Many forested areas in this region are environmen- 
tally sensitive and located on steep slopes, near 
streams, or on erodible soils. 
Massachusetts is the only State in the East that 
regulates forest operations in a comprehensive 
manner throughout the State with a single law. How- 
ever, three State reforestation laws have also been 
passed in the East, as have been numerous other 
State environmental statutes that regulate certain 
forestry practices under specified circumstances. 
Today 14 States outside of the South have formal 
forest-practice legislation that regulates the practice 
of forestry on private lands on a Statewide basis 
(Cubbage and Siegel 1985). 
Interaction With Federal 
Water-Quality Law 
Much of the State legislation outside the South 
that regulates private forestry practices has some 
interaction with the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act as amended in 1972 and again in 1977 by the 
Clean Water Act. Sections 208 and 404 of the Act 
provide the primary legal framework for control of 
water pollution from silvicultural activities. Section 
208 mandates that each State develop and imple- 
ment a water-quality management plan subject to 
approval of the Federal Enviromental Protection 
Agency (EPA). Silvicultural operations are designat- 
ed as one source of nonpoint pollution that must be 
addressed. Section 404 addresses point sources of 
pollution associated with forestry dredge-and-fill op- 
erations. 
EPA's subsequent aggressive efforts to imple- 
ment Section 208 planning included strong sugges- 
tions for formal regulation of private forest practices 
by means of State forest-practice laws (Agee 1975). 
A model regulatory law drafted by EPA contained 
strict regeneration standards, water-quality protec- 
tion measures, and even guidelines for protecting 
esthetic qualities. Critical response from the forestry 
community prompted EPA to discard the model act 
in favor of less formal implementing mechanisms. 
Nevertheless, a number of States outside of the 
South have enacted specific regulatory legislation 
for controlling silvicultural nonpoint source pollu- 
tion. Two of these laws--those of Massachusetts 
and Oregon--will be examined more closely. Both 
are considered by most observers to have been 
particularly successful in improving timber produc- 
90 
tivity as well as controlling nonpoint source water 
pollution. 
Eight States--Massachusetts, Alaska, Idaho, 
California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington--have incorporated such control into 
their State forest-practice acts. 
Massachusetts Forest Practice Cutting Act 
A proliferation of restrictive local ordinances 
and the State's Wetlands Protection Law, which was 
impeding logging operations and creating costly 
delays, were major forces in the enactment of the 
Massachusetts Forest Practice Cutting Act. The 
stated purpose of the law, enacted in 1983, is to 
maximize the timber resource while at the same time 
protecting all other forest resources. This legislation 
regulates forestry operations on both private and 
public lands. Small harvests, harvests of minor for- 
est products, and conversions to nonforest use are 
exempt from its provisions. Although the act does 
not currently limit the authority of local governments 
to adopt forest regulatory ordinances, it has thus far 
satisfied the regulatory needs of most local govern- 
ments in the State. 
Before rules may be adopted under the act's 
authority, public hearings must be held. The rule- 
making committee is composed of eight members, 
four of whom by definition have a professional inter- 
est in forestry. The remaining members include 
three with other resource interests and one repre- 
senting the general public. 
The law requires timber operators to be li- 
censed and addresses harvesting systems to be 
used, regeneration methcds, harvesting practices, 
and road construction. A separate law regulates 
slash disposal. Landowners must file a notification 
of intent/forest cutting plan, notify abutting 
landowners that cutting will occur, and notify the 
State when cutting is completed. A permit is re- 
quired when operations take place on steep slopes 
or wetlands. The cutting plan must describe the 
silvicultural methods to be used, the method for 
designating trees to be cut, estimated volumes, log- 
ging and erosion-control measures, procedures to 
be utilized in buffer strips, and measures to control 
mud on highways. A detailed map of the logging site 
is also required. 
The State may impose stop-work orders for vio- 
lations. Violators are also subject to fines. The act is 
considered to be highly successful, and is generally 
accepted and supported by all concerned parties-- 
