practice(s) laws in the West often preclude local regulation. As of 1991, nearly 400 local ordinances regulated forestry practices (Hickman and Martus 1991). More than 70 percent of these ordinances have been established since 1980—50 percent since 1985. Nearly three-quarters of the ordinances have been enacted in the Northeast.
Some state forest practice(s) laws prohibit or severely restrict local governments from regulating forest practice(s). For example, Oregon's Forest Practices Act states that ''no unit of local government shall adopt any rules, regulations or ordinances or take any other actions that prohibit, limit, regulate, subject to approval or in any other way affect forest practices on forestlands located outside of an acknowledged urban growth boundary" (Oregon Forest Practices Act 1993). Pennsylvania and New Hampshire prohibit municipal zoning and planning authorities from limiting timber harvesting activities. California permits local governments to regulate forest practice(s), but only after review and approval by the State Board of Forestry; five counties have special board-adopted rules.
However, some states explicitly give local governing units authority to adopt forest practice(s) rules. In Maine, for example, "nothing in this subchapter [forest practice act] shall be construed to preempt or otherwise limit the existing authority of municipalities to regulate harvesting, except that [they] shall adopt definitions of forestry terms … that are consistent with forestry terms adopted by the commissioner." Similarly, in Connecticut, "municipalities may regulate forest practices in a manner consistent with the purposes of the [Connecticut Forest Practices Act]."
Studies have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of programs directed at nonindustrial private landowners. Some studies have analyzed the biological result of these programs. For example, Kurtz et al. (1994) examined the retention of trees planted through three cost-share programs, namely the Soil Bank Program (SBP), the ACP, and the FIP. Under FIP, 95.7 percent of acres were retained in forest cover; the percentages of acres retained under ACP and SBP were 87.1 51.1, respectively. The differences in the percentages are due to the period of time in which each program operated. For instance, FIP is a relatively new program, and therefore FIP plantations are all relatively young and most trees have not reached harvestable age. Moulton et al. (1991) examined the impact of the tree planting on biological diversity and found that trees replaced what had once been continuous cropland or extensions of cropland, and therefore tended to increase cover-type diversity. Also, plantings were judged to be often comparatively small in size, and more than 70 percent of them were not adjoined by existing pine stands on any side.
Other studies have analyzed the influence of these programs on landowner behavior (Table A-28). Alig et al. (1990) reviewed and summarized the variables