VI RGINIA

 Silvicultural

 Best Management Practices

Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Page 1

Introduction

The Virginia Department of Forestry Best Management 

Practices Implementation Audit Program is based primarily 

on the Southern Group of State Foresters published 

framework for state forestry agencies (http://www.

southernforests.org/publications/SGSF%20Regional%20

BMP%20Framework%20Protocol%20publication_2007.

pdf/view). This standardized protocol was intended to ensure 

that data collected by southern states could be combined into 

one report. That report is periodically compiled, prepared 

and submitted to the USDA Forest Service Region 8, as well 

as USEPA in Atlanta by the Southern Group of State Foresters. 

However, this protocol is sufficiently flexible to be applied 

to each state’s individual BMP guidelines. At the direction 

of the State Forester, Virginia is monitoring 240 harvested 

tracts each year and compiling an independent annual report 

based on this protocol. These data are submitted periodically 

for the Southern Group five-year report (http://www.

southernforests.org/publications).

Methods

Every quarter of every year, 60 tracts are selected randomly 

from harvests that received a VDOF final inspection 

two quarters previous to the audit quarter. This allows 

approximately six months between BMP implementation 

and the audit field visit. This timing allows for an assessment 

of how BMP integrity changes over time and provides 

for a modest sampling of silvicultural practices, such as 

site preparation, tree planting and weed control. VDOF is 

randomizing within each of the three administrative regions 

(Eastern, Central and Western) with the number of selected 

tracts proportional to the number of harvests for each sample 

quarter. This concentrates BMP audits in areas where most 

harvesting is occurring. In this, the fifth audit cycle (1st – 4th 

quarter, 2014), there are 240 total audits completed and the 

regional breakdown is displayed in Table 1.

Each audit tract will result in a “% Yes” score for each BMP 

category. That percentage describes what proportion of audit 

questions in that category that were applicable to that tract 

were positively fulfilled by the operator in the field. The audit 

questions are evaluated and answered during a field visit by 

one of four water quality engineers and/or nine water quality 

specialists who are full-time VDOF personnel. Every auditor is 

regularly trained in a group setting to maintain accuracy and 

consistency across the state. This enables VDOF to evaluate 

audit results generally by BMP category or type.

Each of the 240 tracts audited is treated as a discreet unit, 

and the average and median tract scores are reported as the 

“harvest average or median score.” Each audit is comprised 

of 117 questions in 10 categories (Appendix A). These data 

are also combined across all tracts and all question responses 

are averaged together as a single data set by audit category 

and reported as the “BMP average.” This is the average 

percentage of “Yes” responses when all audit questions are 

considered together without regard for the individual tract 

audits. This approach attempts to more accurately describe 

the overall BMP condition as a whole in Virginia. This BMP 

average also assigns greater importance to audits that have 

more applicable questions. These data consist of 28,080 

total questions of which 20,218 were deemed not applicable, 

964 were answered “No” and 6,898 were answered ”Yes.” 

These categories and questions relate directly to the major 

recommendations outlined in the BMP manual entitled 

Virginia’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality, 5th Edition. This technical manual is available online 

Table 1. Number of BMP audits completed by 

VDOF administrative region during the audit 

cycle for the 2014 calendar year.

Region Number of Audits

Central 103

Eastern 80

Western 57
Page 2

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

(http://www.dof.virginia.gov/water/index-BMP-Guide.htm). 

In most cases, a large portion of the questions may not apply 

to any specific tract. Questions or entire categories that do not 

apply to a tract are given a non-applicable (N/A) status and 

are not included for calculation of final results. This ensures 

that calculated averages do not reflect missing items that do 

not apply to the harvest.

Each individual question in the audit process is also tracked 

over time to determine which BMP issues in the BMP Manual 

are in need of improvement. This information is particularly 

valuable to the SHARP Logger program, which is an SFI 

industry-sponsored logger training program at Virginia 

Tech (http://sharplogger.vt.edu/) as it can help guide future 

educational efforts. These data also will assist VDOF, industry 

and consulting personnel as they inspect tracts and assist 

operators on the ground.

Results

The data for the 2014 audit are displayed as a series of tables and 

charts. Table 2 displays overall BMP average data for the entire 

state by BMP category. Confidence in the data is reported as a 

95 percent margin of error and was calculated according to the 

SGSF protocol and generally accepted statistical procedures.

While Table 2 shows statewide results, Table 3 shows the BMP 

average values by VDOF administrative region. These averages 

(Tables 2 and 3) are the result of combining questions in the 

categories across all 240 audits as a single complete set and 

averaging those questions by category. This is the best method 

to evaluate overall BMP issues across the state. It is important to 

note that when all individual harvest audit scores were simply 

averaged together (harvest average) the value calculated is 

somewhat different and in this case is approximately 88.3 

percent statewide. The averages in Tables 2 and 3 address the 

overall BMP condition as indicated by all audits combined while 

the average value of the tract audits (88.3 percent) ignores the 

fact that not all audits are the same with regard to number of 

pertinent issues (non-N/A questions) involved and assumes 

all audits are of the same weight. Both values are useful and 

correct as long as the user understands the difference as stated 

above and in the previous “Methods” section.

These data indicate that very little site preparation (fire, 

mechanical and chemical) is taking place up to six months 

after harvest, and it is for this reason that caution should be 

used when considering the importance or value of the site 

Table 2. Statewide data for the BMP audit by 

BMP category. These data represent statewide 

averages for Virginia for the 2014 audit cycle.

BMP 

Category

Number 

of Tracts

Yes 

(%)

Margin of Error 

(%)

Chemicals 4 100.0 –

Crossings 108 89.8 +/- 5.8

Decks 237 94.0 +/- 3.1

Fires 2 76.0 –

Mechanical 1 83.3 –

Planning 240 85.9 +/- 4.5

Roads 195 83.7 +/- 5.3

Skidding 237 84.5 +/- 4.7

SMZs 157 89.2 +/- 5.0

Wetlands 6 97.3 +/- 13.2

All 240 87.7 +/- 4.2

Logging 240 87.8 +/- 4.2

Table 3. Regional data for the BMP audit by BMP 

category. These data represent regional averages 

for all three regions for the 2014 audit cycle.

BMP 

Category

Central

(% Yes)

Eastern

(% Yes)

Western

(% Yes)

Chemicals 100.00 100.0 N/A

Crossings 95.1 90.2 77.8

Decks 92.4 97.3 92.8

Fires 76.0 N/A N/A

Mechanical 83.3 N/A N/A

Planning 89.0 97.0 64.4

Roads 82.6 90.1 81.7

Skidding 89.5 91.0 72.7

SMZs 90.8 95.0 73.9

Wetlands N/A 96.7 100.0

All 89.2 93.7 79.4

preparation averages. Greater than one third of all audit tracts 

(108 of 240) had at least one stream or wetland crossing. It is 

apparent that three very important categories that often lead 
Page 3

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

to water quality concerns, roads, crossings 

and skid trails, sometimes lag behind other 

categories with regard to implementation 

percentage (Tables 2 and 3).

The histogram (Figure 1) indicates that 

the vast majority of tracts scored an overall 

implementation percentage of 81 percent 

or greater. While the overall mean BMP 

implementation for all tracts is 87.7 percent 

(Table 2) and the overall harvest average score 

is 87.8 percent, the harvest median score is 

93 percent. Given the skewed distribution of 

the overall scores in Figure 1, the median is 

perhaps a better judge of central tendency 

of the tract score data. These results indicate 

a steady level of BMP implementation 

statewide over recent years, and it should 

be understood that random sample averages 

fluctuate over time and small year to year 

changes may not indicate a real change in 

BMP implementation. Any real changes will 

become apparent over the long term as more 

data are accumulated. 

This audit report includes the expectation that all BMPs should 

be done per the manual regardless of likely impacts on water 

quality on each harvested tract. In most cases, BMPs that are 

not done do not directly impact water quality. These BMPs 

can be considered “luxury” BMPs as they are recommended 

by the manual but are not necessarily impacting water 

quality. Any BMP failures on the part of the operator that 

directly impact water quality are apparent in the significant 

risk and active sedimentation tallies as reported in Table 4 

and the explanation below. These singular failures are also 

handled through the VDOF silvicultural water quality law 

enforcement process according to § 10.1-1181.2 (http://leg1.

state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+10.1-1181.2).

The definition of significant risk describes a water quality 

concern that is observed on an audit tract that, due to 

a lack of BMPs, is causing or is likely to cause pollution. 

When a significant risk was noted during an audit field 

visit, the auditor also determined if active sedimentation 

was occurring. Audits that indicated a significant risk were 

isolated and evaluated independently of all other audits. Out 

of the 240 tracts in this audit cycle, nine (3.75 percent) had at 

least one significant risk and four of those tracts (1.7 percent) 

had an active sedimentation concern. Table 4 summarizes the 

specific problems that were noted on the nine tracts.

It is apparent in Table 4 that tracts that had at least one risk 

often had multiple risks in 2014. A second analysis including 

only tracts with at least one significant risk issue determined 

that the average “% Yes” score for those nine harvests was 

69.8 percent, the median harvest score was 73.5 percent and 

the average harvest score was 69.8 percent, which indicates 

that long-term water quality problems tend to persist on 

tracts where overall BMP implementation is well below the 

average and median values for all tracts. 

The 107 audit tracts that were located in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed were isolated and averages were calculated. 

The Bay harvest average score was 90.4 percent, and the 

tract median score was 93.6 percent while the BMP average 

of all the audit questions combined for all the Bay tracts was 

90.4 percent. This is slightly better than the state as a whole. 

The Bay data also indicate that there were three significant 

risk issues on only two tracts, and active sedimentation was 

observed on one of those tracts. All observed significant 

risks dealt with either haul roads near a stream that lacked 

necessary drainage and stabilization work, or skidding.

Figure 1: A histogram describing the score 

distribution of all 240 audits for the 2014 audit cycle in Virginia.
Page 4

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Table 4 indicates that operations that disturb or expose 

soil near to streams are more likely to cause a significant 

sedimentation risk if not properly stabilized. A combination 

of improper road drainage and unstable stream crossing 

approaches combine to include a large number of risks. 

Nearly all risks are related directly to un-stabilized, exposed 

soil near a waterway. Simply avoiding most operations in 

or near to riparian areas would likely reduce risks to water 

quality. Minimizing roads, decks and stream crossings would 

Table 4: Tally and description of significant risks to water quality and associated active sedimentation for 

the 2014 BMP audit cycle.

BMP Issue by Region and Type Risk Sediment

Central Region 2 0

Roads 2 0

Are turnouts directing water and/or sediment away from riparian areas? 1 0

Is there rock or vegetation on slopes where needed to prevent erosion? 1 0

Eastern Region 3 2

Crossings 1 1

Are culvert pipes installed properly in the channel to avoid undercutting and channel 

erosion?

1 1

Roads 1 0

Is water diverted from the road surface at specified intervals using dips, bars or traps? 1 0

Skidding 1 1

Is vegetation established where needed on trails to prevent erosion and sedimentation? 1 1

Western Region 22 14

Crossings 12 7

Are approaches stable and unlikely to contribute sediment to the stream? 4 2

Are culverts covered with gravel to reduce erosion near the stream? 1 1

Are headwalls stabilized with vegetation, rock, or fabric to minimize cutting? 1 1

Are permanent bridge abutments adequate and stable? 1 0

Are stream banks and approaches re-claimed with sufficient vegetation, rock, or slash? 1 1

Are temporary culverts, pole bridges, and bridges removed? 1 0

Are water diversion structures present when needed on approaches? 3 2

Roads 4 2

Is there rock or vegetation on slopes where needed to prevent erosion? 1 1

Is water being “turned out” into surrounding landscape with appropriate structures? 1 0

Is water diverted from the road surface at specified intervals using dips, bars or traps? 2 1

clearly be beneficial to water quality 

risk reduction and would also reduce the number of BMP 

issues that need attention during and after the operation. 

Specific BMP deficiencies that almost always contribute to 

sedimentation issues deal specifically with a lack of drainage 

and stabilization of roads particularly on or near to stream 

crossings approaches. It is critical that operators use dips, 

bars and turnouts to guide water off of roads and clean gravel 

on slopes and approaches near waterways.
Page 5

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Chemicals 944 – 16 960 100.0

Did applicators avoid mixing chemicals or filling equipment where 

runoff would likely enter a stream?

236 – 4 240 100.0

Did applicators remove all refuse from the tract? 236 – 4 240 100.0

Did chemical applicators avoid accidental drift into sensitive areas 

or SMZs?

236 – 4 240 100.0

Did chemical applicators avoid applying chemical directly into 

streams or SMZs?

236 – 4 240 100.0

Crossings 3,769 81 710 4,560 89.8

Are approaches stable and unlikely to contribute sediment to the 

stream?

140 9 91 240 91.0

Are culvert pipes installed properly in the channel to avoid 

undercutting and channel erosion?

213 4 23 240 85.2

Are culverts and bridges of adequate length? 174 5 61 240 92.4

Are culverts covered with adequate and appropriate fill material? 211 – 29 240 100.0

Are culverts covered with gravel to reduce erosion near the stream? 214 4 22 240 84.6

Are culverts properly sized according to the BMP manual Tables 6 

and 7 or Talbot’s formula?

213 7 20 240 74.1

Are fords used only where a natural rock base (or geoweb) and 

gentle approaches allow?

231 – 9 240 100.0

Appendix A: Individual Audit Questions and Scores

Table 4: Tally and description of significant risks to water quality and associated active sedimentation for 

the 2014 BMP audit cycle.

BMP Issue by Region and Type Risk Sediment

Skidding 6 5

Are all skid trails free from channelized flow that is likely to cause sedimentation? 1 1

Are water bars established on trails where erosion is likely at recommended intervals? 1 1

Are water turnouts built to ensure drainage of skid trails where needed? 1 1

Do trails avoid long, continuous grades? 1 1

Do trails avoid rutting that will likely cause channelized erosion near a stream? 1 0

Is vegetation established where needed on trails to prevent erosion and sedimentation? 1 1

Statewide Total 27 16
Page 6

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Are headwalls stabilized with vegetation, rock or fabric to minimize 

cutting?

220 8 12 240 60.0

Are permanent bridge abutments adequate and stable? 232 2 6 240 75.0

Are stream banks and approaches re–claimed with sufficient 

vegetation, rock or slash?

146 9 85 240 90.4

Are stream crossings installed at or near to right angles where 

possible?

132 2 106 240 98.1

Are stream crossings minimized? 133 4 103 240 96.3

Are temporary culverts, pole bridges and bridges removed? 168 7 65 240 90.3

Are water diversion structures present when needed on 

approaches?

183 14 43 240 75.4

Do all ford crossings avoid restricting the natural flow of water? 231 – 9 240 100.0

Do all ford crossings have a 50–foot approach of clean gravel? 232 3 5 240 62.5

Do all ford crossings have underlying geo–textile where needed (on 

approaches)?

236 1 3 240 75.0

Is the addition of unnatural materials in the stream to facilitate the 

use of a ford minimized?

232 – 8 240 100.0

Were pole bridges used only in appropriate circumstances? 228 2 10 240 83.3

Decks 589 94 1,477 2,160 94.0

Are all decks limited in size? 3 1 236 240 99.6

Are all log decks located at least 50 feet from the nearest SMZ. 55 8 177 240 95.7

Are appropriate soil protection measures in place to prevent 

erosion on the deck?

17 36 187 240 83.9

Are decks reshaped where needed to ensure drainage? 130 3 107 240 97.3

Are fluid spills from equipment minimal? 9 4 227 240 98.3

Are log decks located on relatively well–drained ground with low to 

moderate slopes?

4 – 236 240 100.0

Are sediment trapping structures present if needed to prevent 

pollution?

189 – 51 240 100.0

Are water diversion structures installed to prevent water from 

crossing the deck?

179 31 30 240 49.2

Is the deck free of trash, garbage and other non–slash debris 

related to the harvest operation?

3 11 226 240 95.4

Fires 3,575 6 19 3,600 76.0

Are command and staging areas located away from streams? 239 – 1 240 100.0

Are large areas of bare soil re–vegetated where slope exceeded 

5%?

239 1 – 240 0.0
Page 7

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Are water bars installed properly on firelines, roads and cleared 

areas?

238 1 1 240 50.0

Did fire crew avoid plowing up and down slopes where possible? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Did fireline construction avoid disturbing existing gullies? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Did the burning crew avoid exposing large areas of mineral soil? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Did the burning crew avoid pushing firelines directly into streams? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Does fireline construction follow appropriate skid trail BMPs? 238 2 – 240 0.0

Does fireline construction divert water away from streams where 

necessary?

239 – 1 240 100.0

Is all fire–related debris removed from stream channels? 239 – 1 240 100.0

Is all refuse and sewage disposed of properly? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Is vegetation or slash on firelines and cleared areas to prevent 

erosion as needed?

238 2 – 240 0.0

Were high intensity site–prep burns kept out of the SMZs? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Were prescribed burns on fragile soils and steep slopes absolutely 

necessary to achieve goals?

239 – 1 240 100.0

Were steep grades and/or fragile soils protected from excessive 

burn and ground disturbance?

238 – 2 240 100.0

Mechanical_SP 3,354 1 5 3,360 83.3

Are SMZs maintained with no significant disturbance? 239 – 1 240 100.0

Did all mechanical operations avoid slopes in excess of 45%? 240 – – 240 N/A

Did all mechanical operations avoid wet or fragile ground? 239 – 1 240 100.0

Did all mechanical operations take place on the contour to the 

extent possible?

239 – 1 240 100.0

Did bedding contractor avoid tying beds into streams, ditches or 

drainage structures?

240 – – 240 N/A

Did machine planters avoid excessive slopes? 240 – – 240 N/A

Did operators prevent debris or soil in the stream sufficient to 

degrade banks or impede flow?

239 – 1 240 100.0

Did raking, piling and windrowing avoid excessive movement or 

exposure of mineral soil?

239 1 – 240 0.0

Did scalping, furrowing and sub–soiling avoid connections to 

drainages?

240 – – 240 N/A

Is scalping and furrowing less than 6 inches deep and on the 

contour?

240 – – 240 N/A

Is soil disturbance minimized across the site relative to 

establishment goals?

239 – 1 240 100.0
Page 8

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Was bedding conducted on the contour where possible? 240 – – 240 N/A

Was machine planting done on the contour? 240 – – 240 N/A

Was sub–soiling or ripping done on the contour? 240 – – 240 N/A

Planning 224 70 426 720 85.9

In the case of severe site conditions (very wet or steep) was the 

harvesting system modified to reduce damage to soil, site and 

water?

220 6 14 240 70.0

Is there evidence or knowledge of a harvest plan (painted lines, 

flagging, delineated hazards, SMZs or decks, engineered roads, 

etc...)?

3 63 174 240 73.4

Is there evidence that the logger utilized a harvesting system that 

is generally appropriate for the site and timber conditions?

1 1 238 240 99.6

Roads 2,742 297 1,521 4,560 83.7

Are grades between 2% and 10% except for necessary deviations? 71 5 164 240 97.0

Are new roads located and constructed to allow for proper 

drainage?

187 8 45 240 84.9

Are new roads located to avoid erodible, wet and sensitive ground? 187 3 50 240 94.3

Are riprap and/or brush dams used where needed to slow water 

and trap sediment?

226 2 12 240 85.7

Are roads built outside of SMZs where possible? 119 2 119 240 98.3

Are roads daylighted where needed and feasible? 70 2 168 240 98.8

Are roads in SMZs as far from the channel as possible and built to 

prevent stream sedimentation?

193 2 45 240 95.7

Are roads on the contour where practical? 95 3 142 240 97.9

Are roads outsloped where needed and conditions allow? 139 21 80 240 79.2

Are temporary roads retired with properly constructed water bars 

or tank traps?

213 16 11 240 40.7

Are turnouts directing water and/or sediment away from riparian 

areas?

192 7 41 240 85.4

Are under road culverts installed, spaced and maintained properly? 209 3 28 240 90.3

Is access being controlled with a functional gate or barrier? 59 70 111 240 61.3

Is construction of dips, bars, turnouts and traps adequate to 

maintain function?

180 14 46 240 76.7

Is gravel or vegetation present to protect water bars from erosion? 154 18 68 240 79.1

Is there rock or vegetation on slopes where needed to prevent 

erosion?

92 39 109 240 73.6
Page 9

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Is water being “turned out” into surrounding landscape with 

appropriate structures?

145 39 56 240 58.9

Is water diverted from the road surface at specified intervals using 

dips, bars or traps?

147 43 50 240 53.8

Was road construction and use minimized? 64 – 176 240 100.0

Skidding 1,441 260 1,419 3,120 84.5

Are all skid trails free from channelized flow that is likely to cause 

sedimentation?

16 15 209 240 93.3

Are all skid trails located outside the SMZ? 71 13 156 240 92.3

Are appropriate cross drainages installed where springs or seeps 

crossed the trails?

227 1 12 240 92.3

Are bladed skid trails limited to less than 26% grade unless 

absolutely necessary?

175 4 61 240 93.8

Are bladed skid trails limited to sideslopes less than 60%? 180 7 53 240 88.3

Are un–bladed trails limited to sideslopes less than 36% in general? 106 2 132 240 98.5

Are water bars established on trails where erosion is likely at 

recommended intervals?

123 54 63 240 53.8

Are water turnouts built to ensure drainage of skid trails where 

needed?

151 35 54 240 60.7

Did the logger avoid skidding logs through intermittent or perennial 

streams?

70 4 166 240 97.6

Do trails avoid long, continuous grades? 69 20 151 240 88.3

Do trails avoid rutting that will likely cause channelized erosion 

near a stream?

62 10 168 240 94.4

Is vegetation established where needed on trails to prevent erosion 

and sedimentation?

130 54 56 240 50.9

Were brush mats used to stabilize trails and prevent erosion where 

needed?

61 41 138 240 77.1

SMZs 1,697 154 1,269 3,120 89.2

Are all SMZs a minimum of 50 feet wide on each side of the stream 

bank?

84 40 116 240 74.4

Are SMZ widths modified to accommodate cold water fisheries and 

municipal water supplies?

238 – 2 240 100.0

Did the logger avoid exposing large sections of soil in the SMZ? 86 6 148 240 96.1

Did the logger avoid partial or patch clear cutting in the SMZ? 84 32 124 240 79.5

Did the logger avoid silvicultural debris in the stream that would 

warrant a law enforcement action under the "debris in the stream 

law?"

88 – 152 240 100.0
Page 10

Silvicultural Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring for Virginia

2014

Audit Questions by Category Response Counts % Yes 

N/A No Yes Total

Did the logger avoid silvicultural sediment in the stream that might 

endanger public health, beneficial uses or aquatic life as stated in 

the "silvicultural water quality law?"

84 1 155 240 99.4

Do all intermittent and perennial streams have an SMZ? 88 12 140 240 92.1

Do all sinkholes or karst features have an SMZ? 240 – – 240 N/A

Does at least 50% of the original basal area exist in the SMZ? 84 34 122 240 78.2

In tidal areas, has a 50–foot SMZ been maintained from the grass 

or marsh edge?

237 – 3 240 100.0

Is SMZ width relatively consistent along the entire length? 86 20 134 240 87.0

Is the SMZ free of roads and landings where possible? 85 9 146 240 94.2

Was exposed soil in the SMZ revegetated or covered with organic 

materials?

213 – 27 240 100.0

Wetlands 1,883 1 36 1,920 97.3

Are landings located on appropriate ground? 234 – 6 240 100.0

Did operations in wetlands avoid altering hydrology of the site to 

such a degree as to convert a wetland to a non wetland?

234 – 6 240 100.0

Did the operation avoid activities during particularly wet weather? 234 – 6 240 100.0

Is water movement maintained on the site? 234 – 6 240 100.0

Was low ground pressure equipment (LGP) utilized where needed? 236 1 3 240 75.0

Was the harvesting system appropriate for the site conditions? 234 – 6 240 100.0

Were the 15 mandatory road BMPs followed for wetland roads? 238 – 2 240 100.0

Were the six mandatory site–prep BMPs followed as needed? 239 – 1 240 100.0

Grand Total 20,218 964 6,898 28,080 87.7

Acknowledgements

Virginia Department of Forestry

www.dof.virginia.gov

Written by 

Matt Poirot, Assistant Director of Forest Management for 

Water Quality

William Lakel, Ph.D, Water Quality Program Supervisor

Data Analysis by Lauren Whitlow, Database Analyst

Design by Janet Muncy, Public Information Specialist

Virginia Department of Forestry

900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 800

Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

Phone: (434) 977-6555

www.dof.virginia.gov

VDOF P00143; 03/2015

VI RGINIA

This institution is an equal opportunity provider.