|
Introduction
Forestry best management practices, or BMPs, represent a compilation of technically feasible and politically acceptable ways of addressing the potential negative environmental impacts that can be associated with forest management and timber harvesting activities. Forestry BMPs identify preferred practices by which forests can be established (for example, reforestation practices that minimize soil compaction and rutting), managed (for example, pesticide application practices to protect water quality and organic organisms from pesticide residue) and harvested (for example, timber harvesting practices that minimize the alteration of vegetation with a forested riparian area). While commonly known as forestry BMPs, in some states they are known as forest practice guidelines or forest practice codes.
Types of Forestry BMPs
Forestry BMPs have been developed by both private and public institutions. Those prepared by the private sector are most commonly associated with forest land certification programs, the latter being a voluntary process by which an independent party certifies forest land is being managed in a sustainable manner. The primary use of BMPs in certification programs is to establish measurable performance levels that, if attained, indicate forest management and timber harvesting activities are being conducted in a manner that perpetuates the forest’s ecological, economic, and social values. Although the specific practices recommended in the BMPs can vary considerably among certification programs, all forest certification programs have BMPs that address forest planning, reforestation, management, and harvesting practices. Both public and private forest lands participate in forest land certification programs.
Within the public sector, a variety of federal agencies have developed forestry BMPs. With a focus on forest land management, federal BMPs focus on workplace safety and health, the protection of endangered flora and fauna, the management of federal forest land, and the protection of water quality. BMPs developed by federal government agencies for application in a forestry setting can apply exclusively to federal lands (for example, growing and harvesting timber on national forests), or all public and private forest lands (for example, BMPs to protect endangered species).
State Forestry BMPs
State governments have had the greatest and most visible involvement in the development and implementation of forestry BMPs. States began developing forestry BMPs in the early 1970s in response to growing awareness of the environmental concerns associated with forestry. Amendments to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, required practices to control nonpoint source water pollution associated with forestry operations. As the administering agency for this Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assigned states the primary responsibility for developing BMPs and the associated programs needed to ensure their implementation. Consequently, initial forestry BMPs focused almost exclusively on timber harvesting and forest management practices that minimized soil erosion into waterbodies located adjacent to timber harvest sites. In recent years, the scope of resource issues that are addressed in state forestry BMPs has expanded considerably. In addition to water quality, many state forestry BMPs now contain preferred practices that address wildlife, wetland, riparian habitat, cultural resource, and visual quality concerns. An individual state’s forestry BMPs may be targeted for use only on private forest lands, or may apply to a combination of public and private forest land ownerships (including all forest land owners) within a state.
State Forest BMP Development
While the specific process used to establish forestry BMPs varies from state to state, forestry BMP development is typically coordinated by a state’s forestry agency and involves collaboration among scientists, forest land managers, forest landowners, loggers, as well as a variety of affected interest groups. In addition to traditional forestry agencies, state wildlife, recreation and parks, water, environmental protection, and agriculture agencies are common partners in state forestry BMP development and subsequent implementation. The specific practices resulting from such collaborative processes embody a blend of science and interest group values that reflect important economic, ecological, and social aspects of forests. As of 2001, all states had developed BMPs to promote sustainable timber harvesting and forest management practices, and 30 states had revised their forestry BMPs at least once in the past seven years.
State Forest BMP Implementation
There is considerable variability in the means by which states encourage correct and consistent application of forestry BMPs. At the most general level, states either encourage voluntary application or regulate the use of forestry BMPs. However, the distinction between a voluntary and regulatory BMP implementation framework is not always straightforward, as states seldom rely exclusively on one approach or the other. More common, a BMP implementation framework incorporates a combination of regulatory and voluntary initiatives tailored to the type or sensitivity of the resource, type of forest landowner, and/or resource conditions. A few states use a voluntary approach, yet regulatory provisions can be imposed on certain sensitive sites, if resource conditions deteriorate below specified thresholds, or if harvesting occurs in and around sensitive resource areas (e.g., wetlands). Additionally, many states provide various incentives (e.g., technical and/or financial assistance) to help landowners and loggers correctly apply BMPs when the practices are voluntarily recommended, as well as when their application is governed by laws and regulations (or in combination). Across the United States and Canada, 61 percent of the states and provinces implement forestry BMPs using a voluntary implementation framework, whereas 39 percent govern forestry BMP implementation through regulatory means. Regionally, western states are more likely to require the use of state BMPs through regulatory measures than those states located in the north or south.
State Forest BMP Monitoring
Many states have developed programs to monitor the implementation of forestry BMPs. Termed “compliance monitoring”, such programs systematically gather information to determine whether the BMPs are being applied in the manner intended. They are also used to raise forest landowner and logger awareness of the BMPs, identify specific practices for future BMP educational efforts and technical assistance needs, and identify subject areas that need to be addressed in future BMP revision efforts. As of 2002, 38 states had developed forestry BMP compliance monitoring programs. Individual state forestry BMP compliance monitoring programs vary in many respects, including: the frequency by which monitoring occurs (annually to periodic), sophistication of the field site selection, data collection, and analysis procedures, extent of sites monitored (from all harvested sites to just a sample of harvested sites), resources addressed through on-site monitoring activities (evaluating BMPs that focus solely on water quality to evaluating a wide range of practices such as wildlife, riparian, visual quality, and cultural resources), and forest ownerships monitored (from monitoring forestry BMPs on only private lands to all forest lands in the state where harvesting activity has occurred).
State Forest BMP Issues
Several issues are associated with the development and implementation of state forestry BMPs. They include: expanding the scope of timber harvesting and forest management practices that are incorporated in forestry BMPs (for example, some state forestry BMPs now address biomass harvesting practices); ensuring forestry BMPs reflect the most up-to-date science and technology (for example, incorporating new methods for crossing streams and wetlands); evaluating the benefits and costs of forestry BMPs (for example, the economic benefits of modified harvesting practices in riparian forests relative to the economic cost of applying such practices); identifying the magnitude and incidence of costs associated with forestry BMP implementation (for example, identifying which specific BMP practices impose substantial additional financial burden and to whom (landowner, logger, or both)); identifying effective strategies to ensure the correct and consistent application of BMPs (for example, the most effective mix of technical assistance, landowner/forester/logger education, financial incentives, and regulatory measures to ensure consistent and correct BMP application); expanding the use of credible forestry BMP compliance monitoring programs (for example, increasing the scientific rigor of the site sampling protocols and analytic methods used); and linking compliance monitoring programs with those that monitor the effectiveness of forestry BMPs (for example, to develop a better understanding how changes in forestry BMP standards and application rates impact the ecological integrity of riparian forests.
References
Blinn, C.R., and M.J. Phillips. 2007. Practices evaluated and approaches used to select sites for monitoring the application of best management practices: A regional summary. Journal of Forestry 105(4):179-183.
Blinn, C. R., and M. A. Kilgore. 2001. Riparian timber harvesting practices: A summary of state guidelines. Journal of Forestry 99(8): 11-17.
Ellefson, P.V., A.S. Cheng, and R. J. Moulton. 1995. Regulation of private forestry practices by state governments. Station Bulletin 605-1995, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. 225 p.
Ellefson, P. V., M. A. Kilgore, and J.E. Granskog. 2007. Government regulation of forestry practices on private forest land in the United States: an assessment of state government responsibilities and program performance. Forest Policy and Economics 9(2007):620-632.
Ellefson, P.V., M.A. Kilgore, and J.E. Granskog. 2006. State government regulation of forestry practices applied to nonfederal forests: extent and intensity of agency involvement. Journal of Forestry 104(8):401-406.
Ellefson, P. V., C. M. Hibbard, M. A. Kilgore, and J.E. Granskog, eds. 2005. Legal, institutional, and economic indicators of forest conservation and sustainable management: review of information available for the United States. General Technical Report, SRS-82. Asheville, NC. USDA-Forest Service. Southern Research Station. 221 p.
Ellefson, P.V., M.A. Kilgore and M. J. Phillips. 2001. Monitoring compliance with BMPs: the experience of state forestry agencies. Journal of Forestry 99(1): 11-17.
Kilgore, M.A., and D.G. MacKay. 2007. Trends in Minnesota’s forest land real estate market: implications for forest management. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 24(1): 37-42.
Kilgore, M. A. and C. R. Blinn. 2004. Policy Tools to encourage the application of timber harvesting guidelines in the United States and Canada. Forest Policy and Economics. 6 (2004):111-127.
Kilgore, M. A., P. V. Ellefson, and M. J. Phillips. 2003. Ensuring the application of sound forestry practices on private forests: Challenges facing the design and implementation of state compliance monitoring programmes. In: Forest Policy for Private Forestry: Global and Regional Perspectives. L.Teeter, B. Cashore, and D. Zhang editors. Chapter 12 (117-128). CABI Publishing. Wallingford, UK.
Version 6, changed by admin. 08/23/2007.
Posted 16 August 2007
Updated 23 August 2007
|
