Washington’s Forest Resources, 

2002–2006 

Five-Year Forest Inventory

and Analysis Report

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-800

April 2010

United States

Department of 

Agriculture DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Forest

Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station
Technical Editors

Sally Campbell is a biological scientist, Karen W addell is a forester, and Andrew Gray

is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Contributing Authors

Dave Azuma is a research forester, Glenn Christensen is a forester, Joseph Donnegan is

an ecologist, Jeremy Fried is a research forester, Sarah Jovan is a post-doctoral

scientist, Olaf Kuegler is a mathematical statistician, Vicente Monleon is a research

mathematical statistician, and Dale W eyermann is the Geographic Information System

Group Leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland,

OR 97205; Todd Morgan is Director, Bureau of Business and Economic Research,

University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812; Dorian Smith is an

economic analyst, Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1111 Washington St.,

Olympia, WA 98504.

Cover

Mount Rainier, Washington. Photo by Joel Thompson

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 an

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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272

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

employer.
Abstract

Campbell, Sally; W addell, Karen; Gray, Andrew, tech. eds. 2010. Washington’s forest

resources, 2002–2006: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-800. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 189 p.

This report highlights key findings from the most recent (2002-2006) data collected by

the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program across all ownerships in Washington. We

present basic resource information such as forest area, land use change, ownership,

volume, biomass, and carbon sequestration; structure and function topics such as

biodiversity, older forests, dead wood, and riparian forests; disturbance topics such as

insects and diseases, fire, invasive plants, and air pollution; and information about the

forest products industry in Washington, including data on tree growth and mortality,

removals for timber products, and nontimber forest products. The appendixes describe

inventory methods and design in detail and provide summary tables of data and statistical error for the forest characteristics sampled.

Keywords: Biomass, carbon, dead wood, diseases, fire, forest land, insects, invasive

plants, inventory, juniper, lichens, nontimber forest products, ozone, timber volume,

timberland, wood products.
Summary

The growing population of Washington depends on forests for recreation, clean water,

clean air, wildlife habitat, and products. Thus, monitoring and interpreting change in

forest conditions over time, the core charge of the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory

and Analysis (PNW-FIA) Program, is critical to assuring we conserve and use our natural

resources sustainably. This report is a snapshot of conditions on Washington’s diverse

and extensive forests in the first half-decade of the 21st century.

The following summary of key findings shows the importance of monitoring the

status and change in our forest resources:

• Washington’s total land area is 43 million acres, 22 million of which are

forested. Forested acreage is divided somewhat evenly between the western and

eastern parts of the state, along the Cascade Crest.

• Washington’s timber harvest volume has been declining since 1989. However,

between 2000 and 2006, total lumber production increased. Washington will

likely continue to be one of the top three softwood lumber producing states.

• Washington’s forests are presently a net sink for carbon. Growth of trees

significantly exceeds harvest and mortality overall, owing to trends on public

lands. Through modeling work by FIA, accumulated forest biomass is being

evaluated for its potential to furnish energy and income for rural communities.

The rising interest in biomass as an alternative source of energy will accelerate

the need to understand how much biomass is available and where it is located.

• As federal forest management has moved toward a greater emphasis on

nontimber resources, the job of providing timber now rests with private

landowners. Private landowners currently provide most of Washington’s wood

products, timber-related employment, and timber revenue. Most noncorporate

forest owners are older than 50, suggesting that their lands will change

ownership in the next 20 to 40 years. Private forest land generally has a higher

proportion of productive land in younger age classes. These immature trees will

take time to grow before they are available for timber harvest. Additionally,

ownership and land use changes may take significant acreage out of production

altogether.

• The character of corporate forest ownership is changing rapidly as some

traditional timber companies (those whose primary business is manufacturing

forest products) sell their lands to investment companies such as real-estate

investment trusts (REITs) and timberland investment management organizations

(TIMOs). It is unclear what the ownership shift from forest products companies

to TIMOs and REITs means for the management of Washington’s corporate

forests and the impact on land use conversion.
• Forest land is being converted to other uses throughout Washington but

particularly near urban areas. Inventories in the 1990s found large losses of

private timberland (0.5 percent per year) to urban development in western

Washington during the 1980s and 1990s.

• With fragmentation and increased disturbance, forest land and rangeland are

increasingly susceptible to invasive exotic and aggressive native organisms.

Nonnative invasive plant species already are well established in Washington’s

forests. The greatest insect- or disease-related changes in Washington’s forests

are likely to come from introduced organisms, although native pests can become

a problem in response to drought, changes in stand density, or climate.

• The majority of old-growth forest is now found on federal land, although the

current percentage of total forest in old-growth condition is estimated to be less

than half of that existing before Euro-American settlement. The percentage will

gradually increase if national forests follow recent successional trends. Changes

in climate and disturbance regimes are expected to play important roles in the

development of older forest types.

• Large-diameter dead wood is not common in Washington’s forests. Wildlife

species that depend on large dead wood for nesting, roosting, or foraging may

be limited by the amount of suitable habitat currently available.

• Air quality in and near forests is generally good, although nitrogen pollution as

indicated by the occurrence of certain lichen communities is a problem in some

west-side forests, particularly in the Puget Trough ecoregion where much of

western Washington’s agricultural and metropolitan areas lie. Ozone-sensitive

plant species show some signs of damage in the Columbia River Gorge.

• A single fuel-treatment prescription does not fit all landscapes in Washington.

Based on crown fire models and assuming severe fire weather, just over half of

Washington’s forested lands are predicted to develop crown fires, with less than

a quarter expected to develop active crown fire. Although the total area that may

benefit from fuel treatment is substantial, treatment to reduce crown fire may

only be required in a relatively small proportion of strategically-located stands.

The analyses and tools that PNW-FIA continues to develop will help land managers

and the public better understand how Washington’s forests are changing. We have

implemented a nationally consistent inventory design that will help us to monitor overall

forest change and detailed changes in forest structure, species composition, size class,

ownership, management, disturbance regimes, and climatic effects.
Contents

1 Chapter 1: Introduction

7 Chapter 2: Basic Resource Information

7 Forest Area

12 Ownership

17 Volume

 25 Biomass and Carbon

33 Chapter 3: Forest Structure and Function

33 Older Forests

37 Lichen and Plant Biodiversity

41 Dead Wood

47 Riparian Forests

49 Tree Crowns and Understory Vegetation

55 Chapter 4: Disturbance and Stressors

55 Insects, Diseases, and Other Damaging Agents

59 Invasive Plants

61 Air Quality

67 Fire Incidence

69 Crown Fire Hazard

79 Chapter 5: Products

79 Washington’s Primary Forest Products Industry

82 Growth, Removals, and Mortality

85 Removals for Timber Products

89 Nontimber Forest Products

93 Chapter 6: Conclusions

94 Common and Scientific Plant Names

97 Acknowledgments

97 Metric Equivalents

98 Literature Cited

107 Appendix A: Methods and Design

113 Appendix B: Summary Data Tables

180 Glossary

1

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Chapter 1: Introduction1

This report highlights the status for many of

Washington’s forest resources. The dedicated work

of the field crews at the Pacific Northwest Research

Station (PNW), Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program forms the core of the information reported here. Our

analyses describe the amount and characteristics of

Washington’s forests, summarized primarily from field

plots measured in the years 2002 through 2006.

The FIA Program was created within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service in 1928 to conduct

unbiased assessments of all the Nation’s forested lands for

use in economic and forest management planning. The

FIA Program was charged with collecting forest data on a

series of permanent field plots, compiling and making

data available, and providing research and interpretations

from those data. Four FIA units are responsible for inventories of all forested lands in the continental United

States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, and several Pacific Island groups. Originally all

plots were assessed within a period of 1 to 3 years with

periodic reassessments, typically every 10 years in the

West.

Starting in 2000, as required by the Agricultural

Research Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998

(the Farm Bill), FIA implemented a new standardized

national inventory method in which a portion of all plots

in each state were measured each year. Appendix A explains the differences between the previous and current

inventory methods. The effect of the change is that, for

the first time in 70 years, all FIA units are using a common plot design, a common set of measurement protocols, and a standard database design for compilation and

distribution of data. Under this unified approach, FIA is

now poised to provide unbiased estimates of a wide

variety of forest conditions over all forested lands in the

United States in a consistent and timely manner. The new

1

 Author: Dale Weyermann.

design will eventually enable FIA units in every state to

consistently monitor changes in forest conditions, ownership, management, disturbance regimes, and climate

effects that occur through time.

This report covers all forested lands in Washington

(fig. 1). All estimates are average values for the time

between 2002 and 2006. Field crews visited each inventory plot to measure forest characteristics (fig. 2). Most

measurements use national protocols, but several are

specific to forest issues in Washington; these have been

developed with input from our clients.

The base set of field plots (called “phase 2”) are

spaced at approximate 3-mile intervals on a hexagonal

grid throughout forested lands in Washington (figs. 3 and

4). One out of every 16 phase 2 plots is a “phase 3” plot,

where detailed information on forest health is collected.

Plots span both public and privately owned forests,

including lands reserved from industrial wood production

(e.g., national parks, wilderness areas, and natural areas).

The annual inventory involves a cycle of measurements

for 10 systematic subsamples, or panels; each panel

represents about 10 percent of the approximately 4,000

forest land plots in Washington. A panel takes about 1

year to complete (fig. 3). This report presents the principal

findings from the first five panels, which make up 50 percent of data from the new annual inventory, collected

from 2002 through 2006 (fig. 4). This report also includes

data from spatially intensified plots (on a 1.7-mile

spacing) measured concurrently using the same protocols

on national forest land outside wilderness. Additional

information about annual inventories is available in

appendix A of this report and at http://fia.fs.fed.us/.

The data we collect allow us to present a broad array

of findings that cover many of Washington’s current forest

issues and concerns. This report presents basic resource

information, such as forest area and ownership, and

describes the composition, structure, and functions of

Washington’s forests. It includes data on wildlife habitat,

biodiversity, biomass, and riparian areas. Results from
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 1—Washington land cover (forest/nonforest geographic information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water GIS

layer: Homer et al. 2004).

John Chase
3

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 2—Forest Inventory and Analysis field crews measure live and dead trees,

down wood, understory vegetation, and many other variables on each forested plot

they visit.

Figure 3—Example of the hexagonal grid and panel system

used to locate Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. Although

there are over 10,000 phase 2 hexes in Washington, only about

7,687 of them are forested field plot candidates. One-tenth of

the forested plots are visited each year (red dots).

Lewis County

Summer Dunn
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

monitoring forest disturbance (e.g., air pollution, fire,

invasive plants, insects, and diseases) are likewise

included. We also present information on forest products,

including timber volume, mill outputs, and nontimber

products.

Data are summarized by various geographic and

ecological boundaries that we felt would be useful to a

variety of readers (figs. 5 through 8). Narrative discussions

of each topic include background information, key

findings from the FIA inventory, and a few interpretive

comments. Appendix B of this report presents the summarized data in tabular form with error estimates. These

tables aggregate data to a variety of levels, including

ecological units (e.g., ecological section or ecosection)

(Cleland et al. 1997, 2005; McNab et al. 2005), owner

group, survey unit, forest type, and tree species, allowing

the inventory results to be applied at various scales and

used for various analyses. Plot and tree-level data are also

available for download at www.fia.fs.fed.us.

Figure 4—Forested plots measured between 2002 and 2006 and thus included in this report. Locations are approximate (forest/nonforest

geographic information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water GIS layer: Homer et al. 2004).

John Chase
5

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 5—Washington counties (forest/nonforest geographic information system layer: Blackard et al. 2008).

Figure 6—Washington ecosections (ecosection geographic information system layer: Cleland et al. 2005).

John Chase

John Chase
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 7—Washington forest ownership categories (ownership geographic information system [GIS] layer:

GAP Analysis Program, 2000; urban/water GIS layer: Homer et al. 2004).

Figure 8—Washington Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) survey units (county groupings used in this

report) (forest/nonforest geographic information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water GIS

layer: Homer et al. 2004).

John Chase

John Chase
7

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Chapter 2: Basic Resource Information

“Forest land” is defined as land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, or land formerly

having such tree cover and not currently developed for a

nonforest use. The minimum area for classification is 1

acre. The distribution of forest land in Washington is

influenced foremost by climate, which is in turn shaped

by major geographic features such as the Olympic and

Cascade Ranges, as well as the Willapa Hills paralleling

the southern Washington coast, the Okanogan Highlands

in northeastern Washington, and the Columbia basin in

southern and central regions of the state (fig. 9). These

features divide the state into distinctly different ecological sections that support different types of forests (fig. 6).

The distribution of forest land is also influenced by

human use, particularly urban development.

The FIA protocol uses a combination of remote sensing (aerial photos or satellite data) and on-the-ground

observation to determine the extent of forested area. Field Dale Waddell

This section provides a broad look at the distribution,

extent, and ownership of Washington’s forests and the

amount of wood (volume and biomass) in them. It lays

the groundwork for more specialized analyses and summaries in the coming sections. Highlights include discussions of forest ownership in Washington, the status of

five-needle pines, and biomass and carbon accumulation.

Forest Area2

Background

The trend in forest area over time is the most basic measure of forest health. The Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA) Program tracks the trend in forest area to provide

meaningful data for international assessments and for

state and national assessments such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Resource Planning Act (Smith et

al. 2004).

2

 Author: Glenn Christensen.

Dense Douglas-fir trees.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 9—Mountain ranges influence the diversity of forests and their distribution in Washington.

Joel Thompson

crews determine the proportion of each plot that is forested; these proportions are then expanded and summed

to provide an overall estimate of forested acres. Specific

information on sampling methodology can be found in

the introduction to this volume and in appendix A.

Spatial and temporal trends in forested area are tracked at

various levels—survey unit, ecological section, and state

as a whole—producing long-term data that inform possible mechanisms of change, whether from human or

ecological causes.

Findings

Of Washington’s total land area of 42.6 million acres,

about 22.4 million are forested. Forested acreage is

divided roughly evenly between the western and eastern sides of the state. The Cascade crest separates the

Central and Inland Empire survey units from the Puget

Sound, Southwest, and Olympic Peninsula survey units

(fig. 8) and serves as a convenient division for acreage

discussion.

Area by land class—

Most forest land in Washington is classified as timberland, (about 18.3 million acres) that is, forest land capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet of wood per

acre per year and not legally restricted from harvest.

Timberland makes up over 40 percent of all acreage in

the state (fig. 10). Most of it lies in the larger Central

and Inland Empire survey units, 20 and 25 percent,

respectively. The majority (76 percent) of timberland

is distributed among four ecosections (fig. 6): the

Okanogan highlands (21 percent), the Northern Cascades

(20 percent), the Washington Coast Range (19 percent)

and the Western Cascades (16 percent).

Area by forest type group—

The FIA protocol classifies forest land based on the

predominant live tree species cover. About 86 percent

of Washington’s forests (19 million acres) are softwood

conifer forest types. Within these types are four primary

forest type groups (i.e., combinations of forest types that
9

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

share closely associated species or productivity requirements). These are Douglas-fir, fir/spruce/mountain hemlock, western hemlock/Sitka spruce, and ponderosa pine

(see “Common and Scientific Plant Names” section).

Douglas-fir forests cover the largest area, nearly

9 million acres (39 percent of total forest land acres),

followed by fir/spruce/mountain hemlock forests at

about 4 million acres (18 percent), western hemlock/Sitka

spruce at 3 million acres (15 percent), and ponderosa pine

forests at 2 million acres (9 percent) (fig. 11). Hardwood

forest types account for an additional 2.6 million acres

(12 percent). About 625,000 acres (nearly 3 percent) are

classified as nonstocked.3 The most common hardwood

forest type group in Washington is the alder/maple group,

which occupies 1.9 million acres (9 percent) of forested

land throughout the state (fig. 12).

3

 “Nonstocked” forest land means land that is less than 10 percent

stocked by trees, or, for some woodlands, less than 5 percent

crown cover.

Area by productivity class—

Overall, most forest land (64 percent) has the potential to

produce between 50 and 164 cubic feet per acre per year

of merchantable wood. Approximately 4 million acres

(17 percent) is classified as highly productive (i.e., capable of growing more than 165 cubic feet per acre per

year of wood). About 41 percent of this acreage is in the

Douglas-fir forest type group (fig. 13). Lands of the next

highest productivity grouping, capable of growing 85 to

164 cubic feet per acre per year, are also dominated by

Douglas-fir. Most other forest land (about 8 million acres,

or 38 percent) is classified as lower productivity, capable

of growing between 20 and 84 cubic feet of wood per

acre per year.

Interpretation

Statewide estimates of timberland area declined from

1953 to 1997 (Smith et al. 2004), although the most

Figure 10—Percentage of area in Washington, by land class category, 2002–2006.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 11—Area of forest land in Washington, by softwood forest type groups, 2002–2006. Lines at end of bars

represent ± standard error.

Figure 12—Area of forest land in Washington, by hardwood forest type groups, 2002–2006. Lines at end of bars

represent ± standard error.
11

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 13—Area of forest land in Washington, by cubic-foot productivity classes and forest type group,

2002–2006. Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.

recent estimates show an increase in timberland (fig. 14).

The most recent estimate is confounded by differences

between the previous periodic and current annual inventory methods in distinguishing between timberland and

other forest land. Inventories in the 1990s (Gray et al.

2005, 2006) showed the same statewide proportion of

forest land (53 percent) as this current inventory. The

same inventories found large losses of private timberland

(0.5 percent per year) to urban development in western

Washington during the 1980s and 1990s.

Forest Area Tables in Appendix B

Table 1—Number of Forest Inventory and Analysis plots

measured in Washington 2002–2006, by land class,

sample status, owner group

Table 2—Estimated area of forest land, by owner class

and forest land status, Washington, 2002–2006

Table 3—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type

group and productivity class, Washington, 2002–2006

Table 4—Estimated area of forest land, by forest

type group, owner group, and land status, Washington,

2002–2006

Table 5—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type

group and stand size class, Washington, 2002–2006

Table 6—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type

group and stand age class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 7—Estimated area of timberland, by forest type

group and stand size class, Washington, 2002-2006
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Ownership4

Background

The management and use of western forests often depends

on their ownership, and management intentions differ

between owners. Federal owners must consider multiple

management objectives including water, wildlife, recreation, conservation, biological diversity, and wood

products, whereas corporate and other private owners

often focus on outcomes that are more specific such as

aesthetics, wood production, or real estate investment

(fig. 15).

4

 Author: Dave Azuma.

Findings

The federal government manages about 44 percent of

Washington’s 22.4 million acres of forested land. The

National Forest System (NFS) and the National Park

Service (NPS) administer most of this acreage (fig. 16).

The state also has substantial holdings, mostly managed

by the Washington Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) with about 2.5 million acres.

Public ownership—

Land administered by the federal government tends to be

at higher elevations and to contain older forests. Federal

forests typically contain bigger trees on less productive

sites; about 8 percent of federal forest land is considered

highly productive (capable of producing more than 165

Figure 14—Area of timberland in Washington by inventory year (Smith et al. 2004), 1953–2005. Note: The 2002–

2006 timberland area estimate is based on the annual inventory design and protocols; the previous area estimates are

based on periodic inventories with different designs and protocols. Key differences between current and previous

estimates, apart from real change, are due in large part to (1) application of plot stockability factors and stockable

proportions to different sets of plots in the periodic and annual inventories, which affects the classification of a plot

as timberland or not, and (2) changes in definitions and protocols arising from national standardization of the

inventory for qualification as tree, forest land, reserved land, and timberland.
13

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 15—Almost 10 million acres are privately owned in Washington.

Figure 16—Percentage of forest land area in Washington, by owner group,

2002–2006.

Andy Gray
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

cubic feet per year) and 23 percent of private lands fall

into that category. State lands have roughly 31 percent in

the high productivity class.

The majority of stands over 100 years old are in

national forests (fig. 17), many of them in reserved areas.

Federal owners manage the vast majority of the 3.7 million acres of reserved forest lands (those withdrawn by

law from production of wood products). Reserved lands

are distributed among Forest Service wilderness areas;

the Olympic, North Cascades, and Mount Rainer National

Parks; Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument;

and state parks. Many of these reserves contain highelevation forests that are ecologically and scenically

unique. The reserved forest tends to be in older age

classes; over 66 percent (2.4 million acres) of reserved

forest land contains stands older than 100 years as

opposed to 22 percent of the nonreserved forest land.

Although the majority of federal land does not meet

the FIA definition of legally reserved, a substantial fraction of it cannot be considered available for wood production. Congressionally reserved land accounts for 26

percent of the 8.4 million acres of national forest land.

Other administratively withdrawn areas within the NFS,

including but not limited to riparian and late-successional reserves, may not be available for production of

wood products. These congressionally and administratively withdrawn areas may produce some wood products,

but they are managed primarily for other objectives.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the management

emphasis on federal forests began to shift away from

primarily wood production. The average contribution

of federal forests to Washington’s total annual harvest

decreased from 19 percent average between 1965 and

1990 to 4 percent between 1991 and 2002 (see “Removal” section in chapter 5).

Other publicly owned forest lands include forests

administered by other federal agencies, such as the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department of Defense. The majority of other public lands are those administered by the

WDNR with about 2.5 million acres.

Private ownership—

Private owners include families, individuals, conservation and natural resource organizations, unincorporated

partnerships, associations, clubs, corporations, and

Native American tribes. Excluding the Native American

owners, the vast majority of the noncorporate owners

own parcels of 500 or fewer acres, and over 70 percent

of them use the land as their primary residence. Most

noncorporate owners are older than 50 (Butler et al.

Figure 17—Area of forest land group in Washington, by owner group and age class, 2002–2006.
15

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

2005), suggesting that these lands will change ownership

or be passed to other generations in the next 20 to 40

years. Private lands tend to contain a higher proportion

of productive land, and the forests tend to be in younger

age classes. Although these lands have no official

reserved status, some environmental protection is

conferred by various state and federal laws.

The character of corporate forest ownership has

changed in recent years. Some large, publicly owned

timber companies have transitioned into real estate investment trusts (REITs) and timberland investment management organizations (TIMOs). The REITs and TIMOs

own forest land as investment vehicles that compete with

and complement alternative investments; these entities

may or may not own wood-processing facilities. The

difference between them is that REITs directly own forest

land, whereas TIMOs manage lands owned by investors.

Interpretation

Because the forest products industry is one of the leading economic drivers in Washington, the management

choices made and the constraints placed on harvest for

Washington’s forests significantly affect the state’s economy. As the NFS has moved toward a greater emphasis

on nonwood resources, timber production has been

shifted onto other public and private lands. Because

noncorporate forest landowners are aging, and because

a high proportion of noncorporate forest lands are used

as primary residences, these lands may be less available

to provide timber products in the future.

It is unclear what the ownership shift from forest

products companies to TIMOs and REITs means for the

management of Washington’s corporate forests. As these

owners pursue higher returns, it is possible that more land

will be converted to nonforest uses. The level of forestry

research funding provided by timber companies may be

changing as well. If investment returns can be linked to

continued research, companies will likely continue to

support research. In this regard, TIMOs and REITs are

active members of industry organizations and research

cooperatives.

Ownership Tables in Appendix B

Table 2—Estimated area of forest land, by owner class

and forest land status, Washington, 2002–2006

Table 4—Estimated area of forest land, by forest

type group, owner group, and land status, Washington,

2002–2006
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Family-Owned Forests: A Survey5

The National Woodland Owner Survey, a

questionnaire-based survey conducted by FIA,

provides some insight into private family forest

owners and their concerns, their current use and

management, and their future intentions for their

forests (fig. 18) (Butler et al. 2005). In Washington,

99.5 percent of family owners surveyed between

2002 and 2006 own parcels of 500 or fewer acres;

these owners account for 84 percent of the familyowned forest land acres (fig. 19). Only about 13

percent of the surveyed owners had written management plans, and participation in programs such as

sustainable forest certification (green certification)

or cost-share was low (less than 3 percent). The greatest

concerns of respondents were development of nearby

lands, high property taxes, and misuse of forest land;

other concerns were trespassing or poaching, keeping

lands intact for heirs, damage or noise from motorized

5

 Author: Sally Campbell.

vehicles, and dealing with endangered species. Plans

for forest land differ; 3 to 8 percent of surveyed owners

planned to sell, subdivide, or convert their forests.

Family forest land ownership will certainly change

as owners age and pass their land on to heirs who may

or may not retain it as forest

land. Average parcel size has

gotten smaller over the last 20

years and probably will

continue to do so. Land use

laws and regulations will

influence the rate of conversion or subdivision.

Figure 18—Family forest owners in Washington manage

their lands for a variety of objectives.

Joseph Donnegan

Figure 19—Percentage of area and percentage of family-owned forest holdings in

Washington, by size class, 2006.
17

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

The ownership survey revealed the following

demographics of Washington family forest landowners:

• 71 percent are older than 55 years.

• 31 percent have earned a bachelor’s or

graduate college degree.

• 88 percent are Caucasian.

• 65 percent are male (does not include joint

male/female owners).

Volume6

Background

The current volume of live trees provides the foundation for estimating several fundamental attributes of forest land, such as biomass, carbon storage, and capacity

for provision of wood products (fig. 20). Forest volume,

• 47 percent have owned their land for more

than 25 years.

• 80 percent use their land as their primary

residence.

• About 19 percent have harvested timber,

firewood, posts or poles, or nontimber forest

products from their land in the 5 years

preceding the 2002–2006 survey.

when placed in the context of stand age and disturbance

history, can be an indicator of forest productivity, structure, and vigor, which together serve as a broad indicator

of forest health. Species-specific equations that include

tree diameter and height are used to calculate individual

tree volumes; these are summed across all trees to provide

6

 Author: Glenn Christensen.

Figure 20—The highest volume of wood is found on older forests on federal lands.

Andy Gray
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 21—Net volume of all live trees on forest land in Washington, by species group, 2002–2006. Lines at

end of bars represent ± standard error.

estimates for different geographic areas. The net volume

estimates provided in this report for live trees do not

include volume of any observed tree defects such as

rotten and missing sections along the stem.

Findings

Washington has approximately 95 billion net cubic feet

(413 billion board feet, Scribner) of wood volume on

forest land (all owners, reserved and unreserved) with a

mean volume of about 4,231 cubic feet (18,433 board

feet) per acre. The greatest proportion of this volume is

from softwood tree species such as Douglas-fir, western

hemlock, and true firs (see “Common and Scientific Plant

Names” section), which collectively make up 73 percent

of all live-tree volume on Washington forest land (fig. 21).

Hardwood species such as red alder, maple, and oak make

up 7 percent of live-tree volume.

The majority (43 percent) of live-tree volume is on

Forest Service land (fig. 22). Most of the remaining

volume is fairly evenly distributed between other federal

government (15 percent), state and local governments

(15 percent), noncorporate private (including Native

American tribal lands) (14 percent), and corporate (13

percent) owners. Federal and state forest land tends to

have more volume per acre, on average, than privately

owned forest land (fig. 23).

Forest land volume by survey unit—

Most forest land wood volume is in the heavily forested

western half of the state (fig. 24). The west-side survey

units (Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and Southwest)
19

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 22—Net volume of all live trees on forest land in Washington, by owner group, 2002–2006. Lines at

end of bars represent ± standard error.

Figure 23—Mean net volume per acre of all live trees on forest land in Washington, by owner group,

2002–2006. Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

(fig. 8) account for approximately 73 percent of all livetree cubic-foot wood volume. The high productivity of

Figure 24—Estimated live-tree volume (net ft3/acre), Washington, 2002-2006. Red color indicates higher predicted per-acre volumes.

Estimates are kriged predictions of likely volume per acre on forest land; predictions are based on estimates of mean net cubic-foot

volume per plot (forest/nonforest geographic information system layer: Blackard et al. 2008).

Survey unit Total volume (SEa) Mean volume per acre (SE)

Billion cubic Billion board Board feet

feet feet (Scribner) Percent Cubic feet (Scribner)

Puget Sound 27 (1) 118 (6) 28 6,042 (222) 26,553 (1,185)

Olympic Peninsula 23 (1) 104 (6) 25 5,876 (262) 25,119 (1,425)

Southwest 19 (0.8) 80 (4) 20 4,934 (196) 20,430 (965)

Central 16 (0.7) 72 (4) 17 2,649 (105) 11,996 (583)

Inland Empire 9 (0.4) 39 (2) 10 2,293 (85) 9,568 (441)

Total 95 (1.8) 413 (10) 100 4,231 (80) 18,433 (420)

Note: Includes all ownerships, reserved, and unreserved land.

a

SE = standard error.

these west-side forests is apparent in their high volumeper-acre estimates:
21

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Forest land volume by diameter class—

For both softwoods and hardwoods, trees 5 to 20.9 inches

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) contain approximately

54 percent of all live tree volume (fig. 25). An estimated

14 percent of live tree volume is in the largest diameter

class of trees (≥37.0 inches d.b.h.); nearly all these trees

are softwoods. Federal lands tend to have a greater proportion of acres in the oldest forests (fig. 17; also see

“Ownership” section in this chapter), which contain

the highest volumes of wood. Ownership categories can

thus be arrayed along a gradient of diameter class (fig.

26). A similar trend is found for tree size: the proportion

of volume by ownership changes along the gradient from

smaller to larger trees. Within the smallest diameter class,

41 percent of the volume is on national forests and 23

percent is on corporate forest land. In contrast, 48 percent of the volume within the largest diameter group

(≥33.0 inches d.b.h) is on national forests and 2 percent

is on corporate forest land.

Forest land volume by species group—

Over 80 percent of live-tree volume on Washington’s

forest land is in five major softwood species groups:

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, true firs, western redcedar,

and ponderosa pine. Approximately 34 percent of all

live-tree volume is in Douglas-fir (fig. 21). The western

hemlock species group accounts for about 22 percent of

live tree volume, the true fir species group accounts for

about 17 percent, the western redcedar species group

accounts for about 6 percent, and the ponderosa pine

group accounts for about 4 percent. Of the hardwood species, red alder accounts for the most hardwood volume

statewide (about 56 percent) and makes up 4 percent of

the total cubic-foot wood volume for all species.

Figure 25—Net volume of all live trees on forest land in Washington, by diameter class, 2002–2006. Lines at end of

bars represent ± standard error.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Net volume of sawtimber-sized trees on timberland7—

Douglas-fir accounts for 41 percent of the net cubicfoot volume from sawtimber-sized trees on timberland

(fig. 27); the western hemlock group accounts for about

21 percent, the true fir group accounts for 12 percent,

the western redcedar group accounts for 6 percent, and

the ponderosa pine group accounts for 5 percent. This

volume is potentially available for manufacturing wood

products. Among the hardwood species, red alder contributes the most to sawtimber volume and represents about

4 percent of total sawtimber volume for all species in

Washington.

7

 Sawtimber trees are commercial species trees large enough to

produce usable logs (9.0 inches d.b.h. minimum for softwoods,

11.0 inches d.b.h. minimum for hardwoods), from a 1-foot stump

to a minimum top diameter (7.0 inches outside bark diameter for

softwoods, 9.0 inches outside bark diameter for hardwoods).

Interpretation

Statewide estimates of timber volume over the past 50

years show an overall increase from the 1953 inventory

(Smith et al. 2004) to the current inventory estimate

(2002-2006) reported here (fig. 28). As with our estimate

of timberland area, the current estimate of volume is

partly confounded by differences between the previous

periodic and recent annual inventory methods in distinguishing timberland from other forest, and the lack of

consistent data over time on national forest lands.

However, we found no major departures from prior

volume estimates grouped according to survey units

traditionally used by FIA for Washington

Most of the volume is found in the moist forests of

the west-side units, the Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula,

and Southwest (fig. 7). Overall, the tree species contributing the most to total volume on forest land are Douglasfir, western hemlock, true firs, western redcedar, ponderosa

Figure 26—Percentage of net

volume (ft3

) of all live trees

on forest land in Washington,

by diameter class and owner

group, 2002–2006.
23

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 27—Net volume of

sawtimber-sized trees on timberland in Washington, by owner

group, 2002–2006. Excludes miscellaneous mixed softwood and

hardwood species groups and

species groups that contribute <1

percent of total sawtimber volume.

Lines at end of bars represent ±

standard error.

Figure 28—Net volume of growing stock on timberland in Washington, by inventory year (Smith

et al. 2004), 1953–2005. Note: The 2002-2006 timberland volume estimate is based on the annual

inventory design and protocols; the previous volume estimates are based on periodic inventories with

different designs and protocols. Key differences between current and previous estimates, apart from real

change, are due in large part to (1) application of plot stockability factors and stockable propor-tions to

different sets of plots in the periodic and annual inventories, which affects the classification of a plot as

timberland or not, and (2) changes in definitions and protocols arising from national standardization of

the inventory for qualification as tree, forest land, reserved land, and timberland.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

pine, and red alder, which are also the most important

commercial species. Continued measurement of FIA plots

will allow tracking of forest volume estimates that are

useful for monitoring a wide variety of resource attributes.

Volume Tables in Appendix B

Table 8—Estimated number of live trees on forest

land, by species group and diameter class, Washington,

2002-2006

Table 9—Estimated number of growing-stock trees

on timberland, by species group and diameter class,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 10—Estimated net volume of all live trees,

by owner class and forest land status, Washington,

2002-2006

Table 11—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest land, by forest type group and stand size class,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 12—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest

land, by species group and owner group, Washington,

2002-2006

Table 13—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest

land, by species group and diameter class, Washington,

2002-2006

Table 14—Estimated net volume of growing-stock trees

on timberland, by species group and diameter class,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 15—Estimated net volume of growing-stock trees

on timberland, by species group and owner group,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 16—Estimated net volume (International 1⁄4-inch

rule) of sawtimber trees on timberland, by species group

and diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 17—Estimated net volume (Scribner rule) of

sawtimber trees on timberland, by species group and

diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 18—Estimated net volume (cubic feet) of sawtimber trees on timberland, by species group and owner

group, Washington, 2002-2006
25

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Biomass and Carbon8

Background

Forest biomass and carbon accumulate in live trees,

snags, and down wood in a mosaic of patterns across

Washington (fig. 29). During forest succession (the aging

and maturing of a forest stand), plant biomass builds up

at different rates, sequestering atmospheric gases (principally carbon dioxide) and soil nutrients into woody tree

components over time (Perry 1994). Biomass estimates

from comprehensive forest inventories are essential for

quantifying the amount and distribution of carbon stocks,

evaluating forests as a source of sustainable fuel (biomass

for energy production), and conducting research on net

primary productivity (Houghton 2005, Jenkins et al.

2001, Whittaker and Likens 1975).

In this chapter, we focus on the aboveground live-tree

components of forest biomass and make brief comparisons with dead-wood biomass, which is addressed more

fully in the “Dead Wood” section in chapter 3. Cubicfoot volume and specific gravity constants for each species were used to compute the dry weight of the entire

tree stem (all references to weight in this section are in

bone-dry, or oven-dry, tons). Stem biomass was combined

with branch biomass to compute the total aboveground

dry weight of the tree. Carbon mass was estimated by

applying conversion factors to the biomass estimates.

8

 Author: Karen Waddell.

Figure 29—Biomass estimates are useful for analysis of productivity, carbon sequestration, and utilization studies,

and for general reporting for various criteria and indicator assessments.

Karen Waddell
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 30—Aboveground live-tree biomass on

forest land in Washington, by owner group

2002–2006.

The discussion that follows focuses on an analysis of

total aboveground (including whole stem and branches,

and excluding foliage) biomass and carbon of live trees

on forest land in Washington.

Findings

Over 1.8 billion tons of biomass and almost 1 billion tons

of carbon are present in live trees (≥1 inch d.b.h.) primarily on timberland managed by the U.S. Forest Service

(fig. 30). Reserved forest land, such as wilderness areas

and national parks, contains about 489 million tons of

biomass, just over 26 percent of the state total. Statewide,

softwood forest types have 12 times the amount of live

tree biomass and carbon of hardwood types, with biomass

estimates ranging from a low of 0.3 million tons in the

western white pine type to a high of 700 million tons in

the Douglas-fir type (fig. 31). The dominant hard-wood

type is alder/maple, accounting for 120 million tons of

live-tree biomass in Washington’s forests.

Because Douglas-fir is the most abundant tree species in Washington, it is no surprise that it dominates

the biomass and carbon figures. The 641 million tons of

Douglas-fir biomass represents about 334 million tons of

carbon sequestered in live trees. Live biomass is heavily

concentrated in trees larger than 21 inches d.b.h. (fig. 32),

a trend especially pronounced for softwood species. As a

group, softwoods have almost 47 percent of the live tree

biomass in this class alone. In contrast, biomass of hardwood species is fairly evenly distributed among trees ≥5

inches d.b.h., and only 19 percent of the total biomass is

contained in the larger 21-inch class (fig. 32).

A comparison of live trees and dead wood biomass

shows that snags ≥5 inches d.b.h. add 158 million tons,

coarse woody material (CWM; defined as material ≥3

inches in diameter at the large end) adds 361 million tons

of biomass, and fine woody material (FWM; defined as

material <3 inches in diameter at the point of intersection

with the sample transect) adds 108 million tons of biomass to the forest. Total estimated biomass in live trees

and dead wood across Washington is 2.5 billion tons.

Stored carbon was about half that amount (1.3 billion

tons), with about 1 billion tons found in live trees, almost

82 million tons found in snags, and 243 million tons

stored as down wood (CWM and FWM combined). Softwood types store about 1.1 billion tons of carbon, of

which 79 percent is in live trees, 15 percent in CWM, and
27

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 31—Aboveground live-tree biomass on forest land in Washington, by forest type group, 2002–2006.

Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.

Figure 32—Aboveground live-tree biomass on forest land in Washington, by diameter class, 2002–2006.

Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

6 percent in snags (fig. 33). The bulk of carbon is stored

in the Douglas-fir forest type, and the smallest amount is

in the western white pine type.

On average, the combined live and dead (snags and

CWM) biomass amounted to an estimated 107 tons per

acre, and the carbon mass amounted to about 55 tons per

acre (fig. 34). The western hemlock/Sitka spruce type had

almost twice the state average, with a mean of over 206

tons per acre of biomass and 107 tons per acre of carbon.

Interpretation

Substantial quantities of forest biomass and carbon are

present in Washington forests. The current rising interest

in biomass as an alternative source of energy will accelerate the need to understand how much source material is

available and where it is located. The FIA inventory

shows that there is almost three and one-half times as

much live-tree biomass as dead-wood biomass. This is

important because the preferred source of material for

energy production comes from components of the livetree resource, such as wood residues from harvest operations and sawmills, forest thinning, and biomass plantations. For example, in northern California, a small energy

company operates a wood-fired powerplant that uses local

mill wastes, chips, and unmerchantable whole logs to

generate over 375 million kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity per year. With an estimated consumption rate of

about 13,259 kWh per capita in Washington (California

Energy Commission 2008) this is enough power for

28,000 people or about 14,000 two-person households.

As a market in carbon credits develops, the amount of

carbon stored in forests may be used to help offset carbon

released from urban or industrial sites. For such a system

to function effectively, it will be important to monitor the

various carbon pools. Resource managers can then make

adjustments to stocks (such as planting trees or improving forest health) if live-tree carbon is lost to forest conversion, extensive insect outbreak, fire, harvest, or some

Figure 33—Carbon mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land in Washington, by forest type

group, 2002–2006; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height; l.e.d. = large-end diameter.
29

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

other disturbance. When trees are harvested for solid

wood products, monitoring activities must recognize

this shift in carbon storage and account for the carbon

sequestered within buildings, furniture, and other structural materials. Over time, the desired outcome is that

Washington’s forests become a net sink of stored carbon.

Biomass Tables in Appendix B

Table 19—Estimated aboveground biomass of all live

trees on forest land, by owner class and forest land status,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 20—Estimated aboveground biomass of all live

trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 21—Estimated aboveground mass of carbon of all

live trees on forest land, by owner class and forest land

status, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 22—Estimated aboveground biomass and carbon

mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land,

by forest type group, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 23—Average aboveground biomass and carbon

mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land,

by forest type group, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 24—Estimated average biomass, volume, and

density of down wood on forest land, by forest type group

and diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 25—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of down

wood on forest land, by forest type group and owner

group, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 26—Estimated average biomass, volume, and

density of snags on forest land, by forest type group and

diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 27—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of

snags on forest land, by forest type group and owner

group, Washington, 2002-2006

Figure 34— Carbon mass per acre of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land in Washington, by forest

type group, 2002-2006; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height; l.e.d. = large-end diameter.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Five-Needle Pines in Washington9

Five-needle pines, such as western white pine and

white-bark pine, have diminished in abundance in

Washington since the introduction in the early 1920s

of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola J.C.

Fisch), a nonnative fungal disease from Asia. Western

white pine is a component of many forest types in the

Western United States and western Canada, growing in

association with numerous other species, both woody

and herbaceous (Graham 1990). It has long been

valued as a commercial species, with widespread

harvesting in the 20th century. By 1956, white pine

blister rust had spread throughout the west coast

region and had damaged or killed up to 95 percent of

the original stands of western white pine (Liebold et al.

1995). Commercial harvesting and poor regeneration

resulting from fire suppression have also contributed to

its decline (Maloy 2001). Western white pine can still

be found throughout western and eastern Washington

(Graham 1990).

Whitebark pine plays a unique and important ecological role in the exposed high-elevation sites where

it grows, contributing to soil and snow stabilization,

wildlife hiding and thermal cover, and moderating

microclimate conditions so that other species can

establish within its vicinity (Arno and Hoff 1990).

A number of wildlife species use the whitebark pine

seeds as a food source; it enjoys a mutualistic relationship with the Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga

columbiana), depending on the bird to plant its seeds

for regeneration (Tomback et al. 1990). White pine

blister rust was first reported on whitebark pine in

British Columbia in the 1920s (Hoff and Hagle 1990).

Blister rust, mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus

ponderosae Hopkins), and poor regeneration owing

to fire suppression have all con-tributed to a high

mortality rate over the last 100 years.

9

 Authors: Sally Campbell and Andrew Gray.

Current blister rust infection rates are high for both

species as illustrated below (2002–2006 annual

inventory data):

Live trees Gross volume of live

 (>1 inch d.b.h.) trees (>5 inch d.b.h.)

 with cankersa with cankersa

Percent

Western

white pine 23.99 13.81

Whitebark

pine 24.47 33.04

a

 Cankers include those caused by white pine blister rust as well as those

for which FIA field crews could not identify a causal agent. It is likely

that the unidentified cankers were caused by blister rust.

Summaries of the area of white pine and whitebark

pine forest types in the first comprehensive inventory

of Washington (Andrews and Cowlin 1940, Cowlin et

al. 1942) are not available because these types were

usually grouped with subalpine forest types for reporting. Comparisons of volume of five-needle pine trees

between the 1930s and 2006 can be made, but are

approximate because inventory standards differ somewhat (e.g., 16-inch d.b.h. minimum for sawtimber in

1930s vs. 9-inch d.b.h. minimum in 2006). Nevertheless, the values suggest a dramatic decline in the

abundance of five-needle pine forest types in

Washington (estimates in 1930 are only available

for both species combined).

The majority of the volume of five-needle pine

species in the 1930s was found on the west side of the

state; Cowlin and Moravets (1940) summarized the

status of white pine as being “seriously depleted by

many years of logging” in northeastern Washington

and tending to be too scattered in mixed stands or at

inaccessible high elevations to be of much commercial

value. By 2006, the volume of both pine species

combined in eastern Washington was similar and

perhaps a bit higher, whereas the volume in western

Washington was less than 10 percent of that estimated
31

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

in the 1930s. The following tabulation shows tree

volume of white pine and whitebark pine trees in the

1930s and 2006 in Washington:

Species 1930s 2006

Million board

feet, Scribner

Eastern

Washington White pine nda 522

Whitebark pine nd 224

Both species 436 746

Western

Washington White pine nd 192

Whitebark pine nd 1

Both species 2,820 193

Total 3,256 939

a

 nd = no data available.

All of the whitebark pine recorded in 2002-2006

was at high elevations on the east side of the Cascade

crest (fig. 35). Western white pine was also primarily

found at high elevations, but substantial numbers were

also found at lower elevations on both sides of the

state (fig. 36). Seventy-nine percent of all white pine

trees recorded in 2002-2006 were less than 5 inches

d.b.h., compared to 57 percent for ponderosa pine and

46 percent for Douglas-fir, (app. B table 9) suggesting

that the population is being maintained with reproduction by young trees before they succumb to blister rust

(A. Gray, personal observation).

Survival of western white and whitebark pine is

jeopardized by extremely high blister rust infection

rates, bark beetle-caused mortality, and poor regeneration owing to fire suppression. Management options to

maintain or preserve these two species include breeding and planting resistant stock and conducting

prescribed fire in certain areas.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 35— Distribution of whitebark pine in Washington, 2002-2006.

Figure 36—Distribution of western white pine in Washington, 2002-2006.

John Chase John Chase
33

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006 Joseph Donnegan

Chapter 3: Forest Structure and Function

Older Forests10

Background

Old forests are an important part of the forest land matrix,

contributing special habitat, aesthetics, recreational opportunities, functional resources, and ecological services

not available in younger forests (Franklin et al. 1981).

Disturbance is the norm in all forests and has helped

shape old forests by creating openings and patches of

older, resilient survivors. Contrary to popular belief, older

forests are not simply forests where little or no disturbance has occurred for long periods.

The term “old” is relative; it depends on whose definition of “old growth” is used, the type of forest being

10 Author: Joseph Donnegan.

The diverse topics presented in this chapter share a common objective: to characterize the structure and function

of Washington’s forests. These forests are vital habitat for

a wide variety of plant and animal species, and they

provide many other ecological values. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data help describe plant biodiversity in Washington’s forests, characteristics of

special habitat types such as old-growth forests and

riparian corridors, and status of forest components such

as dead wood, tree crowns, and understory vegetation.

Tieton River, west of Yakima, Washington.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

considered, and the regional climate. Because many complex, interacting variables can be used to describe them,

older forests are not easily defined. Typically, in Pacific

Northwest forests, the structure, species composition, and

functional attributes of older forests are attained by the

age of 175 to 250 years (Franklin et al. 1981, 2005,

2007). In this section, we have purposely oversimplified

the definition for older forests, reporting acreage by forest

type for stand ages in the 160-year-old-plus and the 200-

year-old-plus categories. More complex definitions for

old-growth forests often cite a minimum age of 200 years,

but definitions also depend on productivity classes and

forest type (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993, Franklin et al.

1981, Old-Growth Definition Task Group 1986).

Our summary uses stand age as the basis for estimates

of area and age distribution. The FIA field crews estimate

stand age based on the average age of predominant overstory trees, assessed by counting the tree rings on a

pencil-sized sample of wood (core) extracted with an

increment borer (fig. 37). It is not possible to determine

the age of some trees because of internal rot or because

the radius of the tree is greater than the length of core that

can be extracted; some species are not cored because the

core wound might make them susceptible to pathogens.

Findings

Approximately 15 percent (3.3 million acres) of forest

stands across Washington are at least 160 years old; and

11.5 percent (2.59 million acres) are older than 200 years.

The vast majority of older forest is found on publicly

owned land in national forests and national parks; only

5 percent of forests older than 160 years are privately

owned (see “Ownership” section in chapter 2). The western hemlock and Douglas-fir forest types make up the

majority of the older forest acreage in Washington.

Western hemlock stands older than 160 years account for

3.5 percent of total forest acreage, and Douglas-fir stands

older than 160 years account for 3.3 percent of total forest

acreage (fig. 38). The remaining combined forest types

Figure 37—Increment cores are extracted from trees to determine their age.

Joseph Donnegan
35

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

with stand ages in excess of 160 years make up less than

8 percent of total forest area.

Alaska yellow-cedar leads all forest types in proportion of its acreage in older stands; 79 percent of

Washington’s Alaska yellow-cedar is older than 160 years

(fig. 39), although the total acreage occupied by older

yellow-cedar is relatively small, about 70,000 acres.

Douglas-fir forest greater than 160 years old accounts for

8.5 percent of the area of all Douglas-fir forest.

Western hemlock leads all forest types in total

acreage in older stands. However, these stands represent

about 30 percent of the western hemlock forest type.

There is great diversity in age and stand structure of western hemlock forests, with tree ages and diameters covering a broad range of classes (fig. 40). So although the

total area of older western hemlock is relatively large and

larger diameter classes are well represented, younger

stands of seedlings and saplings are the most abundant

size class.

 Eastern and western Washington differ in terms of

the extent and makeup of older forests. About 66 percent

of forest older than 160 years is found in the western

portion of the state. Western hemlock, Pacific silver fir,

and mountain hemlock forest types dominate the acreage

of older forests on the west side. Douglas-fir, ponderosa

pine, and Englemann spruce/subalpine fir forest types

dominate older forests on the eastern side of the state.

Interpretation

The area and distribution of older forests has been variable through time. Prior to the widespread logging of old

forests (before the mid-1800s), these forests had been

changing through time from disturbances such as fire and

insect outbreaks of varying severity, recurrence intervals,

and disturbance synchrony across the landscape (Winter

et al. 2002). Estimates of the area of old-growth forest

in Washington at the time of the first large-scale forest

inventories in the 1940s suggest old growth occupied

Figure 38—Percentage of total forest land area for stands in Washington, that are 160+ and 200+

years old, by forest type, 2002–2006.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 39—Percentage of each forest type in older forest, Washington, 2002–2006.

Figure 40—Number of trees by diameter class in older western hemlock and Douglas-fir forests (≥160 years old)

on forest land in Washington, 2002–2006.
37

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

about 40 percent of forested area with approximately

9.1 million acres in old growth condition (Andrews and

Cowlin 1940, Cowlin et al. 1942). Estimates published in

1993 show old-growth forest occupied less than 15 percent of the total forest area with about 2.8 million acres

across the state (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). Recent

work for the Northwest Forest Plan area of Washington

that combined remote sensing with plot-level data estimated the percentage of large (mean diameter at breast

height [d.b.h] ≥30 inches), multistoried, older forest to

be about 10 percent (Moeur et al. 2005). Using our

simplified definition for older forests (minimum stand age

of 200 years old), we estimate about 2.59 million acres

(standard error [SE] = 133,000 acres) (11.5 percent of total

forest area) currently exist statewide.

Future changes in the amount and distribution of

older forests will depend on market pressures to harvest,

potential legislative protection, and interacting disturbance regimes that include climatic changes, insects,

disease, and fire. This preliminary summary is based on

approximately half the sample that is planned to complete a full 10-year cycle of annual inventory.

Lichen and Plant Biodiversity11

Background

Diversity of lichens and vascular plants is included

among the FIA forest health indicators (Gray and Azuma

2005, Jovan 2008). These organisms serve many basic

and vital functions in forest ecosystems: they provide

wildlife sustenance and habitat, influence stand microclimate, and contribute to nutrient dynamics. Individual

species or groups of species are intimately linked to forest health. For example, invasive nonnative plants can

have important economic impacts on land use, as well

as ecological impacts on ecosystem function (Vitousek

et al. 1996). Similarly, cyanolichens (fig. 41), a specialized group of native lichens that fix nitrogen, may make

substantial contributions to forest fertility in nitrogenlimited stands of the Pacific Northwest (Antoine 2004).

11 Authors: Sarah Jovan and Andrew Gray.

The FIA crews surveyed for epiphytic (tree-dwelling)

lichens on all phase 3 plots (see p. 119, app. A) between

1998 and 2003 and recorded the abundance of each species occurring within a 0.93-acre area, as shown in the

tabulation below:

Code Abundance

1 Rare (1-3 thallia)

2 Uncommon (4-10 thalli)

3 Common (>10 thalli; species occurring on

less than 50 percent of all boles and branches

in plot)

4 Abundant (>10 thalli; species occurring

on greater than 50 percent of boles and

branches in plot)

a

A lichen body is known as a thallus.

Sarah Jovan

Figure 41—Lobaria pulmonaria (Lungwort) is a cyanolichen

that grows abundantly in mature forests unaffected by air

pollution in the Pacific Northwest.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 42—Lichen species richness index, Washington forest land, 1998–2003 (ecosection geographic information

system [GIS] layer: Cleland et al. 2005; urban GIS layer: U.S. Geological Survey 2001).

Vascular plant species were recorded for a pilot

implementation of the national vegetation indicator

(Schulz et al. 2009) on 91 plots in 2004 and 2005. Plant

species cover was estimated for each species on each 24-

foot-radius subplot and on three 3.28-square-foot quadrats per subplot.

Findings

The diversity of lichen and vascular plant communities

ranged widely by mapped ecological unit (ecosection)

(figs. 42 and 43). A total of 168 lichen species were

recorded in Washington, a sizeable portion (81 percent)

of the diversity found for the entire Pacific Northwest

(Jovan 2008). In contrast, 659 vascular plant species

were detected, a small portion (21 percent) of the 3,100

estimated to occur in all habitats in Washington.

The Okanogan Highland ecosection in northeast

Washington is a prominent biodiversity hotspot for

lichens where 83 percent of plots had 16 or more lichen

species (average diversity per plot = 22.2 species). Communities were notably rich with over 12 species of beardlike “forage” lichen (fig. 44). These ecologically important species are used for food and nesting material by

local wildlife such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi),

golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), and

Swainson’s thrush (Hylocichla ustulata). In contrast,

the Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges ecosection

supported the lowest average plot-level lichen diversity

(12.9 species) although regional diversity was among the

highest: a total of 101 species were found in the Coast

Ranges ecosection, second only to the Northern Cascades

ecosection. The lowest diversity plots in the region were

primarily associated with young stands. Large species of

nitrogen-fixing cyanolichens were relatively frequent in

the Coast Ranges ecosection (found at 30 percent of John Chase
39

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 43—Vascular plant species plot-level richness index on forest land in Washington, 2002–2006

(ecosection geographic information system layer: Cleland et al. 2005).

Figure 44—Beard-like lichens such as Alectoria sarmentosa

(witch’s hair) are often used by wildlife for forage and

nesting materials. Sarah Jovan

John Chase
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

plots) as well as the Western Cascades ecosection (27 percent). Rarity of large cyanolichens in the drier and more

continental forests of the Okanogan Highland ecosection

(5 percent) is most likely due to inhospitable climate

(McCune and Geiser 1997).

Geographic patterns of vascular plant diversity were

similar to those of lichens, with high diversity in the

Okanogan Highland ecosection (average of 53.6 species

per plot), and low diversity in the Coast Ranges ecosection (30.3 species per plot) (fig. 45). However, the species

found on different plots within each region were substantially different, as indicated by the similar species turnover (i.e., beta diversity) of 5.8 and 6.0, respectively.

Across the state, plant diversity was similar across stand

age classes; there appeared to be some differences within

some forest types, but not enough plots have been

sampled to date to resolve that question. Average plotlevel diversity tended to be higher in lower elevation

forest types (41.3 for Douglas-fir and 46.7 for ponderosa

pine) than in higher elevation types (33.0 for both Pacific

silver fir and lodgepole pine). However, plot diversity was

also low for the low-elevation western hemlock forest

types (29.1), possibly because of the dense shade and

shallow roots of the dominant tree species.

Interpretation

A low diversity of plants or lichens is not necessarily

unnatural, nor is a high diversity inherently good. Biodiversity patterns in Washington are driven by a multitude of factors, some human-caused (i.e., timber harvest,

air quality), some natural (i.e., differences in moisture and

temperature regime and herbivory pressure), and some of

mixed origin (i.e., forest fires).

Figure 45—Red elderberry is a common plant in the forests of western Washington.

Andy Gray
41

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Our inventory of species richness tends to underestimate diversity, both because surveys are time-constrained

and because the low density of plots can result in severe

underestimation of the total number of species at the

ecosection level. However, the consistent methods and

systematic sample design provide a unique ability to

compare patterns of species abundance across the state.

The diversity data presented here provide a baseline for

future monitoring; major shifts in diversity will be

investigated as needed.

Biodiversity Tables in Appendix B

Table 28—Index of vascular plant species richness

on forest land, by ecological section, Washington,

2004-2005

Table 29—Lichen community indicator species richness on forest land, Pacific Northwest and Washington,

1998-2001, 2003

Dead Wood12

Background

Dead wood contributes to the structural complexity and

biological diversity of forests throughout Washington. In

this report we define “dead wood” as snags (standing

dead trees) (fig. 46) and down wood (dead woody material

on the forest floor) of various dimensions and stages of

decay (fig. 47). The presence of dead wood in a forest

improves wildlife habitat, enhances soil fertility through

nutrient cycling and moisture retention, adds to fuel

loads, provides substrates for fungi and invertebrates,

and serves as a defining element in old-growth forests

(Harmon et al. 1986, Laudenslayer et al. 2002, Rose et al.

2001). Because of this, the dead wood resource is often

analyzed from a variety of perspectives—too much can be

viewed as a fire hazard and too little can be viewed as a

loss of habitat.

12 Author: Karen Waddell.

 The amount of dead wood in a forest can differ with

habitat type, successional stage, species composition,

management activities, and geographic location (Harmon

et al. 1986, Ohmann and Waddell 2002). Here, we analyze

data on snags and down wood collected by FIA crews on

more than 2,970 forested phase 2 field plots in the state.

Dead wood is described in broad terms at the statewide

level, with comparisons between western Washington and

eastern Washington when relevant.

Dead trees leaning less than 45 degrees and ≥5 inches

d.b.h. were tallied as snags and measured under the same

protocol as live trees. Down wood was sampled along

linear transects on each plot under protocols that differed

by diameter size class. Information was collected on fine

woody material (FWM; pieces of wood <3 inches in diameter at the point of intersection with the transect) and

on coarse woody material (CWM; branches and logs ≥3

inches in diameter at the point of intersection). Dead trees

leaning more than 45 degrees were tallied as down wood.

Estimates of density, volume, biomass, and carbon were

developed from these data and are the basis for the

analysis that follows.

Findings

Dead wood was found in every forest type sampled in

Washington. We estimated almost 628 million tons (all

references to weight refer to bone-dry tons) of dead wood

biomass on forest land in the state, with about 75 percent

attributable to down wood alone (CWM and FWM).

Volume of snags and CWM was about 49 billion cubic

feet, which is almost half of the total live-tree volume

recorded in Washington. About 82 million tons of carbon

is sequestered in snags, compared to 243 million tons

stored in down wood (CWM = 188; FWM = 55). We

estimated more than 6.9 billion down logs (CWM) and

549 million snags in forests statewide. Dead wood was

most abundant and had the largest dimensions in western

Washington where temperate forests have high productivity rates and longer fire-return intervals, producing heavy

accumulations of biomass.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Dale Waddell

Figure 46—Snags provide critical habitat and structural diversity

in Washington’s forests. Birds and other mammals use snags as

roosting and foraging sites and occupy cavities for nesting and

cover.

Figure 47—Dead wood accumulates on

the forest floor providing habitat, soil

stability, and long-term carbon storage. Karen Waddell
43

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Assessment of dead wood attributes becomes more

meaningful when expressed per acre. Statewide, biomass

(also known as fuel loading) of down wood averaged 16

tons per acre and differed by forest type and diameter

class (fig. 48).

The down wood component of Washington’s total

fuel load (amount of potentially combustible material)

can be expressed as the average tons per acre within fuel

hour-classes:

1-hour 10-hour 100-hour 1,000-hour

Location class class class class

Mean tons/acre

Western Washington 0.26 1.13 3.6 21.6

Eastern Washington 0.17 0.98 3.5 9.4

All Washington 0.22 1.06 3.55 16.14

The range in classes from 1 to 1,000 hours corresponds to the diameters of down wood pieces as follows:

1-hour (0.1 to 0.24 inches), 10-hour (0.25 to 0.99 inches),

100-hour (1.0 to 2.9 inches), and 1,000-hour (≥3 inches).

Each class refers to how fast dead woody material will dry

and burn relative to its moisture content.

The dimensions of down logs and snags are important

when evaluating ecological characteristics of the forest.

Figure 48—Mean biomass of down wood on forest land in Washington, by forest type and diameter

class, 2002–2006; CWM = coarse woody material; FWM = fine woody material.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Although large logs (≥20 inches in diameter) represented

the greatest mean volume and biomass per acre, they were

present in significantly fewer numbers, with a mean of 15

logs per acre, compared to 285 logs per acre for small logs

(3 to 19 inches in diameter). Western Washington forests

had over five times as much biomass in large logs as those

in eastern Washington (fig. 49).

Snags represented a mean biomass of 7 tons per acre

and a mean density of 25 trees per acre across the state.

Figure 49—Mean biomass

of down wood on forest

land in eastern and western

Washington, by diameter class,

2002–2006. Lines at the end of

the bars represent ± standard

error.

Almost 90 percent of the snags were <20 inches d.b.h, and

only 0.4 snags per acre were >40 inches d.b.h. Softwood

forest types had the most biomass and the largest proportion of large-diameter snags (>20 inches d.b.h.) (fig. 50).

Although the total amount of dead wood present in a

forest varies over time, the mean density of large-diameter

snags and down logs generally increases with stand age

(fig. 51), as shown below:

Diameter classes

Snags Down wood

Stand age 5 to 19 3 to 19

in years inches ≥20 inches inches ≥20 inches

Mean trees/acre Mean logs/acre

1 to 50 10.9 1.2 359.8 21.2

51 to 100 27.8 1.5 245.4 9.5

101 to 150 33.9 2.8 267.6 9.0

151 to 200 32.7 5.4 271.5 17.2

201 to 250 20.9 7.8 273.6 19.9

251 to 300 21.1 7.0 258.6 25.8

300 plus 16.1 9.0 227.9 29.5

All stands 22.1 2.4 285.0 15.3
45

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 50—Mean biomass of snags on forest land in Washington, by forest type and diameter

class, 2002-2006; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height.

Figure 51—Mean density of coarse woody material (CWM) and snags for large-diameter (≥20

inches) logs or snags on forest land in Washington, by stand age class, 2002-2006; d.b.h. =

diameter at breast height; l.e.d. = large-end diameter. Lines at the end of the bars represent ±

standard error.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Large snags ranged from a mean of 1 tree per acre in

young stands to 9 trees per acre in stands older than 300

years. In contrast, young stands appear to start out with a

higher level of large down wood, which drops to less than

half that density in stands 51 to 100 years old before

gradually increasing to as many as 29.5 logs per acre in

very old stands.

The difference seen here between snags and logs in

young stands (high density of CWM and low density of

snags) most likely reflects disturbance from harvest.

Another common disturbance is wildfire, but this usually

reduces the amount of logs from the previous stand and

creates an abundance of snags of all sizes.

Interpretation

Dead wood accumulates in different patterns across the

wide variety of forest types in Washington, creating a

mosaic of habitats and fuels across the landscape. Many

factors influence the size, abundance, and stage of decay

of dead wood. The higher fuel loading observed in western Washington forests is likely due, in part, to the higher

overall primary productivity rates west of the Cascades.

These heavier fuel loads may suggest that forests in

western Washington represent a greater fire hazard than

those on the east side, but the moist climatic conditions

on the west side tend to temper the effect of large accumulations of fuels.

In general, wildlife species that use dead wood for

nesting, roosting, or foraging prefer large-diameter logs

and snags (Bull et al. 1997). Although we found dead

wood in this size class (>20 inches) throughout Washington, its density may be limiting the abundance of some

wildlife species. For example, inventory results show a

mean of 3.3 snags per acre in this size class in western

Washington and 1.4 snags per acre in eastern Washington.

This may indicate that large-diameter snags are currently

uncommon in Washington habitat and that management

may be necessary to produce a greater density of large

snags if managing for snag-dependent species is a goal.

Various types of disturbance can radically change the

attributes of a forest by shifting the balance of live and

dead trees or FWM and CWM. Biologists and land

managers may want to monitor these changes to determine whether the density, size distribution, and decay

characteristics of dead wood are adequate for local

management objectives, such as managing for the needs

of a particular wildlife species. In addition, understanding

the amount of biomass and carbon stored in dead wood

will allow us to address requests pertaining to global

carbon cycles.

There is a substantial amount of information about

dead wood in FIA databases and summary tables that can

be used for a more indepth analysis of this resource,

including estimates of density, biomass, volume, and

carbon for all dead wood components.

Dead Wood Tables in Appendix B

Table 22—Estimated aboveground biomass and carbon

mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land,

by forest type group, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 23—Average aboveground biomass and carbon

mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land,

by forest type group, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 24—Estimated average biomass, volume, and

density of down wood on forest land, by forest type group

and diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 25—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of down

wood on forest land, by forest type group and owner

group, Washington, 2002-2006.

Table 26—Estimated average biomass, volume, and

density of snags on forest land, by forest type group, and

diameter class, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 27—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of

snags on forest land, by forest type group and owner

group, Washington, 2002-2006
47

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Riparian Forests13

Background

Riparian forests are forested areas adjacent to streams,

lakes, and wetlands (fig. 52). Riparian forests typically

make up a small portion of the total land base, but they

play a very important role in maintaining the health and

function of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. The composition and structure of riparian forests are often different from those of upland forests, and thus these forests

provide a unique habitat for many plant and wildlife species. Riparian forests help stabilize streambanks, regulate

sediment inputs, and provide shade, nutrients, and large

woody debris to the water body. Because of the critical

role of riparian forests for fish and wildlife habitat and

water quality, agencies have prescribed specific management rules on riparian areas, including requiring retention

of certain levels of vegetation and restricting harvest and

forest operations.

In this report, we examine the extent and attributes of

riparian forests, defined as accessible forest land within

100 feet of a permanent water body, including rivers,

streams, lakes, marshes, and bogs. Distance from each

subplot center to permanent water features was estimated

in the field by FIA crews.

Findings

Regional distribution of riparian forest area and

volume—

On average, riparian forests cover an estimated 10.1 percent of all forest land area and hold 12.3 percent of the

net volume of live trees in the state. The abundance of

riparian forest varies dramatically within the state (fig.

53). In western Washington, 13.6 percent of the total

forest area is estimated to be riparian forest, whereas 5.9

percent of forest in eastern Washington is estimated to be Dale Waddell

Figure 52—Riparian forests are dense along creeks and rivers in Washington.

13 Author: Vicente Monleon.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 53—Riparian forest land area

and net tree volume, as a percentage

of forest land area and volume in

Washington, by survey unit, 2002-2006.

Lines at the end of the bars represent ±

standard error.

riparian. Riparian forests account for about 13.7 and 8.6

percent of the total net volume of the west and east sides

of the state, respectively.

Across the state, riparian forests tend to hold a greater

timber volume per unit area than upland forests. However,

most of this difference may be attributed to eastern

Washington where the drier climate may limit the most

productive forests to areas next to streams. The estimated

mean net volume density of live trees in western and

eastern Washington is shown in the following tabulation:

Ownership and species composition of riparian

forests—

In relative terms, the extent and net volume of riparian

forests on private and public land is similar (fig. 54). On

private forest lands, 9.9 percent of the area and 13.5

percent of the timber volume is estimated to be in

riparian areas, whereas on public lands, 10.3 percent of

the area and 11.8 percent of the volume is estimated to

be in riparian areas.

Riparian forests account for an estimated 20.7 percent of the total net volume of hardwood species, but

only 11.6 percent of the total net volume of softwood

species. Even though hardwood species are more abundant on average in riparian forests than in upland forests,

softwood species dominate riparian areas and account for

most of the tree vol-ume. The net timber volume of

hardwood species is estimated to be 11.3 percent of the

total volume in riparian forests, but only 6.0 percent of

the total volume in upland forests (standard errors are 1.5

and 0.4, respectively).

Riparian forests Upland forests

Volume Volume

Region density SE density SE

Cubic feet per acre

Western

Washington 5,752 364 5,696 154

Eastern

Washington 3,913 353 2,615 84

All

Washington 5,272 285 4,249 91
49

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Interpretation

The distribution of riparian forests follows the broad

climatic patterns of the state. The extent and net volume

in riparian forests are much greater in the moister western

region than in the drier eastern region. Climatic pattern

may also explain some of the differences in structure and

productivity between riparian and upland forests, such as

the difference in volume per unit area and proportion of

hardwood species. Currently, riparian forests are subject

to special management regulations. Data collected by FIA

may be used to examine the implementation and impact

of those regulations at a broad scale. However, detailed

information for small areas may be limited by the small

sample size. Further, FIA does not collect information

about stream characteristics, such as fish use, that may

be important for evaluating existing regulations. Future

collaboration with other agencies that collect this type of

information could be fruitful.

Riparian Forests Tables in Appendix B

Table 30—Estimated area and net volume of live trees

on riparian forest land by location and survey unit,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 31—Estimated area of riparian forest land, by

forest type group, broad owner group, and location,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 32—Estimated net volume of live trees on riparian

forest land, by species group, broad owner group, and

location, Washington, 2002-2006

Tree Crowns and Understory Vegetation14

Background

This section highlights two important FIA forest health

indicators: tree crowns and understory vegetation. Both

are ecologically important as structural components in

forest ecosystems. For example, the amount and vertical

layering of different plant life forms (e.g., trees, shrubs,

forbs, or grasses) are key determinants of wildlife habitat,

fire behavior, erosion potential, and plant competition

(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, National Research

Council Committee 2000). Tree-crown density, transparency, and dieback are indicators of tree vigor, impacts

from disease or other stressors, and potential for mortality

(Randolph 2006).

14 Authors: Andrew Gray and Glenn Christensen.

Figure 54—Net tree volume in

riparian forests in Washington,

by region, ownership, and species

group, 2002-2006. Lines at end of

bars represent ± standard error.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

The FIA crews visually estimated crown density, foliage

transparency, and dieback on phase 3 plots across

Washington. Crown density is the percentage of the area

within an outline of a full crown viewed from the side that

contains branches, foliage, and reproductive structures.

Transparency is the percentage of the live foliated portion

of the tree’s crown with visible skylight. Crown dieback is

the percentage of the foliated portion of a crown consisting of recent branch and twig mortality in the upper and

outer portions of the crown (Randolph 2006).

Crews sampled understory vegetation on each phase

2 FIA subplot on forest land. Total cover was estimated

for tree seedlings and saplings <5 inches d.b.h., shrubs,

forbs, and graminoids. Total cover of all four of these life

forms and of bare mineral soil was estimated. Crews also

collected information on dominant plant species; those

data are presented in other sections of this report.

The full functionality of these indicators cannot be

fully realized with these first 5 years of data, and so the

current status of each indicator is summarized only

briefly below, to establish baselines for Washington’s

forests and to educate clients about the development of

FIA forest health indicators. A major benefit of these

indicators is that they will enable future tracking of

deviations from baseline conditions.

Findings

Crown density ranged from 38 to 51 percent among species groups, with a mean of 43 percent. Mean foliage

transparency was 23 percent and was greater for hardwoods than for softwoods (fig. 55). Recent crown dieback

was detected in only 2.1 percent of the trees examined.

Only the other western hardwoods species group had

more than 5 percent of all trees with more than slight

(i.e., 10 percent) crown dieback, at 8 percent.

Cover of understory vegetation in Washington was

greater in hardwood forests than in softwood forests (fig.

56). Within the hardwood forest types, shrub cover was

highest in the higher moisture forest type groups: elm,

aspen, and alder/maple; within the conifer forest types,

shrub cover was highest in the moderate-moisture

Douglas-fir group and the high-elevation lodgepole pine

group (fig. 57). Graminoid cover was generally highest in

Figure 55—Mean foliage transparency in Washington, by species group, 2002–2006. Lines at the end of bars

represent ± standard error.
51

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 56—Cover of vegetation life forms and bare soil in Washington, by hardwood or softwood forest

type groups, 2002–2006. Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.

Dale Waddell

Figure 57—Dense understory cover of forbs and shrubs in a Douglas-fir forest.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 58—Cover of

vegetation life forms and

bare soil in Washington,

by forest age class, 2002-

2006. Lines at the end of

bars represent ± standard

error.

the drier oak and pine groups. Forb cover was greatest in

the white pine, hemlock, and alder/maple groups. Understory cover was similar among stands less than 80 years of

age, and somewhat lower for stands over 80 years of age,

primarily owing to differences in cover of shrubs and

forbs (fig. 58).

Interpretation

Initial results suggest crown decline is not widespread

in Washington, with most dieback found on minor forest

types. Future remeasurements will provide more precise

estimates of changes in crown health over time.

The amount and composition of understory vegetation differed greatly among the forest types and forest

age classes of Washington. Although all life forms were

represented in all forest types to some extent, their

abundance appeared to differ according to forest type.

Shrubs and graminoids appeared to be particularly

sensitive to the overstory tree type (softwood or hardwood) as well as moisture availability within different

forest type groups. Although vegetation abundance

differed with age class, the conventional wisdom that

dense young forests have very low cover of understory

plants does not appear to be valid across Washington.

Crowns and Understory Vegetation Tables in

Appendix B

Table 33—Estimated mean crown density and other

statistics for live trees on forest land, by species group,

Washington, 2002–2006

Table 34—Mean foliage transparency and other

statistics for live trees on forest land, by species group,

Washington, 2002–2006

Table 35—Mean crown dieback and other statistics for

live trees on forest land, by species group, Washington,

2002–2006

Table 36—Mean cover of understory vegetation on forest

land, by forest type group and life form, Washington

2002–2006

Table 37—Mean cover of understory vegetation on forest land, by forest type class, age class, and life form,

Washington, 2002–2006
53

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Wenatchee Mountains, Eastern Washington.

Sally Campbell
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Andy Gray

Mountain hemlock on the Olympic Penninsula.

Continue
55

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Major disturbance agents and stressors such as insects,

diseases, invasive plant species, air pollution, and fire are

among the most powerful influences on the structure, species composition, and ecological function of forests. We

explore the influence of these agents through analysis of

both plot data and predictive risk models.

Insects, Diseases, and Other Damaging

Agents15

Background

Insects, diseases, and other damaging agents can have

both detrimental and beneficial effects on forest ecosystems (fig. 59). The frequency and severity of damage to

trees by biotic agents, such as insects or diseases, or

abiotic agents, such as fire or weather, are influenced by

a number of factors, ranging from the existing composition and structure of the forest to management policies

and activities (Hessburg et al. 1994). Effects from damaging agents include defoliation, decay, reduced growth,

increased susceptibility to other stressors (e.g., other

insects and diseases or drought), top kill, and mortality.

15 Authors: Sally Campbell and Olaf Kuegler.

These impacts can affect ecosystem structure, composition, and function. Introduced insects and diseases such

as balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae Ratzeburg) or

white pine blister rust often have more rapid and intense

impacts than native organisms.

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) Forest Inventory and

Analysis (FIA) Program collects data on damaging agents

for each measured live tree, and also maps root disease, if

present, on each plot. These ground-based data complement localized ground surveys and the annual aerial

survey conducted by the Washington Department of

Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Forest Health Protection Program of the USDA Forest Service; aerial surveyors

map defoliation and mortality observed from the air. The

FIA plot-based sampling protocol allows estimation of

acres, trees per acre, basal area, and volume affected by

each agent or agent group for forest types and for individual tree species. Our information on damaging agents

is most reliable for those that are common and broadly

distributed; it is less reliable for less common agents such

as newly established nonnative pests. The FIA Program

generally under-reports bark beetles, insect defoliators,

and foliage diseases owing to a number of factors.16

Findings

About 22 percent of live trees greater than 1 inch in

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) showed signs or symptoms of insects or diseases; damage by animals, weather,

or fire; or physical defects such as a dead or missing top,

crack or check in the bole, or fork or crook in the stem.

Twenty-two percent of Douglas-fir, 18 percent of western

hemlock, and 25 percent of ponderosa pine had some

16 These agents are likely under-recorded due to FIA’s difficulty in

detecting (1) symptoms of bark beetle attack on live trees prior to

mortality, (2) defoliation events that are not evenly distributed

geographically or temporally and thus are less likely to coincide

with FIA plot visits, and (3) damage occurring on upper portions

of trees in dense stands.

Chapter 4: Disturbance and Stressors

Figure 59—Diseases such as dwarf mistletoe on pine are found

throughout Washington.

Joel Thompson

Back
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Almost 11 million acres had greater than 25 percent

of forest basal area affected by one or more damaging

agents. The volume of live trees ≥5 inches d.b.h. affected

by one or more damaging agents was 33.8 billion cubic

feet. Root disease and dwarf mistletoe, which cause

significant growth loss and mortality, were recorded on

4.7 and 2.3 percent of softwoods, respectively. Of all the

biotic agents recorded, these two affected the greatest

number of trees and acres of both softwoods and hardwoods and, along with stem decays, the highest volume

(figs. 60 and 61). However, the most significant damage

type overall was physical defect (broken or missing top,

dead top, forks or crooks, bole checks or cracks) with the

most trees, acres, and volume affected (fig. 62).

Interpretation

Some of the most common biotic (living) agents of forest

disturbance, such as dwarf mistletoes and stem decays,

damage recorded. Overall damage levels on forest land

were higher in eastern Washington than in western

Washington, and they were higher on public lands than

on private lands:

Live trees Acres with Gross volume

>1 inch >25 percent of trees >5

d.b.h. with basal area inches d.b.h.

damage with damage with damage

Percent

Western

Washington:

Public 23.7 56.5 36.9

Private 11.2 27.0 19.7

Eastern

Washington:

Public 32.6 68.2 42.9

Private 19.5 46.4 31.1

Total

Washington:

Public 27.3 61.9 38.4

Private 14.1 35.5 23.1

Figure 60—Root disease and dwarf mistletoe incidence on Forest Inventory and Analysis plots in Washington,

2002-2006 (forest/nonforest geographic information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water GIS

layer: Homer et al. 2004).

John Chase
57

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 61—Area and volume of

live trees affected by one or more

biotic agents on forest land in

Washington, 2002-2006. Area is

that with >25 percent of basal area

with damage. Volume is gross

volume of affected live trees >5

inches diameter at breast height.

Lines at the end of bars represent

± standard error.

Figure 62—Area and volume of

live trees affected by one or more

abiotic agents on forest land in

Washington, 2002-2006. Area is

that with >25 percent of basal area

with damage. Volume is gross

volume of affected live trees >5

inches diameter at breast height.

Lines at the end of bars represent

± standard error.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

are more prevalent in unmanaged or older stands. If the

current trajectory of management on federal forests continues, we would expect to see increases in these agents

on national forests and other federal lands in the future;

conversely, we would expect decreases or continued

lower levels on private and nonfederal forests, where

stands are younger and more intensively managed. Root

disease, often widespread in older stands, may become

more damaging in young stands that are established in

infested areas. The incidence and impact of many insects

and diseases are closely tied to past forest management

practices that have influenced forest structure and

composition (Campbell and Liegel 1996).

In the near future, the greatest insect or disease

threats to Washington’s forests are likely to come from

introduced organisms, and also from native species whose

populations and impacts are increased by drought, high

stand densities, and climate changes (Pimentel et al.

2005). Recent bark beetle epidemics in southern California and British Columbia are attributed to a number of

these factors (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 2006,

Pedersen 2003, Walker et al. 2006). Results of widespread

bark beetle epidemics should be observable in future FIA

data on tree mortality. Annual aerial surveys can also provide excellent, timely information on insect- and diseasecaused defoliation. Tracking the incidence and impact of

insects, diseases, and other damaging agents over time

will become particularly important as changes in climate

and in human activities affect Washington’s forests.

Insects, Diseases, and Other Damaging Agents

Tables in Appendix B

Table 38—Estimated number of live trees with damage

on forest land, by species and type of damage, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 39—Estimated area of forest land with more than

25 percent of the tree basal area damaged, by forest type

and type of damage, Washington, 2002-2006

Table 40—Estimated gross volume of live trees with

damage on forest land, by species and type of damage,

Washington, 2002-2006

Table 41—Estimated damage to trees, by geographic

region and broad owner group, Washington, 2002-2006
59

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Invasive Plants17

Background

Invasions of nonnative plants into new areas are having a

large impact on the composition and function of natural

and managed ecosystems. Invasive plants can have a large

economic impact, both by changing or degrading land

use and through the costs of control efforts, now estimated at over $35 billion per year for the United States

(Pimentel et al. 2005).

Nonnative plant invasions competitively exclude

desired species, alter disturbance regimes, and are a

primary cause of extinction of native species (D’Antonio

and Vitousek 1992, Mooney and Hobbs 2000, Vitousek

et al. 1996). Despite their importance, there is little comprehensive information about the extent and impact of

invasive species. Most of the emphasis given invasive

plants is in the context of local eradication efforts.

Comprehensive numbers are not available to describe

the magnitude of the problem, which plants are having

the most impact, and where these plants are found.

The FIA phase 3 vegetation indicator (Gray and

Azuma 2005, Schulz et al. 2009), conducted on a trial

basis for several years now, provides a good source of information on plant composition. In 2004 and 2005, 91

plots were sampled in Washington with this protocol.

Botanists visited plots during midsummer and identified

and recorded all species found or collected samples for

later identification. Because the definition of “invasive”

can be quite subjective, all species that were listed as

nonnative to the United States (USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2000) were selected for analysis.

Vegetation data collected on the phase 2 (standard

inventory) plots were also analyzed by selecting records

of nonnative species that were readily identifiable by

most crews (i.e., common shrubs or common and distinctive herbs).

17 Author: Andrew Gray.

Findings

Fifty-four percent of the plots across Washington’s forest land had at least one nonnative species growing on

them. The percentage was highest in some of the eastern

Washington ecosections (e.g., 100 percent of plots in the

Blue Mountains and Columbia Basin) and lowest in the

Northern Cascades (about 35 percent of plots) (fig. 63).

(Note: the greater the number of plots sampled to date,

the more reliable the result.) Invasive plants were pervasive on forest land in the Columbia Basin ecosection,

with a surprisingly high mean of 11 nonnative species

covering 46 percent of the plot area. The percentage of

nonnative species decreased with increasing stand size

class (fig. 64). The basic metric proposed by the Heinz

Center (2002) for national reporting of the impact of

nonnative plants simply sums the percentage cover of

nonnative plants and divides by the summed cover of all

plants. For Washington, this calculation indicates that

3.9 percent of all plant cover on forest land consists of

nonnative plants (standard error = 1.1 percent). In comparison, in Oregon (the only other state with comparable

data to date) nonnative plants covered 6.2 percent of

forest land (Donnegan et al. 2008).

The most common invasive plant found on phase 3

plots in western Washington was Himalayan blackberry

(see “Common and Scientific Names”), and the most

common in eastern Washington was cheatgrass (fig. 65).

These and some other nonnative species are readily

identifiable through long field seasons, so the vegetation

records on phase 2 plots provide an estimate of overall

abundance on forest land. The area covered by each

species on each plot was extrapolated to all forest land

with standard inventory statistics. These data suggest that

Himalayan blackberry covered 73,000 acres and cheatgrass covered 133,000 acres of forest land in Washington.

Interpretation

Nonnative invasive plant species already are well established in Washington’s forested lands, making up a

significant proportion of the species and plant cover

present. Current trends suggest that their importance will
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 63—Percentage of plots with at least one nonnative species present on forest land in Washington, by

ecosection, 2004–2005. Number in parentheses after ecosection name is the number of forested plots

sampled for all species.

Figure 64—Mean percentage of species on a plot that were nonnative on forest land in Washington, by stand

size class, 2004–2005. Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.
61

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

increase. For example, species like English holly and

garlic mustard have been rapidly increasing in abundance

in western Washington. Most species tend to be associated with young, recently disturbed stands, although the

two species mentioned above are good examples of those

well suited to shady, undisturbed forests. Although FIA’s

phase 3 vegetation indicator provides sufficient comprehensive information on species composition to inform

national indicators, the plot density is too low to assess

distribution of individual species. The FIA phase 2

sample does provide that information for species that

are readily identifiable, and potentially for others of

specific interest if crews are given dedicated identification training.

Invasive Plants Tables in Appendix B

Table 28—Index of vascular plant species richness on forest land by ecological section, Washington, 2004-2005

Table 42—Estimated area of forest land covered by

selected nonnative vascular plant species and number

of sample plots, by life form and species, Washington,

2002-2006

Air Quality18

Air quality in many of Washington’s forests is fair to

excellent, better than in many other parts of the country.

Still, evidence of degraded air quality has been detected

in some forests of the Columbia River Gorge National

Scenic Area (Fenn et al. 2007) and the Puget Sound near

major urban areas such as Seattle and Everett (Eilers et al.

1994, Geiser and Neitlich 2007). Air quality impacts to

vegetation depend on many factors; among the most

important are plant life stage, species, pollutants, site

conditions, and degree of exposure. Effects commonly

18 Authors: Sally Campbell and Sarah Jovan. Andy Gray

Figure 65—Cheatgrass is the most common invasive plant in forests of Washington.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

culminate in declines in stand productivity and shifts in

community composition when sensitive individuals are

damaged or killed. Changes can cascade through the

ecosystem, especially if the affected species provide

sustenance or habitat for wildlife or other important

ecosystem services.

The FIA Program monitors two phase 3 (see p. 119 in

app. A) indicators for air quality: (1) injury to ozone (O3

)-

sensitive plants (fig. 66), and (2) the composition of

epiphytic (i.e., tree-dwelling) lichen communities (fig.

67). Instruments that directly measure air pollutants are

sparsely distributed in Washington’s forests (U.S. EPA

2008). Thus, air quality monitoring

with indicator species is indispensable, allowing for a spatially comprehensive assessment of risks to

forest health across the landscape.

Ozone Injury Background

Tropospheric (ground-level) O3 is

highly toxic to plants and is considered an important ecological threat

to Washington’s forest re-sources

(Eilers et al. 1994). For the FIA O3

indicator, three or more plant species

known for their O3

 susceptibility

(bioindicators) are scored for foliar

injury at each O3 plot (biosite). Injury data are combined

into a biosite index that is used

to predict local potential for O3

damage (Coulston et al. 2003).

Sally Campbell

Figure 66—Ozone injury (chlorotic mottle) on Jeffrey pine needles, Columbia Gorge

biosite.

Figure 67—Lichens are well known for their high sensitivity to air quality. Bark covered by small orange Xanthoria species (left) is

often a sign of nitrogen pollution. Nephroma species (right) are a typical indicator of clean air in mountainous areas.

Sarah Jovan
63

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Using geospatial interpolation of biosite indices averaged over a number of years, we can predict relative risk

to susceptible forest vegetation across a broader geographic area and identify areas where O3

 is more likely to

cause injury (Coulston et al. 2003). The FIA biosite

network is the only statewide O3 detection program that

uses bioindicators to monitor ozone impacts to forest

vegetation.

Ozone Injury Findings

In contrast to widespread O3 injury detected on California

biosites, O3

 injury was found on only one Washington

biosite visited between 2000 and 2006 (Campbell et al.

2007) (fig. 68). This finding is consistent with low measurements from ambient O3

 sampling networks (fig. 69)

(Eilers et al. 1994, U.S. EPA 2008) and no injury found

on biosites in Oregon (Donnegan et al. 2008). Ozone

injury was confirmed at one Washington biosite in the

Columbia Gorge about 100 miles east of the Portland/

Vancouver metropolitan area, where planted Jeffrey

pine has shown injury 6 of the last 7 years. An assessment

of risk using the geospatial interpolation method mentioned above shows very low or no risk to Washington’s

forests from O3

.

Ozone Injury Interpretation

Washington has no ozone nonattainment areas and, with

the exception of one location near Enumclaw (southeast

of Seattle) where the national standard for 1-hour and 8-

hour average concentrations of O3

 was exceeded in 2006,

ambient monitoring between 2000 and 2006 indicates

that Washington currently meets the national standards

for O3 (U.S. EPA 2008). Consistent injury of Jeffrey pine

at the Columbia Gorge biosite, however, shows that

although measured O3 concentrations are not exceeding

national standards, phytotoxic O3

 levels are present there

(Campbell et al. 2007). Although population increases are

expected in Washington, it is hoped that continued efforts

and innovations to abate vehicular and industrial emissions will sustain low O3

 levels. Because the entire biosite

network is fully resampled each year, the FIA O3

 indicator

will allow us to easily track temporal and geographic

fluctuations in O3 injury.

Lichen Community Background

For the lichen community indicator, surveyors determine

the abundance and diversity of epiphytic lichens on

phase 3 plots. The FIA Program uses these data for monitoring air quality as well as forest biodiversity (see

“Lichen and Plant Biodiversity” section in chapter 3) and

climate change (Jovan 2008). With the help of multivariate models, FIA lichen data are used to score air quality at

each plot. Two models are used to monitor Washington’s

forests: one each for the west and east sides of the Cascades. The west-side model, as reported here, was developed by Geiser and Neitlich (2007) in collaboration with

FIA and the Forest Service’s PNW Region, Air Resource

Program. The model needed for evaluation of east-side air

quality is currently under development.

Low air pollution scores suggest lower levels of pollutants and vice versa. Geiser and Neitlich (2007) made

their assessment by (1) examining the distribution of

lichen indicator species across plots, (2) conducting laboratory analysis of nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) accumulation in collected lichens, (3) correlating scores to pollutant measurements collected at a subset of plots, and (4)

examining land use patterns. Air quality scores are used

to delineate six air quality zones: best, good, fair, degraded, poor, and worst.
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 68—Forest Inventory and Analysis ozone biosites and injury status for forests in Washington, Oregon, and

California, 2000-2005 (forest/nonforest geographic information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water

GIS layer: Homer et al. 2004).

Elaina Graham
65

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 69—Average ozone exposure in Washington, Oregon, and California, based on cumulative hourly ozone concentrations exceeding 60 parts per billion (SUM60) June 1 to August 31, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., 2001 to 2005 average (SUM60 ozone

data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006).

Elaina Graham
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Lichen Community Findings

Results from 5 years of surveys (1998-2001 and 2003) in

west-side forests provide strong evidence that N pollution

is having a heavy impact on some stands. Diverse assemblages of pollution-sensitive lichens characterized lowscoring plots, and species that indicate high N levels,

known as nitrophytes (fig. 70), were relatively abundant

at high-scoring plots (fig. 71). The presence of these

lichen communities suggests that the Puget Trough

ecoregion, where much of western Washington’s agriculture and metropolitan areas lie, is part of a major N hotspot that extends into foothill forests of the Coast and

Cascade ranges. Figure 70—Nitrophytes (eutrophs) grow prolifically on bark

surfaces enriched by nitrogen.

Sarah Jovan

Figure 71—Air quality scores (Geiser and Neitlich 2007) on forest land plots in western Washington,

1998-2001, 2003 (ecosection geographic information system [GIS] layer: Cleland et al. 2005, urban GIS

layer: U.S. Geological Survey 2001).

John Chase
67

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

On the other hand, nearly all lichen communities

sampled near Federal Class 1 areas suggested excellent

air quality. Federal Class 1 areas (i.e., national parks,

national wilderness areas, and national monuments)

receive special air quality protection under section 162(a)

of the Clean Air Act. The only exception was Mount St.

Helens National Monument where some degradation was

detected, although it’s unclear whether pollution is of

local origin or a result of lying downwind of the Puget

Trough.

Lichen Community Interpretation

Beyond degrading air quality, the ecological and economic impacts of excessive N pose an increasing concern

for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to promoting a nitrophytic lichen flora,

N pollution can cause accelerated accumulation of fuels,

soil acidification, shifts in plant communities, and a

decline in mycorrhizal fungi (Fenn et al. 2003). Remeasurement of lichen communities beginning in 2011 will

allow FIA to track changes in N as well as the proliferation of other ecologically harmful pollutants. More elaborate discussion of lichens and Washington’s air quality

may be found in Geiser and Neitlich (2007) and Jovan

(2008), and at the Forest Service PNW Region lichen-air

quality Web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/aq/lichen/.

Air Quality Tables and Maps in Appendix B

Table 43—Forest Inventory and Analysis plots sampled

for lichen community, air quality index information,

western Pacific Northwest and western Washington, 1998-

2001, 2003

Table 44—Forest Inventory and Analysis plots sampled

for lichen community, climate index information, western

Pacific Northwest and western Washington, 1998-2001,

2003

Table 45—Ozone injury by year, Washington, 2000-2006

Fire Incidence19

Background

All forest types in Washington have the potential to experience crown or surface fire, although fire incidence

differs considerably by region and forest type. State and

federal agencies estimate the size of all wildland fires and

some prescribed fires, map the perimeters of larger fires,

and calculate statistics on fire incidence for the lands for

which they have protection responsibility. Agencies’ fire

incidence reports seldom specify the vegetation type that

was burned, and different agencies use different reporting

thresholds. Moreover, data on some fires appear in both

federal and state databases, but without common identifiers that would facilitate identifying and accounting for

duplicate reporting. Therefore, reliable and consistent

estimates of forest area burned per year across all ownership classes are lacking. The FIA field crews record

evidence of surface and crown fire that occurred within

the 5 years preceding the plot visit20 making it possible to

estimate the expected forest area burned per year and the

fraction of the forest this represents.

Findings

We estimate that over the period 1998-2005, more than

86,000 acres of forest burned statewide per year (range

24,000 to 155,000 acres), with nearly 83 percent of this

total burning east of the Cascade crest. No clear temporal

trends in area burned were observed. This average represents 0.39 percent (SE = 0.07) of the total forest land area

in Washington, but year-to-year variability was considerable (fig. 72), ranging from 0.11 percent of forest area

burned in 2005 to 0.70 percent in 2001. Regional variability also was high; the average annual fraction of

the forest that burned for the three survey units on the

19 Author: Jeremy S. Fried.

20Because plot visits occur throughout the year and could occur

before or after a fire in a given year, it was necessary to exclude

from analysis observations of fire evidence in the same year as the

plot visit.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

west side of the Cascade Range crest (fig. 8) was 0.12 percent (SE = 0.08) versus 0.72 percent (SE = 0.11) for the

two east-side survey units.

The estimate of 86,000 acres per year of forest burned

over the period 1998 through 2005 compares favorably

with data derived from databases of fire incidents

maintained by the Washington Department of Natural

Resources (covering primarily nonfederal lands) and the

Northwest Interagency Coordination Center (NWCC)

(covering primarily federal lands) (fig. 72). Annual burned

area totals from all sources (agency databases and estimates from FIA field visits) are extremely variable, and

the WDNR data include some (but not all) federal fires in

its data series after 2003. Comparing the average area

burned per year as represented by WDNR data for nonfederal lands in 1998–2005 (25,777 acres) with the estimate from FIA field plots for the same land base and

period (23,515 acres) suggests promising correspondence.

The average annual area burned on all lands in Washington as represented in the NWCC database (104,010 acres)

also corresponds quite favorably with the FIA estimate of

86,000 acres on forest lands. In both comparisons, the FIA

estimates are lower, but this is not surprising given that

these and other interagency fire databases tend to be concerned with fire causes and sometimes (in the case of

federal data) the location of the fire perimeter of larger

fires, but do not account for the kinds of vegetation

within the fires. Thus some of the area accounted for in

Figure 72—Annual area burned by fire as estimated from observations on Forest Inventory and

Analysis plots collected between 2002 and 2006 (east side, west side, nonfederal, all Washington),

summarization of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) fire incident database

(nonfederal [WADNR lands], although some fires on federal lands are included), and compilation of

federal geographic information system data sets (Northwest Interagency Coordination Center data

available only for 2004 and later).
69

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

agency databases is covered in flammable vegetation not

classified as forest (e.g., grass and shrubs). Because FIA

does not collect a complete ground-based sample of nonforest lands, it is not possible to estimate directly from

FIA plot data the area burned in nonforest vegetation

types. Moreover, some of the area within recorded

perimeters of large fires is, in fact, entirely unburned, so

relying on fire perimeters tends to generate overestimates

of burned area.

Caveats

Because fire is a relatively rare event, the number of

plots where recent fire is observed is very small, and

therefore, standard errors on estimates of area burned,

even at a state and half-state scale, are comparatively

large. Generating estimates for subsets of the forest land

base (e.g., ownership classes, particular forest types,

ecoregions) is impractical because of the small sample,

inconsistent differentiation of fire type (e.g., surface vs.

crown) and origin (e.g., prescribed vs. wildfire), and

because field crews were not universally able to assess

fire type. For those reasons, all acres observed to have

been burned were pooled for this analysis.

However, we have no reason to believe that these

estimates are any less accurate than those based on available agency databases. Most fire incident databases have

numerous fire reports that do not record the area burned,

some have discrepancies between reported sizes and the

geographic information system (GIS)-calculated area, and

they differ in the size thresholds of fires included. They

also generally do not track acres by vegetation type,

rendering the data unsuitable for assessing the area of

burned forest. These common problems suggest that users

who rely on such databases may unknowingly under- or

overestimate actual area burned.

Interpretation

Clearly, fire incidence on the west side of the state

during the period sampled is comparatively low. Most

of Washington’s recently burned forest can be found on

federal lands east of the Cascade Crest. The high year-toyear variability in wildfire incidence and extent makes it

impossible to identify any trend in forest area burned over

the past 8 years. Unlike agency fire incident databases,

the FIA data enable estimation of forest area burned by

region and owner class (agency databases report area

within fire perimeters, some of which is not burned and

some of which is not forest, and contain no information as

to owners of burned land). Over time, as additional panels

are installed, it is possible that trends may become

observable.

This analysis is but one example of what can be explored using the disturbance information recorded as

condition attributes (and thus linked to area, not trees)

on FIA plots by field crews. Other kinds of disturbance

routinely recorded, and with a greater frequency than fire,

include insects, disease, animals, and weather.

Fire Incidence Tables in Appendix B

Table 46—Forest land area on which evidence of fire was

observed, by year and geographic location, Washington,

1998-2005

Crown Fire Hazard21

Background

Reduction of wildfire hazard has emerged as a priority

issue in Washington, where fuel treatments are proposed

on an unprecedented scale. Characterization of fire

hazard typically focuses on crown fire potential—the

tendency of a forest stand to experience crown rather

than surface fire—because crown fires are typically

stand-replacing events and often are regarded as highly

destructive. Before an effective fuel treatment program

can be developed, it is essential to know initial hazard

levels and identify where hazard reduction is most technically, economically, and socially feasible (see, e.g.,

Barbour et al. 2008, Vogt et al. 2005). The FIA inventory

provides a unique opportunity to assess the extent of

21 Authors: Jeremy S. Fried and Glenn Christensen.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

crown fire hazard across all land ownerships, survey units,

and forest types (fig. 73). Examining these statistics on a

proportional basis, by forest type and geographic distribution, provides key insights into factors associated with

high crown fire hazard.

All plots with forest were simulated with the Forest

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and its Fire and Fuels

Extension (FFE) (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) to

calculate indices of crown fire potential and fire type

under severe fire weather.22 Each inventory plot was

assigned to the appropriate FVS variant by GIS overlay

with the FVS variant map (USDA Forest Service 2007b).

Other than the tree height, canopy bulk density, and

22 The FVS-FFE was applied to all conditions classified as

forested on the ground. Although classified as forested, sometimes by field crews considering areas of the condition outside of

the plot footprint, some conditions contained few or no trees on

the plot, such that stand attributes the model uses to estimate

crown fire potential (e.g., canopy bulk density, height to canopy

base) cannot be calculated reliably. The FFE model assumes that

sparsely forested conditions have a surface fire regime, which may

or may not be true depending on stand structure in the remainder

of the condition (outside the plot footprint).

Tom Iraci

Figure 73—Fire has changed the

composition of forests across

large areas in Washington.

canopy base height crown fuel parameters, which were

derived from the tree-level data collected by FIA and the

crown uncompaction model of Monleon et al. (2004),

fuel (e.g., surface fuel model) and weather (e.g., windspeed 20 feet above the ground) parameters were assigned

default values.23 Fire type was modeled using FFE as one

of four classes (see tabulation below), and results were

analyzed and mapped.24

23 Surface fuels were determined via lookup tables based on stand

structure and forest type. For the fire weather scenario, FFE

default parameters were used such that 20-foot windspeed was set

at 20 miles per hour, temperature at 70 degrees F; 1-, 10-, 100-,

and 1,000-hour fuel moisture at 4, 4, 5, and 10 percent, respectively; duff fuel moisture at 15 percent, and live fuel moisture at

70 percent.

24 To better visualize the broad-scale geographic distribution of

fire regimes, local kriging interpolation was performed on the

ordinal variable, fire type, as if it were a ratio (continuous)

variable. This produces a surface of crown fire potential from the

plot data, with values ranging from 1 (surface fire) to 4 (active

crown fire).
71

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Fire type Fire characteristics

Surface Only surface fuels on the forest floor

burn

Conditional Existing crown fire will continue as a

crown crown fire, but if canopy gaps interrupt

its spread, it will convert to a surface

fire and not reinitiate as a crown fire

Passive Some crowns will burn as individual

trees or groups of trees “torch,” with

fire climbing from the surface via

ladders of dead branches and lesser

vegetation

Active Fire moves through the tree crowns and

reinitiates as a crown fire if canopy

gaps interrupt its progress

Findings

Patterns for the crown fire potential indices and fire type

were similar; thus, for simplicity, only the fire type results

are reported here. Under the modeled weather conditions,

fire would likely occur as a surface fire on 37 percent of

the forest statewide. Passive crown fire would likely occur

on 34 percent of the forest, and active crown fire would be

expected on 20 percent. However, there is substantial

regional variation—for example, given FVS-FFE default

severe weather, active crown fires would be expected on

about 33 percent of forests in the Puget Sound survey

unit (fig. 8), and significantly less (8 percent) on forests in

eastern Washington’s Inland Empire (fig. 74). It is difficult

to predict how these differences in potential hazard translate to events on the ground, because incidence of both

fires and severe fire weather also varies among these regions. As was seen in the “Fire Incidence” section in this

chapter, much more forest burns in areas like the Inland

Empire on the state’s east side than on the west side.

Moreover, potential for crown fire appears to differ by

forest type. Among the six most prevalent coniferous forest type groups, spruce/cedar, true fir, and miscellaneous

softwoods (e.g., mountain hemlock) have the highest

potential for active and passive crown fire, and ponderosa

Figure 74—Percentage of

forest land in Washington

in each modeled fire type

category, by survey unit,

2002–2006.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

pine the lowest (fig. 75). However, passive crown fire is

more common than active crown fire in all forest type

groups considered except true fir, and does not appear to

differ much among forest types. Fire regime also appears

to differ by ownership (fig. 76, and app. B table 47), with

lands in the noncorporate-private ownership and state

and local government ownership categories predicted to

have the highest percentage of forests in which surface or

conditional crown fires (55 percent) are likely to occur

and other federal lands to have the least (33 percent).

Such differences could be due to differences in management, but may also be traced to differences in age class

structure, forest type, and stand history. Interestingly, the

two forest types with the highest predicted proportion in

surface fire regimes, ponderosa pine and hardwoods,

account for only 8 percent of private forest lands versus

11 percent of public lands.

The geographic distribution of likely fire type consistently indicates a concentration of elevated crown fire

potential in forests near the Cascade crest, in the Olympic

National Park, and in the extreme northeast part of the

state (fig. 77). Note that crown fire potential does not necessarily relate closely to fire incidence. As shown in the

section on fire incidence, the vast majority of the area

burned by fire is in eastern Washington despite our

finding that crown fire hazard is greater in western

Washington. This is most likely due to the rarity on the

west side of Washington of the severe fire weather conditions used to model crown fire potential as well as a

comparatively greater rate of lightning-originated

ignitions on the east side.

Figure 75—Percentage of Washington forest land area in each modeled fire type category for the seven most prevalent forest

type groups, 2002-2006, and percentage of Washington forest land area, by forest type group, 2002-2006 (inset).
73

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 76— Percentage of Washington forest

land area in each modeled fire type category, by

owner group, 2002-2006.

Figure 77—Statewide distribution of fire types predicted by the Forest Vegetation Simulator Fire and Fuels

Extension, under severe weather using data generated via kriging interpolation of forested Forest Inventory and

Analysis plots.

John Chase
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Interpretation

These data paint a different picture of fire hazard and fuel

treatment opportunity than is often conjured by people

interpreting maps of fire regime condition class (Hardy et

al. 1999, Schmidt et al. 2002). These maps depict most of

the area in at least some parts of Washington (notably

much of western Washington) as having significantly

departed from historical fire regimes (thus becoming “outof-whack,” in the resource management vernacular) and,

by implication, meriting intervention to reduce fire

hazard. Under the fire weather assumed for this analysis,

just over half the forested lands are predicted to develop

crown fires, and an even smaller fraction, less than a

quarter, can be expected to develop active crown fire.

Although crown-fire potential models such as FFE have

yet to be vigorously validated against behavior of actual

fires, many fire managers regard them as suitable for

“ballpark” predictions of what is likely to occur.

These results have implications both for the scope of

fuel treatment programs and for the challenges that

firefighters will face. In the context of firefighting,

building a fire line that disrupts the continuity of surface

fuels can be effective in stopping fire spread in areas

prone to surface fires. In areas where crown fire, if it

occurs, is likely to be passive, trees will torch individually, and most trees may die. On those more limited areas

where active crown fire is likely to occur, a far more laborand time-intensive job of line-building to remove

standing trees would be required for fire containment

efforts to be successful.

From the standpoint of implementing fuel treatments,

these results and results from simulating fuel treatments at

the landscape scale (Daugherty and Fried 2007) suggest

that much less than half of the forested landscape is likely

to benefit from fuel treatment if the objective is to reduce

crown fire hazard. Given that spatial analyses of fuel

treatments have demonstrated that treating a small

percentage of the landscape can reduce landscape-scale

fire hazard significantly and sometimes cost-effectively

(Finney 2001), these results suggest that the fuels management challenge may be more easily managed than has

been assumed.

Crown Fire Tables in Appendix B

Table 47—Percentage of forest land area by owner group,

survey unit, and fire type, and the total forest land area by

owner group and survey unit, Washington, 2002-2006
75

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

The Fawn Peak Fire25

The Fawn Peak fire burned 81,277 acres in 2003 and

represented one of Washington’s largest fires during

the period of this inventory. The fire burned in relatively high-elevation forest land in the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest. From a sample of 15 FIA

plots located within the burn, the average plot elevation was over 5,000 feet; only 1 plot was under 3,000

feet. The dominant species composition of these plots

was subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine,

Douglas-fir, whitebark pine, and ponderosa pine in

decreasing order of abundance. All plots were classified as either pole timber size (5.0 to 8.9 inches d.b.h.)

or small sawtimber (9 to 19.9 inches d.b.h.). The

average crown ratio of these trees was relatively high,

around 60 percent.

As part of a larger fire effects study, we remeasured

15 national forest inventory plots that fell within the

Fawn Peak burn perimeter a year after the fire to

evaluate the ability of predicting burn effects based on

preburn characteristics. These plots were originally

measured in the mid-to-late 1990s. The remeasurement

captured the prior five-subplot national forest inventory (current vegetation survey) design (Max et al.

1996). A 6.8-foot-radius circle was used to evaluate the

effects of the fire at the ground layer on each of the five

subplots. Tree burn parameters including the percentage of stem that was blackened, height and direction of

both low and high scorch locations, cause of death,

and others were measured in addition to the regular

phase 2 FIA plot measurements.

High-elevation stands, with smaller trees and lower

crowns, are more susceptible to crown fires leading to

high mortality rates and stand-replacing events. The

Fawn Peak fire showed evidence of this stand replacement with over 75 percent fire-caused mortality for the

remeasured trees:

Trees ≥5 inches Fire-caused

Remeasured Fire-caused d.b.h. with crown mortality (trees

Species trees mortality ratio > 50 percent ≥5 inches d.b.h.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Subalpine fir 404 85 77 85

Engelmann spruce 206 78 89 75

Lodgepole pine 198 88 21 88

Douglas-fir 198 55 55 36

Whitebark pine 99 87 53 87

Ponderosa pine 76 48 38 27

25 Author: Dave Azuma.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Of the 75 subplots scheduled to be remeasured, a

majority had greater than 70 percent of the 6.8-foot

circle burned at the ground surface. Two subplots were

not measured, 13 had minor burn effects (less than 30

percent of the subplot burned), and 11 were moderately burned (30 to 70 percent of the subplot area

burned). As shown in the tabulation below, the percentage of prefire crown that was burned was related to the

amount of the subplot ground surface burned, the

amount of mortality, and the percentage of spruce and

fir on the subplot.

Percentage of

subplot surface Number of Fire-caused Prefire crown

burned subplots mortality Spruce/fir burned

– – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – –

High (>70 percent) 49 84 48 70

Moderate (30-70

percent) 11 60 51 30

Low (<30 percent) 13 24 24 10

The ground-measured evidence shows that for the

Fawn Peak Fire, a combination of a hot fire in smaller

trees with lower crowns resulted in stand replacement

across most of the remeasured plots. High mortality in

the spruce and fir stands is generally related to the

amount of the ground surface with burn effects.
77

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Forest products being transported to the mill.

Joseph Donnegan
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Forests are harvested throughout Washington.

Sally Campbell
79

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Washington’s forests are an essential source of raw

material for timber and nontimber forest products, and

they provide many other amenities and services to the

people of Washington. The forest products industry has

historically been a mainstay of Washington’s economy

and culture. Its contributions continue today in the form

of wood products, employment and income, tax revenue,

and maintenance of forest lands across the landscape. The

aim of the following chapters is to examine the productive capacity of Washington’s forests and its contribution

to the state’s economy and environment.

Washington’s Primary Forest Products

Industry26

Background

Until World War II, the forest products industry was the

leading component of Washington state’s economic base.

Although the software and aerospace industries now surpass it, the forests products industry still sells billions of

dollars in products annually and provides living wage

jobs for 19,900 workers in the solid wood products sector

and 12,200 in the pulp and paper sector. The industry

also serves as stewards of the state’s forests, supporting

ecological as well as economic sustainability for rural

communities around the state. Healthy working forests

are good for business and preserve the outdoor recreation

and natural environments for the priceless “Northwest

lifestyle.”

Forestry and forest products are big business in

Washington (fig. 78). Washington’s forests provide more

than 10 percent of the softwood timber harvested in the

United States, and Washington sawmills provide 13 percent of softwood lumber produced in the United States.

Forest management activities in the state generate nearly

Figure 78—Veneer is one of the

many timber products that

Washington mills produce. Dorian Smith

26 Author: Dorian Smith.

Chapter 5: Products
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

$2 billion in gross business income annually, according

to the state’s Department of Revenue. The wood products

manufacturing sector is much larger. Wood products made

in Washington exceeded $5 billion in value in 2006.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources conducts a biennial census of Washington’s

primary forest products industry (i.e., timber processors).

This census, The Washington Mill Survey (Smith and

Hiserote 2007), provided statistics for most of the information presented below and some details on timber

harvest and flow, as well as comprehensive information

about the state’s timber processing sectors, product

volumes, and mill residue.

Findings

Log sources and ownership—

Washington forests provided nearly 85 percent of the

wood processed by in-state mills or exported from

Washington ports during 2006. Logs from Oregon made

up nearly 8 percent of the logs processed in or exported

from Washington–much of that exported through

Washington’s largest port in Longview on the Columbia

River. British Columbia supplied 5 percent of the wood

processed in Washington, and smaller volumes were

imported from Montana, Alaska, and Idaho. More than

half of the log volume processed in or exported from

Washington came from large, privately owned forests.

The remainder came in equal shares from small, private

forest landowners, public agencies (primarily state), and

tribal landowners.

In 2006, Grays Harbor County contributed the largest

volume of logs to in-state mills–364 million board feet

(MMBF) Scribner, followed by Clallam (244 MMBF)

and Lewis (239 MMBF) Counties. The top eastern

Washington timber-supplying counties to in-state mills

were Yakima (112 MMBF) and Stevens (91 MMBF).

More than one-third of the timber volume processed by

Washington mills came from the Olympic Peninsula

economic area (fig. 79). Softwoods accounted for 92.5

Figure 79—Active Washington primary forest products facilities by county and economic area, 2003 (forest/nonforest geographic

information system [GIS] layer: Blackard et al. 2008; urban/water GIS layer: Homer et al. 2004).

John Chase
81

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

percent of the volume processed in Washington mills.

Hardwoods (primarily red alder) are also sought by sawmills, chipping facilities, veneer and plywood manufacturers, and pulp mills.

Fewer, larger mills—

In 2006, The Washington Mill Survey identified 136

active facilities (fig. 79), a decline of 42 percent of all

mill types since 1992. The shake and shingle sector

was reduced from 50 to 16 mills owing to the decline of

available western redcedar (see “Common and Scientific

Plant Names” section). The consumption of redcedar by

shake and shingle mills was down 26 percent between

1992 and 2006. The surviving sawmills were larger

and more efficient operations than their predecessors.

Although lumber production increased by 39 percent

between 1996 and 2006, the net number of sawmills

declined from 94 to 68, so the average output per mill

increased by 54 percent. Sawmills received approximately 2,500 MMBF Scribner (68 percent) of the timber

delivered to Washington timber processors in 2006. The

statewide average overrun in 2006 was 2.0 (board feet of

lumber produced per board foot Scribner of timber). In

1998, overrun was 1.8, indicating that the mills remaining in 2006 were larger and more efficient. Total production capacity in Washington increased by more than 10

percent while the average sawmill capacity leaped 53

percent during that 14-year period.

Product sales values—

In the sawmill sector, the total lumber production in

2006 was 4.95 billion board feet lumber tally with an

estimated value of more than $1.7 billion. Most of the

lumber was kiln-dried (56 percent) and surfaced or

planed (82 percent), creating higher value lumber.

Pulp mills generate a significant share of gross business income in Washington. In 2006, the pulp sector

produced 910,000 tons of bleached paper, 992,000 tons

of unbleached paper, 433,000 tons of newsprint, 548,421

tons of other paper, and 257,570 tons of market pulp.

Total market value of these products was more than $2.7

billion.

Rounding out Washington’s wood products manufacturers for 2006, shake and shingle operations produced

3,306 shake squares; 85,725 shingle squares; and 45,943

other squares worth over $25 million. Chipping operations ground out 1.75 million bone-dry tons (BDT) of

chips with an estimated value of $122 million. Post, pole,

and piling manufacturers produced 29.4 MMBF worth

$44 million.

Log exports have declined from the late 1980s when

2,800 MMBF left Washington ports for foreign destinations. In 2006, slightly more than 541 MMBF of logs

worth $395 million were exported through Washington’s

ports. That volume includes nearly all of Oregon’s

exported logs, which were embarked from the Port of

Longview.

Mill residues—

While producing lumber, shakes, and plywood, the

mills generate a mountain of mill residue: 6.04 million

BDT of chips, bark, sawdust, and shavings in 2006. The

residues were sold for pulp (41.6 percent); as fuel (31.6

percent) for boilers and wood pellet manufacturers; as

furnish for manufacturing reconstituted boards (6.8 percent); and for landscaping, garden mulch, and livestock

bedding (20 percent). Fifty-seven percent (788,818 BDT)

of bark residue was used for fuel, and the remainder was

used for other purposes. Less than 1 percent of mill

residue generated by Washington mills was reported

as not used.

Interpretation

The responses to this major period of transition were

mixed among Washington’s forest products industries.

Between 2000 and 2006, the total number of operations

dropped from 228 to 136. The shake and export sectors

fell significantly in total production. But in that 10-year

period, total lumber production increased 18 percent

while per-mill log production grew 30 percent. Improved

milling technology has increased product recovery (e.g.,

overrun) by 10 percent while allowing increased utilization of smaller diameter trees. Washington will likely

continue to be one of the top three softwood-lumberproducing states.
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Growth, Removals, and Mortality27

Background

Increases or decreases in timber volume (growing stock)

can be explained by examining growth, removals, and

mortality of trees. Comparing removals and mortality to

growth addresses one aspect of forest sustainability; when

removals and mortality exceed growth, total growing

stock volume in the stand declines. In localized areas,

removing trees to reduce risk from fire or insect outbreaks

can cause removals to exceed growth, but may benefit the

health of the stand. Widespread mortality from some

agent of disturbance such as bark beetles may also offset

growth gains and thus slow stand development (fig. 80).

The most comprehensive data for estimating change

in growing-stock volume on private land and unreserved

public land outside national forests are from the periodic

FIA inventory of 1988-1990 and the periodic closeout

inventory of 2000-2001 (Gray et al. 2005, 2006). During

remeasurement on 978 forested plots, all trees present at

the previous inventory and any new trees were accounted

for and new measurements taken; analysis is provided for

the 911 plots that remained timberland in both inventories. The most comprehensive data for national forest

lands are from the Current Vegetation Survey (Max

et al. 1996) conducted by the Pacific Northwest Region

(Region 6) of the U.S. Forest Service. Plots were installed

in Washington in 1993-1997, and 2,431 plots were

remeasured in 1999-2006 with previous and new trees

accounted for.

Findings

Private and public timberland outside national

forests—

Between 1990 and 2001-02, removals plus mortality

exceeded growth volume significantly on corporate

private timberland at the state level (95-percent confidence interval [CI] is -4,008 to -500 million cubic feet

27 Authors: Olaf Kuegler and Andrew Gray.

of net change). The same pattern was true in eastern

Washington (95-percent CI is -996 to -170 million cubic

feet net change), where the volume of removals plus

mortality was more than 1.8 times as high as growth

volume (standard error [SE] = 0.30). In contrast, the volume of removals plus mortality did not significantly exceed growth volume in western Washington (95-percent

CI is -3,377 to +29 million cubic feet of net change),

where removals plus mortality was about 1.2 times as

high as growth (SE = 0.11) (fig. 81).

On noncorporate private timberland, periodic removals and mortality did not exceed periodic growth significantly at the state level (95-percent CI is -1,911 to +355

million cubic feet of net change) and also did not significantly exceed it in either eastern or western Washington.

The ratio of removals and mortality to growth was similar

in eastern (1.10, SE = 0.11) and western Washington

(1.19, SE = 0.17).

On public timberland (mainly state land, excluding

national forests), the trend was different. Here, removals

and mortality were significantly lower than growth in

both eastern (95-percent CI is 65 to 417 million cubic

feet of net change) and western Washington (95-percent

CI is 1,207 to 2,799 million cubic feet of net change). In

eastern Washington, removals and mortality were only

about 60 percent of current growth (SE = 13 percent) and

only about 48 percent in western Washington (SE = 10

percent). At the state level, removals and mortality were

significantly lower than growth (95-percent CI is 1,429

to 3,059 million cubic feet of net change).

National forest land—

Between the mid-1990s and 2006, volume growth on

unreserved forest land on national forests significantly

exceeded loss from mortality and removals (95-percent

confidence interval is 314 to 550 million cubic feet of

net change for eastern Washington and 1,169 to 1,467

for western Washington). On reserved forest lands, however, the net change in volume was not significantly different from zero (95-percent CI is -163 to 103 and -26

to 370 million cubic feet for eastern and western

Washington, respectively). For all lands combined, most
83

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Figure 80—Growth of trees is offset by

harvesting and mortality. Sally Campbell

Figure 81—Ratios of removals plus

mortality to growth for cubic-foot

volume of growing stock on nonnational-forest timberland in

Washington, by owner group. Lines at

end of bars represent ± standard error.

of the volume loss was attributed to natural mortality

events, with an estimated 9 percent (SE = 1.5 percent)

attributed to harvest (removal).

These changes in volume resulted in a net increase of

5.4 percent (SE = 0.4 percent) on national forests across

the state as a whole, with the greatest relative losses in

volume from mortality seen in eastern Washington (fig.

82a) and the greatest net increases seen in western

Washington (fig. 82b). Timber harvest removed an

estimated 1.0 percent (SE = 0.2 percent) of the growing

stock volume present in the mid-1990s on unreserved

forest land.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 82—Growth, removals, and mortality on national forests as a percentage of standing

growing-stock volume in the mid-1990s, by land status, for eastern Washington (top) and

western Washington (bottom). Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.

A

B
85

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Interpretation

The current trends observed on private and unreserved

public timberland outside national forests are similar to

historical trends. Figure 83 shows the historical development of average growing stock volume, growth, removals,

and mortality on timberland between 1968 and 2000.28

Average standing growing-stock volume per acre decreased steadily between 1968 and 2000 on corporate

private timberland (fig. 83a). In 1968, public timberland

(excluding national forests) and corporate private timberland had about the same amount of standing growingstock volume per acre. By 2000, the growing-stock

volume on public timberland (other public) had increased

from 3,850 cubic feet per acre in 1968 to 5,140 cubic feet

per acre while the volume on corporate private timberland

decreased from 3,920 cubic feet to 2,800 cubic feet per

acre. On noncorporate private timberland (other private),

volume increased between 1968 and 1979 from 2,130

cubic feet per acre to 2,790 cubic feet and remained at

about this level through 2000 (fig. 83b). These opposing

trends on private corporate, private noncorporate and

other public timberland (excluding national forests)

had the effect that the average amount of growing stock

(standing timber) per acre on timberland in Washington

remained about the same between 1968 and 2000 (fig.

83d).

Comparable data are not available for prior decades

on national forest lands, but the change in growing stock

volume between the mid-1990s and 2006 is likely a substantial departure from prior years. The greatest difference

would be the decline in removal volume since the early

1990s (see “Removals for Timber Products” section in

this chapter). With less harvest taking place, it is possible that growth and mortality were somewhat higher

in the period covered here. Given current management approaches on national forests in Washington, it

is likely that growth will remain comparable in the future,

28 Estimates of sampling error are not consistently available for

the data between 1968 and 1989.

and harvest may increase as planned tree density and

fuel reduction approaches are implemented. Mortality is

much harder to predict, especially if insect infestations

intensify (e.g., mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus

ponderosae Hopkins, in lodgepole pine) or a severe

wildfire season occurs.

Growth, Removals, and Mortality Tables in

Appendix B

Table 48—Estimated ratio of periodic mortality and

removals volume to growth volume of growing stock

on non-national-forest timberland, by location, species

group, and owner group, Washington, 1990-1991 to

2000-2001

Table 49—Estimated periodic gross cubic-foot

growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on nonnational-forest timberland, by location, species group,

and owner group, Washington, 1990-1991 to 2000-2001

Table 50—Estimated periodic gross board-foot

growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on nonnational-forest timberland, by location, species group,

and owner group, Washington, 1990-1991 to 2000-2001

Table 51—Estimated periodic gross cubic-foot growth,

mortality, and removals of growing stock on national

forest land, by location, type of forest land, and reserved

status, Washington, 1993-1997 to 1999-2006

Table 52—Estimated periodic gross board-foot growth,

mortality, and removals of sawtimber on national forest land, by location, type of forest land, and reserved

status, Washington, 1993-1997 to 1999-2006

Removals for Timber Products29

Background

Volume removed from forest inventory during the harvesting of timber is known as removals. Removals are an

important indicator of the sustainability of timber harvest. Removals that exceed net growth volume could

indicate overharvesting and decreasing forest inventory

29 Author: Todd A. Morgan,
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 83—Average growing stock volume, growth, removals, and mortality volume for (a) corporate private (forest

industry), (b) other (noncorporate) private, (c) other public (excluding national forest), and (d) all owners. To read the

graph, start with the leftmost bar, representing standing volume in 1968. The negative values in the next bar (red and

yellow for removals and mortality, respectively) reduce the growing stock volume from the previous period (dark

green), while growth (light green) adds to the growing stock volume. The result is an estimate of the average standing

growing stock volume per acre for each time period, by reading the value at the top of the bar.

(standing volume), whereas growth greatly exceeding

removals could signal a need for increased vegetation

management to decrease risks of tree mortality, insect

outbreaks, or wildfire.

Removals can come from two sources: the growingstock portion of live trees (live trees of commercial species meeting specified standards of quality or vigor), or

dead trees and other non-growing-stock sources. The two

general types of removals are timber products harvested

for processing by mills and logging residue (i.e., volume

cut or killed but not utilized) (fig. 84). Removals, as reported here, are based on a 2004 survey of Washington’s

primary forest products industry (Smith and Hiserote

2007).

Findings

Washington’s 2004 timber harvest for industrial wood

products was approximately 3.8 billion board feet

Scribner; dead trees accounted for about 116.5 million
87

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

board feet (3 percent). The 2004 harvest was roughly 94

percent of the average annual harvest for the previous 10

years, but just 66 percent of the 40-year average (fig. 85).

Removals for timber products totaled 1,057 million

cubic feet (MMCF) during 2004 (fig. 86). Growing stock

accounted for 972 MMCF (87 percent) of removals for

products, with the remainder coming from other sources,

including dead trees and other non-growing-stock

sources. Saw logs30 were the leading product harvested,

accounting for 74 percent of removals for products.

Fuelwood, including residential firewood, accounted for

10 percent, logs chipped for pulpwood accounted for 9

percent, and veneer logs accounted for 6 percent. Posts,

poles, pilings, and cedar products accounted for the

remaining 1 percent of removals for timber products.

Softwoods accounted for approximately 94 percent (989

MMCF) of removals for products. The largest volumes of

30 Log volume exported from Washington to other states and

countries is included in the saw-log timber product category.

hardwoods were used for saw logs and chipped for pulp

and composite products, with smaller quantities used for

fuelwood and veneer.

Total removals from Washington’s timberlands during

2004 were 1,334 MMCF. This included the 1,057 MMCF

used for timber products and 277 MMCF of logging

residue left in the forest as slash. Growing-stock removals

were 972 MMCF. Slightly over 94 percent (915 MMCF)

of growing-stock removals were used to produce wood

products, and just under 6 percent (57 MMCF) were not

utilized. Sawlogs were the largest component (77 percent)

of growing-stock removals, followed by pulpwood (10

percent), and veneer logs (6 percent).

About 52 percent (510 MMCF) of growing-stock

removals came from corporate timberlands, and 33 percent (317 MMCF) came from other private and tribal

lands. Less than 2 percent of the volume removed from

growing stock was from national forests. Slightly more

than 13 percent of growing-stock removals came from

other public lands, primarily Washington Department of

Figure 84—Removals are stacked on log decks, waiting to be transported to local mills.

U.S. Forest Service
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Figure 86—Trees harvested from

Washington’s forests in 2004 were used

for a variety of forest products including

saw logs, veneer, pulp, posts, and poles.

Figure 85—Timber harvest in Washington, by

ownership, 1949-2006

(harvest data: Washington

Department of Natural

Resources 2006;

Washington Department

of Revenue 2006).
89

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Natural Resources, and other state agencies, counties,

municipal watersheds, city-owned timberlands, the U.S.

Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the

Bureau of Land Management.

 Douglas-fir was the leading species harvested, accounting for 46 percent (445 MMCF) of growing-stock

removals. Western hemlock represented about 27 percent,

and true firs represented about 8 percent. Hardwoods,

predominantly red alder, accounted for slightly less than

7 percent of growing-stock removals. Ponderosa pine,

cedars, spruces, lodgepole pine, larch, and other softwoods together accounted for 12 percent. Douglas-fir

was the leading species harvested for most products, with

35 percent of pulpwood volume, 45 percent of sawlog

volume, 63 percent of veneer log volume, and 87 percent

of post, pole, and piling volume coming from Douglas-fir.

Cedar was the leading species harvested for other products, including shakes and shingles. Red alder accounted

for 27 percent of sawlog volume, 28 percent of veneer log

volume, and 35 percent of log volume chipped for pulp

or composite products.

Interpretation

Sustainability of Washington’s forests depends on

sustainable harvest levels, a forest products industry capable of utilizing harvested material, and a suitable land

base available for timber production. Fortunately, growth

exceeds removals statewide. But Washington’s timber

harvest volume has been declining since 1989, and the

state’s forest products industry is currently facing mill

closures and curtailments as a result of the severe downturn in the U.S. housing market since 2005, corresponding drops in lumber prices, and fall-out from subprime

mortgage issues. However, in the long run, loss of timberland to developed or residential uses may prove to be

more challenging to forest sustainability, as well as to

Washington’s forest products industry. To ensure sustainable harvests for future generations, careful consideration

should be given not only to growth and removals across

Washington’s available timberlands, but also to the

amount of land and timber being converted to nonforest

uses.

Removals Tables in Appendix B

Table 53—Total roundwood output by product, species

group, and source of material, Washington, 2004

Table 54—Volume of timber removals by type of removal,

source of material, and species group, Washington, 2004

Nontimber Forest Products31

Background

Nontimber forest products (NTFP) are harvested from

forests for reasons other than production of timber commodities. Vascular plants, lichens, and fungi are the

primary organisms included in NTFPs (Jones 1999) and

are collected for subsistence, recreational, educational, or

commercial purposes (Vance et al. 2001). Examples of

NTFPs include boughs, bark, moss, and mushrooms and

can be broadly defined to include even water and livestock. The NTFPs are fundamental to many botanical,

floral, and woodcraft industries and are important to

medicinal and natural food industries as well. Permits are

required to collect NTFPs on national forests in Washington, and the number of permits provides a useful indicator

of the economic importance of NTFPs (Duran 2007).

Although harvest of NTFPs is prevalent in Pacific

coast forests, relatively little is known about their overall

abundance or how they are affected by different land

management practices. It is also not clear whether current

levels of harvesting are sustainable or whether they are

negatively affecting the resources (Everett 1997). Because PNW-FIA crews record the cover of the most

abundant and readily identifiable vascular plant species

found on each phase 2 plot, the inventory can provide

useful baseline information on the status and trends of

many NTFP species (Vance et al. 2002). Crews also collect samples of epiphytic lichens found on phase 3 plots,

allowing assessment of selected lichen NTFPs (note:

collection of lichens and most mosses is prohibited on

national forest lands).

31 Authors: Andrew Gray and Sarah Jovan.
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Lists of vascular plant and lichen NTFPs were compiled from the literature (Everett 1997, Jones 1999, Vance

et al. 2001) and compared with species recorded on FIA

plots. Plant species that were readily identifiable by most

crews (i.e., common shrubs or common and distinctive

herbs) were included in the analyses, as well as seedlings

and saplings of selected tree species (under the assumption that most boughs are harvested from small trees).

Mean cover of each species across all sampled subplots

was calculated, and the area covered on each plot extrapolated to all forest land with standard inventory

statistics. The frequency of plots on which NTFP lichen

species were collected and identified was summarized.

The value of permits sold on national forests primarily in

Washington (not including the Umatilla National Forest)

was summarized for type of NTFP.

Findings

The NTFP plant species with the greatest cover was

swordfern (fig. 87), which covered 1.1 million acres.

Brackenfern was the next most widespread herb, covering

258,000 acres. The shrubs covering the most acreage were

salal (842,000 acres), vine maple (725,000 acres), and

salmonberry (603,000 acres). In comparison, the cover of

NTFP tree seedlings and saplings was quite low except for

Douglas-fir, which covered 158,000 acres. Plant NTFPs

were more prevalent in western than in eastern Washington ecosections; and the Puget Trough ecosection had the

most cover (fig. 88). Lichen NTFPs were common, with

beard lichens recorded on 63 percent of the forested plots

and witch’s hair lichen recorded on 48 percent:

Scientific name Common name Plotsa

Percent

Alectoria sarmentosa Witch’s hair lichen 48.3

Bryoria fremontii Old man’s beard 30.0

Letharia vulpina Wolf lichen 45.4

Lobaria pulmonaria Lungwort 3.4

Parmelia saxatilis Crottle 3.9

Usnea Beard lichens 63.3

Usnea hirta Beard lichen 1.0

a

207 forested plots were sampled; data subject to sampling error.

National forests in Washington sold permits to collect

NTFPs for $1.7 million in 2007, with an estimated market

value of $17 million (Duran 2008). The greatest value

Figure 87—Swordfern is the nontimber

forest product that covers the greatest area of

Washington forest lands. Dale Waddell
91

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

by far was in the sale of permits for boughs, which are

primarily used in the floral industry, as shown below:

NTFP product Income from permits

Dollars

Bark 2,660

Cones 760

Foliage 78,480

Fruit 20,080

Grass 174,250

Boughs 1,206,862

Mushrooms 111,308

Miscellaneous 39,210

Transplants 25,912

Christmas trees 39,441

Total 1,698,963

Interpretation

Washington’s forests appear to have abundant resources

of vascular plant species used as NTFPs, including those

used for floral, medicinal, and woodcraft businesses and

those important for subsistence and recreation (e.g.,

swordfern, St. Johnswort, Pacific yew, Oregon grape, and

thinleaf huckleberry). Within a given species, not all

plants will produce the desired quality of greens or fruits,

so the actual resource is likely less than that reported

here. Nevertheless, NTFPs collected on national forests

clearly make a substantial contribution to the economy of

the state; the total from all landowners may be double

that recorded on national forests (Schlosser et al. 1991).

The figures on species abundance will provide an important baseline for changes over time and could be used for

more detailed analyses by ownership or geography.

Nontimber Forest Products Tables in Appendix B

Table 55—Estimated area of forest land covered by

vascular plant nontimber forest products, by plant group

and species, Washington, 2002-2006

Figure 88—Forested area covered by selected vascular plant nontimber forest products (NTFPs) on forest land in

Washington, by ecosection, 2002-2006. Lines at end of bars represent ± standard error.
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Dale Waddell

Washington forests contain a mixture of live and dead trees and open spaces.
93

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

We hope this report provides a better understanding of

Washington’s forest resources, highlighting information

that is new as well as confirming things you may already

know from personal experience or from other data and

publications. Because this report is an overview, touching

briefly on many relevant topics, we expect some readers

will be eager to see more indepth research and analysis on

selected topics to fully understand current status, change,

and relationships in Washington forests. Some possible

areas of future work may include more comprehensive

analysis and reporting of forest fuels and indepth work

on forest health issues, carbon dynamics, and forest

productivity.

We expect that our own Pacific Northwest (PNW) Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) research staff as well as

researchers and analysts from other programs and institutes will investigate many of the questions that can be

addressed with the annual inventory data, especially once

a full cycle of data has been collected.

The annual FIA inventory, as currently designed, will

continue into the future, provided funding and support

for it are maintained. As directed by the 1998 Farm Bill

(section 253(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension,

and Education Reform Act of 1998), findings from the inventory will be published every 5 years. For Washington,

the next report will be written in about 2013, after all FIA

plots have been visited and the first full cycle of data

collection is completed.

Andy Gray

Cub Lake, Glacier Peak Wilderness.

Chapter 6: Conclusions
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Common and Scientific Plant Names

Life form Common name Scientific name

Trees:

Alaska yellow-cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach

Alder Alnus spp. 

Ash Fraxinus spp. 

Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Pursh

Birch Betula spp. 

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata (Dougl. ex Hook.) D. Dietr.

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera L. ssp. trichocarpa (Torr. & A. Gray

ex Hook.) Brayshaw

Boxelder Acer negundo L.

California black oak Quercus kelloggii Newberry

California-laurel Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt.

Canyon live oak Quercus chrysolepis Liebm.

Cedar Thuja spp. 

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana L.

Cottonwood Populus spp. 

Curl-leaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco

Elm Ulmus spp. 

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.

Giant chinquapin, golden Chrysolepis chrysophylla (Dougl. ex Hook.) Hjelmqvist

chinquapin

Grand fir Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.

Hawthorn Crataegus spp. 

Hemlock Tsuga spp. 

Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi Grev. & Balf.

Juniper, redcedar Juniperus spp.

Knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Lemmon

Larch Larix spp. 

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.

Maple Acer spp. 

Mountain hemlock Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.

Noble fir Abies procera Rehd.

Oak Quercus spp. 

Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia Benth.

Oregon crabapple Malus fusca (Raf.) Schneid.

Oregon white oak Quercus garryana Dougl. ex Hook.

Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii Audubon ex Torr. & Gray

Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii Pursh

Pacific silver fir Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes

Pacific yew Taxus brevifolia Nutt.

Paper birch Betula papyrifera Marsh.

Pine Pinus spp. 

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa P.&C. Lawson

Port-Orford-cedar Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Parl.

Quaking aspen, aspen Populus tremuloides Michx.

Red alder Alnus rubra Bong.
95

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Life form Common name Scientific name

Rocky Mountain maple, Acer glabrum Torr.

intermountain maple

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.

Spruce Picea spp. 

Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.

Sugar pine Pinus lambertiana Dougl.

Tanoak Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehd.

True fir species Abies spp. 

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.

Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis Hook.

Western larch Larix occidentalis Nutt.

Western oaks Quercus (spp.)

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don

Western white pine Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don

White alder Alnus rhombifolia Nutt.

White fir Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.

Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Engelm.

Shrubs:

Blue elderberry Sambucus nigra L. ssp. cerulea (Raf.) R. Bolli

Creeping barberry Mahonia repens (Lindl.) G. Don

Currant Ribes spp. 

Cutleaf blackberry Rubus laciniatus Willd.

Devils club Oplopanax horridus Miq.

Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium spp. 

Dwarf Oregon grape, cascade Mahonia nervosa (Pursh) Nutt.

barberry

English holly Ilex aquifolium L.

English ivy Hedera helix L.

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor Weihe & Nees

Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.

Manzanita Arctostaphylos spp. 

Ninebark Physocarpus spp.

Oregon boxleaf Paxistima myrsinites (Pursh) Raf.

Oregon grape, hollyleaved Mahonia aquifolium (Pursh) Nutt.

barberry

Oval-leaf blueberry Vaccinium ovalifolium Sm.

Pinemat manzanita Arctostaphylos nevadensis Gray

Pipsissewa Chimaphila umbellata (L.) W. Bart.

Pursh’s buckthorn Frangula purshiana (DC.) Cooper

Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa L.

Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Sm.

Rose Rosa spp. 

Salal Gaultheria shallon Pursh

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Pursh

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link

Scouler’s willow Salix scouleriana Barratt ex Hook.

Snowberry Symphoricarpos spp. 

Snowbrush ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus Dougl. ex Hook.

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Nutt.

Thinleaf huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl. ex Torr.
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Life form Common name Scientific name

Vine maple Acer circinatum Pursh

Willow Salix spp. 

Forbs:

Brackenfern, western brackenfern Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn

Broadleaf arnica Arnica latifolia Bong.

British Columbia wildginger Asarum caudatum Lindl.

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten.

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.

Common beargrass Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus L.

Common yarrow Achillea millefolium L.

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica (L.) P. Mill.

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata (Bleb.) Cavara & Grande.

Hairy cat’s ear Hypochaeris radicata L.

Heartleaf arnica Arnica cordifolia Hook.

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Lam.

Pacific trillium Trillium ovatum Pursh

Purple foxglove Digitalis purpurea L.

Sitka valerian Valeriana sitchensis Bong.

Spotted knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii DC.

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum L.

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica L.

Stinking willie, tansy ragweed Scenecio jacobaea L.

Swordfern, western swordfern Polystichum munitum (Kaulfuss) K. Presl

Thistle Cirsium spp. 

Wall-lettuce Mycelis muralis (L.) Dumort.

Western pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) Benth.

White knapweed Centaurea diffusa Lam.

Graminoids:

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum L.

Common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus L.

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata L.

Lichens:

Beard lichen Usnea hirta (L.) F.H. Wigg.

Beard lichens Usnea spp. 

Crottle Parmelia saxatilis (L.) Ach.

Lungwort lichen Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm.

Lungwort lichens Lobaria spp. 

Old man’s beard Bryoria fremontii (Tuck.) Brodo & D. Hawksw.

Orange wall lichen Xanthoria polycarpa (Hoffm.) Rieber

Oregon lung lichen Lobaria oregana (Tuck.) Mull. Arg.

Witch’s hair lichen Alectoria sarmentosa (Ach.) Ach.

Wolf lichen Letharia vulpina (L.) Hue
97

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we want to acknowledge the FIA field

crews and National Forest System contracting companies

for collecting the high-quality field data on which this

report is based: Julie Andersen, Brett Anderson, Dale

Baer, Jerry Bednarczyk, Gabe Bellante, Joe Berry, Andrew

Black, Mike Boldt, Matthew Brown, Chuck Brushwood,

Will Bunten, Jon Burgbacher, Whitney Burgess, Glenn

Burkhart, Sarah Butler, Janelle Cossey, James Cox, Donna

Crone, Don Dahlman, Brian Daum, Jessica Deans, Paul

Deignan, Joseph Digranes, Summer Dunn, Ruth Epling,

Matthew Ferrante, Walter Foss, Ben Fricke, Brian Gasper,

Thomas Glose, Ryan Glynn, Maria Gonzalez-Abad,

Walter Grabowiecki, Colleen Grenz, Michael Griffin, John

Hall, Jamie Halperin, Jake Hawkins, Heather Hayden,

Drew Hedesh, Andy Hoff, Mike Hogan, Tristan Kelley,

Nicci Lambert, Marc LaPine, Jesper Lesch, Brian Lewis,

J.D. Lloyd, Jamie Ludwig, Chris Moltzau, Brance

Morefield, Marc Much, Eric Murphy, Dell Needham,

Adam Neff, Yhtt Nighthawk, Melissa Patterson, Jessica

Pijoan, Peter Rahn, Scott Rash, Erin Riggs, Amanda

Rollwage, Tyler Ross, David Rutledge, Jeremy Sapp,

Barry Skolout, Samuel Solano, Adrianna Sutton, Bruce

Stevens, Brent Stroud, Rylee Sweeney, Zack Taylor,

Andrew Tasler, Lydia Wedge, James Weiser, Misha

Yatskov, Biometrics Forestry, Boateng and Associates,

Bolin Construction, Buffalo Jump, Camp II Forest Management, Crownwood Forestry, Duck Creek Associates,

Logsden Forestry, Merlin Biological, Steve Holmes

Forestry, Raven Forestry, Ruth Johnson.

In addition to the chapter authors, many other

individuals contributed significantly to this report. Our

thanks to Joel Thompson for assistance with data tables;

to Dale Weyermann for GIS support; to Elaina Graham

and John Chase for preparing the maps displayed in this

report; to Brett Butler for providing National Woodland

Owner Survey data; to Chuck Veneklase for field data

recorder programming and support; to Alison Nimura,

Ron Wanek, and Kurt Campbell for compiling the data

that are the foundation of this report; to Bruce Hiserote,

Erica Hanson, and Adrianna Sutton for data correction

assistance; to Khakie Jones for assistance with photographs; and to Steve Fairweather, Karen Ripley, Dave

Marshall, Frank Duran, Louisa Evers, Shawna Bautista,

Kim Mellen-Mclean, Mike Daugherty, Brian Staab,

Melinda Moeur, Rick Graw, Kathy Sheehan, and Alison

Nelson for their thoughtful and helpful reviews of the

draft manuscript. Finally, we want to acknowledge our

PNW-FIA Program manager, Sue Willits, and the PNWFIA team leaders, Tara Barrett, George Breazeale, Jeremy

Fried, Ray Koleser, Bob Rhoads, and Jeff Reis for their

unflagging support of this project.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Board feet 0.0024 Cubic meters

Cubic feet 0.0283 Cubic meters

Cubic feet per acre 0.06997 Cubic meters

per hectare

Square feet 0.0929 Square meters

Square feet per acre 0.229 Square meters

per hectare

Ounce 28349.5 Milligrams

Pounds 0.453 Kilograms

Pounds per cubic 16.018 Kilograms per

foot cubic meter

Tons per acre 2.24 Megagrams per

hectare

Degrees Fahrenheit 0.55 (F-32) Degrees Celsius

British thermal 0.000293 Kilowatt hours

units (Btu)

Pounds per cubic foot 0.016 Grams per cubic

centimeter
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Literature Cited

Air and Waste Management Association. 1998. Recognition of air pollution injury to vegetation: a pictorial atlas. 2nd ed. Sec. 2.0—Ozone. Pittsburgh,

PA: Air and Waste Management Association. http://

secure.awma.org/OnlineLibrary/ProductDetails.

aspx?ProductID=226. (21 March 2008).

Andrews, H.J.; Cowlin, R.W. 1940. Forest resources

of the Douglas-fir region. Misc. Publ. 389. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 169 p.

Antoine, M.E. 2004. An ecophysiological approach to

quantifying nitrogen fixation by Lobaria oregana.

The Bryologist. 107: 82–87.

Arbogast, H.A. 1974. The timber resources of the Inland

Empire area, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-50.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experient Station. 56 p.

Arno, S.F.; Hoff, R.J. 1990. Pinus albicaulis Engelm.

whitebark pine. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech.

coords. Silvics of North America: I. Conifers. Agric.

Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service: 268-279. Vol 1.

Azuma, D.L.; Dunham, P.A.; Hiserote, B.A.; Veneklase,

C.F. 2004. Timber resource statistics for eastern

Oregon, 1999. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-238. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 42 p.

Barbour, R.J.; Fried, J.S.; Daugherty, P.J.; Fight, R.

2008. Predicting the potential mix of wood products

available from timbershed scale fire hazard reduction

treatments. Forest Policy and Economics.

10: 400–407.

Bassett, P.M.; Oswald, D.D. 1981a. Timber resource

statistics for the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.

Resour. Bull. PNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p.

Bassett, P.M.; Oswald, D.D. 1981b. Timber resource

statistics for southwest Washington. Resour. Bull.

PNW-91. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 24 p.

Bassett, P.M.; Oswald, D.D. 1982. Timber resource

statistics for the Puget Sound area, Washington.

Resour. Bull. PNW-96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p.

Bassett, P.M.; Oswald, D.D. 1983. Timber resource

statistics for eastern Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW104. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 32 p.

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L. 2005. The enhanced

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program—national

sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen.

Tech. Rep. GTR-SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p.

Blackard, J.; Finco, M.; Helmer, E.; Holden, G.;

Hoppus, M.; Jacobs, D.; Lister, A.; Moisen, G.;

Nelson, M.; Riemann, R.; Ruefenacht, B.; Salajanu,

D.; Weyermann, D.; Winterberger, K.; Brandeis, T.;

Czaplewski, R.; McRoberts, R.; Patterson, P.;

Tymcio, R. 2008. Mapping U.S. forest biomass using

nationwide forest inventory data and moderate

resolution information. [Biomass map with forest/

nonforest mask, 250 m resolution]. Remote Sensing

of the Environment. 112: 1658–1677.
99

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Bolsinger, C.L. 1969. The timber resources of the

Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW31. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 60 p.

Bolsinger, C.L. 1971. The timber resources of the Puget

Sound area, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-36.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 72 p.

Bolsinger, C.L.; Waddell, K. 1993. Area of old-growth

forests in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-197. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 26 p.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2006. British

Columbia’s mountain pine beetle action plan, 2006-

2011. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/

mountain_pine_beetle/actionplan/2006/

Beetle_Action_Plan.pdf. (26 February 2007).

Bull, E.L.; Parks, C.G.; Torgersen, T.R. 1997. Trees and

logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia

River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Butler, B.J.; Leatherberry, E.C.; Williams, M.S. 2005.

Design, implementation, and analysis methods for the

national woodland owner survey. Gen. Tech. Rep. NEGTR-336. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research

Station. 43 p.

California Energy Commission. 2008. Energy almanac:

U.S. per capita electricity use by state in 2005. http://

energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/

us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html. (15 December

2008).

Campbell, N.A. 1990. Biology. 2nd ed. Redwood City,

CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.

1165 p.

Campbell, S.; Liegel, L. 1996. Disturbance and forest

health in Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-381. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 121 p.

Campbell, S.J.; Wanek, R.; Coulston, J.W. 2007. Ozone

injury in west coast forests: results of 6 years of

monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-722. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, M.E.;

Bailey, R.G.; King, T.; Russell, W.E. 1997. National

hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: Boyce,

M.S.; Haney, A., eds. Ecosystem management:

applications for sustainable forest and wildlife

resources. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press:

181–200.

Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, J.E., Jr.; Nowacki,

G.J.; Carpenter, C.A.; McNab, W.H. 2005. Ecological subregions: sections and subsections of the

conterminous United States, 1:3,500,000, CD-ROM.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service.

Coulston, J.W.; Smith, G.C.; Smith, W.D. 2003. Regional

assessment of ozone sensitive tree species using

bioindicator plants. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment. 83: 113–127.

Cowlin, R.W.; Briegleb, P.A.; Moravets, F.L. 1942.

Forest resources of the ponderosa pine region of

Washington and Oregon. Misc. Publ. 490. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 99 p.

Cowlin, R.W.; Moravets, F.L. 1940. Forest Resources of

Washington. Olympia, WA: Division of Forestry. 44 p.

D’Antonio, C.M.; Vitousek, P.M. 1992. Biological

invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and

global change. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics. 23: 63–87.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Daugherty, P.J.; Fried, J.S. 2007. Jointly optimizing

selection of fuel treatments and siting of forest

biomass-based energy production facilities for

landscape-scale fire hazard reduction. INFOR:

Information Systems and Operational Research.

45(1): 353–372.

Davis, J.C. 1986. Statistics and data analysis in geology,

2

nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 646 p.

Donnegan, J.; Campbell, S.; Azuma, D. 2008. Oregon’s

forest resources, 2001-2005. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-765. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 186 p.

Duran, F. 2007. Region 6 Special Forest Products

summary reports. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service

Region 6. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fp/FPWebPage/

FP70104A/FP70104A.htm (April 2008).

Duran, F. 2008. Personal communication. Program manager, Special Forest Products, USDA Forest Service

Region 6, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208.

Eilers, J.M.; Rose, C.L.; Sullivan, T.J. 1994. Status of air

quality and effects of atmospheric pollutants on

ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest Region of the

National Park Service. Technical Report NPS/

NRAQD/NRTR-94/160. 259 p. http://

www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/reviews/pnw/

PNWfinalreport1.pdf (20 July 2009).

Everett, Y. 1997. A guide to selected nontimber forest

products of the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area,

Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests,

California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-162. Albany,

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 64 p.

Fenn, M.E.; Baron, J.S.; Allen, E.B.; Rueth, H.M.;

Nydick, K.R.; Geiser, L.; Bowman, W.D.; Sickman,

J.O.; Meixner, T.; Johnson, D.W.; Neitlich, P. 2003.

Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the

Western United States. BioScience. 53: 404–420.

Fenn, M.E.; Geiser, L.; Bachman, R.; Blubaugh, T.J.;

Bytnerowicz, A. 2007. Atmospheric deposition

inputs and effects on lichen chemistry and communities in the Columbia River Gorge, USA. Environmental Pollution. 146(1): 77–91.

Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel

treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and

behavior. Forest Science. 47(2): 219–228.

Franklin, J.F.; Cromack, K.; Denison, W.; McKee, A.;

Maser, C.; Sedell, J.; Swanson, F.; Juday, G. 1981.

Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-118. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Hall, F.; Laudenslayer, W. 1986. Interim

definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed

conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Res. Note PNW-RN-447. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Hemstrom, M.; Van Pelt, R.; Buchanan,

J.; Hull, S.; Crawford, R.; Curry, S.; Obermeyer, W.

2007. Extent and distribution of old forest conditions

on DNR-managed state trust lands in eastern Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department

of Natural Resources. 26 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.; Van Pelt, R. 2005. Definition

and inventory of old growth forests on DNR-managed

state lands, Section 1, report by the old growth

definition committee. Olympia, WA: Washington

State Department of Natural Resources. 21 p.

Geiser, L.H.; Neitlich, P.N. 2007. Air pollution and

climate gradients in western Oregon and Washington

indicated by epiphytic macrolichens. Environmental

Pollution. 145: 203–218.
101

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Goheen, E.M.; Willhite, E.A. 2006. Field guide to

common diseases and insect pests of Oregon and

Washington conifers. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region. 327 p.

Graham, R.T. 1990. Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don.

western white pine. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H.,

tech. coords. Silvics of North America: I. Conifers.

Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service: 385–393. Vol 1.

Gray, A.N.; Azuma, D.L. 2005. Repeatability and

implementation of a forest vegetation indicator.

Ecological Indicators. 5: 57–71.

Gray, A.N.; Fried, J.S.; Christensen, G.; Potts, L. 2006.

Timber resource statistics for forest land in eastern

Washington, January 2002. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB251. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

46 p.

Gray, A.N.; Veneklase, C.F.; Rhoads, R.D. 2005. Timber

resource statistics for nonnational forest land in

western Washington, 2001. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB246. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

117 p.

Hardy, C.C.; Bunnell, D.L.; Menakis, J.P.; Schmidt,

K.M.; Long, D.G.; Limmerman, D.G.; Johnston,

C.M. 1999. Coarse-scale spatial data for wildland

fire and fuel management. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects Research Work Unit. www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman.

(December 2006).

Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Swanson, F.J.; Sollins, P.;

Gregory, S.V.; Lattin, J.D.; Anderson, N.H.; Cline,

S.P.; Aumen, N.G.; Sedell, J.R.; Lienkaemper, G.W.;

Cromack, K., Jr. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody

debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research. 15: 133–302.

Hazard, J.W. 1965. The timber resources of the Puget

Sound area, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-15.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

Heinz Center [H. John Heinz III Center for Science,

Economics, and the Environment]. 2002. The state

of the Nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands,

waters, and living resources of the United States.

New York: Cambridge University Press. 270 p.

Helms, J.A., ed. 1998. The dictionary of forestry.

Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters.

210 p.

Hessburg, P.F.; Mitchell, R.G.; Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in

eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-327. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Hoff, R.; Hagle S. 1990. Diseases of whitebark pine

with special emphasis on white pine blister rust. In:

Schmidt, W.; McDonald, K., comps. Whitebark pine

ecosystems: ecology and management of a high

mountain resource: proceedings of a symposium.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station: 179–190.

Homer, C.C.; Huany, L.; Wylie, B.; Coan, M. 2004.

Development of a 2001 national landcover database

for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering

and Remote Sensing. 70(7): 829–840.

Houghton, R.A. 2005. Aboveground forest biomass and

the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology.

11: 945–958.
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Howard, J.O. 1975. The timber resources of central

Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-45. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 68 p.

Jenkins, J.C.; Birdsey, R.A.; Pan, Y. 2001. Biomass

and net primary productivity estimation for the midAtlantic region using plot-level forest inventory data.

Ecological Applications. 11(4): 1174–1193.

Jones, E.T. 1999. Non timber forest products Web site.

http://www.ifcae.org/ntfp/. (16 January 2007).

Jovan, S. 2008. Lichen bioindication of biodiversity, air

quality, and climate: baseline results from monitoring

in Washington, Oregon, and California. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-737. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 115 p.

Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr.; Shea, P.J.; Valentine, B.E.;

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E. 2002. Proceedings

of a symposium on the ecology and management of

dead wood in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 949 p.

Liebold, A.M.; MacDonald, W.L.; Bergdahl, D.; Mastro,

V.C. 1995. Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to

forest ecosystems. Forest Science Monograph 30.

Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 49 p.

MacArthur, R.H.; MacArthur, J.W. 1961. On bird

species diversity. Ecology. 42: 594–598.

MacLean, C.D.; Bassett, P.M.; Yeary, G. 1992. Timber

resource statistics for western Washington. Resour.

Bull. PNW-RB-191. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 135 p.

MacLean, C.D.; Ohmann, J.L.; Bassett, P.M. 1991a.

Preliminary timber resource statistics for the Olympic

Peninsula, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-178.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 45 p.

MacLean, C.D.; Ohmann, J.L.; Bassett, P.M. 1991b.

Preliminary timber resource statistics for the Puget

Sound area, Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-179.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

MacLean, C.D.; Ohmann, J.L.; Bassett, P.M. 1991c.

Preliminary timber resource statistics for southwest

Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-177. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Maloy, O. 2001. White pine blister rust. Plant Health

Progress. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/

pub/php/management/whitepine/. (12 May 2009).

Max, T.A.; Schreuder, H.T.; Hazard, J.W.; Oswald, D.D.;

Teply, J.; Alegria, J. 1996. The Pacific Northwest

Region vegetation and inventory monitoring system.

Res. Pap. PNW-RP-493. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 22 p.

McCune, B.; Geiser, L.H. 1997. Macrolichens of the

Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press. 386 p.

McKay, N.; Bassett, P.M.; MacLean, C.D. 1995. Timber

resource statistics for eastern Washington. Resour.

Bull. PNW-RB-201. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 47 p.
103

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, J.E.,

Jr.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter, C.A., comps. 2005.

Description of ecological subregions: sections of the

conterminous United States [CD-ROM]. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Ecomap team. 80 p. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/

sustainability/ecomap/section_descriptions.pdf. (12

May 2009).

Moeur, M.; Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.; Martin, J.R.;

Alegria, J.; Browning, J.; Cissel, J.; Cohen, W.B.;

Demeo, T.E.; Healey, S.; Warbington, R. 2005.

Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–

2003): status and trend of late-successional and oldgrowth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-646.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Monleon, V.J.; Azuma, D.; Gedney, D. 2004. Equations

for predicting uncompacted crown ratio based on

compacted crown ratio and tree attributes. Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 19: 260–267.

Mooney, H.A.; Hobbs, R.J.H. 2000. Invasive species in a

changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 780 p.

Moore, D.S.; McCabe, G.P. 1989. Introduction to the

practice of statistics. New York: W.H. Freeman and

Co. 790 p.

National Research Council Committee to Evaluate

Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial

Environments. 2000. Ecological indicators for the

Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

180 p.

Ohmann, J.L.; Waddell, K.L. 2002. Regional patterns of

dead wood in forested habitats of Oregon and

Washington. In: Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr.; Shea, P.J.;

Valentine, B.E.; Weatherspoon, C.P.; Lisle, T.E., tech.

coords. Proceedings of a symposium on the ecology

and management of dead wood in western forests.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station: 535–560.

Old-Growth Definition Task Group. 1986. Interim

definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixedconifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. Res. Note PNW-RN-447. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 7 p.

Pedersen, L. 2003. Premier’s mountain pine beetle

symposium. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/

mountain_pine_beetle/symposium/. (26 February

2007).

Perry, D.A. 1994. Forest ecosystems. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press. 632 p.

Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 2005. Update on

the environmental and economic costs associated

with alien-invasive species in the United States.

Ecological Economics. 52: 273–288.

Randolph, K.C. 2006. Descriptive statistics of tree crown

condition in the Southern United States and impacts

on data analysis and interpretation. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SRS-GTR-94. Asheville, NC: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 17 p.

Reinhardt, E.; Crookston, N.L., tech. eds. 2003. The Fire

and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Rose, C.L.; Marcot, B.G.; Mellen, T.K.; Ohmann, J.L.;

Waddell, K.L.; Lindley, D.L.; Schreiber, B. 2001.

Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts

and tools for habitat management. In: Johnson, D.H.;

O’Neil, T.A., manag. dirs. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University Press. 580–612. Chapter 24.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Chapman, R.C. 1991.

Economic and marketing implications of special

forest products harvest in the coastal Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6: 67–72.
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.;

Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 41 p.

Schulz, B.K.; Bechtold, W.A.; Zarnoch, S.J. 2009.

Sampling and estimation procedures for the vegetation diversity and structure indicator. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-781. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Smith, D.; Hiserote, B. 2007. Washington mill survey

2004. Series Report 18. Olympia, WA: Washington

Department of Natural Resources. 87 p.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Vissage, J.S.; Pugh, S.A. 2004.

Forest resources of the United States, 2002. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-GTR-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Research Station. 137 p.

Tomback, D.F.; Hoffman, L.A.; Sund, S.K. 1990. Coevolution of whitebark pine and nutcrackers: implications for forest regeneration. In: Schmidt, W.;

McDonald, K., comps. Whitebark pine ecosystems:

ecology and management of a high mountain

resource: proceedings of a symposium. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station: 118–129.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006.

Forest Inventory and Analysis glossary. On file with:

Pacific Northwest Forest Inventory and Analysis

Program, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland,

OR, 97205.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a.

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program: field instructions for the annual inventory of Washington, Oregon,

and California. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b.

Forest Vegetation Simulator. http://www.fs.fed.us/

fmsc/fvs/index.php. (21 March 2008).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2000. The PLANTS Database.

Baton Rouge, LA: National Plant Data Center. http://

plants.usda.gov. (5 January 2000).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Technology Transfer Network air quality system. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/archivedpercent20data/

downloadaqsdata.htm. (January 2006).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Air data.

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html. (12 May

2009).

U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. URBANAP020-National

atlas urban areas of the United States [vector digital

data]. Reston, VA. http://nationalatlas.gov/

atlasftp.html. (November 2007).

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed, J. 2001.

Special forest products: species information guide for

the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

169 p.

Vance, N.; Gray, A.; Haberman, R. 2002. Assessment of

western Oregon forest inventory for evaluating

commercially important understory plants. In:

Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A., eds.

Congruent management of multiple resources:

proceedings of the Wood Compatibility Initiative

workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 183–190.

Vitousek, P.M.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Loope, L.L.;

Westbrooks, R. 1996. Biological invasions as global

environmental change. American Scientist. 84: 468-

478.
105

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Vogelman, J.E.; Sohl, T.L.; Campbell, P.V.; Shaw, D.M.

1998. Regional land cover characterization using

Landsat Thematic Mapper data and ancillary data

sources. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

51: 415–428.

Vogt, C.A.; Winter, G.; Fried, J.S. 2005. Predicting

homeowners’ approval of fuel management at the

wildland-urban interface using the Theory of Reasoned Action. Society and Natural Resources. 18(4):

337–354.

Walker, R.; Rosenberg, M.; Warbington, R.; Schwind,

B.; Beardsley, D.; Ramirez, C.; Fischer, L.;

Frerichs, B. 2006. Inventory of tree mortality in

southern California mountains (2001-2004) due to

bark beetle impacts. Unpublished paper. On file with:

Fire and Resource Assessment Program, California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Northern

Region headquarters, 135 Ridgway Ave., Santa Rosa,

CA 95401.

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2006.

Timber harvest data, 1899 to 2002. On file with:

Dorian Smith, Washington Department of Natural

Resources, 1111 Washington St., Olympia, WA

98504.

Washington Department of Revenue, Office of Budget

and Economic Services. 2006. Forest tax harvest

statistics, 2003 to 2006. http://dor.wa.gov/content/

FindTaxesAndRates/OtherTaxes/Timber/

forst_stat.aspx. (28 May 2008).

Whittaker, R.H.; Likens, G.E. 1975. The biosphere and

man. In: Leith, H.; Whittaker, R.H., eds. Primary

productivity of the biosphere. New York: SpringerVerlag: 305–328.

Winter, L.E.; Brubaker, L.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Miller,

E.A.; DeWitt, D.Q. 2002. Canopy disturbances over

the five-century lifetime of an old-growth Douglas-fir

stand in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research. 32: 1057–1070.
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800
107

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Field Design and Sampling Method

The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Forest Inventory

and Analysis unit (PNW-FIA) implemented the new annual inventory across all ownerships in Washington in

2002. The overall sampling design is a significant change

from that of previous periodic inventories; the differences

will be discussed more fully below.

In the annual inventory system for the Pacific Northwest (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California), the

objective is to measure approximately 10 percent of the

annual plots across an entire state each year. This annual

subsample is referred to as a panel. The plots measured in

a single panel are selected to ensure systematic coverage

within each county, spanning both public and privately

owned forests, and including lands reserved from industrial wood production such as national parks, wilderness

areas, and natural areas. Estimates of forest attributes can

be derived from measurements of a single panel for areas

as small as a survey unit or ecosection; however, such

estimates are often imprecise because one panel represents only 10 percent of the full inventory sample. More

precise statistics are obtained by combining data from

multiple panels. Estimates from sampled plots in the five

panels measured 2002-2006 were combined to produce

the statistics in this report. Once all panels have been

measured (2011), we will remeasure each one approximately every 10 years.

The FIA program collects information in three phases.

In phase 1, a sample of points is interpreted from remotely

sensed imagery, either aerial photos or satellite data, and

the landscape is stratified into meaningful groupings,

such as forested and nonforested areas, ecologically

similar regions, and forest types. In phase 2, field plots

are measured for a variety of indicators that describe forest composition, structure, and the physical geography

of the landscape. Phase 2 plots are spaced at approximate

3-mile intervals on a hexagonal grid throughout the

forest. In phase 3, a 1/16 sample of phase 2 plots is

measured to assess forest health indicators.

Phase 1

The goal of phase 1 is to reduce the variance associated

with estimates of forest land area and volume by stratifying samples. Digital imagery collected by remote-sensing

satellites is classed into a few similar strata (such as forest

or nonforest) by means of standard techniques for image

classification, and the total area of each of these strata is

used to assign a representative acreage to each sample

plot. Source data were derived from Landsat Thematic

Mapper (30-m resolution) imagery collected between

1991 and 1993 (Blackard et al. 2008, Vogelman et al.

1996). An image-filtering technique is used to classify

individual plots by a summary of the 5- by 5-pixel region

that surrounds the pixel containing a sample plot. The

resulting 26 classes, or strata (ranging from entirely

forested to entirely nonforested, for example), are combined with other forest attributes likely to improve

stratification effectiveness, such as owner class. For this

report, separate strata are defined for national forest lands

outside wilderness that were sampled at a greater density

of plots than the FIA standard of 1 plot per 6,000 acres.

The resulting strata are evaluated for each estimation unit

(county or combination of small counties) and collapsed

as necessary to ensure that at least four plots are in each

stratum. Stratified estimation is applied by assigning each

plot to one of these collapsed strata and by calculating

the area of each collapsed stratum in each estimation unit.

The estimates from stratified data are usually more precise

than those from unstratified estimates.

Phase 2

The nationally standardized plot installed at each forested phase 2 location is a cluster of four subplots spaced

120 feet apart (fig. 89). Subplot 1 is in the center, with

Appendix A: Methods and Design
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

subplots 2 through 4 uniformly distributed radially

around it. Each point serves as the center of a 1/24-acre

circular subplot used to sample all trees at least 5.0 inches

in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). A 1/300-acre microplot, with its center located just east of each subplot

center, is used to sample trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h., as

well as seedlings (trees less than 1.0 inch d.b.h.). On all

lands in Washington, a 1⁄4-acre “macroplot” (58.9-foot

radius) around each subplot center is used to tally trees

larger than 24 inches d.b.h. in eastern Washington and

30 inches d.b.h. in western Washington. In addition, a

hectare plot (a 185.1-foot fixed-radius plot centered

on subplot 1) is also established on national forests

in Washington to tally trees larger than 32 inches d.b.h.

in eastern Washington and 48 inches d.b.h. in western

Washington.

All phase 2 plots classified through aerial photography as possibly being forested are established in the field

without regard to land use or land cover. Field crews

delineate areas within the plot that are comparatively less

heterogeneous than the plot as a whole with regard to

reserved status, owner group, forest type, stand size class,

regeneration status, and tree density; these areas are

described as condition classes. The process of delineating

these condition classes on a fixed-radius plot is called

mapping. All measured trees are assigned to the mapped

condition class in which they are located.

On phase 2 plots, crews assess physical characteristics

such as slope, aspect, and elevation; stand characteristics

such as age, size class, forest type, disturbance, site productivity, and regeneration status; and tree characteristics

such as tree species, diameter, height, damages, decay,

and vertical crown dimensions. They also collect general

Figure 89—The Forest Inventory and Analysis plot design used in the Washington annual inventory, 2002-2006;

d.b.h. = diameter at breast height.
109

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

descriptive information such as soil depth, proximity to

water and roads, and the geographic position of the plot

in the larger landscape. In Washington, crews also assess

regional variables: height and cover of understory species, the structure of live and dead fuels, and the structure

and composition of downed wood (see “Core, CoreOptional, and Regional Variables” section below).

The FIA Program sampled 1,884 forested phase 2

plots in Washington between 2002 and 2006 on the

standard national plot grid. In addition, the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) sampled 1,094 forested plots on

national forest lands outside wilderness using identical

phase 2 protocols. Estimates of timber volume and other

forest attributes were derived from tree measurements and

classifications made at each plot. Volumes for individual

tally trees were computed with equations for each of the

major species in Washington. Estimates of growth, removals, and mortality for non-national-forest timberland

were determined from the closeout remeasurement of 911

forested sample plots established in previous inventories

(Gray et al. 2005, 2006). Estimates of growth, removals,

and mortality for national forest land were determined

from the remeasurement of 2,431 forested sample plots

established for the Region 6 Current Vegetation Survey

(CVS) (Max et al. 1996). The first two years of remeasurement data (CVS “Panel C”) were not used owing to

an inability to determine whether some trees were not

remeasured because of a change in the subplot radius, or

because they had fallen.

Phase 3

More extensive forest health measurements are collected

in a 16-week period during the growing season (when

most plants are in full leaf and many are flowering) on a

subset (1/16) of phase 2 sample locations. At these phase

3 plots, measurements are taken on tree crowns, soils,

lichens, down woody material, and (in some years) understory vegetation in addition to the phase 2 variables. One

forest health measurement, ozone injury, is conducted on

a separate grid with all 32 ozone plots measured annually.

The FIA program sampled 232 forested phase 3 plots

in Washington between 2002 and 2006. The relatively

small number of phase 3 samples is intended to serve as a

broad-scale detection monitoring system for forest health

problems.

Core, Core-Optional, and Regional Variables

The majority of FIA variables collected in Washington are

identical to those collected by FIA elsewhere in the

United States—these are national “core” or “core optional” variables (as the name suggests, collection of

core-optional variables is optional but, if collected, they

must be collected the same way everywhere). A number

of other variables are unique to PNW-FIA—these are

“regional” variables and include such items as down

woody material and understory vegetation on phase 2

plots (not to be confused with down woody and understory vegetation on phase 3 plots, which are measured

using a slightly different protocol), as well as insect and

disease damage, a record of previous disturbance on the

plot, and measurements for special studies (such as

nesting habitat assessment for the marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus).

Data Processing

The data used for this report are stored in the FIA National Information Management System (NIMS). The

NIMS provides a means to input, edit, process, manage,

and distribute FIA data. It includes a process for data

loading, a national set of edit checks to ensure data consistency, an error-correction process, approved equations

and algorithms, code to compile and calculate attributes,

a table report generator, and routines to populate the

presentation database. It applies numerous algorithms

and equations to calculate, for example, stocking, forest

type, stand size, volume, and biomass. The NIMS also

generates estimates and associated statistics based on

county areas and stratum weights developed outside of

NIMS. Additional FIA statistical design and estimation

techniques are further reviewed in Bechtold and Patterson

(2005).
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Statistical Estimates

Throughout this report we have published standard errors

(SE) for most of our estimates. These standard errors

account for the fact that we measured only a small sample

of the forest (thereby producing a sample-based estimate)

and not the entire forest (which is the population parameter of interest). Because of small sample sizes or high

variability within the population, some estimates can be

very imprecise. The reader is encouraged to take the

standard error into account when drawing any inference.

One way to consider this type of uncertainty is to construct confidence intervals. Customarily, 66- or 95-percent confidence intervals are used. A 95-percent confidence interval means that one can be 95 percent confident that the interval contains the true population

parameter of interest. For more details about confidence

intervals, please consult Moore and McCabe (1989) or

other statistical literature.

It is relatively easy to construct approximate 66- or

95-percent confidence intervals by multiplying the SE

by 1.0 (for 66-percent confidence intervals) or 1.96 (for

95-percent confidence intervals) and subtracting and

adding this to the estimate itself. For example, in table 2

of appendix B we estimated the total timberland in

Washington to be 18,303,000 acres with a standard error

of 174,000. A 95-percent confidence interval for the total

timberland area ranges from 17,962,000 to 18,644,000

acres.

The reader may want to assess whether or not two

estimates are significantly different from each other. The

statistically correct way to address this is to estimate the

SE of the difference of two estimates, and either construct

a confidence interval or use the equivalent z-test. However, this requires the original inventory data. It is often

reasonable to assume that two estimates are nearly

uncorrelated. For example, plots usually belong to one

and only one owner. The correlation between estimates

for different owners will be very small. If both estimates

can be assumed to be nearly uncorrelated, the SE of the

difference can be estimated by:

2 2

Difference Estimate 1 Estimate 2 SE SE SE  

Using the SE of the difference, a confidence of the

difference can be constructed with this method.

If two estimates are based on data that occur on the

same plot at the same time, the above equation should

not be used. For example, app. B table 17 contains estimates of tree volume by diameter class. If the reader wants

to compare the volume of trees in the diameter class 9.0

to 10.9 d.b.h. (21.6 billion board feet) with that of trees in

the diameter class 21.0 to 22.9 d.b.h. (33.15 billion board

feet), the covariance between the estimates is not zero and

this equation should not be used.

There are two other approaches the reader could

possibly consider, but we do not recommend them. The

first is to construct a confidence interval for one estimate

and evaluate whether the other estimate falls within the

interval. The problem is that unless both estimates are

highly positively correlated, this approach will lead to

a too-small confidence interval. The second approach is

to construct confidence intervals for both estimates and

determine whether or not they overlap. The problem here

is that unless both estimates are highly negatively correlated, this approach will be very conservative. For more

complex and indepth analysis, the reader may contact the

PNW-FIA unit.

All estimates—means, totals and their associated

SE—are based on the poststratification methods described by Bechtold and Patterson (2005).

Access Denied, Hazardous, or Inaccessible

Plots

Although every effort was made to visit all field plots that

were entirely or partially forested, some were not sampled

for a variety of reasons. Field crews may have been unable

to obtain permission from the landowner to access the

plot (“denied access”), and there were some plots that

were impossible for crews to safely reach or access

(“hazardous/inaccessible”). Some private landowners

deny access to their land, but privately owned plots

usually are not as hazardous or inaccessible as plots on
111

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

public lands. Although permission to visit public lands is

almost always granted, some public land lies in higher

elevation areas that can be very dangerous or impossible

to reach.

This kind of missing data can introduce bias into the

estimates if the nonsampled plots tend to be different

from the entire population. Plots that are obviously

nonforested (based on aerial photos) are rarely visited,

and therefore the proportion of denied-access, hazardous,

or inaccessible plots is significantly smaller than it is for

forested plots.

The poststratification approach outlined in Bechtold

and Patterson (2005) removes nonsampled plots from the

sample. Estimates are adjusted for plots that are partially

nonsampled by increasing the estimates by the nonsampled proportion within each stratum. To reduce the

possible bias introduced by nonsampled plots, we

delineated five broad strata groups: census water, forested public land, nonforested public land, forested

private land, and nonforested private land. Some of these

five broad strata groups were further divided into smaller

strata to reduce the variance. Percentage of denied-access

and hazardous/inaccessible plots for each of the five

broad strata groups for Washington, 2002-2006, are

shown in the following tabulation:

Total Denied Hazardous/

Strata group plots access inaccessible

Percent

Census water 147 0.68 0.17

Private forest 1,189 10.04 0.42

Private nonforest 1,133 3.00 0.03

Public forest 1,701 0.57 0.90

Public nonforest 1,111 0.29 0.40

Total 5,281 3.17 0.48

Timber Products Output Survey

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources

conducts a biennial census of Washington’s primary

forest products industry (i.e., sawmills, pulp mills, and log

exports). This census, The Washington Mill Survey (Smith

and Hiserote 2007), provides information on production

capacity, county of operation, ownership, volume of raw

material, timber size and species, and types and volumes

of finished product. The survey is designed to determine

the size and composition of Washington’s timber and

forest products industry and its use of forest resources.

National Woodland Owner Survey

This survey of private forest owners (Butler et al. 2005) is

conducted annually by the USDA Forest Service FIA

Program to increase our understanding of private woodland owners. Questionnaires are mailed to individuals

and private groups who own woodlands in which FIA has

established forest inventory plots. Nationally, 20 percent

of these owners (about 50,000) are contacted each year,

and questionnaires with more detail are sent to coincide

with national census, inventory, and assessment programs. For Washington, 268 private noncorporate woodland owners were sent questionnaires, and the 130 that

were returned provide the data that were summarized and

presented in this report.

Periodic Versus Annual Inventories

The PNW-FIA Program began fieldwork for the fifth

sample-based inventory of Washington in 2002. This was

the first inventory that used the annual inventory system,

in which one-tenth of all forested plots (referred to as one

panel) were visited each year. The first statewide panel of

field plots was completed in 2002, and half of all field

plots in the state were measured by 2006, prompting production of this congressionally mandated 5-year analysis

of Washington’s forest resources.

Data from new inventories are often compared with

those from earlier inventories to determine trends in forest resources. However, for the comparisons to be valid,

the procedures used in the two inventories must be

similar. Before the 1960s, Washington inventories were
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

based on forest type maps and were inventoried in 1931-

35 (Andrews and Cowlin 1940, Cowlin et al. 1942), 1937-

41 (various Forest Survey Reports by county), and 1948-

61 (various Forest Survey Reports by county). Subsequent inventories were based on a spatially systematic

sample of plot locations and were conducted in 1963-68

(Arbogast 1974; Bolsinger 1969, 1971; Hazard 1965;

Howard 1975), 1978-1980 (Bassett and Oswald 1981a,

1981b, 1982, 1983), 1988-90 (MacLean et al. 1991a,

1991b, 1991c, 1992; McKay et al. 1995), and 2000-2001

(Gray et al. 2005, 2006). These were periodic inventories

in which all forested plots outside of national forests and

national parks in the state were visited within a 2- or 3-

year window.

As a result of our ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and reliability of the inventory, several changes

in procedures and definitions have been made since the

last periodic Washington inventory in 2001. These

changes included an increase in plot density of about

18 percent, a new plot footprint (changing from a fivesubplot configuration distributed over a 6-acre area, to a

four-subplot configuration over a 2.5 acre area) (fig. 89), a

new set of nationally consistent measurement protocols,

and a plot visitation schedule that calls for sampling of

10 percent of all forested plots in the state each year.

Although these changes will have little impact on statewide estimates of forest area, timber volume, and tree

biomass, they may significantly affect plot classification

variables such as forest type and stand size class (especially county-level estimates).

Estimates of growth, removals, and mortality (GRM)

are particularly dependant on comparisons between

inventories, and thus are most likely to be valid when

based on remeasurements of the same plots and trees.

Only half of the field plots (5 out of 10 panels) have

been visited under the annual system as of 2006, and the

increase in plot density means about 18 percent of the

plots are new and were not visited during a previous

inventory. Unlike the fivesubplot, variable-radius design

used in the 2001 periodic

inventory (fig. 90), the annual

inventory uses fixed-radius

sampling on four subplots with

only one subplot center coinciding with that of a periodic

subplot. Thus, relatively few of

the trees sampled at the periodic inventory were or will

be remeasured in the annual

inventory. Estimates of GRM

will improve as the annual

inventory becomes fully implemented and several panels

of plots are remeasured.

Figure 90—Typical plot design used

in Washington periodic inventories,

1978–2001.
113

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

The following tables contain basic information about

the forest resources of Washington as they relate to the

discussions of current forest issues and basic resource

information presented in this report. These tables aggregate data to a variety of levels, including county (fig. 5),

ecosection (fig. 6), owner group (fig. 7), survey unit (fig.

8), and forest type, allowing Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) inventory results to be applied at various scales

and used for various analyses. Many other tables could

be generated from the Washington annual data, but space

limits us to a few (60+) key ones. Data are also available

for download in nonsummarized form at www.fia.fs.fed.us.

The national FIA Web site contains a tool for querying the Washington annual data and generating custom

tables or maps (http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/). Some

of the tables below contain summaries of regional variables; data for regional variables currently are not included in the national FIA database. Additional information on regional variables can be requested from our

office by emailing Karen Waddell (kwaddell@fs.fed.us).

Please note that information in tables presented here

and in those generated from the national FIA database

(FIADB) may differ. As new data are added each year to

FIADB, any tables generated from it will be based on the

current full set of data in FIADB (e.g., 2002–2007, 2002–

2008, etc.), whereas tables in this publication contain

data from only 2002–2006. The user can take a snapshot

of data from FIADB by selecting the desired years and

generating tables that are similar, but probably not

identical, to those presented here.

Table 1—Number of Forest Inventory and Analysis plots measured in Washington

2002–2006, by land class, sample status, and owner groupa

Land class and National Other

sample status forest public Private Total

Forest land plots:

Softwood types 1,706 339 669 2,695

Hardwood types 71 49 187 307

Nonstocked 81 10 32 123

All 1,793 377 827 2,972

Nonforest land plots: 325 237 1,056 2,147

Unsampled plots:

Denied access 16 11 89 116

Hazardous 194 57 23 274

All 211 70 118 399

All plots 1,911 599 1,716 4,694

a

 Each cell in this table includes a count of the number of plots that had at least one condition in each category. Because there

can be multiple conditions on a plot, the total row or column will not be the sum of the preceding rows or columns. For

example, there were 1,706 plots that had at least one forest land condition present, which was a softwood forest type and

owned by the national forest system. One of these plots might also have a nonforest condition present, which would be

counted again in the nonforest plot category.

Appendix B: Summary Data Tables
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 2—Estimated area of forest land, by owner class and forest land status, Washington 2002–2006 Unreserved forests Reserved forests All Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total forest land Owner class Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Thousand acres USDA Forest Service: National forest 6,011 68 217 28 6,228 63 1,910 90 275 57 2,184 80 8,412 74 Total 6,011 68 217 28 6,228 63 1,910 90 275 57 2,184 80 8,412 74 Other federal government: National Park Service — — — — — — 1,134 60 118 38 1,252 56 1,252 56 Bureau of Land Management 52 25 20 15 71 29 — — — — — — 71 29

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — — — — — — 54 25 — — 54 25 54 25Departments of Defense and Energy 32 20 — — 32 20 — — — — — — 32 20Other federal 64 28 — — 64 28 23 16 — — 23 16 87 32

Total 148 42 20 15 168 44 1,211 67 118 38 1,329 63 1,497 76

State and local government:

State 2,270 103 48 25 2,319 102 144 43 — — 144 43 2,462 101Local 279 58 13 13 292 59 42 23 — — 42 23 334 64Other public 15 14 — — 15 14 — — — — — — 15 14

Total 2,565 113 61 28 2,625 113 186 49 — — 186 49 2,811 114

Corporate private 4,794 175 35 21 4,829 175 — — — — — — 4,829 175

Noncorporate private:

Nongovernmental conservation or

natural resource organizations 235 54 — — 235 54 — — — — — — 235 54

Unincorporated partnerships,

associations, or clubs 17 12 — — 17 12 — — — — — — 17 12

Native American 1,851 125 43 22 1,893 125 — — — — — — 1,893 125Individual 2,683 152 9 9 2,693 153 — — — — — — 2,693 153

Total 4,786 181 52 24 4,838 181 — — — — — — 4,838 181

All owners 18,303 174 385 53 18,688 171 3,306 121 392 68 3,699 112 22,387 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated.aForest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.bForest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
115

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 3—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type group and productivity class, Washington 2002–2006

Site productivity classa

All productivity

0-19 20-49 50-84 85-119 120-164 165-224 225+ classes

Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Thousand acres

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 173 38 1,263 95 1,950 125 1,245 102 2,434 145 1,424 115 169 43 8,658 223Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 367 62 884 94 1,148 104 806 82 672 77 111 32 4 4 3,992 165Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 37 19 131 35 291 52 427 64 942 91 814 90 659 85 3,300 161Lodgepole pine 3 4 179 38 262 50 181 38 20 13 5 4 — — 651 74Ponderosa pine 52 21 537 71 993 99 372 62 107 33 8 6 — — 2,069 131Western larch 4 4 25 17 142 32 58 16 70 21 12 9 8 5 318 45Western white pine — — — — 4 4 7 5 — — — — — — 11 7Other western softwoods 77 33 59 29 20 13 9 5 20 16 — — — — 186 48

Total 714 83 3,078 154 4,809 188 3,106 156 4,265 184 2,374 144 839 94 19,184 201

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 11 11 14 12 76 27 305 58 916 91 458 69 124 34 1,905 123Aspen/birch — — — — 40 20 26 16 62 26 11 10 — — 138 38Elm/ash/cottonwood 9 9 11 12 8 6 58 22 65 23 30 19 — — 182 40Western oak 26 16 35 19 36 21 14 12 15 12 — — — — 126 36Woodland hardwoods — — 35 23 45 21 19 14 4 4 12 12 — — 114 37Other hardwoods — — 4 4 36 18 27 17 32 18 — — 12 12 112 33

Total 46 21 99 35 242 49 449 69 1,094 99 511 72 137 36 2,578 144

Nonstocked 17 8 163 39 178 39 76 30 123 35 38 16 30 19 625 75All forest types 777 86 3,339 161 5,228 194 3,631 171 5,482 204 2,923 158 1,006 102 22,387 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated.a Site productivity class refers to the potential productivity of forest land expressed as the mean annual increment (in cubic feet/acre/year) at culmination in fully stocked stands.
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 4—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type group, owner group, and land status, Washington 2002–2006 USDA Forest Service Other federal State and local government Corporate private Noncorporate private Other forest Other forest Other forest Other forest Other forest Timberlanda land Timberland land Timberland land Timberland land Timberland land All owners Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Thousand acres Softwoods: Douglas-fir 2,545 81 404 64 87 33 269 55 1,172 96 148 44 2,476 145 3 3 1,554 122 — — 8,658 223 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 1,391 71 1,277 100 17 13 443 66 156 42 5 5 284 57 13 13 392 65 12 12 3,992 165 Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 800 49 190 50 25 17 541 64 548 73 20 15 774 90 11 11 389 67 — — 3,300 161 Lodgepole pine 313 34 148 46 — — — — 21 14 10 12 14 13 — — 146 41 — — 651 74 Ponderosa pine 392 36 43 21 8 9 34 19 172 44 26 18 331 62 7 8 1,043 102 13 13 2,069 131 Western larch 191 26 19 16 — — 6 7 26 17 — — 33 17 — — 42 22 — — 318 45 Western white pine 11 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 7 Other western softwoods 21 9 162 47 — — — — — — — — 3 2 — — — — — — 186 48

Total 5,665 73 2,242 90 138 40 1,294 64 2,095 105 209 51 3,915 166 35 21 3,566 160 25 18 19,184 201

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 111 19 24 14 — — 30 17 339 60 29 19 598 78 — — 775 85 — — 1,905 123

Aspen/birch 12 6 — — — — — — 10 9 9 8 36 21 — — 72 28 — — 138 38Elm/ash/cottonwood 18 7 4 4 — — 17 12 37 20 — — 36 19 — — 62 23 9 9 182 40Western oak — — — — — — 8 9 — — — — 76 29 — — 24 14 18 13 126 36Woodland hardwoods 15 7 22 20 — — — — 8 8 — — — — — — 69 29 — — 114 37Other hardwoods 18 8 — — — — — — — — — — 36 21 — — 58 25 — — 112 33

Total 175 24 49 24 — — 54 23 394 65 37 21 782 90 — — 1,060 100 27 16 2,578 144

Nonstocked 171 24 110 38 10 11 — — 75 29 — — 98 30 — — 160 43 — — 625 75All forest types 6,011 68 2,401 85 148 42 1,348 65 2,565 113 247 56 4,794 175 35 21 4,786 181 52 24 22,387 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated.a Unreserved forest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
117

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 5—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type group and stand size class, Washington 2002–2006

Large-diameter Medium-diameter Small-diameter All size

standsa standsb standsc classes

Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Thousand acres

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 6,188 203 1,026 97 1,444 113 8,658 223

Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 2,874 144 345 57 773 85 3,992 165

Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 2,685 146 248 48 367 60 3,300 161

Lodgepole pine 337 56 227 44 87 20 651 74

Ponderosa pine 1,650 118 82 29 329 61 2,069 131

Western larch 215 35 69 25 34 14 318 45

Western white pine 8 6 — — 3 4 11 7

Other western softwoods 73 28 67 32 46 23 186 48

Total 14,030 226 2,064 135 3,083 160 19,184 201

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 924 88 522 71 460 70 1,905 123

Aspen/birch 28 15 60 26 51 23 138 38

Elm/ash/cottonwood 114 32 14 9 54 23 182 40

Western oak 29 17 70 28 26 16 126 36

Woodland hardwoods 49 26 7 5 58 26 114 37

Other hardwoods 27 18 17 12 68 26 112 33

Total 1,171 101 690 81 718 86 2,578 144

Nonstocked — — — — — — 625 75

All forest types 15,201 231 2,754 154 3,800 176 22,387 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated. a

Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 11.0 inches diameter at breast height for hardwoods and 9.0 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods. b

Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 5.0 inches diameter at breast height but not as large as large-diameter trees. c

 Stands in which the majority of trees are less than 5.0 inches diameter at breast height.
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 6—Estimated area of forest land, by forest type group and stand age class, Washington 2002–2006 Stand age class (years) All forest 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201+ land Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Thousand acres Softwoods: Douglas-fir 1,812 124 1,524 117 932 91 1,472 112 1,103 98 506 62 297 44 300 50 125 33 92 24 471 61 8,658 223 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 349 54 366 55 319 60 517 72 394 59 261 48 213 44 242 43 191 45 212 47 924 96 3,992 165 Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 283 51 599 79 621 82 395 61 152 36 83 25 55 21 102 31 35 16 85 29 864 83 3,300 161 Lodgepole pine 38 14 54 20 157 39 180 35 130 36 27 17 14 10 17 8 16 17 14 14 4 4 651 74 Ponderosa pine 142 39 213 48 278 56 479 70 515 73 193 46 45 18 74 23 28 10 47 22 50 13 2,069 131 Western larch 14 7 30 13 62 21 135 31 36 11 4 4 12 7 — — 4 4 4 3 19 16 318 45 Western white pine 3 4 — — 4 4 — — — — 4 4 — — — — — — — — — — 11 7 Other western softwoods — — 17 12 14 16 9 6 10 6 67 34 4 3 23 17 1 1 — — 41 23 186 48

Total 2,641 143 2,804 152 2,387 147 3,188 159 2,340 140 1,145 100 640 68 756 77 400 60 453 65 2,372 125 19,184 202

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 601 79 420 64 437 63 348 60 63 27 19 11 — — 4 4 4 4 — — — — 1,905 123Aspen/birch 39 21 11 12 19 12 45 22 24 16 — — — — — — — — — — — — 138 38Elm/ash/cottonwood 52 23 8 6 23 15 56 24 40 18 2 2 — — 1 1 — — — — — — 182 40Western oak — — 9 10 18 13 56 25 22 14 15 14 — — 6 6 — — — — — — 126 36Woodland hardwoods 15 13 24 17 — — 20 14 39 24 4 4 — — 13 13 — — — — — — 115 37Other hardwoods 30 18 5 4 38 21 14 13 26 15 — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 34

Total 736 87 477 68 535 70 539 74 214 47 39 18 — — 25 15 4 4 — — — — 2,578 144

Nonstocked — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 625 75All forest types 3,377 157 3,281 162 2,922 162 3,727 173 2,553 146 1,184 102 640 68 781 78 404 61 453 65 2,372 125 22,387 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated.
119

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 7—Estimated area of timberland, by forest type group and stand size class, Washington 2002–2006

Large-diameter Medium-diameter Small-diameter All size

standsa standsb standsc classes

Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Thousand acres

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 5,402 187 1,002 97 1,429 113 7,834 209

Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 1,567 98 239 43 436 60 2,241 119

Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 1,968 122 224 45 344 58 2,537 137

Lodgepole pine 251 43 159 31 83 20 493 56

Ponderosa pine 1,550 115 82 29 308 57 1,946 127

Western larch 190 31 69 25 34 14 293 42

Western white pine 8 6 — — 3 4 11 7

Other western softwoods 16 8 3 3 4 4 24 9

Total 10,951 211 1,779 121 2,642 146 15,378 195

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 865 86 499 70 460 70 1,823 121

Aspen/birch 28 15 60 26 42 21 129 37

Elm/ash/cottonwood 85 28 14 9 54 23 152 37

Western oak 25 16 49 23 26 16 100 33

Woodland hardwoods 27 17 7 5 58 26 93 31

Other hardwoods 27 18 17 12 68 26 112 33

Total 1,056 95 646 79 709 86 2,410 139

Nonstocked — — — — — — 515 65

All forest types 12,007 217 2,424 141 3,351 163 18,303 174

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated. a

Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 11.0 inches diameter at breast height for hardwoods and 9.0 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods. b

 Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 5.0 inches diameter at breast height but not as large as large-diameter trees. c

 Stands in which the majority of trees are less than 5.0 inches diameter at breast height.
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 8—Estimated number of live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 Diameter class (inches) 1.0-2.9 3.0-4.9 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Thousand trees Softwoods: Douglas-fir 568,287 36,066 313,718 22,369 257,128 12,215 217,873 10,386 165,684 7,963 119,484 5,661 86,751 4,161 Engelmann and other spruces 59,439 11,533 28,111 6,791 14,056 1,581 10,231 1,235 8,679 1,199 6,704 945 5,109 852 Lodgepole pine 98,818 19,916 69,747 15,695 71,173 11,491 55,736 6,481 29,399 3,189 17,296 2,286 8,187 1,379 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 137,162 25,940 65,582 10,546 37,716 3,374 27,722 2,404 24,815 2,358 19,161 1,867 12,732 1,289 Sitka spruce 15,897 4,724 6,519 2,795 4,258 1,045 2,833 792 3,507 1,201 2,018 587 1,049 336 True fir 947,239 68,507 350,232 24,440 207,786 9,880 133,853 6,821 82,671 4,395 56,792 2,996 40,455 2,531

Western hemlock 690,770 61,458 264,959 23,699 187,624 11,082 128,184 7,593 95,265 5,568 69,190 4,421 49,383 3,504Western larch 27,891 7,471 18,703 4,133 22,994 3,356 17,367 2,430 13,051 1,656 8,959 859 5,061 610Western redcedar 378,448 55,727 119,661 16,114 60,332 4,958 39,251 3,053 23,548 2,091 16,342 1,434 12,378 1,203Western white pine 18,574 4,333 4,120 1,738 2,316 567 1,388 397 940 269 522 176 520 188Other western softwoods 210,946 32,043 72,768 12,332 45,269 4,652 36,509 3,712 20,841 2,483 13,728 1,732 10,809 1,448

Total 3,153,473 133,860 1,314,121 52,015 910,653 24,991 670,946 17,315 468,399 12,079 330,195 8,854 232,434 6,724

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 14,857 9,623 4,927 2,484 5,016 1,465 3,922 1,063 2,464 668 1,378 362 1,125 342Oak 14,607 6,453 19,228 8,121 12,915 4,430 5,192 1,889 1,831 608 1,262 468 651 246Red alder 239,607 34,324 105,663 16,392 65,725 6,762 48,397 4,279 33,525 3,349 23,833 2,467 14,480 1,581Western woodland hardwoods 66,186 22,396 21,089 4,815 5,996 908 2,450 457 1,761 463 1,239 431 474 169Other hardwoods 229,369 50,855 48,900 9,177 33,182 3,662 21,026 2,696 13,022 1,771 8,683 1,154 6,557 1,122

Total 564,626 69,044 199,808 21,095 122,834 9,121 80,987 5,612 52,602 3,965 36,395 2,886 23,287 2,054

All species groups 3,718,099 152,641 1,513,929 56,400 1,033,487 26,370 751,934 18,112 521,001 12,599 366,590 9,248 255,720 7,005
121

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 8—Estimated number of live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued)

Diameter class (inches)

15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-24.9 25.0-28.9 29.0-32.9 33.0-36.9 37.0+ All classes

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Thousand trees

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 59,370 2,939 41,844 2,268 31,655 1,844 37,955 2,182 19,946 1,550 9,215 683 5,374 392 8,592 692 1,942,876 62,122Engelmann and other

spruces 3,578 628 2,652 505 2,098 460 2,941 783 1,364 319 811 188 249 67 229 72 146,252 18,526

Lodgepole pine 3,523 799 1,394 355 241 103 176 107 114 88 15 14 15 14 9 11 355,843 41,961Ponderosa and Jeffrey

pines 10,198 1,135 7,196 870 5,323 698 6,022 818 2,977 256 1,422 156 638 106 539 84 359,206 35,314

Sitka spruce 1,082 323 531 223 856 280 755 280 1,194 391 307 138 107 37 329 96 41,243 7,281True fir 27,543 1,834 19,318 1,444 15,791 1,332 18,255 1,565 9,199 946 4,476 487 2,704 275 3,841 512 1,920,155 99,059Western hemlock 34,236 2,552 22,252 1,694 15,085 1,340 18,781 1,616 11,884 1,384 5,608 566 3,123 287 7,230 748 1,603,572 88,787Western larch 3,614 504 1,947 332 1,228 257 1,940 431 894 186 412 86 129 47 137 44 124,327 13,255Western redcedar 8,741 975 6,398 756 6,215 826 6,993 1,020 5,391 935 2,131 383 916 125 3,985 509 690,731 74,010Western white pine 376 136 140 58 205 154 204 108 76 39 26 16 12 9 13 13 29,435 5,449Other western softwoods 6,959 1,141 5,039 1,143 4,982 854 5,661 1,000 2,348 449 1,640 378 1,224 258 1,445 321 440,169 47,548

Total 159,222 4,926 108,711 3,764 83,680 3,057 99,684 3,653 55,389 2,705 26,062 1,213 14,491 656 26,349 1,379 7,653,809 192,739

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 884 319 914 316 1,091 332 911 338 1,008 371 447 170 229 71 224 70 39,397 11,287Oak 684 297 364 226 153 107 89 77 15 14 — — 12 12 — — 57,004 15,276Red alder 10,309 1,327 6,741 1,115 3,354 703 1,585 375 585 234 174 112 11 12 11 12 553,999 48,257Western woodland

hardwoods 298 143 149 99 — — 70 71 11 12 — — — — — — 99,723 23,842

Other hardwoods 3,506 732 2,866 536 2,173 468 1,888 474 1,435 380 608 184 164 57 228 76 373,608 56,901

Total 15,681 1,630 11,035 1,304 6,770 926 4,544 694 3,053 619 1,230 279 416 94 463 132 1,123,730 83,065

All species groups 174,902 5,196 119,745 3,979 90,450 3,222 104,228 3,719 58,441 2,790 27,292 1,252 14,908 667 26,812 1,385 8,777,539 209,620

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = fewer than 500 trees were estimated.
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 9—Estimated number of growing-stock treesa on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 Diameter class (inches) 1.0-2.9 3.0-4.9 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Thousand trees Softwoods: Douglas-fir 532,668 34,529 294,861 21,603 243,591 12,073 205,789 10,253 153,742 7,732 110,495 5,430 78,915 3,976 52,877 2,759 Engelmann and other spruces 45,667 8,651 21,063 4,584 11,042 1,376 8,072 1,098 6,973 1,008 4,629 721 3,241 587 2,135 380 Lodgepole pine 82,441 17,197 47,124 11,771 45,743 6,477 39,187 4,165 22,015 2,189 12,087 1,405 5,452 872 2,720 659 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 134,543 25,917 62,962 10,447 35,851 3,309 26,810 2,368 23,489 2,310 18,005 1,801 12,102 1,251 9,225 1,017 Sitka spruce 14,950 4,628 6,519 2,795 3,930 1,027 2,499 768 3,265 1,193 1,860 576 978 328 865 278 True fir 650,587 56,033 242,416 20,180 135,752 7,848 82,170 4,681 53,623 3,398 34,101 2,015 23,012 1,639 14,927 1,059 Western hemlock 567,699 57,370 228,710 22,302 157,798 10,223 111,579 7,288 80,659 5,245 57,565 4,115 39,990 2,986 27,601 2,211 Western larch 27,891 7,471 18,703 4,133 22,462 3,336 16,728 2,382 11,989 1,493 8,304 819 4,851 569 3,136 448

Western redcedar 336,934 51,871 106,650 15,044 52,701 4,554 34,084 2,832 20,748 1,954 14,137 1,314 10,581 1,081 7,011 832Western white pine 16,802 4,095 4,120 1,738 1,810 510 1,273 389 786 250 500 175 405 156 351 134Other western softwoods 61,014 10,402 23,011 5,271 16,677 2,516 11,723 1,705 8,013 1,337 4,999 971 3,735 871 2,521 727

Total 2,471,196 117,648 1,056,140 45,526 727,357 21,611 539,914 15,246 385,302 11,028 266,681 7,972 183,262 5,845 123,367 4,268

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 14,857 9,623 4,927 2,484 4,837 1,457 3,651 1,049 2,388 663 1,355 361 1,004 330 861 318Oak 14,607 6,453 19,228 8,121 11,758 4,364 4,772 1,827 1,439 528 998 422 451 214 548 259Red alder 227,138 33,389 102,978 16,314 62,850 6,604 46,729 4,251 31,915 3,295 23,164 2,454 13,500 1,545 9,703 1,310Other hardwoods 221,372 50,687 46,977 9,053 30,636 3,500 18,855 2,546 11,316 1,611 7,718 1,103 5,531 1,023 3,248 709

Total 477,974 64,698 174,111 20,442 110,081 8,867 74,007 5,468 47,057 3,824 33,235 2,816 20,485 1,975 14,361 1,598

All species groups 2,949,170 136,789 1,230,251 50,199 837,439 23,170 613,920 16,163 432,360 11,606 299,917 8,398 203,747 6,160 137,728 4,577
123

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 9—Estimated number of growing-stock treesa on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued)

Diameter class (inches)

17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-24.9 25.0-28.9 29.0-32.9 33.0-36.9 37.0+ All classes

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Thousand trees

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 35,993 2,061 26,977 1,669 32,688 2,043 16,217 1,398 7,423 587 4,042 336 5,413 442 1,801,690 59,507Engelmann and other spruces 1,632 340 1,032 248 1,196 378 485 106 380 116 116 30 89 35 107,752 13,339Lodgepole pine 1,061 280 241 103 176 107 18 14 15 14 15 14 9 11 258,305 30,874Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 6,598 790 4,728 666 5,644 795 2,726 244 1,333 148 531 85 497 81 345,045 35,112Sitka spruce 390 167 856 280 564 252 1,107 382 276 136 75 31 194 79 38,329 7,121True fir 11,147 1,058 8,379 773 8,831 903 4,890 545 1,970 271 1,216 143 1,287 161 1,274,308 80,111Western hemlock 16,815 1,489 11,356 1,168 12,593 1,266 6,853 966 3,114 388 1,389 136 2,615 288 1,326,336 82,116Western larch 1,827 315 1,140 239 1,706 399 679 123 314 72 129 47 93 27 119,951 13,105Western redcedar 5,558 705 5,028 726 5,760 944 3,719 769 1,624 318 734 102 2,041 251 607,310 68,307Western white pine 116 53 205 154 95 48 76 39 8 6 12 9 13 13 26,574 5,256Other western softwoods 2,104 979 1,378 333 1,959 677 648 212 428 103 318 80 377 84 138,903 19,171

Total 83,242 3,358 61,320 2,536 71,212 3,058 37,420 2,152 16,884 914 8,577 447 12,628 685 6,044,502 168,671

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 799 304 856 305 778 287 961 370 433 170 229 71 198 68 38,135 11,266Oak 276 174 153 107 76 77 15 14 — — 12 12 — — 54,332 15,133Red alder 6,475 1,103 3,267 698 1,440 360 497 185 174 112 11 12 11 12 529,853 47,351Other hardwoods 2,608 513 2,087 462 1,461 392 1,154 333 565 182 150 56 202 72 353,878 56,480

Total 10,158 1,269 6,363 911 3,756 604 2,625 573 1,172 276 402 93 412 127 976,199 78,688

All species groups 93,400 3,599 67,682 2,725 74,968 3,123 40,046 2,243 18,057 965 8,979 463 13,040 697 7,020,701 186,564

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = fewer than 500 trees were estimated.a Growing-stock trees are live trees of commercial species that meet certain merchantability standards; excludes trees that are entirely cull (rough or rotten tree classes).
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 10—Estimated net volume of all live trees, by owner class and forest land status, Washington 2002–2006 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total All forest land Owner class Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million cubic feet USDA Forest Service: National forest 29,562 735 435 100 29,998 731 10,193 815 360 119 10,553 809 40,551 976 Other federal government: National Park Service — — — — — — 12,660 803 347 145 13,007 763 13,007 763 Bureau of Land Management 138 71 21 18 159 73 — — — — — — 159 73

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — — — — — — 241 123 — — 241 123 241 123Departments of Defense and Energy 254 163 — — 254 163 — — — — — — 254 163Other federal 439 249 — — 439 249 117 85 — — 117 85 556 263

Total 830 297 21 18 851 298 13,018 815 347 145 13,365 776 14,216 830

State and local government:

State 11,583 951 90 48 11,673 950 668 229 — — 668 229 12,342 945Local 1,373 370 24 24 1,397 370 314 173 — — 314 173 1,711 409Other public 116 109 — — 116 109 — — — — — — 116 109

Total 13,072 1,004 115 54 13,187 1,003 982 287 — — 982 287 14,169 1,012

Corporate private 12,555 848 36 27 12,591 848 — — — — — — 12,591 848Noncorporate private:

Nongovernmental conservation or

natural resource organizations 665 220 — — 665 220 — — — — — — 665 220

Unincorporated partnerships,

associations, or clubs 47 44 — — 47 44 — — — — — — 47 44

Native American 4,472 457 26 15 4,498 456 — — — — — — 4,498 456Individual 8,091 741 7 7 8,098 741 — — — — — — 8,098 741

Total 13,274 869 33 16 13,307 869 — — — — — — 13,307 869

All owners 69,294 1,567 640 119 69,934 1,563 24,193 1,187 707 187 24,900 1,156 94,834 1,843

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.a Forest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.b Forest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
125

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 11—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest land, by forest type group and stand size class,

Washington 2002–2006

Large- Medium- Smalldiameter diameter diameter

standsa standsb standsc All size classes

Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 33,257 1,440 1,366 153 394 60 35,017 1,434

Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 18,403 1,166 545 105 252 47 19,200 1,162

Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 25,893 1,604 556 123 85 24 26,534 1,606

Lodgepole pine 1,399 291 530 107 21 7 1,950 308

Ponderosa pine 3,059 261 64 33 137 49 3,261 266

Western larch 851 190 171 69 14 6 1,036 201

Western white pine 20 15 — — — — 20 15

Other western softwoods 78 29 57 26 9 7 144 39

Total 82,960 1,857 3,289 254 913 92 87,165 1,815

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 5,313 602 982 165 133 39 6,428 609

Aspen/birch 116 61 93 44 5 4 215 75

Elm/ash/cottonwood 580 189 17 10 6 3 603 189

Western oak 64 58 71 32 9 6 144 66

Woodland hardwoods 48 30 4 3 33 16 85 34

Other hardwoods 104 74 9 6 27 13 140 76

Total 6,226 637 1,175 173 213 45 7,614 643

Nonstocked — — — — — — 55 13

All forest types 89,186 1,900 4,465 304 1,126 102 94,834 1,843

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated. a

 Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 11.0 inches diameter at breast height for hardwoods and 9.0 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods. b

 Stands in which the majority of trees are at least 5.0 inches diameter at breast height but not as large as large-diameter trees. c

 Stands in which the majority of trees are less than 5.0 inches diameter at breast height.
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 12—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest land, by species group and owner group, Washington 2002–2006 USDA Forest State and local Corporate Noncorporate Species group Service Other federal government private private All owners Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million cubic feet Softwoods: Douglas-fir 12,708 508 3,028 465 6,042 601 5,451 463 4,641 497 31,870 1,073 Engelmann and other spruces 1,442 234 12 10 180 100 30 17 219 68 1,883 264 Lodgepole pine 1,375 178 37 19 119 47 99 60 387 94 2,016 215 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 1,097 89 138 61 372 79 402 77 1,643 180 3,652 229 Sitka spruce 103 79 165 64 266 108 184 53 154 64 871 169 True fir 10,395 572 3,576 472 680 192 456 83 914 152 16,022 784 Western hemlock 7,183 429 5,394 614 3,911 585 3,354 421 1,295 246 21,137 1,053

Western larch 929 98 26 18 149 51 146 35 354 76 1,605 137Western redcedar 2,130 251 1,085 290 709 135 797 175 1,025 194 5,747 479Western white pine 87 17 8 4 19 15 12 6 36 15 162 28Other western softwoods 2,444 317 601 191 47 49 81 44 123 54 3,296 380

Total 39,892 972 14,070 829 12,493 951 11,013 773 10,791 749 88,260 1,771

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 134 32 22 16 260 122 80 28 386 111 882 170Oak — — 6 6 5 3 63 27 47 19 120 34Red alder 358 51 39 18 986 176 1,124 203 1,150 170 3,656 307Western woodland hardwoods 19 4 4 2 10 5 4 2 13 4 50 8Other hardwoods 148 27 76 63 415 116 306 92 920 165 1,866 223

Total 658 71 146 74 1,676 269 1,577 233 2,516 321 6,573 455

All species groups 40,551 976 14,216 830 14,169 1,012 12,591 848 13,307 869 94,834 1,843

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.
127

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 13—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington 2002–2006

Diameter class (inches)

5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 609 30 1,405 69 2,056 102 2,498 126 2,695 138 2,602 139 2,503 151Engelmann and other spruces 34 4 67 9 113 16 139 20 158 28 161 30 159 31Lodgepole pine 222 35 431 49 411 45 391 54 263 48 160 37 82 22Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 56 5 117 10 225 23 294 30 312 33 353 40 345 44Sitka spruce 9 2 15 5 39 17 45 14 29 10 42 13 23 9True fir 447 23 816 43 1,015 54 1,164 63 1,245 78 1,218 83 1,178 90Western hemlock 486 32 945 61 1,397 87 1,698 116 1,797 133 1,808 138 1,515 120Western larch 67 10 133 20 181 23 200 19 162 20 156 22 118 20Western redcedar 139 12 241 20 258 23 294 27 310 31 300 37 286 36Western white pine 5 1 9 2 12 3 14 5 18 7 22 8 10 4Other western softwoods 61 7 139 15 171 23 189 26 231 33 212 37 226 54

Total 2,136 67 4,319 122 5,878 162 6,926 204 7,219 226 7,034 235 6,445 239

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 15 4 28 8 35 10 35 10 46 15 44 14 55 17Oak 24 9 22 8 13 5 15 6 10 4 14 6 8 7Red alder 189 21 389 35 507 55 571 62 517 59 505 72 437 78Western woodland hardwoods 10 2 8 2 9 2 7 2 6 2 5 3 3 2Other hardwoods 91 11 160 22 183 26 197 29 222 41 166 35 172 34

Total 329 25 607 44 748 62 827 71 801 76 734 83 676 88

All species groups 2,464 71 4,926 129 6,626 172 7,752 214 8,020 238 7,768 251 7,121 254
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 13—Estimated net volume of all live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington 2002–2006 (continued) Diameter class (inches) 19.0-20.9 21.0-24.9 25.0-28.9 29.0-32.9 33.0-36.9 37.0+ All classes Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million cubic feet Softwoods: Douglas-fir 2,480 154 4,079 258 3,227 277 1,932 149 1,471 113 4,314 396 31,870 1,073 Engelmann and other spruces 165 37 327 94 213 51 171 37 74 22 102 34 1,883 264 Lodgepole pine 20 9 17 10 11 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 2,016 215 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 345 47 539 72 400 35 273 31 173 30 220 38 3,652 229 Sitka spruce 54 18 86 34 181 65 61 28 28 10 260 96 871 169 True fir 1,235 105 2,032 184 1,630 177 1,082 118 899 98 2,061 282 16,022 784 Western hemlock 1,327 124 2,389 222 2,115 253 1,300 135 949 91 3,409 386 21,137 1,053

Western larch 93 20 202 45 131 28 77 16 35 12 51 16 1,605 137Western redcedar 355 51 533 89 590 102 318 58 185 26 1,937 321 5,747 479Western white pine 20 16 18 8 12 6 7 4 4 3 11 11 162 28Other western softwoods 271 46 442 80 281 57 295 68 287 67 491 118 3,296 380

Total 6,365 244 10,663 424 8,790 456 5,519 266 4,108 196 12,858 771 88,260 1,771

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 77 27 102 37 197 78 106 40 65 21 75 25 882 170Oak 7 5 4 4 1 1 — — 2 2 — — 120 34Red alder 290 61 155 38 58 23 30 19 2 3 4 4 3,656 307

Western woodland hardwoods — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — 50 8Other hardwoods 145 31 175 45 177 50 99 30 30 11 49 17 1,866 223

Total 519 73 438 69 433 98 236 54 99 24 128 39 6,573 455

All species groups 6,884 257 11,101 430 9,223 468 5,754 272 4,208 198 12,986 772 94,834 1,843

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.
129

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 14—Estimated net volume of growing-stock treesa on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington 2002–2006

Diameter class (inches)

5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-28.9 29.0+ All classes

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 581 30 1,337 68 1,915 99 2,322 121 2,463 132 2,348 133 2,207 143 2,161 144 6,279 420 5,464 384 27,076 970Engelmann and other spruces 28 4 56 8 95 14 103 18 108 21 102 19 101 22 82 20 211 50 148 37 1,033 133Lodgepole pine 151 22 317 35 325 35 282 33 179 28 125 30 63 16 20 9 19 11 9 7 1,489 143Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 54 5 114 10 214 22 277 29 294 31 316 36 312 40 312 46 869 88 602 69 3,362 217Sitka spruce 8 2 13 5 36 17 42 14 27 10 35 12 17 7 54 18 232 84 238 92 703 156True fir 303 18 510 29 677 43 705 42 733 52 678 50 690 68 685 67 1,906 193 1,525 170 8,412 478Western hemlock 420 30 838 59 1,208 83 1,422 108 1,469 117 1,470 122 1,183 108 1,018 110 2,809 297 2,325 213 14,162 792Western larch 65 10 128 20 167 21 185 18 155 19 139 20 112 19 85 19 281 50 130 27 1,447 115Western redcedar 124 11 213 19 235 22 259 25 270 28 253 33 260 35 293 45 882 150 1,313 161 4,101 331Western white pine 4 1 8 2 10 3 13 5 15 6 21 8 9 4 20 16 21 8 17 12 138 27Other western softwoods 27 4 53 8 73 14 80 17 83 19 87 27 97 45 86 20 247 62 337 69 1,169 197

Total 1,767 58 3,586 109 4,955 150 5,688 185 5,797 200 5,572 207 5,049 217 4,815 212 13,757 620 12,109 571 63,093 1,480

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 14 4 27 8 34 10 35 10 42 14 42 14 47 16 65 26 286 92 239 64 832 168Oak 22 9 20 8 11 4 13 6 8 4 12 6 8 7 7 5 5 4 2 2 108 33Red alder 183 21 380 35 489 55 558 62 495 59 491 71 430 78 282 60 208 50 36 20 3,553 307Other hardwoods 86 10 144 21 165 24 175 27 186 35 152 34 154 32 137 30 278 66 167 41 1,645 201

Total 305 25 572 43 699 61 781 70 731 73 697 83 639 87 491 72 777 131 445 86 6,137 443

All species groups 2,072 63 4,158 118 5,654 161 6,469 197 6,527 212 6,269 225 5,688 234 5,305 227 14,533 637 12,554 581 69,230 1,566

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.a Growing-stock trees are trees of commercial species that meet certain merchantability standards; excludes trees that are entirely cull (rough or rotten tree classes).
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 15—Estimated net volume of growing-stocka trees on timberland, by species group and owner group, Washington 2002–2006 USDA Forest State and local Corporate Noncorporate Service Other federal government private private All owners Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million cubic feet Softwoods: Douglas-fir 11,029 443 545 238 5,415 592 5,446 463 4,641 497 27,076 970 Engelmann and other spruces 649 68 3 3 133 91 30 17 219 68 1,033 133 Lodgepole pine 919 84 9 8 76 33 99 60 387 94 1,489 143 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 994 82 26 15 307 70 402 77 1,632 180 3,362 217 Sitka spruce 103 79 — — 262 108 184 53 154 64 703 156 True fir 6,365 404 17 15 673 192 446 82 911 152 8,412 478 Western hemlock 5,532 271 116 116 3,870 586 3,349 421 1,295 246 14,162 792

Western larch 788 63 10 7 149 51 146 35 354 76 1,447 115Western redcedar 1,566 135 100 107 618 125 793 175 1,024 194 4,101 331Western white pine 68 15 3 2 19 15 12 6 36 15 138 27Other western softwoods 938 179 — — 47 49 67 41 117 54 1,169 197

Total 28,951 729 828 297 11,569 949 10,974 773 10,771 749 63,093 1,480

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 112 23 — — 260 122 80 28 379 111 832 168Oak — — 1 1 5 3 63 27 39 19 108 33Red alder 339 49 — — 941 175 1,123 203 1,149 170 3,553 307Other hardwoods 137 25 1 1 282 84 306 92 918 165 1,645 201

Total 588 66 3 2 1,488 252 1,572 233 2,487 320 6,137 443

All species groups 29,539 735 830 297 13,057 1,004 12,546 847 13,257 869 69,230 1,566

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.a Growing-stock trees are trees of commercial species that meet certain merchantability standards; excludes trees that are entirely cull (rough or rotten tree classes).
131

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 16—Estimated net volume (International 1/4-inch rule) of sawtimber treesa on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington 2002–2006

Diameter class (inches)

9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-22.9

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule)

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 8,462 442 12,071 637 13,858 756 13,908 807 13,592 908 13,647 926 12,750 1,020Engelmann and other spruces 431 66 542 97 618 123 610 117 618 137 515 126 401 141Lodgepole pine 1,494 167 1,501 175 1,020 158 747 179 382 98 124 57 85 63Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 866 91 1,327 141 1,550 165 1,761 202 1,809 233 1,891 280 1,587 295Sitka spruce 155 77 221 74 150 54 205 67 98 44 329 109 79 57True fir 3,004 191 3,665 221 4,152 298 4,047 298 4,273 425 4,365 433 3,651 458Western hemlock 5,598 390 7,684 595 8,574 697 9,029 755 7,483 689 6,597 723 5,555 65 7Western larch 759 97 976 98 880 107 824 119 687 118 535 117 661 217Western redcedar 1,012 97 1,308 125 1,463 154 1,436 197 1,514 203 1,748 273 1,317 259Western white pine 41 14 74 28 89 34 129 50 57 26 131 104 57 32Other western softwoods 296 58 388 85 428 100 485 155 559 262 519 119 620 256

Total 22,119 684 29,756 992 32,782 1,158 33,181 1,258 31,072 1,362 30,403 1,363 26,762 1,405

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen — — 168 46 242 85 251 85 288 93 412 170 299 139Oak — — 50 23 38 19 59 29 45 36 36 26 24 24Red alder — — 2,655 300 2,790 334 2,953 434 2,672 490 1,788 383 620 198Other hardwoods — — 781 121 994 190 863 200 935 199 837 187 392 141

Total — — 3,655 335 4,064 410 4,127 498 3,940 542 3,074 455 1,334 276

All species groups 22,119 684 33,411 1,042 36,846 1,226 37,308 1,366 35,012 1,467 33,476 1,452 28,095 1,427
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 16—Estimated net volume (International 1/4-inch rule) of sawtimber treesa on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2001–2005 (continued) Diameter class (inches) 23.0-24.9 25.0-26.9 27.0-28.9 29.0+ All classes Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule) Softwoods: Douglas-fir 10,626 914 9,596 1,006 8,396 987 37,659 2,687 154,564 6,205 Engelmann and other spruces 469 152 278 65 234 60 1,017 251 5,733 792 Lodgepole pine 25 16 12 10 — — 57 43 5,448 633 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 1,536 235 1,387 147 987 113 4,095 476 18,796 1,277 Sitka spruce 352 204 531 209 562 269 1,678 675 4,359 1,046

True fir 3,129 419 3,173 416 2,850 403 10,819 1,211 47,128 3,014Western hemlock 5,052 696 5,011 883 3,301 497 16,274 1,498 80,158 4,870Western larch 498 148 357 73 316 82 864 177 7,355 630Western redcedar 1,579 346 1,361 329 1,208 315 8,742 1,073 22,688 2,003Western white pine — — 70 41 12 10 124 85 785 171Other western softwoods 431 119 277 97 220 84 2,337 482 6,561 1,148

Total 23,697 1,335 22,051 1,552 18,085 1,286 83,666 3,994 353,573 9,412

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 328 153 841 324 462 294 1,616 437 4,907 1,108Oak — — 3 3 — — 14 14 270 103Red alder 356 149 264 132 110 67 246 133 14,453 1,640Other hardwoods 417 149 562 198 311 143 1,072 264 7,164 1,019

Total 1,101 256 1,670 427 883 333 2,947 570 26,793 2,445

All species groups 24,797 1,368 23,722 1,609 18,968 1,338 86,613 4,054 380,367 9,873

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 board feet was estimated.a

 Sawtimber trees have merchantability limits that differ for softwood and hardwood species as follows: ≥9 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods and ≥11 inches

diameter at breast height for hardwoods.
133

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 17—Estimated net volume (Scribner rule)a of sawtimber treesb on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006

Diameter class (inches)

9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-22.9

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million board feet (Scribner rule)

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 5,194 260 8,039 414 9,768 520 10,202 583 10,306 686 10,489 710 9,863 787Engelmann and other spruces 320 50 429 78 504 101 517 99 530 118 449 110 354 126Lodgepole pine 1,110 126 1,173 136 823 125 598 135 309 78 107 50 75 56Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 644 68 1,037 111 1,254 135 1,458 168 1,521 198 1,629 242 1,374 256Sitka spruce 83 45 136 47 97 37 132 44 62 29 221 74 53 40True fir 1,969 122 2,556 152 3,048 217 3,116 231 3,342 330 3,495 347 2,968 375Western hemlock 3,348 237 4,957 391 5,825 483 6,414 542 5,458 509 4,958 550 4,251 508Western larch 571 73 777 78 726 88 694 100 593 102 467 103 586 193Western redcedar 609 59 845 84 942 100 963 135 1,039 147 1,217 192 894 174Western white pine 27 9 56 22 70 27 111 43 50 23 102 80 50 28Other western softwoods 179 38 255 60 272 62 326 100 384 168 391 91 444 175

Total 14,055 425 20,261 660 23,331 808 24,531 915 23,594 1,021 23,524 1,049 20,914 1,094

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen — — 121 34 187 67 187 64 217 69 321 143 241 115Oak — — 27 13 20 11 29 15 24 21 21 15 14 14Red alder — — 1,905 218 1,951 237 2,104 315 1,944 361 1,322 285 467 152Other hardwoods — — 615 97 817 157 730 170 798 172 710 162 344 124

Total — — 2,667 247 2,974 305 3,050 373 2,983 410 2,373 352 1,065 224

All species groups 14,055 425 22,928 701 26,305 862 27,581 998 26,577 1,099 25,898 1,119 21,979 1,113
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 17—Estimated net volume (Scribner rule)a of sawtimber treesb on timberland, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued) Diameter class (inches) 23.0-24.9 25.0-26.9 27.0-28.9 29.0+ All classes Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million board feet (Scribner rule) Softwoods: Douglas-fir 8,379 714 7,671 796 6,695 780 30,862 2,240 117,467 4,837 Engelmann and other spruces 417 136 252 59 213 55 921 223 4,907 689 Lodgepole pine 22 14 10 9 — — 49 38 4,277 490 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 1,351 207 1,225 128 885 101 3,751 440 16,131 1,107 Sitka spruce 262 155 389 160 419 205 1,386 592 3,240 840

True fir 2,535 337 2,595 336 2,349 330 9,160 1,020 37,133 2,424Western hemlock 3,922 541 3,943 696 2,619 392 13,234 1,220 58,929 3,670Western larch 445 132 320 65 286 74 774 160 6,238 545Western redcedar 1,080 240 938 217 834 211 6,569 807 15,930 1,409Western white pine — — 60 35 11 9 118 81 656 146Other western softwoods 310 82 206 68 162 62 1,871 389 4,800 795

Total 18,724 1,046 17,608 1,218 14,471 1,012 68,696 3,306 269,710 7,333

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 289 137 771 299 421 273 1,455 401 4,208 1,003Oak — — 2 2 — — 12 12 147 57Red alder 269 116 200 102 76 46 193 104 10,432 1,203Other hardwoods 367 132 498 176 274 127 948 234 6,101 880

Total 925 220 1,471 383 771 304 2,608 512 20,888 1,985

All species groups 19,649 1,075 19,080 1,277 15,242 1,066 71,303 3,361 290,597 7,718

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 board feet was estimated. a Volume is based on Scribner board foot rule.b Sawtimber trees have merchantability limits that differ for softwood and hardwood species as follows: ≥9 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods and ≥11 inches

diameter at breast height for hardwoods.
135

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 18—Estimated net volume (cubic feet) of sawtimber treesa on timberland, by species group and owner group, Washington, 2002–2006 

USDA Forest State and local Corporate Noncorporate

Service Other federal government private private All owners 

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 10,255 433 513 227 4,992 577 4,497 426 4,204 477 24,461 936Engelmann and other spruces 573 63 2 2 119 84 20 11 205 66 918 124Lodgepole pine 532 53 3 3 40 19 82 55 281 72 939 107Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 940 79 25 15 282 66 366 73 1,499 171 3,112 207Sitka spruce 101 79 — — 256 106 162 47 149 62 668 152True fir 5,667 385 11 13 599 183 333 69 762 137 7,371 453Western hemlock 5,008 262 92 91 3,501 561 2,850 382 1,040 206 12,491 742Western larch 669 57 6 4 117 40 104 24 307 70 1,202 100Western redcedar 1,404 130 98 105 548 119 689 161 936 188 3,676 317Western white pine 59 14 2 1 18 15 10 6 33 14 122 26Other western softwoods 864 173 — — 43 46 57 37 98 47 1,062 189

Total 26,072 715 752 277 10,514 918 9,171 709 9,513 697 56,023 1,426

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 91 21 — — 245 119 72 27 320 105 727 161Oak — — 1 1 4 3 33 17 12 8 49 18Red alder 205 36 — — 645 144 676 162 712 136 2,238 252Other hardwoods 78 20 — — 198 72 209 71 645 128 1,131 159

Total 374 52 1 1 1,091 215 991 185 1,689 263 4,145 372

All species groups 26,446 721 753 277 11,605 961 10,162 762 11,202 784 60,168 1,495

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.aSawtimber trees have merchantability limits that differ for softwood and hardwood species as follows: ≥9 inches diameter at breast height for softwoods and ≥11 inches diameter at breast height for

hardwoods.
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 19—Estimated aboveground biomass of all live trees on forest land, by owner class and forest land status, Washington, 2002–2006 Unreserved forests Reserved forests Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total All forest land Owner class Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million bone-dry tons USDA Forest Service: National forest 588.1 13.8 9.5 2.1 597.6 13.7 198.3 15.8 8.1 2.5 206.4 15.7 804.0 18.7 Other federal government: National Park Service — — — — — — 250.1 15.8 7.3 3.0 257.4 15.0 257.4 15.0 Bureau of Land Management 3.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 1.6 — — — — — — 3.5 1.6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — — — — — — 4.6 2.4 — — 4.6 2.4 4.6 2.4 Department of Defense and Energy 4.9 3.1 — — 4.9 3.1 — — — — — — 4.9 3.1 

Other federal 8.0 4.5 — — 8.0 4.5 2.1 1.5 — — 2.1 1.5 10.1 4.7

Total 15.8 5.5 0.5 0.5 16.4 5.5 256.8 16.1 7.3 3.0 264.1 15.3 280.5 16.2 

State and local government:

State 224.9 17.8 1.9 1.0 226.8 17.8 12.8 4.4 — — 12.8 4.4 239.6 17.7 

Local 26.6 6.9 0.5 0.5 27.0 6.9 5.2 2.9 — — 5.2 2.9 32.2 7.5 

Other public 1.9 1.8 — — 1.9 1.8 — — — — — — 1.9 1.8 

Total 253.4 18.7 2.3 1.1 255.7 18.7 18.0 5.2 — — 18.0 5.2 273.8 18.8 

Corporate private 251.0 16.0 0.9 0.7 251.9 16.0 — — — — — — 251.9 16.0 

Noncorporate private:

Nongovernmental conservation or

natural resource organizations 13.9 4.4 — — 13.9 4.4 — — — — — — 13.9 4.4 

Unincorporated partnerships,

associations, or clubs 0.8 0.7 — — 0.8 0.7 — — — — — — 0.8 0.7 

Native American 89.1 8.8 0.5 0.3 89.7 8.8 — — — — — — 89.7 8.8 

Individual 153.7 13.4 0.1 0.1 153.8 13.4 — — — — — — 153.8 13.4

Total 257.5 16.0 0.6 0.3 258.2 16.0 — — — — — — 258.2 16.0 

All owners 1,365.9 28.9 13.9 2.5 1,379.8 28.9 473.1 23.1 15.4 3.9 488.5 22.5 1,868.3 34.7

Note:Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated; includes all live trees ≥1 inch diameter at breast height.a Forest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.b Forest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
137

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 20—Estimated aboveground biomass of all live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006

Diameter class (inches)

1.0-2.9 3.0-4.9 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.9 13.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 

Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million bone-dry tons

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 7.1 0.5 8.1 0.6 17.7 0.8 31.0 1.5 41.5 2.0 48.6 2.4 51.9 2.6 49.8 2.6 47.7 2.8Engelmann and other spruces 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.1 1.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.0 0.3 2.2 0.4 2.3 0.4 2.2 0.4Lodgepole pine 1.4 0.3 2.2 0.5 5.2 0.8 7.6 0.9 6.7 0.7 6.1 0.8 4.0 0.7 2.4 0.6 1.2 0.3Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.7 0.2 2.7 0.2 4.6 0.5 5.6 0.6 5.7 0.6 6.3 0.7 6.0 0.8Sitka spruce 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2True fir 9.1 0.7 7.3 0.5 11.3 0.6 15.5 0.8 17.6 0.9 19.6 1.1 20.8 1.3 20.4 1.4 19.8 1.5Western hemlock 1.7 0.2 5.3 0.6 12.7 0.8 19.8 1.3 27.4 1.7 32.7 2.2 34.4 2.5 34.6 2.6 29.2 2.3Western larch 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.2 2.3 0.4 3.2 0.5 3.8 0.5 4.1 0.4 3.2 0.4 3.1 0.4 2.2 0.4Western redcedar 1.1 0.2 1.9 0.3 2.8 0.2 3.9 0.3 4.0 0.4 4.6 0.4 4.9 0.5 4.8 0.6 4.6 0.6Western white pine 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1Other western softwoods 1.9 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.9 0.2 3.1 0.3 3.5 0.5 3.7 0.5 4.4 0.6 4.1 0.7 4.2 1.0

Total 25.5 1.1 29.4 1.3 57.0 1.7 88.4 2.5 111.7 3.1 127.8 3.7 132.2 4.1 128.6 4.3 117.7 4.3

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.3Oak 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2Red alder 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.3 4.4 0.5 7.4 0.7 9.2 1.0 10.3 1.1 9.4 1.1 9.3 1.3 8.2 1.4Western woodland hardwoods 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0Other western hardwoods 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.8 0.4 2.9 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.4 0.6 2.4 0.5 2.5 0.5

Total 1.8 0.2 3.8 0.4 7.6 0.6 11.3 0.8 13.2 1.1 14.3 1.2 13.8 1.3 12.8 1.4 11.9 1.5

All species groups 27.3 1.2 33.3 1.4 64.6 1.8 99.7 2.6 124.9 3.2 142.1 3.9 145.9 4.3 141.4 4.5 129.6 4.6
138

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 20—Estimated aboveground biomass of all live trees on forest land, by species group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued) Diameter class (inches) 19.0-20.9 21.0-24.9 25.0-28.9 29.0-32.9 33.0-36.9 37.0+ All classes Species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million bone-dry tons Softwoods: Douglas-fir 47.0 2.9 77.1 4.8 60.9 5.1 37.0 2.8 28.5 2.2 86.9 7.8 640.6 20.2 Engelmann and other spruces 2.2 0.5 4.5 1.3 2.9 0.7 2.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 1.4 0.5 29.5 3.7 Lodgepole pine 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 37.6 3.8 Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 5.9 0.8 9.0 1.2 6.7 0.6 4.5 0.5 2.8 0.5 3.5 0.6 66.4 4.1 Sitka spruce 0.9 0.3 1.4 0.6 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 4.7 1.7 15.2 2.8 True fir 20.7 1.8 35.1 3.1 28.3 3.1 18.8 2.0 15.8 1.7 37.3 5.3 297.5 13.9

Western hemlock 25.8 2.4 47.0 4.3 43.0 5.0 27.2 2.7 20.8 2.0 80.1 8.8 441.7 21.5

Western larch 1.9 0.4 3.9 0.9 2.5 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.3 34.9 2.8Western redcedar 5.9 0.8 9.1 1.4 10.0 1.7 5.4 0.9 3.3 0.4 43.6 7.5 109.7 9.5Western white pine 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.4Other western softwoods 5.1 0.9 8.6 1.5 5.4 1.1 5.7 1.3 5.8 1.3 11.1 2.5 69.9 7.5

Total 116.0 4.4 196.1 7.6 162.8 8.4 103.5 4.9 79.2 3.8 269.9 16.3 1,745.8 33.7

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.6 3.2 1.2 1.8 0.7 1.1 0.3 1.6 0.6 15.0 2.8Oak 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 — — 0.0 0.0 — — 3.2 0.8Red alder 5.3 1.1 3.2 0.8 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 71.6 5.6Western woodland hardwoods — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.3 0.2

Other western hardwoods 2.3 0.5 2.6 0.7 2.7 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.3 31.3 3.5

Total 9.0 1.3 7.6 1.2 7.3 1.6 4.0 0.9 1.7 0.4 2.6 0.8 122.5 7.8

All species groups 125.0 4.6 203.7 7.7 170.1 8.6 107.5 5.0 80.9 3.8 272.5 16.3 1,868.3 34.7

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated; includes all live trees ≥1 inch diameter atbreast height.
139

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 21—Estimated aboveground mass of carbon of all live trees on forest land, by owner class and forest land status, Washington, 2002–2006

Unreserved forests Reserved forests

All forest

Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total land

Owner class Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million bone-dry tons

USDA Forest Service:

National forest 306.1 7.2 5.0 1.1 311.0 7.2 103.3 8.2 4.2 1.3 107.5 8.2 418.5 9.7

Other federal government:

National Park Service — — — — — — 130.3 8.3 3.8 1.6 134.1 7.8 134.1 7.8Bureau of Land Management 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.8 — — — — — — 1.8 0.8U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — — — — — — 2.4 1.2 — — 2.4 1.2 2.4 1.2Department of Defense and Energy 2.5 1.6 — — 2.5 1.6 — — — — — — 2.5 1.6Other federal 4.2 2.3 — — 4.2 2.3 1.0 0.8 — — 1.0 0.8 5.2 2.4

Total 8.2 2.9 0.3 0.2 8.5 2.9 133.7 8.4 3.8 1.6 137.5 8.0 146.0 8.4

State and local government:

State 116.7 9.3 1.0 0.5 117.7 9.2 6.7 2.3 — — 6.7 2.3 124.3 9.2Local 13.5 3.5 0.2 0.2 13.8 3.5 2.7 1.5 — — 2.7 1.5 16.4 3.8Other public 1.0 0.9 — — 1.0 0.9 — — — — — — 1.0 0.9

Total 131.2 9.7 1.2 0.6 132.4 9.7 9.3 2.7 — — 9.3 2.7 141.7 9.8

Corporate private 129.9 8.3 0.4 0.3 130.3 8.3 — — — — — — 130.3 8.3Noncorporate private:

Nongovernmental conservation

or natural resourceorganizations 7.2 2.3 — — 7.2 2.3 — — — — — — 7.2 2.3

Unincorporated partnerships,

associations, or clubs 0.4 0.4 — — 0.4 0.4 — — — — — — 0.4 0.4

Native American 46.3 4.6 0.3 0.2 46.6 4.6 — — — — — — 46.6 4.6Individual 78.8 6.9 0.1 0.1 78.9 6.9 — — — — — — 78.9 6.9

Total 132.8 8.3 0.3 0.2 133.1 8.3 — — — — — — 133.1 8.3

All owners 708.2 15.0 7.2 1.3 715.4 15.0 246.3 12.0 8.0 2.0 254.3 11.7 969.7 18.0

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated; includes all live trees ≥1 inch diameter at breast height.a Forest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.b Forest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
140

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 22—Estimated aboveground biomass and carbon mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land, by forest type group, Washington, 2002–2006 Biomass Carbon Live trees Snags Down wooda Total Live trees Snags Down wooda Total (≥1 in d.b.h.) (≥5 in d.b.h.) (≥3 in l.e.d.) Biomass (≥1 in d.b.h.) (≥5 in d.b.h.) (≥3 in l.e.d.) Carbon Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million bone-dry tons Softwoods: Douglas-fir 694.0 26.9 48.5 2.9 128.8 6 871.3 32.1 361 14 25.2 1.5 67.0 3.1 453.3 16.7 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 369.8 21.9 41.5 3.1 69.0 4.4 480.2 26.9 193 11 21.6 1.6 35.9 2.3 250.2 14.0 Hemlock/Sitka spruce 534.0 31.9 39.5 3.4 105.0 6.8 678.5 39.1 278 17 20.5 1.7 54.7 3.5 353.1 20.4 Lodgepole pine 38.6 5.7 5.3 1 8.5 1.3 52.5 7.4 20.1 3 2.8 0.5 4.4 0.7 27.3 3.9 Ponderosa pine 61.9 4.9 4.6 0.8 10.0 1.2 76.5 6.0 32.2 2.5 2.4 0.4 5.2 0.6 39.8 3.1

Western larch 22.7 4 2.2 0.5 3.6 0.7 28.5 5.1 11.8 2.1 1.2 0.3 1.9 0.4 14.8 2.6Western white pine 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3Other western softwoods 3.5 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.3 5.4 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 2.8 0.7

Total 1,724.7 34.5 142.7 4.7 326.2 8.6 2,193.6 40.9 898 18 74.3 2.5 169.8 4.5 1,1417 21.3

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 119.5 10.7 7.6 1 25.1 2.5 152.2 12.7 60 5.4 3.9 0.5 12.9 1.3 76.8 6.4Aspen/birch 4.3 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.3 5.6 1.7 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.8 0.9Elm/ash/cottonwood 10.8 3.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.5 12.5 3.7 5.4 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 6.2 1.9Western oak 3.4 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.1 0 0.1 0 1.9 0.8Woodland hardwoods 1.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.3 3.0 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.5Other hardwoods 2.6 1.2 0.1 0 1.1 0.6 3.8 1.5 1.3 0.6 — — 0.6 0.3 1.9 0.8

Total 142.4 11.3 9 1 29.4 2.6 180.9 13.4 71.5 5.7 4.6 0.5 15.2 1.4 91.2 6.8

Nonstocked 1.1 0.3 6.5 1.5 5.8 1.1 13.4 2.2 0.6 0.1 3.4 0.8 3.0 0.6 7.0 1.2All forest types 1,868.3 34.7 158.3 4.9 361.4 8.6 2,387.9 40.5 969.7 18.0 82.3 2.5 188.0 4.5 1,240.0 21.1

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error;—= less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height; l.e.d. = large-end diameter of the log.a Down wood in this table includes coarse woody material only; an additional 108.0 million tons of biomass and 54.6 million tons of carbon were estimated for fine woody material.
141

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 23—Average aboveground biomass and carbon mass of live trees, snags, and down wood on forest land, by forest type group, Washington, 2002–2006 

Biomass Carbon

Live trees Snags Down wooda Live trees Snags Down wooda

(≥1 in d.b.h.) (≥5 in d.b.h.) (≥3 in l.e.d.) Total (≥1 in d.b.h.) (≥5 in d.b.h.) (≥3 in l.e.d.) Total

Forest type group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Bone-dry tons per acre

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 80.2 2.4 5.6 0.3 14.9 0.6 100.6 2.7 41.7 1.2 2.9 0.2 7.7 0.3 52.4 1.4Fir/spruce/mountain

hemlock 92.6 4.1 10.4 0.7 17.3 0.8 120.3 4.8 48.3 2.1 5.4 0.3 9.0 0.4 62.7 2.5

Hemlock/Sitka spruce 161.8 6.0 12.0 0.9 31.8 1.4 205.6 7.0 84.2 3.1 6.2 0.5 16.6 0.8 107.0 3.7Lodgepole pine 59.4 4.6 8.2 1.2 13.1 1.4 80.6 5.5 30.9 2.4 4.2 0.6 6.8 0.7 42.0 2.8Ponderosa pine 29.9 1.6 2.2 0.3 4.8 0.5 37.0 1.9 15.6 0.8 1.2 0.2 2.5 0.2 19.3 1.0Western larch 71.5 7.1 7.0 1.3 11.3 1.4 89.8 8.7 37.2 3.7 3.6 0.7 5.9 0.7 46.7 4.5Western white pine 29.5 10.2 16.5 10.3 24.8 7.3 70.8 16.8 15.4 5.3 8.6 5.4 12.8 3.7 36.8 8.7Other western softwoods 18.6 2.0 5.0 1.7 5.2 1.0 28.8 3.0 9.7 1.0 2.6 0.9 2.7 0.5 15.0 1.6

Total 89.9 1.7 7.4 0.2 17.0 0.4 114.3 1.9 46.8 0.9 3.9 0.1 8.9 0.2 59.5 1.0

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 62.7 4.2 4.0 0.4 13.2 1.0 79.9 4.6 31.5 2.1 2.0 0.2 6.8 0.5 40.3 2.3Aspen/birch 31.5 7.1 3.0 0.8 6.5 1.0 40.9 7.5 15.8 3.6 1.5 0.4 3.3 0.5 20.6 3.8Elm/ash/cottonwood 59.0 12.7 1.9 0.7 7.7 2.3 68.6 13.6 29.4 6.3 1.0 0.3 3.9 1.2 34.2 6.7Western oak 27.3 7.8 1.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 29.7 7.7 13.7 4.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.2 14.9 3.9Woodland hardwoods 15.4 1.9 3.5 1.5 7.6 2.2 26.6 3.1 8.0 1.0 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.1 13.8 1.6Other hardwoods 23.2 7.6 0.5 0.2 9.7 4.9 33.4 8.0 11.6 3.7 0.3 0.1 5.0 2.5 16.8 3.9

Total 55.2 3.4 3.5 0.3 11.4 0.8 70.2 3.7 27.7 1.7 1.8 0.2 5.9 0.4 35.4 1.9

Nonstocked 1.8 0.4 10.5 2.0 9.2 1.5 21.5 2.4 0.9 0.2 5.5 1.0 4.8 0.8 11.2 1.3All forest types 83.5 1.5 7.1 0.2 16.1 0.4 106.7 1.7 43.3 0.8 3.7 0.1 8.4 0.2 55.4 0.9

Note: Means are calculated using a ratio of means formula across plots within forest type groups; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height; l.e.d. = large-end diameter of the log.a Down wood in this table includes coarse woody material only; an additional 4.8 tons per acre of biomass and 2.4 tons per acre of carbon were estimated for fine woody material.
142

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 24—Estimated average biomass, volume, and density of down wood on forest land, by forest type group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006 Biomass Volume Diameter class (inches at large end) Diameter class (inches at large end) FWM CWM FWM CWM < 3 in 3 to 19 in ≥20 in Total < 3 in 3 to 19 in ≥20 in Total Forest type group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE – – – – – – – – – – – – Bone-dry tons per acre – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cubic feet per acre – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Softwoods: Douglas-fir 5.4 0.2 7.5 0.2 7.4 0.5 21.2 0.7 392.6 12.5 893.6 23.7 926.5 58.7 2,212.8 75.8 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 3.6 0.2 8.8 0.3 8.5 0.7 21.6 0.9 301.2 12.6 1,114.1 41.7 1,061.1 82.3 2,476.2 105.9 Hemlock/Sitka spruce 6.7 0.4 11.4 0.4 20.4 1.3 38.5 1.6 430.5 19.6 1,463.9 45.9 2,676.9 170.1 4,571.2 190.1 Lodgepole pine 4.6 0.5 10.9 0.9 2.2 1.0 18.3 1.4 378.6 38.7 1,411.8 126.7 308.6 153.8 2,099.0 204.8 Ponderosa pine 3.3 0.4 3.2 0.2 1.7 0.3 8.5 0.7 269.1 28.2 370.7 26.8 206.7 32.6 846.6 64.5

Western larch 5.8 0.9 9.0 1.1 2.3 0.6 18.9 1.5 432.4 41.3 1,063.9 127.6 276.5 69.8 1,772.8 160.9

Western white pine 4.3 1.0 20.6 9.2 4.2 3.5 29.1 7.7 364.5 75.3 2,563.5 1,099.7 528.5 373.2 3,456.4 858.3Other western softwoods 1.8 0.5 4.4 0.8 0.8 0.3 7.7 1.3 149.6 23.3 531.5 96.5 127.3 54.3 808.4 138.9

Total 4.7 0.1 8.1 0.1 8.9 0.4 22.7 0.5 364.6 7.8 999.1 17.6 1,138.3 44.5 2,501.9 55.2

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 4.6 0.4 6.0 0.4 7.1 0.8 19.0 1.1 370.7 26.2 814.0 44.7 1,010.5 112.4 2,195.1 138.2Aspen/birch 4.4 1.1 5.5 1.1 1.0 0.3 12.2 1.6 358.5 58.1 763.7 137.6 131.4 44.1 1,253.6 156.9Elm/ash/cottonwood 4.1 1.4 5.4 1.7 2.3 0.9 14.4 2.6 356.9 49.4 627.5 165.4 363.2 176.5 1,347.6 337.0

Western oak 29.2 25.4 0.9 0.4 — — 30.6 25.5 2,573.8 2,300.3 113.1 43.5 — — 2,686.8 2,317.7Woodland hardwoods 5.3 2.2 5.1 1.4 2.5 1.2 13.0 4.1 422.2 188.0 579.6 164.9 292.9 137.6 1,294.6 419.9Other hardwoods 4.4 1.6 3.7 0.8 6.0 4.2 16.4 5.1 321.2 48.5 449.0 103.2 711.0 467.5 1,481.1 560.7

Total 5.8 1.3 5.6 0.3 5.9 0.6 18.5 1.5 476.5 119.6 737.6 38.3 823.5 89.4 2,037.7 159.7

Nonstocked 3.8 1.2 6.1 0.8 3.1 0.9 15.2 2.2 303.3 53.8 637.5 83.1 375.2 106.0 1,315.1 193.1All forest types 4.8 0.2 7.8 0.1 8.4 0.3 22.0 0.4 375.8 15.4 958.9 15.9 1,080.8 39.6 2,415.4 50.9
143

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 24—Estimated average biomass, volume, and density of down wood onforest land, by forest type groupand diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006(continued)

Density

Diameter class (inches at large end)

CWMa

3 to 19 in

≥20 in Total

Forest type group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

– – – – – – – – – Logs per acre – – – – – – – – –

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 282.0 7.4 14.2 0.9 296.3 7.7Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 279.9 11.8 14.6 1.1 294.5 12.1Hemlock/Sitka spruce 411.9 14.8 35.3 2.0 447.2 15.5Lodgepole pine 363.4 25.3 3.9 1.5 367.3 25.1Ponderosa pine 145.8 10.1 3.1 0.6 149.0 10.2Western larch 284.7 24.5 3.8 0.9 288.4 24.5Western white pine 386.4 111.5 17.8 11.9 404.2 104.1Other western softwoods 178.2 30.3 2.1 0.9 180.3 30.7

Total 291.3 5.1 16.1 0.6 307.4 5.3

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 272.2 15.2 13.6 1.5 285.8 15.6Aspen/birch 256.8 37.9 4.2 2.7 261.0 38.0Elm/ash/cottonwood 248.0 45.5 5.6 2.4 253.6 44.9

Western oak 101.6 32.3 — — 101.6 32.3Woodland hardwoods 239.2 67.9 9.9 4.3 249.1 68.3Other hardwoods 181.1 32.0 9.2 5.7 190.3 31.4

Total 256.0 12.6 11.5 1.2 267.5 12.9

Nonstocked 209.8 28.2 6.7 3.1 216.5 29.7

All forest types 285.0 4.7 15.3 0.5 300.3 4.9

Note: Means are calculated using a ratio of means formula across plots within forest type groups; data subject tosampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 0.05 bone-dry tons per acre, 0.05 cubic feet per acre, and 0.05logs per acre were estimated; CWM = coarse woody material; FWM = fine woody material.a An estimate of pieces per acre is not possible for fine woody material.
144

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 25—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of down wooda on forest land, by forest type group and owner group, Washington, 2002–2006 U.S. Forest Service Other federal State and local government Corporate private Other private All owners Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million bone-dry tons Softwoods: Douglas-fir 44.0 2.2 22.9 1.2 5.2 1.3 2.7 0.7 22.6 3.0 11.7 1.6 41.5 4.0 21.6 2.1 15.6 2.6 8.1 1.4 128.8 6.0 67 3.1 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 42.8 3.0 22.3 1.6 7.6 1.5 4.0 0.8 4.4 1.6 2.3 0.9 8 1.8 4.2 1.0 6.2 1.4 3.2 0.7 69 4.4 35.9 2.3 Western hemlock/Sitka spruce 34.6 3.2 18.0 1.7 24.8 3.9 12.9 2.0 17.2 2.8 9.0 1.5 19.5 3.0 10.2 1.6 8.9 2.2 4.6 1.1 105 6.8 54.7 3.5 Lodgepole pine 6.2 0.9 3.2 0.5 — — — — 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — 2 0.9 1 0.5 8.5 1.3 4.4 0.7 Ponderosa pine 3.5 0.8 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.3 3.7 0.6 1.9 0.3 10 1.2 5.2 0.6 Western larch 2.4 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 — — 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 3.6 0.7 1.9 0.4 Western white pine 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

Other western softwoods 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 0.3 0.5 0.1

Total 134.6 4.1 70.1 2.1 37.9 3.6 19.8 1.9 45.8 3.9 23.8 2.0 71.4 4.9 37.1 2.6 36.5 3.7 19 1.9 326.2 8.6 170 4.5

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 3.0 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 5.3 1.3 2.7 0.7 9.2 1.6 4.7 0.8 6.7 1.1 3.5 0.6 25.1 2.5 12.9 1.3Aspen/birch 0.1 0.1 — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2Elm/ash/cottonwood 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.3Western oak — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 — — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Woodland hardwoods 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.2Other hardwoods 0.1 0.1 0.1 - — — — — — — — — 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.3

Total 3.7 0.7 1.9 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 5.9 1.4 3.1 0.7 10.5 1.7 5.4 0.9 8.3 1.2 4.2 0.6 29.4 2.6 15.2 1.4

Nonstocked 2.7 0.6 1.4 0.3 — — — — 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 5.8 1.1 3 0.6All forest types 141.1 4.1 73.5 2.1 39.0 3.7 20.3 1.9 52.1 3.9 27.1 2.0 83.8 5.1 43.6 2.6 45.5 3.8 23.6 2.0 361.4 8.6 188.0 4.5

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; —= less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated. Standard errors available upon request.a In this table, down wood includes logs ≥3 inches in diameter at the large end (coarse woody material); an additional 108.0 million tons of biomass and 54.6 million tons of carbon were estimated for fine woody

material in the state.
145

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 26—Estimated average biomass, volume, and density of snags on forest land, by forest type group and diameter class, Washington, 2002–2006

Biomass Volume Density

Diameter class (inches) Diameter class (inches) Diameter class (inches)

5 to 19 20 to 39 ≥ 40 Total 5 to 19 20 to 39 ≥ 40 Total 5 to 19 20 to 39 ≥ 40 Total

Forest type group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

– – – – – – – – – – Bone-dry tons per acre – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Cubic feet per acre – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Trees per acre – – – – – – – – – – –

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 3.1 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.9 0.1 5.6 0.3 151.3 9.3 75.4 8.3 26.3 3.6 253.0 15.7 18.9 0.8 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 20.9 0.8Fir/spruce/mountain

hemlock 5.5 0.5 3.6 0.3 1.4 0.2 10.4 0.7 320.9 29.2 208.8 19.5 67.8 11.4 597.5 41.0 28.7 2.1 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 31.9 2.1

Hemlock/Sitka spruce 3.0 0.2 4.1 0.3 4.8 0.7 12.0 0.9 153.3 11.9 204.8 17.6 220.2 33.9 578.2 44.4 22.5 1.5 4.0 0.3 1.1 0.1 27.6 1.6

Lodgepole pine 7.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 8.2 1.2 398.5 61.2 52.9 26.9 4.6 2.7 456.0 70.7 57.1 6.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 57.9 6.5

Ponderosa pine 1.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.3 73.8 11.6 47.8 13.5 6.8 3.1 128.4 19.7 8.0 0.9 0.8 0.3 — — 8.9 0.9

Western larch 6.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 — — 7.0 1.3 308.8 60.9 50.6 23.4 — — 359.4 72.2 43.8 6.3 0.7 0.3 — — 44.5 6.3Western white pine 15.9 10.6 0.6 0.6 — — 16.5 10.3 1,012.3 708.3 34.4 33.7 — — 1,046.7 690.4 68.6 40.5 0.6 0.6 — — 69.2 40.2

Other western softwoods 4.4 1.5 0.6 0.2 — — 5.0 1.7 243.2 85.5 39.2 14.0 — — 282.3 93.6 47.3 17.1 2.2 0.8 — — 49.6 17.7

Total 3.6 0.1 2.3 0.1 1.5 0.1 7.4 0.2 190.9 8.1 120.9 6.3 64.7 6.5 376.6 13.4 22.4 0.7 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 25.0 0.7

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 2.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.3 4.0 0.4 94.1 10.7 26.7 6.2 33.5 8.2 154.2 15.8 15.0 1.4 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 16.6 1.4

Aspen/birch 2.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 3.0 0.8 134.0 44.1 11.7 11.2 9.8 5.9 155.6 47.0 15.9 4.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 16.3 4.6Elm/ash/cottonwood 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.7 88.5 41.1 4.2 2.6 1.2 1.0 93.8 41.0 9.4 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 9.7 3.0Western oak 1.5 0.6 — — — — 1.5 0.6 71.4 29.6 — — — — 71.4 29.6 12.6 3.7 — — — — 12.6 3.7Woodland hardwoods 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.7 3.5 1.5 84.0 54.2 50.2 30.2 41.9 32.8 176.2 77.0 8.2 4.2 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 9.7 4.2

Other hardwoods 0.5 0.2 — — — — 0.5 0.2 29.8 13.0 — — — — 29.8 13.0 5.6 2.4 — — — — 5.6 2.4

Total 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 3.5 0.3 91.5 9.2 22.9 4.9 27.2 6.3 141.5 13.0 13.8 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.1 15.1 1.2

Nonstocked 7.5 1.7 2.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 10.5 2.0 430.1 102.1 136.5 36.1 19.7 8.7 586.4 115.5 46.5 11.6 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 48.5 11.7

All forest types 3.5 0.1 2.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 7.1 0.2 186.1 7.5 110.1 5.5 59.2 5.7 355.4 11.8 22.1 0.7 2.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 24.5 0.7

Note: Means are calculated using a ratio of means formula across plots within forest type groups; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 0.05 bone-dry tons per acre, 0.05 cubic feet per acre,and 0.05 trees per acre were estimated; includes snags ≥ 5 inches in diameter at breast height.
146

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 27—Estimated biomass and carbon mass of snags on forest land, by forest type group and owner group, Washington, 2002–2006 U.S. Forest Service Other federal State and local government Corporate private Other private All owners Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Biomass Carbon Forest type group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million bone-dry tons Softwoods: Douglas-fir 25.1 2.0 12.6 1.0 3.9 1.0 1.9 0.5 6.9 1.2 3.5 0.6 6.8 1.0 3.4 0.5 5.8 1.1 2.9 0.5 48.5 2.9 24.2 1.4 Fir/spruce/mountain hemlock 30.0 2.5 15.0 1.3 5.5 1.2 2.8 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.3 1.2 2.1 0.6 41.5 3.1 20.7 1.6 Hemlock/Sitka spruce 17.4 2.0 8.7 1.0 11.8 2.1 5.9 1.0 6.0 1.6 3.0 0.8 2.5 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.2 39.5 3.4 19.7 1.7 Lodgepole pine 4.1 0.9 2.1 0.5 — — — — 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 5.3 1.0 2.7 0.5 Ponderosa pine 2.2 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.6 0.8 2.3 0.4 Western larch 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.2 — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.3 Western white pine 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Other western softwoods 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.2

Total 81.6 3.3 40.8 1.7 21.4 2.0 10.7 1.0 14.8 1.9 7.4 1.0 10.3 1.1 5.1 0.6 14.7 1.7 7.3 0.8 142.7 4.7 71.4 2.4

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.2 2.8 0.6 1.4 0.3 7.6 1.0 3.8 0.5Aspen/birch 0.1 0.1 — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1Elm/ash/cottonwood — — — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — — — 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1Western oak — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 0.1 — — — — — 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Woodland hardwoods 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.1 0.1 — — 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1Other hardwoods — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.1 — — —

Total 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.9 0.5 0.9 0.3 2.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 3.2 0.6 1.6 0.3 9.0 1.0 4.5 0.5

Nonstocked 5.7 1.5 2.9 0.7 — — — — 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 — — 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 6.5 1.5 3.3 0.8All forest types 88.6 3.5 44.3 1.7 21.9 2.1 11.0 1.0 17.2 2.0 8.6 1.0 12.5 1.2 6.2 0.6 18.1 1.8 9.0 0.9 158.3 4.9 79.1 2.4

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; — = less than 50,000 bone-dry tons was estimated; includes snags ≥5 inches in diameter at breast height.
147

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 28—Index of vascular plant species richness on forest land by ecological section, Washington, 2004–2005

Species Native Nonnative Native species Nonnative

richness/plot richness/plot richness/plot cover (sum) cover (sum)

Number Total Species

Ecological section of plots Mean SE richness turnover Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SEBlue Mountains 2 66.0 5.0 112 1.7 56.5 2.5 5.0 0.0 150 28.0 1.2 0.3Coast Ranges 19 30.3 2.6 182 6.0 25.9 2.2 1.6 0.6 200 13.0 7.6 5.9Columbia Basin 2 49.5 17.5 91 1.8 36.0 15.0 11.0 1.0 148 4.2 46.3 43.5Eastern Cascades 5 38.8 3.3 135 3.5 33.0 4.3 2.6 1.0 109 5.3 1.8 1.2Northern Cascades 26 33.5 2.3 327 9.8 30.1 2.0 1.1 0.5 139 11.0 2.6 1.7Okanogan Highland 14 53.6 4.6 309 5.8 47.1 4.0 3.7 1.0 149 6.8 10.5 4.6Puget Trough 6 28.3 4.4 100 3.5 23.3 3.1 1.8 0.9 238 15.9 12.2 8.1Western Cascades 17 39.1 3.1 253 6.5 33.1 2.8 2.6 1.0 168 21.0 9.4 8.1

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error. Native and nonnative species values only include vegetation records identified to the species level. Species’ cover at the plot level were summed withno overlap assumptions (total cover could exceed 100 percent).
148

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 29—Lichen community indicator species richness on forest land, Pacific Northwest and Washington, 1998–2001, 2003 Pacific Blue Columbia Eastern Northern Okanogan OR and WA Puget Western Parameter Northwest Washington Mountains Basin Cascades Cascades Highland Coast Ranges Trough Cascades Number of plotsa 491 199 6 4 17 46 41 37 18 30 Number of plots by lichen species richness category: 0 to 6 species 60 16 0 1 0 4 0 7 1 3 7-15 species 186 68 1 1 1 19 7 17 9 13 16-25 species 188 94 2 1 15 21 24 12 6 13 >25 species 57 21 3 1 1 2 10 1 2 1 Median 15 17 25 15.5 20 15.5 23 11 15 15 Range of species richness

per plot (low to high) 0 to 45 0 to 34 12 to 27 5 to 27 13 to 33 0 to 34 9 to 34 4 to 28 6 to 30 1 to 29

Average lichen species richness

per plot (alpha diversity) 15.9 17.1 22.8 15.8 21.2 15.1 22.2 12.9 16.2 15.6

Standard deviation of lichen

species richness per plot 7.1 7.1 5.6 9.0 4.5 6.6 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.3

Species turnover rate

(beta diversity)b 13.12 9.82 2.06 2.53 3.25 6.75 3.83 7.83 4.38 5.83

Total number of species per

area (gamma diversity) 208 168 47 40 69 102 85 101 71 91

a Plot totals do not include quality assurance surveys.b Beta diversity is calculated as gamma diversity divided by alpha diversity.
149

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 30—Estimated area and net volume of live trees on riparian forest land,a by location and survey unit,

Washington, 2002–2006

Riparian area Riparian volume

Location and Ripariana Proportion of all Ripariana Proportion of all

survey unit area SE forest landb SE volume SE forest volumeb SE

 Thousand acres – – – Percent – – – Million cubic feet – – – Percent – – –

Western Washington:

Olympic Unit 486 55 12.18 1.36 2,919 462 12.52 1.92Puget Sound Unit 517 58 11.63 1.26 3,395 552 12.26 1.83Southwestern Unit 673 67 17.11 1.61 3,327 400 17.04 1.92

Total 1,676 104 13.55 0.81 9,641 817 13.67 1.10

Eastern Washington:

Central Unit 357 47 5.94 0.77 1,504 281 8.61 1.50Eastern Unit 235 35 5.80 0.85 815 150 8.46 1.47

Total 592 58 5.88 0.57 2,318 318 8.56 1.10

Total Washington 2,269 118 10.11 0.52 11,960 871 12.25 0.85

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.a Riparian forest land is defined as forest land within 100 feet of a permanent water body.b Riparian as a percentage of all forest land within each category.
150

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 31—Estimated area of riparian forest land,a by forest type group, broad owner group, and location, Washington, 2002–2006 Western Washington Eastern Washington All Washington Forest type and Ripariana Proportion of Ripariana Proportion of Ripariana Proportion of owner group area SE all forest landb SE area SE all forest landb SE area SE all forest landb SE Thousand acres – – – Percent – – – Thousand acres – – – Percent – – – Thousand acres – – – Percent – – – Softwoods: Public 811 72 13.24 1.11 320 40 5.77 0.70 1,131 81 9.69 0.68 Private 432 55 11.02 1.36 192 38 5.29 1.03 623 67 8.27 0.86 Total 1,243 90 12.37 0.86 512 54 5.58 0.59 1,754 104 9.13 0.53 Hardwoods: Public 140 33 23.37 4.42 15 6 12.28 4.51 155 33 21.48 3.80 Private 273 46 17.87 2.71 57 19 16.15 4.84 330 49 17.55 2.38

Total 414 56 19.42 2.32 72 20 15.14 3.77 485 59 18.64 2.02

Nonstocked 20 12 10.16 5.68 9 5 2.13 1.15 29 13 4.69 2.03All public 964 79 14.19 1.09 344 41 5.76 0.67 1,308 88 10.25 0.67All private 712 67 12.77 1.22 248 42 6.07 1.01 960 81 9.93 0.83Total Washington 1,676 104 13.55 0.81 592 58 5.88 0.57 2,269 118 10.11 0.52

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.a Riparian forest land is defined as forest land within 100 feet of a permanent water body.b Riparian as a percentage of all forest land area within each category.
151

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 32—Estimated net volume of live trees on riparian forest land,a by species group, broad owner group, and location, Washington 2002–2006

Western Washington Eastern Washington All Washington 

Species and Ripariana Proportion of all Ripariana Proportion of all Ripariana Proportion of all

owner group volume SE forest volumeb SE volume SE forest volumeb SE volume SE forest volumeb SE

 Million cubic feet – – – Percent – – – Million cubic feet – – – Percent– – – Million cubic feet – – – Percent – – –

Softwoods:

Public 6,314 700 12.68 1.34 1,470 238 7.91 1.19 7,785 733 11.38 1.03Private 2,100 332 14.12 2.09 725 203 9.23 2.45 2,825 389 12.43 1.60

Total 8,414 773 13.01 1.14 2,195 313 8.30 1.11 10,609 828 11.64 0.87

Hardwoods:

Public 512 106 23.25 4.21 195 24 25.70 9.23 562 108 23.45 3.93Private 716 146 19.41 3.41 73 16 16.38 6.71 788 149 19.09 3.13

Total 1,227 180 20.85 2.65 123 38 19.23 5.70 1,350 184 20.69 2.45

All public 6,826 721 13.13 1.32 1,520 242 8.09 1.19 8,346 754 11.79 1.02All private 2,815 388 15.17 1.94 798 206 9.61 2.35 3,613 439 13.45 1.52Total Washington 9,641 817 13.67 1.10 2,318 318 8.56 1.10 11,960 871 12.25 0.85

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.a Riparian forest land is defined as forest land within 100 feet of a permanent water body.b Net volume in riparian forests as a percentage of net volume in forest land within each category.
152

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 33—Estimated mean crown density and other statisticsa for live trees on forest land, by species

group, Washington, 2002–2006

Crown density

Species group Plots Trees Mean SEb Minimum Median Maximum

– – Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 63 912 41.0 1.9 5 40 90

Engelmann and other spruces 12 58 44.2 4.4 20 45 85

Lodgepole pine 15 213 42.2 3.6 5 40 85

Other western softwoods 6 34 38.1 3.5 5 40 65

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 20 97 51.5 3.1 0 50 90

Sitka spruce 7 41 44.1 3.0 25 45 70

True fir 36 356 43.0 2.5 5 45 85

Western hemlock 37 376 43.7 2.0 5 45 85

Western larch 9 47 46.0 2.3 15 45 85

Western redcedar 21 155 39.9 3.7 5 40 80

Western white pine 4 9 45.0 — 20 45 65

Total 91 2,298 42.5 1.2 0 40 90

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 4 15 38.7 — 10 45 60

Oak 2 19 47.4 — 30 50 70

Other western hardwoods 14 81 45.5 2.6 0 40 90

Red alder 17 96 43.8 1.3 5 45 65

Western woodland hardwoods 4 7 28.6 — 0 20 70

Total 35 218 43.9 1.6 0 45 90

All species 94 2,516 42.6 1.2 0 40 90

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; includes live trees > 4.9 inches in diameter at breast height.

a

The mean, standard error (SE), and median calculations consider the clustering of trees on plots.

b

 Standard error may not be calculated if sample size is insufficient.
153

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 34—Mean foliage transparency and other statisticsa for live trees on forest land, by species

group, Washington, 2002–2006

Foliage transparency

Species group Plots Trees Mean SEb Minimum Median Maximum

– – Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 63 912 23.8 1.8 10 20 70

Engelmann and other spruces 12 58 22.5 2.8 10 25 35

Lodgepole pine 15 213 24.6 1.0 10 25 95

Other western softwoods 6 34 12.6 1.9 10 10 25

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 20 97 24.2 1.7 15 25 50

Sitka spruce 7 41 21.8 2.7 10 20 55

True fir 36 356 19.6 1.3 0 15 65

Western hemlock 37 376 22.8 3.3 0 15 90

Western larch 9 47 21.5 2.2 10 20 35

Western redcedar 21 155 25.4 4.5 10 25 80

Western white pine 4 9 23.3 — 5 20 45

Total 91 2,298 22.9 1.2 0 20 95

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 4 15 19.0 — 10 15 40

Oak 2 19 19.5 — 15 20 35

Other western hardwoods 14 81 29.0 1.6 15 25 99

Red alder 17 96 29.3 5.3 15 25 65

Western woodland hardwoods 4 7 38.4 — 20 30 99

Total 35 218 27.9 2.7 10 25 99

All species 94 2,516 23.3 1.2 0 20 99

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; includes live trees > 4.9 inches in diameter at breast height. 

a

 The mean, standard error (SE), and median calculations consider the clustering of trees on plots. 

b

 Standard error may not be calculated if sample size is insufficient.
154

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 35—Mean crown dieback and other statisticsa for live trees on forest land, by species group,

Washington, 2002–2006

Crown dieback

Species group Plots Trees Mean SEb Minimum Median Maximum

– – Number – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – –

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 63 912 1.2 0.3 0 0 70

Engelmann and other spruces 12 58 4.8 2.4 0 0 20

Lodgepole pine 15 213 3.8 1.1 0 0 95

Other western softwoods 6 34 2.1 1.9 0 0 20

Ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 20 97 3.0 0.9 0 0 99

Sitka spruce 7 41 1.0 0.6 0 0 15

True fir 36 356 2.1 0.5 0 0 90

Western hemlock 37 376 1.3 0.5 0 0 50

Western larch 9 47 0.9 0.5 0 0 20

Western redcedar 21 155 2.2 1.3 0 0 25

Western white pine 4 9 5.5 — 0 0 50

All softwoods 91 2,298 1.8 0.3 0 0 99

Hardwoods:

Cottonwood and aspen 4 15 6.7 — 0 5 20

Oak 2 19 7.9 — 0 5 30

Other western hardwoods 14 81 8.0 3.7 0 0 99

Red alder 17 96 0.4 0.2 0 0 5

Western woodland hardwoods 4 7 15.6 — 0 0 99

All hardwoods 35 218 4.8 2.2 0 0 99

All trees 94 2,516 2.1 0.4 0 0 99

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; includes live trees > 4.9 inches in diameter at breast height.

a

 The mean, standard error (SE), and median calculations consider the clustering of trees on plots.

b

 Standard error may not be calculated if sample size is insufficient.
155

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 36—Mean cover of understory vegetation on forest land, by forest type group and life form, Washington, 2002-2006

Seedlings and All understory

saplings Shrubs Forbs Graminoids plants Bare soil

Forest type group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Percent

Softwoods:

Douglas-fir 4.3 0.2 38.1 0.7 21.2 0.5 9.9 0.4 64.0 0.7 2.5 0.2Fir/spruce/mountain

hemlock 8.7 0.3 33.6 0.9 18.6 0.7 5.7 0.4 58.5 1.0 3.3 0.3

Hemlock/Sitka spruce 7.0 0.4 27.6 1.0 22.0 0.9 1.7 0.2 51.0 1.3 0.9 0.1Lodgepole pine 6.4 0.7 36.9 2.1 13.6 1.2 11.2 1.4 61.2 2.2 2.5 0.5Other western softwoods 6.3 1.0 17.9 2.7 13.5 2.0 9.7 2.2 44.6 3.7 8.6 1.9Ponderosa pine 3.2 0.2 23.5 1.2 13.5 0.7 32.7 1.4 63.9 1.4 4.3 0.5Western larch 10.4 1.1 30.3 2.7 19.1 1.8 9.9 1.7 59.7 3.1 1.3 0.3Western white pine 7.6 5.6 32.8 12.9 48.5 20.7 8.1 6.6 79.3 8.2 3.6 3.6

Total 5.7 0.1 33.4 0.4 19.6 0.3 10.1 0.3 60.3 0.5 2.6 0.1

Hardwoods:

Alder/maple 3.4 0.5 49.9 1.7 38.8 1.6 9.5 1.1 81.5 1.1 1.3 0.2Aspen/birch 14.2 5.6 50.7 7.5 30.2 5.3 23.2 6.7 81.7 4.8 1.0 0.2Elm/ash/cottonwood 6.8 1.6 51.4 4.9 26.0 4.6 17.8 3.8 83.5 3.1 2.6 1.0Other western hardwoods 7.4 1.4 37.9 5.0 30.7 4.3 20.8 3.6 76.1 3.9 3.6 1.5Western oak 5.1 1.3 22.0 8.2 10.8 2.8 34.9 5.9 63.8 6.5 6.9 2.3

Total 4.7 0.5 47.7 1.5 35.4 1.4 13.0 1.1 80.3 1.0 1.9 0.3

Nonstocked 0.9 0.1 19.6 2.0 14.0 1.4 19.1 2.0 47.6 3.0 15.5 1.7All forest type groups 5.5 0.1 34.7 0.4 21.3 0.3 10.7 0.3 62.3 0.4 2.9 0.1

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.
156

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 37—Mean cover of understory vegetation on forest land, by forest type class, age class, and life form,

Washington, 2002–2006

Seedlings and All understory

Forest type classa saplings Shrubs Forbs Graminoids plants Bare soil

and age class Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Percent

Dry conifer:

0-19 7.2 1.6 30.2 4.1 16.0 1.6 33.4 4.4 74.5 3.4 6.6 2.1

20-39 3.6 0.7 30.0 2.8 13.0 1.5 32.4 3.5 70.1 2.9 4.3 0.8

40-79 5.0 0.5 31.4 1.8 14.8 1.1 22.2 1.6 64.4 1.7 2.6 0.3

80-159 4.3 0.4 22.5 1.3 13.7 0.9 28.4 1.8 60.5 1.8 3.6 0.5

160+ 3.1 0.7 22.1 3.0 14.2 1.6 14.7 2.1 49.5 3.3 6.0 1.9

All ages 4.6 0.3 27.1 1.0 14.3 0.6 25.6 1.1 62.9 1.1 3.6 0.3

Wet conifer:

0-19 4.6 0.3 37.1 1.3 24.4 0.9 11.3 0.8 66.2 1.4 6.0 0.6

20-39 4.4 0.3 35.3 1.2 21.7 0.9 4.4 0.5 57.8 1.4 1.7 0.2

40-79 4.8 0.3 36.7 1.1 21.2 0.8 8.0 0.6 61.6 1.1 1.9 0.2

80-159 6.1 0.3 29.7 0.8 17.6 0.6 10.4 0.6 56.3 0.9 3.1 0.2

160+ 8.8 0.3 32.9 1.0 18.4 0.8 3.0 0.4 55.6 1.1 2.5 0.3

All ages 5.8 0.1 34.1 0.5 20.4 0.4 7.7 0.3 59.3 0.5 2.9 0.1

Dry hardwood:

0-19 9.8 6.2 58.0 11.9 40.2 12.2 10.5 3.5 83.4 6.8 1.0 0.4

20-39 5.0 1.9 58.3 10.8 16.8 4.0 22.6 9.9 87.3 4.7 0.7 0.4

40-79 6.0 1.4 28.9 8.1 20.5 6.2 27.7 5.7 67.4 7.2 2.7 1.3

80-159 6.5 1.2 22.9 5.1 23.3 4.4 29.0 5.2 69.4 4.8 8.4 2.6

160+

All ages 6.6 1.0 32.4 4.4 23.8 3.3 25.7 3.2 71.8 3.5 4.7 1.3

Wet hardwood:

0-19 7.9 1.6 49.0 2.6 29.8 2.4 12.7 1.9 81.3 1.9 1.4 0.6

20-39 3.4 1.2 48.2 3.8 34.3 3.3 12.5 2.6 80.2 2.4 1.6 0.4

40-79 2.1 0.3 51.5 2.5 44.1 2.2 8.0 1.4 82.8 1.4 1.5 0.3

80-159 5.1 1.7 50.6 5.4 36.6 4.7 15.8 5.0 81.3 3.8 1.1 0.4

160+ 6.5 6.1 66.2 21.3 33.4 2.1 6.0 9.9 86.6 5.6 2.2 1.0

All ages 4.4 0.6 50.1 1.6 37.2 1.4 11.0 1.1 81.7 1.0 1.4 0.2

All forest type classes:

0-19 5.4 0.4 39.2 1.1 25.2 0.8 12.6 0.7 69.5 1.2 5.2 0.5

20-39 4.2 0.3 36.8 1.1 22.6 0.9 7.8 0.7 62.0 1.2 1.9 0.2

40-79 4.5 0.2 37.7 0.9 23.4 0.7 11.2 0.6 65.4 0.9 2.0 0.1

80-159 5.7 0.2 28.7 0.7 17.6 0.5 14.8 0.6 58.4 0.8 3.2 0.2

160+ 8.4 0.3 32.3 1.0 18.2 0.8 3.7 0.4 55.3 1.1 2.7 0.3

All ages 5.5 0.1 34.7 0.4 21.3 0.3 10.7 0.3 62.3 0.4 2.9 0.1

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.

a

Dry conifer includes the ponderosa, western white, and lodgepole pines, and western larch forest type groups. Wet conifer includes the Douglas-fir, fir/spruce/

mountain hemlock, hemlock/Sitka spruce, and nonstocked forest type groups. Dry hardwood includes the western oak, and other hardwoods forest type groups.

Wet hardwood includes the elm/ash/cottonwood, aspen/birch, and alder/maple forest type groups.
157

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 38—Estimated number of live trees with damage on forest land, by species and type of damage, Washington, 2002–2006

Number of live

Total number trees with Type of damage

of live treesa damageb Physical

Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root

Species Total SE Total SE Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather

Thousand trees

Softwoods:

Alaska yellow-cedar 104,948 24,250 39,901 11,301 1,243 — 15 — — — — 1,535 — 24,501 319 16,330Douglas-fir 1,942,876 62,122 426,031 18,835 20,493 7,249 18,441 32,797 59,056 — 6,090 11,895 1,971 227,250 105,910 13,610

Engelmann spruce 146,252 18,526 33,188 5,016 565 1,449 4,062 3,971 224 — 2,641 852 8,448 12,507 3,743 824Grand fir 404,828 39,055 118,789 16,300 497 2,113 2,060 21,933 2,183 — 897 2,665 8,663 55,790 47,675 2,455Knobcone pine 2,851 2,867 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Lodgepole pine 355,843 41,961 146,786 17,819 3,262 13,285 43,834 999 14,950 — 1,845 2,657 198 73,011 11,002 10,973Mountain hemlock 256,049 37,067 87,675 19,957 1,523 117 1,440 5,510 1,691 — — 5,073 — 49,769 2,382 30,382Noble fir 49,629 8,238 12,097 2,542 1,547 67 398 810 165 — 1,517 89 558 4,936 3,954 266Pacific silver fir 963,088 73,272 202,335 19,053 7,125 3,800 4,392 15,433 14,014 — 7,583 9,733 19,200 105,542 29,034 16,321Pacific yew 17,955 6,319 5,986 2,533 280 — — — — — — 46 — 5,706 — —Ponderosa pine 359,206 35,314 88,172 14,409 6,661 4,346 10,059 1,308 16,226 — 2,603 747 129 43,196 10,821 9,276Sitka spruce 41,243 7,281 3,378 740 77 — 282 18 — — — 359 69 2,867 5 19Subalpine fir 495,266 60,141 140,140 18,382 3,353 983 4,424 20,707 462 — 4,517 3,969 1,222 82,022 25,636 22,838Subalpine larch 25,877 11,039 5,293 3,087 — — — — 24 — — 205 — 5,134 — 491Western hemlock 1,603,572 88,787 283,956 18,439 6,342 1,745 6,700 2,193 58,883 — 2,051 13,192 540 159,646 65,016 11,019Western juniper 62 40 — — — — — — — — — — — —Western larch 124,327 13,255 44,860 6,362 453 1,507 4,020 568 10,478 — 2,425 3,714 23 20,575 10,410 134Western redcedar 690,731 74,010 127,648 25,946 6,582 588 1,507 927 554 — 102 14,028 122 77,540 38,650 6,020Western white pine 29,435 5,449 11,535 2,790 573 43 7,052 336 48 — — 88 — 4,319 2,689 93White fir 7,343 6,645 194 176 — — — — — — — 65 — 130 — —Whitebark pine 32,124 8,923 14,705 3,624 415 81 7,943 — — — — 92 — 7,637 — 3,106Unknown softwood 304 312 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Total softwoods 7,653,809 192,739 1,792,668 63,932 60,989 37,372 116,629 107,511 178,957 — 32,273 71,005 41,143 962,077 357,246 144,156
158

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 38—Estimated number of live trees with damage on forest land, by species and type of damage, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued) Number of live Total number trees with of live treesa damageb Type of damage Physical Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root Species Total SE Total SE Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather Thousand trees Hardwoods: Bigleaf maple 153,587 28,467 23,413 5,480 46 — 188 — — — — 1,757 — 17,666 4,742 330 Bitter cherry 83,886 20,961 10,860 3,810 — — 258 — — — — 163 — 9,284 1,612 — Black cottonwood 26,338 10,331 1,915 539 139 299 66 — — — — 330 — 1,340 130 23 Black walnut 5,058 3,613 2,645 1,911 — — — — — — — 89 — 2,645 — — Boxelder 281 273 281 273 226 — — — — — — 36 36 281 — — Chokecherry 6,843 3,607 882 920 — — — — — — — — — 882 — — Curlleaf mountain- mahogany 867 830 28 27 — — — — — — — — — 28 — —

Giant chinkapin 419 402 84 80 — — — — — — — — — 84 — —Oregon ash 9,597 4,736 2,540 1,192 — — — — — — — 581 — 2,116 — —Oregon crab apple 30,973 18,661 2,940 1,644 — — — — — — — 170 — 2,891 — —Oregon white oak 57,004 15,276 9,167 3,074 — — — — — — — 1,117 — 8,302 — 12Pacific dogwood 12,658 6,184 749 438 — — — — — — — — 693 80 —Pacific madrone 3,581 2,105 972 496 — — — — — — — 160 — 972 — —Paper birch 61,047 22,445 8,753 5,137 — — 47 1,991 — — — 458 — 6,280 375 282Quaking aspen 13,059 4,555 2,583 773 66 — 134 — — — — 539 — 2,081 359 66Red alder 553,999 48,257 68,648 9,482 7,417 93 196 635 — — 217 5,829 336 54,287 4,296 130Rocky mountain maple 98,856 23,828 9,688 3,658 23 — — — — — — 300 — 6,180 3,419 —Water birch 1,456 781 192 116 — — — — — — — — — 192 — —White alder 3,299 2,146 1,270 907 — — — — — — — 345 — 1,132 — —Willow spp. 43 33 43 33 — — — — — — — 24 — 43 19 —

Total hardwoods 1,122,852 83,062 147,655 15,664 7,917 392 889 2,626 — — 217 11,897 372 117,379 15,033 843

Unknown tree species 879 888 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total, all species 8,777,539 209,620 1,940,323 66,406 68,906 37,765 117,518 110,138 178,957 — 32,490 82,902 41,516 1,079,457 372,278 144,999

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 trees were estimated.a Includes live trees ≥1 inch diameter at breast height. bNumber of live trees ≥1 inch diameter at breast height with one or more types of damage recorded.
159

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 39—Estimated area of forest land with more than 25 percent of the tree basal area damaged, by forest type and type of damage, Washington, 2002–2006

Type of damage

Total forest Forest land Physical

land with damagea Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root

Forest type Total SE Total SE Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather

Thousand acres

Softwoods:

Alaska-yellow-cedar 83 30 61 26 — — — — — — 4 21 — 46 — 4Douglas-fir 8,448 222 3,661 161 75 92 34 191 683 — 32 106 15 1,977 697 44Engelman spruce/

subalpine fir 463 64 259 48 29 7 22 50 8 — 4 — 7 82 52 —

Engelmann spruce 157 39 74 23 — 3 3 7 4 — 14 5 9 42 9 —Grand fir 630 76 454 66 — 5 2 49 6 — 1 12 17 329 54 4Lodgepole pine 627 73 383 54 14 31 55 27 22 — — — — 245 24 8Misc. western softwoods 69 30 57 29 — — — 1 — — — — — 43 1 —Mountain hemlock 528 74 394 64 — — 22 3 9 — — 32 — 287 10 40Noble fir 138 35 69 24 3 — 1 16 — — — — 3 36 3 9Pacific silver fir 1,229 102 831 85 11 8 — 50 93 — 11 84 12 594 58 6Ponderosa pine 2,012 130 1,075 98 — 46 94 37 350 — 41 13 — 584 65 25Port-Orford-cedar 8 4 2 1 — 1 1 — — — — — — 2 1 —Sitka spruce 47 19 22 13 — — — — 5 — — — — — — —Subalpine fir 661 83 482 71 — 5 23 9 5 — — 8 — 374 46 89Western hemlock 2,527 145 1,286 101 18 — 14 7 337 — 29 157 — 810 92 6Western larch 316 45 218 38 4 20 34 8 36 — 4 23 — 84 40 —Western redcedar 644 79 344 56 1 1 32 — 19 — — 78 2 274 14 —Western white pine 11 7 8 6 4 — 4 4 4 — — — — 4 4 —Whitebark pine 109 38 95 36 — — 9 — — — — — — 44 — 9

Total softwoods 18,709 207 9,776 224 158 218 349 460 1,581 — 139 538 67 5,858 1,170 244
160

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 39—Estimated area of forest land with more than 25 percent of the tree basal area damaged, by forest type and type of damage, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued) Type of damage Total forest Forest land Physical land with damagea Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root Forest type Total SE Total SE Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather Thousand acres Hardwoods: Aspen 72 27 43 21 — — — — — — — 13 — 6 — — Bigleaf maple 418 65 146 38 — — — — — — — 6 — 126 10 3 Cottonwood 135 35 48 21 — — — — — — — 13 — 48 — — Cottonwood/willow 19 13 6 4 — — — — 1 — — — 4 4 — — Intermountain maple 114 37 35 18 — — — — — — — — — 15 9 — Oregon ash 25 16 22 15 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oregon white oak 124 36 25 15 — — — — — — — — — 25 — — Paper birch 57 25 48 23 — — — — — — — — — 23 — —

Red alder 1,413 111 482 69 9 — — 4 1 — — 58 7 389 7 16Other hardwoods 110 33 57 25 — — — — — — 11 — — 36 — —

Total hardwoods 2,488 142 911 92 9 — — 4 2 — 11 90 11 672 25 19

Nonstocked 264 48 164 38 3 15 23 — 36 — — — — 120 — 5Total 21,461 189 10,852 236 170 234 373 463 1,620 — 150 628 79 6,651 1,195 268

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 acres was estimated.a Acres of forest land with >25 percent of tree basal area with recorded damage.
161

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 40—Estimated gross volume of live trees with damage on forest land, by species and type of damage, Washington, 2002–2006

Type of damage

Total gross volume Gross volume of Physical

of live treesa trees with damageb Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root

Species Total S E Total S E Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather

Thousand cubic feet

Softwood:

Alaska yellow-cedar 578,738 132,591 284,433 73,537 15,633 — 2,310 — — — — 108,493 — 205,540 3,481 11,984Douglas-fir 32,314,033 1,083,383 8,697,468 365,253 221,964 203,230 201,716 528,153 1,243,298 — 48,767 653,140 22,411 5,354,931 1,817,166 138,107Engelmann spruce 1,907,902 266,510 555,965 91,889 18,880 42,718 30,178 58,503 8,519 — 48,494 22,793 17,390 231,542 148,615 7,932Grand fir 2,945,089 288,095 1,341,470 157,125 7,849 43,310 21,304 269,682 56,865 — 20,332 201,626 81,428 755,025 300,092 19,665

Lodgepole pine 2,061,641 221,410 881,325 95,115 21,335 110,143 177,397 3,125 53,293 — 17,279 27,616 2,374 551,601 87,546 40,979Mountain hemlock 2,862,085 373,374 1,236,042 187,617 16,634 3,061 31,229 27,097 79,781 — — 332,955 — 940,450 58,098 48,539Noble fir 998,751 237,080 369,680 86,567 4,571 3,529 3,789 28,293 17,360 — 21,940 30,666 3,877 263,828 46,493 707Pacific silver fir 10,607,701 745,258 4,417,858 399,287 163,013 100,901 99,925 219,343 590,564 — 45,990 972,512 114,593 2,756,541 363,348 106,908

Pacific yew 6,761 1,925 2,700 805 — — — — — — — 127 — 2,700 — —Ponderosa pine 3,707,620 230,663 1,299,162 120,048 6,653 70,861 61,187 3,930 275,574 — 101,474 63,555 4,646 878,735 57,719 18,856

Sitka spruce 903,778 173,909 173,227 46,435 6,923 — 4,591 1,565 — — — 33,138 447 141,394 10,432 151Subalpine fir 2,141,699 241,441 901,200 99,077 62,700 20,029 34,943 127,185 4,867 — 3,721 83,033 2,304 583,193 135,693 34,469

Subalpine larch 51,856 22,199 20,643 8,917 — — — — 630 — — 7,922 — 15,481 — 693Western hemlock 22,018,643 1,085,924 8,148,825 504,414 126,488 21,835 253,537 15,244 2,620,922 — 286,267 1,537,580 10,746 4,937,497 654,732 121,981Western juniper 461 392 — — — — — — — — — — — —Western larch 1,662,303 140,905 695,704 68,794 3,799 36,780 46,595 7,684 197,785 — 9,323 94,472 741 360,414 135,502 6,397

Western redcedar 6,621,765 564,439 2,798,057 337,000 83,404 9,250 169,262 111 6,012 — 14,323 1,147,142 12,927 2,262,717 108,317 30,360

Western white pine 167,216 28,960 94,224 20,563 4,672 197 23,724 6,978 5,408 — — 7,483 — 59,878 18,440 1,384

White fir 23,446 21,217 18,651 16,878 — — — — — — — 18,443 — 208 — —Whitebark pine 97,554 22,477 64,308 14,899 2,672 2,073 32,355 — — — 242 — 54,039 — 3,941

Total softwoods 91,679,041 1,843,574 32,000,942 922,012 767,189 667,915 1,194,042 1,296,894 5,160,878 — 617,908 5,342,941 273,883 20,355,714 3,945,672 593,051
162

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 40—Estimated gross volume of live trees with damage on forest land, by species and type of damage, Washington, 2002-2006 (continued) Type of damage Total gross volume Gross volume of Physical of live treesa trees with damageb Bark Dwarf Leafy Foliage Stem Other damage Root Species Total S E Total S E Animal beetles Cankers Defoliators mistletoe mistletoe diseases decay insects or defect disease Weather Thousand cubic feet Hardwoods: Bigleaf maple 1,526,476 202,623 529,218 102,237 15,931 — 16,172 — — — — 96,645 — 417,121 46,532 4,245 Bitter cherry 32,514 15,056 5,594 2,470 — — 2,036 — — — — 230 — 4,402 127 — Black cottonwood 764,271 168,592 157,249 50,148 4,206 — 7,581 — — — — 44,233 — 109,849 8,343 42 Black walnut 67,075 48,377 40,498 28,978 — — — — — — — 2,107 — 40,498 — — Boxelder 108 128 108 128 — — — — — — — 68 70 108 — — Chokecherry 2,121 1,796 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Curlleaf mountain- mahogany 451 432 158 151 — — — — — — — — — 158 — — Giant chinkapin 5,361 5,135 292 280 — — — — — — — — — 292 — — Oregon ash 148,977 77,731 42,448 26,618 — — — — — — — 24,630 — 20,916 — —

Oregon crab apple 1,597 1,219 1,170 1,175 — — — — — — — 1,080 — 756 — —Oregon white oak 127,547 36,246 42,229 14,500 — — — — — — — 13,811 — 28,718 — 2,212Pacific dogwood 1,306 428 377 242 — — — — — — — — — 258 184 —Pacific madrone 38,422 19,992 13,775 7,552 — — — — — — — 586 — 13,775 — —Paper birch 103,754 27,599 24,270 7,025 — — 476 — — — — 5,896 — 18,026 3,368 2,643Quaking aspen 146,720 42,443 53,121 18,413 237 — 1,545 — — — — 11,766 — 44,456 9,922 321Red alder 3,798,974 316,187 818,652 110,506 16,298 633 4,711 16,360 — — 6,403 194,876 20,465 677,510 30,207 2,815

Rocky mountain maple 50,873 8,538 13,429 3,522 67 — — — — — — 4,143 — 10,804 837 —Water birch 2,549 1,569 800 462 — — — — — — — — — 800 — —White alder 15,218 6,358 7,627 4,242 — — — — — — — 1,123 — 7,251 — —Willow spp. 43 51 43 51 — — — — — — — — — 43 43 —

Total hardwoods 6,834,357 468,814 1,751,061 175,269 36,739 633 32,522 16,360 — — 6,403 401,193 20,535 1,395,742 99,564 12,278

Total, all species 98,513,398 1,916,601 33,752,003 940,977 803,928 668,548 1,226,564 1,313,254 5,160,878 — 624,312 5,744,134 294,418 21,751,456 4,045,235 605,330

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500 cubic feet were estimated.a Includes gross volume of live trees ≥5 inches diameter at breast height. b Includes gross volume of live trees ≥5 inches diameter at breast height with one or more damages recorded. Gross volume (vs net volume) was used in order to capture rotten, missing, and form cull volume as netvolume would not include this volume. Because a number of damages result in rotten cull or are the result of form cull, we wanted to present an accurate proportion of damaged volume (including cull volume) to totalvolume. Ideally, we would separate out missing cull volume but did not do so for these tables.
163

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 41—Estimated damage to live trees, by geographic region and broad owner group, Washington,

2002–2006

Number of live trees Acres of forest land Gross volume of live

with damagea with damageb trees with damagec

Geographic region

and broad owner group Total SE Total SE Total SE

– Thousand trees – – Thousand acres – – Thousand cubic feet –

Puget Sound:

Public 316,441 27,218 1,686 111 8,161,052 634,301

Private 130,056 18,497 676 76 1,795,118 214,969

Total 446,497 32,590 2,361 132 9,956,170 661,925

Olympic Peninsula:

Public 202,845 22,054 1,098 77 6,976,823 504,775

Private 65,311 7,485 437 64 1,129,200 177,975

Total 268,156 23,179 1,535 100 8,106,024 533,607

Southwest:

Public 233,476 23,970 976 71 4,703,665 348,165

Private 53,850 7,636 290 53 743,300 89,642

Total 287,326 25,127 1,267 88 5,446,965 358,585

Central:

Public 420,504 24,940 2,563 113 5,234,707 317,615

Private 130,262 22,178 891 83 1,344,075 177,842

Total 550,766 33,265 3,454 139 6,578,782 363,033

Inland Empire:

Public 280,166 34,218 1,271 69 2,562,076 155,602

Private 107,411 14,936 965 87 1,101,987 112,576

Total 387,577 37,315 2,235 111 3,664,062 191,686

Total, Washington:

Public 1,453,433 57,291 7,594 175 27,638,323 878,511

Private 486,890 34,182 3,258 164 6,113,680 359,053

Total 1,940,323 66,406 10,852 236 33,752,003 940,977

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.

a

 Number of live trees ≥1 inch diameter at breast height. b

 Number of forest land acres with ≥25 percent of the basal area damaged. c

 Gross volume of live trees ≥5 inches diameter at breast height. Gross volume (vs. net volume) was used in order to capture rotten, missing, and form

cull volume as net volume would not include this volume. Because a number of damages result in rotten cull or are the result of form cull, we wanted

to present an accurate proportion of damaged volume (including cull volume) to total volume. Ideally, we would separate out missing cull volume but

did not do so for these tables.
164

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 42—Estimated area of forest land covered by selected nonnative vascular plant species and

number of sample plots,a by life form and species, Washington, 2002–2006

Area covered Number

Plant Scientific name Common name Total SE of plots

 – – – Acres – – –

Shrubs

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom 28,500 10,000 33

Hedera helix English ivy 4,600 3,500 4

Ilex aquifolium English holly 2,900 700 30

Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry 72,900 13,300 101

Rubus laciniatus Cutleaf blackberry 22,200 5,500 50

Forbs

Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed 1,700 900 10

Centaurea diffusa White knapweed 3,300 2,500 6

Cirsium Thistle 7,300 2,200 46

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 24,900 9,300 48

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 8,800 3,600 49

Digitalis purpurea Purple foxglove 16,800 3,300 72

Hypericum perforatum Common St. Johnswort 19,100 3,700 77

Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cat’s ear 19,700 8,700 39

Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy 3,700 2,400 12

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax 1,300 500 15

Mycelis muralis Wall-lettuce 7,100 3,900 26

Senecio jacobaea Stinking willie 5,100 2,200 24

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein 2300 800 26

Grasses

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass 133,100 19,000 152

Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass 7,800 3,500 31

Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass 40,000 11,500 38

Note: Estimates are likely low for most grasses and some forbs because of short flowering seasons and difficulty of species identification;

data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.

a

 Total number of sample plots was 2,978 (1,884 base grid).
165

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 44—Forest Inventory and Analysis plots sampled for lichen community, climate index information, western

Pacific Northwest (PNW) and western Washington, 1998–2001, 2003

Oregon and

Western Western Northern Washington Puget Western

Parameter PNW Washington Cascades Coast Ranges Trough Cascades

Number of plots surveyeda 243 103 19 37 18 29

Number of plots by climate

index category:b

Maritime

(warmest): -1.4 to -0.25 73 32 2 24 8 7

Lowland: -0.25 to 0.23 54 29 2 7 10 6

Montane: 0.23 to 0.66 57 38 7 4 0 8

High elevation

(coolest): 0.66 to 1.73 59 41 8 2 0 8

Climate index extremes -1.41 -1.41 0.57 -1.41 -0.79 -1.08

to 1.73 to 1.15 to 1.15 to 1.00 to 0.18 to 1.05

Average score on climate index 0.14 -0.03 0.49 -0.36 -0.24 0.2

Standard deviation on climate

index 0.64 0.6 0.44 0.55 0.31 0.57

a

Plot totals do not include quality assurance surveys or plots without lichens present.

b

Categories are based on the analysis of Geiser and Neitlich (2007).

Table 43—Forest Inventory and Analysis plots sampled for lichen community, air quality index information,

western Pacific Northwest (PNW) and western Washington, 1998–2001, 2003

Oregon and

Western Western Northern Washington Puget Western

Parameter PNW Washington Cascades Coast Ranges Trough Cascades

Number of plots surveyeda 243 103 19 37 18 29

Number of plots by air quality

index category:b

Best: -1.4 to -0.11 111 46 12 21 1 12

Good: -0.11 to 0.02 26 10 0 5 1 4

Fair: 0.02 to 0.21 40 17 2 6 5 4

Degraded: 0.21 to 0.35 21 8 2 3 0 3

Poor: 0.35 to 0.49 13 5 1 0 2 2

Worst: 0.49 to 2.00 32 17 2 2 9 4

Air quality score extremes -1.28 -1.22 -1.08 -1.22 -0.73 -1.07

to 1.59 to 1.59 to 1.23 to 1.59 to 1.49 to 0.81

Average score on air quality

index -0.06 -0.07 -0.28 -0.23 0.38 -0.02

Standard deviation on air

quality index 0.49 0.56 0.63 0.52 0.46 0.45

a

 Plot totals do not include quality assurance surveys or plots without lichens present.

b

 Categories are based on the analysis of Geiser and Neitlich (2007).
166

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 45—Ozone injury by year, Washington, 2002–2006

Ozone biomonitoring plots 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 All years

Number of plots 28 27 30 32 28 32 32 209

Number of plots with injury 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5

Biosite index categorya

(percentage of plots):

0 to 4.9 (least injured) 96.4 96.3 100 96.9 96.4 96.9 100 97.6

5.0 to 14.9 0 3.7 0 0 3.6 0 0 1.0

15 to 24.9 3.6 0 0 3.1 0 3.1 0 1.4

≥25 (most injured) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Average biosite index score 0.6 0.3 0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0 0.3

Average number of species per plot 1.8 2 2.6 3.1 3.3 2.8 2.9 2.6

Number of plants evaluated 1,281 1,250 2,072 2,693 2,497 2,490 2,510 14,793

Number of plants injured 7 6 0 4 4 5 0 26

Number of plants evaluated by species:

Blue elderberry 0 0 37 120 103 57 23 340

Jeffrey pine 26 30 55 58 56 60 90 375

Ninebark 90 85 104 108 111 90 90 678

Ponderosa pine 193 196 300 360 330 300 300 1,979

Quaking aspen 90 90 157 157 190 190 174 1,048

Red alder 205 228 337 525 429 461 431 2,616

Red elderberry 214 150 297 242 260 268 240 1671

Scouler’s willow 185 207 395 451 461 439 436 2,574

Snowberry 146 130 180 346 313 360 360 1,835

Thinleaf huckleberry 132 134 210 326 244 265 281 1,592

Biosite index categoryb

(percentage of forest land):

0 to 4.9 (least injured) — — — — — 100 — —

5.0 to 14.9 — — — — — 0 — —

15 to 24.9 — — — — — 0 — —

≥25 (most injured) — — — — — 0 — —

Note: — = data not available.

a

The biosite index is based on the average injury score (amount x severity) for each species averaged across all species on the plot. Biosite categories represent a

relative measure of tree-level response to ambient ozone exposure.

b

Percentage of forest land is estimated after interpolating the biosite values, 2000–2005, to generate a biological response surface across the landscape. The

distribution of forest land among biosite index categories is not expected to change with the addition of 2006 data.
167

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 46—Forest land area on which evidence of fire was observed, by year and geographic location,

Washington, 1998–2005

West of the Cascades East of the Cascades Total

Year Total SE Total SE Total SE

Acres

Land with fire

evidence:

1998 98,050 72,869 — — 98,050 72,869

1999 — — 34,669 18,821 34,669 18,821

2000 — — 38,269 24,480 38,269 24,480

2001 20,600 18,356 131,290 41,619 151,890 45,487

2002 — — 94,675 25,611 94,675 25,611

2003 — — 154,685 57,715 154,685 57,715

2004 — — 91,687 29,515 91,687 29,515

2005 — — 23,934 21,978 23,934 21,978

Average 14,831 9,227 71,151 11,055 85,982 14,400

All forest land 12,118,208 157,400 9,901,553 156,646 22,019,761 171,944

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 0.5 acre was estimated.
168

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 47—Percentage of forest land area by owner group, survey unit, and fire type, and the total forest land area by owner group and survey unit, Washington, 2002–2006 Owner group and Surface fire Conditional fire Passive fire Active fire Forest land area survey unit Percenta SE Percenta SE Percenta SE Percenta SE Mean SE – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Thousand acres USDA Forest Service: Puget Sound 17.07 2.49 7.42 1.95 29.87 3.09 45.64 3.42 1,713 89 Olympic Peninsula 20.33 3.48 8.26 2.28 29.69 3.85 41.72 4.63 576 31 Southwest 14.26 1.90 5.45 1.26 40.79 3.25 39.50 3.25 1,294 59 Central 36.51 2.16 13.30 1.62 30.63 2.16 19.57 2.16 3,431 105 Inland Empire 48.28 2.98 12.33 1.94 24.99 2.54 14.40 2.28 1,544 59 All Washington 30.29 1.19 10.42 0.88 30.93 1.29 28.36 1.31 8,558 84

Other federal:

Puget Sound 11.05 4.75 9.41 5.10 54.79 7.63 24.75 7.35 415 59Olympic Peninsula 19.82 5.28 10.75 4.24 35.69 6.32 33.74 6.35 709 54Southwest 23.52 14.51 15.94 15.17 60.54 18.05 0.00 0.00 68 28Central 49.53 17.14 19.58 13.42 30.89 16.47 0.00 0.00 96 32Inland Empire 62.61 16.50 12.94 13.12 15.46 11.03 8.98 9.28 90 29All Washington 22.23 3.73 11.36 3.06 41.02 4.41 25.40 4.08 1,378 95

State and local

government:Puget Sound 30.31 5.81 17.32 4.94 26.08 5.56 26.29 5.74 775 82Olympic Peninsula 32.65 6.18 12.82 4.60 34.61 6.29 19.92 5.31 697 79Southwest 44.08 7.17 12.73 4.97 32.27 6.82 10.91 4.62 587 63Central 40.72 7.07 18.46 5.92 39.05 7.20 1.77 2.04 566 57Inland Empire 78.88 8.16 7.86 5.68 13.25 6.71 0.00 0.00 297 48All Washington 40.58 3.11 14.58 2.35 30.57 2.97 14.26 2.29 2,921 133
169

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 47—Percentage of forest land area by owner group, survey unit, and fire type, and the total forest land area by owner groupand survey unit, Washington, 2002–2006 (continued)Owner group and Surface fire Conditional fire Passive fire Active fire Forest land area

survey unit Percenta SE Percenta SE Percenta SE Percenta SE Mean SE

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Thousand acres

Corporate:

Puget Sound 32.00 5.12 0.00 0.00 34.33 5.24 33.67 5.51 887 80

Olympic Peninsula 22.90 3.84 9.48 2.85 48.95 4.85 18.68 3.89 1,227 87Southwest 34.19 4.25 14.14 3.28 31.88 4.07 19.78 3.72 1,445 77Central 49.82 6.69 10.10 4.13 34.49 6.41 5.60 3.17 663 80Inland Empire 52.53 7.24 4.08 2.86 32.14 6.70 11.25 4.56 574 76All Washington 35.25 2.31 8.57 1.41 37.09 2.34 19.08 1.98 4,797 175

Noncorporate private:

Puget Sound 49.78 6.02 1.71 1.75 35.50 5.82 13.01 4.26 732 77

Olympic Peninsula 34.78 5.98 9.57 3.86 39.39 6.18 16.26 4.83 727 80Southwest 47.64 7.04 0.00 0.00 47.21 7.00 5.14 3.30 531 69Central 46.25 4.84 5.76 2.34 39.12 4.72 8.88 2.85 1,260 88Inland Empire 64.72 4.25 4.99 1.93 28.43 3.96 1.87 1.22 1,540 92All Washington 51.14 2.43 4.83 1.09 36.06 2.34 7.96 1.37 4,789 181

All owners:

Puget Sound 27.01 2.04 6.92 1.25 33.30 2.19 32.78 2.20 4,522 125

Olympic Peninsula 25.89 2.24 10.14 1.63 39.44 2.56 24.54 2.24 3,935 84Southwest 30.73 2.28 9.18 1.53 37.45 2.36 22.63 1.96 3,924 96Central 40.62 1.91 11.95 1.29 33.63 1.88 13.80 1.46 6,016 140Inland Empire 57.70 2.39 8.05 1.23 26.24 2.13 8.00 1.24 4,046 101All Washington 36.64 0.97 9.43 0.62 33.92 0.98 20.01 0.81 22,443 175

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.a Percentage of forest land area within the owner class that is likely to experience each type of fire.
170

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Table 48—Estimated ratio of periodic mortality and removals volume to growth volume

of growing stock on non-national-forest timberland, by location, species group, and owner

group, Washington, 1990–1991 to 2000–2001

State, local and Corporate Noncorporate

Location and other federal private private All owners

species group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Ratio

Eastern Washington:

Softwood 0.596 0.135 1.806 0.307 1.114 0.111 1.176 0.098

Hardwood 0.841 0.617 0.669 0.321 0.603 0.290 0.652 0.236

Total 0.602 0.134 1.788 0.303 1.099 0.110 1.163 0.097

Western Washington:

Softwood 0.439 0.104 1.184 0.114 1.162 0.211 0.983 0.080

Hardwood 0.765 0.244 1.470 0.275 1.247 0.195 1.218 0.139

Total 0.480 0.103 1.212 0.109 1.187 0.170 1.018 0.074

All Washington:

Softwood 0.462 0.091 1.241 0.107 1.141 0.127 1.021 0.067

Hardwood 0.767 0.238 1.458 0.271 1.209 0.184 1.197 0.134

Total 0.497 0.091 1.261 0.103 1.154 0.114 1.043 0.063

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.
171

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 49—Estimated periodic gross cubic-foot growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on non-national-forest timberland, by location, species group,and owner group, Washington, 1990–1991 to 2000–2001

State, local and other federal Corporate private

Periodic gross Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic

Location and growth mortality removals Net change gross growth mortality removals Net change

species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Eastern Washington:

Softwood 591 65 -179 42 -173 59 239 90 724 104 -128 31 -1,179 237 -584 211

Hardwood 14 7 -12 7 — — 2 9 12 5 -2 2 -6 4 4 4

Total 605 65 -191 43 -173 59 241 90 736 107 -130 32 -1,185 239 -580 212

Western Washington:

Softwood 3,361 211 -512 84 -962 362 1,887 360 7,119 335 -300 62 -8,126 938 -1,308 819

Hardwood 493 79 -210 72 -168 96 116 125 779 97 -253 67 -892 219 -366 209

Total 3,854 207 -722 108 -1,129 401 2,003 406 7,898 331 -553 97 -9,018 977 -1,674 869

All Washington:

Softwood 3,952 221 -691 94 -1,134 367 2,126 371 7,843 351 -428 70 -9,306 968 -1,891 846

Hardwood 507 79 -221 73 -168 96 118 125 791 97 -255 67 -898 219 -362 209

Total 4,459 217 -913 116 -1,302 405 2,244 416 8,633 348 -683 102 -10,204 1,006 -2,254 895
172

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 49—Estimated periodic gross cubic-foot growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on non-national-forest timberland, by location, species group, and owner group, Washington, 1990–1991 to 2000–2001 (continued) Noncorporate private All others Periodic gross Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Location and growth mortality removals Net change gross growth mortality removals Net change species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million cubic feet Eastern Washington: Softwood 1,824 99 -407 53 -1,626 221 -208 202 3,139 143 -714 74 -2,978 321 -554 305 Hardwood 57 27 -28 12 -7 5 23 25 83 29 -41 14 -13 7 29 27 Total 1,881 102 -435 54 -1,632 221 -186 206 3,222 146 -756 75 -2,991 322 -525 308

Western Washington:

Softwood 2,255 199 -228 52 -2,392 535 -365 478 12,734 431 -1,040 116 -11,479 1,138 214 1,014

Hardwood 921 107 -312 59 -836 163 -227 170 2,193 161 -774 115 -1,896 288 -478 296

Total 3,175 223 -540 80 -3,228 590 -592 540 14,927 428 -1,815 163 -13,375 1,207 -263 1,100

All Washington:

Softwood 4,079 222 -635 74 -4,017 578 -574 519 15,873 454 -1,755 138 -14,457 1,182 -339 1,059

Hardwood 978 110 -339 60 -843 163 -204 172 2,275 163 -816 116 -1,909 288 -449 297

Total 5,057 245 -974 97 -4,860 630 -778 578 18,149 452 -2,571 180 -16,366 1,249 -788 1,143

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 cubic feet was estimated.
173

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 50—Estimated periodic gross board-foot growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on non-national-forest timberland, by location, speciesgroup, and owner group, Washington, 1990–1991 to 2000–2001

State, local and other federal Corporate private

Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic

Location and gross growth mortality removals Net change gross growth mortality removals Net changespecies group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million board feet (Scribner)

Eastern Washington:

Softwood 2,880 349 -656 152 -718 249 1,506 401 3,560 532 -364 104 -5,592 1,133 -2,397 960

Hardwood 56 28 -43 32 — — 13 33 5 4 — — — — 5 4

Total 2,936 349 -698 156 -718 249 1,520 407 3,565 532 -364 104 -5,592 1,133 -2,392 960

Western Washington:

Softwood 15,017 1,067 -1,513 326 -4,435 1,778 9,069 1,635 30,473 1,833 -998 261 -36,889 4,363 -7,414 3,537Hardwood 2,008 410 -502 234 -563 350 944 488 3,188 503 -524 259 -3,478 837 -815 805

Total 17,026 1,075 -2,015 396 -4,997 1,912 10,013 1,787 33,661 1,843 -1,522 385 -40,367 4,500 -8,229 3,731

All Washington:

Softwood 17,897 1,123 -2,169 359 -5,153 1,795 10,575 1,684 34,033 1,908 -1,362 281 -42,482 4,508 -9,811 3,665Hardwood 2,064 411 -545 237 -563 350 957 490 3,192 503 -524 259 -3,478 837 -810 805

Total 19,961 1,131 -2,714 426 -5,715 1,928 11,533 1,833 37,226 1,918 -1,886 399 -45,960 4,640 -10,620 3,853
174

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 50—Estimated periodic gross board-foot growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on non-national-forest timberland, by location, species group, and group class, Washington, 1990–1991 to 2000–2001 (continued) Noncorporate private All owners Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic Location and gross growth mortality removals Net change gross growth mortality removals Net change species group Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million board feet (Scribner) Eastern Washington: Softwood 9,268 555 -1,451 225 -7,725 1,136 92 1,040 15,707 774 -2,471 288 -14,035 1,590 -798 1,472 Hardwood 160 81 -24 19 -15 17 121 67 220 86 -66 37 -15 17 139 75 Total 9,427 554 -1,474 225 -7,740 1,137 213 1,043 15,928 773 -2,537 290 -14,050 1,591 -659 1,475

Western Washington:

Softwood 9,996 1,003 -790 211 -11,388 2,710 -2,182 2,289 55,487 2,296 -3,301 466 -52,712 5,432 -527 4,517

Hardwood 4,201 543 -802 201 -3,409 703 -10 708 9,397 830 -1,829 403 -7,449 1,144 119 1,175

Total 14,197 1,136 -1,592 291 -14,797 2,945 -2,192 2,538 64,884 2,335 -5,130 618 -60,162 5,698 -407 4,849

All Washington:

Softwood 19,264 1,146 -2,241 309 -19,113 2,939 -2,090 2,515 71,194 2,423 -5,772 547 -66,747 5,660 -1,325 4,751

Hardwood 4,361 549 -826 202 -3,424 703 111 711 9,618 834 -1,895 405 -7,464 1,144 259 1,177

Total 23,625 1,264 -3,067 368 -22,537 3,157 -1,979 2,744 80,812 2,460 -7,667 683 -74,211 5,916 -1,066 5,068

Note: Totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error; — = less than 500,000 board feet was estimated.
175

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 51—Estimated periodic gross cubic-foot growth, mortality, and removals of growing stock on national forest land, by location, type offorest land, and reserved status, Washington, 1993–1997 to 1999–2006

Unreserved forests Reserved forests

All forest

Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total land

Location Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE

Million cubic feet

Eastern Washington:

Growth 1,420 33 28 5 1,448 32 384 35 64 12 448 33 1,897 46Mortality 860 50 14 4 874 50 436 64 42 12 478 64 1,351 81Harvest 141 27 1 1 142 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 27

Net change 419 60 13 4 432 60 -52 67 22 12 -30 68 403 91

Western Washington:

Growth 2,141 60 53 12 2,194 59 473 40 63 16 535 40 2,729 70Mortality 736 46 20 6 755 46 334 95 30 14 363 95 1,119 106Harvest 119 35 2 1 120 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 35

Net change 1,287 76 31 12 1,318 76 139 100 33 19 172 101 1,490 127

All Washington:

Growth 3,561 68 81 13 3,642 67 856 53 127 20 984 52 4,626 83Mortality 1,596 68 33 7 1,629 68 769 115 72 18 841 115 2,470 133Harvest 260 44 3 2 263 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 44

Net change 1,706 97 45 12 1,750 97 87 120 55 23 142 122 1,893 156

Note: Mean remeasurement period was 8 years; totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.a

Forest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.

bForest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
176

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 52—Estimated periodic gross board-foot growth, mortality, and removals of sawtimber on national forest land, by location, type of forest land, and reserved status, Washington, 1993–1997 to 1999–2006 Unreserved forests Reserved forests All forest Timberlanda Other forestb Total Productivea Other forestb Total land Location Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Total SE Million board feet (Scribner) Eastern Washington: Growth 6,530 171 125 22 6,656 169 1,797 183 300 63 2,097 181 8,752 247 Mortality 3,491 233 51 16 3,542 233 1,998 295 168 51 2,166 296 5,708 377 Harvest 498 107 6 6 504 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 504 107 Net change 2,541 277 68 20 2,609 277 -202 294 133 60 -69 299 2,540 408

Western Washington:

Growth 9,098 283 193 48 9,291 280 2,213 202 229 66 2,442 203 11,733 339Mortality 3,360 244 79 25 3,440 244 1,473 407 95 57 1,567 409 5,007 475Harvest 479 137 9 7 488 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 488 137

Net change 5,259 353 105 46 5,364 354 741 433 134 83 875 440 6,239 563

All Washington:

Growth 15,629 330 318 53 15,947 327 4,010 273 529 91 4,539 272 20,486 419Mortality 6,851 337 130 30 6,982 337 3,471 503 262 77 3,733 505 10,715 606Harvest 977 173 15 10 992 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 992 174

Net change 7,800 448 173 51 7,973 449 539 523 267 102 806 532 8,779 695

Note: Mean remeasurement period was 8 years; totals may be off because of rounding; data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.aForest land that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.bForest land that is not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet/acre/year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment.
177

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 53—Total roundwood output by product, species group, and source of material,

Washington, 2004

Product and species group Sawtimber Poletimber Other sources All sources

Thousand cubic feet

Saw logs:

Softwoods 713,855 2,647 34,312 750,814

Hardwoods 35,749 133 373 36,255

Total 749,604 2,779 34,685 787,068

Veneer logs:

Softwoods 58,252 216 1,356 59,825

Hardwoods 3,078 11 32 3,121

Total 61,331 227 1,388 62,946

Pulpwood:a

Softwoods 72,323 268 741 73,333

Hardwoods 22,034 82 226 22,342

Total 94,358 350 967 95,675

Poles and posts:

Softwoods 3,963 551 46 4,561

Hardwoods — — — —

Total 3,963 551 46 4,561

Other miscellaneous:

Softwoods 2,239 8 57 2,304

Hardwoods — — — —

Total 2,239 8 57 2,304

Total industrial products:

Softwoods 850,632 3,691 36,513 890,836

Hardwoods 60,861 226 631 61,718

Total 911,494 3,916 37,144 952,554

Fuelwood:

Softwoods — — 98,404 98,404

Hardwoods — — 5,821 5,821

Total — — 104,225 104,225

All products:

Softwoods 850,632 3,691 134,917 989,240

Hardwoods 60,861 226 6,452 67,539

Total 911,494 3,916 141,369 1,056,779

Note: Data subject to sampling error; excludes removals from precommercial thinnings; — = less than 500 cubic feet found.

a

Pulpwood includes timber chipped for a variety of industrial uses, including pulp, paper, and composite panels.
178

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800 Table 54—Volume of timber removals by type of removal, source of material, and species group, Washington, 2004 Growing stock Other sources All sources Removal type Softwoods Hardwoods Total Softwoods Hardwoods Total Softwoods Hardwoods Total Thousand cubic feet Roundwood products: Saw logs 716,502 35,881 752,383 34,312 373 34,685 750,814 36,255 787,068 Veneer logs 58,468 3090 61,558 1,356 32 1,388 59,825 3121 62,946 Pulpwood 72,592 22,116 94,708 741 226 967 73,333 22,342 95,675 Fuelwood — — — 98,404 5,821 104,225 98,404 5,821 104,225 Posts, poles, and pilings 4,514 — 4,514 46 — 46 4,561 — 4,561 Miscellaneous products 2,247 — 2,247 57 — 57 2,304 — 2,304 Total 854,323 61,087 915,410 134,917 6,452 141,369 989,240 67,539 1,056,779

Logging residues 53,112 3,798 56,910 203,417 16,470 219,887 256,529 20,268 276,797Total all removals 907,435 64,885 972,320 338,334 22,922 361,256 1,245,769 87,807 1,333,576

Note: Data subject to sampling error; excludes removals from precommercial thinnings; — = less than 500 cubic feet found.
179

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

Table 55—Estimated area of forest land covered by vascular plant nontimber forest

products, by plant group and species, Washington, 2002–2006

Plant group and scientific name Common name Total SE

Acres

Tree seedlings and saplings:

Abies procera Noble fir 4,900 900

Crataegus Hawthorn 11,900 3,200

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir 158,200 8,500

Taxus brevifolia Pacific yew 9,700 2,000

Thuja plicata Western redcedar 87,600 7,100

Shrubs:

Acer circinatum Vine maple 725,200 41,500

Arctostaphylos nevadensis Pinemat manzanita 33,400 5,000

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick 98,000 9,400

Ceanothus velutinus Snowbrush ceanothus 83,100 10,900

Chimaphila umbellata Pipsissewa 52,500 4,900

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom 28,500 10,000

Frangula purshiana Pursh’s buckthorn 154,800 16,500

Frangula purshiana Pursh’s buckthorn 7,000 6,200

Gaultheria shallon Salal 842,100 51,900

Mahonia aquifolium Hollyleaved barberry 30,100 5,500

Mahonia nervosa Cascade barberry 411,100 26,700

Mahonia repens Creeping barberry 9,200 2,600

Oplopanax horridus Devilsclub 68,800 9,300

Paxistima myrsinites Oregon boxleaf 146,900 11,300

Ribes Currant 63,700 6,100

Rosa Rose 116,800 6,700

Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry 126,000 12,100

Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry 602,500 40,500

Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry 77,500 12,500

Vaccinium membranaceum Thinleaf huckleberry 355,900 26,100

Vaccinium ovalifolium Oval-leaf blueberry 353,000 30,000

Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry 164,300 10,500

Herbs:

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow 63,900 4,500

Anaphalis margaritacea Western pearly everlasting 15,800 2,300

Arnica cordifolia Heartleaf arnica 58,100 6,200

Arnica latifolia Broadleaf arnica 23,600 4,200

Asarum caudatum British Columbia wildginger 6,000 1,200

Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort 19,100 3,700

Polystichum munitum Western swordfern 1,139,100 53,000

Pteridium aquilinum Western brackenfern 257,900 20,900

Trillium ovatum Pacific trillium 5,000 600

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle 16,900 3,800

Valeriana sitchensis Sitka valerian 29,400 5,800

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein 2,300 800

Xerophyllum tenax Common beargrass 93,600 11,800

Note: Data subject to sampling error; SE = standard error.
180

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

Glossary

abiotic—Pertaining to nonliving factors such as

temperature, moisture, and wind (Goheen and Willhite

2006).

aerial photography—Imagery acquired from an aerial

platform (typically aircraft or helicopter) by means of a

specialized large-format camera with well-defined optical

characteristics. The geometry of the aircraft orientation

at the time of image acquisition is also recorded. The

resultant photograph will be of known scale, positional

accuracy, and precision. Aerial photography for natural

resource use is usually either natural color or colorinfrared, and is film based or acquired using digital

electronic sensors. 

air quality index—Value or set of values derived from a

multivariate model that examines the composition of

lichen communities at each plot to provide a relative

estimate of air quality.

anthropogenic—Of human origin or influence

(Helms 1998).

aspect—Compass direction that a slope faces.

basal area—The cross-sectional area of a tree’s trunk.

biodiversity—Variety and variability among living

organisms and the ecological complexes in which they

occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different

items and their relative frequencies. http://www.epa.gov/

OCEPAterms/bterms.html. (21 March 2008).

bioenergy—Renewable energy made available from

materials derived from biological sources. http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy. (21 March 2008).

biomass—The aboveground weight of wood and bark in

live trees 1.0 inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and

larger from the ground to the tip of the tree, excluding all

foliage. The weight of wood and bark in lateral limbs,

secondary limbs, and twigs under 0.5 inch in diameter at

the point of occurrence on sapling-size trees is included

in the measure, but on poletimber- and sawtimber-sized

trees, this material is excluded. Biomass is typically

expressed as green or oven-dry weight in tons (USDA

Forest Service 2006). 

biosite index, ozone—A value calculated from the

amount and severity of ozone injury at a site (biosite) that

reflects local air quality and plant response and therefore

potential risk of ozone impact in the area represented by

that biosite (Campbell et al. 2007).

biotic—Pertaining to living organisms and their

ecological and physiological relations (Helms 1998).

board foot—A volume measure of lumber 1 foot wide, 1

foot long, and 1 inch thick (12 in by 12 in by 1 in = 144

cubic inches). http://www.ccffa-oswa.org/B.html. (21

March 2008).

bole—Trunk or main stem of a tree. (USDA Forest Service

2006)

carbon mass—The estimated weight of carbon stored

within wood tissues. On average, carbon mass values are

about half of biomass values for trees, and are

summarized as thousand tons or mean tons per acre.

carbon sequestration—Incorporation of carbon dioxide

into permanent plant tissues (Helms 1998).

climate index—A value or set of values derived from a

multivariate model that examines the composition of

lichen communities at each plot that provides a relative

estimate of air quality.
181

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

coarse woody material—Down dead tree and shrub

boles, large limbs, and other woody pieces that are

severed from their original source of growth. Coarse

woody material also includes dead trees that are

supported by roots, severed from roots, or uprooted, and

leaning >45 degrees from vertical (USDA Forest Service

2006).

corporate forest land—An ownership class of private

forest lands owned by a company, corporation, legal

partnership, investment firm, bank, timberland investment

management organization (TIMO), or real-estate

investment trust (REIT). 

crook—Abrupt bend in a tree or log (Helms 1998).

crown—The part of a tree or woody plant bearing live

branches or foliage (Helms 1998).

crown density—The amount of crown stem, branches,

twigs, shoots, buds, foliage, and reproductive structures

that block light penetration through the visible crown.

Dead branches and dead tops are part of the crown. Live

and dead branches below the live crown base are

excluded. Broken or missing tops are visually

reconstructed when forming this crown outline by

comparing outlines of adjacent healthy trees of the same

species and ratio of diameter breast height to diameter at

root collar (USDA Forest Service 2006).

crown dieback—Recent mortality of branches with fine

twigs, which begins at the terminal portion of a branch

and proceeds toward the trunk. Dieback is only

considered when it occurs in the upper and outer portions

of the tree (USDA Forest Service 2006).

crown fire—Fire that spreads across the tops of trees or

shrubs more or less independently of a surface fire. Crown

fires are sometimes classed as running (independent or

active) or dependent (passive) to distinguish the degree of

independence from the surface fire (Helms 1998).

current gross annual growth—The total growth of a

given stand of trees, within a defined area, over the period

of 1 year.

cyanolichens—Lichen species containing cyanobacteria,

which fixes atmospheric nitrogen into a form that plants

can use. 

damage—Damage to trees caused by biotic agents such

as insects, diseases, and animals or abiotic agents such as

weather, fire, or mechanical equipment.

defoliation—Premature removal of foliage (Goheen and

Willhite 2006).

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)—The diameter of a

tree stem, located at 4.5 feet above the ground (breast

height) on the uphill side of a tree. The point of diameter

measurement may vary on abnormally formed trees

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

diameter at root collar (d.r.c.)—The diameter of a tree

(usually a woodland species), measured outside of the

bark at the ground line or stem root collar (USDA Forest

Service 2006).

dieback—Progressive dying from the extremity of any

part of the plant. Dieback may or may not result in death

of the entire plant (Helms 1998). 

disturbance—Any relatively discrete event in time that

disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure

and changes resources, substrate availability, or the

physical environment (Helms 1998). 

down woody material (DWM)—Dead material on the

ground in various stages of decay, including coarse and

fine woody material. Previously named down woody

debris (DWD). The DWM indicator for Forest Inventory

and Analysis includes measurements of depth of duff

layer, litter layer, and overall fuelbed; fuel loading on the

microplot; and residue piles (USDA Forest Service 2006).
182

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

ecological region—A top-level scale in a hierarchical

classification of ecological units subdivided on the basis

of global, continental, and regional climatic regimes and

broad physiography. Ecological regions (ecoregions) are

further subdivided into domains, divisions, and provinces. The next level down in the hierarchy, subregion,

is divided into ecological sections (ecosections) and

subsections (Cleland et al. 1997). 

ecosection—A level in a hierarchical classification of

ecological units for a geographic area delineated on the

basis of similar climate, geomorphic processes, stratigraphy, geologic origin, topography, and drainage systems

(Cleland et al. 1997).

ecosystem—A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous

unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms

and components of the abiotic environment within its

boundaries. An ecosystem can be of any size: a log, a

pond, a field, a forest, or the Earth’s biosphere (Helms

1998).

elevation—Height above a fixed reference point, often

the mean sea level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Elevation (21 March 2008).

endemic—(1) Indigenous to or characteristic of a particular restricted geographical area. Antonym: exotic. (2)

Referring to a disease constantly infecting a few plants

throughout an area. (3) A population of potentially

injurious plants, animals, or viruses that are at low levels

(see epidemic) (Helms 1998). 

epidemic—(1) Entomology: pertaining to populations of

plants, animals, and viruses that build up, often rapidly,

to unusually and generally injuriously high levels.

Synonym: outbreak. Many insect and other animal

populations cycle periodically or irregularly between

endemic and epidemic levels. (2) Pathology: a disease

sporadically infecting a large number of hosts in an area

and causing considerable loss (Helms 1998). 

epiphyte—Plant growing on but not nourished by

another plant (Helms 1998). 

erosion—The wearing away of the land surface by

running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

federal forest land—An ownership class of public lands

owned by the U.S. government (USDA Forest Service

2006).

fine woody material (FWM)—Down dead branches,

twigs, and small tree or shrub boles <3 inches in diameter

not attached to a living or standing dead source (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

fire regime—The characteristic frequency, extent,

intensity, severity, and seasonality of fires within an

ecosystem (Helms 1998). 

fixed-radius plot—A circular sampled area with a

specified radius in which all trees of a given size, shrubs,

and other items, are tallied (USDA Forest Service 2006).

foliage transparency—The amount of skylight visible

through micro-holes in the live portion of the crown, i.e.,

where you see foliage, normal or damaged, or remnants of

its recent presence (USDA Forest Service 2006).

forb—A broad-leaved herbaceous plant, as distinguished

from grasses, shrubs, and trees (USDA Forest Service

2006).

forest industry land—An ownership class of private lands

owned by a company or an individual(s) operating a

primary wood-processing plant (USDA Forest Service

2006).

forest land—Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by

forest trees of any size, or land formerly having such tree

cover, and not currently developed for a nonforest use.

The minimum area for classification as forest land is 1

acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of timber

must be at least 120 feet wide to qualify as forest land

(USDA Forest Service 2006).
183

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

forest type—A classification of forest land based on and

named for the tree species that forms the plurality of livetree stocking (USDA Forest Service 2006).

forest type group—A combination of forest types that

share closely associated species or site requirements

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

fork—The place on a tree where the stem separates into

two pieces; usually considered a defect. 

fuel treatment—Any manipulation or removal of wildland fuels to reduce the likelihood or ignition or to lessen

potential fire damage and resistance to control; e.g.,

lopping, chipping, crushing, piling, and burning. Synonym: fuel modification, hazard reduction (Helms 1998). 

fuelwood—Wood salvaged from mill waste, cull logs,

branches, etc., and used to fuel fires in a boiler or furnace.

http://nfdp.ccfm.org/glossary_e.php. (20 July 2009).

fungus—Member of a group of saprophytic and parasitic

organisms that lack chlorophyll, have cell walls made of

chitin, and reproduce by spores; includes molds, rusts,

mildews, smuts, and mushrooms. Fungi absorb nutrients

from the organic matter in which they live. Not classified

as plants; instead fungi are placed in the Kingdom: Fungi

(Goheen and Willhite 2006). 

geospatial—The combination of spatial software and

analytical methods with terrestrial or geographic data

sets. Often used in conjunction with geographic information systems and geomatics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Geospatial. (21 March 2008).

graminoid—Grasses (family Gramineae or Poaceae) and

grasslike plants such as sedges (family Cyperaceae) and

rushes (family Juncaceae). http://www.biologyonline.org/dictionary/Graminoid. (21 March 2008).

grassland—Land on which the vegetation is dominated

by grasses, grasslike plants, or forbs (Helms 1998). 

greenhouse gas—A gas, such as carbon dioxide or

methane, that contributes to potential climate

change. http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/gterms.html.

(21 March 2008).

growing stock—All live trees 5 inches d.b.h or larger that

are considered merchantable in terms of saw-log length,

and grade; excludes rough and rotten cull trees (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

hardwood—Tree species belonging to the botanical

subdivision Angiospermae, class Dicotyledonous, usually

broad-leaved and deciduous (USDA Forest Service 2006).

herbivory—The consumption of herbaceous vegetation

by organisms ranging from insects to large mammals such

as deer, elk, or cattle. http://www.biology-online.org/

dictionary/Herbivory. (21 March 2008).

increment borer—An auger-like instrument with a

hollow bit and an extractor, used to extract thin radial

cylinders of wood (increment cores) from trees having

annual growth rings, to determine increment or age

(Helms 1998). 

interpolation—A method of reallocating attribute data

from one spatial representation to another. Kriging is a

more complex example that allocates data from sample

points to a surface. http://hds.essex.ac.uk/g2gp/gis/

sect101.asp. (21 March 2008). 

invasive plant—Plants that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or are likely to

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to

human, animal, or plant health. http://

www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf.

(21 March 2008).

ladder fuel—Combustible material that provides vertical

continuity between vegetation strata and allows fire to

climb into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease.

Ladder fuels help initiate and ensure the continuation of

a crown fire (Helms 1998). 
184

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

late-successional reserves (LSRs)—Federally managed

forests held in reserve for wildlife habitat and thus set

aside from most commercial logging. The LSRs may

contain old clearcuts as well as old-growth forests.

Logging may be allowed in an LSR if it will accelerate

development of old-growth characteristics. http://

www.umpqua-watersheds.org/glossary/gloss_l.html.

(21 March 2008).

lichen—An organism consisting of a fungus and an

alga or cyanobacterium living in symbiotic association.

Lichens look like masses of small, leafy, tufted or

crustlike plants (USDA Forest Service 2006).

live trees—All living trees, including all size classes, all

tree classes, and both commercial and noncommercial

species for tree species listed in the FIA field manual

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

mean annual increment (MAI) at culmination—A

measure of the productivity of forest land expressed as

the average increase in cubic feet of wood volume per

acre per year. For a given species and site index, the mean

is based on the age at which the MAI culminates for fully

stocked natural stands. The MAI is based on the site

index of the plot (Azuma et al. 2004).

mensuration—Determination of dimensions, form,

weight, growth, volume, and age of trees, individually,

or collectively, and of the dimensions of their products

(Helms 1998). 

mesic—Describes sites or habitats characterized by

intermediate moisture conditions; i.e., neither decidedly

wet nor dry (Helms 1998).

microclimate—The climate of a small area, such as that

under a plant or other cover, differing in extremes of

temperature and moisture from the larger climate outside

(Helms 1998). 

MMBF—A million board feet of wood in logs or lumber

(Helms 1998). 

model—(1) An abstract representation of objects and

events from the real world for the purpose of simulating a

process, predicting an outcome, or characterizing a

phenomenon. (2) Geographic information system (GIS)

data representative of reality (e.g., spatial data models),

including the arc-node, georelational model, rasters or

grids, polygon, and triangular irregular networks (Helms

1998).

Montréal Process—In September 1993, the Conference

on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) sponsored an international seminar in Montréal, Canada, on

the sustainable development of boreal and temperate

forests, with a focus on developing criteria and indicators

for the assessment of these forests. After the seminar,

Canada drew together countries from North and South

America, Asia, and the Pacific Rim to develop criteria and

indicators for nontropical forests, and in June 1994, the

initiative now known as the Montréal Process began. The

European countries elected to work as a region in the

Pan-European Forest Process in the followup to the

Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in

Europe. http://www.mpci.org/rep-pub/1999/

broch_e.html#2. (21 March 2008).

mortality—The death of trees from natural causes, or

subsequent to incidents such as storms, wildfire, or insect

and disease epidemics (Helms 1998). 

multivariate analysis—Branch of statistics concerned

with analyzing multiple measurements that have been

made on one or several individuals (Helms 1998).

municipal land—Land owned by municipalities or land

leased by them for more than 50 years (USDA Forest

Service 2006).

mycelium—Vegetative part of a fungus, composed of

hyphae and forming a thallus (Helms 1998).

mycorrhiza—The usually symbiotic association

between higher plant roots (host) and the mycelia of

specific fungi. Mycorrhizae often aid plants in the uptake

of water and certain nutrients and may offer protection

against other soil-borne organisms (Helms 1998). 
185

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

national forest lands—Federal lands that have been

designated by Executive order or statute as national forest

or purchase units and other lands under the administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

including experimental areas and Bankhead-Jones Title

III lands (Azuma et al. 2004).

Native American lands—Tribal lands, and allotted lands

held in trust by the federal government. Native American

lands are grouped with farmer-owned and miscellaneous

private lands as other private lands (Azuma et al. 2004).

native species—Plant species that were native to an

American region prior to Euro-American settlement. For

vascular plants, they are the species that are not present

on the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (2000) list of nonnative species (see nonnative

species) (USDA NRCS 2000).

net primary production (NPP)—NPP represents the

amount of chemical energy that is available to consumers

in an ecosystem. It is the remaining energy from gross

primary productivity discounting the loss of energy

required by primary producers for respiration (adapted

from Campbell 1990).

net volume—Gross volume less deductions for sound and

rotten defects. Growing-stock net volume is gross volume

(in cubic feet) less deductions for rot and missing bole

sections on poletimber and sawtimber growing-stock

trees. Sawtimber net volume is gross volume (in board

feet) less deductions for rot, sweep, crook, missing bole

sections, and other defects that affect the use of sawtimber

trees for lumber (Azuma et al. 2004).

nitrogen oxides (NOx)—Gases consisting of one

molecule of nitrogen and varying numbers of oxygen

molecules, produced in the emissions of vehicle exhausts

and from power stations. Atmospheric NOx contributes to

formation of photochemical ozone (smog), which can

impair visibility and harm human health. http://

www.climatechange.ca.gov/glossary/letter_n.html. (21

March 2008).

nitrophyte—One of a group of lichen species that grow in

nitrogen-rich habitats.

noncorporate forest land—Private forest land owned by

nongovernmental conservation or natural resource

organizations; unincorporated partnerships, associations,

or clubs; individuals or families; or Native Americans.

nonforest inclusion—An area that is not forested and is

less than 1.0 acre and does not qualify as its own condition class (USDA Forest Service 2006).

nonnative species—Plant species that were introduced to

America subsequent to Euro-American settlement.

Nonnative vascular plants are present on the USDA

(USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2000).

nonstocked areas—Timberland that is less than 10

percent stocked with live trees. Recent clearcuts

scheduled for planting are classified as nonstocked area

(Azuma et al. 2004).

nontimber forest products (NTFP)—Species harvested

from forests for reasons other than production of timber

commodities. Vascular plants, lichens, and fungi are the

primary organisms included in NTFPs.

old-growth forest—Old-growth forest is differentiated

from younger forest by its structure and composition, and

often by its function. Old-growth stands are typified by

the presence of large older trees; variety in tree species,

sizes, and spacing; multiple canopy layers; high amounts

of standing and down dead wood; and broken, deformed,

or rotting tops, trunks, and roots (Franklin et al. 1986). 

other private forest lands—Lands in private ownership

and not reported separately. These may include coal

companies, land trusts, and other corporate private

landowners (USDA Forest Service 2006).

overrun—Difference between the log scale of a shipment

of timber and the actual volume of lumber obtained from

it. http://forestry.about.com/library/glossary/blforglo.htm.

(21 March 2008).
186

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

overstory—That portion of the trees, in a forest of more

than one story, forming the uppermost canopy layer

(Helms 1998). 

owner class—A variable that classifies land into categories of ownership. Current ownership classes are listed in

the FIA field manual (USDA Forest Service 2006).

owner group—A variable that combines owner classes

into the following groups: Forest Service, other federal

agency, state and local government, and private. Different

categories of owner group on a plot result in different

conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006).

ownership—A legal entity having an ownership interest

in land, regardless of the number of people involved. An

ownership may be an individual; a combination of

persons; a legal entity such as corporation, partnership,

club, or trust; or a public agency. An ownership has

control of a parcel or group of parcels of land (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

ozone (O3), tropospheric—A regional, gaseous air

pollutant produced primarily through sunlight-driven

chemical reactions of nitrogen oxide (NO2) and hydrocarbons in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere). Ozone plays a significant role in greenhouse

warming and urban smog and causes foliar injury to

deciduous trees, conifers, shrubs, and herbaceous species

(Air and Waste Management Association 1998). 

paleoecology—Study of the relationships of past organisms and the environment in which they lived (Helms

1998).

pathogen—Parasitic organism directly capable of

causing disease (Helms 1998). 

photointerpretation (aerial photography)—A process

whereby points, or areas of interest on an aerial photograph, are studied to determine information about land

cover. The FIA Program uses photointerpretation to

determine whether field plots are forested or not, the

possible forest type, and size class, and uses it in analysis

for land cover and land use changes. 

phytotoxic—Poisonous to plants (Helms 1998). 

prescribed burn—Deliberate burning of wildland fuels

in either their natural or their modified state and under

specified environmental conditions, usually to make the

site less susceptible to severe wildfire. Synonym: controlled burn, prescribed fire (adapted from Helms 1998).

productive forest land—Forest land that is producing or

capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre

per year of wood at culmination of mean annual

increment (MAI) without regard to reserved status (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

public land—An ownership group that includes all

federal, state, county, and municipal lands (USDA Forest

Service 2006).

pulpwood—Whole trees, tree chips, or wood residues

used to produce wood pulp for the manufacture of paper

products. Pulpwood is usually wood that is too small, of

inferior quality, or the wrong species for the manufacture

of lumber or plywood (adapted from Helms 1998).

quadrat—The basic 3.28-square-foot sampling unit for

the phase 3 vegetation indicator (USDA Forest Service

2006).

rangeland—Expansive, mostly unimproved lands on

which a significant proportion of the natural vegetation is

native grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, and shrubs. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands,

many deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal

marshes, and wet meadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Rangeland. (21 March 2008).

regeneration (artificial and natural)—The established

progeny from a parent plant, seedlings or saplings

existing in a stand, or the act of renewing tree cover by

establishing young trees naturally or artificially. May be

artificial (direct seeding or planting) or natural (natural

seeding, coppice, or root suckers) (adapted from Helms

1998).
187

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

remote sensing—Capture of information about the Earth

from a distant vantage point. The term is often associated

with satellite imagery but also applies to aerial photography, airborne digital sensors, ground-based detectors, and

other devices. http://www.nsc.org/ehc/glossary.html.

(20 July 2009).

reserved forest land—Land permanently reserved from

wood products utilization through statute or administrative designation. Examples include national forest wilderness areas and national parks and monuments (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

richness—The number of different species in a given

area, often referred to at the plot scale as alpha diversity

and at the regional scale as gamma diversity (USDA

NRCS 2000).

riparian—Related to, living in, or associated with a

wetland, such as the bank of a river or stream or the edge

of a lake or tidewater. The riparian biotic community

significantly influences and is influenced by the

neighboring body of water (Helms 1998). 

salvage cutting—Removal of dead trees, or trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents other than

competition, to recover economic value that would

otherwise be lost. Synonym: salvage felling, salvage

logging (Helms 1998). 

sampling error—Difference between a population value

and a sample estimate that is attributable to the sample,

as distinct from errors due to bias in estimation, errors in

observation, etc. Sampling error is measured as the

standard error of the sample estimate (Helms 1998). 

sapling—A live tree 1.0 to 4.9 inches in diameter (USDA

Forest Service 2006).

saw log—A log meeting minimum standards of diameter,

length, and defect for manufacture into lumber or plywood. The definition includes logs with a minimum

diameter outside bark of 7 inches for softwoods and 9

inches for hardwoods (Azuma et al. 2004). 

sawtimber trees—Live softwood trees of commercial species at least 9.0 inches in d.b.h. and live hardwood trees of

commercial species at least 11.0 inches in d.b.h. At least

25 percent of the board-foot volume in a sawtimber tree

must be free from defect. Softwood trees must contain at

least one 12-foot saw log with a top diameter of not less

than 7 inches outside bark; hardwood trees must contain

at least one 8-foot saw log with a top diameter of not less

than 9 inches outside bark (Azuma et al. 2004).

seedlings—Live trees <1.0 inch d.b.h. and at least 6

inches in height (softwoods) or 12 inches in height

(hardwoods) (USDA Forest Service 2006).

shrub—Perennial, multistemmed woody plant, usually

less than 13 to 16 feet in height, although under certain

environmental conditions shrubs may be single-stemmed

or taller than 16 feet. Includes succulents (e.g., cacti)

(USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

shrubland—A shrub-dominated vegetation type that

does not qualify as forest. 

slope—Measure of change in surface value over distance,

expressed in degrees or as a percentage (Helms 1998). 

snag—Standing dead tree ≥5 inches d.b.h. and ≥4.5 feet

in length, with a lean of <45 degrees. Dead trees leaning

more than 45 degrees are considered to be down woody

material. Standing dead material shorter than 4.5 feet are

considered stumps (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

species group—A collection of species used for reporting

purposes (USDA Forest Service 2006).

species turnover—A measure of difference in species

composition among plots within an area (e.g., ecological

section). Also known as beta diversity. Species turnover is

calculated by dividing the total number of species in an

area by the mean number of species per plot (USDA

NRCS 2000). 

specific gravity constants—Ratio of the density (weight

per unit volume) of an object (such as wood) to the

density of water at 4 degrees C (39.2 degrees F) (Helms

1998). 
188

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-800

stand age—Average age of the live dominant and

codominant trees in the predominant stand size class

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

state land—An ownership class of public lands owned by

states or lands leased by states for more than 50 years

(USDA Forest Service 2006).

stocked/nonstocked—In the FIA Program, a minimum

stocking value of 10 percent live trees is required for

accessible forest land (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

stocking—(1) At the tree level, the density value assigned

to a sampled tree (usually in terms of numbers of trees or

basal area per acre), expressed as a percentage of the total

tree density required to fully use the growth potential of

the land. (2) At the stand level, the sum of the stocking

values of all trees sampled (Bechtold and Patterson

2005).

stratification—A statistical tool used to reduce the

variance of the attributes of interest by partitioning the

population into homogenous strata (Bechtold and

Patterson 2005). 

succession—The gradual supplanting of one community

of plants by another (Helms 1998).

surface fire—A fire that burns only surface fuels, such as

litter, loose debris, and small vegetation (Helms 1998).

sustainability—The capacity of forests, ranging from

stands to ecoregions, to maintain their health, productivity, diversity, and overall integrity in the long run, in the

context of human activity and use (Helms 1998).

terrestrial—Of or relating to the Earth or its inhabitants;

of or relating to land as distinct from air or water. http://

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrestrial.

(21 March 2008).

timberland—Forest land that is producing or capable of

producing >20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood at

culmination of mean annual increment (MAI). Timberland excludes reserved forest lands (USDA Forest Service

2006).

transect—A narrow sample strip or a measured line laid

out through vegetation chosen for study (Helms 1998). 

tree—A woody perennial plant, typically large, with a

single well-defined stem carrying a more or less definite

crown; sometimes defined as attaining a minimum

diameter of 3 inches and a minimum height of 15 feet at

maturity. For FIA, any plant on the tree list in the current

field manual is measured as a tree (USDA Forest Service

2006).

understory—All forest vegetation growing under an

overstory (Helms 1998).

unproductive forest land—Forest land that is not capable

of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year

of wood at culmination of mean annual increment

without regard to reserved status (USDA Forest Service

2006).

unreserved forest land—Forest land that is not withdrawn from harvest by statute or administrative regulation. Includes forest lands that are not capable of

producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year

of industrial wood in natural stands (Smith et al. 2004).

upland—Any area that does not qualify as a wetland

because the associated hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wet to produce vegetation, soils, or hydrologic

characteristics associated with wetlands. In flood plains,

such areas are more appropriately termed nonwetlands.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Upland.

(21 March 2008).

vascular plant—A plant possessing a well-developed

system of conducting tissue to transport water, mineral

salts, and sugars. http://www.biology-online.org/

dictionary/Vascular_plant. (21 March 2008).

veneer log—A high-quality log of a desirable species

suitable for conversion to veneer. Veneer logs must be

large, straight, of minimum taper, and free of defects.

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/gloss.html.

(December 2009).
189

Washington’s Forest Resources, 2002–2006

wilderness—(1) According to the Wilderness Act of 1964,

“a wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and

his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized

as an area where the earth and its community of life are

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who

does not remain.” (2) A roadless land legally classified as

a component area of the National Wilderness Preservation

System and managed to protect its qualities of naturalness, solitude, and opportunity for primitive recreation.

Wilderness areas are usually of sufficient size to make

maintenance in such a state feasible (Helms 1998).

wildfire—Any uncontained fire, other than prescribed

fire, occurring on wildland. Synonym: wildland fire

(Adapted from Helms 1998).

wildland—Land other than that dedicated for uses such

as agriculture, urban, mining, or parks (Helms 1998).

wildland forest—A large continuous tract of forest with

few or no developed structures on it. Delineated on aerial

imagery for the purpose of detecting land use change.

The PNW-FIA Program and the Oregon Department of

Forestry jointly use a minimum of 640 acres with fewer

than five developed structures to designate wildland

forest.

wildland-urban interface (WUI)—A term used to

describe an area where various structures (most notably

private homes) and other human developments meet or

are intermingled with forest and other vegetative fuel

types. http://www.borealforest.org/nwgloss13.htm.

(21 March 2008).

xeric—Pertaining to sites or habitats characterized by

decidedly dry conditions (Helms 1998). 
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (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