# Silviculture Best Management Practices

2015 Implementation Survey Report1 

## Results of Florida’s

20 1 5 Silviculture BMP Implementation Survey

Conducted by :

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida Forest Service

In Cooperation with

Florida Forest Landowners and Forest Land Managers

January

, 20 1 6

Jeff Vowell, Forest Hydrologist

Roy Lima, Watershed Forester

Robin Holland, BMP Forester

For m ore i nformation, Contact:

Florida Forest Service

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 1650

(850) 681

- 5 820

(850) 681

- 59422 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 20 1 5 , the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Forest Service (F FS )

completed the eigh teenth Survey on Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs). By delegation

from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the FFS is the lead agency for statewide

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

implementation monitoring element of the FFS responsibility for controlling silvicul ture related

sources of nonpoint pollution.

The Silviculture BMP Implementation Survey was initiated in 1981 and has since been conducted

biennially. The principal purpose of the Survey is to determine the level of implementation with

Florida's Silvicult ure BMPs. The Survey is conducted throughout Florida from a random sample of

recent forestry operations. Both public and private forest lands that meet the selection criteria are

eligible for the Survey.

The Survey process is consistent with the Souther n Group of State Foresters’ S ilviculture B est

M anagement P ractices I

mplementation M

onitoring

- A F ramework for S tate F orestry A gencies

(June 2002 )

. In addition, r esults from a BMP Effectiveness Study published in 2001 and 2004

(References) , us ed the Survey as a measure of BMP implementation and stream bio

- assessment

techniques to measure water quality. The stream bioassessment study concluded that where

silviculture BMPs were properly applied (as measured by the Survey), water quality, aquatic ha bitat

and overall stream ecosystem health were protected.

The 20 1 5 BMP Implementation Survey evaluated 3, 892 practices on 1 8 1 individual forestry

operations (sites). This cooperative effort involved 1 28 individual public and private landowners and

covered 32,552 acres in 37 Florida counties. One

- hundred and fourteen sites were on private non

industrial forestland, 53 on industrial forestland, and 1 4 on public forestlands

.

The 20 15 Survey reported no instances of noncompliance that constituted a significant risk to water

quality.

For the 20 1 5 Survey, no site scored below 8 0 % in overall BMP implementation

. Ninety percent of the

sites scored 100% implementation for applicable BMPs

, an increase of 2% from the 201 3 survey. The

range of compliance scores was 85 % to 100%, and the average for overall BMP compliance was

9 9

. 3 %, a slight in crease from 9 8

. 9 % in 20 1 3

. The average compliance for the 3 4 year period since

1981 is 9 5 %

, and a total of 5,084 individual forestry operations have been s urveyed during the

record ed period

.3 INTRODUCTION

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

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (a.k.a. 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 P rogram, the Florida Forest Service (FFS) 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 20 1 5 BMP

Implementation Survey.

BMP Development

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

200 8

. 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 150 individual

practices with in 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 revisi ons to the Manual and

provide input for the overall BMP program. The most recent Technical Advisory Committee

meeting was Ma y 27 , 20 1 5 at which time a BMP status and progress report was prese nted

.

BMP Implementation

Implementation of silviculture BMPs i n Florida is primarily done under an educational format,

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

demonstrations. The i mplementation program is ongoing, with workshops routinely provided upon

request or as deemed necessary based on monitoring results. Currently, F FS BMP foresters conduct

20

- 30 w orkshops/demonstrations annually involving over 6 0 0 participants per year. In addition,

F FS provides BMP training directly to loggers through the Florida For estry Association’s Master

Logger Program. To date, approximately 519 loggers have become Master Loggers

. A total of 2 90

Master Loggers have completed an additional six

- hour BMP Continuing Education Course

.

BMP Monitoring

Since 1981, the F lorida F orest S ervice has monitored forestry operations for compliance with BMPs

by conducting biennial Surveys. The Survey evaluat es a random sample of forestry operations for

compliance with all applicable BMPs. Forestry operations that meet specific criteria on both public

and private lands are eligible for the Survey. For the record ed period from 1981 t o 20 1 5 , F FS has

evaluated over 5 ,000 individual forestry operations and recorded statewide compliance rates

ranging from 84% (19 85 ) to 9 9

. 3 % ( 20 1 5 ). F or the record ed period , the cumulative statewide

average for overall compliance with s ilviculture BMPs is 9 5 %

.

The 20 1 5 Survey was the eight eenth s tatewide BMP monitoring effort since 1981. In addition, a

BMP Effectiveness S tudy was initiated in 199 6 , using the Survey as a measure of BMP

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

The study evaluated BMP effectiveness during silviculture operations such as clearcut harvesting,

intensive mechanica l site 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 ecosyst em health [ 5, 6 ].

SURVEY PROCEDURE

Sampling Intensity and Site Selection

The BMP Implementation Survey is conducted in all Florida counties where any level of bona

- fide

s ilviculture activity is reported or observed

. However, the 201 5 Survey was limited to the 37

counties north of Citrus County, Sumter County, Lake County, and Seminole County (Figure 1).

Past Surveys showed a significantly diminishing number of qualifying sites south of th ese counties

.

As in previous Surveys, each county within the 20 1 5 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 remov ed , the higher the goal assigned to the county. For example, the high le vel of

timber removal in Taylor County resulted in a goal of 11 sites; whereas Bradford County’s

relatively low timber removals resulted in a goal of one site. In addition, in order to sample as

much of the state's geographic area as possible, all countie s 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 20 1 5 Implementation Survey [Appendix Table 1].

Candidate sites for the 20 1 5 Survey were selected using the following criteria: (1) the operation

must be bona

- fide s ilviculture

, ( 2 ) the s ilviculture treatment being evaluated must have occurred

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

a stream, 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 non

- point

source (NPS) pollution exists, and where any such impacts are still discernible and measurable at

the time of the Survey.

S ites for the 20 1 5 Survey were selected by FFS personnel, from fixed

- wing aircraft, flying

randomly selected township and range lines at altitudes ranging from 15 00

- 1 8 00 feet. Th is 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 s elected from the ground, assigned a number, and

then drawn randomly. By these methods, candidate sites were identified in 37 counties in the

spring

, summer and fall of 20 15

. U pon verification of ground conditions on candidate sites, 1 8 1

sites in 37 counties were confirmed as meeting the qualifying criteria (Figure 1).

In addition to the 1 8 1 sites identified as bona

- fide Silviculture

, FFS personnel also observed sites

which appeared to be forestry operations but after close inspection on the ground, were determined

to be a ssociated with land clearing and/or development

. The re were a total of 23 such sites in 12

counties

.5

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 FFS personnel with oversight by the

FFS w atershed f

orester . The watershed f orester and BMP forester were responsible for contacting

landowners prior to visiting each site to secure access and to solicit t heir participation in the Survey.6

A ctual field evaluations were only conducted on those sites that met the selection criteria and where

s ilviculture activities were bona

- fide

. Timber harvesting associated with l and 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 a Survey field questionnaire [Appendix Table 2]. The questionnaire consists of 1 50

s pecific, “ YES ” or “ 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 “ Y es ”

, “ N o ” or “ N ot A pplicable

. ” For categories of practices, such as

Forest Roads or Stream Crossing s, 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 incidenc e 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 ma kes recommendations to the landowner , logger, or

contractor 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 20 1 5 BMP Implementation Survey, FFS personnel evaluated 3, 892 p ractices on 1 8 1

individual forestry operations in 3 7 Florida counties. Of the individual p ractices evaluated, 3, 8 65

( 9 9

. 3 %) were found to be in 100% compliance with BMPs. This level of implementation is a slight

in crease of 0. 4 0% from the 20 1 3 Survey results

. (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 20 1 5 . In that

regard, the Survey represents an estimate of the

actual compliance with silviculture BMPs. Based

on the sampling procedure employed [ 8 ], the

following st atistical properties are attributable 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/B MPs evaluated(n) se = √f(1

- f)/n ci = f + 2 se

f = 3 865 /3 892 se = √0.9 93 (1

- 0.9 93 )/3 892 ci = .9 93 + 2 (.001 3 )

f = 0.9 931 se = 0.001 3 ci = 9 9

. 04 %

- 99. 56 % 80 85 90 95 100 Compliance %

Survey Year

Figure 2. BMP Implementation

by Survey Year7

For 20 1 5 , the estimate of BMP implementation for the 3 7 county area (f) is 9 9

. 3 %, with an

estimated standard error (se) of 0.00 1 3

. 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 9 9

. 04 %

but not more than 9 9. 56 %.

Implementation scores for individual Survey

sites in 20 1 5 ranged from a low of 85.7 % to a

high of 100%

. Figure 3 indicates the

distribution of scores for individual Survey

sites within several categories of

implementation levels.

S cores for individual BMP categories ranged

from 9 9

. 1 % for Forest Roads to 100% for

Canals

, Sinkholes, Fireline Construction,

Pesticide and/or Fertilizer Use, Wet Weather

Operations, Em ergency Operations , and Public

Lands

. (Appendix Table 2).

The total number of individual practices evaluated in 20 1 5 in creased by 5.5 % from the 20 1 3 Survey

due to a n increase in the number of actual sites sampled. However, decreases from the number of

practices evaluated w ithin individual BMP categories were noted for Wetlands ( 253 to 153 )

, Canals

( from 30 to 29), and Fireline Construction ( from 26 to 23 )

. Conversely, there was an increase in

site preparation and planting practices ( from 388 to 497 ).

Site Characteristics

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

portion of Florida's landscape, dominated the physiographic types evaluated in 20 1 5

. Eighty

- five

percent of the sites evaluated were pine plantations, 1 0 % of the sites were reported as natural

pine/hardwood mix and 4 % wetlands. Soil erodibility was reported as high on 1 % of the Survey

sites, while 92 % of the sites reported low erosion potential. The primary tree species harvested on

the Survey sites was slash pine ( 5 3 % ), followed by loblolly pine ( 1 5 % ), longleaf ( 1 %), hardwoods

( 20 % ) and cypress ( 5 % ). Compared to the 20 1 3 Survey, hardwood removals in creased by 1 6 % and

cypress harvesting decreased by 28%

.

S imilar to past Surveys, perennial and intermittent streams dominated the water resource features

associated with the 20 1 5 Survey sites at 9 3 %

, a n in crease of 22 % from 20 1 3

. Wetland dominant

terrain w as identified on 4 % o f the sites, with lakes at 2 % and one sinkhole

. Also, 76% of the 20 1 5

Survey sites involved clearcut harvesting operations, mostly in intensively managed pine

plantations. Selective harvesting and seed tree operations were evaluated on 8 % of the sites

. There

were three salvage harvest sites evaluated resulting from insect damage

.

The 20 1 5 Survey also collected information pertaining to logger training. On sites where timber

harvesting was evaluated, 90 % of the loggers were Florida Master Loggers

, 5 % were Georgia

Master Timber Harvesters and 4 % were Alabama Pro Loggers. In addition, information was

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

< 70% 70

- 79% 80

- 89% 90

- 99% 100% Number of Survey Sites

Categories of Implementation Levels

Figure 3.

Distribution of Implementation Scores8

collected concerni ng wood flow to paper mills, saw mills

, veneer plant s and pole treatment facilities.

The results show that 5 1 % of the timber harvested was delivered to pulp and paper mill s

, 4 0 % to

chip ‘n saw mill s

, 4 % to veneer facilities and 4 % to pole treatment plant s.

Forestland Ownership

For 20 1 5

, 63 % of the Survey

sites were located on private

non

- industrial forest lands

(PNIF), 29 % on forest

industry lands and 8 % on

public lands

. This represents

a shift in the distribution of

sites by ownership,

particularly with respect to the

private non

- industrial sector.

Since 20 09 , there has been a

continued d ecline of sites on

industr y land compared to

private non

- industrial forest

land which sh ows a continued

upward trend (Figure 4).

However, since 20 1 3

, the number of sites on public lands (as a percentage of the total) has

decreased

. These changes and trends are no doubt linked to changes in land ownership , economic

pressures, and market conditions for forest products.

Eighty

- one percent of the PNIF landowners that participated in the 20 1 5 Survey indicated that they

received some level of technical assistance during their forestry operations. However, the use of

technical assistance did not significantly increase 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 rates indicated tha t

compliance on industry land was 99. 7 %

, private non

- industrial forest land was 9 9

. 2 %

, and public

land was 100 %

.

Silviculture BMP Notice of Intent

Forestry Rule 5I

- 6 F.A. C. was adopted on February 11, 2004 and entitles forest landowners to a

presumption of compliance with state water quality standards if they file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to

implement best management practices (BMPs) in their silvicultural operations. Filing a n NOI is

completely voluntary and will increase a landowner’s liability protect ion against state water quality

standards violations should any occur as a result of silviculture operations.

Both public and private forest landowners can file a n NOI by submitting a two

- page form to the

Florida Forest Service’s Hydrology Section in Tallahassee. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent

Survey Year

Figure 4. Survey Sites by Ownership

PNIF Industry Public9

As of January 2016, the FFS has received NOIs that encompass more than 4.8 million acres

, ranging from small private non

- industrial landowners to large in dustrial ownerships (Figure 5)

.

Special Management Zones

Research has shown 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

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 of stream riparian areas for protecting water quality and for providing habitat

requirements for aquatic organisms [ 5, 6].

In Florida's Silviculture BMP Manual, these ripari an areas are referred to as Special Management

Zones (SMZ) and apply to all streams, sinkholes and lakes two acres and larger. In fact, the

presence of such 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 Silviculture Best Management

Practices Manual, SMZs are designed “. . . to protect water quality by reducing or eliminating

forestry related inputs of sediment, nutrients, logging debris, chemicals a nd 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 de signed to maintain certain forest attributes that

will provide sp ecific wildlife habitat values. ”

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

Secondary Zone, and Stringer. The Primary Zone applies to perennia l waters and ranges in width

from 35 to 200 feet, depending on stream width and waterbody type. The Secondary Zone and

Stringer apply mostly to intermittent waters. For a given waterbody, the total SMZ width is always 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

Acres Figure 5. Silviculture BMP Notice of Intent

Cumlative Acres Enrolled Since 2004

PNIF Industry Public10

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

- nine percent of all water resource features reported in the Survey w ere streams. F orty

- eight

percent perennial streams and f orty

- one percent intermittent streams were evaluated for SMZ

compliance on 104 sites in the 201 5 Survey. As in past Surveys, the perennial stream category was

dominated by streams less than 20 feet wide, which require a minimum 35 foot Primary Zone. For

20 1 5

, the a ctual measured Primary Zone widths for these size streams ranged from 35

- 3 00 feet

, with an average width of 99 feet . This is a de crease of four feet from the 201 3 survey

. For

perennial streams, the Survey reported 35.4 total stream miles meeting Primary Zone requirements.

Forest industry lands accounted for 7.9 miles, with PNIF and Public Lands accounting for 24 .9 and

2.6 miles, respectively (Figure 6)

. The total area reported as being under Primary Zone

management for 20 1 5 was 417 acres, and 68% of all SMZs ev aluated were on small, first order

streams. T he average implementation rate for all three SMZ components increased to 99% for 2015

(Table 1). No significant risk s to water quality w ere reported

.

Table 1: SMZ Implementation Summary for last six s urveys

SMZ Component 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005

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

Secondary Zone 100% 97% 100% 98% 98% 99%

Stringer 100% 98% 98% 98% 99% 100%

Average Compliance 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Cumlative

Number of

Miles in

Primary Zone

Cumlative

Number of

Acres in

Primary Zone Figure 6. Primary Zone Miles and Acres by Survey Year11

Wetland Forestry Operations

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

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

preparation and pre

- suppression fireline construction. Wetland forestry operations were evaluated

on 7 % of the sites during the 20 1 5 Survey, a decrease from the 20 1 3 Survey

. Thirty

- seven percent

of the sites were evaluated for wet weather operations

.

Forty

- one percent of all sites evaluated for Wetland BMPs in 20 1 5 involved operations conducted

in wetland areas less than 200 acres

. Within the 3 7 county area sampled, 1 5 3 wetland practices

were evaluated on 1 2 sites and 9 9

. 4 % of those were in full compliance with BMPs.

Forest Roads and Stream Crossings

Historically, the most chronic and long

- term sediment problems associated with s ilviculture are

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

maintenance and application of forest road BMPs help prevent forestry

- related water quality

problems.

For 20 1 5

, Forest Road BMPs were evaluated on 1 68 sites most of which involved maintenance of

existing roads

. Of the 670 road practices evaluated, 9 9

. 1 % were in full compliance with BMPs

. Five survey sites ( 3 % ) reported newly established roads. New road construction w as found to be in

compliance with BMPs 9 9 % of the time. Likewise, existing drainage structures were evaluated on

1 31 sites and had a compliance rate of 100 %

. As in previous surveys, the most common incidence

of noncompliance for roads was failure to properly stabilize road banks and stabilizing critical road

segments

.

Stream C rossings associated with forestry operations were evaluated on 15.5 % of the Survey sites

in 20 1 5

. Of the stream crossings evaluated, 60 % were culvert installations and the remainder w ere

hard

- surface crossings

. Of the 256 S tream C rossing practices evaluated in the 20 1 5 Survey

, 9 8

. 8 %

were in compliance with BMPs a slight decrease of 0.30 % compared to the 20 1 3 Survey

.

Timb er Harvesting, Site Preparation and Planting

The number of t imber harvesting practices evaluated in 20 1 5 totaled 5 75 on 1 2 8 sites

. Overall

implementation for this category was 99. 1 % for the 3 7 county area surveyed. No significant risks

were observed on a ny of the 1 2 8 sites associated with timber harvesting BMPs.

Second only to T imber H arvesting, S ite P reparation 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 o f bare soil exposure. For that reason, the orientation of such 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.12 0 5 10

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Significant Risks

Survey Year Figure 8. Comparison of Significant Risk

by Survey Year Florida’s Silviculture BMP Manual uses a Site Sensitivity Classification system to describe the

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

, adjacent to a waterbody

, are considered most susceptible to ero sion and require wider SMZs with

restrictions on mechanical site preparation activities. Similar to previous Surveys, only 3 % of the

20 1 5 sites fell within this slope cla ss and 72 % were classified as having low (<2%) soil erodibility

.

Site preparation and tree planting activities were evaluated on 6 2 .5 % of the 20 1 5 Survey sites

. Overall implementation for this category was 99% for the 3 7 county area surveyed. Seventy

- four

percent of the sites evaluated for site preparation incorporated some type of mechanical operations.

Of those sites reporting M echanical S ite P reparation, 8 2 % involved intensive shearing, raking, pile

raking and/or bedding. Chemical S ite P re paration, alone or in combination with mechanical

techniques, was reported on 66 % of the 20 1 5 sites

. S ite P reparation and P lanting O perations scored

9 9 % overall for sites sampled within the 3 7 county area.

Tree planting activities were evaluated on 113 sites and involved machine planting 5 1 % of the time.

Fireline Construction

The number of sites evaluated for fireline construction was four in 2011

, five in 2013, and five in

201 5

. In addition, the overall implementation rate for this category was 100% in this Survey,

unchanged from 20 11

.

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 product s

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

Waste Disposal BMPs were evaluated on 1 8 1 sites during the 20 1 5 Survey. Although

implementation for this category was 9 9

. 3 %

, five sites scored less than 8 0%

. Most other instances

of BMP noncompliance for this

category were solid waste (trash)

, empty oil containers and hydraulic

fluid containers near log loading

decks.

Significant Risk

E ach incidence of BMP non

compliance was further evaluated in

terms of S ignificant R isk 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 conjun ction with silviculture operations in

Florida.13

O f the 3, 892 practices evaluated , there were no significant risks reported for the 2015 Survey.

Figure 8 indicates the number of significant risks, by Survey, since 199 7

.

Random Verification Audits

For the eighth time since the 2001 BMP Survey, FFS 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 Sur vey sites were completed and the data was

processed. The audit procedure consisted of a randomly select ed subset (approximately 6 %) of all

Survey sites evaluated for 201 5 . Then, using the original Survey form

, the w atershed f orester and

the original surv eyor 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 201 5

, ten Survey sites were audited and no inconsistenc ies w ere noted (Ta ble 2).

Table 2: Random Verification Audits by County

SUMMAR Y

The 20 1 5 BMP Implementation Survey was the eight eenth since the initial Survey in 1981 , marking

more than 3 2 years of monitoring

. This Survey evaluated 1 8 1 individual forestry operations ( sites )

encompassing 32,552 acres

. This brings the total number of Survey sites in Florida to 5,084 since

1981

. The 201 5 Survey evaluated 3,892 individual forest practices

, a n in crease of 676 from 20 1 3

. Considering all practices in all BMP categories

, implementation in 201 5 was 9 9

. 3 % which is a

slight in crease of 0. 4 0 % since the 20 1 3 Survey.

Sixty

- three percent of the 201 5 Survey sites were on private non

- industrial (PNIF) lands, 29 % were

on forest industry lands and 8 % were on public lands. Since the 20 1 3 Survey, there has been a

continued de crease in the number of Survey sites on forest ind ustry lands

. In addition, as noted in County Number of Audit

Sites Compliance/Change

Alachua County 6 100% No Change

Baker County 7 100% No Change

Columbia County 5 100% No Change

D ixie County 9 100% No Change

Franklin County 2 100% No Change

J efferson County 7 100% No Change

L afayette County 6 100% No Change

Levy County 6 100% No Change

Liberty County 8 98.2% No Change

Nassau County 8 99.1% No Change14

previous Surveys, BMP implementation between ownership categories was not significantly

different for 201 5

. Overall BMP implementation for forest industry was 99. 7 %

, private non

industrial landowners 9 9

. 2 %

, and public lands 100 %. The typical Survey site for 20 1 5 was

approximately 1 80 acres with sandy soil and relatively flat topography. T he typical silviculture

operation included the harvest of slash pine for pulpwood, followed by intensive mechanical site

prepa ration and replanting the site with slash or loblolly pine by conventional machine tree planting

equipment.

BMP i mplementation with Special Management Zone criteria was 9 9 %, an increase from 20 1 3

. For individual SMZ components, compliance with width requirements was 9 9 % for the Primary

Zone, 100 % for the Secondary Zone, and 100 % for Stringers. Eighty

- three percent of all Primary

Zones were on streams less than 20 feet wide, which require a 35

- foot Zone. For 20 1 5

, the overall

SMZ ranged from 3 5

- 3 00 feet , with an average width of 99 feet

. For all stream categories

combined, the Survey reported 35.4 total stream miles meeting Primary Zone requirements

.

Four percent of the 201 5 Survey sites reported wetland activities. Implementation of Wetland

BMPs for this Survey was 9 9

. 4 %

, approximately 0. 2 0 % more than in 20 1 3

.

Implementation of Forest Road BMPs was 9 9

. 1 %

, and general road planning and construction was

reported on 15 % of the sites.

Stream Crossings were evaluated on 15 % of the 201 5 Survey sites, a n in crease of 6 % since 20 1 3

. BMP implementation for Stream Crossing s was 9 8

. 8 %

, with the majority of the sites reporting

culvert installed crossings.

For the 20 1 5 Survey , the most frequently reported BMP noncompliance was in the Special

Management Zone s

, Forest Roads

, Timber Harvesting (Non

- Wetlands), Site Preparation and

Planting, and Waste Disposal cat egor ies

. In addition

, Wetlands and Stream Crossings showed some

level of noncompliance

.

The 2015 Survey showed a continuing high implementation rate with silviculture BMPs in Florida.

This is attributed to the general attitude and culture that has emerged with Florida forest

landowners, loggers and forest practitioners toward the silviculture BMP program. The high

implementation rate is also attributed to the distribution of over 5 5 ,000 Silviculture BMP Manuals

since 1993, and to the cooperative educational outreach to the forestry community through FFS

workshops and demonstrations. In additi on, F FS provides BMP training as part of the Florida

Forestry Association’s Master Logger Program [1 1 ]. To date, approximately 519 loggers have

become Master Loggers

. A total of 2 9 0 Master Loggers have completed an additional six

- hour

BMP Continuing Educa tion Course.

Despite the 9 9

. 3 % implementation rate for 201 5

, three BMP categor ies in this Survey showed a

slight decrease in compliance

– specifically

, S tream Crossings, Timber Harvesting (Non

- Wetlands),

and Site Preparation and Planting

. Educational outreach programs and workshops for silviculture

BMPs during the next two years will focus on these BMP categories prior to the next s urvey in

201 7

.15

Finally, th e FFS conducted the eighth verification audit for the silviculture BMP Survey

. This

random audit essentially re

- evaluates approximately 6 % of the actual Survey sites within the

designated sample area to ensure accuracy and reliability of the data. T en s urvey sites were audited

for 20 1 5 and no discrepanc ies w ere identified.16 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]

_______________ 200 8

. 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 Environmenta l Protection,

Tallahassee, FL.

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

Practice Effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (2001) 237

- 244, Elsevier.

[6] Vowell, Jeffrey L. , and Russ Frydenborg, 200 4

. 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 Sheffie ld, 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 I mplementation Monitoring of Forestry Best 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 Pro ceedings.

Harbin, China.

[1 0 ] 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.

[1 1 ] _______________.1998. Florida’s Master L ogger Directory, A Landowners Guide to

Responsible Forestry. Florida Forestry Association, Tallahassee, FL.17 

## APPENDICES

Table 1: Page 1 8

Table 2: Page 1 9

- 40Florida Forest Service

Table 1. 20 1 5 Silviculture BMP Implementation 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 1 100%

Baker 7 7 100% Levy 6 6 100%

Bay 7 3 100% Liberty 4 8 98.2%

Bradford 1 1 100% Madison 6 6 97.4%

Calhoun 6 5 100% Marion 6 6 100%

Clay 5 5 98.7% Nassau 7 8 99.1%

Columbia 5 5 100% Okaloosa 5 5 99.5%

Dixie 9 9 100% Putnam 5 5 100%

Duval 3 3 100% St. Johns 6 7 100%

Escambia 5 9 99.3% Santa Rosa 7 4 100%

Flagler 6 6 100% Suwannee 3 3 100%

Franklin 3 2 100% Taylor 11 11 99.4%

Gadsden 4 6 97.6% Union 3 3 97.2%

Gilchrist 3 4 98.9% Volusia 4 4 100%

Gulf 2 4 100% Wakulla 3 3 97.4%

Hamilton 5 5 100% Walton 4 3 98.8%

Holmes 3 2 100% Washington 3 1 100%

Jackson 8 2 94.4%

Jefferson 4 7 100%

Lafayette 6 6 100% 185 181 99.3% 0

1 81 9

Field Site Number

County: ________

______

Site No.: ________

______ FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES



### 201 5 Implementation Survey Results Survey Year

Number

(if applicable)

201 5

- 1

- 181

____________ __

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 104 618 2 620 99.7%

B. WETLANDS 12 153 1 154 99.4%

C. CANALS 6 29 0 29 100%

D. SINKHOLES 9 26 0 26 100%

E. FOREST ROADS 168 670 6 676 99.1%

F. STREAM CROSSINGS 28 253 3 256 98.8%

G. TIMBER HARVESTING (Non

- Wetlands) 128 570 5 575 99.1%

H. SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTING 113 497 5 502 99 .0 %

I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION 5 23 0 23 100%

J. PESTICIDE and/or FERTILIZER USE 73 231 0 231 100%

K. WASTE DISPOSAL 181 706 5 711 99.3%

L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS 67 79 0 79 100%

M. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 3 3 0 3 100%

N. PUBLIC LANDS 14 7 0 7 100%

TOTALS 3,865 27 3,892 0

OVERALL COMPLIANCE (%) 99.3 %

COMMENTS : 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

Cert Cert ified: 1 7 Tree Farm 6 2 SFI 3 FSC 5 Forest Stewardship 63 Submitted BMP Notice of Intent20

Field Site Number

County: __________

_____

Site No.: __________

_____ FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES



### Implementation Survey Survey Number

201 5

- 1

- 181



### PART I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION & CHARACTERISTICS :

1. Owner Name : 2. Ownership : 1 4 PUBLIC 53 INDUSTRY 114 PNIF

Address:

3. Email Address: _______________________________________

Landowner Phone No.: ( ) _________________

Contact Name: Contact Phone No.: ( ) _______________

4. Approximate acreage of treated area : 32,552

5. If PNIF , technical/professional forestry assistance was provided by ( c heck one ):

4 FFS County Forester 66 Forestry Consultant 24 Industrial Forester 27 Other 8 None

6. Land use prior to treatment (predominantly) (check one) :

1 55 Intensive Forest Management (Planted Pine) 0 Row C rop Farming

18 Passive Forest Management (Natural Pine/Hardwood Mix) 1 Pasture

7 Forested Wetland Management (Hardwood Timber) 0 Other

7. Dominant Terrain (check one):

8 Wetlands 27 Uplands 1 24 Flatwoods 2 1 Sandhills 1 Pasture/Cropland

8. Principle Soil Texture (check one): 0 Clay 7 Loam 1 68 Sand 6 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 ( c heck one): 1 44

Organic

A

(LOW) 18

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

- 6 3 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) 

## ssc

* A1 = 1 3 0 A4 = 2 B1 = 1 B4 = 1 C1 = 0 C4 = 0

A2 = 2 5 A5 = 1 B2 = 7 B5 = 0 C2 = 0 C5 = 0

A3 = 8 A6 = 1 B3 = 4 B6 = 0 C3 = 0 C6 = 121 

### PART II: FORESTRY OPERATIONS :

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

Name & Location (City) of Logger:

________________ _________________________________________

46 N/A 6 Seed Tree Cut FL Master Logger? 1 14 Yes

__ No

1 26 Clearcut 3 Salvage Cut AL Pro Logger? 7 Yes __ No

GA Master Timber

Harvester? 5 Yes

__ No

7 Selective Cut 7 Row Thinning

16 Fuel Wood Chipping

Name of Receiving Mill: 1 33 Pulp wood 1 0 5 Sawmill (Chip n Saw) 10 Veneer 11 Poles

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

___________ Name & Location (City) of Contractor:

_______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ _____________________________

6 8 N/A 58 Chemical Treatment (Pre

- Plant)

40 Non

- Intensive Mechanical 4 Chemical Treatment (Post

- Plant)

1 3 Chemical Treatment (Pre and Post)

84 Intensive Mechanical 4 Burn 0 Timber Stand Improvement

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

_________ Name & Location (City) of Contractor:

106 N/A 1 6 Ha nd Planting

3 8 Conventional Machine Planting 0 Aerial/Ground Seeding

20 V

- blade Planter 3 Natural Regeneration

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

43 N/A 1 Longleaf Pine 1 0 Cypress

99 Slash Pine 1 Other Pine species 10 Sand Pine

28 Loblolly Pine 3 7 H ardwood species 0 Eucalyptus

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

106 N/A 8 Longleaf Pine 0 Cypress

41 Slash Pine 0 Other Pine species 1 Sand Pine

2 7 Loblolly Pine 2 H a rdwood species 0 Eucalyptus

18. Are Forested Wetland Roads and/or Stream Crossings to be evaluated on this site? Yes 29 No 1 52



###  If yes , did the landowner obtain the proper permit for installation? 4 Yes 0 No * 1 77 N / A

*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 criteri a 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.



###  A ll evaluated forestry operations complete? 1 58 Yes 2 3 No

19. Emergency Operations? 3 Yes 1 78 No

If Yes (Check all that apply): 0 Wildfire 1 Natural Disaster 3 Insects 0 Disease 0 Other22 

### PART III. WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS Site Sensitivity Class (SSC): ____ 

### N/A

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

### : *2

20 . Name of waterbody, if known: 104 Waterbodies : 50 Named, 5 4 Unnamed

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

T otal

............................................. ....... ( 60 ) (17) ( 4 ) (2) ( 5 ) (1 6 )

2 2 . Indicate type & size of waterbody found on this site and its SMZ requirement:

( Refer to pages 7

- 14 and Appendix 1 of 200 8 BMP Manual )

TYPE OF

WATERBODY

(Check All That Apply) * STREAM WIDTH & CLASS

(Check All That Apply) SMZ WIDTH (Feet)

REQUIRED AVERAGE ACTUAL

<20' 20

- 40' >40' OFW

(2) ONRW

(2) CLASS I

(2) PRIMARY

ZONE SECONDARY

ZONE PRIMARY

ZONE SECONDARY

ZONE TOTAL

SMZ

Perennial Stream 50 40 5 3 2 0 0 99 70 11 7

Perennial Lake (1) 2

Perennial Sinkhole 4

Intermittent Lake (1) 0 STRINGER

or 200Ft.

PZ if OFW

Intermittent Stream 43 STRINGER

or 200 Ft.

PZ if OFW

Intermittent

Sinkhole 1 STRINGER

or 200 Ft.

PZ if OFW

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.) 186,940 Feet ( 35.4 Miles)

∑X1: Sum of all Primary Zone Widths ∑X2: Sum of all Secondary Zone Widths

n1: Total Number of SMZ sites

n2: Total Number of Secondary Zone Sites (added on to primary zone and stringer

- width depends on soil and slope %)

(1) Lakes 2 acres or larger.

(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

. 2 3 . Are Primary Zone Exceptions being applied for perennia l waterbodies on site? Yes 2 No 56

( Evaluate compliance in SMZ section)

.

2 4 . Total area designated as "Primary SMZ":

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

### 417 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.23 

### FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BMP IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY

(PART IV: BMP APPLICATIONS)



### A. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES (SMZs): *

(Refer to pages 3

- 14 of 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 104

* 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) Significant

Risk

1. Width of the Primary Zone meets the minimum required for waterbody size & type? N/A 59 1

WAS TIMBER HARVESTING CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PRIMARY ZONE?

(If “ No ” Skip Questions 2

- 6 ) YES NO

2. Timber harvesting limited to selective cutting only ? (N/A if clearcut exception

applied). N/A 0 0

3

. Selective harvesting maintained at least 50% of the fully stocked stand ? N/A 2 0

4. Residual stand “mirrored” previous stand or was at least 10% pine? N/A 2 0

5

. Avoided re

- entering a previously harvested Primary Zone to conduct additional

harvesting ? N/A 1 0

6

. Left all trees uncut in stream channel and on immediate stream banks? N/A 2 0

7

. Kept mechanical site preparation out of the Primary Zone? N/A 24 0

8

. Limited pesticide application within Primary Zone to approved methods? N/A 6 0

9

. Limited fertilizer application within Primary Zone to approved methods? N/A 1 0

10 . Kept log loading decks, landings, and log bunching points out of the Primary

Zone? N/A 52 0

1 1

. Avoided new road construction within the Primary Zone, except for designated

stream crossings ? N/A 26 0

1 2

. Restricted site preparation burns to slopes with <18%? N/A 7 0

1 3

. Kept main skid trails out of Primary Zone, except for designated stream crossings? N/A 4 8 0

1 4 . Kept pre

- suppression plowed firelines out of the Primary Zone? N/A 4 0

1 5 . Located fertilizer transfer/loading areas outside of the Primary Zone? N/A 3 0

1 6 . Cleaned spray equipment from pesticide and fertilizer applications outside of

Primary Zone? N/A 1 5 0

SUBTOTALS (Enter on top of table on next page) 252 1 024 

### PRIMARY ZONE EXCEPTIONS

(Continued)

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

Refer to Appendix 11, pages 105

- 107 of the 200 8 BMP Manual for explanation of Exceptions N/A IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

Enter Subtotals from previous page  252 1 0

1 7

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

1 8

. Exception #2 “ Managed Pine Timber, ” correctly applied? N/A 1 1

19

. Exception #3a “ Add

- On

, ” correctly applied? N/A 0 0

2 0

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

SECONDARY ZONE

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

2 1

. Kept mechanical site preparation out of the Secondary Zone ? N/A 37 0

2 2

. Kept log loading decks and landings out of the Secondary Zone ? N/A 69 0

2 3

. Avoided new road construction within the Secondary Zone, except for designated

stream crossings ? N/A 30 0

2 4

. Restricted site preparation burns to <18% slope? N/A 8 0

2 5 . Kept main skid trails out of the Secondary Zone, except for designated stream

crossings? N/A 62 0

2 6 . When possible, avoided pre

- suppression plowed firelines within the Secondary

Zone? N/A 5 0

2 7 . Cleaned spray equipment from pesticide and fertilizer applications outside of

Secondary Zone? N/A 2 5 0

STRINGER

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

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

2 8

. Provided a continuous and connected canopy? N/A 43 0

29

. Left all trees in stream channel/banks? N/A 43 0

3 0

. Minimized disturbance to stream banks ? N/A 43 0

TOTALS 618 2 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

9 9

. 7 %25 

### B. OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

(Refer to pages 1 7

- 2 1 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 1 2

GENERAL WETLAND BMPs

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

N/A IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Maintained hydrologic conditions/drainage of wetlands? N/A 12 0

2. Kept waterbodies located within the wetland free of logging debris ? N/A 4 0

WETLAND ROADS AND CROSSINGS

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

3. Minimized number of wetland crossing s ? N/A 2 0

4

. Permanent roads only for purposes allowed in the BMP Manual (Page 18 )? N/A 3 0

5

. Avoided constructing above

- grade fill roads? N/A 2 0

6

. Fill road properly culverted to allow adequate storm flow, normal sheet flow, etc.? N/A 1 0

HARVESTING IN WETLANDS WHERE CYPRESS IS PREDOMINANT

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

7

. Left cypress as leave trees? 1 0

8 . Leave trees represent the upper limit of the range for wetland harvest units? (i.e.<200A o r ≥ 200 A) 0 1

9 . Pond cypress trees cut at the approximate average high water mark? 1 0

SUBTOTALS (Enter at top of table on next page) 26 1 026 OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

( Continued )

(Refer to pages 1 7

- 2 1 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

Enter Subtotals from previous page  26 1 0

HARVESTING PRACTICES

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

OCCURRING WITH IN A WETLAND AREA

LESS THAN 200 ACRES IN SIZE : N/A

1 0

. If leave tree option applied, left 3

- 5 “leave trees” per acre? N/A 7 0

1 1 . If 10% harvesting option applied, left 10% of the harvest area as selectively cut? N/A 0 0

1 2 . Retained all snags that safety and harvesting operations allowed? N/A 7 0

OCCURRING WITH IN A WETLAND AREA

GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 200 ACRES : N/A

1 3

. Left 1

- 2 “leave trees” per acre in the older age class ? N/A 7 0

1 4

. Retained all snags that safety and harvesting operations allowed ? N/A 7 0

1 5 . Limited clearcut size to 160 acres or less? N/A 7 0

1 6

. Left a 200 ft. selectively cut buffer with an average tree height of at least 20 ft.

between clearcut areas ? N/A 3 0

1 7

. Are m ultiple clearcuts within any 160 acre block separated by a 100 ft

. buffer ?

( Buffer may be selectively cut. No additional leave trees are required.) N/A 0 0

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

18

. Left at least 20% unharvested where 5 or more isolated wetlands < 2 acres each exist

within a harvest unit ? N/A 2 0

19

. Have previously harvested isolated wetlands reached an average tree height of at least

20 feet prior to re

- entry to harvest remaining isolated wetlands in harvest unit ? N/A 0 0

HARVESTING OCCURRING WITHIN A FLOWING WETLAND?

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

2 0 . Extended SMZ 50 feet into the flowing wetland? N/A 1 0

2 1 . Clustered leave trees along centerline of flow

- way ? N/A 1 0

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 68 1 027 OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

( Continued )

(Refer to pages 1 7

– 2 1 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

Enter Subtotals from previous page  68 1 0

SKIDDING

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

2 2

. Minimized number of MAIN skid trails within wetland area? N/A 12 0

2 3

. Avoided widespread and excessive rutting? N/A 12 0

2 4

. Concentrated skid trails in organic wetland soils? N/A 12 0

2 5 . Used low ground pressure equipment or specialized harvesting techniques when wet

harvesting conditions were unavoidable? N/A 8 0

2 6

. When possible, limited forestry operations in wetlands to dry conditions or low

water conditions ? N/A 12 0

MAT (SHOVEL) LOGGING

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

2 7

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

( Exceptions apply to equipment passage. ) N/A 6 0

2 8

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

( If t racked machines u sed under excessively wet conditions: spacing reduced to 50 feet;

and area of mats does not exceed 25% of harvest area.) N/A 5 0

2 9 . Timber for mats laid down in direction of the trail? N/A 6 0

30

. Was the appropriate number of layers used to prevent site disturbance? N/A 6 0

3 1 . Merchantable timber used in skid trail mat removed after logging operation? N/A 6 0

3 2

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

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

TOTALS 153 1 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99. 4 %28 

### C. OPERATIONS ADJACENT TO CANALS

(Refer to pages 2 2

- 2 3 of the 200 8 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) Significant

Risk

1. During normal silvicultural operations, a voided heavy equipment operation within

canal? N/A 6 0

2. Established canal crossing(s) only when necessary? N/A 4 0

3. Installed canal crossing(s) properly? (See Stream Crossing S ection) N/A 4 0

4. Left canal free of excessive logging slash ? N/A 3 0

5. Avoided direct surface water discharge into a canal as the result of site preparation

activities ? N/A 5 0

6 . Avoided damage to the canal bank? N/A 6 0

7. Avoided discharging pesticides (not approved for aquatic use), fertilizer, or other

pollutants into canal? N/A 1 0

CANAL MAINTENANCE

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

8 . Minimized canal maintenance activities? N/A 0 0

9. Canal re

- dredging conducted during periods of low flow? N/A 0 0

1 0. Minimized disturbance to canal banks to retain as much “streamside” vegetation as

possible? N/A 0 0

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

12. Road maintenance adjacent to canal conducted properly?

(i.e

. R oad spoil discharged away from canal

- side of road

. ) N/A 0 0

TOTALS 29 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%29 

### D. OPERATIONS ADJACENT TO SINKHOLES

(Refer to page 24 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle box and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 9

GENERAL SINKHOLE BMPs

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

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

flowing into sinkhole? N/A 9 0

2. Avoided mechanical operations ( harvest or site preparation ) , fertilization, and

pesticide use within sinkholes ? N/A 8 0

3. Avoided altering adjacent land surface to discharge into sinkhole? N/A 9 0

TOTALS 26 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%30 

### E. FOREST ROADS

(Refer to pages 25

- 27 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 1 68

NEW ROAD PLANNING & CONSTRUCTION BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Carefully planned location and desired drainage features before construction ? N/A 5 0

2. Avoided construction operations during wet conditions ? N/A 5 0

3. Road properly designed for traffic load and use? N/A 4 0

4. Properly balanced cut/fill ratio ? N/A 3 0

5. Fill road shoulders properly sloped? N/A 2 1

6. Road banks properly stabilized? N/A 2 1

7. Critical segments of road stabilized? N/A 4 0

ROAD DRAINAGE

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

Drainage Structures Evaluated (check all that apply): 61 Cross

- drain culverts 2 Cross

- ditches 88 Road Ditches

22 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 28 Water Turnouts 26 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS)

8. Drainage structure installed properly? N/A 1 36 0

9. Road surface drainage directed away from waterbodies/wetlands? N/A 1 31 0

ROAD MAINTENANCE

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

Drainage Structures Evaluated (check all that apply): 59 Cross

- drain culverts 2 Cross

- ditches 87 Road Ditches

20 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 26 Water Turnouts 25 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS)

10. Drainage structures free of major obstructions? N/A 1 35 0

11. Close d or restrict ed traffic on roads whenever possible? N/A 1 64 0

12. Stabilized critical segments? N/A 79 4

TOTALS 670 6 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 9 9

. 1 %31 

### F. STREAM CROSSINGS

(Refer to pages 28

- 3 0 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 28

GENERAL STREAM CROSSING BMPs

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Minimized number of stream crossings on site? N/A 27 1

2. Crossed the stream perpendicular to the flow? N/A 28 0

3 . Located stream crossing(s) on narrow section of stream? N/A 28 0

4 . Located crossing(s) on straight segment(s) of stream? N/A 28 0

5 . Stabilized erodible fill material and other areas normally exposed to flowing water ? N/A 13 2

6 . Avoided construction during high water conditions? N/A 13 0

CULVERTS

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

7 . Culvert properly installed? N/A 17 0

8 . Culvert size adequate to accommodate normal flow ? N/A 17 0

9 . Repaired or replaced damaged culverts? N/A 1 0

10 . Kept culvert openings free of debris and/or obstructions? N/A 16 0

11

. Temporary c ulvert size sufficient for expected seasonal flow conditions? N/A 3 0

12 . Temporary culvert removed immediately after operation? N/A 1 0

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 192 3 032



### S TREAM CROSSING S

(Continued)

(Refer to pages 28

- 30 of 200 8 BMP Manual) IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

Subtotals from previous page  192 3 0

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:

5 None Used 1 Limerock 5 Gravel 1 Concrete 3 Logs 0 Slag 2 Other: Bricks

1 3

. Used non

- petroleum based material for armoring? N/A 12 0

1 4

. Stream bottom/banks appropriate for this type of crossing? N/A 16 0

1 5

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

suitable to stream flow? N/A 12 0

1 6

. Avoided stream impoundment with crossing installation? N/A 13 0

1 7

. Removed temporary materials after completion of operation? N/A 8 0

TOTALS 253 3 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 9 8

. 8 %33 

### G. TIMBER HARVESTING OPERATIONS (NON

- WETLANDS)

(Refer to page 31 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 12 8

SKIDDING & SKID TRAIL BMPs

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1

. To the extent possible

, located skid trails along the contour? N/A 1 04 0

2

. When contour skidding was not possible, skid wood uphill instead of down? N/A 44 0

3. When skidding up slopes, avoided long continuous skid trails? N/A 44 0

4. Installed appropriate drainage structures properly? N/A 35 0

5. Stabilized critical segments as needed? N/A 46 0

6 . Concentrated skid trails in organic soils ? N/A 19 0

7. Dispersed skid trails in mineral soils ? N/A 1 25 0

SLASH DISPOSAL

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

8. Removed logging slash from intermittent and perennial streams and lakes? N/A 28 3

9. Avoided pushing and piling logging slash into cypress ponds or strands, swamps, marshes,

grassy ponds, or waterbodies such as streams, lakes , sinkholes or similar water resource

features? N/A 1 25 2

TOTALS 570 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99. 1 %34 

### H. SITE PREPARATION & FOREST TREE PLANTING OPERATIONS

(Refer to page 3 2 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 113

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1

. Applied appropriate site preparation techniques f or the site? N/A 113 0

2

. Kept intensive mechanical site preparation out of wetlands ? N/A 95 0

3

. To the extent possible , drum chopping conducted perpendicular to waterbody? N/A 21 0

4

. Windrows and soil beds arranged parallel to w aterbodies and/or wetlands in order to

provide a barrier to overland flow , prevent concentration of runoff and reduce erosion? N/A 77 1

5

. Kept equipment blade above the soil surface when shearing or pushing and piling debris? N/A 93 1

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

streams, lakes or similar water resource features? N/A 98 3

TOTALS 497 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99. 0 %35 

### I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION

(Refer to page 3 3 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 5

GENERAL BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Used existing barriers ( roads, waterbodies, etc.) as firelines where practical? N/A 5 0

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

grass, when feasible? N/A 3 0

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

4 . Minimized plow depth ? N/A 3 0

5

. When crossing waterbodies, raised the equipment and avoided connecting the line

directly to the waterbody? N/A 0 0

6

. Avoided firelines which act as drainage systems, particularly those that might connect

or drain isolated wetlands ? N/A 3 0

7. To the extent possible , constructed firelines on land contours? N/A 5 0

8. Stabilized critical segments of firelines with appropriate drain age structure when

necessary? N/A 1 0

Structures Evaluated (check all that apply ): 0 None Applied 0 Cross

- ditches 0 Water Turnouts

0 Water Bars 0 Vegetation 0 Other:

_____________________________________________

TOTALS 2 3 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%36 

### J. PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER USE

(Refer to page 3 4

- 35 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 73

PESTICIDE USE BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

Pesticide(s) used: 1 4 Arsenal 58 Chopper 45 Garlon 15 Oust 0 Velpar L 0 Velpar ULW 0 Razor Pro 5 Accord

0 Polaris 0 Tahoe 0 Pronone 10 Escort 1 0 Oustar 0 Roundup 9 Other

___ ________________________________________________________________________ This is a: 5 3 Pre

- planting Treatment 3 Post

- planting Treatment 15 Pre & Post 0 Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)

2 None

1 . Directed pesticide only to the targeted area? N/A 73 0

2

. P esticide containers removed from site? N/A 73 0

3

. Cleaned spray equipment away from waterbodies and wetlands ? N/A 72 0

FERTILIZER USE BMPS

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

Fertilizer(s) applied: 8 Diammonium Phosphate ( DAP ) 0 Urea 0 Triple Super Phosphate ( TSP )

This is a (Check One): 0 Pre

- P lanting Treatment 8 Post

- P lanting Treatment 0 P re & Post 65 None

4. Timing of fertilizer application conducive to maximizing effectiveness of nutrient uptake? N/A 8 0

5. Fertilization does not exceed application limits given on page 35 of BMP Manual ? N/A 5 0

TOTALS 231 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%37 

### K. WASTE DISPOSAL

(Refer to page 3 6 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 1 8 1

USED OIL DISPOSAL BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Used oil properly collected and stored temporarily on

- site during equipment

maintenance and removed after operation ? N/A 1 75 0

2. Avoided discharging used oil or pollutants on the ground, in sinkholes, wetlands, or

waterbodies (including canals) ? N/A 1 80 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 1 79 0

4

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

tires from site upon completion of operation ? N/A 1 72 5

TOTALS 706 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99. 3 %38 

### L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS

(Refer to page 3 7 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 67

GENERAL BMPS

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. When possible, avoided heavy equipment operation during flooded or wet soil conditions? N/A 66 0

2. When wet conditions are unavoidable, used low ground pressure equipment or alternatives

to conventional skidding? N/A 6 0

3

. Avoided operating heavy equipment in floodplains with standing or flowing floodwater? N/A 7 0

TOTALS 79 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%39 

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

(Refer to page 3 8 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 3

WILDFIRE /NATURAL DISASTERS /INSECTS & DISEASE OUTBREAKS

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

N/A IN

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

1. Sensitive segments of firelines stabilized a s necessary after emergency o peration? N/A 0 0

2. Sensitive segments of skid trails stabilized as necessary after emergency o peration? N/A 0 0

3. Stream crossings s tabilized as necessary after emergency operation? N/A 0 0

4. Pesticide use within the SMZ conducted according to the label and limited to the

extent necessary to protect and maintain forest health? N/A 0 0

5. Sensitive segments of access roads stabilized as necessary after emergency operation ? N/A 2 0

6. Mechanical site prep within the SMZ limited to only those techniques which are

necessary to return the site to a productive, protective condition? N/A 0 0

7. Salvage harvesting within the SMZ limited to the extent necessary to protect and

maintain forest health? N/A 1 0

8. Were exceptions to the Wetland and Special Management Zone (SMZ) leave tree

criteria properly implemented for areas with an exotic/invasive tree infestation? N/A 0 0

TOTALS 3 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%40 

### N . PUBLIC LANDS

(Refer to page 16 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) 1 4

B MPs

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

COMPLIANCE ?

(Circle Y or N) Significant

Risk

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

restoration or habitat enhancement? N/A 7 0

TOTALS 7 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%