Federal laws in the United States and Canada have established national goals and legal frameworks for controlling point and nonpoint sources of water pollution. In both countries, federal authorities collaborate with state/provincial authorities to achieve national goals.

By law and tradition, states and provinces have leading roles in controlling water quality problems associated with nonpoint sources (NPS) of water pollution. In most jurisdictions, forest management is a minor source of NPS pollution compared to other land uses but can nevertheless cause important impacts on water resources if implemented without control and mitigation measures. States and provinces have therefore developed management guidelines and prescriptions for controlling sources of NPS pollution associated with forest management activities. In this report, we refer to such guidelines and prescriptions as best management practices (BMPs) while recognizing that many states and provinces use other terms.

This report documents differences and similarities in forestry BMPs among jurisdictions. The differences are attributable to variability among jurisdictions in legal, political, and socioeconomic factors as well as climate, soils, topography, and aquatic biota. Similarities are attributable to the fact that forestry BMPs are based on a substantial body of research that has 1) identified the most important causes of NPS pollution in managed forests and 2) demonstrated the effectiveness of NPS control and mitigation measures that are embodied in BMPs.

Several overarching themes are apparent in forestry NPS programs in all jurisdictions: 1) minimizing soil compaction and the extent of bare soils; 2) separating exposed soils from surface waters; 3) separating fertilizer and herbicide applications from surface waters; 4) inhibiting hydraulic connections between bare ground and surface waters; 5) providing forested buffers around watercourses; and 6) designing stable roads and watercourse crossings.

Several important aspects of forestry NPS programs vary substantially among jurisdictions. For example, there is substantial variation among jurisdictions in streamside buffer widths, criteria for establishing those widths, and management restrictions within buffers. As with overall NPS program design, variability in riparian buffer BMPs is attributable to efforts by states and provinces to apply general principles to their own circumstances.

Several jurisdictions have made substantial investments in monitoring BMP implementation and have used monitoring results to identify problems and document improvement over time. Assessments of BMP implementation rates across jurisdictions are impeded by major differences among jurisdictions in factors such as monitoring objectives and methods. In many jurisdictions, agencies responsible for controlling NPS pollution are reluctant to direct scarce resources to monitoring forestry BMPs because forestry is a minor concern relative to other NPS categories.