking Miles 157 63 45 55 31

Site Preparation

Chop Single Pass Acres 1,559 0 230 0 0

Chop Tandem Acres 168 0 0 0 0

Herbicide Acres 0 215 0 1,816 1,249


B - 2


Site Preparation

Burn Acres 414 0 0 620 0

Rake Acres 0 0 0 0 0

KG Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Exotic Species Control

Cogon Grass Acres 73 79 40 30 87

Japanese Climbing Fern Acres 125 139 106 19 23

Privet/Tallow/wisteria Acres 367 443 235 64 367

Recreation

Day Use No. 90,618 151,272 145,088 146,457 145,811

Overnight - Full Facility No. 58,106 55,345 56,438 41,570 39,595

Overnight - Primitive No. 2,696 2,178 2,115 5,270 4,119

Annual Entrance Pass No. 33 44 70 35 49

Motorcycle Permits No. 0 0 0 0 0

Canoe Permits No. 0 0 0 50 258

Horse Permits No. 0 0 0 0 0

Roads Graded Miles 2,814 2,148 846 673 687

Roads & Bridges

Roads Constructed Miles 3 40 2 0 1

Roads Rebuilt Miles 43 193 76 60 38


B - 3


Roads & Bridges

Bridges Built No. 0 0 2 1 2

Bridges Repaired No. 16 9 1 16 8

Culverts Installed No. 19 21 4 3 18

Low Water Crossings Installed

No. 10 11 5 0 11

Information& Education Activities

Programs/Tours No. 60 49 36 56 52

Radio - TV - Articles No. 46 23 20 10 21

Ed./Research Projects No. 0 0 0 0 0

EXHIBIT C

BRSF Fire History

C - 1

EXHIBIT D

BRSF Acreage by Parcel

Parcel Name Deed DateClosing

DateLease Date

Lease No.

Amend. No.

Funding Source

County Acres

COX, BENJAMIN 9/25/2003 9/30/2003 3/22/2004 3686 9 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 195.27

YELLOW RIVER RAVINES 10/16/2007 10/18/2007 1/31/2008 3686 11 DEP/FF Santa Rosa 10,334.89

YELLOW RIVER RAVINES 10/16/2007 10/18/2007 1/31/2008 3686 11 DEP/FF Okaloosa 873.65

TNC - ESTES 8/4/2009 8/4/2009 3/3/2010 3686 14 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 555.00

TNC - ESTES 4/20/2010 3686 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 19.34

TNC 4/4/2011 3686 DEP/FF Santa Rosa 12.45

TNC 4/4/2011 3686 DEP/FF Okaloosa 2.71

TNC PARCELS C, E, J, M, P, T, U, Z 1/31/2012 3686 DEP/FF Santa Rosa 16.34

ESTES 8/20/1992 8/20/1992 2/8/1994 3686 2 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 115.68

MAINES 10/13/1992 10/13/1992 2/8/1994 3686 2 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 20.41

HUTTON 1 4/18/1997 4/18/1997 8/11/1997 3686 4 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 1,249.80

HUTTON 2 6/4/1997 6/19/1997 8/11/1997 3686 4 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 4,454.42

CLEAVENGER, CHARLES 3/3/2003 3/7/2003 8/1/2003 3686 7 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 237.10

ESTES, JOHN EDWARD 3/6/2003 3/25/2003 9/2/2003 3686 8 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 217.40

FGT 2/6/1987 4/18/19882346/ 3686

Mitigation Santa Rosa 30.00

LYNN 6/20/1990 11/8/1990 3686 1 Other Santa Rosa 59.95

BRACKIN 9/2/1993 9/2/1993 3/18/1996 3686 3 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 18.73


Sweekwater Tract

Yellow River Tract

Floridale Tract

D - 1


DateLease Date

Lease No.

Amend. No.

Funding Source

County Acres

FGT/SOWELL 6/24/1998 4/6/1999 3686 6 Mitigation Santa Rosa 80.00

Moreno 1, Julio and P 11/20/2008 11/25/2008 3/18/2009 3686 12 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 26.66

Moreno 2, Julio and P 11/20/2008 11/25/2008 3/18/2009 3686 12 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 26.28

USFS* Release for DRP 10/19/20002346/ 3686

Santa Rosa -230.00

BR FOUNDATION INC 3/22/2007 3/22/2007 1/31/2008 3686 11 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 76.96

TNC/ESTES 5/31/2007 5/31/2007 1/31/2008 3686 11 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 358.65

PHILLIPS 9/15/1993 9/15/1993 2/8/1994 3686 2 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 120.42

FGT/ELLIS 6/24/1998 4/6/1999 3686 6 Mitigation Santa Rosa 40.00

MOORE 4/13/2006 4/17/2006 1/31/2008 3686 11 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 38.50

TNC 3/10/2009 3/10/2009 4/22/2010 3686 15 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 80.93

TNC 9/30/2009 3686FFS/FF -

OHV-DOJSanta Rosa 1,400.63

SSA DEVELOPERS 6/30/2011 3686 DEP /FF Santa Rosa 172.59

FGT/JAMES ESTES 6/24/1998 4/6/1999 3686 6 Mitigation Okaloosa 40.00

FGT/VEITCH 6/24/1998 4/6/1999 3686 6 Mitigation Okaloosa 40.00


Sweekwater Tract (cont'd)

Juniper Tract

West Boundary Tract

Bone Creek Tract

Clear Creek Tract

D - 2


DateLease Date

Lease No.

Amend. No.

Funding Source

County Acres

FGT/MONSKY 6/24/1998 4/6/1999 3686 6 Mitigation Okaloosa 20.00

BARNES/STUMP SPRINGS 9/13/1993 9/10/1993 12/9/1997 3686 5 FFS/P2000 Santa Rosa 150.40

IP- ATES PASTURE 12/1/2004 12/1/2004 2/25/2005 3686 10 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 4,623.80

USDA 11/4/1955 11/22/19682346/ 3686

0 Other Okaloosa 60,828.20

USDA 11/4/1955 11/22/19682346/ 3686

0 Other Santa Rosa 122,356.37

TNC - RAYONIER 12/22/2008 12/31/2008 3/18/2009 3686 12 FFS/FF Okaloosa 1,026.42

FALZONE, TIMOTHY 10/23/2008 10/23/2008 6/12/2009 3686 13 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 104.25

WILSON/McKAY 4/20/2010 3686 FFS/FF Okaloosa 19.56

KENNEDY, BOBBIE J. 8/3/2011 3686 FFS/FF Okaloosa 89.90

WOODALL, JAMES 8/28/2011 3686 FFS/FF Santa Rosa 159.40

FGT DONATION 11/21/2011 11/22/2011 3686 Mitigation Okaloosa 359.94

210,423.00

6,129.86 20,688.68 26,798.54 183,184.57

FFS/DEP/ FL FOREVERCARL MGT. ACRES

USDA

Floridale/Juniper Tracts


Multiple Tracts

Coldwater Tract

Horse Creek Tract

TOTAL ACRES

FFS/P2000*Partial release of lease removing 230 acres for assignment to Blackwater River State Park. DACS Contract No. = 1502

DEP = FL Department of Environmental Protection DOJ = Department of JusticeFGT = FF = Florida ForeverFFS = Florida Forest Service IP = OHV = Off-Highway Vehicle P2000 = Preservation 2000TNC = The Nature Conservancy USDA = United States Department of Agriculture

D - 3

EXHIBIT E

BRSF Tracts

Exhibit E

EXHIBIT F

Management Prospectus

Yellow River Ravines - Group A/Full Fee

Yellow River Ravines Group A

Santa Rosa and Okaloosa County Full Fee

Purpose for State Acquisition General DescriptionPublic acquisition of this project would protect a high As originally proposed, this 16,652-acre project quality example of an imperiled natural community and consisted of two parcels of land, one on the Yellow threatened and endangered plant and animal species. River about nine miles east of Milton, and the other Combined with the 194,668 acres of the Blackwater being an “infi ll” parcel in the existing Blackwater River State Forest, it will form a continuous corridor of River State Forest. The main parcel stretches from the public land from the Eglin Air Force Base through the Blackwater River State Forest south to the Yellow River. Conecuh State Forest in Alabama. Acquisition of the This project includes a mix of fl oodplain swamp and project would meet Florida Forever goals of restoring fl oodplain forest, sandhill, mesic fl atwoods, wet prairie, natural habitat and ensuring biodiversity by restoring dome swamp and seepage stream. About 1,061 acres prescribed fi re to areas that would benefi t from it, would protect natural fl oodplain functions. Much of the and of increasing natural resource-based recreation fl oodplain in this project is second-growth forest. The by providing areas for camping, picnicking, nature project includes approximately 2,501 acres of functional appreciation, hiking and horseback riding. Acquisition wetlands and approximately 10,033 acres of land that of the Yellow River Ravines has also been endorsed would provide protection to the surface waters of the by representatives of the U.S. Navy’s Pensacola Naval state. About 70 percent of the project was originally Air Station. Naval offi cers said at the June 6, 2002 sandhill, but has been disturbed in the past by being meeting of the Acquisition and Restoration Council used for silviculture.that preserving undeveloped land around their satellite airfi elds would enhance military training by preventing Public Useencroachment on military reservations. The Florida The DOF will promote recreation and environmental National Scenic Trail, a cross-Florida hiking and non- education in the natural environment. It is anticipated motorized trail, is also planned to cross this project. that interpretive and user services recreation facilities The trail is a congressionally designated national scenic will be developed and the use of low-impact rustic trail. facilities will be stressed.

Manager Acquisition PlanningFlorida Department of Agriculture and Consumer On June 6, 2002, the Acquisition & Restoration Coun-Services, Division of Forestry (DOF). cil (ARC) added the Yellow River Ravines project to

Group A of the Florida Forever (FF) 2002 Priority list. This fee-simple project, sponsored by the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Division of Forestry (DOF), consisted of approximately 16,652 acres, fi ve owners, and a 2001 taxable value of $12,227,546.

Placed on list 2002

Project Area (acres) 17,626

Acres Acquired 15,209

At a Cost of $32,287,484

Acres Remaining 2,417

Estimated 2001 (tax assessed) Value of $1,687,429

550 F - 1


551 F - 2


The essential parcels were defi ned as those held by the or areas previously harvested that have not been site International Paper Company. prepared and planted. Over the next couple of years,

these acres will be harvested and will not be replanted On August 12, 2005, the ARC approved a fee-simple, by the current landowner. This acreage will require 974-acre addition to the project boundary. It was spon- some level of restoration activity. There is at least sored by TNC and DOF, consisted of one owner, James one linear facility that bisects the parcel, which will Estes, and a 2004 taxable value of $78,040. The parcels be an area of management concern for monitoring were defi ned as essential. unauthorized uses and introduction of invasive exotic

species. Additionally, water resource development In October 2007, the BOT acquired 11,208 acres from projects, water supply development projects, stormwater The Nature Conservancy. management projects and any linear facilities are

considered incompatible with this ecosystem and with In August and November 2009, the Division of the resource values of this project. The activities of State Lands purchased 547 acres from The Nature Eglin Air Force base may restrict prescribed burning Conservancy making this project approximately in this area. The level of management intensity and 92% complete. ARC voted to in December 2009 to related management costs is expected to be initially remove the project from the FF Priority Lsit. high to obtain the necessary information and resources

to restore and manage this system as a State Forest. Coordination Once this information is obtained and the resources are The Nature Conservancy is an acquisition partner. available, long-term management costs are expected to

be moderate to maintain this area as a State Forest, as the Management Policy Statement Division of Forestry currently manages approximately The primary land management goal for the Division of 189,600 acres in this area.Forestry is to restore, maintain and protect in perpetuity Timetable for implementing management, and provisions all native ecosystems; to integrate compatible human for security and protection of infrastructureuse; and to insure long-term viability of populations and Once the project area is acquired and assigned to the species considered rare. This ecosystem approach will Division of Forestry, public access will be provided for guide the Division of Forestry’s management activities low intensity outdoor recreation activities. The Division on this project. of Forestry proposes to manage the site as a part of

Blackwater River State Forest, and the Blackwater Management Prospectus Forestry Center personnel will carry out management Qualifi cations for State Designation activities and coordinate public access and use. The The majority of the acreage of this project consists of Division of Forestry will cooperate with and seek the what appears to be disturbed sandhill, which has been assistance of other state agencies, local government converted to planted pines of various ages. This acreage entities and interested parties as appropriate.has been estimated at 70% of the project, or 9,190 acres. Revenue-generating potentialFloodplain swamp represents the second largest land Timber sales will be conducted as needed to improve or type, and occupies about 2,360 acres. There are lesser maintain desirable ecosystem conditions. These sales acreages of mesic fl atwoods, baygalls, seepage streams, will primarily take place in upland pine stands and will wet prairies, and dome swamps. The project’s size and provide a variable source of revenue dependent upon diversity makes it desirable for use and management as a variety of factors. Due to the existing condition of a state forest. Management by the Division of Forestry the timber resource on the property, revenue generating as a state forest is contingent upon acquiring fee simple potential of this project is expected to be medium.title to the property. Management costs and sources of revenueManager It is anticipated that management funding will come The Florida Division of Forestry (DOF) of the from the CARL trust fund. Budget needs for interim Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services management are estimated as follows:(DACS) is recommended to be the managing agency.Conditions affecting intensity of management SALARY (5 FTE) $164,000Much of the project’s plantable areas has been EXPENSE $375,000disturbed, and will require restoration efforts. There OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY $510,000

are approximately 1,200 acres of active timber sales TOTAL $1,049,000

552 F - 3

EXHIBIT G

BRSF Buildings

and Improvements

G - 1

BLACKWATER RIVER STATE FOREST BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS

JUNE, 2010 460401 Hurricane Lake Bath House NORTH 460402 Hurricane Lake Bath House SOUTH 460403 Hurricane Lake Pump House SOUTH 460404 Hurricane Lake Pump House NORTH 460405 Hurricane Lake Storage Building NORTH 460501 Karick Lake Restroom SOUTH 460502 Karick Lake Equipment Storage SOUTH 460503 Karick Lake Restroom NORTH 460504 Karick Lake Storage (Old Pump House) SOUTH 460505 Karick Lake Well SOUTH 460506 Karick Lake Well NORTH 460507 Karick Lake Deer Cleaning Facility SOUTH 460701 Bone Creek Picnic Shelter 460702 Bone Creek Restroom 460801 Okaloosa Forestry Station/Shop 460802 Okaloosa Forestry Station Pump House 570201 Headquarters Machine Shop 570202 Headquarters Equipment Storage and Vehicle Shed (Lawnmower

Storage) 570203 Headquarters Road/Bridge Crew 570204 Headquarters Storage Shed Besides Back Gate (Old Road Crew Shed) 570206 Headquarters Munson VFD 570207 Headquarters Gas Island 570208 Headquarters Mechanic Shop 570209 Headquarters Wash Rack 570210 Headquarters Office Building (Dispatch Side) 570211 Headquarters Oil Storage Facility 570212 Headquarters Old Paint Shed (Destroyed (buried) April, 2004) 570213 Headquarters Electronic Shop 570214 Headquarters Sawmill 570215 Headquarters Timber Markers’ Office/Vehicle and Equipment Shed 570216 Headquarters Oil Change Facility 570217 Headquarters Munson Tower 570218 Headquarters Warehouse/Training Room 570219 Headquarters Welding Shop 570220 Headquarters Pump House 570221 Headquarters Ice House 570222 Headquarters Storage (by oil storage building near shop) 570223 Headquarters Office Building (Timber Markers’ Side)

G - 2

BLACKWATER RIVER STATE FOREST

BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS JUNE, 2010

570224 Headquarters Ft. Lisa 570226 Headquarters Deer Cleaning Facility 570227 BW 7 Pole Barn 570230 R&B Den/Storage (Road and Bridge Pole Barn) 570301 Coldwater Tower 570305 Coldwater Old County Office 570309 Coldwater Shop/Warehouse/Truck Shed 570310 Coldwater Residence 570901 Krul Lake Rec Area Picnic Shelter (dismantled) 570902 Krul Lake Gristmill 570903 Krul Lake Picnic Cover (Day Use) 570904 Krul Lake Picnic Concession Stand 570905 Krul Lake Pump House 570906 Krul Lake Volunteer Shed 570907 Krul Lake Residence 570908 Krul Lake Restroom (Day Use) 570909 Krul Lake Restroom (Campground #1) 570910 Krul Lake Restroom (Campground #2) 570911 Krul Lake Air Strip Storage 570912 Krul Lake Storage Building 570913 Krul Lake Gate House 570914 Krul Smoke House 571001 Bear Lake Dining Hall and Pavilion 571002 Bear Lake Well/Pump House 571003 Bear Lake Residence 571004 Bear Lake Restroom/Storage 571005 Bear Lake BBQ Shelter 571006 Bear Lake Storage Shed 571101 CWRA Bath House 571102 CWRA Stables and Shelter 571103 CWRA Dog Kennels 571104 CWRA Kitchen/Dining Hall 571105 CWRA Paddock/Building 571106 CWRA Pavilion 571107 CWRA Kiosk/Storage 571108 CWRA Residence 571109 CWRA Office/Equipment Shed/Shop

G - 3



571110 CWRA Equipment Shed/Storage 571111 CWRA BBQ-Grill Facility 571112 CWRA Well 571113 CWRA Waste Shed (otherwise known as manure shed) 571114 CWRA Paddock Stalls 571201 Training Center Dorm #1 571202 Training Center Dorm #2 571203 Training Center Classroom 571204 Training Center Kitchen/Dining Hall 571205 Training Center Teaching Pavilion 571206 Training Center Residence 571207 Training Center Restrooms 571208 Training Center Dorm #3 571209 Training Center Well 571210 Training Center DJJ Offices 571211 Training Center Residence Storage Building 571212 Training Center Covered Swing 571213 Training Center Pump House 571301 Jackson Trail Recreation Facility 571302 Jackson Trail Recreation Facility 571501 Camp Paquette Bath House SOUTH 571502 Camp Paquette Outdoor Pavilion 571503 Camp Paquette Water System Shelter 571504 Camp Paquette Bath House NORTH 571701 Nursery/Seed Orchard Chemical Storage Shed 571702 Nursery/Seed Orchard Seedling Cold Storage 571703 Nursery/Seed Orchard Cone Crate Storage Shed 571704 Nursery/Seed Orchard Fertilizer Storage Shed and Lumber Shed 571705 Nursery/Seed Orchard Office and Equipment Storage Shed 571706 Nursery/Seed Orchard Oil Storage Shed 571707 Nursery/Seed Orchard Carpentry Shop and OALE Office 571708 Nursery/Seed Orchard Pump House 571709 Nursery/Seed Orchard Residence 571710 Nursery/Seed Orchard Seed Storage (Old Seed Freezer) 571711 Nursery/Seed Orchard Seed Processing Building 571712 Nursery/Seed Orchard Shop and Shed

G - 4



571715 Nursery/Seed Orchard Lumber Storage Shed 571716 Nursery Storage Building with Side Shed 571718 Nursery/Seed Orchard Green House 571719 Nursery/Seed Orchard Barn (Cattle Shed) 571721 Inmate Pole Barn 571722 Tree Improvement Section Pole Barn

EXHIBIT H

Optimal Management Boundary

Exhibit H

EXHIBIT I

Compliance with Local Comprehensive Plan

DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF GGRROOWWTTHH MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANNNNIINNGG && ZZOONNIINNGG

402 Brookmeade Dr. Crestview, Florida 32539 Office Phone: (850) 689-5080 Office Fax: (850) 689-1241

June 3, 2013 Corinne Hermle Land Planning Specialist Florida Forest Service 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 Dear Ms. Hermle, Please accept this letter as confirmation that the Florida Forest Service’s draft Ten Year Resource Management Plan for the Blackwater River State Forest is consistent with the Okaloosa County Comprehensive Plan. If you need any further assistance, please contact the Okaloosa County Growth Management Department at (850) 689-5080. Sincerely,

Sherry Reed, CFM Planning Coordinator Okaloosa County Growth Management Department

EXHIBIT J

Land Management Reviews

Land Management Review of Blackwater River State Forest, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties (Lease No. 3686):

March 30 - 31, 1999

Prepared by Division of State Lands Staff

Robert Clark, Program Administrator William Howell, OMC Manager

Amy Knight, Environmental Specialist

for the Blackwater River State Forest Management Review Team

FINAL August 9, 1999

Land Manager:

Division of Forestry

Area: 189,374 acres County: Santa Rosa, Okaloosa Mngt. Plan Approved: 09/14/94 Mngt. Plan Update Due: 09/14/99

J - 1

Management Review Team Members

Agency Team member Team member Represented appointed in attendance

DEP/DRP Mr. John Bente Mr. John Bente DEP Northwest Florida District Mr. Randall Payne Mr. Randall Payne DACS/DOF Mr. Bill Korn Mr. Bill Korn GFC Mr. Mitchell Lockwood Mr. Mitchell Lockwood Soil and Water Conservation Ms. Carla Cook Ms. Carla Cook County Commission Mr. Byrd Mapoles Mr. Byrd Mapoles (1st day)

Conservation Organization Mr. Vernon Compton (TNC) Mr. Vernon Compton Private Land Manager Mr. Arden Shropshire (Champion Int’l.) Mr. Adlai Platt

Process for Implementing Regional Management Review Teams

Legislative Intent and Guidance: Chapter 259.036, F. S. was enacted in 1997 to determine whether conservation, preservation, and recreation lands owned by the state Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) are being managed properly. It directs the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish land management review teams to evaluate the extent to which the existing management plan provides sufficient protection to threatened or endangered species, unique or important natural or physical features, geological or hydrological functions, and archaeological features. The teams also evaluate the extent to which the land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the adopted management plan. If a land management plan has not been adopted, the review shall consider the extent to which the land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management practices are in compliance with the management policy statement and management prospectus for that property. If the land management review team determines that reviewed lands are not being managed for the purposes for which they were acquired or in compliance with the adopted land management plan, management policy statement, or management prospectus, DEP shall provide the review findings to the Board, and the managing agency must report to the Board its reasons for managing the lands as it has. A report of the review findings are given to the managing agency under review, the Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC), and to the Division of State Lands. Also, DEP shall report the annual review findings of its land management review teams to the Board no later than the second board meeting in October of each year.

Review Site The management review of Blackwater River State Forest considered approximately 190,000 acres in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties that are managed by the Division of Forestry. The team evaluated the extent to which current management actions are sufficient, whether the land is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired, and whether actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the management plan. The Division of State Lands approved the management plan on September 14, 1994, and the management plan update is currently being prepared.

Review Team Analysis

J - 2

The management review checklist was analyzed as follows: The checklist consisted of two parts: a plan review section that answered whether or not the management plan sufficiently addressed protection/ restoration/ management needs for a series of items; and a field review section that scored to what extent sufficient management actions were being taken for a series of items. For each item in each section the scores for all team members were averaged. Some items received high scores (> 2.5) in the field review, which indicates that exceptional management actions are being taken. These items are identified in the checklist results as “Exceptional” and are indicated with a plus (+) in the corresponding checklist (Attachment 1). Items for which the average score was low (< 0.5 for plan review; < 1.5 for field review) are identified as “Inadequate” in the checklist results, and indicated with a minus (-) in the corresponding checklist (Attachment 1).

Review Team Findings

Checklist results Exceptional management actions I.A.1 Sandhill Management/protection of the sandhill community is excellent. I.A.2 Mesic flatwoods Management/protection of the mesic flatwoods community is excellent. I.A.3 Seepage slope Management/protection of the seepage slope community is excellent. I.A.4 Baygall Management/protection of the baygall community is excellent. I.A.7 Bottomland hardwood forest Management/protection of the bottomland hardwoods community is excellent. I.B.1 Red-cockaded woodpecker: Protection/preservation of red-cockaded woodpeckers is

protection exceptional. I.B.1.a Red-cockaded woodpecker: Efforts to locate and identify red-cockaded woodpecker colonies inventory are outstanding. I.B.3.b Red-cockaded woodpecker: Monitoring of red-cockaded woodpeckers is excellent.

monitoring I.C.1 Seepage slope species: Protection/preservation of seepage slope and other wetland plant

Protection species is exceptional. I.C.1.a Seepage slope species: Efforts to locate and identify seepage slope and other wetland

inventory plant species is exceptional. I.C.1.b Seepage slope species: Monitoring of seepage slope and other wetland plant species

monitoring is exceptional. III.A.1 Fire: area The number of acres being burned through prescribed fire is excellent. III.A.2 Prescribed fire: frequency The use of appropriate inter-fire intervals is excellent. III.A.3 Prescribed fire: quality The quality of prescribed burns for community maintenance and restoration is exceptional. III.B.2. Restoration: Conversion of off-site pine plantations to uneven-aged longleaf-

J - 3

Off-site pine plantations wiregrass systems is outstanding. III.C.1 Wildlife habitat Management/enhancement of wildlife habitat is exceptional. III.C.3 Hunt quality Quality hunting opportunities are being provided. III.D.1.a Cogongrass: control Control of cogongrass on the site is exceptional. III.D.2.b Cogongrass: monitoring Monitoring of cogongrass is outstanding. III.I.2.a Roads Roads available for public access of the site are exceptional. IV. Education Public education and outreach are outstanding. Inadequate items: Plan review I.A.2 Mesic flatwoods Management/protection of the mesic flatwoods community should be addressed in the plan update. I.A.5 Depression marsh Management/protection of the depression marsh community should be addressed in the plan update. I.A.6 Floodplain swamp Management/protection of the floodplain swamp community should be addressed in the plan update. I.A.7 Bottomland hardwood forest Management/protection of the bottomland hardwoods community should be addressed in the plan update. I.A.8 Slope forest Management/protection of slope forest community should be addressed in the plan update. I.A.10 Seepage stream Management/protection of seepage stream community should be addressed in the plan update. I.B.2 Gopher tortoise: Protection of gopher tortoises should be addressed in the plan Protection & preservation update. I.B.2.a Gopher tortoise: The inventory of gopher tortoises should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.2.b Gopher tortoise: Monitoring of gopher tortoises should be addressed monitoring* in the plan update. I.B.3 Blackmouth shiner: Protection of the blackmouth shiner should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.B.3.a Blackmouth shiner: The inventory of the blackmouth shiner should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.3.b Blackmouth shiner: Monitoring of the blackmouth shiner should be addressed monitoring* in the plan update. I.B.4.a Bald eagle: The inventory of nesting bald eagles should be addressed inventory in the plan update.

J - 4

I.B.4.b Bald eagle: Monitoring of nesting bald eagles should be addressed monitoring in the plan update. I.B.5.a Endemic invertebrates: The inventory of endemic invertebrates should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.5.b Endemic invertebrates: Monitoring of endemic invertebrates should be addressed monitoring* in the plan update. I.B.6.a Tiger salamander: The inventory of tiger salamanders should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.6.b Tiger salamander: Monitoring of tiger salamanders should be addressed monitoring* in the plan update. I.B.7 Gopher frog: Protection of gopher frogs should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.B.7.a Gopher frog: The inventory of gopher frogs should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.7.b Gopher frog: Monitoring of gopher frogs should be addressed in the plan

monitoring* update. I.B.8 Flatwoods salamander: Protection of flatwoods salamanders should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.B.8.a Flatwoods salamander: The inventory of flatwoods salamanders should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.8.b Flatwoods salamander: Monitoring of flatwoods salamanders should be addressed monitoring* in the plan update. I.B.8 Florida black bear: Protection of the Florida black bear should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.B.9.a Florida black bear: The inventory of Florida black bears should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.9.b Florida black bear: Monitoring of Florida black bears should be addressed in the

plan monitoring* update. I.B.8 Pine barrens treefrog: Protection of the Pine barrens treefrog should be addressed in Protection & preservation the plan update. I.B.10.a Pine barrens treefrog: The inventory of pine barrens treefrogs should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.B.10.b Pine barrens treefrog: Monitoring of pine barrens treefrog should be addressed in the

monitoring* plan update. I.B.8 Bachman’s sparrow: Protection of Bachman’s sparrow should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.B.11.a Bachman’s sparrow: The inventory of Bachman’s sparrow should be addressed inventory* in the plan update.

J - 5

I.B.11.b Bachman’s sparrow: Monitoring of Bachman’s sparrow should be addressed in the monitoring* plan update.

I.C.2.a Seepage slope species: The inventory of seepage slope and other wetland plant species inventory should be addressed in the plan update. I.C.1.b Seepage slope species: Monitoring of seepage slope and other wetland plant species

monitoring* should be addressed in the plan update. I.B.8 Sandhill species: Protection of sandhill plant species should be addressed in the Protection & preservation plan update. I.C.2.a Sandhill species: The inventory of sandhill plant species should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.C.2.b Sandhill species: Monitoring of sandhill plant species should be addressed in the

monitoring* plan update. I.C.3 Florida pondweed: The protection/preservation of Florida pondweed should be Protection* addressed in the plan update. I.C.3.a Florida pondweed: The inventory of Florida pondweed should be addressed inventory* in the plan update. I.C.3.b Florida pondweed: Monitoring of Florida pondweed should be addressed in the

monitoring* plan update. III.B.3 Restoration: floodplain roads The restoration of floodplain roads should be addressed in the plan update. III.B.4 Restoration: aquatic systems* The restoration of aquatic systems, including water quality and siltation issues, should be addressed in the plan. III.B.5 Restoration: borrow pits The restoration of borrow pits should be addressed in the plan update. III.C.2 Aquatic habitat The management of aquatic habitat for fishing should be addressed in the plan update. III.C.3 Hunt quality The quality of hunting opportunities on the property should be addressed in the plan update. III.C.4 Fishing quality* The quality of public fishing should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.1.a Feral hogs: control* The control of feral hogs should be addressed in the plan

update. III.D.1.b Feral hogs: monitoring Monitoring of feral hogs should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.2.a Cogongrass: control The control of cogongrass should be addressed in the plan

update. III.D.2.b Cogongrass: monitoring Monitoring of cogongrass should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.3.a Japanese climbing fern: The control of Japanese climbing fern should be addressed in the

control plan update.

J - 6

III.D.3.a Japanese climbing fern: Monitoring of Japanese climbing fern should be addressed in the monitoring plan update.

III.D.4.a Chinese privet: control* The control of Chinese privet should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.4.b Chinese privet: monitoring* Monitoring of Chinese privet should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.5.a Chinese tallow: control The control of Chinese tallow should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.5.b Chinese tallow: monitoring* Monitoring of Chinese tallow should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.6.a Mimosa: control The control of mimosa should be addressed in the plan update. III.D.6.b Mimosa: monitoring Monitoring of mimosa should be addressed in the plan update. III.E.1.a Soil erosion The problems caused by soil erosion should be addressed in the plan update. III.E.3.a Ground water quality: Monitoring of ground water quality should be addressed in the plan monitoring update. III.E.3.b Ground water quantity: Monitoring of ground water quantity should be addressed in the plan monitoring update. III.E.4.a Surface water quality: Monitoring of surface water quality should be addressed in the plan monitoring* update. III.E.4.b Surface water quantity: Monitoring of surface water quantity should be addressed in the plan monitoring* update. III.F.2 Unauthorized uses: The creation of illegal roads on the forest should be addressed in Illegal roads the plan update. III.F.2 Unauthorized uses: The problem of unauthorized vehicle use on the forest should be Vehicle use addressed in the plan update. III.H.1.a Adj. Property concerns: The management problems/concerns caused by non-compliance with

BMPs on agricultural land* Best Management Practices on agricultural lands should be addressed in

the plan update.

III.H.1.b Adj. Property concerns: The management problems/concerns caused by residential Residential encroachment encroachment (garbage dumping, etc.) should be addressed in the plan update.

III.H.1.d Adj. Property concerns: The management problems/concerns caused by adjacent Adjacent vendors* vendors should be addressed in the plan update.

III.H.2 Inholdings/additions: Inholdings and additions that would optimize the boundary of the state forest should be identified in the management plan. Inadequate items: Field review

J - 7

I.B.2.a Gopher tortoise: An inventory of gopher tortoises is needed. inventory* I.B.2.b Gopher tortoise: Monitoring of gopher tortoises should be conducted. monitoring* I.B.3.a Blackmouth shiner: An inventory of blackmouth shiner is needed. inventory* I.B.3.b Blackmouth shiner: Monitoring of the blackmouth shiner should be conducted. monitoring* I.B.5.a Endemic invertebrates: A current inventory of endemic invertebrates is needed. inventory* I.B.5.b Endemic invertebrates: Monitoring of endemic invertebrates should be conducted or the monitoring* results of ongoing monitoring by outside sources should be obtained. I.B.6.a Tiger salamander: An inventory of tiger salamanders is needed. inventory* I.B.6.b Tiger salamander: Monitoring of tiger salamanders should be conducted. monitoring* I.B.7.a Gopher frog: An inventory of gopher frogs is neeed. inventory* I.B.7.b Gopher frog: Monitoring of gopher frogs should be conducted. monitoring* I.B.8.a Flatwoods salamander: An inventory of flatwoods salamanders is needed. inventory* I.B.8.b Flatwoods salamander: Monitoring of flatwoods salamanders should be conducted. monitoring* .B.9.a Florida black bear: An inventory of Florida black bears is needed. inventory* I.B.9.b Florida black bear: Monitoring of Florida black bears should be conducted.

monitoring* I.B.10.a Pine barrens treefrog: An inventory of pine barrens treefrogs is needed. inventory* I.B.10.b Pine barrens treefrog: Monitoring of pine barrens treefrog should conducted. monitoring* I.B.11.a Bachman’s sparrow: An inventory of Bachman’s sparrow is needed. inventory* I.B.11.b Bachman’s sparrow: Monitoring of Bachman’s sparrow should be conducted

monitoring* I.C.1.b Seepage slope species: Monitoring of seepage slope and other wetland plant species

monitoring* is needed.

J - 8

I.C.2.a Sandhill species: An inventory of sandhill plant species is needed inventory* I.C.2.b Sandhill species: Monitoring of sandhill plant species should be conducted.

monitoring* I.C.3 Florida pondweed: Additional protection of Florida pondweed is needed. Protection* I.C.3.a Florida pondweed: An inventory of Florida pondweed is needed. inventory* I.C.3.b Florida pondweed: Monitoring of Florida pondweed should be conducted monitoring* III.B.4 Restoration: Additional measures should be taken to restore aquatic systems, aquatic systems* including an evaluation of needs related to water quality and siltation. III.C.4 Fishing quality* The quality of public fishing should be evaluated. III.D.1.a Feral hogs: control Additional measures are needed to control feral hogs. III.D.1.b Feral hogs: monitoring Monitoring of feral hogs should be conducted. III.D.4.a Chinese privet: control* Additional measures are needed to control Chinese privet. III.D.4.b Chinese privet: monitoring* Monitoring of Chinese privet should be conducted. III.D.5.b Chinese tallow: monitoring* Monitoring of Chinese tallow should be conducted. III.E.4.a Surface water quality: More intensive sampling of surface water quality is needed, monitoring* especially in the upper watershed. III.E.4.b Surface water quantity: Because of siltation in the creeks and Blackwater River, monitoring Monitoring* of surface water quantity is needed. III.H.1.a Adj. Property concerns: Effort should be made to monitor and minimize the management

BMPs on agricultural land* problems caused by non-compliance with Best Management Practices on upstream adjacent agricultural lands.

III.H.1.d Adj. Property concerns: Effort should be made to minimize the management Adjacent vendors* problems/concerns caused by adjacent vendors.

III.I.4 Staff Additional support personnel are needed. III.I.5 Funding Additional funding is needed for maintenance and resource management. * Denotes items that occur in both plan and field review sections. Such items need only be addressed once in the plan update.

Recommendations to the managing agency The following recommendations resulted from a discussion and vote of review team members.

J - 9

1. The team recommends that GFC and DOF evaluate fish management practices,

including fertilization, to minimize downstream impacts. 2. Due to aquatic habitat loss as a result of erosion and sedimentation, the team

recommends that a comprehensive evaluation and restoration plan be prepared for DOF concerning roads and other erosion sources.

3. The team recommends that recreational vendor fees be re-evaluated to be more

commensurate with resource impacts.

4. The team recommends that DOF re-examine the CARL acquisition boundary to protect river floodplains in the Blackwater watershed.

The management plan must include responses to the checklist item that was found to be inadequate and the recommendations that are identified above.

Commendations to the managing agency

1. The team commends the local staff for their efforts to close badly eroding roads and restore them using native vegetation.

2. The team commends DOF staff for their recovery efforts and recovery management

plan for red-cockaded woodpeckers.

3. The team commends DOF staff for their exceptional accomplishments with the prescribed burn program.

4. The team commends DOF staff for their development of multiple-use plans on CARL

lands (e.g. Junipter Creek is a roadless non-hunting primitive recreation area; the Hutton parcel is a small game emphasis area with a conservative hunt format).

5. The team commends DOF staff on their great efficiency in stretching the funding they

are granted.

Is the land being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired? After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this question. All team members agreed that Guana River WMA is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Are actual management practices, including public access, in compliance with the management plan?

After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this question. All team members agreed that actual management practices, including public access, were in compliance with the management plan for this site. Managing agency response The Division of Forestry responded by letter to this review report. The response is included as Attachment 2.

J - 10

Attachment 1

Management Review Checklist Blackwater River State Forest Lease No. 3686

Instructions: Please take time to review the management plan and circle either "Yes" or "No" in the Plan Review section before the field trip. Refer to the attached excerpt from Florida Statute 253.034 regarding management plans when completing this portion of the review. During and after the field review you will be asked to evaluate the extent to which the land is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management practices are in compliance with the management plan.

Plan Review Yes = 1 Field Review

No = 0

Does the management Land Management Practices

plan sufficiently address

protection/restoration/

management needs? score Insufficient Sufficient Exceptional score I. Natural Resources A. Natural Communitites + 1. Sandhill & upland pine Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.9

+/- 2. Mesic flatwoods Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.6 + 3. Seepage slope Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.6

+/- 4. Baygall Yes No 0.3 1 2 3 2.7 - 5. Depression marsh Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.8 - 6. Floodplain swamp Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.4

+/- 7. Bottomland hardwood forest Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.6 - 8. Slope forest Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.1 9. Blackwater stream Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.0 - 10. Seepage stream Yes No 0.2 1 2 3 2.1 B. Listed animals: protection and preservation + 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 3.0 + a. Inventory Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.9 + b. Monitoring Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 2.9 - 2. Gopher tortoise & associated species Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.7 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.3 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 - 3. Blackmouth shiner Yes No 0.5 1 2 3 1.6 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 4. Bald eagle Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.1 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.3 1 2 3 1.6 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.7 5. Endemic invertebrates Yes No 0.6 1 2 3 1.6 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.5 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.3

J - 11

Attachment 1


No = 0




management needs? score Insufficient Sufficient Exceptional score 6. Tiger salamander Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 2.3 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.3 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - 7. Gopher frog Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.0 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - 8. Flatwoods salamander Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.1 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - 9. Florida black bear Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.7 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - 10. Pine barrens treefrog Yes No 0.2 1 2 3 2.0 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - 11. Bachman's sparrow Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.3 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 C. Listed plants: protection and preservation + 1. Seepage slope & baygall species Yes No 1.0 1 2 3 2.6 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.9 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.4 - 2. Sandhill species Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.8 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.2 1 2 3 1.2 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 - 3. Florida pondweed Yes No 0.5 1 2 3 1.2 - a. Inventory Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 II. Cultural Resources A. Survey Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 1.6 B. Protection Yes No 0.9 1 2 3 2.1

J - 12

Attachment 1


No = 0




management needs? score Insufficient Sufficient Exceptional score III. Resource Management A. Prescribed Fire (Nat. comm. maintenance) + 1. Area Being Burned (no. acres) Yes No 1.0 1 2 3 2.9 + 2. Frequency Yes No 1.0 1 2 3 2.6 + 3. Quality Yes No 1.0 1 2 3 2.9 B. Restoration of Disturbed Natural Communities + 1. Off-site pine plantations Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 3.0 2. Interior roads Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 2.0 - 3. Floodplain roads Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.6 - 4. Aquatic systems Yes No 0.2 1 2 3 1.2 - 5. Borrow pits Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 2.4 C. Fish and game management + 1. Upland Wildlife Habitat Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 2.9 - 2. Aquatic habitat Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 2.1

+/- 3. Hunt quality Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 2.6 - 4. Fishing quality Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.4 D. Non-native Invasive & Problem Species -- Animals -- 1. Feral hogs - a. Control Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.4 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.2 -- Plants -- 2. Cogongrass

+/- a. Control Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.6 +/- b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 2.5

3. Japanese climbing fern - a. Control Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.8 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.8 4. Chinese privet - a. Control Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.3 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.4 5. Chinese tallow - a. Control Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.6 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.5

J - 13

Attachment 1


No = 0




management needs? score Insufficient Sufficient Exceptional score 6. Mimosa - a. Control Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.6 - b. Monitoring Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.7 E. Hydrologic/Geologic Function - 1. Soil erosion/disturbances Yes No 0.3 1 2 3 1.7 2. Roads/culverts Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 2.0 3. Ground water monitoring - a. Quality Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 2.1 - b. Quantity Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 2.0 4. Surface water monitoring - a. Quality Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.0 - b. Quantity Yes No 0.1 1 2 3 1.4 F. Unauthorized Uses 1. Dumping Yes No 0.7 1 2 3 1.6 - 2. Illegal roads Yes No 0.3 1 2 3 1.9 - 3. Illegal vehicle access Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.8 G. Boundary Delineation Yes No 1.0 1 2 3 1.6 H. Adjacent Property Concerns 1. Land use - a. Agricultural BMP's Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.3 b. Easement requests Yes No 0.6 1 2 3 1.7 - c. Residential encroachment Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.7 - d. Adjacent vendors Yes No 0.0 1 2 3 1.1 - 2. Inholdings and Additions Yes No 0.4 1 2 3 1.6 I. Adequate Resources 1. Maintenance a. Waste removal 1 2 3 2.1 b. Sanitary facilities 1 2 3 2.3 2. Public Access + a. Roads 1 2 3 2.7 b. Trails 1 2 3 2.4 c. Parking 1 2 3 2.4

J - 14

Attachment 1


No = 0




management needs? score Insufficient Sufficient Exceptional score 3. Infrastructure a. Buildings 1 2 3 2.4 b. Equipment 1 2 3 1.6 - 4. Staff 1 2 3 1.1 - 5. Funding 1 2 3 1.0 + IV. Education/Public Outreach 1 2 3 2.7

Purpose for which Land was Acquired Are uses consistent with Yes = 1 purposes for which No = 0

property was acquired and other restrictions? score V. Managed Area Uses A. Existing Uses 1. Nature appreciation Yes No 1.0 2. Hiking Yes No 1.0 3. Primitive camping Yes No 1.0 4. Camping Yes No 1.0 5. Picnicking Yes No 1.0 6. Fishing Yes No 1.0 7. Hunting Yes No 1.0 8. Swimming Yes No 1.0 9. Biking Yes No 1.0 10. Boating Yes No 1.0 11. Canoeing Yes No 1.0 12. Horseback riding Yes No 1.0 13. Apiaries Yes No 1.0 14. Grazing Yes No 0.7 15. S.T.O.P. camp Yes No 1.0 16. Dog field trials Yes No 1.0 17. Conservation of water resources Yes No 1.0 18. Timber management Yes No 1.0 19. Fish hatchery Yes No 1.0 20. Seed orchard Yes No 1.0 B. Addtional Uses Proposed in Mngt Plan none

J - 15

Attachment 1

Management Review Determination

Blackwater River State Forest Lease No. 3686

1. Is the land being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired? Yes No Explanation______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

2. Are actual management practices, including public access, in compliance with the management plan? Yes No

Explanation______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

General comments______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

J - 16

Land Management Review of

Blackwater River State Forest

Lease No. 3686

December 15 - 16, 2005

Prepared by Division of State Lands Staff

William Howell, OMC Manager Keith Singleton, Land Acquisition and Management Planner

Cindy Morris, Administrative Assistant

For

Blackwater River State Forest Review Team

FINAL

March 23, 2006

Land Manager: DOF Area: 190,044 acres County: Santa Rosa Mgmt. Plan Revised: 10/16/2000 Mgmt. Plan Due: 10/16/2010

J - 17

Management Review Team Members

Agency Team member Team member Represented Appointed In attendance

DOF John Barrow John Barrow Blackwater Soil & Water CD Jack Bragg Jack Bragg Santa Rosa County Comm. Robert Cole Jeffrey Cole

FDEP Eric Schneider Eric Schneider FWCC Mike Allen Mike Allen

Conservation Organization Vernon Compton Vernon ComptonDEP FPS John McKenzie John McKenzie

Private Land Manager Mike DentzauObserver Carolyn Kindell Observer Sarah Williams, DEP, Deputy Press SecretaryObserver Aaron Deslatte, Gannett News Observer Penny Isom, DOF Observer Pat Bowman, FWCC

Process for Implementing Regional Management Review Teams

Legislative Intent and Guidance: Chapter 259.036, F. S. was enacted in 1997 to determine whether conservation, preservation, and recreation lands owned by the state Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) are being managed properly. It directs the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish land management review teams to evaluate the extent to which the existing management plan provides sufficient protection to threatened or endangered species, unique or important natural or physical features, geological or hydrological functions, and archaeological features. The teams also evaluate the extent to which the land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the adopted management plan. If a land management plan has not been adopted, the review shall consider the extent to which the land is being managed for the purposes for which it was acquired and the degree to which actual management practices are in compliance with the management policy statement and management prospectus for that property. If the land management review team determines that reviewed lands are not being managed for the purposes for which they were acquired or in compliance with the adopted land management plan, management policy statement, or management prospectus, DEP shall provide the review findings to the Board, and the managing agency must report to the Board its reasons for managing the lands as it has. A report of the review team findings are given to the managing agency under review, the Acquisition and Restoration Council, and the Governor and Cabinet.

J - 18

Review Site The management review of Blackwater River State Forest considered approximately 190,044 acres in Santa Rosa County that are managed by the DACS. The team evaluated the extent to which current management actions are sufficient, whether the land is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired, and whether actual management practices, including public access, are in compliance with the management plan. The management plan update is due on October 16, 2014.

Review Team Determination

Is the land being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired? After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this question. All team members agreed Blackwater River State Forest is being managed for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Are actual management practices, including public access, in compliance with the management plan? After completing the checklist, team members were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to this question. All team members agreed Blackwater River State Forest is in compliance with the management plan.

Commendations to the Managing Agency 1. The team commends the DOF for their outstanding ability to obtain outside funding to accomplish management objectives. (VOTE 7+, 0-) 2. The team commends the DOF for the excellent public access management and road improvements in the last five years that has led to much improved erosion control and protection of natural resources. (VOTE: 7+, 0-) 3. The team commends the manager and staff for the outstanding fire program at the forest, including emphasis on fire applications in ecotones. (VOTE 7+, 0-) 4. The team commends the DOF for the outstanding RCW management program. (VOTE 7+, 0-)

Exceptional Management Actions The following items received high scores on the review team checklist (see attachments), which indicates that management actions exceeded expectations. Exceptional management actions:

J - 19

• Management of the upland pine forest, sandhill, upland mixed forest, slope forest, seepage slope, mesic flatwoods, baygall, floodplain swamp, depression marsh, spring-run stream, blackwater stream.

• Management and protection red-cockaded woodpecker and the gopher tortoise. • All listed species of plants. • Survey, Protection & Preservation. • Area, frequency and quality of the prescribed burns. • Restoration of ruderal/roads, slash/pine plantation, and Hutton gully. • Wildlife habitat, and hunting/fishing quality. • Non-invasive animals and plants • Maintenance of roads, ditches and stream sedimentation. • Quality and quantity of ground water monitoring • Quantity of surface water monitoring. • Gates and fencing, boundary surveys and signage. • Managing impacts from expanding development. • Water resources including hydro-period alteration, water level alteration and

inholdings/additions. • Multiple-uses including timber harvesting, reforestation and site preparation. • Public access including roads, parking, boat ramps, recreational opportunities,

management of visitor impacts, interpretive facilities and signs • Environmental education and outreach programs. • Waste disposal, sanitary facilities, buildings and equipment, and staffing.

Recommendations and Checklist Findings The management plan must include responses to the recommendations and checklist items that are identified below. Recommendations The following recommendations resulted from a discussion and vote of review team members. 1. The team commends the DOF for their excellent work on erosion problems and recommends that the DOF coordinate with appropriate agencies to develop and implement a stream protection and recovery plan to address the past and present sedimentation, and recreational issues. (VOTE: 6+, 1- ) Manager’s Response: Blackwater staff will continue to works closely with a variety of agencies to address erosion and sedimentation issues on the Forest. These agencies include: the NW Florida Water Management District, Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Department of Environmental Protection and the University of Florida in developing sediment reduction and site restoration plans. 2. The team recommends that the DOF initiate ground cover restoration on areas impacted by off-site pine plantations. (VOTE: 7+, 0- )

J - 20

Manager’s Response: Blackwater has implemented a trial ground cover restoration program in cooperation with the FWCC. Targeted locations include road restoration areas and off-site slash pine restoration sites. 3. Due to the expanding development and associated problems, the team recommends that the DOF provide a law enforcement officer dedicated full time to the forest. (VOTE: 7+, 0- ) Manager’s Response: The Division will consult with the Department of Agriculture Office of Law Enforcement as the need arises. Positions are evaluated statewide and are subject to approval by the legislature. 4. The team recommends that DOF consider establishing research areas where timber harvesting and salvaging is excluded to act as control areas.(VOTE: 7+, 0- ) Manager’s Response: Site will be located and included in the next ten year management plan.

Checklist findings The following items received low scores on the review team checklist (see Attachment 1), which indicates that management actions, in the field, were insufficient (f) or that the issue was not sufficiently addressed in the management plan (p). These items need to be further addressed in the management plan update. 1. Discussion in the management plan to address the management issues related

to the protection and preservation of Sherman’s fox squirrel. (p)

Manager’s Response: Blackwater staff takes an ecosystem approach to the management of endangered species. It is not practical to address multiple endangered species on an individual basis. It should however be noted that the addition of a wildlife biologist to Blackwaters ecology unit will provide opportunities to perform limited population sampling.

2. Discussion in the management plan of the efforts to restore the Hutton gully. (p)

Manager’s Response:

It is generally agreed that management actions taken to address the Hutton gully were successful in significantly reducing erosion and sediment issues associated with this gully. Specific treatments were developed after the writing of the current management plan.

3. Discussion in the management plan to restore the stream sedimentation.(p)

J - 21

Manager’s Response: These have been addressed on a case by case basis with site specific treatment plans. Additional language will be included with the new management plan

4. Discussion in the management plan to monitor surface water

quality/quantity. (p) Manager’s Response:

This is outside of the role of the Division of Forestry. We are not mandated, staffed nor funded to be involved in these activities. We have and will continue to cooperate with outside agencies involved with water quality/quantity monitoring.

Team Member’s Comments

Natural Communities: protection and maintenance: (I.A)

• Spring water streams should be sampled from benthic fauna upstream and

downstream of managed lakes to determine impacts of liming and fertilizing. • Need inventory of slope forest and seepage bay gall, bottomland, floodplain,

depression, streams. Stream restoration is not given adequate attention. Agree with controlling fugitive sediments, but plans should be made to approach restoration.

• Exotics, particularly, privet along smaller creeks and spring runs. • Excellent management of natural communities. Through priority emphasis on

prescribed fire and reducing erosion, sedimentation through read management and restoration projects.

Listed Species: protection and preservation (I.B1, I.B.2)

• Fox squirrel population may be in decline – herbicide use??? • More attention to make instream habitat historically available to sturgeon and

macro benthic community. • Identify trends for rare plants (Stable, declining, improving)? Identify

management needs for each species. (This is not single species management. Just helps shape your overall management practices)

• Include more of the information that you currently have on gophers in the next plan update.

• Outstanding work on RCW’s and the recovery effort at BRSF. Excellent system management through prescribed fire. Agree with managing entire ecosystem and not single species. However, with rare species, it is important to monitor health and status.

Cultural Resources: (II.A; II.B)

• Working with VWT to survey and evaluate.

Prescribed Fire (Natural Community Maintenance): (III.A)

J - 22

• More funding for fire needed – restrictions with whiting field should be eliminated so burn frequency can be maximized..

• Great focus/prioritization of burn program • Outstanding prescribed fire staff. Numerous hurricanes and statewide

emergencies have led to back log of fire needs. Continue to emphasize a return to a 4 year burn rotation. Encourage support to BRSF with needed resources.

Restoration of Disturbed Natural Communities: (III.B)

• Should incorporate ground cover restoration on 25,000 acres of off-site slash that

was previously mechanically prepared. Avoid planting bahia and bermuda on roads.

• More attention to aquatic in-stream restoration needed. • Plan mentions replanting longleaf. Some areas will need ground cover

restoration. • Excellent job on off-site slash pine conversion to longleaf pine. Continue to use

lowest levels of herbicide on these sites. Use fire on natural areas to release longleaf. Where possible work to restore ground cover on these restoration sites. Also consider ground cover on areas highly impacted during hurricane recovery. (large ship trail and deck areas)

Wildlife Management (III.C)

• Good food plot program, but needs to be restricted to disturbed sites. Glad to see emphasis during hunting season of stopping illegal road usage and establishment of new roads. Continue to emphasize as a priority.

Non-native Invasive and Problem Species: (III.D)

• Invasive aquatic plants need to be considered and monitored primarily in lakes. • Glad to see as a forest wide priority. Continue to emphasize eradication of Cogan

grass, Chinese tallow, Japanese climbing fern, mimosa and Chinese privet. Carefully monitor and control hog population due to threat hogs pose to seepage slopes and bogs.

Hydrologic/Geologic Function (III.E.1, III.E.2, III.E.3,)

• More funding needed to setup a significant program. (ground water quality) • More funding needed to setup a significant monitoring program. (surface water

quality) • Need more culverts, more rock on roads. • Like to see horse use of Coldwater Creek reopen. • Significant need is not necessary. • Biological stream condition assessment should be coordinated through the DEP

northwest district office for Blackwater River, Coldwater and Juniper Creeks.

J - 23

• Include BRSF road study in appendix. Excellent progress been made on hardening/paving roads and closing of unneeded roads.

• Continue to work with NWFWMD to monitor especially in rapidly developing areas of the forest.

• Continue to cooperate with DEP to trace water quality problems with BRSF, high quality creeks and river. Sediments that continually show problems, should be addressed further by DEP. Continue to monitor downstream effect of creeks of lake fertilization. Encouraged by change since last review.

Resource Protection: (III.F)

• Need more funding for all aspects of section F. • Need more law enforcement as local area grows around forest. • Plan should address fencing in areas where serious encroachments have

occurred, such as dumping, boundary disputes, unauthorized access points. • There will be a continued need for law enforcement on the state forest. • Continue boundary surveying to solve long term boundary problems. Increased

law enforcement from DACS & FFWCC helping with forest abuses and vandalism. Encourage continued emphasis on illegal road usage.

Adjacent Property Concerns (III.G)

• Agencies need incompatible uses guidance from DSL. • Coordination with FDEP for knowledge of wetland impacts from adjacent private

development. • Great job by BRSF and DOF on securing key inholdings and additions. Also

strong support by staff for priority Florida Forever projects. With rapidly increasing development, this long term protection of land becomes even more time sensitive and important.

Public Access and Education: (IV.1; IV.2; IV.3; IV.4)

• Plan should clearly explain logistics of “Uneven Aged Management. • Reduce pesticide use as site prep – Go beyond standard BMPS to be an

example for other public lands. • Need a place in the southwest to get info and maps. • Closing of roads is proceeding well. • Continue to emphasize off-site species removal and uneveraged management of

longleaf pine. Recover ground cover on restoration sites as possible. Increase recreational opportunities compatible with resource protection. Diversity opportunities. Continue to reduce inappropriate pines in sensitive areas, such as creek river banks.

Management Resources: (V.1.A, V.1.B, V.2.A, V.2.B, V.3, V.4)

• More modern equipment needs. • Road equipment.

J - 24

• Buildings and equipment well maintained. Encourage continued funding to keep a strong fire and road maintenance fleet.

• Need more OPS . Need more ecologists and biologists. • Good staffing, however a full time law enforcement officer assigned exclusively to

the forest is needed. • Excellent staff, knowledgeable and dedicated. Would like to see stronger funding

of fire staff to allow BRSF to catch up with prescribed fire due to backlog caused by multiple hurricanes and recovery. Pleased to see BRSF hire a biologist to support Ecology Unit priorities. Also applaud cooperative efforts by DOF and FFWCC on management of forest. Encourage continued OPS support of priority projects and/or need, such as Ecology Unit.

Managed Area Uses: (VI. A, VI.B)

• More education to users on respecting natural resources. • Like the horse back riding in forest. • Would like to see additional long term planning associated with managed area

uses and an increase in trail development, particularly for underrepresented uses. Encourage a good representation of both single and multiple use trails. Also would like to see additional areas available year round for possible recreation and wildlife viewing.

• Encourage increased emphasis on native based recreation that is compatible with resource protection. Emphasize working with user groups to increase trail development and maintenance. Do no allow recreational uses in compatible with resource protection, including protection of ground cover and soil, such as OHV use. Assist other partners/landowners that may be able to provide appropriate OHV recreation areas. Would like to see a recreation area developed, potentially on newly acquired land, for possible, non-restored recreation and camping. Greatly appreciative of the Juniper Creek Primitive Area.

Exceptional Management Actions

• .Exceptional use of outside funding to meet management objectives. • Acquire outside funding is good. Road and public access, fire management,

RCW. • Excellent job of Rx fire and endangered species management. • Road hardening and erosion control, particularly in sensitive areas. Management

and recovery of RCW. Aggressive approval toward control of invasive species. Conversion of off-site slash pine plantations to longleaf pine. Cooperation with FFWCC on game and non game management. Outstanding fire management plan and fire staff. Excellent overall resource management. Improving control of public access through road and recreation management. Increasing emphasis on non game management.

Areas of Insufficient Management

J - 25

• Law Enforcement – Need for law enforcement dedicated to forest as use increases.

• Ground Cover Restoration – Continue great restoration effort of off-site plantations through restoration of ground cover.

• Within Stream Management – Great job on reducing erosion and sedimentation. Need same effort on management of in stream woody debris.

• Prescribed Fire – Excellent plan and managers. Hurricanes have led to back log of areas needing prescribed fire. Additional resources needed to help, BRSF catch up with prescribed fire. May need accurate fire crew for several years.

Recommendations for Improving Management of this Site:

• Very well managed forest. Hurricanes have led to additional resource needs in the area of fire and potentially invasives.

• Will also have to watch carefully large timber road network for any new erosion areas due to successful salvage effort.

• Also need to carefully monitor public access in these areas to make sure no new roads are started by the public.

J - 26

PLAN REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVERAGE

Natural Communities ( I.A ) Upland Pine Forest I.A.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Sandhill I.A.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Upland Mixed Forest I.A.3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.86 Slope Forest I.A.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Seepage Slope I.A.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Mesic Fltwoods I.A.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Baygall I.A.7 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Bottomland Forest I.A.8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Floodplain Swamp I.A.9 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Depression Marsh I.A.10 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.86 Spring-run Stream I.A.11 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Blackwater Stream 1.A12 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86

Listed species: Protection & Preservation ( I.B ) Animals Red-Cockaded Woodpecker I.B.1a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Gopher Tortoise I.B.1b 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.57 Sherman's Fox Squirrel I.B.1c 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.50 Plants All Listed Species I.B.2a 0 0 1 1 1 0.60 Cultural Resources (Archeological & Historic sites) (II.A,II.B ) Survey II.A 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Protection & Preservation II.B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

Resource Management, Prescribed Fire (III.A) Area being burned III.A.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Frequency III.A.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Quality III.A.3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.71

Restoration of Ruderal Areas (III.B) Ruderal/Roads III.B.1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Slash/Pine Plantation III.B.2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Hutton Gully III.B.3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.50

Wildlife Management (III.C) Wildlife Habitat III.C.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Hunting/Fishing Quality III.C.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

J - 27

Non-Invasive & Problem Species (III.D) Animals III.D.1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.71 Plants III.D.2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.71 Hydrologic/Geologic function Hydro-Alteration (III.E.1) Roads/culverts III.E.1a 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.71 Ditches III.E.1b 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.71 Stream Sedimentation III.E.1c 0 1 0 1 0.50 Ground Water Monitoring (III.E.2) Quality III.E.2a 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.57 Quantity III.E.2b 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.57

Surface Water Monitoring (III.E.3) Quality III.E.3a 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.43 Quantity III.E.3b 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.43

Resource Protection (III.F) Boundary Survey III.F.1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Gates & Fencing III.F2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.71 Signage III.F.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Law Enforcement Presence III.F.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Adjacent Property Concerns (III.G) Land Use Expanding Development III.G.1a 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.83

Water Resources Hydro-period Alteration III.G.2a 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.67 Water Level alteration III.G.2b 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.67

Inholdings/additions III.G.3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.71

Forest Management (III.H) Timber Harvesting III.H.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Reforestation III.H.2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Site Preparation III.H.3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86

Public Access & Education

Public Access Roads IV.1.a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Parking IV.1.b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Boat Ramps IV.1.c 1 1.00 Recreational Opportunities IV.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Mgmt. of Visitor Impacts IV.3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 Interpretive facilities and IV.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

J - 28

signs Environmental education/outreach IV.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Managed Area Uses Existing Uses Canoeing VI.A.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Picnicking VI.A.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Swimming VI.A.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Horseback Riding VI.A.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Hiking VI.A.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Off-road Bicycling VI.A.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Canoeing VI.A.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Uses Proposed in Mgmt. Plan Nature-based Rec. Opportunities VI.B .1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00

J - 29

FIELD REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVERAGE

Natural Communities ( I.A ) Upland Pine Forest I.A.1 4 4 5 3 5 4 4 4.14 Sandhill I.A.2 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.43 Upland Mixed Forest I.A.3 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 4.00 Slope Forest I.A.4 3 3 5 3 5 4 5 4.00 Seepage Slope I.A.5 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4.14 Mesic Fltwoods I.A.6 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4.14 Baygall I.A.7 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 4.29 Bottomland Forest I.A.8 2 2 3 2 5 4 5 3.29 Floodplain Swamp I.A.9 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 3.86 Depression Marsh I.A.10 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 4.00 Spring-run Stream I.A.11 2 2 5 5 4 5 5 4.00 Blackwater Stream I.A.12 4 2 5 4 5 5 4 4.14 Listed species: Protection & Preservation ( I.B ) Animals Red-Cockaded Woodpecker I.B.1a 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.71 Gopher Tortoise I.B.1b 4 2 2 X 5 4 4 3.50 Sherman's Fox Squirrel I.B.1c 3 2 3 X 4 3 4 3.17 Gulf Sturgeon I.B.1d X 1 1 X 4 2.00 Plants All Listed Species I.B.2a X 2 5 X 4 5 X 4.00 Cultural Resources (Archeolgical & Historic sites) (II.A,II.B ) Survey II.A 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 4.29 Protection & Preservation II.B 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4.43 Resource Management, Prescribed Fire (III.A) Area being burned III.A.1 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 4.14 Frequency III.A.2 4 4 5 3 4 4 4.00 Quality III.A.3 4 3 5 5 4 4 4.17 Restoration of Ruderal Areas (IIII.B) Ruderal/Roads III.B.1 X 3 5 4 3 4 5 4.00 Slash/Pine Plantation III.B.2 X 3 5 3 4 3 4 3.67 Hutton Gully III.B.3 X 4 5 X 5 5 4.75 Wildlife Management Wildlife Habitat III.B.1 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.57 Hunting/Fishing Quality III.B.2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.57

J - 30

Non-Invasive & Problem Species (III.D) Animals III.B.1 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.43 Plants III.B.2 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 3.86 Hydrologic/Geologic function Hydro-Alteration (III.E.1) Roads/culverts III.E.1a 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4.14 Ditches III.E.1b 4 3 5 4 4 5 4.17 Stream Sedimentation III.E.1c X 2 4 5 4 4 3.80 Ground Water Monitoring (III.E.2) Quality III.E.2a X 1 5 X 5 5 4.00 Quantity III.E.2b X 1 5 X 5 5 4.00

Surface Water Monitoring (III.E.3) Quality III.E.3a X 2 3 X 4 4 3.25 Quantity III.E.3b X 2 3 X 4 5 3.50

Resource Protection (III.F) Boundary Survey III.F.1 3 2 5 3 3 4 5 3.57 Gates & Fencing III.F.2 3 3 5 4 3 4 5 3.86 Signage III.F.3 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4.43 Law Enforcement Presence III.F.4 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3.00 Adjacent Property Concerns (III.G) Land Use Expanding Development III.G.1.a X 3 4 X 4 3 5 3.80 Water Resources Hydro-period Alteration III.G.2a 2 5 X 4 4 5 4.00 Water Level alteration III.G.2b 3 5 X 4 4 5 4.20 Inholdings/additions III.G.3 5 3 5 X 4 4 5 4.33 Forest Management Timber Harvesting III.H.1 3 3 5 4 4 4 3.83 Reforestation III.H.2 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.33 Site Preparation III.H.3 5 3 5 5 5 4 4.50

Public Access & Education Public Access-Maintenance Roads IV.1.a 5 4 5 5 3 5 4.50 Parking IV.1.b 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.67 Boat Ramps IV.1.c 5 4 5 5 4.75 Recreational Opportunities IV.2 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.71 Mgmt. of Visitor Impacts IV.3 1 3 4 5 4 4 4 3.57 Interpretive facilities and IV.4 3 5 5 5 3 4 3 4.00

J - 31

signs Environmental education/outreach IV.5 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.29 Management Resources Maintanance Waste disposal V.1.a 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4.29 Sanitary facilities V.1.b 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4.14 Infrastructure Buildings V.2.a 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.71 Equipment V.2.b 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 4.14 Staff V.3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4.00 Funding V.4 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3.14

J - 32

EXHIBIT K

Management Plan Advisory Group Summary

Blackwater River State Forest (BRSF) 10-Year Resource Management Plan

Management Plan Advisory Group (MPAG) Public Hearing Summary

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Student Center, Building 4200,

Pensacola State College, Milton Campus, 5988 Highway 90, Milton, FL 32583

MPAG Members Present: Affiliation: Ricky Jones Florida Forest Service, Forestry Resource Administrator Trent Mathews Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) District

Conservationist for the Blackwater Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)

Darryl Williams NRCS District Conservationist for Yellow River SWCD Matt Smith for Barbara Almario Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Field

Biologist James Furman Department of Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) Tom Cathey RMS, Resource Management Service, LLC Dr. Kimberly Bohn University of Florida Associate Professor, Silviculture and

Forest Ecology Peggy Baker Frances M. Weston Audubon Society Brenda Foreman Equestrian Representative

MPAG Members Absent: Affiliation: Ferlain Hoover Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Park

Manager Blackwater River State Park Mark W. Gibson Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station (NAS)

Pensacola/Whiting Field W.D. “Don” Salter Santa Rosa County Commissioner, District 3 Wayne Harris Okaloosa County Commissioner, District 1 Barbara Albrecht University of West Florida, Center for Environmental

Diagnostics & Bioremediation Watershed Coordinator Vernon Compton Longleaf Alliance

Members of the General Public Present: Affiliation: Nancy Model Resident, President of Floridale Wild Beautiful & Clean

Association Roger Upman T.R. Miller Mill Company William M. Moore Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Posse Wallis Mahute UPA Lauren Coogle Blackwater, Santa Rosa & Coldwater Youth Fox Hunts Leslie K. Pittman Resident

K - 1

Mary Pittman Resident Tom McMillan T.R. Miller Mill Company James Coleman Southeastern Doghunters Association Ed Williamson Florida Trail Association Medora Mullins Five Flags Arabian Horse Association, Friends of Florida

State Forests Helen Wigersma Florida Trail Association, Western Gate Chapter Marsha Fuqua Concerned Citizen Brett Williams Concerned Citizen Kyle Holley Santa Rosa County Tourist Development Council Board Kevin M. Smith University of Florida Student Dwayne King Land Owner Holly Kimberl Floridale Wild Beautiful & Clean Association Charles Greene Floridale Wild Beautiful & Clean Association FFS Staff Present: Affiliation: Tom LeDew Florida Forest Service, Blackwater Forestry Center Manager Craig Iversen Florida Forest Service, Forestry Supervisor II Dave Creamer Florida Forest Service, Forestry Resource Administrator Cori Hermle Florida Forest Service, Land Planning Specialist ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing: The Public Hearing was convened at 6:17 pm by LeDew. Nine (9) MPAG members and 19 interested citizens were in attendance for the public hearing. LeDew started by thanking the MPAG members for attending. He then turned the hearing over to Hermle who would facilitate the public hearing. Hermle explained the purpose for Wednesday’s public hearing. She gave an overview of the development process of a ten-year resource management plan including its history. It was explained that the ten-year resource management plan should not be viewed as an operational plan but conceptual in its design. Hermle stated that the hearing would be broken down into three sections: 1) a PowerPoint presentation, 2) question and answer session related to the PowerPoint, and 3) public testimony on the draft management plan. She said that the MPAG members were to listen to public comments at the Wednesday and Thursday night public hearings and would discuss those comments at Friday’s meeting. Iversen then presented highlights of the management plan via a PowerPoint presentation. Iversen’s presentation gave an overview of Blackwater River State Forest (BRSF), accomplishments over the past ten years and goals and proposals for BRSF for the next ten years. LeDew suggested a brief five minute break before continuing on to the question and answer session. Returning from the break, the MPAG members introduced themselves to the members of the public present. Hermle opened the floor to questions or comments by the public.

K - 2

Below is a summary of comments from the public hearing: Holley asked in what areas are the flatwoods salamander located in the Yellow River Ravines area. Iversen replied that there is one pond located on the edge of the Yellow Rivers swamp and is located in a pine flatwoods transition area. Holley asked what the current carrying capacity of the forest was and how the recreational carrying capacity was calculated. Creamer replied that the forest gets roughly 200,000 visitors a year. He said that calculating the exact number of visitors to the forest is difficult because there are numerous ways to enter the forest and all the in-holdings on the forest. Dividing that visitor estimate by 365 days would give you the current carrying capacity of the forest. Kimberl asked about endangered species on the forest, specifically Florida panthers or ivory billed woodpeckers. She asked if there was any plan to survey the forest for endangered or threatened species. Iversen replied that FFS working in cooperation with FWC for the wildlife management areas. Most of the surveying and monitoring work is done by FWC. BRSF staff is more in charge of managing habitat and habitat goals are more focused on restoration. Iversen mentioned work that FFS staff has done with red-cockaded woodpeckers on the forest. Smith (FWC) said that FWC doesn’t currently conduct surveys for Florida panthers or ivory billed woodpeckers on the forest, but is on the lookout for such species. FWC does investigate any reported sightings of threatened or endangered species by members of the public. Mary Pittman asked about plants and the longleaf pine ecosystem, and if there is anything else planted out there besides pines. Iversen replied with information about longleaf pine and pyrogenic plan communities. Longleaf pine is also a source of revenue for the forest. Pittman said she appreciated thinning efforts to reduce the incidence of wildfire. She asked why all the big oak trees were removed. Iversen replied that the oaks are important as a food source and for wildlife cavities. The oaks are naturally regenerating and can be harvested sustainably. Hardwood removal on the forest is focused on fire excluded areas in order to assist in returning prescribe fire to those areas. Williams asked if there were any feral hogs on the forest and if they were increasing or decreasing in numbers. LeDew replied that hogs are currently present on the forest. Trapping is utilized on fragile or important areas of the forest. Hunting of feral hogs is also allowed on the forest. Kimberl asked if there were any railroad sites on the forest. Iversen provided some information on rail lines located on the forest, and pointed out what measures the FFS takes to protect and preserve such sites. Hermle stated that the questions appeared to be general questions about the forest and not specific questions about the PowerPoint presentation. She asked the group if there were any other questions that related to the PowerPoint presentation. With no further questions, Hermle said the public hearing would transition to the public testimony phase. Below is a summary of comments received: Model wanted clarification on four issues. She asked for more information on page 15 (Section II. B. 4. Revenue Producing Activities) of the draft plan that discussed oil and gas development.

K - 3

Hermle read out loud the portion Model was referring to. Hermle pointed out that the Division of State Lands, with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, oversees the execution of such leases. Iversen provided background information on the oil and gas exploration that was conducted on the forest. Model replied that the communities surrounding the forest have some concerns about such leases. She asked about how the state goes about acquiring adjacent lands to the forest and what citizens can do to assist with the acquisition process. Hermle provided some information about the Florida Forever program and the acquisition process. Hermle pointed out that funding for land acquisition has not been available for the last several years. Model asked about adding in additional equestrian trails, possibly on the recently acquired Yellow River Ravines area. Creamer replied that FFS staff is having difficulty maintaining the large number of trails currently available on the forest. He suggested the possibility of partnering with local user groups to assist in maintenance of equestrian trails. Model asked if there were any plans to add additional recreational opportunities on the Yellow River Ravines area. Creamer said that the Florida Trail group is currently installing a trail system for the National Scenic Trail. Model asked about installation of new cell phone towers on the forest. Iversen provided some information on linear facilities on the forest. LeDew asked if she was hoping to improved cell phone reception in her area. She said that the lights on the towers are very distracting at night. LeDew replied that there were currently no plans for new cell towers to be installed on the forest. Mahute asked what affect a 168 acre lined construction and demolition debris landfill, less than one mile from the Blackwater River, would have on management of the forest. She asked if the MPAG members would support actions to prevent Santa Rosa County from opening the landfill. The landfill was issued a permit by DEP, and analysis by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) says that any outflows from that landfill would flow directly into the Blackwater River. She asked if the FFS or the MPAG members would stand behind the public in their attempts to revoke the permit for this landfill. LeDew said that he was unaware of such plans and that he would look into the issue. He asked her for contact information so he could look into the issue. Pittman asked about fracking on the forest. LeDew said that the geology on the forest is not conducive to fracking activities. Mahute asked if there was any language in Florida statute that forbids fracking. LeDew said he was unaware of such language. Pittman asked if the oil companies inject chemicals and water into the ground to extract the oil. LeDew replied that he believes oil companies inject steam into the ground to extract the oil. Moore provided a written statement of his comments, along with letters voicing support for his suggestions. He asked that a copy be included with the hearing minutes. Moore voiced his approval for the draft 10 year management plan for the forest, but requested that more details be provided in the plan for how recreational improvements would be implemented. He asked for additional equestrian trails and a camping area that would allow horses. Moore said that the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Posse is willing to assist with routine maintenance of equestrian trails or facilities.

K - 4

Fuqua asked if oil and gas extraction is allowed on the forest, what potential impact would there be on recreational use, especially the hunting area north of Highway 4. Iversen replied that of the 19 permitted drilling sites on the forest, only a handful was productive wells. The well and production site took up a small amount of acreage. Hunting was allowed in the area and prescribe burns were allowed to burn right up to the well site.

Holley stated that he works with the local tourism development council on county recreation. He said that there was strong equestrian interest in Santa Rosa County. He pointed out that the forest is one of the few places in the area that allows field trials and for people to run their dogs. He asked that on areas north of Highway 4 there be a continued focus on sharing recreation opportunities between user groups. Holley asked if there were any plans to add gopher mitigation areas to the forest. Smith (FWC) replied that he wasn’t aware of any proposed sites but that he would look into the issue.

Holley asked if any portions of the forest would be liquidated. Hermle provided information on how state owned land is surplussed and pointed out that the management plan states there is no property on the forest deemed suitable for surplussing. Iversen said that old tower sites not connected to the forest may be surplussed. Holley said that about the excavation and borrow pits, and if they would possibly be surplussed and used as debris or landfill sites. LeDew said none of those areas are being considered for surplussing. Jones pointed out that the areas where borrow pits are located have reverter clauses on them that would limit the ability to surplus those areas. Hermle provided clarification on what it means for a piece of land to have a reverter clause on it.

Holley asked about hydrological restoration. He wondered if there was a specific hydrological plan for the forest and if groundwater or recharge areas are addressed in such a plan. Iversen replied that the focus for hydrology on BRSF is focused more on surface run-off and sediment getting into rivers or water sources. Holley asked if supply wells would be installed on the forest. LeDew replied that the NWFWMD monitors water quality on the forest. Holley asked if the FFS would support having supply wells installed on the forest. LeDew replied that FFS staff works closely with NWFWMD on water issues. Holley asked where the monitoring wells are located on the forest. LeDew said that the entire forest is monitored.

Holley asked if there was some way for the public to provide input on the operations plans for the forest, such as the recreation plan. Creamer replied that there isn’t a public forum to discuss the recreation plan, but pointed out that the public can provide suggestions at any time. Creamer said that there is a liaison panel that meets twice a year, and the panel members provide input and recommendations.

Hermle asked if there were any additional comments of questions. She thanked everyone for attending and for comments received. The hearing was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K - 5

K - 6

K - 7

K - 8

K - 9

K - 10

K - 11

June 5, 2013

Craig IversenBlackwater River State ForestBlackwater Forestry Center11650 Munson HighwayMilton, FL 32570

Dear Mr. Iversen

RE: Blackwater River State Forest Ten-Year Resource Management Plan

I appreciate this opportunity to review and respond to the management plan. I am a member of the Western Gate Chapter, Florida Trail Association (FTA) and am an active user of the Forest, volunteering to help maintain sections of the Florida National Scenic Trail Sidetrail in addition to hiking with friends and other members of the FTA.

I am strongly supportive of the general mission as stated and of each of the management strategies as outlined in Section I.A.

1. For Section C Goals/Objectives, I offer these general comments:• Goal 1. Sustainable Forest Management: I strongly support the concept of a rotating tree

planting cycle (“uneven aged”) to provide the type of tree canopy and understory that mimics a natural forest environment. I also welcome the restoration plan for a healthy long-leaf pine/wiregrass culture. As a hiker, I can say that a natural rather than a “tree farm” look to the landscape greatly contributes to a positive hiking experience.

• Goal 2. Public Access and Recreational Opportunities: Objectives 3, 5 and 8. As a member of the FTA, I would welcome the opportunity ◦ to assist with the development of a 5-Year Outdoor Recreation Plan; ◦ to work with BRSF, USFS and DEP on improving the Florida National Scenic Trail,

developing connectors and appropriate access points related to both the Yellow River Ravines section and Conecuh (AL) National Forest; and

◦ to discuss the possibility of developing connecting loop trails to improve day-hike opportunities

• Goal 3. Habitat Restoration and Improvement: Objectives 3 and 6. I support the commitment to long-leaf pine restoration and applaud the planned inventory of the natural habitats of Yellow River Ravines.

• Goal 4. Species Maintenance. . .Population Restoration: I am strongly supportive of all efforts to protect and restore native flora and fauna and to inhibit invasive non-native species.

2. Other Issues◦ Multiple Use: I applaud the efforts of BRSF staff to balance the many demands from

multiple constituencies for use of forest resources, keeping as its primary focus the protection of overall forest health and native ecosystems. As a member of the hiking community, I appreciate the efforts to develop alternative trails for horse, bicycling and OHV communities, allowing hikers to use narrow, natural footpaths without the dangers inherent in sharing a multi-use path and without the stressors on the natural environment

K - 12

that are created by multi-use activity. Since each constituency has specific needs, I would encourage inclusion of a statement in the Management Plan to the effect that special use trails should be designed and maintained in ways that address those special needs and that trails not be allowed in environments where natural resources might be endangered or destroyed by continued use.

◦ Mineral Resources: I acknowledge that gas and oil wells have been active in the past in the forest and that forest management has overseen effective reclamation of those areas of operation. I continue, however, to have a preference for no gas or oil wells in the forest, but recognize that the possibility of new well development may occur in the future. Should that occur, I ask that the method of extraction be carefully scrutinized to ensure that there will be no damage to groundwater, ground structure, threatened and/or endangered species, or the natural environment. In particular, since the process known as “fracking” appears to be detrimental to natural resources, I would suggest consideration of including a statement in the Management Plan that the “fracking process,” using current technology, not be allowed.

Overall, I appreciate the extensive research and effort that has gone into the creation of this draft Ten-Year Management Plan. It appears to be quite thorough, stresses the use of Best Management Practices in preserving the natural resources of our beautiful Forest for generations to come, and addresses most of the issues of concern to me. Thank you for this opportunity to share my comments and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely yours,

Helen Wigersma

Helen Wigersma3877 Flintwood RdPensacola, FL 32504(850) [email protected]

K - 13


Management Plan Advisory Group (MPAG)

Public Hearing Summary Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 6:00 pm

at the Okaloosa County Extension Office 3098 Airport Rd, Crestview, FL 32539

MPAG Members Present: Affiliation: Ricky Jones Florida Forest Service, Forestry Resource Administrator Darryl Williams NRCS District Conservationist for Yellow River SWCD Matt Smith for Barbara Almario Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Field

Biologist James Furman Department of Air Force, Eglin AFB Tom Cathey RMS, Resource Management Service, LLC Dr. Kimberly Bohn University of Florida Associate Professor, Silviculture and

Forest Ecology Barbara Albrecht University of West Florida, Center for Environmental

Diagnostics & Bioremediation Watershed Coordinator Brenda Foreman Equestrian Representative Vernon Compton Longleaf Alliance MPAG Members Absent: Affiliation: Trent Mathews NRCS District Conservationist for the Blackwater SWCD Ferlain Hoover Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Park

Manager Blackwater River State Park Mark W. Gibson Department of the Navy, NAS Pensacola/Whiting Field W.D. “Don” Salter Santa Rosa County Commissioner, District 3 Wayne Harris Okaloosa County Commissioner, District 1 Peggy Baker Frances M. Weston Audubon Society Members of the General Public Present: Affiliation: Margaret Benner Audubon Freida Cook Resident James Wells Resident Pat Rocki Concerned Citizen Mike Rocha Resident Tom Moody Resident/ Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse Carol Moody Resident/ Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse Donna Curry Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse Carole Tebay Frances M. Weston Audubon Society Heather Delfo Resident/Equestrian Tonya Delfo Resident

K - 16

Dana Sillars Resident Jane Byers Resident Rhonda Otto Resident Bill Graham Resident/Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse Gina Graham Resident/Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse Terry Bays Concerned Citizen Joann MacDonald Resident Darlene Culler Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse Rose LaBean Equestrian Kathleen Reed Concerned Citizen Mary McFadden Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse Medora Mullins Five Flags Arabian Horse Association, Friends of Florida

State Forests FFS Staff Present: Affiliation: Tom LeDew Florida Forest Service, Blackwater Forestry Center Manager Craig Iversen Florida Forest Service, Forestry Supervisor II Cori Hermle Florida Forest Service, Land Planning Specialist ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing: The Public Hearing was convened at 6:04 pm by LeDew. Nine (9) MPAG members and 23 interested citizens were in attendance for the public hearing. LeDew started by thanking the MPAG members for attending. He then turned the hearing over to Hermle who would facilitate the public hearing. Hermle explained the purpose for Thursday’s public hearing. She gave an overview of the approval process of a ten-year resource management plan including its history. It was explained that the ten-year resource management plan should not be viewed as an operational plan but conceptual in its design. She stated that Iversen would give a PowerPoint presentation, with a question and answer session to follow. She said that the MPAG members were to listen to public comments at the Wednesday and Thursday night public hearings and would discuss those comments at Friday’s meeting. Iversen then presented highlights of the management plan via a PowerPoint presentation. Iversen’s presentation gave an overview of Blackwater River State Forest (BRSF), accomplishments over the past ten years and goals and proposals for BRSF for the next ten years. Iversen suggested a brief five minute break before continuing on to the question and answer session. Returning from the break, the MPAG members introduced themselves to the members of the public present. Hermle opened the floor to questions or comments by the public. Below is a summary of comments from the public hearing: MacDonald asked if longleaf pine is the most valuable pine tree species. Compton replied that it is more a matter of the right tree species for the right place.

K - 17

Otto said that she enjoys BRSF and riding her horse on the forest. She likes how the forest is being currently operated and believes that the field staff is doing a good job. She thanked the FFS staff for allowing horses on the trail system. Sillars asked if any of the newly acquired areas would be opened up for equestrian users. LeDew replied that would depend on legislative funding. He said that managing the recreational opportunities currently on the forest is a struggle. FFS staff is willing to cooperate with volunteer groups for trail maintenance. Cook said that she had problems with the rock currently being utilized on the forest roads. She mentioned that she and fellow residents have had issues with flat tires on their vehicles. She asked if there was another type of road surface that could be used instead of the rock. Sillars asked if equestrian users can ride anywhere on the forest or were limited to specific tracts. LeDew replied that equestrian users can ride on any posted legal road on the forest. Compton pointed out that the Florida Friends of State Forests produces a map of all the legal roads on the forest and pointed out locations where the maps can be purchased. Cook asked about why roads were closed. LeDew replied that roads are usually closed due to erosion issues, and that foot or equestrian traffic wasn’t allowed on closed roads. Bill Graham said that he was a member of the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Posse, and asked if equestrian groups could sponsor certain trails and maintain them. LeDew said that user groups could sponsor trails and assist with maintenance. He said any interested parties should come to the state forest office in order to coordinate volunteer efforts. Cook asked why the trails aren’t shared by various user groups, but instead are single use trails such as equestrian, biking or hiking only. LeDew replied that each trail has a carrying capacity and are designed for specific uses. Cook pointed out that other states design trails that are to be used by multiple types of user groups. Hermle mentioned that state-wide the preference of many user groups is to have such single-use trails instead of multiple-use trails. Iversen pointed out that the longleaf trail which is being developed in cooperation with DEP’s Greenways and Trails is designed as a multiple-use trail. LeDew said that the trail was developed with the assistance of counties and various user groups, and runs from Whiting Field all the way to the Blackwater River State Park. Tebay said that she likes the trails on the forest. She said the draft plan didn’t mention that the state forest was part of a wildlife connector, and should be included as a unique feature in the management plan. There are birds that are at high risk of becoming endangered, and she was wondering if there were any management actions that could be done to limit the possibility of those birds becoming endangered. LeDew replied that the focus is on habitat and restoration of that habitat through the use of prescribed fire. Tebay mentioned that it appears there are invasive plants like sickle pod growing on the food plots in the forest and suggested that the food plots should be seeded with native grasses instead of seed crops. She said that on page 51 of the draft plan that American Beech is mentioned as being part of the uplands of the forest, and asked where American Beech is located. Jones replied that American Beech would likely be found in the northeast portion of the forest. Tebay said the draft plan mentioned the possibility that cattle

K - 18

grazing leases could be used on the forest, and asked where the cattle would be allowed on the forest. LeDew replied that in the past the cattle were allowed to free range over the entire forest, but due to high coliform counts in the water the cattle were removed from the forest. If cattle leases were allowed today the cattle would be limited to specific areas on the forest, and there would be restrictions in place in the lease. To date there has been no interest from cattle farmers for the types of forage available on the forest for cattle. Hermle pointed out that many of the cattle leases on other state forests are on improved or old pasture lands. Cook volunteered historical details on cattle grazing previously allowed on the forest. Reed asked if there were any plans to raise native wild species on the forest in order to generate revenue, such as bringing buffalo back to the forest. LeDew said he wasn’t sure that was a possibility and referred the question to FWC. Smith (FWC) said he wasn’t familiar with such a concept. Hermle spoke about DEP’s efforts to thin the buffalo herd on Paynes Prairie Preserve State Park due to frequent escape attempts by the buffalo. The buffalo were causing property damage to neighboring communities when they would escape the park. Culler detailed her experiences with equestrian trails available from when she previously lived in Ohio. She said there weren’t many places to ride horses in the area, and asked why horses weren’t allowed to go across the water. LeDew replied that horses weren’t allowed in creeks on the forest due to past difficulties. Many people use the creeks for canoeing and other forms of recreation, and in the past there were conflicts between user groups about horses being allowed in the water. Culler asked if it was written in Florida statute that horses weren’t allowed in the water, and LeDew replied that it was an agency policy. Wells asked if horses not being allowed in water only applied to the Coldwater Tract or if it applied to the entire forest. LeDew answered that it applied to the entire forest, and that compromises must be made to satisfy all the user groups who use the forest. LeDew said that the state Health Department monitors water quality for bacterial counts. Cook asked if the Blackwater River is still the cleanest river in the state and LeDew replied that he wasn’t sure but that the river is pretty clean. MacDonald said that the water available for horses in the camping area had high sulfur content and that the horses refuse to drink it. She asked if horses would be allowed to drink from the river or if maybe a filter could be attached to the water supply. LeDew replied that FFS staff would look into adding a filter. Sellers pointed out that she has to use a filter on the water supply available at the campground due to the high sulfur content. Curry said that she was willing to adopt a trail to assist in trail maintenance and to keep trails open for equestrian use. She expressed concern about there being limitations in the area for trails that were available to equestrians. She encouraged strong enforcement by FFS staff in collection of the day use fee. She asked if more entrances could be installed for the trails, and gave suggestions for revenue generating ideas on the forest. She requested access to the water and for more equestrian trails to be installed. Curry said that equestrian users would be willing to install trails. Delfo said that she assists on maintaining trails when she uses them, clearing fallen debris and such. She said that she knows of other trail users would be willing to assist with trail maintenance.

K - 19

Reed asked about oil and gas drilling on the forest. She had concerns about the viability of drilling for oil on the forest. She requested that a news article from CNBC be included in the meeting minutes. Reed expressed concerns about possible fracking activity and asked for legislation to be introduced that regulates fracking activities. Culler also had concerns about fracking or oil drilling in the area. She stated that drilling in Florida is wrong and encouraged fellow members of the audience to research the issue. Cook asked how many oil wells were ever drilled on the forest. LeDew said that oil production has been on the forest for several decades, and that out of 19 permitted sites, only 8 were drilled and out of those only 5 were able to produce oil. Otto said that the FFS staff was doing a good job in managing the forest, but asked how drilling would be compatible for the forest. LeDew said as the managing agency FFS follows the guidelines that have been provided, and that management decisions of that type are at the Legislative or Board of Trustees level. Sillars asked what activities can be done on managed areas, and was worried about possible industrialization of the forest. Hermle replied that the management lease provides limits on how the property can be managed. Sillars asked what user groups can do to get expansion of recreational opportunities on the forest. LeDew said if user groups provided a proposal for a new trail system or recreational activity, then those proposed activities would have to be vetted and approved by various agencies and would need to be approved by the Board of Trustees. Sillars said that she drove her horse trailer into one of the camping areas by accident and a Ranger told her she needed to leave the camping area. She was upset at being told to leave the camping area immediately and asked what access does equestrians have on the forest if they want to just park their trailer and ride their horses. Graham pointed out that equestrians are allowed to ride on posted roads. LeDew said that equestrians shouldn’t park their trailers so that they block a road, but that they are allowed to ride on the roads. Bill Graham stated that everyone in the audience loves the forest and reiterated his desire to meet with LeDew about assisting with maintenance of equestrian trails on the forest. LeDew encouraged Graham to get in contact and that he looked forward to their assistance. Culler asked what is meant by recreation facilities. Compton said the term “recreational facilities” encompasses developed or primitive camping areas, hiking or biking, etc. She asked if there were any other areas of the forest besides the Coldwater Tract where equestrian users could camp or park their trailers and ride their horses. MacDonald commented that it appears that the only available equestrian only trails are on Coldwater Tract trails. The trail available near the Holt area is not favorable to equestrians and is mainly used by mountain bikers. LeDew pointed out that the Coldwater Tract was geared towards equestrian users. She asked if there was any possibility of expanding out equestrian areas on the forest or allowing more equestrian use on current trails or camping area. MacDonald said she felt that equestrian users were good stewards of the forest and were being slowly minimized and forced out of the forest. LeDew encouraged the equestrian users to contact him and to talk further about recreational expansion. He pointed out that equestrians are allowed to ride on the roads. MacDonald complained that the roads aren’t ideal for horses to ride on. Cook pointed out that the term “forest roads” includes more than paved roads. LeDew explained that there are four (4) types of roads on the forest, the paved road system, the primary road system with rock to allow for regular vehicular access, secondary road system that only goes to residences, and finally the tertiary system which are hunting roads that are basically dirt roads. LeDew pointed out that the tertiary roads cover a lot of territory on

K - 20

the forest. Culler commented on the multitude of roads on the forest. Foreman encouraged all of the equestrian users in the audience to buy the Florida Friends of State Forests map of all of the forest roads on BRSF. LeDew said that the maps are sold at the Munson highway station, Paul’s Hardware, etc. Several members of the audience volunteered information on locations where the maps can be purchased. Otto asked what the source is for most of the erosion on the forest. LeDew replied that the majority of the erosion on the forest is due to the extensive road system and illegal road usage. Some individuals will drive across an open area of the forest and will wear down a track, and then people start using that new track until the forest staff can install signage to block the new “road” that has been created. The trails themselves have been designed for different user groups, and equestrian trails are designed to cover different territory that what hikers are allowed to. Hiking trails may cover steeper territory and a horse ridden on such a trail could damage that trail and cause erosion issues. Sillars spoke about riding in the forest and seeing all the white banded pine trees. She thought she was riding on a “white trail” that wasn’t indicated on any of the trail maps. She said she was glad to learn after tonight’s presentation what the white band on all the pine trees was part of a red-cockaded woodpecker marking system. LeDew thanked everyone for attending, and thanked the MPAG members for attending. The hearing was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K - 21

K - 24

K - 25


Management Plan Advisory Group (MPAG)

Public Meeting Summary Friday, June 7, 2013 at 8:00 am

at Building 4900 Pensacola State College, Milton Campus,

5988 Highway 90, Milton, FL 32583 MPAG Members Present: Affiliation: Ricky Jones Florida Forest Service, Forestry Resource Administrator Trent Mathews NRCS District Conservationist for the Blackwater SWCD Darryl Williams NRCS District Conservationist for Yellow River SWCD Matt Smith for Barbara Almario Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Field

Biologist James Furman Department of Air Force, Eglin AFB Tom Cathey RMS, Resource Management Service, LLC Dr. Kimberly Bohn University of Florida Associate Professor, Silviculture and

Forest Ecology Peggy Baker Frances M. Weston Audubon Society Barbara Albrecht University of West Florida, Center for Environmental

Diagnostics & Bioremediation Watershed Coordinator Brenda Foreman Equestrian Representative Vernon Compton Longleaf Alliance MPAG Members Absent: Affiliation: Ferlain Hoover Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Park

Manager Blackwater River State Park Mark W. Gibson Department of the Navy, NAS Pensacola/Whiting Field W.D. “Don” Salter Santa Rosa County Commissioner, District 3 Wayne Harris Okaloosa County Commissioner, District 1 Members of the General Public Present: Affiliation: Oneisha Gary NRCS Intern Kyle Holley Santa Rosa County Tourist Development Council Board Medora Mullins Five Flags Arabian Horse Association, Friends of Florida

State Forests FFS Staff Present: Affiliation: Tom LeDew Florida Forest Service, Blackwater Forestry Center Manager Craig Iversen Florida Forest Service, Forestry Supervisor II Dave Creamer Florida Forest Service, Forestry Resource Administrator Cori Hermle Florida Forest Service, Land Planning Specialist

K - 26

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8:00 a.m. Public Meeting: The Management Plan Advisory Group meeting was convened at 8:16 am by LeDew. He thanked everyone for attending and turned the meeting over to Hermle. She explained that the purpose of Friday’s meeting was to record any comments the MPAG members may have related to the Ten-Year Resource Management Plan for BRSF. All of the MPAG members introduced each other to the group. Hermle gave a brief synopsis of comments received at the two public hearings. Williams mentioned that he was asked to pass along verbal comments received by BRSF bicyclists requesting a bike rack at the stable facilities on the Coldwater Tract. They are mainly on-road cyclists. The MPAG members discussed ways to improve outreach with the public about the forest and to improve ways for user groups to provide input. Hermle pointed out that copies of the management plan were available at the state forest office and the plan could be accessed online for a month before the public hearings. Bohn asked if some type of explanation could be provided to user groups on how to request additional facilities or trails. Hermle said that state forests have a liaison panel comprised of representatives from local user groups and other stakeholders in the forest, and that the panel will meet a couple times a year to discuss the state forest. Compton agreed with Cathey that the draft plan is more of a conceptual plan that discusses big overarching concepts for the forest. Compton pointed out that the OHV area was included in the management plan due to high local demand. Cathey said that many of the comments received by the public requesting additional trails or recreational opportunities were already covered by portions of the draft plan. Albrecht said that the overall impression she had from the public hearings was that many members of the public hadn’t reviewed the draft plan before coming to the hearings. Hermle said that staff have tried numerous ways to get the draft plan out to the public (posting the draft plan online, emailing user groups about the plan, posting fliers, etc), but that there is always a segment of the public that comes to public hearings who have never reviewed the draft plan. She said many members of the public arrive at a public hearing, and state that this is the only time they believe they can speak about the forest. Cathey asked if members of the public should be limited to only discussing aspects of the draft plan. Hermle replied that while some public hearings may get boisterous or long-winded, for the most part many speakers at the public hearings she’s been a part of are able to remain on-topic and that she felt there was no need to limit commenting. LeDew said that it appeared that forest staff needed to do a better effort at outreach with local user groups. Furman replied that that additional outreach may not be needed, but that a few of the comments were long-winded and wandering into discussions not pertaining to the forest itself. He said there may have been the possibility that some members of the audience felt drowned out by other audience member’s opinions, and may have not spoken up as a result. Baker suggested maybe holding meetings with specific user groups at the recreational facilities that they use. Compton agreed that it was an educational opportunity to inform the public of the variety of recreational facilities or trails on the forest. Cathey agreed that it allowed members of

K - 27

the public to learn that forest staff is balancing different user group’s demands for facilities or trails, and those demands may compliment of conflict with each other. Foreman pointed out that many of the equestrian users at the June 6th hearing were unaware that they could ride on the forest roads in addition to the equestrian trails. She encouraged forest staff to make it easier to buy the state forest road map. Creamer said that the maps are available at the Chamber of Commerce, Hall’s Hardware, and at Blackwater. Mathews asked if the maps were available at convience stores. Creamer replied that forest staff will sell the maps to any stores that are interested in selling them. Staff charges $7 for the maps at Blackwater, and vendors are charged $3.50 if they buy 25 or more maps. Mathews pointed out that there were only a few stores in the area and asked if staff could approach those stores to see if they’d be interested in selling the maps. Creamer replied that forest staff unfortunately doesn’t have the time to visit each store. Bohn asked if there was any way that the maps could be sold online. Creamer said that any online sales would need to be coordinated out of the State Office in Tallahassee. Williams said that he saw a need, at least once a year, for some type of outreach with the public that discusses activities on the forest and what staff accomplishes on the forest. It may facilitate public input and communication about the forest. Albrecht pointed out that forest staff could utilize volunteers to assist with getting the word out and getting the public to attend such outreach activities. Compton said that the Past Accomplishment section that lists specific past accomplishments on the forest may confuse members of the public into thinking that the draft management plan contains specific operational details about recreation on the forest. Hermle replied that while the section may be misleading, it is a statutorily required section of the plan. Baker commented that the road map of the forest that she purchases copies of the road map to give to people who tour the forest with her Audubon group. She asked if there was a way she could buy the maps at the cheaper vendor price. Creamer replied that anyone can purchase the maps at the bulk rate. Baker said that the maps she recently purchased is quickly falling apart and tearing at the fold lines. She encouraged the forest staff to try printing the maps on a more durable quality paper. Hermle said that that many of the brochures printed for state forests are printed out of the main State Office and sent to the field staff. The MPAG then focused their attentions on the ten-year management plan. The plan was reviewed section-by-section and below is a summary of the comments by topic. Executive Summary Baker requested that a mention of migratory birds using BRSF as a connector in conjunction with Eglin Air Force Base be included as a unique feature. Hermle said it could be noted in the plan as a unique feature and also noted under Section IV. C. 1. Endangered or Threatened Species. I. Introduction Furman pointed out that referencing 90 million acres of longleaf/wiregrass ecosystem may be misleading; longleaf may cover that many acres, but not necessarily longleaf/wiregrass. Moving further west it may become longleaf/blue stem. Creamer said that in one of BRSF’s brochures it lists only 60 million acres for the longleaf/wiregrass ecosystem. Compton replied that it probably is 90 million acres for the historic longleaf pine ecosystem, with probably 2/3 of it

K - 28

being longleaf/wiregrass. He pointed out that currently there are now slightly less than 4 million acres containing this ecosystem. Baker mentioned there were 19 bird species of concern that should be added to the plan, and may end up on the endangered species list if nothing is done. Hermle replied a mention of those 19 species could go in Section IV.C 1. Threatened and Endangered Species. Iversen said that the term species of concern is being phased out, and that the State is using endangered or threatened designations. Baker said these birds were listed under the migratory bird program with US Fish and Wildlife. Iversen said that the designation species of concern was ambiguous and so they were going with endangered or threatened. Baker asked if those species should be noted as threatened in the management plan. Furman said that those 19 species may not be designated as threatened, but may still be protected species under the migratory bird treaty act. I. B. Past Accomplishments Furman said that the fourth bullet in the section was a little unclear. Some clarification was needed for the last sentence of that bullet. Compton congratulated the BRSF staff for their road management and public access management to prevent erosion. Iversen said that an inventory of the roads was completed by a private contractor in 2006. I. D. Goal 1. Sustainable Forest Management Cathey said that it was a very long term goal to make longleaf forest and uneven-aged forest. He recommended a comment be included that the management would be consistent with that long term goal. Compton concurred, and said he was wondering about age, density and diversity, which was more geared towards uneven-aged management. Hermle said that there is a section later on in the plan that discusses silvicultural management, but that the objective can be clarified further. Cathey asked if the forest is managed as specific stands and if it is inventoried by stand and Jones replied yes. Cathey said that timing of lump sum timber sales was important for maximum revenue generation. Timing from year to year or even within a given year had implications on maximum revenue generation and asked that a statement along those lines be added to the objective. Furman concurred. I. D. Goal 2. Public Access and Recreational Opportunities Compton asked that Objective 5 be modified to include multiple-use. Baker asked if Objective 6 could become a short-term goal instead of a long-term goal. Hermle provided some background information on why the goals and objectives are included in the management plan and what is meant by long-term or short-term goals. Short-term goals are to be completed within the first two years of management plan approval, long-term goals are to be completed sometime from year three to year ten, and ongoing goals are usually annual goals. Creamer said that the kiosk installation would be limited by available funding. He said that 60 tours or programs are conducted as part of environmental outreach. Bohn recommended including some outreach at Coldwater Tract that explains subjects like the white banding of trees for red-cockaded woodpeckers. I. D. Goal 3: Habitat Restoration and Improvement Furman recommended that the prescribe fire goal be based off of a five year average. What you can burn during a given year is very weather dependent. That way one bad year of weather

K - 29

doesn’t adversely impact the staff’s ability to reach that goal. He recommended changing the language of the goal to ‘prescribe burn an average of 60,000 acres per year’. I. D. Goal 4: Listed and Rare Species Habitat Maintenance, Enhancement, Restoration, or Population Restoration Bohn asked that some information be included about red-cockaded woodpeckers and the white banding on trees. I. D. Goal 5: Non-Native Invasive Species Maintenance and Control Cathey asked about the progress being made on invasive species and asked if reductions are occurring. Furman agreed and asked if there was a way to show that progress on controlling invasives is being made. Jones replied that the invasive species maps are regularly updated, but that to date no invasive species have been removed from the list of invasive species on the forest since none have been successfully eradicated. Iversen said that goals are set each year on number of acres to treat. Crews transect across the stands after prescribed burning to scout for invasives, and the roads and trails are regularly inspected for invasives. Bohn recommended adding in an additional performance measure to indicate that progress is being made on reducing invasive species on the forest, like a percent of area being controlled. Jones recommended a performance measure that listed the total acres of invasives on the forest, and the acres of invasives that have been treated. Cathey and Bohn agreed that including such a performance measure clearly showed progress was being made. I. D. Goal 6: Cultural and Historical Resources Hermle asked if staff still intended to train two personnel as archaeological monitors since the number of monitors had increased from two to five. She asked if the objective needed to be updated since there were now more personnel trained as archaeological monitors for the forest. Iversen replied that the objective was to have at least a minimum of two personnel on the forest. Hermle asked if the objective needed to be modified from “train a minimum of two personnel…” to maybe “ensure that a minimum of two personnel are trained as archaeological monitors.” I. D. Goal 7: Hydrological Preservation and Restoration Albrecht asked about hydrological restoration on the forest and if native species such as cypress were being replanted in those areas. She recommended replacing culverts so that they are hydrologically connected. Due to the ‘flashiness’ of rains in northwest Florida, suggested that that if culverts have to be replaced, that maybe staff should look at moving the roads to higher elevation areas to minimize road flooding and erosion issues. Compton asked about Silvicultural BMPs and in-stream management. He was concerned about protecting resources such as creeks and rivers, and suggested possibly developing some in-stream habitat standards. He said that staff has done a good job in teaching silvicultural best management practices, but suggested an effort to educate about in-stream habitat requirements. Albrecht agreed and encouraged restoration of woody material back into the streams. She suggested that when narrow spanned bridges are due for replacement that wider span bridges be installed instead. Hermle mentioned that the FFS had applied for RESTORE Act funding to replace several narrow span bridges on the forest. Albrecht pointed out that DEP issued a permit for deadhead logging on the Blackwater River, which is an Outstanding Florida Water, and she said that all the agencies need to communitcate better about efforts to restore that woody material back into the streams.

K - 30

Iversen said that such an issue might need to be addressed at the legislative level. He said that historically timber companies would transport the cut logs down river, and some of those logs would be lost and sink to the bottom. Those logs can be recovered and salvaged from the river, and DEP handles the permitting for that activity. Albrecht said she would be willing to be a citizen advocate on that issue. Cathey asked if there was any way to measure the success of the road closure initiative in reducing erosion. He asked if the staff expected to close all undesirable roads on the forest within ten years. Cathey said that it appeared that a lot of progress had been made over the years. LeDew replied that they are trying to raise the bridges up and have the span go bank to bank, or have a limited number of pilings in the river. He said that building bank to bank bridges is very expensive. Albrecht commented that there should be a cost comparison between building various types of bridges and the costs of repairing or replacing due to flooding damage. Iversen mentioned that a bridge over Rock Creek was taken out and replaced with a low water crossing. He said that, if possible, staff is replacing damaged bridges with low water crossings. II. B. 4. Revenue Producing Activities Albrecht asked about canoe rentals and the costs involved. Furman said that it was probably state forest canoes. Iversen provided clarification on vendor permits and state forest permits. Compton asked for clarification about the time period mentioned for the “Timber revenue” bullet. Hermle replied that the time span would be clarified for that bullet. Furman asked if the average revenue included revenues from the Hurricane Ivan salvage sale. Jones replied that the salvage sale numbers weren’t included in the six year average. Albrecht asked what was involved with the lightwood sale in 2010/2011. Jones said as a result of Hurricane Ivan, when they would try to conduct prescribed fires in that area, the remaining stumps were causing smoke issues on the highway. FWC conducted surveys of the potential sale area and told BRSF staff that there didn’t appear to be a noticeable impact on the environment. The wood was carried out of the sale area and didn’t have a significant impact on the road system. Albrecht asked if the ground had been re-contoured by harvesting operations, or if it was still relatively intact. Jones said the groundcover was relatively intact since it wasn’t as intensive logging operation; there wasn’t as much material out there to collect as compared to an average timber sale operation. Albrecht asked about hunting permits and how they are handled. She asked if any of that revenue was returned back to the forest. Smith replied that he could provide stats on hunting, and that none of the revenue was returned to the forest, but that it stays with FWC. Baker asked about the seismic testing on the forest and if there was any revenue received from that. Jones replied that some funds were paid to the State itself. LeDew said the state forest did not receive cash, but instead received about $75,000 in road material. Baker asked if that should be mentioned in the plan. Foreman asked it was possible to use another type of stone besides granite, maybe use limerock instead since the granite is an inappropriate material for horses to walk on. LeDew replied that the limerock is easily crushed and becomes a powder. Using limerock caused pH changes in creeks and streams due to run-off. He said that the granite can be crushed as well, but that it doesn’t cause the pH change. The ultimate goal for the primary roads is to eventually have them covered in asphalt in order to reduce run-off and erosion. Granite was

K - 31

chosen because it is a long wearing material and is suitable for vehicular traffic. Albrecht asked if using rock would reduce the amount of clay being used on roads, and would allow staff to close the clay collection areas on the forest. LeDew replied that using more rock on the roads will reduce erosion, and is easier to maintain and grade. Albrecht encouraged mentioning the granite rock in the plan, since using the granite would cut down on erosion in the forest. Compton said that it was very wise that FFS staff was looking at ways to increase revenues from recreation, in addition to generating revenue from timber. Furman said that at Eglin around 20,000 permits are sold each year. Compton said that in talking with friends and colleagues that there is strong interest in supporting the forest, possibly through purchases of a permit of some kind. Furman pointed out that enforcement is always an issue, and that the forest borders are so porous due to all the in-holdings. II. C. 4. Operations Infrastructure Hermle said that the numbers will be updated to reflect the current fiscal year. II. D. 5. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Hermle said that she received responses from Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties that the management plan was consistent with their local comprehensive use plans. Their responses would be added to the plan as Exhibit I. II. E. 3. Public and Local Government Involvement Bohn recommended adding in an explanation of the MPAG process so that it would be clearer to members of the public. Hermle said that meeting minutes from the June 5th-7th meetings and hearing would be added to Exhibit K once they are approved by the MPAG members. Iversen recommended adding in the year when referencing the meeting dates in the plan. II. E. 5. Military Baker asked about military usage of airspace. She asked if there is any payment for military use of airspace over the forest or if it was a requirement as part of the property transfer from the federal government to the State of Florida. Hermle provided some information about the memorandum of agreement between the FFS and the military. Iversen said that the FFS sometimes acquires and utilizes military surplus equipment, such as building materials, road materials, road maintenance equipment, ect to assist in managing the forest. Jones said that many federal grants for reforestation or acquisition will often ask if there is a partnership with military agencies. This agreement between the FFS and the military will help in the acquisition of such grants. Furman pointed out that such an agreement is a low impact/high returns scenario, since the military will be on the forest at night. II. E. 6. Volunteers Creamer said out that additional volunteer groups will be added to this section, and that the volunteer hours will be updated. Hermle pointed out that fiscal year numbers will be updated to reflect the current fiscal year. IV. A. 2. Soil Protection Bohn said that this section identifies some problems with illegal OHV use on the forest. She asked if there is anything in the plan that addresses unauthorized OHV use on the forest. She

K - 32

suggested adding in some language to stating how such concerns would be addressed, such as management activities. Albrecht asked about the 14 active borrow pits on the forest and if any efforts would be made to restore the closed borrow pits or to reduce the number of active borrow pits on the forest. Hermle replied that staff would look into the possibility of restoring the borrow pits. IV. B. 2. Water Protection Albrecht asked about deadhead logging and reiterated her concerns about deadhead logging on the forest. She asked how many miles of creeks and tributaries on the forest were listed on the 303(d) list, or if DEP exclusively monitors that. Iversen said he was unaware but could look into it. Albrecht said that back in 2008 DEP closed their water quality labs, due to budget cuts less and less water quality monitoring is occurring. IV. C. 1. Table 1. Endangered or Threatened Species Iversen said that the 19 species of concern listed by Baker earlier would be added to this table. Iversen asked Smith what language would be appropriate to use instead of the term “species of special concern”. Smith suggested using imperiled species instead, and that it would cover endangered and threatened species as well. Furman suggested using imperiled and other protected species in order to include species that aren’t threatened or endangered but may be included under the migratory bird treaty. Hermle said that a new table may need to be added to cover the 19 species Baker discussed. Furman pointed out that bald eagle is no longer had that designation. Hermle said that she would review the table and update the species status with FNAI’s latest ranking. Smith said that there are some name changes for some of the species on the table. IV. C. 2. Game Species and Other Wildlife Compton asked about the establishment of food plots on the forest, and what consideration is given for groundcover for potential food plot areas. Smith replied that food plots are usually installed in disturbed areas. Jones said food plots on the forest are in open disturbed areas. Baker thanked the FFS staff for leaving snags in the forest for woodpeckers to utilize, and that bird counts are showing high numbers of red-headed woodpeckers on the forest. She mentioned that during winter bird counts it is difficult to find any red-headed woodpeckers, and that the birds need additional food sources such as acorns. She pointed out that no winter bird counts had been traditionally conducted on the forest. When her group conducted its initial winter bird count, they were stunned at the large number of bird species that overwintered on the forest. Iversen pointed out that the Environmental Enhancement Area (EEA) is a FFS project in coordination with FWC. Smith said wording needs to be changed, and that FWC wanted to discuss the project further with FFS staff. IV. F. Mineral Resources Compton asked if areas used for oil drilling were restored. LeDew provided information on the steps taken to restore those areas. LeDew said that three recent sites were planted in longleaf tublings and wiregrass plugs. Compton said that was a great advance from 10 or 15 years ago, when sites would be planted in bahia grass. He mentioned several species that were available for groundcover restoration. LeDew pointed out that these sites were leased out around 30 years

K - 33

ago, and reclamation standards were very different back then. LeDew replied that due to the age of the contracts the companies weren’t required to restore the area, but did so in a show of good faith. Compton commended the staff for strongly encouraging restoration of such sites with native species. Bohn asked about BOT owning 100% of the mineral rights on the forest. She asked for clarification about the approval process involved for oil and gas leases. Hermle replied that BOT approves any leases. Bohn suggested including some information in the draft plan on that approval process. Furman said that he thought there was a mention in the draft plan that the BOT has 75%/ 25% split in mineral rights between the state and federal government. Hermle said that there was an exchange for the mineral rights several years ago, and now the BOT owns 100% of the mineral rights on the forest. Furman recommended double checking the plan to be sure the old 75%/25% statement was not longer in the plan. **** Albrecht had to leave the meeting due to a previous appointment. **** IV. G. Unique Natural Features and Outstanding Native Landscapes Compton asked if a statement about in-stream habitat management could be added to this section. There is an opportunity to educate the public about in-stream woody material. Hermle suggested added such a statement might be more suitable in a different section of the plan. Iversen said it could be added as an objective for the educational outreach or education kiosk. V. A. 2. Unimproved Recreation Sites Compton said that recreation groups enjoy utilizing the Juniper Creek Recreation Area. It is an unimproved recreation area and should be mentioned in the draft plan. V.B. 1. Additional Recreation Facilities/Activities Compton suggested adding in language that FFS staff will work with recreation groups on possible planned activities, and getting input from recreation groups on such activities. VI. B. 1. Prescribed Fire Furman cautioned giving very specific yearly prescribed fire acreage goals so that staff will not limit themselves from attaining those goals. Jones says the prescribed fire plan is developed every year, and burns are broken down into growing season and dormant season burns. provided some information on how the prescribed fire plan is developed for the forest. Furman said that the fewer restraints on conducting prescribed burns, the better. He stressed not getting too focused on seasonality to the detriment of frequency. He said if one focuses on reaching fire frequency goals, then eventually one can transition to seasonality targets. Jones replied that the prescribed fire focus is more silvicultural. Compton suggested changing the fire interval from 2-5 to 2-4 years to match the remainder of the draft plan. VI. B. 2. Silvicultural Operations Bohn suggested adding “regeneration methods” in addition to thinning for maintenance and restoration of timber stands.

K - 34

VI.C. Non-Native Invasive Species Control Compton commended the FFS staff for the work done so far in controlling invasive species on the forest. Cathey suggested adding an additional column to Table 2. BRSF Invasive Exotic Plan Species that would address success achieved in controlling invasive species. VII. C. Sandhill Bohn suggested for the Management Activities subsection, she asked about the draft plan mentioning that off-site pine species will be gradually thinned and burned. She asked if for some of those sites if staff would consider utilizing clearcut or chipping if economically feasible to assist with removal of off-site pine species. She suggested in addition to thinning, adding a statement that clearcutting could be considered if economically feasible. Cathey asked if there had been some sand pine thinning. Compton asked about the Ates pasture. Iversen said the loblolly has been thinned. Jones said stands that have yet to be thinned for the Ates Pasture are under contract to be chipped and thinned. Sand pine areas have so much clearcut already. There are currently limited resources for replanting, and a need for revenues, so that is why staff has chosen to thin instead of clearcut. Areas thinned are being followed with fire. Furman said that it may be better to have some forest structure there versus having it clearcut and unable to replant. Jones said that staff is pursuing grants to assist with replanting. Thinning of the sand pine is temporary solution, and not a long term one. When funding for replanting returns, staff will revisit the issue. Baker replied that the thinning of sand pines has been beneficial and allowed various bird species to move into that area. She said that within six weeks of third row thinning, surveys conducted by Audubon recorded large numbers of birds in the thinned sand pine areas. Iversen pointed out that the thinned areas in the Yellow River Ravines area are sand pine cone collection areas, and that there is demand for sand pine cones. **** Iversen proposed a brief ten minute break. Cathey and Furman had to leave the meeting due to previous commitments. **** VII. F. Upland Hardwood Forest Baker said that American Beech is heavily affected by fire and asked if there would be any effort to protect that species of tree from fire. Jones and Compton replied that fire wouldn’t be able to easily get into those areas since it isn’t a pyrogenic community and there is a lack of fuels. VII. H. Blackwater Stream Compton said that portions of the Blackwater River may be within desired future conditions, but not the entire river. Baker said that Albrecht wanted to note that point as well, and that the river was missing woody materials. VII. L. Seepage Stream Compton said that the plan mentioned the Yellow River Ravines and seep heads. He said there were good actions listed under Management Actions. He said there was still a need to protect the headwaters through acquisition. The FFS has done a good job on acquiring sensitive areas and corridors, and this is another good area to protect. These are probably one of the most sensitive systems because of their steep walls.

K - 35

Exhibit B – Five-Year Management Accomplishment Summary Hermle said that the fiscal year numbers would be updated when they become available. Foreman asked about the change in pricing and if the drop in the recreation attendance numbers was due to the increase in pricing for permits. She noted the large drop in recreation attendance in the last couple of years. Creamer said that the pricing was adjusted possibly three years ago, and the drop in attendance numbers was probably due to the recession. Exhibit E – BRSF Tracts Foreman asked why the Coldwater recreation area was named something besides Coldwater. Jones said there was already a unit north of Highway 4 named Coldwater. He explained that these are management units, and these units or tracts are used internally by the FFS when managing stands. Jones said the tract names were probably designated well before the horse stables were installed. Exhibit H – Optimal Management Boundary Mathews asked if there were any plans to add Nature Conservancy land, which is by the Springfield Hunt Club, to the forest. Jones said there is some talk of it. Iversen said there is a large tract called the Wolf Creek Tract, and it is currently on the Florida Forever list. Jones said that staff supports the acquisition of that tract, but that funding would need to be found. Exhibit I – Compliance with Local Comprehensive Plan Hermle said that responses had been received by Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties, and would be added to Exhibit I. Hermle mentioned that a Current Natural Communities map may be added to the plan as Exhibit V. Hermle said that she would get the minutes out to everyone within two weeks, and that it would be a negative response for any changes. Hermle thanked everyone for their time, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 am. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K - 36

EXHIBIT L

Archaeological & Historical Sites on BRSF

SITE ID SITE NAME SITE TYPE

OK00110 KENNEDY BRIDGE Campsite (prehistoric)

OK00113 BURNHILL PLANTATION MILL Mill of unspecified function

OK00118 WEST HORSE CREEKHistoric refuse/Dump, Artifact scatter-low density (< 2 per sq meter)

OK00119 EAST HORSE CREEK Artifact scatter-low density ( < 2 per sq meter)

OK00120 NORTH PANTHER CREEK Unknown

OK00121 MIDDLE PANTHER CREEK Unknown

OK00122 MARE CREEK Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric)

OK00123 LOWER PANTHER CREEK Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00127 E H & A OKALOOSA 25 Land-terrestrial

OK00128 E H & A OKALOOSA 5 Land-terrestrial

OK00479 BOUNDARY LINE Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00507 NN Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00508 NN Prehistoric lithics only


OK00510 NN Campsite (prehistoric)






OK00526 LM90-58 Unspecified by the recorder



OK00529 LM90-61 Single artifact or isolated find

OK00530 LM90-62 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)



OK00541 LM 92-4 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00542 LM 92-516 Land-terrestrial



OK00545 LM 92-9/11 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00546 LM 92-10/12 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00547 LM 92-13 Artifact scatter-low density ( < 2 per sq meter)


OK00550 LM 92-17 Variable density scatter of artifacts



OK00553 LM 92-20 Single artifact or isolated find


L - 1


OK00559 LM 92-26 Artifact scatter-low density ( < 2 per sq meter)














OK00613 LEFT FIELD HAMMOCK Variable density scatter of artifacts





OK00618 LM 92-54/55 Variable density scatter of artifacts









OK00628 LM 92-65 Unspecified by the recorder




OK00634 92-71 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

OK00684 KARICK LAKE Mill of unspecified function

OK00901 P19-1 Land-terrestrial

OK00902 P19-2 Land-terrestrial

OK00908 SITCO #23 Land-terrestrial





L - 2




OK01659 GUEST LAKE LANDING Prehistoric campsite with pottery

OK01660 FLORIDALE # 2 Prehistoric campsite with pottery

OK01661 FLORIDALE # 3 Prehistoric campsite with pottery

OK02248 DEER TOE SITE Land-terrestrial

OK02695 8OK2695 Land-terrestrial

OK02942 BLACKWATER RIVER PILINGS Farmstead

SR00078 EH & A SANTA ROSA 25 Indeterminate

SR00079 CORAL SNAKE Campsite (prehistoric)

SR00242 NN Agriculture/ Farm structure

SR00246 NN Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric)

SR00247 NN Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR00248 NN Land-terrestrial

SR00249 CAMP LOWERY Railroad grade segment

SR00250 NN Historic refuse

SR00761 SWEETWATER CREEK 1 Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric)

SR00762 SWEETWATER CREEK 2 Single artifact or isolated find


SR00797 NN Homestead





SR00810 NN Prehistoric lithics only



SR00813 NN Single artifact or isolated find











SR00828 SITCO SURVEY 2 Campsite (prehistoric)



L - 3








SR00839 SWEETWATER CREEK MILL Mill of unspecified function

SR00849 LONG BRANCH GV Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR00865 LM90-12 Unspecified by the recorder





SR00871 LM90-18 Agriculture/Farm structure

SR00872 LM90-19 Variable density scatter of artifacts







SR00882 LM90-29 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)


SR00884 LM90-31 Farmstead







SR00891 CONCORD/SIMMONS CEMETERY Historic Cemetery





SR00896 LM90-43 Single artifact or isolated find






L - 4













SR00927 BW3-D Unspecified by the recorder

SR01018 SPRINGHILL TRANSECT 3 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR01019 SPRINGHILL TRANSECT Single artifact or isolated find

SR01021 MCLELLAN TRANSECT 3 Single artifact or isolated find

SR01029 MUNSON LODGE Frame Vernacular

SR01031 SPEARS HOUSE Build circa 1885

SR01175 FLORIDALE TRANSECT 1 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR01176 FLORIDALE TRANSECT 2A Single artifact or isolated find

SR01177 FLORIDALE TRANSECT 2B Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR01178 MCLELLAN TRANSECT 2 Single artifact or isolated find





SR01199 GUM LANDING HAMMOCK 1 Single artifact or isolated find

SR01200 GUM LANDING HAMMOCK 2 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)

SR01201 GUM LANDING HAMMOCK 3 Artifact scatter-low density (<2 per m2)


SR01216 SELLERSVILLE CEMETERY Historic Cemetery




SR01226 BIG JUNIPER MILL Grist mill

SR01227 REEDY CREEK DAM Mill of unspecified function

SR01231 COTTON’S CHOP MILL Mill of unspecified function

SR01233 ATES CREEK MILL Grist mill

SR01237 COON CAMP MILL Grist mill

SR01240 DIXON WASTEWAY Other

SR01243 COLDWATER CREEK DAM Grist mill

SR01264 P11-1 Land-terrestrial

L - 5





SR01281 S3-15-1 Other

SR01285 S3-21-1 Land-terrestrial

SR01298 SITCO #11 Land-terrestrial

SR01300 J5SR002 Land-terrestrial

SR01301 SITCO #12 Historic earthworks




SR01338 WOLFTRAP BRANCH Land-terrestrial

SR01339 DARRYL Land-terrestrial

SR01368 NN Land-terrestrial

SR01382 DIXON CREEK LOG DITCH Other

SR01399 JULIAN MILLMill of unspecified function, American Acquisition/Territorial Developmt 1821-45

SR01501 MILLER BLUFF WEST Land-terrestrial ceramic scatter

SR01502 HAROLD SE #2&3 Prehistoric with pottery

SR01503 WEST PITTS RIVER BOAT RAMP Campsite (prehistoric)

SR01916 FISH HATCHERY BRIDGE Other

SR02125LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE (L&N) RAILROAD

Linear resource

SR02126 BAGDAD LUMBER CO. RAILROAD Linear resource

SR02143 HERTY CUP CLUSTER Land-terrestrial

SR02144 METAL CUP CLUSTER Land-terrestrial

L - 6

EXHIBIT M

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 State-Owned or Controlled Properties

(revised March 2013) 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 at: http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/guidelines.cfm M - 1

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, 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, certain information must be submitted for comments and recommendations. The minimum review documentation requirements can be found at: http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/compliance/docs/minimum_review_documentation_requirements.pdf .

* * * Questions relating to the treatment of archaeological and historic resources on state lands should be directed to: Deena S. Woodward 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: (850) 245-6425 Toll Free: (800) 847-7278 Fax: (850) 245-6435

M - 2

Documents

Blackwater River State Forest 10yr Resource Management Plan … · Blackwater River State Forest B - 1 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 Reforestation