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

Commissioner
1

Results of Florida’s

2011 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, 2012

Jeff Vowell, Forest Hydrologist

Roy Lima, Watershed Specialist

Richard Cristan, BMP Forester

Robin Holland, BMP Forester

For more information, Contact: 

Florida Forest Service

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650

(850) 414-9969

 (850) 414-9934
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2011, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Forest Service

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

By delegation 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 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 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, results from a BMP 

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

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

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

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

The 2011 BMP Implementation Survey evaluated 3,486 practices on 190 individual forestry 

operations (sites). This cooperative effort involved 85 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 2011 Survey 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 2011 Survey, no site scored below 75% 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 75% to 100%, and the average for overall 

BMP compliance was 98.7%, a slight increase from 98.1% in 2009. The average compliance for the

30 year period since 1981 is 94%, and a total of 3,392 individual forestry operations have been 

surveyed during the period of record.
3

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

the Department of Environmental Protection's State Water Quality Program, the 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 2011 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 nonindustrial landowners, environmental groups and academia [2]. The BMP Manual [3] contains 149

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

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

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

Manual and provide input for the overall BMP program. The most recent meeting was May 12,

2011 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 on-going, with workshops routinely provided upon 

request, or as deemed necessary based on monitoring results. Currently, FFS personnel conduct 20

to 25 workshops/demonstrations annually, involving approximately 700 participants per year. In 

addition, the FFS provides BMP training directly to loggers through the Florida Forestry 

Association’s Master Logger Program. 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 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 forestry 

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

on both public and private lands are eligible for the Survey. For the period of record through 2011, 

the FFS has evaluated over 3,000 individual forestry operations and recorded statewide compliance 

ranging from 84% (1985) to 98.7% (2011). For the period of record, the cumulative statewide 

average for overall compliance with silviculture BMPs is 94%.

The 2011 Survey was the FFS’s sixteenth statewide BMP monitoring effort since 1981. In 
4

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

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

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

intensive 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, 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 2011 sample area was assigned a sampling 

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

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

high level of timber removal in Taylor County resulted in a goal of 11 sites, compared to Pasco

County’s relatively low timber removals and a goal of two sites. In addition, in order to sample as 

much of the state's geographic area as possible, all counties showing any timber harvest activity, 

were assigned a goal of at least one site. This resulted in a total goal of 210 sites distributed among 

57 counties for the 2011 Implementation Survey [Appendix Table 1].

Candidate sites for the 2011 Survey were selected using the following criteria: (1) the 

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

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

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

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

potential for forestry-related non-point source (NPS) pollution exists, and where any such impacts 

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

Sites for the 2011 Survey were selected by FFS BMP Foresters 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 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 47 counties in the 

spring/summer/fall of 2011. Upon 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 associated with land clearing and/or development. There 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 

Foresters 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

 

Actual field evaluations were conducted only on those 2011 Survey sites that met the 

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

with land clearing operations intended for development or other non-forestry land uses were not 

included in the Survey. The process of evaluating each site involved observing as much of the 

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

questionnaire consists of 149 specific, YES/NO questions directly related to BMP implementation. 

All answers were based on physical on-site evidence with no assumptions made about future 

activities.

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

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

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

Forest Roads or Stream Crossings, and for the overall score, implementation was expressed as a 

percent of all applicable BMPs. Hence, each Survey site was given a compliance score between 0% 

and 100% for each applicable BMP category and for the overall site.

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

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

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

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

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

significant risk has been identified, the observer makes recommendations to the landowner for 

corrective measures. After a reasonable period of time, a follow up site evaluation is made to assess

compliance with these measures. Willful noncompliance with recommendations will initiate referral 

to the appropriate regulatory agency for enforcement action.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

For the 2011 BMP Implementation Survey, BMP Foresters evaluated 3,486 practices, 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 

increase of 0.60% 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 

2011. 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 Year
7

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 = √0.987(1-0.987)/3486 ci = .987 + 2 (.0019)

f = 0.987 se = 0.0019 ci = 98.32% - 99.08%

For 2011, the estimate of BMP implementation for the 47 county area (f) is 98.7%, with an 

estimated standard error (se) of 0.0019. 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 98.3% but 

not more than 99.1%.

 Implementation scores for individual 

Survey sites in 2011 ranged from a low of 75%

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 97.7% for Waste Disposal to 

100% for Canals, Sinkholes, Fireline 

Construction, Pesticide and/or Fertilizer Use, 

Wet Weather Operations, Emergency 

Operations, and Public Lands. A notable

increase occurred from the 2009 Survey for 

Public Lands (+13%). (Appendix Table 2).

The total number of individual practices evaluated in 2011 decreased from the 2009 Survey

due to a reduction in the number of actual sites sampled. However, increases in the number of

practices evaluated within 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 the physiographic types evaluated in 2011. 

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 90% of the sites reported low erosion potential. The primary tree species 

harvested on the Survey sites was slash pine (49%), followed by loblolly pine (13%), longleaf (4%), 

hardwoods (17%), and cypress (5%). Compared to the 2009 Survey, hardwood removals increased 

slightly and cypress harvesting decreased by 2%. 

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

features associated with the 2011 Survey sites at 83%, a decrease of 2% from 2009. Wetland

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

the sites, respectively. Also, fifty-nine per cent of the 2011 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 Scores
8

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

evaluated, with five as the result of wildfires and four resulting in insect damage.

 The 2011 Survey collected information pertaining to logger training. On sites where 

timber harvesting was evaluated, 94% of the loggers were Florida Master Loggers, 3% Georgia 

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

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

results show 46% of the timber harvested was delivered to pulp and paper mills, 35% to chip ‘n saw 

mills, 10% to veneer facilities, and 8% to pole treatment plants.

Forestland Ownership

For 2011, 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 nonindustrial sector. For the fifth

time since 2003 more sites 

were located on industry land 

than private non-industrial

forest land (Figure 4). 

However, since 2009, the 

number of sites on PNIF lands has notably increased, while the number of sites on public lands has

also increased. 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 2011 Survey indicated that 

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

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

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

substantially different between ownership categories. BMP implementation 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 "...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 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Survey Year

Figure 4. Survey Sites by Ownership

PNIF Industry Public
9

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 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 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 were 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 2011, the 

actual, measured Primary Zone widths for 

these size streams ranged from 35-300 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 accounted 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 2011 was 313 acres, and forty-five percent

of all SMZs evaluated were on small, first order streams. At 98% in 2011, the average 

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

significant risk to water quality was reported in the 2011 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 Width
10

Table 1: SMZ Implementation Summary for last six surveys

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 wetlands such as intensive site 

preparation and pre-suppression fireline construction. Wetland forestry operations were evaluated 

on 14% of the sites during the 2011 Survey, a decrease of 8% from the 2009 Survey. Thirteen

percent of the sites were evaluated for wet weather operations.

Eighty-nine percent of all sites evaluated for Wetland BMPs in 2011 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 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 2011, Forest Road BMPs were evaluated on 152 sites most of which involved 

maintenance of existing roads. Of the 555 road practices evaluated, 98.9% 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 100% of the time. Likewise, existing drainage structures 

were evaluated on 103 sites and had a compliance rate of 98%. As in previous surveys, the most 

common 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 was one significant risk reported in the Stream Crossing

category in the 2011 Survey.

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

sites in 2011. Of the stream crossings evaluated, 42% were culvert installations and the remainders

were hard-surface crossings. Of the 208 stream crossing practices evaluated in the 2011 Survey, 

98.1% were in compliance with BMPs an increase of 1.3% over the 2009 Survey.
11

Timber Harvesting, Site Preparation and Planting

The number of timber harvesting practices evaluated in 2011 totaled 552 practices on 142

sites. Overall implementation for this category was 99.1% for the 47 county area surveyed. No 

significant risks were observed on all 142 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.

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 erosion, and require wider SMZs with 

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

2011 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 2011 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 2011 sites. Site preparation and planting operations scored 

99.7% overall for sites sampled within the 47 county area. 

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

the time. There 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 Survey, up 5.1% from 2009. 

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 2011 Survey. Although 

implementation for this category was 97.7%, sixteen sites (8.4%) 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. 

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. The 2011 Survey reported one

instance of Significant Risk on one site. 

The site that exhibited a significant risk to 

water quality occurred on private nonindustrial forestland as the result of 

establishing a temporary stream crossing

during a timber harvesting operation in a 

perennial stream. The risk was mitigated 

by contacting the landowner and consulting 

forester and giving recommendations for 

corrective action. Figure 6 indicates the 

number of significant risks, by Survey, 

since 1997.

Area Weighting BMP Implementation Data

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

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

weighted based on their acreage, i.e. larger tracts would have a greater influence on the total 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 2011 BMP Data is 

illustrated below using the following formula.

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

For 2011, 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 the 
13

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 original Survey form, the Watershed 

Forester and the BMP Forester re-evaluated each of the audit sites. Any inconsistencies noted 

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

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

(Table 2).

Table 2: Random Verification Audits by County

SUMMARY

The 2011 BMP Implementation Survey was the sixteenth 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 

decrease of 641 from 2009 (Figure 1). Considering all practices in all BMP categories, 

implementation in 2011 was 98.7% which is a slight increase of 0.60% since the 2009 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 decrease 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. Overall BMP implementation on forest industry was 99.5%,

private non-industrial landowners 98.3%, and public lands 99.2%. The "typical" Survey site for 

2011 was approximately 170 acres with sandy soil and relatively flat topography. The 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 Change
14

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

2009. For individual SMZ components, compliance with width requirements was 97% for the 

Primary Zone, 100% for the Secondary Zone, and 98% for Stringers. Sixty-seven percent of all 

Primary Zones were on streams less than 20 feet wide, which require a 35-foot Zone. For 2011,

actual Primary Zone widths for this stream category ranged from 35-300 feet, with an average 

width of 102 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%, approximately 0.20% more than in 2009.

Implementation of Forest Road BMPs was 98.9%, 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 18% in 2009. 

BMP implementation for Stream Crossings 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 2011 Survey, the most frequently reported BMP noncompliance was in the Special 

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

Crossings, Timber Harvesting (Non-Wetlands), and Site Preparation showed some level of 

noncompliance. Of most concern in the special management zone category, was the width of the 

primary zone meeting the minimum required for the waterbody size and type. 

The 2011 Survey showed a continuing high implementation rate with silviculture BMPs in 

Florida. This is attributed to the distribution of over 52,000 Silviculture BMP Manuals since 1993, 

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

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

Association’s Master Logger Program [11]. 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 Continuing Education Course. 

Despite the 98.7% implementation rate for 2011, one BMP category 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 survey in 2013.

Finally, the FFS conducted the sixth 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. Twelve survey sites were 

audited for 2011 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. 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 Russel Frydenborg, 2004. A Biological Assessment of Best 

Management Practice Effectiveness during Intensive Silviculture and Forest Chemical 

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

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

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

Asheville, North Carolina. 

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

on Implementation Monitoring of 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.
16

APPENDICES

Table 1: Page 17

Table 2: Page 18-39
Florida Forest Service

Table 1. 2011 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% Santa 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

17
18

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 Stewardship 
19

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 (check 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 (check 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 40-63 of the 2008 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 = 0 
20

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 Pulpwood 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 Hardwood 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 Hardwood 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 Management Districts. Requirements and criteria for crossings may 

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

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

 All evaluated forestry operations complete? Yes 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 Other 

 
21

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: 102 Waterbodies - 55 Named, 47 Unnamed

 

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

 Total .................................................... (46) (13) (12) (5) (4) (22) 

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 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.

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

 (Evaluate compliance in SMZ section).

24. 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 2008 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

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

stream crossings?

N/A 30 0

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

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

14. Kept pre-suppression plowed firelines out of the Primary Zone? N/A 2 0

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

16. 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 0
23

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  266 7 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 2 0

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 11 0

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

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

stream crossings? N/A 26 0

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

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

crossings? N/A 61 0

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

Zone? N/A 1 0

27. 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

28. Provided a continuous and connected canopy? N/A 43 1

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

30. 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 17-21 of the 2008 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 crossings? 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 or ≥ 200A) 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 0
25

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 54 3 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 18 0

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

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

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

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

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

between clearcut areas? N/A 0 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 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

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

21. Clustered leave trees along centerline of flow-way? N/A 2 0

SUBTOTALS

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

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

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

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

harvesting conditions were unavoidable? N/A 11 0

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

N/A 24 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 11 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 9 0

29. 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

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

32. 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 22-23 of the 2008 BMP Manual) (If N/A, Circle and move on to NEXT CATEGORY) 11

GENERAL BMPS

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

IN

COMPLIANCE?

(Circle Y or N)

Significant 

Risk

1. During normal silvicultural operations, avoided 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 Section) 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

10. 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. Road 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 2008 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 2008 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. Closed or restricted 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 28-30 of the 2008 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 culvert 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 0
31

STREAM CROSSINGS

(Continued)

(Refer to pages 28-30 of 2008 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: __________________ 

13. Used non-petroleum based material for armoring? N/A 10 0

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

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

suitable to stream flow?

N/A 11 0

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

17. 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 2008 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 32 of the 2008 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 for 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 waterbodies 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 33 of the 2008 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 drainage 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 34-35 of the 2008 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. Pesticide 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-Planting Treatment 1 Post-Planting 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 36 of the 2008 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 37 of the 2008 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 38 of the 2008 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 as necessary after emergency operation? N/A 5 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 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 2008 BMP Manual) 

25

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 5 0

TOTALS 5 0 0

COMPLIANCE FOR CATEGORY (%) 100%