Nontimber Forest Products 

Management on National Forests 

in the United States

Rebecca J. McLain and Eric T. Jones

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-655

October 2005
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the states 

and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, 

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Rebecca J. McLain and Eric T. Jones are senior scientists, Institute for Culture 

and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, Portland, OR 97228-6688, http://www.ifcae.org/ntfp/.

This work was performed under Contract No. 43-046W-4-0210, Special Forest 

Products Program.

Cover Photo: Justin Anderson harvests several species of huckleberries on the 

Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon. Photo by Kathryn A. Lynch 2005
Abstract

McLain, Rebecca J.; Jones, Eric T. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on national forests in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-655. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 85 p.

This study provides an overview of nontimber forest products (NTFP) programs 

on national forests in the United States. We conducted an email survey in 2003 to 

obtain data on NTFP management activities on national forests across the country. 

Program characteristics examined in the study included important NTFPs managed 

on national forests, presence of NTFP coordinators and law enforcement programs 

on ranger districts, incorporation of NTFPs into forest planning documents, 

presence of NTFP inventory and monitoring programs, managers’ views on barriers to and opportunities for including NTFP harvesters in NTFP inventory and 

monitoring efforts, and managers’ perceptions of barriers to expanding commercial 

NTFP harvesting. The data indicate that the agency is constructing a foundation 

for scientific NTFP management. The study identifies lack of funding and internal 

administrative capacity as key barriers to adequate incorporation of NTFPs in 

Forest Service planning, inventory, and monitoring.

Keywords: Nontimber forest products, forest planning, inventory and monitoring, biodiversity conservation, special forest products.
Preface

The term “nontimber forest products” is widely used internationally and within the 

United States to describe a multitude of forest products that are administratively 

distinguished from timber and wood fiber resources. Nontimber forest products 

have a variety of uses, including food, medicine, fuel, decorative uses, and ceremonial and spiritual uses. Types of products include fruiting bodies (e.g., mushrooms 

and berries); roots, leaves, cones, bark, and needles; woody parts of plants, such 

as boughs and logs; and resins and oils. The USDA Forest Service has historically used a variety of terms for such products, including “minor forest products,” 

“specialty forest products,” and “special forest products,” with the term “special 

forest products” used most widely during the past decade. We have opted to use 

the term “nontimber forest products” in this report so as to conform to prevailing 

international convention and the predominant trend in the United States.
Contents

1 Introduction

4 Legislative and Administrative Context of NTFP Management

14 Research Design

15 Study Objectives and Survey Topics

16 Units of Analysis

17 Response Rates

18 Data Processing and Analysis

18 Limitations of the Study

19 NTFP Products or Species

23 NTFP Program Administration and Enforcement

24 NTFP Coordination and Law Enforcement

26 NTFP Permitting Changes

26 NTFPs in Resource Management Planning

26 Incorporation of NTFPs in Forest Planning Processes

29 NTFP Planning Documents

29 Forest Managers’ Sources of Knowledge About NTFPs

31 Managers’ Familiarity With Selected Resources on NTFP Management and Policy

32 Knowledge From NTFP Inventory and Monitoring Efforts

36 Monitoring of Ecological Impacts of Nonregulatory NTFP Management

38 Manager Perspectives on Involving Harvesters in Inventory and Monitoring

42 Agency Use of Harvester Knowledge and Collaboration With Harvesters

44 Expanding Commercial NTFP Harvesting on National Forests

45 Barriers to Expanding Commercial Harvesting

45 Nonregulatory NTFP Management Activities

45 Effects of NTFP Management on Biodiversity

47 Manager Perceptions of Barriers to NTFP Inventory and Monitoring

47 Discussion

52 Research, Policy, and Management Implications

52 Managing Many NTFP Products and Species

52 Managing Products of Regional or Local Importance

53 Developing Tools for Incorporating NTFPs Into Forest Planning

54 Examining Barriers and Opportunities for Agency-Harvester Collaboration

54 Acknowledgments

55 Literature Cited
64 Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire

69 Appendix 2: List of Districts Responding

76 Appendix 3: Combined List of Products or Species

79 Appendix 4: NTFP Inventorying and Monitoring Methods, 2003

80 Appendix 5: Personnel Who Inventory and Monitor NTFPs

81 Appendix 6: Personnel Who Monitor Ecological Impacts of NTFP 

 Management Activities

82 Appendix 7: Reasons to Involve Harvesters in Inventory and Monitoring

83 Appendix 8: Reasons for Not Involving Harvesters in Inventory and Monitoring

84 Appendix 9: Barriers to Expanding Commercial NTFP Harvesting

85 Appendix 10: Barriers to NTFP Inventory and Monitoring
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

Introduction

Since prehistory, humans around the world have relied on products derived from 

forest species for their survival and well-being (Huckell and Toll 2004, Matson and 

Coupland 1995, Moerman 1998, Scarry 2003, Turner and Cocksedge 2001). Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) include (1) foods, such as wild edible mushrooms, 

fruits, and nuts; (2) medicinal plants and fungi; (3) floral greenery and horticultural 

stock; (4) fiber and dye plants, lichens, and fungi; (5) oils, resins, and other chemical extracts from plants, lichens, and fungi; (6) fuelwood; and (7) small-diameter 

wood used for poles, posts, and carvings. Differentiating between form and 

function of individual NTFPs is complex given that many NTFPs serve multiple 

functions. For example, fungi serve as food for everyday meals and religious observances, are used as medicines and a means for achieving spiritual enlightenment, 

and as surfaces for paintings, drawings, and etchings. 

Harvesting of NTFPs remains widespread throughout the United States (Emery 

and McLain 2001, Jones et al. 2004, McLain 2000). People from diverse income 

levels, age groups, and cultural backgrounds harvest NTFPs for household subsistence, maintaining cultural and family traditions, obtaining spiritual fulfillment, 

maintaining physical and emotional well-being, scientific learning, and earning 

income (Jones et al. 2004). Many NTFPs serve as raw materials for industries 

ranging from large-scale floral greens suppliers and pharmaceutical companies to 

microenterprises centered around basket-making, woodcarving, medicinal plant 

harvesting and processing, and a variety of other activities (Alexander et al. 2002, 

Chamberlain 2000, Emery 1998, Jones et al. 2004, Thomas and Schumann 1993). 

Estimating the contribution of NTFPs to the national or regional economies is 

difficult owing to the lack of broad-based systems for tracking the combined value 

of the hundreds of products that make up the various NTFP industries. In 1998, 

Brevoort estimated the retail value of medicinal plant products sold in the United 

States, many of which were wild-crafted, at $4 billion. Chamberlain et al. (2002) 

placed the wholesale value of just one medicinal species–forest-harvested ginseng 

(Panax quinquefolius L.)–gathered from a four-state area at $18.5 million dollars in 

2001. Schlosser and Blatner (1995) estimated that the wild mushroom industry in 

1992 contributed $41.2 million and the floral greens industry in 1994 contributed 

$106.8 million to just the Pacific Northwest economy. Maple syrup (Acer spp.) 

production, which occurs primarily in 10 states in the Northeast and Great Lakes 

regions, had a wholesale value of $30 million dollars in 1997 (Chamberlain 2000). 

The aggregate economic value of NTFPs harvested in the United States is thus 

likely in the billions of dollars each year. 

The economic value of 

NTFPs harvested in the 

United States is likely 

in the billions of dollars 

each year.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655



Aside from their economic value, many NTFPs have significant cultural values 

(Danielsen and Gilbert 2002, Emery 1998, Fisher 2002, Richards and Creasy 1996, 

Schroeder 2002). For example, the huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.) is a sacred food 

among many Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest, and huckleberry gathering 

has long served as a focal point for renewing kinship and cross-tribal social ties 

(Fisher 2002, Knudson 1980). Emery (1998) documented the cultural importance of 

NTFPs for Native Americans and descendants of European settlers in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula, noting that nonmonetary exchanges of NTFPs serve to enhance 

social ties. Similarly, Lee (2002) described the importance of nonmonetary 

exchange networks centered on fish, game, and wild plants in maintaining links 

between rural and urban Native Alaskans. Thus, NTFP gathering and processing 

contribute toward the development and maintenance of the social ties needed for 

long-term cultural sustainability. 

Through harvesting NTFPs, indigenous and nonindigenous cultural groups 

develop ecological knowledge of the areas in which they live and work. Anthropologists refer to such knowledge as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Berkes 

(1999) defined TEK as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, 

evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural 

transmission, about the living beings (including humans) with one another and their 

environment (cited in Danielson and Gilbert 2002: 289).” Danielson and Gilbert 

(2002: 290) noted that TEK and contemporary ecosystem management share 

principles including “adaptive management through observation and monitoring 

and an intergenerational sustainability, including the relationship and dependence 

of humans and all life on each other.”

Harvesting of NTFPs in the United States takes place on lands held by a variety 

of public and private entities, including municipalities, state land management 

agencies, federal land management agencies, tribes, corporations, and private 

individuals (Emery 1998, Jones et al. 2004, Lynch and McLain 2003). Of the five 

major federal land management agencies, the USDA Forest Service has played the 

most prominent role in encouraging harvesting of nontimber forest products. 

Historically, the Forest Service has viewed nontimber forest products harvesting as a locally important, albeit limited vehicle for rural economic development 

(Shaw 1949; Thomas and Schumann 1993; USDA FS 1965, 1970). The National 

Forest System’s 192 million acres (78 million hectares) of land are particularly 

important sources of raw materials for NTFP harvesters in the Western United 

States where national forests constitute a large percentage of the forested land base 

(Nelson 1995). Although most forested land is held privately or by state agencies 

in the states east of the Rocky Mountains, national forests also serve as important 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

repositories of NTFPs in the southern Appalachians, the upper Great Lakes, and 

parts of New England and the Southeast (Chamberlain 2000, Emery 1998, Emery 

et al. 2002). The NTFPs in many areas, including some national forests, are extracted under commodity management strategies similar to those used for timber. 

Emery (1998) has identified the commodity management paradigm as it has been 

applied to timber management as problematic for some NTFP users. For example, 

her study of NTFP livelihood strategies on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula notes 

that nonmarket uses for NTFPs, such as subsistence consumption and gifting to 

strengthen kinship and other social ties, are undermined under commodity management approaches. 

This report describes USDA Forest Service NTFP programs on 84 national 

forests located in the continental United States and Alaska (fig. 1). The description 

is based on data gathered through email surveys distributed to ranger districts 

nationwide in 2003 (app. 1).1 We relied on a literature review and our ethnographic 

research experience to develop the survey questionnaire. 

Figure 1—National forests in the continental United States. 

1The Forest Service is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is headed by the Chief 

of the Forest Service. The agency is composed of five branches: the National Forest System, 

Research and Development, International Forestry, Administration, and State and Private Forestry (USDA FS 2005a). Within the National Forest System, four administrative levels exist 

(Loomis 2002, USDA FS 2005a): Washington Office, regions, national forests and grasslands, 

ranger districts.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

Legislative and Administrative 

Context of NTFP Management

The Forest Service authority to develop and administer rules governing NTFP 

harvesting and related activities, such as buying and camping, on national forest 

lands stems directly from the “use and occupancy” and “protection” provisions 

of the 1897 Organic Act (table 1 provides a list of laws, regulations, and policies 

affecting NTFP management on national forests).2 3 Congress initially granted this 

authority to the Secretary of the Interior (Steen 1991), the official responsible for 

managing the national forest reserves established under the 1891 Creative Act. In 

1905, Congress shifted this authority to the Secretary of Agriculture when jurisdiction over the national forests was transferred from the General Land Office to the 

Department of Agriculture (Steen 1991). 

Other major laws that mandate how the Forest Service manages the resources 

under its jurisdiction include the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, the 1974 

Forest and Rangeland Resources Planning Act (RPA), and the 1976 National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) (Antypas et al. 2002). In addition, the Lacey Act as 

amended in 1981, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shape how the Forest Service manages natural resources, 

including NTFPs (Antypas et al. 2002). Additionally, the Final Rule for the National 

Forest Land Management Planning (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 

219) published on January 5, 2005, establishes “requirements for sustainability of 

social, economic, and ecological systems” in the forest planning process (Federal 

Register 2005: 1023). Taken as a whole, these laws and related regulations require 

the Forest Service to manage resources under its jurisdiction in ways that provide 

adequate protection for threatened and endangered species, and that ensure longterm sustainable harvest of its renewable resources (Antypas et al. 2002).

The Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), 

which establishes priority for subsistence use of fish, wildlife, and other renewable 

resources, also affects NTFP management on the two national forests in Alaska 

(Mater 2000, Schroeder 2002). According to Schroeder (2002: 303), ANILCA has 

made federal agencies “loath to encourage commercial exploitation of nontimber 

2USC 473-478, 479-482, 551 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate “occupancy 

and use and to preserve the forests” administered under the forest reserve system; it also 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber from the reservations, a provision which 

has been interpreted in the code of federal regulations as applying to a broad range of forest 

products. In addition, the act authorizes the Secretary to set forth regulations governing the 

free use of timber and stone (and by extension, other forest products) for domestic purposes. 

3Floyd (1999) discusses more than 80 laws influencing national forest management.

Federal agencies are 

“loath to encourage 

commercial 

exploitation of 

nontimber forest 

products where 

conflict with existing 

subsistence uses 

might result.”
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

Table 1—Laws and policies relevant to NTFP management on national forests

Date enacted Laws and policies Description

1897 Organic Act Gives the Forest Service the authority to develop and 

administer rules governing forest occupancy, use, 

and related activities.

1900 Lacey Act (amended in Amended in 1981 to apply to indigenous wild plants, with 

1935; 1945; 1981) the Secretary of Agriculture given authority to enforce

16 U.S.C. 3371-3374 violations related to interstate and international commerce

in plants.

1928 Regulation S-21 in Authorized regional foresters to issue instructions regarding 

National Forest Manual sales of NTFPs and to establish minimum prices.

(USDA FS 1928)

1960 Multiple-Use Sustained Directs the Forest Service to manage the national forests for

Yield Act multiple uses on a sustained yield basis. The uses explicitly

stated in the law include timber, range, watershed protection, 

fish and wildlife, wilderness, and recreation.

(continued)

forest products where conflict with existing subsistence uses might result.” In addition, under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, national forests 

throughout the United States are required to protect the religious cultural rights of 

American Indians, including rights to harvest culturally sacred plants (Mater 2000). 

Indian-reserved rights to NTFPs also apply on many national forests (Danielson 

and Gilbert 2002, Fisher 2002, Goodman 2002).

The Forest Service’s explicit regulation of NTFPs dates back to at least 1928 

(Emery 1998). Regulation S-21 in the 1928 National Forest Manual authorized 

regional foresters to issue instructions regarding sales of NTFPs and to establish 

minimum prices for NTFPs that differed from those set for timber (USDA FS 

1928). Two decades later, Brown’s (1950) book on forest products “other than 

timber” lists a variety of NTFPs harvested on national forest lands during the 

immediate post-World War II era. National forests in California, Wisconsin, and the 

Rocky Mountains, for example, sold Christmas trees; national forests in Appalachia 

sold mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia); and national forests in Colorado and New 

Mexico sold coniferous wildlings (Brown 1950). Other products sold by national 

forests at the time included decorative pine cones, seed cones, boughs, leaf mold, 

ferns, peat, roots, burls and knots (Brown 1950). In a research note published in 

1949, a researcher with the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station 

noted that Christmas tree cutting on national forest is “carefully controlled” (Shaw 

1949: 4), and that fern pickers are “required to obtain a permit, and usually pay a 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

Table 1—Laws and policies relevant to NTFP management on national forests (continued)

Date enacted Laws and policies Description

1969 National Environmental Creates the environmental impact statement (EIS) and 

Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment (EA) as instruments of

environmental policy. Requires public participation.

1973 Endangered Species Act Establishes a formal procedure for federal agencies to classify

plant and animal species as threatened or endangered and

provide for their protection. 

1974 Forest and Rangeland Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a national

Resources Planning renewable resource assessment, to be updated every 

Act (RPA) 10 years (Section 3), which includes an analysis of the 

“present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of 

the renewable resources” and an inventory of “present and 

potential renewable resources, and an evaluation of 

opportunities for improving their yield of tangible and 

intangible goods and services....”

1976 National Forest Management Directs the Forest Service to integrate renewable resource 

Act (NFMA) management into its planning processes. Requires national 

forests to develop forestwide plans by using procedures 

designed to encourage public participation.

1980 The Alaska National Established subsistence use priority for fish, wildlife, and 

Interest Lands and other renewable resources. Significantly affects NTFP 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) management on national forests in Alaska. 

1992 Memo from the Chief of the Established ecosystem management as the guiding policy

Forest Service to regional for managing lands in the National Forest System. Calls

foresters and station directors for managing for biological sustainability while

regarding ecosystem manage- simultaneously taking into account human needs and values.

ment of the national forests 

and grasslands (Robertson 1992).

1994 The Northwest Forest Plan An interagency regional planning document developed

(USDA and USDI 1994) to establish forest management guidelines for the northern 

spotted owl zone in the PNW; includes requirements for 

inventorying and monitoring numerous species, many of 

which are harvested for commercial, recreational, or 

subsistence use. 

2000 Consolidated Fiscal Year 2000 Rider entitled “Pilot Program of Charges and Fees for 

Appropriations Act, Sec. 339 Harvest of Botanical Products” requires the FS to charge 

of P.L. 106-113. fair market value fees for NTFPs and conduct analyses to 

ascertain whether NTFP harvesting levels are sustainable. 

2001 National Strategy for Special This strategy constitutes the agency’s overarching policy 

Forest Products (USDA FS statement with respect to NTFP management.

2001b)
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

Table 1—Laws and policies relevant to NTFP management on national forests (continued)

Date enacted Laws and policies Description

2002 Forest Service Handbook Added new direction for NTFP management on national 

2409.18 Chapter 80; forests, including requirements that national forests manage

effective December 16, 2002 NTFP sustainably, incorporate NTFPs into forest plans, and 

subject NTFP harvesting activities to NEPA analyses. The 

directive also encourages forests to conduct inventories to 

assess impacts of management actions on NTFPs and 

collaborate in local partnerships to manage NTFPs.

2005 Final Rule, National Forest Adopts environmental management system (ISO 14001) as a

System Land Management management framework, including emphasis on adaptive 

Planning (36 CFR Part 219) management and ongoing monitoring as part of the forest 

planning process.

small fee per unit” (Shaw 1949: 5). The Forest Service thus has a long-standing history of managing the National Forest System for NTFPs, albeit on a limited scale.

The principal regulations within the CFR that authorize how the Forest Service 

can dispose of NTFPs on national forest reserves include 36 CFR 223.1, which sets 

forth the procedures for disposing of forest products, 36 CFR 223.5, which covers the circumstances under which free use of forest products is permitted, and 

36 CFR 223.6, which sets forth appraisal and fair market value requirements for 

forest products harvested on national forest lands (GPO 2004). The Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) elaborate specific policies and 

directives applicable nationwide, as well as to specific regions and national forests 

(USDA FS 2005b).4 The directives in the Forest Service Manual contain guidance 

needed by line officers and primary staff on more than one administrative unit, 

whereas the Forest Service Handbook directives provide guidance primarily for 

specialists and technicians. Although the regions and the national forests provide 

management direction on NTFPs to the ranger districts, the districts exercise some 

discretion in how they implement those directives (Emery 1998). 

The FSH 2409.18 Chapter 80 (USDA FS 2005b) constitutes an important source 

of national-level management direction for NTFPs on national forests. An amendment dated December 12, 2002, removed obsolete direction under this handbook 

chapter regarding firewood, naval stores, pine-distillate wood, and Christmas trees 

4See Chamberlain (2000) for a summary of the key sections of the Forest Service Manual that 

pertained nationally to NTFP management in 2000. He also provided an overview of recent 

directives applicable to NTFP management in Region 8, and examples of national forest directives for the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest and the national forests of North Carolina.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

and greens. It also added important new direction for sustainable management of 

NTFPs, reserved treaty rights, NTFP valuation, collection of deposits for NTFP 

harvesting, control of harvesting activities, and reporting of NTFP harvest volumes 

and revenues.

The FSH 2409.18_80 defines NTFPs as: 

a. Non-timber vegetative products, such as mosses, fungus, and bryophytes, 

echinatia [sic], roots, bulbs, berries, seeds, wildflowers, beargrass, salal, 

ferns, and transplants; 

b. Non-convertible timber products, such as Christmas trees, tree sap, boughs, 

bark, cones, burls, yew bark, and transplants of trees; and 

c. The following convertible timber products: posts, poles, rails, shingle and 

shake bolts, firewood, fence stays, vegas [sic], mine props, and bow staves 

(FSH 2409.18_87.05). 

It excludes “sawtimber, pulpwood, non-sawlog material removed in log form, 

cull logs, small roundwood, house logs, telephone poles, derrick poles, minerals, 

animals, animal parts, insects, worms, rocks, water, and soil” from the agency’s categorization of nontimber forest products (FSH 2409.18_87.05). Among other items, 

the amendment directs the agency to manage natural resources (including NTFPs) 

“in such a manner that there is not impairment of the productivity of the land” (FSH 

2409.18_87.11), to use inventories “to determine the effects of proposed management actions” (FSH 2409.18_87.12), to incorporate NTFPs into forest plans (FSH 

2409.18_87.13), and to conduct NEPA-mandated environmental analysis for NTFP 

harvesting (FSH 2409.18_87.14). The amendment also encourages agency managers 

to use “locally based partnerships and collaborative projects” (FSH 2409.18_87.17) 

in NTFP management. Additionally, FSH 2409.18_87.3 requires NTFP managers to 

apply minimum rates established under FSM 2431.31b to convertible NTFPs (e.g., 

firewood, posts, poles, etc.) and allows the regional foresters to set minimum rates 

for nonconvertible NTFPs (e.g,. moss, bark, needles, etc.). The FSH 2409.18_87.3 

also directs forest supervisors to set standard rates for NTFPs sold on their forests, 

and to update the rates annually. Under FSH 2409.18_87.51a, national forests may 

choose to grant individuals free use to special forest products for personal use. 

The Southern Region (Region 8) supplement to FSM 2460, effective date 

May 7, 2002, provides an example of regional direction for NTFP management. 

It states that the region’s objective for NTFP sales is to sell such products “in a 

cost efficient manner and at fair market value while serving local needs and meeting Forest Land and Resource Management Plan objectives” (R8 Supplement 

2400-2002-4, 2467.02). The same supplement also notes that NTFP management 

measures “shall perpetuate or increase the production of special forest products in 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

compliance with land and resource management plan objectives and principles of 

ecosystem management” (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.03.1), and specifies that units 

in the region will “manage special forest products on a sustainable basis without 

impairment to the productivity of the land” (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.03.2). It 

prohibits sales and free use authorizations for plants on the federal threatened and 

endangered species list (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.03.7). The supplement calls for 

integration of NTFP sales activities into annual work plans and budgets (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.03.3), and also requires a positive net public benefit from NTFP 

sales (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.03.4). The Region 8 supplement also calls for 

forest supervisors to ensure that NEPA documentation takes place for NTFP sales 

activities and to provide “for administration and monitoring to assure management 

objectives and permit terms are followed” (R8 Supplement FSM 2467.04.2b and 

c). The supplement also notes that forest supervisors have the responsibility to 

“develop direction for the traditional gathering of special forest products by local 

residents and Native Americans” (FSM 2467.04.2.e.).

The NEPA, The Forest and Rangeland RPA, and the NFMA also shape how 

the Forest Service incorporates NTFPs into its planning process. Under NEPA, 

all federal agencies must prepare detailed statements for “major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (Section 102 (C)). 

The Forest and Rangeland RPA of 1974 as amended by the NFMA of 1976 requires 

national forests to develop forestwide plans by using procedures designed to 

encourage public participation while developing the plans (Section 6). 

Additionally, the RPA directed the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a 

national renewable resource assessment to be updated every 10 years from 1979 

onward (Section 3). Among other things, this assessment must include an analysis 

of the “present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of the renewable resources” (Section 3 (1)), an inventory of “present and potential renewable resources, 

and an evaluation of opportunities for improving their yield of tangible and intangible goods and services, together with estimates of investment costs and direct and 

indirect returns to the Federal Government” (Section 3(2)). 

The 2004 Final Planning Rule, effective January 5, 2005 (Federal Register 

2005), emphasizes the importance of monitoring, not just inventorying, as a central part of the forest planning process. Under the Final Planning Rule, the Forest 

Service adopts the use of the environmental management system based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001, an international standard for 

environmental management. The Final Planning Rule requires (Federal Register 

2005: 1033):
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

10

...each administrative unit to implement an EMS [environmental 

management system] that includes defined procedures for identifying environmental conditions, keeps that information current, 

and includes monitoring and measurement procedures for continually evaluating conditions in the unit.

The requirement to conduct monitoring and maintain current information for 

each management unit exists in addition to the agency’s obligation to develop NEPA 

documents for any of its actions. The Final Planning Rule calls for forest plans to 

contribute to sustainability, which it conceptualizes as being composed of three elements—social, economic, and ecological (Federal Register 2005: 1059). Although 

the 2004 Final Planning Rule does not explicitly call for monitoring NTFPs, it does 

so implicitly through the statement that the goal of the ecological element is to “provide a framework to contribute to sustaining native ecological systems by providing 

ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal species in the 

plan area” (Federal Register 2005:1059).

In addition to preparing the forestwide plans mandated under the RPA and 

NFMA, and the site-specific environmental impact statements and assessments 

mandated under NEPA, during the 1990s, many national forests in the Pacific 

Northwest began developing watershed and landscape analyses to meet requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA FS and USDI 1994).5

 The ecosystem 

management planning documents differ from environmental impact statements, 

environmental assessments, and forest plans in that they are categorized as planning documents rather than decision documents and thus are not subject to the 

public input requirements mandated by NEPA and NFMA. 

The Forest Service uses a variety of mechanisms to allocate access to NTFPs 

on national forest lands, including nonexclusive harvest permits, exclusive leases, 

stewardship contracts, and stewardship leases. Permits for short-term, nonexclusive 

access are frequently mentioned in studies of NTFP harvesting on national forests 

(Emery 1998, Hansis 1998, Love et al. 1998, McLain 2000, Parks and Schmitt 1997, 

Richards and Creasy 1996). Some national forests require harvesters to obtain 

permits to gather NTFPs for personal consumption, whereas others have chosen to 

forgo permits for noncommercial uses (McLain 2000). In the Pacific Northwest, 

several national forests have experimented with the use of longer term leases that 

grant holders exclusive access to NTFPs in areas specified in the lease (Lynch and 

McLain 2003, Thomas and Schumann 1993). Some national forests also regulate 

5The Northwest Forest Plan is an interagency planning document developed by the USDA 

Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish forest management guidelines for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

zone in the Pacific Northwest (USDA and USDI 1994: Volumes I and II).

The Forest Service 

uses a variety of 

mechanisms to 

allocate access to 

NTFPs.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

11

activities associated with commercial NTFP harvesting, such as camping, buying, or hauling. For example, many national forests in Oregon, Washington, and 

Montana require mushroom harvesters to camp in designated industrial camp sites, 

and a few require mushroom buyers to purchase permits to buy wild mushrooms on 

national forest lands (McLain 2000, McLain et al. 2005, Parks and Schmitt 1997) 

The Forest Service also has a history of managing NTFPs by using nonregulatory means, albeit on a limited scale when compared to other resources, such as 

timber and grazing. Nonregulatory forms of NTFP management include the use 

of controlled burns and canopy thinning to expand habitat or increase productivity of desired understory species. For example, during the 1960s, Forest Service 

employees working on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest made efforts to expand 

production of a socially important huckleberry patch through thinning, slash 

burning, and scarification (Minore 1972). The Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest 

Research Station subsequently funded experiments of factors affecting huckleberry 

production in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon during the 

1970s with the objective of enhancing huckleberry production (Minore et al. 1979). 

Similarly, Thomas and Schumann (1993) reported that the Chippewa National Forest actively managed a few hundred acres for wild blueberry production, relying on 

controlled burns in the late fall. 

During the past decade, the Forest Service has greatly expanded its active 

NTFP management efforts, often through collaborative partnerships with interested 

stakeholders, to include a variety of products in forests around the country. Some 

examples include applied research on sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes [M.A. 

Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson) in South Carolina (Hart et al. 2004), several 

medicinal plants in the southern Appalachians (USDA FS 2001a), ginseng in the 

Ozark mountains (Chamberlain 2000), salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) in western 

Washington (Ballard 2004), and wild rice (Zizania spp.) in the Great Lakes region 

(Danielsen and Gilbert 2002). 

The Forest Service also plays a key role in the federal government’s effort to 

manage nonnative invasive species, some of which constitute NTFPs and others 

that affect native NTFP species. The agency is a member of the National Invasive 

Species Council (NISC), which President Clinton established on February 3, 1999, 

under Executive Order 13112 to “prevent the introduction of invasive species and 

provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human 

health impacts that invasive species cause” (Federal Register 1999: 6183). As a 

member of the council, as well as other groups, such as the Plant Conservation 

Alliance’s Alien Plant Working Group, the Forest Service manages, educates the 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

12

public, and conducts research on invasive species affecting national forests, other 

federal lands, and private lands (NISC 2001). 

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 

(UNCED) called for the world’s nations to encourage sustainable forest management as a means to achieve sustainable economic development (UNCED 1992b). 

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the key policy 

document emerging from the UNCED deliberations, laid out nonbinding guidelines 

for accomplishing sustainable forest management (UNCED 1992a). The guidelines 

included a specific call for countries to address NTFPs in their forestry planning 

and management efforts (Tewari 1994). 

In 1994, the United States and 11 other countries initiated a series of deliberations, known as the Montreal Process (Montreal Process Working Group 1995). 

The Montreal Process working group adopted a set of criteria and indicators that 

provide a common framework for evaluating the sustainability of the participating 

countries’ forest management practices and policies (USDA FS 2004). A diverse 

set of stakeholders selected by the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Department 

of State (USDA FS 2004) contributed jointly to the development of the criteria and 

indicators ultimately adopted by the Montreal Process working group (USDA FS 

2004). 

The stakeholder forum from which the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators 

were developed subsequently evolved into a forum known as the Roundtable on 

Sustainable Forests (USDA FS 2004). The roundtable has convened periodically 

since 1998 to clarify and elaborate on the indicators, to identify means for measuring the indicators, and to develop systems for tracking the indicators at a national 

level (USDA FS 2004). Tracking indicators involves inventory and monitoring 

efforts. In 2002, the United States took part in the World Summit on Sustainable 

Development, and confirmed its intention to continue supporting the criteria and 

indicators process as a means for evaluating progress toward the principles laid out 

in Agenda 21 (USDA FS 2004). 

In 1999, the UNITED STATES Congress clarified the legal mandate of the 

USDA Forest Service regarding NTFP management through the addition of a rider, 

known as Section 339, on P.L. 106-113, the Consolidated FY 2000 Appropriations 

Act. The rider was entitled “Pilot Program of Charges and Fees for Harvest of 

Forest Botanical Products” (Antypas et al. 2002). Section 339 included provisions 

requiring the Forest Service to charge fair market value fees for NTFPs and conduct 

analyses to ascertain whether NTFP harvesting levels are sustainable. Additionally, 

Section 339 prohibits the Forest Service from allowing unsustainable harvests and 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

13

permits administrative units to retain a portion of the revenues obtained through 

permit and contract fees. 

As Chamberlain et al. (2002) noted, however, few national forests have the 

staffing levels and requisite knowledge of NTFPs among their current employee 

base to implement the provisions of Section 339. Similarly, as Emery (1998: 144) 

observes, the Forest Service’s lack of knowledge about NTFPs hampers its ability 

to adequately fulfill its legal mandates originating in the NEPA and the NFMA 

to provide for the protection of plant and animal community diversity on national 

forests (Emery 1998: 144): 

Central to this act [the RPA as amended by the NFMA] and its 

implications for NTFP management are its requirements that the 

Secretary of Agriculture conduct and maintain a current inventory of all renewable resources on National Forest lands and provide for public participation in planning for their management. 

In so doing, the Act broadens the primary duties of the Agency 

from managing resources as a relatively autonomous body of 

experts to managing information on those resources and conducting their decision making in an open manner. This places a 

nearly impossible demand on Agency personnel vis a vis NTFP. 

There is a general dearth of comprehensive information about 

the herbaceous layer of forests, from which a majority of NTFP 

are derived.

Thus, from the mid-1980s onward, internal and external pressures mounted for 

the Forest Service to expand the scope of its NTFPs programs to include a much 

broader array of species and products than the historical big three–firewood, posts 

and poles, and Christmas trees. In response to these pressures, in 1994 the agency 

began developing a national strategy for NTFPs. In 2001, the agency published 

a document entitled National Strategy for Special Forest Products. The national 

strategy document outlines “strategic goals and suggests key actions for managing 

renewable resources associated with special forest products (SFP) within the framework of ecosystem management” (USDA 2001b: iii). It also “provides guidance 

and direction for the Forest Service to manage SFP resources on National Forest 

System lands and provide assistance to State and private forest managers.” This 

strategy, along with the provisions outlined in FSH 2409.18 Chapter 80, effective 

date December 12, 2002, and discussed earlier in this report, constitute the agency’s 

most explicit national policy on NTFP management.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

14

Research Design

This study describes findings derived from a survey of NTFP management distributed to all ranger districts in the National Forest System during 2003. Survey 

questionnaires are a common data-gathering method used to obtain general information relatively quickly (see Bernard 2002 for a detailed discussion of the history, 

use, advantages, and disadvantages of survey research). Bernard (2002) notes that 

self-administered surveys work best when three conditions are met: respondents are 

literate, the likelihood is high that a large percentage of the potential respondents 

will return the completed survey, and answering the questions does not require 

visual aids or face-to-face interaction. Given that we had a reasonable expectation 

that these conditions could be met, and that we lacked the resources to carry out 

phone or face-to-face interviews, we adopted the self-administered survey approach 

to gather data on the Forest Service’s NTFP management efforts.

We designed the survey questionnaire to take from 30 to 45 minutes to complete. We included a mix of closed- and open-ended questions. Both the closed- and 

open-ended questions addressed key themes mentioned in the NTFP literature 

or issues that the survey designers had observed over many years of meetings, 

interviews, and participant observation related to NTFP management. Questions 

included in the survey questionnaire were developed on the basis of the authors’ 

interactions with Forest Service NTFP managers over the course of a decade. Our 

fieldwork between 1993 and 2003 associated with several NTFP-related projects 

(Jones 2002, Jones et al. 2004, Love et al. 1998, Lynch and McLain 2003, McLain 

2000) included discussions with NTFP managers on national forests and districts 

in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 (i.e., most of the Western and Southeastern United 

States). Using the information acquired during those visits, we refined the list of 

questions and the phrasing of each question. In addition, senior Forest Service managers and researchers provided feedback on the question sets prior to the survey’s 

distribution. 

A key weakness of closed-ended questions is that they result in information 

only about a specific set of predetermined items (Bernard 2002). As a result, the 

closed-ended question format usually does not provide a way for informants to easily share other information that they might consider more relevant or more important. We thus used open-ended questions for those aspects of NTFP management 

where the range of possible answers was difficult to determine in advance given the 

geographic scope of the survey. 

The USDA Forest Service is a large multilevel agency that was undergoing 

office consolidations and closures throughout the period in which the surveys were 

administered. The size and shifting nature of the agency led us to approach the 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

15

national headquarters to distribute the survey. We sent the survey out as an email 

attachment from the Washington office under a directive signed by the Associate 

Deputy Chief. The email survey was distributed to all district rangers in the system. 

By 2003, the Forest Service had developed a culture of using email to communicate 

within the agency, and thus one could reasonably assume that email would be an 

effective method for delivering the survey. We conducted one round of followup 

emails 2 months after the initial survey to elicit responses from districts that had 

not submitted a response to the initial email request.6 The limited funding available for the study precluded additional followup, as well as an investigation of 

nonresponding districts to determine how those districts might have differed from 

responding districts in their responses.7

Study Objectives and Survey Topics

We viewed this survey as an exploratory data-gathering process aimed at constructing a rudimentary picture of the Forest Service NTFP programs across the country. 

We asked respondents to provide information on the following aspects of NTFP 

management (app. 1): 

• Major types of products harvested.

• Types of mechanisms used for allocating access to different categories 

of NTFPs.

• Presence of NTFP concerns in key planning and decision documents. 

• Presence of NTFP program managers and law enforcement. 

• Presence of NTFP inventory and monitoring. 

• Barriers to implementing NTFP inventory and monitoring.

• Presence of systems for tracking the effects of NTFP management 

on biodiversity. 

• Managers’ familiarity with the USDA Forest Service national NTFP strategy.

• Managers’ familiarity with three information resources developed through 

collaborative partnerships between the USDA Forest Service and the Institute 

for Culture and Ecology (i.e., two books and one Internet database).

• Barriers to and opportunities for including harvesters in NTFP inventory 

and monitoring.

• Barriers to expanding commercial NTFP harvesting on national forest lands.

6A more rigorous followup effort would likely have yielded a higher response rate; however, 

the methods used are adequate for an exploratory study.

7Determining response bias is critical when implementing a statistically robust survey design; 

it is, however, not necessarily indicated for an exploratory survey.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

16

Units of Analysis

Selecting the appropriate administrative units for analysis was complicated, and involved making a difficult tradeoff. Ranger districts and national forests constituted 

the two logical choices for analysis units.8 We did not include national grasslands or 

stand-alone national recreation areas in the analysis owing to the added complexity their inclusion would have meant for analysis and the limited time and funding 

available. The question we faced was whether to administer the surveys to the 

individual ranger districts and then aggregate the district data to the national forest 

when reporting our findings, or administer the surveys directly to the national forest units and avoid the complications of aggregating that data to national forests. 

Ranger districts are administrative subunits of national forests, and thus are 

dependent on forest and regional directives for guidance. However, historically, 

district rangers and their staffs have enjoyed considerable autonomy from both forest supervisor and regional offices in their day-to-day decisionmaking. The Forest 

Service tends to establish broad management and policy guidelines at the national, 

regional, and forest level. The agency then grants the ranger districts leeway in 

developing local practices as long as they fit within the framework of those guidelines. Ethnographic fieldwork on the part of the research team members prior to and 

during the surveys indicated that district managers often are more familiar with 

on-the-ground NTFP harvesting activities than are national forest managers (Jones 

2002, Jones et al. 2004, McLain 2000). Because most of the interaction between 

harvesters and foresters takes place at the district level, we opted to administer the 

survey to districts.9

On the other hand, conducting a survey of district NTFP managers posed a 

number of logistical and analytical difficulties. The Forest Service has undergone 

a series of administrative consolidations during the past two decades, with some 

districts combining some of their functions and others becoming essentially one 

administrative unit while maintaining separate public identities. Determining which 

districts are administratively separate entities and which are linked (and how they 

are linked) administratively with neighboring districts is very time-consuming.10

We opted to aggregate district data into national forest data for analysis to address 

this issue, and the needs of managers and policymakers for forest-level reporting. 

8

The number of ranger districts per forest differs greatly, ranging from 2 or 3 in many national 

forests to as many as 10 in the Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest in Nevada.

9Chamberlain’s (2000) and Emery’s (1998) work in eastern national forests supports the notion 

that districts constitute the primary point of interface between harvesters and the Forest 

Service.

10A number of national forests also have combined administrative functions during the past 

decade.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

17

However, as we did not obtain data or a response from every district for every 

forest, the aggregated data constitute only a partial representation of what is taking place on the reporting national forests.11 Thus, we report only presence data 

for forest analyses. For example, with our data set we can make statements such 

as “Respondents from 60 percent of the reporting national forests listed berries as 

important products.” However, because the forest data are partial for many cases, 

we cannot draw the conclusion that respondents on the remaining 40 percent of 

reporting forests do not consider berries an important product. 

Response Rates 

We received responses for 218 of 531 ranger districts, a district response rate of 41 

percent (app. 2). These districts were distributed across 81 national forests. In addition, staff from three national forest supervisors offices (George Washington-Jefferson, Modoc, and Nez Perce) did not provide district breakdowns in their answers. 

Including the responses from these three forests with the 81 national forests from 

which we had district responses, 84 national forests, or 77 percent of national forests, participated in the survey.12 13 Regional response rates for the national forests 

are described in table 2. Limited financial resources did not permit us to conduct a 

sample survey of nonresponding districts to determine how their programs differed from responding districts. Our conclusions thus apply only to those districts 

and forests that responded to the survey and cannot be generalized to all districts 

or forests in the National Forest System. In the following sections, we provide 

regional breakdowns for some of the survey answers. However, because we did not 

use a random sample approach to gathering the data, it is not possible to determine 

whether the differences among national forests in different regions are statistically 

significant or merely the result of random variation within small sample sizes. 

11Tim Max, statistician with the Pacific Northwest Research Station, advised that as we were 

tallying results on a presence basis only, aggregating to national forests constituted the best 

approach to analyzing the data set.

12We contacted each of the regions to obtain figures for the number of ranger districts and 

national forests. This process yielded a list of 531 ranger districts and 109 national forests. The 

district and forest response rates are within the standard expectations of 30 to 40 percent for a 

mail survey (Parfitt 1997).

13The USDA FS Internet home page (USDA FS 2005a) states that the National Forest System 

comprises 155 national forests and 20 grasslands. A list of the forests and grasslands is located 

at www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory/nfs.html (USDA FS 2003). In practice, several national forests, such as the Okanogan and Wenatchee, have combined their administrative functions. We 

excluded all of the national grasslands and treated any combined forests as one national forest. 

This process yielded 109 as the base figure for the total number of national forests in 2003. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

18

Data Processing and Analysis

We began analyzing the survey results by entering the responses into a spreadsheet. 

We copied the information from each questionnaire directly into the spreadsheet, 

including full text responses to the open-ended questions. Given the quantity and 

length of some of the responses, we then developed coding systems to handle the 

text answers. The code lists were arrived at through independent coding by two 

researchers, who then reconciled differences on a case-by-case basis to produce one 

master list. They then coded the remaining questionnaires by using the master list. 

We used the spreadsheet’s sorting function to assist us in aggregating the 

district data into forest data. We then transferred the forest data into a statistical 

database for further analysis. 

We also developed a district database to analyze the questions dealing with 

district data, such as presence of a district NTFP coordinator and district-level 

NTFP law enforcement, which we could not easily aggregate into forest data. We 

then ran frequency distributions and cross-tabulations on key variables by using the 

data analysis function within the software program. We excluded missing values 

from all calculations.

Limitations of the Study 

Bernard (2002) noted that self-administered questionnaires reduce interviewer 

bias, as all respondents answer the same questions. However, in a self-administered 

Table 2—Survey response rate by region

National forests 

Total with at least one 

Region national forests district response Response rate

 Percent

1 12 8 75

2 11 9 82

3 11 8 73

4 13 8 62

5 17 11 65

6 16 12 75

8 13 13 100

9 14 13 93

10 2 2 100

All 109 84 77
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

19

survey, the survey designers have no control over how people interpret the questions and are not available to clarify questions. As a result, the findings need to be 

treated cautiously. For example, many respondents indicated that their districts collaborate with harvesters in NTFP management. However, collaboration is a broad 

term that could encompass a variety of agency-harvester interactions, ranging from 

casual conversations between NTFP program managers and people seeking NTFP 

harvesting permits to complex, participatory inventory and monitoring of NTFP 

species. 

The survey findings provide only a coarse-grained snapshot of what NTFP 

programs on the reporting national forests look like. Other research methods, geographically limited case studies, or stratified random sample surveys would capture 

more of the complexity of these programs.

NTFP Products or Species

During the past two decades, scientists have published a number of studies about 

NTFP harvesting and management in the United States. However, most studies 

encompass relatively small geographic areas, such as portions of states (Danielsen 

and Gilbert 2002, Emery 1998, Fisher 2002, Hansis 1998, London 2002, Love et al. 

1998, McLain 2000, Weigand 1997) or a geographical region or two (Chamberlain 

et al. 2002, Hosford et al. 1997, Schlosser and Blatner 1995, Schroeder 2002).14

Consequently, we were interested in clarifying the extent to which NTFP harvesting takes place on public forests throughout the United States.15 We thus asked 

survey respondents to list the five most important NTFPs harvested on their district 

or forest. We purposefully did not define the term “nontimber forest product” so 

14Teel and Buck’s (2002) work on agroforestry and NTFPs addresses four regions (the Pacific 

Northwest, the Midwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast).

15The surveys measure only the extent to which national forest employees are aware of NTFP 

harvesting taking place on the lands they administer. In practice, our fieldwork (Jones 2002, 

Jones et al. 2004, McLain 2000) and similar work by Emery (1998) in Michigan’s Upper 

Peninsula strongly suggest that many forest managers are unaware of the extent of NTFP 

harvesting taking place on the lands they manage. The harvesters interviewed during that 

study mentioned 473 products and species (Jones et al. 2004).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

20

as to avoid biasing the results by imposing on the respondents our concept of what 

constitutes an NTFP.16

Respondents listed 132 products or species (see app. 3 for a full list of the products and species).17 To facilitate analysis of the data set, we grouped the products 

and species into 21 categories (table 3). We could not calculate the total number of 

botanical species encompassed by the product lists because most respondents used 

generic product terms, such as moss, floral greens, or bark that potentially consist 

of many species.18 Additionally, respondents provided information only about the 

five NTFPs that they considered most important for their district or forest, rather 

than a comprehensive list of every product or species harvested. The number of 

products or species actually harvested on national forests around the country is thus 

likely higher than the number of products and species mentioned.19

The survey data demonstrate that NTFP harvesting takes place in all regions 

of the United States. Figure 2 depicts the percentage of reporting national forests 

for which at least one respondent mentioned various types of NTFPs among the 

five most important NTFPs. Firewood, posts and poles, and Christmas trees figured 

16The term “special forest products” was the dominant term in use by the Forest Service at the 

time we conducted the survey. We thus used the term in the survey itself, although we use the 

term NTFP in this analysis. Adding a definition would have imposed outside categories on the 

respondents. Our fieldwork suggests that, despite official agency definitions, field managers 

treat a variety of products as SFPs. Some field managers include sand, rock, and gravel in their 

conceptions of what constitutes an SFP even though the authority for managing such products 

comes under different CFRs than for vegetative products (i.e., minerals fall under 36 CFR 

228.62 and FSM 2852). Others include ceremonial house logs, very small amounts of timber 

(known in the West as salvage logs), antlers, and insects in their conceptions of what constitutes an NTFP, even though such products are explicitly excluded in the agency’s definition 

of NTFPs. By not imposing a definition, we were much more likely to capture a full range of 

variation of what field managers actually consider NTFPs. Moreover, on many districts there 

is no special forest products program per se. On some districts, NTFPs are managed through 

the small sales program; on other districts they are managed through special uses programs, 

on still other districts they are managed through the cultural resources program. The products 

conceptualized as “special forest products” thus may differ based on the type of program such 

products are managed under.

17The full product list consists of the terms used by the respondents. Some of the terms 

potentially entail overlap (i.e., boughs and boughs-conifer may refer to the same product). 

However, some of the terms that appear to refer to the same product (i.e., boughs-cedar and 

boughs-conifer) could also represent two distinct products (for example, boughs-cedar could 

refer to boughs harvested for grave blankets, whereas boughs-conifer could refer to noble fir 

boughs used to make wreaths). Moreover, terms such as “mushrooms” and “medicinal plants” 

could, and most likely do, encompass multiple species.

18Both product and species data are important, as multiple products can be derived from one 

species.

19In a study of NTFP harvesting on the Hiawatha National Forest, Emery (1998) found that 

Forest Service employees could list only six NTFP products that people harvested on the forest. In contrast, the harvesters she interviewed named 138 NTFPs derived from 100 different 

species (Emery 1998). 

The survey data 

demonstrate that NTFP 

harvesting takes place 

in all regions of the 

United States.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

21

Table 3—Nontimber forest product categories

Product categories

Animal productsa Craft woodc Mushrooms

Bark Edible plants Needles

Botanical specimens Firewood Sand, rock, and graveld

Boughs Floral greens Saps and resins

Christmas trees Medicinal plants Seeds

Cones Miscellaneous plants Transplants

Construction woodb Moss General/miscellaneous

aMost definitions of NTFPs exclude animal products, such as hides, furs, and meat. However, several 

respondents mentioned deer and elk antlers in the surveys. 

bMany national forests conduct sales of very small quantities of logs through their NTFP programs. 

In many cases, the logs are harvested for special uses, such as cedar logs for building traditional 

canoes by northwestern Indian tribes or oak logs for the construction of ceremonial structures by 

members of southwestern Indian tribes. 

c

Many national forests also sell very small quantities of wood used as raw materials for craftwork. 

For example, national forests in the Pacific Northwest often sell stumps and burls to small-scale 

furniture makers.

dMost definitions of NTFPs are restricted to botanical products; however, many national forests 

manage sand, rock, and gravel under their NTFP programs.

Figure 2—Products harvested on national forests.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

22

on the lists of the five most important NTFPs on 50 percent or more of the reporting national forests (table 4). Transplants, boughs, and wild mushrooms appeared 

as important products on between one-third to one-half of the reporting national 

forests. All of the remaining product categories were listed as among the most 

important NTFPs by less than one-third of national forests. 

An analysis of the product categories listed by region revealed regional differences (table 5). For example, respondents listed Christmas trees as important 

products on the reporting forests in all regions except the Southern United States 

(Region 8). Posts and poles, which reporting national forests in most regions listed 

as important, were mentioned by respondents from only a small percentage of the 

reporting forests in Region 9 (Northeast). Mushrooms figured commonly as important NTFPs on reporting national forests in just three regions, all in the West. Cones 

appeared as important products in relatively few of the reporting forests in most 

regions, but were listed by respondents from most of the Pacific Southwest forests 

(Region 5). Respondents from more than half of the reporting Southern forests 

(Region 8) mentioned both miscellaneous plants and medicinal plants among the 

important NTFPs harvested on their forest, but only a small percentage of respondents from other parts of the country listed medicinal plants as important. 

Table 4—Five most frequently listed NTFP product categories by region

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5

Firewood Firewood Firewood Posts and poles Christmas trees

Post and poles Transplants Posts and poles Firewood Cones

Christmas trees Posts and poles Christmas trees Christmas trees Firewood

Transplants Christmas trees Transplants Transplants Mushrooms

Mushrooms Rock, sand and Boughs; edible plants; Boughs Posts and gravel; seedsa miscellaneous plants; poles; boughsa

 mushrooms; seedsa

Region 6 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10b All regions

Firewood Firewood Firewood Craft wood Firewood

Christmas trees Misc. plants Christmas trees Boughs Christmas trees

Mushrooms Medicinal plants Medicinal plants Bark Posts and poles

Floral greens Craft wood Mushrooms Edible plants Transplants

Transplants; Posts and poles; Boughs Firewood Edible plants

 posts and polesa transplantsa

aProducts with identical percentages within specified region.

bData available for only one forest.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

23

Table 5—Distribution of NTFP product types by region

National forests in region with at least one response

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R8 R9 R10 All

Product type (N=8) (N=9) (N=8) (N=8) (N=10) (N=12) (N=13) (N=13) (N=2) (N=83)

Percent of participating national forests

Animal products 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1

Bark 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 15 50 6

Botanical specimen 0 0 0 0 20 0 8 0 0 4

Boughs 50 22 25 38 50 42 31 39 100 39

Edible plants 13 0 25 25 0 17 23 23 50 17

Christmas trees 75 67 88 88 70 83 15 69 50 66

Cones 0 11 13 13 70 17 31 0 0 19

Construction wood 0 22 13 13 0 0 8 8 0 7

Craft wood 0 22 13 13 0 8 46 8 100 17

Firewood 100 89 100 88 60 92 77 92 50 86

Floral greens 13 11 13 13 40 58 23 23 0 25

Misc. plants 0 11 25 13 10 17 54 31 0 22

Moss 0 0 13 0 10 0 39 23 0 12

Medicinal plants 0 11 13 0 10 8 54 46 0 21

Rock, sand, gravel 25 33 13 25 10 0 0 23 0 15

Mushrooms 63 22 25 25 60 67 8 39 0 37

Needles 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 4

Saps and resins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 5

Posts and poles 88 78 100 63 50 50 39 23 0 55

Seeds 0 33 25 25 20 0 0 8 0 12

Transplants 63 89 88 75 10 50 39 23 0 49

NTFP Program Administration and Enforcement

A major theme in the NTFP literature is the lack of capacity within the Forest 

Service to administer NTFP programs and enforce regulations governing NTFP 

harvesting and buying activities (Anderson et al. 2000, Chamberlain et al. 2002, 

Jones et al. 2004, Lynch and McLain 2003, McLain 2000, Parks and Schmitt 1997, 

Richards and Creasy 1996, Robbins 1999). Our research during the 1990s on 

Forest Service NTFP programs in Region 6 (Washington and Oregon) indicated 

that districts differed considerably with respect to the personnel allocated to NTFP 

management.20 For example, some districts invested resources in funding full-time 

20One of the authors participated in meetings of the Western Oregon Special Forest Products 

Council, an ad hoc committee composed of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

employees between 1994 and 1998, and in regionwide NTFP conferences held in 1994, 1995, 

and 1998. Two of the authors organized and participated in a regionwide NTFP conference 

for Forest Service employees and harvesters in 2002. Two of the authors also conducted 

ethnographic research on wild mushroom policies and management practices in the Pacific 

Northwest, including those applied to national forest lands, between 1995 and 2002 (McLain 

2000, 2002; Jones 2002).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

24

or near full-time employees to coordinate their NTFP programs, whereas others 

allocated little or no funding specifically for NTFP management responsibilities. 

Similarly, some districts had worked out strategies, often in collaboration with 

county and state law enforcement agencies, to support law enforcement efforts 

aimed specifically at enforcing rules governing access to NTFPs. As described 

earlier, the primary access allocation mechanisms include permits, leases, sales 

contracts, and stewardship contracts. Enforcement thus centers around ensuring 

that harvesters obtain legal authorization to harvest NTFPs and that they comply 

with conditions associated with their permit, lease, or contract. In addition, some 

Forest Service ranger districts or national forests actively regulate camping and 

buying activities associated with NTFP harvesting on national forest lands. 

We reasoned that the presence of an NTFP coordinator, NTFP law enforcement, or both on a district serves as an indicator, albeit limited, of the district’s 

capacity to administer and enforce its NTFP program. We thus asked respondents 

to the surveys to indicate whether their district has an NTFP coordinator and an 

NTFP law enforcement program. To determine whether there have been changes 

in the volume of NTFP permitting over time, we also asked respondents to indicate 

whether their district issued more or fewer permits between 1999 and 2003. We 

selected 1999 as the base year owing to the possibility that some ranger districts 

might have changed their permitting practices in response to the passage of Section 

339 legislation in 1999 regarding botanical forest products. 

NTFP Coordination and Law Enforcement

Respondents for 66 percent of the reporting districts stated that their district had a 

designated NTFP coordinator (fig. 3).21 22 As indicated in figure 3, the regions differ 

substantially in terms of the percentage of reporting districts with NTFP coordinators. Regions 2 (Rocky Mountain), 5 (Pacific Southwest), and 9 (Eastern) had the 

smallest percentage of districts with NTFP coordinators; Regions 1 (Northern), 6 

(Pacific Northwest), and 10 (Alaska) had the highest percentage of districts with 

NTFP coordinators. 

Sixty-one percent of the responding districts reported the presence of districtlevel law enforcement for NTFPs (fig. 4). The percentage of districts listing district 

NTFP law enforcement was lowest in Regions 2 (Rocky Mountain), 5 (Pacific 

21The questions analyzed in this section deal specifically with district-level NTFP program 

coordination and law enforcement. We thus analyzed the data solely for districts rather than 

aggregating to national forests.

22Our experience with NTFP programs in Region 6 during the past 10 years suggests that fulltime positions dedicated to NTFP programming are rare. Most NTFP coordinators carry out 

NTFP-related activities as part of a set of broader resource management responsibilities.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

25

Figure 3—Presence of district-level NTFP coordinators by region.

Figure 4—Presence of district-level NTFP law enforcement by region.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

26

Southwest), and 10 (Alaska) and highest in Regions 3 (Southwestern), 4 (Intermountain), 6 (Pacific Northwest), and 8 (Southern).23

NTFP Permitting Changes

Respondents from 50 percent of the districts reported an increase in the number of 

permits they had issued, whereas respondents from 46 percent of the districts noted 

a decline (fig. 5). The remaining respondents indicated either that permit activity 

had remained stable or did not know what changes had taken place. 

The regions differed in terms of changes observed in NTFP permitting levels. 

Many of the regions in the Western United States noted an increase in the number 

of NTFP permits. In contrast, most of the districts in the Eastern and Midwestern 

United States stated that the number of NTFP permits issued had decreased. The 

survey data do not permit us to determine whether declines in permitting activity were due to a decline in demand for NTFP products or to changes in district 

policies that restricted the issuance of permits. Likewise it is unclear whether the 

reported increases in permitting activity were due to an increase in the number of 

people harvesting NTFPs, to changes in district policies that required permits for 

activities previously allowed to take place without permits, or to an improvement in 

the districts’ capacity to ensure compliance with permit requirements. 

NTFPs in Resource Management Planning

The Forest Service has an implicit mandate under a variety of statutes, including 

the NEPA and NFMA, to include discussions of NTFPs in forest planning documents. These documents include, among others, forest plans (also referred to as 

land and resource management plans), environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and a host of other large- and small-scale planning documents, 

such as watershed analyses, social impact assessments, landscape analyses, and 

biological assessments. We included several questions on the survey about the 

inclusion of NTFPs in commonly used planning documents. We also incorporated a 

question about the existence of NTFP documents. 

Incorporation of NTFPs in Forest Planning Processes

Forest plans constitute the key documents guiding management decisions on 

national forests. Respondents on 87 percent of the reporting national forests indicated that their forest plan included discussion of NTFPs (fig. 6). Respondents on 

67 percent of the reporting national forests stated that their forest included NTFPs 

23As with NTFP program coordination, it is likely that most NTFP law enforcement takes 

place within the framework of broader law enforcement duties. 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

27

Figure 5—Changes in number of permits, 1999 to 2003.

Figure 6—Inclusion of NTFPs in forest planning documents.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

28

in environmental assessments (EA).24 Respondents from only 39 percent of the 

reporting national forests, however, indicated that their forest included NTFPs in 

environmental impact statements. Reporting national forests in Regions 1, 3, and 4 

had the highest rates of inclusion of NTFPs in the three major planning processes, 

whereas reporting national forests in Regions 5 and 9 had the lowest rates (fig. 7). 

Respondents also indicated that their forests addressed NTFP considerations in 

a broad spectrum of other planning documents (table 6). These ranged from documents needed to fulfill ESA and NEPA mandates to regional-level planning requirements (e.g., watershed analyses, landscape analyses, and social impact assessments) 

to fuel treatment and product management plans.

Figure 7—Inclusion of NTFPs in forest planning documents by region.

24Federal agencies conduct environmental assessments to determine if the potential social and 

ecological impacts of a site-specific management activity (e.g., logging, thinning, controlled 

burning, campground construction) warrant detailed examination through the development of 

an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

29

Table 6—Types of planning documents in which NTFPs are included

Analyses and assessments

ESAa documents NEPAb documents (other than ESA) Other documents

Biological assessment Categorical exclusion Adaptive management District special forest 

 area analysis product program plan

Biological evaluation Decision memo Cultural analysis Forest plan supplement

Jeopardy documents NEPA documents Landscape analysis Fuelwood action plan

 (site-specific)

Ozark-Ouachita Memoranda of understanding 

 Highlands assessment with tribal governments

Project analyses Moss analysis

Roads analyses Stand exams (lycopodium and fern)

Social impact assessment Timber theft prevention plan

Subsistence analysis Wild and scenic river plan

Watershed analysis

aEndangered Species Act

bNational Environmental Policy Act

NTFP Planning Documents

Respondents on 42 percent of reporting national forests indicated that their forest or 

district had prepared planning documents focused specifically on NTFPs. Survey 

respondents listed a wide spectrum of NTFP planning documents, ranging from 

site-specific biological and environmental assessments to forestwide NTFP policies 

and monitoring plans (table 7). 

Differences exist between regions in the degree to which reporting forests have 

developed NTFP planning documents, such as wild mushroom EAs, categorical 

exclusions for medicinal plants, and district and forest NTFP strategic plans (fig. 8). 

For example, respondents from almost two-thirds of the reporting forests in Region 

4 (63 percent) stated that their forests had developed such plans, compared to only 9 

percent of the reporting forests in Region 9.

Forest Managers’ Sources of Knowledge About NTFPs

We included questions regarding resource managers’ familiarity with selected 

NTFP information resources. We also asked respondents to provide information 

about NTFP inventory and monitoring efforts on their forests, as well as their 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

30

Table 7—NTFP planning documents

Types of planning documents

Biological evaluations

Budget plan

Categorical exclusions

Decision memos

Environmental analyses

Environmental assessments

Fuel treatment/fire plan

Forest monitoring plan

Interim special forest products policy

NEPA documents (unspecified)

NEPA documents (unspecified)

Product plans (firewood, Christmas trees,

 boughs, post and poles, log moss)

Postfire harvest plan for mushrooms

Management situation analysis

Viability analysis

Vegetation management analysis

Figure 8—Existence of NTFP-specific planning documents by region.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

31

perceptions of the contribution harvesters make, or could make, to NTFP management. The questions included yes-no and open-ended questions on the following 

topics:

• Familiarity with selected published and Internet resources on 

NTFP management. 

• Inventory and monitoring of NTFP species.

• Monitoring the ecological impacts of regulatory and nonregulatory 

NTFP management.

• Views about involving harvesters in inventory and monitoring.

• Views about harvesters as a source of NTFP knowledge for 

management.

• How personnel are already collaborating with harvesters.

Managers’ Familiarity With Selected Resources on NTFP 

Management and Policy

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Forest Service and the Institute for 

Culture and Ecology collaborated in the development of two texts and a Web site on 

NTFP management.25

We asked respondents if they had read the two texts, Nontimber Forest Products in the United States (Jones et al. 2002) and Non-Timber Forest Products: 

Medicinal Herbs, Fungi, Edible Fruit and Nuts, and Other Natural Products from 

the Forest (Emery and McLain 2001). Both texts emerged from a multiorganizational, multiyear national assessment funded in part by the Forest Service. Fewer 

than 20 percent of the reporting national forests had even one respondent who had 

read either book. 

We included a question on another product of the national assessment effort 

noted above, the Web site, “Nontimber forest products: United States” (www.ifcae.

org/ntfp/). Created in 1999, the Web site contains a national NTFP species database 

and an NTFP bibliographic database including all records from the Forest Service 

publication, Conservation and Development of Nontimber Forest Products in the 

Pacific Northwest: An Annotated Bibliography (von Hagen et al. 1996). At least one 

respondent from 25 percent of the reporting national forests stated that they had 

visited the Web site.

During the 1990s, the Forest Service developed and circulated a draft strategy 

for NTFPs, a document that the agency eventually published in 2001 under the title, 

25Other Web-based information resources on NTFPs available in 2003, but not addressed by 

this survey, included NTFP Web sites developed by Virginia Polytechnic University and the 

University of Minnesota.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

32

National Strategy for Special Forest Products (USDA FS 2001b). The developers 

of the strategy envisioned the document as a guiding framework for the agency’s 

NTFP management program (USDA FS 2001b: v). The authors also viewed the 

strategy as a potential resource for state, tribal, and private forest managers (USDA 

FS 2001b: v). Forty-three percent of the reporting national forests had at least one 

respondent who had read the strategy.

Knowledge From NTFP Inventory and Monitoring Efforts

Inventory and monitoring are important mechanisms by which natural resource 

managers and policymakers can potentially obtain information regarding the status 

of NTFP species. Inventorying is the process of quantifying single or multiple 

species in an area, whereas monitoring is the process of observation over time to 

detect changes (Kerns et al. 2002b: 238). Monitoring is done to determine whether 

a management action needs to be taken or changed, and typically monitoring efforts 

focus around measuring key indicators related to criteria of management change. 

Longitudinal data assembled through monitoring permits the identification of 

trends, which provide information about what management strategies or tactics (in 

some cases, doing nothing) will work to bring about the changes needed to attain a 

desired condition. 

Inventory and monitoring data are part of the foundation of scientific knowledge for informing sustainable forest management (Kerns et al. 2002a, 2002b). 

Therefore, we asked survey respondents if NTFP inventorying or monitoring took 

place on their districts.26 If they indicated yes, we requested additional information regarding the species or products inventoried or monitored, methods used to 

conduct inventories and monitoring, and the types of employees, volunteers, or 

contractors responsible for doing the work. This information served as an indicator 

of the extent to which forest managers have access to locally relevant, systematically gathered data for NTFP management. 

Respondents from 36 percent of the reporting national forests indicated that 

NTFP inventories take place on their forests, and respondents from 60 percent of 

26Inventory and monitoring (I&M) on districts can involve a number of administrative layers. 

Some districts conduct inventory and monitoring on their own; in other cases, the national 

forests and regions are the major implementers and funders of I&M projects taking place on 

ranger districts. In still other cases, multiple players, including districts, national forests, and 

regions are involved. In some situations, organizations other than the Forest Service also play 

key roles in developing and implementing inventory and monitoring on districts. For these 

reasons, we deliberately left the question open as to the scale at which the I&M taking place 

on the district was occurring (i.e., respondents could, and did, include I&M efforts occurring 

on their districts but initiated and supported at other administrative levels).
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

33

the reporting national forests indicated that NTFP monitoring occurred. On forests 

where inventories occurred, firewood was the NTFP most commonly inventoried 

(fig. 9), followed by posts and poles and Christmas trees.27

Figure 10 shows a breakdown of NTFP inventory and monitoring efforts by 

reporting national forests within each region. Forests from the Southwestern Region 

(Region 3) had the highest incidence of both inventories (63 percent) and monitoring (88 percent). The forests from the Pacific Southwest (Region 5) had the lowest 

incidence of inventories (27 percent) and monitoring (27 percent). 

Figure 9—Products inventoried and monitored.

27Respondents from 25 percent of the reporting national forests reported that they inventoried 

tree products, and respondents from 14 percent of the reporting forests indicated that inventories for general NTFPs took place. However, we could not accurately categorize the specific 

products included in these general terms, and thus opted to leave them out of the analysis.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

34

Figure 10—NTFP Inventory and monitoring by region.

Respondents on the 28 reporting national forests that indicated NTFP inventories took place listed 14 inventory methods (app. 4). We condensed these into 

four major categories to facilitate data analysis. The four categories were biological 

studies, informal field checks, permits, and cultural resource surveys. Respondents 

on the 35 reporting national forests where NTFP monitoring took place listed 10 

monitoring methods. We grouped these methods into the same categories used for 

analyzing the data about inventory methods (appendix 4 lists all of the monitoring 

methods).28 As indicated in figure 11, on the majority of reporting national forests, 

monitoring methods consisted of permit compliance checks (i.e., field visits to see 

if harvesters had obtained permission from the agency to remove products from 

a specified site) and informal visual checks of harvested areas during or after the 

harvest. Respondents from 38 percent of the reporting forests mentioned the use of 

biological studies. 

28None of the respondents mentioned cultural resource surveys as a method for monitoring NTFP, thus the analysis shows the results for only three monitoring method categories: 

biological studies, informal field checks, and permits. 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

35

Figure 11—Methods of NTFP inventory and monitoring.

29This category included diverse positions, including front desk personnel, engineers, and 

wildlife biologists. We grouped the wildlife biologists and technicians separately from the 

biological scientist category, which included specialists with backgrounds in plant or fungal 

studies, such as botanists, ecologists, and mycologists.

Biological studies were the most commonly listed monitoring method among 

the reporting national forests (fig. 11). Respondents from a small percentage of 

reporting forests (10 percent) indicated that NTFP inventorying was done as a part 

of cultural resource surveys. Such surveys are often used to inventory NTFPs of 

importance to Native American cultures, such as beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax

(Pursh) Nutt.), which is harvested on national forests by some Western tribes for 

basket making. 

Respondents from the reporting forests where NTFP inventorying occurred 

listed 15 types of people responsible for conducting inventories (app. 5). We condensed these into five major categories: Forest Service biological scientist, Forest 

Service forester, Forest Service vegetation team, other Forest Service personnel,29

and non-Forest Service personnel. Respondents from the reporting forests where 

NTFP monitoring took place listed 24 types of people who carried out monitoring 

activities (app. 5). We condensed these into the same five categories as for inventories, and added a sixth category, law enforcement personnel. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

36

Foresters were most commonly listed as the persons responsible for conducting 

inventory and monitoring (fig. 12). Respondents from 15 percent of the reporting 

forests mentioned biological scientists as the persons responsible for doing inventories (fig. 12). Interpreting the survey data is difficult without additional information 

regarding the training of the persons involved in the inventories and monitoring, 

because people with a variety of scientific backgrounds hold positions labeled 

“forester” or “forest technician” in the Forest Service. 

Monitoring of Ecological Impacts of 

Nonregulatory NTFP Management

We included a question on the 2003 survey to help determine the extent to which 

forest managers invest time and resources in assessing the effects of NTFP 

harvesting on biodiversity. We asked survey respondents whether their district or 

forest conducted ecological monitoring to determine the effects of regulatory 

(e.g., permits) and nonregulatory (e.g., fire prescriptions for berry production) 

NTFP management activities on biodiversity. The results indicate that ecological 

monitoring is taking place on at least 53 percent of the reporting national forests 

(fig. 13).

Figure 12—Who inventories and monitors NTFPs.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

37

Patterns among regions for monitoring ecological impacts of NTFP management activities follow a pattern similar to NTFP inventory and monitoring (fig. 13). 

Forests reporting from the Southwestern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest 

Regions had the highest percentage of forests conducting NTFP inventory and 

monitoring, and forests reporting from Region 5 (Pacific Southwest) had the lowest 

percentage.

Respondents listed four types of ecological impacts: impacts on cultural 

resources, ecological resources, wildlife, and NTFPs (fig. 14). In addition, a small 

number of respondents noted that their forests conducted ecological monitoring of 

NTFP activities as a means to track ecological trends. As with the NTFP inventory 

and monitoring question discussed above, the respondents interpreted the term 

“ecological monitoring” to include a range of activities ranging from informal 

checks of harvest areas, general site inspections, and permit tracking to scientific 

field plots and surveys (fig. 15). Informal field checks constituted the major method 

used by the national forests to monitor ecological impacts of NTFP management. 

Figure 13—Monitoring of ecological impacts of NTFP management by region.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

38

Survey respondents mentioned 23 types of people responsible for carrying 

out monitoring activities aimed at measuring the ecological impacts of NTFP 

management (app. 6). We condensed these into five categories corresponding to 

those developed for the questions on NTFP inventories and monitoring.30 As with 

the previous inventory and monitoring questions, respondents from the majority of 

the reporting forests where ecological impact monitoring occurred most commonly 

listed foresters as the persons responsible for carrying out such work (fig. 16). 

Manager Perspectives on Involving Harvesters in 

Inventory and Monitoring

This survey was conducted as part of a larger project examining the feasibility 

of developing participatory, multistakeholder NTFP inventory and monitoring 

programs. We asked survey respondents to provide their perspective on whether or 

not harvesters could contribute to NTFP inventory and monitoring on their forest. 

As indicated in figure 17, respondents on a majority of the reporting national forests 

Figure 14—Types of ecological impacts monitored.

30The category “vegetation team” was not listed by any of the respondents to this question.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

39

stated that harvesters could contribute to NTFP inventorying (58 percent) and 

monitoring (54 percent). 

We also asked respondents to explain why they thought harvesters could or 

could not be involved in inventory and monitoring. Respondents provided seven 

types of answers (app. 7) for why harvesters could be involved. We condensed these 

responses into the following five major categories (listed by order of frequency of 

forests with yes responses): harvesters have knowledge, they could provide labor, 

they could improve business and management (of NTFPs), they could assist law 

enforcement with monitoring, and they have an interest in inventory and monitoring 

(fig. 18). 

As the following quotes from survey respondents indicate, managers who supported harvester involvement emphasized the knowledge that harvesters have 

to offer, as well as the fact that harvesters are already out on the ground, as reasons 

for encouraging their participation:

• They could easily describe locations where they are harvesting and 

make sure it [harvesting] is done in a sustainable manner. They 

Figure 15—Methods of ecological impact monitoring.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

40

Figure 16—Who does ecological impact monitoring?

Figure 17—Views on whether harvesters could contribute to inventory and monitoring.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

41

could also inform the FS on situations where over-harvesting by

other gatherers is happening.

• Commercial harvesters have knowledge of what species and products 

are available in the district and the amounts available. This information is valuable for inventorying products. They can provide valuable 

information on the effectiveness of harvest amounts and methods of 

promoting long-term viability of species.

• Native seed collectors are knowledgeable and do provide appropriate 

inventory and monitoring of the species they collect. 

Several Forest Service respondents, such as the two employees quoted 

below, offered examples of how harvesters are already involved in NTFP inventory and monitoring, as well as other aspects of NTFP management: 

• A local nonprofit group.... has a very strong working relationship with 

SFP harvesters. In conversations with this group, they encourage the 

active participation of harvesters in the monitoring of SFP populations. 

• Sassafras harvesters are able to track supply in areas. Fuel wood harvesters already help clean up timber sale areas and reduce fuel hazards. 

Respondents who indicated that harvesters could not contribute to NTFP 

inventory and monitoring provided 31 different types of answers (app. 8), which 

we condensed into eight major categories (fig. 19). These categories included the 

Forest Service’s lack of funding for such activities, lack of Forest Service capacity 

to organize such work, perception that NTFP inventory and monitoring is unnecessary, political obstacles (internal and external), negative perceptions of the ability 

of harvesters to carry out such work, perception that harvesters did not have the 

Figure 18—Reasons for including harvesters in inventory and monitoring.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

42

ability or interest in doing NTFP inventory and monitoring, limited or no commercial harvesters, and other. The reasons most commonly cited by order of frequency 

were that the survey respondents believed the Forest Service lacked the capacity to 

involve harvesters in such activities, and that they believed harvesters lacked the 

ability or willingness to do such work. The quotes by survey respondents shown in 

table 8 illustrate some of the reservations regarding the involvement of harvesters in 

NTFP inventory and monitoring.

Agency Use of Harvester Knowledge 

and Collaboration With Harvesters

Ethnographic studies of contemporary NTFP harvesters indicate that many harvesters are knowledgeable about the ecological characteristics of the resources they 

harvest and the ecological conditions of their harvesting sites (Emery 1998, Jones 

2002, Jones et al. 2004, Love et al. 1998, McLain 2000, Richards 1997, Turner and 

Cocksedge 2001). These studies, as well as others (McLain 2002), also demonstrate 

that forest managers may not include, or discount the importance of including, 

harvesters in forest management and planning. To assess the degree to which these 

Figure 19—Reasons for not involving harvesters in inventory and monitoring.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

43

site-specific findings apply to other areas of the country, we asked survey respondents to indicate whether harvesters contributed to NTFP management on their 

forests. 

Respondents on 56 percent of the 84 reporting national forests stated that 

harvesters contributed knowledge that helps NTFP management in their area; and 

respondents on 38 percent of the reporting forests indicated that Forest Service 

employees are currently collaborating with harvesters. 

We did not ask respondents to elaborate on the nature of agency-harvester collaborations. However, comments provided on open-ended questions indicate that, at 

Table 8—Forest managers’ reservations about harvester involvement

Concerns about harvesters’ abilities

Commercial harvesters in this area typically do not have the means or the knowledge 

to conduct proper inventories. They could contribute to monitoring by providing 

accurate collection data. 

[Data] needs to be collected in a scientifically useful manner. They could provide 

input and information to the design team and therefore contribute, but I don’t see 

them collecting data. 

Concerns about harvester bias

Commercial harvesters would only be of limited value in inventorying since they 

tend to focus on the best areas with the highest value product. Harvesters also are 

reluctant to share any information about areas where they traditionally harvest 

products. Monitoring would be biased as the harvesters have difficulty identifying 

areas where their operations could be having an adverse effect. 

Lack of trust and incentives for harvesters

The limited availability [of product] has reduced the interest expressed by contractors 

to provide inventory and monitoring information.

It is doubtful that they would because collectors tend to be secretive of their source 

locations owing to competition, especially with regard to ginseng. 

Lack of capacity within the Forest Service

Information is welcome, but we first need to develop a system to make such 

information useful.

No inventory protocols exist, and no personnel to develop them. The only 

commercial special forest products (SFP) permits issued are for boughs. It would 

take some additional involvement to coordinate with permittees. With no support or 

money, it does not happen now. There is an opportunity to increase the SFP program, 

both for personal use and commercial use on the forest, but it has not been funded.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

44

a minimum, collaboration consists of harvesters informing forest employees about 

resource conditions, quantities of NTFPs gathered, and unpermitted harvesting. 

Some examples of these comments are listed below: 

• Commercial harvesters often provide information as to progress 

of harvesting activities and conditions.

• Commercial harvesters of SFPs help [increase] Forest Service 

awareness of commercially desired products and their locations.

• Most of the recent inventory [data] comes from harvesters.

• They could help, and do, where there is overgathering and 

poaching.

• They provide feedback on availability and conditions.

As noted earlier in this section, some harvesters also assist Forest Service 

employees in inventory and monitoring efforts.

Expanding Commercial NTFP Harvesting 

on National Forests

In the early 1990s, the Forest Service funded several studies that examined the 

economic development possibilities associated with expanding NTFP harvesting and processing (Mater Engineering 1992, Schlosser et al. 1991, Thomas and 

Schulmann 1993). Several years later, researchers funded through the Forest 

Service research branch explored the economic opportunities for managing forests 

jointly for timber and a variety of NTFPs (Pilz et al. 1999, Schlosser and Blatner 

1997, Weigand 1997). The Forest Service research branch has also funded research 

aimed at developing methods for inventorying commercially important NTFPs 

(Kerns et al. 2002a, Vance et al. 2001) and predicting productivity of edible mushrooms (Pilz et al. 2002). Since the early 1990s, the Forest Service has also supported efforts to develop methods for assessing the ecological impacts of harvesting 

high-value commercial NTFPs on national forests (Ballard 2004, Chamberlain 

2000, Hart et al. 2004, Hosford et al. 1997, USDA FS 2001a, Spero and Fleming 

2002). The agency also funded Emery’s (1998) work on NTFP livelihood strategies in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and Chamberlain’s (2000) study of NTFP 

management on Eastern national forests.

We included several questions on the survey questionnaire aimed at describing the range of perspectives among the respondents regarding the possibilities for 

expanding commercial NTFP harvesting in the areas in which they work. We asked 

respondents to list the barriers they thought existed to increasing commercial NTFP 

harvesting. We also asked them to describe proactive nonregulatory activities used 

on their districts to enhance NTFP productivity. Such activities might include the 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

45

use of controlled burns to enhance wild blueberry (Vaccinnium spp.) patch production, thinning the forest canopy to promote huckleberry production, or maintaining 

a dense forest canopy to produce market-quality salal leaves. 

Given the importance of inventory and monitoring and the link between NTFPs 

and biodiversity we also asked respondents who reported that ecological impact 

monitoring occurred on their forest to indicate whether the monitoring activities 

had revealed positive or negative effects on biodiversity. We also asked each respondent to describe any barriers to conducting NTFP inventory and monitoring on 

his or her district.

Barriers to Expanding Commercial Harvesting

Respondents listed 32 types of barriers to expanding commercial harvesting (app. 

9). Respondents from 52 percent of the reporting forests mentioned funding as a 

barrier, with lack of planning capacity and lack of staff being mentioned next most 

frequently. We condensed the 32 barriers into the following five major categories: 

insufficient funding, lack of agency capacity, business obstacles, regulatory restrictions, and political obstacles. As indicated in figure 20, respondents from 67 percent 

of the reporting forests mentioned business-related obstacles, such as lack of market 

demand and transportation difficulties, as important barriers to expanding commercial NTFP harvesting. Respondents from more than 50 percent of the reporting 

forests also cited lack of agency personnel and funding to administer expanded 

commercial harvesting programs as key obstacles. 

Nonregulatory NTFP Management Activities 

Respondents from 12 of the reporting national forests indicated the presence of 

efforts to enhance NTFP productivity or expand the quantity of NTFPs available. 

The kinds of enhancement activities used included burning, fire suppression, fuelreduction activities, thinning, tree removals, and unspecified enhancement activities (fig. 21). Burning, for such purposes as enhancing berry fields and basketry 

material production, was by far the most commonly used active NTFP management 

practice. Several respondents noted that NTFP enhancement was a side product 

of wildlife habitat and fire-hazard-reduction activities rather than a management 

objective in itself.

Effects of NTFP Management on Biodiversity 

Respondents from most of the reporting national forests that conducted ecological 

monitoring on NTFP activities noted that they either didn’t know the results of the 

monitoring data or that the data was inconclusive. Respondents on fourteen percent 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

46

Figure 21—Types of nonregulatory NTFP management activites.

Figure 20—Barriers to expanding commercial NTFP harvesting.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

47

of the reporting forests stated that NTFP management had a positive effect on 

biodiversity; none reported a negative effect. 

Manager Perceptions of Barriers to NTFP 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Survey respondents mentioned a variety of barriers to implementing NTFP inventory and monitoring, ranging from lack of funding to limited commercial demand 

for NTFPs to the low prioritization of such efforts within the agencies (app. 10). 

These barriers fell into four broad categories: lack of funding, lack of internal 

capacity, lack of political will within the agency, and limited or no perceived need 

because of either an abundant supply of NTFPs or a small number of harvesters 

relative to supply. 

The most commonly cited barrier to NTFP inventory and monitoring was 

lack of funding, which respondents from 85 percent of the reporting forests listed 

(fig. 22). The second biggest barrier for the Forest Service was lack of staff, which 

respondents from 74 percent of the reporting forests mentioned. Both of these fall 

into the category of internal capacity.

Discussion

The survey data demonstrate that NTFP harvesting takes place on many ranger 

districts and national forests in all parts of the United States, rather than being an 

activity limited to a few parts of the country. The data also show that numerous 

NTFP products and species are harvested from national forest lands. Firewood, 

posts and poles, Christmas trees, transplants, and boughs form the backbone of the 

NTFP programs among the districts that responded to this survey. However, the 

data also indicate that a variety of other botanical products, such as mushrooms, 

floral greens, cones, and medicinal plants, are also removed from these districts.

The data also indicate that many ranger districts located in the Western United 

States increased the number of NTFP harvesting permits issued between 1999 and 

2003. In contrast, the numbers of permits issued on many ranger districts in the 

Southern and Eastern United States declined during the same period. However, the 

survey data do not permit us to determine whether the declines in permitting activity are due to a decline in demand for NTFP products or to changes in district policies that restricted the issuance of permits. Likewise it is unclear whether increases 

in permitting activity are due to an increase in the number of people harvesting 

NTFPs, to changes in district policies that required permits for activities previously 

allowed to take place without permits, or to an improvement in the districts’ capacity to ensure compliance with permit requirements. 

The most commonly 

cited barrier to 

NTFP inventory and 

monitoring was lack of 

funding.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

48

The survey results indicate that some districts are already taking steps to 

develop their capacity to manage NTFPs. For example, two-thirds of the districts 

participating in the study have a designated NTFP coordinator, and slightly less 

than two-thirds have law enforcement personnel who handle NTFP enforcement 

activities. However, the presence of district-level NTFP coordinators and law 

enforcement personnel among the reporting ranger districts differed considerably 

by region. For example, 94 percent of the districts for which we had data in Region 

1 (Northern) had designated NTFP coordinators compared with only 47 percent of 

the districts in Region 9 (Eastern). Similarly, the percentage of districts with NTFP 

law enforcement personnel ranged from 76 percent in Region 4 (Intermountain) 

to only 33 percent in Region 10 (Alaska). Without additional information on the 

percentage of total work time that NTFP coordinators and law enforcement personnel spend on NTFP management and enforcement, it is difficult to interpret these 

results. 

The survey also reveals that many national forests include NTFPs in legally 

mandated planning documents, such as forest plans, environmental assessments, 

Figure 22—Barriers to inventory and monitoring.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

49

and environmental impact statements (EISs). For example, respondents from approximately two-thirds of the reporting national forests indicated that their forest 

plans include some mention of NTFPs. Similarly, respondents from two-thirds of 

the reporting national forests indicated that their forests include NTFP concerns in 

environmental assessments. On the other hand, respondents from only one-third of 

the reporting national forests indicated that they had incorporated NTFP management issues into EISs. 

The findings for inclusion of NTFPs in forest plans for Regions 8 and 9 differ 

from the study by Chamberlain et al. (2002) of NTFPs in forest plans for those same 

regions; they found that only 22 percent of the 32 national forests addressed NTFPs 

to some extent. The difference is likely due to differences in methods between the 

two studies. Chamberlain et al. employed a content analysis technique in which 

they examined each plan to determine the percentage of the text addressing NTFPs. 

They concluded that “the attention afforded to NTFPs is minimal” (Chamberlain 

et al. 2002: 11) and that “no plan provided comprehensive coverage similar to that 

of other natural resources” (Chamberlain et al. 2002: 12). Our study did not include 

ground-truthing of the plans, and a strong possibility exists that respondents may 

have interpreted even minor or oblique references to NTFPs as evidence that their 

forest plan included NTFPs. The likelihood that such is the case is suggested by 

comments from a number of survey respondents on their questionnaires that their 

forest planning documents provided only a cursory treatment of NTFPs or covered 

only a limited number of the more widely recognized NTFPs, such as firewood 

and posts and poles. An examination of forest plans similar to that conducted by 

Chamberlain et al. for other regions of the United States would clarify the extent to 

which the plans adequately address NTFP management.

Some possible explanations for why many national forests don’t include analyses of NTFPs in EISs and EAs include the following:

• NTFP harvesting may be very limited in scale and scope in some areas. 

• Some national forests lack information about the presence of NTFPs or 

NTFP harvesting activities within their boundaries. 

• National forests may use a public scoping and comment process 

in which NTFP harvesters either can’t or won’t participate (McLain 2002).

It is unclear why a smaller percentage of reporting national forests included 

NTFPs in EISs than in EAs. One possible explanation is that national forests 

seldom prepare EISs. Thus it is possible that some national forests have not prepared EISs since the mid-1990s when NTFPs began to appear more prominently in 

national forest policy discussions. Those same national forests, however, have likely 

prepared numerous environmental assessments during that period. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

50

Respondents from 42 percent of the reporting national forests indicated that 

they had developed planning documents that focused on NTFPs. Among the reporting national forests, substantial regional differences existed with respect to the 

development of NTFP planning documents. For example, 63 percent of the reporting forests in Region 4 (Intermountain) indicated that they had developed NTFP 

planning documents, compared to only 9 percent of the reporting forests in Region 

5 (Pacific Southwest).31 However, without an analysis of nonresponse bias, it is 

impossible to tell whether these differences are statistically significant or variations 

linked to small sample sizes.

Forests with NTFP documents sometimes have highly visible NTFP activity. 

For example, the Tongass National Forest developed a comprehensive forestwide 

NTFP policy in order to ensure adequate supplies of NTFPs for subsistence harvesters in the area. Similarly, several national forests in western and central Oregon 

developed EAs for NTFPs during the 1990s when demand for NTFPs, such as 

matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare (Peck) Redhead) mushrooms, increased dramatically. Likewise, national forests in the Ozarks and Appalachians have recently 

developed strategies for addressing medicinal plant harvesting (Chamberlain 2000). 

The survey findings indicate that Forest Service offices across the country have 

begun to develop planning documents that address NTFP management concerns in 

some level of detail and at various geographic scales; they also indicate that much 

work remains to be done. 

Responses to the questions regarding the Forest Service’s national NTFP 

strategy and three selected information resources indicated that at least some NTFP 

managers on the reporting national forests are familiar with these resources. These 

findings indicate that some NTFP policy and management resources are reaching 

agency district or forest managers. 

The answers to the inventory and monitoring questions indicate that many field 

offices within the agency inventory and monitor NTFPs. However, the quality of inventory and monitoring programs differs. Although monitoring of NTFP harvesting 

activities takes place on at least half of the reporting national forests, many of these 

efforts employed unsystematic forms of monitoring, such as informal site checks 

and permit compliance checks. Additionally, most respondents from the reporting 

national forests indicated that their NTFP monitoring efforts focused on tree products, such as firewood, posts and poles, and Christmas trees. Inadequate funding 

31All of the national forests in Region 10 (Alaska) indicated they had NTFP-specific planning 

documents, but as the region has only two national forests, comparison with other regions is 

not particularly meaningful.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

51

and internal capacity were listed as the primary barriers to more widespread use of 

NTFP inventory and monitoring.

The survey also reveals that many of the reporting national forests draw on 

harvesters’ knowledge for managing their NTFP programs. In addition, nearly 

40 percent of the reporting national forests collaborate in some form with NTFP 

harvesters to manage NTFPs. However, it is unclear from the survey data what such 

agency-harvester knowledge exchanges and collaborations consist of. Text answers 

from the respondents indicate that collaborations range from conversations between 

agency employees and harvesters about resource conditions to NTFP inventory and 

monitoring partnerships. 

Respondents from the majority of reporting national forests indicated that 

they believed harvesters could contribute to NTFP inventory and monitoring, 

with knowledge of NTFPs and labor being considered the most important inputs 

harvesters could provide. However, support for involving harvesters is tempered by 

concerns about whether the agency has the capacity to manage collaborative inventory and monitoring efforts, doubts about the ability of harvesters to do the work in 

a scientific manner, and skepticism as to whether harvesters would be willing to be 

involved in such efforts. 

Respondents from half the reporting national forests noted that they conduct 

ecological monitoring to determine the effects of NTFP management activities, 

such as regulatory restrictions and controlled burns. However, responses to further 

questions indicate that the data from such studies are insufficient to determine 

how NTFP harvesting affects biodiversity. Districts on only 20 percent of the reporting national forests are currently engaged in activities to enhance NTFP habitat 

or productivity. These data raise the possibility that national forests may lack the 

capacity to determine whether commercial harvesting levels are sustainable or to 

take action to enhance sustainability. Respondents from the majority of reporting 

national forests indicated that expanding commercial NTFP harvesting on national 

forests would require addressing several key internal constraints, including the 

agency’s lack of funding, staff, and planning capacity, as well as external barriers, 

such as limited markets and transportation costs.

In summary, the study indicates that NTFP harvesting is widespread within 

the National Forest System. It also suggests that many managers are struggling 

with how to incorporate NTFPs into forest management and planning in an era of 

declining budgets and decreases in staffing levels. Survey respondents identified 

lack of funding and personnel as the two major internal barriers to NTFP inventory 

and monitoring. Many respondents indicated that agency-harvester collaborations 

could be used to develop and expand NTFP inventory and monitoring programs. 

Many of the reporting 

national forests 

draw on harvesters’ 

knowledge for 

managing their NTFP 

programs.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

52

However, they identified lack of internal capacity as a major impediment to involving harvesters in collaborative inventory and monitoring efforts in addition to 

noting concerns about potential bias and lack of incentives for harvester participation. For agency-harvester collaborations to work, the designers would need to 

develop inventory and monitoring systems that simultaneously addressed the needs 

of harvesters (e.g., safeguards to protect information about site locations and the 

provision of access guarantees) and the needs of forest management agencies (e.g., 

data quality control). Effective collaborative NTFP inventory and monitoring 

systems would also require the development of suitable training materials for both 

harvesters and forest managers, as well as a long-term commitment on the part of 

upper level agency administrators to invest in such systems. 

Research, Policy, and Management Implications

The NTFP survey revealed the following areas where managers, policymakers, and 

researchers could productively focus improvements in the Forest Service’s NTFP 

program.

Managing Many NTFP Products and Species

The sheer variety of NTFPs and the species they are derived from requires that 

the agency improve its ability to manage for groups of species and products, rather 

than taking a species-by-species or product-by-product approach. This fits with the 

National Forest System’s ongoing efforts to use indicator species to track groups of 

species as part of its coarse filter/fine filter approach to species management. The 

North Carolina national forests, which have recently developed a forest botanical 

products program of work for the southern Appalachians, serve as an example of 

how national forests might approach managing groups of NTFPs rather than focusing on individual products (USDA FS 2004a). 

Managing Products of Regional or Local Importance

Given regional differences in NTFPs harvested, as well as differences in socioeconomic and ecological conditions, the agency will need to develop management 

guidelines and research activities that are regionally specific. For example, looking 

only at the national level, it would be easy to conclude that products such as maple 

syrup (Acer saccharum Marsh) and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris P. Mill.) needles 

are not important NTFPs. However, regional-level analysis of the national forests 

responding to this survey indicates that maple syrup constitutes an important NTFP 

in northeastern national forests, and longleaf pine needles are harvested on many 

southern national forests. At the local level (i.e., national forest), local biodiversity 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

53

may also be linked to local cultural practices. For example, the biodiversity of the 

Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia is extensive, and the local knowledge and use of NTFPs there is profound. Similarly, the Tongass and Chugach 

National Forests present a unique management environment within the National 

Forest System owing to subsistence rights of rural Alaskans and Native Alaskan 

claims that exist independently of subsistence rights legislation.

Developing Tools for Incorporating NTFPs Into Forest Planning

One approach to facilitating more widespread incorporation of NTFPs into forest 

planning processes is to develop communication systems within the agency for 

getting the word out about the existing state of knowledge and providing models 

for applying that knowledge to other forests. Such an approach would include 

cross-regional research to identify gaps. It would also involve developing explicit 

strategies for providing information about such gaps to managers in a usable form. 

By using common tools to assist in storing inventory and monitoring information, together with a set of existing policies, the Forest Service should be able to 

develop a broad set of standard yet flexible implementation tools. This would allow 

local forest management units to address the variability and uniqueness of their 

management situations with similar applications from other forests. Additionally, 

the development and implementation of NTFP data-gathering efforts would permit 

the agency to address at least one criterion and indicator important for monitoring 

the social and economic sustainability of forest-dependent communities under the 

Montreal Process. The agency should consider placing priority on funding the development of tools and strategies that take into account the likelihood that national 

forest budgets and staffing levels will continue declining in the near term. 

Section 339 of P.L. 106-113 authorizes forests to retain receipts from the sale of 

NTFPs greater than 1998 levels of sales. This design allows for districts or forests 

to create a process whereby they can expand their NTFP programs, retain receipts, 

and possibly create sustainable programs that are outside the normal parameters 

of appropriated competition. Forest Resource Enterprises, a forest enterprise team 

based in central Oregon, has designed a fair market valuation program that provides 

resource managers the ability to fulfill their legal NTFP management obligations and also receive current and accurate prices for NTFP sales. The team has 

completed analysis for Regions 2, 6, and 10 and has started a similar analysis for 

Region 5. Implementation of the fair market valuation program, together with the 

retention of receipts once the agency implements regulations for Section 339, has 

the potential to address some of the concerns expressed about lack of funding for 

NTFP programs. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

54

In developing tools for NTFP management, it would also be useful to explore 

the extent to which the Forest Service’s standard economic tools and models used 

during forest plan revisions (i.e., Impact Analysis for Planning [IMPLAN]) allow 

them to look indepth at the contributions of NTFPs, as well as the extent to which 

the large-scale recreation data sets address links between NTFP gathering and recreation. The Southern Region has recently taken a step in this direction through the 

development of a strategy for research and technology transfer on NTFPs (Sallee 

et al. 2004). Technical guides on the social, economic, and ecological sustainability 

aspects of NTFPs will likely need development to facilitate adaptive management 

as the agency implements the 2004 Final Planning Rule. 

Examining Barriers and Opportunities for 

Agency-Harvester Collaboration

Agency-harvester inventory and monitoring partnerships are emerging in parts 

of the National Forest System to overcome the difficulties of inadequate funding 

and staffing for monitoring and inventorying NTFP species. A companion piece to 

this report, Nontimber Forest Product Inventorying and Monitoring in the United 

States: Rationale and Recommendations for a Participatory Approach (Lynch et al. 

2004), discusses in more detail examples of ongoing efforts to develop agency-harvester inventory and monitoring partnerships. Greater understanding of the barriers 

and opportunities for developing such collaborative efforts can assist forest managers and researchers in identifying appropriate modes of collaboration at the forest 

and district levels. Development and dissemination of materials to forest managers 

regarding the utility of traditional ecological knowledge, as well as training in how 

to communicate in mutually understandable ways with NTFP harvesters, constitute 

critical components of viable agency-harvester partnerships. 

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry for 

funding the data gathering and preliminary analysis of this study. We thank Rod 

Sallee, Washington Office, USDA FS; Roger Fight, PNW Research Station, USDA 

FS; Sharon Nygaard-Scott, R9 USDA FS; and Kathy Andregg, R8 USDA FS for 

their help in disseminating the survey. We also thank the many Forest Service 

employees who responded to the survey. We are grateful to Jennifer Gilden for her 

assistance with coding and entering the 1999 survey data. We also acknowledge the 

work of Jennifer McAdoo and Lynne Schneider in coding and entering the 2003 

survey data, as well as performing preliminary data analysis. We thank Tim Max, 

PNW Research Station statistician, for conducting a third-party review of the data 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

55

collection and analysis methods and Mary C. Walters, R6, Information Technology 

Specialist for providing essential background materials. 

Literature Cited

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.F.; Blatner, K.A. 2002. Nontimber forest product 

commerce. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

115–150.

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San 

Bernardino National Forest: cultural versus commercial values among Korean 

and Japanese participants. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 747–762.

Antypas, A.; McLain, R.J.; Gilden, J.; Dyson, G. 2002. Federal nontimber forest 

products policy and management. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J.F., 

eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press: 347–374.

Ballard, H. 2004. Impacts of harvesting salal (Gaultheria shallon) on the Olympic 

Peninsula, Washington: harvester knowledge, science, and participation. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California. 213 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource 

management. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-Brumfield. 209 p.

Bernard, H.R. 2002. Structured interviewing: questionnaires. In: Bernard, H.R., 

ed. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press: 240–279. 

Brevoort, P. 1998. The booming U.S. botanical market: a new overview. 

HerbalGram. 44: 33–44.

Brown, N.C. 1950. Forest products: the harvesting, processing, and marketing of 

materials other than lumber, including the principal derivatives, extractives, and 

incidental products in the United States and Canada. New York: John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. 339 p.

Chamberlain, J.L. 2000. The management of national forests of Eastern United 

States for non-timber forest products. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University. Ph.D. dissertation. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/

available/etd-12122000-145202/. (July 14, 2005).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

56

Chamberlain, J.L.; Bush, R.J.; Hammett, A.L.; Araman, P.A. 2002. Eastern 

national forests: managing for nontimber products. Journal of Forestry. January/

February: 8–14.

Danielson, K.C.; Gilbert, J.H. 2002. Objibwe off-reservation harvest of wild 

plants. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 282–292.

Emery, M. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: non-timber forest products in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 291 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M.R.B. 2002. Special 

forest products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-GTR-306. Burlington, VT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Emery, M.R.; McLain, R.J., eds. 2001. Non-timber forest products: medicinal 

herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, and other natural products from the forest. 

New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. 176 p.

Federal Register. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Federal 

Register. 64(25): 6183–6186.

Federal Register. 2005. Subjects in 36 CFR 219. Federal Register. 70(3): 

1023–1061.

Fisher, A.H. 2002. Making peace in the berry patch: the 1932 handshake 

agreement and the promise of cultural use zones. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas Press: 293–299.

Floyd, D.W., ed. 1999. Forest of discord: options for governing our national forests 

and federal public lands. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 96 p. 

Goodman, E.C. 2002. Indian reserved rights. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas Press: 273–281. 

Government Publications Office [GPO]. 2004. Code of Federal Regulations. 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/36cfrv2_04.html. (January 8, 

2005).

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: nontimber forest products in the 

Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 26(1): 67–86.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

57

Hart, Z.H.; Halfacre, A.C.; Burke, M.K. 2004. Community participation in 

preservation of lowcountry South Carolina sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes

[M.A. Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson) basketry. Economic Botany. 58 (2): 

161–171.

Hosford, D.; Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 1997. Ecology and management of the 

commercially harvested American matsutake mushroom. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-412. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Huckell, L.W.; Toll, M.S. 2004. Wild plant use in the North American Southwest. 

In: Minnis, P.E., ed. People and plants in ancient western North America. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books: 37–114.

Jones, E.J. 2002. The political ecology of wild mushroom harvester stewardship in 

the Pacific Northwest. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. 198 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K.A. 2004. The relationship between 

nontimber forest product management and biodiversity in the United States. 

Report prepared for the National Commission for Science on Sustainable 

Forestry. 59 p. http://www.ifcae.org/projects/ncssf1/index.html. (January 9, 

2005).

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 2002. Nontimber forest products in 

the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. 445 p.

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Pilz, D.; Liegel, L.H. 2002a. Assessing 

commercial understory species: quantity, quality, supply, and demand. In: 

Johnson, A.C.J.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A., eds. Congruent management 

of multiple resources: proceedings from the wood compatibility initiative 

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 191–197.

Kerns, B.K.; Liegel, L.; Pilz, D.; Alexander, S.J. 2002b. Biological inventory 

and monitoring. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber 

forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

237–269.

Knudson, R. 1980. Fish, roots, game, and trade in the Columbia Plateau. Journal of 

Forestry. 78(9): 542-545; 556.

Lee, M. 2002. The cooler ring: urban Alaska native women and the subsistence 

debate. Artic Anthropology. 39(1/2): 3–9.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

58

London, J.K. 2002. American Indian management of federal lands: the Maidu 

cultural and development group. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press: 324–344.

Loomis, J.R. 2002. Integrated public lands management: principles and 

applications to national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. New 

York: Columbia University Press. 594 p.

Love, T.; Jones, E.T.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate rainforest: wild 

mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula biosphere reserve. Ambio Special 

Report. 9: 16–25. 

Lynch, K.A.; Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J. 2004. Nontimber forest product 

inventorying and monitoring in the United States: rationale and 

recommendations for a participatory approach. Report prepared for the National 

Commission for Science on Sustainable Forestry. 50 p. http://www.ifcae.org/

projects/ncssf1/index.html. (January 9, 2005). 

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R.J. 2003. Access, labor, and wild floral greens 

management in western Washington’s forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 61 p.

Mater, C. 2000. Alaskan special forest products markets report. In: Laufenberg, 

T.L.; Brady, B.K., eds. Proceedings: Linking healthy forests and communities 

through Alaska value-added forest products. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-500. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 127–202.

Mater Engineering. 1992. Analysis and development of a conceptual business plan 

for establishing a special forest products processing plant: final report. Prepared 

for USDA-Forest Service, Region 6. Sweet Home, OR: Sweet Home Ranger 

District. 234 p.

Matson, R.G.; Coupland, G.C., eds. 1995. The prehistory of the Northwest Coast. 

San Diego: Academic Press. 364 p.

McLain, R.J. 2000. Controlling the forest understory: wild mushroom politics in 

central Oregon. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 331 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

McLain, R.J. 2002. Business as usual: the exclusion of mushroom pickers in wild 

mushroom management in Oregon’s national forests. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, 

R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, 

KS: University of Kansas Press: 375–384.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

59

McLain, R.J.; McFarlane, E.M.; Alexander, S.J. 2005. Commercial morel 

harvesters and buyers in western Montana: an exploratory study of the 2001 

harvesting season. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-643. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p. 

Minore, D. 1972. The wild huckleberries of Oregon and Washington–a dwindling 

resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-143. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 20 p. 

Minore, D.; Smart, A.W.; Dubrasich, M.E. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and 

management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-93. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 50 p. 

Moerman, D. 1998. Native American ethnobotany. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 

927 p. 

Montreal Process Working Group. 1995. Santiago declaration: statement on 

criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of 

temperate and boreal forests. February 3, 1995. http://www.mpci.org/reppub/1995/santiago_e.html. (January 16, 2005).

National Invasive Species Council [NISC]. 2001. Meeting the invasive species 

challenge. National Invasive Species Council. 90 p. http://www.invasivespecies.

gov/council/nmp.shtml. (May 2, 2005). 

Nelson, R.H. 1995. The federal land management agencies. In: Knight, R.L.; Bates, 

S.F., eds. A new century for natural resources management. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 37–59. 

Parfitt, J. 1997. Questionnaire design and sampling. In: Flowerdew, R.; Martin, D., 

eds. Methods in human geography: a guide for students doing a research project. 

Essex, England: Addison Wesley Longman Limited: 76–109.

Parks, C.G.; Schmitt, C.L. 1997. Wild edible mushrooms in the Blue Mountains: 

resource and issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-393. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

22 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

60

Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Danell, E.; Waring, R.; Rose, C.; Alexander, S.; 

Luoma, D.; Cromack, K.; Lefevre, C. 2002. Silvishrooms: predicting edible 

ectomycorrhizal mushroom productivity. In: Johnson, A.C.J.; Haynes, R.W.; 

Monserud, R.A., eds. Congruent management of multiple resources: proceedings 

from the wood compatibility initiative workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 199–207.

Pilz, D.; Smith, J.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Alexander, S.; Molina, R.; Luoma, D. 

1999. Mushrooms and timber: managing commercial harvesting in the Oregon 

Cascades. Journal of Forestry. 97(3): 4–11.

Richards, R.T. 1997. What the natives know: wild mushrooms and forest health. 

Journal of Forestry. September: 5–10.

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, resource values, and ecosystem 

management: matsutake mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion. Society 

and Natural Resources. 9: 359–374.

Robbins, C. 1999. Medicine from U.S. wildlands: an assessment of native plant 

species harvested in the United States for medicinal use and trade and evaluation 

of the conservation and management implications. Washington, DC: The Nature 

Conservancy. 28 p.

Robertson, F.D. 1992 (June 4). Memo to Regional Foresters and Station Directors. 

Ecosystem Management of the National Forests and Grasslands. On file with the 

lead author.

Sallee, R.; Owen, W.; Kenna, K.; Kauffman, G.; Emery, M.; Johnson, T.; 

Araman, P.; Stratton, D.; Reams, G.; Sheffield, R.; Rudis, V.; Loeb, S.; 

White, D.; Chamberlain, J.; 2004. Special forest products: a southern strategy 

for research and technology transfer. Science Update SU-SRS-006. [Place of 

publication unknown]: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 6 p. 

Scarry, M.C. 2003. Patterns of wild plant utilization in the prehistoric eastern 

woodlands. In: Minnis, P.E., ed. People and plants in ancient eastern North 

America. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books: 50–104.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho: a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 93(3): 31–36.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest products: an east-side 

perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

61

Schroeder, R. 2002. Contemporary subsistence use of nontimber forest products 

in Alaska. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

300–326.

Shaw, E.W. 1949. Minor forest products of the Pacific Northwest. Res. Note 59. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p.

Spero, V.; Fleming, C. 2002. Rio Grande National Forest case study. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 108–112.

Steen, H.K. 1991. The U.S. Forest Service: a history. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington Press. 356 p.

Teel, W.S.; Buck, L.E. 2002. Between wildcrafting and moncultures: agroforestry 

options. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

199–222.

Tewari, D.N. 1994. Tropical forest produce. Dehra Dun, India: International Book 

Distributors. 665 p.

Thomas, M.G.; Schumann, D.R. 1993. Income opportunities in special forest 

products: self-help suggestions for rural entrepreneurs. Agric. Info. Bull. 666. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 206 p.

Turner, N.J.; Cocksedge, W. 2001. Aboriginal use of nontimber forest products 

in northwestern North America: applications and issues. Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry. 13(3/4): 31–57.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED]. 

1992a Agenda 21. http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm. (January 16, 2005).

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED]. 

1992b. Report of the United Nations conference on environment and 

development. Annex III. Non-legally binding authoritative statement of 

principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and 

sustainable development of all types of forests. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/

conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm. (January 16, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1928. The national 

forest manual: regulations and instructions. [Place of publication unknown]: 

[Pages unknown].
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

62

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1965. Special 

forest products: 1964 harvesting report (Oregon and Washington). Portland, OR: 

Pacific Northwest Region. 38 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 1970. Special 

forest products: 1969 harvesting report (Oregon and Washington). Portland, OR: 

Pacific Northwest Region. 38 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS] 2001a. Forest 

botanical products FY 2001 program of work: maintaining sustainability and 

responding to socio-economic needs in the southern Appalachians. North 

Carolina National Forests. 31 p. http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/resources/

resources.htm. (January 9, 2005). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2001b. National 

strategy for special forest products. FS-713. [Place of publication unknown]. 15 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2003. Directory. 

www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory/nfs.html. (January 17, 2005). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004. National 

report on sustainable forests–2003. FS-766. [Place of publication unknown]. 

139 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005a. About 

us–meet the Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml. 

(January 9, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2005b. Forest 

Service directives. http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/. (January 9, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA USDI]. 1994. Final 

supplemental environmental impact statement on the management of habitat for 

late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 2 vol. 

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed. J. 2001. Species information guide to 

special forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-513. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 169 p. 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

63

von Hagen, B.; Weigand, J.F.; McLain, R.J.; Fight, R.; Christensen, H.H. 

1996. Conservation and development of nontimber forest products in the Pacific 

Northwest: an annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-375. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 246 p.

Wiegand, J.E. 1997. Forest management for the North American pine mushroom 

(Tricholoma magnivelare (Peck) Redhead) in the southern Cascade Range. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 500 p. Ph.D dissertation. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

64

Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire

United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Washington Office 14th & Independence SW 

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090

File Code: 2450 Date: March 21, 2003 

Route To:

Subject: Special Forest Products Survey

To: Regional Foresters

REPLY DUE APRIL 30, 2003 

In 1999, scientists at the Institute for Culture and Ecology and the Pacific Northwest Research 

Station (PNW) conducted an email survey of Ranger Districts and National Forests in the U.S. 

to gain an understanding of the characteristics of Special Forest Products (SFP) programs in 

the National Forest System. This report summarizes key findings of the 1999 survey and 

identifies areas for further research. The information should be useful to you and your Forest 

Supervisors and Rangers in the management of the special forest products program. The 

report is in pdf format and is located at the following URL. 

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/frs/fm/products/documents/IFCAE_1999_FS_SFP_Survey-Summary.pdf
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

65

The Institute for Culture and Ecology working with the PNW are conducting another survey and 

need the assistance of the Ranger Districts to again complete a 2-page survey. We believe the 

survey will provide us information on the trends since 1999 that should help us better manage 

our Special Forest Products program. We agreed to participate in the 2003 survey. Please 

forward to your Forest Supervisors and District Rangers for response. The survey should be 

completed by April 30 and sent to the address in the survey. The survey can be found at the 

following URL. 

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/frs/fm/products/documents/IFCAE_2003_Survey_USFS_SFP_Regs_03-10-03.rtf

/s/ Abigail R. Kimbell 

ABIGAIL R. KIMBELL 

Associate Deputy Chief for National Forest System 

cc: Roger Fight, Rebecca McLain 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

66

Survey of US Forest Service District Level

Special Forest Products Regulations and Management

This national survey represents the 2nd phase of a longitudinal study by the Institute for 

Culture and Ecology to examine changes in federal Special Forest Product (SFP) policy 

and management over the last several years. You or a colleague may have participated in 

the first phase of this survey which was distributed in January 2000 to all districts. This 

data informed several products including policy sections in our recent book (listed at end). 

A summary of the 1st survey results is attached and the complete analysis of both survey 

phases will be available in December 2003. Please take a few moments to complete this 2nd 

survey phase, regardless of whether or not you participated in the first phase. Funding for 

this research is provided by the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry 

(www.ncssf.org). We greatly appreciate your assistance.

Instructions: You may complete this form electronically by highlighting the underscore lines 

and then typing in your answer. Alternatively, you may print, fill out, and mail this survey 

to the Institute for Culture and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, Portland, OR 97228-6688. If you 

have questions, contact Eric Jones. Feel free to add any additional comments, clarifications, 

or documents, and use additional paper if needed. Important: Do not leave any questions 

blank. If a question doesn’t apply please put n/a for not applicable.

Date: ________________________________________

Your Name: ________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________

District: ________________________________________ 

Forest: ________________________________________

Email: ________________________________________

Phone: ________________________________________

1. Is there a uniform SFP policy for your:

District? Yes___ No___, Forest? Yes___ No___, Region? Yes___ No___

2. Is there a designated SFP coordinator for your:

District? Yes___ No___, Forest? Yes___ No___, Region? Yes___ No___

3. Did your district issue more or fewer permits for SFP removal in 2002 than it did in 1999?

More___ Fewer___

4. Is there a SFP law enforcement program on your district? Yes___ No___ 

Forest? Yes___ No___
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

67

5. Which of your district and forest planning and data gathering processes include 

SFPs? (please mark all that apply)

__ Forest Plans __ Watershed Analyses

__ Environmental Assessments __ Landscape Analyses

__ Environmental Impact Statements __ Other (list) __________________

__ Social Impact Assessments

6. Does your district have any planning or analysis documents that focus specifically on SFPs?

Yes___ No___ (If yes, please list) _________________________________

___________________________________________________________

7. Are SFPs inventoried on your district? Yes___ No___ (If yes, list species, 

methods, and the category/title of person who does the work, e.g., FS botanist, 

contractor, volunteer) ___________________________________________

8. Are SFPs monitored on your district? Yes___ No___ (If yes, list species, 

methods, and the category/title of person who does the work, e.g., FS botanist, 

contractor, volunteer) ___________________________________________

9. Product, Regulatory Mechanism, and Fee Table. Instructions:

a) In order of importance (1–5), list the five most significant SFPs on your district 

in the top column;

b) Place a “Y” in each cell row to indicate if you use the regulatory mechanism 

listed in the left column;

c) Add a “F” in each cell to indicate if there is a fee.

Product 1. Product 2. Product 3. Product 4. Product 5.

Commercial Use Permits

Personal Use Permits

Sales Contracts

Leases

Stewardship Contracts

Buying Permits

Transportation Permits

Industrial Camping Permits

Other? (specify type)

 

 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

68

10. List any SFP non-regulatory management activities (e.g., fire prescription for berry 

production) on your district. 

11. Are ecological impacts of district regulatory and non-regulatory SFP management 

activities monitored? Yes, No

If Yes, list activities, methods, and who does the work, e.g., FS botanist, contractor, 

volunteer. If No, skip to question 13.

12. If monitoring the ecological impacts of SFP management activities occurs on your 

district, does your data show:

a. positive effects on biodiversity Yes___ No___ Undetermined ___

b. negative effects on biodiversity Yes___ No___ Undetermined ___

c. List supporting documents _____________________________________________

13. What barriers exist to inventorying and monitoring SFPs on your district? ___________

__________________________________________________________________

14. Do SFP harvesters on your district contribute knowledge about SFPs that helps management? Yes___ No___ 

15. Are Forest Service personnel on your district collaborating with SFP harvesters on any 

projects? Yes___ No___

16. Could commercial harvesters contribute to inventorying district SFPs? Yes__ No__.

Monitoring? Yes__ No__ (Why or why not?) ____________________________

17. What barriers exist to increasing commercial harvesting of SFPs on your district? _____

__________________________________________________________________

18. Have you read any part of the following publications before receiving this survey?

a. USDA Forest Service’s National Strategy for Special Forest Products. FS-713. 2001. 

Yes___ No___

b. Nontimber Forest Products in the United States by Jones, McLain and Weigand. 2002. 

Yes___ No___

c. Non-Timber Forest Products by Emery and McLain. 2001. Yes___ No___

d. Have you used the U.S. Non Timber Forest Products website at www.ifcae.org/ntfp/ 

Yes___ No___
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

69

Appendix 2: List of Districts Responding

*Part of a multiple-district response (i.e., response received for the districts 

from a zone, management unit, or Supervisors Office employee).

Region National Forest Ranger District

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Madison

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Wise River*

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Dillon*

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Wisdom

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Pintler*

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Butte

1 Beaver-Deerlodge Jefferson*

1 Clearwater Lochsa

1 Clearwater Powell

1 Custer Sioux

1 Gallatin Big Timber

1 Gallatin Hegben Lake

1 Idaho Panhandle Coeur d’Alene River

1 Idaho Panhandle Bonners Ferry

1 Idaho Panhandle Priest Lake

1 Kootenai Cabinet

1 Lewis and Clark Musselshell

1 Lolo Missoula

2 Arapahoe-Roosevelt Clear Creek

2 Arapahoe-Roosevelt Sulphur

2 Arapahoe-Roosevelt Canyon Lakes

2 Bighorn Tongue

2 Black Hills Bearlodge

2 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Grand Valley

 and Gunnison

2 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Paonia

 and Gunnison

2 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison

 and Gunnison
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

70

Region National Forest Ranger District

2 Medicine Bow-Routt Yampa

2 Nebraska Pine Ridge

2 Pike-San Isabel South Park

2 Pike-San Isabel Salida

2 San Juan-Rio Grande Mancos-Dolores

2 San Juan-Rio Grande Divide

2 San Juan-Rio Grande Saguache

2 San Juan-Rio Grande Conejos Peak

2 White River Blanco

2 White River Rifle

2 White River Aspen

2 White River Sopris

3 Apache-Sitgreaves Alpine*

3 Apache-Sitgreaves Springerville*

3 Carson Camino Real

3 Coconino Peaks*

3 Coconino Mormon Lake*

3 Coronado Nogales

3 Coronado Sierra Vista

3 Gila Black Range

3 Gila Glenwood

3 Gila Quemado

3 Gila Reserve

3 Kaibab Williams

3 Kaibab Tusayan

3 Kaibab North Kaibab

3 Prescott Bradshaw

3 Tonto Payson

3 Tonto Pleasant Valley*

3 Tonto Globe

4 Ashley Flaming Gorge

4 Ashley Vernal

4 Ashley Roosevelt-Duch

4 Boise Cascade

4 Boise Emmett 

4 Boise Idaho City
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

71

Region National Forest Ranger District

4 Bridger-Teton Kemmerer

4 Bridger-Teton Big Piney*

4 Bridger-Teton Greys River*

4 Bridger-Teton Jackson*

4 Bridger-Teton Buffalo*

4 Bridger-Teton Pinedale*

4 Caribou-Targhee Soda Springs*

4 Caribou-Targhee Ashton-Island Park*

4 Fishlake-Dixie Cedar City 

4 Fishlake-Dixie Escalante

4 Fishlake-Dixie Richfield

4 Fishlake-Dixie Loa-Teasdale

4 Fishlake-Dixie Powell

4 Fishlake-Dixie Fillmore

4 Humboldt-Toyaibe Mountain City

4 Salmon-Challis Challis

4 Salmon-Challis Salmon Cobalt*

4 Salmon-Challis North Fork*

4 Salmon-Challis Middle Fork*

4 Salmon-Challis Leadore

4 Salmon-Challis Yankee Fork

4 Salmon-Challis Lost River

4 Sawtooth Fairfield

5 Eldorado Georgetown

5 Eldorado Pacific

5 Inyo Mono Lake

5 Klamath Goosenest

5 Klamath Scott River

5 Klamath Salmon River

5 Lassen Hat Creek*

5 Lassen Almanor*

5 Lassen Eagle Lake*

5 Los Padres Mont Pinos

5 Los Padres Santa Lucia

5 Modoc*

5 Plumas Mount Hough

5 Shasta-Trinity Lower Trinity
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

72

Region National Forest Ranger District

5 Sierra Bass Lake

5 Stanislaus Calaveras 

5 Tahoe Foresthill

6 Colville Three Rivers

6 Fremont-Winema Lakeview

6 Fremont-Winema Chemult

6 Fremont-Winema Chiloquin

6 Gifford Pinchot Cowlitz Valley

6 Gifford Pinchot Mount Adams

6 Malheur Blue Mountain*

6 Malheur Prairie City*

6 Malheur Emigrant*

6 Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Darrington*

6 Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Mount Baker*

6 Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Snoqualmie

6 Mount Hood Clackamas River*

6 Mount Hood Zigzag*

6 Mount Hood Hood River*

6 Mount Hood Barlow*

6 Nez Perce* Forest response only

6 Okanogan-Wenatchee Tonasket

6 Okanogan-Wenatchee Chelan

6 Okanogan-Wenatchee Cle Elum

6 Okanogan-Wenatchee Naches

6 Olympic Hood Canal

6 Olympic Pacific

6 Rogue-Siskiyou Powers

6 Rogue-Siskiyou Prospect*

6 Rogue-Siskiyou Butte Falls*

6 Rogue-Siskiyou Applegate

6 Umpqua Cottage Grove

6 Umpqua Diamond Lake

6 Umpqua North Umpqua

6 Umpqua Tiller

6 Willamette Middle Fork

8 Alabama National Forests Bankhead

8 Chattahoochee-Oconee Chattooga
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

73

Region National Forest Ranger District

8 Chattahoochee-Oconee Oconee

8 Cherokee Ocoee

8 Cherokee Watauga

8 Daniel Boone Redbird

8 Daniel Boone London

8 Daniel Boone Morehead

8 Daniel Boone Somerset

8 Daniel Boone Stearns

8 Florida National Forests Seminole

8 Florida National Forests Lake George

8 George Washington-Jefferson*

8 Kisatchie Winn

8 Mississippi National Forests Bienville

8 Mississippi National Forests De Soto

8 Mississippi National Forests Holly Springs

8 Mississippi National Forests Homochitto

8 North Carolina National Forests Appalachian 

8 North Carolina National Forests Highlands

8 North Carolina National Forests Wayah

8 North Carolina National Forests Tusquitee

8 North Carolina National Forests Pisgah

8 Ouachita Oklahoma (Tiak, 

 Kiamichi, Choctaw)

8 Ouachita Womble*

8 Ouachita Caddo*

8 Ouachita Mena & Oden

8 Ozark-St. Francis Sylamone*

8 Ozark-St. Francis St. Francis*

8 Ozark-St. Francis Boston Mountain

8 Ozark-St. Francis Mount Magazine

8 Ozark-St. Francis Pleasant Hill

8 Ozark-St. Francis Bayou

8 Sumter Andrew Pickens

8 Texas National Forests-Sabine Sabine 

9 Allegheny Marienville

9 Allegheny Bradford

9 Chequamegon-Nicolet Lakewood-Laona
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

74

Region National Forest Ranger District

9 Chequamegon-Nicolet Medford-Park Falls

9 Chequamegon-Nicolet Great Divide

9 Chequamegon-Nicolet Washburn

9 Chippewa Walker

9 Chippewa Blackduck

9 Chippewa Marcell and Deer River

9 Green Mountain Rochester and Middle

9 Hiawatha Munising

9 Hiawatha Rapid River-Manistique

9 Hiawatha Sault St. Marie

9 Hiawatha St. Ignace

9 Huron-Manistee Baldwin-White Cloud

9 Huron-Manistee Tawas-Harrisville

9 Huron-Manistee Cadillac-Manistee 

9 Huron-Manistee Mio

9 Mark Twain Ava-Cassville-Willow

9 Mark Twain Doniphan-Eleven Pt.

9 Mark Twain Houston & Rolla

9 Mark Twain Cedar Creek

9 Mark Twain Potosi

9 Mark Twain Salem

9 Mark Twain Poplar Bluff

9 Monongahela Gauley

9 Monongahela Marlinton*

9 Monongahela White Sulphur*

9 Monongahela Cheat

9 Monongahela Potomac

9 Ottawa Begland

9 Ottawa Bessemer

9 Ottawa Kenton

9 Ottawa Ontonagon

9 Ottawa Watersmeet

9 Ottawa Iron River

9 Shawnee Vienna

9 Shawnee Jonesboro-Murphy

9 Superior Laurentian

9 Superior Tofte and Gunflint
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

75

Region National Forest Ranger District

9 Wayne Ironton*

9 Wayne Athens*

9 White Mountain Androscoggin

9 White Mountain Ammonusuc-Pemigewassett.

9 White Mountain Saco

10 Chugach Glacier

10 Tongass Hoonah

10 Tongass Petersburg

10 Tongass Craig

10 Tongass Wrangell

10 Tongass Juneau

10 Tongass Ketchikan-Misty Fiord
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

76

Appendix 3: Combined List of Products or Species

The list is composed of terms used by the respondents. We did not attempt to 

consolidate items (i.e., novelty wood and special wood), as we can’t be certain 

whether the terms refer to the same items. Many respondents recorded general 

categories (e.g., floral greens) as well as nonbiological products; additionally only a 

few respondents provided scientific names for the species they listed. Owing to the 

difficulty of assigning scientific names to the products (i.e, cedar could include several species of trees, including incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) (Torr.) Florin, 

Spanish cedar (Cedrela odorata L.), Alaska cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 

(D. Don) Spach), common juniper (Juniperus communis L.), and eastern redcedar 

(Juniperus virginiana L.), we have listed the terms as used by respondents. Although some of the items included in the list likely overlap, many of the items listed 

also likely encompass more than one species or product. For example, on some 

districts that reported “mushrooms,” multiple species of mushrooms are harvested. 

The list thus provides only an approximate picture of the numbers and types of 

species and products harvested on national forests. 

Agave 

Bark

Bark–birch 

Bark–cedar

Basketry material

Bean sticks

Beargrass 

Berries

Berries–huckleberries

Berries–saw palmetto

Botanical specimens

Botany permits

Boughs

Boughs–balsam

Boughs–Christmas

Boughs–conifer

Boughs–green

Brown ash

Burls

Chaparral

Christmas trees

Cohosh

Cohosh–black

Cones

Cones–acorn

Cones–conifer

Cones–dry

Cones–Frazier fir

Cones–pine

Cones–sugar pine

Cuttings

Ferns

Fiber

Firewood

Firewood–oak, religious

Floral greenery

Floral products

Fronds–palm

Fronds–palmetto

Galax

Galax leaves

Ginseng
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

77

Goldenseal

Grapevine

Gravel

Green alder

Hay

Herbs

Juniper products

Ladybugs

Latillas

Leeks

Lycopodium

Lyonia ferruginea

Manzanita

Maple taps

Medicinal plants

Minerals

Mistletoe

Moss

Moss–deer

Moss–log

Moss–sheet

Moss–wood

Mountain laurel–cuttings

Mountain laurel–sticks

Mushrooms

Native American materials

Nuts–acorns

Nuts–pinyon

Ocotillo

Ornamentals

Palmetto fronds

Pine products

Pine straw

Plants–miscellaneous

Poles–bean

Poles–ceremonial firewood

Poles–tepee

Posts–cedar

Posts–fence

Posts–locust

Posts and poles

Princess pine

Ramps

Rhododendron–sticks

Rock

Rock–decorative

Rock–landscape

Root wads

Salal

Sand

Sassafras

Scientific study collections

Seed

Seed–fescue

Seed–native plants

Seed–wildflower

Seedlings–Frazier fir

Shrubs

Sotol

Stays–fence

Stumps–cedar

Timber–sawlogs

Transplants–evergreen

Transplants

Transplants–aspen

Transplants–lodgepole pine

Transplants–rhododendron

Transplants–sagebrush

Trees

Trees–bonsai

Turkey oak tips

Twigs

Twigs–birch

Vigas

Vines

Walking sticks–aspen
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

78

Wildflowers

Wildings

Willows

Wood–carving logs

Wood–cedar

Wood–construction

Wood–craft

Wood–decorative

Wood–house logs

Wood–salvage

Wood–small sales

Wood–sticks

Wood–stumps

Yucca 
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

79

Appendix 4: NTFP Inventorying and Monitoring Methods, 2003

Inventory methods

Biological studies Informal field checks Permits Cultural resource survey

Plots Informal check or inspection Permit analysis Cultural resource survey

 or administration

Field exam Inspection Permittee survey

Compartment exam Roadside surveys

Inventory

General survey

Cruising

Transect analysis

Stand exams

Monitoring methods

Biological studies Informal field checks Permits

Plots Informal check or inspection Permit analysis

 or administration

Field exam Inspection Permittee survey

Compartment exam Roadside surveys

Inventory Site checks

General survey
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

80

Appendix 5: Personnel Who Inventory and Monitor NTFPs

Inventoryinga

Forest Service Forest Service Forest Service Other Forest Non-Forest 

forester vegetation team biological scientist Service personnel Service personnel

Forester or Vegetation team Ecologist Cultural resource Contractor

 silviculturalist manager

Timber sales Wildlife technician Graduate student

 administrator

Forest technician Wildlife biologist Volunteers

Special Forest 

 Products Coordinator

a“District staff,” “forest management staff,” and “temporary” excluded for lack of specificity.

Monitoringa

Forest Service Forest Service law Forest Service Other Forest Non-Forest 

forester enforcement officer biological scientist Service personnel Service personnel

Forester or Law enforcement Botanist Front desk Contractor

 silviculturalist

Timber sales Ecologist Recreation Volunteers

 administrator

Forest technician Mycologist Cultural resources 

 manager (CRM)

CRM technician

Engineer

Minerals specialist

Wildlife technician

Wildlife biologist

SFP coordinator

SFP technician

a“District staff,” “forest management staff,” “resource officer,” “specialist” and “temporary” excluded for lack of specificity.
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

81

Forest Service Forest Service Forest Service Other Forest Non Forest 

forester law enforcement officer biological scientist Service personnel Service personnel

Foresters or Law enforcement Biologist Cultural resources Other agency

 silviculturalist manager

Timber sales Botanist Cultural resources Contractor

 administrator management 

 technician

Forest technician Ecologist Wildlife biologist Nongovernmental 

 organization

 Botany technician SFP coordinator Scientist

 SFP permit Users

 administrator

Fish biologist Volunteers

 NEPA team

 Fire staff

 Hydrologist

a“District staff,” “specialist,” and “temporary” were excluded for lack of specificity.

Appendix 6: Personnel Who Monitor Ecological Impacts 

of NTFP Management Activitiesa
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

82

Assist law 

enforcement Improve business 

with monitoring Have interest Provide labor and management Have knowledge

Can help do law Harvesters have an Harvesters can Involving harvesters Harvesters have 

 monitoring for interest in doing provide labor will help small knowledge

 enforcement inventory and business do better

 monitoring

Harvesters involve- Harvesters can report

 ment will improve data or information

 management from the field

Appendix 7: Reasons to Involve Harvesters in Inventory and Monitoring
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

83

Appendix 8: Reasons for Not Involving Harvesters in 

Inventory and Monitoringa Negative agency FS lacks No inventory Negative agency perceptions FS lacks capacity (not and monitoring Political perceptions of concerning funding lack of money) needed obstacles harvester ability harvester interest Other Lack of Large areas makes Limited resource Potential for Lack credibility Limited (harvester) Low market value funding management difficult supply conflicts demand Lack institutional No perceived Policies inconducive Doubt reliability Lack of incentives Limited market capacity to carry need to collaboration for harvesters out enforcement Lack institutional Sufficient Lack of institutional Bias Secrecy Commercial harvest capacity for knowledge support / political not allowed developing trust already will with harvesters Lack institutional Not an agency Limited skills Harvesters No or limited 

 capacity to do priority unwilling to number of 

 monitoring cooperate harvesters

Institutional capacity Harvesters have Forest is remote

 lacking (system) limited knowledge

Lack of personnel

Small program

a”Limited public interest” and “interest lacking” excluded for lack of specificity.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-gtr-655

84

FS lacks FS lacks capacity Business Regulatory Political

funding (not lack of funding) obstacles restrictions obstacles

Lack of Lack administrative Limited demand No commercial Lack of agency

 funding capacity from harvesters harvesting support

 allowed

Lack analytical Limited supplies Permits cost Low agency 

 capacity of resources too much priority

Lack enforcement Unsuitable location Planning, policy, Low benefit 

 capacity or regulatory for cost

 restrictions

Lack monitoring Market barriers Site closures Potential stake- 

 capacity holder objections

Lack knowledge No need Access limitations Concerns over 

 conflicts

Lack staff No or small Concerns about 

 program sustainability

Lack inventory Remote location

 and monitoring 

 capacity

Lack planning Variation in resource 

 capacity demand

Large acreage Variation in resource 

 to manage supplies

Scattered or wide 

 distribution of 

 resources

No or few commercial 

 harvesters

Appendix 9: Barriers to Expanding Commercial NTFP Harvesting
Nontimber Forest Products Management on National Forests in the United States

85

Unclear to respondent 

FS lacks capacity if inventory and 

FS lacks funding (not lack of money) monitoring is needed Political obstacles

Lack funding Large area Limited demand Lack of interest 

 for resources (within agency)

Lack expertise No perceived need Lack political will 

 or management 

 support

Lack planning Few harvesters Not a priority

 capacity

Lack staff or Resources are abundant, Lack of public interest

 personnel no need to monitor 

 harvesting

Wide distribution Limited resource 

 supplies

Remote location

Small program

Appendix 10: Barriers to NTFP Inventory and Monitoring

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication request (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300