Silviculture Best Management Practices

2015 Implementation Survey Report
1

Results of Florida’s 

 2015 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, 2016

Jeff Vowell, Forest Hydrologist

Roy Lima, Watershed Forester

Robin Holland, BMP Forester

For more information, Contact: 

Florida Forest Service

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650

(850) 681-5820

 (850) 681-5942
2

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2015, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Forest Service (FFS) 

completed the eighteenth 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 silviculture 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 Silviculture 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 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

(References), used 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 habitat 

and overall stream ecosystem health were protected.

The 2015 BMP Implementation Survey evaluated 3,892 practices on 181 individual forestry 

operations (sites). This cooperative effort involved 128 individual public and private landowners and 

covered 32,552 acres in 37 Florida counties. One-hundred and fourteen sites were on private nonindustrial forestland, 53 on industrial forestland, and 14 on public forestlands.

 The 2015 Survey reported no instances of noncompliance that constituted a significant risk to water 

quality. 

 

For the 2015 Survey, no site scored below 80% in overall BMP implementation. Ninety percent of the 

sites scored 100% implementation for applicable BMPs, an increase of 2% from the 2013 survey. The 

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

99.3%, a slight increase from 98.9% in 2013. The average compliance for the 34 year period since 

1981 is 95%, and a total of 5,084 individual forestry operations have been surveyed during the 

recorded 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 Program, 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 2015 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 150 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 Technical Advisory Committee

meeting was May 27, 2015 at which time a BMP status and progress report was presented.

BMP Implementation

Implementation of silviculture BMPs in 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 ongoing, with workshops routinely provided upon 

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

20-30 workshops/demonstrations annually involving over 600 participants per year. In addition, 

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

Logger Program. To date, approximately 519 loggers have become Master Loggers. A total of 290

Master Loggers have completed an additional six-hour BMP Continuing Education Course. 

BMP Monitoring

Since 1981, the Florida Forest Service has monitored forestry operations for compliance with BMPs 

by conducting biennial Surveys. The Survey evaluates 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 recorded period from 1981 to 2015, FFS has 

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

ranging from 84% (1985) to 99.3% (2015). For the recorded period, the cumulative statewide 

average for overall compliance with silviculture BMPs is 95%.

The 2015 Survey was the eighteenth 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. 
4

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

intensive mechanical 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 ecosystem 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

silviculture activity is reported or observed. However, the 2015 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 these counties. 

As in previous Surveys, each county within the 2015 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; 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 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 2015 Implementation Survey [Appendix Table 1].

Candidate sites for the 2015 Survey were selected using the following criteria: (1) the operation 

must be bona-fide silviculture, (2) the silviculture 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.

Sites for the 2015 Survey were selected by FFS personnel, from fixed-wing aircraft, flying 

randomly selected township and range lines at altitudes ranging from 1500-1800 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 counties in the 

spring, summer and fall of 2015. Upon verification of ground conditions on candidate sites, 181

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

In addition to the 181 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 associated with land clearing and/or development. There 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 watershed forester. The watershed forester and BMP forester were responsible for contacting 

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

 
6

Actual field evaluations were only conducted on those 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 a Survey field questionnaire [Appendix Table 2]. The questionnaire consists of 150

specific, “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 “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 makes 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 2015 BMP Implementation Survey, FFS personnel evaluated 3,892 practices on 181

individual forestry operations in 37 Florida counties. Of the individual practices evaluated, 3,865

(99.3%) were found to be in 100% compliance with BMPs. This level of implementation is a slight 

increase of 0.40% from the 2013 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 2015. In that 

regard, the Survey represents an estimate of the 

actual compliance with silviculture BMPs. Based 

on the sampling procedure employed [8], the

following statistical 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/BMPs evaluated(n) se = √f(1-f)/n ci = f + 2 se 

f = 3865/3892 se = √0.993(1-0.993)/3892 ci = .993 + 2 (.0013)

f = 0.9931 se = 0.0013 ci = 99.04% - 99.56%

80

85

90

95

100

Compliance %

Survey Year

Figure 2. BMP Implementation

 by Survey Year
7

For 2015, the estimate of BMP implementation for the 37 county area (f) is 99.3%, with an 

estimated standard error (se) of 0.0013. 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 99.04% 

but not more than 99.56%.

Implementation scores for individual Survey 

sites in 2015 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.

Scores for individual BMP categories ranged 

from 99.1% for Forest Roads to 100% for 

Canals, Sinkholes, Fireline Construction, 

Pesticide and/or Fertilizer Use, Wet Weather 

Operations, Emergency Operations, and Public 

Lands. (Appendix Table 2).

The total number of individual practices evaluated in 2015 increased by 5.5% from the 2013 Survey

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

practices evaluated within 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 2015. Eighty-five

percent of the sites evaluated were pine plantations, 10% 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 (53%), followed by loblolly pine (15%), longleaf (1%), hardwoods 

(20%) and cypress (5%). Compared to the 2013 Survey, hardwood removals increased by 16% and 

cypress harvesting decreased by 28%. 

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

associated with the 2015 Survey sites at 93%, an increase of 22% from 2013. Wetland dominant

terrain was identified on 4% of the sites, with lakes at 2% and one sinkhole. Also, 76% of the 2015

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 2015 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 Scores
8

collected concerning wood flow to paper mills, sawmills, veneer plants and pole treatment facilities. 

The results show that 51% of the timber harvested was delivered to pulp and paper mills, 40% to 

chip ‘n saw mills, 4% to veneer facilities and 4% to pole treatment plants.

Forestland Ownership

For 2015, 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 2009, there has been a 

continued decline of sites on 

industry land compared to 

private non-industrial forest 

land which shows a continued 

upward trend (Figure 4). 

However, since 2013, 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 2015 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 that 

compliance on industry land was 99.7%, private non-industrial forest land was 99.2%, 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 an NOI is 

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

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

Both public and private forest landowners can file an 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 Public
9

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 industrial 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 riparian 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 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: Primary Zone, 

Secondary Zone, and Stringer. The Primary Zone applies to perennial 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 Public
10

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 were streams. Forty-eight

percent perennial streams and forty-one percent intermittent streams were evaluated for SMZ 

compliance on 104 sites in the 2015 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 

2015, the actual measured Primary Zone widths for these size streams ranged from 35-300 feet,

with an average width of 99 feet. This is a decrease of four feet from the 2013 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 2015 was 417 acres, and 68% of all SMZs evaluated were on small, first order 

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

(Table 1). No significant risks to water quality were reported.

 Table 1: SMZ Implementation Summary for last six surveys

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 Year 
11

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 pre-suppression fireline construction. Wetland forestry operations were evaluated 

on 7% of the sites during the 2015 Survey, a decrease from the 2013 Survey. Thirty-seven percent 

of the sites were evaluated for wet weather operations.

Forty-one percent of all sites evaluated for Wetland BMPs in 2015 involved operations conducted 

in wetland areas less than 200 acres. Within the 37 county area sampled, 153 wetland practices 

were evaluated on 12 sites and 99.4% of those were in full compliance with BMPs. 

Forest Roads and Stream Crossings

Historically, the most chronic and long-term sediment problems associated with 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 2015, Forest Road BMPs were evaluated on 168 sites most of which involved maintenance of 

existing roads. Of the 670 road practices evaluated, 99.1% were in full compliance with BMPs. 

Five survey sites (3%) 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 

131 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 Crossings associated with forestry operations were evaluated on 15.5% of the Survey sites

in 2015. Of the stream crossings evaluated, 60% were culvert installations and the remainder were

hard-surface crossings. Of the 256 Stream Crossing practices evaluated in the 2015 Survey, 98.8%

were in compliance with BMPs a slight decrease of 0.30% compared to the 2013 Survey.

Timber Harvesting, Site Preparation and Planting

The number of timber harvesting practices evaluated in 2015 totaled 575 on 128 sites. Overall 

implementation for this category was 99.1% for the 37 county area surveyed. No significant risks 

were observed on any of the 128 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 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 erosion and require wider SMZs with 

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

2015 sites fell within this slope class and 72% were classified as having low (<2%) soil erodibility.

Site preparation and tree planting activities were evaluated on 62.5% of the 2015 Survey sites. 

Overall implementation for this category was 99% for the 37 county area surveyed. Seventy-four

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

Of those sites reporting Mechanical Site Preparation, 82% involved intensive shearing, raking, pile 

raking and/or bedding. Chemical Site Preparation, alone or in combination with mechanical 

techniques, was reported on 66% of the 2015 sites. Site Preparation and Planting Operations scored 

99% overall for sites sampled within the 37 county area. 

Tree planting activities were evaluated on 113 sites and involved machine planting 51% of the time. 

Fireline Construction

The number of sites evaluated for fireline construction was four in 2011, five in 2013, and five in 

2015. In addition, the overall implementation rate for this category was 100% in this Survey, 

unchanged from 2011. 

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 181 sites during the 2015 Survey. Although 

implementation for this category was 99.3%, five sites scored less than 80%. 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

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. 
13

Of 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 1997.

 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 Survey sites were completed and the data was 

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

Survey sites evaluated for 2015. Then, using the original Survey form, the watershed forester and 

the original surveyor 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 2015, ten Survey sites were audited and no inconsistencies were noted (Table 2).

Table 2: Random Verification Audits by County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY 

The 2015 BMP Implementation Survey was the eighteenth since the initial Survey in 1981, marking 

more than 32 years of monitoring. This Survey evaluated 181 individual forestry operations (sites)

encompassing 32,552 acres. This brings the total number of Survey sites in Florida to 5,084 since 

1981. The 2015 Survey evaluated 3,892 individual forest practices, an increase of 676 from 2013.

Considering all practices in all BMP categories, implementation in 2015 was 99.3% which is a

slight increase of 0.40% since the 2013 Survey.

Sixty-three percent of the 2015 Survey sites were on private non-industrial (PNIF) lands, 29% were 

on forest industry lands and 8% were on public lands. Since the 2013 Survey, there has been a 

continued decrease in the number of Survey sites on forest industry 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

Dixie County 9 100% No Change

Franklin County 2 100% No Change

Jefferson County 7 100% No Change

Lafayette County 6 100% No Change

Levy County 6 100% No Change

Liberty County 8 98.2% No Change

Nassau County 8 99.1% No Change
14

previous Surveys, BMP implementation between ownership categories was not significantly

different for 2015. Overall BMP implementation for forest industry was 99.7%, private nonindustrial landowners 99.2%, and public lands 100%. The typical Survey site for 2015 was 

approximately 180 acres with sandy soil and relatively flat topography. The typical silviculture 

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

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

equipment. 

BMP implementation with Special Management Zone criteria was 99%, an increase from 2013. 

For individual SMZ components, compliance with width requirements was 99% 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 2015, the overall 

SMZ ranged from 35-300 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 2015 Survey sites reported wetland activities. Implementation of Wetland

BMPs for this Survey was 99.4%, approximately 0.20% more than in 2013.

Implementation of Forest Road BMPs was 99.1%, and general road planning and construction was 

reported on 15% of the sites. 

Stream Crossings were evaluated on 15% of the 2015 Survey sites, an increase of 6% since 2013.

BMP implementation for Stream Crossings was 98.8%, with the majority of the sites reporting 

culvert installed crossings. 

For the 2015 Survey, the most frequently reported BMP noncompliance was in the Special 

Management Zones, Forest Roads, Timber Harvesting (Non-Wetlands), Site Preparation and 

Planting, and Waste Disposal categories. 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 55,000 Silviculture BMP Manuals 

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

workshops and demonstrations. In addition, FFS provides BMP training as part of the Florida 

Forestry Association’s Master Logger Program [11]. To date, approximately 519 loggers have 

become Master Loggers. A total of 290 Master Loggers have completed an additional six-hour 

BMP Continuing Education Course. 

Despite the 99.3% implementation rate for 2015, three BMP categories in this Survey showed a 

slight decrease in compliance – specifically, Stream 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 survey in 

2017.
15

Finally, the 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. Ten survey sites were audited 

for 2015 and no discrepancies were 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] _______________2008. 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 Effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (2001) 237-244, Elsevier.

[6] Vowell, Jeffrey L., and Russ 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 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 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.
17

APPENDICES

Table 1: Page 18

Table 2: Page 19-40
Florida Forest Service

Table 1. 2015 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

18
19

Field Site Number

County: ______________

 

Site No.: ______________

 

FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

2015 Implementation Survey Results

Survey Year 

Number

(if applicable)

2015-1-181

______________

 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

Certified: 17 Tree Farm 62 SFI 3 FSC 5 Forest Stewardship 63 Submitted BMP Notice of Intent 
20

Field Site Number

County: _______________

Site No.: _______________

FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Implementation Survey

Survey Number

2015-1-181

PART I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION & CHARACTERISTICS:

1. Owner Name: 2. Ownership: 14 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 (check one):

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

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

155 Intensive Forest Management (Planted Pine) 0 Row Crop 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 124 Flatwoods 21 Sandhills 1 Pasture/Cropland

8. Principle Soil Texture (check one): 0 Clay 7 Loam 168 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 (check one): 144

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 40-63 of the 2008 BMP Manual) ssc

* A1 = 130 A4 = 2 B1 = 1 B4 = 1 C1 = 0 C4 = 0

 A2 = 25 A5 = 1 B2 = 7 B5 = 0 C2 = 0 C5 = 0

 A3 = 8 A6 = 1 B3 = 4 B6 = 0 C3 = 0 C6 = 1 
21

PART II: FORESTRY OPERATIONS :

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

Name & Location (City) of Logger: _________________________________________________________ 

 

46 N/A 6 Seed Tree Cut FL Master Logger? 114 Yes __ No

126 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: 133 Pulpwood 105 Sawmill (Chip n Saw) 10 Veneer 11 Poles

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

___________

Name & Location (City) of Contractor: _______________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

68 N/A 58 Chemical Treatment (Pre-Plant)

40 Non-Intensive Mechanical 4 Chemical Treatment (Post-Plant)

13Chemical Treatment (Pre and Post)

84 Intensive Mechanical 4 Burn 0 Timber Stand Improvement

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

Name & Location (City) of Contractor: 

106 N/A 16 Hand Planting

38 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 10 Cypress

99 Slash Pine 1 Other Pine species 10 Sand Pine

28 Loblolly Pine 37 Hardwood 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

27 Loblolly Pine 2 Hardwood species 0 Eucalyptus

18. Are Forested Wetland Roads and/or Stream Crossings to be evaluated on this site? Yes 29 No 152 

 If yes, did the landowner obtain the proper permit for installation? 4 Yes 0 No* 177 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 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? 158 Yes 23 No

19. Emergency Operations? 3 Yes 178 No

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

 
22

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, 54 Unnamed

 

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

 Total .................................................... (60) (17) (4) (2) (5) (16) 

22. 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 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 70 117

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.

 23. Are Primary Zone Exceptions being applied for perennial waterbodies on site? Yes 2 No 56 

 (Evaluate compliance in SMZ section).

24. Total area designated as "Primary SMZ":

(Linear Water Frontage x Primary Zone Width/43,560) 417Acres

*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 2008 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

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

stream crossings?

N/A 26 0

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

13. Kept main skid trails out of Primary Zone, except for designated stream crossings? N/A 48 0

14. Kept pre-suppression plowed firelines out of the Primary Zone? N/A 4 0

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

16. Cleaned spray equipment from pesticide and fertilizer applications outside of 

Primary Zone? N/A 15 0

SUBTOTALS (Enter on top of table on next page) 252 1 0
24

PRIMARY ZONE EXCEPTIONS

(Continued)

(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)

Significant 

Risk

Enter Subtotals from previous page  252 1 0

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

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

19. Exception #3a “Add-On,” correctly applied? N/A 0 0

20. 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

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

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

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

stream crossings? N/A 30 0

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

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

crossings? N/A 62 0

26. When possible, avoided pre-suppression plowed firelines within the Secondary 

Zone? N/A 5 0

27. Cleaned spray equipment from pesticide and fertilizer applications outside of 

Secondary Zone? N/A 25 0

STRINGER

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

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

N/A

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

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

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

TOTALS 618 2 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%)

99.7%
25

B. OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

(Refer to pages 17-21 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 12

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 crossings? 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 or ≥ 200A) 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 0
26

OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS 

(Continued)

(Refer to pages 17-21 of the 2008 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 WITHIN A WETLAND AREA

LESS THAN 200 ACRES IN SIZE:

N/A

10. If leave tree option applied, left 3-5 “leave trees” per acre? N/A 7 0

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

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

OCCURRING WITHIN A WETLAND AREA

GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 200 ACRES:

N/A

13. Left 1-2 “leave trees” per acre in the older age class? N/A 7 0

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

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

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

between clearcut areas? N/A 3 0

17. Are multiple 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

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

21. Clustered leave trees along centerline of flow-way? N/A 1 0

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 68 1 0
27

OPERATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN FORESTED WETLANDS

(Continued)

(Refer to pages 17–21 of the 2008 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

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

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

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

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

harvesting conditions were unavoidable? N/A 8 0

26. When possible, limited forestry operations in wetlands to dry conditions or lowwater conditions?

N/A 12 0

MAT (SHOVEL) LOGGING

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

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

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

28. 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 5 0

29. 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

31. Merchantable timber used in skid trail mat removed after logging operation? N/A 6 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 153 1

0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.4%
28

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)

Significant 

Risk

1. During normal silvicultural operations, avoided 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 Section) 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

10. 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. Road 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 2008 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 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY)

168

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 136 0

9. Road surface drainage directed away from waterbodies/wetlands? N/A 131 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 135 0

11. Closed or restricted traffic on roads whenever possible? N/A 164 0

12. Stabilized critical segments? N/A 79 4

TOTALS 670 6 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.1%
31

F. STREAM CROSSINGS

(Refer to pages 28-30 of the 2008 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 culvert 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 0
32

STREAM CROSSINGS

(Continued)

(Refer to pages 28-30 of 2008 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 

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

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

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

suitable to stream flow?

N/A 12 0

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

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

TOTALS 253 3 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 98.8%
33

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)

128

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 104 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 125 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 125 2

TOTALS 570 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.1%
34

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) 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 for 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 waterbodies 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 33 of the 2008 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 drainage 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 23 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%
36

J. PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER USE

(Refer to page 34-35 of the 2008 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: 14 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 10 Oustar 0 Roundup 9 Other 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

This is a: 53 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. Pesticide 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-Planting Treatment 8 Post-Planting Treatment 0 Pre & 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 36 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 181

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 175 0

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

waterbodies (including canals)?

N/A 180 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 179 0

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

tires from site upon completion of operation?

N/A 172 5

TOTALS 706 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.3%
38

L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS

(Refer to page 37 of the 2008 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 38 of the 2008 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 as necessary after emergency operation? N/A 0 0

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

3. Stream crossings stabilized 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 2008 BMP Manual) 14

BMPs

(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%