|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 paper—and nonwood
products—such 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 123
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 forests—softwood 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 124
724
Pacific Northwest Forests
U. S. Softwood Lumber
fig ~
_ \
. ~
~ I
\
OCR for page 125
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 126
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 127
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 128
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 129
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~lyallc£thena~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 130
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 131
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 132
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 149
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 150
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 151
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 $3.6 billion in
1991. The increase in the region (35 %) was greater than that nationwide
(6%~. The increase in total expenditures came during a period of clecTine
in wildlife-related recreation (down 5% in the region and down 22%
nationwide), which indicates increased expenditures per capita.
Other Forest-Re/ated Recreation
As the demand for outdoor recreation opportunities continues to
increase, demand for particular kinds of opportunities changes in
response to shifts in population, lifestyles, and interests. The changing
trencEs in recreation use present no clear picture for the Pacific North-
west. Nationally, people are traveling shorter distances and spending
less money per recreation visit, ancE cteveloped-area camping is
increasing while backcountry camping is decreasing (USFS 1988b).
Physical activities, such as skiing, canoeing, and kayaking are gaining
in popularity, and activities that present risks and adventure for the
participant are expected to become even more popular (USES 198Sb).
Categorizing current recreation trips involving lance, which includes
forests but also much more, is problematical because of the wide range
of clefinable uses. The largest number of trips nationwide in 1987
involved sightseeing (329 million), walking (273 million), pleasure
driving (233 million), and picnicking (213 miDion). The least number of
trips involved backpacking (13 million), visiting prehistoric sites (16
million), horseback riding (25 million), and primitive camping (camping
in baclccountry areas) (28 million). There are presumably significant
regional differences in the relative rankings of these kinds of recreation
use that are related to the opportunities that are afforded for them.
Rates of projected increase do not appear to be vastly different for the
various uses mentioned above. Data on recreational use of wilderness
areas on national forests are intriguing. Total use increased from 1971
OCR for page 152
152
·_1
Cal
.$
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 153
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 154
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 155
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 rotters—e.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 156
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 157
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 158
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 159
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
timber harvests
