F

L

O

R

I

D

A

Division of Forestry

James R. Karels

Director

Silviculture Best Management Practices

2009 Implementation Survey Report

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

CHARLES H. BRONSON

Commissioner
1

Results of Florida’s

2009 Silviculture BMP Implementation Survey

Conducted by the

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Division of Forestry

In Cooperation with Florida

Forest Landowners and Forest Land Managers

February, 2010

Jeff Vowell, Forest Hydrologist

Roy Lima, Watershed Specialist

Cathy Hardin, BMP Forester

Robin Holland, BMP Forester

For more information, Contact:

Florida Division of Forestry

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650

(850) 414-9969
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2009, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry (DOF)

completed the fifteenth statewide Survey on Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs). By

delegation from the Department of Environmental Protection, the DOF is the lead agency for statewide

development, implementation, and monitoring of silviculture BMPs. This Survey fulfills the

implementation monitoring element of the Division's responsibility for controlling silviculture related

sources of nonpoint pollution.

The Silviculture BMP Implementation Survey wasinitiated in 1981 and hassince been conducted

biennially. The principal purpose of the Survey isto determine the level of implementation with Florida's

Silviculture BMPs. The Survey is conducted throughout the state, on a random sample of recent forestry

operations. Both public and private forest landsthat meet the selection criteria are eligible for the Survey.

The Survey process is consistent with the Southern Group of State Foresters’

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING - A

FRAMEWORK FOR STATE FORESTRY AGENCIES (June 2002). In addition, results from a BMP

Effectiveness Study published in 2001 and 2004, used the Survey as a measure of BMP

implementation and stream bio-assessment techniques to measure water quality. The study

concluded that where silviculture BMPs were properly applied (as measured by the Survey), water

quality, aquatic habitat and overall stream ecosystem health were protected.

The 2009 BMP Implementation Survey evaluated 4,127 practices on 185 individual forestry

operations (sites). This cooperative effort involved 86 individual public and private non-industrial

landowners and covered 31,313 acres in 37 Florida counties. Forty-seven sites were on private nonindustrial forestland, 122 on industrial forestland, and 16 on public forestlands.

The 2009 Survey reported two (2) instances where the lack of BMP implementation constituted a

significant risk to water quality. The forest landowner in each instance was contacted and provided with

recommendationsfor remedial action. Follow-up visits verified that the recommendations were followed

and the risk eliminated.

For the 2009 Survey, no sites scored below 79% in overall BMP implementation. Seventy-nine

percent of the sites scored 100% implementation for applicable BMPs. The range of compliance scores

was 79% to 100%, and the average for overall BMP compliance was 98.1%, a slight decrease from 98.6%

in 2007. The average compliance for the 29 year period since 1981 is 94%, and a total of 2,550 individual

forestry operations have been surveyed during the period of record.
3

INTRODUCTION

Florida's Silviculture Best Management Practices(BMP) Program was established as a result of

the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. This program is directed at controlling nonpoint source (NPS)

pollution associated with forestry operations, through the use of BMPs. Under delegation by the

Department of Environmental Protection's State Water Quality Program, the Division of Forestry is

responsible for the development, implementation, and monitoring of forestry BMPs in Florida. The

purpose of this report is to present the results of the most recent implementation monitoring, as

determined by the 2009 BMP Implementation Survey.

BMP Development

Florida's first Silviculture BMP Manual [1] was published in 1979 and was most recently

revised in 2008. The BMP revision process is conducted by a Technical Advisory Committee

composed of representatives from state and federal government, forest industry, private non-industrial

landowners, environmental groups and academia [2]. The BMP Manual [3] contains 143 individual

practices within 14 BMP categories, including "Special Management Zones" and “Wetlands” that

protect overall ecosystem integrity and wildlife habitat, as well as water quality. In addition, the

Technical Advisory Committee continues to meet regularly to consider revisions to the Manual and

provide input for the overall BMP program. The most recent meeting was May 27, 2009 at which time

a BMP status and progress report was presented in addition to a TMDL update from the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

BMP Implementation

Implementation of silviculture BMPsin Florida is primarily done under an educational format,

designed to transfer BMP technology to forest practitioners through workshops and field

demonstrations. The Implementation program is on-going, with workshops routinely provided upon

request, or as deemed necessary based on monitoring results. Currently, DOF personnel conduct 25 to

30 workshops/demonstrations annually, involving approximately 750 participants per year. In addition,

the DOF provides BMP training directly to loggers through the Florida Forestry Association’s Master

Logger Program and through the Southeastern Wood Producers Association. To date, approximately

494 loggers have become Master Loggers of which 35 have obtained Master Logger +Plus status. A

total of 758 Master Loggers have completed an additionalsix-hour BMP Continuing Education Course.

BMP Monitoring

Since 1981, the Division of Forestry has monitored forestry operations for compliance with

BMPs by conducting biennial “Surveys”. The “Survey” consists of evaluating a random sample of

forestry operations for compliance with all applicable BMPs. Forestry operations meeting specific

criteria on both public and private lands are eligible for the Survey. For the period of record through

2009, the DOF has evaluated over 2,000 individual forestry operations and recorded statewide

compliance ranging from 84% (1985) to 98.1% (2009). For the period of record, the cumulative

statewide average for overall compliance with Silviculture BMPs is 94%.
4

The 2009 Survey was the DOF’s fifteenth statewide BMP monitoring effort since 1981. In

addition, a BMP Effectiveness study was initiated in 1996, using the Survey as a measure of BMP

implementation and Florida’s Stream Condition Index [4] as the principal measure of water quality.

The study evaluated BMP effectiveness during silviculture operations including clearcut harvesting,

intensive mechanicalsite preparation, and forest chemical (herbicides and fertilizer) application. Upon

completion, the results of the study showed that properly applied silviculture BMPs were effective in

protecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and overall stream ecosystem health [5, 6].

SURVEY PROCEDURE

Sampling Intensity and Site Selection

The BMP Compliance Survey is conducted in all Florida counties where any level of bona-fide

Silviculture activity isreported or observed. However, the 2009 Survey waslimited to the 37 counties

from a line north of Citrus County, Sumter County, Lake County, and Seminole County (Figure 1).

Recent Surveysshowed a significantly diminishing number of qualifying sitesin countiessouth of this

line, so these more “southern counties” will be evaluated during alternating Surveys.

As in previous Surveys, each county within the 2009 sample area was assigned a sampling

“goal” (number of Survey sites) proportionate to that county’s average annual timber removal [7].

Thus, the more timber removed, the higher the “goal” assigned to the county. For example, the high

level of timber removal in Taylor County resulted in a goal of 11 sites, compared to Gulf County’s

relatively low timber removals and a goal of two sites. In addition, in order to sample as much of the

state's geographic area as possible, all counties showing any timber harvest activity, were assigned a

goal of at least one site. This resulted in a total, goal of 185 sites distributed among 37 counties for the

2009 Compliance Survey [Appendix Table 1].

Candidate sitesfor the 2009 Survey were selected using the following criteria: (1) the operation

being evaluated must be bona-fide Silviculture, (2) the Silviculture treatment being evaluated must have

occurred within the past 2 years, and (3) some part of the treatment must have occurred within 300 feet

of a stream, wetland, sinkhole or lake (2 acres or larger), or within a wetland type listed in the BMP

Manual. These criteria provide for Survey sites where the greatest potential for forestry-related nonpointsource (NPS) pollution exists, and where any such impacts are still discernable and measurable at

the time of the Survey.

Sites for the 2009 Survey were selected by DOF’s BMP Foresters from fixed-wing aircraft,

flying randomly selected township and range lines at altitudesranging from 800-1200 feet. This pattern

was flown for each county until the established goal was attained to minimize sample bias and to

maximize the diversity of ownerships and physiographic areas within the sample. In areas where

aircraft were not available, candidate sites were selected from the ground, assigned a number, and then

drawn randomly. By these methods, candidate sites were identified in 37 countiesin the spring/summer

of 2009. Upon verification of ground conditions on the candidate sites, 185 sites in 37 counties were

confirmed as meeting the qualifying criteria (Figure 1).

In addition to sites identified as bona-fide Silviculture, the BMP Foresters also observed sites

from Division of Forestry fixed-winged aircraft which appeared to be legitimate forestry operations but
5

after close inspection on the ground, the sites revealed activity associated with land clearing and/or

development activities. There were a total of 45 such sites covering 37 counties.

Site Evaluation

After being selected and verified for the Survey, each site was evaluated for compliance with all

applicable BMPs. The evaluation was conducted in the field by professionally trained BMP Foresters
6

with oversight by the DOF’s Watershed Specialist. The BMP Foresters were responsible for contacting

landowners prior to visiting each site to secure access and to solicit their participation in the Survey.

Actual field evaluations were conducted only on those 2009 Survey sites that met the selection

criteria, and where silviculture activities were bona-fide. Timber harvesting associated with land

clearing operations intended for development or other non-forestry land uses were not included in the

Survey. The process of evaluating each site involved observing as much of the treated area as possible

and completing the Survey field questionnaire [Appendix Table 2]. The questionnaire consists of 143

specific, YES/NO questions directly related to BMP implementation. All answers were based on

physical on-site evidence with no assumptions made about future activities.

BMP implementation was evaluated and scored at three levels on each site: (1) individual

practice(s); (2) categories of practices; and (3) overall. For an individual practice, implementation was

recorded as either a YES, NO or NOT APPLICABLE. For categories of practices,such as Forest Roads

or Stream Crossings, and for the overall score, implementation was expressed as a percent of all

applicable BMPs. Hence, each Survey site was given a compliance score between 0% and 100% for

each applicable BMP category and for the overall site.

In addition, each incidence of non-compliance at the practice level was further evaluated in

terms of "significant risk" to water quality. Significant risk is defined as "a situation or set of

conditions where noncompliance with BMPs has resulted, or may result, in the measurable and

significant degradation of physical, chemical, or biological integrity of water quality, to the extent that

it presents an imminent and substantial danger to the designated beneficial use. Where a significant

risk has been identified, the observer makesrecommendationsto the landowner for corrective measures.

After a reasonable period of time, a follow up site evaluation is made to assess compliance with these

measures. Willful noncompliance with recommendations will initiate referral to the appropriate

regulatory agency for enforcement action.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

For the 2009 BMP Implementation Survey, BMP Foresters evaluated 4,127 practices, on 185

individual forestry operations, in 37 Florida counties. Of the individual practices evaluated, 4,048

(98.1%) were found to be in compliance with

BMPs. This level of compliance is a slight

decrease of 0.50% over the previous Survey.

(Figure 2).

Statistical Analysis

As in previous Surveys, the practices

evaluated represent only a sample of all

forestry operations that met the qualifying

criteria for 2009. In that regard, the Survey

represents an estimate of the actual,statewide

compliance with silviculture BMPs. Based

on the sampling procedure employed [8], the

following statistical properties are attributable

Figure 2. BMP Implementation

by Survey Year

80

85

90

95

100

198119831985198719891991

19931995

1997

1999

2001

20032005

2007

2009

SurveyYear

Compliance %
7

to the Survey data and express the quality of the estimate:

Estimate of Implementation (f): Standard Error (se): 95% Confidence Interval (ci):

f = BMPs in compliance/BMPs evaluated(n) se = f(1-f)/n ci = f + 2 se

f = 4048/4127 se = 0.981(1-0.981)/4127 ci = .981 + 2 (.0021)

f = 0.981 se = 0.0021 ci = 97.68% - 98.52%

For 2009, the estimate of BMP implementation for the 37 county area (f) is 98.1%, with an

estimated standard error (se) of 0.0021. Using the 95% confidence interval (ci), the data indicates that

95% of the time it is reasonable to expect

compliance with BMPs to be at least 97.7% but

not more than 98.5%.

Implementation scores for individual Survey

sites in 2009 ranged from a low of 79% to a high

of 100%. Figure 3 shows the distribution of

scores for individual Survey sites within several

categories of implementation.

Scores for individual BMP categories ranged

from 87% for Public Lands to 100% for Canals,

Sinkholes, Pesticide and/or Fertilizer Use, Wet

Weather Operations, and Emergency Operations.

A notable decrease occurred from the 2007

Survey for Fireline Construction (-5.1%).

(Appendix Table 2).

The number of individual practices evaluated in 2009 decreased from the 2007 Survey due to a

reduction in the number of countiessampled. However, increasesin the number of practices evaluated

were noted for Special Management Zones (600 to 640), Sinkholes (10 to 17), and Wet Weather

Operations (7 to 61).

Site Characteristics

Asin all previous Surveys, pine flatwoods with poorly drained soils, which characterize a large

portion of Florida's landscape, dominated the physiographic types evaluated in 2009. Seventy-nine

percent of the sites evaluated were pine plantations, 14% of the sites were reported as natural

pine/hardwood mix, and 7% wetlands. Soil erodibility was reported as high on 5% of the Survey sites,

while 93% of the sitesreported low erosion potential. The primary tree species harvested on the Survey

sites was slash pine (46%), followed by loblolly pine (12%), longleaf (5%), hardwoods (16%), and

cypress (7%). Compared to the 2007 Survey, hardwood removals increased slightly and cypress

harvesting decreased by 11%.

Similar to past Surveys, perennial and intermittent streams dominated the water resource

features associated with the 2009 Survey sites at 85%, a decrease of 4% from 2007. Wetlands were

Figure 3. Distribution ofImplementation Scores

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

< 70% 70-79% 80-89% 90-99% 100%

Categories of Implementation

Number of Survey Sites
8

identified on 7% of the sites, with lakes and sinkholes on 4% and 6% of the sites, respectively. Also,

sixty-five per cent of the 2009 Survey sites involved clearcut harvesting operations, mostly in

intensively managed pine plantations. Selective harvesting and seed tree operations were evaluated on

11% of the sites, and there were three salvage harvests evaluated as the result of wildfires.

The 2009 Survey collected information pertaining to logger training. On sites where timber

harvesting was evaluated, 95% of the loggers were Florida Master Loggers and 2% Georgia Master

Timber Harvesters, and 3% Alabama Pro Loggers. In addition, information was collected concerning

wood flow to paper mills,sawmills, veneer plants, and pole treatment facilities. The resultsshow 48%

of the timber harvested was delivered to pulp and paper mills, 37% to chip ‘n saw mills, 8% to veneer

facilities, and 7% to pole treatment plants.

Forestland Ownership

For 2009, 25% of the Survey sites were located on private non-industrial forest lands (PNIF),

66% on forest industry lands, and public lands accounted for 9%. This represents a shift in the

distribution ofsites by ownership, particularly with respect to the private non-industrialsector. For the

fourth time since 2003 more

sites were located on industry

land than private non-industrial

forest land (Figure 4).

However, since 2007, the

number of sites on PNIF lands

has notably decreased, while the

number of sites on public lands

has also decreased. These

changes and trends are no doubt

linked to changes in land

ownership, economic pressures,

and market conditionsfor forest

products.

Sixteen percent of the

PNIF landowners that

participated in the 2009 Survey indicated that they received some level of technical assistance during

their forestry operations. However, the use of technical assistance did not significantly increase the

overall implementation scores, compared to landowners who did not use technical assistance. In

addition, overall implementation was not substantially different between ownership categories. BMP

implementation on industry land was 98.9%, private non-industrial forest land was 97.8%, and public

land showed 97.4%.

Special Management Zones

Research hasshown that the area immediately adjacent to streams, lakes and other waterbodies

is especially important in the overall strategy to protect water quality during silviculture operations.

For example, one Florida study reported that "...increased suspended sediment levels in (forest land)

Figure 4. Survey Sites by Ownership

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Survey Year

Percent

PNIF Industry Public
9

runoff water during the treatment year (was) mostly due to the absence of a protective buffer zone along

the drainage..." [10]. The Silviculture BMP Effectiveness Study mentioned earlier, also showed the

importance ofstream riparian areasfor protecting water quality and for providing habitat requirements

for aquatic organisms [5, 6].

In Florida's Silviculture BMP Manual, these riparian areas are referred to as Special

Management Zones(SMZ), and apply to allstreams,sinkholes, and lakestwo acres and larger. In fact,

the presence ofsuch water resource features and/or the presence of wetlands are the principal criteria for

a forestry operation to qualify as a Survey site. As stated in the Manual, SMZs are designed "...to

protect water quality by reducing or eliminating forestry related inputs ofsediment, nutrients, logging

debris, chemicals and water temperature fluctuations that can adversely affect aquatic communities.

SMZs provide shade, streambank stability and erosion control, as well as detritus and woody debris,

which benefit the aquatic ecosystem in general. In addition, the SMZ is designed to maintain certain

forest attributes that will provide specific wildlife habitat values.”

Implementation of the SMZ includes one or more of the following components: PrimaryZone,

Secondary Zone, and Stringer. The Primary Zone appliesto perennial waters and rangesin width from

35 to 200 feet, depending on stream width and waterbody type. The SecondaryZone and Stringer apply

mostly to intermittent waters. For a given waterbody, the total SMZ width is always a minimum of 35

feet, and may extend out to as much as 300 feet. The management criteria that apply within each SMZ

component are based on the soil and slope of the site and on the size, nature, and classification of the

waterbody involved.

Eighty-five per cent of all water resource

features reported in the Survey were streams.

Sixty-two perennial streams and seventy-two

intermittent streams were evaluated for SMZ

compliance on 134 sites in the 2009 Survey. As

in past Surveys, the perennial stream category

was dominated by streamslessthan 20 feet wide,

which require a minimum 35 foot Primary Zone

(Figure 5). For 2009, the actual, measured

Primary Zone widths for these size streams

ranged from 35-400 feet, with an average width

of 112 feet. For perennial streams, the Survey

reported 40.3 miles of total stream miles meeting Primary Zone requirements. Forest industry lands

accounted for 22.2 miles, with PNIF and Public Lands accounting for 10.9 and 3.2 miles, respectively.

The total area reported as being under Primary Zone management for 2009 was 400 acres, and fortyeight percent of all SMZs evaluated were on small, first order streams. At 98% in 2009, the average

implementation rate for all three SMZ components was unchanged since 2007 (Table 1). Two

significant risks to water quality were reported in the 2009 Survey.

Figure 5. Number of Perennial Streams

Surveyed by Stream Width

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

< 20 20 - 40 > 40 OFW

Stream Width (ft) or Special Designation

Num

b

er of Stre

a

m

s
10

Table 1: SMZ Implementation Summary for last six surveys

SMZ Component 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997

Primary Zone 97% 98% 98% 95% 97% 97% 99%

Secondary Zone 98% 98% 99% 95% 95% 97% 99%

Stringer 98% 99% 100% 94% 95% 100% 94%

Average Compliance 98% 98% 99% 95% 96% 98% 97%

*The “Stringer” was established as a new SMZ component in 1995 and istherefore not applicable prior to the 1995 Survey.

Wetland Forestry Operations

Wetland BMPs address forestry operations such as timber harvesting and skidding practices

conducted within wetlands, and certain activities adjacent to isolated wetlands such as intensive site

preparation and fireline construction. Wetland forestry operations were evaluated on 22% of the sites

during the 2009 Survey, a decrease of 8% from the 2007 Survey. Twenty-two percent of the sites were

evaluated for wet weather operations.

Seventy-five percent of all sites evaluated for Wetland BMPs in 2009 involved operations

conducted in wetland areas less than 200 acres. Within the 37 county area sampled, 380 wetland

practices were evaluated on 40 sites and 98.7% of those were in full compliance with BMPs.

Forest Roads and Stream Crossings

Historically, the most chronic and long-term sediment problems associated with silviculture are

directly attributable to forest roads [11]. Consequently, the proper planning, construction, drainage,

maintenance, and application of forest road BMPs help prevent forestry-related water quality problems.

For 2009, Forest Road BMPs were evaluated on 162 sites most of which involved maintenance

of existing roads. Of the 777 road practices evaluated, 98.4% were in full compliance with BMPs.

Sixty-eight survey sites (42%) reported newly established roads. New road construction was found to

be in compliance with BMPs 99% of the time. Likewise, existing drainage structures were evaluated on

140 sites and had a compliance rate of 98%. As in previous surveys, the most common incidence of

noncompliance for roads was failure to stabilize critical road segments, installing drainage structures

properly such as culverts and water turnouts, carefully plan location and desired drainage features

before construction begins, and directing road surface drainage away from waterbodies and/or wetlands.

There was one significant risk reported in the Forest Road category in the 2009 Survey.

Stream crossings associated with forestry operations were evaluated on 18% of the Survey sites

in 2009. Of the stream crossings evaluated, 65% were culvert installations and the remainder was hardsurface crossings. Of the 220 stream crossing practices evaluated in the 2009 Survey, 96.8% were in

compliance with BMPs.

Timber Harvesting, Site Preparation and Planting

The number of timber harvesting practices evaluated in 2009 totaled 728 practices on 145 sites.
11

Overall implementation for this category was 99.9% for the 37 county area surveyed. No significant

risks were observed on all 145 sites associated with timber harvesting BMPs.

Second only to timber harvesting, site preparation is the most common and recognizable

silviculture operation in Florida forestry. Mechanical site preparation, such as chopping, bedding and

pile raking, routinely follows harvesting operations in pine management and often results in a

significant amount of bare soil exposure. For that reason, the orientation ofsuch activities with respect

to slope and local surface waters is the basis for most BMPs in the Site Preparation category. The

intensity and timing of site preparation largely determines the extent of soil exposure, while slope and

soil type determine erosion potential.

Florida’s Silviculture BMP Manual uses a Site SensitivityClassification system to describe the

susceptibility of a site to erosion and sedimentation. Generally, sites with slopes exceeding 12%

adjacent to the waterbody are considered most susceptible to erosion, and require wider SMZs with

restrictions on mechanicalsite preparation activities. Similar to previous Surveys, only 4% of the 2009

sites fell within this slope class, and 89% were classified as having low soil erodibility.

Site preparation and tree planting activities were evaluated on 46% of the 2009 Survey sites.

Overall implementation for this category was 99.2% for the 37 county area surveyed. Sixty-three

percent of the sites evaluated forsite preparation incorporated some type of mechanical operations. Of

those sitesreporting mechanicalsite preparation, 58% involved intensive shearing, raking, pile raking,

and/or bedding. Chemical site preparation, alone or in combination with mechanical techniques, was

reported on 60% of the 2009 sites, up from 28% in 2007. Site preparation and planting operations

scored 99.2% overall forsitessampled within the 37 county area. BMP non-compliance was observed

on one site as the result of mechanical site preparation (scalping down slope) within the SMZ.

Tree planting activities were evaluated on 85 sites and involved machine planting 79% of the

time. There were no observations of improper waste disposal involving tree planters not disposing of

seedling wrapping/boxes properly.

Fireline Construction

The number ofsites evaluated for fireline construction was 24 in 2001, 42 in 2003, 9 in 2005, 16

in 2007, and 11 in 2009 representing a 31% decrease. In addition, the overall implementation rate for

this category was 94.9% in this Survey, down 5.1% from 2007.

Waste Disposal

The Waste Disposal category continues to be a high priority for BMP implementation on

forestland in Florida. In particular, the proper disposal of forestry related petroleum and chemical

products and their containers is an increasingly important surface and ground water concern.

Waste Disposal BMPs were evaluated on 185 sites during the 2009 Survey. Although

implementation for this category was 96.3%, twenty-foursites(13%)scored lessthan 80%. Most other

instances of BMP noncompliance for this category were solid waste (trash) near log loading decks.
12

Figure 6. Comparison of Significant Risk

by Survey Year

0

5

10

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Survey Year

Sig

nific

a

nt Ris

k

s

Significant Risk

Each incidence of BMP noncompliance was further evaluated in terms of Significant Risk to

water quality. This element of the Survey was added in 1995 so that high-risk conditions could be

identified and corrected. In addition, this evaluation provides a measure of the frequency with which

such conditions may occur in conjunction with silviculture operations in Florida.

Of the 4,127 practices evaluated,

1.9% was not in compliance. The 2009

Survey reported two instances of Significant

Risk. Both instances were remediated

according to DOF recommendations. Figure

6 shows the number of significant risks, by

Survey, since 1995.

Random Verification Audits

For the fifth time since the 2001

BMP Survey, the Division of Forestry

conducted a statewide, random

“verification audit”, the purpose of which is

to ensure the continued accuracy and reliability of the Survey data. The verification audit was

performed after all Survey sites were completed and the data was processed. The audit procedure

consisted of randomly selecting a subset (approximately 5%) of all Survey sites evaluated for 2009.

Then, using the original Survey form the Watershed Forester and the BMP Forester re-evaluated

each of the audit sites. Any inconsistencies noted during the audit were corrected on the form and

the appropriate changes were made to the overall Survey data base. For 2009, ten Survey sites were

audited, and no inconsistencies were noted (Table 2).

Area Weighting BMP Implementation Data

Area weighting results are typically reported giving equal weight to all sites (i.e. a 20 acre

tract counts the same as a 450 acre tract when compiling all data). Statistically, tracts could also be

weighted based on their acreage, i.e. larger tracts would have a greater influence on the total %

BMP implementation than the smaller tracts. This analysis is performed to provide information on

how the practices are impacting the total landscape. For the first time since the biennial Survey was

conducted (1981), Area Weighting the 2009 BMP Data is illustrated below using the following

formula.

AW% = Sum(((Individual A/Total A) *100)) * % Implementation)))

For 2009, the Area Weighted result of all BMP sites is 98.4% statewide based on the random

sample criteria for site selection.
13

SUMMARY

The 2009 BMP Implementation Survey was the fifteenth since the initial Survey in 1981. This

Survey evaluated 185 individual forestry operations(sites), encompassing 31,313 acresin 37 counties.

This brings the total number of forestry operations surveyed (sites) in Florida to 2,550, since 1981.

The 2009 Survey evaluated 4,127 individual forest practices - a decrease of 591 from 2007 due to a

reduced sampling area covering 37 counties(Figure 1). Considering all practicesin all BMP categories,

implementation in 2009 was 98.1% which is a slight decrease of 0.50% since the 2007 Survey.

Twenty-five percent of the 2009 Survey sites were on private non-industrial (PNIF) lands, 66%

were on forest industry lands and 9% were on public lands. Since the 2007 Survey, there has been a

noticeable increase in the number of Survey sites on forest industry lands. In addition, as noted in

previous Surveys, BMP implementation between ownership categories was not significantly different

for 2009. Overall BMP implementation on forest industry was 98.9%, private non-industrial

landowners 97.8%, and public lands 97.4%.

Table 2: Random Verification Audits by County

The "typical" Survey site for

2009 was approximately 169 acres

with sandy soil and relatively flat

topography. The typical silviculture

operation included harvesting slash

pine for pulpwood, followed by

intensive mechanicalsite preparation

and replanting the site with slash or

loblolly pine by conventional

machine tree planting equipment.

BMP implementation with

Special Management Zone criteria

was 98%, unchanged from 2007.

For individual SMZ components,

compliance with width requirements

was 97% for the Primary Zone, 98%

for the Secondary Zone, and 98% for Stringers. Ninety-two percent of all Primary Zones were on

streamslessthan 20 feet wide, which require a 35-foot Zone. For 2009, actual PrimaryZone widthsfor

this stream category ranged from 35-400 feet, with an average width of 112 feet. For all stream

categories combined, the Survey reported 40.3 totalstream miles meeting Primary Zone requirements.

Twenty-two percent of the 2009 Survey sites reported wetland activities. Implementation of

Wetland BMPs for this Survey was 98.7%, approximately 0.50% more than in 2007.

Implementation of Forest Road BMPs was 98.4%, and general road planning and construction

was reported on 26% of the sites. There was one significant risk reported in this BMP category.

County Number of Audit

Sites

Compliance/Change

Bay County 1 100% No Change

Clay County 1 90.0% No Change

Columbia County 1 100% No Change

Dixie County 1 100% No Change

Escambia County 1 100% No Change

Holmes County 1 97.6% No Change

Lafayette County 1 100% No Change

Levy County 1 100% No Change

Marion County 1 100% No Change

Nassau County 1 100% No Change
14

Stream Crossings were evaluated on 18% of the 2009 Survey sites, up from 17% in 2007.

BMP implementation for Stream Crossings was 96.8%, with the majority of the sites reporting culvert

installed crossings.

For the 2009 Survey, the most frequently reported BMP noncompliance was in the Special

Management Zone, Forest Roads, and Waste Disposal categories. In addition, Wetlands, Stream

Crossings, Timber Harvesting, Site Preparation, Fireline Construction, and Public Landsshowed some

level of noncompliance. Of most concern in the forest road category, was the lack of proper road

planning and construction where critical segments should have been stabilized to reduce the potential

for erosion on steep slopes.

The 2009 Survey showed a continuing high implementation rate with silviculture BMPs in

Florida. Thisis attributed to the distribution of over 50,000 Silviculture BMP Manualssince 1993, and

to the cooperative educational outreach to the forestry community through DOF workshops and

demonstrations. In addition, the DOF provides BMP training as part of the Florida Forestry

Association’s Master Logger Program [11]. This program hastrained over 500 Florida loggers and is a

growing part of the Division of Forestry’s BMP training program.

Despite the 98.1% implementation rate for 2009,several BMP categoriesin this Survey showed

a slight decrease in compliance - most notably, Special Management Zones, Stream Crossings, Timber

Harvesting, Fireline Construction, Waste Disposal, and Public Lands. Educational outreach programs

for silviculture BMPs during the next two years will focus on these BMP categories including

workshops on BMPsfor fireline construction,stream crossings, and forest roads prior to the nextsurvey

in 2011.

Finally, the Division of Forestry conducted the fifth verification audit for the silviculture

BMP Survey. This random audit essentially re-evaluates approximately 5% of the actual Survey sites

within the designated sample area to ensure accuracy and reliability of the data. Ten Survey sites were

audited for 2009 and no discrepancies were identified.

REFERENCES

[1] _______________1979. Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual. Florida Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, Tallahassee, FL.

[2] Vowell,Jeffery L. 1996. Revising Florida's Best Management Practices- A Partnership Process.

In the TAPPI International Environmental Conference Proceedings. Orlando, FL.

[3] _______________2003. Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual. Florida Department

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, Tallahassee, FL.

[4] Barbour, Michael T., et al.1996. Development of the Stream Condition Index for Florida -

Nonpoint Source Bioassessment Program. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,

Tallahassee, FL.

[5] Vowell, Jeffrey L. 2001. Using Stream Bioassessment to Monitor Best Management Practice
15

Effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (2001) 237-244, Elsevier.

[6] Vowell, Jeffrey L., and Russel Frydenborg, 2004. A Biological Assessment of Best

Management Practice Effectiveness during Intensive Silviculture and Forest Chemical

Application. Journal of Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus Vol 4 (1), (2004) 299-309.

[7] Bechtold, William A., Brown, M.J. and Sheffield, R.M., 1995. Forest Statistics for Florida,

USDA Forest Service, Resource Bulletin SE 101, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station,

Asheville, North Carolina.

[8] Mcnew, Ronald. 1990. Sampling and Estimating Compliance with BMPs. In the Workshop on

Implementation Monitoring of ForestryBest Management Practices Proceedings. Atlanta, GA.

[9] Riekerk, Hans. 1989. Silviculture, Hydrology and Water Quality in the Lower Coastal Plain of

the U.S.A. In the Forest Hydrological Resources in China Workshop Proceedings. Harbin,

China.

[10] Ursic, Stanley J. and J.E. Douglas. 1979. The Effects of Forestry Practices on Water Resources.

In the W. Kelly Mosley Environmental Forum Proceedings. Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.

[11] _______________.1998. Florida’s Master Logger Directory, A Landowners Guide to

Responsible Forestry. Florida Forestry Association, Tallahassee, FL.
16

APPENDICES

Table 1: Page 17

Table 2: Page 18-39
Florida Division of Forestry

Table 1. 2009 BMP Compliance Survey Goals by County

COUNTY

Survey Site

Selection

Overall

Compliance

(%)

Significant

Risks

(#)

COUNTY

Survey Site

Selection

Overall

Compliance

(%)

Significant

Risks

(#)

Goal Actual Goal Actual

Alachua 6 6 100% Leon 4 2 100%

Baker 7

7 98.2% Levy6 6 100%

Bay 7

4 98% Liberty4 3 98.4%

Bradford 1

1 100% Madison6 6 99.1%

Calhoun

6 8 97.1% Marion6 6 99.4%

Clay

5 5 98.2% Nassau7 7 99.5%

Columbia

5 5 100% Okaloosa5 3 97.8%

Dixie

9 9 100% Putnam 5 5 100%

Duval

3 3 100% St. Johns6 6 100%

Escambia

5 5 96.5% Santa Rosa7 7 91.6%

Flagler

6 6 100% Suwannee3 3 97.6%

Franklin

3 5 100% Taylor11 12 100%

Gadsden

4 6 97.9% Union3 3 100%

Gilchrist

3 3 100% Volusia4 4 100%

Gulf

2 2 100% Wakulla3 2 100%

Hamilton

5 5 93.3% 1 Walton4 5 98.2%

Holmes

3 5 95.3% 1 Washington3 5 99.2%

Jackson

8 6 95.2%

Jefferson

4 3 98.7%

Lafayette

6 6 100%

185 185 98.1% 2

17
18

Field Site Number 

County: _________ 

 Site No.: ________ 

 

 (Field Use) 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

2009 Implementation Survey

Survey Number

09 - 1 - 185

Appendix Table 2. OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY

BMP CATEGORY

(CHECK BOX IF EVALUATED ON THIS SITE)

COMPLIANCE BY CATEGORY NUMBER OF

SIGNIFICANT

RISKS #

"YES"

#

"NO"

TOTAL

(Y+N)

%

"YES"

A. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES 177 623 17 640 97.3%

B. WETLANDS 40 380 5 385 98.7%

C. CANALS 6 25 0 25 100%

D. SINKHOLES 6 17 0 17 100%

E. FOREST ROADS 162 777 13 790 98.4% 1

F. STREAM CROSSINGS 34 213 7 220 96.8%

G. TIMBER HARVESTING (Non-Wetlands) 145 727 1 728 99.9%

H. SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTING 85 376 3 379 99.2% 1

I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION 11 56 3 59 94.9%

J. PESTICIDE and/or FERTILIZER USE 33 72 0 72 100%

K. WASTE DISPOSAL 185 694 27 721 96.3%

L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS 41 61 0 61 100%

M. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 5 7 0 7

100%

N. PUBLIC LANDS 16 20 3 23 87%

TOTALS 4,048 79 4,127 2

OVERALL COMPLIANCE (%) 98.1%

COMMENTS: Certified Tree Farm? 15 Yes 157 No 12 Unknown

Survey Taken By: ________________________________ __________________________________

(Print Name) (Signature)

Office Phone:( ) Date Survey Completed:

Results communicated to the landowner by: Letter Phone In Person __ Email No Contact Made Yet

SAMPLE
19 

Field Site Number 

County: __________ 

Site No.: __________ 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

2009 Implementation Survey 

Survey Number 

09 - 1 - 185 

PART I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION & CHARACTERISTICS:

1.Owner Name: ____86 Forest Landowners________ 2. Ownership: 16 PUBLIC 122 INDUSTRY 47 PNIF 

Address: 

 3. Email Address: _______________________________________ 

Landowner Phone No.: ( ) _________________ 

Contact Name: Contact Phone No.: ( ) _______________ 

 

4. Approximate acreage of treated area: 31,313 * Map showing location of site attached? ___ Yes ___ No 

5. If PNIF, technical/professional forestry assistance was provided by (Check all that apply): 

 8 DOF County Forester 20 Forestry Consultant 1 Industrial Forester 16 None 

6. Land use prior to treatment (predominantly): 

148 Intensive Forest Management (Planted Pine) 0 Row crop Farming 

 27 Passive Forest Management (Natural Pine/Hardwood Mix) 0 Pasture 

 12 Forested Wetland Management (Hardwood Timber) 0 Other 

7. Dominant Terrain (check one): 

 14 Wetlands 43 Uplands 113 Flatwoods 15 Sandhills 0 Pasture/Cropland 

8. Principle Soil Texture (check one): 0 Clay 8 Loam 164 Sand 11 Organic (Muck) 

9. Name of Soil Type or Series (County Soil Survey Book): _____________________________________ 

 

10. Estimated Slope Class of treated area adjacent to predominant waterbody (check one): 

Organic or 

0-2% 3-7% 8-12% 13-17% 18-22% >22% 

11. Soil Erodibility Class (Check one): 172 

 A 

 (LOW) 

4 

 B 

 (MODERATE) 

9 

 C 

 (HIGH)

12. Site Sensitivity Class (SSC) - based on the above soil and slope information: 

 (Refer to Appendices 1-3, pages 40-63 of the 2008 BMP Manual)

* A1 = 121 A4 = 4 B1 = 3 B4 = 0 C1 = 5 C4 = 0 

 A2 = 26 A5 = 2 B2 = 0 B5 = 0 C2 = 1 C5 = 0 

 A3 = 18 A6 = 1 B3 = 1 B6 = 0 C3 = 3 C6 = 0 N/A = 0 

SAMPLE
20 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

PART II: FORESTRY OPERATIONS :

13. Timber Harvest System (Check all that apply): Approximate Time of Treatment (Mo./Yr.): ____________ 

 

Name & Location (City) of Logger: _________________________________________________________ 

 

 0 N/A 9 Seed Tree Cut FL Master Logger? 114 Yes __ No

128 Clearcut 3 Salvage Cut AL Pro Logger? 4 Yes __ No

 GA Master Timber 

 12 Selective Cut 18 Row Thinning Harvester? 2 Yes __ No 

 Name of Receiving Mill: Pulp _81_ Sawmill 62 Veneer 13 Poles 12

14. Site Preparation System (Check all that apply): Approx. Time of Treatment (Mo./Yr.): ___________ 

 

Name & Location (City) of Contractor: _______________________________________________________

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 97 N/A 31 Chemical Treatment (Pre-Plant) 

 6 Light Mechanical 3 Chemical Treatment (Post- Plant) 

 74 Intensive Mechanical 14 Burn 

15. Regeneration System (Check all that apply): Approx. Time of Treatment (Mo./Yr.): _________ 

 

Name & Location (City) of Contractor: 

147 N/A 7 Hand Planting 

 19 Conventional Machine Planting 0 Aerial/Ground Seeding 

 7 V-blade Planter 0 Natural Regeneration 

16. Primary merchantable timber species harvested (Check all that apply): 

 19 N/A 12 Longleaf Pine 17 Cypress 

112 Slash Pine 1 Other Pine species 14 Sand Pine 

 29 Loblolly Pine 39 Hardwood species 

17. Forest species planted (Check all that apply): 

 89 N/A 3 Longleaf Pine 0 Cypress 

 26 Slash Pine 0 Other Pine species _0_ Sand Pine 

 8 Loblolly Pine 1 Hardwood species 

18. Are Forested Wetland Roads and/or Stream Crossings to be evaluated on this site? Yes 29 No 155 

 If yes, did the landowner obtain the proper permit for installation? Yes 8 No 0 *1 NA 67 

*1 If the answer to this question is "No", take this opportunity to explain to the landowner that permanent and

temporary stream/wetland crossings are subject to permitting under the Environmental Resources Permit 

Rule (ERP) administered by the Water Management Districts. Requirements and criteria for crossings may vary 

between Water Management Districts. Advise the landowner to contact the WMD in his/her area (see Appendix 

13) for information and/or permit applications prior to future projects involving crossings. 

 All evaluated forestry operations complete? Yes 127 No 58 

 Will there be future forestry operations on this site? Yes 123 No 62

SAMPLE
21 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

PART III. WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS N/A 157 

(If a wetlands operation check “N/A” and go to Part IV): *2

19. Name of waterbody, if known: 157 Waterbodies: 53 Named; 104 Unnamed 

 

20. If stream, indicate Stream Order (Circle only one) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Higher Unanswered 

 88 32 12 4 1 48 

21. Indicate type & size of waterbody found on this site and its SMZ requirement: 

 (Refer to pages 7-14 and Appendix 1 of 2008 BMP Manual)

TYPE OF 

WATERBODY

(Check All That Apply) * 

STREAM WIDTH & CLASS 

(Check All That Apply)

SMZ WIDTH (Feet)

REQUIRED ACTUAL

<20' 20-40' >40' OFW 

(2) 

ONRW 

(2) 

CLASS I 

 (2)

PRIMARY 

ZONE 

SECONDARY 

ZONE 

PRIMARY 

ZONE 

SECONDARY 

ZONE 

TOTAL 

 SMZ

Perennial Stream 62 57 3 0 2 0 0 88 24 112 

Perennial Lake (1) 7 

Perennial Sinkhole 10 

Intermittent Lake (1) 

4

STRINGER STRINGER 

(Check if 

applied) 

Intermittent Stream 

72 

STRINGER STRINGER 

(Check if 

applied) 

Intermittent Sinkhole 

2

STRINGER STRINGER 

(Check if 

applied)

 Measure or estimate total linear water "frontage" under "Primary Zone" treatment: 

 (The Primary SMZ length may be determined using an aerial photo or a "to-scale" map of the treated area.) 212,657 Feet (40.3 miles) 

(1) Lakes 2 acres or larger only. 

(2) Refer to Appendix 4 for partial listing of "Special Waters". 

 Complete listing of OFWs is available from WMD offices listed in Appendix 13 or from the Florida Department of 

 Environmental Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Rd., Tallahassee, FL, 32399-2400. 

 22. Are Primary Zone Exceptions being applied for perennial waterbodies on site? Yes 2 No __ 

 (Evaluate compliance in SMZ section).

23. Total area designated as "Primary SMZ":

(Linear Water Frontage x Primary Zone Width/43,560) 400 Acres

*2 NOTE: Attach an additional copy of Part III and Section A, Part IV of the Survey for each waterbody 

 adjacent to the operation evaluated on this site. 

SAMPLE
22 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

 SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY (PART IV: BMP APPLICATIONS) 

 

A. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES (SMZs): *

 (Refer to pages 3-6 of 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 177 

 * NOTE: Attach additional copies of Part III & Section A, of Part IV of the Survey for each waterbody evaluated on this site.

PRIMARY ZONE 

(Applies to Perennial Streams, Lakes, and Sinkholes)

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Width of the Primary Zone meets the minimum required for waterbody size & type? N/A 98 5 

WAS TIMBER HARVESTING CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PRIMARY ZONE?

(If "No" Skip Questions 2 - 5) YES NO

2. Timber harvesting limited to selective cutting only? N/A 5 2 

3. Left residual stand that “mirrors” previous stand (50% of a fully stocked stand)? N/A 6 0 

4. Left all trees in stream channel/banks? N/A 8 1 

5. Primary zone composed of mixed pine/hardwood, left 90% hardwood and 10% 

 pine? N/A 6 0 

6. Kept mechanical site preparation out of the Primary Zone? N/A 26 1 

7. Kept fertilization out of the Primary Zone? N/A 0 0 

8. Kept aerial application or mist blowing of herbicides out of the Primary Zone? N/A 15 0 

9. Kept log loading decks, landings, bunching points out of the Primary Zone? N/A 58 0 

10. Kept permanent roads out of the Primary Zone (Except to cross waterway)? N/A 41 0 

11. Restricted site preparation burns to slopes with < 18%? N/A 3 0 

PRIMARY ZONE EXCEPTIONS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

 Refer to Appendix 11, pages 105-107 of the 2008 BMP Manual for explanation of Exceptions

N/A 

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

12. Exception # 1, "SMZ Greater Than 10% of Tract Area", correctly applied? N/A 0 0 

13. Exception # 2 "Managed Pine Timber", correctly applied? N/A 2 0 

14. Exception # 3a "Add-On", correctly applied? N/A 0 0 

15. Exception # 3b "Stand Quality Improvement", correctly applied? N/A 0 0 

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 

268 9 0 

SAMPLE
23 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

A. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES (SMZs) - Continued 

(Refer to pages 3-6, 104-107, and Appendices 10 & 11 of 2008 BMP Manual)

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

Enter subtotals from previous page 268 9 0 

SECONDARY ZONE 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

16. Kept mechanical site preparation out of the Secondary Zone? N/A 39 5 

17. Kept log loading decks and landings out of the Secondary Zone? N/A 80 0 

18. Kept permanent roads out of the Secondary Zone (except for crossings)? N/A 67 0 

19. Restricted site preparation burns to <18% slope? N/A 10 0 

STRINGER 

(Applies to Intermittent Streams, Lakes 2 Ac.+, and Sinkholes)

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A 

20. Provided a continuous and connected canopy? N/A 50 1 

21. Left adequate trees in stream channel/banks? N/A 50 1 

22. Minimized disturbance to stream banks? N/A 59 1 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

623 17 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 97.3% 

SAMPLE
24 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

B. OPERATIONS WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

 (Refer to pages 17-21 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 40 

GENERAL WETLAND BMPs 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Maintained hydrologic conditions/drainage of wetlands? N/A 40 0 

2. Kept logging debris out of and away from cypress ponds, strands, marshes, streams, 

 lakes or similar water resource features? N/A 34 2 

3. Kept intensive mechanical site prep (excluding drum chopping) out of the wetland? N/A 12 0 

4. Avoided fireline plowing in wetlands? N/A 4 0 

WETLAND ROADS AND CROSSINGS 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

5. Minimized number of wetland crossing? N/A 17 1 

6. Permanent roads only for purposes allowed in the BMP Manual (Page 17)? N/A 13 0 

7. Avoided constructing above-grade fill roads? N/A 18 0 

8. Fill road properly culverted to allow adequate stormflow, normal sheetflow, etc.? N/A 2 0 

HARVESTING IN WETLANDS WHERE CYPRESS IS PREDOMINANT 

 (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A 

9. Left cypress as leave trees? 7 0 

10. Leave trees represent the upper limit of the range for wetland harvest units? (i.e. <200A or >200A) 7 0 

11. Pond cypress trees cut at the approximate average high water mark? 7 1 

SUBTOTALS 

SAMPLE

(Enter at top of table on next page) 161 4 
25 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

B. OPERATIONS WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS – Continued 

 (Refer to pages 17-21 of the 2008 BMP Manual)

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

Enter Subtotals from previous page 161 4 

HARVESTING PRACTICES

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

OCCURRING IN WETLANDS LESS THAN 200 ACRES IN SIZE: N/A 

12. Left EITHER 3-5 Trees/Acre “Leave Trees” OR 10% of the area as Selective Cut? N/A 22 1 

OCCURRING IN WETLANDS GREATER THAN 200 ACRES: N/A 

13. Left 1-2 large older age class Trees/Acre? N/A 2 0 

14. Retained all snags and limited size of clearcut to 160 acres or less? N/A 2 0 

15. Left either a 200-ft selective cut strip between clearcut areas OR 

 harvested only adjacent to cut-overs with regeneration which has attained heights of 

 at least 20 feet?

N/A 0 0 

16. Multiple clearcuts within any 160 acre block separated by a 100 ft buffer? N/A 0 0 

OCCURRING IN SMALL ISOLATED WETLANDS (<2 AC.): N/A 

17. Left 20% unharvested where 5 or more isolated wetlands <2 acres each exist? N/A 5 0 

18. Have previously harvested isolated wetlands reached 20 feet in height prior to reentry to harvest remaining isolated wetlands?

N/A 5 0 

IS THERE A FLOWING WETLAND?

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

19. Extended SMZ 50 feet into wetland? N/A 0 0 

20. Clustered leave trees along centerline of flow-way if present? N/A 4 0 

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 201 5 

 

 

 

SAMPLE
26 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

B. OPERATIONS WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS - Continued

 (Refer to pages 17–21 of the 2008 BMP Manual) 

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present 

Enter Subtotals from previous page 201 5 

SKIDDING

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

21. Minimized number of MAIN skid trails within wetland area? N/A 32 0 

22. Avoided widespread and excessive rutting? N/A 33 0 

23. Concentrated skid trails in organic wetland soils? N/A 33 0 

24. Avoided operating heavy equipment under wet or flooded conditions? N/A 29 0 

25. Low ground pressure equipment? N/A 18 0 

MAT (SHOVEL) LOGGING 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

26. Width of skid trail mats minimized to no more than 20 feet (on the average)? 

Exceptions apply to equipment passage. N/A 7 0 

27. Skid trail mats are no closer than 200 feet apart (on the average)? 

(If tracked machines used under excessively wet conditions: spacing reduced to 50 feet; 

and area of mats does not exceed 25% of harvest area.) 

 

N/A 7 0 

28. Timber for mats laid down in direction of the trail? N/A 7 0 

29. One layer of timber used for skid trail mats? 

(Multiple layers may be used to prevent site disturbance.) N/A 5 0 

30. Multiple layers of timber used? 

(The bottom layer may be laid perpendicular to the trail and exceed 20 feet in width.) 

N/A 

1 0 

31. Merchantable timber used in skid trail mat removed after logging operation? N/A 7 0 

32. Skid trail mats used for stream crossings, consistent with Stream Crossing Section? 

(See Stream Crossing Section of BMP Manual) N/A 0 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 380 5 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 98.7% 

SAMPLE
27 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

C. OPERATIONS ADJACENT TO CANALS 

 (Refer to pages 22-23 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 6 

GENERAL BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK?

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Avoided heavy equipment operation within canal? N/A 6 0 

2. Established canal crossing(s) only when necessary? N/A 2 0 

3. Installed canal crossing(s) properly? (See Stream Crossing Section) N/A 2 0 

4. Avoided discharge from site preparation activity into canal? N/A 1 0 

5. Left canal free of excessive logging slash? N/A 6 0 

6. Applied forest chemicals properly? N/A 0 0 

CANAL MAINTENANCE

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

7. Minimized canal maintenance activities? N/A 1 0 

8. Minimized disturbance to canal banks? N/A 4 0 

9. Applied proper erosion/sediment control practices where necessary? N/A 1 0 

10. Road maintenance adjacent to canal conducted properly? 

 (i.e. road spoil discharged away from canal-side of road) 

N/A 2 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

25 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

SAMPLE

100% 
28 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

D. OPERATIONS ADJACENT TO SINKHOLES

 (Refer to page 24 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle box and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 6 

GENERAL SINKHOLE BMPs

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK?

Check only if a 

significant risk 

to water quality 

is present

Note: If an SMZ is required, please refer to p. 5 on SMZs. 

1. Avoided placing logging debris, trash or waste into sinkhole or in drainage feature 

flowing into sinkhole?

N/A 6 0 

2. Avoided mechanical operations or chemicals within sinkhole? N/A 5 0 

3. Avoided altering adjacent land surface to discharge into sinkhole? N/A 6 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

17 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

100% 

SAMPLE
29 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

E. FOREST ROADS

 (Refer to pages 25-27 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 162 

GENERAL ROAD PLANNING & CONSTRUCTION BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Carefully planned location and desired drainage features before construction. N/A 26 1 

 2. Avoided construction operations during wet conditions. N/A 24 0 

 3. Road properly designed for traffic load and use? N/A 24 0 

 4. Properly balanced cut/fill ratio N/A 17 0 

 5. Fill road shoulders properly sloped? N/A 22 0 

 6. Road banks properly stabilized? N/A 68 0 

 7. Critical segments of road stabilized? N/A 26 1 

ROAD DRAINAGE 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

Drainage Structures Evaluated (check all that apply): 55 Cross-drain culverts 3 Cross-ditches 89 Road Ditches 

 13 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 19 Water Turnouts 6 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS) 

 

8. Drainage structure installed properly? N/A 101 3 

9. Road surface drainage directed away from waterbodies/wetlands? N/A 140 3 1 

ROAD MAINTENANCE 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

Drainage Structures Evaluated (check all that apply): 55 Cross-drain culverts 4 Cross-ditches 88 Road Ditches 

 12 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 18 Water Turnouts 7 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS) 

10. Drainage structures free of major obstructions? N/A 121 0 

11. Inactive roads closed to traffic? N/A 145 0 

12. Stabilized critical segments? N/A 63 5 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

777 13 1 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 98.4% 

SAMPLE
30 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

F. STREAM CROSSINGS

 (Refer to pages 28-30 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 34 

GENERAL STREAM CROSSING BMPs

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Minimized number of stream crossings on site? N/A 28 2 

2. Located stream crossing(s) on narrow section of stream? N/A 31 0 

3. Located crossing(s) on straight segment(s) of stream? N/A 31 0 

4. Stabilized erodible fill material? N/A 13 2 

5. Avoided construction during high water conditions? N/A 6 0 

CULVERTS 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A 

6. Culvert properly installed? N/A 18 1 

7. Culvert size adequate to accommodate flow? N/A 21 0 

8. Repaired or replaced damaged culverts? N/A 4 0 

9. Kept culvert openings free of debris and/or obstructions? N/A 22 0 

10. Culvert size sufficient for expected flow on a temporary basis? N/A 6 0 

11. Temporary culvert removed immediately after operation? N/A 0 0 

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page)

180 5 

SAMPLE
31 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

STREAM CROSSING - Continued 

(Refer to pages 28-30 of 2008 BMP Manual)

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only 

if a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

Subtotals from previous page 180 5 

HARD-SURFACE CROSSING BMPs

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE)

N/A 

TYPE OF ARMORING MATERIAL USED FOR HARD-SURFACE CROSSINGS ON THIS SITE: 

 4 None Used 0 Limerock 1 Gravel 0 Concrete 2 Logs 0 Slag 31 Other (List): Tile, Bricks, etc. 

 

12. Used non-petroleum based material for armoring? N/A 8 0 

13. Stream bottom/banks appropriate for this type of crossing? N/A 9 0 

14. Used clean material with size, weight, and texture of armoring material 

 suitable to stream flow? 

N/A 5 0 

15. Avoided stream impoundment with crossing installation? N/A 8 1 

16. Removed temporary materials after completion of operation? N/A 3 1 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

213 7 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 96.8% 

SAMPLE
32 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

G. TIMBER HARVESTING OPERATIONS (NON-WETLANDS)

 (Refer to page 31 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 145 

SKIDDING & SKID TRAIL BMPs

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. To the extent possible, located skid trails on land contours? N/A 140 0 

2. To the extent possible, avoided long continuous skid trails? N/A 74 0 

3. Kept main skid trails out of SMZ? N/A 61 0 

4. Installed appropriate drainage structures properly? N/A 15 0 

5. Stabilized critical segments as needed? N/A 24 0 

6. Concentrated skid trails in organic soils? N/A 49 0 

7. Dispersed skid trails in mineral soils? N/A 140 0 

SLASH DISPOSAL 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

8. Kept waterbodies free of logging slash? N/A 88 1 

9. Avoided pushing or piling logging slash from loading ramps & decks into wetlands, ponds, & 

 edges? 

N/A 136 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

727 1 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1)

SAMPLE

99.9% 
33 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

H. SITE PREPARATION & FOREST TREE PLANTING OPERATIONS

 (Refer to page 32 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 85 

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Applied appropriate site preparation intensity for the site? N/A 84 0 

2. Kept intensive mechanical site preparation (excluding drum chopping) out of wetlands? 

N/A 67 0 

3. To the extent possible, drum chopping conducted perpendicular to waterbody? N/A 7 0 

4. To the extent possible, established windrows and soil beds on land contours? N/A 64 1 1 

5. Avoided tying bed furrows into canals? N/A 4 0 

6. Minimized soil erosion when pushing and piling? N/A 69 0 

7. Avoided pushing and piling logging debris into cypress ponds, strands, marshes, streams, 

 lakes or similar water resource features? 

N/A 65 2 

8. Restricted site preparation burning to slopes < 18%? N/A 16 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 376 3 1 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 99.2% 

SAMPLE
34 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION

 (Refer to page 33 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 11 

GENERAL BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Used existing barriers ( roads, waterbodies, etc.) as firelines where practical? N/A 11 0 

2. Used alternatives to plowed lines such as foam, harrowing, wet lines, permanent grass, 

 when feasible? N/A 10 0 

3. Avoided plowing lines through wetlands, marshes, and savannas? N/A 6 0 

4. Avoided fireline plowing in Special Management Zones particularly the primary zone? N/A 4 1 

5. Minimized plow depth? N/A 5 0 

6. Avoided crossing (connecting to) waterbodies/stream channels while plowing 

 firelines? N/A 5 0 

7. Avoided creating drainage conditions with plowed firelines near isolated wetlands? N/A 6 0 

8. To the extent possible, constructed plowed firelines on land contours? N/A 9 0 

9. Stabilized critical segments of plowed firelines with appropriate drain structure when 

 necessary? 

N/A 0 2 

Structures Evaluated (check all that apply): 3 None Applied Cross-ditches Water Turnouts 

 Water Bars Vegetation 11 Other (List): Soil Plugs 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 56 3 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 94.9% 

SAMPLE
35 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP INPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

J. PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS

 (Refer to page 34-35 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 33

PESTICIDE USE BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only if 

a significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

Pesticide(s) used: Arsenal (1) Chopper (17) Garlon (16) Oust (6) Velpar ULW (1) Accord (1) Polaris (2) Escort (1) 

Oustar (1) Roundup (2) Other (10) 

This is a (Check One): 30 Pre-planting Treatment 3 Post-planting Treatment 

1. Directed pesticide only to the targeted area? N/A 31 0 

2. Properly disposed of pesticide/fertilizer containers according to directions of label? N/A 26 0 

3. Cleaned spray equipment outside of SMZ? N/A 14 0 

FERTILIZER USE BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

Fertilizer(s) applied: DAP (2) Urea (1) 

This is a (Check One): 0 Pre-planting Treatment 2 Post-planting Treatment

4. Located fertilizer transfer/loading areas outside of the Primary Zone? N/A 1 0 

5. Timing of fertilizer application conducive to maximizing effectiveness of nutrient uptake? N/A 0 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 72 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 100% 

SAMPLE
36 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY 

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

K. WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES

 (Refer to page 36 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 185 

WASTE OIL DISPOSAL BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N)

RISK? 

Check only if a 

significant risk to 

water quality is 

present

1. Waste oil properly collected and stored temporarily on-site during 

 equipment maintenance and removed after operation? N/A 173 4 

2. Avoided discharging waste oil into waterbodies, including wetlands and canals? N/A 183 0 

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) N/A

3. Kept solid waste out of streams, waterways and wetlands? N/A 183 0 

4. Removed trash, litter, solid waste, chemical containers, fluids, hoses, batteries, and 

 tires from site upon completion of operation. N/A 155 23 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 694 27 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 96.3% 

SAMPLE
37 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS

(Refer to page 37 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 41

GENERAL BMPS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Avoided operating heavy equipment during flooded conditions? N/A 40 0 

2. Avoided operating heavy equipment in floodplains with standing or flowing floodwater? N/A 12 0 

3. Minimized heavy equipment operation in wetlands under wet conditions? N/A 3 0 

4. Concentrated skid trails to small areas on sites with organic or muck soils during wet 

 conditions? N/A 6 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 61 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 100% 

SAMPLE
38 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

M. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS (Including hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) 

 (Refer to page 38 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 5 

WILDFIRE/NATURAL DISASTERS/INSECTS & DISEASE OUTBREAKS

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Sensitive segments of firelines restored as necessary after operation? N/A 1 0 

2. Sensitive segments of skid trails restored as necessary after operation? N/A 3 0 

3. Stream crossings restored as necessary after operation? N/A 0 0 

4. Applied appropriate pesticides to control disease/insect problem? N/A 0 0 

5. Avoided contaminating waterbodies with hazardous materials? N/A 1 0 

6. Sensitive segments of access roads restored as necessary after operation? N/A 2 0 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 7 0 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 100% 

SAMPLE
39 

FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 

N. PUBLIC LANDS 

 (Refer to page 16 of the 2008 BMP Manual) 16 

GENERAL BMPs 

(If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT PRACTICE) 

N/A

IN 

COMPLIANCE 

(Circle Y or N) 

RISK? 

Check only 

if a 

significant 

risk to water 

quality is 

present

1. Areas within SMZ designated as Primary Zone managed as no cut unless for ecological 

 restoration or habitat enhancement? 

N/A 7 0 

2. Minimum BMP standards met or exceeded. N/A 13 3 

TOTALS

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 20 3 

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

(Record on Summary Table, Page 1) 87% 

SAMPLE