Click for next page ( 123


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 122
6 PRODUCTS FROM THE FORESTS The forests of the Pacific Northwest are the source of wood prod- ucts including lumber, plywood, pulp, and paperand nonwood productssuch as fish and wildlife, recreation, and assorted m~scelIa- neous products, including ornamental greens and foods. All of those products have or could have monetary value in ordinary markets. The forests also provide scenery, clean water, and clean air, amenities that are less readily bought and sold but that are valuable nonetheless. This chapter focuses on wood products and selected nonwood products. it examines the implications of changes in the use and management of Pacific Northwest forests for those products. The charge to the committee in its statement of task was drafted before adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan and at a time when the reg~on's wood products economy and management of its forests was changing rapidly. Substantial changes have since taken place as a result of that plan, but other changes have also occurred as controversies continue over the management and future uses of the reg~on's forests. One result of these changes has been a sharp decrease in timber harvests on federal land in the Pacific Northwest, as wed as in much of the rest of the western states. As implied in the statement of task, this has brought about shifts timber harvests in other regions that also supply national markets for wood products. This section of the report describes these changes in timber harvests and some of their implications for sustaining other forest values. 722

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest PAC/F/C NORTHWEST WOOD PRODUCTS /N THE NATIONAL ECONOMY 7Z3 The Pacific Northwest wood products economy is driven by the United States market for softwood lumber and structural panels (softwood plywood and oriented-strand board (OSB), a pane! product made of wood that competes with softwood plywood). New home construction and home repairs and improvements are the major factors In this market, which has been expanding in recent years despite the cutbacks In fecleral timber harvests. National consumption of softwood lumber increased by 10% from peak to peak of the wood products cycle from 1977 to 1997 (Figure 6-1~. National consumption of ah softwood wood products, excluding fue~wood, also increased over this period (Figure 6-2~. WorIdwicle consumption of wood for industrial purposes has also increased in recent years and is expected to continue to increase over the next few decactes (Brooks et al. 1996~. At the same time, per capita consumption in the United States of the kind of timber that is the main product of Pacific Northwest forestssoftwood saw~ogs and softwood veneer logs shows no strong upward trenct (USES 1994~. Increasing demand for wood products nationally has been met over the years through various market responses. For example, softwood timber supplies have been extended by improving access to timber, increasing the number of tree species that is used, using wood more efficiently, substituting plentiful hardwoods for scarcer softwoods, using products made of wood particles in place of solid wood products, gluing small pieces of lumber together to make larger pieces, and recycling. Higher prices for wood products have also led to some use of substitute materials, such as aluminum and viny! siding. Some opportunities for increasing the efficiency of wood use remain, such as using modular units in construction; most of these opportunities are at the processing stage. Greater efficiency in wood use, including conservation measures, likely will continue, driven for the most part by . . . increases in wood prices. The region west of the Great Plains, including the Pacific coast states and the intermountain and Rocky Mountain regions, was the nation's major softwood-lumber-producing region, but its share of the nation's total softwood lumber production has fallen from more than 70% in the

OCR for page 122
724 Pacific Northwest Forests U. S. Softwood Lumber fig ~ _ \ . ~ ~ I \ OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest Al 4000 - 120:~0 iO0Q~ ~0 I\ ~ 'of . :~ _/ ' ~ ~ AQUA - ~~ it 725 u. s. so - ~~a Valuer is /~ ' , at. - f _' t ~ i . ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' f . 1 . 1 fir . 1 i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ He i ~ me l ~ i t ~ A ~ ~ ~ 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 44 96 In hi- Impose ~ Spots - ~ Cor,~`nphon FIGURE 6-2. U.S. production, imports, exports, and consumption of softwood timber products, excluding fue~wood, 1978-1997 (in million cubic feet roundwood equivalent). Source: Howard 1999. -

OCR for page 122
726 Pacific Northwest Forests ~-1960s to about 55% now (Adams et al. 1988~. Washington and Oregon were the biggest lumber producers for many years, but their share of the nation's total has fallen from more than 40% in the m~- 1960s to about 30% recently (Adams et al. 1988~. The role of federal lands in supplying the timber that is processed into softwood lumber and plywooct has changed. From 1962 to 1989 in Oregon, timber harvests from federal lands were generally higher than those from private lands, but harvests on federal lands are now well below private harvests (Figure 6-3~. While timber harvests from privately owned forests have exceeded] those from federal forests for many years in Washington, the spread has widened considerably since 1988 (Figure 6-4~. Douglas-fir and hemlock from the region west of the Cascades summit are the main softwood lumber species from the Pacific North- west that compete generally in construction markets with softwood lumber from British Columbia, the Rocky Mountains, the southern United States, and eastern Canada. Sitka spruce and cedars go into specialty markets that depend on the characteristics of the particular species. Hardwooct {umber production, mostly red alder, has increased in the Pacific Northwest in recent years, but it is still a minor factor in the region. Ponderosa pine and western white pine from the interior of the Pacific Northwest (eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Montana) are used mainly for millwork (doors, windows, and molding) that goes into national markets. Other softwood species from the entire region (spruce, lodgepole pine, and fir) are used to make lumber that goes into national markets for construction materials. Little softwood lumber in the region is processed beyond the sawmill or planing mill before it is used in construction. Market factors determine that most use of softwood lumber in manufacturing takes place closer to the point of final use. Fiber used in production of wood pulp and paper in the Pacific Northwest depends heavily on chipped residues from lumber and plywood mills. That source is being supplemented increasingly with recycled paper and with hardwood pulpwood. Some chips from lumber and plywood mills are also exported, mainly to Japan.

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest s000 . 4500 3500 3000- 2500 :~0 - ~ t / _ _' 150Ol~ - _ _ t 727 WAi<3~ lumber Rawest -(~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ l ~ I. ~ - 'at: - ~ - -a 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ~ 95 96 + WAPRiV - - WA,FED '_ oRpRIv - . oRFED FIGURE 6-3. Federal and private timber harvests by state, Washington and Oregon, 1987-1997 (in minion board feet). Source: Warren 1999.

OCR for page 122
128 Pacific Northwest Forests MT.~D amber Hawesm boom I 300 2ao - ~ - A , ~ {~, i.: , ~ ~ IN \ A y ~ , \\ \ \/ 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 + MTPRIV ~ Mall - ~ IOPRIV ~ I0FED FIGURE 6~. Federal and private timber harvests by state, Montana andIdaho,1987-1997(m~lion board feet). Source: Warren 1999.

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest PRODUCTS /N NATIONAL AND /NTERNAT/ONAL MARKETS 729 The Pacific Northwest was the major source of softwood lumber and plywood for U.S. markets for many years, but production in the southern U.S. now exceeds that in the Pacific Northwest by significant margins (Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6~. In addition, imports from Canada now account for about one-third of U.S. softwood lumber consumption, about the same as the southern United States (Figure 6-7~. The Pacific Northwest also once produced r~lyallcthena~s softwood ply- wo 0 it, mainly from large old Douglas-fir. The South started producing pine plywood in the early 1960s and became the leading producer of softwood plywood by 1980 as plywood technology improved and markets changed to accept plywood with knots for structural uses. As timber prices increased in the late 1970s, first Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and then the Northeast and South began producing panels made of wood particles, such as orientect- stranct boarcl (OSB), which competes directly with softwood plywood in construction. National OSB production now exceeds that of softwood plywood from the Pacific Northwest, which has fallen from its peak levels in the 1960s and 1970s (Figure 6-6~. Softwood log exports are now less than one-half of what they were in the late 1980s. The volume of log exports (about 2 billion board feet) is equivalent to about one-quarter of the Pacific Northwest softwood lumber production. Softwood lumber exports have grown to the point where they are now close to the same volume as log exports (Howard 1999~. The Pacific Northwest was the major source of softwood /umber and p/ywoo~ {or U.s. markets for many years, but proc/uction in the southern U.s. now exceeds that in the Pacific Northwest by significant margins. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN FEDERAL TIMBER HARVESTS IN THE PAC/F/C NORTHWEST Any substantial change In Pacific Northwest timber harvests leads to changes in the markets for wood products, as well as to changes in other

OCR for page 122
130 Pacific Northwest Forests Scold. Lumber P-roducdon 1%~0 - 'Lao 2000 ~Vt I -I _ _ ~ in_+ ~ _ 76 78 80 B? 84 ~ J ~ t I I ~ 1 t t t t ~ ~ J T ~ -by- 1 ~ - ~ - ~ ~~ 66 88 90 92 ~ 9& + WAlOR ~ C~IF ~ ~,~ ~ SO~H FIGURE 6-5. Softwood lumber production by U.S. region (in million board feet). Source: Adams et al. 1988.

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest t2000 10~O 4000 737 Scold, Plywood and OSB ~~ ~ ~~ If ~ / .~ ,~ = I- - -it -- - --i ~ in -----a------- -~---------~--- --- -i- - ---} - l--- --I-- - I----------~------- +~ 82 ~ 86 88 90 92 94 ~ ". ~ me_ _- \ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 76 78 80 PLWA/~R ~ PLYSOU + PLYR:I5ST - - OSSTOT FIGURE 6-6. Annual softwood plywood and oriented strandboard (OSB) production by U.S. region, 1976-1997 (in million square feet, 3/~" basis). PLYWA/OR = softwood plywood production in Washington and Oregon; PT~YSOU = softwood plywood production in the South; PLYREST = softwood plywood production in the rest of the U.S.; 0SBTOT = U.S. Oriented strandboard production. Source: Adams et al. 1988.

OCR for page 122
732 Pacific Northwest Forests 18000 . 14000 12000 r ~~~ So000d lipids and ~XpO~ . I/ by. ~ 51i/ ~ 1 ,~` l 4~0'T ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~% ~0 t ~^ ~ ~~ ~ . ~~ 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 LUMIMP ~~ LUM~P 4~ LOGiMP ~ LOG~P FIGURE 6-7. U.S. softwood lumber and softwood log imports and exports, 1978-1997 (in miDionboar~feet). Source: Howard 1999.

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest 749 to reduce participation (Walsh et al. 1989~. The least urbanized of the four states, Idaho and Montana, generally have higher participation rates than Oregon and Washington. Participation in big-game hunting increased nationwide from 1980 to 1996, although hunting for small game decreased. Hunting for migratory birds increased between 1991 ancE 1996, likely in response to increased waterfowl populations (USDOI 1993, 1998~. Flather et al. (1999) project a decline in big-game hunting in the Pacific Coast states ancl an increase in the Rocky Mountain states through 2050. Changes in participation in big-game hunting are related to amount of congestion on public hunting grounds, changes in land-use patterns, ancE family and work obligations. Satisfaction from big-game hunting derives from a variety of attributes in addition to success in taking game, including skins in woodsmanship and marksmanship, contact with nature, escape from daily routine, ant! companionship (Potter et al. 1973~. Three regions of Idaho with different ground conditions provide examples of different conditions for hunting elk anct their implications for wildlife management (Table 6-4~. {claho's southeastern region, for example, provides hunters more than 5 times the opportunity to see elk than the more clensely forested region of northern Idaho cloes. The elk numbers in southeastern, northern, and central Idaho are high (which indicate adequate habitat), but to prevent severely reducing the elk population, the hunting seasons must be shorter in the the open forest and rangeland habitat of the southeastern region. As a result, restricted- entry hunting, which limits the number of hunters in an area, is most common in that region. The data for the three regions of Idaho suggest that forest-manage- ment decisions require close coordination between land management anct the people who use the land. In particular, experience elsewhere in the United States suggests that participation and interest in hunting declines as hunting opportunities are constrained. Attempts in Oregon to address problems of low life expectancy for bull elk (which is attributable to heavy hunting pressure) by restricting hunting have led to a clecline in the number of hunters and intense controversy. Efforts in Idaho to address forest-health issues by changing forest conclitions from dense stands to more open stands, as has been suggested (e.g., O'haughlin et al. 1993), will increase access ant! affect hunting condi- tions.

OCR for page 122
750 Pacific Northwest Forests TABLE 64. Comparison of Hunting Statistics from Three Regions of Idaho, Illustrating the Effect of Access and Forest Conditions Region Estimated ells population ELk (number/square mile) Mean harvest of ells Mean harvest square mile 9563 1.88 242 Hunting season length (days) Mean number of hunters Mean percent success Mean days afield per hunter Panhandler Backcounb~y3 Southeast4 22369 1.86 0.048 1~24 1500 18.1 6.9 13935 1.51 282 0.024 38 1147 23.9 7.3 12a 0.013 9 623 14.7 3.8 Mean animals seen 1.1 2.6 6.3 Population estimates for units, 2, 4A, 5, and 62A projected from Toweill and Hanna 1985. Ells management plan, 1986-1990. Idaho Dept. Fish & Game, Boise. Other information for 1989-1993 period from Kuck, ed.1992. Statewide surveys and inventory. Ells. Project W170R16, Study I, lob 1; Kuck, ed. 1993. Statewide surveys and inventory. Epic. Project W170R17. Study I, lob 1.; Unsworth et al. 1991. Eric management plan, 1991-1995. Idaho Dept. Fish & Game. Boise, 62pp. Northern Idaho, heavily forested habitat with moderate to high access, hunting season October 10-24 for antlered ells, and October 15-24 for antlerless elf in 1993. Hunting units 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, and 9. 3Central Idaho, mountainous habitat with poor access and more open forests than northern Idaho. Hunting seasons in wilderness Sept. 15-Nov. 18, elsewhere October 10 - November 8, in 1993. Hunting units 10, 12, 16!, 17,19, 19a, 20, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36. Bulls only during regular season. Permitted hunts for antlerless not included. Southeastern Idaho, open forests and rangeland which is highly accessible. Hunting seasons October 10-October 19 in 1993, bulls only during regular season. Permitted hunts for antlerless not included. Hunting units 51, 58, 59, 59A, 60, 61, 62, 62A, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 75, 77, 78. Harvest, number of hunters, % success, days afield, and animals seen are means for all units within region per year. Season length in days.

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest 157 Expenditures by participants for wildlife-related recreation in the Pacific Northwest increased from 1985 to 1996 (Table 6-5~. Differences among the states are apparent, with lower 1991 fishing and hunting expenditures than in 1985 in Idaho, Oregon, ancE Washington, and higher expenditures in Montana over the same period. Expenditures on wildlife-related recreation in the region, including those for trips and equipment, nearly doubled from 1985 to 1991, reaching $3.6 billion in 1991. The increase in the region (35 %) was greater than that nationwide (6%~. The increase in total expenditures came during a period of clecTine in wildlife-related recreation (down 5% in the region and down 22% nationwide), which indicates increased expenditures per capita. Other Forest-Re/ated Recreation As the demand for outdoor recreation opportunities continues to increase, demand for particular kinds of opportunities changes in response to shifts in population, lifestyles, and interests. The changing trencEs in recreation use present no clear picture for the Pacific North- west. Nationally, people are traveling shorter distances and spending less money per recreation visit, ancE cteveloped-area camping is increasing while backcountry camping is decreasing (USFS 1988b). Physical activities, such as skiing, canoeing, and kayaking are gaining in popularity, and activities that present risks and adventure for the participant are expected to become even more popular (USES 198Sb). Categorizing current recreation trips involving lance, which includes forests but also much more, is problematical because of the wide range of clefinable uses. The largest number of trips nationwide in 1987 involved sightseeing (329 million), walking (273 million), pleasure driving (233 million), and picnicking (213 miDion). The least number of trips involved backpacking (13 million), visiting prehistoric sites (16 million), horseback riding (25 million), and primitive camping (camping in baclccountry areas) (28 million). There are presumably significant regional differences in the relative rankings of these kinds of recreation use that are related to the opportunities that are afforded for them. Rates of projected increase do not appear to be vastly different for the various uses mentioned above. Data on recreational use of wilderness areas on national forests are intriguing. Total use increased from 1971

OCR for page 122
152 _1 Cal .$ o .O Cal lo; a; _' o U: U) a; 5 - o CD o o cn In .s U) _1 x ~ ~ A pa ~ o ~ Z o an o be U. bC O to ~:5 >- o = U OF 0 ~ Dow ~b C~ Cal ~ co LO ~ O C,) LO I) =~ C ~ ~ 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Hi O ~ ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ Do Dad ~ ~ ~ ~ O Cal Lo ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ O ~ C~ O ~ 00 ~ L~ ~ o L~ L~ C~ ~ 00 ~ CN ~ ~ tN ~ ~ CN1 - ` ~ O0 00 ~ O O0 C() 10 0 C-l 1` er) ~1 oo 1` ~ c~ ~ ' ' ~ - ' ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 c~ c~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~i en oo O~ ~) =h ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ CN ~ ~ C~ 0 ~ 0 C~ 0 C-i ~ 0 ~ oo 0 ~ \o ~ ~ \C, O cn c~ ~ oo ~ co ec L~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ 0 =1 ~) L~ 1` ~ ~h ~) d~ O LO ~ C() O ~ ~) O0 10 t~ 00 C{) X C() ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ di ~i L{) C~ ~ CX) ~ C~ LO o C-l C-l O ~1 ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ O ' CN ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 ~i CN ~ ~ X X L~ ~ ~ L~ 00 ~ O CN ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~D L~ co L~ oo ~ X ~ C~ X ~ di L~ cr) L~ L~ ~ CN O0 ~ ~i X ~1 CN di LO O ~ ~ O ~ L O0 ~ C-l ~ ~ ~1 <) ~ C-l ~ - 1 O ~ L~ 00 L~ oo ~ en co ~ O ~ 00 ~ CN 00 ' 00 ~ - C~ \~) O O ~ O 00 O ~ ~ X ~ di L~ 00 di ~ oo ~ di c~ d~ ~ ~ CO ~ 00 L~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ Ln ~ ~D L~ 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ X ~ ~ O0 ~ = ~ ~ ~ u, ~ ~ ~ ~ oo Oo ~ - o p cr~ a; u o ~n

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest 753 to 1986, but most of the increase in apparent use was on areas that were added to the National Wilderness Areas Protection System since 1971 (USFS 198Sb; Darr 1989~. Use of these areas before 1971 apparently was not counted as wilderness recreation because the land had not been formally designated as wilderness by Congress. Thus, the apparent increase in wilderness recreation on formally designated wilderness areas over this period may not be real. In addition, data for the national parks indicate an unexplained decline in overnight stays in major wilderness parks since the mid-1970s. This decline, if real, may be response to any number of factors. It may indicate a relative decline in interest in wilderness recreation. Or it may indicate that users are recognizing that overuse of wilderness areas degrades the quality of the wilderness experience. Or it may indicate that limits being placed on wilderness use by the administering agencies are having an effect on use. The current mix of recreation uses of forests clearly reflects, in addition to a variety of demand factors, the supply of recreation opportunities and charges for their use. Restrictions on use, real and perceived, affect the balance of use between public and private forests, as do the conditions of the forest. Inasmuch as most of the private forests in the region have been logged at least once and are managed fairly intensively for wood products, recreation that requires extensive areas of relatively wild land occurs mainly on public lands. But other kinds of recreation, especially those that involve recreational and off- road vehicles, might be spread more evenly between public and private forests. Changes in forest management brought about by the Northwest Forest Plan will affect the future mix of available recreation opportunities in the region. Fisheries Streams that emerge from or run through Pacific Northwest forests support important regional fisheries. Commercial fishing is limited mainly to anadromous species; sport fishing encompasses anadromous and nonanadromous inland fishing. Most of these fisheries depend on cold, clear water. Spawning usually requires silt-free, gravelly streambeds.

OCR for page 122
154 Pacific Northwest Forests With the exception of those for some of the salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest, data on trends in fish populations are almost nonexistent (Flasher and Hoekstra 1989; FEMAT 1993~. What data there are clo not indicate the degree of dependence of fish numbers on forests. Commercial and sport fishing have been important economic activities in the region, and anadromous salmonids have accounted for a significant part of the overall fishery. For example, salmon in 197S, a typical year for the period from 1970 to 1986, accounted for about 12% of the weight of commercial fish landings in Oregon and for about 25% of the value (Carter 1988~. in recent years, the share of sahnon in weight and value has fallen in Washington, Oregon, and northern California fisheries. Salmon's proportion of the total weight of seafood landings fell from 6.6% in 1989 to 4.~% in 1991, while the share of value of total landings fell from 16.S% to 10.S% (FEMAT 1993~. Salmon and crab have consistently accounted for more than their share of value relative to weight of total landings. The value of salmon landings from commercial troll ocean fisheries in the region has varied widely over time. From peaks in the late 1970s and again in 198S, the value of landings in 1992 and 1993 was lower than at any time in the previous 15 years. Recreational catch was also low in 1992 and 1993. The economic impacts of ocean salmon fisheries on coastal communities have been substantial. In 1987, fishing contributed about I) % of the total personal income in an Oregon coastal area made up of five complete counties anct coastal portions of two others (Rac~tke and Davis 1988~. The timber industry accounted for about 15% and tourism for about 7% of the area's total personal income at that time. In 1974, a poor year for salmon, sport fishing accounted for 65 % of the total value of salmon from the Columbia River, including commercial, sport ocean fishing, and river fishing. The value of ocean sport and ocean commercial fishing were about equal, but river sport fishing contributed nearly 6 times the value of river commercial fishing (Powe] and Loth 1981~. in terms of its overall contribution to the economic impact of forest-related recreation, fishing accounted for about 6 % of the annual expenditures on recreation on BEM and national forest lands In the northern spotted owl region in 1990 (FEMAT 1993~. State-to-state differences in the role of anadromous fisheries are significant. About 33 % of the sport-fishing activity 1975-1977 in Oregon and Washington, but only 4% of the sport fishing in Idaho, was for

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest I55 anadromous fish (Powe} and Tooth 1981~. But cold, clear water is important to the sport fisheries in all three states. Warm-water fishing accounted for only 12% of the sport-fishing activity in Idaho in 1975, while fishing for resident trout in streams and in lakes accounted for 46% and 29%, respectively. Recognizing the potential effects of logging on fish habitat, the Pacific Northwest states have regulated logging practices in streamside zones in recent years. The intent of regulations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is to maintain streambank integrity and cool water temperatures. At least until recently, regulations reduced but did not prohibit tree removals in streamside zones Mushrooms Mushrooms are one example of a"specialproduct" of Pacific Northwest forests. Others include decoratives such as floral greens and landscape materials, medicinals and herbs, and foods such as berries (Molina et al. 1997~. Together they account for a modest share of the marketed products of Pacific Northwest forests. The use of wild mushrooms is the example chosen here for discussion to represent a broad and varied set of nonwood products of Pacific Northwest forests. Commercial harvesting of mushrooms provides income for some people in the Pacific Northwest. Many of the favored mushrooms are the reproductive structures of mycorrhizal fungi that have symbiotic associations with tree species on Westside and interior forests. Most of the common mushrooms collected in the Pacific Northwest are mycorrhizal (Molina et al. 1993~. Other mushrooms collected are either saprophytes or root rotterse.g., edible morel (forests and nonforested areas) and cauliflower mushroom (mature conifer forests), which do not form symbiotic associations with tree species. A discussion of the ecological role of mycorrhizal associations is in Chapter 3. High interest in individual collection of mushrooms in the Pacific Northwest is shown by a large number of amateur mushroom societies. individual collectors stimulated the regulation of commercial mushroom collection in Washington in response to the increase in commercial mushroom harvesting and to the competition for this unmanaged resource that beganin the 1980s. Mushroom pickers in Washington now

OCR for page 122
756 Pacific Northwest Forests must buy a license and can be monitored, which provides something of an information base for the activity. Information on harvest levels and sales for commercial mushroom harvesting is available starting in 1989 and 1990. That information, however, is limited because commercial pickers probably represent only 10-20% of what was actually collected. The data indicate that $652,247 and $1,27S,910 was paid to licensed buyers and processors (dealers) for harvested mushrooms in Washington in 1989 and 1990 (Molina et al. 1993~. More} production in Oregon in 1987 was estimated to be worth more than $2.6 minion (equivalent to the value of the state's blueberry crop). Matsutake harvesting earned $9-10 minion for buyers and dealers in British Columbia in 1988 from sales of mushrooms to Japan. The sustainability of mushroom harvesting still needs to be determined. That is a real concern, because mushroom harvests in Europe have declined. Some of that decline can be attributed to pollution (Arnolds 1991), but some can also be attributed to changes in land use and in tree-species composition in the forests. Switzerland, Italy, and Germany have regulations that control or limit mushroom collecting in some regions (Molina et al. 1993), especially in some high- elevation forests where symbionts are critical for tree growth. In the United States, only Washington regulates mushroom harvesting, and that is limited to commercial harvesting. Molina et al. (1997) lists and categorizes information and research needs for adequate management of special forest products, including mushrooms. Water Water is an important nonwood product of Pacific Northwest forests, but one that received little attention in the Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest is generally well watered, and water usage is not threatened by limited supplies. Changes in management as a result of adopting the plan presumably will have beneficial effects on the overall average quality of water flowing from the region's forests and some effect on the timing of flows. These effects will be more important locally than regionally. Supplying residential and community water continues to be an important concern of forest management. Portland and Seattle, as well

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest I57 as many smaller communities in the region, depend on protected watersheds for their water. Protection of these watersheds to ensure high-quality water will continue to be an important consideration. Overall freshwater use in the Pacific Northwest is projected to remain nearly level from 1995 to 2040. irrigation use, by far the largest use in the region, is projected to drop, but other uses are expected to increase. Domestic and public use in the region, a relatively small part of the total but one that requires the highest quality of water, is projected to increase by 44% over the next four decades (Brown 1999~. Effects of Changes in Management of Pacific Northwest Forests on Non wood Products The Northwest Forest Plan was aimed at maintaining habitat for various species dependent on old-growth forests. But the reductions in Pacific Northwest federal timber harvests as a result of the Plan will also: Favor some kinds of wildlife, game and nongame species, over others . Affect hunting conditions and hunters' expectations improve habitat for anadromous and inland sport fisheries Maintain some kinds of backcountry recreation opportunities Information on the effects of adopting the Northwest Forest Plan on nonwood forest products in the Pacific Northwest is spotty. For example, most of the information on effects on wildlife populations, aside from that concerning the northern spotted owl and other species at risk of extinction, has been with respect to big-game species. One study of the effects of forest structure on breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range found that habitat fragmentation due to logging had mixed effects on bird populations (McGarigal and McComb ~ 995~. But relating the results of even this study to the changes brought about by the Northwest Forest Plan is somewhat speculative. Changes In future backcountry forest recreation opportunities on federal land will depend on the rules adopted for old-growth and late- successional reserves, other than designated wilderness areas, for which rules are clear. Rules similar to those that now apply to designated

OCR for page 122
758 Pacific Northwest Forests wilderness areas wit} lead to a set of results that are different from those that will result from rules that are less restrictive. Presumably there will be more opportunities for backcountry and wilderness-type recreation as a result of the cutbacks In federal timber harvests than would otherwise be the case. Effects of the Northwest Forest Plan on mushrooms and other special forest products and on water flows are also uncertain. Molina et al. (1997) note that the lack of information on the complex biology of managing and harvesting special forest products poses ctifficulties in integrating their management into broad ecosystem management guidelines. REGIONAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS Estimating the regional economic effect of shifts in the proportions of woocE and nonwood products resulting from reductions in federal timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest is difficult. For example, the extent to which timber harvests are competitive with or complementary to nonwood products is not clear. Tn adclition, economic data are not collected in a way that allows for really estimates of income or other measures of economic impacts from the nonwood industries. At best, most estimates of economic impacts relatecE to nonwood forest products are patched-together proxies for direct measures. There is even dispute over the effects on output and employment in the wood industries, for which there are fairly reliable measures (Tuchmann et al. 1996; Haynes and Weigand 1997~. Estimates of such economic measures as "expenditures for wildlife- associatecl recreation," "value . . . paid to harvesters tof mushrooms]," or "yearly recreation benefits" (FEMAT 1993) are almost meaningless by themselves or in the absence of trend information. They usually cannot be compared with standard economic measures of performance for other sectors and, therefore, are not useful in estimating net effects of changes in policies or programs. The basis for estimating economic welfare effects of changes in nonwood products outputs that couIcE be compared with those for changes in wood products outputs is exceedingly weak (Haynes and Weigand 1997~. Even official statistics for well-defined measures can be misreading if

OCR for page 122
Products From the Forest 759 not adequately put in context. For example, the value of shipments of the lumber and wood products industry in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington ~ ~ 987 was $16.5 billion (US Bureau of the Census 1991~. If We timber-dependent woo~puIp and paper industries were added, the total would be well over $20 billion. But, these numbers by themselves can also be highly misleading. How do they, for example, relate to parallel numbers for nonmanufacturing forest-related industries? How much of the value is for shipments outside of the region (export base) relative to that which stays in the region? Do the numbers reflect particular stages of the business cycle? In the absence of answers to these questions, we have chosen not to present further economic impacts estimates. SUMMARY The reduction in federal softwood timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest has resulted in a roughly equal increase in softwood timber harvests in the U.S. South and Canada. This has come about in response to normal market forces. The increase in southern timber harvests is being met in part by increases in the intensity of forest management, especially onforestindustry land. This increased managementintensity potentially will affect some environmental values, such as maintenance of wetland ecosystems and protection of species such as the red- cockaded woodpecker. Nonwood forest products in the Pacific Northwest for the most part are not competitive with similar forest products from other regions. The extent to which their availability to markets within the Pacific Northwest has been affected by adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan is generally unclear due to lack of information based on research results.