# F

L

O



# R

I

D

A

Florida Forest Service

James R. Karels

Director 

# Silviculture Best Management Practices



# 2011 Implementation Survey Report

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

ADAM H. PUTNAM

Commissioner1 

## Results of Florida’s

20 11 Silviculture BMP Implementation Survey

Conducted by the

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Florida Forest Service

In Cooperation with

Florida Forest Landowners and Forest Land Managers

February , 20 1 2

Jeff Vowell, Forest Hydrologist

Roy Lima, Watershed Specialist

Richard Cristan , BMP Forester

Robin Holland, BMP Forester

For m ore i nformation, Contact:

Florida Forest Service

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 1650

(850) 414

- 99 69

(850) 414

- 99342 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 20 11 , the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Forest Service

(F FS ) completed the sixteenth statewide Survey on Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs).

By deleg ation from the 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 cont rolling 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 Flo rida's Silviculture BMPs. The Survey is conducted throughout the state, on 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, r esults from a BMP

Effectiveness Study published in 2001 and 2004

, us ed the Survey as a measure of BMP

implementation and stream bio

- assessment techniques to measure water quality. The study

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

quality, aquatic habitat and overal l stream ecosystem health were protected.

The 20 11 BMP Implementation Survey evaluated 3,486 practices on 1 90 individual forestry

operations (sites). This cooperative effort involved 8 5 individual public and private landowners and

covered 30,253 acres in 47 Florida counties. Seventy

- four sites were on private non

- industrial

forestland, 85 on industrial forestland, and 31 on public forestlands

.

The 20 11 S urvey reported one ( 1 ) instance where the lack of BMP implementation constituted

a significant risk to water quality. The forest landowner and contractor were contacted and provided

with recommendations for remedial action. Follow

- up visits verified that the recommendations were

followed and the risk potential eliminated

.

For the 20 11 Survey, no site scored below 7 5 % in overall BMP implementation

. Eighty

- eight

percent of the sites scored 100% implementation for applicable BMPs

, an increase of nine percentage

points since 2009

. The range of compliance scores was 7 5 % to 100%, and the average for overall

BMP compliance was 9 8. 7 %, a slight in crease from 9 8

. 1 % in 200 9

. The average compliance for the

30 year period since 1981 is 94%

, and a total of 3,392 individual forestry operations have been

s urveyed during the period of record

.3 INTRODUCTION

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

result of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. This program is directed at controlling nonpoint source

(NPS) pollution associated with forestry operations, thro ugh 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 20 11 BMP Implementation Survey.

BMP Development

Florida's first Silviculture BMP Manual [1] was published in 1979 a nd 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 acade mia [2]. The BMP Manual [3] contains 1 4 9

individual practices within 14 BMP categories, including "Special Management Zones" and

“ Wetlands ” that protect overall ecosystem integrity and wildlife habitat, as well as water quality. In

addition, the Technical Advisory Committee continues to meet regularly to consider revisions to the

Manual and provide input for the overall BMP program. The most recent meeting was Ma y 1 2

, 20 11 at which time a BMP status and progress report was prese nted

.

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 i mplementation program is on

- going, with workshops rou tinely provided upon

request, or as deemed necessary based on monitoring results. Currently, F FS personnel conduct 2 0

to 25 workshops/demonstrations annually, involving approximately 7 0 0 participants per year. In

addition, the F FS provides BMP training d irectly to loggers through the Florida Forestry

Association’s Master Logger Program. To date, approximately 49 6 loggers have become Master

Loggers of which 43 have obtained Master Logger +Plus status

. A total of 60 Master Loggers have

completed an additional six

- hour BMP Continuing Education Course

.

BMP Monitoring

Since 1981, the FFS has monitored forestry operations for compliance with BMPs by

conducting biennial “ Surveys ” . The Survey consists of evaluating a random sample of for estry

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

on both public and private lands are eligible for the Survey. For the period of record through 20 11

, the F FS has evaluated over 3 ,000 individual fores try operations and recorded statewide compliance

ranging from 84% (19 85 ) to 9 8. 7 % ( 20 11 ). F or the period of record, the cumulative statewide

average for overall compliance with s ilviculture BMPs is 94%

.

The 20 11 Survey was the FFS ’s sixteenth s tatewide BMP monitoring effort since 1981. In4

addition, a BMP Effectiveness study 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.

The study eva luated BMP effectiveness during silviculture operations including clearcut harvesting,

intensive mechanical site preparation, and forest chemical (herbicides and fertilizer) application.

Upon completion

, the results of the study showed that properly appli ed 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, based on the site selection

criteria, some counties in south and central Florida had no qualifying sites in the 2011 Survey.

As in previous Surveys, each county within the 20 11 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 level of timber removal in Taylor County resulted in a goal of 11 sites, compared to Pasco

County’s relatively low timber removals and a goal of two sites. In addition, in order to sam ple 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 210 sites distributed among

57 counties for the 20 11 Implementation Surve y [Appendix Table 1].

Candidate sites for the 20 11 Survey were selected using the following criteria: (1) the

operation being evaluated must be bona

- fide Silviculture

, ( 2 ) the Silviculture treatment being

evaluated must have occurred within the past 2 ye ars, and ( 3 ) some part of the treatment must have

occurred within 300 feet of a stream, wetland, sinkhole or lake (2 acres or larger), or within a

wetland type listed in the BMP Manual. These criteria provide for Survey sites where the greatest

potential f

or forestry

- related non

- point source (NPS) pollution exists, and where any such impacts

are still discernable and measurable at the time of the Survey.

S ites for the 20 11 Survey were selected by FFS BMP F oresters from fixed

- wing aircraft,

flying randomly selected township and range lines at altitudes ranging from 800

- 1200 feet. This

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

and to maximize the diversity of ow nerships 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 4 7 counties i n the

spring /summer

/fall of 20 11

. U pon verification of ground conditions on the candidate sites, 190 sites

in 47 counties were confirmed as meeting the qualifying criteria (Figure 1).

In addition to the 190 sites identified as bona

- fide Silviculture , the BMP Foresters 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 17

such sites covering 10 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 professionally trained BMP

F oresters with oversight by the FFS Watershed Specialist . The BMP Foresters were responsible for

contacting landowners prior to visiting each site to secure access and to solicit their participation in

the Survey.6

A ctual field evaluations were conducted only on those 20 11 Survey 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 e valuating each site involved observing as much of the

treated area as possible and completing the Survey field questionnaire [Appendix Table 2]. The

questionnaire consists of 14 9 s pecific, YES/NO questions directly related to BMP implementation.

All answ ers 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 indiv idual 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 exte nt

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 for

corrective measures. After a reasonable period of time, a follo w 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 11 BMP Implementation Survey, BMP Foresters evaluated 3,486 p ractices, on

190 individual forestry operations, in 47 Florida counties. Of the individual practices evaluated,

3,441 ( 98. 7 %) were found to be in compliance with BMPs. This level of implementation is a slight

in cre ase of 0. 6 0% over the previous Survey

. (Figure 2).

Statistical Analysis

As in previous Surveys, the practices

evaluated represent only a sample of all forestry

operations that met the qualifying criteria for

20 11 . In that regard, the Survey represents an

estimate of the actual, statewide compliance with

silviculture BMPs. Based on the sampling

procedure employed [ 8 ], the following statistical

properties are attributable to the Survey data and

express the quality of the estimate: 80 85 90 95 100 Compliance %

Survey Year

Figure 2. BMP Implementation

by Survey Year7

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 = 3441 / 3486 se = √ 0.9 8 7 (1

- 0.9 8 7 )/ 3486 ci = . 98 7 + 2 (.00 19 )

f = 0.98 7 se = 0.00 19 ci = 9 8.32 %

- 9 9. 08 %

For 20 11 , the estimate of BMP implementation for the 47 county area (f) is 98. 7 %, with an

estimated standard error (se) of 0.00 19

. 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 8.3 % but

not more than 9 9.1 %.

Implementation scores for individual

Survey sites in 20 11 ranged from a low of 7 5 %

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 97.7 % for Waste Disposal to

100% for Canals

, Sinkholes, Fireline

Construction, Pesticide and/or Fertilizer Use,

Wet Weat her Operations, Em ergency

Operations , and Public Lands

. A notable

in crease occurred from the 200 9 Survey for

Public Lands ( +13 %)

. (Appendix Table 2).

The total number of individual practices evaluated in 20 11 de creased from the 200 9 Survey

due to a reduction in the number of actual sites sampled. However, i n crease s in the number of

practices evaluated w ithin individual BMP categories were noted for Canals ( 25 to 38 )

, Pesticide

and/or Fertilizer Use ( 72 to 164 ), and Waste Disposal (721 to 731)

.

Site Characteristics

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

large portion of Florida's landscape, dominated th e physiographic types evaluated in 20 11

. Seventy

- seven percent of the sites evaluated were pine plantations, 16% of the sites were reported

as natural pine/hardwood mix, and 6 % wetlands. Soil erodibility was reported as high on 6 % of the

Survey sites, while 9 0 % of the sites reported low erosion potential. The primary tree species

harvested on the Survey sites was slash pine ( 4 9 % ), followed by loblolly pine ( 1 3 % ), longleaf ( 4 %),

hardwoods ( 1 7 % ), and cypress ( 5 % ). Compared to the 200 9 Survey, hardwood removals increased

slightly and cypress harvesting de creased by 2 %

.

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

features associated with the 20 11 Survey sites at 8 3 %

, a de crease of 2 % from 200 9

. Wetland

dominant terrains were identified on 8 % o f the sites, with lakes and sinkholes on 12 % and 5 % of

the sites, respectively

. Also, fifty

- nine per cent of the 20 11 Survey sites involved clearcut

harvesting operations, mostly in intensively managed pine plantations. Selective harvesting and

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

seed tree operations were evaluated on 26 % of the sites . There were nine salvage harvest sites

evaluated

, with five as the resu lt of wildfire s and four resulting in insect damage

.

The 20 11 Survey collected information pertaining to logger training. On sites where

timber harvesting was evaluated, 9 4 % of the loggers were Florida Master Loggers

, 3 % Georgia

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

concerni ng wood flow to paper mills, sawmills

, veneer plants , and pole treatment facilities. The

results show 4 6 % of the timber harvested was delivered to pulp and paper mill s

, 35 % to chip ‘n saw

mill s

, 10 % to veneer facilities, and 8 % to pole treatment plant s.

Forestland Ownership

For 20 11

, 39 % of the

Survey sites were located on

private non

- industrial forest

lands (PNIF), 45 % on forest

industry lands, and public

lands accounted for 16 %

. This represents a shift in the

distribution of sites by

ownership, particularly with

respect to the private non

industrial sector. For the f ifth

time s ince 2003 more sites

were located on ind ustr y land

than private non

- industrial

forest land (Figure 4).

However, since 200 9

, the

number of sites on PNIF lands has notably in creased

, while the number of sites on public lands has

also in creased

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

, economic pressures, and market conditions for forest products.

Sixty

- six percent of the PNIF landowners that participated in the 20 11 Survey indicated that

they received some level of technical assistance during their forestry o perations. However, the use

of technical assistance did not significantly increase the overall implementation scores, compared to

landowners who did not use technical assistance. In addition, overall implementation was not

substantially different between ownership categories. BMP implementation indicated that

compliance on industry land was 99.5%

, private non

- industrial forest land was 98.3%

, and public

land was 99.2%

.

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 "...incre ased 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 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent

Survey Year

Figure 4. Survey Sites by Ownership

PNIF Industry Public9

Study mentioned earlier

, also showed the imp ortance 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 a ll 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 Manual, SMZs ar e

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 st ability 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 Zo ne

and Stringer apply mostly to intermittent waters. For a given waterbody, the total SMZ width is

always a minimum of 35 feet, and may extend out to as much as 300 feet. The management criteria

that apply within each SMZ component are based on the soil and slope of the site and on the size,

nature, and classification of the waterbody involved.

Eighty

- three per cent of all water resource

features reported in the Survey w ere streams.

Forty

- eight perennial streams and thirty

- seven

intermittent streams were evaluated for SMZ

compliance on 85 sites in the 2011 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 (Figure 5). For 20 11

, the

a ctual, measured Primary Zone widths for

these size streams ranged from 35

- 3 00 feet

, with an average width of 92 feet. For

perennial streams, the Survey reported 31.4

total stream miles meeting Primary Zone requirements. Forest industry lands account ed for 11.8

miles, with PNIF and Public Lands accounting for 15.0 and 8.5 miles, respectively. The total area

reported as being under Primary Zone management for 20 11 was 313 acres, and forty

- five percent

of all SMZs ev aluated were on small, first order streams. At 98% in 20 11 , the average

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

significant risk to water quality w as reported in the 20 11 Survey. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

< 20 20

- 40 > 40 OFW Number of Streams

Stream Width (ft) or Special Designation Figure 5. Number of Perennial Streams

Surveyed by Stream Width10

Table 1: SMZ Implementation Summary for last six s urveys

SMZ Component 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997

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

Secondary Zone 100% 98% 98% 99% 95% 95% 97% 99%

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

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

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

Survey.

Wetland Forestry Operations

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

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

preparation and pre

- suppression fireline construction. Wetland forestry operations were evaluated

on 14 % of the sites during the 20 11 Survey, a de crease of 8 % from the 200 9 Survey

. Thirteen

percent of the sites were evaluated for wet weather operations

.

Eighty

- nine percent of all sites evaluated for Wetland BMPs in 20 11 involved operations

conducted in wetland areas less than 200 acres

. Within the 47 county area sampled, 273 wetland

practices were evaluated on 27 sites and 98. 9 % 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 planning, construction,

drainage, maintenance, and application of forest road BMPs help pr event forestry

- related water

quality problems.

For 20 11

, Forest Road BMPs were evaluated on 152 sites most of which involved

maintenance of existing roads

. Of the 555 road practices evaluated, 9 8. 9 % 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 100 % of the time. Likewise, existing drainage structures

were evaluated on 103 sites and had a compliance rate of 9 8 %

. As in previous surveys, the most

c ommon incidence of noncompliance for roads was failure to directing road surface drainage away

from waterbodies and/or wetlands

, maintaining drainage structures free of major obstructions, and

stabilizing critical road segments

. There w as one significant risk reported in the Stream Crossing

category in the 20 11 Survey

.

Stream crossings associated with forestry operations were evaluated on 13% of the Survey

sites in 20 11

. Of the stream crossings evaluated, 42 % were culvert installations and the remainder s

were hard

- surface crossings

. Of the 2 08 stream crossing practices evaluated in the 20 11 Survey

, 9 8.1 % were in compliance with BMPs an increase of 1.3% over the 2009 Survey

.11

Timb er Harvesting, Site Preparation and Planting

The number of t imber harvesting practices evaluated in 20 11 totaled 552 practices on 142

sites

. Overall implementation for this category was 99. 1 % for the 4 7 county area surveyed. No

significant risks were observed on all 1 4 2 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 p ine 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.

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

restrictions on mechanical site preparation activities. Similar to previous Survey s, only 6 % of the

20 11 sites fell within this slope class, and 90% were classified as having low soil erodibility

.

Site preparation and tree planting activities were evaluated on 37% of the 20 11 Survey sites

. Overall implementation for this category was 99. 7 % for the 47 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, 40% involved intensive shearing, raking, pile

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

techniques, was reported on 64% of the 20 11 sites

. S ite preparation and planting operations scored

9 9. 7 % overall for sites sampled within the 47 county area.

T ree planting activities were evaluated on 70 sites and involved machine planting 55% of

the time. The re were a few observations of improper waste disposal involving tree planters not

disposing of seedling wrapping /boxes properly

.

Fireline Construction

The number of sites evaluated for fireline construction was 24 in 2001

, 42 in 2003, 9 in

2005 , 16 in 2007 , 11 in 2009

, and 4 in 2011 representing a 60 % decrease from 2009

. In addition,

the overall implementation rate for this category was 100% in this Sur vey, up 5. 1 % from 200 9

.

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.12 0 5 10

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Significant Risks

Survey Year Figure 6. Comparison of Significant Risk

by Survey Year Waste Disposal BMPs were evaluated on 190 sites during the 20 11 Survey. Although

implementation for this category was 97.7%

, sixteen sites ( 8.4 %) scored less than 8 0%

. Most oth er

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 noncompliance 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 conjunction with silviculture operations in Florida.

Of the 3,486 practices evaluated, 1

. 3 % was not in compliance , and 1% of those were

determined to be a significant risk to water

quality

. T he 20 11 Survey reported one

instance of S ignificant R isk on one site.

The site that exhibited a significant risk to

water quality occurred on private non

industrial forestland as the result of

establishing a temporary stream crossing

during a timber harvesting operation in a

perennial stream. The risk w as mitigated

by contactin g the landowner and consulting

forester and giv ing recommendations for

corrective action. Figure 6 indicates the

number of significant risks, by Survey,

since 199 7

.

Area Weighting BMP Implementation Data

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

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

weighted based on their acreage, i.e. larger tracts woul d have a greater influence on the total percent

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

how the practices are impacting the total landscape. Area Weighting the 20 11 BMP Data is

illustrated below us ing the following formula.

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

For 20 11 , the Area Weighted result of all BMP sites is 99.2% statewide based on the random

sample criteria for site selection.

Random Verification Audits

For the sixth time since the 2001 BMP Survey, the FFS conducted a statewide, random

“verification audit”, the purpose of which is to ensure the continued accuracy and reliability of the13

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

data was processed. The audit procedure consisted of randomly selecting a subset (approximately

6 %) of all Survey sites evaluated for 2011. Then, using the o riginal Survey form

, the Watershed

Forester and the BMP Forester re

- evaluated each of the audit sites. Any inconsistencies noted

during the audit were corrected on the form and the appropriate changes were made to the overall

Survey data base. For 2011, t welve Survey sites were audited, and no inconsistencies were noted

(Ta ble 2).

Table 2: Random Verification Audits by County

SUMMAR Y

The 20 11 BMP Implementation Survey was the six teenth since the initial Survey in 1981

, marking over 30 years of monitoring

. This Survey evaluated 190 individual forestry operations

( sites ) , encompassing 30,253 acres in 47 counties

. This brings the total number of Survey sites in

Florida to 3,392 since 1981

. The 2011 Survey evaluated 3,486 individual forest practices

- a

de crease of 641 from 2009 (Figure 1)

. Considering all practices in all BMP categories

, implementation in 2011 was 98.7 % which is a slight in crease of 0. 6 0 % since the 200 9 Survey.

Thirty

- nine percent of the 2011 Survey sites were on private non

- industrial (PNIF) lands,

45% were on forest industry lands and 16% were on public lands. Since the 2009 Survey, there has

been a noticeable de crease in the number of Survey sites on forest industry lands

. In addition, as

noted in previous Surveys, BMP implementation between ownership categories was not

significantly different for 2011

. Overa ll BMP implementation on forest industry was 99.5%

, private non

- industrial landowners 98.3%

, and public lands 99.2%. The "typical" Survey site for

20 11 was approximately 170 acres with sandy soil and relatively flat topography. T he typical

silviculture operation included harvesting 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. County Number of Audit

Sites Compliance/Change

Alachua County 1 100% No Change

Baker County 1 100% No Change

Columbia County 2 100% No Change

Dixie County 1 93.7% No Change

Escambia County 1 100% No Change

Hendry County 1 93.3% No Change

Levy County 2 100% No Change

Madison County 1 94.1% No Change

Putnam County 1 100% No Change

Walton County 1 100% No Change14

BMP i mplementation with Special Management Zone criteria was 98%, unchanged from

2009

. For individual SMZ components, compliance with width requirements was 9 7 % for the

Primary Zone, 100% for the Secondary Zone, and 9 8 % for Stringers. Sixty

- seven percent of all

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

- foot Zone. For 20 11

, actual Primary Zone widths for this stream category ranged from 3 5

- 3 00 feet , with an average

width of 1 02 feet

. For all stream categories combined, the Survey reported 31 .4 total stream miles

meeting Primary Zone requirements

.

Eight percent of the 2011 Survey sites reported wetland activities. Implementation of

Wetland BMPs for this Survey was 98. 9 %

, approximate ly 0. 2 0 % more than in 200 9

.

Implementation of Forest Road BMPs was 9 8. 9 %

, and general road planning and

construction was reported on 80 % of the sites.

Stream Crossings were evaluated on 13% of the 2011 Survey sites, down from 1 8 % in 200 9

. BMP implementation for Stream Crossing s was 98.1%

, with the majority of the sites reporting

culvert installed crossings. There was one significant risk reported in this BMP category.

For the 20 11 Survey , the most frequently reported BMP noncompliance was in the Special

Management Zone s

, Forest Roads

, and Waste Disposal cat egor ies

. In addition

, Wetlands , Stream

Crossings, T imber Harvesting (Non

- Wetlands)

, and Site Preparation show ed some level of

noncompliance

. Of most concern in the s pecial m anagement z one category

, was the width of the

p rimary z one meeting the minimum required for the waterbody size and type

.

The 20 11 Survey showed a continuing high implementation rate with silviculture BMPs in

Florida. This is attributed to the distribution of over 5 2 ,000 Silviculture BMP Manuals since 1993,

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

demonstrations. In addition, the F FS provides BMP training as part of the F lorida Forestry

Association’s Master Logger Program [1 1 ]. To date, approximately 496 loggers have become

Master Loggers of which 43 have obtained Master Logger +Plus status

. A total of 60 Master

Loggers have completed an additional six

- hour BMP Continuin g Education Course.

Despite the 98.7% implementation rate for 2011

, one BMP categor y in this Survey showed a

slight decrease in compliance

– specifically

, Timber Harvesting

. Educational outreach programs

and workshops for silviculture BMPs during the next two years will focus on special management

zones

, wetlands, forest roads , stream crossings, timber harvesting, and waste disposal prior to the

next s urvey in 2013

.

Finally, th e FFS conducted the sixth verification au dit 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 welve s urvey sites were

audited for 20 11 and no discrepancies were identified.15 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. Revisin g 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 Co nsumer 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 Russel 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.16 

## APPENDICES

Table 1: Page 1 7

Table 2: Page 1 8

- 3 9Florida Forest Service

Table 1. 20 11 BMP Compliance Survey Goals by County

COUNTY Survey Site

Selection Overall

Compliance

(%) Significant

Risks

(#) COUNTY Survey Site

Selection Overall

Compliance

(%) Significant

Risks

(#) Goal Actual Goal Actual

Alachua 6 6 100% Lake 2 2 100%

Baker 7 7 99.5% Lee 1 1 100%

Bay 7 7 98.9% Leon 4 4 100%

Bradford 1 1 100% Levy 6 6 100%

Brevard 1 1 100% Liberty 4 4 100%

Broward 0 0 Madison 6 6 96.5%

Calhoun 6 6 96.1% Manatee 0 0

Charlotte 1 1 100% Marion 6 6 100%

Citrus 1 1 100% Martin 1 0

Clay 5 5 100% Monroe 0 0

Collier 0 0 Nassau 7 7 100%

Columbia 5 5 100% Okaloosa 5 4 97.5%

Dade 0 0 Okeechobee 1 0

DeSoto 1 0 Orange 1 0

Dixie 9 9 99.3% Osceola 1 0

Duval 3 3 100% Palm Beach 0 0

Escambia 5 5 100% Pasco 2 2 100%

Flagler 6 6 99.1% Pinellas 0 0

Franklin 3 2 100% Polk 2 2 100%

Gadsden 4 5 91.8% 1 Putnam 5 5 100%

Gilchrist 3 3 100% St

. Johns 6 6 98.8%

Glades 2 0 St. Lucie 0 0

Gulf 2 2 100% Sa nta Rosa 7 1 100%

Hamilton 5 5 98.8% Sarasota 0 0

Hardee 1 0 Seminole 1 1 100%

Hendry 1 1 93.3% Sumter 2 2 95.5%

Hernando 1 1 100% Suwannee 3 3 100%

Highlands 1 0 Taylor 11 11 99.4%

Hillsborough 0 0 Union 3 3 100%

Holmes 3 3 98.2% Volusia 4 4 100%

Indian River 1 0 Wakulla 3 0

Jackson 8 6 99.4% Walton 4 5 95.1%

Jefferson 4 5 100% Washington 3 3 98.2%

Lafayette 6 6 100% 210 190 98.7% 1

1718

Field Site Number

County: ________

______

Site No.: ________

______ FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES



### 2011 Implementation Survey Results Survey Year

Number

(if applicable)

2011

- 1

- 190

____________ __

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 102 576 9 585 98.5%

B. WETLANDS 27 273 3 276 98.9%

C. CANALS 11 38 0 38 100%

D. SINKHOLES 3 9 0 9 100%

E. FOREST ROADS 152 555 6 561 98.9%

F. STREAM CROSSINGS 24 204 4 208 98.1% 1

G. TIMBER HARVESTING (Non

- Wetlands) 142 547 5 552 99.1%

H. SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTING 70 296 1 297 99.7%

I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION 4 15 0 15 100%

J. PESTICIDE and/or FERTILIZER USE 55 164 0 164 100%

K. WASTE DISPOSAL 190 714 17 731 97.7%

L. WET WEATHER OPERATIONS 25 38 0 38 100%

M. EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 12 7 0 7 100%

N. PUBLIC LANDS 31 5 0 5 100%

TOTALS 3,441 45 3,486 1

OVERALL COMPLIANCE (%) 98.7 %

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: 25 Tree Farm 56 SFI 1 FSC 12 Forest Stewardship19

Field Site Number

County: __________

_____

Site No.: __________

_____ FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE

SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES



### Implementation Survey Survey Number

2011

- 1

- 190



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

1. Owner Name: 88 Forest Landowners 2. Ownership : 31 PUBLIC 85 INDUSTRY 74 PNIF

Address:

3. Email Address: _______________________________________

Landowner Phone No.: ( ) _________________

Contact Name: Contact Phone No.: ( ) _______________

4. Approximate acreage of treated area: 30,253 Acres

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

2 FFS County Forester 40 Forestry Consultant 7 Industrial Forester 25 Other 112 None

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

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

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

12 Forested Wetland Management (Hardwood Timber) 1 Other

7. Dominant Terrain (check one):

16 Wetlands 28 Uplands 142 Flatwoods 4 Sandhills 0 Pasture/Cropland

8. Principle Soil Texture (check one): 2 Clay 12 Loam 166 Sand 10 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):

0

- 2% 3

- 7% 8

- 12% 13

- 17% 18

- 22% > 22%

11. Soil Erodibility Class ( c heck one): 171

Organic

A

(LOW) 8

B

(MODERATE) 11

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)

* A1 = 142 A4 = 0 B1 = 6 B4 = 1 C1 = 6 C4 = 0

A2 = 23 A5 = 1 B2 = 0 B5 = 0 C2 = 3 C5 = 0

A3 = 5 A6 = 0 B3 = 1 B6 = 0 C3 = 2 C6 = 020 

### PART II: FORESTRY OPERATIONS :

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

Name & Location (City) of Logger:

_________________________________________________________

22 N/A 21 Seed Tree Cut FL Master Logger? 131 Yes

__ No

116 Clearcut 9 Salvage Cut AL Pro Logger? 5 Yes __ No

GA Master Timber

Harvester? 4 Yes

__ No

31 Selective Cut 20 Row Thinning

Name of Receiving Mill: 152 Pulp wood 115 Sawmill (Chip n Saw) 34 Veneer 27 Poles

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

___________ Name & Location (City) of Contractor:

_______________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

65 N/A 45 Chemical Treatment (Pre

- Plant)

15 Non

- Intensive Mechanical 10 Chemical Treatment (Post

- Plant)

52 Intensive Mechanical 7 Burn 2 Timber Stand Improvement

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

_________ Name & Location (City) of Contractor:

94 N/A 6 Hand Planting

16 Conventional Machine Planting 0 Aerial/Ground Seeding

7 V

- blade Planter 0 Natural Regeneration

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

22 N/A 9 Longleaf Pine 13 Cypress

125 Slash Pine 4 Other Pine species 6 Sand Pine

32 Loblolly Pine 42 H ardwood species 0 Eucalyptus

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

93 N/A 3 Longleaf Pine 0 Cypress

16 Slash Pine 0 Other Pine species 0 Sand Pine

14 Loblolly Pine 0 H a rdwood species 0 Eucalyptus

18. Are Forested Wetland Roads and/or Stream Crossings to be evaluated on this site? Yes 25 No 162



###  If yes , did the landowner obtain the proper permit for installation? Yes 10 No 0 *1 N / A 180

*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 Manage ment 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 cro ssings.



###  A ll evaluated forestry operations complete? Yes 166 No 24

19. Emergency Operations? Yes 13 No 177

If Yes (Check all that apply): 10 Wildfire 0 Natural Disaster 4 Insects 0 Disease 0 Other21 

### 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: 10 2 Waterbodies

- 55 Named, 4 7 Unnamed

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

T otal

............................................. ....... (46) (13) (12) (5) (4) (2 2 )

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 48 32 7 4 5 0 0 92 54 102

Perennial Lake (1) 9

Perennial Sinkhole 1

Intermittent Lake (1) 3 STRINGER STRINGER

(Check if

applied)

Intermittent Stream 37 STRINGER STRINGER

(Check if

applied)

Intermittent

Sinkhole 4 STRINGER STRINGER

(Check if

applied)

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

(The Primary SMZ length may be determined using an aerial photo or a "to

- scale" map of the treated area.) 165,892 Feet (31.4 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 only.

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

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

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

- 2400

. 2 3 . Are Primary Zone Exceptions being applied for perennial waterbodies on site? Yes 3 No 59

( Evaluate compliance in SMZ section)

.

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

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

### 313 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.22 

### 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) 102

* 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 55 4

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 3 2

3

. Selective harvesting maintained at least 50% of the fully stocked stand ? N/A 4 0

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

5

. Avoided re

- entering a previously harvested Primary Zone to conduct additional

harvesting ? N/A 2 0

6

. Left all trees uncut in stream channel and on immediate stream banks? N/A 24 0

7

. Kept mechanical site preparation out of the Primary Zone? N/A 11 1

8

. Limited pesticide application within Primary Zone to approved methods? N/A 7 0

9

. Limited fertilizer application within Primary Zone to approved methods? N/A 2 0

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

Zone? N/A 54 0

1 1

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

stream crossings ? N/A 30 0

1 2

. Restricted site preparation burns to slopes with <18%? N/A 4 0

1 3

. Kept main skid trails out of Primary Zone, except for designated stream crossings? N/A 53 0

1 4 . Kept pre

- suppression plowed firelines out of the Primary Zone? N/A 2 0

1 5 . Located fertilizer transfer/loading areas outside of the Primary Zone? N/A 2 0

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

Primary Zone? N/A 9 0

SUBTOTALS (Enter on top of table on next page) 266 7 023 

### 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  266 7 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 2 0

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 11 0

2 2

. Kept log loading decks and landings out of the Secondary Zone ? N/A 61 0

2 3

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

stream crossings ? N/A 26 0

2 4

. Restricted site preparation burns to <18% slope? N/A 3 0

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

crossings? N/A 61 0

2 6 . When possible, avoided pre

- suppression plowed firelines within the Secondary

Zone? N/A 1 0

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

Secondary Zone? N/A 15 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 1

29

. Left all trees in stream channel/banks? N/A 43 1

3 0

. Minimized disturbance to stream banks ? N/A 44 0

TOTALS 576 9 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 98.5%24 

### 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) 27

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 26 1

2. Kept waterbodies located within the wetland free of logging debris ? N/A 7 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 7 0

4

. Permanent roads only for purposes allowed in the BMP Manual (Page 18 )? N/A 4 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 0 1

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? 3 0

8 . Leave trees represent the upper limit of the range for wetland harvest units? (i.e.<200A o r ≥ 200 A) 3 0

9 . Pond cypress trees cut at the approximate average high water mark? 2 1

SUBTOTALS (Enter at top of table on next page) 54 3 025 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  54 3 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 18 0

1 1 . If 10% harvesting option applied, left 10% of the harvest area as selectively cut? N/A 7 0

1 2 . Retained all snags that safety and harvesting operations allowed? N/A 20 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 2 0

1 4

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

1 5 . Limited clearcut size to 160 acres or less? N/A 2 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 0 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 1 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 2 0

2 1 . Clustered leave trees along centerline of flow

- way ? N/A 2 0

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 110 3 026 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  110 3 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 26 0

2 3

. Avoided widespread and excessive rutting? N/A 25 0

2 4

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

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

harvesting conditions were unavoidable? N/A 11 0

2 6

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

water conditions ? N/A 24 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 11 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 9 0

2 9 . Timber for mats laid down in direction of the trail? N/A 11 0

30

. Was the appropriate number of layers used to prevent site disturbance? N/A 11 0

3 1 . Merchantable timber used in skid trail mat removed after logging operation? N/A 10 0

3 2

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

(See Stream Crossing Section of BMP Manual ) N/A 1 0

TOTALS 273 3 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 98.9%27 

### 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) 11

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 11 0

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

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

4. Left canal free of excessive logging slash ? N/A 9 0

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

activities ? N/A 2 0

6 . Avoided damage to the canal bank? N/A 11 0

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

pollutants into canal? N/A 2 0

CANAL MAINTENANCE

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

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

9. Canal re

- dredging conducted during periods of low flow? N/A 1 0

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

possible? N/A 1 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 38 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%28 

### 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) 3

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 3 0 0

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

pesticide use within sinkholes ? N/A 3 0 0

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

TOTALS 9 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%29 

### E. FOREST ROADS

(Refer to pages 25

- 27 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 152

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 5 0

4. Properly balanced cut/fill ratio ? N/A 1 0

5. Fill road shoulders properly sloped? N/A 2 0

6. Road banks properly stabilized? N/A 1 0

7. Critical segments of road stabilized? N/A 2 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 0 Cross

- ditches 78 Road Ditches

15 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 15 Water Turnouts 12 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS)

8. Drainage structure installed properly? N/A 116 0

9. Road surface drainage directed away from waterbodies/wetlands? N/A 103 2

ROAD MAINTENANCE

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

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

- drain culverts 0 Cross

- ditches 79 Road Ditches

15 Water Bars 0 Ditch Plugs 15 Water Turnouts 12 Low Water Hard Surface Crossing (LWHS)

10. Drainage structures free of major obstructions? N/A 115 3

11. Close d or restrict ed traffic on roads whenever possible? N/A 145 0

12. Stabilized critical segments? N/A 55 1

TOTALS 555 6 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 98.9%30 

### 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) 24

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 21 1

2. Crossed the stream perpendicular to the flow? N/A 24 0

3 . Located stream crossing(s) on narrow section of stream? N/A 24 0

4 . Located crossing(s) on straight segment(s) of stream? N/A 24 0

5 . Stabilized erodible fill material and other areas normally exposed to flowing water ? N/A 14 2

6 . Avoided construction during high water conditions? N/A 12 0

CULVERTS

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

7 . Culvert properly installed? N/A 10 0

8 . Culvert size adequate to accommodate normal flow ? N/A 10 0

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

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

11

. Temporary c ulvert size sufficient for expected seasonal flow conditions? N/A 2 0

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

SUBTOTALS

(Enter at top of table on next page) 151 3 031



### 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  151 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:

2 None Used 2 Limerock 3 Gravel 0 Concrete 7 Logs 4 Slag 0 Other:

______________ ____

1 3

. Used non

- petroleum based material for armoring? N/A 10 0

1 4

. Stream bottom/banks appropriate for this type of crossing? N/A 12 0

1 5

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

suitable to stream flow? N/A 11 0

1 6

. Avoided stream impoundment with crossing installation? N/A 11 0

1 7

. Removed temporary materials after completion of operation? N/A 9 1 1

TOTALS 204 4 1

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 98.1%32 

### 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) 142

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 136 0

2

. When contour skidding was not possible, skid wood uphill instead of down? N/A 28 0

3. When skidding up slopes, avoided long continuous skid trails? N/A 27 1

4. Installed appropriate drainage structures properly? N/A 6 1

5. Stabilized critical segments as needed? N/A 13 1

6 . Concentrated skid trails in organic soils ? N/A 22 0

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

SLASH DISPOSAL

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

8. Removed logging slash from intermittent and perennial streams and lakes? N/A 35 2

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 140 0

TOTALS 547 5 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.1%33 

### 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) 70

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 70 0

2

. Kept intensive mechanical site preparation out of wetlands ? N/A 54 1

3

. To the extent possible , drum chopping conducted perpendicular to waterbody? N/A 14 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 46 0

5

. Kept equipment blade above the soil surface when shearing or pushing and piling debris? N/A 50 0

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

streams, lakes or similar water resource features? N/A 62 0

TOTALS 296 1 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 99.7%34 

### I. FIRELINE CONSTRUCTION

(Refer to page 3 3 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 4

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 2 0

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

grass, when feasible? N/A 4 0

3. Avoided plowing lines through wetlands, marshes, and savannas ? N/A 1 0

4 . Minimized plow depth ? N/A 1 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 4 0

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

necessary? N/A 0 0

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

- ditches 0 Water Turnouts

0 Water Bars 0 Vegetation 0 Other:

_____________________________________________

TOTALS 15 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%35 

### J. PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER APPLICATION

(Refer to page 3 4

- 35 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 55

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: 8 Arsenal 29 Chopper 15 Garlon 1 Oust 0 Velpar L 2 Velpar ULW 0 Razor Pro 6 Accord

11 Polaris 0 Tahoe 0 Pronone 3 Escort 2 Oustar 5 Roundup

_____________ Other

___ ________________________________________________________________________ This is a: 42 Pre

- planting Treatment 9 Post

- planting Treatment 0 Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) 5 None

1 . Directed pesticide only to the targeted area? N/A 54 0

2

. P esticide containers removed from site? N/A 54 0

3

. Cleaned spray equipment away from waterbodies and wetlands ? N/A 54 0

FERTILIZER USE BMPS

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

Fertilizer(s) applied: 1 Diammonium Phosphate ( DAP ) 1 Urea 0 Triple Super Phosphate ( TSP )

This is a (Check One): 0 Pre

- P lanting Treatment 1 Post

- P lanting Treatment 55 None

4. Timing of fertilizer application conducive to maximizing effectiveness of nutrient uptake? N/A 1 0

5. Fertilization does not exceed application limits given on page 35 of BMP Manual ? N/A 1 0

TOTALS 164 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%36 

### K. WASTE DISPOSAL

(Refer to page 3 6 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 190

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 174 0

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

waterbodies (including canals) ? N/A 184 6

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 189 0

4

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

tires from site upon completion of operation ? N/A 167 11

TOTALS 714 17 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 97.7%37 

### 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) 25

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 21 0

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

to conventional skidding? N/A 8 0

3

. Avoided operating heavy equipment in floodplains with standing or flowing floodwater? N/A 9 0

TOTALS 38 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%38 

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

(Refer to page 3 8 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 12

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 5 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 1 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

TOTALS 7 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%39 

### N . PUBLIC LANDS

(Refer to page 16 of the 200 8 BMP Manual) 25

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 5 0

TOTALS 5 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%