United States Department of Agriculture

Assessment of 

Nontimber Forest Products

in the United States 

Under Changing Conditions

Forest Service

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-232

April 2018
Forest Service

Research & Development

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-232

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

April 2018

Photo credits

cover

top: ramps, by USDA Forest Service; bottom, left to 

right: red trillium, by Harlan B. Herbert; bloodroot, by 

Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service; blueberry, by Gerald 

Holmes, California Polytechnic State University at San Luis 

Obispo; woodworking, by Billy Humphries, Forest Resource 

Consultants, Inc.; common beargrass by Chris Schnepf, 

University of Idaho; all photos are courtesy of Bugwood.org.

interior

Unless otherwise noted all interior 

photos are courtesy of Bugwood.org.

Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for 

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
Assessment of 

Nontimber Forest Products

in the United States 

Under Changing Conditions

editors

James L. Chamberlain

Marla R. Emery

Toral Patel-Weynand
Authors

Susan J. Alexander is a program manager with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Auke Lake Way, Juneau, AK 99801.

Rebecca J. Barlow is an extension specialist and associate professor 

at Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, 

3301 SFWS Building, 602 Duncan Drive, Auburn, AL 36849.

Michelle J. Baumflek is a research biologist with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, 200 W.T. Weaver Boulevard, Asheville, NC 28804.

Keith A. Blatner is a professor, program leader for forestry, and director of the 

Grizzly Bear Research, Education and Conservation Center at Washington State 

University, School of the Environment, P.O. Box 64812, Pullman, WA 99164-2812.

James L. Chamberlain is a research forest products technologist with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, 1710 Research Center Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Alisa W. Coffin is research ecologist with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

2316 Rainwater Road, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793.

Colmore S. Christian is associate professor at Alabama 

A&M University, Biological and Environmental Sciences 

Department, 138 ARC Building, Normal, AL 35762.

Sharifa Crandall is a researcher in plant pathology at 

California State University, Monterey Bay, School of Natural 

Sciences, 100 Campus Center, Seaside, CA 93955.

Jeanine M. Davis is associate professor and extension specialist 

at North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural 

Science, Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension 

Center, 455 Research Drive, Mills River, NC 28759.

Patricia De Angelis is botanist with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, International Affairs, Division of Scientific 

Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.

C. Meghan Starbuck Downes is a research economist at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

P.O. Box 12254, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC 27709-2254.

Marlyse Duguid is lecturer and associate research scientist 

at the Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental 

Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511.

David S. Ellum is a professor and forest director at Warren Wilson 

College, CPO 6291, P.O. Box 9000, Asheville, NC 28815-9000.

Marla R. Emery is a research geographer with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 81 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT 05405.

Michael Farrell is the former director of Cornell University’s 

Uihlein Forest and now serves as CEO of The Forest Farmers, 

LLC, 97 Bear Cub Lane, Lake Placid, NH 12946.

Gregory E. Frey is a research forester with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, P.O. Box 12254, 

3041 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2254.

J.B. Friday is an associate specialist in tropical forestry and agroforestry 

extension at the University of Hawai’i, Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Management, 875 Komohana Street, Hilo, HI 96720.

Kathleen S. Friday is the Forest Stewardship and Forest Legacy 

program manager with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Institute of Pacific 

Island Forestry, 60 Nowelo Street, Hilo, HI, 96720.

David Fuller is an agriculture and nontimber forest products 

professional (retired) at the University of Maine, Cooperative 

Extension, 138 Pleasant Street, Farmington, ME 04938-5828.

Jonathan Gilbert is biological services director with the Great Lakes Fish and 

Wildlife Commission, P.O. Box 9, 72682 Maple Street, Odanah, WI 54861.

Larry D. Godsey is an assistant professor, Agri-Business, Missouri 

Valley College, 500 E. College Street, Marshall, MO 65340.

Michael A. Gold is a research professor and associate director of the 

University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources, Center for Agroforestry, 

203 Anheuser-Busch Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO 65211.

Nicole Grewe is regional economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 10, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628.

Susan Hummel is a research forester with U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Portland, OR 97205.

Patrick T. Hurley is associate professor and chair, Ursinus College, 

Environmental Studies, 601 E. Main Street, Collegeville, PA 19426.

Louis Iverson is a research landscape ecologist with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 43015.

Michael G. Jacobson is extension specialist and chair of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Program at Pennsylvania State University, 

309 Forest Resources Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Badger Johnson is employed conducting botanical inventory and monitoring 

for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ozark National 

Scenic Riverways, 404 Watercress Drive, Van Buren, MO 63965.

Shibu Jose is a professor and director of the University of 

Missouri, School of Natural Resources, 103 Anheuser-Busch 

Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MO 65211.

Katie Kamelamela is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 

Department of Botany, 3190 Maile Way, Room 101, Honolulu, HI 96822.

Kelly Kindscher is senior scientist with the Kansas Biological Survey and a 

professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Kansas, 

2101 Constant Avenue, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66047-3729.
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS iii

Steven Kruger is a Ph.D. candidate at Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, Department of Forest Resources 

and Environmental Conservation, Cheatham Hall Room 313, 

Virginia Tech, 310 W. Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

Linda Kruger is a research social scientist with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 11175 Auke Lake Way, Juneau, AK 99801-8791.

Frank K. Lake is a research ecologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Highway 96/I Ishi-Pishi 

Road, P.O. Box 410 c/o USFS Orleans Ranger Station, Orleans, CA 95556.

Luanne Lohr is national program lead for economics at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research and 

Development, 201 14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20250.

Mary Mahalovich is a regional geneticist with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern, Rocky Mountain, Southwestern and 

Intermountain Regions, 1221 South Maine Street, Moscow, ID 83843.

Humfredo Marcano-Vega is a research biologist with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, International Institute 

of Tropical Forestry, Jardín Botánico Sur, 1201 Ceiba, San Juan, PR 00926-1119.

Stephen Matthews is an ecologist with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH 46015.

Joe-Ann McCoy is director of research at The North 

Carolina Arboretum, Germplasm Repository, 100 Frederick 

Law Olmsted Way, Asheville, NC 28806-9315.

Rebecca J. McLain is a research assistant professor at 

Portland State University, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, 

Mail code: SUST, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751.

D. Evan Mercer is a research economist (retired) with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, P.O. Box 12254, 

3041 E. Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2254.

Christine Mitchell is an instructor at Radford University, Department 

of Geospatial Science, Box 6938, Cook Hall 0138, Radford, VA 24142.

Sharon Nygaard-Scott is special forest products program manager 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 1103, Washington, DC 20250.

Gregory Ormsby Mori is the education and outreach 

coordinator for the Center for Agroforestry at the University 

of Missouri 203 ABNR, Forestry, Columbia, MO 65211.

Douglas H. Page, Jr. is a forester (retired) with the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

176 East D.L. Sargent Drive, Cedar City, UT 84721.

Amit R. Patel is a natural resource analyst at Planned Systems 

International, Inc., 3717 Columbia Pike, Arlington, VA 22204.

Toral Patel-Weynand is director, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Research and Development, Sustainable Forest Management 

Research, 201 14th Street SW, Mail stop 1115, Washington, DC 20250.

Steven Prisley is a principle research scientist with the National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement, 541 Washington Ave SW, Roanoke, VA 24016.

Nicholas J. Reo is assistant professor of environmental studies and Native 

American studies at Dartmouth College, HB 6152, Hanover, NH 03755.

Suzanne Sanders is a terrestrial ecologist at the U.S. 

National Park Service, Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring 

Network, 2800 Lake Shore Dr. East, Ashland, WI 54806.

Erin O. Sills is a professor at North Carolina State University, College 

of Natural Resources, Department of Forestry and Environmental 

Resources, 2800 Faucette Drive, Campus Box 800, Raleigh, NC 27695.

Sara Souther is research faculty at Northern Arizona 

University, Landscape Conservation Initiative, ARD Building 

#56, 1395 South Knoles Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.

Tamara Ticktin is a professor at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 

Department of Botany, 3190 Maile Way, Room 101, Honolulu, HI 96822.

Kelly Watson is an associate professor at Eastern Kentucky University, 

Department of Geosciences, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Richmond, KY 40475.

Peter Weisberg is a professor of landscape ecology at the University 

of Nevada, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Science, Mail Stop 186, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557.

Carl Wilmsen is the executive director of the Northwest 

Forest Worker Center, P.O. Box 6722, Albany, CA 94706.

Matthew Winn is a forestry technician at the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

1650 Research Center Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060.

Sarah Workman is associate director, University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill, Highlands Biological Station, 265 N. 6th Street, Highlands, NC 28741.

Johanna Young is a laboratory technician at the North Carolina Arboretum 

Germplasm Repository, 100 Frederick Law Olmsted Way, Asheville, NC 28806.

John Zasada is a research forester (retired) with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 1831 Highway 169E, Grand Rapids, MN 55744.
iv ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHAPTER 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2: Nontimber Forest Products and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Nontimber Forest Products and their Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1.1 What Are Nontimber Forest Products? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1.2 Plant and Fungi Organs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

2.1.3 Scale of Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.4 Market Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1.5 Iconic Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Silviculture for Temperate U.S. Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.2.1 Treatments and Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

2.2.2 Integrating Understory Nontimber Forest Products and Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.3 Integrating Production of Timber and Nontimber Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2.2.4 Considerations and Concerns for Integrating Timber and Nontimber Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

2.2.5 Challenges to Managing for Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

2.3 Forest Farming in Temperate United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.3.1 Approaches to Forest Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.3.2 Common Forest Farmed Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.4 Market and Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.5 Production in Alaska and Hawai’i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.5.1 Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.5.2 Hawai’i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

2.6 Production in the Caribbean and Pacific Insular United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.6.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

2.6.2 Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

2.6.3 Insular Pacific—American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.6.4 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.7 Inventory and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

2.7.1 Current Approach to Forest Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.7.2 Status of Nontimber Forest Product Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

2.7.3 Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data for Nontimber Forest Product Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.8 Tracking Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.8.1 Approaches, Methods, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2.8.2 Other Product Tracking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.8.3 Challenges and Considerations for Tracking Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.9 Knowledge Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

2.10 Implications of Increased Climatic Variability for Production and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.11 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

2.12 Key Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

2.13 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

2.14 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

CHAPTER 3: Ecological Dimensions of Nontimber Forest Product Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.1 Effects of Nontimber Forest Product Harvest on Plant Individuals and Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

3.1.1 Management and Local Ecological Knowledge for Sustainable Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.1.2 Spatiotemporal Variation in Nontimber Forest Product Population Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.1.3 Community Interactions and Ecosystem Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS v

3.2 Implications of Nontimber Forest Product Harvest for Ecological Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.3 Sustainable Harvest of Key Nontimber Forest Product Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.3.1 American Ginseng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.3.2 Common Beargrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.3.3 Black cohosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

3.3.4 Echinacea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

3.3.5 Goldenseal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3.6 Osha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3.7 Pinyon Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

3.3.8 Saw Palmetto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

3.4 Effects of Climate Change on Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4.1 Potential and Observed Species Responses to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4.2 Vulnerability of Nontimber Forest Products to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4.3 Climate-change Integrated Management of Nontimber Forest Product Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.5 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.6 Key Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

3.8 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

CHAPTER 4: Cultural Dimensions of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

4.1 Nontimber Forest Products and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.2 Cultural Values and Functions of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

4.2.1 Indigenous Cultures and Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.2.2 Settler and Immigrant Cultural Uses of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.3 Nontimber Forest Product Social-Ecological Systems and Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.3.1 Management and Nontimber Forest Product Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

4.3.2 Governance and Access to Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.3.3 Nontimber Forest Product Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.3.4 Nontimber Forest Product Cultural Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

4.4 Impacts of Climatic Variability on Cultural Uses of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.5 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.6 Key Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.8 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

CHAPTER 5: Social Dimensions of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.2 An Overview of Nontimber Forest Product Harvesters in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.3 Nontimber Forest Product Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.3.1 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.3.2 Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.3.3 Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.3.4 Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.3.5 Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.4 Stakeholder Organizations, Labor Issues, and Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.5 Urban Harvesting and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.6 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5.7 Key Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.9 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
vi ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

CHAPTER 6: Economics of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

6.1 Introduction to Economics of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6.2 Markets and Market Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

6.2.1 Formal Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

6.2.2 Informal Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

6.2.3 Examples of Economic Impact by Region and Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

6.3 Nonmarket Values of Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

6.3.1 Valuation Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

6.3.2 Estimates of Nonmarket Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

6.4 Contribution of Nontimber Forest Products to Farm and Household Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

6.4.1 Financial Analysis Methods and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

6.4.2 Producers and Production Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

6.4.3 Business Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

6.4.4 Factors Influencing Profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

6.4.5 Estimates of Income from Wild-Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6.4.6 Estimates of Forest Farming Profitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6.5 Contribution of Nontimber Forest Products to Household Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

6.5.1 Income Needs and Natural Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

6.5.2 Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

6.5.3 Direct Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

6.5.4 Conditions for Contribution to Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.5.5 Building Our Understanding of the Role of Nontimber Forest Products in Household Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.6 Factors Driving Nontimber Forest Product Harvest and Adoption of Forest Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.6.1 Wild-Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.6.2 Forest Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

6.6.3 Motivations and Drivers of Nontimber Forest Products Production and Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

6.7 Potential Impacts of Climatic Variability on Nontimber Forest Product Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6.7.1 Risks and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6.7.2 Potential Impacts on Individuals and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

6.8 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

6.9 Key Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

6.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

6.11 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

CHAPTER 7: Laws, Policies, and Regulations Concerning Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

7.2 Federal Laws and Administrative Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

7.2.1 Regulations and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

7.2.2 Federal Agencies That Manage Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

7.2.3 Summary of Federal Regulations and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

7.3 Policies Applicable to Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

7.3.1 National Laws and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

7.3.2 Native Peoples of Alaska, Hawai’i, and U.S. Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

7.3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

7.4 State Laws and Administrative Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

7.4.1 State Regulatory Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

7.4.2 Regulation of Plants on State Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

7.4.3 Summary of State Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

7.5 Local and Municipal Laws and Administrative Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

7.5.1 Local Rules and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

7.5.2 Local Administrative Dimensions, Policy, and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

7.5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS vii

7.6 International Law and Administrative Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

7.6.1 International Laws, Policies, and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

7.6.2 Nonbinding International Agreements and Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

7.6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

7.7 Nontimber Forest Products and Climate Change Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

7.7.1 Sociocultural and Socioeconomic Impacts of Climate Change Relative to Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . 178

7.7.2 Tools That Can Inform Climate Change Policy Pertaining to Nontimber Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

7.8 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

7.8.1 Recognition as a Natural Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

7.8.2 Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

7.8.3 Diverse Stakeholders within Largely Informal Economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

7.8.4 Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

7.8.5 International Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

7.9 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

7.9.1 Federal-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7.9.2 Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7.9.3 International Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7.10 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7.11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

7.12 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

CHAPTER 8: Conclusions: Nontimber Forest Products in an Era of Changing Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

8.1 Nontimber Forest Product Ecologies and Climatic Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

8.2 Social, Cultural, and Economic Dimensions of Nontimber Forest Product and Climatic Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

8.3 Nontimber Forest Product Policy, Management, and Climatic Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

8.4 Gaps in the State of the Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

8.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

8.6 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Appendix 1: Regional Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Hawai’i and the U.S.-Affiliated Tropical Islands of the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Great Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Appendix 2: Assessment of Risk Due to Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Thinleaf (Vaccinium membranaceum Doublas ex Torr.) and Evergreen (V. ovatum Pursh) Huckleberries . . . . . . . . . . 240

Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens W. Bartram Small) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum Marshall) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Appendix 3: State Law Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Appendix 4: Nontimber Forest Product Species Referenced in this Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
viii ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

Acronyms

ABC

American Botanicals Council

AHPA

American Herbal Products Association

AMPGA

Alabama Medicinal Plant Growers Association

AMS

Agricultural Marketing Service

ANCSA

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

APHIS

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BIA

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CNMI

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

CSIRO

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 

DoD

U.S. Department of Defense

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ESA

Endangered Species Act

FIA

Forest Inventory and Analysis

FWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GFDL

Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ITTA

International Tropical Timber Agreement

ITTO

International Tropical Timber Organization

IUCN

International Union of Conservation of Nature

MCPFE

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe

MPSG

Medicinal Plant Specialist Group

MPWG

Montreal Process Working Group 

NAICS

North American Industrial Classification System

NASS

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCA

National Climate Assessment

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA

National Forest Management Act

NFS

National Forest System

NFWPCAP

National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS

National Park Service

NRAP

Northern Rockies Adaptation Partnership

NWOS

National Woodland Owner Survey

ODF

Oregon Department of Forestry

RPA

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

SRES

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

SUSB

Statistics of U.S. Businesses

TFPA

Tribal Forest Protection Act

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USVI

U.S. Virgin Islands
Executive 

Summary
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS xi

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) are

fundamental to the functioning of healthy 

forests and play vital roles in the cultures 

and economies of the people of the United 

States. However, these plants and fungi used for food, 

medicine, and other purposes have not been fully 

incorporated into management, policy, and resource 

valuation. This report is a forest-sectorwide assessment 

of the state of the knowledge regarding NTFPs science 

and management information for U.S. forests and 

rangelands (and hereafter referred to as the NTFP 

assessment). The NTFP assessment serves as a baseline 

science synthesis and provides information for managing 

nontimber forest resources in the United States. In 

addition, this NTFP assessment provides information 

for national-level reporting on natural capital and the 

ecosystem services NTFPs provide. The report also 

provides technical input to the 2017 National Climate 

Assessment1 (NCA) under development by the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

This assessment is the result of a collaborative effort 

by 60 scientists, professionals, and experts from the 

Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), and other state and Federal agencies, 

NGOs, tribal forest stakeholders, private corporations, 

research institutions, and universities across the United 

States. Focal areas in this assessment include ecological, 

social, and cultural issues, as well as economic and 

regulatory analyses of NTFPs and impacts from climate 

variability and change on forest and rangeland NTFPs.

This NTFP assessment used an iterative process to elicit 

input from public, private, and tribal forest stakeholders, 

NGOs, academics, professional organizations, private 

corporations, and Federal agencies, culminating 

in a national stakeholder workshop. Stakeholder 

suggestions helped to frame the subject matter content 

and management options in the report, ensuring 

relevance for decisionmakers and resource managers. 

The assessment closely follows the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, which is 

organized with convening lead authors, lead chapter 

authors, and contributing authors. The convening 

authors were responsible for having all chapters peer 

reviewed, and the lead authors and contributing authors 

revised the text in response to reviewer comments.

1 In preparation, Fourth National Climate Change Assessment. For more information, see https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4.

The introduction to this NTFP assessment provides 

an overview of the findings and discusses interrelated 

aspects of the biophysical, social, cultural, economic, 

and policy dimensions of nontimber forest products 

and the implications of the effects of climatic variability 

and change for them. This is followed by chapters 

synthesizing the state of knowledge on these topics:

• Products and production

• Ecological dimensions

• Cultural dimensions

• Social dimensions

• Economics

• Laws, policies, and regulations

• Implications in an era of changing climate

Appendixes summarize selected NTFPs relative 

to geographic regions across the country.

Concluding whether observed trends or changes 

in ecological phenomena are the results of climatic 

variability or other factors is difficult. Regardless, 

NTFPs of the United States at the end of the 21st century 

may be significantly different than those of today due 

to changes resulting from stressors such as drought, 

fire, insects and disease, and climatic variability.

We discuss in the following sections important 

issues that emerged from the assessment, 

including a brief summary of regional issues.

Effects of Climatic Variability on 

Nontimber Forest Resources

Variability in temperature and in seasonality will alter 

the growing environment for plants and fungi harvested 

for nontimber forest products throughout the United 

States. This may reduce the range and abundance of 

some while increasing those for others. Physical and 

phenological characteristics of plants and fungi will 

change in response to altered climatic conditions, which 

in turn affects their availability and suitability for use.

The relationships between individual species and their 

associated environments will condition their responses 

to climatic variability. Likewise, changes in the overall 

ecology of forests will affect NTFP species, as many 
xii ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

of the products are derived from trees or understory 

species strongly influenced by the forest overstory. 

Predicted effects on forest ecology with implications 

for these products include changes in the volume and 

timing of precipitation, frequency and intensity of 

disturbances (e.g., wildfires, storms, insects and disease 

outbreaks), and changes in forest productivity.

Some NTFP species are ephemeral or have their 

desired properties for only brief periods during a 

year. Altered phenology (the timing of stages in life 

cycles) and phenological asynchronies (decoupling of 

previously co-occurring life stages in different species) 

as a result of changes in seasonality will have adverse 

consequences for supply and ecological viability. For 

example, early arrival of spring may induce flowering 

before pollinators are present or increase risk of frost 

damage, conditions that would impede fruiting.

Nontimber forest product species that occur in 

specialized habitats or climatic conditions likely will 

be more vulnerable to variability than those that 

grow across a range of conditions. Most models 

project that species habitat will move up in elevation 

or northward in latitude as suitability of those at 

lower elevations and latitudes declines. Populations of 

species that do not keep up with the pace of change 

will decline, be extirpated, or go extinct. Responses 

to climatic change along with harvest pressure may 

increase risk for some populations and species.

Effects of Climatic Variability on Social, 

Cultural, and Economic Values

Ecological shifts that condition NTFP availability 

will affect their utility as social, cultural, and 

economic resources. Nontimber forest products make 

microeconomic and macroeconomic contributions 

through nonmarket and market means, including both 

informal and formal markets. NTFP consumers and 

enterprises already face uncertainties, and climate change 

may add additional risks. Increased fluctuations in price 

and supply of commercially traded plants and fungi 

have the potential to increase seasonal unemployment, 

decrease household incomes and business profits, and 

increase dependence on social safety net programs. 

Demand for wild plants and mushrooms may be 

influenced by climatic variability. For example, climateinduced migration and accompanying economic distress 

could increase the numbers of people who depend on 

NTFPs as direct sources of food, fuel, and utilitarian 

materials. At the same time, some nontimber forest 

product-based opportunities likely will arise as a 

result of climatic change. In some cases, changing 

conditions may favor the presence of new species 

or increases in the population of previously scarce 

species. Where this occurs, it could result in increased 

supplies for subsistence, personal consumption, 

and sale in unprocessed and value-added forms.

Changes associated with altered climate also may impact 

cultures in significant ways. Among the contributions 

of NTFPs to human well-being that may be at risk 

are the roles NTFPs play in food security, social 

cohesion, and livelihoods. Among the diverse American 

peoples who will be affected, particular attention 

will be required to comply with laws relevant to the 

cultural values of plants and mushrooms to American 

Indians, Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and other 

indigenous populations. The resilience of cultures and 

their nontimber forest product-based practices may 

be a function of the intensity, speed, and duration of 

events that pose ecological or social challenges.

Nontimber Forest Product Regulations 

and Policies

The use, conservation, and protection of nontimber 

forest products in the United States are governed 

through policies and regulations promulgated at levels 

from municipalities to Federal and tribal governments, 

as well as nonbinding international agreements. 

Laws and policies have been driven by objectives that 

include preventing the spread of diseases and invasive 

species, assessing taxes, and protecting endangered 

species. In some states, laws and policies relative to 

NTFPs have ensured access to these products by 

Native peoples, while restricting access by others.

Recognition of NTFPs as important natural 

resources and NTFP integration into policy and 

management across jurisdictions remain a challenge 

for sustainable use and conservation. Consequences 

of this may become more acute as a result of climatic 

variability. Challenges to crafting appropriate 

regulations and administrative structures include 

limited ecological, social, and economic knowledge 

and the diversity of stakeholders affected by them.

Addressing these challenges will require attention 

to the diversity of land ownerships, ecologies, and 
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS xiii

cultures in the United States. Adaptive policy and 

management approaches suited to the scales at which 

they will be implemented (i.e., local, regional, national) 

will increase the likelihood for successful outcomes. 

Opportunities include ongoing dialog with stakeholders 

and making special efforts to include those most likely 

to be overlooked. Baseline information about species 

and their habitats, coupled with models of their likely 

response to climatic change, will provide needed 

ecological information. Adaptive strategies may include 

management programs such as developing populations 

of NTFP species in suitable new habitats with careful 

attention to social and ecological considerations. 

Assisted migration to new habitats is a deliberate effort 

to establish populations in areas that are expected to 

have a suitable climate in the future to at least partially 

offset losses on sites no longer suitable. However, the 

effectiveness of widespread assisted migration is not 

yet known, and some have expressed concerns about 

the risk of introducing invasive species (Vose et al. 

2016). One way to resolve the debate is to subdivide 

assisted migration into “rescue-assisted migration” and 

“forestry-assisted migration” (Peterson et al. 2013). 

Rescue-assisted migration moves species to minimize the 

risk of extinction and extirpation given climatic impacts 

and is the source of most of the controversy. Forestryassisted migration aims to maintain high productivity and 

diversity in forest species that are commercially, socially, 

culturally, or ecologically valuable (Peterson et al. 2013).

Regional Effects of Climatic Variability and 

Change on Nontimber Forest Products

This assessment incorporates regional 

perspectives and highlights key issues for NTFPs 

in NCA regions in the United States.

Alaska

• Subsistence harvest of the products is a cultural 

tradition with important economic implications for 

Native and other rural households and communities.

• The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980 (ANILCA) establishes that all rural residents 

be given “reasonable access to subsistence resources 

including nontimber forest products on the public lands.”

• Harvest and use of traditional foods provide 

connections to place, belief, and history that are 

particularly critical to maintaining Native culture and 

identity.

• Warming temperatures and sea level rise already are 

affecting the products and people who rely on them.

Hawai’i and the Pacific Territories

• Native Hawaiians have the right to gather NTFPs 

for subsistence purposes; this right is codified in the 

Hawai’i State Constitution.

• Pacific Island cultures have a rich ethnobotanical 

tradition, with 60 plant species said to be useful as 

medicine in just one Marshall Island village.

• Increased frequency and severity of storms, drought, 

and wildfires will impact forest habitats; high-elevation 

ecosystems in Hawai’i already show effects of drought.

• Key products are at risk from saltwater intrusion from 

sea level rise and storm surges.

• Mangrove forests and the nontimber products 

harvested from them are expected to shrink due to sea 

level rise.

Northwest

• Quality and abundance of many NTFPs are associated 

with distinct post-disturbance (i.e., fire, wind storms) 

stages and will be affected as disturbance frequency 

and severity shift.

• Ecological or climatic niches of the species may shift 

outside the areas covered by current governance 

structures, with particular consequences for treatyguaranteed rights.

• Food resources of special importance to tribes are at 

risk as a result of prolonged drought and altered fire 

regimes.

• Commercially and culturally important mushroom 

species are susceptible to changes in temperature and 

precipitation, and the effects these changes have on 

forest health.

Southwest

• Prolonged drought and changes in precipitation 

and temperature are adversely affecting NTFP food 

resources such as pinyon pines (Pinus spp.) that produce 

the edible pine nut.

• Increasing extent and severity of wildfires, coupled with 

insect-induced mortality of conifer trees, are impacting 

forests and the habitat of many nontimber species.
xiv ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

• California Indian tribes have reduced access to key 

cultural foods (e.g., acorns, nuts, berries) resulting 

from climate-related drought, disease outbreaks, and 

regulations.

• Forest managers and communities and cultures 

dependent on NTFPs are challenged to find mutually 

agreeable strategies to increase resilience in the face of 

climate-induced disturbances and wildfire response.

Great Plains

• A common practice shared by all tribes in the region 

was the gathering of native plants for food, medicine, 

religious rites, or material culture. Many of these plants 

are grassland species, the dominate vegetation in the 

region.

• Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes will 

have dramatic effects on agricultural crops as well as 

native plants.

• Studies of the flowering phenology patterns of 178 

native plant species in North Dakota over 100 years 

found significant shifts in earlier emergence from 

dormancy, which can make plants more susceptible to 

spring freezes.

• Plant species may be more or less sensitive to changes 

in temperature and precipitation, but even small shifts 

in timing can disrupt ecological balances in natural 

systems.

Midwest

• Longer growing seasons and shorter, warmer winters 

will benefit some species but are detrimental to others, 

especially species that depend on cold cycles for their 

reproduction.

• Altered temperature, precipitation, and disturbance 

patterns along with changes in soil moisture and 

increased risk of drought and wildfires may lead to a 

reduction or elimination of NTFP habitats, with wild 

rice in the Great Lakes region particularly at risk.

• The extent of the populations of some species, such as 

black cohosh, likely will be reduced with drier climate 

regimes and lower soil moisture.

• Climate variability impacts will be amplified by 

increased pressure from pests and pathogens, with 

implications for culturally and commercially important 

species including black ash, black walnut, and slippery 

elm.

• Boreal forests of the upper Midwest may disappear 

by the end of the century, impacting the livelihoods of 

thousands of seasonal workers who harvest balsam fir 

branches.

Northeast

• Rising temperatures and changes in snowfall and ice 

and snow melt will affect species such as ostrich fern, 

which is harvested for the edible fiddlehead.

• Area of spruce-fir forest habitat and associated 

nontimber species is expected to decline.

• The Northeast leads the Nation in maple syrup 

production, with an average annual production of 2.37 

million gallons between 2008 and 2013. Production 

is expected to be adversely impacted by earlier springs 

and changing freeze-thaw cycles. Higher spring 

temperatures may shift production earlier in the season 

and reduce the number of sap flow days, with overall 

production predicted to decline by 15 to 20 percent.

• Species that depend on leafless overstories for 

photosynthesis and reproduction may be imperiled by 

early spring onset and the advanced timing of leafout 

on trees.

Southeast

• Coastal species such as sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia 

capillaris (Lan.) Trin) are especially vulnerable to sea 

level rise and saltwater incursions.

• The important medicinal forest product, saw palmetto 

(Serenoa repens), that grows throughout Florida, is 

particularly vulnerable to sea level rises.

• Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather 

events may result in significant changes to habitat that 

favor some nontimber species while eliminating others.

• Spring ephemeral forest herbs that are affected by small 

changes in temperature and moisture will be vulnerable 

to altered seasonality, temperature, and precipitation.
ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS xv

• Many NTFP species in upland mountain regions are at 

their southern extent and may be extirpated as suitable 

habitat conditions shift north, impacting overall species 

diversity.

Managing Nontimber Forest Products 

to Increase Resiliency

NTFPs have supported the peoples and cultures of the 

United States and its affiliated territories since before the 

founding of the Nation. The earliest people to inhabit 

the forests of this Nation used these products for food, 

medicine, and essential sundries. Harvesting from natural 

populations of the plants and fungi, commonly referred 

to as wild-harvesting, continues to sustain personal and 

commercial consumption of these products. Cultivation, 

including forest farming of native plants, provides 

alternatives to wild-harvesting. The products are sources 

of income for people with limited options for other 

earnings and are the foundation for rural communitybased enterprises to multinational corporations.

The plants and fungi species whence the products 

originate are diverse. They range from long-lived species 

such as trees to ephemeral forest herbs that are only 

available for harvest during a short time each year, and 

from rare to very common species. Each will respond 

in distinct ways to climatic changes, but many share 

commonalities that will propel these responses and 

limit the repertoire of possible mitigation strategies. 

Nontimber forest resources will be impacted at the 

ecoregion (Southeast Regional Summary, appendix 1), 

landscape, forest-type (Northeast Regional Summary, 

appendix 1), watershed, stand, community, and species 

levels, with associated impacts to humans who collect 

and use the plants and fungi as disturbance regimes 

change in response to climate, especially extreme 

weather, prolonged drought, and increased fire 

events (Millar et al. 2007). Complete reorganization 

of forest structure, or a major ecological shift from 

forest to shrub or grassland, could reduce or eliminate 

desired products. Conversely, the reorganization 

could increase productivity for other species.

The possibility that many nontimber forest species 

may not be able to keep pace with the ecological 

shifts or be able to effectively colonize new areas with 

more favorable ecological conditions due to limited 

2 The Nature Conservancy. Adaptation forestry in Minnesota’s North Woods. Available at: https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/

northamerica/unitedstates/minnesota/howwework/adaptation-forestry-nemn-factsheet.pdf. [Date accessed: 21 August 2017]

dispersal mechanisms and other factors (Davis et 

al. 2005; see chapter 3) is a major concern among 

forest ecologists. Habitat loss and fragmentation 

may severely limit the ability of some species to 

migrate. Forest management plans, prescriptions, and 

practices that integrate nontimber species that are 

climatically suitable to future conditions would lead to 

improved forest productivity, resilience, and health.

Assisted migration may be an option to secure some 

species in the medium term (Svenning et al. 2009). 

Some species might be planted in agroforestry settings, 

to make use of favorable environmental microcosms 

created by associated trees (Boothroyd-Roberts et al. 

2013, Lugo 1997). Assisted migration of nontimber 

forest species should aim to maintain genetic diversity 

within populations and promote gene flow between 

populations. Experimentation with assisted migration 

of some tree species is occurring in parts of northern 

Minnesota with the pilot Adaptation Forestry Project2.

Silvicultural prescriptions might be tailored to 

manage for nontimber forest products. In general, 

the silviculture of naturally regenerated forests is 

designed to provide multiple goods and services 

that could include these products. The diversity of 

species and functional groups dictates the need for 

management plans that consider a broad range of 

biotic, abiotic, and social factors for success. While 

a balance between spatial, temporal, and economic 

scales must be maintained, an increase in management 

complexities can be expected with integration of 

NTFPs. The plants and fungi facilitate maintenance 

of ecosystem processes by contributing to structural, 

compositional, and functional diversity of forest 

habitats. Including them in silvicultural prescriptions 

will help to strengthen forest health and well-being.

Diversification and intensification through sustainable 

management of NTFPs may help offset some negative 

economic and ecological effects of climatic variability. 

Forest farming (an agroforestry practice) has been 

suggested as an alternative income source for private forest 

landowners, as well as an approach to conserve natural 

populations that are wild-harvested (see chapter 2) 

(Schoeneberger et al. 2017). The intentional cultivation 

and reintroduction of species of vulnerable NTFPs may 

reduce pressure on natural populations while changing 
xvi ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS

the genetic diversity of those populations with significant 

impacts, while repopulating extirpated forests.

Some NTFPs are responding to altered conditions 

attributable to changing climate such as saltwater 

incursion (see Hawai’i Regional Summary) and 

permafrost thawing (see Alaska Regional Summary). 

These responses can be expected to intensify and 

include moving northward (including north of the 

U.S.-Canada border), establishing at higher elevations, 

adapting in place, local extirpations, and, in some 

cases, extinction. Extirpation and extinction of 

these plants and fungi will permanently affect forest 

health and ecology, the social and cultural fabric of 

the people who benefit from these resources, and the 

economies that depend on the sustainable harvest of the 

materials. There are clear and defined actions that can 

be taken now to help mitigate from impacts of climatic 

variability on these important natural resources.

Literature Cited

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] of 1980; 16 C.F.R. 

410hh. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/ALASKCN.HTML. [Date 

accessed: August 8, 2017].

Boothroyd-Roberts, K.; Gagnon, D.; Truax, B. 2013. Hybrid poplar plantations 

are suitable habitat for reintroduced forest herbs with conservation 

status. SpringerPlus. 2(1): 507.Davis, M.; Shaw, R.; Etterson, J. 2005. 

Evolutionary responses to changing climate. Ecology. 86: 1704–1714.

Davis, M.; Shaw, R.; Etterson, J. 2005. Evolutionary responses to changing 

climate. Ecology. 86: 1704–1714. 

Global Change Research Act of 1990; 15 U.S.C. ch. 56A §2921 et seq.

Lugo, A.E. 1997. The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness 

on degraded lands with tree monocultures. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 99(1–2): 11–19.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and 

forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological 

Applications. 17: 2145–2151.

Peterson, D.L.; Vose, J.M.; Patel-Weynand, T. eds. 2013. Climate change and 

United States forests. New York: Springer. 260 p.

Schoeneberger, M.; Bentrup, G.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2017. Agroforestry: 

enhancing resiliency in U.S. agricultural landscapes under changing 

conditions. Gen. Tech. Report WO-96. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 228 p.

Svenning, J. C.; Fløjgaard, C.; Morueta-Holme, N. [and others]. 2009. Big 

moving day for biodiversity? A macroecological assessment of the scope 

for assisted colonization as a conservation strategy under global warming. 

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 8(1): 12017.

Vose, J.; Clark, J.S.; Luce, C.H.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2016. Effects of 

drought on forests and rangelands in the United States: a comprehensive 

science synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-93b. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 289 p.
CHAPTER 1

Introduction

James L. Chamberlain

Tamara Ticktin

Marla R. Emery

Toral Patel-Weynand
CHAPTER 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 3

T he plants and fungi that are harvested 

from forests for purposes other than 

timber are not fully incorporated into 

management, policies, or resource 

valuation. These nontimber forest products (NTFPs) 

have important social, economic, and ecological 

values and they are integral to the culture of the 

people of the United States. The plants and fungi are 

fundamental to the functioning of healthy forests and 

are essential for the resilience of these ecosystems.

NTFPs are used for myriad purposes, providing cultural, 

social, and economic functions. People harvest and 

use these products for food, medicine, arts and crafts, 

and religious and cultural rituals. They also harvest, 

trade, and sell NTFPs in local to global markets. 

Harvesters represent a wide swath of the population, 

across generations, cultural groups, and sectors of 

society. This national NTFPs assessment provides the 

state of knowledge regarding the plants and fungi that 

comprise NTFPs and the people and markets that rely 

on them. The assessment also identifies challenges 

that climate variability and change may pose to 

these resources and to the services they provide.

In chapter 2, the assessment provides an overview of 

the diversity of products harvested in the United States 

as well as their means of production. Most NTFPs are 

harvested from natural populations across a mix of 

land ownerships. An estimated 20 to 25 percent of the 

United States population harvest NTFPs for personal 

use, and collection occurs on close to a quarter of 

family forest lands (Butler 2008, Butler et al. 2016, 

Cordell and Tarrant 2002). The industry can be divided 

into five broad market segments: culinary products, 

medicinal and dietary supplemtents, decorative products, 

nursery stock and landscaping, and fine arts and crafts. 

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.; figure 1.1) 

is the iconic medicinal forest product; more is known 

about this forest herb than any other medicinal plant 

because of its long standing and widespread commercial 

harvest and its listing in appendix II of the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (Chamberlain et al. 2013b). Common 

beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.), a 

nontimber product from Pacific Northwest forests, 

is a prime example of a decorative product. Research 

on this species has demonstrated the importance of 

integrating traditional ecological knowledge and scientific 

knowledge into NTFP management (Hummel and Lake 

2015, Hummel et al. 2012). Bareroot stock of Fraser 

fir (Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir.), endemic to northwest 

North Carolina, is an example of the nursery stock 

and landscaping segment of the industry. Baskets of 

white birch bark are emblematic of NTFPs used for fine 

Figure 1.1—American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) is the iconic medicinal nontimber forest product. More is known about this forest 

herb than any other medicinal plant because of its long-standing and widespread commercial harvest and its listing in Appendix II of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (Photo credit: Gary Kauffman, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.)
4 ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 1

arts and crafts (Emery et. al. 2014). Each geographic 

region in the United States also has its own culinary 

icon—maple syrup in the Northeast; fiddleheads 

(ostrich fern; Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro) 

in Maine; pine nuts in the Southwest; mushrooms in 

the Northwest; ramps (Allium tricoccum Ait.) in the 

Southern Appalachia; and tropical fruits throughout 

Hawai’i, the Caribbean, and other island areas.

Standard silvicultural practices can be used to improve 

production of NTFPs, although there is little sciencebased management of the resources for these products. 

Forest farming, an agroforestry practice, can provide 

additional revenue for landowners who grow NTFPs 

under forest canopies. For most NTFP species, the 

science of forest farming is not well-developed, but there 

are many practical guidelines to lead implementation 

(Chamberlain et al. 2009, Mudge and Gabriel 2014). 

Forest farming of a few species, such as American 

ginseng and goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.), 

has been occurring for over 100 years and is welldeveloped and understood. These model species provide 

valuable insights for other nontimber forest species.

Most NTFP species are harvested from natural 

populations, and the potential ecological impacts of 

harvesting, the possibilities for sustainable harvest, 

and some of the challenges that may impact NTFPs 

from climatic variability are discussed in chapter 3. 

The harvest of the plants and fungi can have impacts 

at multiple ecological scales—individuals, populations, 

communities, ecosystems, and landscapes (Ticktin 

2004, 2015). The resilience or vulnerability of NTFP 

populations to harvest depends on the ecological, 

management, and social context of harvest.

The type of organ (e.g., roots and leaves) harvested and 

the plant’s life history are two important factors that 

influence a species’ potential resilience or vulnerability. 

The extraction of flowers, fruit, and seeds of longlived perennials like trees has very high potential for 

sustainable harvest. Conversely, long-lived perennials 

tend to be highly sensitive to practices that impact adult 

survival (Franco and Silvertown 2004); therefore the 

harvest of bark, roots, rhizome, and bulbs, which leads 

to mortality of adult individuals, may have large negative 

impacts on population persistence (Chamberlain et 

al. 2013a, Schmidt et al. 2011). Almost all medicinal 

NTFPs that are commercially harvested are valued 

for their underground organs or for the whole plant 

(Alexander et al. 2011), and evidence indicates that these 

species can sustain only very low levels of harvest.

Harvest timing and management methods are important 

in determining the potential for sustainable harvest. 

Weed control, overstory manipulation, and replanting 

germplasm can increase growth, survival, and/or 

regeneration of natural populations. The seasonal timing 

of harvest; timing of harvest in the plant life cycle; 

and the frequency, intensity, and methods and size of 

harvest (e.g., Albrecht and McCarthy 2006, Sanders and 

McGraw 2005, Van der Voort and McGraw 2006) have 

ecological implications on natural populations. These 

practices are often part of traditional or local ecological 

knowledge and practice systems and can improve 

management efforts (Anderson 2005, Turner et al. 2000).

Sustainability of NTFP harvests requires understanding 

individual species and populations, as well as maintaining 

interspecific interactions, resistance to herbivore 

pressure, resilience to natural and anthropogenic 

disturbances, appropriate landscape management, 

and competing land uses or management objectives.

Climatic variability may present significant threats to 

forest-based plants and fungi species that are harvested 

for their nontimber products (figure 1.2). Predicted 

shifts in species distributions and phenology as a result 

of climatic variability may affect their production and 

ecology. Many NTFPs have wide distributions, although 

they may be adapted to local conditions, which may 

narrow their thermal niche, thus increasing vulnerability 

(Atkins and Travis 2010). Species composed of many 

locally adapted populations may be less likely to follow 

conditions of those natural sites as climate changes 

(Davis et al. 2005). Many species have limited seed 

dispersal distances, which increases the likelihood 

of local adaptation (Bennington and McGraw 1995, 

McGraw 1985), and increases their vulnerability to 

climatic variability (Davis et al. 2005, Etterson 2004).

NTFPs that are characterized by slow growth, long 

regeneration times, and low rates of reproduction will 

be slower to adapt to climatic variability than species 

that disperse seeds over long distances (Souther and 

McGraw 2014). Adaptation potential may be further 

reduced when harvest has decreased genetic variation, 

as this variation is a requisite for evolution to occur. 

Nontimber forest species are potential candidates 

for ex situ conservation programs, such as managed 
CHAPTER 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 5

relocation, but the relative benefits and risks of this 

conservation strategy need to be fully examined.

In addition to ecological considerations, NTFPs provide 

provisioning and cultural ecosystem services through 

contributions to food and health security, livelihood 

strategies, and spiritual and ceremonial observances, 

which may be affected by climatic variability (see 

chapter 4). The centrality of NTFPs for indigenous 

cultures is illustrated by a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court 

decision, which described access to such resources as 

“not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians 

as the air they breathe” (U.S. vs. Winans 1905). NTFP 

uses by other U.S. cultural groups include traditional 

knowledge systems and practices adapted from their 

place of origin, as well as knowledge learned from 

indigenous peoples (Turner and von Aderkas 2012), 

which together may help sustain the cultural identity 

and resilience of these communities, whether they have 

been in the country for generations or a few years. Loss 

of access to NTFPs as a result of climatic variability 

may present significant risk to cultural survival and 

material well-being of both individuals and groups 

(Emery et al. 2014, Garibaldi and Turner 2004).

Changes in spatial and temporal distributions of plants 

and fungi as a result of climatic variability may have 

some of the most immediate consequences. Changes 

in suitable habitat may mean that culturally important 

species are no longer available within the treaty territory 

of a tribe or become effectively inaccessible (Ginger et al. 

2011). Observances central to cultural identity and the 

transmission of cultural knowledge may be compromised 

by shortages in species whose life cycles are dependent 

on particular climatic conditions. Altered seasonal 

variations in temperature and precipitation may result in 

phenological asynchronies that reduce the effectiveness 

of traditional ecological knowledge or result in a decline 

in the availability of species at key moments in culturallydefined livelihood cycles. The physical properties of 

NTFPs also may be altered by changes in hydrology and 

temperature or by pests and diseases. Increased climate 

variability also may affect the social structures and values 

of NTFPs through processes such as increased demand 

for species as a result of disruptions in food and medicine 

supplies or displacement and migration of peoples.

A full understanding of the role of NTFPs requires 

examination of additional social dimensions (chapter 

5), including harvester demographics, knowledge, and 

stewardship practices. NTFP harvesters often possess 

extensive local and traditional knowledge and including 

them in planning for climatic variability offers an 

opportunity to improve management and governance 

outcomes. Many harvesting communities may be 

marginalized due to socioeconomic class, language 

challenges, or cultural barriers (Emery and Barron 2010, 

Figure 1.2—Morel mushrooms (Morchella sp.). Mushrooms may be particularly susceptible to climatic variability and changes in 

disturbance regimes. (Photo credit: Michelle J. Baumflek, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
6 ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 1

Watson 2010), however, and particular effort will be 

necessary to assure their participation in such planning.

NTFPs contribute to the economy of this country 

(chapter 6). They provide part-time and full-time 

income and employment and can provide viable 

returns on investment. The products’ market values 

can mitigate economic risks of low-income households, 

while their nonmarket values provide for subsistence, 

as well as cultural and recreational benefits. Changes 

in climate and related stressors may have significant 

impacts on these and other economic factors.

Some NTFPs have formal markets, while others are 

traded through informal markets. Harvest volumes of 

American ginseng are reported and tracked because it is 

regulated by an international convention. Other highly 

valued NTFP commodities (e.g., maple syrup, blueberries, 

moss, and lichens) are tracked by the U.S. Department 

of Commerce or the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. However, the harvest of most NTFPs is neither 

tracked, monitored, nor recorded, making estimates 

of volumes and value of trade next to impossible.

Estimating a comprehensive value of NTFPs to the 

economy is challenging, as many products are traded 

in informal markets and collected for personal use 

(McLain et al. 2008). Products traded in the formal 

economy are easier to value, but still challenging. 

Using harvest permit data from Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Chamberlain et al. (2018) used methods developed by 

Alexander et al. (2011) to estimate the total wholesale 

value of NTFPs, which averaged approximately $253 

million for the ten years (2004-2013) analysed.

NTFPs can play an important role as a revenue 

stream for forest landowners and landless households. 

Input costs for people who harvest from natural 

populations involve labor, transportation, equipment, 

and possibly permit fees to access the resource. Forest 

farming may involve higher input costs and the 

opportunity cost of the land needed for production. 

The opportunity cost of labor makes forest farming 

of some NTFPs not particularly profitable. Forest 

farming high-valued NTFPs, however, may be viable 

and coproduction of timber and nontimber products 

can improve profitability of forest operations, as well.

NTFPs also contribute monetary, and nonmonetary 

benefits to households. People derive value from 

harvesting for recreational or cultural purposes. 

Households may turn to NTFPs in times of economic 

crisis, such as when coal mines temporarily close (Bailey 

1999) or when economic shocks affect individual 

households. The products also are used to build and 

maintain social capital, indirectly contributing to 

another household strategy for dealing with risk. 

Gift-giving and fundraising can strengthen local 

social capital (Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 

2006). NTFPs contribute to household well-being 

by improving nutritional status, food and healthcare 

sovereignty, inputs to household maintenance, and 

the quality of recreational and cultural life.

There is much uncertainty in terms of the true economic 

impact of climatic variability on NTFPs. Extreme 

weather events may cause acute (short-term but strong 

magnitude) impacts. During more frequent crises, 

communities may rely more heavily on NTFPs, or they 

may lose access to NTFP resources due to declines 

in populations or changes in their natural habitats. 

Thus, there is a risk of an added economic impact that 

may adversely affect those communities in crises.

Finally, the regulatory landscape for managing NTFPs 

is as complex as the broad spectrum of harvesters, 

users, species, and products. Regulations and policies 

that address access to, management, extraction, 

trade, or conservation of NTFPs exist at multiple 

governmental levels (chapter 7). Many national legal 

and administrative frameworks that impact NTFPs 

pertain to controlling their harvest based on protected 

status, commodity type, or the purpose of the 

extraction. Early approaches resulted in regulations 

to restrict access, prevent spread of plant disease or 

invasive species, or assess taxes for commerce. Reserved 

federally recognized rights of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives, and state-level subsistence regulations 

increase the complexity for balancing the rights to 

harvest with the need to conserve the resources.

The major principles shaping national regulations 

and policies stem from the shift to ecosystem-based 

management in the 1990s to recent efforts to be more 

inclusive in conservation of the resources. Several national 
CHAPTER 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 7

laws relevant to NTFPs apply across all agencies, and 

the major land management agencies are governed by 

specific regulations and have operating policies that 

shape their behavior with respect to NTFPs. Different 

international and Federal policies are applicable to 

indigenous and tribal peoples to access, use, and conserve 

NTFPs. The variety of agencies and expertise involved 

in the regulation of the products and the policies 

generated from them are variable and distinct to each 

State, and may range from no specific regulations to a 

complex regulatory environment incorporating NTFPs 

within natural resource management regulations. 

County and municipal-level regulations are expected to 

comply with overarching Federal, tribal, and state-level 

regulations and may be based on laws that delineate 

conversion of land uses that affect forest cover.

NTFP policies and regulations exist within complex 

and dynamic socioecological governance systems. 

Development of policies for the sustainable use and 

access of NTFPs are complicated by lack of speciesspecific biological information on how much harvest 

pressure species can withstand while remaining viable 

elements of forest ecosystems. Natural resource policy 

recognizes the merits of community-based conservation 

and the reliance of communities on natural resources for 

health, subsistence, and economic needs. Participation 

in international dialogues regarding NTFPs provides 

opportunities for a broader understanding of the 

conservation and management of these resources.

The forest plants and fungi that provide nontimber 

products are rarely considered in national climate change 

research and discussions and are underrepresented in 

related policies. Potential impacts must often be inferred 

from forest-level studies that focus on predominant 

tree species. Few policies and assessments address the 

dependence of forest-based communities on NTFPs 

and the vulnerability of associated social, cultural, 

and economic systems to climatic variability. This 

report takes an important first step, by providing a 

comprehensive assessment of the multiple dimensions 

NTFPs, the ecosystem goods and services they 

provide, and the threats that climate variability and 

change may pose to their long-term availability.

1.1

Literature Cited

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2006. Comparative analysis of goldenseal 

(Hydrastis canadensis L.) population re-growth following human harvest: 

implications for conservation. The American Midland Naturalist. 156(2): 

229–236.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p.

Anderson, K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley: University of 

California Press. 558 p.

Atkins, K.E.; Travis, J.M.J. 2010. Local adaptation and the evolution of 

species’ ranges under climate change. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 

266: 449–457.

Bailey, B. 1999. Social and economic impacts of wild harvested products. 

Morgantown: West Virginia University. Ph.D. dissertation. 103 p.

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically 

important nontimber forest products of Northern Maine. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 74 p.

Bennington, C.; McGraw, J. 1995. Natural selection and ecotypic 

differentiation in Impatiens pallida. Ecological Monographs. 

65(3): 303–323.

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J. [and others]. 2016. USDA Forest 

Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state 

statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 

2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p. 

Chamberlain, J.L.; Mitchell, D.; Brigham, T. [and others]. 2009. Forest 

farming practices. In: Garret, H.E. North American agroforesty: an 

integrated science and practice. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: America Society 

of Agronomy: 219–255.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Ness, G.; Small, C.J. [and others]. 2013a. Modeling 

below-ground biomass to improve sustainable management of Actaea 

racemosa, a globally important medicinal forest product. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 293: 1–8.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Prisley, S.; McGuffin, M. 2013b. Understanding the 

relationship between American ginseng harvest and hardwood forests 

inventory and timber harvest to improve co-management of the forests of 

Eastern United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32(6): 605–624.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Teets, A.; Kruger, S. 2018. Nontimber forest products in 

the United States: an analysis for the 2015 National Sustainable Forest 

Report. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-229. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 42 p. 

Cordell, H.K.; Tarrant, M.A. 2002. Forest-based outdoor recreation. In: 

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. Southern Forest resource assessment. Gen 

Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 269–282.

Davis, M.; Shaw, R.; Etterson, J. 2005. Evolutionary responses to changing 

climate. Ecology. 86: 1704–1714.
8 ASSESSMENT OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 1

Emery, M.R. 2001. Social values of specialty forest products to rural 

communities. In: Josiah, S.J., ed. Proceedings of the North American 

conference on enterprise development through agroforestry: Farming 

the forest for specialty products. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Integrated 

Natural Resources and Agricultural Management (CINRAM), University 

of Minnesota: 25–32.

Emery, M.R.; Barron, E.S. 2010. Using local ecological knowledge to assess 

morel decline in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region. Economic Botany.

 64: 205–216.

Emery, M.R.; Martin, S.; Dyke, A. 2006. Wild harvests from Scottish 

woodlands: social, cultural and economic values of contemporary 

nontimber forest products. Edinburgh, Scotland: Forestry Commission. 40 p. 

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional 

ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories: paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera) in the US Great Lakes region. Journal of Forestry. 

112(2): 207–214.

Etterson, J. 2004. Evolutionary potential of Chamaecrista fasciculata

in relation to climate change. I. Clinal patterns of selection along an 

environmental gradient in the Great Plains. Evolution. 58(7): 1446–1456.

Franco, M.; Silvertown, J. 2004. A comparative demography of plants based 

on elasticities of vital rates. Ecology. 85: 532–538.

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N.J. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for 

ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 9(3): art 1.

Ginger, C.; Emery, M.R.; Baumflek, M.J.; Putnam, D.E. 2011. Access to 

natural resources on private property: factors beyond right of entry. 

Society & Natural Resources. 25: 700–715.

Hummel, S.; Lake, F.K. 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant 

harvest by tribal weavers can inform management. Journal of Forestry. 

113(1): 30–39.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural and cultural history 

of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.J.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Incorporating understanding 

of informal economic activity in natural resource and economic 

development policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 53 p.

McGraw, J. 1985. Experimental ecology of Dryas octopetala ecotypes. III. 

Environmental factors and plant growth. Arctic and Alpine Research. 

17: 229–239.

Mudge, K.; Gabriel, S. 2014. Farming the woods. White River Junction, VT: 

Chelsea Green Publishers. 359 p.

Sanders, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2005. Harvest recovery of goldenseal, Hydrastis 

canadensis L. The American Midland Naturalist. 153: 87–94.

Schmidt, I.; Mandle, L.; Ticktin, T.; Gaoue, O. 2011. What do matrix 

population models reveal about sustainability of harvesting nontimber 

forest products (NTFP)? Journal of Applied Ecology. 48(4): 815–826.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Ticktin, T. 2004. The ecological consequences of harvesting nontimber 

forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology. 41: 11–21.

Ticktin, T. 2015. The ecological sustainability of harvesting nontimber forest 

product harvest: principles and methods. In: Shackleton, C.; Pandey A.; 

Ticktin, T., eds. Ecological sustainability of nontimber forest products: 

case studies of harvesting. London: Earthscan: 31–52.

Turner, N.J.; Ignace, B.; Ignace, R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge 

and wisdom of aboriginal people in British Columbia. Ecological 

Applications. 10: 1275–1287. 

Turner, N.J.; von Aderkas, P. 2012. Sustained by First Nations: European 

newcomer’s use of Indigenous plant foods in temperate North America. 

Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 81(4): 295–315.

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905).

Van der Voort, M.E.; McGraw, J.B. 2006. Effects of harvester behavior on 

population growth rate affects sustainability of ginseng trade. Biological 

Conservation. 130: 505–516.

Watson, K. 2010. Tupelo forests and honey production along the 

Apalachicola River of Northwest Florida: livelihood preservation and 

forest conservation in a changing rural landscape. Tallahassee: Florida 

State University. Ph.D. dissertation. 165 p.
CHAPTER 2

Nontimber 

Forest Products 

and Production

James L. Chamberlain

Jeanine Davis

Marlyse Duguid

Dave Ellum

Mike Farrell

J.B. Friday

Dave Fuller

Steve Kruger

Humfredo Marcano-Vega

Joe-Ann McCoy

Doug Page

Steven Prisley

Johanna Young

John Zasada
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 11

2.1

Nontimber Forest Products and their 

Production

Many products are harvested from U.S. 

forests that are not derived from timber. 

These nontimber forest products (NTFPs) 

are called by many names; regardless of the 

term, they are products made from plant materials and 

fungi that are found in the forest soils and throughout 

the aboveground vegetation, from the duff to the 

topmost tree canopy. The products are collected for 

many reasons, including personal enjoyment, cultural 

and spiritual importance, and commercial gain.

This chapter explores fundamental aspects of the 

products and their production, in natural and in managed 

forests. The first section (2.1) explores the terminology, 

the scale of harvesting, and the product markets. 

Nontimber forest products contribute to markets 

that expand the definition of forest products beyond 

traditional timber industry. Silvicultural practices for 

timber production are well developed and as discussed 

in section 2.2 are applicable and appropriate for 

nontimber products, as well. Forest farming (section 

2.3), an agroforestry practice, is viewed as an approach 

to generate additional income and to conserve natural 

populations of NTFP species. A brief assessment of the 

markets and economics is provided in section 2.4, and the 

reader is directed to chapter 6 for a more comprehensive 

assessment of the economics. NTFPs occur throughout 

contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawai’i (section 2.5), 

and the Caribbean and insular areas of the United States 

(section 2.6). In the United States there are well-developed 

systems to inventory trees in forests, yet as discussed 

in section 2.7 the inventory and analysis of nontimber 

forest resources is lacking. Methods and strategies for 

tracking and monitoring NTFPs are explored in section 

2.8. Gaps in knowledge are identified in section 2.9, 

while possible impacts of climate variability are explored 

in section 2.10. Key findings (section 2.11) and key 

information needs (section 2.12) are highlighted. A brief 

set of conclusions (section 2.13) summarizes the chapter.

2.1.1

What Are Nontimber Forest Products?

Nontimber forest products are referred to by many 

names, including nontraditional, special, specialty, minor, 

as well as secondary products. We use the definition that 

NTFPs originate from plants and fungi that are harvested 

from forests. The products come from forest herbs, 

fungi, lichens, mosses, shrubs, vines, as well as trees.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service (2001) refers to these products as special 

forest products (SFPs) and defines them as:

“products collected from National Forest System land 

that include, but are not limited to, bark, berries, 

boughs, bryophytes, bulbs, burls, Christmas trees, 

cones, epiphytes, fence material, ferns, firewood, forbs, 

fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, mine props, 

mosses, nuts, pine straw, posts and poles, roots, sedge, 

seeds, shingles and shake bolts, transplants, tree sap, 

rails, and wildflowers. Special forest products do not 

include animals, animal parts, cull logs, derrick poles, 

house logs, insects, minerals, non-saw log material 

removed in log form, pulpwood, rocks, sawtimber, small 

roundwood, soil, telephone poles, water and worms.”

Although the preceding definition is specific to national 

forests, it can be applied to all nontimber forest products. 

In 2000, the U.S. Congress directed the Secretary of 

Agriculture to implement a program to collect fees for 

the harvest and sale of “forest botanical products” 

(DOI appropriations 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2014; 

see chapter 7, section 7.2.3). The U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

uses the term special forest products and describes 

the products as “vegetative material found on public 

lands that can be harvested for recreation, personal 

use, or as a source of income” (BLM 2014).

For this assessment, NTFPs, SFPs, and FBPs (forest 

botanical products) are synonymous. Appendix 4 

identifies forest plant and fungi species that are presented 

in the chapters of this national NTFP assessment. 

The list is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive but 

illustrative of the diversity of species, organs, uses, and 

geographic distribution. More than one-half of the 

350 plus plant and fungi species identified are found in 

tropical areas, yet NTFPs from temperate forests are 

diverse and plentiful as well. Across all forest ecosystem 

landscapes, a vast number of plants and fungi are being 

harvested for their nontimber values. The great variety 

of products amplifies the complexities of social and 

cultural dimensions that affect economic and ecological 

dynamics. To fully comprehend these requires an initial 

understanding of the products and their production.
12 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

2.1.2

Plant and Fungi Organs Used

Many different parts (organs) of plants and fungi are 

harvested for nontimber products that are valued for 

monetary gain or personal enjoyment. These include the 

roots, tubers, leaves, bark, twigs and branches, fruit, 

and sap, as well as small-diameter wood for firewood 

and arts and crafts. The fruiting body of mushrooms 

and other fungi are used for food and medicine. In 

some cases, such as ramps (Allium tricoccum Aiton) 

the entire plant is removed and consumed. Likewise the 

entire plant of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) is 

harvested and separated into aboveground (leaves and 

stems) and belowground (roots and rhizomes) parts, 

which are used differently for medicinal purposes.

The roots and/or rhizomes of many plants are 

harvested to make medicinal products. Roots of 

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) have 

been harvested commercially for more than 250 years 

from eastern hardwood forests for their value as an 

herbal medicine. Of the 22 medicinal plant species 

that the American Herbal Products Association 

(AHPA) tracks, 10 are harvested exclusively for the 

roots and rhizomes (AHPA 2012). Another four 

medicinal plant species are harvested for their roots/

rhizomes, as well as their aboveground parts.

The fruiting bodies of many different mushrooms and 

fungi are harvested for personal consumption and 

for generating income. Dozens of species are enjoyed 

as edible forest products. More than 20 species are 

harvested from forests of the Pacific Northwest (Pilz 

and Molina 2002). In the late 1990s and early 2000s 

research was undertaken on various aspects of these 

nontimber products, including viability, economics, 

sustainability, and management. Schlosser and Blatner 

(1995) estimated that in 1992 approximately 65 percent 

of mushroom harvesters in the Pacific Northwest 

collected for supplemental income, while the remaining 

portion used the sale of these products for their 

primary source of income. Pilz and Molina (2002) 

discussed management and monitoring issues that affect 

sustainability of mushrooms. Alexander et al. (2002) 

examined economic nuances of managing for mushrooms 

and timber. Further, the ecology and management of 

chanterelle mushrooms were examined as the harvest 

of this NTFP was reportedly a multimillion-dollar 

industry (Pilz et al. 2003). The productivity of morel 

mushrooms in northeast Oregon relative to healthy, 

burned, and insect-damaged forests has been examined, 

as well (Pilz et al. 2004). Although these studies 

provided important insights about various aspects of 

the products, there has been little reoccurring studies or 

long-term monitoring or assessments undertaken. Much 

of the knowledge about the products is based on dated 

studies, research done in the late 1990s or early 2000s.

2.1.3

Scale of Harvest

The scale of harvest often reflects harvesters’ motives. 

An often-used classification for harvesting is personal 

versus commercial. People collect NTFPs for their own 

use, whether for spiritual benefit, consumption of luxury 

goods, subsistence, or recreational purposes (Emery and 

Pierce 2005). Luxury goods are nonessential items and 

harvest typically fluctuates with income. Subsistence, like 

most noncommercial uses of NTFPs, includes resource 

use to meet material and cultural objectives separate from 

commerce (Emery and Pierce 2005). NTFPs are collected 

on family forest lands, for personal use, and categorized 

as edible or decorative (Butler 2008, Butler et al. 2014). 

Cordell and Tarrant (2002) estimated that nearly onequarter of the U.S. population may gather NTFPs for 

personal use. Estimating the sheer number of people who 

collect NTFPs is impractical with any degree of certainty 

and unnecessary as anyone who harvests NTFPs for any 

reason may be considered a harvester. Determining the 

number and volume of products collected for personal 

uses is challenging, as well. The number of products 

is limited only by the collectors’ personal needs, and 

the amounts of products harvested are rarely recorded. 

The 138 products from 80 forest species used by people 

in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, identified by Emery 

(1998), illustrate the diversity of plants and their uses. 

In general, the volumes harvested for personal use 

are less than those harvested for commercial gain.

The best available data, albeit with challenges to quality 

and quantity, are from permits for harvesting on Federal 

lands and industry association surveys. Data from these 

sources may not fully represent the total harvest, but 

they provide the best assessment of harvest volumes. 

The scale of commercial harvesting is influenced by 

market demand, product value, and availability of the 

desired NTFP. The Forest Service (national forests) and 

BLM record volumes and values of permitted harvests 

that provides some of the best data on NTFPs from 

public lands. Table 2.1 summarizes the volumes of 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 13

Table 2.1—2013 permitted harvest volumes of NTFPs from Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land by product category, unit of 

measure, and region. Sources: Cut and sold reports of national forests (USDA Forest Service 2015a) and Bureau of Land Management records. 

Product category Unit Alaska North Rocky South West All United States

Arts, crafts, and floral Bunches 0 0 100 0 0 100

Bushel 0 40 590 100 71,093 71,823

Cords 0 0 5 0 93 98

Cubic feet 0 0 295 348 22 665

Number 0 0 1,000 0 0 1,000

Pounds 150 5,630 116,743 201,506 5,321,503 5,645,532

Ton 0 651 293 65 6,716 7,725

Christmas trees Each/number 0 2,678 133,577 249 76,240 212,744

Linear feet 0 0 1,566 0 175 1,741

Edible fruits, nuts, 

berries, and sap

Gallon 0 0 890 0 302,858 303,748

Pounds 200 400 226,868 30 443,228 670,726

Taps 0 18,430 0 0 0 18,430

Grass and forage Pounds 0 104 10 0 4,120,869 4,120,983

Ton 0 295 3 8 830 1,136

Fuelwood CCF 244 21,431 351,664 18,397 219,759 611,496

Medicinal Pounds 0 856 12,148 14,936 14,710 42,650

Nonconvertible Acre 0 0 0 28 0 28

Bushel 0 0 6 100 0 106

Cubic feet 0 0 500 750 450 1,700

Each/piece 0 3,604 250 2,469 6,129 12,452

Pounds 3,000 0 0 4,320 56,776 64,096

Ton 0 0 43 0 1 44

Nursery and landscape Each/number 600 204 9,827 24,942 10,926 46,499

Ton 0 0 1 0 0 1

Posts and poles CCF 0 7,538 11,399 97 16,369 35,403

Linear feet 0 0 0 0 2,140 2,140

Number 0 100 22,253 0 6,547 28,900

Regeneration and 

silviculture

Bushel 0 10 2,193 0 3,513 5,706

Pounds 0 0 316,744 0 17,037 333,781

Note: units were maintained for all categories except for fuelwood and for posts and poles; these two categories were converted to CCF (100 cubic feet) wherever 

possible.
14 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

permitted harvest from national forest and BLM lands 

in 2013. AHPA is a leader in tracking medicinal plants 

used by the herbal industry (AHPA 2012) and regularly 

reports on estimated harvest volumes of 22 medicinal 

forest products used by its members (table 2.2).

2.1.4

Market Segments

In general, there are five broad market segments 

(table 2.3) of commercially traded NTFPs: (1) culinary 

products, (2) medicinal and dietary supplements, (3) 

decorative products, (4) nursery stock and landscaping, 

and (5) fine arts and crafts (Chamberlain et al. 1998, 

Molina et al. 1997). There is no known regular 

monitoring or tracking of these market segments. The 

few studies that have been done regarding market 

aspects provide invaluable though limited insights. 

Like all markets, NTFP market segments are dynamic. 

Additional categories may evolve as knowledge about 

the markets and industry develops. As well, the volumes 

and values of product harvests change with supply 

and demand. NTFP markets are commonly described 

as volatile, informal, secretive, and amorphous, so 

a clear description of them may remain elusive. The 

following synopses of each segment provide insight 

into the breadth and depth of these markets.

Culinary products—Forest products used for edible 

purposes include the fruit, sap, leaves, tubers, and 

bulbs. The fruiting bodies of edible fungi, particularly 

mushrooms, are perhaps the most well-known and 

documented edible forest product. The geographic 

distribution of edible forest products is dependent on 

ecological conditions of suitable habitats. For example, 

much of the commercial mushroom harvest is centered 

in the Pacific Northwest. Schlosser and Blatner (1995) 

identified more than 25 species of fungi commercially 

harvested in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. They 

estimated that in 1992 approximately 3.9 million pounds 

(lbs) of mushrooms were harvested for commercial 

markets. From 2009 through 2013, the Forest Service and 

BLM issued permits for the harvest of more than 

2 million lbs of edible fruits, nuts, berries, and 

Table 2.2—Average annual harvest of plant species wild-harvested for herbal or medicinal purposes by plant part used. Source: AHPA (2012).

Latin name Common name Plant part

Average 

annual harvest

2001–2005

Average 

annual harvest

2006–2010

Percent 

change

Actaea racemosa Black cohosh Root 224,072 284,162 26.8

Aletris farinosa White colicroot Root 1,012 690 -31.9

Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Root 121 43 -64.2

Arnica spp. Arnica Whole plant 63 715 1,044.0

Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue cohosh Root 6,651 5,169 -22.3

Chamaelirium luteum Fairywand Root 4,688 4,541 -3.1

Cypripedium spp. Lady’s slipper Whole plant 51 48 -4.3

Dioscorea villosa Wild yam Tuber 33,422 37,692 12.8

Echinacea angustifolia Blacksamson echinacea Root and herb 35,446 36,394 2.7

Echinacea pallida Pale purple coneflower Root and herb 12,916 812 -93.7

Echinacea purpurea Eastern purple coneflower Root and herb 22,411 3,994 -82.2

Echinacea spp. Purple coneflower Root and herb 70,772 41,200 -41.8

Frangula purshiana Cascara buckthorn Bark 166,034 366,272 120.6

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Root and leaf 73,619 74,708 1.5

Ligusticum porteri Porter’s licorice-root Root 828 2,095 153.1

Lomatium dissectum Fernleaf biscuitroot Root 584 809 38.4

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Root 24,823 5,056 -79.6

Serenoa repens Saw palmetto Fruit 3,293,377 2,432,841 -26.1

Trillium erectum Red trillium Whole plant 1,099 1,445 31.5

Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Bark 182,435 304,207 66.7

Usnea spp. Beard lichen Whole plant 1,165 1,300 11.6
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 15

mushrooms (Alexander et al. 2011; Chamberlain 

et. al. 2018). In 1998, approximately 25 million lbs of 

black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) nuts were harvested 

from natural populations (Chamberlain et al. 1998). In 

2007, the United States exported pine nuts harvested 

from southwestern forests worth more than $20,000 

(Alexander et al. 2011). “Maine was the leading producer 

of lowbush, or ‘wild’ blueberries, harvesting 91.1 million 

pounds in 2012” (NASS 2013). Maple syrup is primarily 

produced in Northeastern United States, from Ohio to 

Maine, with production extending south into Virginia. 

Vermont is the main producer, followed by Maine and 

New York. The harvesting of wild onions (ramps or leeks) 

from eastern hardwood forests has increased over the last 

25 years, from personal and community uses (festivals) to 

large-scale harvesting for corporate and global markets.

Medicinal and dietary supplements—The use and trade of 

herbal medicines derived from forest plants has a long 

history and may constitute the highest economically 

valued segment of the NTFP industry. The roots of 

American ginseng have been commercially harvested 

from eastern hardwood forests for over 250 years (Taylor 

2006). Farnsworth and Morris (1976) estimated that 

more than 25 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in 

the United States contained active ingredients extracted 

from higher ordered vascular plants. Foster and Duke 

(1990) cataloged more than 500 medicinal plants in the 

United States. AHPA (2012) tracks 21 medicinal plant 

species that are in commerce (table 2.2). The average 

annual usage (2006–2010) ranged from 43 dry lbs of 

Virginia snakeroot (Aristolochia serpentaria L.) to 

2.4 million lbs of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens (W. 

Bartram) Small) berries. The average annual harvest 

for about half of the products increased from 2001 to 

2005, compared to 2006 to 2010. Some products, such 

as arnica (Arnica cordifolia Hook.), saw tremendous 

growth (i.e., more than 1,000 percent), while others 

such as echinacea (Echinacea pallida Nutt.) declined 

drastically. Market segments of the NTFPs industry 

discussed in the following sections have similar dynamics.

In 1995, the U.S. Pharmacopoeia listed more than 

25 tree species, 65 herbaceous plants, and 29 shrubs 

for their medicinal properties (Foster 1995). In the 

early 1990s extract from the bark of the Pacific 

yew (Taxus brevifolia Nutt.) was found effective in 

treating ovarian cancer, which resulted in substantial 

Table 2.3—Major nontimber forest product market segments with examples of prominent species, the regions where they are most prominent, 

and the plant organ used. Some species may have multiple uses for multiple markets. For a more extensive the list, see appendix 4.

Market segment Species Common name Region Organ

Culinary Acer saccharum Sugar maple Northeast, Southeast Sap

Allium tricoccum Ramps, leeks Northeast, Southeast Whole plant

Boletus spp. Bolete mushroom Northwest Fruiting body

Pinus edulis, P. monophylla Pinyon pine Southwest Seeds

Medicinal and dietary 

supplement

Arnica cordifolia Arnica Northwest Whole plant

Oplopanax horridus Devil’s club Alaska Roots

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng Northeast, Southeast, Midwest Roots

Serenoa repens Saw palmetto Southeast Fruit

Decorative Abies balsamea Balsam fir Midwest, Northeast, Southeast Boughs

Galax urceolata Galax Southeast Leaves

Gaultheria shallon Salal Northwest Leaves

Xerophyllum tenax Beargrass Northwest Leaves

Nursery stock and landscaping Abies fraseri Fraser fir Southeast tree

Arctostaphylos columbiana Hairy manzanita Northwest Shrub

Cypripedium spp. Lady’s slipper Southeast Orchid

Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower Great Plains Herb

Fine arts and crafts Betula papyrifera Paper birch Midwest, Northeast Bark

Callitropsis nootkatensis Yellow cedar Alaska Wood

Hierochloe odorata Alpine sweet grass Northeast Stem
16 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

harvesting of the tree from public forest lands in the 

Pacific Northwest. Saw palmetto, which is used to 

treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, is sourced primarily 

from pine forests of Florida (Mitchell 2014).

Decorative products—Many forest plants and their parts 

are used in decorative arrangements, to complement 

and furnish the backdrop for flowers, as well as for 

the main component of fresh and dried arrangements 

or ornaments. The end uses for many forest-harvested 

decoratives include fresh/dried flowers, greenery, 

basket filler, wreaths, swags, and roping. In the 

Pacific Northwest, forest plants harvested for their 

decorative values include salal (Gaultheria shallon 

Pursh), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum

Pursh), Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa Pursh), and 

beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.) (Vance 

et al. 2001). Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides (L.) 

L.) is collected from forests of Florida, Georgia, and 

Mississippi and exported for use as packaging material 

for flower bulbs, which may be imported, later, from 

Europe. In southern Appalachia, grape vine (Vitis spp. 

L.) and Dutchman’s pipe (Aristolochia tomentosa Sims) 

are harvested for making wreaths. Western North 

Carolina is the major source of galax (Galax urceolata

(Poir) Brummitt) leaves (figure 2.1) for the international 

floral industry (Predny and Chamberlain 2005).

There are markets for seasonal cuttings of some woody 

understory shrubs, as well. In New England, collectors 

of mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia L.) may sign 

harvest contracts with landowners, while some private 

landowners collect and sell winterberry holly (Ilex 

verticillata (L.) A. Gray) from their lands (Monthey 

2011). Some species, such as pitcherplants (Sarracenia

spp.) in the Southeast, have strong markets and are 

vulnerable to over-harvesting, which has led to concern 

for their conservation (Robbins 1998). Conifer boughs 

may be the most widely sold decorative forest product 

in the United States (Chamberlain 2000). In the Pacific 

Northwest, the harvest and sales of boughs was estimated 

to employ more than 10,000 seasonal and permanent 

positions (Schlosser et al. 1991). In 1995, the United 

States exported more than $14 million in forest-harvested 

mosses and lichens, most of which originated from 

Appalachia and the Pacific Northwest (Goldberg 1996).

Nursery stock and landscaping—Live forest plants are 

collected for the nursery and landscaping industry. These 

may be marketed as bareroot stock or balled live plants 

for direct planting. In North Carolina, Fraser fir (Abies 

fraseri (Pursh) Poir.) seedlings are pulled from natural 

populations to be transplanted to nurseries for Christmas 

tree production. Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp. L.), 

azaleas (Rhododendron spp. L.), and mountain laurel, 

as well as cacti from Southwestern United States are 

dug from forests and sold for landscaping. In 2013, the 

largest volume of forest plants harvested as transplants, 

for nurseries and landscaping, came from the national 

forests of North Carolina (USDA Forest Service 2015b).

Collection of forest understory wildflowers for 

horticultural sales is a cottage industry in the 

southern Appalachian region and, to a limited extent, 

throughout New England. Bareroot lady’s slipper 

orchids (Cypripedium spp. L.), trillium (Trillium

spp. L.), and other wildflowers are available through 

Internet sales and box stores (Botanical Wonders 

2015, Cullina 2000, Mainely Crafts 2015). Five states 

Figure 2.1—Galax (Galax urceolata) leaves are harvested from 

western North Carolina and shipped worldwide for use in the 

floral industry. (Photo credit: Gary Kauffman, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.)
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 17

(California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) 

reported more than 99 percent of the national harvest 

of nuts, seed, and seed cones for forest regeneration 

plantings (USDA Forest Service 2015a). Government 

programs that promote the use and salvage of native 

plants are found at local and Federal levels (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2015; Water and 

Lands Resource Division of King County 2015).

Fine arts and crafts—Artisans that use NTFPs to craft 

items find the ingredients for their creations in forest 

plants and fungi. The number of NTFPs used to 

make fine art and crafts is limited only by the crafters 

imagination. Wood collected from forests may be used 

for carvings, turnings, walking sticks, utensils, and 

containers. Mosses, lichens, and seeds may be formed 

into jewelry. Vines are crafted into wreaths, sculptures, 

and statues. Baskets are crafted from the bark of paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera Marshall) that is stripped from 

trees in northern Minnesota, splints of wood from 

oak (Quercus sp.) and ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees, and 

stems of sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes M.A. Curtis, 

or M. capillaris)

1

 harvested from wetlands of South 

Carolina (Hurley et al. 2008, Moser et al. 2015).

NTFPs used for arts and crafts contribute to a 

multimillion-dollar handicraft industry. Determining 

the proportional value of NTFPs to this industry 

is problematic because differentiating the 

contribution of crafts’ ingredients is not possible. 

The outlets for these fine arts are varied as well. 

Some artisans prefer local and regional craft fairs, 

while others may market their products through 

specialty retail stores or Internet-based outlets.

2.1.5

Iconic Nontimber Forest Products

The total number of NTFPs remains an enigma; by 

some reports there are hundreds, perhaps thousands 

of products (Chamberlain et al. 1998, Emery 1998) 

and listing all of them is not possible. Appendix 4 

provides a list of NTFP species discussed in this 

report. We present in this section brief summaries of 

iconic NTFPs—products that are familiar to all and 

may be so important to the culture of the people who 

use them that the loss of the product due to climate 

change or other stressors (e.g., over-harvesting, lack of 

1 Note: The common name “sweetgrass” refers to Muhlenbergia filipes, not to be confused with Hierochloe odorata (alpine sweetgrass).

management) would have significant negative impacts 

on the people and places associated with them.

American ginseng—The extent of this plant’s range is 

in eastern United States, though it occurs in southern 

Quebec and Ontario. A medicinal forest product, 

American ginseng grows throughout mixed hardwood 

forests from Maine to Minnesota, south to Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma (Goldstein 

1975, Nantel et al. 1996, Stockberger 1928). These forests 

are some of the most biologically diverse temperate forests 

in the world. American ginseng shares them with many 

forest herbs that are harvested for their commercial value. 

More than 60 percent of the 20 or so medicinal plants 

tracked by AHPA (2012) grow in the same forest habitat.

Harvesting of American ginseng has impacted 

the ecology of the forests as well as the economic 

livelihood of the harvesters. The plant’s roots have 

been commercially harvested for more than 250 years 

(Chamberlain et al. 2013b). From the mid-18th century 

to the turn of 20th century, the United States exported 

an estimated 20 million lbs of American ginseng 

root. Table 6.3 (Chapter 6: Economics) summarizes 

harvest volumes by state for the period 2000 to 2007. 

Chamberlain et al. (2013b) estimate that, between 2000 

and 2007, harvesters received on average about $27 

million each year (table 6.3). They also demonstrate 

that ginseng harvests are greater in forests with more 

growing stock volume. Chandler and McGraw (2015) 

argue that harvesting of eastern forests for timber has 

impacted the survival, growth, and reproduction of 

American ginseng. Removal of underaged or undersized 

plants reduces population growth below replacement 

levels (Van der Voort and McGraw 2006). Analysis 

of herbaria specimen suggests that the plant was more 

abundant (Case et al. 2007), and patterns of genetic 

variation show greater diversity in populations that 

have been protected from harvest (Cruse-Sanders and 

Hamrick 2004). By the first decade of the 20th century, 

concerns had been voiced about the declining supply 

of this medicinal forest product (Taylor 2006).

In 1975, American ginseng was listed in appendix 

II of the Convention on International Trade of 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 

n.d.), an agreement to which the United States is 

party. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is 
18 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

the implementing agency for the United States and is 

charged with determining if the export of ginseng root 

would be detrimental to the survival of the species and 

certifying that states that want to export ginseng have 

an acceptable management and monitoring program. 

The FWS has approved 19 states to export wild 

roots: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. There are nearly 40 years of harvest data 

by state and county for ginseng because of its listing in 

CITES. More is known about the harvest of American 

ginseng than any other medicinal forest product.

Every year, large quantities of American ginseng root 

are harvested across its native range, yet the majority 

is limited to a few states within the core of the range. 

From 2000 to 2007 more than 500,000 pounds of 

American ginseng root were harvested from natural 

forests (figure 2.2; see also table 6.3). Seven states 

accounted for approximately 70 percent of the total 

American ginseng harvest for the period. Kentucky’s 

harvest was more than 25 percent of the total, followed 

by Tennessee (14 percent), North Carolina (12 percent), 

West Virginia (9 percent), and Indiana (8 percent). The 

average annual harvest across all States during these 

years was 63,200 lbs (Chamberlain et al. 2013b), though 

there has been a general decline in harvest volumes.

Harvesting of wild American ginseng and hardwood 

timber has been occurring in the same forests throughout 

this country’s history. There is a positive correlation 

between ginseng harvest and hardwood growing-stock 

volume, and hardwood growing-stock volume on public 

lands (Chamberlain et al. 2013b). More ginseng harvest 

occurs in hardwood forests with greater growingstock volume and, as the proportion of public forest 

land base increases, there is an associated increase 

in reported ginseng harvest. However, to reiterate, 

harvesting of eastern forests for timber has impacted 

the survival, growth, and reproduction of American 

ginseng (Chandler and McGraw 2015). These findings 

imply that forest management (see section 2.2) of 

this NTFP and timber is possible and warranted.

Beargrass—This decorative forest product grows in the 

Western United States and Canada. In its U.S. range there 

are two distinct distributions (Hummel et al. 2012)—

one in west-central California, north through Oregon 

to the Cascade Mountains in northwest Washington, 

and the other ranging from western Wyoming through 

Idaho and Montana, along the Rocky Mountains. 

The species is an early- to late-successional pioneer 

that grows in a variety of forest types. It is found in 

the understory of dry, mixed-coniferous forests to 

subalpine meadows. The greatest densities of beargrass 

are in forests with sparse canopies (figure 2.3).

Figure 2.2—Average annual reported American ginseng harvest 

by county across 19 states certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for the years 2000-2007. (Source: Chamberlain et al. 2013.)

Ginseng annual harvest (lbs/yr)

1-90

91-180

181-360

361-600

601-1,200

Figure 2.3—Many nontimber forest species, such as this patch of 

beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), live below the trees. Integrating 

these understory species into forest management increases the 

complexity, yet critical to forest health. (Photo credit: Frank K. Lake, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 19

Beargrass is harvested for making traditional baskets 

and for the commercial floral industry (Hummel et al. 

2012). The plant did not enter the floral greens industry 

in commercial volumes until the late 1980s, although 

American Indians have been harvesting beargrass for 

spiritual and cultural purposes for generations (Lynch 

and McLain 2003, Weigand 2002). Beargrass was 

reportedly the most harvested NTFP for the floral 

industry in the Pacific Northwest (, Schlosser and 

Blatner 1997, Schlosser et al. 1992). They estimated the 

commercial value of beargrass to be over $1 million 

in 1997. Draffan (2006) estimated 10 years later the 

value of beargrass and salal (another wild-harvested 

Pacific Northwest floral green) at $54 million. These 

analyses illustrate the tremendous value of NTFPs and 

inconsistencies between studies that need reconciliation 

for a better understanding of the overall market values.

Different groups have preferences for harvest timing 

and locations as well as plant characteristics. American 

Indians have traditional ecological knowledge that 

influences decision making of preferred harvest sites 

and practices (Hummel and Lake 2015). American 

Indians harvest after the snow has melted, primarily 

during the spring and summer. Sites that have 

experienced low-intensity and frequent fire incidents 

are preferred by American Indians (Charnley and 

Hummel 2011, Hummel et al. 2012, Shebitz et al. 

2009). Accordingly, American Indian harvesters prefer 

long, strong, and pliable leaves for basket making. 

For ceremonial purposes, they want plants with 

flowers, along with the preferred leaf structure.

Commercial harvesters have different preferences 

for harvest sites and practices. They bring personal 

experience that may have been handed down through 

generations of harvesting NTFPs from their native 

lands, or that personal experience is new and lacking a 

full appreciation and understanding of plant. Generally, 

they look for large populations with plants that have 

the desired leaf qualities. Commercial harvesters use 

various techniques to remove leaves, which may result 

in overharvesting and threaten plant populations 

(Charnley and Hummel 2011). The preferred leaf 

characteristics for commercial markets are deep 

green color, with long, wide, and firm leaves from the 

center of the plant. These are best found in conifer 

forests with 60 to 90 percent canopy cover, at higher 

elevations (Charnley and Hummel 2011, Hummel et 

al. 2012) According to Schlosser and Blatner (1997), 

beargrass leaf quality is maximized during the later 

stages of mid-successional forest development.

Managing beargrass for tribal weaving requires blending 

traditional and scientific ecological knowledge to 

craft and implement adaptive management strategies 

(Hummel and Lake 2015). This will be accomplished 

by embracing the social and cultural dynamics and 

working with the community of interested people who 

want to benefit from the harvest of beargrass. The scale 

of harvest volumes (commercial versus noncommercial) 

affects management decisions and potential silvicultural 

treatments (Hummel and Lake 2015, Hummel et al. 

2012). Management strategies for beargrass need to 

be adapted to different market demands, cultures 

and ethnicities, as well as climate variations.

Fiddlehead ferns—An edible forest product, fiddleheads, 

are the tightly coiled, vegetative fronds of the ostrich 

fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro). Ostrich 

ferns have a wide distribution in the United States, from 

Maine, south to Virginia, west to Nebraska, and north 

to Minnesota and in warmer areas of Alaska. Ostrich 

ferns are adapted to USDA plant hardiness zones 3 to 7 

(USDA 2012). Their preferred growth habitat is along 

stream and river floodplains in sandy loam soils under 

the high canopy of maple, ash, and other hardwoods.

Fiddleheads are culturally important as a harbinger 

of spring and as a healthy, welcome addition to local 

diets. Fiddleheads also are an important part of 

rural economies and sold in neighborhood markets, 

roadside stands, and large grocery store chains (Fuller 

2012). Accurate figures are lacking for total yields but 

are estimated to be about 100,000 lbs, annually.

Fiddleheads are harvested in the spring as they emerge 

from the plant’s crown with a short piece of the stem. 

Harvesting is done primarily from wild, unmanaged 

populations, though some forest farming of this product 

is known to occur. Proper identification of the fern, 

sustainable harvesting practices, and proper preparation 

of ostrich fern is important. For example, misidentifying 

brackenferns (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn), which 

may be carcinogenic, for ostrich fern and improper 

cooking of ostrich fern has been related to cases of 

foodborne-related illness (Bolton and Fuller 2013).

Maple syrup—Maple syrup (figure 2.4) is one of the 

most prominent edible NTFPs in eastern United States 

(Farrell and Chabot 2012). It is produced primarily from 
20 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

the sap of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall), but 

black maple (A. nigrum Michx. f.) and red maple (A. 

rubrum L.) also can be tapped. In the United States, 

sugar maple grows in several eastern States, although 

commercial production of maple syrup occurs primarily 

in the Northeastern States. Trees must be at least 10 

inches in diameter before they can be tapped without 

damage to the tree and should occur in fairly dense forest 

stands to make sap collection economically efficient.

Maple syrup is produced in late winter and early spring 

when weather conditions fluctuate above and below 

freezing, stimulating sap movement within the trees. 

The annual value of U.S. maple syrup production is well 

over $100 million, distributed across 10 states (Farrell 

and Chabot 2012). Vermont leads production whereas 

New York, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have the greatest 

potential to increase production. Overall, there is 

tremendous potential to increase maple syrup production 

as less than 1 percent of more than 2 billion tappablesize maple trees are utilized (Farrell and Chabot 2012).

Pine nuts—In the United States, pine nut production 

is from primarily natural stands of pinyon trees on 

public forest lands in western United States, which 

are not managed specifically for nut production. 

Pine nuts are harvested from singleleaf pinyon pine 

(Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frém.), found primarily 

in the Great Basin, and two-needle pinyon pine (P. 

edulis Engelm) on the Colorado Plateau. Both species 

produce large, highly prized nutritious nuts.

Pine nuts were a staple food of many American 

Indian tribes in western United States. Today, they are 

collected and sold in local markets. In 2007, the United 

States exported pine nuts valued at about $20,000, 

and imported about $54 million worth of pine nuts 

(Alexander et al. 2011). This indicates that the United 

States pine nut market has potential for development 

with concomitant management considerations.

In the United States, pinyon pine grows with a number 

of juniper species (Juniperus spp. L.) in a forest type 

known as pinyon-juniper (Eyre 1980). This forest type 

is the most extensive in Southwest States and dominates 

47 million acres (ac) in five states (Intermountain Society 

of American Foresters 2013). The pinyon-juniper forests 

are typically unmanaged and are commonly eradicated 

in favor of rangeland species deemed more favorable 

to livestock and some wildlife species. Healthy stands 

of pinyon-juniper can be maintained by thinning and 

uneven-aged silviculture management. It is possible to 

comanage pinyon stands for food, livestock, and wildlife.

Management prescriptions (some of which were used 

by American Indian tribes) may include identifying 

mixed-aged stands of pinyon pines located on gentle 

slopes with deep soils, which are more productive sites 

(Mclain and Frazier 2008). Thinning stands to reduce the 

non-pinyon tree component will release good nut trees. 

Pinyon trees with large spreading crowns are typically 

Figure 2.4—Maple syrup from Vermont, the major producer of this 

delicacy, and other New England states is an iconic nontimber 

forest product from trees. In 2013, the United States produced 

approximately 3.25 million gallons, and annually the sale of syrup 

adds over $100 million to the Nation’s economy. (Photo credit: 

Cornell University, Uihlein Maple Research Forest.)
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 21

the most prolific nut bearers and can be retained through 

selective thinning. Pruning lower branches decreases 

the risk of crown fires and makes trees less susceptible 

to infections and pests. Pruning and light thinning 

results in increased cone production on residual trees. 

Integrating this NTFP into forest management requires 

balancing multiple land use objectives that may conflict.

Ramps—A spring ephemeral, ramps (wild leeks) are native 

to rich, moist hardwood forests of eastern North America 

(figure 2.5). Leaves of this forest herb begin to emerge 

when the soil temperatures increase, which usually occurs 

in late March and early April, depending on geographic 

location. Young plants produce smooth, broad leaves that 

die back as the overstory canopy closes and reduces the 

amount of sunlight that reaches the forest floor. Patches 

of ramps often can be located by their distinctive odor 

(Calvey et al. 1997). Before the plants lose their leaves, 

people forage the forests for this odiferous spring edible.

American Indians and early settlers ate ramps as 

the first green of the year. In the mid-20th century 

community groups began organizing ramp festivals to 

celebrate the arrival of spring and to raise money for 

local causes (Lohmann 2005, Simmons 2006). An early 

study documented harvest levels for 10 ramp festivals 

in western North Carolina to be in excess of 3,000 

lbs, annually (Greenfield and Davis 2003), yet total 

annual harvest volumes have not been documented. 

More than 50 festivals have been identified from North 

Carolina to New York. Harvesting intensity increased 

with development of markets at roadside vegetable 

stands, farmers’ markets, and even to local restaurants. 

In the late 1990s, the plant’s popularity increased 

tremendously when culinary aficionados started 

promoting it as a luxury product (e.g., Geraghty 2005, 

Roach 2005, Sheffield 2005). Large-scale harvesting 

is supplying farmer’s markets and other local food 

vendors (Levin 2006, Raisfeld and Patronite 2007, 

Wolcott 2006). Now, ramps are served at upscale 

restaurants and sold at natural food stores across the 

Nation and over the Internet (Ellison 2001, Feiring 

2006). Expansion of market demand has generated 

concern for the plant’s conservation (Associated Press 

2005, Clabby 2005, Ostendorff 2005, Sheffield 2005).

The impact of harvesting and other disturbances on 

natural populations of ramps is not well understood. 

Understory herbaceous plant communities may take 

Figure 2.5—Ramps (Allium tricoccum), a spring ephemeral forest species, are only available for about 10 weeks each year. During that time, 

people harvest large volumes of this odiferous onion for personal consumption and for sale in a burgeoning market. The increased interest 

in foods foraged from forests is putting tremendous pressures on natural populations of this and other edible forest products. (Photo credit: 

Michelle J. Baumflek, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
22 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

longer to recover from harvest disturbance than overstory 

trees (McLachlan and Bazely 2001). Rock et al. (2004) 

estimated that a 10-percent harvest once every 10 years 

from a patch may be sustainable, but a 25-percent harvest 

was clearly detrimental to natural populations. On 

the other hand, Walker and Knapp (2010)2 monitored 

22 populations of ramps, with varying degrees of 

disturbance, and found them to be “remarkably stable” 

through a decade of analysis. Recolonization may be 

prohibited by dense vegetation cover of more aggressive 

plants. Nantel et al. (1996) concluded that the only 

measure to conserve ramp populations would be to 

delay bulb harvest until the end of the photosynthetic 

season when the bulbs are fully developed.

Forest herbs, such as ramps, are recognized as 

indicators of forest health (McLachlan and Bazely 

2001). Slow annual growth and small-sized plants 

lead to a long preproductive stage (Nantel et al. 1996). 

Population growth and maintenance is due to vegetative 

propagation more than seed production. Changes in 

soil moisture and temperature due to climate variations 

could impact growth and maintenance of natural 

populations of spring ephemerals, such as ramps.

2.2

Silviculture for Temperate U.S. 

Nontimber Forest Products

Most NTFPs are harvested from natural populations in 

forests. In general there is little professional management 

of nontimber forest resources, yet as discussed in this 

section silvicultural practices could be used to integrate 

NTFPs into forest management to promote sustainable 

harvesting of natural populations. Opportunities abound 

for silviculture to address the complexities presented 

when forest management integrates nontimber plant 

and fungi species into strategies and prescriptions.

Silvicultural practices for naturally regenerated forest 

stands provide multiple goods and services for society 

while protecting and maintaining ecosystem function 

(Coates and Burton 1997, Curtis et al. 2007, Smith 

et al. 1997). The integration of NTFPs into timberfocused forest management regimes provides a means 

for attaining both objectives. The diversity of species 

and functional groups in forests necessitates the need 

2 Walker, J.; Knapp, B. 2010. Wild leek (Allium tricoccum) populations in Southern Appalachians: 1999–2009. Presentation at the 2010 

Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting. 1–6 August. Pittsburg, PA.

for management plans that consider a broad range of 

biotic, abiotic, and social factors for successful outcomes. 

Balance between spatial, temporal, and economic 

scales must be maintained with the inclusion of NTFPs, 

and an increase in management complexity should be 

expected (Filotas et al. 2014, Hummel 2003, Schmidt 

and Lotan 1980). The added complexity should be 

considered not as a deterrent, but as an impetus for 

better understanding how to increase the utility and 

health of forest ecosystems. Managing for complexity 

increases resiliency and adaptive capacity of forests, 

which is particularly important under increasingly 

variable climate scenarios (Puettmann et al. 2009).

Plants and fungi that produce NTFPs help facilitate the 

maintenance of ecosystem processes, contributing to 

the structural, compositional, and functional diversity 

of forest systems. The inclusion of these plants in 

management can lead to economically and ecologically 

healthy forests. For example, spring ephemeral herbs 

contribute to nitrogen cycling pathways in eastern 

deciduous forests, meaning NTFP species with similar 

life history traits have the potential for ecological as well 

as economic value (Muller 2003). Similarly, economically 

valuable fungi are well known for their importance 

in nutrient cycling (oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus 

spp. (Fr.) P. Kumm.) and mycorrhizal associations 

(chanterelles, Cantharellus spp. Adans. ex Fr.).

Many hard mast (e.g., American hazelnut, Corylus 

americana Walt.; oak, Quercus, spp.) and soft mast 

(e.g., elderberry, Sambucus canadensis L., eastern 

redcedar, Juniperus virginiana L.) producing NTFP 

species provide valuable food and cover for wildlife. 

Some NTFP species may provide critical resources 

for invertebrate species (stone root, Collinsonia 

canadensis L.) and may serve as important pollination 

vectors (mountainmint, Pycnanthemum spp.). 

Similarly, understory species act as filters for guiding 

regeneration pathways of forest canopy trees, and the 

same may be true for important NTFP species (George 

and Bazzaz 1999, Maguire and Foreman 1983).

2.2.1

Treatments and Site Conditions

The compatibility of silvicultural treatments with 

NTFP production depends on a number of things, most 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 23

noticeably resource availability. Light is the principal 

resource manipulated by silvicultural treatments, and 

will vary based on the type and intensity of treatment, 

site conditions, and species composition. Many NTFP 

species are understory herbs that are shade tolerant 

and associated with later successional stages (e.g., 

American ginseng, black and blue cohosh). Shadeintolerant NTFP species are associated with open 

areas or early successional stages and can be herbs 

(e.g., beargrass), shrubs (e.g., red raspberry, Rubus 

ideaus L.), and trees (e.g., paper birch). Silvicultural 

treatments fall into two core groups—intermediate 

treatments promote development of the existing 

stand, while regeneration treatments create favorable 

conditions for establishment of a new tree cohort 

(Curtis et al. 2007, Nyland 2002, Smith et al. 1997).

Intermediate treatments focus on increasing the timber 

value of canopy trees and can be used to maintain or 

promote NTFP production. The effects of an intermediate 

treatment can be manipulated through the amount of 

basal area removed, types of residual trees retained, and 

canopy strata targeted. By targeting the lowest canopy 

class and simulating the mortality of suppressed trees 

that would be removed naturally through self-thinning 

processes, low thinnings may be used to manipulate 

light and soil moisture within the stand to the benefit of 

NTFP species. Removal of the subordinate strata also 

may increase the soil moisture available to ground-story 

vegetation, although the amount of leaf area removed 

may have more influence on moisture than the thinning 

method (Smith et al. 1997). In mixed hardwood-conifer 

stands, low thinnings can maintain shade conditions 

that are conducive to mushroom production such as 

shiitake (Lentinula edodes (Berk) Pegler), while creating 

the physical space in the understory for cultivation.

Crown thinning improves incremental growth of target 

trees by increasing light levels to codominant and 

sometimes dominant trees. In the case of sugar maple, 

this increases tree vigor, size, and sap production of 

residual trees (Lancaster et al. 1974). Crown thinning 

has the potential to increase trees’ surface areas and 

therefore the value of bark harvested from species 

such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.). 

When thinned hardwood stems are of precommercial 

diameter, they may be used for mushroom production. 

In the case of species such as oaks, the value of the 

stems as a mushroom substrate should be weighed 

against the potential future timber value of the tree.

Selection thinning in conifer stands may create favorable 

conditions for very shade-tolerant understory species 

that rely on single tree gaps, but the need for multiple 

entries into a forest stand may create disturbance 

regimes that negate these benefits. Geometric 

thinnings, which remove trees at intervals, usually in 

rows or strips, may have potential in forest farming 

systems where the intercropping of canopy trees and 

NTFPs is a goal. Variable density thinning treatments 

early in stand development can increase structural 

complexity within stands (Hummel, 2003), which 

may increase opportunities for NTFP production.

Regeneration treatments are designed to initiate new 

forest stands by removing mature forest canopies and 

can complement certain NTFP resources in naturally 

regenerated forests. The size of gaps in the canopy, 

their orientation, and the length of time over which 

the canopy is removed as well as retention of previous 

stand structure by retaining group reserves all can 

influence site conditions and NTFP growth. Clearcut 

systems release tremendous amounts of growing space, 

creating open site conditions that benefit a broad suite of 

shade-intolerant species. Removal of the entire mature 

canopy strata over a relatively short period of time 

can result in full-sun conditions (Smith et al. 1997). 

This light environment can benefit shade-intolerant 

berry producing shrub species, however these benefits 

often are ephemeral without continued management as 

canopy species reestablish and shade the site (ReynoldsHogland et al. 2006). Similarly, these conditions 

can promote establishment and growth of nonnative 

invasive plant species and/or aggressive native species 

that have potential to outcompete target NTFPs.

Clearcut openings can increase soil temperatures, 

change moisture regimes, and cause physiological 

stress and mortality to shade-tolerant NTFP species 

(Bazzaz 1979, Hicks and Chabot 1985, Meier et al. 

1995). Populations of some species are restricted in their 

ability to reestablish once favorable conditions return 

(Meier et al. 1995) due to limited dispersal capabilities. 

Enrichment planting may be necessary to reestablish 

viable populations of economically important plants. In 

forest systems where artificial regeneration is practiced, 

planting density and competition control methods can 

influence understory structure and composition (Curtis 

et al. 2007, Hummel 2003, Jeffries et al. 2010, Knapp et 

al. 2014). Retaining elements of the previous stand (living 

and dead material) has implications for wildlife habitat 
24 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

and NTFPs (Hummel 2003, Nyland 2002, Smith et al. 

1997). Specifically, group reserves or aggregated greentree retention may provide refugia for certain dispersallimited understory herb species to maintain populations. 

In addition, retaining or creating residual snags for 

wildlife may provide habitat to saprophytic fungi. 

Therefore, managing stands for complexity may provide 

nontarget benefits to NTFPs (Puettmann et al. 2009).

Group selection treatments also create open site 

conditions by removing the mature forest canopy, 

however gap size is typically smaller than clearcuts. 

Smaller gaps and associated smaller area-to-perimeter 

ratio create more diverse range of understory light 

conditions (Canham et al. 1990, Marquis 1965). By 

orienting selection gaps accordingly, timber value can 

be realized while protecting established populations 

of shade-tolerant understory NTFP species (Aikens et 

al. 2007). Multiple group selections create an unevenage forest structure that closely resembles the natural 

gap phase dynamic and habitat heterogeneity that 

may support the life history traits of shade-tolerant 

NTFP species (Beatty 2003, Roberts and Gilliam 

1995). Open conditions at the gap center, however, 

that would support shade-intolerant NTFP species 

may be more ephemeral than in clearcuts and thus 

less suitable for long-term production of NTFPs.

Shelterwood treatments are designed to produce 

single-age stands through a succession of canopy 

removals that promote establishment of more shadetolerant canopy species. Evenly spaced mature canopy 

trees that are left as residual stand structure after 

the establishment cut mediate light and temperature 

environment that promote advance regeneration of 

more shade-tolerant timber species before overstory 

removal (Nyland 2002, Smith et al. 1997). The 

mediated environment of shelterwoods could be used to 

maintain existing populations of shade-tolerant NTFP 

species by reducing physiological stress and facilitating 

natural dispersal mechanisms. Care would have to 

be taken to protect populations of NTFP species, as 

shelterwood treatments often include a preparatory cut 

to remove competing vegetation and site preparation.

As with clearcuts, seed-tree treatments generally retain 

canopy tree densities at low levels, resulting in open site 

conditions, and NTFP considerations would be similar 

3 Leaf area index (LAI) is a dimensionless quantity that describes plant canopies and is estimated by the one-sided green leaf area per unit of 

ground surface area (LAI = leaf area / ground area).

(Nyland 2002). There may be potential to focus seedtree treatments on hard mast producing species such 

as oak to increase acorn production. This approach, 

however, may be more appropriate for a silvopasture 

system than a closed canopy timber production system. 

Single tree selection treatments would have challenges 

and benefits similar to selection thinning treatments.

2.2.2

Integrating Understory Nontimber Forest 

Products and Forest Management

Forest understories are complex ecological communities 

consisting of transient members (i.e., regenerating tree 

species) and permanent members (e.g., herbs, mosses, 

mushrooms, and shrubs; Gilliam and Roberts 2003a). 

Many important NTFPs are permanent members 

of understory forest communities and have different 

ecological requirements than associated tree canopy 

species. The forest understory is a stressful environment 

where light and moisture are limited. To deal with this, 

understory NTFP species employ an array of adaptations 

and life-history characteristics. Abiotic conditions 

are spatially and temporally variable, and stand-level 

measurements used to monitor canopy species may not be 

sufficiently informative or accurate when managing for 

understory NTFP species (Canham et al. 1990, Muller 

2003, Neufeld and Young 2003, Reifsnyder et al. 1971).

Understanding the autecology of understory nontimber 

forest species is important for successful management. 

For example, the understory forest species ramps (leeks) 

and American ginseng have different phenological 

strategies for dealing with low light levels inherent on 

the forest floor. Ramps are spring ephemerals and do 

most of their photosynthesis, growth, and carbohydrate 

storage before canopy leaf out (Givnish 1987). In 

contrast, American ginseng is a summer green species 

(as defined by Uemura 1994) and associated with high 

leaf area index3 canopies. Ginseng plants leaf out in 

spring and photosynthesize throughout the summer, 

and they produce flowers and fruit under high shade 

(Proctor 1981). While both species are “woodland 

herbs,” these phenological traits reveal a great deal about 

their abiotic preferences, and therefore management. 

Ramps are not shade tolerant, but shade avoiders, while 

ginseng may be damaged under full-sun conditions 

(Nadeau et al. 1998, Proctor 1981). Management 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 25

decisions therefore need to consider canopy species 

composition and interactions with understory plants.

The forest understory is a dynamic community, 

with each species constantly interacting with biotic 

and abiotic components of the environment. While 

abiotic factors have been used to explain vegetation 

patterns, physiological tolerances are a small part 

of the story (Tilman 1988, Whittaker and Klomp 

1975). Emerging soil biology and community ecology 

research suggests that biotic interactions may be just 

as influential in shaping plant community composition 

(Reynolds et al. 2003, Warren and Bradford 2011). 

These biotic interactions shape spatial patterns and 

demographics of plant species and may be even 

more important for fungal communities (Crowther

et al. 2014). In addition, some understory herb 

species may be more limited by the abundance of 

mutualist partners (e.g., mycorrhizal fungi, ants for 

myrmecochorous plant species) than physiological 

tolerances (McCormick et al. 2012, Warren et al. 2011).

Understory NTFP species are influenced by disturbance 

as well as resource availability and biotic interaction 

(Neufeld and Young 2003, Roberts and Gilliam 2003). 

Forests that are managed for timber inherently deviate 

from natural disturbance regimes. Timber harvesting 

should be considered as two separate, interacting 

types of disturbance in respect to understory plant 

species. The first is the intensity of canopy removal, 

which alters edaphic and microclimate conditions 

(Bhatti et al. 2002, Gilliam 2002, Gilliam and Roberts 

2003b). Second is the severity of ground disturbance, 

which can destroy propagules and expose bare 

mineral soil, giving competitive advantage to early 

successional colonizers from outside the stand (Ramovs 

and Roberts 2003, Roberts and Gilliam 2003).

Interaction effects between canopy and ground 

disturbance also may be present and are dependent on site 

conditions (Duguid et al. 2013). Furthermore, the longterm effects on the understory resulting from successional 

changes and competitive interactions also should be 

considered (Halpern and Spies 1995). The NTFP species 

life-history traits, especially the organ harvested, life 

cycle, and reproductive strategy, define how they respond 

to disturbances. Ground disturbance and site preparation 

treatments can be tailored to the NTFP species. For 

example, forest management with high levels of ground 

disturbance would not be conducive with perennial herbs 

whose roots are the desired product, while annual and 

biennial herbs thrive on high levels of ground disturbance.

Plant and fungi communities or the relative success of 

an individual understory NTFP species is driven by 

life-history traits responding to resources availability, 

disturbance, and biotic interactions. While information 

on some high-value NTFP species is available, we 

know very little about the demographics and lifehistory traits of most understory plants (Bierzychudek 

1982, Whigham 2004). The processes driving 

demographic patterns of fungal communities, and 

the effects of forest harvesting on those communities, 

is even less well understood (Crowther et al. 2014, 

Dahlberg 2001). Additionally, fungal NTFPs belong to 

distinct functional groups—saprotrophic fungi (e.g., 

oyster mushrooms, Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq. ex Fr.) 

P.Kumm.) and ectomycorrhizal fungi (e.g., matsutake,

Tricholoma magnivelare (Peck) Redhead)—with 

differing environmental preferences, further making 

broad generalizations about management difficult.

2.2.3

Integrating Production of Timber 

and Nontimber Products

The timing of timber harvesting is an important 

consideration for successful integrated management that 

occurs when forest stands are managed with multiple 

objectives that include timber and nontimber products. 

For example, managing a stand of maple trees for 

timber and syrup requires integrating these objectives 

into silviculture prescriptions. Management decisions 

consider interactions between the timber and nontimber 

resources. Timber harvesting in mid-summer may 

stress and damage foliage of understory NTFP species 

that are challenged in adapting to abrupt changes in 

solar radiation. Winter timber harvesting, conversely, 

allows plants to develop under full-sun conditions and 

acclimate to the new light regime (Ellum 2007).

Rotation length is another consideration when 

comanaging for NTFPs and timber. Some NTFPs, such 

as many ectomycorrhizal mushrooms, are only associated 

with later successional stages. Since commercial rotation 

cycles are generally shorter than natural disturbance 

regimes, populations of some valuable NTFPs (e.g., 

matsutake) may be reduced or even eliminated under 

short rotation times (Kranabetter et al. 2005).

Three basic classes describe management of forests for 

timber and nontimber products. Passive management 
26 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

includes timber or other objectives, such as wildlife, 

water, or recreation that are the primary stand objective. 

In these cases, NTFPs may provide inconsequential 

revenue and do not justify large management investments, 

or the product is ubiquitous and does not warrant 

management. Floral greens, such as salal, Oregon grape 

(Mahonia spp. Nutt.), and sword fern (Polystichum 

munitum (Kaulf.) C. Presl) harvested from Pacific 

Northwest forests, provide an example of passive NTFP 

management. Cuttings of these native plants may be 

harvested for personal use with a free permit (USDA 

Forest Service 2013), and these provide no additional 

revenues to the Government agencies. While permits for 

commercial harvest are available, salal is an aggressive 

groundcover, and management objectives are usually 

associated with reducing salal populations to aid in 

regeneration of more favorable species (Tirmenstein 

1990). Most wild-collected mushroom permits on public 

lands are considered passive management, since little 

is known about cultivation and management for most 

species (Yun and Hall 2004). Other examples of passive 

management include burls and twigs for floral crafts 

(e.g., winterberry, Ilex verticillata (L.) A. Gray; willow, 

Salix spp. L.; paper birch, Betula papyrifera Marshall).

Active management is more common where there is 

potential for enough additional revenue to invest in 

research and management operations. One example 

is Canada yew (Taxus canadensis Marshall); after 

widespread overharvesting in the 1990s the Canadian 

Forest Service invested time and resources in establishing 

sustainable management practices to ensure long-term 

harvest and profits from this resource (Smith et al. 

2003). Some provinces even implemented education and 

training programs along with the issuing permits to 

collectors and landowners (Prince Edward Island 2013).

Successful and rewarding integrated management of 

forests includes production of culinary mushrooms 

(Weigand 1998), balsam boughs (Krantz 2001, Titus 

et al. 2004), and pine straw (Demchik et al. 2005, 

Feldhake et al. 2010, Garrett et al. 2004). Foresters 

working with private landowners on high-value forest 

lands actively comanage for timber and shiitakes to 

maintain the property’s agricultural status. The balsam 

fir boughs partnership in Minnesota is centered on 

sustainable harvesting practices and training (Krantz 

2001, Titus et al. 2004). Silvopasture systems in pine 

forests are integrated approaches where objectives 

include forage, pine straw, and timber. These examples 

demonstrate that managing for the NTFP is feasible, 

though the exception in forest management.

Integrated management practices can be intensive 

for NTFP resources with extremely high values. 

Micropropagation, inoculation, and even bioengineering 

are being applied for management of truffles (Tuber

spp. P. Micheli ex F.H. Wigg.) and timber (Mycorrhiza 

Biotech 2013, Symbios 2014, Titus et al. 2004). For 

instance in sugarbushes, silviculture is targeted at 

growth and regeneration of sugar maple trees for 

long-term sustainable yield (Cope 1946, Lancaster

et al. 1974), timber harvesting is tailored to support 

these goals and additional revenue is secondary.

The third class of integrated management is applying 

silvicultural prescriptions to NTFP resources. In 

these cases foresters serve as NTFP harvesters or 

work closely with harvesters to integrate silvicultural 

treatments to improve NTFP resources. Extracting 

small-diameter trees for rustic furniture or shiitake logs 

in low thinnings (Titus et al. 2004) is an example of 

this type of management. While sections of birch bark 

can be harvested without harming the standing trees, 

harvesting large sections of bark for canoes and other 

crafts might be more efficient from felled trees following 

crown thinnings (Zasada 2002). Site preparations for 

stand regeneration can be paired with NTFP collection, 

such as targeted cutting of aggressive understory shrubs 

that have value during the preparatory or establishment 

cuts of a shelterwood, or as timber stand improvement. 

Witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana L.) harvesting is 

permitted from Connecticut’s state forests to enhance oak 

regeneration and growth (Associated Press 2009). Whole 

plants of shade-tolerant evergreen shrubs (e.g., Rosebay, 

Rhododendron maximum L. and mountain laurel) are 

dug and sold as nursery stock from forest lands in the 

Southeast. Targeted pruning or thinning of crop trees 

could be done on species that have potential for essential 

oil extraction such as eastern and western redcedar 

(Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don Ciesla 1998; Titus et al. 

2004), or for pine oil in the Southeast (Alexander 2003).

Finally, invasive species management has the potential to 

be paired with NTFPs collection. Blue gum (Eucalyptus 

globulus Labill.) is a problem invasive in California 

but can be used to produce valued essential oils (Ciesla 

1998). While the planting of invasive plant species 

(e.g., Japanese knotweed, Polygonum cuspidatum 

Siebold & Zucc.; garlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 27

(M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande) is not advocated, these 

have emerged as potential food crops through the 

permaculture and wild foods movements. To help 

control invasive species, land managers can provide 

incentives for their harvest (Pasko et al. 2014).

2.2.4

Considerations and Concerns for 

Integrating Timber and Nontimber Products

To assure forest health, sustainable harvest, and 

resilience in a changing climate, there are a number 

of considerations regarding the integration of NTFP 

production into forest management. A primary 

consideration is the phenology of harvest opportunity, 

which addresses the fact that the majority of NTFPs 

only can be harvested at a specific time during the 

species growth cycle. For example, the quality of the 

outer bark of paper birch trees varies with the season. 

At the very beginning of the harvest period, the cork 

cambium is still dormant and more difficult to remove, 

rougher in texture, and darker color than “summer 

bark” harvested later in the season, during the active 

cambial growth of the tree (North House Folk School 

2009, Stewart 1995). In addition, many plant species 

have more than one product, such as paper birch that 

is valued for sap, outer bark, whole bark layer, smalldiameter saplings, roots, leaves, and character wood 

(Emery and Zasada 2001). There may be distinct harvest 

times for different products within a single species.

Coordination of harvest activities is another 

consideration. While harvesting NTFPs prior to cutting 

timber often produces higher quality products and more 

efficient harvesting, modern logging equipment has 

made it possible to reduce soil and understory damage. 

For some products (specifically from tree species) 

intensity and sensitivity of the harvest operation may 

differ based on timber harvesting. NTFP harvests in 

areas slated for logging may be able to remove entire 

plants or larger quantities of bark or sap. In contrast, 

if the goal is long-term sustainable harvest, care must 

be taken to leave the individual plant or population in 

a condition from which it can recover to supply future 

harvest. Of primary concern is protecting individual 

plants and plant populations, which includes protection 

of the cambium for healing wounds and adding new 

bark, protection of aerial and soil bud banks, and 

maintaining the potential for sexual reproduction.

While there are many opportunities to increase 

management of timber and NTFPs, there also are 

challenges to consider. Foremost are logistics, including 

permitting, enforcement, access, and jurisdiction on 

public and private lands. NTFP harvesting has the 

potential to increase ground disturbance and the risk 

of fire, depending on the number of additional stand 

entries, season of collection, type of crop, and mode of 

transportation by harvesters. Decisions must be made 

whether to allow harvesters access to the resource. These 

decisions might be based on profit, as some products 

may give higher returns from multiple small collector 

permits than one large commercial collector. They may, 

however, be based on other considerations; for instance, 

multiple local collectors may increase investment and 

stewardship of the forest by the community (Emery 

and Zasada 2001, Titus et al. 2004). Interactions 

between multiple and different types (e.g., loggers 

and NTFP gatherers) of harvesters as well as open 

access scenarios increase the potential for conflicts.

Communication about active logging jobs or other 

concerns may be easier to maintain between a single 

commercial harvester and landowner than with multiple 

parties. In addition, there may be liability concerns 

for private landowners if they allow harvesters access. 

Clear communication and easy passage to acceptable 

harvest areas is necessary; trampling alone has potential 

to damage sensitive communities. There also is the 

potential harvesting of additional nontarget species when 

lands are open to foragers. Most of these concerns can 

be mitigated with open and frequent communication 

between landowners, foresters, and collectors. Embarking 

on the decision to manage for NTFPs should be 

approached with careful planning and written guidelines.

2.2.5

Challenges to Managing for 

Nontimber Forest Products

There are inherent ecological and environmental 

challenges to managing for NTFPs. Forest cover change, 

invasive species, and a changing climate all contribute 

to an environment of uncertainty. While most forest 

management is based on historical conditions, we 

cannot be sure that the past is an appropriate analog 

to future forest conditions. Managing for resiliency is 

one way that ecologists and forest managers seek to 

mitigate the risks associated with uncertainty (Drever

et al. 2006). Resiliency buffers forest ecosystems from 
28 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

large changes in composition and function, and it 

protects markets and ecosystem services (Millar et 

al. 2007). High species diversity increases ecological 

resiliency (Tilman and Downing 1996) and may 

contribute functional redundancy (Peterson et al. 1998). 

Intensely managing for one or a few high value NTFPs, 

especially in forest understories, may decrease diversity 

and resiliency and increase forest vulnerability.

Invasive species have ecological and economic 

consequences in managed forests (Pimentel et al. 2005) 

and can affect NTFP management. For example, invasive 

feral hogs in many parts of the United States destroy the 

understory and significantly change plant communities 

(Aplet et al. 1991, Bratton 1975), which is specifically 

relevant for many medicinal herbs. Some invasive plant 

species directly compete with understory NTFP species 

or employ novel phytochemicals with allelopathic 

effects (Wixted and McGraw 2010). Garlic mustard, 

for example, disrupts arbuscular mycorrhizal networks, 

which is critical for most understory herbs (Barto et al. 

2010, Roberts and Anderson 2001, Whigham 2004). 

Non-native invasive earthworms can impact regeneration 

and establishment of forest herbs through predation 

or changing the physical properties of the forest floor 

(Frelich et al. 2006, Gundale 2002, McCormick et al. 

2013). Furthermore, earthworms can have indirect effects 

on understory plant communities by altering mycorrhizal 

fungal communities (Lawrence et al. 2003, McLean 

and Parkinson 1997). Invasive insects and pathogens 

have reshaped American forests for more than a century 

(e.g., hemlock woolly adelgid [Adelges tsugae Annand], 

chestnut blight [Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) 

Barr]) and interactions between them have unintended 

consequences for forest understories. For example, gypsy 

moth (Lymantria dispar L.) outbreaks may be responsible 

for increased garlic mustard and Japanese stiltgrass 

(Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus) abundance 

in eastern forests stands (Eschtruth and Battles 2014).

Unsustainable populations of animals and native plants, 

such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus

Zimmermann) and eastern hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia 

punctilobula (Michx.) T. Moore) in the eastern deciduous 

forest, can severely impact management of many 

understory NTFP species (Avril and Kelty 1999, Horsley

et al. 2003, Webster et al. 2005). Diverse forest systems 

generally are more resilient to invasion of pests or disease 

outbreaks than more intensive management systems. 

Moving toward more intense NTFP production, such 

as forest farming, may increase impacts of pathogens.

2.3

Forest Farming in Temperate 

United States

Some NTFPs are cultivated under forest trees in a 

farm setting. Forest farming involves the cultivation 

or management of understory plants within an 

established or developing forest (Chamberlain et al. 

2009). NTFPs produced in a forest where soils and 

competing vegetation are manipulated are considered 

woods grown, while wild-simulated NTFPs are grown 

in forests with little site disturbance and few inputs. 

Some NTFP species, particularly American ginseng, 

have been cultivated under shade-cloth in north-central 

United States for many years. This section details forest 

farming practices, challenges, and opportunities.

Forest farming, the cultivation of crops (e.g., decorative 

ferns, medicinal herbs, and mushrooms) within a forest, 

is one of five categories of agroforestry recognized 

in the United States (Chamberlain et al. 2009, Gold 

and Garrett 2009). Simply harvesting plants or fungi 

from natural populations without any management 

is not forest farming. The fundamental criteria that 

define forest farming are that the crop-forest system 

is intentionally established, intensively managed, 

integrated, and interactive, which provides mutual 

benefits to the understory crops and trees (Gold and 

Garrett 2009). A naturally occurring population of a 

plant or fungus, however, can be brought into a forest 

farming system through propagation and management. 

Forest farming is designed to provide multiple income 

streams from the forest and create a more ecologically 

stable forest ecosystem. Forest farming may be done 

in a natural forest or in a deliberate planting of 

trees (Chamberlain et al. 2009). The overstory trees 

may be managed for timber production, which can 

allow for several rotations of understory crops to be 

grown and harvested before the timber is harvested. 

Forest farming of NTFPs has potential to increase 

conservation of NTFPs while providing innovative 

economic opportunities for rural America.
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 29

2.3.1

Approaches to Forest Farming

Forest farming ranges from intensive cultivation where 

seeds are planted in the forest understory to extensive 

approaches that modify forest stands to enhance 

production of existing plants. There are three widely 

recognized methods of forest farming: woods-grown, wildsimulated, and managed populations (Munsell et al. 2013).

In a woods-grown production system, the objective is the 

highest yields of the products in the shortest period of 

time (Davis and Persons 2014). It is an intensive system 

with generally high inputs, including the clearing of 

understory plants, tilling, and possibly establishment 

of raised beds. Planting may be done mechanically, 

resulting in high plant populations in closely spaced 

rows. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are used to 

enhance growth and protect the plants. Pests such as 

deer, rodents, and other wildlife may be controlled with 

fences, baits, or traps. Woods-grown production also can 

refer to the intentional planting of trees for production of 

a NTFP from the trees such as nuts, berries, or syrup.

In a wild-simulated production system, the objective is 

to grow the NTFP resource as naturally as possible with 

few inputs (Davis and Persons 2014). Wild-simulated 

production is less intensive and less expensive than 

woods-grown. The plants usually take longer to reach 

harvestable size and yields often are lower. The site is 

minimally disturbed and if soil amendments are used, 

they are done so sparingly. In general, no fertilizers or 

pesticides are employed after planting, although efforts 

are often made to protect the planting from thieves 

and herbivores. In wild-simulated production little 

if any maintenance may be needed after planting.

Wild-managed natural populations of NTFP species can 

lead to sustainable production of wild-managed NTFPs. 

Typically, the wild-managed method is based on the local 

ecological knowledge (LEK) of harvesters. Activities may 

involve removing competing vegetation from within and 

around the population and includes propagation by seed 

collected from that population or vegetative propagation 

by cuttings or division of roots and rhizomes. Managed 

populations can be treated as wild-simulated production 

systems, with little disturbance and few inputs. 

Silvicultural treatments, discussed in section 2.2, can 

facilitate wild-managed NTFPs and improve upon local 

practices. Nurturing of an existing population of an 

understory plant, fungus, or trees for NTFP collection, 

such as maple trees for syrup, is a time-honored 

method that harvesters have used to ensure the future 

availability of the product (Chamberlain et al. 2009).

2.3.2

Common Forest Farmed Products

Common NTFPs grown in forest farming systems 

include medicinal herbs, food (e.g., mushrooms, fruit, 

honey, nuts, and vegetables), decorative products, 

and native ornamentals (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Shiitake mushrooms are perhaps the most popular 

edible forest product that is forest farmed, though 

forest farming of other edible forests products, such 

as ramps, is becoming common. American ginseng 

and goldenseal are prominent forest farmed NTFPs 

that provide insight into opportunities to expand 

this approach to production and conservation.

The most popular and valuable forest farmed NTFP is 

the native plant, American ginseng. Nearly 95 percent of 

the American ginseng produced in the United States is 

exported to China and other Asian countries (Davis and 

Persons 2014). In the early 1700s, ginseng was extensively 

wild-harvested from the forests in North America and 

exported to China. Cultivation of ginseng started in the 

1800s after native populations had diminished (Davis 

and Persons 2014). Early on, most ginseng was grown 

under artificial shade, and there was little distinction 

in price between wild and cultivated ginseng. Ginseng 

grown in tilled, fertilized soil produces a big smooth 

root, while ginseng grown in undisturbed soil produces 

a more wrinkled root with a long “neck” composed 

of bud scars each representing a year’s growth. Today, 

the latter is preferred and fetches a higher price.

Field grown under artificial shade structures is the 

most intensive production system, which results in high 

yields of smooth ginseng roots in a few years (Davis and 

Persons 2014). Woods-grown ginseng may take 5 to 7 

years to produce marketable roots, while wild-simulated 

ginseng takes 9 years or more to reach marketable sized 

roots. Wild ginseng roots, or roots that look wild, are 

much more valuable than cultivated roots. In 2012 and 

2013, the price of wild ginseng ranged from $400 to 

$1,250 per dried pound, while ginseng grown under 

artificial shade was valued at $12 to $42 per dried pound 

(Davis and Persons 2014). Since the mid-1990s, buyer 

interest in woods-grown and wild-simulated ginseng 

has increased dramatically. Because of the high value, 
30 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

loss due to theft is a major threat to forest farmed 

ginseng in areas where ginseng is also wild-harvested.

Goldenseal, another native medicinal herb in high 

demand, is destined for markets in North America 

and Europe (Davis and Persons 2014). Goldenseal 

was wild-harvested throughout its native range in the 

1700s and by the 1880s there was concern about the 

impact harvesting was having on wild populations 

(Lloyd 1912). Forest farming of goldenseal was 

practiced across the country throughout the first half 

of the 20th century, but disease and falling prices 

reduced production to about 100 acres nationwide 

by the mid-1970s (Veninga and Zaricor 1976). In the 

mid-1990s, demand increased once again and due to 

concern about the pressure on wild populations, there 

were renewed efforts to encourage forest landowners 

to grow goldenseal (Davis and Persons 2014).

In contrast to ginseng, there is no difference in prices 

paid for goldenseal root grown under artificial shade 

or on the forest. Goldenseal certified as organic or 

grown sustainably, however, can provide a premium 

price for producers. In 2013, goldenseal root sold 

for between $16 and $35 per dried pound, while 

certified organic root was valued at $67 to $70 per 

dried pound (Davis and Persons 2014). This pricing 

structure is typical of other medicinal forest products.

Several other popular NTFPs grown in a forestfarming system include ramps, bloodroot (Sanguinaria 

canadensis L.), and black cohosh. Shiitake mushroom 

forest farming is increasing across the country. In 

southern United States, pine straw production through 

silvopasture also provides forest-based income. Other 

NTFPs are forest farmed on a very small scale. Growers 

often cultivate 0.25 acres or less of many native herbs 

to supply local herbalists, raw material buyers, and 

crafters. There are plants native to every region of the 

United States that may be forest farmed. Forest farming 

of NTFPs is attracting widespread interest among 

landowners wanting to diversify their income sources.

2.4

Market and Economic Considerations

Many private landowners adopt forest farming as a way 

to generate income from their forests without having 

to cut timber (Chamberlain et al. 2009). For others, 

production of NTFPs is a very deliberate method of 

generating income while timber matures before harvest. 

For whatever reason landowners decide to forest 

farm NTFPs, there are market and economic factors 

that must be considered in management decisions.

A few enterprise budgets for common forest farmed 

nontimber forest products have been developed 

(Burkhart and Jacobson 2009, Kays and Drohan 2003). 

Ginseng appears profitable on most budgets, while the 

profitability of other NTFPs is less attractive. Davis 

and Persons (2014) estimated that a forest landowner 

could net a profit of about $43,000 from 0.5 acres of 

wild-simulated ginseng after 9 years, at a per-pound 

price of $675 for dried roots. Jacobson and Burkhart 

(2005) estimated that 0.5 acres of wild-simulated ginseng 

would yield a profit after 10 years of $22,000 with the 

ginseng valued at $349 per dried pound. Accounting 

for the difference in price per pound, the estimated net 

profits on these two budgets would be nearly identical.

Using these studies to compare estimated profits for 

goldenseal, however, reveal substantial differences. Davis 

and Persons (2014) estimated that 0.5 acres of woodsgrown goldenseal would yield a profit ranging from $300 

(low root yields) to $41,000 (high root yields) with the 

goldenseal priced at $70 per dried pound, after 4 years. 

In contrast, Jacobson and Burkhart (2005) estimated 

that profits for a similar scenario with goldenseal 

would be about $15,000 at $17.69 per dried pound. 

Inconsistencies between analyses could be addressed 

through additional research to develop standard 

production budgets and cost-benefit and profit analysis.

Commercial markets for many raw materials of NTFPs 

(e.g., medicinal herbs, mosses) are well-established 

(Greenfield and Davis 2003), yet finding them can be 

difficult because many of the markets are not highly 

visible and not easily found through regular channels 

(Davis and Persons 2014). To enter the market often 

requires personal contact with buyers. Raw materials 

are sold to wholesale buyers who consolidate products 

and may do some processing. In some communities, 

there are small manufacturers (e.g., herbalists, florists) 

that buy limited quantities direct from the producer. 

These markets often pay a higher price per unit 

compared to larger wholesale markets, but volumes 

are much less. Forest farmed products also are often 

in direct competition with wild-harvested products, 

meaning profit margins for forest farmed products may 

be small or nonexistent (Chamberlain et al. 2009).
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 31

Product branding or certification are ways to add 

value to the forest farmed products, and efforts 

are underway to accomplish this using third party 

verification programs that guarantee product quality 

or regional identification (Blue Ridge Naturally 

Program 2015). The USDA National Organic Program 

(2015) will certify wild crop harvested products for 

a number of forest farmed NTFPs, and some farmers 

are using this to distinguish their products. These 

programs are not for everyone, and the interested 

landowner should weigh costs and benefits of such.

2.5

Production in Alaska and Hawai’i

The previous sections addressed production of NTFPs 

in temperate continental United States. There are many 

NTFPs produced in boreal and tropical forest ecosystems 

of this country and its insular territories. The contiguous 

states have different NTFPs than Alaska, Hawai’i, and 

the island territories. Many people in Alaska rely on 

wild-harvested foods for subsistence and household 

nutritional needs. Hawai’i and the island territories have 

hundreds of plants and fungi that provide NTFPs, and 

the products are embedded deep in traditional cultures 

of these tropical environments. Both states have strong 

cultural ties to NTFPs, as the products have been 

used by native people since they inhabited the places. 

Continued use and enjoyment of NTFPs is essential to 

the well-being of the people throughout the country. 

This section focuses on important NTFPs and their 

production outside the conterminous United States.

2.5.1

Alaska

A variety of NTFPs are important for Alaska Native 

and rural residents. Over 75 forest plants, used in 

various parts of Alaska, have historical documented 

use maintaining cultural identity including meeting 

nutritional needs, supplying arts and crafts materials, 

and medicinal and spiritual purposes (Garibaldi 1999). 

Subsistence harvesting provides food, opportunities 

for exercise, fresh air, and social activity with others. 

Subsistence typically is a communal activity with group 

harvest, preparation, and sharing (Thornton 1998, 2001).

Subsistence harvesting of wild plants is important 

in meeting rural household nutritional needs and 

maintaining cultural identity. Alaska Natives have a 

long harvest tradition and maintain subsistence use of 

wild blueberries (Vaccinium alaskaense, V. ovalifolium), 

bog cranberries (V. oxycoccos), high bush cranberries 

(Viburnum edule), salmonberries (Rubus spectabilis), 

raspberries (Rubus leucodermis), currants (Ribes 

bracteosum, R. laxiflorum), nagoonberries (Rubus 

arcticus), gooseberries (Ribes lacustre), and watermelon 

berry (Streptopus amplexifolius, S. roseus). Syrup is 

produced from berries and also from the sap of paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera) and Sitka spruce bud tips (Picea 

sitchensis). Tea is crafted using spruce bud tips along 

with the fruit, leaves, and flowers of edible plants.

Arts and crafts produced from forest plants are integral 

to native culture and are used to express and preserve 

culture and history. The fiber of birch, aspen (Populus 

balsamifera), juniper (Juniperus communis), hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylia), spruce, and red and yellow cedar 

(Thuja plicata, Callitropsis nootkatensis), and other 

plant organs including bark, limbs, roots, cones, berries, 

and boughs, provide material for artisan products. 

Alaska Natives have used wild forest products to craft 

totems, canoes, basketry, paintings, carvings, floral 

arrangements, and wreaths. NTFPs continue to be 

used to produce arts and crafts that convey Alaska 

Native history and cultural identity (Pilz et al. 2006).

Oral histories of Alaska Natives indicate plants 

have been used to treat a range of human injuries 

and ailments. Devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus) is 

the most common and widely used medicinal plant 

used by coastal Alaska Natives (Garibaldi 1999). 

Skunk cabbage root (Lysichiton americanus) also is 

harvested and used for aches and pains, psoriasis, 

and other skin conditions (Garibaldi 1999). Labrador 

tea (Ledum groenlandicum) was used for colds, flu, 

stomach troubles, and tuberculosis (Garibaldi 1999).

2.5.2

Hawai’i

NTFPs in Hawai’i are used for food, decorations, 

construction, as well as landscaping (app. 4). Collection 

of NTFPs for hula and celebrations is a particularly 

important use of these products. Many of the NTFPs 

harvested from Hawaiian forests are indigenous 

or endemic to the islands and may require special 

attention. Some of the most valuable NTFPs come 

from trees that are harvested for their wood and 

used for specialty products. Descriptions of those are 
32 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

included here as the wood may not be of timber size 

or is used in production of fine arts and crafts.

The two most economically valuable trees in the 

Hawaiian forest are koa (Acacia koa A. Gray), and 

sandalwood (Santalum spp. L.). Koa is the largest tree 

in the Hawaiian forest and prized for its glossy, highly 

figured heartwood (Lowell et al. 2013). Sandalwood is 

harvested for the aromatic wood from which scented oil 

is derived. While neither koa nor the main commercial 

species of sandalwood (Santalum paniculatum Hook & 

Arn) are threatened with extinction, supplies of both will 

become rare unless conservation measures are improved.

Koa is a large, fast-growing legume tree that regenerates 

from seed or root suckers in forest gaps and is common in 

upland forests on all the islands (Baker et al. 2009, Friday 

2010). Commercial koa stands today are limited mainly 

to the island of Hawai‘i, and harvesting is done by only 

a few small-scale operations. Nonetheless, in 2000, koa 

represented about 75 percent of the value of the Hawaiian 

forest industry (Friday et al. 2006). Some landowners 

restrict harvesting to dead and dying trees only. Browsing 

by cattle and feral ungulates, competition from invasive 

plant species, and wildfires continue to limit regeneration. 

Nontimber products from koa include stock for fine arts 

and crafts. As Hawai‘i’s climate is expected to become 

drier and warmer (Giambelluca et al. 2008), koa is likely 

to retreat from the drier sides of the islands and become 

more vulnerable to wildfires, pests, and diseases.

Sandalwood is a slow-growing small tree of dryland 

forests. It was Hawai’i’s first commercial crop after 

Europeans discovered the islands. Over-harvesting in 

the early 1800s led to a boom and subsequent bust as 

natural populations of sandalwood were decimated 

(Merlin and VanRavenswaay 1990). While there are 

six native species of Santalum in Hawai’i (Harbaugh 

et al. 2010), nearly all commercial harvest comes from 

S. paniculatum, the mountain sandalwood of Hawai‘i 

island. Unlike koa, sandalwood forests with commercial 

quantities of sandalwood are restricted to a narrow 

belt of a few thousand acres on Hawai‘i Island.

Because of the tree’s scarcity, sandalwood harvesting in 

Hawai’i is controversial and few harvesting operations 

exist. One firm extracts sandalwood oil and sells the 

residual wood for incense production. Other products 

from sandalwood include wood for carving and furniture 

and bark for medicinal tea. While S. paniculatum is 

not listed as a threatened or endangered species, these 

forests are vulnerable to livestock browsing, wildfires, 

and conversion to other uses. Landowners have had 

some success in encouraging natural regeneration from 

root suckers by controlling feral animals; however, no 

planted sandalwoods have reached harvestable size and 

rotation ages of Hawaiian sandalwoods are unknown.

2.6

Production in the Caribbean and 

Pacific Insular United States

The jurisdictions considered in this section refer to the 

insular areas of the United States. The term insular 

area refers to a jurisdiction that is a U.S. territory but 

is neither one of the 50 states nor a Federal district 

(DOI 2015). We restrict the term to include only 

insular areas that are inhabited and unincorporated 

island territories of the United States. These include 

the Caribbean islands of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands (USVI) and the Pacific islands of 

American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

2.6.1

Environmental Setting

The insular areas share a tropical maritime climate 

characterized by little annual variation in temperature 

and a pronounced seasonal rainfall within a rugged 

topography that helps defines the biota. They represent 

a very wide geographical range from the Caribbean Sea 

to the northwest and southern Pacific Ocean (Donnegan 

et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2011; FAO 2001; Weaver 2006a, 

2006b). Exposure to similar types of natural hazards 

such as hurricanes and potential impacts of climatic 

variability characterize the Caribbean region (Chakroff 

2010, Lugo 2000, UNEP 2008), while past volcanic 

eruptions, frequent tropical storms, hurricanes, 

typhoons, and soil erosion characterize the major 

natural disturbances within the Pacific (Donnegan 

2004a, 2004b; Donnegan et al. 2011; FAO 2001).

The forests in Puerto Rico and the USVI are mostly 

secondary stands of young structure, representing 

natural regeneration after abandonment of agricultural 

land and covering approximately 55 percent of the 

area (Brandeis et al. 2007; Brandeis and Turner 2013a, 

2013b; Marcano-Vega et al. 2015; Weaver 2006a). 

Forest cover is approximately 42 percent in Guam, 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 33

67 percent in CNMI, and 90 percent in American 

Samoa (Donnegan et al. 2004b, 2011; FAO 2010a, 

2010c; Government of Guam 2010; Neville 2014).

2.6.2

Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands

Many people within the insular Caribbean use NTFPs as 

sources of nutrition and medical care (van Andel 2006). 

The production of NTFPs in the insular Caribbean is 

said to reflect the “cultural history rooted in the use 

of the region’s biodiversity” (John 2005). The major 

NTFPs (app. 4) can be divided into medicinal and 

aromatic, edible, and material for fine arts and crafts 

(FAO 2000, Kicliter 1997). Forero-Montaña (2015) 

revealed that Puerto Rican artisans made use of 127 

types of wood, more than 30 seeds, bamboo (Bambusa 

vulgaris Schrad. ex J.C. Wendl.), coconut (Cocos 

nucifera L.), two calabashes, four vines, and two fibers.

Some species commonly used by Puerto Rican artisans 

for the wood includes the American muskwood (Guarea 

guidonia (L.) Sleumer), Spanish elm (Cordia alliodora

(Ruiz & Pav.) Oken), lignumvitae (Guaiacum officinale

L.), Spanish cedar (Cedrela odorata L.) and mahogany 

(Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq. and S. macrophylla

King) (Kicliter 1997, Mari Mut 2013). Other plant 

species widely used for NTFPs include the calabash 

tree (Crescentia cujete L.), which has medicinal uses 

and is used for containers and crafts (Benedetti and 

Negrón-Flores 2012). The coconut palm, used for 

food, fiber, and wood, is mainly cultivated for its fruit 

(Parrotta 2000). Shade-grown coffee (Coffea arabica

L., C. liberica W. Bull ex Hiern.) is still a traditional 

crop from the western central mountains, while mango 

(Mangifera indica L.) and breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis

(Parkinson) Fosberg) are abundant fruit trees within 

forests (Marcano-Vega et al. 2015). Other species such 

as soursop (Annona muricata L.), sour orange (Citrus 

×aurantium L. subsp. aurantium L), key lime (Citrus

×aurantiifolia (Christm.), and cure for all (Pluchea

carolinensis (Jacq.) G. Don) have been identified as 

frequently used to treat health conditions (AlvaradoGuzmán et al. 2009). The native soursop and naturalized 

sour orange and lime can be found in secondary 

forests (Brandeis and Turner 2013a, Francis 2004, 

Marcano-Vega et al. 2015, Nuñez Meléndez 1982).

The use of NTFPs in the USVI is mainly for the 

production of jewelry, bowls, spoons, and items made 

from locally grown wood, bamboo, and palm fronds 

(FAO 2010e). Mahogany (Swietenia spp.) and tibet 

(Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.) are tree species used for 

artisanal work (Chakroff 2010). Medicinal plants are 

important crops in the USVI and medicinal trees like 

neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.), moringa (Moringa 

oleifera Lam.), and noni (Morinda citrifolia L.) are grown 

in agroforestry systems (Palada et al. 2003, 2005). Herbal 

teas locally known as “bush medicine” are consumed 

for medicine or food (Palada et al. 2003, 2005). In the 

USVI farmers actively produce NTFPs on their land and 

the majority of the products are fruits, especially mango, 

avocado (Persea americana Mill.), coconut, mamee apple 

(Mammea americana L.), and lime (Workman et al. 

2004). The leaves and berries from abandoned stands of 

bayrum trees (Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) J.W. Moore), 

planted to supply the cosmetic and perfume industry in 

the 1940s, remain productive today (Weaver 2006a). 

The nonnative genip tree (Melicoccus bijugatus Jacq.) 

is present within the secondary forests of the USVI, 

offering a favorite fruit, and its wood is used to make 

charcoal (Brandeis and Turner 2013b, Chakroff 2010).

2.6.3

Insular Pacific—American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Mariana Islands

Traditional agricultural production in the insular Pacific 

consists of agroforestry systems of cocoa (Theobroma 

cacao L.), coconut, breadfruit, and various other fruit 

trees inter-planted with the nitrogen-fixing erythrina 

(Erythrina subumbrans (Hassk.) Merr.), bananas, 

cassava, and root crops (American Samoa Community 

College 2010). Further, the fruits, leaves, trunk, and 

roots of coconut palm are sources of copra oil and soap, 

baskets and brooms, construction materials, and material 

for rope (Wilkinson and Elevitch 2000), but plantations 

are being abandoned due to a decline in the copra market 

(FAO 2005a, 2010a). Native tree species are harvested 

to create traditional handicrafts, traditional clothing, 

oils, and mats (FAO 2010a), as the flora has always 

been an integral part of the insular Pacific culture. In 

American Samoa, noni is used for medicinal purposes 

and moso’oi (Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. & 

Thomson) and laga’ali (Aglaia samoensis A. Gray) for 

making of perfume and cosmetics. Moso’oi and laga’ali 

are used as ornamentals (FAO 2000). Other species used 

in American Samoa include ifil (Intsia bijuga (Colebr.) 

Kuntze), reported to generate more than $400,000 

per year in revenues for the national economy. Other 
34 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

trees used for the nontimber products include Javanese 

bishopwood (Bischofia javanica Blume) for dying and 

thatch screwpine (Pandanus tectorius Parkinson ex 

Zucc.) for utensils (FAO 2000). In Guam, the fruit 

of the betel nut palm (Areca catechu L.) is regularly 

collected (FAO 2005b, 2010b) and used as an astringent 

and stimulant. Fruits of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) 

and dokdok (A. mariannensis Trécul) are food sources 

as well. Some fruits and medicines are also collected 

within the forests of CNMI, and agroforestry systems 

include the coconut palm and a mix of native and 

introduced species used for sustenance (FAO 2010c).

2.6.4

Opportunities

The prospects for NTFPs to be more integrated into 

forest management are encouraging. NTFPs present 

alternatives for utilization of local forest resource 

and encourage rural economic growth. Promotion 

of sustainable forestry practices on private and 

communal lands can lead to better NTFP management 

and conservation. Integrating NTFPs into forest 

inventory and monitoring presents challenges that 

require additional research and investments.

Interest in traditional use of medicinal plants persists 

within the insular areas of the Caribbean (AlvaradoGuzmán et al. 2009, Benedetti 2009, Chakroff 2010, 

Weaver 2006b). An ethnopharmacological survey in 

the southeastern region of Puerto Rico revealed that 

58 medicinal plant species, some of which are obtained 

from the forest, were used as remedies for ailments 

mostly affecting the respiratory and gastrointestinal 

systems (Alvarado-Guzmán et al. 2009). Medicinal 

plants from the USVI include 35 herbaceous, 11 

tree, 12 shrub, and 10 vine species (Weaver 2006b). 

This interest offers opportunities to promote 

production of NTFPs as economic alternatives.

Integrating NTFPs into forest inventory and analysis is 

needed to ensure sustainable sourcing of products. Since 

the 1990s, there has been a call to integrate NTFPs in 

forest assessments within the Pacific islands to provide 

useful baseline data regarding sound management 

of forests (DeBell and Whitesell 1993). On the other 

hand, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

of the United Nations global forest resource assessment 

highlighted the important role of NTFPs in the well-being 

of people worldwide but lacks assessment and monitoring 

of resources and utilization (FAO 2001). Major research 

opportunities include the need for inventorying NTFP 

resources and their habitat requirements. Also, there is 

a need to monitor markets and the amount of NTFPs 

traded as well as the sources of raw materials. Finally, 

research is needed to assess impacts of introduced 

animals and invasive species on NTFP resources.

2.7

Inventory and Analysis

The inventory and analysis of trees in forests are well 

embedded in forestry and forest health assessments. 

Methods to inventory trees harvested for timber are 

well developed and integrated into forest management. 

Information is available for some trees that provide 

NTFPs, but the data must be examined from an NTFP 

perspective. While the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) program of the Forest Service (USDA Forest 

Service 2015) can provide data on some NTFPs, there are 

opportunities to expand research investments and data 

collection to improve information about these products.

2.7.1

Current Approach to Forest Inventory

Management and planning for sustainable production 

of all forest products requires knowledge of their 

spatial distribution, abundance, and change over 

time. Collection of this information for resources as 

biologically diverse and geographically dispersed as 

NTFPs presents challenges. Fortunately, much can be 

learned about NTFPs from conventional forest inventory, 

and there are opportunities to leverage existing data 

with additional information to gain insights about the 

status and expected trends of many NTFPs. A distinction 

can be made between national-scale inventories that 

are consistent, comprehensive, and repeated, versus 

inventories for specific purposes, places, and/or times.

The FIA program collects information on the status 

and trends of forest resources of the United States. The 

program is a national-scale inventory that collects data 

across all ownerships, across the entire United States, 

using standard sampling schemes and data collection 

protocols (Bechtold and Patterson 2005, Reams et al. 

2005). Plots are remeasured in cycles; in eastern states, 

every 5-7 years and in the West every 10 years. At each 

forested sample plot, information about the site (i.e., 

location, physiographic condition, ownership, forest 

type, and stand age class) and individual trees (species, 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 35

diameter, height, and condition) are recorded (USDA 

Forest Service 2014). These data, related to specific 

location by plot coordinates, enable spatial analysis 

of abundance and status of individual tree species.

Non-tree vegetation profile information may be collected 

from plots and, if collected, consists of percentage 

canopy cover of growth habit (tree, woody shrub/vine, 

forb, graminoid) and canopy layer. Also, up to four of 

the most abundant species per growth habit may be 

recorded. The FIA program produces summary reports 

and analyses from the plot data and also provides 

data and tools with which users can perform their 

own analyses of populations of specific interest.

2.7.2

Status of Nontimber Forest 

Product Inventory

Inventory protocols for commonly harvested timber 

and wildlife species are fully integrated into forest 

management. Wong et al. (2001) summarized much 

of the body of knowledge concerning inventory and 

resource assessments of nontimber forest resources and 

associated products in a seminal document. Vegetation 

inventories are used for biodiversity conservation (Elzinga 

et al. 1998). Market and economic inventories have 

been used to assess current and potential contributions 

to community development (Greene et al. 2000, 

Greenfield and Davis 2003). Inventory and monitoring 

NTFPs are essential activities in the sustainable 

management of these resources (Kerns et al. 2002) yet 

they have not been integrated into current programs.

Approaches and methodologies differ for the various 

products and desired information. Permanent plots have 

been used for mushrooms in the Pacific Northwest (Pilz 

et al. 1996) and medicinal plants in southern Appalachia 

(Chamberlain et al. 2013a, McGraw et al. 2003, Small 

et al. 2011). Protocols to inventory salal and other 

understory plants in the Pacific Northwest forests, which 

are harvested for the floral industry, have been tested 

(Barnes and Musselman 1996). Inventory and monitoring 

protocols have been developed for American ginseng and 

goldenseal (Gagnon 1999a, 1999b). A challenge with 

these is scaling up from research to production levels.

For NTFP resources where the desired products are 

belowground, such as tubers and roots, inventories 

are especially problematic as there is little or no way 

to correlate aboveground biomass to belowground 

yield. Chamberlain et al. (2013a) developed a method 

to model belowground biomass for black cohosh 

based on measurements of aboveground vegetation. 

The model serves as a tool to inventory NTFPs that 

are harvested for their roots. Efforts are under way to 

adapt this model to other medicinal NTFPs, such as 

blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides (L.) Michx.).

In general, FIA does not inventory specifically for NTFPs, 

although fortuitously information can be extracted 

from FIA data that are relevant to monitoring NTFPs 

derived from forest trees. Because tree records in the 

FIA database can be selected for a species of interest, 

a great deal can be learned about the abundance, 

distribution, and trends for a single forest tree species. 

FIA data have been used to estimate potential production 

of maple syrup from American forests (Collins 2001; 

Farrell 2009, 2013). The most recent of these studies 

used plot information on stand density (number of 

potential maple tree taps per hectare) as well as distance 

to nearest access road to include only those sites with 

potential for commercial production (Farrell 2013).

Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra Muhl.) illustrates what can 

be deduced from FIA inventory data on NTFPs from 

trees (Kauffman et al. 2015). Slippery elm is a tree 

species native to eastern North America from which 

bark is harvested for herbal remedies. FIA data enable 

the analysis of the abundance (numbers of trees), spatial 

distribution, and components of change (growth, 

harvest removals, and mortality) and to evaluate the 

change in inventory measures over time (figure 2.6). 

Tabular presentations of slippery elm inventory, growth, 

mortality, and removals indicated a net volume decrease 

of living slippery elm trees from 2007 to 2012, with 

annual mortality approximately equal to annual gross 

growth. At the same time, removals of slippery elm 

increased. Thus, the inventory data indicate there is 

cause for concern for the sustainability of slippery 

elm, with high levels of mortality (possibly related 

to Dutch elm disease) and increasing removals.

2.7.3

Using Forest Inventory and Analysis Data 

for Nontimber Forest Product Inventory

The FIA program has a broad user community, and 

many scientists are involved in improving and leveraging 

the information collected by FIA. Remote sensing data 

are being used to develop more spatial precision in 

estimates of FIA forest and tree species distributions. 

Substantial research efforts tied to FIA plot data can
36 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.6—Slippery elm inventory. (a) Number of live slippery elm (Ulmus rubra Muhl.) trees (diameter 5 inches and greater) by diameter 

class in eastern United States. (b) Surface area of slippery elm boles by Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) inventory unit, 2012. (c) 

Approximate locations of FIA plots on which slippery elm trees were measured, 2012. Dot colors represent numbers of trees observed on 

the plot; the shaded region is the natural range of slippery elm (Little 1971). (d) Number of slippery elm trees by FIA inventory unit, 2012. 

(e) Approximate locations of FIA plots on which slippery elm mortality was observed, 2012. Dot colors represent number of dead trees 

observed on the plot. (Maps rendered by J. Kauffman, Virginia Tech.)

Surface area (square feet)

0-50 million

50-100 million

100-150 million

150-200 million

250-300 million

300-350 million

350-400 million

Count

1-3

4-6

7+

Number of trees

0-1 million

1-2 million

2-3 million

3-4 million

4-5 million

5-6 million

6-7 million

7-8 million

8-9 million

Count

1-2

3-4

5+

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of live trees by diameter class

Number of trees (millions)

Diameter class (inches)

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 37

be immediately applied to NTFPs derived from trees. 

For example, modeling of the spatial distribution of 

tree species under a variety of future climate scenarios 

has been conducted for over 100 tree species, including 

some of NTFP importance (Iverson et al. 2008).

FIA data can be integrated with other datasets to gain 

insights into certain NTFPs. For example, Chamberlain 

et al. (2013b) combined FIA data with American 

ginseng harvest data obtained from the FWS to assess 

the relationships between ginseng harvest and timber 

inventory and harvest. Because FIA plot data and 

ginseng harvest data could be resolved to a county 

level, it was possible to examine correlations between 

the two datasets. They found ginseng harvest levels 

correlated with hardwood forest area, hardwood 

growing-stock volume, and timber removals.

Another approach to extending the value of FIA data 

for NTFPs involved augmenting FIA data with field 

inventory specifically designed for assessing paper birch 

bark resources for baskets and other fine arts (Emery et 

al. 2014). Integrating standard FIA data with a custom 

inventory and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 

yielded new information on the resource. Experts in 

bark harvest identified bark characteristics related to 

the potential utility of harvested bark for fine arts. 

Measurable features associated with these characteristics 

were then identified by ecological experts with extensive 

cultural expertise. FIA field crews collected data on 

these features when measuring paper birch trees. The 

variables, combined with traditional tree measurements 

such as diameter and height, enabled computation of 

estimates of harvestable bark and change over time.

Finally, often FIA plot measurements can be used to 

develop models that predict parameters of interest, 

but this may require more intense data collection from 

plots across the landscape. For example, modeling 

ginseng distribution is possible and requires extensive 

data on topography, soils, forest cover parameters, 

and other geographic variables such as aspect, slope, 

elevation, and soil acidity (McGraw et al. 2013). 

Research investments have improved the mathematical 

techniques for computing the inventory parameters of 

interest (e.g., biomass, growth, removals, and mortality). 

Similar efforts could lead to the ability to predict other 

parameters of interest for NTFPs, such as predicting 

fruit or seed yield from tree or site conditions.

In summary, while a great deal of information on 

NTFPs from trees can be derived from FIA data, there 

are opportunities to leverage investments in research 

and field data collection to improve the information 

on NTFPs. The FIA program has active support and 

interest from a broad user community, and expanding 

data collection to include more information on NTFPs 

will likely require similar strong support from the 

NTFP science and broader user communities.

Fundamentally, there is a strong and growing body 

of knowledge to build an inventory program for 

NTFP resources. Globally, there are insufficient data 

and a lack of common reporting methods to fully 

integrate NTFP inventories into forest management. 

Efforts are constrained by a lack of field skills, 

time, personnel and fiscal resources. Until these 

issues are addressed, the inventory and assessment 

of nontimber forest resources will be under-utilized 

in forest management in the United States.

2.8

Tracking Nontimber Forest Products

One of the greatest obstacles to creating effective NTFP 

policy is the lack of knowledge about the size and 

structure of the NTFP industry. These products have 

a great deal of cultural and economic value, but there 

are little consistent data on how much is harvested and 

where it originates (Vaughan et al. 2013). To effectively 

allocate resources for sustainable utilization of NTFPs, 

a better understanding of their economic impact and 

the impact of harvest on wild populations is necessary. 

This requires systems that track how NTFP resources 

get from forests to consumers. For the purpose of this 

section, tracking refers to methods for collecting data 

on NTFPs including estimates of harvest volumes and 

distribution and measurements of how production 

changes over time. Knowing the context of tracking 

data is vital for effective management decisions. This 

includes the structure of NTFP supply chains, the 

practice of harvesting and trading, and changes in price 

and consumer demand. NTFP economies vary from 

region to region, and within one sector there may be a 

multitude of species being harvested. Tracking programs 

should be efficient and focus on products that have high 

economic value, are harvested heavily, or that are rare 

or rapidly declining. This means that tracking is most 
38 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

effective when it is part of a system that also monitors 

plant populations and engages market participants.

A tracking program can benefit many stakeholders 

affected by NTFP production. Market participants, 

forest managers, and conservation organizations share 

an interest in ensuring the sustainable management 

of natural populations. For consumers, a more open 

supply chain can provide confidence in the quality 

and safety of products and whether the products 

are sustainably sourced. Tracking programs can be 

burdensome for harvesters and producers, but such 

programs can benefit them as well. Tracking programs 

that reveal the economic impact of NTFPs on what 

are often marginalized communities can help make an 

argument for greater institutional support for production. 

Unlike most businesses, NTFP market participants 

lack access to data on product supply and demand. 

Fluctuations in price and demand cause general instability 

within the market, resulting in greater risk for those 

involved. The lack of available market research is often 

cited as a barrier to entry for farmers, landowners, 

community organizers, and professionals interested in 

cultivating or managing their woodlands for NTFPs 

(Chamberlain et al. 1998, Gold et al. 2004). This section 

explores how NTFPs are tracked and the challenge 

of designing and implementing tracking programs.

2.8.1

Approaches, Methods, and Programs

Few institutions track NTFPs to any extent, and they 

employ different strategies including sales of harvesting 

permits (e.g., national forests), mandatory reporting 

(e.g., CITES), and voluntary surveys (e.g., AHPA). 

This section gives a brief summary of various tracking 

methods. All have advantages and disadvantages. 

They are tailored to certain products, markets, and 

land classes. A comprehensive large-scale tracking 

program would have to integrate multiple methods.

Permit programs—Permitting provides collectors with 

access to NTFP resources and landowners with an 

opportunity to manage NTFPs over large areas. The 

Forest Service and BLM issue permits to harvest NTFPs 

(USDA Forest Service 2015a). Permits typically are 

issued for specific volumes and time limits. Permit 

prices are based on estimated fair market value of the 

product and, in some cases, different permit prices are 

available for commercial and recreational harvesters 

(USDA Forest Service 2015a). The granting office 

assumes that the entire permitted amount, and only 

the permitted amount, is harvested. Permitted harvest 

volumes are totaled by district and by forest to achieve 

an estimate with a degree of regional distribution 

(Alexander et al. 2011). Permitted harvest volumes, as 

reported by the Forest Service and BLM, do not include 

private lands and are an imperfect measure of actual 

harvest volumes (Alexander et al. 2011, Muir et al. 

2006). Table 2.1 summarizes the volumes of permitted 

harvest in 2013 from national forests and BLM lands. 

Enforcing permitting regulations requires significant 

resources, and given the expansive areas involved, it is 

unlikely effective. Income from permit fees can support 

enforcement, but because of slim profit margins for 

harvesters, the cost of permit fees can discourage their 

purchase and lead to illegal harvesting (Charnley et 

al. 2007). Permitted harvest data may provide a better 

description of harvest volumes in the West, where public 

ownership dominates, but is less useful in the East, 

where private lands dominate. Private landowners may 

grant leases to harvest, but data are not available.

Mandatory reporting and export data—In the United States, 

American ginseng may be the NTFP that has been 

tracked the longest and with the most detail because 

of its inclusion in CITES (Chamberlain et al. 2013b). 

Buyers of American ginseng root, who want to sell 

outside of the State in which they reside, are required to 

register with the appropriate state agency, keep records 

of each transaction, and have ginseng roots inspected 

and certified by the state agency before the roots can 

leave the state. The system was established to ensure 

that ginseng is legally harvested and allows the FWS 

to determine nondetrimental status of the harvest.

This mandatory reporting achieves high participation 

and has provided the most detailed data on volume 

and harvest distribution of any NTFP in the United 

States. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 (chapter 6) summarize the 

ginseng harvest volumes by state, year, and amounts. It 

is burdensome, however, for harvesters and buyers who 

use ginseng sales to supplement income. The tracking 

program is directly tied to regulations that are perceived 

by many buyers and harvesters as overly restrictive, 

ineffective, and created without their input (Blumenthal 

2006). Negative associations with mandatory reporting 

may hinder future voluntary collaboration on efforts to 

track other NTFPs (Love and Jones 1997, McLain 2008). 

The ginseng program requires substantial resources 

for enforcement and administration in the respective 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 39

state programs. Mandatory reporting should not be 

undertaken without exploring other possibilities and 

assessing the impact on participants (Robbins 2000).

Some NTFPs are exported and assigned an 

international export code under the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule that is used by the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (ITC 2014) to track products. In 

most cases, wild-harvest products are lumped into 

broad categories such as “foliage,” which also can 

include cultivated products (Alexander et al. 2011). 

Three exceptions to this are wild blueberries, wild 

ginseng, and mosses. Data from the ITC can be used 

to estimate harvest volumes at a national level, but 

do not allow for assessment of harvest distribution.

Industry tracking—Trade associations generate estimates 

of some NTFP sectors. Some are single-product oriented, 

such as the National Christmas Tree Association, 

which surveys its members (NCTA 2012). AHPA 

and the American Botanicals Council (ABC) publish 

quantitative data on wild-harvested medicinal plants. 

The ABC collects and summarizes data on retail sales 

of herbal products in its publication HerbalGram. Data 

derived from retail sales can provide estimates of the 

monetary value or economic impact of particular species 

or a category of nontimber forest end-products such 

as herbal supplements (Blumenthal et al. 2012). Retail 

data also can show trends in demand for NTFPs but are 

not effective at tracking actual product volume because 

manufactured goods containing NTFPs vary in price 

and the amount of raw plant material they contain. 

Presentations of these data also are one-time windows of 

dynamic markets that change with supply and demand.

AHPA surveys its members, some of which are the 

largest herbal companies in the United States, as well 

as primarily buyers of raw materials and publishes 

total volume for approximately 20 medicinal plants 

(table 2.2; AHPA 2012). The AHPA survey provides 

baseline estimates available for several species. The 

survey is repeated biannually, making it extremely 

valuable in providing insight into harvest and market 

trends. The AHPA data show dramatic fluctuations in 

volume of certain products from year to year, something 

that cannot be accounted for in a one-time study.

Household and voluntary surveys—Surveys have the 

potential for being an effective method for tracking 

NTFPs and can provide quantitative and qualitative 

data needed for management decisions. They are 

typically voluntary and confidential and can cover 

products harvested from public and private lands. 

The few surveys that have aimed at tracking NTFPs 

were directed at specific commercial product sectors, 

such as floral products in the Northwest (Schlosser 

et al. 1991), mushrooms in the Northwest (Schlosser 

and Blatner 1995), and moss in the Northwest and 

Appalachia (Muir et al. 2006). Surveying NTFPs 

from different market segments from the same region 

is another approach (Greenfield and Davis 2003). 

These were undertaken for research purposes and 

were not intended to track for long-term analysis.

Surveys are designed to target a point in the supply chain 

at which respondents are likely to know how and where 

their products are harvested. Some surveys have aimed 

to estimate the economic impact of NTFP markets by 

asking participants about prices for products. This makes 

it possible to describe economic value and volume of 

harvest, which is helpful when products have different 

physical properties (e.g., bark versus foliage). Surveys 

that are voluntary eliminate the need for enforcement, 

reduce cost, and are less burdensome to the participants. 

They, however, suffer from low response rates and 

nonresponse issues. Although surveys can be replicated, 

NTFP surveys in the United States have been short term, 

usually just covering one year. NTFP markets can be 

highly volatile, and new products are always emerging, 

meaning that to be effective, tracking systems including 

surveys should be updated and readministered.

Muir et al. (2006) used several data sources to 

project total estimates of product volume for 

mosses harvested from the Pacific Northwest and 

Appalachia. The authors found that export data 

indicated a much larger moss harvest than reported 

from permits. Moss dealers provided information 

on the proportion of their products for international 

versus domestic markets. To get a total estimate, they 

combined export data with a projection based on those 

percentages, demonstrating that using data collected 

from multiple sources can improve estimates.

2.8.2

Other Product Tracking Models

Other similar products are tracked effectively and 

provide insights into approaches that may be appropriate 

for NTFPs. As an example, the Forest Service FIA 

program has tracked timber production for more 

than 70 years. Other institutions track products sold 
40 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

through more informal markets, such as roadside 

stands and farmers’ markets (e.g., USDA Agricultural 

Marketing Service [AMS]). Other countries have 

established systems for tracking some NTFPs. The 

methods used to track these products can provide 

valuable lessons for developing approaches for NTFPs.

Forest Service—Since the 1930s, the Forest Service has 

tracked timber production through the Timber Product 

Output (TPO) assessments, which are voluntary and 

confidential surveys of primary timber processors (USDA 

Forest Service 2015c). The TPO assessments collect 

data on the size, location, product, and production 

volume of each mill. TPO surveys also inquire about the 

origin of the raw material and if it came from public or 

private land. Data are collected at the county level and 

can be aggregated into multiple counties to preserve 

confidentiality if there are only a few operators that could 

be identified, which is often the case for NTFP buyers.

Designers of NTFP tracking systems can learn from 

the TPO assessments. The TPO collects data on 

harvest distribution, which can be correlated with 

data from FIA inventory plots such as measurements 

of timber removal and growing stock (Chamberlain 

et al. 2013b, Piva and Cook 2011). This ability to 

seamlessly integrate data from the industry and the 

forest makes the TPO a powerful tool for managers 

and policymakers analyzing the relationship between 

commerce, harvesting practices, and forest health. 

TPO assessments are done regularly, which allows for 

an ongoing analysis of trends and changes over time.

The TPO achieves response rates as high as 100 percent 

(Piva and Cook 2011), much higher than most surveys. 

When responses are missing, and the size and location 

of the mill is known, data are substituted from another 

comparable facility (Johnson et al. 2008). Part of the 

reason for the TPO’s high response rates may be that the 

results are useful to participants. Reports are summarized 

by region and state and published in an easily accessible 

format. The public also can search and retrieve 

customized data through an interactive online database.

Other USDA programs—Farmers’ markets share some 

of the informal characteristics of the NTFP economy. 

Cash transactions are common, and recordkeeping is 

inconsistent, making it difficult to create nationwide 

estimates of farmers’ market sales and their economic 

impacts. The AMS commissioned a nationwide survey 

of farmers’ market managers in 2006 (Ragland and 

Tropp 2009). The AMS maintains a directory of 

farmers’ markets with the contact information of market 

managers, which serves as a sample frame, while a 

Web-based version allows market managers not in the 

directory to participate (Ragland and Tropp 2009).

This tracking method has the advantage of emerging 

from a larger institutional framework that provides 

resources for local food infrastructure, meaning the 

respondents were likely to benefit from participating. 

The lack of such a perceived benefit is a major 

obstacle for NTFP data collection. Finally, an 

important element of the farmers’ market survey is 

that, like the TPO, it was designed to be repeated.

In addition to the AMS, the USDA National Agriculture 

Statistics Service includes NTFPs such as tree nuts, 

berries, and maple syrup in its annual reporting, 

which presents data on production volumes, prices, 

and producer demographics (e.g., NASS 2013).

NTFPs tracking in other countries—Looking at how 

NTFPs are tracked around the world can be instructive 

for assessing U.S. tracking methods. These programs 

face many of the same challenges that exist in the 

United States. In discussing the need to compile 

statistics on NTFPs for nations to use for policy 

decisionmaking, Vantomme (2003) argued that 

comprehensive data on product volume and origin 

is sparse and markets are informal and volatile.

One way Europe tracks NTFPs is through “The State 

of Europe’s Forests” (SEF), a periodic report prepared 

by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of 

Forests in Europe (MCPFE 2007). In the SEF, signatory 

countries report on indicators of sustainability to assess 

the overall condition of European forests. One criterion 

is the measurement of NTFPs quantity and value. In 

2007, 32 European countries reported on marketable 

NTFPs and the quality of assessments varied greatly 

between countries. There is no standardized, overarching 

method used by all countries, but the SEF is still able 

to publish information on total NTFP quantity and 

value (MCPFE 2007). The report breaks down that 

value by country and also by product categories such 

as mushrooms, berries, and medicinal or colorant 

products. One limitation of this approach is that it 

provides national-level statistics and not local data.

Finland has some of the most detailed NTFPs tracking. 

Since the 1980s, Finnish researchers periodically 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 41

survey households about NTFP harvesting activities 

(Saastamoinen et al. 2000, Turtiainen et al. 2012). 

Surveys are distributed to households throughout 

the country, with special emphasis on communities 

close to known harvesting areas (Turtiainen et 

al. 2012). Respondents are asked what species 

they harvest and the proportions for personal 

and commercial use. While these surveys do not 

collect data on harvest location, the studies do look 

at distribution based on harvester location.

Household surveys are effective in Finland, where an 

estimated 60 to 90 percent of people collect berries 

(Saastamoinen et al. 2000). More than 40 percent harvest 

mushrooms (Turtiainen et al. 2012). The low population 

of Finland and small size of the country support this 

type of analysis. In the United States, this would be 

challenging due to the size of the country, the dispersed 

nature of NTFP harvesting communities, and divisions 

between recreational and commercial harvesters. 

However, by targeting clusters of the population with 

higher probability of NTFP participation, it may be 

possible to assess the rate of harvest for some products 

in the United States. This can be done by targeting 

populations who live close to forests, common users 

of public lands, or cultural communities with strong 

NTFP harvesting traditions. The National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment and the National 

Woodland Owners Survey collect data on gathering 

natural products from forests for personal and economic 

use, including mushrooms, berries, and plants and 

flowers (Butler 2008, Butler et al. 2016, Cordell and 

Tarrant 2002). The demographic data collected for 

natural product gatherers could help more detailed 

survey programs target likely NTFP harvesters.

Finnish researchers also work with volunteers to 

actively monitor NTFPs in the wild. They create 

annual yield estimates for berries based on inventory 

and climate data (Wong et al. 2001) and survey NTFP 

buyers about market conditions (Paassilta et al. 2009). 

The approach indicates that having repeated periodic 

surveys of NTFP harvest combined with monitoring 

and production support can improve NTFP tracking.

2.8.3

Challenges and Considerations 

for Tracking Products

NTFP production systems have characteristics that 

should be considered in the design of programs to track 

product movement. The diversity of NTFP markets 

complicates these efforts. In one forest district in 

the national forests of North Carolina, products are 

harvested for the floral industry, craft industry, medicinal 

products, nursery stock, and edibles (USDA Forest 

Service 2015b). Many products are collected for personal 

use, some make their way to regional markets as specialty 

or niche products, and others, such as American ginseng, 

are commodities that may be bought and sold several 

times and end up in distant domestic or international 

markets. Tracking programs should prioritize products 

based on some metric such as amount of volume 

harvested, monetary value, and scarcity of the plant.

The informal nature of the NTFP economy is another 

obstacle to effective tracking of the volumes of products 

harvested. Many NTFP markets are seasonal, and 

harvesters may be difficult to identify or contact, 

or they may not want to be identified as their work 

provides undocumented or untaxed income (Alexander 

et al. 2002). At the primary point of sale, cash 

transactions are common, and the extent of accurate 

record keeping by market participants is unknown. 

Primary buyers may not advertise and rely instead on 

a large network of suppliers. Identifying participants 

and key products can be difficult. When buyers or 

harvesters are not publicly listed, chain referrals, or 

the snowball method, can help locate participants 

(Greenfield and Davis 2003, Schlosser et al. 1991).

Identifying the optimal place in the supply chain to 

concentrate tracking efforts is another difficult task. 

While some NTFPs are sold directly from harvesters to 

consumers, there is a great deal of variation from product 

to product. An hourglass may best describe the shape of 

the typical NTFP market. At the bottom, a large number 

of harvesters sell to local buyers, who in turn sell the 

raw product to a few regional aggregators. Depending 

on the product, aggregators may process the product 

themselves, export the raw material, or sell to domestic 

processors such as herbal supplement manufacturers. 

Products then reach a large number of consumers through 

numerous outlets such as grocery or health food stores, 

craft shops, florists, or restaurants (Greene et al. 2000).

Tracking programs that collect data on where products 

are harvested must be conducted close to the point of 

harvest. Harvesters have the most accurate information 

about where products come from but may be difficult 

to locate and less likely to participate. Primary buyers 
42 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

are easier to locate and likely to know the general 

location where products were harvested (at the county 

level, for instance), but they may not keep accurate 

records of transactions. Large regional aggregators 

have varying levels of familiarity with product origin, 

and they may be easier to locate, but at this level, raw 

materials often have been consolidated into large lots, 

making it difficult to identify harvest locations. There 

also may be trade between participants, meaning 

products could be counted twice. At the other end of 

the supply chain there may be more record keeping, 

but even less knowledge about where the raw materials 

originated. By choosing any point on the supply chain, 

a tracking system may miss outliers, such as harvesters 

who make their own value-added products, but this is 

likely a small portion of what moves through the supply 

chain. With the exception of permitting programs, 

which target harvesters, the tracking systems that 

collect geographic data rely on primary buyers.

Low participation in tracking programs is possibly the 

greatest challenge in creating effective methodologies. 

The NTFP community often is described as secretive or 

having a closed culture, but there are practical reasons 

some people choose not to participate and practical 

reasons for maintaining confidentiality for those who 

do. Some concerns may be rooted in the potential legal 

ramifications for under-reporting cash transactions or 

trading in products harvested illegally. Competition 

within the industry, where personal relationships in 

the supply chain form a currency, can heighten the 

desire to protect information and increase reluctance to 

participate. In marginalized NTFP communities, there 

may be linguistic or cultural barriers to participation.

Often, NTFP producers choose not to participate 

simply because they see no benefit, or none that 

outweigh the burden and perceived consequences of 

participation. Communities engaged with NTFPs 

often have a history of negative experiences with 

Government agencies and other institutions (McLain 

2008). These are exacerbated when policies are 

made without input from market participants, by 

people who generally do not understand how NTFPs 

are harvested and sold, or other nonenvironmental 

forces such as land use changes and local economic 

conditions. There is concern that this lack of contextual 

knowledge will lead to data being misinterpreted.

Affiliation with a university or nongovernmental 

organization might make it easier to work with NTFP 

groups (Greenfield and Davis 2003), but as Love and 

Jones (1997) observed, regulation and research often 

go hand in hand. Unlike timber, which has a great 

deal of research and management resources devoted 

to its production, NTFP management strategies often 

are limited to restricting harvest. Giving up hardearned knowledge about their livelihood can mean 

participants are relinquishing control over it, and may 

lose access to valuable resources (McLain et al. 2008).

To successfully track NTFP harvest volumes will 

require participation of stakeholders, who must feel 

that the program is effective, fairly applied, and 

beneficial. Knowing the context of tracking data is vital 

for effective management decisions. This includes the 

structure of supply chains, the practice of harvesting and 

trading, and changes in price and consumer demand. 

NTFP economies vary across regions and within 

sectors there may be a multitude of species. Effective 

tracking programs will focus on products that have 

high economic value, are heavily harvested, or that are 

threatened or declining. Tracking programs will be 

most effective when part of a system that also monitors 

plant populations and engages market participants.

2.9

Knowledge Gaps

Nontimber forests products are many and diverse. 

Our knowledge of them is basic and developing. Gaps 

in knowledge about the products and management 

are similar through the United States and insular 

territories. Silvicultural practices abound for timber 

and may be applicable to nontimber but need to 

develop further to deal with complexities created when 

NTFPs are integrated into management strategies. 

Forest farming these products is becoming attractive 

to landowners as an innovative income stream, yet 

research-based knowledge about growing and the 

profitability of NTFPs under trees is lacking.

NTFP science is rudimentary, at best. With some 

products, little more is known than basic ecology and 

botany of the plant or fungus whence the product 

originates. With others, such as American ginseng, our 

knowledge is more developed. There is a great deal of 

traditional and local ecological knowledge that guides 

stewardship and use of NTFPs. The science-based 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 43

knowledge regarding these products, however, is wanting. 

Research that respects and integrates traditional and 

local knowledge with scientific analysis is warranted.

The species discussed in this document represent a 

collection of expert knowledge but not a complete list of 

NTFPs. The list will change with time as many products 

have yet to be identified or documented. The many uses 

of these products have to be explored. The volumes 

and values of these products are not fully defined, nor 

are the methods developed to collect these data. More 

important, there is a lack of knowledge on how to 

manage the resources whence the products originate to 

ensure that the resources are available in perpetuity.

The integration of NTFPs with established silvicultural 

practices can increase economic benefits for landowners 

and ecological benefits for forests. More information 

is needed on the ecology, life history, and demography 

of target NTFP species, across a variety of silvicultural 

treatments and site types with close attention to species 

responses to disturbance regimes resulting from timber 

management. The role of biotic and abiotic factors on 

regulating the growth of NTFP species could be better 

understood. There is an increasing body of knowledge 

related to microbial and fungal communities that 

needs consideration to apply these lines of inquiry to 

better elucidate the role they have in regulating the 

ecology and economies of managed forests. With 

the growing interest in NTFPs, research is needed to 

determine sustainable harvest levels for specific species, 

particularly when harvest kills the plant, across a variety 

of habitats, environmental conditions, and climates.

With changing climates, research must consider current 

data in the context of projected future conditions in 

an effort to add some level of confidence to long-term 

management scenarios. This is especially true in the 

cases of shifts in species phenology and asynchrony 

of pollinators and dispersers, reorganization of 

novel communities, and the expansion/contraction 

of climate envelopes. Silviculture should continue to 

move toward managing for increasing complexity 

and diversity (Puettmann et al. 2009). Managing 

forests as complex adaptive systems will benefit 

integration of NTFPs in silvicultural systems and 

increase resiliency in the face of climate change.

Much of the information available on how to forest 

farm NTFPs is based on experiences in specific 

parts of the country. Applied research is limited and 

has been used in only a few regions. Growers often 

assume that production methods that work in one 

region will work in another part of the country. This 

has not been adequately demonstrated. As there are 

regional- and state-level production practices for 

many established crops (i.e., fruits, vegetables, grains), 

regional production differences for NTFPs should be 

expected. Some production practices that need to be 

studied include propagation, planting dates, soil fertility, 

disease and insect control, weed and herbivore control, 

security, time and method of harvest, post-harvest 

handling, food safety, marketing, and economics.

More information on the monetary value of this industry 

within regions and across the country is needed. The 

knowledge about wild-harvested NTFPs in the South 

is predominantly based on one study (Greenfield and 

Davis 2003). This early study provides a foundation 

to understand the NTFP industry, but current and 

regular data are needed. Also, regional assessments 

are needed that examine the interactions of NTFP 

economies. As the forest-farming industry matures, 

raw material supplies should stabilize and their quality 

improve, which will influence demand and prices.

There is a lack of information to fully determine 

growth, yields, and costs needed to estimate optimal 

production. Forest farming is proclaimed to lead to 

better conservation of the NTFP, but the economics 

make wild-harvesting more attractive. Cultivated 

material should produce higher yields of uniform 

raw material that are positively identified (Davis and 

Persons 2014). More research is needed to optimize 

forest-farming systems to increase yields and reduce 

costs of priority products with significant market 

potential. Manufacturers and consumers using NTFPs 

need to be educated about the improvement in product 

quality and benefits to the forest and community 

economics of purchasing forest farmed products.

The impacts that policies and regulations have on 

NTFPs are not fully understood. Regulations affect 

various products at the international, Federal, and state 

levels. Should a plant become listed with CITES or as 

a federally endangered species, laws take effect that 

limit or restrict harvest and commerce of associated 

products. Nursery permits and inspections and export 

permits often are required depending on the product 

and state in which they are grown. Chapter 7 provides 

a comprehensive analysis of policies and regulations 
44 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

that impact NTFPs and provides valuable insights into 

the impacts that policies may have on the products.

The social and economic importance of NTFPs has 

been underestimated (see chapters 5 and 6) in the 

insular areas of the Caribbean and the Pacific. Data are 

usually not available on income produced from forestryrelated activities and quantitative data for NTFPs are 

basically absent (Chakroff 2010; FAO 2000, 2005a, 

2005b, 2005c). Major challenges and opportunities 

in the Caribbean region include the need for public 

education about the products, the need for a revival 

of a traditional knowledge about the plants and their 

uses (Alvarado-Guzmán et al. 2009, van Andel 2006), 

competition from imported souvenirs, and the need for 

improving marketing techniques. Building local capacity 

for the continuous operation of sound forestry programs 

and developing public awareness about sustainable 

forest management practices is essential (American 

Samoa Community College 2010, FAO 2001).

A confounding issue that affects NTFP inventory and 

monitoring is the tremendous diversity of plants and 

fungi that make setting priorities essential. Specific 

inventory methods may be required for each species or 

plant organ, but methods need to be tested and modified 

accordingly. With so many different products, developing 

and implementing standardized inventory protocols 

is challenging, but not impossible. Commonalities 

exist, however, between inventory methods that create 

potential for the transfer and sharing of techniques. The 

diversity of plants and fungi, and products, should not 

be a constraint undertaking inventory and monitoring 

programs, but impetus to prioritize products based on 

ecology, economics, and social and cultural importance.

FIA data do not provide sufficient information for 

thorough analysis of the sustainability of NTFPs 

under increased climatic variability. The main data are 

obtained from trees greater than 5-inch diameter, and 

smaller trees are recorded only in smaller nested plots 

and may be underrepresented in an inventory. As most 

NTFPs come from nontree plants and fungi, they are 

seldom, if at all, represented. Collection of vegetation 

profile information is optional, meaning it depends on 

funding and regional priorities and is not collected on 

all plots each cycle. Furthermore, vegetation profile data 

focus on the most abundant species, and important 

NTFPs that occur rarely may not be represented in the 

database. Fully and adequately representing NTFP species 

in forest inventory will require modified approaches 

that account for disparate population distributions.

The tree measurements that form the basis for many 

inventory parameters (e.g., volume and biomass) may 

not be related to measures of production of NTFPs (e.g., 

boughs, fruit, seed) but can be viable examples in the 

formulation of inventory systems. Thus, while the FIA 

data provide information on abundance and geographic 

distribution of trees, this information may not be 

readily translatable into data relevant to NTFP resource 

monitoring or management. Developing inventory or 

tracking systems for NTFPs will require a consideration 

of the phenology and ecology of diverse plants and fungi.

Another challenge with inventory of NTFPs is the 

difficulty of observing changes to individual plant 

species and populations over time. With trees harvested 

for timber products, it is a simple matter to determine 

whether a harvest has occurred: a tree that was measured 

on a prior inventory is no longer there, and usually a 

stump remains as an indicator of the removal. This is 

not true with many understory plants that may not be 

long lived, that may not be readily or easily identified, 

that may have unpredictable dormancy, and from which 

only portions are harvested. This is also the case for 

mushrooms, whose primary structure is underground. 

While mushroom fruiting body surveys are possible, 

they do not accurately represent the populations of 

the organisms. Finally, the sparse sampling intensity 

of FIA plots, while adequate for regional volume 

estimates for forests overall, leads to estimates that 

can be highly variable. This means that inferences 

about changes over time are only reliable at very large 

scales, which may not be adequate for NTFP species.

2.10

Implications of Increased 

Climatic Variability for Production 

and Management

Long-term effects on native NTFP resources will 

be challenging to predict and deserve significant 

examination. Projected shifts in forests imply that NTFP 

species will be impacted. Climate change models indicate 

warming and drier conditions that will affect trees such 

as pinyon pine, maple, and black ash that are the sources 

of valuable NTFPs. Understory NTFP species may be 

particularly sensitive to changes in forest structure. 

Coastal forests and insular forest ecosystems are 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 45

particularly vulnerable to changes in climate and related 

stressors. Forest fragmentation with changing climate 

can have serious consequences on natural populations 

of NTFP resources and associated pollinators.

Increasing climatic variability has the potential to 

seriously affect populations and species of plants and 

fungi that provide NTFPs. Little is known about 

how climatic variability will affect understory plant 

communities. While shifts in precipitation regimes are 

likely more important than temperature on the forest 

floor, the lack of understanding of understory dynamics 

creates a great deal of uncertainty. Forest fragmentation 

combined with shifting climate envelopes can have serious 

consequences for demographics of wild populations of 

important NTFP species, specifically dispersal-limited 

myrmecochorous herbs. Phenological changes due to 

climatic variability could result in pollinator or dispersal 

asynchrony in species with highly specialized interactions 

(Hegland et al. 2009). Furthermore, changes in the 

intensity or frequency of climate-caused disturbances 

also can affect NTFP species distribution and levels of 

production (Dale et al. 2001). Further, environmental 

variability can affect the quantity and quality of some 

NTFPs, presenting additional challenges for management.

Interactions between climate and invasive species further 

complicate managing for NTFPs. Black ash (Fraxinus 

nigra Marshall), important culturally and economically 

to basket makers across the Northern United States, 

provides an exceptional example. The emerald ash borer 

(EAB) has killed millions of ash trees and is expanding its 

range. Because EAB has no known predators or natural 

resistance, all North American ash species are at risk 

of extinction (Herms and McCullough 2014). While 

duration of cold temperatures could slow the northern 

movement of EAB, occurrence and duration of low 

temperatures is declining even in the northern parts of the 

range (Crosthwaite et al. 2011). Black ash of the quality 

needed for basketry will become increasingly difficult 

to find, endangering a valued cultural tradition as well 

as the income generated by the sale of these baskets.

Other NTFPs may be impacted from climate, as well. 

Little is known about how ostrich ferns, which grow 

across a wide range of plant-hardiness zones and 

prefer hydric soil conditions, will respond to changing 

climates. Climatic variability is a concern for maple 

syrup producers, as production is primarily weather 

dependent and relies on predictable temperature 

swings below and above freezing to get sap to flow. 

Some researchers, however, have predicted that the 

habitat suitability for sugar maple will decrease in the 

Northeastern United States as ambient temperatures 

increase (Mohan et al. 2009). Climate change models 

indicate a warming and drier Western United States 

(Intermountain Society of American Foresters 2013) that 

could seriously impact pinyon production. Impacts to 

NTFP species is not limited to continental United States.

Climatic variability is likely to exacerbate many existing 

pressures and threats to the forests of the insular areas 

of the Caribbean and Pacific. Potential impacts of 

warming temperatures and altered hydrologic regimes 

include the loss of mangrove forests and arable land 

on the coast due to sea level rise, damage to terrestrial 

forests due to higher frequency of extreme events and 

fires, reduced agricultural yields due to decreased 

rainfall or droughts, and increased invasion by 

nonnative species as a result of higher temperatures 

(Neville 2014, UNEP 2008). If extreme meteorological 

events increase in frequency and intensity, changes 

of familiar species assemblages and availability of 

NTFPs are expected to occur due to variations in 

the time available for reproduction and senescence 

or selective pressure on organisms (Lugo 2000). In 

addition, future climatic variability could result in large 

changes in dust from African regions to the Caribbean, 

the effects of which on the vegetation have yet to be 

studied (Pett-Ridge 2009, Prospero and Lamb 2003).

Data released by NASA and NOAA verified that 

2014 was the warmest year on record since 1880, 

and nine of the ten warmest years on record have 

occurred since 2000 (NASA 2015). Recent temperature 

trends and climate predictions have resulted in new 

terminology associated with climate issues, which will 

directly affect NTFPs. These include, “zone creep,” 

“season creep,” “simultaneous opposing temperature 

extremes,” “growing adaptation deficit,” “adaptive 

evolution,” “spring creep,” and “spring mismatches.”

Zone creep refers to changes in the USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zones Map, which is used to determine 

appropriate planting areas for crops. The revised 

2012 Plant Hardiness Zones Map shows an average 

minimum temperature increase of 5 °F across the 

country as compared to the 1990 map. Changing the 

planting and growth boundaries and moving most zones 

northward will impact NTFP production, directly. 
46 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

For example, Ohio was formerly within Zone 5 but 

now is almost entirely within the warmer Zone 6. As 

a result, NTFP growers and harvesters in these areas 

may have to reconsider their planting and harvesting 

choices in the future (Malcolm et al. 2012). The longterm results of zone creep will affect habitats associated 

with specific NTFPs, with some habitats and species 

being more vulnerable to climatic variability (USDA 

2012). As a result, storing germplasm in the form 

of seed before more changes occur and predicting 

where and which species need to be prioritized for 

conservation are essential long-term strategies.

Season creep and spring creep refer to differentiation 

of first and last frost dates, which may alter pollinators 

(Schwartz et al. 2006, Sherry et al. 2007). Phenology is a 

sensitive biosphere indicator of climate. Long-term surface 

data and remote sensing measurements indicate that plant 

phenology has advanced by 2 to 3 days in the spring and 

been delayed by 0.3 to 1.6 days in the fall per decade over 

the past 30 to 80 years, which culminated in a significant 

extension of the growing season in 2015. As temperatures 

rise, spring seasons are arriving earlier while winters are 

shorter and more extreme. With this season change, frost 

vulnerability becomes more of a threat, where high spring 

temperatures create earlier flowering schedules, leaving 

blooms at risk of freezing (Inouye 2008, Souther and 

McGraw 2014). This is important to mountain-dwelling 

NTFP species, which are increasingly experiencing 

frequent frost damage due to early blooming.

Increased pests are yet another result of this phenomenon, 

wherein warmer, shorter winters provide favorable 

conditions for pest populations. Mild winters allow 

pest populations to increase instead of die out over 

the winter (Jamieson et al. 2012). For example, Gypsy 

moths, tent caterpillars (Malacosoma spp. Hübner), 

beech bark disease (Neonectria spp. Wollenw), and 

hemlock woolly adelgid (Adeleges tsugae Annand) are 

expected to expand their ranges due to the changing 

seasons, affecting crop and forest health (Dukes et 

al. 2009). Projections by the USDA speculate that the 

potential impact of this spread and redistribution of 

agricultural pests may reduce agricultural returns by $1.5 

billion to $3.0 billion by 2030 (Malcolm et al. 2012).

Adaptational lag is another concern that will impact 

NTFP species as they adapt to changes in climate. If 

species cannot keep up with rapid climate alterations, 

populations and entire species may decline or go extinct 

(appendix 2—Assessment of Risk Due to Climate 

Change). In one European study, a common garden 

experiment tested lagging adaptation to a warming 

climate using banked seeds of the annual weed 

mouseear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh.) 

across the species’ native climate range (Wilczek et al. 

2014). Genotypes originating in southern climates, 

historically warmer than the planting site, had higher 

relative fitness than native genotypes at every site. 

This suggests that local adaptive optima have shifted 

rapidly with recent climate warming across the species’ 

native range and that the potential for adaptational 

lag deserves consideration in conservation and wild 

harvest management decisions for many species.

The National Phenology Network reported that earlier 

spring dates create spring mismatches as some plants are 

budding earlier and the animals that depend on them 

have not adapted to this change (Fitzpatrick 2010). As 

example, bees may target specific habitats with plant 

populations they historically pollinate only to find those 

plants have already bloomed. These mismatches can be 

fatal. Many medicinal forest plants, such as bloodroot, 

are myrmecochorous: they have a specialized seed 

dispersal mutualism with ants. Warren et al. (2010) 

found that climate change differentially affects the 

phenology of hepatica or liverworts (Hepatica nobilis

Schreb.) and their ant dispersers. Furthermore, Willis 

et al. (2008) found phylogenetic relationships between 

plant species with limited capacity to shift flowering 

time to respond to climatic changes. These species 

include a number of important NTFPs including orchids 

(Orchidaceae), mints (Lamiaceae), and roses (Rosaceae), 

suggesting that this lack of phenological plasticity 

may be a conserved trait and detrimental to long-term 

population maintenance under changing climate.

Long-term effects on native NTFP resources in the United 

States due to predicted climate trends will be difficult to 

forecast but deserve study to prepare for conservation 

of populations. Projected shifts, which were estimated 

using years for which data were available, in forest types 

for the United States (figure 2.7) suggest significant 

changes in structure that will affect NTFP resources 

(Karl et al. 2009). Depending on regional hardiness zones 

and habitat, long-term effects will vary by species and 

need to be prioritized based on predicted risk factors.
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 47

2.11

Key Findings

• Across all forest landscapes, throughout the United 

States and its insular territories, there is great variety 

of native plants and fungi, the organs of which are 

harvested for their nontimber values by a diverse group 

of people and for many different uses.

• There is rudimentary knowledge about the plants, 

products, people, and places, and evidence suggests 

significant ecological, social, cultural, and economic 

values.

• More is known about American ginseng than, perhaps, 

any other medicinal forest product, in part due to 

its listing in CITES, a mandatory reporting that has 

provided significant data useful for monitoring and 

management.

• Integrating NTFPs into forest management will 

require balancing multiple and often conflicting land 

use objectives; thinning and uneven-aged silvicultural 

treatments can lead to healthy stands valued for their 

NTFPs.

• Changes in forest dynamics, including soil moisture and 

temperature due to climatic variability and silvicultural 

practices, may impact growth and maintenance of 

natural populations of associated NTFP species, 

particularly understory spring ephemeral herbs.

• Silvicultural practices can address the complexities 

created when NTFPs are integrated with timber 

management that require understanding the 

interactions of NTFP species and the trees, which is 

essential for co-management of timber and nontimber 

products to continue providing benefits under climate 

change.

• Forest farming has potential for economic development 

of rural communities while improving conservation 

of native nontimber forest species, but production 

decisions often are based on anecdotal evidence that 

would be improved with science-based knowledge.

• To sustainably manage the utilization of NTFPs 

requires inventory data of the plants as well as the raw 

products, ways to track and monitor product volumes 

and values, as well as estimating and tracking demand 

for the final product.

Current 

(1960-1990)

Projected

(2070-2100)

White-red-jack pine

Spruce-fir

Longleaf-slash pine

Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Oak-pine

Oak-hickory

Oak-gum-cypress

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Maple-beech-birch

Aspen-birch

No data

Figure 2.7—Current and projected shifts in forest types in the eastern United States with major changes. For example, 

in the Northeast, under a mid-range warming scenario, the currently dominant maple-beech-birch forest type is 

projected to be completely displaced by other forest types in a warmer future (Karl et al. 2009).
48 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

• The complexity of forest management increases 

when NTFPs are considered, and that complexity 

should be viewed as an opportunity to improve forest 

management and other sectors of the forest products 

industry and constituents.

2.12

Key Information Needs

• There is an urgent need for a nontimber product output 

tracking system that will provide regular information 

on harvest volumes, whence products are harvested, 

prices, and other pertinent data that will generate better 

knowledge of the NTFP markets.

• Priority information needs exist that can only be 

realized through integration of NTFP species, 

prioritized by their ecological, economic, and cultural 

values, into all phases of Forest Inventory and Analysis.

• With growing interest in NTFPs, information is needed 

to determine sustainable harvest levels and practices 

for specific species, particularly when harvest kills 

or increases the likelihood of plant mortality, and 

how populations respond to harvest, across habitats, 

environmental conditions, and climates.

• Silviculture practices can encourage NTFP species 

growth and production, and information is needed 

on their ecology, life history, and growth and yield to 

coalesce the knowledge to encourage integrated forest 

management.

• Much of the information available on forest farming 

NTFPs is based on experiences with limited sciencebased knowledge on growth, yield, costs, and benefits 

needed to estimate optimal and sustainable products.

2.13

Conclusions

NTFPs originate from biological resources that are 

harvested from forests and may include fungi, moss, 

lichen, herbs, vines, shrubs, or trees. The Forest Service 

and BLM have promulgated official definitions of 

NTFPs and have policies and regulations to address 

the harvest and management of these products. By 

some estimates, a quarter of the U.S. population 

harvest NTFPs for their personal use as well as for 

financial gain through commercial markets.

The management of forests to include NTFPs is more 

complex and can produce a forest that is healthier and 

more resilient to climatic variability. Most NTFPs are 

harvested from natural populations with no sciencebased management of the resources to ensure longterm product sustainability. There are iconic NTFPs 

that provide insights that may be generalized to other 

NTFPs. Sustainable management of NTFP resources 

will require using local, traditional, and scientific 

knowledge. Silvicultural practices and treatments can be 

beneficial and detrimental to NTFPs. Integrating NTFPs 

into forest management requires understanding the 

ecology of NTFP species and the impacts of silvicultural 

treatments. Evaluating the sustainability of NTFP 

production requires integration of forest inventory data 

and market-based product tracking. Forest farming 

can provide landowners a means to generate revenues 

from their forests while retaining the forest cover.

The scale and extent of NTFP harvest are challenging 

to determine as there are few formal or institutionalized 

methods to track harvest or to inventory supply. Some 

data sources exist, but tracking of NTFPs is largely 

inconsistent, intermittent, and incomplete. Additional 

data are needed for adaptive management of NTFP 

production systems. Creating effective methodologies 

for estimating the scale and distribution of NTFP 

production is essential for sustainable utilization of 

these important resources. While some countries are 

implementing chain-of-custody tracking systems for 

NTFPs, such systems do not exist in the United States.

A collaborative approach to tracking products that 

emphasizes reciprocity can improve participation and 

participant investment in NTFP tracking and monitoring 

programs (Laird et al. 2010, McLain and Jones 2001). 

Future tracking strategies could benefit from a multimethod approach that integrates quantitative and 

qualitative data collection. Integrating data from various 

sources can be facilitated by greater communication 

between and across disciplinary boundaries and by 

creating standards and platforms for data sharing.

Nontimber forest species have critical functions in overall 

forest health. Their decline, extirpation, or extinction 

due to climate or lack of management will adversely 

impact biodiversity and the vigor and condition of forests 

across the country. NTFP production under increased 

climatic variability may not be fully predictable, but 

indicators suggest significant changes are likely. Plant 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 49

Hardiness zones may creep north with temperature 

fluctuations, thus reducing suitable habitats. NTFP 

species could decline or go extinct if they do not adapt 

quickly enough to changes in forest habitat. The 

biophysical changes will have significant deleterious 

impacts on the people who benefit from these products. 

The promotion of sustainable NTFP production should 

be seen as an adaptation and mitigation activity and 

economic opportunities for sustaining livelihoods 

(Wilkinson and Elevitch 2000). The development of 

appropriate interdisciplinary teams and approaches is 

vital to address the complex interactions between natural 

and socioeconomic systems regarding production of 

NTFPs under different climate change scenarios.

2.14

Literature Cited

Aikens, M.L.; Ellum, D.S.; McKenna, J.J. [and others]. 2007. The effects 

of disturbance intensity on temporal and spatial patterns of herb 

colonization in a southern New England mixed-oak forest. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 252(1–3): 144–158.

Alexander, S., 2003. Value and quantities of production of non-wood 

forest products. Report on Criterion 6 Indicator 30. Corvallis, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 16 p. 

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p.

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand. J.; Blatner, K. 2002. Nontimber forest product 

commerce. In: Jones E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber 

forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of 

Kansas: 115–150. 

Alvarado-Guzmán, J.A.; Gavillán-Suárez, J.; Germosén-Robineau, L. 2009. 

TRAMIL ethnopharmacological survey: knowledge distribution of 

medicinal plant use in the southeast region of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico 

Health Sciences Journal. 28(4): 329–339.

American Herbal Products Association [AHPA]. 2012. Tonnage surveys of 

select North American wild-harvested plants, 2006–2010. Silver Springs, 

MD: American Herbal Products Association. 24 p.

American Samoa Community College. 2010. American Samoa forest 

assessment and resource strategy 2011–2015. Pago Pago, American 

Samoa: Forestry Program, Division of Community and Natural 

Resources, American Samoa Community College. 63 p. http://www.

forestactionplans.org/states/american-samoa. [Date accessed: January 

7, 2015].

Aplet, G.; Anderson, S.; Stone, C. 1991. Association between feral pig 

disturbance and the composition of some alien plant assemblages in 

Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park. Vegetation. 95: 55–62.

Associated Press. 2005. Demand for wild leek prompts harvest limits. May 3.

Associated Press. 2009. Sustainability abounds at witch hazel maker. 

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2009/09/sustainability-aboundsat-witch-hazel-maker. [Date accessed: January 7, 2015].

Avril, L.; Kelty, M.J. 1999. Establishment and control of hay-scented fern: a 

native invasive species. Biological Invasions. 1: 223–236.

Baker, P.; Scowcroft, P.; Ewel, J. 2009. Koa (Acacia koa) ecology and 

silviculture. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-211. Berkeley, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 129 p. [Date accessed: January 23, 2015].

Barnes, M.; Musselman, V.P. 1996. Inventory and appraisal methodologies 

for special forest products prepared for North Santiam Canyon Economic 

Development Committee. Tigard, OR: Musselman and Associates. 

Barto, E.K.; Powell, J.R.; Cipollini, D. 2010. How novel are the chemical 

weapons of garlic mustard in North American forest understories? 

Biological Invasions. 12: 3465–3471.

Bazzaz, F.A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics. 10: 351–371.

Beatty, S.W. 2003. Habitat heterogeneity and maintenance of species 

in understory communities. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. The 

herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. New York: Oxford 

University Press: 177–197.

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, L., eds. 2005. The enhanced Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p.

Benedetti, M. 2009. ¡Hasta los baños te curan! Plantas medicinales, 

remedios caseros y sanación espiritual en Puerto Rico. Cayey, PR: Verde 

Luz. 267 p.

Benedetti, M.; Negrón-Flores, J. 2012. 12 árboles amigos: juegos y retos 

etnobotánicos para Borikén. San Juan, PR: BotaniCultura. 152 p.

Bhatti, J.; Apps, M.; Jiang, H. 2002. Influence of nutrients, disturbances and 

site conditions on carbon stocks along a boreal forest transect in central 

Canada. Plant and Soil. 242: 1–14.

Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant 

temperate forest herbs: a review. New Phytologist. 90: 757–776.

Blue Ridge Naturally. 2015. http://www.blueridgenaturally.org. [Date 

accessed: January 14, 2015].

Bolton, J.; Fuller, D. 2013. Facts on fiddleheads. Publication #4198e. Orono: 

University of Maine, Cooperative Extension. 7 p. http://umaine.edu/

publications/4198e/. [Date accessed: January 23, 2015].

Botanical Wonders Nursery. 2015. http://botanical-wonders.com/. [Date 

accessed: January 28, 2015].

Blumenthal, M. 2006. Government increases restrictions on wild American 

ginseng export. HerbalGram: The Journal of the American Botanical 

Council. 70: 52–57.

Blumenthal, M.; Lindstrom, A.; Ooyen, C.; Lynch, M.E. 2012. Herbal 

supplement sales increase 4.5 percent in 2011. HerbalGram: The Journal 

of the American Botanical Council. 96: 6–65.

Brandeis, T.J.; Helmer, E.H.; Oswalt, S.N. 2007. The status of Puerto Rico’s 

forests, 2003. Resour. Bull. SRS-119. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 72 p.

Brandeis, T.J.; Turner, J.A. 2013a. Puerto Rico’s forests, 2009. Resour. Bull. 

SRS-191. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 56 p.

Brandeis, T.J.; Turner, J.A. 2013b. U.S. Virgin Islands’ forests, 2009. Resour. 

Bull. SRS-196. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p.

Bratton, S.P. 1975. The effect of the European wild boar, Sus scrofa, on gray 

beech forest in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecology. 56: 1356–1366.

Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 2014. Special forest products Oregon/

Washington. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/sfp/index.php. 

[Date accessed: January 21, 2015].

Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G. 2009. Transitioning from wild collection to 

forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest plants in eastern North 

America is constrained by lack of profitability. Agroforestry Systems. 

76: 437–453.
50 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J. [and others]. 2016. USDA Forest 

Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state 

statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 

2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p.

Calvey, E.M.; Matusik, J.E.; White, K.D. [and others]. 1997. Allium 

chemistry: supercritical fluid extraction and LC-APCI-MS of thiosulfinates 

and related compounds from homogenates of garlic, onion, and ramp. 

Identification in garlic and ramp and synthesis of 1-propanesulfinothioic 

acid S-allyl ester. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 45(11): 

4406–4413.

Canham, C.D.; Denslow, J.S.; Platt, W.J. [and others]. 1990. Light regimes 

beneath closed canopies and tree-fall gaps in temperate and tropical 

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 620–631.

Case, M.; Flinn, K.; Jancaitis, J.; Alley, A.; Paxton, A. 2007. Declining 

abundance of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) documented by 

herbarium specimens. Biological Conservation. 134: 22–30.

Chakroff, M. 2010. US Virgin Islands forest resources assessment and 

strategies: a comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, 

threats and opportunities. Kingshill, VI: VI Department of Agriculture, 

Forestry Division. 100 p. http://www.forestactionplans.org/states/virginislands. [Date accessed: January 10, 2015].

Chamberlain, J.; Bush, R.; Hammett, A.L. 1998. Nontimber forest products: 

the other forest products. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 10–20.

Chamberlain, J.L. 2000. The management of national forests of eastern 

United States for nontimber forest products. Blackburg, VA: Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 275 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Mitchell, D.; Brigham, T. [and others]. 2009. Forest 

farming practices. In: Garrett, H.E., ed. North American agroforesty: an 

integrated science and practice. 2nd ed.: 219–255.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Ness, G.; Small, C.J. [and others]. 2013a. Modeling 

below-ground biomass to improve sustainable management of Actaea 

racemosa, a globally important medicinal forest product. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 293: 1–8.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Prisley, S.; McGuffin, M. 2013b. Understanding the 

relationship between American ginseng harvest and hardwood forests 

inventory and timber harvest to improve co-management of the forests of 

Eastern United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32(6): 605–624.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Teets, A.; Kruger, S. 2018. Nontimber forest products in 

the United States: an analysis for the 2015 National Sustainable Forest 

Report. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-229. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 42 p. 

Chandler, J.L., McGraw, J.B. 2015. Variable effects of timber harvest on 

the survival, growth and reproduction of American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius L.). Forest Ecology and Management. 344: 1–9.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Hummel, S. 2011. People, plants, and pollinators: the 

conservation of beargrass ecosystem diversity in the Western United 

States. In: Lopez-Pujol, J., ed. The Importance of Biological Interactions in 

the Study of Biodiversity. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech: 127–154. Chapter 8.

Ciesla, W.M. 1998. Non-wood forest products from conifers: non-wood 

forest products. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations. 124 p. Vol. 12. 

Clabby, C. 2005. Forest Service to tighten rules on ramp harvesting. 

Newsobserver.com. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/v-printer/

story/2365977p-8744003c.html. [Date accessed: May 2, 2005].

Coates, K.D.; Burton, P.J. 1997. A gap-based approach for development 

of silvicultural systems to address ecosystem management objectives. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 99: 337–354.

Collins, E. 2001. Estimating a nontimber forest resource—maple syrup—

using forest inventory and analysis data. Proceedings Society of 

American Foresters 2000 National Convention. Bethesda, MD: Society of 

American Foresters: 276–287.

Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). [N.d.]. Appendix II. https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.

php. [Date accessed: July 23, 2017].

Cope, J. 1946. The silviculture of the sugar bush. Journal of Forestry. 44: 

647–649.

Cordell, H.K.; Tarrant, M.A. 2002. Forest-based outdoor recreation. In: 

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen 

Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 269–282.

Crosthwaite, J.C.; Sobek, S.; Lyons, D.B. [and others]. 2011. The 

overwintering physiology of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis

Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Insect Physiology. 57(1): 

166–173.

Crowther, T.W.; Maynard, D.S.; Leff, J.W. [and others]. 2014. Predicting the 

responsiveness of soil biodiversity to deforestation: a cross-biome study. 

Global Change Biology. 20: 2983–2994.

Cruse-Sanders, J.; Hamrick, J. 2004. Genetic diversity in harvested and 

protected populations of wild American ginseng, Panax quinquefolius L. 

(Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany. 91: 540–548.

Cullina, W. 2000. The New England Wild Flower Society guide to growing 

and propagating wildflowers of the United States and Canada. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 322 p.

Curtis, R.O.; DeBell, D.S.; Miller, R.E. [and others]. 2007. Silvicultural 

research and the evolution of forest practices in the Douglas-fir region. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-696. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 172 p.

Dahlberg, A. 2001. Community ecology of ectomycorrhizal fungi: an 

advancing interdisciplinary field. New Phytologist. 150: 555–562.

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S. [and others]. 2001. Climate change 

and forest disturbances: climate change can affect forests by altering 

the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced 

species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice 

storms, or landslides. BioScience. 51: 723–734.

Davis, J.; Persons, W.S. 2014. Growing and marketing ginseng, goldenseal 

and other woodland medicinals. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC, Canada: New 

Society Publishers. 508 p.

DeBell, D.S.; Whitesell, C.D. 1993. Upland forests of the American/Pacific 

Islands: research opportunities in Micronesia and American Samoa. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-145. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 14 p. 

Demchik, M.; Schossow, R.; Moechnig, H.; Sirucek, D. 2005. Forage yield 

and quality under oak crop tree management. In: AFTA—Moving 

agroforestry into the mainstream. In: Brooks, K.N.; Ffolliott, P.F., eds. 

Ninth North American agroforestry conference proceedings. St. Paul, 

MN: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. 4 p.

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000 

(DOI appropriations 2000). 113 Stat. 1501. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

PLAW-106publ113/pdf/PLAW-106publ113.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 

(DOI appropriations 2004). 117 Stat. 1312. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-108publ108/pdf/PLAW-108publ108.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017]. 
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 51

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 

(DOI appropriations 2008). 123 Stat. 2960. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-111publ88/pdf/PLAW-111publ88.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014 

(DOI appropriations 2014). 128 Stat. 346. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-113publ76/pdf/PLAW-113publ76.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017]. 

Donnegan, J.A.; Butler, S.L.; Grabowiecki, W. [and others]. 2004a. Guam’s 

forest resources, 2002. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-243. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 32 p.

Donnegan, J.A.; Butler, S.L.; Kuegler, O.; Hiserote, B.A. 2011. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’ forest resources, 2004. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 40 p.

Donnegan, J.A.; Mann, S.S.; Butler, S.L.; Hiserote, B.A. 2004b. American 

Samoa’s forest resources, 2001. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-244. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 32 p.

Draffan, G. 2006. Report on the floral greens industry. Endgame research. 

Seattle: Evergreen State College Labor Center. 66 p. http://www.

endgame.org/index.html. [Date accessed: January 20, 2015].

Drever, C.R.; Peterson, G.; Messier, C. [and others]. 2006. Can forest 

management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological 

resilience? Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 2285–2299.

Duguid, M.C.; Frey, B.R.; Ellum, D.S. [and others]. 2013. The influence 

of ground disturbance and gap position on understory plant diversity 

in upland forests of southern New England. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 303: 148–159.

Dukes, J.; Pontius, J., Orwig, D. [and others]. 2009. Responses of insect 

pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the 

forests of northeastern North America: what can we predict? Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 39(2): 231–248.

Ellison, Q. 2001. Could ramps go commercial? Asheville [NC] Citizen-Times. 

January 25. 

Ellum, D. 2007. Demographic patterns and disturbance responses of 

understory vegetation in a managed forest of southern New England: 

Implications for sustainable forestry and biodiversity. New Haven, CT: 

Yale University. 235 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Elzinga, C.L.; Salzer, D.W.; Willoughby, J.W. 1998. Measuring and monitoring 

plant populations. BLM Tech. Ref. 1730-1. Denver: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 496 p.

Emery, M. 1998. Seeing gathering, managing gathering: special forest 

products and public lands management. In: Proceedings, special forest 

products: working together in a changing world. Portland, OR: Western 

Forestry and Conservation Assoc.: 31–38.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence 

in contemporary US forests. Environment and Planning. 37: 981–993.

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional 

ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories: paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera) in the US Great Lakes region. Journal of Forestry. 

112(2): 207–214.

Emery, M.R.; Zasada, J. 2001. Silviculture and nontimber forest products: 

extending the benefits of forest management. The Timberline. 10–13.

Eschtruth, A.K.; Battles, J.J. 2014. Ephemeral disturbances have longlasting impacts on forest invasion dynamics. Ecology. 95: 1770–1779.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. 

Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.

Farnsworth, N.R.; Morris, R.W. 1976. Higher plants: the sleeping giant of 

drug development. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 148 

(Mar-Apr): 46–52.

Farrell, M. 2009. Assessing the growth potential and future outlook for 

the US maple syrup industry. In: Gold M.; Hall, M.M., eds. Agroforestry 

comes of age: putting science into practice. Proceedings of 11th North 

American agroforestry conference; 2009 May 31 – June 3; Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri, Center for Agroforestry: 99–106.

Farrell, M. 2013. Estimating the maple syrup production potential of 

American forests: an enhanced estimate that accounts for density 

and accessibility of tappable maple trees. Agroforestry Systems. 87: 

631–641.

Farrell, M.; Chabot, B. 2012. Assessing the growth potential and economic 

impact of the US maple syrup industry. Journal of Agriculture, Food 

Systems, and Community Development. 2(2): 11–27. [Date accessed: 

January 23, 2015].

Feiring, A. 2006. Into the woods, on the trail of the wild leek. New York 

Times. Travel Section. April 14. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/

travel/escapes/14ramps.html. [Date accessed: September 30, 2009].

Feldhake, C.; Neel, J.; Belesky, D. 2010. Establishment and production 

from thinned mature deciduous-forest silvopastures in Appalachia. 

Agroforestry Systems. 79: 31–37.

Filotas, E.; Parrott, L.; Burton, P.L. [and others]. 2014. Viewing forests 

through the lens of complex systems. Ecosphere. 5(1): 1–23.

Fitzpatrick, M. 2010. Earlier spring brings misery to plant, animal species. 

Oregonlive. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/

earlier_spring_brings_misery _t.html. [Date accessed: January 10, 2015].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2000. Global forest resources assessment 2000: FAO 

workshop, data collection for the Pacific Region, Apia, Samoa. Forest 

resource assessment—WP51. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/

ad672e/ad672e00.htm#TopOfPage. [Date accessed: January 10, 2015].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2001. Global forest resources assessment 2000. Main 

report. FAO forestry paper 140. Rome. 479 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2005a. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. American Samoa. FRA2005/041. Rome. 31 p. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2005b. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. Guam. FRA2005/042. Rome. 25 p. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2005c. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. Northern Mariana Islands. FRA2005/045. Rome. 15 p. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010a. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. American Samoa. FRA2010/004. Rome. 32 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010b. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. Guam. FRA2010/083. Rome. 26 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010c. Global forest resources assessment. Country 

reports. Northern Mariana Islands. FRA2010/154. Rome. 30 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010d. Global forest resources assessment. Country report. 

Puerto Rico. FRA2010/168. Rome. 28 p. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010e. Global forest resources assessment. Country report. 

United States Virgin Islands. FRA2010/224. Rome, Italy. 37 p.

Forero-Montaña, J. 2015. Potential of subtropical secondary forest for 

sustainable forestry in Puerto Rico. Río Piedras: University of Puerto Rico. 

163 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Foster, S. 1995. Forest pharmacy: medicinal plants in American forests. 

Durham, NC: Forest History Society. 57 p.
52 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

Foster, S.; Duke J.A. 1990. A field guide to medicinal plants: Eastern and 

Central North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 366 p.

Francis, J.K. 2004. Pluchea carolinensis (Jacq.) G. Don—cure-for-all. In: 

Francis, J.K., ed. Wildland shrubs of the United States and its territories: 

thamnic descriptions: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-26. San Juan, 

PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute 

of Tropical Forestry, and Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 577–579.

Frelich, L.E.; Hale, C.M.; Scheu, S. [and others]. 2006. Earthworm invasion 

into previously earthworm-free temperate and boreal forests. Biological 

Invasions. 8: 1235–1245.

Friday, J.B. 2010. Farm and forestry production and marketing profile 

for koa (Acacia koa). In: Elevitch, C.R., ed. Specialty crops for Pacific 

Island agroforestry. Holualoa: Permanent Agriculture Resources (PAR): 

251–284.

Friday, J.B.; Yanagida, J.F.; Illukiptiya, P. [and others]. 2006. Characteristics 

of Hawai’i’s retail forest industry 2001. Economic Issues 8. Honolulu: 

University of Hawai’i. 3 p.

Fuller, D. 2012. Ostrich fern fiddleheads: nontimber forest products: goods 

from the Maine woods. Bulletin # 2540. Orono: University of Maine, 

Cooperative Extension Publication. 4 p.

Gagnon, D. 1999a. A review of the ecology and population biology of 

goldenseal and protocols for monitoring its populations: final report to 

the Office of Scientific Authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Montreal: Groupe de recherché en ecologie forestiere Universite du 

Quebec a. 27 p. 

Gagnon, D. 1999b. An analysis of the sustainability of American ginseng 

harvesting from the wild: the problem and possible solutions: final report 

to the Office of Scientific Authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Montreal: Groupe de recherché en ecologie forestiere Universite du 

Quebec a Montreal. 34 p. 

Garibaldi, A. 1999. Medicinal flora of the Alaska natives. Anchorage: 

University of Alaska Anchorage. 197 p.

Garrett, H.; Kerley, M.; Ladyman, K. [and others]. 2004. Hardwood 

silvopasture management in North America. In: Nair, P.K.R.; Rao, M.R.; 

Buck, L.E., eds. New vistas in agroforestry: a compendium for 1st World 

Congress of Agroforestry, 2004. Netherlands: Springer: 21–33.

George, L.O.; Bazzaz, F.A. 1999. The fern understory as an ecological filter: 

growth and survival of canopy-tree species. Ecology. 80: 846–856.

Geraghty, J. 2005. Popularity of ramps could cause restrictions in VA. 

Roanoke Times. May 9. 

Giambelluca, T.W.; Diaz, H.F.; Luke, M.S.A. 2008. Secular temperature 

changes in Hawai’i. Geophysical Research Letters. 35: L12702.

Gilliam, F.S. 2002. Effects of harvesting on herbaceous layer diversity of 

a central Appalachian hardwood forest in West Virginia, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 55: 33–43.

Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. 2003a. The herbaceous layer in forests of 

Eastern North America. New York: Oxford University Press. 408 p.

Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R. 2003b. Interactions between the herbaceous 

layer and overstory canopy of eastern forests. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, 

M.R., eds. The herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. 

New York: Oxford University Press: 198–223.

Givnish, T.J. 1987. Comparative studies of leaf form: assessing the 

relative roles of selective pressures and phylogenetic constraints. New 

Phytologist. 106: 131–160.

Gold, M.A.; Garrett, H.E. 2009. Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts, 

and practices. In: Garrett, H.E., ed. North American agroforestry: an 

integrated science and practice. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society 

of Agronomy: 45–55.

Gold, M.A.; Godsey, L.D.; Josiah, S.J. 2004. Markets and marketing 

strategies for agroforestry specialty products in North America. 

Agroforestry Systems. 61–62: 371–384.

Goldberg, C. 1996. From necessity, new forest industry rises. New York 

Times. March 24. National Report Section. 

Goldstein, B. 1975. Ginseng: its history, dispersion, and folk tradition. 

American Journal of Chinese Medicine. 3(3): 223–234.

Government of Guam. 2010. Guam statewide forest resource assessment 

and resource strategy 2010–2015. Mangilao, Guam: Department of 

Agriculture, Forestry and Soil Resources Division. 143 p. http://www.

forestactionplans.org/states/guam. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015].

Greene, S.M.; Hammett, A.L.; Kant, S. 2000. Nontimber forest products 

marketing systems and market players in Southwest Virginia; crafts, 

medicinal and herbal, and specialty wood products. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 11(3): 19–39.

Greenfield, J.; Davis, J.M. 2003. Collection to commerce: Western North 

Carolina nontimber forest products and their markets. Raleigh: North 

Carolina State University. 106 p. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/

programs/herbs/pdf/ntfpfinal17.pdf. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015].

Gundale, M.J. 2002. Influence of exotic earthworms on the soil organic 

horizon and the rare fern Botrychium mormo. Conservation Biology. 16: 

1555–1561.

Halpern, C.B.; Spies, T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and 

managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications. 5: 

913–934.

Harbaugh, D.T.; Oppenheimer, H.L; Wood, K.R.; Wagner, W.L. 2010. 

Taxonomic revision of the endangered Hawaiian red-flowered 

sandalwoods (Santalum) and discovery of an ancient hybrid species. 

Systematic Botany. 35(4): 827–838.

Hegland, S.J.; Nielsen, A.; Lázaro, A. [and others]. 2009. How does climate 

warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecology Letters. 12: 

184–195.

Herms, D.A.; McCullough, D.G. 2014. Emerald ash borer invasion of North 

America: history, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual 

Review of Entomology. 59: 13–30.

Hicks, D.J.; Chabot, B.F. 1985. Deciduous forests. In: Chabot, B.F.; Mooney, 

H.A., eds. Physiological ecology of North American plant communities. 

London: Chapman and Hall: 257–273.

Horsley, S.B.; Stout, S.L.; deCalesta, D.S. 2003. White-tailed deer impact 

on the vegetation dynamics of a northern hardwood forest. Ecological 

Applications. 13: 98–118.

Hummel, S. 2003. Managing structural and compositional diversity with 

silviculture. In: Monserud, R.A.: Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. 

Compatible forest management. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers: 85–119. Chapter 4.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural and cultural history 

of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Hummel, S.; Lake, F.K. 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant 

harvest by tribal weavers can inform management. Journal of Forestry. 

113(1): 30–39.

Hurley, P.T.; Halfacre, A.C.; Levine, N.S.; Burke, M.K. 2008. Finding a 

“disappearing” nontimber forest resource: using grounded visualization 

to explore urbanization impacts on sweetgrass basketmaking in greater 

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Professional Geographer. 60(4): 1–23.

Inouye, D. 2008. Effects of climate change on phenology, frost damage, and 

floral abundance of montane wildflowers. Ecology. 89(2): 353–362.

Intermountain Society of American Foresters. 2013. Management of 

pinyon-juniper “woodland” ecosystems: A position of the Intermountain 

Society of American Foresters. 9 p. http://www.usu.edu/saf/

PJWoodlandsPositionStatement.pdf. [Date accessed: January 23, 2015].

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 2008. Estimating 

potential habitat for 134 eastern U.S. tree species under six climate 

scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 390–406.
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 53

Jacobson, M.G.; Burkhart, E.P. 2005. The economics of forest farming 

of native medicinal plants in eastern North America: Opportunities, 

challenges, and potential solutions for adoption by forest landowners. 

Moving agroforestry into the mainstream. In: Brooks, K.N.; Ffolliott, P.F., 

eds. Ninth North American agroforestry conference proceedings. St. Paul, 

MN: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota: 4 p. http://

www.cinram.umn.edu/afta2005/. [Date accessed: January 13, 2015].

Jamieson, M.; Trowbridge, A.; Raffa, K.; Lindroth, R. 2012. Consequences of 

climate warming and altered precipitation patterns for plant-insect and 

multitrophic interactions. Plant Physiology. 160(4): 1719–1727.

Jeffries, S.B.; Wentworth, T.; Allen, H. 2010. Long-term effects of 

establishment practices on plant communities across successive 

rotations in a loblolly pine plantation. Forest Ecology and Management. 

260: 1548–1556. 

John, L. 2005. The potential of nontimber forest products to contribute 

to rural livelihoods in the windward islands of the Caribbean. CANARI 

Technical Report No. 334. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago: Caribbean 

Natural Resources Institute (CANARI). 33 p.

Johnson, T.G.; Bentley, J.W.; Howell, M. 2008. Historical trends of timber 

product output in the South. Gen. Res. Bull. SRS-138. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 70 p.

Karl, T.R.; Melillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C., eds. 2009. Global climate change 

impacts in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

188 p. https://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf. [Date accessed: January 9, 2015].

Kauffman, J.S.; Prisley, S.P.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2015. Monitoring nontimber 

forest products using forest inventory data: An example with slippery elm 

bark. Journal of Forestry. 114: 1–8.

Kays, J.S.; Drohan, J.R. 2003. Ginseng enterprise. Rural enterprise series. 

RES-06. [Bulletin] Keedysville, MD: Western Maryland Research and 

Education Center: 1–4. https://extension.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_

docs/programs/woodland-steward/RES_06Ginseng.pdf. [Date accessed: 

January 14, 2015].

Kerns, B.K.; Liegel, L.; Pilz, D.; Alexander, S.J. 2002. Biological inventory and 

monitoring. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber 

forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 

Press: 237–269.

Kicliter, V. 1997. Forest products of Puerto Rico. An overview of trends 

in forest products use. Arecibo, PR: Report El Atlantico RC&D Area, 

in coordination with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 61 p.

Knapp, B.O.; Walker, J.; Wang, G. [and others]. 2014. Effects of overstory 

retention, herbicides and fertilization on sub-canopy vegetation structure 

and functional group composition in loblolly pine forests restored to 

longleaf pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 320: 149–160.

Kranabetter, J.M.; Friesen, J.; Gamiet, S.; Kroeger, P. 2005. Ectomycorrhizal 

mushroom distribution by stand age in western hemlock—lodgepole pine 

forests of northwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 35: 1527–1539.

Krantz, J. 2001. The Minnesota approach to nontimber forest product 

marketing: the balsam bough industry and other examples. In: DavidsonHunt, I.; Duchesne, L.; Zasada, J., eds. Forest communities in the third 

millennium: linking research, business, and policy toward a sustainable 

nontimber forest product sector, proceedings of the meeting; October 

1–4, 1999; Kenora, Ontario, Canada. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-217. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 121–123.

Laird, S.A.; Wynberg, R.P.; McLain, R.J. 2010. Recommendations. In: Laird, 

S.A.; Wynberg, R.P.; McLean, R.J., eds. Wild product governance: finding 

policies that work for nontimber forest products. London: Earthscan: 

367–374.

Lancaster, K.F.; Walters, R.S.; Laing, F.M.; Foulds, R.T. 1974. A silvicultural 

guide for developing a sugarbush. Res. Pap. NE-286. Upper Darby, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 11 p.

Lawrence, B.; Fisk, M.C.; Fahey, T.J.; Suárez, E.R. 2003. Influence of 

nonnative earthworms on mycorrhizal colonization of sugar maple (Acer 

saccharum). New Phytologist. 157: 145–153.

Levin, A. 2006. Ramp it up people. Chicago Tribune. April 26. http://

metromix.chicagotribune.com/dining/mmx-060410-spring-veggies. [Date 

accessed: May 1, 2006].

Little, E.L., Jr. 1971. Atlas of United States trees, volume 1: conifers 

and important hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 1146. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Lloyd, J.U. 1912. The cultivation of hydrastis. Journal of the American 

Pharmaceutical Association. 1: 5–12.

Lohmann, B. 2005. Gorging on leeks stinker of a hobby but all in good fun. 

Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch. June 5. Travel Section. 

Love, T.; Jones, E.T. 1997. Grounds for argument: local understandings, 

science, and global processes in special forest products harvesting. 

In: Vance, N., ed. Special forest products biodiversity meets the 

marketplace. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-WO-63. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 70–87. 

Lowell, E.C.; Wiedenbeck, J.K.; Porterfield, B.S. 2013. A photographic guide 

to Acacia koa defects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-871. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 100 p.

Lugo, A.E. 2000. Effects and outcomes of Caribbean hurricanes in a climate 

change scenario. The Science of the Total Environment. 262: 243–251.

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R.J. 2003. Access, labor and wild floral greens 

management in western Washington’s forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-585. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 61 p.

Maguire, D.A.; Foreman, R. 1983. Herb cover effects on tree seedling 

patterns in a mature hemlock-hardwood forest. Ecology. 64(6): 

1367–1380.

Mainely Crafts. 2015. Mainely crafts booth at Bonanza Marketplace. http://

www.bonanza.com/booths/mainelycrafts. [Date accessed: January 27, 

2015].

Malcolm, S.; Marshall, E.; Aillery, M. [and others]. 2012. Agricultural 

adaptation to a changing climate: economic and environmental 

implications vary by US region. ERR-136. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research. https://www.ers.usda.

gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=44989. [Date accessed: January 

10, 2015].

Marcano-Vega, H.; Brandeis, T.J.; Turner, J.A. 2015. Los bosques de Puerto 

Rico, 2009. Resour. Bull. SRS-202. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 115 p.

Mari Mut, J.A. 2013. Maderas de Puerto Rico. Ediciones Digitales. 272 p. 

http://edicionesdigitales.info/maderaspr/maderaspr.pdf. [Date accessed: 

January 10, 2015].

Marquis, D.A. 1965. Controlling light in small clearcuttings. Res. Pap. 

NE-39. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 16 p.

McCormick, M.K.; Parker, K.L.; Szlavecz, K.; Whigham, D.F. 2013. Native and 

exotic earthworms affect orchid seed loss. AoB Plants. 5: plt018. 

McCormick, M.K.; Taylor, D.L.; Juhaszova, K. [and others]. 2012. Limitations 

on orchid recruitment: not a simple picture. Molecular Ecology. 21: 

1511–1523.

McGraw, J.B.; Lubbers, A.E.; Van der Voort, M. [and others]. 2013. Ecology 

and conservation of ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) in a changing world. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1286: 62–91.
54 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

McGraw, J.; Sanders, S.; Van der Voort, M. 2003. Distribution and 

abundance of Hydrastis canadensis L. (Ranunculaceae) and Panax 

quinquefolius L. (Araliaceae) in the central Appalachian region. Journal of 

the Torrey Botanical Society. 130(2): 62–69.

McLachlan, S.M.; Bazely, D.R. 2001. Recovery patterns of understory 

herbs and their use as indicators of deciduous forest regeneration. 

Conservation Biology. 15(1): 98–110.

McLain, R.J. 2008. Constructing a wild mushroom panopticon: the extension 

of nation-state control over the forest understory in Oregon, USA. 

Economic Botany. 62(3): 343–355.

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2001. Expanding nontimber forest product 

harvester/buyer participation in Pacific Northwest forest policy. Journal 

of Sustainable Forestry. 13: 147–161.

McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Incorporating understanding 

of informal economic activity in natural resource and economic 

development policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 53 p.

McLain, R.J.; Frazier, P. 2008. Management guidelines for expanding pinyon 

nut production in Colorado’s pinyon-juniper woodlands. Portland, OR: 

Institute for Culture and Ecology. 10 p.

McLean, M.; Parkinson, D. 1997. Soil impacts of the epigeic earthworm 

Dendrobaena octaedra on organic matter and microbial activity in 

lodgepole pine forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27: 

1907–1913.

Meier, A.J.; Bratton, S.; Duffy, D. 1995. Possible ecological mechanisms 

for loss of vernal-herb diversity in logged eastern deciduous forests. 

Ecological Applications. 5: 935–946.

Merlin, M.; VanRavenswaay, D. 1990. The history of human impact on 

the genus Santalum in Hawai’i. In: Hamilton, L., ed. Proceedings of the 

symposium on sandalwood in the Pacific. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-122. 

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 46–60.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and 

forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological 

Applications. 17: 2145–2151.

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). 

2007. State of Europe’s Forests, 2007: the MCPFE report on sustainable 

forest management in Europe. Warsaw, Poland: Ministerial Conference 

on the Protection of Forests in Europe, United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations. 247 p.

Mitchell, C.M. 2014. Contested spaces: NTFPs, livelihoods, and 

conservation planning. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University. 398 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Mohan, J.E.; Cox, R.M.; Iverson, L.R. 2009. Composition and carbon 

dynamics of forests in northeastern North America in a future, warmer 

world. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: 213–230.

Molina, R.; Vance, N.; Weigand, J. [and others]. 1997. Special forest 

products: integrating social, economic, and biological considerations into 

adaptive ecosystem management. In: Kohm, K.; Franklin, J., eds. Creating 

a forestry for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press: 315–336. 

Chapter 21.

Monthey, R. 2011. Traditional ecological knowledge: sustaining our lives and 

the natural world. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 11 p.

Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.H.; Gormanson, D. [and others]. 2015. Paper birch 

(Wiigwaas) of the Lake States, 1980–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-149. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 37 p.

Mudge, K.; Gabriel, S. 2014. Farming the woods. White River Junction, VT: 

Chelsea Green Publishers. 359 p. 

Muir, P.S.; Norman, K.N.; Sikes, K.G. 2006. Quantity and value of commercial 

moss harvest from forests of the Pacific Northwest and Appalachian 

regions of the US. The Bryologist. 109(2): 197–214.

Muller, R.N. 2003. Nutrient relations of the herbaceous layer in deciduous 

forest ecosystems. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. The herbaceous 

layer in forests of eastern North America. New York: Oxford University 

Press: 15–37.

Munsell, J.; Davis, J.; Chamberlain, J. 2013. Forest farming. In: Gold, M.; 

Cernusca, M.; Hall, M., eds. Training manual for applied agroforestry 

practices. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Center for Agroforestry: 

115–126. http://www.centerforagroforestry.org/pubs/training/

chap7_2015.pdf. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015].

Mycorrhiza Biotech. 2013. The science and business of mycorrhizal fungi. 

http://www.mycorrhizabiotech.com/. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015]. 

Nadeau, I.; Olivier, A.; Simard, R.R. [and others]. 1998. Growing American 

ginseng in maple forests as an alternative land-use system in Québec, 

Canada. Agroforestry Systems. 44: 345–353.

Nantel, P.; Gagnon, D.; Nault, A. 1996. Population viability analysis of 

American ginseng and wild leek harvested in stochastic environments. 

Conservation Biology. 10(2): 606–621.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. 2015. NASA, 

NOAA find 2014 warmest year in modern record. http://www.nasa.gov/

press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modernrecord. [Date accessed: January 16, 2015]. Press release.

National Christmas Tree Association [NCTA]. 2012. Consumer survey 

results. http://www.realchristmastrees.org/dnn/NewsMedia/

IndustryStatistics/ConsumerSurvey.aspx. [Date accessed: November 15, 

2016].

Neufeld, H.S.; Young, D.R. 2003. Ecophysiology of the herbaceous layer in 

temperate deciduous forests. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. The 

herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. New York: Oxford 

University Press: 38–90.

Neville, R. 2014. Current forest conditions in the US-affiliated 

Pacific Islands. Denver, CO: Report Pacific Islands Forestry 

Committee. 101 p. In coordination with: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. http://wflcweb.org/islandforestry/

PacificIslandsForestHealthReport2014reduced.pdf. [Date accessed: April 

3, 2015].

North House Folk School. 2009. Celebrating birch: the lore, art and craft of 

an ancient tree. East Petersburg, PA: Fox Chapel Publishing. 177 p.

Nuñez Meléndez, E. 1982. Plantas medicinales de Puerto Rico: folklore y 

fundamentos científicos. San Juan, PR: Editorial de la Universidad de 

Puerto Rico. 498 p. 

Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture: concepts and applications. Long Grove, IL: 

Waveland Press. 682 p.

Ostendorff, J. 2005. Forest Service clamps down on ramp harvests. 

Asheville Citizen-Times. May 5. http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/

pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/NEWS01/50504042/. [Date accessed: 

May 5, 2005].

Paassilta, M.; Moisio, S.; Jaakola, L.; Häggman, H. 2009. Voices of the 

Nordic wild berry industry: a survey among companies. Oulu, Finland: 

Oulu University Press. 55 p.

Palada, M., Becker, B.N., Mitchell, J.M.; Nair, P.K., 2003, June. Cultivation 

of Medicinal Plants in Alley Cropping System with Moringa oleifera in the 

Virgin Islands. In Proc. 6th International Workshop on Herbal Medicines 

for the Caribbean, University of West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and 

Tobago: 60–76.

Palada, M.C.; Mitchell, J.M.; Becker, B.N.; Nair, P.K.R. 2005. The integration 

of medicinal plants and culinary herbs in agroforestry systems for the 

Caribbean: a study in the US Virgin Islands. Acta Horticulturae. 676: 

147–153.
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 55

Parrotta, J.A. 2000. Cocos nucifera L.—Palma de coco, coconut palm. In: 

Francis, J.K.; Lowe, C.A., eds. Bioecología de árboles nativos y exóticos 

de Puerto Rico y las Indias Occidentales. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-15. Río 

Piedras, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International 

Institute of Tropical Forestry: 152–158.

Pasko, S.; Goldberg, J.; MacNeil, C.; Campbell, M. 2014. Review of harvest 

incentives to control invasive species. Management of Biological 

Invasions. 5: 263–277.

Peterson, G.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. 1998. Ecological resilience, 

biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems. 1: 6–18.

Pett-Ridge, J.C. 2009. Contributions of dust to phosphorus cycling in tropical 

forests of the Luquillo Mountains, Puerto Rico. Biogeochemistry. 

94: 63–80.

Pilz, D.; Alexander, S.J.; Smith, J. [and others]. 2006. Nontimber forest 

product opportunities in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-671. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 79 p.

Pilz, D.; Fischer, C.; Molina, R. [and others]. 1996. Study 10: Matsutake 

productivity and ecology plots in Southern Oregon. In: Pilz, D.; Molina, 

R., eds. Managing forest ecosystems to conserve fungus diversity 

and sustain wild mushroom harvests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-371. 

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

Northwest Research Station: 75–77. 

Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 2002. Commercial harvests of edible mushrooms from 

the forests of the Pacific Northwest United States: issues, management, 

and monitoring for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management. 

155(1): 3–16.

Pilz, D.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E.; Molina, R. 2003. Ecology and management of 

commercially harvested chanterelle mushrooms. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW576. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 83 p. 

Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S.; Carter, M.C. [and others]. 2004. Productivity and 

diversity of morel mushrooms in healthy, burned, and insect-damaged 

forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 

198(1–3): 367–386.

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.

Piva, R.J.; Cook, G.W. 2011. West Virginia’s timber industry: an assessment 

of timber product output and use, 2007. Resour. Bull. NRS-46. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 58 p.

Predny, M.L.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2005. Galax (Galax urceolata): An annotated 

bibliography. Gen Tech. Rep. SRS-87. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 33 p.

Prince Edward Island. 2013. Ground hemlock (Taxus) information centre. 

http://www.gov.pe.ca/forestry/taxus. [Date accessed: January 14, 

2015].

Proctor, J. 1981. Effect of shade on cultivation of American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius L.). In: Lapp, N.A., ed. Proceedings of the third national 

ginseng conference. Asheville, NC: North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture: 22–25.

Prospero, J.M.; Lamb, P.J. 2003. African droughts and dust transport to the 

Caribbean: climate change implications. Science. 302: 1024–1027.

Puettman, K.J.; Coates, K.D.; Messier, C. 2009. A critique of silviculture: 

managing for complexity. Washington, DC: Island Press. 188 p.

Ragland, E.; Tropp, D. 2009. USDA, National farmers market manager 

survey, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Marketing Service. 100 p. [Date accessed: January 15, 2015].

Raisfeld, R.; Patronite, R. 2007. Ramps in season. New York Magazine. May 

14: 69.

Ramovs, B.V.; Roberts, M.R. 2003. Understory vegetation and environment 

responses to tillage, forest harvesting, and conifer plantation 

development. Ecological Applications. 13: 1682–1700.

Reams, G.A.; Smith, W.D.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2005. The forest 

Inventory and Analysis sampling frame. In: Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, 

P.L., eds. The enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis program–national 

sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-87. 

Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 21–36.

Reifsnyder, W.E.; Furnival, G.M.; Horowitz, J.L. 1971. Spatial and temporal 

distribution of solar radiation beneath forest canopies. Agricultural 

Meteorology. 9: 21–37.

Reynolds, H.L.; Packer, A.; Bever, J.D.; Clay, K. 2003. Grassroots ecology: 

Plant-microbe-soil interactions as drivers of plant community structure 

and dynamics. Ecology. 84: 2281–2291.

Reynolds-Hogland, M.J.; Mitchell, M.S.; Powell, R.A. 2006. Spatio-temporal 

availability of soft mast in clearcuts in the Southern Appalachians. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 237: 103–114.

Roach, J. 2005. Ramp fests add flavor, stench, to Appalachian spring. 

National Geographic News. April 29. http://news.nationalgeographic.

com/news/2005/04/0429_050429_ramsfestivals.html. [Date accessed: 

May 16, 2005].

Robbins, C.S. 1998. Examination of the US pitcher plant trade with a focus 

on the white-topped pitcher plant. TRAFFIC Bulletin. 17(2): 1–13.

Robbins, C.S. 2000. Comparative analysis of management regimes and 

medicinal plant trade monitoring mechanisms for American ginseng and 

goldenseal. Conservation Biology. 14(5): 1422–1434.

Roberts, K.J.; Anderson, R.C. 2001. Effect of garlic mustard [Alliaria 

petiolata (Beib. Cavara & Grande)] extracts on plants and Arbuscular 

Mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. The American Midland Naturalist. 146: 146–152.

Roberts, M.R.; Gilliam, F. 1995. Patterns and mechanisms of plant diversity 

in forested ecosystems: implications for forest management. Ecological 

Applications. 5: 969–977.

Roberts, M.R.; Gilliam, F.S. 2003. Response of the herbaceous layer to 

disturbance in eastern forests. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. The 

herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. New York: Oxford 

University Press: 302–320.

Rock, J.H.; Beckage, B.; Gross, L.J. 2004. Population recovery following 

differential harvesting of Allium tricoccum Ait. in the southern 

Appalachians. Biological Conservation. 116: 227–234. 

Saastamoinen, O.; Kangas, K.; Aho, H. 2000. The picking of wild berries in 

Finland in 1997 and 1998. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15: 

645–650.

Schlosser, W.; Blatner, K. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: a 1992 survey of processors. Journal of 

Forestry. 93(3): 31–36.

Schlosser, W.; Blatner, K.; Chapman, R. 1991. Economic and marketing 

implications of special forest products harvest in the coastal Pacific 

Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 67–72.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest products: an eastside 

perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 35 p.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Zamora, B. 1992. Pacific Northwest forest 

lands potential for forest greenery production. Northwest Science. 

66(1): 44–55.

Schmidt, W.C.; Lotan, J.E. 1980. Phenology of common forest flora of the 

Northern Rockies: 1928–1937. Research Paper INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experimental Station. 20 p.

Schwartz, M.; Ahas, R.; Aasa, A. 2006. Onset of spring starting earlier 

across the Northern Hemisphere. Global Change Biology. 12 (2): 343–351.
56 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 2

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Dunwiddie, P.W. 2009. Ecological and cultural 

significance of burning beargrass habitat on the Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington. Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 306–319.

Sheffield. C. 2005. In Season: Ramp up your meal. Newsweek, Tip Sheet. 

May 16.

Sherry, R.; Zhou, X.; Gu, S. [and others]. 2007. Divergence of reproductive 

phenology under climate warming. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences. 104 (1): 198–202.

Simmons, M. 2006. Pungent plant and its party gaining fans. 

KnoxNews. April 17. http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/

article/0,1406,KNS_347_4626256,00.html. [Date accessed: May 5, 

2006].

Small, C.J.; Chamberlain, J.L.; Mathews, D.S. 2011. Recovery of black 

cohosh (Actaea racemosa L.) following experimental harvests. The 

American Midland Naturalist. 166(2): 339–348.

Smith, D.M.; Larson, B.C.; Kelty, M.J.; Ashton, P.M.S. 1997. The practice of 

silviculture: applied forest ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 537 p.

Smith, R.; Beckley, T.; Cameron, S.; Hart, R. 2003. Building partnerships 

for the sustainable management of nontimber forest products. In: 

Proceedings of the XII World Forestry Congress: Area B-Forests for the 

planet; 2003 September 21–28; Quebec City, Canada. Rome: Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 0329-C1.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Stewart, H. 1995. Cedar: tree of life to the northwest coast Indians. Seattle: 

University of Washington Press. 192 p.

Stockberger, W.W. 1928. Ginseng culture. Farmer’s Bulletin 1184. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Symbios. 2014. Growing & harvesting world-class truffles in orchard & 

forest settings. http://www.symbiosproducts.com/. [Date accessed: 

January 14, 2015].

Taylor, D.A. 2006. Ginseng, the divine root: the curious history of the plant 

that captivated the world. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. 308 p.

Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant 

communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 360 p.

Tilman, D.; Downing, J.A. 1996. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. In: 

Ecosystem management. New York: Springer: 3–7.

Tirmenstein, D. 1990. Gaultheria shallon. In: Fire effects information system 

(FEIS). Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis//plants/shrub/gausha/all.html. [Date 

accessed: January 14, 2015].

Titus B.D.; Kerns B.K.; Cocksedge W. [and others]. 2004. Compatible (or co-) 

management of forests for timber and nontimber values. In: Proc. Can. 

Inst. Forestry/Institut Forestier du Canada and the Soc. Am. For. Joint 

2004 Annu. Gen. Meet. Convention “One Forest under Two Flags- Une 

Foret Sous Deux Drapeaux”, Edmonton, Alta., Canada, 2–6 October 2004. 

Thornton, T.F. 1998. Alaska Native subsistence: a matter of cultural survival. 

Cultural Survival Quarterly. 22(3): 29–34. 

Thornton, T.F. 2001. Subsistence in northern communities: lessons from 

Alaska. The Northern Review. 23: 82–102.

Turtiainen, M.; Saastamoinen, O.; Kangas, K.; Vaara, M. 2012. Picking of 

wild edible mushrooms in Finland in 1997–1999 and 2011. Silva Fennica. 

46: 569–581.

Uemura, S. 1994. Patterns of leaf phenology in forest understory. Canadian 

Journal of Botany. 72: 409–414.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNDP). 2008. Climate change in 

the Caribbean and the challenge of adaptation. Panama City, Panama: 

United Nations Environment Programme, Regional Office for Latin 

America and the Caribbean (ROLAC). 91 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Plant hardiness zone map. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. http://

planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015].

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2015. Definitions of insular area 

political organizations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of Insular Affairs. http://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes.

cfm#. [Date accessed: January 21, 2015].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Green acres: Landscaping 

with native plants. http://www.epa.gov/greenacres/index.html. [Date 

accessed: January 21, 2015].

U.S. International Trade Commission. 2014. Harmonized tariff schedule 

of the United States Version 3.1.0. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/. [Date 

accessed: February 27, 2014].

USDA Forest Service. 2001. National strategy for special forest products. FS713. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 15 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. What is forest farming? [Brochure]. Lincoln, NE: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Agroforestry 

Center. 1 p. http://nac.unl.edu/documents/workingtrees/infosheets/

WT_Info_forest_farming.pdf. [Date accessed: January 13, 2015].

USDA Forest Service 2013. Forest products permits. http://www.fs.usda.

gov/main/olympic/passes-permits/forestproducts. [Date accessed: 

January 14, 2015].

USDA Forest Service 2014. Forest Inventory and Analysis. National core 

field guide, Version 6.1. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guidesmethods-proc/. [Date accessed: January 15, 2015].

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Cut and sold reports. http://www.fs.fed.

us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml. [Date 

accessed: January 15, 2015].

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Pisgah National Forest. Forest product 

permits. http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/nfsnc/passespermits. [Date 

accessed: January 15, 2015].

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Timber product output. Forest Inventory and 

Analysis National Program. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/program-features/

tpo/. [Date accessed: January 21, 2015].

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS]. 2013. Maine wild 

blueberries. New England Field Office. 1 p. https://www.nass.usda.gov/

Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/Annual_

Statistical_Bulletin/wildb2013.pdf. [Date accessed: September 17, 2015].

USDA National Organic Program. 2015. Program handbook. https://www.

ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook. [Date accessed: 

January 24, 2015].

van Andel, T. 2006. Agrodok 39: nontimber forest products, the value of wild 

plants. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Agromisa Foundation and CTA. 69 p.

Van der Voort, M.E.; McGraw, J.B. 2006. Effects of harvester behavior on 

population growth rate affects sustainability of ginseng trade. Biological 

Conservation. 130: 505–516.

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed, J. 2001. Special forest products: 

Species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 169 p. 

Vantomme, P. 2003. Compiling statistics on non-wood forest products as 

policy and decision-making tools at the national level. International 

Forestry Review. 5: 156–160.

Vaughan, R.C.; Munsell, J.F.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2013. Opportunities for 

enhancing nontimber forest products management in the United States. 

Journal of Forestry. 111(1): 26–33. 

Veninga, L.; Zaricor, B.R. 1976. Goldenseal/etc.: a pharmacognosy of wild 

herbs. Santa Cruz, CA: Ruka Publications. 193 p.

Warren, R.J.; Bahn, V.; Bradford, M.A. 2011. Temperature cues phenological 

synchrony in ant-mediated seed dispersal. Global Change Biology. 17(7): 

2444–2454.
CHAPTER 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 57

Warren, R.J.; Bradford, M.A. 2011. The shape of things to come: woodland 

herb niche contraction begins during recruitment in mesic forest 

microhabitat. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 

278: 1390–1398.

Warren, R.J.; Giladi, I.; Bradford, M.A. 2010. Ant-mediated seed dispersal 

does not facilitate niche expansion. Journal of Ecology. 98: 1178–1185.

Water and Lands Resource Division of King County, Washington State. 

2015. Help salvage native plants. http://www.kingcounty.gov/

environment/stewardship/volunteer/plant-salvage-program.aspx. [Date 

accessed: January 21, 2015].

Weaver, P.L. 2006a. A summary of 20 years of forest monitoring in 

Cinnamon Bay watershed, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

IITF-34. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry. 35 p.

Weaver, P.L. 2006b. Estate Thomas Experimental Forest, St. Croix, US Virgin 

Islands: research history and potential. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-30. San Juan, 

PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute 

of Tropical Forestry. 62 p.

Webster, C.R.; Jenkins, M.A.; Rock, J.H. 2005. Long-term response of spring 

flora to chronic herbivory and deer exclusion in Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park, USA. Biological Conservation. 125: 297–307.

Weigand, J. 1998. Management experiments for high-elevation agroforestry 

systems jointly producing matsutake mushrooms and high-quality timber 

in the Cascade Range of Southern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-424. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 42 p.

Weigand, J. 2002. Overview of cultural traditions, economic trends, and key 

species in nontimber forest products of the Pacific Northwest. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the 

United States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 57–64.

Whigham, D.F. 2004. Ecology of woodland herbs in temperate deciduous 

forests. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 

35: 583–621.

Whittaker, R.; Klomp, H. 1975. The design and stability of plant 

communities. In: van Dobben, W.H.; Low-McConnell, R.H., eds. Unifying 

concepts in ecology. Netherlands: Springer: 169–183.

Wilczek, A.; Cooper, M.; Korves, T.; Schmitt, J. 2014. Lagging adaptation 

to warming climate in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 111(22): 7906–7913.

Wilkinson, K.M.; Elevitch, C.R. 2000. Nontimber forest products for Pacific 

Islands: an introductory guide for producers. Agroforestry Guides for 

Pacific Islands #3. Holualoa, HI: Permanent Agriculture Resources. 29 p.

Willis, C.G.; Ruhfel, B.; Primack, R.B. [and others]. 2008. Phylogenetic 

patterns of species loss in Thoreau’s woods are driven by climate 

change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(44): 

17029–17033.

Wixted, K.L.; McGraw, J.B. 2010. Competitive and allelopathic effects 

of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolate) on American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius). Plant Ecology. 208: 347–357.

Wolcott, J. 2006. Chefs offer their freshest picks for spring. Christian 

Science Monitor. 19 April. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0419/

p16s01-lifo.html. [Date accessed: April 19, 2006].

Wong, J.L.G.; Thornber, K.; Baker, N. 2001. Resource assessment of nonwood forest products: Experience and biometric principles. No. 13 in 

the FAO Non-Wood Forest Products Series. Rome: Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. 109 p.

Workman, S.; Ellis, E.; Bannister, M.; Palada, M. 2004. Participatory survey 

and tree crop preferences on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Proceedings of 

the Caribbean Foods Crops Society. 40: 174–179.

Yun, W.; Hall, I.R. 2004. Edible ectomycorrhizal mushrooms: challenges and 

achievements. Canadian Journal of Botany. 82: 1063–1073.

Zasada, J.C. 2002. Birch and birch bark. St. Paul, MN: University of 

Minnesota Extension Service. http://www.extension.umn.edu/

specializations/environment/components/birchbark1.html. [Date 

accessed: January 14, 2015].
CHAPTER 3

Ecological Dimensions 

of Nontimber Forest 

Product Harvest

Tamara Ticktin

Kelly Kindscher

Sara Souther

Peter Weisberg

James L. Chamberlain

Susan Hummel

Christine Mitchell

Suzanne Sanders
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 61

Hundreds of plant and fungi species 

(chapter 2) are harvested each year for 

nontimber forest products (NTFPs) because 

they play important roles in the cultural 

(chapter 4), social (chapter 5), and economic (chapter 6) 

lives of individuals and communities across the United 

States. Most of these species are harvested from natural 

populations, where they play important ecological 

roles, including providing food, cover, and habitat for 

diverse wildlife, including pollinators, and contribute 

to nutrient cycling, hydrological cycles, and erosion 

control. The continued use of NTFPs is contingent on 

each species ability to persist over the long term in their 

landscapes and with the qualities that people value. 

Species persistence depends in part on their ecological 

characteristics, the human and plant communities in 

which they grow, as well as the threats they face. This 

chapter reviews the effects of NTFP harvest on plant 

individuals, populations, communities, and ecosystems 

and then presents case studies of seven heavily harvested 

NTFPs in the United States. We conclude with a 

summary of key findings and recommendations.

3.1

Effects of Nontimber Forest Product Harvest 

on Plant Individuals and Populations

NTFP harvest systems can have impacts at multiple 

ecological scales—from individuals to populations, 

communities, ecosystems, and landscapes. Sustainable 

harvest requires populations to persist long term and 

that the harvest does not negatively affect community 

and ecosystem functions at multiple ecological scales 

(Small et al. 2011, Ticktin and Shackleton 2011).

The most direct impact of NTFP harvest is on the 

vital rates of individuals harvested for their parts: their 

survival, growth, and reproduction. For example, fern 

leaves (fronds) are harvested throughout the United States 

for food, foliage, and crafts. Frond harvest removes 

photosynthetic material, reduces available nutrients for 

new growth, and can decrease significantly the size of 

new leaves and leaf growth over time (Aderkas and Green 

1986, Bergeron and Lapointe 2001, Ticktin et al. 2006).

Substantial changes in some vital rates can lead to 

important demographic and genetic changes at the 

population level (see review by Ticktin 2004). The 

resilience or vulnerability of populations to harvest varies 

according to life history traits, ecological, management, 

and social context of harvest (table 3.1) (Castle et al. 

2014, Ticktin 2015). For plants, two important factors 

that influence a species’ resilience or vulnerability to 

harvest are the part of the plant harvested and the life 

history traits of the plant. The latter includes patterns 

of growth, reproduction, pollination, and dispersal of 

seeds or spores, distribution, and habitat specificity (table 

3.1). For example, long-lived perennials like trees and 

shrubs have reproductive parts (flowers, fruit, and seeds) 

that tend to have very high potential for sustainable 

harvest. Meta-analyses of demographic studies reveal 

long-term population growth rates of long-lived species 

are little affected by decreases in fecundity (Franco 

and Silvertown 2004). Demographic studies of trees 

and shrubs have shown that very high levels of fruit 

harvest tends to be sustainable at the population level 

(see review by Ticktin 2004, Emanuel et al. 2005, 

Sampaio and Maës dos Santos 2015, Ticktin et al. 

2012). As such, the widespread wild-harvest of edible 

fruits, nuts, and berries—for example, more than 1.6 

million pounds (>725,000 kg) on Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management lands per year (Alexander 

et al. 2011)—is not expected to lead to population 

decline. However, the effects of fruit harvest on other 

species, such as frugivores, remains poorly studied

In contrast, demographic rates of long-lived perennials 

tend to be highly sensitive to decreases in adult survival 

(Franco and Silvertown 2004). Therefore, harvest of adult 

individuals or increases in mortality of adults, such as 

some kinds of bark (figure 3.1), root, rhizome, and bulb 

harvesting, may have large negative impacts on long-term 

population persistence (Chamberlain et al. 2013, Schmidt 

and Ticktin 2012, Small et al. 2011). High levels of adult 

mortality are a concern for numerous species in the 

United States that are commercially traded. For example, 

many medicinal plants that are commercially traded are 

valued for their underground organs or for the whole 

plant (Alexander et al. 2011), and are therefore harvested 

whole. The International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species lists 

66 U.S. plant species for which overharvest represents 

at least one of the threats; more than 75 percent of 

these are orchids and cacti—long-lived perennials 

collected as whole plants for the horticulture trade.

Demographic models of some species heavily harvested 

for their underground organs, such as the medicinal 

plants American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) 

and goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.), and edible 
62 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

species such as ramps (Allium trioccum Aiton), have 

demonstrated they can sustain only low levels of harvest 

(Christensen and Gorchov 2010, Nantel et al. 1996, 

Rock et al. 2004, Van der Voort and McGraw 2006) 

consistent with research on NTFPs with similar life 

histories elsewhere (e.g., Ghimire et al. 2008). For 

some species, the number and size of populations has 

decreased over time, and overharvest is considered a 

contributing factor (Mulligan and Gorchov 2004).

Focused harvest of large adult plants can lead also to a 

decline in plant size over time. For example, McGraw 

(2001) used U.S. herbarium specimens to show that 

American ginseng plants of the same age had declined 

in size significantly since 1900 across most of its range 

where harvest pressure was greatest. A decrease in size 

over time has also been shown for species elsewhere 

(Law and Salick 2005). Few studies exist on the genetic 

implications of harvest, but decreasing population sizes 

have been shown to cause inbreeding depression (Mooney 

and McGraw 2007) and decreased genetic diversity 

(Cruse-Sanders and Hamrick 2004) in American ginseng.

The findings discussed in this section do not imply 

that harvest of underground organs or of whole 

plants is always unsustainable. Traits such as the 

ability to reproduce vegetatively can greatly increase 

the resilience to populations to harvest (table 3.1). 

For example, the roots of the long-lived perennial 

echinacea (Echinacea angustifolia DC.) are harvested 

for the herbal product market. Data from both Kansas 

and Montana show that about 50 percent of the 

roots that remain in the ground following harvest 

resprout, and the plants grow back from 6 to 10 inches 

below the surface (Kindscher et al. 2008). Similarly, 

goldenseal’s abundant rhizomes permit some to remain 

in the soil after harvest and allow some regrowth 

(Sanders and McGraw 2005a). Density-dependent 

responses to harvest—where reduced abundance due 

to harvest results in increased demographic rates—

can increase the potential for sustainable harvest 

(Schmidt et al. 2011, Ticktin et al. 2002). In addition, 

management such as replanting roots or root parts 

can greatly increase the potential for sustainability.

3.1.1

Management and Local Ecological 

Knowledge for Sustainable Harvest

The methods used to harvest NTFPs influence plant 

persistence despite sustained harvest (table 3.1). 

Sustainable management practices for NTFPs that are 

harvested from natural populations can include weeding 

competitors, clearing the overstory to increase light, and 

planting seeds, root, or rhizome pieces or seedlings to 

replace, expand, or extend wild NTFP populations. For 

example, when harvesting bluedicks (Dichelostemma 

capitatum (Benth.) Alph. Wood) in California, American 

Table 3.1—Factors affecting the potential for sustainable NTFP harvest. Arrows indicate that the characteristics listed in the columns for high 

and low potential for sustainable harvest represent two ends of a continuum. Adapted from Castle et al. 2014, Cunningham 2001, and Ticktin 

and Shackleton 2011.

Potential for sustainable use

Category Attributes High Medium Low

Sociopolitical NTFP uses Single or non-competing uses; harvest of 

selected size-classes only

Multiple conflictive uses and 

harvest of different or all sizeclasses

Local ecological 

knowledge (LEK)

Harvest is a historical activity, and highly 

detailed and sophisticated LEK systems 

exist and can be applied.

Harvest is a new activity and 

no LEK developed yet

NTFP management Highly tended wild or maintained 

populations; farmed or domesticated

Uncontrolled collection from 

wild; cultivation not viable; 

open-access resource

Governance systems Secure tenure, institutional arrangements 

fit with social-ecological system, effective 

monitoring and enforcement 

Insecure tenure, institutional 

arrangements are misfits 

for system, no monitoring or 

enforcement

Economic Seasonality of harvest Short season with high abundance Available all year round

Substitutability Many species can provide the same 

or similar product

Only one or few species 

offer the same product
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 63

Indians harvest the corms and replant the cormlets, 

spare plants, and harvest after seeding to ensure 

replenishment of seed (Anderson 2005, Anderson and 

Rowney 1999). Similarly, when American Indians in 

the Great Plains harvested the roots of prairie turnips 

or tipsin (Pediomelum esculentum (Pursh) Rydb.), they 

planted seeds from ripe seed heads back in the holes 

created when they dug the roots. Loss of this activity 

has led to the prairie turnip paradox: this plant is now 

uncommon throughout most of its range because people 

no longer harvest and eat the root (and plant the seeds) 

(Castle 2006). However, it should be noted that prairie 

turnips are still traditionally harvested on the Crow 

and Standing Rock (Lakota) reservations (Ruelle and 

Kassam 2013). Studies show the ecological impacts 

can vary significantly according to the seasonal timing 

of harvest, timing of harvest in the plant’s life cycle, 

and the frequency, intensity, and methods and size of 

harvest (e.g., Albrecht and McCarthy 2006, Sanders and 

McGraw 2005a, Van der Voort and McGraw 2006). 

For example, Nantel et al. (1996) showed that for both 

ramps and American ginseng, “choosy” harvesters 

who collect mostly larger plants, have a much greater 

negative impact on population viability than do “busy” 

harvesters, who collect the same number of plants, 

but from a broader range of sizes (see box 3.1).

The decisions that harvesters make about how to 

harvest, manage, or steward NTFP populations 

are influenced by many factors, including cultural, 

social, political, economic, and ecological context. 

However, one key factor is harvesters’ understandings 

of the ecological system. Generations of observation, 

experimentation, and adaptation by local harvesters 

often lead to development of detailed traditional or local 

ecological knowledge (chapter 4; Hummel and Lake 

2015), including highly sophisticated local management 

practices for maintaining culturally and economically 

important resources and landscapes (Anderson 2005, 

Berkes 2011, Price and Kindscher 2007, Turner et al. 

2000). NTFP populations managed by knowledgeable 

harvesters may show high growth rates under high 

harvest pressure, while populations of the same species 

managed by others may decline under much lower 

levels of harvest (Price and Kindscher 2007, Schmidt 

and Ticktin 2012, Ticktin and Johns 2002). As has 

been demonstrated for American ginseng, with the 

appropriate management, there is potential even for 

species at high risk of overharvest to be managed 

sustainably (e.g., Van der Voort and McGraw 2006). 

This highlights the value of cooperative management 

agreements for NTFP, where different stakeholders 

can be involved in making management decisions.

3.1.2

Spatiotemporal Variation in Nontimber 

Forest Product Population Dynamics

An important challenge in assessing harvest effects and 

designing plans for sustainable management of NTFPs is 

that effects vary over the landscape (Sinclair et al. 2005, 

Souther and McGraw 2011, Ticktin 2004) as well as 

over time, as climatic and other conditions vary (Schmidt 

et al. 2011). For example, available environmental 

resources (light, nutrients, water) influence long-term 

population growth rates. Populations of the Hawaiian 

vine, maile (Alyxia stellata (J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.) 

Roem. & Schult.)—widely harvested for its fragrant 

Figure 3.1—Mature slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) tree. The bark is 

harvested for its medicinal purposes. Forest Inventory and Analysis 

data indicates increased mortality of this species throughout its 

range, suggesting that harvesting is having negative impacts. 

(Photo courtesy of Rob Routledge, Sault College, Bugwood.org.)
64 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

stems—grow significantly faster in closed-canopy than 

in more open-canopy forests (Wong and Ticktin 2014). 

Root yields of wild-harvested osha (Ligusticum porteri

J.M. Coult. & Rose) are higher in open meadows than 

in forested areas (Kindscher et al. 2013). Similarly, 

international research has shown that population 

growth rates and levels of sustainable harvest can vary 

significantly between habitats (Ghimire et al. 2008), 

and environmental gradients (e.g., drier versus wetter 

environments) (Gaoue and Ticktin 2008, Gaoue et al.

2011). In some places, NTFPs are more often harvested 

along roads than from the forest interior. Differences 

across space and time in the surrounding ecological 

community and in management add to the large 

spatiotemporal variation observed for many NTFPs.

3.1.3

Community Interactions and 

Ecosystem Dynamics

Long-term sustainability of harvests depends upon 

numerous factors that operate across multiple scales and 

levels of ecological organization, requiring understanding 

of processes that go beyond individual populations and 

species (table 3.1). These include the maintenance of 

key interspecific interactions, resistance to herbivore 

pressure, resilience to natural and anthropogenic 

disturbances, appropriate landscape management, as 

well as competing land uses or management objectives.

A decline or loss of key interspecific interactions across 

tropic levels, such as pollinators, mycorrhizal fungi, 

and animal seed dispersers, may threaten the viability 

of NTFP populations and make them less resilient 

to harvest (table 3.1). For example, the pinyon jay 

(Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) is a critically important 

seed disperser of pinyon pines (e.g., Pinus edulis Engelm., 

Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frém.) in western United 

States and has experienced a mean population decline 

of 4.3 percent annually from 1966 to 2012 (Chambers 

et al. 1999, Sauer et al. 2014). Continued decline of 

this bird species may threaten the long-term ability of 

pinyon pine to respond to increased climatic variability 

through loss of its long-range dispersal mechanism. 

Similarly, in the tropics, hunting of seed dispersers 

can have adverse effects on NTFP species, as has been 

observed for African crabwood (Carapa spp.), where 

subsistence hunting frequently targets the rodents 

that disperse its seeds (Forget and Jansen 2007).

BOX 3.1

CASE STUDY:

American Ginseng Response 

to Climate Change

Despite wide latitudinal distribution, American ginseng 

(Panax quinquefolius L.) is sensitive to relatively small 

increases in mean temperature (Souther and McGraw 

2011, 2014). Stochastic demographic models show 

that warming as little as 1.75 °F is sufficient to increase 

extirpation risk of an average ginseng population 

(Souther and McGraw 2014). This sensitivity to warming 

is attributed to the tendency of ginseng populations to 

adapt to local climatic conditions (Souther and McGraw 

2011, 2014; Souther et al. 2012). Long-term demographic 

studies, simulations, and experimental manipulations 

indicate that climate change will negatively impact this 

species, especially in the presence of co-occurring 

stressors, such as harvest (McGraw et al. 2013; Souther 

and McGraw 2010, 2011, 2014; Souther et al. 2012). 

Rapid rate of climate change, coupled with habitat 

fragmentation, serves to reduce gene flow among 

populations and decreases the likelihood of adaptation 

to climate change (Davis et al. 2005, Etterson and Shaw 

2001, Shaw and Etterson 2012). While rapid evolution is 

possible, adaptation to climate change for species like 

ginseng, which is characterized by slow-growth, long 

generation times, and low rates of reproduction, likely 

will be slow relative to fecund species that disperse 

seeds over long distances (Souther and McGraw 2014). 

Adaptation potential likely will be further reduced by 

decreased genetic variation resulting from harvest, as 

genetically based phenotypic variation is a requisite for 

evolution to occur. 

Recently, several species of thrushes, including the 

wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), hermit thrush 

(Catharus gutatus), and Swainson’s thrush (Catharus 

ustulatus), have been identified as potential dispersers 

of ginseng seed (Hruska et al. 2014). Juvenile thrushes 

may disperse seeds up to 300 m from parental plants. 

However, such long-distance dispersal events are 

considered rare, as most thrush dispersal events result 

in seed movement of less than 100 m from the maternal 

plant (Smith et al. 2004). Nonetheless, the occurrence of 

long-distance dispersal, however infrequent, indicates 

a possible mechanism for ginseng to track climatic 

change. Long-distance dispersal may introduce warmadapted, southerly or lowland genotypes into northern 

and upland populations, thus potentially increasing the 

likelihood of adaptation to novel climatic conditions 

(Hampe and Petit 2005). Experiments testing the 

adaption of American ginseng and other NTFPs to 

rapidly changing climate are needed.
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 65

Changes in population dynamics of species in the 

surrounding community, such as increases in populations 

of herbivores and/or the introduction of invasive species, 

can also threaten NTFP species and increase the potential 

for unsustainable harvesting (table 3.1). Overabundant 

deer and elk populations increase herbivory rates in 

many parts of the United States, threatening sustainable 

NTFP harvests of certain species in addition to 

impacting numerous other ecosystem properties (Cote 

et al. 2004). One study of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) impacts on 26 species of NTFP trees and 

shrubs in a Nebraska forest-agricultural mosaic found 

that woody NTFP species with dense branching (e.g., 

redosier dogwood, Cornus sericea L.; weeping forsythia, 

Forsythia suspensa (Thumb) Vahl; white willow, Salix 

alba L.; purpleosier willow, Salix purpurea L.) were 

damaged the least by deer antler rubbing, while species 

with one or few unprotected stems (e.g., American 

black elderberry, Sambucus canadensis; smooth sumac, 

Rhus glabra) were damaged the most (Hygnstrom et al. 

2009). Levels of browsing damage also varied by NTFP 

species with the most damage found in Cornus spp. 

and Chinese chestnut, Castanea mollisima. Similarly, 

the ability of American ginseng to withstand harvest is 

reduced with increasing populations of white-tailed deer 

(Farrington et al. 2009, McGraw and Furedi 2005).

The ability of ginseng to withstand harvest is also 

threatened by the invasive species, garlic mustard (Alliaria 

petiolata) (Wixted and McGraw 2009). In Hawai’i, many 

NTFP species gathered for cultural practices such as hula 

(chapter 4) are declining in population due to competition 

from invasive species. In cases like these, harvest may be 

a contributing factor to population decline (Ticktin et al. 

2006), although not necessarily the main cause. Studies 

elsewhere have shown that factors like grazing and 

invasive species may make much greater contributions to 

the decline of NTFP populations than harvest (Endress et 

al. 2004, Mandle and Ticktin 2012, Ticktin et al. 2012).

Responses of NTFP species to natural and anthropogenic 

disturbances are trait-dependent (Mouillot et al. 2013) 

and specific to the particular life history adaptations of 

a given species. In general, species will most likely be 

adapted to a characteristic disturbance regime. Therefore, 

populations will persist when ecosystem dynamics 

are maintained within a natural (or historic) range 

of variability, although management toward natural 

variability is complicated by processes such as climatic 

variability or invasive species (Landres et al. 1999). Traits 

that enable populations to survive or increase following 

fire include resprouting, seed dormancy, fire-stimulated 

seed production, and fast growth to rapidly colonize 

large areas of mineral soil. Within the fungal genus 

Morchella (morel mushrooms), certain species fruit in 

forests that are more frequently burned while other 

species favor unburned forests. However, productivity 

(count and fresh weight) at the genus level is generally 

greater in burned forests than in insect-damaged forests, 

and is least in undisturbed forests (Pilz et al. 2004). Fire 

frequency and severity can also play a key role in NTFP 

response. Blueberry (lowbush, Vaccinium angustifolium

Aiton and velvetleaf huckleberry, V. myrtilloides Michx.) 

production in eastern Canada is favored by low-intensity 

fires with limited burn depth (i.e., consumption of soil 

organic layers) (Duchesne and Wetzel 2004). Fire was 

used traditionally by native peoples to increase the 

production and quality of roots and berries, improve 

produce materials for basketry and other arts and 

technologies (Kimmerer and Lake 2001, Wray and 

Anderson 2003). Some NTFPs adapted to particular 

fire regimes, including fires set by American Indians, 

are now less common, including Bradshaw’s lomatium 

(Lomatium bradshawii), huckleberries (Vaccinium

spp.), camas (Camassia spp.), tobacco (Nicotiana spp.), 

and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens (Benth.) Hitchc.) 

(Anderson 1996, Boyd 1999). Fire frequency plays a 

key role in sustainability of NTFPs harvested by native 

people who lived in Yosemite Valley (Anderson 2005) 

and who live elsewhere (Schmidt and Ticktin 2012, Sinha 

and Brault 2005). NTFPs that benefit from increased 

light availability but are intolerant of surface fire may 

be favored by wind disturbance or biotic disturbances 

such as forest insects (e.g., bark beetles) and pathogens.

Many North American NTFPs are understory species 

and strongly influenced by effects of disturbance and 

forest management on characteristics of the forest 

overstory (chapter 2). Shade-tolerant and shade-adapted 

NTFP species are favored by levels of overstory canopy 

cover that differ from those preferred by shadeintolerant species. Heavy thinning of Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests in the Oregon Cascade 

Range reduced production of shade-adapted chanterelle 

(Cantharellus spp.) mushrooms (Pilz et al. 2006). 

Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.) produces 

more commercially valued leaves in moderate shade and 

canopy density compared to heavy shade (Higgins et al. 

2004). Leaves with qualities prized by tribal weavers are 
66 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

associated with sites with tree basal area less than 200 

square feet per acre and densities less than 130 trees per 

acre (Hummel and Lake 2015). Studies elsewhere have 

shown that timber harvesting can have strong negative 

effects on the availability of NTFP species (Shanley 

et al. 2002; see also chapter 2, section 2.2). On the 

other hand, population growth rates and the potential 

for sustainable harvest may be greater in secondary 

forests than in old-growth forests for some NTFP 

species, such as terrestrial and epiphytic bromeliads 

(del Castillo et al. 2013, Ticktin and Nantel 2004).

Sustainable NTFP harvest also can be threatened 

where dominant land uses are competing and not 

complementary (table 3.1). Habitat transformation or 

destruction may be the main cause of decline for some 

NTFP species. For example, in the Great Plains habitat 

destruction (the plowing of more prairie lands for 

additional crop production in the last two decades) has 

had more negative impacts on coneflower (Echinacea 

angustifolia) stands than harvesting has (Kindscher 

2006). Similarly, management of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands in the Great Basin region of the Western 

United States has arguably reduced the availability of the 

pine nut resource. In Florida, prime quality habitat for 

saw palmetto (Serenoa repens (W. Bartram) J.K. Small), 

which is heavily harvested for its medicinal fruit, appears 

to have decreased by one-half since 1945 (Mitchell 2014).

3.2

Implications of Nontimber 

Forest Product Harvest for 

Ecological Systems

The effects of NTFP harvest on maintaining biodiversity, 

ecological interactions, and ecosystem functions have 

not received sufficient study, as the great majority of 

studies of ecological effects have focused on sustainability 

of harvest at the population level (Ticktin 2004). 

Forest farming (chapter 2), a land use approach for 

more profitable NTFPs such as ginseng, goldenseal, 

(Burkhart and Jacobson 2009) and black cohosh 

(Actaea racemosa) (Small et al. 2014), may have some 

adverse effects on forest ecosystems but may be less 

detrimental on ecosystem services than converting 

forests to agricultural land (e.g., Trauernicht and Ticktin 

2005). Wild harvesting of NTFPs can have variable 

impacts on nutrient cycling and soil erosion, depending 

on plant parts harvested (reviewed in Ticktin 2004).

NTFP harvest may also influence community 

successional dynamics. In the Oregon Coast Range, 

modern strip harvesting methods for commercial 

moss production influence the ecological succession of 

epiphytic bryophyte communities and reduce species 

and age-class diversity, in contrast to historical effects 

of more patchy, less efficient moss production that 

likely increased species diversity (Peck and Frelich 

2008). Incidental taking of bryophyte species of low 

commercial value is also common during commercial 

moss harvesting (Studlar and Peck 2007), and likely has 

adverse effects on community structure and biodiversity.

Although sustainability of NTFP harvest at the 

population level may be greater when harvested plant 

parts are reproductive (flowers, fruits, seeds) rather 

than vegetative (leaves, roots, apical shoots; table 3.1), 

harvest of forest fruits may have important impacts on 

ecological community dynamics and biodiversity. There 

is little published information on such effects, although 

a few studies in the neotropics have found negative 

effects of palm fruit harvesting on avian frugivore 

diversity and abundance (e.g., Galetti and Aleixo 1998) 

(Moegenburg and Levey 2002). Forest plantings of 

palms can increase populations of fruit-eating birds, 

but also change the composition of avian community 

toward fruit eaters (Moegenburg and Levey 2002). Tree 

nuts can be especially important resources for bird and 

mammal species (e.g., whitebark pine nuts and grizzly 

bears) (Mattson et al. 1991). Competition between 

human harvesters of pine nuts and other animals that 

rely upon these food sources has been little studied. 

There appears to be competition between insect and 

vertebrate herbivores for pinyon pine seeds, such that 

birds and mammals were able to increase their seed 

harvest when insect cone herbivores were experimentally 

excluded (Christensen and Whitham 1993). Such 

observations suggest that pine nut supply may be 

limiting for herbivore species and that increased human 

harvest of pine nuts may compete with requirements 

of other species for this important food resource.

Fruit harvest by people does not always imply conflict 

with other frugivores. For example, in Florida hundreds 

of tons of saw palmetto drupes, commonly called berries, 

are harvested annually (AHPA 2012). Most saw palmetto 

habitat, however, does not coincide spatially with those 

areas most important for black bear foraging within their 

primary ranges. Harvesting therefore does not appear to 

represent a critical threat to the food resources for black 
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 67

bears outside of their primary ranges (Mitchell 2014). Saw 

palmetto derives its name from the “saw-like teeth of its 

petiole margins” and grows into thick, dense clusters and 

shrubs (Bennett and Hicklin 1998). These characteristics 

lead harvesters to concentrate their efforts on the 

berries easily reached from the outside of the thicket, 

leaving much of the fruit within it available to wildlife 

(Bennett and Hicklin 1998, Mitchell 2014). Unlike saw 

palmetto that has defenses such as thorns, American 

ginseng is an understory plant readily grazed upon by 

deer (Farrington et al. 2009, McGraw and Furedi 2005). 

Competition between harvesters and wildlife would 

be expected to be greater for these types of NTFPs.

3.3

Sustainable Harvest of Key 

Nontimber Forest Product Species

Descriptions of seven key NTFPs harvested across 

the United States provide insight on the range of 

environmental and harvest contexts, responses to harvest, 

and research and management needs for NTFPs. For 

each of the seven key NTFPs, we discuss the responses 

to harvest in the context of the plant’s ecology, natural 

history, and distribution. These species represent a sample 

of some of the heavily harvested NTFPs in the United 

States and were selected because they span a range of 

plant parts harvested and of ecosystems, and because, in 

contrast to most NTFPs, there has been a fair amount of 

research conducted on the ecological impacts of harvest.

3.3.1

American Ginseng

American ginseng is an herbaceous understory species 

found in the eastern deciduous forest of North America 

(Anderson and Fralish 1993). Harvest of ginseng for 

the medicinal plant trade began over 200 years ago 

in Canada (Robbins 2000). During the period of 

peak harvest in the 1800s, the United States exported 

hundreds of thousands of pounds of dried ginseng 

root to Asia annually (Kauffman 2009, McGraw et 

al. 2013). Intensive harvest, like that which occurred 

during the 19th century, likely reduced overall ginseng 

abundance, mean population size, and genetic diversity 

(Case et al. 2007; Cruse-Sanders 2005; Cruse-Sanders 

and Hamrick 2004; Kauffman 2009; McGraw et al. 

2003, 2013). Reduction in ginseng population size 

decreases per capita reproductive rates (Hackney 

1999, Hackney and McGraw 2001) and increases the 

risk of inbreeding depression (Mooney and McGraw 

2007). Loss of genetic variation may inhibit ginseng’s 

ability to adapt if environmental conditions change. 

Through such impacts, past harvest events continue 

to influence population performance today.

In 1975, ginseng was listed in appendix II of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Robbins 2000). 

Since that time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must 

issue a “no detriment” finding for export to continue. 

While ginseng harvest programs vary among U.S. 

States, generally, regulations establish a harvest season 

and a minimum age/size limit for harvest. Harvester 

behavior, and regulations that govern harvest behavior, 

dramatically influence plant population growth (Van 

der Voort and McGraw 2006). In model simulations, 

population growth rates of harvested populations 

were similar to those of nonharvested populations if 

harvesters complied with regulations, as well as actively 

stewarded populations by planting seeds and limiting 

harvest intensity (Van der Voort and McGraw 2006). 

Conversely, harvest that occurred prior to annual 

seed set and that removed undersized plants resulted 

in precipitous population decline (Van der Voort and 

McGraw 2006). Given this, illegal and/or irresponsible 

harvest poses a significant threat to ginseng persistence 

and continued trade of the species (McGraw et al. 2010).

In addition to irresponsible harvest (McGraw et al. 

2013, Van der Voort and McGraw 2006), deer browse, 

(Farrington et al. 2009, McGraw and Furedi 2005), 

increasing abundance of invasive species (Wixted 

and McGraw 2009) and climatic variability (Souther 

and McGraw 2010, 2011, 2014; Souther et al. 2012) 

negatively impact ginseng population growth. In 

combination, these stressors may influence viability in 

complex and unanticipated ways. For instance, harvest 

in combination with climate change increases extinction 

risk well above the additive effects of either factor 

alone (Souther and McGraw 2014). Because shifting 

environmental conditions exacerbate negative impacts of 

harvest, increased protection, particularly in the form of 

stricter enforcement of current harvest regulations, may 

be required to prevent extinction as climate shifts away 

from historic norms (Souther and McGraw 2014). Future 

research should focus on developing climate changeintegrated harvest regulations and conservation strategies.
68 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

3.3.2

Common Beargrass

Common beargrass grows in western North America 

in maritime and continental areas and over a variety of 

habitat and soil types (Hummel et al. 2012). It can be a 

significant component of subalpine meadows and dry, 

mixed-coniferous forest types (Higgins et al. 2004). 

Vegetative reproduction occurs in spring and summer 

(Peter and Shebitz 2006). Flowering—which varies with 

soil temperature, aspect, canopy cover, and elevation—

has been reported as early as April (Vance et al. 2004), 

and as late as September (Maule 1959), and is most 

prevalent in the open or in canopy gaps (Maule 1959, 

Vance et al. 2004). When environmental conditions 

do not favor flowering or pollination a population 

can reproduce vegetatively (Vance et al. 2004).

Beargrass is difficult to cultivate, so most harvest 

occurs from natural populations (Hummel et al. 

2012). The maritime distribution of the plant—from 

the mountains of northwestern Washington and 

southward into west-central California—is the main 

location for commercial and traditional harvesting. 

While the industry mainly exports the plant for use as 

decoration (Blatner and Alexander 1998, Hansis 1998) 

and has since the 1990s, for many American Indian 

tribes beargrass is a key fiber in traditional weaving 

and has been for centuries (Hummel and Lake 2015).

The preferred leaf properties of beargrass differ between 

commercial and traditional harvesters and thus, so 

do the preferred site conditions where harvest occurs. 

Commercial-quality beargrass leaves are deep green, 

long, wide, and absent any discoloration (Schlosser 

et al. 1992, Schlosser and Blatner 1997). These leaf 

properties seldom exist under open forest canopy 

(Higgins et al. 2004). In contrast, tribal harvesters 

prefer a mid-green color, regardless of leaf length or 

width and weaving style (Hummel and Lake 2015). 

Good sites for traditional leaf harvest have lower 

densities of large diameter trees and lower levels of down 

wood than do poor sites (Hummel and Lake 2015).

A key challenge to sustaining populations of beargrass 

on accessible sites and with desirable leaf properties is 

an apparent tension between forest conditions that are 

good for commercial versus traditional harvest (a dense 

versus open canopy, respectively). A related challenge 

is designing, implementing, and enforcing a system for 

monitoring beargrass harvest levels according to type. 

Commercial harvest on government lands is monitored 

through a permit system, with tracking on permitted 

harvest volumes and not actual harvests. A system that 

allowed for monitored volumes by harvester group could 

be beneficial. The effects of different harvest methods 

and intensities are not well studied or documented. 

Future research on the following is needed: effects of 

harvest practices (different intensities, and resident 

versus migrant harvest methods); plant responses 

to different drivers (climate, shade, fire, light levels/

competition from overstory trees); phenology (growth, 

development, response to warmer drier temperatures 

projected for western North America are not well 

understood); persistence and viability of beargrass seed; 

competition-density relations (e.g., effects on whitebark 

pine seedling regeneration and reproduction, drivers and 

thresholds for flowering versus vegetative reproduction 

across longitudinal and latitudinal gradients).

3.3.3

Black Cohosh

Black cohosh, a native Appalachian forest herb, has 

been extensively harvested for its commercial value as an 

herbal medicine used to address symptoms of menopause 

(figure 3.2). Black cohosh has been listed as one of the 

top 10 selling herbal supplements each year since 2002. 

The American Herbal Products Association (2007, 2012) 

estimates that between 1997 and 2010, more than 3.76 

million pounds of black cohosh roots and rhizomes 

were harvested from the deciduous forests of the Eastern 

United States. The mean annual harvest from natural 

populations over the 14 years was approximately 268,000 

pounds. As nearly all the black cohosh sold commercially 

is wild-harvested, the potential for harvesting impacts 

is considerable without proper management practices 

in place. Mitigating potential harvest impacts requires 

determining harvest intensities that have minimal impact 

and allow for post-harvest recovery and long-term 

population persistence (Small et al. 2011). After 3 years 

of intensive harvesting (66 percent of stems within a 

plot harvested per year), Small et al. (2011) measured a 

significant reduction in foliage area and stem production, 

relative to control plots. After 1 year of recovery, 

plots from which plants were subjected to intensive 

harvesting showed no improvement. Instead, most 

growth measures continued to diverge relative to control 

plots. Thus, the harvest of two-thirds of a population 

appears unsustainable. Sustainable management of black 

cohosh, and other medicinal plants, requires effective 
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 69

and reliable inventory of marketable plant components. 

Chamberlain et al. (2013) used data from long-term 

sustainable harvest studies to develop a predictive model 

to estimate marketable rhizome biomass at the stand 

level. Slow-growing perennials that require extended 

periods to reach reproductive maturity are particularly 

vulnerable to over-harvesting. With increasing demand 

for medicinal forest plants, such as black cohosh, 

assessing harvesting practices and determining viable 

management approaches is critical to the long-term 

sustainability of natural populations of forest herbs 

(Elliot et al. 2014, Small et al. 2014, Vickers et al. 2015).

3.3.4

Echinacea

Echinacea is a native perennial to the Great Plains of 

the United States and southern Canada, and its roots 

are harvested from wild populations (typically the top 

10 to 15 cm of root) using shovels or other implements 

(Kindscher et al. 2008). Roots are used extensively as a 

medicine for treating illness, wounds, snakebite, rabies, 

and other ailments by at least 16 American Indian 

tribes (Kindscher 2016a, 2016b). It is an important 

immune stimulant and flu and cold remedy in the herbal 

products trade with significant international exports to 

Europe. Other echinacea species have been harvested 

from the wild from central and eastern United States, 

but the vast majority of roots harvested are Echinacea 

angustifolia (Riggs and Kindscher 2016). Other species, 

especially those already rare or uncommon, or in 

locations where their populations are limited, are at 

risk because they can be sold as echinacea roots.

Over-harvest of wild echinacea species’ root has been a 

significant concern to the herbal product industry and 

conservationists. However, research has shown that 

harvest can be sustainable. In one study of commercial 

harvest in Kansas and Montana, 50 percent of harvested 

root reserves had resprouted after 2 years despite 

droughty weather (Kindscher et al. 2008). The length 

Figure 3.2—More than 1⁄4 million pounds of black cohosh (Actaea racemosa) roots are harvested from natural populations each year 

to supply the herbal medicine market. Long-term collaborative research with university partners indicate that populations are not 

recuperating from the harvest. In situ inventory of the roots is one the major challenges being addressed to support management efforts. 

(Photo credit: James Chamberlain, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
70 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

of root harvested affected resprouting ability in that 

study, with those plants having less root length removed 

more likely to resprout. Because the plants can produce 

substantial amounts of seed annually, recovery from 

intensive harvest is possible if periods of nonharvest 

occur. Additional work has demonstrated that there is 

a greater than 120-year history of harvest in locations 

of mixed grass prairie in central Kansas that, based on 

research on harvest practices, ecological monitoring, and 

demographic modeling, also appears to be sustainable 

(Price 1999, Price and Kindscher 2016). Concerns about 

the persistence of echinacea populations remain, however, 

due to a variety of factors related to the conversion 

of prairie lands to croplands, herbicide application to 

control “weeds” in rangeland, extensive oil and gas 

development (including national grasslands in North 

Dakota), and other development. Wild echinacea harvest 

is sustainable but populations should be monitored due 

to persistent habitat threats and to a changing climate.

3.3.5

Goldenseal

Goldenseal is an herbaceous understory species 

native to the central Appalachian Mountains, west 

to Missouri and Arkansas, and north into southern 

Ontario, and is most abundant within the Ohio River 

watershed. While quantified accounts of historic (pre1900) abundance are not available, narrative accounts 

suggest this species has experienced marked declines 

in both number and size of populations. This decline 

is not well understood and several contributing factors 

are likely. Evidence suggests harvest pressure, which 

has increased over the past 10 to 15 years (Inoue et al. 

2013), as well as habitat loss and herbivory by increased 

populations of white-tailed deer have contributed to 

goldenseal decline (Mulligan and Gorchov 2004).

While harvest of natural populations is undoubtedly a 

contributing factor to population decline, the species’ 

abundant rhizomes promote that some vegetative 

propagules are left in the soil following harvest, and 

permit a degree of regrowth (Sanders and McGraw 

2005a). For example, after a wild-harvest in WV in which 

only four stems remained, 932 stems were present the 

following year (Van der Voort et al. 2003). Stem densities 

then declined initially, before remaining relatively stable 

2 and 4 years post-harvest. Similarly, ramet densities 

increased 210 percent from 2 to 4 years post-harvest in 

Ohio (Albrecht and McCarthy 2006). Since preharvest 

densities were unknown in both locations, it is not known 

how long it takes populations to recover from harvest.

Decline of goldenseal also may be linked to its 

conservative growth rate; it is a slow-growing species 

with little reproduction from seed. Several studies have 

documented that population growth rates are at or just 

above replacement value (Christensen and Gorchov 

2010, Sinclair and Catling 2005). Common garden 

experiments indicate that soil moisture is important for 

successful germination and growth, but deep litter layers 

may hamper growth (Albrecht and McCarthy 2009). 

Goldenseal persists for the entire first season of growth 

with only its two seed leaves (cotyledons); it does not 

produce true leaves until the second growing season. In 

this first year state, seedlings may not be able to emerge 

through thick litter or even dense herbaceous cover.

As population decline continues, gene flow between 

populations will likely decrease. More than 80 percent 

of the genetic variation is within populations (Inoue 

et al. 2013), suggesting limited gene flow between 

populations. However, plasticity within populations 

has been documented (Sanders and McGraw 2005b), 

which would allow some degree of response to varying 

site conditions. Most studies of goldenseal have been 

limited to 4 years or less. A thorough understanding of 

population recovery, microsite response, demography, 

and plasticity can only be reached from longer-term 

research. To elucidate goldenseal’s ability to respond to 

environmental fluctuations and changing environmental 

and climatic conditions, these four topics should be 

prioritized with well-designed, longer-term (at least 

10-year) studies. Population recovery approaches 

should be multi-tiered and focus on (1) limiting harvest, 

(2) maintaining genetic diversity within populations, 

and (3) promoting gene flow among populations. 

Accomplishing this first point may involve legislation 

in Canada and the United States, as well as multiple 

States. Accomplishing the second two points may require 

development of breeding and restoration programs.

3.3.6

Osha

Osha, bear root, or chuchupate is a slow-growing 

member of the parsley family (Apiaceae), found in 

the southern Rocky Mountains in the United States 

and the Sierra Madre of Mexico. Across its range it is 

primarily found from 1830 to 3570 m in moist meadows, 

parklands, riparian areas, and forests. It has a long 
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 71

history of use by American Indians and Hispanics 

(Latino/as) as its pungent and distinctively spicy roots are 

used to treat influenza, bronchitis, and sore throat, and 

a variety of other ailments, particularly those relating to 

the lungs and heart and general illness (Kindscher et al. 

2013). Today osha roots are primarily wild-harvested 

for personal use, but some are sold to herbal product 

companies, a demand that has been increasing.

Osha is a large plant (up to 6 1⁄2 feet tall) and apparently 

long-lived, with large root crowns and rhizomes, often 

weighing more than a pound per plant. Information 

available on the sustainability of osha harvest indicates 

that plants and populations can recover from some 

harvest pressure (Kindscher et al. 2017, Mooney 

et al. 2015). Population densities of geographically 

separated dense populations in the Rio Grande and 

San Juan National Forests average of 7.8 percent osha 

cover (Kindscher et al. 2013). In a manipulative field 

experiment in the Rio Grande National Forest (Colorado) 

established to analyze osha’s recovery from harvest, a 

meadow site had 15 percent more mature plants and 58 

percent more root mass than the adjacent forested site. 

This meadow population exhibited 10-percent cover 

(a dense stand) and had on average 1.8 oz dried root 

weight per 10.76 ft2 (465 pounds/acre), while a forest 

population exhibiting a 9 percent cover had on average 

0.48 oz dried root weight per 10.76 ft2 (122 pounds/

acre) (Kindscher et al. 2013, 2017). This plant is very 

productive, but long-term concerns, especially related to 

climatic variability, may have negative impacts on future 

populations, but more research is needed on this topic.

3.3.7

Pinyon Pine

Approximately 11 species of North American pinyon pine 

produce edible nuts. The most important are Colorado 

pinyon (P. edulis), dominant throughout 56 million acres 

of pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico, Arizona, 

eastern Utah, and Colorado, and singleleaf pinyon pine 

(P. monophylla), which is abundant throughout the Great 

Basin areas of Nevada and western Utah. Pine nuts were a 

staple food of native peoples in the Western United States 

for millennia (Simms 2008). Pine nuts remain culturally 

important to traditional gatherers, although they are 

harvested locally and in relatively small quantities 

(Mitchell and Roberts 1999). There is much potential for 

further development of the pine nut industry in the United 

States. The domestic market is estimated at $100 million, 

where more than 80 percent of pine nuts consumed are 

imported (Sharashkin and Gold 2004). Pine nuts are 

valued as a gourmet food item used primarily in pesto, 

salads, and various Mediterranean dishes, and can be 

pressed to make oil and ground to make meal. Pinyon 

pine nuts compare favorably with other tree nuts in 

their nutritional content of protein, carbohydrate, and 

unsaturated fats, with P. edulis the richer in oils and P.

monophylla in carbohydrates (Lanner 1981). Harvest 

of P. monophylla nuts is usually by collection of closed 

cones in early autumn, following which cones are heated 

or allowed to dry so that seeds fall out after the cone 

scales open. Harvest of the smaller-coned P. edulis is 

usually by collection of individual seeds on the ground 

(Little 1993). Good pine nut crops are produced every 

4 to 7 years (Barger and Ffolliott 1972), although the 

frequency of good mast years can be greatly reduced 

during drought periods, and during high late-summer 

temperatures, by as much as 40 percent (Redmond et 

al. 2012). Redmond et al. (2012) observed a 40-percent 

reduction in cone production from 1974 to 2008 in P. 

edulis populations of New Mexico, associated with high 

late-summer temperatures at the time of cone initiation.

Ecological sustainability issues associated with pinyon 

pine nut harvesting include competition with wildlife 

species that rely upon the nuts, including pinyon jay 

(Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), Clark’s nutcracker 

(Nucifraga columbiana), and several species of seedcaching rodents (Vander Wall 1997), as well as 

possible adverse effects of nut harvesting on long-term 

population viability of the tree species. These aspects 

have been but little studied. An ecologically based, 

silvicultural management of pinyon woodlands for 

pine nut production has been advocated over many 

decades (Lanner 1993, Little 1941) but little progress 

has been made toward this goal, which will require 

field trials, adaptive management, and an integration 

of scientific and traditional ecological knowledge. 

Pine nut silviculture would likely include uneven-age 

management of nut pines on favorable sites (Gottfried 

and Severson 1993). Judicious pruning and thinning 

could be implemented to reduce fire risk, stimulate 

perennial herbaceous understory development, and 

encourage nut production. Thinning has been observed 

to stimulate cone production in other nut pine species, 

such as stone pine (P. pinea) stands in southern 

Europe (Moreno-Fernandez et al. 2013). Fundamental 

challenges include limits in silvicultural knowledge 
72 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

(stand dynamics, tree spacing, pest control); high 

variability of good crop years; climate change effects; 

labor and transportation costs; and competing landscape 

management objectives that currently emphasize removal 

of large acreages of pinyon-juniper woodland for fire 

risk reduction and to create or maintain sagebrushdominated ecosystems (e.g., Davies et al. 2011).

Further research is needed concerning the optimal 

spacing for nut production, pinyon pine stand dynamics 

in response to uneven-aged silvicultural management 

(Gottfried 2004), and potential impacts of pine nut 

harvesting on woodland biodiversity including closely 

associated species such as pinyon jay. The pinyon 

pine nut resource faces an uncertain future due to 

current management efforts aimed at maximizing 

sagebrush habitat, which often incorporate largescale tree removals, as well as potential climate 

change effects. Increasing temperatures and altered 

precipitation regimes have already affected pinyon 

pine populations through reduced growth (Williams 

et al. 2013), increases in mortality (e.g., Clifford et 

al. 2008) composition, and ecosystem services such 

as carbon sequestration. Our analyses of longitudinal 

data from unmanaged old forests in the Western United 

States showed that background (noncatastrophic, 

altered patterns of seedling recruitment (Redmond 

and Barger 2013), and declining cone production 

(Redmond et al. 2012). More research is needed to 

determine effects of climate change on cone production 

across environmental stress gradients and for different 

species, populations, and genotypes of pinyon pine.

3.3.8

Saw Palmetto

The saw palmetto palm is considered to be the most 

common native palm in the United States, found from 

Georgia to Mississippi and throughout Florida (Bennett 

and Hicklin 1998), where it is considered most abundant 

(figure 3.3). Once thought a weed and pest by farmers 

and ranchers (Bennett and Hicklin 1998), recent research 

has focused on the plant’s range, distribution, preferred 

habitats, interactions with other plants and wildlife, 

adaptation to fire, longevity (some palms are believed 

to be over 1,000 years old) and more (cf., Abrahamson 

1995, Abrahamson and Abrahamson 2009, Carrington 

et al. 2000, Carrington and Mullahey 2006, Maehr et al. 

2001, Takahashi et al. 2011, Tanner and Mullahey 2012).

Figure 3.3—Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) berries are harvested, predominantly from pine forests of Florida. The habitat for this 

important medicinal forest product is at great risk due to potential rise in sea level. (Photo credit: Karan A. Rawlins, University of Georgia, 

Bugwood.org.)
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 73

Saw palmetto has a long history of use by American 

Indians in Florida as food, fiber, medicine, and more 

(Bennett and Hicklin 1998). The commercial harvest of 

saw palmetto drupes, or berries, for herbal remedies in 

Florida goes back at least to the early 1900s (Bennett 

and Hicklin 1998). Today demand for the berries derives 

both from the European pharmaceutical industry, which 

processes the berries into a standardized oil used to treat 

benign prostratic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms, and from 

the growing demand from the U.S. herbal supplement 

market, where in 2012 it was the third best-selling herb 

in the United States (Lindstrom et al. 2013). Berries 

are harvested primarily from Florida, where they are 

dried and processed for industry (Bennett and Hicklin 

1998, Mitchell 2014). Reported harvests between 1997 

and 2010 ranged from 763 tons to 2,893 tons of dried 

berries (AHPA 2012), reflecting both variable availability 

and demand. Berry harvesters are often seasonally 

unemployed agricultural workers who harvest informally 

for cash to bridge that employment gap. Companies 

formally lease land in order to maintain access to 

berries, but an informal market for the berries exists in 

Florida (Bennett and Hicklin 1998, Mitchell 2014).

There has been speculation that harvesting berries within 

black bear ranges has led to recent conflicts between 

humans and bears, though there is no evidence of a 

shortage of berries within their ranges, or that a lack 

of food led to human-bear conflicts. Recent research 

illustrates (1) much saw palmetto habitat exists outside of 

current black bear ranges, and (2) saw palmetto habitat 

within bear ranges should be more than adequate to meet 

bear foraging needs so bears would not have to leave 

their ranges to find this favored food (Mitchell 2014). 

Bennett and Hicklin (1998) note that harvester collection 

activities usually center on accessible public lands and 

in areas close to buyers. It is theoretically possible that 

this might result in localized scarcity during years of low 

fruit production (Bennett and Hicklin 1998). Much more 

research needs to be done to understand the relationship 

between the saw palmetto harvest and frugivores, such 

as black bears, toward improved management of both.

The act of harvesting berries should not harm the palm 

as only clusters of the berries are harvested (cf. Bennett 

and Hicklin 1998, Mitchell 2014). To determine whether 

the harvest is sustainable we would need to know more 

about the habitats where it is found and the quality of 

these. We also need to know more about where people 

harvest and national and international demand. We 

need to better understand harvest rates and patterns 

and other potential drivers on fruit production, plant 

regeneration, and long-term population growth rates and 

viability. The extent of the informal market is unknown 

as is the amount of annual production that flows into 

the herbal supplement industry. Florida’s ongoing 

population growth has made it the third most populous 

state in the Nation. This in turn drives development 

into natural areas, reducing saw palmetto populations. 

This, along with expected climate change effects, such 

as sea level rise, will result in a decrease of saw palmetto 

habitat, which could increase pressure on remaining 

populations. More research is needed in these areas.

3.4

Effects of Climate Change on 

Nontimber Forest Products

NTFPs include a diverse array of species that span 

broad taxonomic and environmental boundaries. 

This makes assessing the vulnerability of NTFPs 

to climate change a challenge. However, the life 

history traits that distinguish the majority of NTFPs 

from other well-studied species (e.g., timber species) 

can provide insight of their potential demographic, 

evolutionary, and spatial responses to climate change.

3.4.1

Potential and Observed Species Responses 

to Climate Change

Mean global temperature has increased approximately 

1.2 °F over the last century, with over half of warming 

(0.7 °F) occurring in the last 3 decades (IPCC 2013). 

To persist as climate changes, species must respond 

plastically, spatially, or evolutionarily to novel climate 

conditions (Davis et al. 2005, Jump and Penuelas 2005, 

Parmesan 2006). Long-term studies and biotic resurvey 

projects show that certain species have responded to 

contemporary climate change in a manner consistent 

with expectations (Badeck et al. 2004; Hoffmann and 

Sgrò 2011; Parmesan 2006; Parmesan et al. 2000, 

2013; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Walther 2010). 

For instance, many species have shifted distribution 

northward or upward and advanced the timing of 

critical life history events, such as spring emergence 

in plants or migration in avian species (Badeck et al. 

2004; Hoffmann and Sgrò 2011; Parmesan 2006; 

Parmesan et al. 2000, 2013; Parmesan and Yohe 

2003; Pinsky et al. 2013; Walther 2010). Despite this 
74 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

clear ecological fingerprint of climate change, there 

have been ecological surprises as well. A significant 

proportion of species, 20 percent or more depending 

on the datasets analyzed, either remain unchanged or 

respond opposite to expectations (Tingley et al. 2012, 

Wolkovich et al. 2012). In general, species at greatest risk 

of extinction are characterized by narrow distribution, 

small population size, and/or limited dispersal, or that 

occupy habitats at distributional limits, like arctic and 

alpine systems (Brook et al. 2008, Cahill et al. 2013, 

Franco et al. 2006, Lewis 2006, Sax et al. 2013, Slatyer 

et al. 2013, Thomas et al. 2004, Wilson et al. 2005).

3.4.2

Vulnerability of Nontimber Forest 

Products to Climate Change

Range breadth is frequently used as a primary indicator 

of vulnerability to climate change driven extinction, 

because a narrow distribution may indicate sensitivity 

to changing climate as well as habitat specificity, which 

could preclude successful colonization of northerly or 

upland sites (Bellard et al. 2012, Brook et al. 2008, 

Thomas et al. 2004). At first glance, NTFPs—generally 

not characterized by narrow range—may appear 

robust to changing climate. However, specialization 

to local climate conditions may narrow the thermal 

niche of a species, thus increasing vulnerability. Such 

specialization, termed local adaptation or ecotypic 

differentiation, is common among plant species (Linhart 

and Grant 1996). In essence, locally adapted species 

evolve traits that optimize performance at mean, sitespecific climatic conditions. While this specialization 

enhances local competitive success, directional change 

away from historic norms reduces fitness (Atkins and 

Travis 2010, Davis et al. 2005, Etterson and Shaw 

2001, Kawecki and Ebert 2004, Linhart and Grant 

1996). In this way, climate change may threaten 

widespread species that are seemingly robust to changing 

conditions, in an analogous way to those that are 

narrow-range endemics (Atkins and Travis 2010).

Species comprised of many, locally adapted populations 

are not only more vulnerable to climate change driven 

decline, and they also may be less likely to successfully 

track home-site conditions as climate changes (Davis et 

al. 2005). Local adaptation is promoted when gene flow 

among populations is low (Kawecki and Ebert 2004). 

Hence, species for which the formation of ecotypes is 

the norm are often characterized by restricted dispersal, 

and thus exhibit low potential for rapid distributional 

shifts in response to changing climate. Many NTFP 

species display relatively limited dispersal distances, 

which increase the likelihood of local adaptation 

(Bennington and McGraw 1995, Gregor 1946, McGraw 

1985), and hence climate change vulnerability (Davis et 

al. 2005, Etterson 2004). Climate change may interact 

synergistically with other stressors like harvest pressure 

to increase extinction risk (Brook et al. 2008, Mandle 

and Ticktin 2012, Souther and McGraw 2014).

3.4.3

Climate-change Integrated Management 

of Nontimber Forest Product Species

Climate-change integrated management of ecosystems 

encompasses a wide range of strategies. Such strategies 

include the removal or reduction of stressors (e.g., 

invasive species) to increase ecosystem resilience to 

changing climate, conservation of habitat corridors 

to allow species to track climatic niches upward 

and poleward, conservation of climate refugia, and 

human-assisted relocation of species that are unable to 

shift ranges (Hannah et al. 2002, Keppel et al. 2012, 

Richardson et al. 2009). Effective habitat management 

and conservation of habitat corridors and refugia 

seemingly have few drawbacks and are believed to benefit 

a wide range of species within ecosystems (GilbertNorton et al. 2010). However, sedentary or stationary 

species, with low migration potential (e.g., characterized 

by short dispersal distances, low rates of seed production) 

may be unable to shift distribution in response to 

changing climate even if habitat corridors are preserved. 

Such traits characterize a number of NTFP species.

When species imperiled by climate change are unable 

to track shifting climatic conditions, persistence may 

be contingent on human assistance (Etterson and 

Shaw 2001, Jump and Penuelas 2005). Due to their 

economic and cultural value, and likely vulnerability to 

climate change-driven extinction, NTFPs are potential 

candidates for ex situ conservation programs, such as 

managed relocation. Managed relocation, also known 

as assisted dispersal, migration, or colonization, 

refers to the transport of species, populations, 

or propagules to higher latitudes or elevations as 

climate changes (Richardson et al. 2009, Schwartz 

and Martin 2013). Interpreted broadly, managed 

relocation also may include the intentional introduction 

of genes preadapted to future climate conditions 
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 75

into a population’s gene pool in order to accelerate 

adaptation to changing climate. Conceptually, managed 

relocation decreases extinction risk by assisting the 

colonization of an area with a climatic regime similar 

to which the species (or population) is adapted.

Because species may be adapted to other site-specific 

variables in addition to climate, managed relocation has 

the potential to negatively impact fitness when associations 

with key environmental factors are broken. Additionally, 

the introduction of nonlocal genotypes into a locally 

adapted population may cause outbreeding depression 

or lowered fitness of subsequent generations due to 

infiltration of nonlocal, and hence maladapted, genotypes 

(Frankham 1995, Kramer and Havens 2009, Pertoldi et al. 

2007). However, gene flow from populations adapted to 

warmer climates may provide genetic variation and traits 

necessary to adapt to novel climatic conditions (Hampe 

and Petit 2005). Given the uncertain efficacy of managed 

relocation, considerable research is needed to determine 

the relative benefits and risks of this conservation 

strategy for NTFPs, as well as to develop methodological 

considerations to perform successful relocations (BenitoGarzón et al. 2013, McDonald-Madden et al. 2011). If 

managed relocation is considered a viable strategy, citizenbased managed relocation programs that enlist harvesters 

to intentionally disperse seeds to cooler habitats should 

be evaluated as a potential approach. Additional lines 

of inquiry should address the possible role of cultivation 

in NTFP conservation. Cultivation programs for many 

NTFPs exist and could serve as sources for managed 

relocation, as well as reservoirs of adaptive genetic 

variation critical for evolutionary response to changing 

climate (Kramer and Havens 2009; Vitt et al. 2009, 2010).

3.5

Key Findings

• Significant changes in a plant’s vital rates may result 

in demographic and genetic changes at the population 

level. Resiliency of NTFP populations varies according 

to life history traits, as well as the ecological, 

management, and social context of harvest.

• Long-lived perennial plants tend to be highly sensitive 

to decreases in adult survival from their harvest or the 

harvest of parts (e.g., bark, roots, rhizome, bulb), and 

may have significant negative impacts on long-term 

population persistence.

• Long-term harvest sustainability operates across 

multiple scales and levels of ecological organization, 

requiring understanding of processes that go beyond 

individual populations and species.

• Crafting plans for sustainable management requires 

understanding the effects of harvest over time and 

across landscapes, as well as the impacts of climatic 

variability and change.

• Species response to disturbance is determined by 

reproduction mechanisms and responses to changes 

in light or water availability, substrate condition (e.g., 

mineral versus organic soils), and nutrient availability, 

as well as other edaphic factors.

• Most ecological studies have focused on harvest 

sustainability at the population level and effects on 

biodiversity, community interactions, and ecosystem 

functions have received insufficient study.

• NTFPs include a diverse array of species that span 

broad taxonomic and environmental boundaries 

which makes assessing the vulnerability of them to 

climate change a challenge, especially demographic, 

evolutionary, and spatial responses to climate change.

• Climate-change integrated forest management requires 

a wide range of strategies that mitigate stressors, 

increase forest resilience, conserve habitat refugia and 

corridors to allow for responses to range shifts, and 

human-assisted relocation of species that are unable to 

shift ranges.

3.6

Key Information Needs

• A comprehensive understanding of the ecological 

impacts of harvesting and stewardship.

• Improved maps and other geospatial tools of NTFP 

species ranges.

• Accurate estimations of growth, yield, and mortality 

that allow sustainable harvest levels and practices in 

natural and forest farmed settings, including many 

types of plant organs (e.g., roots, leaves, fruit).

• Monitoring more populations over longer periods and 

testing of different management practices.
76 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

• Improve abilities to evaluate the impacts on native 

NTFP species and populations in the context of 

potential drivers of population change (e.g., habitat 

conversion, invasive species, pollinators, fire, herbivory, 

drought) relative to climate change.

• Improve modeling of projected impacts on NTFP 

species and populations from climate change and 

variability that would support risk assessments for 

NTFP species leading to mitigation and adaptation 

strategies.

• Potential impacts at all ecological levels, from species 

to landscapes, that consider ecological interactions to 

sustain populations, with clear understanding on how 

NTFP species contribute to forest health and resiliency 

to climate and other factors.

• Information from traditional, local, and sciencebased knowledge sources that are integrated fully into 

comprehensive management strategies.

3.7

Conclusions

Hundreds of NTFPs are harvested in the United States 

and its affiliated territories, but ecological studies exist 

for relatively few of these. Despite current overharvest 

of some species, reviews and meta-analyses suggest 

potential for sustainable harvest of many (Schmidt et al.

2011, Stanley et al. 2012, Ticktin 2004). The challenge 

lies in identifying and meeting the conditions necessary 

to long-term sustainability. Because data are lacking on 

a majority of NTFP species, research on basic ecologies, 

harvest dynamics, harvester stewardship practices, 

and production and market dynamics are needed.

Basic ecological information needs include reproductive 

biology, habitat requirements, and response to 

disturbances. Data on interactions between pollinators 

and seed dispersers will be needed to sustain NTFP 

populations and understand their contributions to 

the resilience of ecological communities. Improved 

mapping of NTFP species ranges, monitoring 

of populations over longer periods, and testing 

of management practices are needed to measure 

variation over time, space, and management strategies. 

Examining population recovery rates from seeds 

and resprouts in different habitats is a priority for 

species harvested for their underground organs.

Understanding harvest dynamics and harvester 

stewardship practices is critical and will require 

studies of how, why, and where harvesters gather, 

including traditional and local ecological knowledge 

(Baron et al. 2015). Analyses of the relative effects of 

harvest versus other potential drivers of population 

decline (e.g., habitat destruction, invasive species, fire, 

herbivory, drought), as well as potential synergistic 

effects, is a priority. Best practices for such research 

and its use as a basis for management plans includes 

long-term participatory collaboration with harvesters 

and managers (Cudill and Rodela 2012).

Production and market studies also are essential 

to understanding the long-term sustainability of 

commercially traded NTFPs. Research on the 

volume and timing of trade will benefit basic 

ecological and harvest dynamics research alike, as 

will production analyses examining the absolute and 

distributional costs and benefits of wild harvests 

versus cultivation. Phytochemistry research may 

support improved sustainability by identifying 

options for substitution of plant materials with 

lesser impacts on species and community viability 

and determining whether harvest practices affect 

the presence of active medicinal compounds.

The potential vulnerability or resilience of NTFP 

species can be identified based on ecological, social, and 

market characteristics of species, habitats, and harvest 

systems. For species potentially at risk, there are multiple 

approaches to assessing and identifying sustainable 

harvest, depending on the needs, time, and resources 

available (see Cunningham 2001, Schmidt et al. 2011, 

Ticktin 2015, for guidelines on what methods to use, and 

when). Demographic models provide powerful tools for 

evaluating the effects of harvest and other pressures on 

long-term population growth rates (Crone et al. 2013, 

Ellner and Rees 2006). Risk assessments for key species 

would include identification of life history traits linked 

to vulnerability; assessments of how harvest interacts 

with changing climate to affect viability of NTFP 

populations; impacts of harvest on local genotypes and 

associated implications for adapting to climate change; 

and, evaluation of methods for, and relative benefits and 

risks of, managed relocation, including cultivation.
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 77

3.8

Literature Cited

Abrahamson, W.G. 1995. Habitat distribution and competitive 

neighborhoods of two Florida palmettos. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical 

Club. 122(1): 1–14

Abrahamson, W.G.; Abrahamson C.R. 2009. Life in the slow lane: palmetto 

seedlings exhibit remarkable survival but slow growth in Florida’s 

nutrient-poor uplands. Castanea. 74: 123–132.

Aderkas, P.V.; Green, P.E.J. 1986. Leaf development of the ostrich fern 

Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro. Botanical Journal of the Linnean 

Society. 93(3): 307–321.

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2006. Comparative analysis of goldenseal 

(Hydrastis canadensis L.) population re-growth following human harvest: 

implications for conservation. American Midland Naturalist. 156: 

229–236.

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2009. Seedling establishment shapes 

the distribution of shade-adapted forest herbs across a topographical 

moisture gradient. Journal of Ecology. 97: 1037–1049.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p.

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2007. Tonnage survey of 

select North American wild-harvested plants, 2004–2005. American 

Herbal Products Association, Silver Springs, Maryland.

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2012. Tonnage surveys 

of select North American wild-harvested plants, 2006–2010. Silver 

Spring, MD: American Herbal Products Association. https://www.

unitedplantsavers.org/images/pdf/Tonnage06-10_final.pdf. [Date 

accessed: March 2018].

Anderson, K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 526 p. 

Anderson, M.K. 1996. The ethnobotany of deergrass, Muhlenbergia rigens

(Poaceae): its uses and fire management by California Indian tribes. 

Economic Botany. 50: 409–422.

Anderson, M.K.; Rowney, D.L. 1999. The edible plant Dichelostemma 

capitatum: its vegetative reproduction response to different indigenous 

harvesting regimens in California. Restoration Ecology. 7: 231–240.

Anderson, R.; Fralish, J. 1993. The ecology and biology of Panax 

quinquefolium L. (Araliaceae) in Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist. 

129(2): 357–372.

Atkins, K.E.; Travis, J.M.J. 2010. Local adaptation and the evolution of 

species’ ranges under climate change. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 

266: 449–457.

Badeck, F.W.; Bondeau, A.; Bottcher, K. [and others]. 2004. Responses of 

spring phenology to climate change. New Phytologist. 162: 295–309.

Barger, R.L.; Ffolliott, P.F. 1972. Physical characteristics and utilization 

potentials of major woodland tree species in Arizona. Res. Pap. RM-83, 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 80 p. 

Bellard, C.; Bertelsmeier, C.; Leadley, P. [and others]. 2012. Impacts of 

climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters. 15(4): 

365–377.

Benito-Garzón, M.; Ha-Duong, M.; Frascaria-Lacoste, N.; FernándezManjarrés, J. 2013. Habitat restoration and climate change: dealing with 

climate variability, incomplete data, and management decisions with tree 

translocations. Restoration Ecology. 21: 530–536.

Bennett, B.C.; Hicklin, J.R. 1998. Uses of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens, 

Arecaceae) in Florida. Economic Botany. 52(4): 381–393.

Bennington, C.; McGraw, J. 1995. Natural selection and ecotypic 

differentiation in Impatiens pallida. Ecological Monographs. 65(3): 

303–323.

Bergeron, M.E.; Lapointe, L. 2001. Impact of one year crozier removal on 

long-term frond production in Matteuccia struthiopteris. Canadian Journal 

of Plant Science. 81(1): 155–163. 

Berkes, F. 2011. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and 

resource management. New York: Routledge. 215 p.

Blatner, K.A.; Alexander, S. 1998. Recent price trends for nontimber forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 48: 28–34.

Boyd, R., ed. 1999. Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 313 p.

Brook, B.W.; Sodhi, N.S.; Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2008. Synergies among 

extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 

23: 453–60. 

Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G. 2009. Transitioning from wild collection to 

forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest plants in eastern North 

America is constrained by lack of profitability. Agroforestry Systems. 76: 

437–453.

Cahill, A.E.; Aiello-Lammens, A.E.; Fisher-Reid, M.C. [and others]. 2013. How 

does climate change cause extinction? Proceedings of the Royal Society 

B: Biological Sciences. rspb20121890.

Carrington, M.E.; Mullahey, J.J. 2006. Effects of burning season and 

frequency on saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) flowering and fruiting. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 230(1): 69–78.

Carrington, M.E.; Mullahey, J.J.; Krewer, G. [and others]. 2000. Saw 

palmetto (Serenoa repens): an emerging forest resource in the 

Southeastern United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

24(3): 129–134.

Case, M.; Flinn, K.; Jancaitis, J. [and others]. 2007. Declining abundance 

of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) documented by herbarium 

specimens. Biological Conservation. 134: 22–30.

Castle, L. 2006. The prairie turnip paradox: contributions of population 

dynamics, ethnobotany, and community ecology to understanding 

Pediomelum esculentum root harvest on the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas. Ph.D. dissertation.

Castle, L.; Leopold, S.; Craft, R.; Kindscher, K. 2014. Ranking tool created for 

medicinal plants at risk of being overharvested in the wild. Ethnobiology 

Letters. 5: 77–88.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Ness, G.; Small, C.J. [and others]. 2013. Modeling 

below-ground biomass to improve sustainable management of Actaea 

racemosa, a globally important medicinal forest product. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 293: 1–8.

Chambers, J.C.; Vander Wall, S.B.; Schupp, E.W. 1999. Seed and seedling 

ecology of piñon and juniper species in the pygmy woodlands of western 

North America. Botanical Review. 65: 1–38.

Christensen, D.L.; Gorchov, D.L. 2010. Population dynamics of goldenseal 

(Hydrastis canadensis) in the core of its historical range. Plant Ecology. 

210: 195–211.

Christensen, K.M.; Whitham, T.G. 1993. Impact of insect herbivores on 

competition between birds and mammals for pinyon pine seeds. Ecology. 

74: 2270–2278. 

Clifford, M.J.; Rocca, M.E.; Delph, R. [and others]. 2008. Drought induced 

tree mortality and ensuing bark beetle outbreaks in southwestern pinyonjuniper woodlands. In: Gottfried, G.J.; Shaw, J.D.; Ford, P.L., comps. 

Ecology, management, and restoration of piñon-juniper and ponderosa 

pine ecosystems: combined proceedings of the 2005 St. George, 

Utah, and 2006 Albuquerque, New Mexico, workshops. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-51. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 39–51.
78 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

Cote, S.D.; Rooney, T.P.; Tremblay, J.P. [and others]. 2004. Ecological 

impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and 

Systematics. 35: 113–147.

Cruse-Sanders, J. 2005. Consequences of harvesting for genetic diversity 

in American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.): a simulation study. 

Biodiversity and Conservation. 14(2): 493–504.

Cruse-Sanders, J.; Hamrick, J. 2004. Genetic diversity in harvested and 

protected populations of wild American ginseng, Panax quinquefolius L. 

(Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany. 91: 540–548.

Cunningham, A.B. 2001. Applied ethnobotany: people, wild plant use and 

conservation. London: Earthscan. 299 p.

Davies, K.W.; Boyd, C.S.; Beck, J.L. [and others]. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: an ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant 

communities. Biological Conservation. 144: 2573–2584. 

Davis, M.; Shaw, R.; Etterson J. 2005. Evolutionary responses to changing 

climate. Ecology. 86: 1704–1714.

del Castillo, R.F.; Trujillo-Argueta, S.; Rivera-Garcia, R. [and others]. 

2013. Possible combined effects of climate change, deforestation, 

and harvesting on the epiphyte Catopsis compacta: a multidisciplinary 

approach. Ecology and Evolution. 3: 3935–3946.

Duchesne, L.C.; Wetzel, S. 2004. Effect of fire intensity and depth of burn on 

lowbush blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium, and velvet leaf blueberry, 

Vaccinium myrtilloides, production in eastern Ontario. Canadian FieldNaturalist. 118: 195–200.

Emanuel, P.L.; Shackleton, C.M.; Baxter, J.S. 2005. Modelling the 

sustainable harvest of Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra fruits in the South 

African lowveld. Forest Ecology and Management. 214: 91–103.

Endress, B.A.; Gorchov, D.L.; Noble, R.B. 2004. Nontimber forest product 

extraction: effects of harvest and browsing on an understory palm. 

Ecological Applications. 14: 1139–1153.

Etterson, J. 2004. Evolutionary potential of Chamaecrista fasciculata

in relation to climate change. I. Clinal patterns of selection along an 

environmental gradient in the Great Plains. Evolution. 58(7): 1446–1456.

Etterson, J.; Shaw, R. 2001. Constraint to adaptive evolution in response to 

global warming. Science. 29 (5540): 151–154.

Farrington, S.J.; Muzika, R.M.; Drees, D.; Knight, T.M. 2009. Interactive 

effects of harvest and deer herbivory on the population dynamics of 

American ginseng. Conservation Biology. 23: 719–728.

Forget, P.M.; Jansen, P.A. 2007. Hunting increases dispersal limitation in the 

tree Carapa procera, a nontimber forest product. Conservation Biology. 

21: 106–113.

Franco, A.M.; Hill, J.K.; Kitschke, C. [and others]. 2006. Impacts of climate 

warming and habitat loss on extinctions at species’ low-latitude range 

boundaries. Global Change Biology. 12: 1545–1553.

Franco, M.; Silvertown, J. 2004. A comparative demography of plants based 

on elasticities of vital rates. Ecology. 85: 532–538

Frankham, R. 1995. Conservation genetics. Annual Review of Genetics. 

29: 305–327.

Galetti, M.; Aleixo, A. 1998. Effects of palm heart harvesting on avian 

frugivores in the Atlantic rainforest of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

35: 286–293.

Gaoue, O.G.; Horvitz, C.; Ticktin, T. 2011. Nontimber forest product harvest in 

variable environments: modeling the effect of harvesting as a stochastic 

sequence. Ecological Applications. 21: 1604–1616.

Gaoue, O.G.; Ticktin, T. 2008. Effects of bark and foliage harvest on Khaya 

senegalensis (Meliaceae) reproductive performance and morphology in 

Benin. Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: 31–40.

Ghimire, S.K.; Gimenez. O.; Pradel. R. [and others]. 2008. Demographic 

variation and population viability in a threatened Himalayan medicinal 

and aromatic herb Nardostachys grandiflora: matrix modelling of 

harvesting effects in two contrasting habitats. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 45: 41–51.

Gilbert-Norton, L.; Wilson, R.; Stevens, J.R.; Beard, K.H. 2010. A metaanalysis of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology. 24(3): 660–668.

Gottfried, G.J. 2004. Silvics and silviculture in the southwestern pinyonjuniper woodlands. In: Shepperd, W.D.; Eskew, L.G. 2004. Silviculture in 

special places: proceedings of the 2003 National Silviculture Workshop. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-34. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 64–79.

Gottfried, G.J.; Severson, K.E. 1993. Distribution and multiresource 

management of piñon-juniper woodlands in the southwestern United 

States. In: Aldon, E.F.; Shaw, D.W., tech. coords. Managing piñon-juniper 

ecosystems for sustainability and social needs: proceedings of the 

symposium; 1993 April 26–30; Santa Fe, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236. 

Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 254–259. 

Gregor, J.W. 1946. Ecotyptic differentiation. New Phytologist. 45: 254–270.

Hackney, E. 1999. The effects of small population size, breeding system, 

and gene flow on fruit and seed production in American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius L., Araliaceae). Morgantown: West Virginia University. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Hackney, E.; McGraw, J. 2001. Experimental demonstration of an allee 

effect in American ginseng. Conservation Biology. 15(1): 129–136.

Hampe, A.; Petit, R.J. 2005. Conserving biodiversity under climate change: 

the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters. 8: 461–467. 

Hannah, L.; Midgley, G.F.; Lovejoy, T. [and others]. 2002. Conservation of 

biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology. 16: 264–268.

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: nontimber forest products in 

the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 26: 67–86.

Higgins, S.; Blatner K.; Kerns, B.K.; Worthington, A. 2004. Relationship 

between Xerophyllum tenax and canopy density in the Southern 

Cascades of Washington. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

19: 82–87.

Hoffmann, A.; Sgrò, C.M. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. 

Nature. 470: 479–485.

Hruska, A.; Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Songbird dispersal of American 

ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.). Ecoscience. 21: 46–55.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural and cultural history 

of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Hummel, S.; Lake, F. 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant harvest 

by tribal weavers can inform management. Journal of Forestry. 113(1): 

30–39.

Hygnstrom, S.E.; Skelton, P.D.; Josiah, S.J. [and others]. 2009. White-tailed 

deer browsing and rubbing preferences for trees and shrubs that produce 

nontimber forest products. Horttechnology. 19: 204–211. 

Inoue, M.; Kelley, K.J.; Frary, A. 2013. A measure of genetic diversity 

of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) by RAPD analysis. Genetic 

Resources and Crop Evolution. 60: 1201–1207.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate change 

2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Jump, A.S.; Penuelas, J. 2005. Running to stand still: adaptation and the 

response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecology Letters. 8: 1010–1020.

Kauffman, G. 2009. Conservation assessment for American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius) L. Milwaukee, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Eastern Region. 11 p.
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 79

Kawecki, T.J.; Ebert, D. 2004. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecology 

Letters. 7: 1225–1241.

Keppel, G.; Van Niel, K.P.; Wardell-Johnson, G.W. [and others]. 2012. 

Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under 

climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 21: 393–404.

Kimmerer, R.W.; Lake, F.K. 2001. The role of indigenous burning in land 

management. Journal of Forestry. 99: 36–41.

Kindscher, K. 2006. The conservation status of Echinacea species. Report 

to the U.S. Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

DOCUMENTS/fsm91_054353.pdf. 247 p. [Date accessed: March 2018].

Kindscher, K. 2016a. Threats to wild Echinacea populations. In: Echinacea: 

herbal medicine with a wild history. Basel, Switzerland: Springer 

International: 109–123. 

Kindscher, K. 2016b. The uses of Echinacea angustifolia and other Echinacea

Species by Native Americans. In: Echinacea: herbal medicine with a wild 

history: 9–20. 

Kindscher, K.; Martin, L.M.; Long, Q. [and others]. 2017. Wild populations 

and recolonization of Osha (Ligusticum porteri) in southern Colorado. 

Natural Areas Journal. 37(2): 178–187.

Kindscher, K.; Price, D.M.; Castle, L. 2008. Re-sprouting of Echinacea 

angustifolia augments sustainability of wild medicinal plant populations. 

Economic Botany. 62(2): 139–147.

Kindscher, K.; Yang, J.; Long, Q. [and others]. 2013. Harvest sustainability 

study of wild populations of Osha, (Ligusticum porter). Open-file report 

No. 173. Lawrence, KS: Kansas Biological Survey. 20 p.

Kramer, A.T.; Havens, K. 2009. Plant conservation genetics in a changing 

world. Trends in Plant Science. 14(11): 599–607.

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview of the use of 

natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological 

Applications. 9: 1179–1188. 

Lanner, R.M. 1981. The piñon pine: a natural and cultural history. Reno: 

University of Nevada Press. 208 p.

Lanner, R.M. 1993. What kind of woodland does the future hold? In: Aldon, 

E.F.; Shaw, D.W., tech. coords. Managing piñon-juniper ecosystems for 

sustainability and social needs: proceedings of the symposium; 1993 

April 26–30; Santa Fe, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: 14–18.

Law, L.; Salick, J. 2005. Human-induced dwarfing of Himalayan snow lotus 

Saussuria laniceps (Asteraceae). Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, USA. 102: 10218–10220.

Lewis, O.T. 2006. Climate change, species-area curves and the extinction 

crisis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series 

B, Biological Sciences. 361: 163–171.

Lindstrom, A.; Ooyen, C.; Lynch, M.E.; Blumenthal, M. 2013. Herb 

supplement sales increase 5.5% in 2012: Herbal supplement sales rise 

for 9th consecutive year; turmeric sales jump 40% in natural channel [see 

table 3]. HerbalGram: The Journal of the American Botanical Council. 99: 

60–65.

Linhart, Y.; Grant, M. 1996. Evolutionary significance of local genetic 

differentiation in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolution. 

27: 237–277.

Little E.L., Jr. 1941. Managing woodlands for piñon nuts. Chronica Botanica. 

6: 348–349. 

Little E.L., Jr. 1993. Managing southwestern piñon-juniper woodlands: The 

past half century and the future. In: Aldon E.F.; Shaw D.W., tech. coords. 

Managing piñon-juniper ecosystems for sustainability and social needs: 

proceedings of the symposium; April 26–30, 1999; Santa Fe, NM. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-236. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 105–107.

Maehr, D.S.; Hoctor, T.S.; Quinn, L.J.; Smith, J.S. 2001. Black bear habitat 

management guidelines for Florida. Tech. Rep. No. 17. Tallahassee, FL: 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Mandle, L.; Ticktin, T. 2012. Interactions among fire, grazing, harvest and 

abiotic conditions shape palm demographic responses to disturbance. 

Journal of Ecology. 100: 997–1008.

Mattson, D.J.; Blanchard, B.M.; Knight, R.R. 1991. Food-habits of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977–1987. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

69: 1619–1629.

Maule, S.M. 1959. Xerophyllum tenax, squawgrass, its geographic 

distribution and its behavior on Mt. Rainer, Washington. Madroño. 

15: 39–48.

McDonald-Madden, E.; Runge, M.C.; Possingham, H.P. 2011. Optimal timing 

for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nature 

Climate Change. 1: 261–265.

McGraw, J. 1985. Experimental ecology of Dryas octopetala ecotypes. III. 

Environmental factors and plant growth. Arctic and Alpine Research. 

17: 229–239.

McGraw, J.; Sanders, S.; Van Der Voort, M. 2003. Distribution and 

abundance of Hydrastis canadensis L. (Ranunculaceae) and Panax 

quinquefolius L. (Araliaceae) in the central Appalachian region. Journal of 

the Torrey Botanical Society. 130(2): 62–69.

McGraw, J.B. 2001. Evidence for decline in stature of American ginseng 

plants from herbarium specimens. Biological Conservation. 98: 25–32.

McGraw, J.B.; Furedi, M.A. 2005. Deer browsing and population viability of 

a forest understory plant. Science. 307: 920–922.

McGraw, J.B.; Lubbers, A.E.; Van der Voort, M. [and others]. 2013. Ecology 

and conservation of ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) in a changing world. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1286: 62–91.

McGraw, J.B.; Souther, S.; Lubbers, A.E. 2010. Rates of harvest and 

compliance with regulations in natural populations of American ginseng 

(Panax quinquefolius L.). Natural Areas Journal. 30: 202–210.

Mitchell, C.M. 2014. Contested spaces: NTFPs, livelihoods, and 

conservation planning. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Mitchell, J.E.; Roberts, T.C., Jr. 1999. Distribution of pinyon-juniper in 

the western United States. In: Monsen, S.B.; Stevens, R., comps. 

Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities 

within the Interior West; September 15-18, 1997; Provo, UT. Proc. 

RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 146–154.

Moegenburg, S.M.; Levey, D.J. 2002. Prospects for conserving biodiversity 

in Amazonian extractive reserves. Ecology Letters. 5: 320–324.

Mooney, E.; McGraw, J.B. 2007. Effects of self-pollination and outcrossing 

with cultivated plants in small natural populations of American ginseng, 

Panax quinquefolius (Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany. 94: 

1677–1687. 

Mooney, E.H.; Martin, A.A.; Blessin, R.P. 2015. Effects of light environment 

on recovery from harvest and antibacterial properties of Osha, Ligusticum 

porteri (Apiaceae). Economic Botany. 69: 72–82.

Moreno-Fernandez, D.; Canellas, I.; Calama, R. [and others]. 2013. Thinning 

increases cone production of stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) stands in the 

Northern Plateau (Spain). Annals of Forest Science. 70: 761–768.

Mouillot, D.; Graham, N.A.J.; Villéger, S. [and others]. 2013. A functional 

approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution. 28: 167–177.

Mulligan, M.R.; Gorchov, D.L. 2004. Population loss of goldenseal, Hydrastis 

canadensis L. (Ranunculaceae), in Ohio. Journal of the Torrey Botanical 

Society. 131: 305–310.
80 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 3

Nantel, P.; Gagnon. D.; Nault, A. 1996. Population viability analysis of 

American ginseng and wild leek harvested in stochastic environments. 

Conservation Biology. 10: 608–621.

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate 

change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 

37: 637–669.

Parmesan, C.; Burrows, M.T.; Duarte, C.M. [and others]. 2013. Beyond 

climate change attribution in conservation and ecological research. 

Ecology Letters. 16(1): 58–71.

Parmesan, C.; Root, T.; Willig, M. 2000. Impacts of extreme weather and 

climate on terrestrial biota. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society. 81(3): 443–450.

Parmesan, C.; Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate 

change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 421: 37–42.

Peck, J.E.; Frelich, L.E. 2008. Moss harvest truncates the successional 

development of epiphytic bryophytes in the Pacific Northwest. Ecological 

Applications. 18: 146–158.

Pertoldi, C.; Bijlsma, R.; Loeschcke, V. 2007. Conservation genetics in a 

globally changing environment: present problems, paradoxes and future 

challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation. 16: 4147–4163.

Peter, D.; Shebitz, D. 2006. Historic anthropogenically maintained bear grass 

savannas of the southeastern Olympic Peninsula. Restoration Ecology. 

14: 605–615.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R.; Mayo, J. 2006. Effects of thinning young forests on 

chanterelle mushroom production. Journal of Forestry. 104: 9–14.

Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S.; Carter, M.C. [and others]. 2004. Productivity and 

diversity of morel mushrooms in healthy, burned, and insect-damaged 

forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 198: 

367–386.

Pinsky, M.L.; Worm, N.; Fogarty, J.M. [and others]. 2013. Marine taxa track 

local climate velocities. Science. 341: 1239–1242.

Price, D. 1999. Population ecology and economic botany of Echinacea 

angustifolia, a native prairie medicinal plant. Lawerence, KS: University 

of Kansas. Ph.D. dissertation.

Price, D.M.; Kindscher, K. 2007. One hundred years of Echinacea angustifolia

harvest in the Smoky Hills of Kansas, USA. Economic Botany. 61: 86–95.

Price, D.M.; Kindscher, K. 2016. One hundred twenty years of Echinacea 

angustifolia market harvest in the Smoky Hills of Kansas. In: Kindscher, 

K., ed. Echinacea: herbal medicine with a wild history: 83–107. 

Redmond, M.D.; Barger, N.N. 2013. Tree regeneration following droughtand insect-induced mortality in piñon-juniper woodlands. New 

Phytologist. 200: 402–412. 

Redmond, M.D.; Forcella, F.; Barger, N.N. 2012. Declines in pinyon pine cone 

production associated with regional warming. Ecosphere. 3(12): 120. 

Richardson, D.M.; Hellmann, J.J.; McLachlan, J.S. [and others]. 2009. 

Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 106(24): 9721–9724.

Riggs M.; Kindscher K. 2016. The Echinacea market. In: Kindscher K., ed. 

Echinacea. Springer, Cham: 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

18156-1_11. 

Robbins, C. 2000. Comparative analysis of management regimes and 

medicinal plant trade monitoring mechanisms for American ginseng and 

goldenseal. Conservation Biology. 14(5): 1422–1434.

Rock, J.H.; Beckage, B.; Gross, L.J. 2004. Population recovery following 

differential harvesting of Allium tricoccum Ait. in the southern 

Appalachians. Biological Conservation. 116: 227–234.

Ruelle, M.L.; Kassam, K.A.S. 2013. Foodways transmission in the Standing 

Rock Nation. Food and Foodways. 21: 315–339.

Sampaio, M.B.; Maës dos Santos, F.A. 2015. The ecological sustainability 

of harvesting nontimber forest products: principles and methods. In: 

Shackleton, C.; Pandey, A.; Ticktin, T., eds. Ecological sustainability of 

nontimber forest product harvesting: case studies and dynamics. London: 

Earthscan: 31–52.

Sanders, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2005a. Harvest recovery of goldenseal, Hydrastis 

canadensis L. American Midland Naturalist. 153: 87–94.

Sanders, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2005b. Population differentiation of a threatened 

plant: Variation in response to a local environment and implications for 

restoration. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 132: 561–572.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J.E. [and others]. 2014. The North American 

breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966–2012. Version 02.19.2014. 

Laurel, MD: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center. 

Sax, D.F.; Early, R.; Bellemare, J. 2013. Niche syndromes, species extinction 

risks, and management under climate change. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution. 28: 517–523.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest products: an eastside perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 35 p.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Zamora, B. 1992. Pacific Northwest forest 

lands potential for floral greenery production. Northwest Science. 

66: 44–55.

Schmidt, I.; Mandle, L.; Ticktin, T.; Gaoue, O. 2011. What do matrix 

population models reveal about sustainability of harvesting nontimber 

forest products (NTFP)? Journal of Applied Ecology. 48(4): 815–826. 

Schmidt, I.; Ticktin, T. 2012. When lessons from matrix population models 

and local ecological knowledge coincide—effects of flower stalk harvest 

in the Brazilian savanna. Biological Conservation. 152: 187–195.

Schwartz, M.W.; Martin, T.G. 2013. Translocation of imperiled species under 

changing climates. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 

1286: 15–28.

Shanley, P.; Luz, L.; Swingland, I.R. 2002. The faint promise of a distant 

market: A survey of Belem’s trade in nontimber forest products. 

Biodiveristy and Conservation. 11: 615–636.

Sharashkin, L.; Gold, M. 2004. Pine nuts: species, products, markets, and 

potential for U.S. production. In: Northern Nut Growers Association 95th 

annual report. Proceedings for the 95th annual meeting; 2004 August 16-

19; Columbia, MO. http://pinenut.com/how-we-grow-pine-nuts/goodsfrom-the-woods.shtml. [Date accessed: June 27, 2017].

Shaw, R.G.; Etterson, J.R. 2012. Rapid climate change and the rate of 

adaptation: insight from experimental quantitative genetics. New 

Phytologist. 195: 752–765.

Simms, S.R. 2008. Ancient peoples of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. 

Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. 383 p.

Sinclair, A.; Nantel, P.; Catling, P. 2005. Dynamics of threatened goldenseal 

populations and implications for recovery. Biological Conservation. 

123: 355–360.

Sinha, A.; Brault, S. 2005. Assessing sustainability of nontimber forest 

product extractions: how fire affects sustainability. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 14: 3537–3563. 

Slatyer, R.; Hirst, M.; Sexton, J.P. 2013. Niche breadth predicts geographical 

range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecology Letters. 16: 1104–1114.

Small, C.J.; Chamberlain, J.L.; Mathews, D.S. 2011. Recovery of black 

cohosh (Actaea racemosa) following experimental harvests. American 

Midland Naturalist. 166(2): 339–348.

Small, C.J.; Chamberlain, J.L.; Nuckols, C.M. 2014. Failure of black cohosh 

(Actaea racemosa L.) rhizome transplants: potential causes and forest 

farming implications. Agroforestry Systems. 88(5): 815–822.
CHAPTER 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 81

Smith, C.G., III; Hamel, B.P.; Devall, M.S.; Schiff, N.M. 2004. Hermit thrush 

is the first observed dispersal agent for pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). 

Castanea. 69: 1–8. 

Souther, S.; Lechowicz, M.J.; McGraw, J.B. 2012. Experimental test for 

adaptive differentiation of ginseng populations reveals complex response 

to temperature. Annals of Botany. 110: 829–837.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2010. Vulnerability of wild American ginseng to 

an extreme early spring temperature fluctuation. Population Ecology. 53: 

119–129.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2011. Evidence of local adaptation in the 

demographic response of American ginseng to interannual temperature 

variation. Conservation Biology. 25: 922–931.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Studlar, S.M.; Peck, J.E. 2007. Commercial moss harvest in the Appalachian 

Mountains of West Virginia: targeted species and incidental take. The 

Bryologist. 110: 752–765.

Takahashi, M.K.; Horner, L.M.; Kubota, T. [and others]. 2011. Extensive 

clonal spread and extreme longevity in saw palmetto, a foundation clonal 

plant. Molecular Ecology. 20(18): 3730–3742.

Tanner, G.W.; Mullahey, J.J. 2012. Saw-palmetto: an ecologically and 

economically important native palm. http://www.plantapalm.com/vpe/

misc/saw-palmetto.pdf. [Date accessed: August 2, 2013].

Thomas, C.; Cameron, A.; Green, R. 2004. Extinction risk from climate 

change. Nature. 427(6970): 145–148.

Ticktin, T. 2004. The ecological consequences of harvesting nontimber 

forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology. 41: 11–21.

Ticktin, T. 2015. The ecological sustainability of harvesting nontimber forest 

products: principles and methods. In: Shackleton, C.; Pandey, A.; Ticktin, 

T., eds. Ecological sustainability of nontimber forest product harvesting: 

case studies and dynamics. London: Earthscan: 31–52.

Tingley, M.W.; Koo, M.S.; Moritz, C. [and others]. 2012. The push and pull of 

climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges. 

Global Change Biology. 18: 3279–3290.

Ticktin, T.; Ganesan, R.; Paramesh, M.; Setty, S. 2012. Disentangling the 

effects of multiple anthropogenic drivers on the decline of two tropical 

dry forest trees. Journal of Applied Ecology. 49(4): 774–784.

Ticktin, T.; Johns, T. 2002. Chinanteco management of Aechmea 

magdalenae (Bromeliaceae): implications for the use of TEK and TRM in 

management plans. Economic Botany. 56(2): 43–57.

Ticktin, T.; Nantel, P. 2004. Dynamics of harvested populations of the 

tropical understory herb Aechmea magdalenae in old-growth versus 

secondary forests. Biological Conservation. 120: 461–470.

Ticktin, T.; Nantel, P.; Ramírez, F.; Johns, T. 2002. Effects of variation on 

harvest limits for nontimber forest species in Mexico. Conservation 

Biology. 16: 691–705.

Ticktin, T.; Shackleton, C. 2011. Harvesting nontimber forest products 

sustainably: Opportunities and challenges. In: Shackleton, S.; Shackleton, 

C.; Shanley, P., eds. Nontimber forest products in the global context. 

Heidelberg, Germany: Springer: 254–259.

Ticktin, T.; Whitehead, A.N.; Fraiola, H. 2006. Traditional gathering of 

native hula plants in alien-invaded Hawaiian forests: adaptive practices, 

impacts on alien invasive species, and conservation implications. 

Environmental Conservation. 33: 185–194.

Trauernicht, C.; Ticktin, T. 2005. The effects of nontimber forest product 

cultivation on the plant community structure and composition of humid 

tropical rainforest in Southern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management. 

219: 269–278.

Turner, N.M.; Ignace, B.; Ignace, R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge 

and wisdom of aboriginal people in British Columbia. Ecological 

Applications. 10: 1275–1287.

Van der Voort, M.E.; Bailey, B.; Samuel, D.E.; McGraw, J.B. 2003 Recovery 

of populations of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) and American 

ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) following harvest. American Midland 

Naturalist. 149: 282–292.

Van der Voort, M.E.; McGraw, J.B. 2006. Effects of harvester behavior on 

population growth rate affects sustainability of ginseng trade. Biological 

Conservation. 130: 505–516

Vance, N.C.; Bernhardt, P.; Edens, R.M. 2004. Pollination and seed 

production in Xerophyllum tenax (Melanthiaceae) in the Cascade Range 

of central Oregon. American Journal of Botany. 91: 2060–2068.

Vander Wall, S.B. 1997. Dispersal of singleleaf piñon pine (Pinus monophylla) 

by seed-caching rodents. Journal of Mammalogy. 78: 181–191.

Vickers, A.; Brosi, S.L.; Howle, J. [and others]. 2015. Ecological and 

chemotypic analysis for improved growth and management of naturally 

occurring black cohosh (Actaea racemosa L.) populations in Western 

Maryland. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 6(19): 3272–3281.

Vitt, P.; Havens, K.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O. 2009. Assisted migration: part of 

an integrated conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 

24: 473–474.

Vitt, P.; Havens, K.; Kramer, A.T. [and others]. 2010. Assisted migration 

of plants: changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biological 

Conservation. 143: 18–27.

Walther, G.R. 2010. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate 

change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series 

B, Biological Sciences. 365: 2019–2024.

Williams, A.P.; Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K. [and others]. 2013. Temperature 

as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. 

Nature Climate Change. 3: 292–297.

Wilson, R.J.; Gutiérrez, D.; Gutiérrez, J. [and others]. 2005. Changes to the 

elevational limits and extent of species ranges associated with climate 

change. Ecology Letters. 8: 1138–1146.

Wixted, K.L.; McGraw, J.B. 2009. Competitive and allelopathic effects 

of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) on American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius). Plant Ecology. 208: 347–357.

Wolkovich, E.M.; Cook, B.I.; Allen, J.M. [and others]. 2012. Warming 

experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate 

change. Nature. 485(7399): 494–497.

Wong, T.; Ticktin, T. 2014. Using population modeling to assess potential 

restoration success: the case of a culturally iconic native Hawaiian plant. 

Environmental Conservation. 42(1): 20–30.

Wray, J.; Anderson, M.K. 2003. Restoring Indian-set fires to prairie 

ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Restoration. 21: 

296–301.
CHAPTER 4

Cultural Dimensions 

of Nontimber Forest 

Products

Frank K. Lake

Marla R. Emery

Michelle J. Baumflek

Kathleen S. Friday

Katie Kamelamela

Linda Kruger

Nicole Grewe

Jonathan Gilbert

Nicholas J. Reo
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 85

4.1

Nontimber Forest Products 

and Culture

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) provide 

cultural ecosystem services for peoples 

throughout the United States and its affiliated 

territories. Cultural ecosystem services of 

NTFPs are those tangible and intangible functions 

that contribute to the traditions, livelihoods, and wellbeing of social groups including, but not limited to, 

indigenous and minority communities (Daniel et al. 

2012, Hernadez-Morcillo et al. 2013). The Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment (2005) recognized six services 

of ecosystems necessary to support cultural landscapes 

and traditions: heritage values, cultural identity, 

spiritual functions, inspiration, aesthetic appreciation, 

and recreational tourism (Tengberg et al. 2012). Some 

NTFP species are so fundamental to the cultural 

identity of a people because of their diverse roles in 

diet, materials, medicine, and spiritual practices that 

they may be thought of as cultural keystone species, 

with loss of access presenting a risk to cultural survival 

(Emery et al. 2014, Garibaldi and Turner 2004).

For purposes of this chapter, we define culture as 

learned customs and traditions of thought and behavior 

expressed as everyday life practices, especially as these 

maintain social cohesion and help groups live in their 

biophysical environment (American Anthropological 

Association 2014, Barnard and Spencer 2002). Culture 

includes ways of thinking and acting, as well as material 

objects that shape and reinforce a people’s shared way 

of life and identity. Preservation of culture and cultural 

identity is positively associated with human well-being 

(Dockery 2010) and may be particularly important in 

times of change and insecurity (Kassam et al. 2010, 

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 

2015) such as rapidly changing climatic conditions.

Cultural ecosystem services of NTFPs derive from 

landscapes, plant materials and mushrooms, and

the social and economic practices that surround 

their use (Burger et al. 2008, de Groot et al. 

2002, Fisher et al. 2008). Contributions of NTFPs 

and associated practices to culture and human 

well-being include, but are not limited to:

• Support for food, health and economic security.

• Inputs for culturally appropriate livelihood strategies.

• Materials for spiritual and ceremonial observances.

• Occasions for sharing cultural stories and teachings.

• Conservation of traditional ecological knowledge and 

connections to nature.

• Distribution traditions that create social cohesion and 

provide security for vulnerable community members.

Like all aspects of culture, NTFP practices and habitats 

are dynamic even as they maintain aspects of cultural 

continuity. Cultures may adopt the use of new species 

as humans and plant materials move (Emery 2002a). 

The technologies used in the harvest and processing 

of NTFPs also may change over time. For example, 

equipment used historically for collecting maple sap 

has evolved from folded and sewn birch bark vessels, 

to wooden and then metal buckets, to vacuum tubing. 

However, such developments are not unidirectional 

or universal, such that multiple technologies may be 

in use simultaneously without fundamentally altering 

the cultural functions of a NTFP. The choice to adapt 

or modify traditional methods or adopt new practices 

and methods to contemporary circumstances and 

conditions can empower NTFP harvesters (Turner 2001). 

Nevertheless, while the adaptive capacity of cultures are 

considerable, it is not limitless. The speed and intensity 

with which changes occur, their cumulative effects, and 

the resources available to communities will affect the 

resilience of cultural ecosystem services from NTFPs 

and the cultures that rely on them (Bennett et al. 2014, 

Berkes et al. 2000, Daniel 2012, Tengberg et al. 2012).

This chapter uses a cultural ecosystem services framework 

(Daniel et al. 2012, Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013) to 

synthesize the literature on cultural uses of NTFPs by 

diverse United States communities, with reference to the 

implications of a changing climate. Section 4.2 provides 

a brief introduction to the cultural values and functions 

of NTFPs. Section 4.3 examines how biophysical and 

social factors that affect the condition and availability 

of NTFPs and their physical properties combine with 

NTFP-based practices to support cultural ecosystem 

services. Section 4.4 discusses potential impacts of 

increasing climatic variability on cultural ecosystem 

services provided by NTFPs. Finally, sections 4.5 and 4.6 

identify gaps in knowledge about the cultural ecosystem 

services provided by NTFPs and potential strategies 

to fill these gaps. The chapter draws primarily upon 

research conducted in the United States and its territories, 
86 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

but incorporates international literature where this 

provides insights relevant to the United States context.

4.2

Cultural Values and Functions 

of Nontimber Forest Products

Cultures that rely on NTFPs for ecosystem services 

make use of dozens to hundreds of species of plants and 

mushrooms from diverse habitats, across landscapes of 

many ecosystems (see appendix 1—Regional Summaries 

for more detailed descriptions of NTFP species, their 

uses, and cultural values). The material (i.e., tangible) 

functions of these plants and mushrooms include food, 

medicine, ceremonial, and utilitarian purposes. There 

are countless nonmaterial (i.e. intangible) services or 

functions NTFPs provides as well (Satterfield et al. 

2013, Tengberg et al. 2012). Their cultural values are 

derived from social practices that surround the harvest 

and use of plant materials and mushrooms, including 

traditional teachings, ceremony, preparation, and 

distribution, as well as harvest. Further, their values 

extend beyond harvesters, as family and community 

members generally take part in and benefit from 

NTFP management and harvesting practices. NTFPs 

have particular salience and legal standing for many 

indigenous cultures. However, settler and immigrant 

cultures also make use of plant materials and mushrooms 

that grow wild, are semicultivated, or are developed 

and produced in agroforestry systems (e.g., cultural 

landscapes) of varying degrees of management intensity 

(Satterfield et al. 2013, Tengberg et al. 2012).

4.2.1

Indigenous Cultures and 

Nontimber Forest Products

There are hundreds of indigenous cultures in the United 

States and its affiliated islands. As of publication date 

there are over 560 federally recognized American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes. There are many staterecognized and federally unacknowledged tribes and 

indigenous communities with the United States and 

its affiliated territories. Outside the continental United 

States, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 

codified the fact that “Native Hawaiians comprise a 

distinct and unique indigenous people...determined 

to preserve...their cultural identity in accordance with 

their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, 

practices, languages, and social institutions.” In addition 

to federally recognized tribes, more than 300 groups 

have sought or are seeking Federal recognition as a 

tribe of the United States and affiliated territories.

The centrality of access to NTFPs for the cultural 

survival of indigenous peoples is illustrated by a decision 

of the U.S. Supreme Court, which described access 

to such resources as “not much less necessary to the 

existence of the Indians as the air they breathe” (U.S. v. 

Winans 1905). Access to land and the plant materials 

and mushrooms on them plays a central role in the 

capacity of any people to maintain their NTFP-based 

cultural practices and identity. Tribally controlled land 

bases, such as Alaskan Native Corporation managed 

land, reservations, rancherias, and allotments, range in 

size from several million acres to scarcely more than 1 

acre. In some cases, indigenous peoples in the United 

States have legally retained rights to hunt, fish, and 

gather in their ancestral territory, although these rights 

may not always be fully realized. However, not all 

indigenous communities have land or legally specified 

retained rights. Further, in the 2000 Census, 64 percent 

of people identifying as American Indian and Alaska 

Native lived off Indian lands and 45 percent were urban 

residents (National Urban Indian Family Coalition 

2008). Harvesting and using NTFPs provide powerful 

ways for these individuals to reconnect with or maintain 

their indigenous heritage, lands, and resources (Turner 

2001). Despite these reserved tribal rights another barrier 

for tribal access to and the utilization of NTFPs can 

occur from competition with nontribal communities, 

commercial interests, and other nontraditional uses.

4.2.2

Settler and Immigrant Cultural Uses 

of Nontimber Forest Products

NTFPs also play cultural roles in some communities 

of long-settled (referred to here as settlers) and recent 

immigrants to the United States and territories, including 

those who arrived voluntarily and those who were 

forcibly relocated (figure 4.1). Their NTFP uses include 

practices adapted from their ancestral place of origin 

(e.g., Voeks and Rashford 2013), as well as those learned 

from indigenous peoples (Still 1998, Turner and von 

Aderkas 2012). In either case, harvesting and use of 

NTFPs may sustain cultural identity and capacity to 

live in place for nonindigenous communities throughout 

the Nation, whether they have been settled inside 

the current boundaries of the United States for many 
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 87

generations or a few years. Some examples of cultural 

uses of NTFPs by nonindigenous peoples include 

Gullah/Geechee basketmaking traditions (Hurley et al. 

2008), lupines (Lupinus spp.) and other plant materials 

harvested by the Swedish colony of northern Maine 

for its annual Midsommar Fest (Baumflek et al. 2010), 

the iconic status of ramps (Allium tricoccum Aiton) 

as a regional food in the Appalachian Mountains 

(Hufford 2000, Shortridge 2005), and the values 

of harvesting and eating brackenfern fiddleheads 

(Pteridium spp.) for Japanese and Korean immigrants 

to southern California (Anderson et al. 2000).

4.3

Nontimber Forest Product 

Social-Ecological Systems 

and Ecosystem Services

The cultural ecosystem services that flow from NTFPs 

are produced through social-ecological systems 

with spatial, temporal, and social dimensions that 

operate at scales from the individual plant or person 

to entire landscapes and cultural groups (de Groot et 

al. 2002, Fisher et al. 2008, Satterfield et al. 2013, 

Tengberg et al. 2012). Biophysical availability of plant 

materials and mushrooms is essential. However,

Figure 4.1—Harvest and use of nontimber forest products sustain cultural identities for diverse peoples. For example, making baskets 

from bulrush needles (Juncus roemerianus Scheele), strips of palmetto leaves (Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd.), longleaf pine needles (Pinus 

palustris Mill.), and blades of sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia filipes M.A. Curtis) is important to the culture and economy of contemporary 

Gullah/Geechee artisans in South Carolina (top and bottom left). Lupines (Lupinus spp.) and other plant material harvested by the Swedish 

colony of northern Maine are used in its Midsommar Fest (top and bottom right). (Photo credits: Brian Grabbatin (left), Michelle J. 

Baumflek (right), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
88 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

cultural potency arises from their use by human beings 

and the social structures and processes in which 

these are embedded (Cocks and Wiersum 2014).

Figure 4.2 offers a visualization of NTFP socialecological systems and cultural ecosystem services. As a 

necessarily simplified representation of rich processes and 

meanings, figure 4.2 and the ensuing discussion inevitably 

omit much important detail. In particular, five aspects 

of NTFP cultural ecosystem services, as cultural values, 

are discussed (Burger et al. 2008). However, in actual 

cultural life these are often interdependent and mutually 

reinforcing; the distinctions between them presented 

here may be regarded as largely artificial and assumed 

for explanatory purposes only. The authors mean no 

disrespect in taking this approach, which is necessary 

to accurately assess cultural implications of NTFP use 

from a systems perspective that is national in scope.

4.3.1

Management and Nontimber 

Forest Product Availability

Land management has direct bearing on the presence 

and density of NTFPs in a location and also may affect 

their material properties (Hummel and Lake 2015). 

Ethnobotanical research in diverse ecosystems documents 

how local and indigenous management historically and 

presently works at scales from the landscape to individual 

plants to enrich populations of desired species (Cocks and 

Wiersum 2014, Peacock and Turner 2000) and reduce 

populations of competing species such as invasives (Pfeiffer 

and Voeks 2008, Ticktin et al. 2006). Some of this 

work also has recorded traditional ecological knowledge 

(TEK) regarding changes in NTFP populations in 

response to settlement, other land management priorities 

(e.g., timber and fire suppression), and prohibition of 

traditional practices (Voggesser et al. 2013). In urban 

to ex-urban environments, development and land use 

conversion can eliminate or severely reduce populations 

of NTFP species (Hurley et al. 2008). However, NTFPs 

also may be present in residential and novel landscapes 

and habitats, such as greenways or parking lots (Head 

and Muir 2006, Hurley et al. 2008, Rocheleau et al. 

1996), although their material properties may be altered 

and harvesters may be required to negotiate equally 

novel terms for access or consider health and safety for 

consumption or medicinal uses from contaminants.

The response of NTFP species to land management 

practices remains an area for research on cultural 

ecosystem services in temperate and boreal regions 

(Anderson 2005, Daniel et al. 2012). Noteworthy 

examples of research to date include work conducted in 

Finland on the response of production levels of berries 

to differing silviculture practices (Miina et al. 2010) 

and the United States Pacific Northwest on the response 

of mushrooms (Pilz et al. 1999, 2004; Wurtz et al. 

2005) and huckleberries (Kerns et al. 2004, Minore 

et al. 1979) to fire and silvicultural techniques.

Figure 4.2—Nontimber forest product social-ecological systems and cultural ecosystem services. (Source: M.R. Emery, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 89

4.3.2

Governance and Access to 

Nontimber Forest Products

While land management practices can affect the presence 

of NTFPs in a landscape, governance and legal standing 

influence whether people make use of them without fear 

of sanctions (Laird et al. 2010). In addition to formal 

legal governance (see chapter 7 for detailed discussion 

of the laws and regulations that apply to NTFPs), access 

to NTFPs also is governed by informal governance 

structures, including traditional community-based 

norms. Examples include customs regarding the timing 

and allocation of berry harvests in the Pacific Northwest 

(Peacock and Turner 2000) and the traditional Hawaiian 

system, which designates to a community or kinship 

group responsibility for management and right of access 

to resources throughout a watershed (ahupua’a), from the 

mountains (mauka) to the ocean (makai; Minerbi 1999).

Effects of governance on indigenous peoples have 

particular importance in a discussion of NTFP cultural 

ecosystem services (de Groot et al. 2002, Fisher et al. 

2008, Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013, Satterfield et 

al. 2013). Here, again, formal and informal structures 

condition access to NTFPs for cultural uses. Informal 

structures can be both enduring and particularly 

vulnerable to disruption. For example, in northern 

Maine, changes in agricultural technology and land 

ownership severed relationships between Maliseet and 

Mi’kmaq basketmakers and farmers, which had been 

the basis for ready access to black ash (Fraxinus nigra 

Marshall) on the latters’ land (Ginger et al. 2012). In 

contrast, indigenous peoples are still the majority or 

plurality of the population on most U.S.-affiliated Pacific 

islands and retain largely indigenous patterns of land 

tenure and rights to resource management and use.

Formal governance structures must navigate complex 

land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. In the 

Upper Midwest, harvest of NTFPs by American Indians 

takes place in a mix of legal and political jurisdictions. 

On reservations, harvests are under the control of the 

tribal governments. Few, if any, tribes in the region 

use harvest regulations such as seasonal restrictions or 

harvest limits in the management of NTFPs. Harvesting 

off reservation by tribal members presents a more 

complex picture. Following key court decisions (Lac 

Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. 

Wisconsin, 700 F2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983); Minnesota 

v. Mille Lacs Band, 199 S. Ct. 1187 1999), treatyreserved gathering rights have been restored on most 

public lands, including national forests managed by the 

Forest Service. Some tribes have negotiated harvesting 

regulations with the Forest Service and have documented 

those agreements in Memoranda of Understanding or 

similar agreements at a government-to-government 

basis. In some instances, permits are required for tribal 

gathering on public lands and monitoring techniques 

are employed to document harvests. In California, the 

2006 Indian Free Use Policy reaffirms tribal members’ 

access to manage and harvest NTFPs for traditional 

and cultural purposes without permits or fees on lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest 

Service. Similar policy is now nationally available for 

federally recognized tribes to harvest forest products 

for traditional and cultural [noncommercial] purposes 

“free of charge” on Forest Service-administered lands 

(Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2008).

4.3.3

Nontimber Forest Product Practices

Biophysical and social availability are necessary 

but not sufficient to produce NTFP cultural 

ecosystem services. Brief descriptions of the 

practices essential to these values follow.

Harvest preparation: Short-term preparations may include 

visiting potential harvest locations and assembling and 

checking any tools or other implements needed for 

harvesting. Long-term preparations include acquiring 

the knowledge needed for successful harvesting. In 

some cases, preparations may include managing plants, 

populations, or landscapes to ensure the presence of a 

desired NTFP on a seasonal or ceremonial need basis.

Harvest: In addition to locating desired NTFP species, 

harvest involves decisions about which plant materials 

and/or mushrooms to take and which to leave. 

Harvest also may be used as a form of or opportunity 

for management to promote future harvests.

Processing: Most NTFPs require some form of 

processing before they can be used. Processing varies 

with plant material or mushroom and intended use. 

Examples include cooking or preserving foods and 

weaving one or more NTFP species into baskets.

Distribution: NTFPs used for their cultural values 

commonly are distributed beyond harvester households to 

social networks composed of friends, family, and others. 

Distribution takes diverse forms including gifts and trade.
90 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

Use: Among their cultural functions, NTFPs are 

consumed or used as food, medicine, aesthetic and 

utilitarian objects, and ritual and ceremonial resources.

4.3.4

Nontimber Forest Product 

Cultural Ecosystem Services

Food sovereignty and health security—NTFPs play 

central roles in the food security and sovereignty of 

indigenous and other peoples throughout the United 

States and its affiliated islands (Emery and Pierce 

2005, Kuhnlein et al. 2009, Lynn et al. 2013). The 

1996 World Food Summit defined food security as 

“access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain 

a healthy and active life” (World Food Summit 1996). 

Food sovereignty refers to the ability of an individual 

or group to produce and/or obtain the foods of their 

choice, especially as these are defined by sociocultural 

traditions (Kassam 2010). The related concepts of 

health security and sovereignty are referenced in Article 

24, Section 1 of the United Nations Declaration on 

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the United 

States is a signatory. The Declaration states that, in 

addition to the right of access without discrimination 

to all other health and social services, indigenous 

peoples have “the right to their traditional medicines 

and to maintain their health practices, including the 

conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals, 

and minerals” (United Nations 2008; emphasis added).

The actual and potential contributions of NTFPs to 

health and nutrition are considerable (see also section 6.5 

in this report). Tribal health professionals have noticed 

that as traditional food consumption has declined, rates 

of nutritionally related diseases such as diabetes and heart 

disease have increased (Lynn et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 

2014). This trend in tribal community health and wellbeing is expected to be compounded by the impacts of 

increasing climatic variability (Ford 2012). Research on 

the nutritional content of NTFP food species is limited 

but growing (Kuhnlein 1986, Phillips et al. 2014). As of 

2014, the USDA Agricultural Research Service’s National 

Nutrient Database includes a dataset of the nutritional 

content of 165 American Indian or Alaska Native foods, 

including over 40 single or combination NTFP foods 

(USDA ARS 2014). Analyses of traditionally foraged 

plant foods harvested on American Indian reservations 

in North Dakota found high nutritional values (see also 

section 6.5 in this report). Recommendations based 

on these results support reintroducing or increasing 

consumption of edible NTFPs for their nutritional and 

cultural values (Phillips et al. 2014). Such efforts are 

under way in tribal communities regarding efforts within 

USDA school lunch and farm-to-school programs.

Access to and uses of NTFP foods are central to the 

cultural survival of peoples, as well as their material 

survival (figure 4.3). Food is a key ingredient in 

bringing families and larger social groups together to 

celebrate, define, and maintain their identity (Reddy 

2015). An indication of the importance of edible 

NTFPs to identity is their role in foundational cultural 

teachings. For example, the Mohawk creation story, Tsi 

Kiontonhwentsison, describes how strawberry seeds 

(Fragaria spp.) were carried to this world from the 

Sky World. Today, strawberry drinks continue to be 

served during ceremonies and other community events 

(Hoover 2010). Anishinaabe (also known as Ojibwe or 

Chippewa) teachings relate how, expelled from their 

territory in the East, the Anishinaabe were instructed to 

travel west until they found “the place where food grows 

Figure 4.3—Nontimber forest product foods are central to the 

material and cultural survival of indigenous peoples. Lion’s mane 

mushroom (Hericium erinaceus (Bull.) Persoon), tanoak acorns 

(Notholithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Manos, Cannon, & S.H. 

Oh), and evergreen huckleberries (Vaccinium ovatum Pursh) are 

foods important to the Karuk and other tribes of northern California. 

(Photo credit: Frank K. Lake, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service.)
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 91

on water” (Janowiak et al. 2014). This is a reference 

to the aquatic grain, wildrice or manoomin (Zizania 

palustris L.), a traditional staple in the Ojibwe diet.

Contemporary practices using NTFPs for medicinal 

purposes remain important to diverse communities (e.g., 

Garibaldi 1999). Ethnobotanical studies of indigenous 

peoples published in the 19th and 20th centuries list 

hundreds of plant species used for medicinal purposes 

in simple and compound formulations (e.g., Smith 1923 

and Moerman 1998 for North America). Today, NTFPs 

continue to be used to treat illness and support physical 

and psycho-social health. It is common for families 

to have their own NTFP-based traditional medicinal 

practices. Many communities also have traditionally 

trained healers, who harvest and administer NTFPs. 

Medicinal and spiritual practices using NTFPs are 

among the most culturally sensitive (Geniusz 2009), and 

detailed information about these uses is generally avoided 

in this report, including the regional summaries, except 

where information is broadly known and published.

The line between food and medicine frequently is 

indistinct, a widely observed phenomenon encapsulated 

in the quotation attributed to Hippocrates (460–370 

B.C.E.), “Let medicine be thy food and let food be thy 

medicine.” Berries offer one example of the importance 

of NTFP foods for the physical and social health of many 

communities. These small fruits are traditional foods 

throughout most of the continental United States. Recent 

research has documented the value of phytochemicals 

present in many berries for regulation of a variety 

of metabolic conditions (Basu et al. 2010, as cited in 

Lynn et al. 2013). In Wabanaki culture (the Maliseet, 

Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot tribes of 

Maine), berries are used extensively for women’s health, 

and in coming-of-age ceremonies (Lynn et al. 2013).

A similarly blurred line exists between the medicinal 

and spiritual functions of many NTFPs used 

throughout the United States and its affiliated islands. 

Examples from two regions illustrate. Devil’s club 

(Oplopanax horridus (Sm.) Miq.) is the most common 

and widely used medicinal plant of coastal Alaska 

Natives (Garibaldi 1999). It is also considered to 

have spiritual properties (Moerman 1998). In Pacific 

island cultures with rich ethnobotanical traditions, 

Piper methysticum ((G.) Forst.), known as kava in 

Polynesia and sakau in Pohnpei, is commonly used for 

ceremonial, medicinal, and recreational purposes.

Culturally appropriate livelihoods—The U.N. Declaration 

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes economic 

practices as having cultural bases fundamental to the 

survival of peoples (United Nations 2008). The ways 

households and communities meet their needs for 

material survival can be grounded in and have profound 

implications for cultural practices. Many indigenous 

peoples struggle to maintain livelihoods that support 

material well-being while honoring cultural teachings 

about right relationships among human beings and 

between humans and the nonhuman world. NTFPs 

play important roles in such efforts through their 

use as subsistence goods, in traditional trade and 

barter, and trade in formal and informal economies 

(Emery 1998, 2001; Emery and Pierce 2005).

Basketry traditions offer a case in point. A wide variety 

of wild plant materials are used in the making of baskets 

by peoples from Maine and New York (Benedict and 

Frelich 2008) to California, Oregon, and Washington 

(Hummel and Lake 2015). Basketry traditions have 

endured ecological and political transitions (Hill 1997) 

and are central to indigenous cultural revitalization 

efforts taking place throughout the country (figure 4.4).

Baskets in many sizes and shapes are used for utilitarian 

purposes including food storage and cargo. They also 

are works of art that rely on and give physical form to 

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and culture 

(Anderson 2005). The sale of baskets made from NTFPs 

allows individuals and families to derive some or all 

of their needs for cash income through traditional 

cultural practices. For example, in the Pacific islands, 

over one hundred cultivars of Pandanus spp. (common 

names include pandan and screw palm) provide fruit 

and palm-like leaves that are processed and woven 

into mats, traditional clothing, and baskets. Some 

of these items have profound cultural significance, 

such as fine mats offered as gifts in ceremonies of 

marriage or meetings of leadership. Others, including 

baskets, have been adapted to modern markets and 

are major sources of income for indigenous women, 

especially in the Marshall Islands and other atolls.

Subsistence practices are central to many cultures, 

particularly indigenous peoples. Hunting, fishing, 

trapping, and gathering NTFPs are regarded as forms 

of acquiring wealth. Loss of capacity to engage in 

subsistence practices is a form of impoverishment and 

represents a fundamental threat to material, cultural, 

and economic survival (Emery and Pierce 2005, Hunn 
92 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

1999, Schroeder 2002). The subsistence practices of 

some peoples in the United States enjoy legal status 

(see chapter 7), although the actual terms under 

which these are exercised are frequently contested.

Alaska has 229 federally recognized tribal governments 

that represent indigenous peoples of that state. Alaska 

Native groups maintain strong physical and cultural ties 

to traditional areas used for subsistence harvests of fish, 

wildlife, plants, and mushrooms. For Alaska Natives, 

subsistence is a cultural marker and a way of maintaining 

what it means to be a native. NTFP harvesting, including 

the gathering of traditional foods, provides connection to 

place, belief, and heritage that are essential to expressing 

and maintaining native culture and indigenous identity 

(Schroeder 2002). The Alaska State Department of Fish 

and Game maintains data on subsistence practices in the 

United States. While these records have focused on fish 

and game, NTFPs such as berries and wild greens also 

are widely used for subsistence purposes (Norris 2002).

Cultural teachings and observances—Each step in the suite 

of NTFP practices, from preparation for harvest to final 

use of a plant material or mushroom, offers an occasion 

for cultural teaching (figure 4.5) and NTFPs are essential 

to many cultural observances. The description of cultural 

teachings and observances, like other information 

presented here, is not intended to romanticize or 

universalize what actually happens on the ground. In any 

community, there are individuals who follow or adhere to 

social guidelines about correct behavior and those who do 

not. This is no less true where NTFPs are concerned than 

it is in any other arena. Likewise, there are variations in 

customs between and within cultures. Nevertheless, the 

following describes common teachings across cultures 

about how to do things “in a good way,” which dedicated 

cultural practitioners teach, observe personally, and hold 

as the measure of best practices and personal integrity 

(as stewardship obligations and respectful use of NTFPs). 

Taken as a whole, it demonstrates the importance of 

NTFPs to the survival and maintenance of culture.

Often, NTFP practices are social occasions, in 

which people of different ages and levels of ability 

take part. Each activity is an opportunity to teach 

interrelated material and spiritual and cultural values 

to youth and others (Ruelle and Kassam 2013).

Figure 4.4—Nontimber forest products are foundations for culturally appropriate livelihoods. Sale of baskets using traditional techniques 

and contemporary artistry is an important source of income for many Native artisans. Left: Gabriel Frey (Passamaquoddy Tribe) pounding 

a black ash log (Fraxinus nigra Marshall) to delaminate annual growth rings for basket making. Right: Black ash purse with a leather lining, 

created by Gabriel Frey. (Photo credits: Suzanne Greenlaw.)
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 93

Preparations for harvest may include instruction 

in making tools or containers from other NTFPs. 

Understanding phenological characteristics, i.e., the 

relationship between observable phenomena in the 

landscape such as weather or events in the lifestage of 

a species with appropriate timing for the harvest of a 

plant material or mushroom, can be especially important 

to success [see chapter 2] (Armatas et al. 2016, Lantz 

and Turner 2003). Instruction about these relationships 

occurs in practice on the ground, but also may be 

embedded in cultural teachings that have ensured the 

survival of people through extended periods of time.

Teachings that accompany harvest include information 

about how to find a NTFP and choose materials with the 

desired properties. They also may involve orientation to 

and reinforcement of larger world views, including human 

beings’ roles, relationships, and responsibilities to the 

natural world (Emery et al. 2014). Often, instruction in 

best practices includes prayers and other forms of respect 

and reciprocity (Reo and Whyte 2012, Turner 2001)

Processing NTFPs can provide occasions for diverse 

members of a community to come together, including 

those who are unable to participate in harvesting. 

When the plant material or mushrooms are intended 

for sacred use, rituals may be an essential part 

of their preparation. Practices surrounding imu, 

or underground ovens, exemplify cultural values 

embedded in preparations that involve NTFPs. Imu is a 

traditional food preparation that has been used across 

Oceania for over 4,000 years to cook taro (Colocasia 

esculenta (L.) Schott), breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis

(Parkinson) Fosberg), and other staples for nutritional 

and ceremonial purposes. Events surrounding imu

bring people together to gather resources, prepare 

the imu, enjoy food, clean up, and distribute leftover 

food. It also brings people together metaphorically, 

through sharing culturally meaningful experiences and 

maintaining social relationships (Kamelamela 2012).

In addition to cultural teachings and practices that 

emphasize relationships between human beings and 

the natural world, NTFPs are integral to customs 

that reinforce cultural norms about right relationships 

among people. Harvesting, processing, distributing, 

selling, and using NTFPs for cultural and social 

activities allow different individuals in a family, tribe, 

community, or business to serve roles that strengthen 

sociocultural cohesion. This is particularly evident in 

the distribution and use of NTFPs. Redistribution or 

sharing of NTFPs serves as a form of social capital and 

an expression of respect, as when younger individuals 

make “payment” with NTFPs to elders or mentors 

who instructed them. Frequently, plant materials and 

mushrooms are distributed so that their benefits extend 

beyond harvesters and their households. Sharing 

NTFPs may be as formalized and ceremonial as the 

potlatches of Pacific Northwestern tribes (Turner et 

al. 2008) or as commonplace as taking a slice of wild 

berry pie to a neighbor. In either case, such forms of 

distribution reinforce relationships between people and 

reflect cultural teachings about respect and reciprocity. 

Day-to-day use of an object made from an NTFP can 

create continuous, living connections between a person 

and the environment from which it came (Deur and 

Turner 2005), but also between the user and the people 

who harvested, prepared, and distributed that item.

NTFPs also are essential materials in special cultural 

observances. With their role in observances of major life 

passages such as marriages and coming of age ceremonies, 

cultural uses of NTFPs are part of supporting individuals 

and weaving together communities. As the focal point 

Figure 4.5—Nontimber forest product practices offer an occasion 

for cultural teaching. Elders of the Karuk Tribe, Lillian Rentz 

(upper left) and LaVerne Glaze (lower right), harvest edible corms 

(Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps.). (Photo credit: Frank K. Lake, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.)
94 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

of seasonal celebrations, they help to orient people in 

time and reinforce resource-based livelihood strategies.

Knowledge and connections to nature—Local and 

traditional ecological knowledge are essential to the 

exercise of NTFP cultural values. As described earlier in 

this chapter, knowledge developed through stewardship, 

gathering, and using NTFPs is comprehensive (Turner 

2001). It includes, among other things, information 

about factors needed to access, harvest, process, and use 

plant materials and mushrooms. Local and traditional 

ecological knowledge employed to access and use NTFPs 

includes species identification, phenological relationships, 

microsite and landscape characteristics, stewardship 

strategies, and processing to unlock nutritional and 

medicinal values and produce items such as baskets.

NTFP knowledge and practices are not homogenous 

within individual tribes and communities. Rather, 

gathering and use of NTFPs varies across and within 

them. As some practices are widespread (e.g., berry 

picking), specialization of knowledge and practices 

for particular NTFPs also is common (Emery 1998). 

Individual families may focus on a particular species 

or suite of species and it may be inappropriate to share 

some or all of this knowledge. Further, like other forms 

of TEK (Reo and Whyte 2012), NTFP knowledge is 

dispersed. No individual or family possesses the full 

body of a tribe or community’s collective knowledge 

about the plants and mushrooms in their environment.

In addition to its value for cultural maintenance, 

such knowledge and the practices associated with 

it create connections to nature with demonstrated 

benefits to physical and psycho-social well-being 

of individual community members (Tenberg et al. 

2012). Research demonstrates that time spent in 

natural environments reduces cortisol levels and other 

physiological measures associated with stress-related 

diseases (Park et al. 2011), and some research indicates 

a reduction in behaviors associated with attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Kuo and Taylor 2004).

Erosion of such knowledge poses corresponding risks 

to cultural survival and individual well-being. In 

addition to traditional methods of passing information 

within families, many communities have institutions 

and programs designed to teach youth about their 

cultures, including NTFP use and TEK of species, 

habitat requirements, environmental processes, and 

disturbance or management effects, all associated 

with sustainability of the resources (Turner 2001).

Such detailed ecological knowledge has clear value for 

understanding effects of climatic variability at local 

and regional scales. Much effort has been dedicated to 

understanding TEK (Berkes 2012, Parrotta and Trosper 

2012) and establishing ethical protocols for respecting 

indigenous knowledge and culture (Geniusz 2009, Smith 

1999). Key principles include recognizing the rights of 

communities, especially indigenous communities, to 

choose what information is and is not shared and how it 

is used (Williams and Hardison 2013) (box 4.1). Applying 

these principles to work on cultural values of NTFPs in 

an era of changing climate will provide a foundation for 

respectful, productive collaboration between harvesters, 

their communities, scientists, and policymakers.

Identity and social cohesion—NTFPs are part of cultural 

expression and identities of indigenous peoples and 

contribute to social cohesion of individuals and 

communities, whether residing in ancestral homelands, 

cities, or distant locations. The role of NTFPs in identity 

formulation is especially evident in indigenous origin 

stories. In addition to examples provided earlier in this 

chapter, traditional accounts state that Native Hawaiians 

are descendants of Sky Father (Wãkea), Earth Mother 

(Papa), the Progenitor of the stars (Ho’ohõk ̃ukalani), 

and the taro plant (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott). 

Wabanaki teachings say that the peoples of present day 

Maine sprang from black ash (Fraxinus nigra Marshall).

Material practices using NTFPs also are potent markers 

of identity. As noted earlier in this chapter, subsistence 

practices, including uses of NTFPs, are regarded as 

an important part of what it means to be an Alaska 

Native. Arts and crafts produced from forest plants 

are integral to culture and are vehicles for expressing 

identity. For example, California and Pacific Northwest 

basketmakers traditionally have used combinations 

of materials, techniques, designs, and patterns 

distinctive to their tribe (Hummel and Lake 2015).

NTFPs also play a role in, among other elements, a sense 

of belonging and responsibility to a larger group and 

forms of social assistance for individuals understood to 

be vulnerable or in need (Norton and Haan 2013). NTFP 

practices and celebrations that use foraged plant materials 

and mushrooms are occasions for extended families 

and broader social networks to come together around a 

sense of community. Norms surrounding the distribution 
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 95

of NTFPs can provide for the most vulnerable in a 

community, particularly elders. The role of NTFPs 

in social cohesion is evident in many cultures and 

economies, where harvesting and using plant materials 

and mushrooms are integral to celebrations, healing, 

and redistribution of food and adornment resources.

4.4

Impacts of Climatic Variability 

on Cultural Uses of Nontimber 

Forest Products

Direct and indirect effects of increasing climatic 

variability on NTFPs may result in significant disruptions 

to culture and its contributions to human well-being 

(Chief et al. 2014, Parrota and Agnoletti 2012). Altered 

spatial and temporal distributions of NTFP may have 

some of the most immediate consequences. Changes in 

location of suitable habitat may mean that a culturally 

important species is no longer available within the treaty 

territory or trust lands of a tribe or becomes effectively 

inaccessible because of long travel distances (Ginger et 

al. 2012). Observances central to cultural identity and 

the transmission of knowledge may be compromised 

by episodic or chronic shortages in volumes of cultural 

keystone species whose life cycles are dependent on 

particular climatic conditions. Likewise, altered timing 

of seasonal variation in temperatures and precipitation 

may result in phenological asynchronies (decoupling 

of events that previously occurred simultaneously or in 

predictable sequence), which reduce the effectiveness of 

TEK or result in lack of availability of species at key times 

in culturally defined livelihood cycles (Armatas et al. 

BOX 4.1

ETHICS AND NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE

Often people ask, “How do American Indians use this 

plant?” It is a simple enough question and the questioner 

usually expects a commensurately simple response. To 

answer this question in a culturally appropriate manner, 

however, takes time, depth of understanding, respect, 

and trust not obtained quickly. As knowledge holders, 

culture keepers may be charged with maintaining a body 

of knowledge with proscriptions such as what information 

can be shared, with whom, at what time of year, and under 

what circumstances. The responsibility of those entrusted 

with the traditional knowledge of how the plant is used 

extends to rules about how that knowledge may be shared, 

if at all. It may be that specialized or sacred information 

can be shared only with the individual or family who will 

become the next steward(s) of that knowledge. Others 

may be deemed not culturally qualified or unable to honor 

the responsibility to safeguard that knowledge in culturally 

appropriate context. 

In her book, “Our Knowledge is Not Primitive: Decolonizing 

Anishinaabe Botanical Knowledge”, Wendy Makoons 

Geniusz discusses the history of ethnobotanical work with 

tribes in the U.S. Upper Midwest:

Researchers have recorded a fair amount of 

information about how the Anishinaabeg work 

with plants and trees; however, much of this 

information has been colonized. To use this 

knowledge for cultural revitalization, it must be 

reworked and reinterpreted into a format that 

is appropriate and usable to contemporary 

Anishinaabe-izhitwaawin (Anishinaabe culture). 

(2009: 4)

Thus, to answer the simple question posed in this box 

in a respectful manner, any response must be complete 

including who provided the information, the community 

they are from, and when it was provided. The information 

should include how and when the plants or mushrooms 

are collected, how they are prepared, and instructions for 

their use. It is only through this complete set of information, 

including any traditional teachings, special instructions 

for use, prayers, or songs that may go with the plant or 

mushroom that a culturally appropriate portrayal can 

be presented. Given the critical nature of NTFPs to the 

cultural survival of indigenous communities, it becomes 

equally critical to ensure that their traditional knowledge be 

protected against misappropriation and maintained in the 

most culturally relevant and useful forms possible.

In this chapter, which documents uses of NTFPs by 

indigenous peoples, some specific uses of forest products 

are presented. Out of respect, the authors have avoided 

mention of plant uses involving medicinal, ceremonial, 

or spiritual purposes that are not widely known. We have 

attempted to limit our description of NTFPs to those which 

are more public and utilitarian in nature. For example, 

noting that maple sap is collected for the purpose of 

making maple syrup does not disclose a use for a plant not 

already widely known. 

While recognizing the cultural intricacies of sharing 

traditional knowledge, it is hoped that knowledge exchange 

between Western scholars and traditional practitioners will 

help to ensure the continued viability of culturally important 

NTFPs in the face of increasing climatic variability and 

the associated disruptions to knowledge systems and 

traditional practices. The authors thought it important, 

however, to offer this perspective so the indigenous people 

who read this chapter will know we tried to offer this 

knowledge in a respectful and inclusive manner.
96 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

2015, Lantz and Turner 2003, Turner and Clifton 2009). 

Where species continue to be available in place and time, 

the physical properties needed for spiritual, religious, 

utilitarian and craft materials may be altered directly by 

factors such as changes in hydrology and temperature, 

or indirectly by the emergence of insects and diseases.

Many sacred sites are considered as such, because 

of the high significance of spiritually or religiously 

important NTFPs found and utilized in those 

localities. Climate-related disturbances and 

mechanisms that result in changes of species at 

sacred sites, could have a profound impact on the 

continuance of cultural practices that require the 

locality and the NTFP resource both be present.

The effects of climatic variability on social structures 

and processes also will have ripple effects for culturally 

important NTFPs. For example, rising sea levels may 

result in greater pressure on upland NTFP resources as 

land bases are reduced in island and coastal environments. 

With sea level rise, coastal and island communities 

face physical displacement, domestic freshwater source 

contamination, and impairment to habitats that sustain 

them culturally (Feary et al. 2012, FSM 2010, Maldonado 

et al. 2013, Parrotta and Agnoletti 2012). Where these 

displaced community members move into areas with 

existing cultural uses of NTFPs (and there are few places 

where this will not be the case), there is potential for 

conflict due to competing demands for resources. In the 

case of displaced peoples for whom NTFPs have cultural 

keystone values, movement into areas where these species 

are unavailable by virtue of bio-physical absence or 

social barriers to obtain them could represent a threat 

to material and cultural survival. At the same time, it 

should be noted that on some Pacific islands, traditions 

of accommodating kin displaced by drought or storm 

are being adapted today as governments with higher 

elevation lands proactively provide land for displaced 

atoll dwellers (FSM 2010, Parrotta and Agnoletti 2012).

Within these general parameters, specific effects of 

climatic variability on NTFP cultural functions will 

vary by region and cultural group. Each cultural 

group is vulnerable to effects depending on their 

geographic location, the cultural values of the species, 

and interacting stressors at multiple scales (Bennett 

et al. 2014, Burger et al. 2008). Some examples 

of impacts that may be anticipated in particular 

regions are provided in the regional appendixes.

4.5

Key Findings

• NTFPs are important to the cultures of diverse peoples 

in the United States.

• Direct and indirect effects of increasing climatic 

variability on NTFPs may result in significant 

disruptions to culture and its contributions to human 

well-being.

• The resilience of cultures and their NTFP-based 

practices may be a function of the intensity, speed, and 

duration of events that pose ecological and/or social 

challenges to them.

4.6

Key Information Needs

• Many culturally important overstory species and their 

likely responses to increasing climatic variability have 

not been modeled and understory species largely are 

absent from such analyses.

• Research on the cultural functions of NTFPs is lacking 

for many peoples and parts of the Nation.

• Analyses are needed to understand the interactions of 

increasing climatic variability impacts, management, 

governance, and cultural uses of NTFPs.

4.7

Conclusions

NTFP cultural values derive from practices of harvest, 

processing, distribution, and use, as well as plant 

materials and mushrooms themselves. As changes 

associated with altered climate affect landscapes and 

social systems in which cultural uses of NTFPs occur, 

they will affect and possibly threaten cultures throughout 

the United States and its affiliated islands. Among the 

contributions to human well-being at risk are the roles 

of NTFP knowledge-practice-belief systems (Berkes 

2012) in food sovereignty and health security (Kassam 

et al. 2010, Lynn et al. 2013), identity formation, social 

cohesion, and livelihoods (Cocks and Wiersum 2014, 

Emery 2002b, Lynn et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). 

Such alterations could have adverse consequences for 

indigenous, settler, and immigrant populations across 

rural to urban environments. Particular attention may 
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 97

be required to fulfill the treaty and reserved rights 

and comply with laws relevant to cultural values of 

NTFPs to American Indians, Native Hawaiians, 

Alaska Natives, and other rural residents of a state.

At the same time, culture is dynamic and there 

are opportunities to mitigate and adapt to climatic 

variability effects on NTFP cultural values. Indeed, 

NTFPs frequently provide essential survival resources 

in times of disruption when and where commercially 

products are limited or not available (e.g., Redzic 2010) 

and may do so during climate-related disturbances. 

The resilience of cultures and their NTFP-based 

practices may be a function of the intensity, speed, 

and duration of events that pose ecological and/or 

social challenges to them. Indigenous peoples have 

noted that their cultures are the product of millennia 

of adaptation to social and ecological change. As a 

consequence, indigenous peoples have knowledge 

systems and wisdom to offer as all of humanity seeks 

to adapt to changing climate (Voggesser et al. 2013).

4.8

Literature Cited

American Anthropological Association. 2015. Defining culture. www.

aaanet.org/committees/commissions/aec/resources.htm#Definitions. 

[Date accessed: January 18, 2015].

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San 

Bernardino National Forest: cultural versus commercial values among 

Korean and Japanese participants. Society and Natural Resources. 

13(8): 747–762.

Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge 

and the management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 558 p.

Armatas, C.A.; Venn, T.J.; McBride, B.B. [and others]. 2016. Opportunities 

to utilize traditional phenological knowledge to support adaptive 

management of social-ecological systems vulnerable to changes in 

climate and fire regimes. Ecology and Society. 21(1): 16. 

Barnard, A.; Spencer, J. 2002. Culture. In: Barnard, A.; Spencer, J., eds. 

Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology. London: Routledge: 

206–216.

Basu, A.; Du, M.; Leyva, M.J. [and others]. 2010. Blueberries decrease 

cardiovascular risk factors in obese men and women with metabolic 

syndrome. Journal of Nutrition. 140: 1582–1587.

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically 

important nontimber forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 74 p. 

Benedict, M.A.; Frelich, L.E. 2008. Site factors affecting black ash ring 

growth in northern Minnesota. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 

3489–3493.

Bennett, T.M.B.; Maynard, N.G.; Cochran, P. [and others]. 2014. Indigneous 

peoples, lands, and resources. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, 

G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national 

climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 297–317.

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and 

resource management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological 

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 

1251–1262.

Burger, J.; Goachfeld, M.; Pletnikoff, K. [and others]. 2008. Ecocultural 

attributes: evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological goods 

and services versus subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis. 28(5): 

1261–1271.

Chief, K.; Daigle, J.J.; Lynn, K.; Whyte, K. 2014. Indigenous experiences 

in the U.S. with climate change and environmental stewardship in the 

Anthropocene. In: Sample, V.A.; Bixler, R.P., eds. Forest conservation and 

management in the Anthropocene: Conference proceedings. RMRS-P-71. 

Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 161–176. 

Cocks, M.L.; Wiersum, F. 2014. Reappraising the concept of biocultural 

diversity: a perspective from South Africa. Human Ecology. 

42(5): 727–737.

Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2008; 25 U.S.C. 32A § 3055.

Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A. [and others]. 2012. Contributions 

of cultural services to the ecosytem service agenda. PNAS. 109(23): 

8812–8819. 

de Groot, R.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the 

classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, 

and services. Ecological Economics. 41: 393–408. 

Deur, D.; Turner, N.J. 2005. Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and 

cultivation on the northwest coast of North America. Seattle: University 

of Washington Press. 404 p.

Dockery, A.M. 2010. Culture and wellbeing: the case of indigenous 

Australians. Social Indicators Research. 99(2): 315–332.

Emery, M.R. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: nontimber forest products in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Ph.D. dissertation.

Emery, M.R. 2001. Social values of specialty forest products to rural 

communities. In: Josiah, S.J., ed. Proceedings of the North American 

conference on enterprise development through agroforestry: farming the 

forest for specialty products. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 

Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management 

(CINRAM): 25–32.

Emery, M.R. 2002a. Historical overview of nontimber forest product uses in 

the Northeastern United States. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, 

J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University Press of Kansas: 3–25.

Emery, M.R. 2002b. Space outside the market: implications of NTFP 

certification for subsistence use. In: Shanley, P.; Pierce, A.; Laird, S.; 

Guillen, A., eds. Tapping the green market: management and certification 

of NTFPs. London: Earthscan: 302–312.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence 

in contemporary U.S. forests. Environment and Planning A. 37(6): 

981–993.

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional 

ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories: paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera) in the U.S. Great Lakes Region. Journal of 

Forestry. 112(2): 207–214.
98 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 4

Feary, S.A.; Eastburn, D.; Sam, N.; Kennedy, J. 2012. Western Pacific. In: 

Parrotta, J.A.; Trosper, R.L., eds. Traditional forest-related knowledge: 

sustaining communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity. Dordrecht, 

the Netherlands: Springer: 395–447.

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). 2010. Federated States of 

Micronesia state-wide assessment and resource strategy 2010–2015+. 

Palikir, Pohnpei, FSM: Department of Resources and Development. 

215 p. http://www.forestactionplans.org/states/federated-states-ofmicronesia. [Date accessed: January 30, 2015]. 

Fisher, B.; Turner, K.; Zylstra, M. [and others]. 2008. Ecosystems services 

and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological 

Applications. 18(8): 2050–2067. 

Ford, J.D. 2012. Indigenous health and climate change. American Journal of 

Public Health. 102 (7): 1260–1266.

Garibaldi, A. 1999. Medicinal flora of the Alaska natives. Anchorage: 

University of Alaska, Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 209 p.

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N.J. 2004. Cultural keystone species: implications for 

ecological conservation and restoration. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 1.

Geniusz, W.D. 2009. Our knowledge is not primitive: decolonizing botanical 

Anishinaabe teachings. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 223 p.

Ginger, C.; Emery, M.R.; Baumflek, M.J.; D. E. Putnam. 2012. Access to 

natural resources on private property: factors beyond right of entry. 

Society & Natural Resources. 25(7): 700–715.

Head, L.; Muir, P. 2006. Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: 

resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Transactions of the 

Institute of British Geographers. 31(4): 505–524.

Hernández-Morcillo, M.; Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. 2013. An emperical review 

of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators. 

29: 434–444. 

Hill, S.H. 1997. Weaving new worlds: southeastern Cherokee women and 

their basketry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 414 p.

Hoover, E. 2010. Local food production and community illness narratives: 

responses to environmental contamination in the Mohawk community of 

Akwesasne. Providence, RI: Brown University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Hufford, M. 2000. Tending the commons: folklife and landscape in Southern 

West Virginia. Washington, DC: American Folklife Center, Library of 

Congress. As cited in Emery and Pierce 2005. http://memory.loc.gov/

ammem/cmnshtml/cmnshome.html. [Date accessed: August 16, 2017].

Hummel, S.; Lake, F.K. 2015. Forest site classification for cultural plant 

harvest by tribal weavers can inform management. Journal of Forestry. 

113(1): 30–39.

Hunn, E.S. 1999. The value of subsistence for the future of the world. In: 

Nazarea, V.D., ed. Ethnoecology: situated knowledge/located lives. 

Tucson: The University of Arizona Press: 23–36.

Hurley, P.T.; Halfacre, A.C.; Levine, N.S.; Burke, M.K.. 2008. Finding a 

“disappearing” nontimber forest resource: using grounded visualization 

to explore urbanization impacts on sweetgrass basketmaking in greater 

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Professional Geographer. 60(4): 1–23.

Indian Free Use Policy. 2006. Traditional gathering policy for lands in 

California managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management, per Forest Service Manual Supplement #1560, Region 5, 

approved July 25, 2007 and Bureau of Land Management Instruction 

Memo No. CA-2007-017, April 10. 

Janowiak, M.K.; Iverson, L.R.; Mladenoff, D.J. [and others]. 2014. Forest 

ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern 

Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods 

Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 247 p. 

Kamelamela, K. 2012. Imu o nui mai mauka i kai-contemporary Native 

Hawaiian gathering practices. Honolulu: Hawai’i Conservation Alliance, 

20th Hawai’i Conservation Conference https://vimeo.com/51649631. 

[video presentation]. [Date accessed: August 16, 2017].

Kassam, K.A.; Karamkhudoeva, M.R.; Baumflek, M. 2010. Medicinal plant 

use and health sovereignty: findings from the Tajik and Afghan Pamirs. 

Human Ecology. 38(6): 817–829.

Kassam, K.A.S. 2010. Pluralism, resilience, and the ecology of survival: case 

studies from the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan. Ecology and Society. 

15(2): 8.

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Bailey, J.D. 2004. Huckleberry abundance, 

stand conditions, and use in Western Oregon: evaluating the role of 

forest management. Economic Botany. 58(4): 668–678.

Kuhnlein, H.V.; 1986. Food sample collection for nutrient analyses in 

ethnobiological studies. Journal of Ethnobiology. 6(1): 19–25.

Kuhnlein, H.V.; Erasmus, B.; Spigelski, D. 2009. Indigenous peoples’ food 

systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Kuo, F.E.; Taylor, A.F. 2004. A potential natural treatment for attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. American 

Journal of Public Health. 94(9): 1580–1586.

Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynberg, R.P. 2010. Wild product governance: 

finding policies that work for nontimber forest products. Washington, DC: 

Earthscan. 394 p.

Lantz, T.C.; Turner, N.J. 2003. Traditional phenological knowledge of 

Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Journal of Ethnobiology. 

23(2): 263–286.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J.. 2013. The impacts of climate change on 

tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556.

Maldonado, J.K.; Shearer, C.; Bronen, R. [and others]. 2013. The impact of 

climate change on tribal communities in the US: displacement, relocation, 

and human rights. Climatic Change. 120(3): 601–614. 

Miina, J.; Pukkala, T.; Hotanen, J.P.; Sale, K. 2010. Optimizing the joint 

production of timber and bilberries. Forest Ecology and Management. 

259(10): 2065–2071.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. 39 p.

Minerbi, L. 1999. Indigenous management models and protection of the 

ahupua’a. In: Aoudé, I.G.; Kelly, M., eds. The ethnic studies story: politics 

and social movements in Hawai’i. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press: 

208–225.

Minore, D.; Smart, A.W.; Dubrasich, M.E. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and 

management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW093, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Moerman, D.E. 1998. Native American ethnobotany. Portland, OR: Timber 

Press. 927 p.

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. 2015. Supportive 

relationships and active skill-building strengthen the foundations of 

resilience: working paper 13. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 16 p.

National Urban Indian Family Coalition. 2008. Urban Indian America: the 

status of American Indian & Alaska Native children & families today. 

Seattle, WA: National Urban Indian Family Coalition. 23 p.

Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988; U.S.C. 42 Chap. 122 Sec. 11701.

Norris, F. 2002. Alaska subsistence: a National Park Service management 

history. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, Alaska Support Office.
CHAPTER 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 99

Norton, A.; Haan, A.D. 2013. Social cohesion: theoretical debates and 

practical applications with respect to jobs. Background paper for the 

World Development Report 2013. Washington, DC: World Bank. 23 

p. es/8258024-1320950747192/8260293-1320956712276/8261091-

1348683883703/WDR2013_bp_Social_Cohesion_Norton.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 15, 2017].

Park, B. J.; Furuya, K.; Kasetani, T. [and others]. 2011. Relationship between 

psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 102(1): 24–32.

Parrotta, J.A.; Agnoletti, M. 2012. Traditional forest-related knowledge 

and climate change. In: Parrotta, J.A.; Trosper, R.L., eds. Traditional 

forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems and 

biocultural diversity. World Forest Series 12. Dordrecht: Springer: 

491–533. Chapter 13.

Parrotta, J.A.; Trosper, R.L., eds. 2012. Traditional forest-related knowledge: 

sustaining communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity. World 

Forest Series 12. Dordrecht: Springer. 620 p. 

Peacock, S.L.; Turner, N.J. 2000. Just like a garden: traditional resource 

management and biodiversity conservation on the interior plateau of 

British Columbia. In: Minnis, P.E.; Elisens, W.J., eds. Biodiversity and 

Native America. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press: 133–179.

Pfeiffer, J.M.; Voeks, R.A. 2008. Biological invasions and biocultural 

diversity: linking ecological and cultural systems. Environmental 

Conservation. 35(4): 281–293. 

Phillips, K.M.; Pehrsson, P.R.; Agnew, W.W. [and others]. 2014. Nutrient 

composition of selected traditional United States Northern Plains Native 

American plant foods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 

34(2): 136–152.

Pilz, D.; Smith, J.; Amanranthus, M.P. [and others]. 1999. Mushrooms 

and timber: managing commercial harvesting in the Oregon Cascades. 

Journal of Forestry. 97(3): 4–11.

Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S.; Carter, M.C. [and others]. 2004. Productivity and 

diversity of morel mushrooms in healthy, burned, and insect-damaged 

forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 

198(1–3): 367–386.

Reddy, S.N. 2015. Feeding family and ancestors: Persistence of traditional 

Native American lifeways during the Mission Period in coastal Southern 

California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 37: 48–66.

Redzic, S. 2010. Use of wild and semi-wild edible plants in nutrition and 

survival of people in 1430 days of siege of Sarajevo during the war in 

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1995). Collegium Antropologicum. 

34(2): 551–570.

Reo, N.J.; Whyte, K.P. 2012 Hunting and morality as elements of traditional 

ecological knowledge. Human Ecology. 40: 15–27.

Rocheleau, D.; Ross, L.; Morrobel, J.; Hernandez, R. 1996. Forests, gardens 

and tree farms: gender, class and community at work in the landscapes 

of Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic. Worcester, MA: Clark 

University. 

Ruelle, M.L.; Kassam, K.A.S. 2013. Foodways transmission in the Standing 

Rock Nation. Food and Foodways. 21(4): 315–339.

Satterfield, T.; Gregory, R.; Klain, S. [and others]. 2013. Culture, intangibles, 

and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 117: 103–114.

Schroeder, R. 2002. Contemporary subsistence use of nontimber forest 

products in Alaska. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 300–326.

Shortridge, B.G. 2005. Apple stack cake for dessert: Appalachian regional 

foods. Journal of Geography. 104(2): 65–73.

Smith, H.H. 1923. Ethnobotany of the Menomini Indians. Bulletin of the 

Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee. 4(1): 8–175.

Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous 

peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd. 215 p.

Still, C.C. 1998. Botany and healing: medicinal plants of New Jersey and the 

region. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 261 p.

Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I. [and others]. 2012. Cultural 

ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage 

values and identity. Ecosystem Services. 2: 14–26. 

Ticktin, T.; Whitehead, A.N.; Fraiola, H. 2006. Traditional gathering of 

native hula plants in alien-invaded Hawaiian forests: adaptive practices, 

impacts on alien invasive species and conservation implications. 

Environmental Conservation. 33(3): 185–194.

Turner, N.J. 2001. “Doing it right”: issues and practices of sustainable 

harvesting of nontimber forest products relating to First Peoples in British 

Columbia. Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 1(1): art. 6. 

Turner, N.J.; Ari, Y.; Berkes, F. [and others]. 2009. Cultural management of 

living trees: an international perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology. 

29(2): 237–270.

Turner, N.J.; Clifton, H. 2009. It’s so different today: climate change and 

indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental 

Change. 19(2): 180–190.

Turner, N.J.; Gregory, R.; Brooks, C. [and others]. 2008. From invisibility to 

transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society. 13(2): 7.

Turner, N.J.; von Aderkas, P. 2012. Sustained by First Nations: European 

newcomer’s use of indigenous plant foods in termperate North America. 

Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae. 81(4): 295–315.

United Nations. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples, ed. General Assembly, 18. New York: United Nations. 

USDA Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS). 2014. National nutrient 

database for standard reference, release 27, ed. N. D. Laboratory. 

Beltsville, MD.

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905). 

Voeks, R.; Rashford, J. 2013. African American ethnobotany in the 

Americas. New York: Springer. 

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J. [and others]. 2013. Cultural impacts 

to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 615–626.

Williams, T.; Hardison, P. 2013. Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts 

of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 531–544. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0. 

World Food Summit. 1996. Rome declaration on world food security and 

world food summit plan of action. Paper read at World Food Summit 

1996, November 13–17. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/

w3613e00.htm. [Date accessed: June 29, 2017].

Wurtz, T.L.; Wiita, A.L.; Weber, N.S.; Pilz, D. 2005. Harvesting morels 

after wildfire in Alaska. Res. Note PNW-RN-546. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 31 p.
CHAPTER 5

Social Dimensions 

of Nontimber Forest 

Products

Kelly Watson

Colmore S. Christian

Marla R. Emery

Patrick T. Hurley

Rebecca J. McLain

Carl Wilmsen
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 103

5.1

Introduction

Although public and private forests in 

the United States have long been dominated 

by timber management (McLain 2002), 

these forests are also the source of hundreds 

of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) (Hurley et al. 

2008, Schlosser and Blatner 1995). The variety of 

NTFPs is matched by the diversity of people who 

harvest them. The existence of these varied and often 

competing interests means that issues of power, access 

and control, labor relations, and social justice are equal 

to ecological and economic issues in their importance.

The potential consequences of climatic variability 

lend a special urgency because the distribution of 

costs, risks, and opportunities will change as forest 

species distribution changes and spatial and temporal 

patterns of natural hazards change. A key issue is 

that the impacts of harvest for most NTFPs are not 

well understood, and social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability requires continuous research, monitoring, 

and discussion. For example, where frequently harvested 

species are affected, particularly where populations 

decrease or respond in ways that adversely affect 

desired characteristics, formerly sustainable practices 

may no longer serve. New knowledge and adjustments 

in governance may be needed. This chapter seeks to 

provide a framework of the social dimensions of NTFPs 

on public and private lands across the United States.

Our starting point in discussing these issues is to 

acknowledge large-scale data on the social dimensions 

of NTFPs are sparse. It is thus difficult to characterize 

NTFP harvesting on a national scale and to draw 

general conclusions about the conditions, impacts, 

costs, and benefits of harvesting. Nevertheless, we 

discuss the findings of a number of regional and 

local studies that permit us to draw some tentative 

conclusions about harvester demographics, stewardship, 

and environmental and social justice issues.

We begin this chapter by providing a brief overview 

of NTFP user communities, drawing on results 

from regional surveys to provide information on 

NTFP harvester demographics. The survey data

also provide insights into the social and economic 

values of NTFPs for the people who harvest them.

Next, we consider social relationships of governance—

specifically, cooperation and communication between 

landowners/land managers and harvesters. This 

discussion suggests communication and cooperation 

are key to integrating scientific knowledge with the 

knowledge of harvester communities for more effective 

governance. A closely related discussion explores 

the literature on harvester stewardship practices and 

how these might inform NTFP governance strategies. 

There appears to be some correlation between land 

tenure and conditions of access directly affecting 

harvesting practices, and this effect needs to be taken 

into consideration in developing strategies to ensure 

resiliency and good stewardship on forested lands.

Following the discussion of governance and stewardship, 

we explore social networks and labor structures of 

NTFP harvesting. It is likely that the greatest volume 

of harvested plant materials and mushrooms goes into 

commodity production systems, although many people 

involved in harvesting NTFPs do so entirely outside 

formal markets. Within commodity production systems 

there may be labor supply chains involving many 

intermediaries. Harvesters within these labor supply 

chains are often vulnerable. The literature on this topic 

leads us to conclude that land tenure, race, immigration 

status, income, and education play roles in harvester 

vulnerability and affect the abilities of harvesters to 

access sites as well as to participate in forest management 

decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods.

Our discussion ends with a review of findings from 

recent research on NTFP harvesting in more populous 

areas and the environmental justice considerations 

this brings to the foreground. It would be easy to 

assume that NTFPs are exclusively products of rural 

and wilderness locations; however, recent research 

documents their harvest in urban, suburban, and 

exurban locations by diverse peoples for diverse 

purposes. This research also suggests that the extent 

to which people of color disproportionately face 

barriers to access and inclusion poses important 

social and environmental justice challenges for 

landowners in rural, urban, and urbanizing settings.
104 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

5.2

An Overview of Nontimber Forest 

Product Harvesters in the United 

States

Viewed in terms of the numbers of people who harvest, 

United States residents enjoy the benefits of NTFPs 

largely unmediated by markets. The nonmarket nature 

of NTFP uses may be fundamental to their value (Dick 

1996, Emery 2002). If prospective harvesters possess 

the knowledge and access to land where the desired 

NTFPs are present, the practice is open to anyone 

with the physical capacity to engage in it (see section 

6.5). Perhaps as a result, the demographic profile of 

harvesters looks like America. Among the larger social 

goods are environmental justice and the public health 

benefits associated with exercise, time spent in nature, 

and nutritional quality of products consumed.

The number of people who participate in NTFP 

harvesting, their demographic characteristics, and the 

ways they use gathered materials provide one measure of 

the social significance of this use of United States forests. 

Results of random sample, general population telephone 

surveys conducted in the U.S. Northeast provide such 

numbers (table 5.1). Two cycles of a survey assessing 

participation in a variety of outdoor recreation activities 

asked people in 20 states1 if they had picked mushrooms 

and/or berries in the previous 12 months (Cordell et 

al. 2012). Weighted results show that for the period 

1999–2001, 27.9 million people 16 years of age and 

older had gathered NTFPs. In 2005–2009, that number 

was 35 million people, an increase of 25.7 percent. This 

rate of increase exceeds all other surveyed activities 

1 Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

2 Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

except the category of “visiting farm or agricultural 

settings” (Cordell et al. 2012). In addition, of eight 

common public pursuits in forested areas, only viewing 

or photographing birds is reported more frequently 

than gathering NTFPs (Cordell et al. 2012; table 5.2).

In 2004, respondents to a general population survey 

conducted in four New England states2 were asked, 

“Have you collected any tree or plant materials around 

woodlands: e.g., mushrooms, berries, cones, or moss?” 

(table 5.1). Eighteen percent reported they had done so 

in the previous 12 months, while 26 percent had done 

so in the previous 5 years. Analysis of the demographics 

of positive respondents to the survey showed that 

gathering crosses socioeconomic boundaries, including 

age, gender, income, and place of residence. This survey 

also asked how respondents used the materials they 

gathered (table 5.3). Functional uses mentioned were 

food (62 percent), decoration (59 percent), cultural (16 

percent), and medicine (8 percent). Reported livelihood 

uses were personal consumption (88 percent), giftgiving (5 percent), value-added sale (2 percent), and sale 

of raw material (1 percent), with 4 percent reporting 

other, unspecified uses (Robbins et al. 2008).

Survey results on livelihood uses of NTFPs are striking. 

The number of respondents who directly use the NTFPs 

they gather is an order of magnitude higher than those 

who sell them in any form. Further, ethnographic 

research suggests that gatherers frequently share and gift 

NTFPs to family and friends, such that the number of 

people who use NTFPs in the absence of market exchange 

of any sort is greater than the number of those who 

gather NTFPs to sell them (Emery 2001b, Emery and 

Table 5.1—Rates of participation in nontimber forest product gathering by residents of the Northeastern 

United States. Sources: Cordell et al. 2012, Robbins et al. 2008.

Location Year Sample size

Previous 5 

years percent

Past 12

 months percent

Northeastern Statesa 2005–2009 30,000 n/a 36

New Englandb 2004 1,650 26 18

a Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin.

b Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 105

Ginger 2014, Emery et al. 2003). For those who sell some 

or all of what they harvest, more do so after adding value, 

suggesting that NTFPs are a basis for microenterprises. 

Here, ethnographic research suggests that much of this 

activity likely takes place within the informal economy 

and, therefore, leaves no records in formal economic 

statistics. Practices within the informal economy 

include bartering; trade; personal use; and recreational, 

spiritual, and cultural uses (McLain et al. 2008).

Two recent cycles of the National Woodland Owner 

Survey (NWOS; 2002–2006, 2011–2013) included 

questions about NTFP harvests on family forest lands 

(Butler 2008, Butler et al. 2016), providing another 

important source of data on their social values and 

uses. The NWOS has been conducted periodically 

since 1953 and is the official database of nonindustrial 

private forest owners in the United States. It uses a 

stratified random sample design to survey over 10 

million family forest landowners per cycle. The NWOS 

is implemented on an annual basis with a subset of 

the total sample (20 percent) contacted each year.

Results for the 2002–2006 and 2011–2013 surveys 

show a marked increase in family forest landowners 

reporting that NTFPs have been harvested on their 

lands at some point in the past, from 16 percent (2002 

and 2006) to 29 percent (2009 and 2013), but a drop 

of nearly 50 percent in those indicating that harvest 

has occurred in the previous 5 years. This trend may 

reflect aging of the landowner population. Proportions 

of those reporting harvest for sale and personal use 

were more stable over the two survey cycles and parallel 

livelihood uses reported by respondents to the general 

population surveys discussed in the previous paragraph. 

In the 2011–2013 cycle, reported rates of harvest for 

personal consumption were an order of magnitude 

greater than those reported for sale (table 5.4).

The data represented by the 2002–2006 and 2011–2013 

NWOS cycles are particularly significant because 

they span a period of deep economic recession. Data 

on NTFP harvesting from future NWOS surveys 

will be invaluable in understanding relationships 

between NTFP harvesting, owner demographics 

(particularly age), and macroeconomic conditions.

Table 5.2—Rates of participation in forest-based activities 

by residents of 20 northeastern states, 2005–2009. 

Source: Cordell et al. 2012.

Activity

Positive 

response rate

Change in 

participation 

rate 1999–2009

------------- percent -------------

Viewing or photographing birds 38.2 17.8

Gathering mushrooms/berries 36.0 25.7

Day hiking 32.7 15.1

Visiting wilderness areas 31.3 10.7

Warmwater fishing 24.5 17.3

Developed camping 20.6 -10.4

Canoeing 12.3 8.2

Primitive camping 11.6 -2.5

Table 5.3—Functional and livelihood uses reported by positive respondents to a 2004 New England survey. Totals may exceed 100 percent, 

as most respondents use harvested plant materials and/or fungi for more than one function and also may engage in multiple livelihood uses. 

Source: Robbins et al. 2008.

Functional uses Livelihood uses

--------------------------------- percent --------------------------------- --------------------------- percent ---------------------------

Edible Medicinal Decorative Cultural Landscaping Other Personal use Gifting Sale raw Sale value added Other

62 8 59 16 n/a 13 88 5 1 2 4
106 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

5.3

Nontimber Forest Product 

Stewardship

The concept of stewardship encompasses informal 

practices that NTFP harvesters develop and apply in 

their daily lives, as well as formal programs initiated by 

trade associations, amateur science societies, conservation 

nongovernmental organizations, or Government agencies. 

Scientific knowledge of NTFP stewardship practices in 

the United States is fragmentary, as is knowledge about 

their socioecological impacts or the factors associated 

with the use and transmission of such practices. For 

example, researchers in the following studies have 

examined harvester stewardship: New England (Baumflek 

et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014), 

New York (Emery and Ginger 2014), the Southeast 

(Emery et al. 2003, 2006), the Pacific Northwest (Ballard 

and Huntsinger 2006, Jones 2002, Love et al. 1998, 

McLain et al. 2014, Peck and Christy 2006, Pilz et 

al. 2003, Poe et al. 2013, Richards and Creasy 1996), 

southern California (Anderson and Blahna 2000), 

Pennsylvania (Burkhart et al. 2012), Kentucky (Hembram 

and Hoover 2008), Kansas (Price and Kindscher 2007), 

the Washington, D.C. region (Barron and Emery 

2009), and the Great Lakes region (Emery 2001a).

Studies of NTFP stewardship practices have primarily 

used qualitative methods, typically combining key 

informant interviews with participant and direct 

observation of harvesting practices; a few researchers 

have used mail or in-person surveys (e.g., Anderson 

and Blahna 2000, Burkhart et al. 2012, Richards and 

Creasy 1996) or field experiments (Ballard 2004, Peck 

and Christy 2006, Price and Kindscher 2007). Data on 

NTFP stewardship practices have been systematically 

collected and reported on a number of products, 

including western brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum

(L.) Kuhn) (Anderson and Blahna 2000); American 

ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) (Burkhart et al. 

2012); echinacea (Echinacea spp.) (Price and Kindscher 

2007); salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) (Ballard and 

Huntsinger 2006); galax (Galax urceolata (Poir.) 

Brummit) (Emery et al. 2003); and wild mushrooms 

(Barron and Emery 2009, Jones 2002, Love et al. 

1998, Richards and Creasy 1996). Additionally, 

Baumflek et al. (2010) report data on sustainable 

harvesting practices for 30 species in northern Maine.

5.3.1 Knowledge

Much NTFP research on stewardship seeks to document 

what harvesters perceive to be sustainable harvesting, 

as well as how they produce and share their knowledge. 

Emery (2001b) argues that three types of knowledge—

ecological, economic, and use knowledge—are important 

for stewardship. Harvesters’ ecological knowledge is 

often characterized as traditional or local. Berkes et al. 

(2000, p. 1252) define traditional ecological knowledge 

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

belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down 

through generations by cultural transmission, about 

the relationship of living beings (including humans), 

with one another and with their environment.” Ballard 

and Huntsinger (2006, p. 531) defined local ecological 

knowledge (LEK) as “local expertise of peoples that 

may not have a long-term relationship with the local 

environment, but nevertheless have local wisdom, 

experience and practices adapted to local ecosystems.”

Many people view TEK/LEK as incompatible with 

scientific knowledge. However, some harvesters 

engage in informal experiments or carefully document 

Table 5.4—Family forest owners with >1 acre reporting harvest of nontimber forest 

products on their land. Sources: Butler 2006, Butler et al. 2016.

Estimated # of owners Percent of owners

2002–2006a 2009–2013b 2002–2006 2009–2013

NTFPs ever harvested 1,701,000 10,777,027 16 29

Harvested in past 5 years 1,239,000 1,215,370 73 38

Harvested for sale 163,000 244,238 10 8

Harvested for personal use 1,319,000 2,750,548 78 87

a Estimated total number of owners = 10,398,000.

b Estimated total number of owners = 10,777,027.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 107

observations of plants and ecological conditions 

to inform their harvesting practices (Barron and 

Emery 2009, Charnley et al. 2007, Jones and Lynch 

2002, Love et al. 1998). Moreover, some harvesters 

design and implement studies aimed at establishing 

harvesting “best practices.” An example from the 

Pacific Northwest is a 13-year experiment conducted 

by members of the Oregon Mycological Society in the 

1990s and early 2000s to determine how harvesting 

affected chanterelle (Cantharellus spp.) productivity 

and whether the manner of harvesting (pulling versus 

cutting) made a difference (Pilz et al. 2006).

Harvesters acquire and pass on knowledge about 

harvesting practices in a variety of ways, with many 

using multiple learning and knowledge transmittal 

strategies (Baumflek et al. 2010). Many harvesters learn 

about NTFPs through on-the-ground training by family 

members, friends, or neighbors (Barron and Emery 

2012, Emery et al. 2006, Emery and Ginger 2014). Field 

guides, Internet websites, forays, foraging walks, and 

courses are also common means by which harvesters 

acquire NTFP knowledge, as is participation in clubs, 

associations, and informal “meet-up” groups (Baumflek 

et al. 2010, Hurley et al. 2015, McLain et al. 2014). 

NTFP buyers are important conduits for the transmittal 

of knowledge about sustainable harvesting practices 

(Burkhart et al. 2012, Emery et al. 2003); among healers 

who use wild plants in their practice, particularly 

American Indians, apprenticeships are not uncommon.

A key theme in the NTFP stewardship literature is that 

NTFP knowledge is often differentially distributed and 

acquired in different ways across social categories, such 

as age, gender, ethnicity, and class; it also varies by 

experience level (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006, Emery 

et al. 2003, Richards and Creasy 1996). This highlights 

the importance of designing stewardship research in 

ways that will capture the variation among harvesters 

in the type, depth, and breadth of their knowledge.

5.3.2 Practices

Knowledge shapes how people harvest, and conversely, 

harvesting is the means by which people acquire 

knowledge about the biological, physiological, and 

ecological factors that affect plant growth and 

reproduction under different harvesting regimes. As 

indicated in table 5.5, researchers have documented 

the use of a broad array of harvesting practices 

aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of 

plant populations and minimizing disturbance to 

the surrounding ecosystem. The practices used vary 

by species, product, and harvester. Harvesters also 

often use practices aimed at minimizing disturbance 

Table 5.5—Practices designed to sustain plant populations and minimize habitat disturbance.

Practices Studies that document the practice

Timing harvests to avoid collecting when plants are 

vulnerable

Emery et al. 2003, Hembram and Hoover 2008

Rotating harvest sites Emery and Ginger 2014, Hembram and Hoover 2008, McLain et al. 

2014, Price and Kindscher 2007

Retention of some mature plants Anderson and Blahna 2000, Emery et al. 2003, Hembram and Hoover 2008

Monitoring resource abundance and restricting harvests if 

population declines

Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014, 

Hembram and Hoover 2008, McLain et al. 2014

Avoiding damage to vulnerable plant parts Anderson and Blahna 2000, Emery et al. 2003

Propagating plants or fungi by planting berries, seeds, 

cuttings, or spreading spores

Barron and Emery 2009, Burkhart et al. 2012, Emery et al. 2003, 

McLain et al. 2014

Avoiding species known to be endangered or threatened Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014, Poe et al. 2013

Restricting amounts harvested (often as a percentage of 

product available)

Emery et al. 2003, Emery and Ginger 2014, McLain et al. 2014, 

Poe et al. 2013

Keeping site locations secret from or off-limits to other 

harvesters

Emery et al. 2003, Price and Kindscher 2007

Selective harvest Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2006, Emery and Ginger 2014, 

McLain et al. 2014, Price and Kindscher 2007 
108 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

of other ecosystem components, such as avoiding 

trampling on endangered plant species, filling in 

holes when digging roots, and leaving a portion of 

fruits, berries, or seeds for wildlife (Baumflek et al. 

2010, Emery and Ginger 2014, Emery et al. 2003).

5.3.3 Ethics

Researchers studying NTFP harvesters have documented 

a set of ethical principles that guide what people harvest, 

how much they harvest, and when they harvest it 

(Anderson and Blahna 2000, Baumfleck et al. 2010, 

Emery 2001b, Emery and Ginger 2014, Emery et al. 

2003, Price and Kindscher 2007). Emery and Ginger 

(2014, p. 16) summarize these into five guiding norms:

1.Gather in areas where the targeted species is plentiful.

2.Do not take all the leaves, seeds, fruits, or 

other parts, and rotate where you harvest

3.Minimize disturbance to the harvesting site.

4.Avoid trampling or harvesting species 

known to be endangered.

5.Take only what you need.

Additionally, many American Indian harvesters include 

giving thanks or asking the plant’s permission to be 

harvested among their ethical guidelines (Baumflek 

et al. 2010), a practice that many nonnative herbalists 

also follow (Emery and Ginger 2014, Poe et al. 2014).

The American Herbal Products Association has published 

a set of “good collection practices” for wild plant 

harvesters (AHPA 2006) that echoes the guidelines 

described by Emery and Ginger (2014). Harvester rules 

governing stewardship practices in the United States are 

often self-enforced (Hembram and Hoover 2008), or as 

one key informant in Burkhart et al.’s (2012) study of 

ginseng harvesters put it, “ginseng is an honor system.” 

Hembram and Hoover (2008) point to the lack of 

community-level enforcement mechanisms as a barrier 

to sustainable NTFP management. However, to some 

extent, buyers function as community-level enforcers for 

products such as American ginseng by complying with 

legal provisions that require them to refuse to buy small 

or immature roots (Burkhart et al. 2012). Wild matsutake 

(Tricholoma spp.) mushroom dealers in southwestern 

Oregon perform a similar function by refusing to buy 

very small mushrooms (Richards and Creasy 1996).

5.3.4

Stewardship

Limited data are available on the factors associated 

with stewardship behavior or higher levels of local 

ecological knowledge among NTFP harvesters. Studies 

document substantial levels of difference in knowledge 

and harvesting practices between more experienced 

and less experienced Latino immigrant salal harvesters 

(Ballard and Huntsinger 2006); and between American 

Indians with a generations-old cultural tradition of 

harvesting matsutake for subsistence and recently arrived 

Southeast Asian commercial matsutake harvesters 

in southwestern Oregon and northern California 

(Richards and Creasy 1996). In all three studies, 

more experienced harvesters had greater depth and 

breadth of ecological knowledge and used what they 

perceived to be more sustainable harvesting practices. 

However, it is unclear whether the differences in the 

use of harvesting practices between the Southeast 

Asian and American Indian harvesters were linked to 

differences in experience, harvesting motivations, or 

both since the Southeast Asian harvesters had only 

recently begun to participate in the matsutake harvest.

Land tenure also influenced harvesting practices of 

Latino salal harvesters, with experienced pickers 

practicing less sustainable harvesting on lands on 

which their tenure was insecure and sustainable 

harvesting on lands to which they had secure longerterm access (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006). Price and 

Kindscher (2007) also found that echinacea harvesters 

used less sustainable harvesting practices on de facto

open access harvesting sites than on private lands 

on which anti-trespassing laws were enforced.

5.3.5

Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge

Managing forests for NTFPs is challenging for many 

state and Federal land agencies owing to the diversity 

of species, limited knowledge of these species, and 

lack of scientific knowledge about most NTFPs. In 

many cases, harvester knowledge is the only source 

of knowledge based on long-term observations about 

the ecological impacts of NTFP harvesting (Emery 

2003). In the absence of surveys in peer-reviewed 

studies, NTFP harvesters are an important yet often 

under-utilized potential source of knowledge.

One approach to addressing the knowledge gaps within 

management agencies and the uncertainties associated 
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 109

with NTFP harvesting is to integrate harvesters’ LEK 

with scientific research projects (Emery and Barron 

2010). Burkhart et al. (2012) document state and 

Federal agencies’ lack of capacity to enforce ginseng 

regulations and call for the establishment of “bottomup” ginseng planting and restoration partnerships 

between conservation agencies, harvesters, ginseng 

growers, and traders as a way to address the regulatory 

enforcement gap. Pilz et al.’s (2006) guide for 

participatory monitoring provides detailed guidelines 

for planning, implementing, and following through on 

collaborative research involving harvesters and scientists.

Few assessments of such partnerships exist. However, 

Ballard et al.’s (2008) comparative assessment of 

community-based forestry groups involved in scientific 

partnerships included one initiative involving NTFP 

harvesters that was successful in developing a photo point 

monitoring system for wild mushrooms. They found that 

building in mechanisms for regular interaction between 

scientists and harvesters was a key to developing the trust 

and respect for the collaboration to work. They highlight 

the need for more research on strategies that enable 

greater integration of LEK and scientific knowledge.

For the most part, NTFP harvesters who depend on the 

resource or the supplemental income their harvesting 

provides each year recognize that their livelihoods depend 

on sustainability of the resource. Some NTFP harvesters 

are keen observers of cause and effect, and the impacts 

harvesting has on the resource. For example, matsutake 

harvesters who harvest on the forests of central Oregon 

argue that soil compaction from mechanical thinning 

as well as thinning too heavily will inhibit matsutake 

production. In response to input by mushroom harvesters, 

officials revised their initial plans for a recent timber 

sale to protect more matsutake habitat and also required 

logging over snow to limit soil compaction (Headley and 

Wilmsen 2010). Such place-based ecological knowledge, 

gained through years of experience with the resource and 

working partnerships with the Forest Service on national 

forests, can complement scientific knowledge, thereby 

improving forest inventories for specific uses of NTFPs 

as well as monitoring of those uses (Emery et al. 2014).

Engaging with resource users as stewards of the land 

they harvest may be a valuable undertaking for land 

managers. Neither local nor scientific knowledge 

is expected to replace the other knowledge system, 

but to bolster the effectiveness of science-based 

management. Everett (2001) found that NTFP groups 

often have the most “reliable information about the 

specified NTFP abundance, distribution, and impacts 

of harvesting. Research indicates that without such 

knowledge, users and managers have no basis for 

decisions about sustainable harvest levels” (Everett 

2001, p. 340). For example, Barron and Emery’s 

(2012) research on morel (Morchella spp.) harvesters 

in the Eastern United States has shown the importance 

of participatory approaches when designing and 

implementing forest management on Federal land. 

Local knowledge provided valuable insight into morel 

habitat, ecology, and phenological characteristics.

Harvesters and primary processors are key actors 

in NTFP commodity production-to-consumption 

systems. As the people most directly engaged with 

commercially traded plant materials and mushrooms 

and the ecosystems in which they occur, many 

harvesters possess extensive knowledge and have 

strong interests in the outcomes of management and 

governance processes. Consequently, their input can 

strengthen management for NTFPs and other forest 

values (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006, Charnley et al. 

2007). Because commercial harvesters and primary 

processors commonly are members of socially marginal 

groups by virtue of income, ethnicity, and other 

characteristics, special efforts may be needed to integrate 

their perspectives into land management strategies.

Landowner/producer organizations may offer an 

opportunity for achieving greater integration and 

cooperation between land managers and harvesters. 

The Alabama Medicinal Plant Growers Association 

(AMPGA) is one example. Established around 2008, 

the AMPGA serves as an umbrella for small landowners 

from minority and underserved communities and 

producers to network and share information about 

production, processing, and marketing of medicinal 

plants, such as American ginseng, goldenseal, and black 

cohosh. While much of their product is cultivated, some 

members also use wild-harvested materials. The AMPGA 

provides these individuals with a vehicle for networking 

and peer-to-peer learning to improve financial return to 

group members. Such organizations also may serve as 

a source of information for policy and management.

Additionally, harvesters are more likely to adopt and 

follow permit or other management systems if they 

perceive that they have contributed to its development 
110 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

(Everett 2001). This is important because such policy 

and management are likely to impact resource users 

most and it is critical there be support from harvester 

communities for sustainable use and management of 

forest resources. In many cases, NTFPs provide a much 

needed source of income or they have significant social 

and cultural capital, linking people to their natural 

environments, providing sources of medicinal plants, 

and maintaining what are sometimes multi-generational 

ties to the art of harvesting (Emery and Pierce 2005, 

Fisher 2002, Watson 2010). Increasing gatherer and 

primary producer input represents an opportunity 

for enhancing environmental justice, reducing 

litigation potential, and enhancing the information 

base available for NTFP policy and management.

5.4

Stakeholder Organizations, Labor 

Issues, and Social Networks

There is a long history in America of people harvesting 

NTFPs to supplement their incomes or to support 

themselves during hard times or when they have 

few other options (Fisher 2002). The Multiple-Use 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (see chapter 7) requires 

public land managers to promote “stability of 

communities” and “to provide for a continuous and 

ample supply of timber” and “secure the benefits of 

forests in maintenance of water supply, regulation of 

stream flow, prevention of soil erosion, amelioration of 

climate change and preservation of wildlife.” Ensuring 

these multiple use categories are all met thus requires 

a balancing act—one that requires that harvesting 

options remain viable while at the same time forest 

resiliency remains intact for long-term sustainability.

Including diverse opinions from harvesters in forest 

management decisions is important for long-term 

sustainability and resiliency of forested lands (Fisher 

2002). Often low-income and minority groups may 

not have the interest or organizational, educational, or 

economic capacity to participate in forest management 

decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods 

and for the benefit of the forests they harvest. Moreover, 

many harvesters got a start in the commercial harvest of 

NTFPs in the United States due to events and forces set in 

motion by political forces. Therefore, immigrants often 

arrived in the United States lacking the skills demanded 

by a developed country’s market economy. With few other 

options, they turned to what they knew best: earning 

a living from the land (Saechao and Wilmsen 2012).

Four major areas of concern to NTFP harvesters 

include lack of consistent access to harvesting sites, 

fluctuating prices, security and safety while collecting, 

and resource sustainability that will supply future 

harvests. Access to NTFPs is mediated by a variety of 

ecological, economic, structural, cultural, historical, 

and political concerns. Permitting and leasing are two 

very common ways of allowing access to harvesting 

areas. Public and private landowners do both.

Mediation of access is a function of the lower 

socioeconomic positioning of some groups of NTFP 

harvesters. In California, Oregon, and Washington, 

e.g., harvesters of matsutake mushrooms, huckleberries 

(Vaccinium spp.), and floral greens are ethnically diverse 

and many are recent immigrants with limited English 

proficiency and low incomes. There are essentially two 

ways that they are organized as workers: as independent 

contractors, or employees of a business. When they are 

independent contractors, they buy permits, lease land, 

or contract with landowner(s) (as sharecroppers or some 

other arrangement) to gain access to harvesting areas. 

They may hire employees to harvest the NTFP, or harvest 

it on their own or together with family members and/

or friends, and sell their harvest to a buyer. Employees 

work for someone who acquires the needed permits, 

leases, or contracts, and are paid by the hour or piece.

The way in which control of land and resources is 

structured affects harvester access to NTFPs. In the 

floral greens industry in the Pacific Northwest, e.g., 

brush shed operators (the people who buy greens 

directly from the harvesters) have increasingly controlled 

leases. This is due in part to the fact that low-income 

harvesters typically do not have the capital needed to 

pay the up-front costs, such as bonding insurance and 

rent paid in advance, needed to lease land. Under these 

circumstances many floral greens harvesters, especially 

recent immigrants from Latin America, are dependent 

on brush shed owners or agents who sublet from them 

for transportation and the sale of their product. The 

sublessees, referred to by the Spanish term raiteros

(van owners), transport the harvesters to and from the 

leased land and take them to the brush shed that holds 

the lease to sell their product at the end of the day.

The raiteros charge the harvesters a fee for transportation 

services and may also charge them a percentage of the 
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 111

value of their daily harvest. Although the brush shed 

owners treat them as independent contractors, harvesters 

are not free to sell to any shed. They cannot afford 

to travel to alternative buyers often in more distant 

locations, nor do they have access to market and price 

information from which they can make selling decisions. 

This means that they must accept the price the leasing 

brush shed offers them. Many harvesters fear retaliation 

if they speak publicly or complain to the authorities about 

being taken advantage of or poor working conditions. A 

lack of law enforcement means that working conditions 

may remain dangerous (McLain and Lynch 2010).

Public land agencies’ traditional approach to gathering 

information for proposed management actions may 

also affect access to harvesting sites. This process 

often excludes stakeholder groups that lack formal 

organizational structures, and members of these groups 

rarely have the financial ability or time to participate in 

forest decisionmaking (McLain 2002). Nongovernmental 

organizations have been useful in bridging these gaps 

to assist disadvantaged groups in overcoming these 

barriers. Responsiveness of agency officials can help 

as well. To address these issues and be responsive to 

forest communities as well as improve access to national 

forest land, the USDA Forest Service 2012 Planning 

Rule (National Forest System Land Management 

Planning of 2012) and its directives are designed to 

enhance public outreach so that land management 

decisions factor in public inputs. In many parts of the 

country, the Forest Service also reaches out to ethnic 

minorities in appropriate languages to ensure critical 

communications and needs are addressed. The 2012 

Planning Rule, which explicitly calls for collaborative 

planning, may provide for expanding the breadth of 

stakeholder involvement in forest management decisions.

Conditions in the floral greens industry differ markedly 

from those in the harvest of wild mushrooms. Buyers 

of wild mushrooms never gained control of land and 

leases as their counterparts in the floral greens industry 

did. Moreover, most wild mushroom harvesters are 

United States citizens or legal residents and therefore 

are less fearful of retaliation. These differences in the 

structures of the floral greens and wild mushroom 

markets prevent large mushroom-buying companies 

from gaining as much control over the market, as 

well as access to harvesting sites, as large floral 

greens companies have (McLain and Lynch 2010).

Cash flow and overhead costs are economic factors that 

mediate access to NTFPs. Large numbers of harvesters 

often begin the harvest season with little cash to spare, 

and thus are very sensitive to changes in permit prices, 

campground fees, and other expenses. Commodity prices 

are clearly a major concern to NTFP harvesters because 

the price they receive for their products determines their 

income. To the extent that harvesters of floral greens 

who are dependent on raiteros are not free to find the 

highest price for their product, their annual incomes are 

lowered. The seasonality of NTFP harvests means that 

many harvesters of wild mushrooms and other NTFPs 

depend on intense harvesting activity during only a few 

months of the year to earn a large portion of their annual 

household income. Some mushroom harvesters follow 

the different seasons around western United States and 

thus spend most months of the year harvesting some 

type of mushroom (e.g., morels, matsutake, chanterelles). 

Many also pick huckleberries during the late summer 

and early fall. Many of these harvests may be underreported, as collection data rely on the honesty of 

harvesters, who may be wary of oversight and regulation.

Security and safety are also major concerns of harvesters. 

These concerns include confrontations with other 

harvesters, robbery, and theft. There are tensions between 

commercial, personal use, and cultural harvesters, and 

these can sometimes lead to confrontations between 

harvesters. There have been cases of harvesters being 

robbed of their day’s harvest at gunpoint. Theft of 

floral greens occurs when harvesting on a lease without 

permission or harvesting on public lands without 

permits (Welch 2006). In the case of salal on private 

land, thieves often harvest at night. In the early light 

of dawn, they bring trucks in to haul away the greens 

before the lessee arrives for work. While it is not clear 

how often this occurs, it is a significant enough concern 

for harvesters to bring it up without being prompted.

Addressing the major concerns of harvester communities 

is a key step in mediating the disconnect between 

harvesting communities and land managers. Access to 

harvesting sites, information about price variability, 

security and safety, and resource sustainability are major 

concerns of NTFP harvesters. However, many harvesting 

communities may be marginalized, due to employment 

and income, language challenges, or cultural barriers 

(Emery and Barron 2010, Fortmann and Ballard 2011, 

McLain 2002, Watson 2010) and therefore lack formal 

outlets for participating in forest management decisions. 
112 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

These decisions, however, directly affect the lives and 

livelihoods of harvesting communities as well as the 

sustainability of the forest. Therefore, building and 

improving communication between landowners and 

harvester communities are critical, as are developing and 

implementing NTFP policy and management to ensure 

resiliency and good stewardship on forested lands.

5.5

Urban Harvesting and Social Justice

A diversity of urban spaces support NTFP harvesting 

opportunities, including city parks, institutional 

campuses, vacant lots, cemeteries, and other locations 

(Hurley et al. 2015, Jahnige 2002; McLain et al. 

2014). Beyond selected urban areas (i.e., Seattle, 

WA; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY) featured 

in a limited number of studies (Hurley et al. 2015, 

McLain et al. 2014), research on suburban and 

rapidly urbanizing areas is also generally lacking 

(see Grabbatin et al. 2011; Hurley et al. 2008, 2013; 

and Gianotti and Hurley 2016, for exceptions).

Researchers are paying increased attention to the role 

that diverse species in the forests of urban, suburban, and 

urbanizing United States play in meeting the material 

and cultural needs of residents. Studies, though limited, 

are documenting the diversity of plant species, range of 

plant parts, types of uses, motivations for harvest, and 

the importance of these harvests to diverse peoples living 

in the cities being studied. Studies have been completed in 

Seattle, WA (McLain et al. 2012; Poe et al. 2013, 2014), 

and Philadelphia, PA (Gabriel 2006, Hurley et al. 2015), 

as well as Baltimore, MD, Washington, DC, and Boston, 

MA (Jahnige 2002). These studies reveal that harvesters 

collect common weeds, including many invasive species, 

from native, nonnative, and invasive shrubs and vines 

and from many native, ornamental, and nonnative trees. 

Public and private lands, including actively managed 

(i.e., public parks and institutional campuses) and largely 

neglected spaces (i.e., vacant lots), provide an abundance 

of harvesting opportunities for harvesters. These harvests 

provide residents with foods, medicines, and materials 

that support their everyday needs or are part of their 

regular recreational endeavors (McLain et al. 2014).

Our understanding of NTFPs within United States cities 

is still in its infancy. For example, while analyses of 

species have been completed for some United States cities, 

with some analysis of the ecosystem service benefits, 

no studies have assessed the range of provisioning or 

cultural services associated with the full complement 

of species occurring within cities. However, analyses of 

New York City’s urban tree inventories and vegetation 

databases reveal 553 tree, shrub, and understory plant 

species representing more than 1,100 uses. Most of 

the species with one or more uses are native, while a 

significant minority of species—particularly herbaceous 

species—are nonnative. Whether native, nonnative, 

or invasive, many species are abundant, although 

species abundance and distributions within urban 

greenspaces are uneven throughout the city (figure 5.1).

Most research on urban NTFPs has focused on 

documenting the range of species that are being 

harvested, the diversity of peoples engaged in harvesting, 

motivations for harvesting, places where harvesting 

occurs, and uses of species targeted (Community 

Resources 2000; Hurley et al. 2015; Jahnige 2002; 

McLain et al. 2012, 2014; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). In 

Seattle, qualitative interviews with NTFP harvesters 

revealed that 433 plant species and 53 species of fungi 

are gathered (Poe et al. 2013). A number of species, 

such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus

Focke), were commonly mentioned as targeted, whereas 

species such as salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis Pursh) 

and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) were identified 

as culturally distinct species harvested by Coast Salish 

native communities. In addition, other species were 

preferred by particular cultural groups: chestnuts, 

watercress, pennywort, and plantain for Korean, Hmong, 

Vietnamese, and Cambodian gatherers; hawthorn 

fruit for Eastern European collectors; amaranth for 

Mexican households; and plums and various types of 

mushrooms for Russian gatherers (Poe et al. 2013). 

Similarly, research in New York City is finding that 

several species are particularly important to Chinese 

immigrants, including ginkgo nuts (Ginkgo biloba L.), 

black mulberries (Morus nigra L.), mugwort (Artemisia 

vulgaris L.), and common dandelion (Taraxacum 

officinale F.H. Wigg). Interviews with this immigrant 

group revealed an additional 49 foraged species, of which 

12 are mushrooms, one is a seaweed, another 25 are 

herbs, five are shrubs, and six are trees. In Philadelphia, 

PA, engagement with NTFPs by new groups that organize 

through social media is on the rise (Hurley et al. 2015). 

In-depth interviews with 38 members of this group and 

other NTFP harvesters revealed that 160 plants and four 

species of fungi are gathered. Providing a food source is 
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 113

a dominant reason for harvesting, but some collect raw 

materials for basketry and other NTFPs and a minority 

sell items harvested from city parks and other areas.

These qualitative studies point to particular urban spaces, 

such as city parks, institutional campuses, vacant lots, 

and cemeteries, as key sites that support the forest, shrub, 

and understory vegetation that create opportunities for 

NTFP harvest in cities. Parks and recreational trails 

are particularly important to NTFP harvesters in the 

Philadelphia area, e.g., with social meet-up groups 

regularly organizing hikes in parts of the city’s parks 

to learn about useful species and their NTFP values 

(Hurley et al. 2015). Importantly, limited observations 

suggest the reactions of municipal governments to 

these practices may differ markedly. Whereas Seattle 

policymakers have worked to embrace some aspects of 

foraging (Floberg et al. 2013), including through new 

policy language in the city’s stewardship plan, managers 

in the Philadelphia area see NTFP harvesting activities 

as a threat to park resources (Hurley et al. 2015).

The harvesting of NTFPs is not limited to urban areas, 

but also takes place in suburban areas (Hurley et al. 

2015, Robbins et al. 2008). Drawing on qualitative 

interviews with “Wild Foodies,” research in the 

Philadelphia metropolitan area suggests that parks, 

greenways, and trails, as well as institutional 

3 Note: The common name “sweetgrass” is used to refer to Muhlenbergia filipes, not to be confused with Hierochloe odorata (Alpine sweetgrass).

campuses, are key to NTFP opportunities. However, 

as with the urban context, the legality of foraging 

within parks in the Philadelphia metropolitan area 

spans a spectrum, ranging from the harvest of berries 

and nuts in limited quantities for personal use, 

principally on lands managed by the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania (e.g., state game lands, state parks) to 

outright prohibition in county, municipal parks, and 

on private land trust reserves (Hurley et al. 2015).

Many formerly rural portions of the country are rapidly 

urbanizing at densities ranging from urban to exurban 

(Brown et al. 2005). Research is generally lacking on 

the status of NTFPs in rural areas experiencing diverse 

types of urbanization. A major exception is the work on 

sweetgrass (Muehlenbergia sericea, M. capillaris, or M. 

filipes)

3

 basketry among African Americans living in the 

South Carolina lowcountry (see Grabbatin et al. 2011; 

Hart et al. 2004; Hurley et al. 2008, 2012). This work 

highlights similarities in the situation of rural NTFP 

users with regard to stable NTFP supplies in other areas 

of the country (Emery 2002), including the extent to 

which changing patterns of land tenure, ownership, and 

management play roles in shaping access to key NTFPs. 

For sweetgrass basketmakers in the greater Charleston 

area, urbanization has meant changes in patterns of 

supply for and access to the three key materials that are 

traditionally harvested from area forests and de facto 

Number of species

Invasive occasional

Invasive common

Invasive frequent

Potentially invasive frequent

Nonnative rare

Nonnative occasional

Nonnative common

Nonnative frequent

Nonnative no abun. data

Native rare

Native occasional

Native common

Native frequent

Native no abun. data

Growth type

Figure 5.1—Potentially forageable species found in New York City by growth type, types of use, status, and abundance. 

Status and abundance in the region as per the New York Metropolitan Flora Project. (Source: Brooklyn Botanic Garden 2016.)
114 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

resource commons: blades of sweetgrass, palmetto 

fronds (Sabal palmetto), and longleaf pine needles 

(Pinus palutris). Decades of suburban development have 

contributed to a decline in the ecological conditions that 

produced relatively abundant supplies of sweetgrass.

Some key questions have emerged about the social 

justice aspects of continued access to NTFPs that 

support cultural and material relationships to forested 

ecosystems in urban environments. Indeed, urban 

forested ecosystems are key to the cultural and material 

practices of diverse peoples who have been marginalized 

within natural resource and land use decisionmaking 

processes. The cases of African American basketmakers 

in the greater Charleston area of the South Carolina 

lowcountry (Hurley et al. 2008) as well as American 

Indians in the Seattle area (McLain et al. 2012) illustrate 

social justice dimensions raised by questions of access 

to NTFPs in United States cities. Similar issues are at 

play in other areas of the country, where the traditional 

relationships of native peoples to plants for material needs 

and cultural uses are seen as potentially out of place in 

urbanizing areas (Matthewson 2007). Longstanding 

uses may be threatened by regulatory dynamics on 

public lands and changes to social-ecological dynamics 

on private lands, including those uses that support 

household economies and food security. Changes in 

ownership patterns, land use, and land management, 

however, represent opportunities for and challenges 

to the continuation of these practices (Grabbatin et al. 

2011, Hurley et al. 2013, Poe et al. 2014). For example, 

the inclusion, principally, of sweetgrass and, to a lesser 

extent, other species associated with sweetgrass basketry 

within ornamental landscape plantings in the common 

areas of residential and commercial development in the 

Greater Mt. Pleasant, SC, area has contributed resource 

supplies to these livelihood users. Likewise, new efforts 

within Seattle to incorporate NTFP foraging perspectives 

into local policy documents as well as to develop new 

food forests and public urban orchards suggest proactive 

efforts to deal with the needs and desires of NTFP users.

Quantitative research on NTFP harvesting in urban 

areas confirms qualitative work, while suggesting that 

issues related to access and land-use change may extend 

to more than just distinct cultural groups. In the survey 

carried out by Robbins et al. (2008), most respondents 

were Caucasian, college-educated, in the highest income 

brackets, and lived in the city. Robbins and coauthors 

concluded that NTFP harvesting is a practice that 

transcends socioeconomic background and involves 

diverse individuals entering environments around them 

to gather products for their own purposes, directly 

using and consuming plants. Further, the authors note 

that “in the absence of significant Federal lands in the 

New England region, moreover, this body of gatherers 

is harvesting from private lands, roadsides, city parks, 

and other areas” (Robbins et al. 2008, p. 272).

Continued research on urban and suburban NTFPs 

needs to focus on shifting perceptions of urban forests 

and green spaces. Most analyses are qualitative 

and limited to a small number of cities, primarily 

in the Eastern United States. Most focus on species 

being harvested and their uses, the people engaged 

in harvesting and their motivations, and identifying 

where harvesting occurs (Community Resources 

2000; Hurley et al. 2015; Jahnige 2002; McLain et 

al. 2012, 2014; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). Urban and 

suburban harvesting present an important and emerging 

area for research on NTFPs in the United States.

5.6

Key Findings

• In some regions of the United States, as much as 16–36 

percent of people have harvested NTFPs for primarily 

personal use.

• People of all ages, incomes, and ethnicities harvest 

NTFPs outside of formal markets, whether harvesting 

on public or private land.

• Harvesting, preparing, and using NTFPs connect 

people directly and materially to forests and are sources 

of social and cultural capital.

• NTFPs are harvested in landscapes from urban to 

wildland environments.

• Including diverse harvesters in forest management 

decisions may enhance the long-term sustainability of 

NTFPs.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 115

5.7

Key Information Needs

• National baseline data on NTFP harvesters are needed 

as a basis for monitoring NTFP use in an era of 

changing climate.

• Enhanced understanding is needed to address barriers 

to participation in NTFP management planning for 

diverse harvesters, particularly those least likely to 

participate in formal consultation processes.

• Additional information is needed to understand the 

social, ecological, and governance implications of 

foraging in (sub)urban landscapes.

5.8

Conclusions

The research reviewed in this chapter suggests a number 

of conclusions about the social dimensions of NTFP 

harvesting in the United States. First, NTFPs provide 

social and cultural capital and economic capital. Studies 

on harvester demographics demonstrate that many 

people gather NTFPs outside of formal markets (Butler 

2008, Cordell et al. 2012). Harvesting, preparing, and 

using NTFPs connect people directly and materially 

to forests (Emery et al. 2006, Robbins et al. 2008). 

Second, data show that harvester demographics cross 

social categories of age, gender, ethnicity, and income.

Continued research on harvester populations across the 

United States is high priority. Also there is an urgent 

need to examine variation in NTFP knowledge and 

stewardship practices among harvesters. Governance 

structures will function best when they are grounded 

in realities of NTFP gathering systems. This will 

include recognizing and accommodating people who 

gather and use NTFPs outside of formal economic 

markets, while being informed by labor and economic 

structures of formal NTFP markets. Resource 

users are in direct contact with forest resources 

and local knowledge may bolster the effectiveness 

of management on public and private lands.

Opportunities exist to increase the effectiveness of 

NTFP monitoring and management by enhancing 

communication and cooperation between stakeholders 

and land managers. Special attention will be needed 

in such efforts to reach out to populations frequently 

absent from natural resource decisionmaking processes.

5.9

Literature Cited

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2006. Good agricultural and 

collection practice for herbal raw materials. Silver Spring, MD: American 

Herbal Products Association. 

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San Bernardino 

National Forest: Cultural versus commercial values among Korean and 

Japanese participants. Society and Natural Resources. 12: 747–762.

Ballard, H.L. 2004. Impacts of harvesting salal (Gaultheria shallon) on the 

Olympic Peninsula, Washington: harvester knowledge, science, and 

participation. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Doctoral 

dissertation. 

Ballard, H.L.; Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Integration 

of local ecological knowledge and conventional science: a study of seven 

community-based forestry organizations in the USA. Ecology and Society. 

13(2): 37.

Ballard, H.L.; Huntsinger, L. 2006. Salal harvester local ecological 

knowledge, harvest practices and understory management on the 

Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Human Ecology. 34: 529–547. 

Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2009. Protecting resources: Assessing visitor 

harvesting of wild morel mushrooms in two National Capital Region 

parks. Natural Resources Tech. Rep. NPS/NCR/NCRO/NRTR—

009/002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service. 52 p.

Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2012. Implications of variation in social-ecological 

systems for the development of U.S. fungal management policy. Society 

and Natural Resources. 25: 996–1011. 

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically 

important nontimber forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 74 p.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological 

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 

10: 1251–1262.

Brown, D.; Johnson, K.; Loveland, T.; Theobald, D. 2005. Rural land-use 

trends in the coterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 1851–1863.

Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G.; Finley, J. 2012. A case study of stakeholder 

perspective and experience with wild American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius) conservation efforts in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: limitations 

to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 21: 3657–3679. 

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J. [and others]. 2016. USDA Forest 

Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state 

statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 

2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p. 

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 14–28.

Community Resources. 2000. The bounty of the urban forest: the 

uses and values of urban nontimber forest products. http://www.

urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/the-bounty-of-the-urbanforest-the-uses-and-values-of-urban-nontimber-forest-products/file. 

[Date accessed: February 11, 2013].
116 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 5

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Mou, S.H.; Gormanson, D.D. 2012. Outdoor 

recreation in the Northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-100. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 74 p.

Dick, R.E. 1996. Subsistence economies: freedom from the marketplace. 

Society & Natural Resources. 9: 19–29.

Emery, M.R. 2001a. Social values of specialty forest products to rural 

communities. In: Josiah, S.J., ed. Proceedings of the North American 

Conference on Enterprise Development through agroforestry: farming 

the forest for specialty products. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Integrated 

Natural Resources and Agricultural Management (CINRAM), University 

of Minnesota: 25–32.

Emery, M.R. 2001b. Who knows? Local nontimber forest products 

knowledge and stewardship practices in northern Michigan. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 13: 123–139.

Emery, M.R. 2002. Space outside the market: implications of NTFP 

certification for subsistence use. In: Shanley, P.; Pierce, A.; Laird, S.; 

Guillen, A., eds. Tapping the green market: management and certification 

of NTFPs. London: Earthscan: 302–312.

Emery, M.R.; Barron, E.S. 2010. Using local ecological knowledge to 

assess morel decline in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. Economic Botany. 

64: 205–216.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2014. Special forest products on the Green 

Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests: a research-based 

approach to management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-131. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 51 p.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Chamberlain, J. 2006. Migrants, markets, and the 

transformation of natural resources management: galax harvesting in 

western North Carolina. In: Furuseth, O.J.; Smith, H., eds. Latinos in the 

new South and the transformation of place. Burlington, VT: Ashgate: 

69–88.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M.R.B. 2003. Special 

forest products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-306. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence 

in contemporary U.S. forests. Environment and Planning A. 37: 981–993.

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional 

ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventories: paper 

birch (Betula papyrifera) in the U.S. Great Lakes Region. Journal of 

Forestry. 112: 207–214.

Everett, Y. 2001. Participatory research for adaptive ecosystem 

management: a case of nontimber forest products. Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry. 13: 335–357.

Fisher, A.H. 2002. Making peace in the berry patch: the 1932 handshake 

agreement and the promise of cultural use zones. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, 

R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 293–299.

Floberg, J.; Small, J.; Bradley, G. [and others]. 2013. City of Seattle 2013 

urban forest stewardship plan. Seattle, WA: City of Seattle Urban 

Forestry Commission. 78p.

Fortmann, L.; Ballard, H. 2011. Sciences, knowledges, and the practice of 

forestry. European Journal of Forest Research. 130: 467–477.

Gabriel, N. 2006. Urban nontimber forest products in Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia: Temple University. M.S. thesis.

Gianotti, A.G.S.; Hurley, P.T. 2016. Gathering plants and fungi along the 

urban-rural gradient: uncovering differences in the attitudes and 

practices among urban, suburban, and rural landowners. Land Use Policy. 

57: 555–563.

Grabbatin, B.; Hurley, P.T.; Halfacre, A. 2011. “I still have the old tradition”: 

the co-production of sweetgrass basketry and coastal development. 

Geoforum. 42: 638–649.

Hart, Z.; Halfacre, A.; Burke, M. 2004. Community participation in 

preservation of Lowcountry South Carolina sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia 

filipes [M. A. Curtis] J. Pinson and W. Batson) basketry. Economic Botany. 

58: 161–171.

Headley, C.; Wilmsen, C. 2010. Matsutake mushroom harvesters influence 

land management in central Oregon. United Forest Voice. Spring: 1–2.

Hembram, D.; Hoover, W.L. 2008. Nontimber forest products in Daniel 

Boone National Forest region—Economic significance and potential for 

sustainability. In: Jacobs, D.F.; Michler, C.H., eds. Proceedings of the 16th 

Central Hardwoods Forest Conference; 2008 April 8–9; West Lafayette, 

IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS P-24. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 148–156.

Hurley, P.; Emery, M.R.; McLain, R. [and others]. 2015. Whose urban forest? 

Plant foraging and the political ecology of urban forests. In: Isenhour, C.; 

Checker, M.; McDonough, G., eds. Sustainability in the global city. New 

York: Cambridge University Press: 187–212.

Hurley, P.; Grabbatin, B.; Goetcheus, C.; Halfacre. A. 2013. Gathering, buying, 

and growing sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia sericea): urbanization and social 

networking in the sweetgrass basket-making industry of lowcountry 

South Carolina. In: Voeks, R.; Rashford, J., eds. African ethnobotany in 

the Americas. New York: Springer-Verlag: 153–174.

Hurley, P.; Halfacre, A.; Levine, N.; Burke, M. 2008. Finding a “disappearing” 

resource: using grounded visualization to explore urbanization impacts on 

sweetgrass basket-making in Greater Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. The 

Professional Geographer. 60(4): 1–23.

Jahnige, P. 2002. The hidden bounty of the urban forest. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 96–107.

Jones, E.T. 2002. The political ecology of wild mushroom harvester 

stewardship in the Pacific Northwest. Amherst: University of 

Massachusetts-Amherst. Ph.D. dissertation.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K. 2002. The relevance of sociocultural variables to 

nontimber forest product research, policy, and management. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the 

United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 26–51.

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 2002. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 445 p.

Love, T.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate rainforest: wild 

mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula Biosphere Reserve. Ambio. 

9: 16–25.

Matthewson, M. 2007. California Indian basketweavers and the landscape. 

In: Li, J., ed. To harvest, to hunt: stories of resource use in the American 

West. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Press: 40–57. 

McLain, R.; Hurley, P.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M. 2014. Gathering “wild” food in 

the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and 

management. Local Environment. 19: 220–240. 

McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Hurley, P. [and others]. 2012. Producing edible 

landscapes in Seattle’s urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 

11: 187–194.

McLain, R.J. 2002. Business as usual: the exclusion of mushroom pickers in 

wild mushroom management in Oregon’s national forests. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 375–385.

McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.J.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Incorporating understanding 

of informal economic activity in natural resource and economic 

development policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 53 p.
CHAPTER 5 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 117

McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K. 2010. Managing floral greens in a globalized 

economy: resource tenure, labour relations and immigration policy in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. In: Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynbeerg, R.P., 

eds. Wild product governance: Finding policies that work for nontimber 

forest products. London: Earthscan: 267–285.

National Forest System Land Management Planning of 2012; 36 CFR Part 219.

Peck, J.E.; Christy, J.A. 2006. Putting the stewardship concept into practice: 

commercial moss harvest in northwestern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 225: 225–233. 

Pilz, D.; Ballard, H.L.; Jones, E.T. 2006. Broadening participation in biological 

monitoring: handbook for scientists and managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW680. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 131 p.

Pilz, D.; Norvell, L.; Danell, E.; Molina, R. 2003. Ecology and management of 

commercially harvested chanterelle mushrooms. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW576. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 83 p. 

Poe, M.; LeCompte, J.; McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P. 2014. Urban foraging and 

the relational ecologies of belonging. Social & Cultural Geography. 15(8): 

901–919. 

Poe, M.R.; McLain, R.J.; Emery, M.R.; Hurley, P.T. 2013. Urban forest justice 

and the rights to wild foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human 

Ecology. 14: 409–422.

Price, D.M.; Kindscher, K. 2007. One hundred years of Echinacea angustifolia

harvest in the Smoky Hills of Kansas, USA. Economic Botany. 61: 86–95.

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, resource values, and 

ecosystem management: Matsutake mushroom harvesting in the 

Klamath bioregion. Society and Natural Resources. 9: 359–374.

Robbins, P.; Emery, M.R.; Rice, J. 2008. Gathering in Thoreau’s backyard: 

Nontimber forest product harvesting as practice. Area. 40: 265–277.

Saechao, F.; Wilmsen, C. 2012. Huckleberry harvesting—is it the American 

dream? The Chronicle. September 11.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho—a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 

93: 31–36.

United Nations. 1987. Our common future—Brundtland report. Oxford, UK: 

Oxford University Press. 

Watson, K. 2010. Tupelo forests and honey production along the 

Apalachicola River of Northwest Florida: livelihood preservation and 

forest conservation in a changing rural landscape. Tallahassee: Florida 

State University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Welch, C. 2006. A war in the woods. Seattle Times. June 6. http://

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003042206_salal06m.html. [Date 

accessed: September 26, 2014].
CHAPTER 6

Economics of 

Nontimber Forest 

Products

Gregory E. Frey

Keith A. Blatner

Michael G. Jacobson

C. Meghan Starbuck Downes

Erin O. Sills

D. Evan Mercer

Susan J. Alexander

James L. Chamberlain

Michael A. Gold

Larry D. Godsey

Marla R. Emery

Alisa W. Coffin

Rebecca J. Barlow

Luanne Lohr
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 121

6.1

Introduction to Economics of 

Nontimber Forest Products

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) 

encompass a broad variety of edible, woodbased, decorative, and medicinal goods 

derived from various plant and fungus parts 

(Chamberlain et al. 1998). NTFPs provide significant 

economic benefits to users in the United States; however, 

many of these values have not been systematically 

researched or quantified (Alexander et al. 2001). 

Interest in assessing the economic value, impact, and 

potential of NTFPs surged in the 1990s and early 

2000s probably in part because of controversies over 

the impact of timber harvest on endangered species 

and other conservation priorities; NTFPs seemed like a 

way to generate income and maintain standing forests 

(Robbins et al. 2008). Research in the United States and 

transferable knowledge from other countries provide 

an important baseline of evidence. However, these 

diverse studies typically address individual species at a 

specific location at a single point in time. They may have 

divergent or even contradictory findings. Furthermore, 

there are very few data consistently collected over time 

regarding NTFP harvest, trade, and consumption. 

This chapter is an attempt to synthesize the knowledge 

of the economics of NTFPs, but when necessary we 

utilize individual studies or data points from specific 

regions, which while not generalizable to the Nation 

as a whole, can be seen as illustrative or suggestive.

NTFPs, as well as their harvesters, traders, and 

consumers, have very diverse characteristics:

• NTFP collection, trade, and consumption have 

important values for individual households (micro) and 

the overall economy (macro).

• NTFP collection, consumption, and trade may involve 

monetary transactions (market) or no monetary 

transactions (nonmarket).

• Monetary trades may be through formal or informal 

markets.

• NTFPs may be wild-harvested from natural forests, 

forest farmed (chapter 2), or produced by other 

methods. Wild-harvested products have limited 

production costs for the harvester, while forest farming 

follows a more traditional investment-return model.

• Individuals may be influenced to begin wild-harvesting 

or forest farming by an array of factors including their 

own personal circumstances (internal) and the outside 

economy, markets, culture, and geography (external).

Because of this diversity, any synthesis of the 

economics of NTFPs must include various interpretive 

frameworks and analytical approaches.

This chapter is organized around micro/macro and 

market/nonmarket attributes (figure 6.1). Section 

6.2 examines the overall monetary value of NTFPs, 

in terms of prices and quantities traded, in regional 

markets (market, macro). Section 6.3 explores the 

valuation of broader benefits of NTFPs not traded in 

markets (nonmarket, macro). Section 6.4 discusses 

financial returns from production of NTFPs on 

individual farms/woodlots (market, micro). Section 

6.5 considers how NTFPs contribute to the well-being 

of households other than direct income (nonmarket, 

micro). The following sections consider two topics 

that span these areas: the factors that are correlated 

with NTFP harvest and production (section 6.6), and 

identification of potential economic impacts from climatic 

variability that are related to NTFPs (section 6.7).

Figure 6.1—Principle sections of Chapter 6: Economics of 

Nontimber Forest Products. (Source: Greg Frey, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.)
122 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

6.2

Markets and Market Values

Much of the early economic research on NTFPs in 

the United States focused on describing the products, 

characterizing their markets, assigning monetary 

values, and estimating the contribution of the industry 

to regional economies. Schlosser et al. (1991) and 

Schlosser and Blatner (1995) were among the first peer 

reviewed articles published pertaining to production 

of and markets for NTFPs in the Pacific Northwest. 

Blatner and Alexander (1998) reported additional 

information on NTFP price trends in the Pacific 

Northwest. Although additional work has been published 

for NTFPs and regions since the early 1990s, there is 

relatively little market information available for these 

products over time. The only notable exception to this 

is the recent work by Alexander et al. (2011b), which 

compiled the first national assessment of indicators 

related to NTFPs in the United States. This work is 

being updated (Chamberlain et al. in progress)1 as part 

of the United States responsibility to report on the 

state of forests for the Montreal Process (Alexander 

et al. 2011b). While these studies provided the first 

national-level summary data on the overall NTFP 

1 Chamberlain, J.L.; Teets, A. and Kruger, S. [In preparation]. Nontimber forest products in the United States: an update for the 2015 National 

Sustainable Forest Report for the Montreal Process.

industry, they are at best an approximation, given 

largely undocumented nature of much of the industry.

There are several key questions that must be answered in 

assessing NTFP markets and market values. Among these 

are: “What do we know about the industry?” and “What 

are we likely never fully to understand?” To date, we have 

compiled a basic understanding of the overall industry, 

the markets and the distribution channels; however, we 

have very little understanding of yearly fluctuations in the 

markets or the major factors influencing them. Further, 

there is an unwillingness to share detailed information 

on the part of harvesters, buyers, and companies engaged 

in the industry. Early research on NTFPs viewed the 

products and industry through the lens of traditional 

commodity markets (Schlosser et al. 1991, Schlosser 

and Blatner 1995); however, later research has pointed 

out that this characterization may not be well suited for 

some NTFPs. There are harvest, sales, trade, and cost 

data on some specific products classified as NTFPs, such 

as American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) root, 

sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall) syrup, and wild 

blueberries (Vaccinium L. spp.; figure 6.2). However, 

many NTFPs are difficult to value or track through 

various sales points from harvest to consumption, 

such as wild edible fungi (Alexander et al. 2011a).

Figure 6.2—Wild blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) are one of the few nontimber forest products tracked by the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS). Populations of this species are managed, not cultivated. Maine is the major producer of wild blueberries in the world, 

producing more than 90 million pounds in 2012. (Photo credit: David Yarborough, University of Maine.)
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 123

Furthermore, production methods and markets can shift 

over time, so economic research that values economic 

impacts at a single point in time may not be a reliable 

estimate for understanding future market values and 

markets. As an example, the harvest and sale of noble fir 

(Abies procera Rehder) boughs for holiday greenery has 

changed dramatically over the past decade. Historically, 

noble fir boughs from high elevation sites were considered 

of superior post-harvest quality compared to boughs 

from low elevation sites. This preference stems, in 

part, from the need for a period of cold temperatures 

prior to harvest to enhance needle retention. However, 

availability of higher-elevation material has declined 

due to the increasing size and age of noble fir stands 

established after the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens in 

1980. This caused a shift to the boughs produced as a 

part of Christmas tree operations on lower elevation sites.

These issues are compounded by the fact that many 

NTFPs can be part of a complex informal economy, 

particularly at early stages of the various commodity 

chains, at harvest and first point of sales.

6.2.1

Formal Markets

National accounting of NTFPs likely will underestimate 

the amount of production and the contribution of 

NTFPs to broader economic indicators because 

much of the economic activity is informal. However, 

some NTFP businesses in the United States are 

accounted for through official reporting channels. 

For example, data on businesses are collected 

annually by the Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) 

program (U.S. Census Bureau 2016), compiling 

results from various sources including administrative 

records, such as tax records, and census surveys.

Businesses are classified according to industrial category 

through the North American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS). In the 2012 SUSB (U.S. Census Bureau 

2016), many formal NTFP businesses were categorized 

in the six-digit NAICS code 113210, “Forest Nurseries 

and Gathering of Forest Products” (box 6.1). However, 

there were some significant NTFP activities that were not 

included in this list, including gathering tea and maple 

syrup production, which is in NAICS 111998. Also, data 

on agricultural businesses including some tree nut and 

maple syrup production businesses were not gathered by 

SUSB, but rather by the USDA, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Finally, some businesses that were not 

BOX 6.1

NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCT HARVESTING 

ACTIVITIES COVERED BY NORTH AMERICAN 

INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) 

CATEGORY 113210: 

Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products. 

This category includes many, but not all, NTFP 

production activities. It also includes some activities, 

such as forest nurseries, which are excluded from 

most definitions of NTFPs.

• Aromatic wood gathering 

• Balsam needles gathering 

• Bark gathering 

• Cherry gum, gathering 

• Chestnut gum, gathering 

• Forest nurseries for reforestation, growing trees 

• Gathering of forest products (e.g., barks, gums, 

needles, seeds) 

• Gathering, extracting, and selling tree seeds 

• Ginseng gathering 

• Gum (i.e., forest product) gathering 

• Harvesting berries or nuts from native and 

noncultivated plants 

• Hemlock gum gathering 

• Huckleberry green gathering 

• Moss gathering 

• Nurseries for reforestation growing trees 

• Pine gum extracting 

• Spanish moss gathering 

• Sphagnum moss gathering 

• Spruce gum gathering 

• Teaberries gathering 

• Tree seed extracting 

• Tree seed gathering 

• Tree seed growing for reforestation 
124 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

necessarily NTFP-related, such as tree nurseries, were 

included in NAICS 113210. Thus, while the data are not 

ideal, they allow a suggestive basic mapping of NTFP 

businesses and other businesses like nurseries (figure 6.3).

According to the 2012 SUSB data (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016), 182 businesses carried out activities 

classified under NAICS 113210. Total receipts for 

this category were $226 million in 2012. The map of 

business receipts by state supports observations from 

elsewhere in this assessment that significant NTFP 

economic activity is centered in the Southeast, the 

Upper Midwest, and the West Coast (figure 6.4).

Since NTFPs are so varied, no one classification 

scheme in use adequately summarizes production of 

this “sector,” so to gain a clear understanding of the 

patterns of NTFP production from the various statistical 

services it is necessary to combine data from different 

sources. There are clearly gaps in the data and much 

room for improvement to summarize business data on 

NTFPs for the United States. While the SUSB tracks 

businesses with employer identification numbers and 

payrolls, it is likely that many businesses involved in 

NTFP production are seasonal, or are nonemployer 

businesses. As mentioned, a number of NTFPs were 

recorded as specialty crops in the Census of Agriculture. 

Finally, because the NAICS code that most adequately 

describes NTFPs also includes forest nursery industries, 

which are not NTFPs, some regions of the country, such 

as the Southeastern United States, appeared as higherproducing regions than may actually be the case.

6.2.2

Informal Markets

“Informal economies refer to unregulated or 

undocumented markets or labor activities in an 

environment where similar activities are regulated” 

(Alexander et al. 2002b, p. 116). Workers in the informal 

economy tend to have characteristics referred to as 

“downgraded labor.” Specifically they tend to receive 

lower incomes (frequently in the form of cash), with few if 

any benefits, and experience difficult working conditions. 

These individuals tend to work in the informal economy 

due to a lack of other options. Some factors that 

contribute to the choice to work in an informal economy 

include: documented and undocumented immigration 

status of employees, unemployment in other sectors, 

and limitations due to language or education (McLain 

et al. 2008). Conversely, these same jobs provide 

workers with otherwise limited opportunities the 

chance to improve their socioeconomic position over 

time and move into more traditional labor markets. 

These and other factors make this type of economic 

activity very difficult to document and characterize.

Figure 6.3—Concentration and distribution of firms classified under 

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 113210: 

Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products in 2012. The 

total number of establishments in the United States was 182 in 2012. 

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016.)

Number of businesses (2012)

0

1-2

3-4

5-8

9-15

16-23

Figure 6.4—Receipts ($U.S. millions) by state of firms classified 

under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

113210: Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products. The total 

receipts for the entire United States was $226 million in 2012. See 

map notes for information about flag codes. (Source: U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016.)

Receipts in 2012 ($ million)

0

<1.2

1.2-3

3-6

6-12

12-15

15-18

18-33

>33

Notes:

D: Data withheld and value set to 0 to avoid disclosing data about individual businesses; data are included in higher level totals.

G: Low noise applied to cell value (0 to <2%).

H: Medium noise applied to cell value (2 to <5%).

Lorem ipsum

Receipts in 2012 ($ million)

0

<1.2

1.2-3

3-6

6-12

12-15

15-18

18-33

>33

Notes:

D: Data withheld and value set to 0 to avoid disclosing data about individual businesses; data are included in higher level totals.

G: Low noise applied to cell value (0 to <2%).

H: Medium noise applied to cell value (2 to <5%).

Lorem ipsum
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 125

Due to the constraints on tracking NTFP economics 

activity, Alexander et al. (2011b) developed an indirect 

measure of the industry’s contribution to the economy 

based on the number of Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) permits and contracts along with a number 

of basic economic assumptions based on input from 

key informants and broader economic rules of thumb 

about wholesale and retail price markups. These Forest 

Service and BLM permit and contract data are the 

only national-scale harvest and first point of sales data 

available on the majority of NTFPs in the United States.

Chamberlain et al. (2018) updated the analysis of 

Alexander et al. (2011b). They estimated the total 

wholesale value of wild-harvested landscaping materials, 

crafts and floral materials, regeneration and seed 

items, edible fruits, nuts and sap, grass and forage, and 

herbs and medicinal plants in the United States from 

2004 through 2013 (table 6.1). The total wholesale 

value of these products ranged from a low of $160.6 

million in 2009 to a high of $311.5 million in 2006.

6.2.3

Examples of Economic Impact 

by Region and Species

American ginseng may be the most well understood 

medicinal NTFP from the Eastern United States. 

Ginseng roots have been marketed from eastern 

hardwood forests since the late 1700s. Ginseng 

harvest migrated south as plant populations declined 

in Canada due to over-harvesting. Today, harvesting 

of wild ginseng in Canada is illegal. American 

ginseng moves through the market from either wild 

or cultivated sources. The roots can enter the formal 

economy or remain as part of an informal economy.

Because American ginseng is listed in appendix II of 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), harvest data 

for wild roots destined for export have been collected 

by state agencies at the county level (table 6.2) since 

1978. Market price data are somewhat more difficult 

to acquire, relying primarily on surveys of local dealers. 

Davis and Persons (2014) report high and low prices for 

wild ginseng paid to harvesters from 1982 to 2013 (table 

Table 6.1—Estimated wholesale value of wild-harvested nontimber resources in the United States. Assumes Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) sales receipts are 10 percent of first point-of-sales value, that U.S. forest sales represent approximately 20 to 30 

percent and BLM sales represent approximately 2 to 15 percent of total supply, and that first point-of-sales value is 40 percent of wholesale 

price. Reproduced from Chamberlain et al. (2018) with authors’ permission.

Product category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

------------------------------------------ million 2013 U.S. dollars ------------------------------------------

Landscaping 29.2 25.7 25.6 25.0 20.1 4.7 9.6 8.2 6.7 6.9

Crafts and floral 124.0* 103.1* 199.9* 234.0* 92.8* 96.8 155.5 150.3 150.6 172.5

Regeneration and seed 3.0 5.4 4.2 2.8 9.1 11.0 4.5 9.3 5.9 12.3

Edible fruits, nuts, and sap 71.4 37.2 47.2 48.7 83.3 45.1 71.1 55.5 62.1 76.8

Grass and forage 29.2* 37.5* 32.8* 30.7* 24.7* 0.02 2.1 0.3 0.5 26.9

Herbs and medicinals 2.5 1.9 1.9 3.0 6.0 3.0 4.3 5.0 5.2 4.2

Subtotal 259.3 210.9 311.5 344.2 236.1 160.6 247.1 228.7 231.1 299.6

Posts and poles 49.5 34.3 37.6 30.5 24.1 23.1 21.2 20.9 28.6 23.4

Christmas trees 188.1 196.3 36.5 152.8 133.5 42.7 172.6 126.5 123.9 119.2

Fuelwood 391.9 370.8 418.3 440.7 498.7 564.1 571.6 559.5 517.4 520.3

Non-convertible 11.9 24.4 30.9 18.1 7.3 2.7 4.7 8.0 0.8 0.8

Totala 900.6 836.6 834.8 986.2 899.7 793.1 1,017.1 943.5 901.7 963.3

a Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

* 2004–2008 have common beargrass included as grass and forage instead of crafts and floral. 
126 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

6.2). Chamberlain et al. (2013) estimated the average 

market value of wild American ginseng at $27 million, 

annually, for the period 2000 to 2007 (table 6.3). 

The 19 states certified to export wild ginseng are the 

foundation of the market (table 6.2), though most of 

the volume comes from seven states: Indiana, Kentucky, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 

Virginia (Chamberlain et al. 2013). Most of the wildharvesting, as reported, happens in about 1,000 counties 

throughout the region. Harvesters, who live primarily in 

the local communities, market roots to regional, primary 

buyers who sort, grade, consolidate, and market larger 

volumes to national and international buyers. More than 

95 percent of the volume is exported to China, making 

Asia the primary international market for wild-harvested 

American ginseng. Primary buyers paid wild-harvesters 

$462 on average for a pound of dried American ginseng 

root, during the years 2000 to 2007 (nominal $). 

Reports of three times this price are common. A pound 

of ginseng in the Chinese retail market could fetch 

thousands of dollars. The monetary value of cultivated 

ginseng is significantly less, as the visual value of the 

wild roots is much preferred (Chamberlain et al. 2013).

There have been regional studies of the impacts of 

NTFPs to local economies that provide examples of 

the economic impacts of NTFPs. By documenting the 

product market chains for several NTFPs in southwest 

Virginia, Greene et al. (2000) found multiple layers of 

players; from the producers, who are predominantly in 

the informal economy, to the international corporations 

that function in the formal economy. Medicinal NTFPs, 

such as black cohosh (Actaea racemosa L.), that are 

harvested from southwest Virginia forests support a 

local to global market (figure 6.5). The greatest demand 

for many medicinal NTFPs is beyond the borders 

of the United States. Europe and Asia command the 

largest market share for many medicinal NTFPs. Local 

Table 6.2—Wild American ginseng harvest quantity for export from the 19 States certified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (pounds dry 

weight), 2000–2013. Source: data provided by U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Low and high prices in 2013 real 

dollars per dry pound paid to harvesters, as reported by dealers. Source: Davis and Persons 2014.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Alabama 256 874 457 1,025 749 221 760 317 717 1,345 474 453 476 626

Arkansas 534 927 2,073 2,632 1,770 504 927 989 1,190 1,796 1,195 487 238 1,407

Georgia 311 706 266 426 263 402 167 280 406 293 212 158 361 346

Illinois 3,890 2,912 1,895 2,860 2,506 1,157 2,230 2,013 2,845 3,805 3,650 2,890 992 2,636

Indiana 6,273 7,048 3,192 6,915 4,819 1,498 3,325 2,807 4,623 6,478 3,447 3,270 1,883 4,670

Iowa 948 784 798 566 395 — 609 1,473 776 768 798 884 273 299

Kentucky 16,216 22,765 15,085 22,583 16,717 9,392 13,713 11,345 11,839 19,246 15,041 13,176 15,276 20,025

Maryland 2,270 904 110 109 159 96 62 148 74 196 143 141 153 126

Minnesota 1,517 1,303 1,642 1,451 1,224 1,250 735 1,093 485 577 1,184 463 500 602

Missouri 1,585 1,602 2,498 2,362 1,612 2,266 1,580 1,224 1,756 1,916 1,098 1,743 780 1,387

New York 1,149 753 483 684 622 603 287 453 413 401 541 512 351 856

North Carolina 8,415 6,788 8,790 6,548 4,271 5,602 7,060 12,378 11,402 10,513 8,041 9,716 8,765 7,849

Ohio 3,757 3,254 3,059 4,557 3,958 3,311 2,264 3,066 3,626 4,942 3,418 3,752 2,676 5,775

Pennsylvania 1,733 1,441 1,725 927 1,100 1,158 1,448 1,642 1,281 1,719 1,370 827 1,324 1,768

Tennessee 8,164 8,737 5,815 10,826 8,690 5,280 8,153 8,695 8,435 14,642 11,464 9,322 10,145 13,867

Vermont 205 119 184 116 112 49 77 114 127 129 160 147 180 144

Virginia 5,731 3,821 3,810 4,675 3,435 1,571 2,878 3,050 2,918 4,081 3,610 3,856 4,751 4,370

West Virginia 8,612 5,409 5,207 7,175 5,891 4,833 4,590 4,151 4,780 7,646 5,634 4,920 4,659 7,161

Wisconsin 3,685 2,491 2,581 1,690 1,945 1,603 2,145 2,401 2,087 2,495 2,409 1,989 1,290 1,606

Total harvest 75,251 72,638 59,670 78,127 60,238 40,796 53,010 57,639 59,780 82,988 63,889 58,706 55,115 75,892

Low price $433 $289 $324 $380 $308 $298 $347 $449 $270 $380 $374 $331 $406 $600

High price $676 $526 $647 $506 $617 $656 $693 $1,292 $1,082 $652 $1,175 $777 $1,268 $1,250
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 127

dealers market to national and international entities 

that process market to the final consumer via retail 

outlets such as health food stores and big-box retailers.

Greenfield and Davis (2003) examined the markets 

for several medicinal, floral decorative, and culinary 

NTFPs in western North Carolina. The hardwood 

forests of southern Appalachia are the source of about 

half of the 175 native North American plant species, 

for the nonprescription medicinal market in the United 

States. Of the 20 or so plants tracked by American 

Herbal Products Association, more than three-fourths 

are native to Appalachia. The forests of western North 

Carolina are the origin for much of the market supply 

for more than 45 forest botanical products (FBPs) 

(Greenfield and Davis 2003). The analysis focused on 

the transitional period from an informal to a formal 

economy, and identified critical challenging issues. At 

the time of the Greenfield and Davis (2003) study, 65 

dealers of NTFPs established the formal market. 54 

dealers bought and sold American ginseng and other 

medicinal forest products, including approximately five 

firms located outside of North Carolina. Nine firms 

marketed galax (Galax urceolata (Poir.) Brummitt) 

and some of those marketed log moss, as well.

The selected western North Carolina NTFP markets 

originate with about 75 commercial harvesters. 

Greenfield and Davis (2003) also estimated the North 

Carolina and United States harvest quantity and market 

value in 2001 for several NTFPs, based on surveys 

of North Carolina NTFP buyers/dealers and review 

of national-level reports. A summary of estimates for 

four products (bloodroot [Sanguinaria canadensis L.], 

black cohosh [Actaea racemosa], American ginseng 

root, galax leaves) is given in table 6.4 (North Carolina 

harvest volumes). Much of the harvest volume of black 

cohosh is bound for Europe, where it is processed and 

consumed, or exported back to the United States to 

retail establishments. Similarly, Europe is the primary 

market for other medicinal NTFPs such as blue 

cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides (L.) Michx.).

Galax and three species of log moss (Hypnum 

curvifolium Hedw.; H. imponens Hedw.; Thuidium 

delicatulum (Hedw.) Schimp.), which in 2001 was 

harvested from seven counties in western North 

Carolina, are an important component of the floral 

market. Nine firms purchased galax leaves that were 

picked primarily from public forests. The North 

Table 6.3—Average annual revenue from American ginseng and 

hardwood timber harvest by State for 2000 to 2007. No data were 

available to estimate timber revenue for Minnesota. Source: 

Chamberlain et al. 2013.

State

Average annual 

ginseng 

harvest

Estimated 

ginseng 

revenue* 

Timber 

revenue

pounds thousand US dollars

Alabama 597 254 46,401

Arkansas 1,294 551 30,137

Georgia 353 150 9,401

Illinois 2,485 1,059 30,404

Indiana 5,267 2,244 75,251

Iowa 733 312 9,942

Kentucky 15,977 6,806 78,843

Maryland 482 205 7,079

Minnesota 1,277 544

Missouri 1,841 784 81,739

New York 639 272 82,157

North Carolina 7,582 3,230 56,968

Ohio 3,458 1,473 55,216

Pennsylvania 1,385 590 228,374

Tennessee 8,045 3,427 137,345

Vermont 122 52 22,986

Virginia 3,632 1,547 73,176

West Virginia 5,736 2,444 150,099

Wisconsin 2,318 987 90,749

Totals 63,222 26,931 1,266,266

*Based on a nominal average price for the period 2000 to 2007 of $462 per pound 

(dried).

Figure 6.5—Market chain for medicinal and herbal nontimber forest 

products from southwest Virginia. (Source: Greene et al. 2000.)

Collector

Local Dealer

Regional Dealer Domestic Industry

Europe Asia

Over-Counter Drug Store

Prescription Pharmacy

Health Food Store

Cosmetic Store

Consumer Catalog
128 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

Carolina market for ramps (Allium tricoccum Aiton) 

is less formally developed (Greenfield and Davis 2003). 

In 2001, ramps were marketed in North Carolina 

through farmers’ markets, festivals, and roadside 

vegetable stands (Greenfield and Davis 2003). In that 

year more than 2000 pounds of ramps were harvested 

for annual festivals. Greenfield and Davis (2003) 

present price data for ramps sold in farmers’ markets, 

but were unable to summarize volumes of the edible 

forest product marketed through various companies.

In the Southern United States, pine straw from longleaf 

(Pinus palustris Mill.), slash (Pinus elliottii Engelm.), 

or loblolly (P. taeda L.) is a valuable nontimber forest 

product (figure 6.6). These needles are raked, baled, 

and sold for use as garden mulch or as a landscaping 

ground cover. North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia 

are considered to be the leading pine straw states (Mills 

and Robertson 1991). Estimates for market value range 

from a 1996 pine straw value of $50 million in North 

Carolina (Rowland 2003) to a $79 million value for 

Florida in 2003 (Hodges et al. 2005). The state with the 

most detailed records regarding pine straw production is 

Georgia where data for pine straw are actually collected 

as a separate commodity. In 2012, pine straw accounted 

for 9.6 percent of Georgia’s forest products market at 

$59 million (Wolfe and Stubbs 2013, p. 109–110).

Casanova (2007) found that landowners often work 

with a pine straw dealer to have their straw raked. 

A contract is developed between the two parties 

that outlines how and when the straw will be raked, 

along with details of payment. The pine straw dealer 

then works with a forest labor contractor who 

arranges for and manages the pine straw harvesters 

who actually conduct the work on the ground.

Blatner and Alexander (1998) provided prices for some 

of the most significant commercially harvested fungi 

in the Pacific Northwest. They estimated that as many 

as 36 species are traded commercially but Boletus spp., 

chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.), morels (Morchella spp.), 

and American matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) 

make up the bulk of the industry. The average price 

per pound paid to harvesters in the Pacific Northwest 

from 1992 to 1996 was $5.69 for Boletus, $3.26 for 

chanterelles, $5.04 for morels, and $14.08 for American 

matsutake. The size of the wild mushroom market 

in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho was estimated at 

$21.5 million in 1985 (McRobert 1985), and $41.1 

million in 1992 (Schlosser and Blatner 1995). Alexander 

et al. (2002a) estimate a per-acre monetary value for 

matsutake mushroom fields of $139-$604 in 1997.

Muir et al. (2006) researched the quantity and market 

value of “moss” (a mixture of mosses and liverworts) 

harvested commercially from forests in the Appalachian 

and Pacific Northwest regions of the United States. These 

regions supply the vast majority of moss harvested for 

decorative purposes, as opposed to peat moss. The study 

explored both moss harvest under permits issued from 

the Forest Service and BLM, and amounts reported in 

export data. Moss harvest reflected in Forest Service 

and BLM permits were considerably less than those 

estimated from export data and assumptions about 

those data. This is likely due to several factors, including 

people harvesting from Federal lands without a permit, 

and harvest from other land ownerships such as private 

land in the Southeastern United States. Export data 

suggest the mean annual harvest from 1998 to 2003 

was between 5,300 and 20,300 air-dry tons, and sales 

(domestic plus export) were estimated between $6 million 

and $165 million per year. The study illustrates how 

Table 6.4—Estimated 2001 North Carolina and U.S. harvest quantity and value of selected nontimber forest products. 

Source: Greenfield and Davis 2003.

Product Scientific name

Estimated NC 

harvest

Estimated NC 

harvest value

Estimated U.S. 

harvest

Estimated U.S. 

harvest value

--------------------------- thousand ---------------------------

pounds 2001 U.S. dollars pounds 2001 U.S. dollars

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis 2 20 135 1,890

Black cohosh Actea racemosa 4 10 420 2,250

Am. ginseng Panax quinquefolius 7 1,800 46 12,100

Galax* Galax urceolata 4,000 10,000 4,000 10,000

*In the report, estimates for galax varied somewhat; values cited here are given as a conservative estimate.
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 129

little is known about the moss trade in the United States 

and indicates that policymakers and land managers 

lack critical information to inform harvest regulation.

At a more local level, such as the village, county, or state 

level, NTFPs can play a major economic role. There is too 

much diversity to fully document here, but box 6.2

offers one such example. Given the importance of 

these products to local economies and the efforts and 

sometimes the struggles of public land managers and 

private landowners to manage access to them, we need to 

learn more about the importance of this highly complex 

and heterogeneous industry and its role in advancing 

the standard of living for those engaged in the harvest, 

processing, and sale of these products. We also need 

to develop a much more complete understanding of 

nonmarket values of NTFPs, including the recreational, 

cultural, and subsistence demand for these products.

6.3

Nonmarket Values of Nontimber Forest Products

While some NTFPs are traded in markets where data 

on volume and price can be collected, other NTFPs 

are produced and consumed in household production 

or traded in informal exchanges where the price and 

quantity harvested are not readily available. For NTFPs 

that are consumed by the harvester, or traded locally in 

an informal market, the value of the product harvested is 

difficult to estimate and nonmarket valuation techniques 

must be applied to provide an estimate of the quantity 

and the value of the harvest. This section provides a 

discussion of the nonmarket valuation of NTFPs.

6.3.1

Valuation Methodologies

There are a wide variety of methodologies to estimate 

non-market values from NTFPs. The two main 

approaches are revealed preference models and stated 

preference models. Revealed preference models estimate 

demand from consumer choices regarding nonmarket 

goods, and are usually based on surveys and/or secondary 

information on consumer choice such as housing 

prices. Revealed preference models include: travel cost, 

hedonic pricing, and household production models 

(Freeman 2003). Stated preference models estimate 

demand from surveys and experiments to construct 

a value for the good. These are based on consumers’ 

reported behavior or simulations of behavior and not on 

the actual choices consumers make (Freeman 2003).

Research has demonstrated that NTFP harvesting can be 

an important part of the implicit value that resource users 

place on visiting forests, whether it is for recreational, 

subsistence, or other purposes (see Bowker et al. 2005, 

2006, 2009; Maheret et al. 2013; Starbucket et al. 

2006). However, less research has explicitly quantified 

this value. A well-established method for evaluating and 

valuing nonmarket service flows from a forest is the 

recreation demand or travel cost method (TCM). TCM 

uses data collected from individual visitors, usually from 

an onsite or mail survey. It is assumed that the ability and 

preferences of individuals to visit NTFP harvest sites vary 

between individuals, but that a single person’s preferences 

are consistent and can be measured. Values for the site 

in question are derived based on the premise that the 

distance traveled to recreate at the site is the shadow 

price of recreation to that site. The number of visits taken 

to the site is a function of prices, money income, and 

Figure 6.6—Longleaf, slash, and loblolly pine needles are harvested 

for pine straw used in landscaping. In 2012, pine straw accounted 

for almost 10 percent of Georgia’s forest products industry. (Photo 

credit: Becky Barlow.)
130 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

environmental quality. Individuals perceive and respond 

to changes in the travel expenses of a visit in the same 

way they would respond to a change in an admission fee. 

It is this use of travel cost as a shadow price of recreation 

that allows for the estimation of a recreation demand 

model (Freeman 2003). However, this use of actual trips 

precludes the ability to derive policy relevant changes in 

trip demand associated with differing policy options. If 

recreation demand questions are structured such that 

data are collected on actual and intended behavior, then 

the analyst can evaluate policies beyond the realm of 

observable levels of a given resource, or over quality and 

price changes that are policy relevant but historically 

unobservable (Rosenberger and Loomis 1999).

Increasing awareness of environmental effects 

associated with timber harvesting has created a need 

for various land management agencies to begin focusing 

attention on sustainable extraction of NTFPs, and 

the combined use of revealed and stated preference 

methods can provide estimates of the economic value 

of policy and environmental changes associated with 

climatic variability. These changes can then be fed into 

macroeconomic models to estimate the overall economic 

impact of the policy and/or environmental changes.

6.3.2

Estimates of Nonmarket Values

There is a significant literature on forests and nonmarket 

valuation, however much of the work is on European 

forests and other areas outside the United States. For 

the valuation of products from United States forests, 

the literature is significantly thinner, with sporadic 

estimates across different forests and products. Two 

of the most relevant estimates that highlight the 

methods and results can be found in Markstrom 

and Donnelly (1988) and Starbuck et al. (2004).

BOX 6.2

CASE STUDY: Nontimber forest product values on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) in southwestern 

Washington is a premier wild berry and mushroom 

harvesting location, and commercial and recreational 

harvesting permits are issued for those products as well 

as plants and plant parts for decorative purposes. Under 

present rules, a harvester may collect, at no charge, up to 3 

gallons per year of huckleberries with no permit and up to 

3 gallons per year of mushrooms with a “free use” permit 

(previously called “recreational” or “personal-use” permit). 

Other products have different free-use limits. A “charge 

use” permit (previously called “commercial” permit) may be 

purchased for collecting larger quantities, or if the harvest 

will be sold. Hansis (1998) collected information on the 

number of permits issued by the GPNF for mushroom and 

huckleberry harvesting between 1992 and 1994; the GPNF 

issued a total of 2,620 personal-use mushroom harvesting 

permits and 8,342 commercial mushroom permits; the 

GPNF issued 25,621 personal-use huckleberry permits, 

as well as 73 commercial huckleberry permits. Hansis 

(1998) and Richards (1994) suggest some harvesters use 

personal-use permits for commercial harvesting activities. 

Additionally, Hansis (1998) found evidence of unpermitted 

harvest on the GPNF.

The 12 blueberry-like huckleberry species (Vaccinium

spp. and Gaylussacia spp.) that grow in the U.S. states 

of Oregon and Washington are prized for their flavor and 

texture. Huckleberries are eaten fresh or dried whole. 

Commonly, they are eaten fresh; baked in pancakes, pies, 

and muffins; canned; frozen; or made into jams and jellies. 

The leaves can be used fresh or dried to make 

a tea. In addition to the subsistence harvesting carried 

out by American Indians and nonnative Americans, 

commercial harvesting also occurs on the GPNF. These 

berries are sold in local markets and to wholesalers. Most 

wild huckleberries are exported from the United States to 

Canada (Blatner and Alexander 1998, Kerns et al. 2004). 

Commercial and noncommercial harvesters gather several 

species of mushrooms, and one of the more popular 

species of mushrooms is the morel (Morchella spp.). These 

mushrooms fruit heavily after forest fires, particularly 

those that burn the duff and understory plants but leave 

trees standing. Morels are a choice edible mushroom, 

harvested by people for personal use and for sale. Other 

popular mushrooms include porcini (mostly king bolete, 

Boletus edulis), chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.), hedgehog 

mushroom (Hydnum repandum), Oregon white truffles 

(Tuber gibbosum), American matsutake (Tricholoma 

magnivelare), and lobster mushrooms (Hypomyces 

lactiflorum). 

As the GPNF examples illustrate, there is significant value 

embedded in NTFPs, but there is a substantial gap in 

the literature and in land owner/manager knowledge. The 

full value of NTFPs includes the market and nonmarket 

values. For NTFPs, the construction of the market and 

nonmarket values is problematic. On the market side, the 

large amount of illegal and unreported harvesting as well 

as low-quality inventory data make valuation difficult, and 

on the nonmarket side, these same issues as well as a lack 

of funding have all but stopped valuation efforts.
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 131

Markstrom and Donnelly (1988) used TCM to estimate 

the recreational value of Christmas tree cutting from 

a site in Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado. They 

estimated an average consumer surplus estimate of over 

$4 (in 1984 dollars) per tree, which translated into 

a recreational value of $15 per harvested tree when 

compared to trees that could be purchased from sales 

lots in area towns. Multiplying by the average 2.3 trees 

harvested per vehicle and the estimated 2,400 vehicle 

visits, the total recreational value of the site for Christmas 

tree cutting was approximately $82,000 in 1984.

Starbuck et al. (2004) used TCM to model the demand 

for recreational berry and mushroom harvesting in two 

Districts within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 

Washington. The two-step function first estimated their 

success at harvesting and secondly valued access to 

harvesting as a function of this success. The combination 

of a harvesting survey that collected characteristics of 

the individuals combined with the reported harvest 

and number of trips taken provided a survey based 

value of legal NTFP harvesting, and this value could 

be compared with local market values. This two-step 

approach combined differences between individuals 

with the spatial distance aspect of TCM to derive 

a value for the huckleberries and wild mushrooms 

in the Pacific Northwest. They found an average 

consumer surplus of $36 per recreational visitorday (2003 dollars). This is the equivalent of $93,000 

(2003 dollars) in 1996 total consumer surplus for the 

1,000 harvesters with recreational permits on the two 

districts covered in the survey (Starbuck et al. 2004).

These two studies illustrate the types of analyses that can 

be undertaken regarding the nonmarket values of NTFPs 

in the United States, and also highlight the thin nature 

of both the research and the markets for the goods.

6.4

Contribution of Nontimber 

Forest Products to Farm and 

Household Finance

So far, we have discussed market and nonmarket 

analyses at the regional, state, and local levels. In 

addition, NTFPs have an impact at the micro level, by 

contributing to farm and household income and wellbeing (see section 6.5). As shown in figure 6.7, NTFPs 

vary in terms of both the degree of market integration 

(the horizontal axis) and the degree of transformation 

(the vertical axis). The spectrum of value addition on the 

vertical axis spans products and services consumed as 

harvested from the forest (e.g., recreational picking and 

consumption of fresh berries), transformed into other 

products and services (e.g., baskets and home heating 

with firewood), and used as inputs into other production 

process (e.g., acorns to feed pigs). While difficult to 

illustrate, figure 6.7 could also be complemented with 

a third axis, representing the degree of management. 

This would include species with no management 

(wild-harvested), those that are naturally regenerated 

but with some management activities (managed wild 

populations), and those that are forest farmed.

This section considers NTFPs that are eventually sold in 

formal or informal markets, thus contributing to farm 

and household finance. While market analyses provide 

insights into the value of the NTFP sector for a particular 

geographic area, financial analysis of NTFP production 

Figure 6.7—Continua of contributions of nontimber forest products to household finance and well-being, using maple sap/syrup as an 

example. (Source: M.R. Emery, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.) Processing Continuum

Used as 

production 

input

Maple syrup is used as 

sweetener in sauces, baked 

goods, and other foods for 

home consumption

Maple syrup is an ingredient 

in goods like doughnuts and 

lemonade sold at bake sales 

and farm stands

Maple sap is a 

key ingredient in 

beverages produced by 

microdistilleries

Transformed 

into valueadded product

Maple sap is boiled to 

produce syrup for household 

consumption

Maple syrup is a key feature 

of New England pancake 

breakfast fundraisers

Maple syrup is a source 

of supplemental income 

for many small farmers 

and woodlot owners

Consumed as 

harvested

Maple syrup makers, large 

and small, often drink some 

of the sap just as it comes 

from the tree

Backyard maple syrup 

makers sometimes give 

gifts of fresh sap in season

Maple water (unboiled 

sap) is bottled and sold 

as a beverage

Self-provisioning Sale in informal markets, 

gifts, fundraisers

Sale in formal markets

Economic Mode
132 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

systems provide producers with an understanding of 

the relative worth of an investment, provide insight into 

producer financial motivations, and contribute to policies 

to make the NTFP market more viable and sustainable. 

Financial analysis tools are used to measure production 

costs and revenues and to determine if NTFP production 

is profitable compared to alternative investments.

For an evaluation of NTFP finance, it is also 

crucial to note the difference between wild-harvest 

and forest farming production methods. Wildharvesting often involves very little upfront cost, 

whereas forest farming involves a higher degree 

of inputs. We consider both in this section.

6.4.1

Financial Analysis Methods and Measures

Enterprise budgeting is commonly used to determine 

profitability for specific NTFP production systems. 

For example, using a cash-flow approach, all variable 

costs and revenues associated with its production 

are tallied, and then summed up to determine net 

profit. This approach works well for annual systems 

production. Land rents, and all fixed costs such as 

capital equipment, and depreciation are included in the 

cash flow. NTFPs requiring multiple years of cultivation 

(e.g., ginseng) require discounting the costs and revenues 

using criteria such as net present value, internal rate of 

return, or break-even pricing to get accurate estimates 

of profitability (Blatner et al. 2010, Burkhart and 

Jacobson 2009, Godsey 2010, Godsey et al. 2009).

Detailed financial analyses of NTFP cultivation and 

harvest, as well as their contribution to household 

budgets, are scarce. It is not clear how many wildharvesters and forest farmers in the United States depend 

on NTFPs for all or most of their farm or household 

income. Research results often appear contradictory. 

One study found that the vast majority of NTFP 

harvesters collected for personal use, while those who 

collect for income represented only 3 to 4 percent of 

harvesters (Robbins et al. 2008), and another found 

that 82 percent of harvesters had some commercial 

motivations with only 17 percent harvesting for personal 

use only (Jones et al. 2004). The contradiction likely 

arises from different samples and different regions: 

Jones et al. (2004) used a sample of known harvesters 

from around the United States, whereas Robbins et al. 

(2008) took a random sample of the general population 

in New England. In any event, many people utilize 

NTFPs to contribute to their well-being in ways other 

than income, which is discussed in section 6.5.

Furthermore, even those having income motivations are 

faced with few formal markets and prices. Only a few 

NTFPs such as ginseng have well-documented prices 

and markets. Frequently, NTFPs are informally traded, 

and this leads to limited information about quantities 

harvested and prices received, which creates difficulties 

in determining monetary value and profitability.

6.4.2

Producers and Production Systems

Collection of NTFPs for income is either based on 

wild-harvesting or forest farming. Wild-harvesting 

is the collection of products from unmanaged (or 

minimally managed) populations of plants. Forest 

farming, or NTFP cultivation, involves a more active 

role in propagating organisms (plants, fungi) and 

managing growing conditions to increase yields (Hill 

and Buck 2000). See chapter 2 for more details on this 

distinction and other types of production systems.

While we are unaware of sociological studies comparing 

and contrasting people who undertake wild-harvesting 

versus forest-farming activities, it may be that they 

satisfy different economic needs for the participants. 

Wild-harvesting can be a low-cost endeavor, often 

requiring only ecological knowledge, harvest labor 

time, minimal transportation and equipment, and 

possibly a permit fee as wild-harvesting often takes 

place on public lands. Forest farming, on the other 

hand, involves significant up-front investment of capital, 

land, and labor, and would be more typical on private 

lands. For further discussion on factors influencing 

wild-harvesting and forest farming, see section 6.6.

6.4.3

Business Models

NTFP and timber financial analyses are similar in many 

ways. Both NTFP harvesters and timber buyers acquire 

access through a contract with a forest landowner. Since 

many NTFP producers and gatherers often do not own 

the land, the producer must negotiate access rights, 

either through purchase or long-term lease (in the case 

of forest farming), or harvest permits (wild-harvesting). 

Some benefits of ownership include the incentive for 

continuous investments to improve the resource base and 

the ability to exclude others from harvesting NTFPs from 

that property (box 6.3). Leasing or permits provide the 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 133

flexibility to harvest from numerous sites without the cost 

of ownership. Leased rights may be creatively negotiated 

to minimize costs; however, leases do not always provide 

the benefit of excluding others from impacting the 

harvest of NTFPs or provide an incentive to invest in 

such a way as to improve the quality of the NTFPs.

Farm and household business structures for NTFPs 

can be as simple as a sole proprietorship or as complex 

as a cooperative or limited liability corporation (LLC). 

In general, we do not know enough about the type 

of business entities NTFP practitioners use, but for 

NTFPs that do not require capital intensive processing 

or can be marketed in their original form, a simple 

sole proprietorship or partnership may be the most 

common business model. Such may be the case for 

wild or cultivated mushroom growers that market their 

mushrooms directly through farmers’ markets and 

contacts in the restaurant industry. NTFPs that require 

capital intensive processing to reach the consumer may 

be organized as a cooperative or LLC. In some cases, 

such as the black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) nutmeat 

industry, the capital resources for processing are 

owned by a corporation that procures raw materials 

for processing through various forms of contracts and 

spot market purchases from farmers and landowners 

(Reid et al. 2009). Other NTFP industries, such as the 

elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.) industry, have 

established buying cooperatives to aggregate the raw 

materials and then contract the processing services 

from a local bottling company (Cernusca et al. 2011).

6.4.4

Factors Influencing Profitability

Important factors that influence NTFP financial 

investment analysis and profitability can be divided into 

direct factors of production and external factors, such 

as markets that influence production and profitability.

Factors of production include labor, capital, and land. 

The producer should account for labor, whether paid or 

unpaid. One way to estimate labor costs if the person is 

not being paid directly is to use the opportunity cost of 

labor in the analysis. Capital is the investments needed to 

acquire necessary equipment, plant materials, and other 

establishment costs. Lease or rental payments for the 

land are a capital cost. If no lease payment is made, when 

applicable, financial analysis should take into account 

the opportunity cost, or value of alternative benefits 

forgone. Since NTFP production is on forest land, the 

land value is nearly always based on timber production, 

though it should be noted that timber and NTFPs can 

be produced simultaneously and need not always be 

considered as competing uses. Financial analysis in this 

setting, where different goods are produced at different 

times and have both competing and complementary 

production functions can be quite complex. Very few 

public appraisals or private forest investments consider 

NTFP values. However, in most cases, NTFP activities 

can add additional value to the forest or timber values. 

Recouping capital costs can take many years, depending 

on the size of operation, harvest age, yields and prices 

of the NTFPs. Capital investments may require loans, 

adding the issue of interest payments to the analysis.

While the costs to wild-harvest are minimal compared 

to forest farming, there are land (permit fees), labor 

(harvest time), and capital (transportation and any 

harvest equipment) costs associated with wildharvesting. Wild-harvesters often do not consider these 

costs (Burkhart 2011). Wild-harvesters may consider 

these costs negligible compared to the recreational 

or cultural value they place on the activity.

Market access and barriers, product quality, valueadded potential, weather and seasonality, and laws and 

regulations are examples of external factors that affect 

both production and profitability (Porter 1980). Having 

reliable markets and the ability to sell the product are 

critical for any producer. In most cases NTFPs are in 

competitive markets where the producer is a price taker, 

i.e., the market determines the price that the producer 

receives. Burkhart and Jacobson (2009) showed that 

the price of different botanicals can vary dramatically 

depending on demand. NTFPs are also very susceptible 

to market fluctuations. Booms and busts in the NTFP 

BOX 6.3

ILLUSTRATION OF OWNERSHIP AND INCENTIVES

The Manson family in Brunswick, Missouri, produces 

northern pecans on over 1,500 acres of bottomland 

hardwoods along the Missouri River. Processing 

northern pecans is not capital intensive and the family 

sells pecans as a partnership. Through ownership of a 

large portion of these acres and negotiated contracts 

for the purchase of pecans from other landowners, the 

Manson family has both the incentive to improve the 

production of pecans on their land and the flexibility 

to expand their production without the cost of owning 

additional land.
134 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

trade are common and one reason is shifts in consumer 

preferences. Another reason is that many NTFPs are 

traded in national and international markets and prices 

are driven in many ways by the state of the economy.

NTFP quality often affects prices. For example there 

are over 40 different buyer grades for ginseng in the 

Asian market. NTFP producers may substantially 

increase profitability by adding value through 

processing or selling directly to end users. Finally, 

weather and seasonality of harvest affect markets 

by impacting the quantity and quality of annual 

harvests. As these change, prices fluctuate. It is 

common to find shortages of some NTFPs in drought 

or abnormally wet years, driving up the market price. 

These challenges could be exacerbated as climate and 

related stressors change in intensity and ranges.

Another important driver of production and 

profitability is resource availability. If NTFPs are 

being depleted, it will obviously affect profitability 

through less harvest volume for sale. If the NTFP 

is in demand, resource shortages may temporarily 

increase prices paid and possibly lead to cultivation.

6.4.5

Estimates of Income from Wild-Harvesting

Very few studies have estimated the income that typical 

harvesters receive from wild-harvesting of NTFPs. 

Income analysis would rely on surveys of harvesters or 

second-hand information from dealers, both of which 

are difficult given the secretive and informal nature 

of the harvest, and the fact that the vast majority 

of harvesters gather at least in part for personal use 

(Robbins et al. 2008). Also, as with most surveys, 

respondents are hesitant to state dollar values for income.

In the Eastern United States, Hembram and Hoover 

(2008) surveyed harvesters and dealers around Daniel 

Boone National Forest in Kentucky and found that 

part-time harvesters may generate $200 to 1,000 

per year while full-time harvesters may earn $3,000 

to $15,000 per year. These monetary values are 

revenue only and do not factor out any costs of labor, 

transportation, or harvest permit fees. Bailey (1999), 

while not noting exact dollar figures in most cases, 

found that ginseng harvesters often made only enough 

income to cover occasional incidental expenses such 

as hunting/fishing supplies or holiday gifts. On the 

other hand, one interviewee indicated the ginseng had 

generated enough cash to help him build a new home.

In the Pacific Northwest, Carroll et al. (2003) similarly 

described commercial berry harvesters as those that 

either do so to supplement income, or those that 

work full time, but did not state dollar values. A 

survey of wild mushroom processors by Schlosser 

and Blatner (1995) indicated that approximately 35 

percent of harvesters rely on mushroom harvest as 

their primary source of income during the season. 

However, review of the literature found no estimates 

of dollar income values in the Pacific Northwest.

6.4.6

Estimates of Forest Farming Profitability

Burkhart and Jacobson (2009) examined profitability 

of forest farming of medicinal forest plants in eastern 

North America. Costs and revenues were modeled 

for eight FBPs—black cohosh, blue cohosh, false 

unicorn (Chamaelirium luteum (L.) A. Gray), wild yam 

(Dioscorea villosa L.), goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis

L.), American ginseng, poke (Phytolacca americana

L.), and bloodroot—used in the medicinal trade. Data 

were based on field work; visits and consultation with 

experienced growers, collectors, and industry (e.g., 

buyers); and a literature review. Since most NTFP 

wild-harvesters and forest farmers are self-employed, 

a wage rate of $13 per hour was used to represent the 

opportunity cost of time. The results show that under 

a variety of cost, price, and discount rate assumptions, 

only forest farming of ginseng is profitable. Even under 

scenarios with lower discount rates, early harvests, 

no stock costs, and no annual costs, only ginseng and 

goldenseal showed break even prices below industry 

prices (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). This implies that 

production costs exceed the market price for most NTFPs 

analyzed in the study (Burkhart and Jacobson 2009). 

Based on these results, forest farming of most botanicals 

is unlikely to occur unless prices increase dramatically. 

However, there is an active trade, mainly from wildharvesters who have lower costs than those participating 

in NTFP forest farming. This is particularly true in areas 

that lack sufficient employment opportunities—their 

opportunity cost of labor may be far less than $13/hr. 

Furthermore, producers may value both wild-harvesting 

and forest farming for their cultural and recreational 

benefits, reducing the perceived opportunity cost of labor.
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 135

Joint production of timber and tree-based NTFPs has 

also been analyzed. Blatner et al. (2010) simulated 

the growth of noble fir to estimate the profitability 

of management for joint production of sawtimber 

and boughs for seasonal decorations. The simulation 

utilized data from inventories of existing fir-hemlock 

stands in Oregon and Washington. At 4 percent 

discount rate, managing noble fir for sawtimber was 

not profitable due to low stumpage values and a 60-

year rotation period. However, adding sale of boughs 

was enough to make management profitable.

Similarly, joint production of longleaf pine sawtimber 

and pine straw has been found on multiple occasions to 

be more profitable than sawtimber alone (e.g., Dickens 

et al. 2011, Glenn 2012, Roise et al. 1991), although 

possibly less profitable than loblolly pine for timber alone 

(Glenn 2012). Revenue that landowners receive from 

pine straw harvesting can vary widely due to species, 

quality of the straw, and site preparation costs (Dyer 

2012). Taylor and Foster (2004) found that landowners 

in east Texas were paid $0.10 to $0.25 per bale, while 

landowners in Georgia were paid $0.50 to $0.65 per 

bale (Casanova 2007). During a similar time period, 

landowners in Florida were found to have leases that paid 

between $70 and $100 per acre (Minogue et al. 2007).

We note that the existence of yield models for fir boughs 

and pine straw is unusual; data sufficient to produce 

statistical models of yield are lacking for the vast majority 

of NTFPs. It is likely that the existence of yield models 

for NTFPs from noble fir and longleaf pine is due at 

least in part to the fact that these are timber species.

Production of gourmet mushrooms in the woods also 

may be profitable. Rathke and Baughman (1993) 

estimated costs and returns based on literature and 

interviews of producers and found that an outdoor 

log-grown shiitake (Lentinula edodes (Berk.) Pegler) 

mushroom enterprise of 11,000 logs could generate 

the equivalent of about $17,000 per year (5.8-percent 

discount rate) in 1993, the equivalent of $27,600 in 

2015, or $8.65 per hour of producer’s labor. More 

recently, Frey (2014) also found positive rates of return, 

but large expansion of production is limited because 

the market for shiitake grown on logs on the forest is 

not large, and more intensively grown mushrooms (e.g., 

indoors on sawdust blocks) are cheaper to produce.

Other literature has found positive rates of return for 

cultivation of products that are found in the woods, 

but in many cases, the production systems involve 

moving the species out of the forest to an artificially 

shaded garden as in the cases of black cohosh and 

bloodroot (Davis and Dressler 2012), or to an orchard 

as in the case of elderberry (Byers et al. 2012).

6.5

Contribution of Nontimber Forest 

Products to Household Well-Being

In addition to contributing to household finances, NTFPs 

contribute directly to household well-being in many ways 

along the spectrum shown in figure 6.7. Households 

often can obtain NTFPs for personal use or sale without 

significant inputs other than their own labor, ecological 

knowledge, and forest access. This means that household 

production theory, which recognizes that households are 

integrated production and consumption units, is helpful for 

understanding the roles played by NTFPs in the household 

economy. This theory underlies much of the research on 

NTFPs in developing countries (Sills et al. 2003) and also 

has been used to model family landowners in the United 

States (Pattanayak et al. 2002, 2003; Thornton 1994).

In this framework, we think of households as combining 

access to forest with their own labor and ecological 

knowledge to produce valuable goods and services, which 

they can consume (for personal use or self-provisioning) 

or sell in the market. In our framework, we consider all 

of these to be outputs of household production, although 

standard economic accounts record only those eventually 

sold in the market and not those that directly support 

household well-being, perhaps substituting for products 

that would otherwise have to be purchased in the market.

The horizontal axis of figure 6.7 shows these potential end 

uses ranging from (1) sale in formal markets; (2) sale in 

informal markets, barter, gift-giving and fundraising; and 

(3) direct use by the households who harvest. To make this 

concrete, we provide examples of how households employ 

NTFPs to produce goods or services at these three points 

along the horizontal axis. First, complementing section 6.4 

on income generation from NTFPs, we consider how sales 

of goods or experiences based on NTFPs can help smooth 

income over seasonal, inter-annual, and life cycle sources of 

variation, or help meet intermittent needs for cash income, 

serving as a kind of “natural insurance” (Pattanayak and 

Sills 2001, Pierce and Emery 2005). Second, NTFPs are 

also critical for building and maintaining social capital 

through gift-giving, fundraising for local institutions, and 
136 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

activities such as meet-ups to learn wild-harvesting. Third, 

they contribute to household well-being through direct 

consumption, by helping diversify and increase the quality 

of diet, supplying recreation and decorations, and giving 

households some autonomy or sovereignty over their food 

and health care (Emery 2001, Emery and Ginger 2014).

6.5.1

Income Needs and Natural Insurance

Even when NTFPs contribute only a small fraction of 

household income, they can perform the vital function 

of smoothing over seasonal fluctuations in labor demand 

and income from other sources, such as farming (Emery 

et al. 2006b). NTFPs also may be a critical source of 

income at particular stages in household life cycles, such 

as when migrants first arrive in an area or when elders 

move in with their children (Emery et al. 2003). In both 

cases, language and legal barriers can make it difficult 

for recent arrivals to obtain formal employment, but 

they can get established and contribute to their families’ 

well-being by collecting NTFPs from forests and urban 

green spaces (Anderson et al. 2000, Emery et al. 2006b).

Households also may turn to NTFPs in times of 

economic crisis, such as when coal mines temporarily 

close (Bailey 1999). The natural resource extraction 

industries that are major employers in rural areas are 

generally subject to boom-bust cycles. Households 

can self-insure against the resulting economic risks 

by building up the knowledge and skills to harvest 

NTFPs, as long as they also have access to a forest. Of 

course, households also have other fallback options, 

including seeking help from family and friends, their 

own savings, and public unemployment benefits. Access 

to these varies across households and across different 

types of economic shocks. For example, crises that 

affect entire communities (called covariate shocks in the 

microeconomics literature), such as closure of a coal mine 

or other key local employer, cannot be weathered by 

relying on help from neighbors and local family, because 

they are also likely to be affected. On the other hand, 

local social networks can serve as an effective safety net 

for so-called idiosyncratic shocks that affect individual 

households, such as an injury that results in loss of 

employment. Collection of NTFPs can help households 

smooth their income in response to both types of shocks, 

conditional on having access to a forest and knowledge 

of NTFPs. There is evidence that households also harvest 

NTFPs to meet intermittent needs or wants such as car 

repairs, back-to-school purchases, hunting supplies, or 

holiday gifts (Bailey 1999, Emery 1998), especially when 

they do not have access to credit at reasonable rates.

6.5.2

Social Capital

NTFPs also are used to build and maintain social capital, 

hence indirectly contributing to another household 

strategy for dealing with risk. This occurs both at the 

individual household level (e.g. exchange of gifts based 

of NTFPs, such as mushrooms and jams) to maintain 

social networks, and at the community level (e.g., 

fundraising for local volunteer organizations based 

on NTFPs, such as meals centered on ramps or maple 

syrup). Both gift-giving and fundraising can strengthen 

local social capital by demonstrating the value of local 

culture, tradition, and know-how (Baumflek et al. 2010, 

Emery et al. 2006a). In other cases, new social networks 

are built around NTFPs, as in meet-ups to learn about 

foraging, which is called wildcrafting, or survival 

training by groups at different ends of the political 

spectrum (Hurley et al. 2015, McLain et al. 2014).

6.5.3

Direct Consumption

Consumption of NTFPs by the same households that 

collect them is not well documented, because it is difficult 

to trace. However, household consumption is considered 

one of the most important uses of NTFPs in developing 

countries. There are a few examples of the value of 

household consumption in the United States, and a need 

for more research on this subject (Emery and Pierce 2005, 

Robbins et al. 2008). Potential contributions to household 

well-being include improved nutritional status (Phillips et 

al. 2014), access to culturally appropriate food and health 

support resources (Kassam et al. 2010), low-cost inputs 

to household maintenance (e.g., firewood for heat), and 

increased quality of life through recreational activities 

and decorations that maintain cultural traditions and 

strengthen sense of place (Schulp et al. 2014, Teitelbaum 

and Beckley 2006). Further, collection of NTFPs, for 

personal consumption or for sale, may offer households 

a type of work that has lower disutility because it allows 

them to work without supervision in the outdoors, on a 

schedule compatible with other responsibilities such as 

child and elder care (Emery 1998, Emery et al. 2003), 

allowing greater autonomy and gaining more respect for 

their knowledge and traditions (Gorman et al. 2006).
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 137

6.5.4

Conditions for Contribution to Well-Being

To serve these functions, NTFPs must be accessible 

to households. NTFPs are most likely to effectively 

“insure” rural households who live near forests with 

permitting processes adapted to local needs in terms 

of timing, procedures, and costs (Emery and Ginger 

2014). Households must also invest in this type of 

insurance by learning about NTFPs, including their 

spatial and temporal distribution as well as harvesting 

and processing techniques (Pierce and Emery 2005). 

To generate cash income from NTFPs, households 

must be familiar with and have access to markets, 

although these are often informal (McLain et al. 

2008). Finally, all these conditions (permission to 

harvest, knowledge, and market access) must apply 

to a set of NTFPs for which availability matches the 

timing of household needs. This could mean a species 

that can be harvested throughout the year, a bundle 

of species with harvest seasons that correspond to 

times of low labor demand in other dimensions of 

the household livelihood portfolio, or a bundle of 

species that respond differently to weather shocks.

In sum, multifunctionality and flexibility are key features 

of NTFPs that give them a unique role in household 

economies. At any given time and over time, households 

can mobilize NTFPs for different functions with nearly 

no entry costs beyond ecological knowledge and access to 

forests. These features mean that NTFPs and timber play 

very different roles in the household economy (e.g., NTFPs 

may help households manage fluctuations in employment 

in logging and sawmills). Of course, households will 

rely on NTFPs to smooth income only if (a) they prefer 

this “natural insurance” over other types of insurance 

and social safety nets, and (b) they have both sufficient 

ecological knowledge and access to forests. For example, 

in the context of hunting, Eliason (2004) suggests that 

self-provisioning may be preferred by people who are 

poor but not “poor enough” to qualify for government 

support and by people who wish to avoid the stigma of 

welfare. Access includes the abilities to harvest NTFPs 

with the desired properties without fear of sanctions; 

to travel to and from forests; and to obtain permits at 

reasonable cost. This cost is a function of availability of 

appropriate permits (e.g., for multiple rather than single 

species), time and place where permits must be obtained 

(e.g., issues with unfamiliar or uncomfortable venues), 

and format of application (e.g., digital divide issues).

6.5.5

Building Our Understanding of the 

Role of Nontimber Forest Products 

in Household Well-Being

People from many segments of society have found ways to 

improve their well-being through harvest of NTFPs from 

diverse forest types, with different levels of disturbance 

and ownership (Robbins et al. 2008, Teitelbaum and 

Beckley 2006). NTFPs thus represent an opportunity 

for forest stewards to demonstrate the contributions 

of their forests and build a broad constituency for 

sustainable forest management across a wide range of 

socioeconomic, demographic, and political groups. 

These could include wealthy suburban households 

interested in getting back to nature and learning about 

wild foods, agricultural workers filling in seasonal gaps 

between cropping seasons, rural households with a deep 

tradition of forest harvesting, survivalists interested 

in feeding their families in case of a major societal 

breakdown, elderly parents seeking to contribute to 

household income, women and men, young and old.

To demonstrate their value and effectively manage forests 

for NTFPs, better information is needed and could be 

obtained through targeted public participation and more 

systematic data collection. The full value of NTFPs 

to households is not captured in standard economic 

accounts because these exclude (1) their value as a form 

of risk-mitigation or natural insurance in the face of 

seasonal variation, unexpected crises, or challenges 

typical of certain stages of the household life cycle, 

and (2) their direct value to households who collect 

but never sell them (Landefeld and McCulla 2000). 

Further, we have limited understanding of patterns in 

NTFP use across people and time because most survey 

research on NTFPs has focused on specific populations 

in a single time period. Incorporating questions about 

personal use of NTFPs into nationally representative 

and repeated surveys will help address this challenge. 

For example, a representative survey of rural households 

in Canada found that foraging for wild foods was the 

only self-provisioning activity accessible to households 

in all income categories. The Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is developing 

modules on NTFPs to add to household surveys funded 

by the World Bank in various developing countries 

(Bakkegaard et al., 2016). A recent review of wild foods 

in the European Union also identified the need for 

consistent and representative data (Schulp et al. 2014).
138 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

6.6

Factors Driving Nontimber 

Forest Product Harvest and 

Adoption of Forest Farming

NTFPs may come from wild-harvesting or forest 

farming, or from production methods somewhere in 

the continuum between the two previous. Research on 

factors that influence wild-harvesting and forest farming 

is limited. The harvesting literature is dominated by 

ethnographic studies of specific harvesting communities 

except for one study (Robbins et al. 2008) that examined 

harvesting rates of the general population in New 

England. Research on the adoption of forest farming is 

nearly nonexistent. This probably reflects the extremely 

small numbers of landowners engaged in forest farming 

in the United States. In this section, we review the 

available literature that examines factors that drive 

NTFP wild-harvesting and adoption of forest farming.

6.6.1

Wild-Harvesting

NTFP wild-harvesting occurs on private and public 

lands across the entire United States. Of national 

forests, 86 percent reported NTFP harvesting on 

their lands, and 82 percent of State Foresters reported 

NTFP harvests on state forest lands (Jones et al. 

2004). Eighteen percent of nonindustrial private forest 

landowners in the United States indicated that NTFPs 

were harvested or collected on their land (Butler 2008).

Studies of NTFP harvesting and harvesters in the United 

States have focused primarily on conflicts on public 

lands in the Pacific Northwest that arose with the rapid 

increase in harvesting of economically valuable NTFPs 

in the late 1990s. These studies focused primarily 

on marketable NTFPs and the conflicts and tensions 

between gatherers and land managers and between 

different gatherer communities. Examples include 

harvesting wild mushrooms (McLain 2008, McLain and 

Jones 2001, Pilz and Molina 2002) and huckleberries 

in Washington and Idaho (Carroll et al. 2003).

Research on NTFP harvesting has been dominated by 

ethnographic and case studies of specific harvesting 

communities. For example, Carroll et al. (2003) 

studied the social ecology of huckleberry harvesting in 

Washington and Idaho and conducted 93 semi-structured 

interviews of harvesters. They described a large degree 

of social complexity among harvesters, their motivations 

and uses of huckleberries and identified four major 

categories of harvesters: native harvesters, (nonnative) 

household harvesters, those who supplement income, and 

full-time harvesters. Knowledge, experience, education 

levels, ethnicity, harvest volumes, and distance traveled 

varied considerably within and between these groups.

Hembram and Hoover (2008) interviewed 25 

NTFP permit holders in six counties near the Daniel 

Boone National Forest in eastern Kentucky. These 

geographically isolated counties are characterized by 

persistent and chronic poverty. Half of the sample 

reported household incomes of less than $10,000 

per year and only 25 percent of respondents had any 

post-high school education. Participants gathered 

a wide variety of NTFPs. Forty-three species were 

sold commercially and 120 species were collected 

for personal use. Commercial harvesters targeted 

NTFPs that produced the highest net revenues (market 

price minus total cost to harvest and market).

Barron and Emery (2012) examined the sociology of 

morel harvesting in northern Virginia, northwestern 

Maryland, and northeastern West Virginia. They 

interviewed 41 harvesters in 15 national parks in the 

National Capital Region. The majority of participants 

were male (61 percent), local area residents who harvested 

morels for recreation and personal consumption, and 

over 45 years old (ages ranged from 21 to over 80). 

Only 7 percent of the interviewees had ever sold morels 

and none reported that earning income was a primary 

motivation. The most common reasons for participating 

in harvesting activities were recreation, family tradition, 

enjoying the outdoors, and for the challenge.

Jones et al. (2004) conducted 143 semi-structured 

interviews of a nonrandom sample of experienced 

harvesters (at least 5 years’ experience) across the 

contiguous 48 states. They identified eight types of 

harvesters based on primary motivation: subsistence, 

commercial, recreation, spiritual/healing, formal 

scientific, informal scientific, and education/training. 

Commercial motivation accounted for 20 percent 

of the sample, while 17 percent harvested only for 

home consumption. Harvester characteristics varied 

widely, with education ranging from preliteracy 

to postgraduate degrees. Most learned harvesting 

from family or friends, or were self-taught.

Interviews of 62 West Virginian ginseng diggers, buyers, 

and resource managers by Bailey (1999) suggested that 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 139

harvesters of wild ginseng were driven by monetary 

benefits but non-monetary benefits (such as spending 

time in the woods) also were important. Bailey (1999) 

compared West Virginia’s annual ginseng harvest to 

climate and unemployment rates between 1980 and 1996 

and found that unemployment and drought accounted 

for 72 percent of the variability in the ginseng harvest.

Ethnographic and case studies provide a rich background 

for gaining insights into the NTFP harvester lifestyles, 

motivations, challenges, and conflict management. These 

studies, however, are not capable of shedding light on 

NTFP harvesting amongst the general population due 

to sampling methods. Determining whether harvesting 

is predominately an economic, recreational, cultural, or 

social activity; the demographic profile of harvesters; 

and the proportion of the population engaged in 

harvesting requires random-sample surveys of the 

general population. We could only find two surveys 

of NTFP harvest among the general population in the 

United States: Robbins et al. (2008), a random-sample 

survey of 1650 households in New England; and Bailey 

(1999), a survey of 992 households in West Virginia. 

Robbins et al. (2008) discovered that 26.3 percent of 

New Englanders had gathered within the last 5 years 

and 17.9 percent in the last 12 months, implying that 

17.9 percent were regular harvesters and 8.3 percent 

occasional harvesters. Socioeconomic characteristics 

were poor predictors of who gathers NTFP in New 

England. At least in New England, harvesters come from 

all parts of the demographic spectrum crossing income, 

race, gender, education, and geographic boundaries. 

Urbanites comprised 56 percent of harvesters (but only 

32 percent of all survey respondents). Harvesters tended 

to be more educated than average and represented 

a wide range of income classes similar to the entire 

population. Eighty-eight percent of harvesting was for 

home consumption, primarily edibles and decorative/

floral products. Bailey (1999) reported that 25 percent of 

West Virginians surveyed had previously gathered wild 

plant foods and 4 percent had gathered medicinals.

Work in other countries has attempted to determine 

NTFP harvesting rates among broad populations. 

Similar participation rates have been found in 

Scotland where 24 percent had gathered NTFPs in 

the previous 5 years, and 19 percent in the previous 

12 months (Emery et al. 2006a). Rates were even 

higher for Great Britain (27 percent) according to 

a survey by the Forestry Commission (2005). In 

Canada, as part of the New Rural Economy project, 

Teitelbaum and Beckley (2006) surveyed households 

in 20 representative rural communities and found 

that 52 percent of rural households reported foraging 

edibles. FAO is developing household survey modules 

for developing countries that will ask about NTFP 

collection and use (Bakkegaard et al. 2016).

6.6.2

Forest Farming

Forest farming (chapter 2) is an agroforestry system 

in which NTFPs are cultivated under a forest canopy. 

Typical crops include medicinals (e.g., ginseng), food 

(e.g., shiitake mushrooms), and ornamental plants (e.g., 

ferns). Economic theory predicts that landowners adopt 

agroforestry systems when the expected returns from 

the new system are higher than all other alternatives 

for the use of their land, labor, and capital. A large 

body of empirical literature (primarily in developing 

countries) has found that a host of other factors also 

determine the extent of agroforestry adoption. These 

include household preferences, resource endowments, 

market incentives, biophysical factors, and risk and 

uncertainty (Mercer 2004, Mercer and Pattanayak 

2003). Adoption of forest farming in the United States 

is not perceived as widespread (Mudge 2009), and we 

were unable to find any studies of factors correlated 

with adoption of forest farming in the United States. 

The more general agroforestry adoption literature 

in the United States suggests that nontraditional 

landowners with multiple objectives, interest in 

stewardship, higher incomes, and more education are 

more likely to experiment with agroforestry systems. 

There have been a handful of studies that examine 

landowner potential interest in adopting forest farming, 

which we review in the following paragraphs.

Workman et al. (2003) conducted a survey of 742 

landowners in Florida and Alabama and found that 

77 percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the 

term “forest farming” and 67 percent had not heard 

of “nontimber forest products.” However, 14 percent 

reported having practiced forest farming which included 

managing forests for pine straw, mushrooms, ferns, saw 

palmetto, plant ornamentals, honey bees, and native 

medicinals. Pine straw and honey bees were the most 

common. In terms of general agroforestry practices, 

Workman et al. (2003) found that Florida landowners 

ranked the potential benefits of aesthetics, shade, wildlife 
140 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

habitat, and soil conservation higher in importance 

than economic returns. Obstacles to agroforestry 

adoption were perceived as competition between system 

components, lack of information, and lack of markets. 

Burkhart (2011) surveyed a sample of 383 individuals in 

Pennsylvania who had previously sold ginseng to buyers 

licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources. Seventy-eight percent of 

respondents had planted ginseng for an average of 19 

years primarily on “forest lands that someone else owns.”

Strong and Jacobson (2006) surveyed family forest 

owners in Pennsylvania and found that 36 percent of 

the respondents reported an interest in forest farming. 

Women who had off-farm income or income from 

forest harvests, relatively smaller forest parcels, and an 

interest in environmental and aesthetics benefits were 

more likely to express interest in forest farming than the 

typical family forest owner. Valdivia and Poulos (2009) 

surveyed 358 landowners and found that knowledge was 

the most important variable for predicting interest in 

adopting forest farming and that younger, more educated 

landowners were more interested. Although having a 

diversified household portfolio of income had no effect, 

conventional farmers were less likely to express interest 

in adopting forest farming in riparian buffers. Similarly, 

Trozzo et al. (2014) found that livestock producers were 

less likely than nontraditional landowners to express 

interest in adopting riparian buffers in Virginia.

McLain and Jones (2013) used a random survey of 

567 family forest owners in 16 states in the Northeast, 

Adirondacks, Ozarks, Appalachians, Great Lakes, 

and Pacific Northwest to examine characteristics and 

motivations of landowners interested in adopting forest 

farming. Only 13 percent had harvested NTFPs from 

their lands. More than two-thirds of the respondents 

were not familiar with NTFPs, although three-quarters 

were interested in learning about cultivating NTFPs in 

their forests. Younger and better educated landowners, 

who actively managed their forests, had incomes 

between $35,000 and $100,000, larger landholdings, 

and longer tenure, were more likely to be interested in 

forest farming. Those interested in forested farming were 

more likely to harvest NTFPs on their land (15 percent) 

than those not interested in forest farming (8 percent).

6.6.3

Motivations and Drivers of Nontimber 

Forest Products Production and Harvest

Although the literature is limited, we can draw a few 

conclusions concerning participation in wild harvesting 

and forest farming of NTFPs. Wild-harvesting of NTFPs 

appears to be a common activity in all parts of the United 

States that crosses numerous socioeconomic boundaries 

including income, education, race, gender, and class 

(Butler 2008, Jones et al. 2004). Motivations are as 

diverse as the actual harvesters themselves and likely 

vary depending on local socioeconomic and ecological 

conditions (Barron and Emery 2012, Carroll et al. 2003, 

Jones et al. 2004). Many harvesters are motivated by 

the potential to earn income from selling high-value 

medicinals, edibles, floral decoratives, and landscaping. 

However, surveys of the general population suggest that 

most NTFP collectors are motivated by the nonmarket, 

noncommercial aspects of harvesting (e.g., recreation, 

spiritual, cultural, family tradition, and for subsistence/

home consumption) (Robbins et al. 2008). However, this 

says nothing about the quantity of NTFPs collected by 

those individuals, which may be quite small on a percapita basis. Almost nothing is known about the extent 

of forest farming and the factors driving adoption of the 

practice. Although it appears that forest farming may 

be increasing in some parts of the country (McLain and 

Jones 2013, Strong and Jacobson 2006), it is practiced 

by a small percentage of forest landowners (Butler 

2008). The handful of studies examining landowners 

interested in potentially adopting forest farming suggest 

that adopters would tend to be younger landowners 

with higher education, income, and landholdings, 

and who tend to be engaged in nontraditional land 

management systems (McLain and Jones 2013, 

Strong and Jacobson 2006, Trozzo et al. 2014).

Given the very small body of literature on drivers 

affecting NTFP gathering and forest farming adoption 

in the United States, a great deal of research is needed 

to understand the processes involved. While a number 

of excellent ethnographic studies have provided detailed 

descriptions of NTFP communities (Bailey 1999, 

Barron and Emery 2012, Carroll et al. 2003, Hembram 

and Hoover 2008, Jones et al. 2004, McLain 2008, 

McLain and Jones 2001, Pilz and Molina 2002), they 

are rarely generalizable beyond the specific study 

area. Quantitative studies of random samples from 

different regions in the United States would be needed 

to fully understand who the NTFP collectors are, their 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 141

characteristics and motivations, and what portion of 

the population they include, as well as the benefits 

derived from NTFPs and their economic impacts.

6.7

Potential Impacts of Climatic 

Variability on Nontimber Forest 

Product Economics

NTFPs contribute to the broader economy through 

market and nonmarket channels, and for many 

NTFP harvesters and producers, these products 

represent an important, even if sometimes small, 

portion of their livelihoods. This includes direct 

contribution to income through sales of products 

(section 6.4), or other contributions to wellbeing such as cultural or recreational use (6.3 and 

6.5), management of risk (6.5), and more.

As biological systems, forests will adjust naturally 

to environmental pressures of climatic variability. 

Biological risk to organisms and ecosystems translates 

into economic risk for consumers and producers 

harvesting or farming NTFPs. Income or consumption 

may increase or decrease as induced changes in forest 

productivity of NTFPs are realized. Depending on 

aversion to risk (the degree to which a user wants to 

avoid this variability), individuals and user groups 

experience the impacts of climate change differently.

Climate change assessments of biophysical effects on 

ecosystems have been delineated in several contexts. 

Adapting from a discussion of climate change effects 

on fisheries by Sumaila et al. (2011), it is possible to 

distinguish among organism changes, population 

changes, community/ecosystem changes, economic 

changes (harvesting patterns, prices, yields, management, 

technology), and global issues (social networks, 

trade in NTFPs). An important consideration in 

evaluating the economic impact of climate change is 

that some users could gain, new uses or new NTFPs 

could become available, and scarcity-driven price 

increases could offset additional costs of harvest.

To our knowledge, a comprehensive review of climate 

change impacts on NTFP economies in the United States 

has never been undertaken. Much research is still needed 

on the impact of climate change on populations and range 

of NTFP species (for a summary of research to date, 

see chapter 3). Also, data on household and community 

use of and dependence on NTFPs are limited, and 

literature on impacts of climate change specific to rural 

communities is scarce (Lal et al. 2011). For those reasons, 

there is a great deal of uncertainty in what may be the 

true economic impact of climate change on NTFPs. 

In this context, we attempt to identify possible ways 

in which a future with a changing climate may impact 

the communities and individuals who utilize NTFPs.

Clearly, the impact of climate change varies by species 

and region, and it is beyond the scope of this assessment 

to detail potential impacts for each specific product, 

although we use illustrative examples. We consider the 

relevant aspects of risk that could affect NTFP economics 

and potential impacts on communities or individuals.

6.7.1

Risks and Uncertainties

Knight (1921) provided the first classic distinction 

between risk and uncertainty: risks create positive or 

negative outcomes with known quantifiable probability, 

whereas uncertainties are not quantifiable. If we accept 

that distinction, then NTFP harvesters and users may 

face numerous risks in their economic activities—such 

as the probability of a flood or drought destroying a 

population of plants for harvest. Climate change adds a 

layer of uncertainties—we have no way of quantifying 

how climate change will affect the probability that 

certain negative (or positive) outcomes will come to pass.

There is much we can learn from the discussion of 

risk and uncertainty in the agricultural and forestry 

economics literature. Material is drawn from 

Goodwin (2009), Goodwin and Ker (2002), Just 

(2003), Just and Pope (2003), Just and Weninger 

(1999), Ker and Goodwin (2000), Pasalodos-Tato 

et al. (2013), and Yin and Newman (1996) to create 

the following list of economic risk factors:

Yield risk:

• Unpredictable year-to-year and seasonal variation in 

production.

• Stochastic and potentially drastic variation due to 

catastrophic weather events.

• Shift in species’ ranges as conditions become less 

suitable.
142 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

• Permanent decline in populations within natural range, 

with a harvest rate greater than population regeneration 

so that the breeding stock is reduced, exacerbated by 

environmental sub-optimality.

• More time for recovery and regeneration of desired 

NTFP species between intensive harvests.

Price risk:

• Assume that yield risk results in supply scarcity, driving 

prices higher.

• In the short term, higher prices when yields are already 

low may lead to unsustainable harvest as a result of 

harvesting as much as possible to take advantage of 

price increases.

• In the long term, higher prices could lead to 

development of alternatives such as forest-cultivated 

varieties, synthetic products, or different products with 

similar characteristics.

• Lower prices could occur in the very short run as 

overharvesting moves immature, less desirable NTFPs 

onto the market.

Costs and input risk:

• Loss of ecological knowledge associated with species 

range shifts or plant association changes as knowledge 

of where and when to harvest becomes obsolete, forcing 

a greater investment in obtaining new knowledge.

• Upward pressure on access/user could occur as the 

lands being harvested are put to other uses or require 

new management regimes for climate change, such 

as fuel treatments that disrupt the plant communities 

supporting NTFPs.

• Higher labor costs, more time, and greater 

inconvenience as NTFPs become more sparsely 

allocated, and harder to find.

Social and community risk:

• Disruption of traditional activities associated with 

NTFP collection and use, such as sacred rituals or 

family-based harvesting.

• Loss of subsistence and food security components 

for low-income users, forcing greater reliance on 

government and nonprofit nutritional services.

• Greater distrust of outsiders and nonlocal harvesters 

as competition increases for scarce NTFPs possibly 

leading to more permitting and other regulations 

governing access and use.

Assessing the effects of climate change on risk requires 

knowledge of baseline risk. For some NTFPs, generating 

baseline values can be challenging due to lack of 

knowledge about the organism and ecosystem and the 

dynamics of changing harvesting conditions. An example 

of a tool for evaluating overharvesting risk at any point 

in time was proposed by Castle et al. (2014). Using scores 

ranging from -2 to +2 per response, a series of multiple 

choice questions is used to calculate a comprehensive 

baseline risk. This approach, applied to wild medicinal 

botanicals, scores species according to their life history 

and vulnerability, the effects of harvest on recovery 

and resilience, population abundance and range, 

habitat vulnerability, and demand, substitutability, and 

possibility of cultivation. At the forest level, Matthews 

et al. (2014) proposed a calculation of vulnerability of 

individual species and communities that incorporates 

high risk species expected to lose more than 20 percent 

of the individuals in the population, stability of gains 

to losses, change potential, and proportion of loss to 

top five species on a site. The resulting forest related 

index of climate vulnerability can be used to project 

changes in tree associations, which has implications 

for NTFPs. Baseline data collection and ecological 

cataloguing of species can support predictions of 

climate change impacts and management responses.

6.7.2

Potential Impacts on Individuals and 

Communities

People collect NTFPs in many ways for many 

economic purposes. Research has suggested potential 

socioeconomic typologies or categorization of 

harvesters, and have found that these categories do 

not necessarily correlate with traditional demographic 

categories such as race, education, class, age, or even 

urban/rural (Robbins et al. 2008). Still, it is possible to 

classify harvesters by their methods, purposes, level of 

dependency, and frequency. Research that has illuminated 

various categories of harvesters includes Carroll et al. 

(2003), Dyke (2006), Jones et al. (2004), and Robbins 

et al. (2008). This work suggests two broad categories 

of harvesters, with further differentiation in each. 

Forest farmers include those who produce NTFPs for 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 143

commercial sale, as well as those who cultivate small 

quantities for personal use. Full-time harvesters collect 

NTFPs as a main source of income and may harvest 

numerous NTFPs throughout the year. For part-time 

commercial harvesters, supplemental income may be 

a primary motivator. Those who collect NTFPs for 

personal use are another group of wild-harvesters. 

These may include frequent harvesters, who collect 

for reasons including traditional, cultural, or spiritual 

purposes; self-provisioning and subsistence; and to 

obtain items to use as gifts or for barter. For others, 

harvesting may be a strictly recreational activity and/

or an opportunistic practice engaged in when they 

observe NTFPs during the course of other activities. 

Finally, other motivations for wild harvesting include 

scientific and educational purposes (Poe et al. 2013).

In addition to harvesters, many others are involved 

with NTFPs, particularly in the commercial realm. 

To perhaps oversimplify, these can include forest 

landowners, buyers/dealers/aggregators, processors, 

wholesalers, retailers, and consumers (Schlosser et al. 

1991). All people involved in all aspects of NTFPs will 

be economically impacted by climate variability.

As discussed in section 6.5, perhaps one of the most 

important contributions of NTFPs to community 

economies is as a buffer or safety net in times of 

economic downturn or crisis. Pierce and Emery 

(2005) document numerous instances of reliance on 

NTFPs during crises in developing countries. The 

use of NTFPs in crises in developed countries is less 

well documented, but existing evidence in the United 

States (Bailey 1999, Emery 2001) suggests that they 

provide an opportunity for income and/or subsistence 

when employment opportunities are thin or erratic.

Acute economic impacts that are short in time but 

strong in magnitude may be precipitated by extreme 

weather events. More frequent extreme climatic events 

can have negative impacts on peoples’ livelihoods, 

infrastructure, access to trade and services, and overall 

economic activity (Romero-Lankao et al. 2014). 

During more frequent crises, communities may rely 

more heavily on NTFPs. Yet, communities may lose 

access to nontimber forest resources if NTFP species 

populations diminish or their geographic ranges change 

drastically. There is risk of an economic “doublewhammy” that negatively impacts communities in 

crises that depend on nontimber forest species.

Some communities in the United States have developed 

with NTFPs as a central component of the economy. For 

example, the maple syrup industry in the Northeastern 

United States was a traditional winter activity for 

farmers, and is now practiced by a broad class of people 

in those rural communities who otherwise may have less 

winter work, such as construction workers (Hinrichs 

1995, 1998). The effects of climate change on maple 

syrup are the subject of debate (see, e.g., Huntington 

et al. 2009, Skinner et al. 2010). If climate change 

were to negatively impact maple syrup production, or 

alter the range of sugar maple, some communities will 

face long-term impacts. While neither maple syrup 

(Hinrichs 1998) nor probably most other NTFPs (e.g., 

Bailey 1999, Hembram and Hoover 2008) provide the 

largest portion of income for communities, a long-term 

decrease in NTFP production may cause an uptick in 

seasonal unemployment and lower average income, and 

increased dependence on social safety-net programs.

In the Pacific Northwest, NTFPs are often collected and 

traded by companies that employ several employees, 

such as processors, and purchase NTFP materials 

from independent harvesters (Schlosser et al. 1991). 

Many of these companies may be diversified into 

various NTFPs; companies that are not diversified may 

face greater long-term risks from species reduction, 

product deterioration, or changes in range or harvest 

timing due to climate change. For example, noble 

fir boughs benefit from a cold period before harvest 

to aid needle retention, and warmer temperatures 

may favor diseases that increase needle casting.

Within communities that rely on NTFPs for subsistence 

or cultural and spiritual use, the availability of certain 

species may increase or decrease due to climate change, 

or change timing during the year. In association with 

climate change, American Indian groups have noted the 

loss of specific species of medicinal plants, reduction in 

maple syrup output, and impacts on native species from 

exotic invasive species (NTAA 2009). While numerous 

potential negative impacts have been identified, the 

lack of comprehensive research means the net effect is 

still unknown. Still, traditional ecological knowledge 

systems will need to adapt to changes in the ecology, 

or communities may face shortfalls in NTFPs.

The risks faced by an individual would be similar to 

those faced by communities, though perhaps more 

keenly felt for particular individuals. Some evidence 
144 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

suggests that most harvesters rely on NTFPs for a small 

part of total livelihood, either working full time during 

small parts of the year (e.g., maple syrup producers in 

the Northeast), or for small amounts of time spread 

throughout the year (e.g., Appalachian harvesters who 

spend single days through the year harvesting different 

products) (Bailey 1999, Emery 2001, Hinrichs 1998, 

Robbins et al. 2008), although full-time harvesters 

do exist in the Pacific Northwest and other regions 

(Carroll et al. 2003, Hembram and Hoover 2008, 

Schlosser and Blatner 1997). Regardless of region, 

full-time harvesters, who typically shift from species to 

species throughout the year, would be the hardest hit by 

climate change effects on NTFPs. Full-time harvesters 

also tend to be among the poorest individuals in those 

regions, and rely on government safety-net programs 

(Hembram and Hoover 2008, Schlosser and Blatner 

1995). Reduction in NTFPs from climate change may 

push even more of these people to rely on government 

programs, and make the status of those who already do 

even more precarious. In addition to direct reductions 

in abundance of various species, harvesters may be 

affected by changes in harvest calendar, if species that 

previously occupied different periods now overlap. Still 

the total impact on these harvesters is unknown and 

unclear since most harvest multiple species and losses 

in one species could potentially be offset by gains in 

another. As noted in chapter 3, a significant portion of 

species respond to climate change in unexpected ways.

While the number of people who depend on NTFPs for 

the majority of their livelihood is likely small relative 

to the total U.S. population, NTFPs do supplement 

the livelihoods of a great many people and play an 

important role in risk mitigation and diversification 

(Hinrichs 1998, Robbins et al. 2008). Given the fact 

that much of these livelihoods involve subsistence or 

personal use, which is largely hidden from economic 

data, estimating and tracking impacts will be difficult.

6.8

Key Findings

• There is a basic understanding of the overall NTFP 

industry, markets, and distribution channels, however, 

there is limited understanding of market dynamics or 

influencing factors and there is a general perception of 

an unwillingness for harvesters, buyers, and companies 

engaged in the industry to share detailed information.

• The lack of data impedes the ability to provide a 

comprehensive and dynamic analysis of the market and 

nonmarket economic valuation of forests for the many 

nontimber products harvested and traded through 

formal and informal markets.

• No one classification scheme adequately summarizes 

production of this “sector” and to get a better 

understanding of the patterns of NTFP production, it 

is necessary to combine data from different statistical 

service sources which creates gaps in the data.

• Multifunctionality and flexibility, key features of 

NTFPs, assign them a unique role in household 

economies, which provides households opportunities 

to mobilize for different functions with little or no 

entry costs beyond ecological knowledge and access to 

forests.

• NTFPs contribute to the broader economy through 

market and non-market channels, and for many NTFP 

harvesters and producers are important contributors to 

household and community livelihoods.

• Generating baseline values for NTFPs can be 

challenging due to lack of knowledge about the 

organism and ecosystem and the dynamics of changing 

harvesting conditions, hence predicting how climate 

change may impact economies is challenging but 

necessary.

6.9

Key Information Needs

Basic and applied economic research should be 

undertaken with a general goal in mind—how the 

knowledge gained can help society. We propose 

three long-term strategic goals, or desired impacts, 

of future economic research in NTFPs.

Improve resource management—To manage resources 

sustainably for maximum long-term benefit to society, 

and to weigh tradeoffs between various possible benefits 

of forests (NTFPs, timber, wilderness recreation, 

etc.), it is imperative that land managers be able to 

quantify the value of these resources. This includes 

the value of existing inventory of NTFPs on private 

and public lands (stock), and the annual harvests 

of these species (flow). The gaps that impede our 

knowledge of economic value that would aid land 

managers and resource-use policymakers include:
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 145

• Time series of prices and quantities of NTFPs traded in 

markets.

• Recreational, cultural, and subsistence values.

• Valuation of NTFPs preharvest in-forest.

• Growth and yield models.

• Costs and returns of potential forest farming systems.

• Comparison of management regimes for NTFPs and 

joint management with other goods and services (e.g., 

timber, recreation) to alternatives.

Increase economic development—Continued rural 

economic development based on NTFPs is possible. 

However, to make informed decisions, entrepreneurs, 

harvesters, and processers need information about 

market characteristics and trends. The gaps that 

impede rural economic development include:

• Time series of prices and quantities of NTFPs traded in 

markets.

• Characterization of formal and informal harvest and 

market chains.

• A uniform classification scheme to summarize 

production of the NTFP sector.

Address economic vulnerabilities—Some households and 

communities may be particularly reliant on NTFPs for 

their well-being. A proper accounting of utilization of 

and dependence on NTFPs by United States households 

is necessary for economic policymakers, educational 

institutions, and nonprofits to determine vulnerabilities 

to potential future shocks and possible future reliance 

on safety-net programs if vulnerabilities are not 

addressed. Also, a better understanding of household and 

community well-being, including NTFP contributions 

above and beyond simple measures of monetary income, 

assists in making comparisons between communities 

to target interventions such as assistance, development, 

and educational programs. We lack data including:

• Time series and trends of collection and use of NTFPs 

by United States households.

• NTFPs’ role in advancing the standard of living of 

those engaged in their harvest, processing, and sale.

• Identification of communities (geographic, cultural) 

that are particularly vulnerable to NTFP species loss/

change in distribution.

• Motivations and influences of people to undertake 

wild-harvesting and forest farming.

6.10

Conclusions

NTFPs contribute to national, state, local, and household 

economies through monetary income or other economic 

benefits. NTFPs are highly diverse, as are the people 

who collect, produce, buy, trade, and consume them. It is 

clear that NTFPs serve a number of economic functions 

such as recreation, seasonal income, and subsistence. 

Similarly, market channels, level of market formality, and 

production methods are diverse. Economic impacts may 

be spread over a broad geographic region (e.g., pine straw) 

or relatively local (e.g., galax). They may be nearly strictly 

commercial (e.g., ginseng) or largely for personal use.

There is more unknown about NTFP economies than 

is known. Partially, this reflects the fact that a large 

portion of the NTFP economy is for personal use or 

traded in informal markets, and that NTFP market 

values are small compared to timber (table 6.3), where 

the forestry profession has traditionally placed emphasis. 

Many harvesters choose to remain hidden for various 

reasons. There are some parts of the informal and 

secretive NTFP economic world that we are likely to 

never fully understand. However, the numerous gaps 

in our knowledge may contribute to poor resource 

management, less than optimal economic development, 

and misguided strategies. We proposed three long-term 

strategic goals, or desired impacts, of future economic 

research in NTFPs: (1) improve resource management, 

(2) increase economic development, and (3) identify 

and address economic vulnerabilities. We identify some 

gaps in knowledge that impede meeting those goals.

To manage resources sustainably for maximum longterm benefit to society, and to weigh tradeoffs between 

various possible benefits of forests (NTFPs, timber, 

wilderness recreation, etc.), land managers need to 

be able to quantify the value of these resources. This 

includes the value of the existing inventory of NTFPs 

on private and public lands (stock), and the annual 

harvests of these species (flow). Several factors impede 

the ability to estimate the economic value of NTFPs. 

The lack of growth and yield models for most NTFP 

species does not allow for estimating the amount of 

biomass produced during a period of time. Knowledge 

about the in-forest monetary value or market prices for 
146 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

most NTFP species is lacking, and is needed. In general, 

the true costs and returns of forest farming systems 

are unknown. Nonmarket values (e.g., recreational, 

cultural, and subsistence) of these products have 

not been quantified. Further, management regimes 

for joint production of NTFPs and other goods and 

services (e.g., timber, recreation, water) have not 

been estimated. These need to happen to allow land 

managers to better understand economic tradeoffs.

Some households and communities may be particularly 

reliant on NTFPs for their well-being. A proper 

accounting of utilization of and dependence on NTFPs 

by United States households is necessary to determine 

vulnerabilities to potential future shocks and possible 

future reliance on safety-net programs if vulnerabilities 

are not addressed. Also, a better understanding of 

NTFP contributions above and beyond simple measures 

of monetary income to household and community 

well-being will help in determining interventions 

such as assistance, development, and educational 

programs. Time series and trend analysis is lacking 

for the collection and use of NTFPs by households. 

The role of NTFPs in advancing the standard of 

living of people engaged in harvest, processing and 

sale is not fully understood. There is not a clear 

understanding of the communities (geographic and 

cultural) that are particularly vulnerable to NTFP 

species loss or change in distribution. A comprehensive 

understanding of what motivates and influences people 

to wild-harvest or forest farm NTFPs is needed.

6.11

Literature Cited

Alexander, S.J.; McLain, R.J.; Blatner, K.A. 2001. Socio-economic 

research on nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3–4): 95–103. 

Alexander, S.J.; McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T.; Oswalt, S.N. 2011a. Challenges 

and approaches to assessing the market value of wild fungi. In: 

Cunningham, A.B.; Yang, X., eds. Mushrooms in forests and woodlands: 

resource management, values and local livelihoods. London: Earthscan: 

87–106.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011b. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p.

Alexander, S.J.; Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S. [and others]. 2002a. Mushrooms, 

trees, and money: value estimates of commercial mushrooms and timber 

in the Pacific Northwest. Environmental Management. 30(1): 129–141. 

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.; Blatner, K.A. [and others]. 2002b. Nontimber 

forest product commerce. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., 

eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States: uses and issues. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 115–150.

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the 

San Bernardino National Forest: cultural versus commercial values 

among Korean and Japanese participants. Society & Natural Resources. 

13(8): 747–762. 

Bailey, B. 1999. Social and economic impacts of wild harvested products. 

Morgantown: West Virginia University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Bakkegaard, R.K.; Bosselmann, A.S.; Zheng, Y. [and others]. 2016. National 

socioeconomic surveys in forestry: guidance and survey modules 

for measuring the multiple roles of forests in household welfare 

and livelihoods. FAO Forestry Paper No. 179. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Center for International Forestry 

Research, International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research 

Network, and World Bank. 188 p.

Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2012. Implications of variation in social-ecological 

systems for the development of U.S. fungal management policy. Society 

& Natural Resources. 25(10): 996–1011. 

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically 

important nontimber forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 74 p.

Blatner, K.A.; Alexander, S.J. 1998. Recent price trends for nontimber forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 28–34. 

Blatner, K.A.; Cohn, P.J.; Fight, R.D. 2010. Returns from the management of 

noble fir stands for bough production and sawtimber. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 25(2): 68–72. 

Bowker, J.M.; English, D.; Bergstrom, J.C. [and others]. 2005. Valuing 

national forest recreation access: using a stratified on-site sample to 

generate values across activities for a nationally pooled sample. Paper 

presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Agricultural 

Economics Association, July 24–27, 2005, Providence, RI. Abstract 

available https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea05/19506.html. [Date 

accessed: July 11, 2017].

Bowker, J.M.; Murphy, D.; Cordell, H.K. [and others]. 2006. Wilderness and 

primitive area recreation participation and consumption: an examination 

of demographic and spatial factors. Journal of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics. 38(2): 317. 

Bowker, J.M.; Starbuck, C.M.; English, D. [and others]. 2009. Estimating the 

net economic value of national forest recreation: an application of the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring database. Athens: University of Georgia, 

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

Burkhart, E.P. 2011. Conservation through cultivation: economic, sociopolitical and ecological considerations regarding the adoption of ginseng 

forest farming in Pennsylvania. State College: Pennsylvania State 

University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G. 2009. Transitioning from wild collection to 

forest cultivation of indigenous medicinal forest plants in eastern North 

America is constrained by lack of profitability. Agroforestry Systems. 

76(2): 437–453. 

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Byers, P.L.; Thomas, A.L.; Cernusca, M.M. [and others]. 2012. Growing 

and marketing elderberries in Missouri. Agroforestry in Action Guide 

AF1016–2014. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Center for 

Agroforestry. 12 p. 

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Cohn, P.J. 2003. Somewhere between: social 

embeddedness and the spectrum of wild edible huckleberry harvest and 

use. Rural Sociology. 68(3): 319–342. 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 147

Casanova, V. 2007. Three essays on the pine straw industry in a Georgia 

community. Auburn AL: Auburn University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Castle, L.M.; Leopold, S.; Craft, R.; Kindscher, K. 2014. Ranking tool 

created for medicinal plants at risk of being overharvested in the wild. 

Ethnobiology Letters. 5: 77–88. 

Cernusca, M.M.; Gold, M.A.; Godsey. L.D. 2011. Elderberry market research: 

report based on research performed in 2009. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri Center for Agroforestry. http://www.centerforagroforestry.org/

profit/elderberrymarketreport.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Chamberlain, J.L.; Bush, R.; Hammett, A. 1998. Nontimber forest products: 

the other forest products. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 10–19. 

Chamberlain, J.L.; Prisley, S.; McGuffin, M. 2013. Understanding the 

relationships between American ginseng harvest and hardwood forests 

inventory and timber harvest to improve co-management of the forests of 

eastern United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32(6): 605–624. 

Chamberlain, J.L.; Teets, A.; Kruger, S. 2018. Nontimber forest products in 

the United States: an analysis for the 2015 National Sustainable Forest 

Report. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-229. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 42 p.

Davis, J.; Persons, W.S. 2014. Growing and marketing ginseng, goldenseal 

and other woodland medicinals. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society 

Publishers. 510 p.

Davis, J.M.; Dressler, A. 2012. Bloodroot and black cohosh artificial shade 

budgets. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/herbs/index.

html https://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/herbs/crops/

medicinal/2012%20Black%20Cohosh%20Artificial%20Shade%20

Budget%20final.xlsx. https://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/

herbs/crops/medicinal/2012%20Bloodroot%20Artificial%20Shade%20

Budget%20final.xlsx. Excel spreadsheets to evaluate costs. [Date 

accessed: August 15, 2017].

Dickens, E.D.; Moorhead, D.J.; Bargeron, C.T.; McElvany, B.C. 2011. Pine 

straw yields and economic benefits when added to traditional wood 

products in loblolly, longleaf and slash pine stands. Athens: University of 

Georgia, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. 8 p. 

http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry/Pine_straw_

Dickens_et_al_6_July_2011.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Dyer, J.A.F. 2012. Three essays on pine straw in Alabama: needlefall yields, 

market demands, and landowner interest in harvesting. Auburn, AL: 

Auburn University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Dyke, A.J. 2006. The practice, politics and ecology of nontimber forest 

products in Scotland. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Eliason, S.L. 2004. Accounts of wildlife law violators: motivations and 

rationalizations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 9(2): 119–131. 

Emery, M.R. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: nontimber forest products in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 

Ph.D. dissertation. 

Emery, M.R. 2001. Nontimber forest products and livelihoods in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula. In: Davidson-Hunt, I.; Duchense, L.; Zasada, J., eds. 

Forest communities in the third millennium: linking research, business, 

and policy toward a sustainable nontimber forest product sector. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NC-217. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station: 23–30.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2014. Special forest products on the Green 

Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests: a research-based 

approach to management. Gen. Tech Rep. NRS-131. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 51 p.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2006b. Migrants, markets, and 

the transformation of natural resources management: galax harvesting 

in western North Carolina. In: Smith, H.A.; Furuseth, O.J., eds. Latinos in 

the New South: transformations of place: 69–87.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M. 2003. Special forest 

products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-306. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Emery, M.R.; Martin, S.; Dyke, A. 2006a. Wild harvests from Scottish 

woodlands: social, cultural and economic values of contemporary 

nontimber forest products. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence 

in contemporary U.S. forests. Environment and Planning A. 37(6): 

981–993. 

Forestry Commission. 2005. GB public opinion of forestry 2005: summary 

results of the 2005 GB survey of public opinion of forestry. Edinburgh: 

Forestry Commission. 37 p. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd5zyl9w. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Freeman, A.M., III. 2003. The measurement of environmental and resource 

values: theory and methods. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: RFF Press. 490 p.

Frey, G.E. 2014. The basics of hardwood-log shiitake mushroom production 

and marketing. ANR-102P. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative 

Extension. 9 p. http://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/ANR/ANR-102/ANR-102.

html. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Glenn, J.V. 2012. Economic assessment of landowner incentives: analyses 

in North Carolina and Malawi. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. 

Ph.D. dissertation. 

Godsey, L.D. 2010. Economic budgeting for agroforestry practices. 

Agroforestry in Action Guide AF1006-2010. Columbia, MO: University of 

Missouri Center for Agroforestry. 12 p. http://extension.missouri.edu/

explorepdf/agguides/agroforestry/af1006.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

9, 2017].

Godsey, L.D.; Mercer, D.E.; Grala, R. [and others]. 2009. Agroforestry 

economics and policy. In: Garrett, H.E., ed. North American agroforestry: 

an integrated science and practice. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American 

Society of Agronomy: 315–337.

Goodwin, B.K. 2009. Payment limitations and acreage decisions under 

risk aversion: a simulation approach. American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics. 91(1): 19–41. 

Goodwin, B.K.; Ker, A.P. 2002. Modeling price and yield risk. In: Just, R.E.; 

Pope, R.D., eds. A comprehensive assessment of the role of risk in U.S. 

agriculture. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 289–323.

Gorman, J.T.; Griffiths, A.D.; Whitehead, P.J. 2006. An analysis of the use 

of plant products for commerce in remote Aboriginal communities of 

northern Australia. Economic Botany. 60(4): 362–373. 

Greene, S.M.; Hammett, A.; Kant, S. 2000. Nontimber forest products 

marketing systems and market players in Southwest Virginia: crafts, 

medicinal and herbal, and specialty wood products. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 11(3): 19–39. 

Greenfield, J.; Davis, J.M. 2003. Collection to commerce: western North 

Carolina nontimber forest products and their markets. Raleigh: North 

Carolina State University. 106 p.

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: nontimber forest products in 

the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 26(1): 67–86. 

Hembram, D.; Hoover, W.L. 2008. Nontimber forest products in Daniel 

Boone National Forest region—economic significance and potential for 

sustainability. In: Jacobs, D.F.; Michler, C.H., eds. Proceedings of the 16th 

Central Hardwoods Forest Conference; 2008 April 8–9; West Lafayette, 

IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-24. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 148–156.

Hill, D.B.; Buck, L.E. 2000. Forest farming practices. In: Garrett, H.; Rietveld, 

W.; Fisher, R., eds. North American agroforestry: an integrated science 

and practice. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy: 283–320.

Hinrichs, C.C. 1995. Off the treadmill? Technology and tourism in the 

North American maple syrup industry. Agriculture and Human Values. 

12(1): 39–47. 
148 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 6

Hinrichs, C.C. 1998. Sideline and lifeline: the cultural economy of maple 

syrup production. Rural Sociology. 63(4): 507–532. 

Hodges, A.W.; Mulkey, W.D.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. [and others]. 2005. 

Economic impacts of the forest industry in Florida, 2003. Gainesville: 

University of Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences. 47 p. 

http://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic-impact-analysis/pdf/FE53800.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Huntington, T.G.; Richardson, A.D.; McGuire, K.J.; Hayhoe, K. 2009. Climate 

and hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent 

trends and implications for forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 39(2): 199–212. 

Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; McLain, R.J. [and others]. 2015. Whose urban 

forest? The political ecology of foraging urban nontimber forest products. 

In: Isenhour, C.; McDonough, G.; Checker, M., eds. Sustainability in the 

global city: myth and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press: 

187–212.

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K.A. 2004. The relationship between 

nontimber forest product management and biodiversity in the United 

States. Washington, DC: National Commission on Science for 

Sustainable Forestry. 60 p. http://www.ntfpinfo.us/docs/academicdocs/

JonesMcLainLynch2005-USNTFPBiodiversity.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 9, 2017].

Just, R.E. 2003. Risk research in agricultural economics: opportunities 

and challenges for the next twenty-five years. Agricultural Systems. 

75(2): 123–159. 

Just, R.E.; Pope, R.D. 2003. Agricultural risk analysis: adequacy of models, 

data, and issues. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 85(5): 

1249–1256. 

Just, R.E.; Weninger, Q. 1999. Are crop yields normally distributed? 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 81(2): 287–304. 

Kassam, K.A.; Karamkhudoeva, M.; Ruelle, M.; Baumflek, M. 2010. 

Medicinal plant use and health sovereignty: findings from the Tajik and 

Afghan Pamirs. Human Ecology. 38(6): 817–829. 

Ker, A.P.; Goodwin, B.K. 2000. Nonparametric estimation of crop insurance 

rates revisited. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 82(2): 

463–478. 

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Bailey, J.D. 2004. Huckleberry abundance, 

stand conditions, and use in Western Oregon: evaluating the role of 

forest management. Economic Botany. 58(4): 668–678. 

Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Hart, Schaffner 

and Marx. 

Lal, P.; Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Mercer, D.E. 2011. Socio-economic impacts 

of climate change on rural United States. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change. 16(7): 819–844. 

Landefeld, J.S.; McCulla, S.H. 2000. Accounting for nonmarket household 

production within a national accounts framework. Review of Income and 

Wealth. 46(3): 289–307. 

Maher, K.; Little, J.; Champ, P.A. 2013. Insights from a harvest trip model for 

nontimber forest products in the interior of Alaska. Res. Note RMRSRN-60. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p.

Markstrom, D.C.; Donnelly, D.M. 1988. Christmas tree cutting: demand 

and value as determined by the travel cost method. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 3(3): 83–86. 

Matthews, S.N.; Iverson, L.R.; Peters, M.P. [and others]. 2014. Assessing 

and comparing risk to climate changes among forested locations: 

implications for ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology. 29(2): 213–228. 

McLain, R.J. 2008. Constructing a wild mushroom panopticon: the extension 

of nation-state control over the forest understory in Oregon, USA. 

Economic Botany. 62(3): 343–355. 

McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.J.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Incorporating understanding 

of informal economic activity in natural resource and economic 

development policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 53 p.

McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M.R. 2014. Gathering “wild” 

food in the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem 

planning and management. Local Environment. 19(2): 220–240. 

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2001. Expanding nontimber forest product 

harvester/buyer participation in Pacific Northwest Forest Policy. Journal 

of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3–4): 147–161. 

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2013. Characteristics of non-industrial private 

forest owners interested in managing their land for nontimber forest 

products. Journal of Extension. 51(5): 140–150. 

McRobert, G. 1985. A walk on the wild side. Oregon Business. October: 

105–106.

Mercer, D.E. 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a 

review. Agroforestry Systems. 61(1–3): 311–328. 

Mercer, D.E.; Pattanayak, S.K. 2003. Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. 

In: Sills, E.O.; Abt, K.L., eds. Forests in a market economy. Dordrecht, the 

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 283–299.

Mills, R.; Robertson, D. 1991. Production and marketing of Louisiana pine 

straw. Publ. 2430. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Agricultural 

Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. 12 p. http://www.sref.

info/resources/publications/production-and-marketing-of-louisiana-pinestraw. [Date accessed: August 15, 2017].

Minogue, P.J.; Ober, H.K.; Rosenthal, S. 2007. Overview of pine straw 

production in North Florida: potential revenues, fertilization practices, 

and vegetation management recommendations. FOR125. Gainesville: 

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, School 

of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension 

Service. 6 p. http://www.ntfpinfo.us/docs/other/Minogue2007-

PineStrawProductionNorthFlorida.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Mudge, K. 2009. Forest farming. Arnoldia. 67: 26–35. 

Muir, P.; Norman, K.; Sikes, K. 2006. Quantity and value of commercial moss 

harvest from forests of the Pacific Northwest and Appalachian regions of 

the US. The Bryologist. 109(2): 197–214. 

National Tribal Air Association (NTAA). 2009. Impacts of climate change 

on tribes in the United States. Report submitted December 11, 2009, 

to Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, U.S. EPA, Office of Air and 

Radiation. Flagstaff, AZ: National Tribal Air Association. 18 p. 

Pasalodos-Tato, M.; Mäkinen, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, J. [and others]. 2013. 

Review. Assessing uncertainty and risk in forest planning and decision 

support systems: review of classical methods and introduction of new 

approaches. Forest Systems. 22(2): 282–303. 

Pattanayak, S.K.; Abt, K.L.; Holmes, T.P. 2003. Timber and amenities on 

nonindustrial private forest land. In: Sills, E.O.; Abt, K.L., eds. Forests 

in a market economy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers: 243–258.

Pattanayak, S.K.; Murray, B.C.; Abt, R.C. 2002. How joint is joint forest 

production? An econometric analysis of timber supply conditional on 

endogenous amenity values. Forest Science. 48(3): 479–491. 

Pattanayak, S.K.; Sills, E.O. 2001. Do tropical forests provide natural 

insurance? The microeconomics of nontimber forest product collection in 

the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics. 77(4): 595–612. 

Phillips, K.M.; Pehrsson, P.R.; Agnew, W.W. [and others]. 2014. Nutrient 

composition of selected traditional United States Northern Plains Native 

American plant foods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 34(2): 

136–152. 

Pierce, A.R.; Emery, M.R. 2005. The use of forests in times of crisis: 

ecological literacy as a safety net. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods. 15(3): 

249–252. 
CHAPTER 6 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 149

Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 2002. Commercial harvests of edible mushrooms from 

the forests of the Pacific Northwest United States: issues, management, 

and monitoring for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management. 

155(1): 3–16. 

Poe, M.; McLain, R.; Emery, M.; Hurley, P. 2013. Urban forest justice and the 

rights to wild foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human Ecology. 

41(3): 409–422.

Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries 

and companies. New York: The Free Press.

Rathke, D.; Baughman, M. 1993. Can shiitake production be profitable. 

Shiitake News. 10(1): 1–7.

Reid, W.; Coggeshall, M.; Garrett, H.E. [and others]. 2009. Growing 

black walnut for nut production. AF1011-2009. Columbia, MO: 

University of Missouri, Center for Agroforestry. 16 p. http://www.

centerforagroforestry.org/pubs/walnutNuts.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

9, 2017].

Richards, R.T. 1994. Wild mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion: a 

socioeconomic study. Yreka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp Ranger District.

Robbins, P.; Emery, M.R.; Rice, J.L. 2008. Gathering in Thoreau’s backyard: 

nontimber forest product harvesting as practice. Area. 40(2): 265–277. 

Roise, J.P.; Chung, J.; Lancia, R. 1991. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat 

management and longleaf pine straw production: an economic analysis. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(2): 88–92. 

Romero-Lankao, P.; Smith, J.; Davidson, D. [and others]. 2014. North 

America. In: Barros, V.; Field, C.; Dokken, D. [and others], eds. Climate 

change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional 

aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press: 1439–1498.

Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. 1999. The value of ranch open space to 

tourists: combining observed and contingent behavior data. Growth and 

Change. 30(3): 366–383. 

Rowland, G. 2003. Pine straw market. New Albany, MS: North Central 

Mississippi Resource Conservation and Development Council. 1 p. 

http://www.naturalresources.msstate.edu/pdfs/pinestraw.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 9, 2017].

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho: a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 

93(3): 31–36. 

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest products: an east-side 

perspective. In: Quigley, T.M., ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: scientific assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p.

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(3): 67–72. 

Schulp, C.J.; Thuiller, W.; Verburg, P. 2014. Wild food in Europe: a synthesis 

of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. 

Ecological Economics. 105: 292–305. 

Sills, E.O.; Lele, S.; Holmes, T.P.; Pattanayak, S.K. 2003. Nontimber forest 

products in the rural household economy. In: Sills, E.O.; Abt, K.L., eds. 

Forests in a market economy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers: 259–281.

Skinner, C.B.; DeGaetano, A.T.; Chabot, B.F. 2010. Implications of twentyfirst century climate change on Northeastern United States maple 

syrup production: impacts and adaptations. Climatic Change. 100(3–4): 

685–702. 

Starbuck, C.M.; Alexander, S.J.; Berrens, R.P.; Bohara, A.K. 2004. Valuing 

special forest products harvesting: a two-step travel cost recreation 

demand analysis. Journal of Forest Economics. 10(1): 37–53. 

Starbuck, C.M.; Berrens, R.P.; McKee, M. 2006. Simulating changes in forest 

recreation demand and associated economic impacts due to fire and fuels 

management activities. Forest Policy and Economics. 8(1): 52–66.

Strong, N.; Jacobson, M. 2006. A case for consumer-driven extension 

programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania. 

Agroforestry Systems. 68(1): 43–52. 

Sumaila, U.R.; Cheung, W.W.; Lam, V.W. [and others]. 2011. Climate change 

impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nature 

Climate Change. 1(9): 449–456. 

Taylor, E.; Foster, C.D. 2004. Producing pine straw in East Texas forests. 

B-6145. College Station, TX: Texas A&M System, Texas Cooperative 

Extension. 12 p. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/87207. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Teitelbaum, S.; Beckley, T. 2006. Harvested, hunted and home grown: the 

prevalence of self-provisioning in rural Canada. Journal of Rural and 

Community Development. 1: 114–130. 

Thornton, J. 1994. Estimating the choice behavior of self-employed business 

proprietors: an application to dairy farmers. Southern Economic Journal. 

579–595. 

Trozzo, K.; Munsell, J.F.; Chamberlain, J.L.; Aust, W. 2014. Potential 

adoption of agroforestry riparian buffers based on landowner and 

streamside characteristics. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 

69(2): 140–150. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Statistics of U.S. businesses, 2012. http://www.

census.gov/econ/susb/. [Date accessed: September 20, 2016].

Valdivia, C.; Poulos, C. 2009. Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in 

incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast 

and southeast Missouri. Agroforestry Systems. 75(1): 61–71. 

Wolfe, K.; Stubbs, K. 2013. 2012 Georgia farm gate value report. AR-13-

01. Athens: University of Georgia, Center for Agribusiness & Economic 

Development. 180 p. http://www.caes.uga.edu/center/caed/pubs/

annual.html. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Workman, S.W.; Bannister, M.E.; Nair, P.K.R. 2003. Agroforestry potential 

in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and 

extension professionals. Agroforestry Systems. 59(1): 73–83. 

Yin, R.; Newman, D.H. 1996. The effect of catastrophic risk on forest 

investment decisions. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management. 31(2): 186–197. 
CHAPTER 7

Laws, Policies, 

and Regulations 

Concerning 

Nontimber Forest 

Products

Patricia De Angelis

Sharon Nygaard-Scott

James L. Chamberlain

Sharifa Crandall

Frank K. Lake

Rebecca J. McLain

Christine Mitchell

Amit R. Patel
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 153

7.1

Overview

T he United States regulatory landscape 

for managing nontimber forest products 

(NTFPs) is as complex as the broad spectrum 

of harvesters, consumers, species, and products 

that make up this category. This overview briefly 

highlights some of the important historical foundations 

of United States natural resource laws and introduces 

more recent concepts and attitudes to management and 

resource access that are affecting current approaches 

toward regulation of NTFPs in the United States, which 

are discussed in this chapter. For a more in-depth 

discussion of the evolving relationships between people, 

policies, and NTFPs in the United States and in the global 

context, see Emery and McLain (2001), Jones et al. 

(2002), Laird et al. (2010), and Shackleton et al. (2011).

Regulations and policies that address access, 

management, extraction, trade, and conservation of 

nontimber forest products exist at multiple governmental 

levels in the United States (George et al. 1998, McLain 

and Jones 2002). The basis for these regulations is found 

in the U.S. Constitution, which defines the authorities 

between state, Federal, and tribal governments: States 

are the chief stewards of the wildlife within their borders 

(U.S. Constitution, Amend. X); the Federal Government 

has authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, 

and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” 

(U.S. Constitution, Art. 1); and, States must regard 

United States law and treaties as the “supreme law of 

the land” (U.S. Constitution, Amend. VI), including 

those clauses that guarantee access for gathering in 

traditional territories. These underpinnings influenced 

the early development of United States natural resource 

laws, creating legal and administrative frameworks 

that vary within and between local, state, Federal, and 

tribal jurisdictions and international obligations. The 

result is that the overall legal framework for NTFPs is 

often disjointed and ambiguous, with different levels 

of laws varying in scope, intent, and interpretation. 

This is a common occurrence with NTFP law and 

policy around the world (Antypas et al. 2002, Guldin 

and Kaiser 2004, Jones et al. 2005, Laird et al. 2011, 

McLain and Jones 2002, Wynberg and Laird 2007).

With the Federal nexus for national natural resource 

management grounded in jurisdiction and commerce, 

early approaches to management and access to plants 

and fungi were aimed at restricting access to resources 

based on protected status (e.g., state- or Federallisted species), preventing the spread of plant diseases 

or invasive species in certain commodity categories 

(e.g., food or horticulture), or assessing taxes for 

interstate or international commerce based on the 

purpose of the extraction (e.g., subsistence, personal, 

or commercial) (Bean and Rowland 1997). Thus, 

many of the legal and administrative frameworks that 

today impact access to and oversight of NTFPs were 

not promulgated to manage sustainable use of these 

resources; controlling their harvest led to the tendency 

for laws and policies to be written in reaction to a 

real or perceived threat of overharvest (Emery and 

McLain 2001; Laird et al. 2010, 2011; Peyton 2013).

The scope of the earliest natural resource protection laws 

focused primarily on animals, which has contributed to 

a disparity in conservation of plants and fungi that has 

impacted NTFP management. Reflecting the general 

tendency to focus on animals, plants and fungi were 

originally excluded from the statutory definition of 

“wildlife” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

the Lacey Act, both of which were amended to include 

plants, though these acts still differentiate plants as 

separate entities from wildlife and fungi are not explicitly 

included in the legal definition of “plants” under these 

acts (Davoodian 2015, Dunlap 1989, FWS 2015b). 

As a result, U.S. laws pertaining to the conservation 

of plants and fungi have not kept pace with animal 

conservation laws, and the national infrastructure for 

funding and research is closely associated with game 

species and other animals (Bean and Rowland 1997, 

Gilliam 2007, McMahon 1980, Sparling 2014). Bound by 

the Constitution to uphold Federal laws, state laws and 

policies often mirror the national regulatory frameworks 

and state wildlife laws and enforcement efforts have 

also tended to focus on animals, especially game species 

(Bean and Rowland 1997, Blevins and Edwards 2009, 

George et al. 1998, Stein and Gravuer 2008). Although 

certain Federal legislation exerts authority over animals 

on nonfederal lands, only state law defines protections for 

plant species on nonfederal lands (e.g., state, local) and on 

private property—even for plant species protected under 

the ESA (Haig et al. 2006). In 1998, of the 45 States 

with state-level endangered species legislation, only 15 

included plants in the definition of “species.” By 2008, 

an additional 17 states had enacted legislation to cover 

rare or endangered plants, bringing to 32 the number of 
154 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

states that include plants under state conservation laws, 

though these laws are often weaker than those afforded 

to animals (George et al. 1998, Stein and Gravuer 2008).

Today, the major principles shaping NTFP regulations 

and policies in the United States stem from the shift to 

ecosystem-based management on Federal lands that 

began in the 1990s and recent steps toward more inclusive 

approaches to conservation that value NTFPs (Antypas 

et al. 2002, Bean and Rowland 1997, Laird et al. 2011, 

Sills et al. 2011). Though the early years of ecosystembased forest management focused mainly on timber 

species, the principles of sustainable forest management 

have raised the visibility of other species, including 

NTFPs, as integral parts of forest ecosystems and the 

livelihoods and traditions of forest-dependent human 

communities (Antypas et al. 2002; Jones and Lynch 

2002; McLain and Jones 2002). During this time, NTFPs 

were incorporated into forest policies (Laird et al. 2011) 

and to distinguish them from existing policies pertaining 

to timber became one of the only natural resources 

defined by what they are not: timber (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). However, the development of sustainable 

use and access policies is complicated by lack of speciesspecific biological information to determine sustainable 

harvest levels for most NTFP species (Alexander et al. 

2002, 2011; Crook and Clapp 2002; Emery and McLain 

2001; Guldin and Kaiser 2004; Jones et al. 2002; Mallet 

2002; Vance et al. 2001; von Hagen et al. 1996).

In addition to ecological data, development of sound 

policy also requires solid socioeconomic and market 

data. The supply chain for botanical raw materials is 

characterized by multiple actors and institutions that 

operate at multiple levels of society with linkages across 

multiple policy domains (Folke et al. 2005, Hayes and 

Persha 2010, Laird et al. 2010). United States-based 

studies of the socioeconomic, sociocultural, and domestic 

and international market-drivers provide important 

background information for policies on access, resource 

use, and conservation, however these data are patchy and 

inconsistent, including for species with significant markets 

(Alexander and Fight 2003, Danielsen and Gilbert 

2002, Emery and McLain 2001, Fisher 2002, Goodman 

2002, Jones et al. 2002, London 2002, McLain and 

Jones 2005, Schroeder 2002). A case study of the floral 

greens industry exemplifies the complex governance 

systems that have developed for certain NTFPs in the 

Pacific Northwest and the unintended inequities and 

potential consequences for unsustainable management 

resulting from regulations made in the absence of 

understanding socioecological aspects of this harvest 

system (box 7.1). It illustrates how regulations meant 

to reduce unpermitted harvesting on state lands shifted 

control of harvest access and sale of the plant resources 

to the hands of a few, large leaseholders, generating little 

incentive to harvest sustainably and greater motivation 

to poach on public lands. It underscores the importance 

of considering other sectors that may not seem directly 

related to NTFPs, such as laws and policies dealing with 

water, labor, or agriculture that impact access or harvest 

of NTFPs (Laird et al. 2010, 2011; Mitchell 2014).

International policy dialogue and developments 

around sustainable use and environmental justice 

have ushered in new policies relating to NTFPs 

(Bélair et al. 2010; CBD 2004; CITES 2014b, 2014f, 

2014h, 2014i; Crook and Clapp 2002; Emery and 

McLain 2001; FAO 1985; ITTO 1992; ITTO/IUCN 

2009; Jahnige 2002; Jones and Lynch 2002; MPSG 

2012; MPWG 1995; Weigand 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 

2002d, 2002e). These policy processes have led to:

• Greater recognition of the value and importance of 

NTFPs.

• Health, livelihood, and economic benefits provided by 

nontimber forest resources.

• An understanding of the valuable role of traditional 

ecological knowledge in developing systems to 

sustainably use and manage biodiversity.

• Growing awareness that ecosystem goods and services 

of standing forests are greater than destructive values.

• Recognition of the merits of community stewardship 

and community-based conservation of natural 

resources.

• Increased awareness and commitments to conserve 

biodiversity and address conservation challenges on a 

global scale.

The following sections in this chapter describe 

specific laws and policies that impact the harvest and 

management of NTFPs in the United States on the 

Federal, tribal, state, local, and international levels 

and the authorities and context within which they are 

administered. These sections also illustrate some of 

the differences between laws and policies that directly 

impact NTFPs and those that indirectly impact NTFPs 

but that can often have a greater impact than NTFP-
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 155

BOX 7.1

CASE STUDY: Floral greens industry in the Pacific Northwest 

Nontimber forest product policies and regulations exist 

within complex and dynamic socioecological governance 

systems. These systems are characterized by the 

presence of multiple actors (e.g., agencies, private firms, 

and nongovernmental organizations) (Folke et al. 2005); 

institutions that operate at multiple levels of society (e.g., 

local, State, national, and international) (Hayes and Persha 

2010); and connectivity across multiple policy domains 

or sectors of society (Laird et al. 2010). The following 

example from Washington State’s floral greens industry 

illustrates how NTFP regulations made without considering 

the broader governance context may have unintended 

ecological or social consequences (Laird et al. 2010). 

Washington State’s moist coniferous forests have 

supplied global and domestic markets with a variety 

of floral greens since the early 1900s. Leafy branches 

from salal (Gaultheria shallon) are the primary product, 

but western swordfern fronds (Polystichum munitum), 

common beargrass leaves (Xerophyllum tenax), California 

and red huckleberry branches (Vaccinium ovatum and V. 

parvifolium), and a variety of evergreen boughs (i.e., noble 

fir, Abies procera; western redcedar, Thuja plicata; etc.) 

are sold as well. State, Federal, and private land managers 

in western Washington began regulating the floral greens 

harvest through permit or short-term lease systems 

during the mid-20th century. Additionally, State law RCW 

76.48 requires harvesters to have written permission from 

landowners when harvesting or transporting special forest 

products, including floral greens. 

Washington’s floral greens sector underwent rapid 

transformation in the 1990s as product and labor markets 

became increasingly globalized. The price of floral greens 

dropped as alternative products became available in 

countries with lower labor and environmental regulation 

costs. Unable to compete in the new market conditions, 

numerous small buying companies went out of business. 

A handful of large buying companies soon dominated the 

floral greens export market, where most of Washington’s 

floral greens are sold. At the same time, immigration and 

trade reforms, notably the 1986 Immigration Act and the 

1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, created 

incentives for residents of Mexico to come to the United 

States and disincentives for Latino immigrants in the 

United States to return to their home countries. By the 

late 1990s, Latino immigrants—many of them lacking 

documentation to be or work in the United States—

comprised the majority of the floral greens labor force. 

Lower prices paid to pickers, combined with an excess 

labor supply associated with restructuring of the floral 

greens sector, resulted in more intensive harvesting of salal 

in long-established harvest sites, as well as expansion of 

harvesting into new areas. As harvesting pressure on salal 

resources increased, public land managers, as well as 

private landowners and some pickers and buyers, voiced 

concerns about overharvest. Here, it is interesting to note 

that, “Foresters have tried unsuccessfully for decades to 

eliminate salal, which competes with tree seedlings, from 

the forests of the Pacific Northwest” (McLain and Lynch 

2010:283). Nevertheless, in the subsequent debates over 

how to address perceived overharvesting of salal, floral 

greens stakeholders framed the problem as a poaching 

problem. For State-managed lands, the solution the 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) offered 

was to consolidate numerous small leases into a small 

number of larger leases, which it then auctioned off to the 

highest bidder. Under the State lease system, leaseholders 

may transfer harvesting rights to one or more other persons. 

However, the primary leaseholder remains responsible for 

any damages incurred from harvesting activities. From 

the Washington DNR’s standpoint, administration and 

enforcement for a small number of large leases is less costly 

and more efficient than for a large number of smaller leases. 

Although intended to reduce unpermitted harvesting 

on State lands, the DNR’s shift to larger leases had the 

opposite effect. Few harvesters or small buying companies 

had the financial wherewithal to compete against the large 

floral greens buying companies in leasehold auctions. As 

a result, the large buying companies acquired exclusive 

access to the most productive salal grounds on State lands. 

To gain legal access to those sites, harvesters typically had 

to agree to sell their salal to the company holding the lease, 

often at lower prices than they could obtain elsewhere. 

Under such circumstances, harvesters with legal rights to 

harvest on company-held leaseholds had no incentive to 

harvest less intensively. Incentives for poaching on State 

lands increased as harvesters sought to retain flexibility in 

where they could sell their products. 

If policymakers had understood better the socioecological 

governance system in which floral greens harvesting was 

embedded at the turn of the 20th century, they might have 

identified other, potentially more effective, solutions. Some 

examples include the following:

• Setting aside some highly productive salal grounds 

where bidding would be restricted to small firms or 

harvester associations could reduce the power of large 

buying companies to control access.

• Economic development policies aimed at improving the 

capacity of small buying companies to compete in the 

NTFP sector could increase market competition, and 

potentially improve the terms of trade for pickers. 

• Immigration and labor policy reforms could provide 

Latino harvesters with a stronger bargaining position visà-vis the large buying companies.

• Land use policies aimed at reducing the rate of forest 

conversion to residential or industrial development would 

help ensure that an adequate supply of floral greens 

remains available.
156 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

specific laws. Section 7.2 describes three Federal laws 

that are the primary influences, with some indirect 

consequences, on NTFP governance across our country 

and explores access and specific regulations and policies 

of the five largest land management agencies, responsible 

for managing more than one quarter of the United States 

land area. Section 7.3 explores policies that are applicable 

to indigenous and tribal peoples of the United States and 

U.S. territories, on Federal, state, and local levels. This 

section briefly examines the indigenous and tribal peoples’ 

reserved rights to gather and manage traditionally and 

culturally significant plants and fungi, including NTFPs, 

and the progress and impediments to fully implementing 

and incorporating these rights into land management 

policies and practices. Section 7.4 draws upon examples 

from several states to look at the diversity of state-level 

laws and policies impacting NTFPs, which depend largely 

upon the existence, strength, and scope of state plant 

conservation laws or upon the agencies enforcing them. 

Section 7.5 considers additional regulations and policies 

specific to a city, district, or township, with examples 

drawn from a variety of localities, that often directly 

address NTFP access and management with a tendency 

toward protecting (i.e., limiting access to) resources. 

Section 7.6 focuses on United States participation in five 

international forums that have afforded opportunities to 

engage in a wider array of policy discussions related to 

NTFPs and which have and could continue to strengthen 

United States efforts to better manage NTFPs for their 

important ecological, cultural, and economic value.

7.2

Federal Laws and 

Administrative Dimensions

The Federal Government manages over 635 million 

acres of land, 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of 

land (Gorte et al. 2012). Four agencies administer 609 

million acres of this land: the Forest Service in the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National 

Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) (Gorte et al. 2012). 

Federal land ownership is concentrated in the western 

states and Alaska. In addition, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) administers 25 million acres in military 

bases, training ranges, and more. Numerous other 

agencies administer the remaining Federal acreage (DoD 

2016, Gorte et al. 2012). A synopsis of the regulations 

relevant to NTFPs across agencies, and the policies that 

shape agency policy with respect to NTFPs is provided 

for these five major Federal landholding agencies.

7.2.1

Regulations and Policies

The statutes with relevance to nontimber forest 

resources that apply across agencies include the ESA, 

the Lacey Act, and the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (Antypas et al. 2002, Sparling 2014).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is one 

of the most successful United States environmental 

laws for conserving rare species. It may also be the 

best known and probably one of the most debated 

laws that influence NTFP regulation, policy, and 

management (Antypas et al. 2002, Peyton 2013).

Two factors used to determine the listing of species 

under the ESA are “overutilization for commercial...

purposes” and “inadequacy of existing regulations” (ESA 

1973). It follows that regulations and policies that ensure 

sustainable management of such resources should preclude 

the need to list species that are harvested as nontimber 

forest products under the ESA because of those two 

factors. The ESA also provides a mechanism for protecting 

“critical habitat”: the geographical areas occupied by a 

species, or physical or biological features that are essential 

for its conservation, and can include the area that may lay 

outside the species range that may be needed for special 

protection and species management (ESA Sec.3.5.A.). 

These requirements could protect ESA-listed species 

that are the sources of nontimber forest products and 

their habitat that may be at risk from exploitation by 

unsustainable harvesting methods, over harvesting, and 

habitat degradation. We are not aware of any analyses 

to determine how many ESA-protected species are 

harvested as NTFPs. The FWS maintains a database 

of all ESA-listed species (FWS 2017). Two examples 

of plant species that are harvested as nontimber forest 

products and are listed as “threatened” under the ESA 

are: Appalachian spirea (Spiraea virginiana Britt), relatives 

of which are used in horticulture, and is threatened by 

habitat alteration and invasives; and Price’s potato-bean 

(Apios priceana B.L. Rob), the root of which is used for 

food, and is threatened by cattle grazing, clearcutting, 

and herbicide applications along highways. The ESA 

provides a regulatory framework for the conservation 

of threatened and endangered plants and animals.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 157

Animals and plants are not treated the same under the 

ESA, as the ESA defines the term “plant” separately 

from “wildlife” (ESA Sec. 3.C.8; ESA Sec. 3.C.14). 

This has indirectly influenced NTFPs as United States 

plant conservation laws and funding mechanisms to 

support research and conservation have lagged behind 

those for animals (Bean and Rowland 1997, Blevins 

and Edwards 2009, Dunlap 1989, FWS 2015b, George 

et al. 1998, Gilliam 2007, McMahon 1980, NegrónOrtiz 2014, Sparling 2014, Stein and Gravuer 2008). 

Moreover, fungi are not explicitly encompassed in the 

statutory definition of “plants,” which “...includes any 

member of the plant kingdom...”. In practice, fungi have 

been included under the general term “plants” by FWS 

(Federal Register 1993b), and two species of lichens (an 

association between fungi and algae) are ESA-listed as 

“endangered”: rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare 

(A. Evans) Yoshim & Sharp) (Federal Register 1995) 

and Florida perforate cladonia (Cladonia perforata A. 

Evans) (Federal Register 1993a). However, the exclusion 

of fungi from the legal definition of plants has been 

cited as a hindrance to their conservation (Davoodian 

2015). In addition, the ESA prohibits the unauthorized 

removal or take of listed species which means “to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” 

(ESA Sec. 3.19). However, unlike the case for animals, 

the ESA only protects listed plant and fungal species 

on Federal lands, not on private lands (ESA 1973).

The Lacey Act of 1900 was the first legislative effort to 

protect wildlife against illegal possession, transportation, 

and trade (both exporting and importing). Initially, it 

was enacted to curtail the commercial exploitation and 

transport of animals in the United States in the early 

twentieth century (Dunlap 1989, Lacey Act of 1900). 

Amendments to the Lacey Act in 1981 expanded the law 

to include plants that are taken, transported, or sold in 

violation of any state or Federal law. Amendments to the 

2008 Farm Bill broadened the purview of the Lacey Act 

to include plants and plant products obtained in violation 

of foreign laws (generally meaning state- or Federal-listed 

species) (APHIS 2014, Bean and Rowland 1997, FWS 

2014c). Thus, the Lacey Act can be applied to plant species 

that are protected under state law, under the ESA, or under 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Here again, the 

legal definition of “plants” excludes fungi, although the 

Lacey Act would enforce violations against any legally 

protected species (such as the aforementioned lichens). The 

Lacey Act has been successfully used to prosecute violators 

involving nontimber forest products, such as CITESlisted American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), which is 

also regulated under state laws (FWS 2014a). The USDA 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

is responsible for enforcing the Lacey Act and dealing 

with violations pertaining to plants and plant products. 

Special permits are required to move regulated plants and 

their products and a product declaration is necessary to 

transport plants across domestic and international borders. 

Similarly, FWS oversees the transport of wildlife parts and 

products, including animals, fish, birds, and their products 

that may come from United States forests or forests abroad. 

For further discussion of the Lacey Act prohibitions related 

to plants, including violations of U.S. law or tribal law and 

violations of State or foreign laws, see Alexander (2014).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 establishes 

specific environmental goals and procedures for the 

protection and maintenance of the environment and 

identifies how to implement these goals in Federal policy 

and management (NEPA 1969). NEPA directly affects 

Federal agency management of nontimber species, 

including NTFPs, by mandating detailed environmental 

analyses prior to inception of activities that may impact 

federally managed lands. For example, the Forest Service 

routinely conducts environmental assessments (EAs) for 

timber projects and prescribed burns; this may include 

assessment of the impacts on the harvest of an individual 

NTFP and/or the harvest of multiple products. In the 

case of the Forest Service Willamette National Forest 

in Oregon, an EA may include the potential impact of 

allowing harvesters to access burned areas to collect 

morels or the EA may detail how boughs may be collected 

after thinning of a noble fir stand. Certain Forest Service 

ranger districts may also ask to use categorical exclusion 

documentation and approval for instances where there is 

no significant impact, such as the “hand gathering of a 

variety of special forest products (SFPs) within 150 feet of 

roads open to public access” (USDA Forest Service 2014).

7.2.2

Federal Agencies That Manage 

Nontimber Forest Products

The Forest Service is a multiple-use agency that protects 

and manages 154 national forests and 20 grasslands in 

44 states and Puerto Rico, encompassing 193 million 

acres of land. The Forest Service’s mission is to sustain 
158 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s 

forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and 

future generations (USDA Forest Service 2015a). The 

Forest Service has a long-standing history of managing 

limited-scale NTFP harvest (Brown 1950, McLain and 

Jones 2005, Shaw 1949, USDA Forest Service 1928).

The Forest Service’s authority to develop and administer 

rules governing NTFP harvesting on national forest 

lands stems directly from the “use and occupancy” and 

“protection” provisions of the Organic Administration 

Act of 1897 (McLain and Jones 2005). The Organic 

Administration Act initiated management of the 

national forests and directed that forests be established 

to “improve and protect the resources, to secure 

water, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber” 

(Chamberlain et al. 2002). Additionally, the act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to protect the 

forests from destruction (USDA Forest Service 2009).

Other major laws that mandate how the 

Forest Service manages the natural resources 

under its jurisdiction include:

• The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 

recognizes timber as one of five major resources for 

which national forests are to be managed. This act 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and 

administer the renewable surface resources of national 

forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the many 

products and services obtained from these resources 

(USDA Forest Service 2009).

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (as amended by the NFMA), 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to periodically 

assess the forest and rangeland resources of the 

Nation and to submit to Congress at regular intervals 

recommendations for long-range Forest Service 

programs essential to meet future resource needs 

(USDA Forest Service 2009).

• The National Forest Management Act of 1976, 

sets forth the requirements for land and resource 

management plans for the National Forest System 

(NFS). It also amends several of the basic acts 

applicable to timber management. It specifically 

addresses most aspects of timber management and how 

it is related to other natural resources. It is the primary 

authority governing the management and use of natural 

resources on NFS lands (USDA Forest Service 2009).

In addition, Title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR 36)—Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property— is the principle set of rules and regulations 

issued by federal agencies of the United States 

regarding parks, forests, and public property.

In the last 15 years, the Federal Government has taken 

some action toward managing national forests for 

NTFPs. The Forest Service refers to NTFPs as special 

forest products and botanicals, which are defined, in 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18, Chapter 80 

[see section 87.05] (USDA Forest Service 2017). In 

2000, Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 

initiate a pilot program to charge, collect, and retain a 

“fair market value” fee for the harvesting and selling of 

forest botanical products (FBPs) (Pilot Program 2000). 

The Pilot Program Act defines FBPs as “any naturally 

occurring mushrooms, fungi, flowers, seeds, roots, bark, 

leaves, and any other vegetation (or portion thereof) that 

grow on NFS lands.” This definition has been further 

refined in Forest Service policy to include “naturally 

occurring special forest products, including, but not 

limited to bark, berries, boughs, bryophytes, bulbs, burls, 

cones, epiphytes, ferns, fungi (including mushrooms), 

forbs, grasses, mosses, nuts, pine straw, roots, sedges, 

seeds, shrubs, transplants, tree sap, and wildflowers.” 

FBPs do not include animals, animal parts, Christmas 

trees, cull logs, derrick poles, fence material, firewood, 

house logs, insects, mine props, minerals, non-sawlog 

material removed in log form, posts and poles, pulpwood, 

rails, rocks, sawtimber, shingle and shake bolts, small 

roundwood, soil, telephone poles, water, and worms 

(FSH 2409.18, chapter 80; USDA Forest Service 2017).

Under the Forest Botanical Products Pilot Program, the 

permit fees collected should cover at least a portion of 

the fair market value of the product and a portion of 

the costs incurred by the Forest Service in administering 

the Pilot Program. The funds collected may be used on 

the Forest Service unit where collected, for the costs of 

conducting inventories of FBPs, determining sustainable 

levels of harvest, monitoring and assessing the impacts 

of harvest levels and methods, conducting restoration 

activities, including any necessary vegetation, and 

covering the costs of the USDA described in the law 

(USDA Forest Service 2017). Additionally, the pilot 

program directs the Forest Service to permit limited 

free use of FBPs and establish a personal use harvest 

level for each product, below which no fees would be 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 159

charged. The Pilot Program has been reauthorized several 

times and currently extends through September 30, 

2019 (DOI Appropriations 2000, 2004, 2010, 2014).

American Indian tribes, with treaty or other guarantees, 

retain their rights to gather plant materials and fungi 

in accordance with the terms of those agreements and 

subsequent case law. In administering its obligations to 

Native Peoples of the United States, the Forest Service 

engages in public processes to refine policies pertaining 

to access to forest products that have special cultural and 

traditional significance, including NTFPs (USDA Forest 

Service 2017). Section 8105 of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (also known as the Farm Bill) 

provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may provide, 

free of charge to federally recognized Indian tribes, 

trees, portions of trees, or forest products from NFS 

lands for traditional and cultural purposes (Cultural 

and Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2012, Farm 

Bill 2008). However, section 8105 prohibits Indian 

tribes from using any of the products provided for 

commercial purposes (Farm Bill 2008; Cultural and 

Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2012, Farm Bill 

2008). The Forest Service issued an Interim Directive 

providing short-term direction regarding tribal requests 

for forest products for traditional and cultural purposes 

(USDA Forest Service 2015b, Federal Register 2014), 

and published, for public notice and comment, a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register on July 31, 2014 

(Federal Register 2014). The final rule was published 

in the Federal Register on September 26, 2016 (Federal 

Register 2016), which became effective on October 26, 

2016. The Forest Service issued a Final Directive, in the 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18, Chapter 80 [see 

section 82.5] regarding tribal requests for forest products 

for traditional and cultural purposes, which became 

effective January 7, 2017 (USDA Forest Service 2017).

The Forest Service provides public access to NTFPs 

primarily through its timber sale regulations and policies 

on the sale and disposal of National Forest System 

timber, special forest products, and FBPs (CFR 36, 

section 223). In general, Forest Officers may sell other 

forest products under the timber regulations (CFR 36, 

section 223.1) when it would serve local needs and 

meet management objectives (USDA Forest Service 

2002). Fair market value is estimated and a permit 

or sale contract is required when product supply is 

limited, the product has value, the permittee intends to 

sell the product, or when issuing a permit constitutes 

a special benefit not generally available to the public 

(USDA Forest Service 2017, 2015b). Fair market value 

is determined by appraisal estimates or other approved 

methods authorized by the Forest Service Chief through 

issuance of agency directives (CFR 36, section 223.60). 

Additionally, timber regulations provide for free use 

of timber and other forest products under conditions 

as set forth at Title 36 of CFR, sections 223.5–223.11. 

Furthermore, Title 36 CFR, section 261.6, describes the 

Secretary of Agriculture’s prohibitions associated with 

sale and disposal of timber and other forest products.

As a result of the Forest Botanical Products Pilot 

Program, the Forest Service in 2001 developed a national 

strategy for SFPs that “sets forth Forest Service strategic 

goals and suggests key actions for managing renewable 

resources associated with SFPs within the framework of 

ecosystem management” (USDA Forest Service 2001). 

Additionally, the 2012 NFS land management planning 

final rule (CFR 36, section 219), “is designed to ensure 

that plans provide for the sustainability of ecosystems 

and resources; meet the need for forest restoration and 

conservation, watershed protection, and species diversity 

and conservation; and assist the Agency in providing a 

sustainable flow of benefits, services, and uses of NFS 

lands that provide jobs and contribute to the economic 

and social sustainability of communities” (Federal 

Register 2012). Rather than rely solely on the timber 

sale regulations for the sale and disposal of SFPs and 

FBPs, in 2007 the Forest Service developed a regulation 

that would govern commercial harvest and sale of SFPs 

(Title 36 CFR, section 223) and revise the regulations for 

their limited free use and personal use (CFR 36, section 

261.6) (Federal Register 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 

2009c). Additionally, it would establish the Pilot Program 

for Forest Botanical Products and contain regulations 

governing their free, personal use (Title 36 CFR section 

223, adding subpart H). Though these amendments 

were originally intended to go into effect January 2009 

(Federal Register 2008), the comment period was 

instead reopened in early 2009 and implementation 

was delayed twice (Federal Register 2009a and Federal 

Register 2009b), before being delayed indefinitely citing 

the need to have more time for the Forest Service to 

properly respond to the comments and to consider any 

potential changes to the rule (Federal Register 2009c).

The Bureau of Land Management, part of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, is charged with managing 

approximately 245 million acres of land mostly in 
160 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

the Western United States and Alaska (BLM 2014). 

The BLM uses the term “special forest products” and 

describes the products as “vegetative material found 

on public lands that can be harvested for recreation, 

personal use, or as a source of income” (BLM 2015b). 

The BLM includes in the term grasses, seeds, roots, 

bark, berries, mosses, greenery (e.g., galax, fern, fronds, 

salal, and huckleberries), edible mushrooms, tree 

seedlings, transplants, poles, posts and firewood. The 

BLM manages SFPs under any of three resource-use 

categories: incidental, personal, and commercial use. 

NTFP management, administration, and monitoring 

on BLM lands often occurs at the district or unit level. 

District managers and other resource area managers 

may administer collection permits and conduct 

inventories, sales of projects, and law enforcement 

to prevent NTFP theft (Antypas et al. 2002). The 

BLM typically provides guidelines to the public for 

appropriate harvesting techniques and may include 

specific information for restrictions on where and how 

much of the NTFP may be harvested. They also keep 

track of common products that are permitted and 

sold. NTFPs are typically sold by the BLM through 

negotiated sales, advertised sales, and leases (Alexander 

2011, Antypas et al. 2002). Because harvesting for 

personal consumption may not require a permit on some 

BLM lands, the available permit data are less than a 

perfect estimate of actual harvest (Alexander 2011).

The BLM works closely with other Federal agencies, 

such as the Forest Service, to administer collection 

permits for NTFPs and to address conservation and 

restoration needs. BLM chairs the Federal Native 

Plant Conservation Committee, comprising twelve 

Federal agencies that collaborate on conservation 

needs for native plants (including fungi) and their 

habitats and coordinate implementation of programs 

to address those needs (BLM 2014). This group is 

currently developing a national seed strategy to guide 

development, availability, and use of seed needed for 

timely and effective restoration (BLM 2015a), and has 

a standing working group on the sustainable use and 

conservation of medicinal plants, called the Medicinal 

Plant Working Group (Heywood and Dulloo 2005).

The National Park Service manages 401 parks 

encompassing 84.5 million acres of public land in the 50 

states and four territories (NPS 2014). The NPS mission 

is to “preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the national park system,” so 

lands are managed for ecological integrity and nonconsumptive recreation (Antypas et al. 2002, NPS 2014). 

The NPS recognizes the cultural and economic value of 

plant and fungal species on parklands and the importance 

of preserving their biodiversity for conservation and 

restoration of all species native to park ecosystems 

(NPS 2014). Thus, national parks can serve as refugia 

for nontimber forest product species and populations.

The sale and commercial use of natural products is 

prohibited on parklands (Federal Register 1983). Parks 

may issue written authorization for the public to harvest 

“certain fruits, berries, or nuts” where specifically 

authorized by the park unit for personal consumption 

and for cultural purposes, so long as the consumptive use 

does “not adversely affect park wildlife, the reproductive 

potential of a plant species, or otherwise adversely affect 

park resources” (Federal Register 1983, NPS 2006). 

Similar to the Forest Service, NPS units are managed 

with a certain degree of autonomy, giving discretion to 

park supervisors to decide whether or not permits or fees 

are required for consumptive harvest of plant resources, 

where and how much may be gathered, or to restrict 

possession of natural products altogether (Antypas et al. 

2002; CFR 36, section 2.1(c); Federal Register 1983).

Park Service policy requires data collection to assess 

native plant population trends. In addition to conserving 

and preventing detrimental effects to ESA-listed species, 

Park Service policy is to inventory, monitor, and manage 

species listed by states and local institutions to the extent 

possible and to work with surrounding landowners 

to suggest mutually beneficial harvest regulations for 

populations that range outside of park boundaries 

(NPS 2006, 2014). Many Parks make this information 

available through their websites or otherwise provide this 

information upon request. The NPS maintains the Forest 

Health Advisory System, which monitors and projects 

risks to tree species in forest ecosystems (NPS 2017).

Poaching is one of five categories of threats to resources 

on national park lands (GAO 1996, NPS 2014). Many 

NTFPs are illegally harvested and removed from 

Park Service lands, including mushrooms, mosses, 

slippery elm bark, galax, cacti, and American ginseng 

(GAO 1996, NPS 2014, Pokladnik 2008). The NPS 

has increased the level of awareness, prevention, and 

law enforcement investigative efforts directed toward 

environmental crimes, including illegal harvest of 

NTFPs (NPS 2003, 2004, 2014). Significant effort has 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 161

been given to protecting certain plant species that are 

harvested as nontimber forest products on park lands, 

including the use of dyes to mark American ginseng roots 

(Bolgiano 2000, Corbin 2002) and inserting microchip 

identification tags into saguaro cacti (Small 2014, 

Thornton 2008). NPS does not maintain comprehensive 

records of poaching information in their parks.

The National Park Service opened a public comment 

period, in April 2015, on a proposed rule to authorize 

agreements between the National Park Service and 

federally recognized Indian tribes to allow the gathering 

and removal of plants or plant parts (including 

mushrooms) by designated tribal members for traditional 

purposes (Federal Register 2015). The agreements would 

facilitate continuation of tribal cultural traditions on 

associated lands included within units of the National 

Park System without a significant adverse impact to 

park resources and values. The proposed rule respects 

tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government 

relationship between the United States and the Tribes, 

and would provide systemwide consistency to this 

aspect of National Park Service-Tribal relations. The 

proposed rule would provide opportunities for tribal 

youth, the National Park Service, and the public to 

understand tribal traditions (Federal Register 2015).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages more than 150 

million acres of public lands, including 562 National 

Wildlife Refuges and 6 National Monuments, and is 

the third largest Federal land management agency after 

the BLM and the Forest Service (Antypas et al. 2002, 

FWS 2014c). The Service’s major landholding is the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge System 

is administered for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats and includes a suite of 

habitats ranging from wetlands and prairies to temperate 

and boreal forests (FWS 2014c). Though NTFPs and 

species management are not specifically mentioned, 

several Refuge mandates, authorities, and policies pertain 

to management and access to nontimber forest product 

management (Antypas et al. 2002; FWS 2012, 2014b):

• The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

of 1980 (ANILCA) added or consolidated legislation 

for the refuges in Alaska, requiring comprehensive 

conservation plans, and providing for subsistence use 

and other traditional activities (ANILCA 1980).

• The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1996, as amended by the Refuge Improvement 

Act of 1997, has a key aspect that authorizes the 

Secretary of Interior to “permit the use of any area 

within the System for any purpose, including but 

not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and 

accommodations... whenever he determines that such 

uses are compatible with the major purposes for which 

such areas were established” (NWRSA 1966).

• Executive Order 12996 of 1996 defines a conservation 

mission for the Refuge System and four guiding 

principles, including providing opportunities for 

appropriate public use; ensuring the maintenance of 

the biological integrity and environmental health of the 

System; and cooperating with other Federal and state 

agencies, tribes, organizations, industry, and the public 

in the management of refuges (EO 12996).

• The Refuge Planning Policy of 2000 establishes 

requirements and guidance for refuge planning, as 

implemented in Part 602 of the FWS Policy Manual, 

and includes plant species and their habitats in the 

considerations of target species and issues of interest 

(FWS 2015b).

• Compatibility Policy of 2000 defines compatible 

use as “a use of a national wildlife refuge that will 

not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment” of the refuge mission or purposes, and 

describes responsibilities associated with the mandate 

to sustain, restore, and enhance wildlife and plants to 

include protection, research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat management, propagation, live trapping and 

transplantation, and regulated taking, as implemented 

in 603 FW 2 (FWS 2015b).

• Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental 

Health Policy of 2001 describes how populations are 

managed to maintain and restore biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health on refuges, as 

found in 601 FW 3 (FWS 2015b).

The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) plays a 

leading role in protecting wild resources in the United 

States (Blevins and Edwards 2009). Much of the OLE 

efforts focus on investigating Federal crimes against 

endangered species and regulating interstate and 

international trade in species listed in CITES (Blevins 

and Edwards 2009, FWS 2014c). The OLE purview 

includes violations of the ESA as well as the Lacey 
162 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Act, and requires collaboration across local, state, 

and Federal jurisdictions and agencies (Wyler and 

Sheikh 2013). The FWS maintains a team of Federal 

Wildlife Officers that patrol the 150 million acre Refuge 

System, and is experiencing an increase in violent crime 

against persons and a resultant decrease in detection 

of natural resource crimes (FWS 2014c). Enforcing, 

investigating, and prosecuting environmental crimes 

requires coordination among other Federal agencies 

(e.g., FWS-Office of Law Enforcement, Department 

of Homeland Security-Customs and Border Patrol, 

APHIS, and the Department of Justice-Environmental 

and Natural Resource Division) as well as local, state, 

and district entities (e.g., state police, sheriff, and 

the state court system) (Wyler and Sheikh 2013).

The Department of Defense (DoD) manages 25 million 

acres of public land (DoD 2016). The major legislation 

concerning natural resource management on DoD lands 

is the Sikes Act, as amended, directing the Secretary of 

Defense to carry out conservation and rehabilitation 

programs on military lands (DoD 2016, USAEC 2015). 

All DoD components develop mandatory ecosystembased Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans 

that address natural resource management in relation to 

mission requirements and land use activities (DoD 2013, 

USAEC 2015). DoD’s Natural Resources Program has 

national policies on the management of “forest products,” 

defined as including, but not limited to [emphasis added], 

standing timber/trees, downed trees, and pine straw (DoD 

2013), and so would include nontimber forest products.

The DoD generally allows public access on its land, 

though such access was curtailed or prohibited after 

the terrorist attacks in 2001 (Emery et al. 2004). DoD 

policy indicates that forest products “shall not be given 

away,” that marketable products must be appraised at 

“fair market value,” and that “Forest products may be 

commercially harvested to generate electricity, heat, 

steam, or for other” uses that are consistent with the 

mission, laws, and management plans (DoD 2013). Like 

other agencies, actual fees and harvest requirements 

are managed at the installation level. Proceeds from 

forest products sales are remitted to the installation 

to cover the costs associated with the production and 

sale of the products. Of any net proceeds, 40 percent is 

distributed as “State entitlements” for use on county 

roads or schools. The remaining 60 percent of net 

proceeds goes to a DoD Forestry Reserve Account general 

fund to be reallocated for forest-related management 

activities or equipment (DoD, n.d.; USAEC 2015).

DoD (2013) environmental regulations allow use 

of lands by American Indians for traditional and 

subsistence purposes as long as such uses do not 

compromise department interests and mission. 

In addition to the national laws, policies, and 

authorities followed by all Federal agencies DoD has 

numerous directives, instructions, and policies aimed 

at implementing procedures for DoD interactions 

with federally recognized tribes (DoD 2006). Some 

research has been conducted on military lands 

to serve as models for assessing ethnobotanical 

resources (Anderson et al. 1998, 2001; Rush 2012).

7.2.3

Summary of Federal 

Regulations and Policies

Federal agencies implement national programs, manage 

lands, and collect data that include or relate to nontimber 

forest products, and taken together the policies and 

institutions involved have significant capacity for 

managing nontimber forest products. However, other 

bodies of law indirectly impact NTFP management 

and use, including land tenure and resource rights law, 

and can create complexity in the regulatory landscape. 

At the same time, as noted earlier, inconsistencies in 

local, state, and Federal approaches persist, although 

efforts exist to coordinate NTFP harvesting and 

management strategies for selected species across the 

Nation. Challenges remaining in NTFP regulation at 

the Federal level include: resolving permit ambiguities; 

prioritizing and obtaining the resources and data to 

develop sustainable harvest plans; reconciling chainof-custody issues for commercial species; poaching; 

incorporating market and socioeconomic considerations 

into planning; and a better understanding of the role that 

tribal and cultural uses of NTFPs play in stewardship 

of the resource. Raising the visibility of nontimber 

forest products within the Federal infrastructures and 

enhancing interagency coordination of natural resource 

management could greatly improve management 

and conservation of nontimber forest species.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 163

7.3

Policies Applicable to 

Indigenous Peoples

Four canons of United States law guarantee access 

to NTFPs for cultural and material purposes for 

specified populations, including indigenous peoples: (1) 

subsistence provisions of the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act of 1998 (rural Alaskans), 

(2) the Hawai’i State constitution (Native Hawaiians; 

Article 12 sec. 7), (3) Native Hawaiian Health Care 

legislation (42 U.S. Code Chapter 122 sec. 11701), and 

(4) Federal Indian Law, including the Federal Indian 

trust responsibility (See Seminole Nation v. United 

States, 1942). The Federal Indian trust responsibility 

is a “legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the 

part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, 

lands, assets, and resources” of federally recognized 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages 

(Bureau of Indian Affairs 2015). The trust responsibility 

has been reaffirmed through Congressional treaties, 

Presidential executive orders, judicial rulings, and other 

legally binding agreements that establish a Federal/

tribal government-to-government relationship on par 

with United States relations with foreign countries (Bean 

and Rowland 1997, Fisher 2002, George et al. 1998, 

Goodman 2002, Gross 1981, Sparling 2014). Indigenous 

peoples of the affiliated territories of American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) are party to other treaties or 

agreements that provide for unique relationships with 

the United States Government (Trask 1991). Palau, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshalls are 

former United Nations trust territories, now sovereign 

nations, which have signed treaties called “Compacts 

of Free Association” with the United States (“Freely 

Associated States”). Multiple international and Federal 

policies apply to these indigenous groups’ access to and 

utilization of nontimber forest products derived from 

public, private, and tribal lands within the jurisdiction 

of the United States (Allen 1989), including conservation 

of such resources (Schmidt and Peterson 2009). The 

regulatory and policy interplay at the state-tribal levels 

is beyond the scope of this report. However, Jones et 

al. (2002) explores NTFP tenure issues on Federal land 

and across governmental jurisdictions in chapters by 

Danielsen and Gilbert (2002), Fisher (2002), Goodman 

(2002), London (2002), and Schroeder (2002).

7.3.1

National Laws and Authorities

A number of laws and authorities may be particularly 

germane to U.S. indigenous peoples’ access to NTFPs 

in an era of changing climates. The rights of American 

Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians to harvest 

sacred plants is included under the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (McLain and Jones 

2005). Any NTFPs used for religious purposes would 

be subject to this authority. Under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1996, the Government is 

required to consult with any American Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious 

and cultural significance to properties (see section 

101(d) (6) (B) of NHPA). Traditional gathering or 

ceremonial sites or areas (e.g., Traditional Cultural 

Property districts) in which NTFPs are harvested 

and/or processed may be covered by this act.

A number of provisions specific to USDA pertain to 

indigenous peoples’ access to NTFPs. The American 

Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act (1993), 

pertains to “agricultural products” including crops, 

livestock, forage and feed, grains, and other marketable 

or traditionally used materials, with the latter applicable 

to some NTFPs (italics added). Under the act, resource 

management plans on Indian agricultural lands must 

“produce increased economic returns, enhance Indian 

self-determination, promote employment opportunities, 

and improve the social and economic well-being of 

Indian and surrounding communities” (Cultural and 

Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2012, section 3055). 

The Farm Bill of 2008 (technically known as the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act) gives broad discretion 

to the Secretary of Agriculture to provide Indian tribes 

access to forest products in the National Forest System 

free of charge for traditional and cultural purposes, 

as long as the products are not used for commercial 

purposes (Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority 

2012). In addition, the Forest Service, Sale and Disposal 

of National Forest System Timber, Special Forest 

Products and Forest Botanical Products policy “respects 

treaty and other reserved rights retained by Tribes, and 

recognizes the importance of traditional and cultural 

forest products in the daily lives of Indians.” The Forest 

Service also has regulations specific to the use of forest 

products on national forest lands by American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribes for traditional and cultural purposes 

(25 USC 32.3055). Section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill 
164 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

creates an exception to a National Forest Management 

Act requirement to sell certain forest products. Section 

8105 provides the Secretary of Agriculture with 

discretionary authority to provide trees, portions of trees, 

or forest products to federally recognized Indian tribes, 

free of charge, for noncommercial traditional and cultural 

purposes. Additionally, section 8105 has been codified 

in the Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority. 

After due process, The Forest Service issued a Final 

Directive in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 2409.18, 

Chapter 80 [see section 82.5]) regarding tribal requests 

for forest products for traditional and cultural puposes.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 was issued in 1994 to 

“address environmental justice in minority and lowincome populations (EO 12898). This order created an 

interagency working group on environmental justice and 

required the development of agencywide environmental 

justice strategies (US CCR 2003). Section 6-606 of 

EO 12898, entitled “Native American Programs,” 

requires that each Federal agency responsibility set 

forth under this order shall apply equally to American 

Indian programs. In addition, the Department of the 

Interior, in coordination with this working group, and, 

after consultation with tribal leaders, shall coordinate 

steps to be taken pursuant to this order that address 

federally recognized Indian tribes. In late 1994, the 

USDA formulated a plan to ensure that environmental 

justice principles and initiatives were incorporated into 

Departmental programs, policies, planning, public 

participation processes, enforcement, and rulemaking 

(USDA 2012). In the initial years after the EO 12898 was 

issued, forest plans included an environmental justice 

analysis as part of Environmental Impact Statements 

(USDA 1994). By 2000, forest planning guidance 

specified particular coordination, consultation, and 

interactions required with American Indian tribes and 

Alaska Natives, including the consideration of tribal data 

and resource knowledge (Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 36; see section 219.12-18). In its 2012–2014 

Environmental Justice Action Plan, USDA references 

specific activities under way, including consulting and 

coordinating with tribal governments as set forth in 

Executive Order 13175 (EO 13175, USDA 2012). The 

2010 USDA Consultation Action Plan identifies “Forest 

Products, Forest Management, and other ForestRelated and Conservation-Related Issues” as topics for 

issue-specific regional consultations (USDA 2009).

Regulatory mechanisms and policies since the 1990s 

have provided greater opportunities to employ TEK in 

land management. For example, the National Indian 

Forest Resources Management Act of 1990 directed 

the Secretary of Agriculture to “undertake forest land 

management activities on Indian forest land, either 

directly or through contracts, cooperative agreements, 

or grants under the Indian Self-Determination Act 

(1975). “Indian forest land” means Indian lands, 

including commercial and noncommercial timberland 

and woodland, that are considered chiefly valuable 

for the production of forest products or to maintain 

watershed or other land values enhanced by a forest 

cover, regardless of whether a formal inspection and land 

classification action have been taken. Land management 

activities specifically covered by this act include forest 

product marketing assistance, including evaluation of 

marketing and development opportunities related to 

Indian forest products and consultation and advice to 

tribes, tribal and Indian enterprises on maximization 

of return on forest products. Under this act, “forest 

products” include bark, berries, mosses, pinyon nuts, 

roots, acorns, syrups, wild rice, herbs, and other 

marketable material. This act led to the formation of the 

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team, which 

has since produced three periodic assessments of Indian 

forest land management in the United States (IFMAT 

1993, 2003, 2013). These assessments have shown 

that Indian forest lands are among their most valuable 

resources. Of particular interest with regard to NTFPs, 

the allotment system created in the 1880s to transfer 

ownership of parcels of land from tribes to individual 

Indians has contributed to an increasingly fragmented 

land ownership structure today that “increases 

management costs, limits forest products marketability, 

frustrates landscape-level management, results in an 

uneven distribution of management constraints between 

allotment owners, and reduces the economic development 

potential of Indian forest assets” (IFMAT 2013).

The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (TFPA), 

authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

to enter into an agreement or contract with Indian tribes 

meeting project selection criteria established in the act 

to carry out projects on NFS lands to protect Indian 

forest land, rangeland, or tribal communities when the 

NFS lands are bordering or adjacent. An Indian tribe 

may enter into a contract or agreement to achieve land 

management goals for Federal land that is under the 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 165

jurisdiction of the Secretary, bordering or adjacent to the 

Indian forest land, or on rangeland under the jurisdiction 

of the Indian tribe. A 2013 analysis of the TFPA, 

conducted jointly by the Intertribal Timber Council 

in collaboration with the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), found that it had been underutilized 

in the time since the passage of the act, with only six 

of eleven proposals that were accepted having been 

successfully implemented. Among the findings were that 

perceptions differed among tribes, the BIA, and Forest 

Service on implementing the TFPA; Tribes were reticent 

to enter into agreements due to concerns about the 

approval process and duration; and funding for the TFPA 

relied largely on Congressional appropriations because 

of a decline in value for forest products (ITC 2013).

7.3.2

Native Peoples of Alaska, 

Hawai’i, and U.S. Territories

Alaska Natives are unique in that many tribes have 

governments and corporations that have entered into 

agreements with the United States that reaffirm Alaska 

Native access to and utilization of resources, including 

a range of nontimber forest products for traditional, 

subsistence, and commercial uses. Approximately 52 

percent of the land area of Alaska is managed as public 

lands, and another 124 million acres as state lands 

(Schroeder 2002). Most Federal lands in Alaska are 

managed by the BLM (74.7 million acres) followed 

by FWS (69.4 million acres), NPS (53.8 million acres), 

Forest Service (21.9 million acres) and DoD (2.2 

million acres). The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) establishes 

that all rural residents be given “reasonable access to 

subsistence resources on the public lands” (ANILCA 

1980). Thus, under ANILCA, subsistence is open to 

native and nonnative rural residents of Alaska (PEER 

2010). Federal and state agencies are also required to 

undertake research on fish, wildlife, and subsistence 

use on public lands, including seeking information and 

data from those engaged in subsistence uses. Federal 

agencies and the state of Alaska have developed policies 

and manuals to facilitate collaboration, consultation, 

and planning to implement programs under this act (AK 

DNR 2010; Antypas et al. 2002; FWS 2012, 2014b).

Native Hawaiians retain some rights applicable to 

nontimber forest product use for traditional and 

cultural purposes under Federal and state authorities 

and policies. Regulations and policies pertaining to 

indigenous and tribal peoples of the Pacific Islands and 

affiliated territories include acts or proclamations that 

allow the religious or ceremonial take (i.e., harvesting 

and gathering) of park natural resources, as under the 

National Park Service’s regulations on the “Preservation 

of natural, cultural, and archeological resources” (36 

CFR 2.1(a), (d)). For example, in Volcanoes National 

Park of Hawai’i, persons of Native Hawaiian ancestry 

may collect “natural products...in keeping with the 

traditions that are rooted in the aboriginal religious 

practices of the Native Hawaiian people” (PEER 

2010). In the National Park of American Samoa, 

“gathering uses shall be permitted in the park for 

subsistence purposes if such uses are generally prior 

existing uses...and if such uses are conducted in the 

traditional manner and by traditional means” (16 

U.S.C. 410qq-2). In American Samoa, the national 

park is unique—the land is not Federal; it is still owned 

under the traditional, communal, chiefly system, but is 

about 20 years into a 50-year lease with the National 

Park Service (Forestry Program 2010). The National 

Park Service also implements a Park Ethnography 

Program, which was integrated into Park Service policy 

through NEPA and the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 (Crespi 2003). This program has 

produced a variety of information on cultural uses of 

Park resources by American Indian, Alaska Native, 

Pacific Islander, and other indigenous peoples.

In Guam, regulation for access to and use of NTFPs is 

covered in part under the Endangered Species Act of 

Guam (2006), which specifies different uses of habitats 

and resources by the residents of Guam, many of whom 

are indigenous people. Section 63304, Forestry Program, 

recognizes that “trees provide materials for carving and 

for weaving and which are needed to teach these arts 

to the future generations of Guam.” Under this act, 

“the Department of Agriculture shall be responsible to 

protect, develop and manage the Territory’s public lands 

in a manner that will conserve the basic soil resources, 

and at the same time produce continuous yields of water, 

wood fiber, forage, recreation and wildlife for the use 

and benefit of the greatest number of people of Guam. 

The Department shall also endeavor to encourage and 

assist private land owners to do the same with their land, 

and establish an urban and community forestry program 

with village commissioners and civil groups.” Licenses 

are required for cutting, removal or “mutilation” of 
166 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

live trees on all public lands. Written requests for such 

licenses are reviewed and granted by the Director of 

Agriculture, when satisfied “that such cutting or removal 

will not materially injure the forest resources of Guam.” 

Guamanian law sets aside some land exclusively for 

Chamorros (indigenous peoples of the Mariana Islands).

The Constitutions of the Territory of American Samoa 

and CNMI define rights and privileges of indigenous 

peoples with respect to land ownership (OTA 1987). 

Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States 

of Micronesia are eligible for Forest Service financial 

and technical assistance as if they were domestic states 

(Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 1978). The 

Constitutions and laws of these countries address land 

tenure and other rights of their own citizens, including 

indigenous peoples and local land tenure systems.

7.3.3

Summary

American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, 

and indigenous and tribal peoples of U.S. territories 

have different regulations, authorities and policies 

governing their access to and harvest of nontimber 

forest products, or more fundamentally, governing the 

nature of land tenure encompassing such resources. 

The right to gather has been described as a “reserved 

property right” (Goodman 2002), and these access 

rights vary on ceded and reserved territories, across 

land management agencies, and from state to state 

(Allen 1989, Bean and Rowland 1997, Danielsen and 

Gilbert 2002, Fisher 2002, Goodman 2002, IFMAT 

2013, London 2002, Schroeder 2002, West 1992). Some 

American Indian tribes with ceded and reserved lands 

that span multiple Federal and state jurisdictions have 

formed Commissions or Corporations to enhance their 

self-regulatory rights to manage and access natural 

resources (Danielsen and Gilbert 2002, Fisher 2002, 

London 2002). Statutes and Executive Orders have 

laid the groundwork for more inclusive approaches to 

management and access, and are being built into state 

and Federal agency policies to facilitate implementation 

(AK DNR 2010; Antypas et al. 2002; FWS 2012, 2014b; 

USDA 2009). Assessments of some of these laws and 

policies related to American Indians, Alaska Natives, 

and Native Hawaiians have gauged progress and 

demonstrated successes in engaging Indians and Indian 

cultural knowledge into forest management (IFMAT 

1993, 2003, 2013; ITC 2013). These assessments also 

highlight areas where more work is needed and provide 

tangible targets for improvement. Recent management 

policies also have created mechanisms for wider use 

of traditional and local ecological knowledge in the 

management of forested lands, although the lack of 

contemporary research documenting these practices 

hampers progress in this area (Charnley et al. 2008).

7.4

State Laws and Administrative 

Dimensions

State regulations must comply with Federal regulations, 

but otherwise states may regulate NTFPs at their 

discretion. It is important to consider how NTFPs are 

defined under state law to understand the impact and 

scope on plants that are harvested as NTFPs. While 

NTFPs are generally understood to be plants, they are 

often defined more broadly (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

State policies and regulations vary widely, with some 

states having no specific policies or regulations governing 

NTFPs (e.g., Idaho), while other states specifically 

mention NTFPs (e.g., Arizona, Washington). State laws 

that impact plant or fungal species that are harvested as 

NTFPs generally do so in one of four ways: (1) as plants 

in general, (2) by species, (3) by activity or product, or 

(4) by habitat. The agencies that oversee NTFPs are 

as varied as the diversity of policies and regulations.

7.4.1

State Regulatory Agencies

Almost all laws and policies directly related to NTFPs are 

efforts to conserve or sustainably manage these resources 

(Laird et al. 2010). Nontimber plant and fungal resources 

may be managed by a variety of agencies, including the 

State Departments of Natural Resources, State Forestry 

Departments, and State Departments of Agriculture. 

Other agencies, such as State Parks and Recreation 

Agencies, Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Water Management 

Districts, may also be involved in implementing policies 

that impact species that are harvested as nontimber 

forest products (Mitchell 2014). The number of 

management agencies involved in NTFP regulation 

creates a complex set of issues when seeking to coordinate 

management strategies within and between states. 

Policies generated from diverse State regulations related 

directly or indirectly to NTFPs vary for each State. State 

regulations range from few specific NTFP regulations 

(Utah) to highly regulated NTFP environments 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 167

(Oregon, Washington). Further, regulations may address 

only one or some NTFPs or encompass all NTFPs 

categorically. The variability and degree of management 

is reflected in examples of different State strategies.

State forests are mandated to manage resources for 

multiple-uses and some states recognize and incorporate 

NTFPs as a permitted use and as an income producing 

strategy. With this mandate, states could integrate NTFPs 

within forest management for multiple-use, sustainability, 

biodiversity, conservation, enhanced ecosystem functions, 

restoration, and recreation and tourism. The wide range 

of NTFPs collected and harvested for personal and/

or commercial use makes managing for these products 

a challenge for states. Some State forests that allow 

the harvest of NTFPs use a permit system to generate 

income and/or to track and monitor harvests. For 

example, Florida issues permits for a variety of forest 

products. Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) berry harvest 

permits cost $10 per day per person with no harvest 

limit (Mitchell 2014), while grunting (worm harvesting) 

permits are $55 per site per year (FDACS 2016). How 

each state manages income from NTFP permitting is 

as variable as the agencies that manage them and the 

regulations that define them. Some states (e.g., Oregon, 

Washington) use the revenues from harvest permits 

to support schools (ODF 2009, WA DNR 2013).

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) has 

administrative responsibilities for the harvesting of 

NTFPs from state forest lands. The ODF established 

different guidelines for personal and commercial use 

of these products and has designated allowable harvest 

volumes for the products since 2006. Personal use 

collection does not require a special permit, and amounts 

are limited depending on the NTFP, and are regulated 

per vehicle, not per person. For example, 1 gallon of 

mushrooms may be harvested for personal use, while 

16 grocery bags of common beargrass (Xerophyllum 

tenax), boughs, ferns, and huckleberry can be harvested 

for personal use as well (ODF 2015a). Commercial 

NTFP collection requires permits that vary in cost 

depending on the product. For example, common 

beargrass permits are based on district policy, which are 

variable, while huckleberry plants or cuttings will cost 

$100 per 130 plants, with permit conditions including 

a $100 minimum, permits of 1 month duration, and 

available only in $100 increments (ODF 2015b).

In Pennsylvania, the Bureau of Forestry has management 

responsibilities for NTFPs on state lands. The Bureau 

is responsible for overseeing the state’s moratorium 

on the permitted harvest of American ginseng from 

state forests, and permits for NTFPs with potentially 

critical management issues such as rare clubmoss/

princess pine and clubmoss (both Lycopodium spp.) 

and goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) are judiciously 

issued by district foresters (Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Forestry 2003). NTFPs are directly included in the 

State Forest Resource Management Plan, with emphasis 

on understanding the issues surrounding NTFPs and 

developing effective strategies for managing these 

resources (Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry 2016). The 

concern for the sustainability of the target species and 

impacts on forest health are the primary motivations 

behind these management plans and determine which 

species and how much can be harvested from state lands. 

Recently updated, a notable change in the Pennsylvania 

State Forest Management Plan was to subsume NTFP 

management into the chapter on timber management 

because “we felt that nontimber forest products are 

not critical enough in State forest management to 

warrant their own chapter” (Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Forestry 2015, page 2). The state’s goals for NTFP 

management include: (1) manage harvest of NTFPs 

through permits; (2) develop mechanisms to determine 

the sustainability of nontimber forest product 

consumption at the district level; (3) develop and 

implement guidelines for harvest restrictions and remedial 

activities of nontimber forest products; and (4) build 

and strengthen relationships with partners interested in 

the conservation of ginseng and other nontimber forest 

products (Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry 2016).

Some State Departments of Natural Resources have 

regulations for the collection of nontimber forest products 

from State lands. According to the Iowa Department 

of Natural Resources (DNR), which administers 

harvesting of certain “plant life” on State parks and 

recreation areas, unless otherwise posted State parks and 

recreation areas are open to the harvest of many species 

that would be considered NTFPs (e.g., mushrooms, 

berries), and American ginseng, in particular, cannot be 

harvested from Iowa State parks (IA DNR 2015). The 

Washington State DNR offers opportunities for personal 

and commercial harvest of NTFPs on lands managed 

by that agency. There are harvest limits for personal use 

consumption of a variety of plant or fungal materials on 
168 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

State lands. Limits have been established for the personal 

use harvest of mushrooms, fiddlehead ferns, cones, 

common beargrass, conks, and firewood (WA DNR 

2015). Washington DNR distinguishes between personal 

and commercial use, with commercial harvest requiring 

permits issued by DNR. Most funds generated from these 

permits in Washington go to State educational trusts. 

Washington defines SFPs within State statutes and further 

legislates quantities that define personal or commercial 

use and directs how harvesters may access products 

(from landowners, permission through permit or not), 

and further how one may harvest, possess, and transport 

plants and products (Washington State Legislature 2015).

In Florida, lands managed by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife agency do not permit the harvesting of NTFPs, 

while some State-managed forests in Florida allow 

harvesting but implementation of the policies varies and 

is dependent on individual forest management plans 

and forest managers. While Florida State regulation 

requires that State forest management plans include 

income producing activities, NTFPs are not often 

directly considered. For example, Florida’s Wakulla 

State Forest includes multiple-use potential and income 

producing activities (i.e., recreation, grazing, rentals, 

timber sales, and apiaries), but the collection of saw 

palmetto berries is absent from the plan even though 

this NTFP is a resource on the forest (Florida Division 

of Forestry 2005). Meanwhile, Florida’s Goethe State 

Forest Management Plan specifically includes NTFPs 

as an income producing activity within its goal of 

sustainable forest management, specifying that these 

miscellaneous forest products include “palmetto 

drupes (berries), firewood, pine straw, apiary leases,” 

and more (Florida Division of Forestry 2013). NTFP 

definitions, policies, and associated regulations vary not 

only within states and agencies but across all states.

The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands 

directs people wanting permits to harvest Christmas 

trees or firewood to the USDA Forest Service or the 

BLM. The State’s Forest Resource Assessment and 

Strategy Guide (UT DNR 2010) mentions forest 

products but is not specific about the harvesting or 

income potential of NTFPs. In Puerto Rico, State 

wildlife and forestry laws prohibit collecting any 

plant part on State lands without a collecting permit 

from the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources, and these permits are usually 

allowed for scientific purposes only (Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico 1999, 2000; PRDNER 2005).

7.4.2

 Regulation of Plants on State Lands

The variability between resource management agencies 

and their definition and regulation of NTFPs on State 

public lands creates challenges. Native and protected 

plant laws are variable by State. Not all states have plant 

protection laws. As of 2008, 32 states include plants 

under State conservation laws (George et al. 1998; Stein 

and Gravuer 2008). Some states have broad native plant 

protection laws. In Arizona, for example, native plants 

may not be legally possessed, taken, or transported 

from the growing site (even on private land) without 

a permit issued by USDA. Protected plants include 

highly safeguarded species, salvage-restricted species, 

export-restricted species, salvage-assessed species, and 

harvest-restricted species (including cacti and common 

beargrass). Arizona has laws and official guidelines 

for the removal and transportation of protected native 

plants (even if the plants enter Arizona from another 

state) and all State law enforcement agencies are involved 

in monitoring the native plant law activities (Arizona 

Department of Agriculture 2015, McReynolds 2010).

Regulations that impact plant and fungal species that 

are harvested as nontimber forest products also vary 

from State to State depending on the product being 

regulated. Some states regulate certain plants as harvested 

species whereas other products are regulated as nursery 

stock. For instance, Connecticut and Arizona have 

special State listing categories for native plants that are 

known to be harvested (“species of special concern” and 

“harvest-restricted species,” respectively) (Connecticut 

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 

2014, McReynolds 2010). In Florida, the rapid growth 

of the saw palmetto berry industry since 1995 resulted 

in legislation meant to directly control the wild-harvest 

of berries. Legislation declared the saw palmetto berry 

an agricultural crop and protects it from unauthorized 

harvesting anywhere it is found (Florida State Legislature 

1997, Mitchell 2014). The legislation authorizes sanctions 

against those found harvesting berries without permission 

from the landowner. A study commissioned by the Florida 

House of Representatives (2000) found that unauthorized 

wild-harvesting of berries continued and would likely 

continue due to the confounding structure of the saw 

palmetto berry industry. Many commercially harvested 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 169

NTFPs are sold for cash to product dealers after 

collection, and the informal, and often secretive, nature 

of the NTFP trade is difficult for states (or any level of 

government) to understand and regulate (Mitchell 2014).

In comparison, some states regulate NTFPs indirectly 

as live plant materials and nursery stock or based on the 

purpose of the harvest. These regulations sometimes 

address transport within and across State lines as well as 

the licensing of nurseries, wholesalers, and growers (AZ). 

Many States, such as Washington, differentiate between 

individuals harvesting for personal and commercial 

use and regulate the harvest accordingly (Washington 

State Legislature 2015). Similarly, states must honor 

indigenous traditional and customary access to resources 

for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes (ANILCA 

1980, Hawai’i Legislative Reference Bureau 2015). 

How these materials are regulated depends on the 

context in which these regulations were established 

and the purpose of the legislation at the time it was 

enacted. Often, species-specific regulations are enacted 

due to conservation concerns and the threat of over 

collection (e.g., American ginseng), but as a result they 

may be rushed and poorly considered, or may require 

modification over time as the threats to species diminish 

(Emery and McLain 2001; Laird et al. 2010, 2011).

Most states that regulate specific species, such as 

American ginseng, usually have enacted legislation to 

protect the species. Any State and Tribe wanting to export 

wild American ginseng must have its program approved 

by FWS, as the agency charged with implementing 

CITES in the United States (50 C.F.R. 23.68). Nearly all 

wild-harvested American ginseng is exported to Asia. 

Nineteen states and the Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wisconsin have American ginseng programs (table 7.1)

approved by the FWS to export American ginseng (FWS 

2015a). The states and tribe have statutes for American 

ginseng regarding the harvest, selling, certification of 

roots, and required recordkeeping and reporting. Most 

of the States with approved ginseng programs prohibit 

the harvesting of American ginseng on State land.

7.4.3

Summary of State Regulations

Intra-agency and interagency coordination among 

resource managers is important to successfully manage 

NTFPs. States employ botanists, foresters, wildlife 

biologists, and other experts but their expertise is 

seldom directed toward coordinated management of 

NTFPs. Coordination is most often found when a 

NTFP is listed as rare, endangered, or of special interest 

on a State or regional level. Increased coordination 

Table 7.1—State ginseng regulation websites. 

State Ginseng program

Alabama http://www.agi.alabama.gov/divisions/plant-protection

Arkansas http://plantboard.arkansas.gov/PlantIndustry/Pages/LawsRegulations.aspx

Georgia http://www.georgiawildlife.com/GinsengProgram

Illinois http://www.dnr.state.il.us/Law3/Ginseng%20Regulations.htm

Indiana https://secure.in.gov/dnr/naturepreserve/8235.htm

Kentucky http://www.kyagr.com/marketing/ginseng.html

Maryland http://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Pages/ginseng_mgmt_program.aspx

Minnesota http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/um/index.html

Missouri http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/outdoor-regulations/american-ginseng-harvest-regulations

New York http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7130.html

North Carolina http://www.ncagr.gov/plantindustry/plant/plantconserve/ginseng.htm

Ohio http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/licenses-and-permits/specialty-licenses-permits#tabr2

Pennsylvania http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/plants/vulnerableplants/ginseng/index.htm

Tennessee http://www.tn.gov/environment/natural-areas/ginseng.shtml

Vermont http://agriculture.vermont.gov/plant_pest/ginseng_certification

Virginia http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/plant&pest/ginseng.shtml

West Virginia http://www.wvforestry.com/ginseng.cfm?menucall=ginseng

Wisconsin http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Ginseng.html
170 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

between State resource managers and private forest 

owners could enhance management efforts to ensure 

that NTFPs are managed sustainably, as part of wider 

biodiversity, species, and ecosystem sustainability.

States generally lack the biological information and 

harvest data needed to make management decisions 

about NTFPs (Alexander et al. 2011, Jones et al. 

2002, McLain and Jones 2005). Basic ecological 

descriptions and summaries of NTFPs are needed 

to construct baseline inventory of species on State 

lands. States may need assistance identifying what 

NTFPs occur on public lands and coordination and 

collaboration is critical when NTFPs cross State 

boundaries. Data concerning the resilience of plant 

species to harvest are critical to identify where efforts 

should begin to preserve most at-risk species.

States also generally lack mechanisms to track the harvest 

and movement of species across State lines and borders. 

For example, though saw palmetto berries are one of the 

most widely harvested commercial NTFPs by volume 

(AHPA 2012), Florida does not track the international 

export of this species, nor is there a species-specific 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that 

would assist in tracking such exports. Identifying and 

tracking important NTFPs is a critical step toward 

monitoring trade and consumption and developing plans 

for the sustainable use of a species. While the regulatory 

framework that was established for American ginseng 

is highly coordinated between the states and the Federal 

Government, this is the only CITES-listed plant species 

regulated in this manner. For most other native plant 

species that are harvested as nontimber forest products, 

a few states have implemented tracking mechanisms 

within their boundaries (e.g., AZ) (AZ Department of 

Agriculture 2015, McReynolds 2010). For most other 

plant and fungal species that are harvested as NTFPs 

(including some listed species), there are no mechanisms 

to track their harvest or interstate commerce, or to 

preclude commercial overexploitation (Stein and Gravuer 

2008). Licensing requirements (e.g., for harvesters or 

dealers) that lack sufficient ability to track the harvest 

and movement of NTFP resources are inefficient as a 

management tool. Laws and policies aimed at harvesters 

that do not fully incorporate why people harvest NTFPs 

may also have negative impacts on harvesters (Emery and 

Pierce 2005), as exemplified by the case study about the 

floral greens industry in the Pacific Northwest (box 7.1).

7.5

Local and Municipal Laws and 

Administrative Dimensions

At the local level, counties and municipalities are 

expected to comply with the overarching Federal, 

tribal, and State regulations previously mentioned in 

this chapter. Some localities have additional regulations 

and policies that are specific to a city, district, or 

township. These regulations may stem from laws that 

pertain to land conversion of forest to other types 

of land uses (or vice versa), under which timber and 

nontimber products are specified. Local laws may also 

be written to address the removal of NTFPs from county 

or public parks. Typically, the local regulations that 

affect NTFP harvest are administered and enforced by 

land managers, foresters, or law enforcement officials. 

These individuals may work in different county or city 

departments such as natural resources, land planning, 

or parks and recreation. Laws and policies that affect 

NTFPs at the local level are often detailed in policy 

documents such as land or forest management plans. 

Some county natural resource departments may work 

with their counterparts at the Federal or State level 

and with nonprofit organizations to assess NTFP use 

and sustainable management (Jacobson et al. 2005). 

The Washington state Forest Practices Board is an 

example of efforts to manage natural resources through 

formalized collaborations among public and private 

entities (WA DNR 2017). Contacting the designated 

local managers or rangers within these departments is 

a good starting point for obtaining a collection permit 

or learning more about the sustainable use and harvest 

of NTFPs, or the impact of a land-conversion project 

on access and use of NTFPs in their municipality.

7.5.1

Local Rules and Regulations

District and city laws in urban areas tend to have strict 

regulations and penalties for NTFP harvesting. This is 

partly because local authorities consider park resources 

as needing protection, not as resources that could be 

sustainably collected and used (McLain et al. 2014). 

Many examples in this section pertain to the regulatory 

aspects of foraging. Foraging is explored in more detail 

in chapter 5 and to a lesser extent in chapters 2 and 4.

The East Bay Regional Park District in California 

manages 65 parks and over 119,000 acres of land 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 171

spanning multiple counties in the San Francisco Bay 

Area (East Bay Regional Parks 2015). Within these 

district parks, NTFPs are considered to have intrinsic 

value as part of the ecosystem, being important intrinsic 

features of the natural landscape, along with other 

geographical features and wildlife. NTFPs are mentioned 

under the Park Feature Protection Rules, Plant Section, 

“No person shall damage, injure, collect or remove 

any plant or tree or portion thereof, whether living or 

dead, including but not limited to flowers, mushrooms, 

bushes, vines, grass, turf, cones and dead wood located 

on District parklands. In addition, any person who 

willfully or negligently cuts, destroys, or mutilates 

vegetation shall be arrested or issued a citation pursuant 

to Penal Code Section 384a (Section 804, Plants, East 

Bay Regional Parks Rules 2014).” Noncompliance with 

these rules is considered a misdemeanor or infraction 

and is enforced by district park rangers. Permits 

are not given for foraging, but “special permission 

(Section 103) may be granted to remove, treat, disturb, 

or otherwise affect plants or animals or geological, 

historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials for 

research, interpretive, educational, or park operational 

purposes” (Section 807; East Bay Regional Parks 2014).

The City of Boston, MA, oversees 1,100 acres of land 

divided into a series of parks, wooded corridors, and 

waterways and green spaces referred to as Boston’s 

Emerald Necklace (City of Boston 2014a). The city does 

not allow the removal of plants, and interestingly, plants 

are cited together with rules about property defacement: 

“No person shall, in any public park (including any 

boundary road thereof), or other public place (including 

any parkway) under the control of the Parks and 

Recreation Commission, except under the auspices of 

public authority... (e) dig up, cut, break, remove, deface, 

defile, or take any tree, bush, plant, turf, rock, gravel, 

building, structure, fence, railing, sign or other thing 

connected with such park of place (Section 2; City of 

Boston 2014b). The regulatory language does not specify 

other types of NTFPs such as mushrooms, moss, lichens, 

or downed wood, and it is unclear if these products are 

included under this rule. Violators may be fined up to $50 

for each offense (City of Boston Park 2014b, Section 10).

In New York City, the Administrative Code prohibits 

“destruction or abuse of trees, plants, flowers, shrubs 

and grass.” Furthermore, “no person shall deface, write 

upon, sever, mutilate, kill or remove from the ground 

any plants, flowers, shrubs or other vegetation under 

the jurisdiction of the Department without permission 

of the Commissioner” (NYC Parks Administrative 

Code 2014). Although the city acknowledges the 

importance of recreationists’ values and interest in 

NTFPs, the city does not offer special permissions or 

permits for collection. “While we recognize that some 

patrons do forage within New York City parkland, 

officially such activity is illegal and not condoned by 

the agency. Documented, repeated instances of foraging 

on parkland are subject to prosecution” (Foderaro 

2011; NYC Parks Administrative Code 2014).

In the case of Portland, OR, the city considers removal 

of plant or fungal material from city parks as vandalism, 

under the “protection of park property” rules. However, 

Portland allows permitted harvesting. “No person shall 

remove, destroy, break, injure, mutilate, or deface in any 

way in any Park any tree, shrub, fern, plant, flower, or 

other vegetation without a permit from the Forester under 

the provisions of Chapter 20.40” (City of Portland 2014). 

Recently, Seattle and Philadelphia have acknowledged 

the importance of urban foraging. Seattle has included 

foraging as a legitimate use in its urban forest stewardship 

plan (City of Seattle 2013). Philadelphia encourages 

people to pick fruit from trees in public green spaces as 

part of its revitalization efforts (McLain et al. 2014).

In rural areas, land-planning regulations can affect 

access and harvest of NTFPs on forested lands. For 

example, counties may strive to engage in sustainable 

forestry practices that enhance the landscape, which may 

indirectly affect nontimber forest product harvesting 

activities. In Pierce County, Washington, land conversion 

from forest to other land-use types falls under local land 

development regulations (Pierce County, Washington 

2014). The vast majority of land in this county is 

considered, “non-conversion” or forested land where 

timber extraction and human-assisted reforestation can 

occur. In these forests, Christmas trees and potentially 

other NTFPs may be harvested. Both timber and 

NTFP activities on local lands are therefore primarily 

regulated through the Washington State DNR, while 

specific regulations for forest land (conversion and 

non-conversion) are detailed at the county level. Certain 

NTFP activities do not require formal approval: “Class I 

forest practices that result in the cutting and/or removal 

of less than 5,000 board feet of timber for personal use 

(e.g., firewood and fence posts) in any 12-month period, 

the cutting and/or removal of Diseased, Danger, and/

or Hazard trees as defined in Chapter 18.25 of Title 18 
172 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

PCC, Development Regulations—General Provisions, 

the culture and harvest of Christmas trees and seedlings, 

and/or emergency fire control or suppression shall not 

be required to obtain any forest practices approval 

from Pierce County (18H.20.040 Class I Forest 

Practices, Section A)” (Pierce, Washington 2014).

7.5.2

Local Administrative Dimensions, 

Policy, and Management

Different departments and officials at the county and 

city level typically administer all aspects of NTFP 

management. These include Land Planning Departments; 

Forestry, Parks and Recreation Departments; and/or 

Law Enforcement Offices. Tasks and responsibilities 

may include determining which NTFPs are present 

in their jurisdiction, developing rules and regulations 

for NTFPs, and enforcing these rules, often through 

a permitting system when appropriate and allowed. 

For example, in Lewis County, Washington, the 

sheriff’s office administers permits for harvesting 

cedar bark, huckleberries, mushrooms, and other 

NTFPs (Lewis County, Washington, n.d.).

Policy documents such as land-management and forest 

plans can directly affect the management of NTFPs at 

the county level. The land-management plan for Itasca 

County, Minnesota, addresses the harvest of nontimber 

resources (Itasca County 2010). The plan details the 

permitting system for collecting commonly used products 

such as balsam boughs and fuelwood or other products 

such as tree-bark, maple sap, Christmas trees, cones, 

and moss. Clubmoss (Lycopodium spp.), for instance, is 

designated for “personal use” as opposed to “commercial 

harvesting” to control for and minimize the amount of 

moss taken from local forests (Itasca County 2009).

Itasca, Beltrami, and St. Louis Counties in Minnesota 

partnered with other governmental agencies and 

organizations to create “Guidelines for Sustainable 

Harvest of Balsam Boughs” (Balsam Bough Partnership, 

n.d.). These guidelines are designed to inform resource 

managers as well as commercial harvesters on good 

practices. In another collaborative effort, Minnesota 

county, State, and Federal managers contributed toward a 

market study of balsam fir boughs (Jacobson et al. 2005). 

The study combined field observational data together 

with bough buyer and wreath producer market survey 

results to report where and how much of the resource is 

used at the county level as well as statewide harvesting 

amounts. Such studies can serve as a template for other 

counties and states that are interested in quantifying 

NTFP occurrence and managing the sustainable harvest 

of NTFPs at local and regional scales (Jacobson et al. 

2005). State universities can play a role in providing 

information to harvesters or county foresters in the 

form of workshops or handbooks that may be useful for 

managing plant species that are harvested nontimber 

forest products (University of Minnesota Extension 2013).

7.5.3

Summary

Local laws differ by region, county, or city. The 

variability in regulation and policy is in part due to 

the autonomy that local government entities possess 

allowing them to address the specific needs and issues 

that surround natural resource use that are unique to 

their jurisdiction. NTFPs may be listed under different 

sections of local regulatory codes, sometimes under the 

park protection provisions or even under vandalism or 

defacement subsections. Within these codes, NTFPs may 

be lumped under umbrella categories, such as “plants” 

to include plant products and fungi, or NTFPs may 

be explicitly outlined. The penalty for noncompliance 

can differ between cities and municipalities ranging 

from misdemeanors to monetary fines. One of the 

challenges for effective regulation and management 

of nontimber forest resources is the tension between 

local governmental entities and their efforts to protect 

and prevent vandalism of NTFPs while simultaneously 

allowing park recreationists to harvest NTFPs. Typically, 

land planning, natural resources, or parks and recreation 

departments are charged with enforcing regulations 

and administering permits where foraging is allowed. 

These departments may write policies, such as land or 

forest plans, that may detail NTFP use. Finally, local 

governmental entities can partner with nonprofits 

and universities to research and in some cases, create 

sustainability standards and management resources 

such as harvester handbooks which can aid harvesters 

to navigate the often complex and sometimes hard-tofind NTFP rules and policies in different localities.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 173

7.6

International Law and 

Administrative Dimensions

The United States is signatory to several legally binding 

international treaties and also participates as a non-party 

or non-binding partner in multi-lateral environmental 

agreements that impact or could inform policies and 

regulations for nontimber forest product harvest and 

management. Different Federal agencies lead United 

States participation in most of these multilateral 

environmental agreements, which has increased 

awareness related to NTFPs more broadly across the 

United States Government. Years of international 

policy dialogue has increased our understanding of the 

developments around sustainable use and environmental 

justice and their importance in addressing the global 

challenge to conserve biodiversity. This section 

summarizes several international agreements, with 

brief descriptions of the authorizing and implementing 

legislation. It discusses whether and how nontimber 

forest resources and products are explicitly or implicitly 

considered in these international agreements. Also, 

the section identifies how the agreements contribute 

to sustainable use and conservation of such resources 

within the emerging principles of community-based 

conservation, the importance of TEK, the value of 

NTFPs as important biological resources, and the 

contribution of NTFPs to human health and livelihoods.

7.6.1

International Laws, Policies, and Authorities

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

of Wild Fauna and Flora is a treaty with 180 member 

countries that work together to ensure that international 

trade in certain plants (including fungi) and animals, 

and parts and products derived from them, whether 

live or dead, are legally harvested and are sustainably 

harvested (CITES 2014k, Department of State [DOS] 

1976, FWS 2014a, UN 2014, Wijnstekers 2011). The 

United States has been a party to CITES since it entered 

into force in 1975, and the FWS implements the Treaty 

under Section 8 of the ESA, as amended (DOS 1976, 

ESA 1973). The CITES preamble acknowledges the 

ecological, aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, and 

economic values of wild species (DOS 1976). Parties to 

CITES have developed guidance on the sustainable use 

and conservation of certain CITES-listed species, the 

role of commercial trade in conservation, the importance 

of livelihoods that are based on the use of natural 

resources, and the role of traditional medicine and 

sustainable harvest (CITES 2014b, 2014e, 2014f, 2014h, 

2014i, 2014j; CONABIO 2008; Rosser and Haywood 

2002). CITES is unique among conservation treaties by 

providing a mechanism to forbid trade with noncompliant 

countries (Brack and Gray 2003, Kerr 2007, Wijnstekers 

2011). Because non-CITES countries are required to 

provide CITES-equivalent documentation to trade 

with CITES parties, this Treaty effectively pertains to 

every country in the world (Brack and Gray 2003).

Nontimber forest products such as orchids (family: 

Asteraceae), American ginseng (figure 7.1), goldenseal, 

aloes (Aloe spp.), and cacti are CITES-listed species 

that are native to the United States and are traded 

internationally as medicines, waxes, foods, fragrances, 

and horticultural species (CITES 2014a). In 2002, 

CITES members officially agreed that fungi were 

generally considered to be included in the term “flora” 

when the CITES Convention was initially drafted, such 

that fungi are also covered by this Treaty (Resolution 

Conf. 12.11; https://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12-

11R16.php). CITES-listed species are identified in 

one of three Appendices (I, II, and III), which convey 

different levels of protection and determine how the 

Parties apply import and export controls (DOS 1976, 

FWS 2014a, Sparling 2014). Species are listed in CITES 

appendixes I and II based on a decision by the Parties, 

and proposals to list species must include information 

on distribution, biology, morphology, and population 

size and trends, as well as uses, sustainable harvest, 

regulations, and protections, and legal and illegal trade 

must be documented (CITES 2014c, 2014d). A listing 

may cover an entire family (e.g., Cactaceae, Orchidaceae) 

or any lower taxonomic level (e.g., species). Permits for 

appendix-I and appendix-II species require two key 

findings to assist in the conservation of the species: (1) 

Nondetriment finding—a science based risk assessment 

to determine whether the export of specimens of the 

particular species will be detrimental to its survival; 

and (2) Legal acquisition finding—a determination 

that the specimen(s) was obtained in accordance with 

national laws for the protection of wildlife from the 

country which it originates (DOS 1976, FWS 2014a). 

Because CITES permits must use scientific names, the 

scientific names of species are formally agreed upon 

when species are listed (CITES 2014g). A common 

misunderstanding is that CITES regulates the harvest 
174 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

of listed species, whereas CITES regulates the export 

of specimens of listed species (FWS 2014a).

The International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) is 

an agreement among the governments of 70 tropical 

timber consumer and producer countries. It entered 

into force in 1985 and established the International 

Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) to cooperate 

on sustainable and legal harvest of tropical timber 

(Sands et al. 2012, UN 2014). The ITTA was revised 

in 1994 and 2006, and now specifically refers to the 

contribution of nontimber forest products to sustainable 

forest management (Sands et al. 2012). The United 

States belongs to ITTO as a consumer country, and 

the lead Federal agency representing the United States 

is the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (ITTO 

2006, U.S. International Trade Commission 1991).

Nontimber forest products figure prominently in ITTO, 

with permanent committees on forest industry and on 

economics and markets, and guidance documents for 

conducting forest inventories that include a valuation 

of present and potential nontimber forest products 

(ITTO 1992). ITTO has funded a number of projects 

on sustainable harvest, chain of custody systems, and 

projects to support local stewardship and conservation 

of nontimber forest resources (ITTC 2014, ITTO 

2014, Ma 2002, Panayotou and Aston 1992). None of 

these projects have been based in the United States or 

its territories, despite the more than 1 million acres of 

tropical forests on Hawai’i, American Samoa, CNMI, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

and an additional nearly 154,000 acres on the Freely 

Associated States of Palau and the Federated States 

of Micronesia (Brandeis and Turner 2009; Liu 2007; 

Weigand 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2002e).

7.6.2

Nonbinding International Agreements and 

Collaborations

The Montreal Process, also known as the Working Group 

on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and 

Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal 

Forests, was formed in 1994 (MPWG 1995). The 12 

member countries include Argentina, Australia, Canada, 

Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic 

of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United States 

of America, and Uruguay, representing 83 percent of 

the world’s temperate and boreal forests (FAO 2014c). 

These countries assess progress toward sustainable 

forest management based on criteria and indicators, 

several of which pertain to NTFPs (MPWG 1995, 

2000, 2009). Note that the Montreal Process uses the 

term “nontimber forest products” and includes “game” 

among the products in this category (Alexander et al. 

2011). Acknowledging the general lack of quantitative 

data, the indicators use both qualitative and quantitative 

information and provide some mechanisms to drive 

quantitative data gathering (MPWG 1995, 2000; Jones 

Figure 7.1—The roots of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), harvested from hardwood forests of the eastern United States, are 

exported predominantly to China. The export has been regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora since 1976 when it was listed on Appendix II of the Convention. (Photo credit: Gary Kauffman, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.)
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 175

et al. 2002). The first United States country report was 

primarily qualitative and included some examination of 

the numerous plant and fungal species and user groups 

involved in NTFP harvest (Guldin and Kaiser 2004). 

The second report provided extensive quantitative 

data based on harvest permits and contracts issued on 

Forest Service and BLM lands, generating some of the 

first national statistics for temperate and boreal forests. 

The report demonstrated that harvesting NTFPs in the 

United States is a significant activity. It further illustrated 

that international trade is a significant driving force 

for the harvest of these resources in the United States. 

The report concluded that there is a lack of critical 

information that policymakers and land managers need 

to effectively regulate these species, without imposing 

barriers to subsistence use (Alexander et al. 2011).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) takes 

a comprehensive approach to sustainable use and 

conservation of each Nation’s biological resources 

(Glowka et al. 1994, UN 1992). The Convention entered 

into force in 1993 and the Secretary-General of the 

United Nations assumes the functions of Depositary 

for this Convention (CBD 2014). There are 194 parties 

to this Convention (CBD 2014); although the United 

States has not ratified the CBD, it attends all meetings 

(NOAA 2014), and plays a substantial role in policy 

deliberations. The objectives of the CBD are the 

conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its 

components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits 

derived from the use of genetic resources (Article 1; 

CBD 2014). As part of its work to promote sustainable 

use, the right of indigenous peoples, and biodiversity 

conservation, the CBD addresses the management 

of nontimber forest resources, emphasizing in situ

conservation, recognizing the role of indigenous and 

local communities in conservation (CBD 2001, Glowka 

et al. 1994). More recently under the Nagoya Protocol, 

NTFPs have come to receive attention as “biological 

resources” (CBD 2001, 2004, 2011). CBD’s Global 

Strategy for Plant Conservation is a worldwide initiative 

to establish outcome-oriented global targets for plant 

conservation with relevance to NTFPs (CBD 2002, 

2010). Several of the 16 targets pertain to NTFPs, such 

as Target 12: All wild harvested plant-based products 

sourced sustainably (CBD 2010), and United States 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 

collaborate to gauge progress on this Strategy in the 

United States (BGCI 2006, CITES 2014h, Galbraith 

and Kennedy 2006, Miller et al. 2013). Here again, it is 

generally interpreted that fungi are implicitly included 

in the term “plants” (Plantlife International 2012).

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) focuses on conservation, equitable governance, 

and addressing the global challenges of climate, food, 

and development (IUCN 2014). A variety of IUCN 

activities pertain to nontimber forest resource use and 

conservation. The IUCN is best known for the Red List 

of Threatened Species, which assesses the conservation 

status of species based on science-based criteria (IUCN 

2014). “Biological resource use,” including gathering 

and harvesting of plant and fungal resources, is one 

of the 12 potential categories of threats that can be 

assigned to species. Many United States governmental 

and nongovernmental experts belong to IUCN Specialist 

Groups, a network of nearly 11,000 experts that focus 

on a range of species and issues (IUCN 2015). The 

Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG) was founded 

in 1994 to increase awareness of conservation threats 

and to promote sustainable use and conservation of 

medicinal plants (MPSG 2012). In 2007, this group 

developed the International Standard for the Sustainable 

Collection for Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSCMAP), incorporating principles of sustainability, adaptive 

resource management, the role of traditional knowledge, 

and access and benefit sharing (MPSG 2007). The ISSCMAP has since been incorporated into the FairWild 

Standard, a third party certification ensuring fair and 

sustainable trade in wild plant and fungal products 

(Brinckmann and Hughes 2010). Another initiative, the 

Bonn Challenge, was established in 2011 to restore 371 

million acres of deforested and degraded lands by 2020. 

Supported by the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape 

Restoration (GPFLR 2013), this voluntary network of 

governments and international and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) facilitates information exchange, 

generates new knowledge and tools, and mobilizes 

capacity and expertise to address landscape restoration. 

As partners in this effort, the USDA Forest Service has 

pledged to restore 15 million ha of forest across the 

United States by 2020 (Tidwell and Karr-Colque 2012).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (FAO) was established in 1943, as a permanent 

specialized agency, with more than 180 member countries 

(FAO 2015). FAO uses the term “non-wood forest 

products” (NWFPs), and its definition excludes all woody 

products (e.g., fuelwood, carvings made from wood) 
176 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

and includes all goods of biological origin, including 

animals (FAO 1999b). NWFPs figure prominently in 

FAO’s permanent Forestry Committee, which coordinates 

activities and projects for sustainable use and wise 

management of NWFP resources to improve income 

generation, create food security, and address timely 

issues such as climate change and genetic resources (FAO 

2013, 2014a, 2014c; Jones et al. 2002). NWFPs have 

not figured prominently in United States FAO country 

reports, however. Absent formal tracking systems, 

there has been a lack of information to demonstrate the 

value of nontimber forest products in the United States 

(Alexander et al. 2011). United States country reports 

have also excluded information from U.S. territories 

in the Caribbean, where NTFP diversity and usage are 

higher, especially for food and healthcare (FAO 1997, 

1999a, 2014b; Weigand 2002e). There is also a broad 

international view of the United States as a primary 

consumer, rather than a producer of NTFPs (Jones et al. 

2002). This is partly due to the general lack of valuation 

and tracking mechanisms for these commodities 

(Alexander et al. 2011). In the late 1990s, the FAO 

Non-Wood Forest Products Program announced what 

would have been the first FAO North American NTFP 

workshop. Though the workshop did not take place, it 

spurred the publication of “Nontimber forest products in 

the United States” (Jones et al. 2002)—a wide-ranging, 

contemporary assessment with case studies on a broad 

range of issues and a strong focus on policy that has 

served as a basis for further discussion and consideration 

in the United States and abroad (Alexander and Fight 

2003, Laird et al. 2011, White and Danielsen 2002).

The Ramsar Wetlands Convention is an environmental 

treaty that coordinates voluntary local, national, and 

international cooperation to conserve and sustainably use 

wetlands (Matthews 1993, UNESCO 1971). The treaty 

was adopted in 1971 (UNESCO 1971) and currently 

includes 168 member countries (Ramsar 2014a). The 

United States joined the Convention in 1987, with the 

FWS as the technical and scientific lead (Gardner and 

Connolly 2007). Under this Convention, countries 

designate “wetlands of international importance” 

and, though it was promulgated especially for the 

conservation of waterfowl, Ramsar recognizes the 

importance of wetlands to food security and for their 

provision of nontimber forest products (Ramsar 2010, 

2012, 2014b; UNESCO 1971). Ramsar recognizes that 

wetlands may be of substantial value for their role in 

“supporting human communities by the provision of 

food, fiber or fuel; maintaining cultural values”, and that 

such use should not undermine the sustainability and 

conservation of the habitat nor change the ecological 

character of the site (Matthews 1993). Guidelines 

on “wise use” of wetlands emphasize developing 

management plans and programs to inventory, monitor, 

and research at wetland sites (Ramsar 2010). Efforts 

have focused on conservation of wetlands for sustainable 

agricultural development (FAO SAFR 1998) and, more 

recently, on understanding the costs and benefits of 

changes to wetland ecosystems, such as salinization 

and inundation (Ramsar 2010, Russi, et al. 2013).

United States wetlands are the source of familiar plant 

products such as wild and cultivated foods (e.g., rice, 

cranberries), floral greens (e.g., peat moss), fiber (e.g., 

cattails, rushes), and ornamental plants (e.g., Venus 

flytrap [Dionaea muscipula]) (Alvarez 2007, Porter 

1990, Ramsar 2014b, Smith et al. 2007). Of the more 

than 110 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous 

United States (Dahl 2011), 95 percent are freshwater and 

include bogs, swamps, fens, marshes, and wet meadows 

(Alvarez 2007, FGDC 2013). Half of the freshwater 

wetlands are classified as “forested wetlands,” which 

lost nearly 393,000 acres, mainly from conversion to 

agriculture, development, and silvicultural treatments 

between 2004 and 2009 (Alvarez 2007, Dahl 2011, 

FGDC 2013). To date, 36 sites in the United States 

have been designated under Ramsar, including sites 

in Alaska and Hawai’i. However no sites have been 

designated in the U.S. territories (Ramsar 2014a). 

Ramsar designation in the United States has increased 

the visibility of the wetlands, opened new funding 

opportunities, and has resulted in increased research 

and ecotourism (Gardner and Connolly 2007).

7.6.3

Summary

Prior to the 1980s, NTFPs did not figure prominently 

on the international forestry policy agenda. However, in 

recent decades, policies and regulations concerning the 

management of NTFPs have emerged in the international 

arena and grown in importance at home. These 

settings provide a global context for discussion and an 

opportunity to address the difficulties faced by many 

countries in shaping policies that balance sustainable 

use and conservation of these natural resources, 

alongside ensuring benefits for harvesters, producers, 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 177

and knowledge-holders. In the international arena, the 

United States generally has been perceived as a consumer 

of others’ NTFPs, and the United States has contributed 

to this perception, likely due to a lack of information 

and awareness of the many economically and culturally 

significant NTFPs found here. U.S. Government 

participation in these international networks provides 

opportunities for a broader Federal understanding of 

the conservation and management of NTFPs, and their 

importance and value as a forest product. National 

assessments and reports carried out to meet international 

obligations are becoming more comprehensive and 

increasingly underscore the importance of NTFPs 

to the U.S. economy, livelihoods, and culture. 

However, the use of this information to effect change 

in U.S. regulations and policies on a national scale 

has been slow. Factors that contribute to this are 

the number of State and Federal agencies involved; 

the range and complexity of NTFP management; 

and the compartmentalization of agency roles, 

responsibilities, and influence on available resources.

7.7

Nontimber Forest Products 

and Climate Change Policy

This section explores climate change policy pertaining 

to NTFP management, and the extent that policies and 

tools could be used to inform NTFP management in 

the face of climate change. It is not possible to review 

all climate change policies relative to NTFPs in this 

synthesis. Notably omitted from this section, but having 

bearing on NTFPs, are policy research, strategies relative 

to food systems, and changing land-use pressures. 

The section only briefly touches upon ecosystem-level 

impacts and sociocultural-economic considerations.

There is little in the way of U.S. climate change policy 

that explicitly pertains to NTFPs as a natural resource 

or commodity category. There are a few examples of 

nontimber forest products being considered in regional 

or State-level climate change assessments. Janowiak 

et al. (2014) and Handler et al. (2014), respectively 

concluded that climate change will have implications 

for nontimber forest products in the Great Lakes 

region and the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province due 

to changes in temperature, hydrology, and species 

assemblages. NTFPs, however, are rarely taken into 

consideration in national climate change research and 

discussions, and often are not represented in policies.

This is likely correlated with the dearth of actions in 

U.S. natural resource policies specific to managing, 

conserving, or protecting native flora that are harvested 

for economic, cultural, and personal uses. Although 

the late twentieth century shift to ecosystem-based 

management on Federal lands has led to the incorporation 

of NTFPs into forest policies and has raised the visibility 

of NTFP species as integral parts of forest ecosystems and 

the livelihoods and traditions of forest-dependent human 

communities (Antypas et al. 2002, Bean and Rowland 

1997, Jones and Lynch 2002, Sills et al. 2011), NTFPs 

have yet to be recognized from a Governmentwide policy 

perspective as a class of natural resources requiring 

specific management. Rather, the focus on plants in U.S. 

natural resource policy has emphasized invasive species 

eradication, sustained timber yields, or threatened and 

endangered species conservation (Antypas et al. 2002, 

Bean and Rowland 1997, Jones and Lynch 2002, Laird 

et al. 2011, McLain and Jones 2002, Sills et al. 2011).

Contributing to the dearth of national climate change 

policies focused on NTFP management is the fact that 

development of national climate policies as they pertain 

to natural resource management in the United States 

is largely a recent phenomenon (Joyce et al. 2006, 

Lawler et al. 2009, West at al. 2009). Additionally, the 

accumulation of information to support decisionmaking 

capacity and the ability of natural resource managers 

to incorporate new climate concepts into management 

practices and to incorporate new technologies that take 

larger scale data into account take time (Staudinger 

et al. 2013). International policy documents should 

be viewed as sources of policy considerations that 

are being undertaken (Laird et al. 2009, 2010).

Nontimber forest products should be included 

in assessments that outlined in national climate 

change planning documents that could be applied 

to NTFP management. A thorough review of the 

various Federal, State, and Tribal climate adaptation 

policies and planning documents would be useful 

to determine the extent that NTFPs are or still 

need to be included in the considerations.

“Responding to Climate Change in National Forests: 

A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options,” a 

climate analysis and planning guidebook produced by the 

Pacific Northwest Region of the USDA Forest Service, 
178 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

provides common sense approaches to climate adaptation 

planning that could be applied to NTFPs: (1) become 

aware of basic climate change science and integrate 

that understanding with knowledge of local resource 

conditions and issues (review), (2) evaluate sensitivity of 

specific natural resources to climate change (rank), (3) 

develop and implement strategic and tactical options for 

adapting resources to climate change (resolve), and (4) 

monitor the effectiveness of adaptation options (observe) 

and adjust management as needed (Peterson et al. 2011).

The report “Strategic Plan for Responding to 

Accelerating Climate Change” (FWS 2010) provides 

opportunities to include plant and fungal species that 

are harvested as NTFPs. The plan embraces landscapelevel planning, the use of native plants in restoration, 

and conservation goals that, for instance, recognize 

the importance of forest diversity. Importantly, the 

strategy notes that plants are implicitly included in its 

use of the term “fish and wildlife,” and acknowledges 

the importance of ecological diversity and social, 

cultural, and economic benefits of our American 

ecosystems. Fungi are not explicitly mentioned.

A nationally focused climate strategy that could be 

particularly relevant to NTFPs is the National Fish, 

Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy 

(NFWPCAP 2012). The strategy was developed with 

input from a broad array of Federal, State, and Tribal 

partners, as well as from nongovernment organizations, 

industry, and private landowners. An implementation 

working group promotes coordination across sectors 

to implement the plan. The seven goals and actions 

are broad enough to encompass NTFPs and could be 

used to guide more specific considerations for climate 

change and nontimber forest resources and products.

7.7.1

Sociocultural and Socioeconomic 

Impacts of Climate Change Relative

to Policies and Regulations

Formulating NTFP climate change policy will require a 

fundamental understanding of the circumstances under 

which this natural resource functions. As the previous 

chapters demonstrate, the biological, ecological, social, 

and economic context of the NTFP sector is complex, 

but not wholly intangible. Such has been the topic of 

discussion in the international arena for decades and 

there is much to learn from this international policy 

dialogue, as described in section 7.6 of this synthesis. 

Importantly, several recent publications focused 

specifically on the U.S. NTFP sector and natural resource 

management explore approaches to policy development 

that take these sociocultural and economic nuances into 

consideration (Alexander et al. 2011; Antypas et al. 2002; 

Jones and Lynch 2002; Jones et al. 2002, 2005; Peterson 

et al. 2013). Such information lays the groundwork 

for incorporating NTFPs into climate change policy.

Few policies and assessments to date address the 

dependence of forest-based communities on NTFPs and 

the vulnerability of social, cultural and economic systems 

regarding NTFPs and climate change. Recent publications 

describing adaptation options for managing forested 

ecosystems in the face of climate change illustrate some of 

these important policy drivers that could impact forested 

systems, and so too, NTFPs (Joyce et al. 2009; Kemp et 

al. 2015; Lawlor et al. 2009; Peterson et al. 2011, 2013).

The effects of climate change on American Indians and 

affiliated indigenous people are not well studied and 

resource managers, scientists, and the public may not 

understand which policies or Federal authorities may be 

applicable (Cordalis and Suagee 2008). In addition, some 

governmental climate change policies have implications 

to these indigenous and tribal peoples. Whyte (2014) 

contends that as climate change policies are developed, 

they should be understood and tied to existing tribal 

policies and authorities when and where possible. Of 

particular concern is the effect of climate change on the 

spatial distribution of nontimber forest resources and 

how changes in distribution could affect indigenous 

peoples’ access to traditionally harvested NTFPs.

There are a few examples of Federal policies or 

authorities pertaining to tribes and climate change. 

For instance, Section 6 (b) (vi) of Executive Order 

13653 (2013) “Preparing the United States for the 

Impact of Climate Change” includes some guidance 

concerning tribal issues. Two secretarial orders from 

the Department of the Interior also provide general 

guidance for tribes on climate change (DOI Secretarial 

Orders No. 3285 and 3298). Native Hawaiians and 

Pacific Islanders of U.S.-affiliated territories may have 

other local authorities. Other regulations, policies, 

and guidance pertaining to tribal consultation, land 

management planning, and natural resource protection 

could also be interpreted to include climate change (e.g., 

Executive Order 13175 [2000], USDA 2012, National 

Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990).
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 179

Some states have climate policies for some tribes, 

while others do not. For instance, the 2009 California 

State Climate Adaptation Strategy specifies that “State 

agencies will also interact with California Indian Tribes 

respectfully and on a government-to-government 

basis. Because traditional knowledge will have a role 

in combating climate change, indigenous communities 

should be involved in climate change adaptation actions 

that will directly impact their people, waterways, 

cultural resources, or lands; all of which are intimately 

associated” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

7.7.2

Tools That Can Inform Climate 

Change Policy Pertaining to 

Nontimber Forest Products

Some climate change tools could be useful for managing 

plant and fungal species that are harvested as NTFPs. 

NatureServe developed the Climate Change Vulnerability 

Index (CCVI) for species; the index integrates projections 

for temperature and moisture changes with habitat and 

natural history traits for aquatic or terrestrial plants and 

fungi within a specified geographic area. The scoring 

mechanism produces an index of vulnerability using 

the magnitude of projected climate change to rank each 

species in a vulnerability category ranging from extremely 

vulnerable to not vulnerable (Young et al. 2014). The 

NatureServe database contains entries for many plant 

and fungal species and includes sections on management, 

stewardship, threats, and harvest. It is not clear how 

many of these species have been assessed using the 

CCVI. NatureServe, with the BLM, has also developed 

climate change vulnerability indices for major natural 

community types, called the Habitat Climate Change 

Vulnerability Index (HCCVI) (Comer et al. 2012). The 

community-level HCCVIs are useful at regional and 

national levels, while the species-level assessments of 

the CCVI provide useful insights for local managers. 

Conservation and policy decisions can be improved 

by using this assessment tool (Comer et al. 2012).

The ForWarn—National Resilience Toolkit was 

developed by the Forest Service and was recently 

launched as a national climate resilience toolkit 

(EFETAC, n.d., Workman 2014). This tool is a satellitebased forest disturbance monitoring system, which shows 

near-real-time changes to vegetation coverage to help 

detect changes in the landscape (e.g., insects, extreme 

weather), although it is not clear how informative 

this tool might be for nontimber forest resources.

Information on the impact of climate change to NTFPs 

can also be gleaned from national level reports. As 

discussed in section 7.6, the United States generates 

national reports in association with international 

responsibilities that could provide information focused 

on NTFPs. Examples include the United States country 

reports under the Montreal Process (Alexander et al. 

2011, Guldin and Kaiser 2004) and the FAO State of 

the Forest reports (FAO 1997, 1999a, 2014b, 2014c).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

compiled decades of data observations from a range of 

governmental and nongovernmental sources, and recently 

released its third peer-reviewed report on climate change 

indicators in the United States. The report uses 30 climate 

change indicators, including first leaf dates per EPA 2014. 

The timing of phenological events, such as first leaf dates, 

is influenced by changes in climate and can indicate 

sensitivity of ecological processes. Evidence suggests that 

first leaf dates in lilacs (Syringa spp.) and honeysuckle 

(Lonicera spp.) from 1981 to 2010 are happening earlier 

in the North and West but later in the South. Based on 

over 90 years of data, the cherry blossoms in Washington, 

D.C., reach their peak nearly a week earlier. Phenological 

shifts have also been noted in fungal species. Kauserud 

et al. (2008) reviewed 60 years of phenological records 

on the autumnal fruiting date of mushrooms in Norway 

and concluded that since 1980, the average fruiting time 

has generally been delayed by nearly 13 days coinciding 

with changes in weather associated with climate change, 

with differences noted between normally early-fruiting 

and later-fruiting fungi. Another analysis of fruiting 

records in southern England over a 55-year period 

indicated that deciduous mycorrhizal species were 

fruiting more often and longer in the season than those 

associated with coniferous woods (Gange et al. 2007).

7.8

Challenges

This section discusses the broad challenges to 

regulations and policymaking for nontimber forest 

products. In doing so, we highlight some of the 

major themes or issues across the sectors explored in 

the previous sections, including climate change.
180 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

7.8.1

Recognition as a Natural Resource

The ultimate challenge to sustainable use and 

conservation of nontimber forest resources is to 

recognize that they are important natural resources and 

to fully integrate them into natural resource policy and 

management, at local, state, national and international 

levels. NTFPs are poorly understood relative to timber 

and other natural resources, and, except where federally 

mandated, are rarely considered in land management 

policy. Few regulatory mechanisms are species-specific 

and most species that occur in multiple jurisdictions 

are not managed consistently across their range. The 

species’ population status and sustainable harvest 

levels are unknown for most NTFPs and the effects 

of market and other socioeconomic pressures are 

challenging to gauge. Forest management agencies 

generally do not perceive NTFPs as significant sources 

of revenues or concern and often lack the necessary 

botanical, socioeconomic, and market information.

7.8.2

Complexity

The diversity of rules, regulations, laws, legislations, 

and treaties that affect how NTFPs are understood, 

addressed, and managed presents a confounding 

complexity that requires in-depth knowledge. The legal 

and administrative structures governing NTFPs are often 

fragmented, not well defined, and vary widely between 

and within agencies and jurisdictions. Most policies 

were not created to address sustainable management and 

conservation of nontimber forest resources directly, but 

rather, when addressing them, do so as part of multipleuse strategies. In general, regulations pertaining to 

protected status (e.g., State- or Federal-listed species), 

commodity type (e.g., food versus horticulture), or 

the purpose of the extraction (e.g., personal versus 

commercial) often apply to NTFPs “by default.” 

Existing laws or policies associated with nontimber 

forest products may not be known or understood by the 

many Federal, State, and other government agencies, 

much less by those who seek to access NTFPs.

Adding to the complexity are the many terms, definitions, 

and perspectives that embrace nontimber forest products. 

Products that are harvested from forests, other than 

timber, are referred to by many names. Some of these 

terms are incorporated into legislation. In 2000, the 

U.S. Congress directed the Secretary of Agriculture 

to implement a program to collect fees for the harvest 

and sale of FBPs. BLM and the Forest Service use 

the term “special forest products.” Other terms used 

internationally, such as non-wood forest products, may 

include animals. The integration of these into forest 

management should be looked at as an opportunity to 

expand and embrace total ecosystem management.

7.8.3

Diverse Stakeholders within 

Largely Informal Economies

One of the major challenges in NTFP management is 

how to incorporate the diversity of stakeholders into 

facilitated conversations with the goal of considering and 

accommodating the many views, concerns, and people 

who are affected by the policies that impact access to 

these products. Efforts to incorporate all stakeholders 

into policy dialogue and development are challenged to 

address intellectual property rights regarding the use of 

and application of traditional knowledge when developing 

climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

The effects of climate change on NTFPs and indigenous 

people who benefit from them, and the applicability of 

Federal policies or authorities to address these impacts 

are not well understood (Cordalis and Suagee 2008). 

This challenge can be extended to other stakeholders, 

as well. Formal, structured processes to access NTFPs 

may present serious challenges for harvesters who may 

not have the knowledge of how to apply for permits 

or cash to pay permit fees. This can leave already 

vulnerable harvesters at greater risk of being taken 

advantage of by others or experiencing sanctions for 

harvesting. For example, many Guam residents depend 

on trees and related products for construction materials, 

yet applications can make the permitting process 

cumbersome. Harvesters may have negative perceptions 

of involvement and may be distrustful of outside 

organizations. This is compounded for some harvesters 

whose citizen status is other than United States.

Special challenges are evident in providing consistent 

policy to address indigenous people’s rights for access 

to NTFPs. Legal conditions and history complicate the 

relationship of the Federal Government to American 

Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other 

indigenous-tribal peoples of the U.S.-affiliated territories 

for NTFPs, and make planning for the impacts of climate 

change extremely challenging. Many tribal governments 

are developing their own regulations for NTFPs and 
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 181

climate response strategies, and coordination among all 

governments is a critical challenge that must be overcome 

to provide more consistency across jurisdictions.

7.8.4

Federal Agencies

Efforts in the United States to consider NTFPs as 

part of integrated landscape management planning 

have been highly localized, with little opportunity 

for sharing and learning. Ashe (2014) points out in 

discussing the challenges with implementing Ramsar 

that “the U.S. extends from the subtropics to the 

Boreal zones and includes continental as well as insular 

settings, terrestrial and marine domains in the Pacific 

and Atlantic Oceans. There are 85 distinct ecoregions 

found within the continental United States alone. 

Implementing NTFP management strategies requires 

harmonization of efforts across Federal agencies, State 

agencies, localities, and NGOs that are responsible or 

involved in the management of the different types of 

resources within each of these geographical areas.”

United States Federal agencies are adapting to changing 

environments and developing approaches to assess 

the sustainability of NTFP harvesting. In an era of 

declining budgets, Federal agencies are finding ways 

to collaborate on issues of mutual interest and concern 

but these collaborations are inconsistent across the 

country. The suspected magnitude of the harvesting 

of some highly commercialized NTFPs may be greater 

than current support can address, and baseline 

data for commercial NTFPs is critical information 

needed to address climate change impacts. Regional 

differences in land ownership, ecology, and culture will 

require different, adaptive approaches and policies at 

multiple scales that are consistent and understandable 

across regions and landscapes. More support for 

collaboration and cooperation on NTFP research and 

management can substantively address this challenge.

The Forest Botanical Products Pilot Program that guides 

how national forests address NTFPs has potential to 

improve management of these products. It provides a 

framework for managing nontimber forest resources 

on public forest lands. Fees collected from the issuance 

of harvest permits are supposed to reflect fair market 

value, though there are no national-level instruments 

to aid in estimating fair market value. Fees collected 

can be used on the specific units (e.g., national forest, 

ranger district) whence they originated, but not on 

other units. This presents a challenge for units that 

do not have many permitted harvests. Management 

efforts are thus limited to units that have a great deal 

of permitted harvesting, though other units may need 

management efforts. Further, the technical expertise 

may be lacking to conduct inventories, determine 

sustainable harvest levels and monitor harvest 

impacts. More proactive management that integrates 

nontimber forest resources as objectives, with desired 

future outcomes, is needed to address the challenge of 

ensuring sustainable management of these resources.

7.8.5

International Agreements

More is known about American ginseng than any other 

medicinal forest product because of its listing in appendix 

II of CITES. The data provided through the ginseng 

program are invaluable in assuring the sustainable 

management and conservation of this important forest 

herb. CITES databases provide international trade 

data for many NTFP species (e.g., American ginseng, 

goldenseal, and candelilla [Euphorbia antisyphilitica 

Zucc]) and spur interest from conservation and research 

institutions to study species (UNEP-WCMC 2014a, 

2014b). Further, efforts to circumvent the requirements 

of CITES present serious challenges to law enforcement. 

Accurate recordkeeping, as well as the use of proper 

channels to export ginseng roots is necessary to meet 

the responsibilities and obligations of the Convention. 

Although it is possible to obtain trade information for 

taxa listed in the CITES appendixes, many species, both 

CITES listed and not listed, do not have taxon-specific 

International Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes that 

allow for tracking of trade volumes. This presents a 

significant challenge in determining harvest and trade 

volumes, estimating the importance of NTFPs, and 

ascertaining if international trade is having detrimental 

impacts on these resources. There are several other 

international agreements that could enhance efforts 

to address the challenges of sustainable management 

of NTFPs, including those faced by climate change.

7.9

Opportunities

There are clear links between rural livelihoods and 

sustainable ecosystem conservation, and countries 

worldwide are struggling to ensure that natural resource 

management strategies allow for continued use of these 
182 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

natural species, while ensuring the long-term survival and 

availability of the resources. Recent United States laws 

and trends in natural resource policy and management 

are pointing toward more holistic approaches 

to conservation and sustainable use of NTFPs. 

Commercialization of NTFPs can enhance economic 

opportunities without detriment to the environment 

or culture (Belcher and Schreckenberg 2007). By open 

communication with all stakeholders, policy interventions 

can be developed that enhance returns to local collectors 

and contribute to sustainable management of nontimber 

forest resources (Green et al. 2000). There are plenty 

of opportunities to enhance nontimber forest resource 

management in the United States (Vaughan et al. 2013).

7.9.1

Federal-Private Partnerships

Partnerships for conservation of nontimber forest 

resources present opportunities to leverage expertise, 

experience and expenses. For example, NatureServe 

working with BLM and other entitities conducted a 

climate change vulnerability assessment of major natural 

community types (Comer et al. 2012). The project 

tested an HCCVI that would provide measures of a 

plant community’s sensitivity and resilience to climateinduced stressors. The overall index scores for each 

community are useful at regional and national levels, 

while the results of individual analyses provide useful 

insights for local managers. Conservation and policy 

decisions will be improved by this forecasting tool 

(Comer et al. 2012). Similarly appropriate initiatives 

with industry (e.g., botanicals, horticultural) and 

Federal management agencies could advance medicinal 

plant and fungal conservation. Partnering with the 

National Association of Conservation Districts presents 

opportunities for education and community service.

7.9.2

Indigenous Peoples

Opportunities exist to improve consistency in how 

Federal and State agencies address the rights of access 

and use of nontimber forest resources by indigenous 

peoples. In particular, regional or territorial approaches 

to confront the impacts of climate change on nontimber 

forest resources and harvester groups, and development 

of applicable policies and guidance will foster sustainable 

use of these natural resources. The incorporation and 

respectful use of indigenous knowledge and adaptation 

strategies for the management of nontimber forest 

resources and identification of the threats and stressors of 

climate change to natural resources and the people who 

depend on them could guide and inform the development 

of applicable policy and regulations. Additionally, two 

important points should be addressed. First, more 

consistent laws and policies for the use of NTFPs by 

indigenous groups and better respect for traditional 

knowledge and practices are critical. Second, the impact 

of climate change on culturally and economically 

important NTFPs for indigenous peoples should be 

evaluated, and the role of tribal knowledge in mitigating 

the effects of climate change, or assisting with adaptation, 

studied and incorporated into policy formulations.

7.9.3

International Agreements

International agreements to which the United States is 

party (and those which it is not, like the CBD) provide 

opportunities to advance the sustainable management 

and conservation of NTFPs, and their equitable 

commercialization. For example, there are mechanisms 

through CITES whereby tracking international trade of 

NTFPs is possible for listed species. Likewise, Ramsar 

evaluation guidelines for wetlands may be useful for 

informing sustainable use and conservation of NTFPs 

(Ramsar 2010, 2014b). Developing these in the United 

States would advance NTFP management worldwide. 

Reports generated in association with United States 

international responsibilities, such as the United States 

country reports under the Montreal Process (Alexander 

et al. 2011, Guldin and Kaiser 2004) and the FAO State 

of the Forest reports (FAO 1997, 1999a, 2014b, 2014c), 

may not be widely available or known in the policy 

realm and could be disseminated more widely amongst 

policymakers. Additional topics in the international 

arena that merit further attention include: the role of 

certification as a nonbinding tool for NTFP management; 

aspects concerning intellectual property rights and 

the role of TEK; and nongovernmental contributions 

that contribute to stewardship and industry norms.

7.10

Key Findings

• The body of laws and regulations governing NTFPs 

is complex and involves jurisdictions from local to 

international levels.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 183

• The plethora of laws and regulations that apply 

to NTFPs generally were not created to address 

sustainable management and conservation of these 

important resources.

• The diversity of NTFP stakeholders represents a 

challenge for their incorporation into policy dialogues.

• Special legal responsibilities and challenges are present 

when addressing indigenous people’s rights of access to 

NTFPs.

7.11

Conclusions

There are many United States laws and policies 

influencing access to nontimber forest products and 

management of these plant and fungal resources. Early 

domestic law set the conservation of plants and fungi 

on a different path than that of animals. Subsequent 

legal and administrative frameworks were founded on 

the need to prevent the spread of plant or fungal disease 

and invasive species, to assess taxes for interstate and 

international commerce, or to protect imperiled species 

as a means to conservation. Such regulations have 

tended to restrict access to NTFPs and obscured the 

focus on factors that influence extraction and impeded 

development of sustainable use policies. As a natural 

resource that has been largely invisible to modernday public land managers, however, these regulations 

provide some of the few measures of tracking and 

management that exist for these important plant and 

fungal species. Recent policy developments have set 

the stage to manage these species as renewable natural 

resources. More uniform laws and policies are needed 

that balance the sustainable use and conservation of 

NTFPs, especially in the face of climate uncertainty.

7.12

Literature Cited

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AK DNR). 2010. State ANILCA 

coordination. Anchorage, AK: Department of Natural Resources. http://

dnr.alaska.gov/commis/opmp/anilca/more.htm. [Date accessed: August 

9, 2017].

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 1980. Public 

Law 96-487. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 16 C.F.R. 410hh. https://www.fws.gov/laws/

lawsdigest/ALASKCN.HTML. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Alexander, K. 2014. The Lacey Act: Protecting the Environment by 

Restricting Trade. Congresssional Research Service 7-5700. https://fas.

org/sgp/crs/misc/R42067.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Alexander, S.; Fight, R.D. 2003. Managing access to nontimber forest 

products. Compatible Forest Management. 8: 383–400.

Alexander, S.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the US: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p. 

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.; Blatner, K.A. 2002. Nontimber forest product 

commerce. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 

115–150.

Allen, M. 1989. Native American control of tribal natural resource 

development in the context of the federal trust and tribal selfdetermination. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 

16(4): 857. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol16/iss4/6. [Date 

accessed: August 9, 2017].

Alvarez, M. 2007. The state of America’s forests. Bethesda, MD: Society 

of American Foresters. http://www.nelma.org/wp-content/uploads/

StateOfAmericasForests1.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

American Herbal Products Association (AHPA). 2012. Tonnage surveys of 

select North American wild-harvested plants, 2006–2010. Silver Spring, 

MD: American Herbal Products Association. 24 p.

American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act of 1993; 25 U.S.C. 

3103(3)

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; 42 U.S.C. sec. 996, as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1996.

Anderson, A.B.; Ziedler, J.A.; Dendy, J.H.; Moerman, D.E. 1998. Assessing 

installation ethnobotanical resources using land condition trend analysis 

(LCTA) data: a Fort Riley, Kansas, case study. USACERL Technical Report 

98/92. Champaign, IL: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Anderson, A.B.; Ziedler, J.A.; Dendy, J.A.; Moerman. 2001. A preliminary 

ethnobotanical survey of Fort Riley, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas 

Academy of Science. 104(1): 92–108.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2014. Illustrative list of 

taxa (and parts thereof) considered common food crops, and/or common 

cultivars under the Lacey Act Amendments of 2008: 1–20. 

Antypas; A.; McLain; R.J.; Gilden, J. [and others]. 2002. Federal nontimber 

forest products policy and management. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 347–374.

Arizona Department of Agriculture. 2015. Protected Arizona native plants. 

https://agriculture.az.gov/protected-arizona-native-plants. [Date 

accessed: February 26, 2015]. 

Ashe, D.M. 2014. National report on the implementation of the Ramsar 

Convention on wetlands-United States. National reports to be 

submitted to the 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting 

Parties, Uruguay, 2015. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/

documents/2014/national-reports/COP12/cop12_nr_united_states_

america.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Balsam Bough Partnership. [N.d.]. Guidelines for sustainable harvest of 

balsam boughs. St. Louis County, MN: Balsam Bough Partnership. 

https://www.stlouiscountymn.gov/Portals/0/Departments/Land/

Timber%20Sales/Sustainable-Harvest-Guidelines.pdf. [Date accessed: 

February 25, 2015]. 

Bean, M.J.; Rowland, M.J. 1997. The evolution of wildlife law. Praeger: 

Greenwood Publishing Group. 544 p. 

Bélair, C.; Ichikawa, K.; Wong, B.Y.L.; Mulongoy, K.J., eds. 2010. Sustainable 

use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. 

Background to the “Satoyama initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and 

human well-being.” Technical Series no. 52. Montreal: Secretariat of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity. 184 p.
184 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Belcher, F.I.; Schreckenberg, F.I. 2007. Commercialisation of nontimber forest 

products: a reality check. Development Policy Review. 25(3): 355–377.

Blevins, K.; Edwards, T. 2009. Wildlife crime. In: Miller, J., ed. 21st 

century criminology: a reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE 

Publications: 557–564. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412971997.n65. 

[Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Bolgiano, C. 2000. Gold in the woods. American Forests. Winter: 7–9.

Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI). 2006. North American 

botanic garden strategy for plant conservation. Surrey, UK: BGCI. http://

northamericanplants.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NAGSPC.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Brack, D.; Gray, K. 2003. Multilateral environmental agreements and 

the WTO: report September 2003. London: The Royal Institute 

of International Affairs, Sustainable Development Programme, 

International Institute for Sustainable Development. 43 p. https://www.

chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/General/meas_

and_wto.pdf. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Brandeis, T.J.; Turner, J.A. 2009. U.S. Virgin Islands’ forests, 2009. Resour. 

Bull. 196. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 56 p. 

Brinckmann, J.; Hughes, K. 2010. Ethical trading and fair trade certification: 

the growing market for botanicals with ecological and social certification. 

HerbalGram: The Journal of the American Botanical Council. 88: 46.

Brown, N.C. 1950. Forest products: the harvesting, processing, and 

marketing of materials other than lumber, including the principal 

derivatives, extractives, and incidental products in the United States and 

Canada. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 339 p.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2015. What is the Federal Indian trust 

responsibility? BIA Frequently Asked Questions Website. https://www.

bia.gov/FAQs/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2014. Plant Conservation Alliance’s 

Federal memorandum of understanding. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. https://www.

blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/native-plant-communities/nationalseed-strategy/pca. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015a. Native Plant Materials 

Development Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Website. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/prog/more/fish__wildlife_and/plants/1.print.htm. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015b. Forest and wood product 

permits. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/

forests-and-woodlands/forest-product-permits. [Date accessed: August 

14, 2017].

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California climate adaptation 

strategy: a report to the governor of the state of California in response to 

Executive Order S-13-2008. CA Natural Resources Agency. 197 p. http://

resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Chamberlain, J.L.; Bush R.J.; Hammett, A.L.; Araman, P.A. 2002. Eastern 

national forests—managing for nontimber products. Journal of Forestry. 

100(1): 8–14.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Traditional and local ecological 

knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-751. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p. 

City of Boston. 2014a. Emerald necklace. City of Boston website. http://

www.cityofboston.gov/Parks/emerald/. [Date accessed: August 10, 

2017].

City of Boston. 2014b. Park rules and regulations. City of Boston 

website. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parks/rules.asp. [Date 

accessed: August 9, 2017].

City of Portland. 2014. City of Portland park code—20.12.100 vandalism; 

protection of park property and vegetation. Portland, OR: City of Portland 

Park and Recreation. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.

cfm?c=28627#cid_147783. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

City of Seattle. 2013. 2013 Urban forest stewardship plan. Seattle: City of 

Seattle. 78 p. http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2013%20Urban%20

Fores%20Stewardship%20Plan%20091113.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

9, 2017].

Comer, P.J.; Young, B.; Schulz, K. [and others]. 2012. Climate change 

vulnerability and adaptation strategies for natural communities: piloting 

methods in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. Report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. 75 p.

Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad 

[CONABIO]. 2008. International expert workshop on CITES non-detriment 

findings. Cancun, Mexico: CONABIO. http://www.conabio.gob.mx/

institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/taller_ndf.html. [Date 

accessed: August 9, 2017].

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 1999. Ley No. 241, Nueva Ley de Vida 

Silvestre de Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR: Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 2000. Ley No.13, Ley de Bosques de Puerto 

Rico. San Juan, PR: Department of Natural and Environmental Resources.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. 2014. 

Endangered, threatened and special concern species in Connecticut. 

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2702&q=323486. [Date 

accessed: August 9, 2017].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2001. Sustainable management 

of nontimber forest resources. CBD Technical Series no. 6. Montreal, 

Canada: CBD Secretariat. 30 p. 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2002. COP 6 Decision VI/9: 

Global strategy for plant conservation. New York: United Nations. 

http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7183. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. Addis Ababa principles 

and guidelines for the sustainable use of biodiversity (CBD guidelines). 

Montreal, Canada: CBD Secretariat. 21 p. http://www.cites.org/sites/

default/files/eng/res/13/addis-gdl-en.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 

2017].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Global strategy for plant 

conservation 2011–2020. Montreal, Canada: CBD Secretariat. http://

www.cbd.int/gspc/strategy.shtml. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2011. Nagoya Protocol on access 

to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising 

from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Montreal, 

Canada: CBD Secretariat. 25 p. http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/

nagoya-protocol-en.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2014. Convention on biological 

diversity website. Montreal, Canada: CBD Secretariat. http://www.cbd.

int/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). 2014a. CITES appendices I, II, and III. Geneva, Switzerland: 

United Nations Environment Programme. 46 p. http://www.cites.org/

eng/app/appendices.php. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2014b. Resolution Conference 8.3 (Revised 

CoP13) Recognition of the benefits of trade in wildlife (1992). Geneva, 

Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.cites.

org/eng/res/08/08-03R13.php. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 185

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014c. Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17) Criteria for 

amendment of appendices I and II (1994). Geneva, Switzerland: United 

Nations Environment Programme. http://www.cites.org/eng/res/09/09-

24R16.php. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014d. Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev. CoP17) Inclusion 

of species in Appendix III (1994). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations 

Environment Programme. http://www.cites.org/eng/res/09/09-25R16.

php. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014e. Resolution Conf. 10.3 Designation and role of 

the scientific authorities (1997). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations 

Environment Programme. http://www.cites.org/eng/res/10/10-03C15.

php. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014f. Resolution Conf. 10.19 (Rev. CoP14) Traditional 

medicines (1997). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment 

Programme. https://cites.org/eng/res/10/10-19R14C15.php. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014g. Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP17) Permits and 

certificates (2002). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment 

Programme. https://cites.org/eng/res/12/12-03R17.php. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). 2014h. Resolution Conf. 13.2 (Rev. CoP14) Sustainable use 

of biodiversity: Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines) (2004). Geneva, 

Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.

cites.org/eng/res/13/13-02R14.php. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). 2014i. Resolution Conf. 16.6 CITES and livelihoods (Rev. 

CoP17). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme. 

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-16-06-R17.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014j. Resolution Conf. 16.7 Non-detriment findings 

(Rev. CoP17). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment 

Programme. https://www.cites.org/eng/res/16/16-07.php. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES). 2014k. What is CITES? Geneva, Switzerland: United 

Nations Environment Program. http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.

php. [Date accessed: August 9, 2017].

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. 1978. 16 U.S.C. 2109(d)(1)) as 

amended by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of2008 (Pub.L. 

110-234) Title VIII—Forestry, Section 8005: Assistance of the Federated 

States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the 

Republic of Palau.

Corbin, J.E. 2002. Conservation of species by protective marking. Native 

Plants Journal. 3: 98–99.

Cordalis, D.; Suagee, D.B. 2008. The effects of climate change on American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes. Natural Resources and Environment. 

22(3): 45–49.

Crespi, M.M. 2003. An overview of the ethnography program. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. http://

www.nps.gov/ethnography/training/TAPS/ethnoOverview.htm. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Crook, C.; Clapp, R.C. 2002. The paradox of market-oriented conservation: 

lessons from the tropical forests. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, 

J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University Press of Kansas: 163–179.

Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2012; 25 U.S.C. 32a § 

3055. http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title25/

chapter32A&edition=prelim. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United 

States, 2004 to 2009, report to Congress. Washington, DC: Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 108 p.

Danielsen, K.C.; Gilbert, J.H. 2002. Case study. Ojibwe off-reservation 

harvest of wild plants. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 282–292.

Davoodian, N. 2015. Fungal conservation in the United States: current 

status of Federal frameworks. Biodiversity and Conservation. 24: 

2099–2104.

Department of Defense (DoD). 2006. Department of Defense instruction 

number 4710.02: DoD interactions with federally-recognized Tribes. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. http://standards.globalspec.

com/std/521231/dodd-4710-02. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Department of Defense (DoD). 2013. Department of Defense Instruction 

Number 4715.03: Natural Resources Conservation Program. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Defense. http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/

Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/471503m.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Department of Defense (DoD). 2016. DoD Natural Resources Program. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. http://www.denix.osd.

mil/nr/programinformation/natural-resources-program-overview/

nrfactsheets/dod-natural-resources-conservation-program/. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Department of Defense (DoD). [N.d.]. Accounting for production and sale 

of forest products. DoD Financial Management Regulation. Vol. 11A. 

Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Chapter 16.

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000 

(DOI appropriations 2000). 113 Stat. 1501. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

PLAW-106publ113/pdf/PLAW-106publ113.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 

(DOI appropriations 2004). 117 Stat. 1312. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-108publ108/pdf/PLAW-108publ108.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017]. 

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 

(DOI appropriations 2008). 123 Stat. 2960. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-111publ88/pdf/PLAW-111publ88.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014 

(DOI appropriations 2014). 128 Stat. 346. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-113publ76/pdf/PLAW-113publ76.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017]. 

Department of State (DOS). 1976. Convention on international trade in 

endangered species of wild fauna and flora (1973). Treaties and Other 

International Acts Series 8249. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

State. 275 p.

Dunlap, T.R. 1989. The federal government, wildlife, and endangered 

species. In: Lacey, M.J., ed. Government and environmental politics: 

essays on historical developments since World War Two. Washington, 

DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press: 209–232. 

East Bay Regional Park District. 2014. Rules and regulations: Ordinance 38. 

Section 804. July. http://www.ebparks.org/Page177.aspx. 36 p. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

East Bay Regional Park District. 2015. Healthy parks healthy people. http://

www.ebparks.org/activities/hphp. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017]. 
186 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center (EFETAC). [N.d.]. 

ForWarn—national resilience toolkit. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. http://forwarn.

forestthreats.org/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Emery, M.R.; McLain, R.J. 2001. Nontimber forest products: medicinal 

herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, and other natural products from the 

forest. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3/4): 176.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: locating subsistence 

in contemporary U.S. forests. Environment and Planning. 37: 981–993.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R.; Schroeder, R. 2004. Criterion 6, Indicator 47 area 

and per cent of forest land used for subsistence purposes. Submission to 

the U.S. National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1536, 1538–1540.

Endangered Species Act of Guam. 5 GCA 63.63301-63304 Public Law 26-

76:8, April 14, 2006.

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2014. Climate change indicators 

in the United States, 2014. 3rd ed. EPA 430-R-14-004. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2016-07/documents/climateindicators-full-2014.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Executive Order (EO) 12898. 1994. Actions to address environmental justice 

in minority populations and low-income populations. Federal Register 59: 

7629. https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_

housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/EXO12898. [Date accessed: July 24, 2017].

Executive Order (EO) 12996. 1996. Management and general public use 

of the national wildlife refuge system. Federal Register 61: 13647. 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/EO12996.html. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Executive Order (EO) 13175. 2000 Consultation and coordination with 

Indian tribal governments. 2000. Federal Register 65: 67249. https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/11/09/00-29003/

consultation-and-coordination-with-indian-tribal-governments. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Executive Order (EO) 13653. 2013. Preparing the United States for the 

impacts of climate change. Federal Register 78: 66817. https://www.

federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/06/2013-26785/preparingthe-united-states-for-the-impacts-of-climate-change. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC]. 2013. Classification of 

wetlands and deepwater habitats. FGDC-STD-004-2013. 2nd ed. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Wetlands 

Subcommittee, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 85 p.

Federal Register. 1983. Preservation of natural, cultural and archeological 

resources. 48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983; as amended at 81 FR 45037, July 

12, 2016.

Federal Register. 1993a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

endangered or threatened status for seven central Florida plants. 50 CFR 

Part 17. 58 FR 25746, April 27, 1993.

Federal Register. 1993b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

proposed endangered status for Gymnoderma lineare. 58 FR 68623; Dec. 

28, 1993.

Federal Register. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) determined to be endangered. 

60 FR 3557; Jan. 18, 1995.

Federal Register. 2007. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

special forest products and forest botanical products. Proposed rule; 

request for comments. 72(203) FR: 59496–59506.

Federal Register. 2008. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

special forest products and forest botanical products. Final Rule. Federal 

Register. 73(249): 79367–79393.

Federal Register. 2009a. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

special forest products and forest botanical products. Final rule; notice of 

delay of effective date and comment period. Federal Register. 74(18) 5107. 

Federal Register. 2009b. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

special forest products and forest botanical products. Notice of delay of 

effective date. Federal Register, 74(59) 14049.

Federal Register. 2009c. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

special forest products and forest botanical products. Notice of delay of 

effective date. Federal Register. 74(103): 26091–26092.

Federal Register. 2012. National forest system land management planning, 

final rule and record of decision. Federal Register. 77(68): 21162–21276.

Federal Register. 2014. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

forest products for traditional and cultural purposes. Proposed rule and 

request for comments. Federal Register. 79(147): 44327–44332.

Federal Register. 2015. Gathering of certain plants or plant parts by federally 

recognized Indian tribes for traditional purposes. Proposed rule and 

request for comments. Federal Register. 80(75): 21674–21681.

Federal Register. 2016. Sale and disposal of national forest system timber; 

forest products for traditional and cultural purposes. Final rule. Federal 

Register, 81(186): 65891-65897. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2016-09-26/pdf/2016-22929.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Rising to the challenge: strategic 

plan for responding to accelerating climate change. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 36 p. https://www.

fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. National Wildlife Refuge System 

policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/

refugepolicies.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2014a. Convention on international trade 

in endangered species. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs Program. 2 p. http://www.

fws.gov/international/pdf/factsheet-cites-overview-2014.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2014b. Legislative mandates and 

authorities. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/mandates.

html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2014c. The United States Department of 

the Interior budget justifications and performance information, fiscal year 

2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 508 p. https://www.fws.gov/budget/2014/FY2015_FWS_

Greenbook-DOI31014.pdf. [Date accessed: July 7, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2015a. List of states and tribes with 

approved export programs for furbearers, alligators, and ginseng. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/table-list-of-states-andtribes-with-approved-export-programs-for-furbearers-alligators-andginseng.pdf. [Date accessed: January 9, 2015].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2015b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—–

service manual chapters. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2017. Endangered Species Database. 

http:www.fws.gov/endangered.http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

[Date accessed: August 17, 2017].

Fisher, A.H. 2002. Case study. Making peace in the berry patch: the 1932 

handshake agreement and the promise of cultural use zones. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the 

United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 293–299.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 187

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 

2016. State forest fees and information. http://www.freshfromflorida.

com/Divisions-Offices/Florida-Forest-Service/Recreation/Fees-andInformation. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Florida Division of Forestry. 2005. Wakulla State Forest: ten year resource 

management plan. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services. 44 p.

Florida Division of Forestry. 2013. Goethe State Forest: ten year resource 

management plan. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services. 80 p.

Florida House of Representatives. 2000. A study of the harvest of the 

saw palmetto berry. Tallahassee: Florida House of Representatives, 

Committee on Agriculture. http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/

Publications/2000/House/reports/interim_reports/pdf/sawpalm.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Florida State Legislature. 1997. Title 35 § 604:15. Florida statutes. 

http://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_

Statute&URL=0600-0699/0604/0604.html. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Foderaro, L.W. 2011. Enjoy park greenery, city says, but not as salad. New 

York Times. July 29. 

Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of 

social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources. 

30: 441–473.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1985. 

Committee on forest development in the tropics. 1985. Tropical forestry 

action plan. Rome: FAO. http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-

162/002-162.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1997. The 

state of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/

w4345e/w4345e00.htm. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1999a. The 

state of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO. www.fao.org/docrep/W9950E/

W9950E00.htm. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1999b. 

Towards a harmonized definition of non-wood forest products. Unasylva. 

50(198): 63–64. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2013. Climate 

change guidelines for forest managers. Rome: FAO. www.fao.org/

docrep/018/i3383e/i3383e00.htm. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014a. 

Forestry: non-wood forest products. www.fao.org/forestry/nwfp/en/. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017]. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014b. The 

state of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3710e.

pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014c. The 

state of the world’s forest genetic resources. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015. A 

short history of FAO. www.fao.org/about/en/. [Date accessed: January 

26, 2015].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub-Regional 

Office for East and Southern Africa (FAO SAFR). 1998. Wetland 

characterization and classification for sustainable agricultural 

development. Proceedings of the sub-regional consultation; 1997 

December 2-6; Harare, Zimbabwe. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/

x6611e/x6611e03d.htm. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 [Farm Bill]; 122 Stat. 165, 

§8105. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ246/pdf/PLAW110publ246.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA); 16 

U.S.C. §1601. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-36. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Forestry Program. 2010. American Samoa forest assessment and 

resource strategy, 2011–2015. Pago Pago, American Samoa: Division of 

Community and Natural Resources. 63 p. http://www.wflccenter.org/

islandforestry/americansamoa.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Galbraith, D.; Kennedy, K. 2006. The development of a strategic plan for 

a regional network of botanic gardens for conservation: the North 

American experience. Botanic Gardens Conservation International 

Journal. 3(1). http://www.bgci.org/worldwide/article/489/. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Gange, A.C.; Gange, E.G.; Sparks, T.H.; Boddy, L. 2007. Rapid and recent 

changes in fungal fruiting patterns. Science. 316: 71. 

Gardner, R.C.; Connolly, K.D. 2007. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands: 

assessment of international designations within the United States. 

Environmental Law Reporter. 37: 10089–10113. http://www.ramsar.org/

sites/default/files/documents/pdf/wurc/wurc_gardner_elr2007.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1996. National Park Service—activities 

within park borders have caused damage to resources [report to U.S. 

House subcommittee]. GAO/RCED-96-202. Washington, DC: U.S. General 

Accounting Office. 32 p. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTSRCED-96-202/pdf/GAOREPORTS-RCED-96-202.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

George, S.; Snape, W.J., III; Senatore, M. 1998. State Endangered Species 

Acts: past, present and future. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 5 p.

Gilliam, F.S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in 

temperate forest ecosystems. BioScience. 57(10): 845–858.

Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). 2013. Gland, 

Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature. http://

www.forestlandscaperestoration.org. [Date accessed: August 15, 2017].

Glowka, L.; Burhenne-Guilmin, F.; Synge, H. [and others]. 1994. A guide 

to the convention on biological diversity, environmental policy and 

law paper no. 30. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature. 161 p. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/

documents/EPLP-no.030.pdf. [Date accessed: July 7, 2017].

Goodman, E.C. 2002. Indian reserved rights. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 273–281.

Gorte, R.W.; Vincent, C.H.; Hanson, L.A.; Rosenblum, M.R. 2012. Federal 

land ownership: overview and data. CRS Report for Congress. Report 

R42346. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 24 p.

Greene, S.M.; Hammett, A.L.; Kant, S. 2000. Nontimber forest products 

marketing systems and market players in Southwest Virginia; crafts, 

medicinal and herbal, and specialty wood products. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 11(3): 19–39.

Gross, W.T. 1981. Tribal resources: federal trust responsibility: United 

States energy development versus trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. 

American Indian Law Review. 9(2): 309–343.

Guldin, R.W.; Kaiser, H.F. 2004. National report on sustainable forests—2003. 

FS-766. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docs/national-reports/2003/2003-

sustainability-report.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Haig, S.M.; Beever, E.A.; Chambers, S.M. [and others]. 2006. Taxonomic 

considerations in listing subspecies under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. Conservation Biology. 20(6): 1584–1594. 

Handler, S.; Duveneck, M.; Iverson, L. [and others]. 2014. Minnesota forest 

ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: a report from the 

northwoods climate change response framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-133. Newtown Square, PA; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 228 p.
188 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Hawai’i Legislative Reference Bureau. 2015. The Constitution of the State 

of Hawai’i: Article XII, Section 7. http://www.lwv-Hawai’i.com/govt/

constitution/art12.htm#07. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Hayes, T.; Persha, L. 2010. Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisiting 

community forest management in a REDD+ world. Forest Policy and 

Economics. 12(8): 545–553.

Heywood, V.H.; Dulloo, M.E. 2005. In situ conservation of wild plant species: 

a critical global review of good practices. IPGRI Tech. Bull. 11. Rome: 

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 174 p.

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). 1993. An 

assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United 

States. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. 174 p. http://www.

itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/assessment.

html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). 2003. An 

assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United 

States by the second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team for 

the Intertribal Timber Council. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. 

134 p. http://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_

management/assessment.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). 2013. Assessment 

of Indian forests and forest management in the United States, final 

report, volume 1. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council. 62 p. http://

www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/issues_2/forest_management/

assessment.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975; 25 U.S.C. 

450 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/chapter-14/

subchapter-II. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC). 2014. Report of the 

International Tropical Timber Council at its fiftieth session. Yokohama, 

Japan: International Timber Council. 408 p. http://www.itto.int/council_

documents/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 1992. ITTO guidelines for 

the sustainable management of natural tropical forests. Yokohama, Japan: 

International Tropical Timber Organization Policy Development Series 1. 18 

p. https://blogs.ubc.ca/apfnet01/files/2015/01/Sustainable-managementof-natural-tropical-forests.pdf. [Date accessed: August 14, 2017].

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 2006. ITTO Members 

under ITTA. Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber Organization. 

http://www.itto.int/itto_members/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 2014. Project portfolio. 

Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber Organization. http://

www.itto.int/portfolio01/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

International Tropical Timber Organization/International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (ITTO/IUCN). 2009. ITTO/IUCN guidelines for 

the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in tropical timber 

production forests. Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber 

Organization. 120 p. 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2014. About 

IUCN. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. www.iucn.org./about/. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2015. IUCN 

species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. www.iucn.org./about/work/

programmes/species. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Intertribal Timber Council (ITC). 2013. Fulfilling the promise of the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act of 2004: an analysis by the Intertribal Timber 

Council in collaboration with USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. Cooperative Agreement 11-CA-11132540-304. Portland, OR: 

Intertribal Timber Council. 2 p. http://www.itcnet.org/issues_projects/

issues_2/tfpa/tfpareports.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Iowa Department of Natural Resource (IA DNR). 2015. State parks rules and 

regulations. http://www.iowadnr.gov/recreation/campingfacilityrentals/

rulesregulations.aspx. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Itasca County [MN]. 2009. Land management plan. 2010. Itasca County, MN. 

http://www.co.itasca.mn.us/235/Land-Management-Planning. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Jacobson, K.; Hansen, M.; McRoberts, R. 2005. Balsam boughs in 

Minnesota: a resource and market study. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources. 46 p. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/

forestry/um/balsamboughs_mn_resource_market_study.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Jahnige, P. 2002. Case study: the hidden bounty of the urban forest. In: 

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in 

the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 96–107. 

Janowiak, M.; Iverson, L.; Mladenoff, D. [and others]. 2014. Forest 

ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern 

Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the northwoods 

climate change response framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 247 p.

Johnson, S.; Abrams, M.; Rush, L. 2012. Using black earth and remote sensing 

of indicator plants for identification of prehistoric archeological sensitivity 

and potential site integrity in the eastern woodlands. Publ. 10–416. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, Legacy Program. 1 p.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K. 2002. The relevance of sociocultural variables to 

nontimber forest product research, policy, and management. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber Forest Products in the 

United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 26–51.

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Lynch, K.A. 2005. The relationship between 

nontimber forest products and biodiversity in the United States. 

Washington, DC: National Commission on Science for Sustainable 

Forestry. 60 p.

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. 2002. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 445 p.

Joyce, L.; Haynes, R.; White, R.; Barbour, J. 2006. Bringing climate change 

into natural resource management: proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-706. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 150 p. 

Joyce, L.A.; Blate, G.M.; McNulty, S.G. [and others]. 2009. Managing for 

multiple resources under climate change: national forests. Environmental 

Management. 44: 1022–1032.

Kauserud, H.; Stige, L.C.; Vik, J.O. [and others]. 2008. Mushroom fruiting 

and climate change. PNAS. 105(10): 3811–3814. http://www.pnas.org/

content/105/10/3811.full. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Kemp, K.B.; Blades, J.J.; Klos, P.Z. [and others]. 2015. Managing for climate 

change on Federal lands of the Western United States: perceived 

usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, 

and barriers to implementation. Ecology and Society. 20(2): 17. 

Kerr, W.A.; Gaisford, J.D., eds. 2007. Handbook on international trade policy. 

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 545 p. 

Lacey Act of 1900; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378.

Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.; Wynberg, R.P., eds. 2010. Wild product governance: 

finding policies that work for nontimber forest products. Washington, DC: 

Earthscan. 

Laird, S.A.; Wynberg, R.; McLain, R.J. 2009. Wild product governance: laws 

and policies for sustainable and equitable nontimber forest product use. 

[Place of publication unknown]: United Nations University, the Center 

for International Forestry Research, People and Plants International, the 

Institute for Culture and Ecology, and the University of Cape Town. 14 p. 

http://archive.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/policy%20brief_Oct_09_

rev3.1.pdf. [Date accessed: July 7, 2017].

Laird, S.A.; Wynberg, R.; McLain, R.J. 2011. Regulating complexity: policies 

for the governance of nontimber forest products. In: Shackleton, S.; 

Shackleton, C.; Shanley, P., eds. Nontimber forest products in the global 

context. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag: 227–253.
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 189

Lawler, J.J. 2009. Climate change adaptation strategies for resource 

management and conservation planning. Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences. 1162: 79–98. 

Lewis County, Washington. [N.d.]. Forest products harvesting permits. 

Chehallis, Washington: Lewis County, Office of the Sheriff. http://

lewiscountywa.gov/forest-products-harvesting-permits. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Liu, Z. 2007. Tropical forests of the United States: applying USDA state and 

private forestry programs. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Health Protection. 

http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/259_pdf.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

London, J.K. 2002. Case study. American Indian management of Federal 

lands: the Maidu Cultural Development Group. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, 

R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 317–344.

Ma, H.O. 2002. ITTOs experiences in promoting tropical nontimber forest 

products. NonWood Forest Products. 14: 69–74. 

Mallet, P. 2002. Case study. Certification of nontimber forest products. In: 

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber Forest Products in 

the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 189–198.

Matthews, G.V.T. 1993. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands: its history and 

development. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Bureau. http://

www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/Matthewshistory.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

McLain, R.; Jones, E.T. 2002. Introduction. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: xvii–xxv. 

McLain, R.; Jones, E.T. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on 

national forests in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-655. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 85 p.

McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M.R. 2014. Gathering “wild” 

food in the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem 

planning and management. Local Environment: The International Journal 

of Justice and Sustainability. 19(2): 220–240.

McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K. 2010. Managing floral greens in a globalized 

economy: resource tenure, labour relations and immigration policy in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. In: Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynberg, R.P., eds. 

Wild product governance: finding policies that work for nontimber forest 

products. London: Earthscan: 265–285.

McMahon, L. 1980. Comment: legal protection for rare plants. American 

University Law Review. 29(3): 515–569. 

McReynolds, K. 2010. Arizona native plant law: what you need to know. 

Publication AZ1506. Tucson: The University of Arizona, Arizona 

Cooperative Extension. http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.

arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1506.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017]. 

Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG). 2007. International standard for 

sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (ISSC-MAP). 

Version 1.0. Bonn, Germany: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN).

Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG). 2012. Medicinal plant specialist 

group. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of 

Nature. http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/who_

we_are/ssc_specialist_groups_and_red_list_authorities_directory/

plants/ssc_medicinalplant_home/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Miller, J.S.; Krupnick, G.A.; Stevens, H. [and others]. 2013. Toward target 

2 of the global strategy for plant conservation: an expert analysis of the 

Puerto Rican flora to validate new streamlined methods for assessing 

conservation status. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 

99(2): 199–205.

Mitchell, C.M. 2014. Contested spaces: NTFPs, livelihoods, and 

conservation planning. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG). 1995. Criteria and indicators 

for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and 

boreal forests. Santiago, Chile: Meeting of the Montreal Process 

Working Group. 13 p. montrealprocess.org/documents/publications/

techreports/1995santiago_e.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG). 2000. Montreal Process year 

2000 progress report-progress and innovation in implementing criteria 

and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of 

temperate and boreal forests. Ontario, Canada: Montreal Process Liaison 

Office-Canadian Forest Service. 97 p. montrealprocess.org/documents/

publications/techreports/2000progressreport_e.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG). 2009. Technical notes on 

implementation of the Montreal Process criteria and indicators: Criteria 

1–7. Third Edition. 

Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960; 16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership 

(NFWPCAP). 2012. National fish, wildlife and plants climate adaptation 

strategy. Washington, DC: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies [and 

other agencies and NGOs]. https://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/. 

[Date accessed: July 7, 2017].

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA); 16 U.S.C. 1600.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.

National Indian Forest Resources Management Act of 1990; 25 U.S.C. § 

3103(3).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. 

Convention on biological diversity. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FisheriesOffice of International Affairs. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/intlagree/

cbd.htm. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Funding the natural resource challenge. 

Report to Congress, fiscal year 2003. Washington, DC: Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service. 111 p. http://www.nature.nps.gov/

challenge/assets/docs/RTC2003.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. Natural resource year in review-2004. 

Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Natural Resource Information Division. 118 p. http://www.nature.nps.

gov/publications/assets/docs/yir2004.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 

2017].

National Park Service (NPS). 2006. National Park Service management 

policies. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service. 168 p. http://www.nps.gov/policy/MP2006.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

National Park Service (NPS). 2014. The United State Department of the 

Interior budget justifications and performance information, fiscal year 

2015. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

624 p. http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2015-Greenbook-Linked.

pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

National Park Service (NPS). 2017. Forest Health. http://www.nature.nps.

gov/biology/foresthealth.cfm. [Date accessed: August 17, 2017].

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRSA); 16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee.

Negrón-Ortiz, V. 2014. Pattern of expenditures for plant conservation under 

the Endangered Species Act. Biological Conservation. 171: 36–43.

New York City Parks Administrative Code (NYC). 2014. Title 56–Department 

of Park and Recreation–prohibited uses. New York, NY: Department of 

Parks and Recreation. https://www.nycgovparks.org/rules/section-1-04. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].
190 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1987. Integrated renewable 

resource management for U.S. insular areas. OTA-F-325. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 443 p.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2009. Pathway to the future 

for Northwest Oregon state forests. http://library.state.or.us/

repository/2009/200912171142054/index.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2015a. Special forest products 

for personal use. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/

WorkingForests/SpecialForestProductsPersonalUse.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2015b. Special forest products 

for commercial use. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/

WorkingForests/SpecialForestProductsCommercialUse.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Organic Administration Act of 1897; 16 U.S. Code § 473. http://uscode.

house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title16-section473&nu

m=0&edition=prelim. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Panayotou, T.; Ashton, P. 1992. Not by timber alone: economics and ecology 

for sustaining tropical forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 282 p.

Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 36. 

[36 CFR]. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=041c1e04ce39ce5

743b4b7aa29bdd91f&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title36/36tab_02.tpl. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2015. Summary of significant changes 

in the draft Pennsylvania State Forest Resource Management Plan. 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/

dcnr_20031271.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2016. State Forest Resource Management 

Plan: nontimber forest products. Harrisburg, PA: Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources-Bureau of Forestry. http://dcnr.

state.pa.us/forestry/stateforestmanagement/sfrmp/index.htm. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A. [and others]. 2011. Responding to 

climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation 

options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-855. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 109 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Vose, J.M.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2013. Climate change and 

the United States forests. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 261 p.

Pierce County, Washington. 2014. Development regulations, forest practices, 

Title 18H. Pierce County, WA: Pierce County Government. http://

www.codepublishing.com/WA/PierceCounty/html/PierceCounty18H/

PierceCounty18H.html. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Pilot Program of Charges and Fees for Harvest of Forest Botanical Products 

of 2000; 113 STAT 1505 Sec 339. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

PLAW-106publ113/pdf/PLAW-106publ113.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Plantlife International. 2012. Wild plant horizons: taking forward the global 

strategy for plant conservation 2011–2010. Salisbury, England: Plantlife 

International. http://plantlife.love-wildflowers.org.uk/publications/

wildplanthorizons. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Pokladnik, R. 2008. Roots and remedies of ginseng poaching in Central 

Appalachia. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Porter, F.W., III, ed. 1990. The art of Native American basketry: a living 

legacy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 350 p.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 2010. Native 

American plant gathering in the National Park system. Silver Spring, MD: 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. 16 p. https://www.

peer.org/assets/docs/nps/8_11_10_Indian_Plant_Take_from_National_

Parks.pdf. [Date accessed: July 13, 2017].

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER). 

2005. Puerto Rico critical wildlife areas. Project R-3.1. San Juan, PR: 

Bureau of Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial Resources Division. 394 p.

Ramsar. 2010. Handbook 1: wise use of wetlands: concepts and approaches 

for the wise use of wetlands. 4th ed. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar 

Convention Secretariat. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/

documents/library/hbk4-01.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Ramsar. 2012. Classification system for wetland type. Gland, Switzerland: 

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. archive.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsardocuments-guidelines-classification-system/main/ramsar/1-31-

105%5E21235_4000_0__. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Ramsar. 2014a. Ramsar country profiles. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar 

Convention Secretariat. http://www.ramsar.org/country-profiles. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Ramsar. 2014b. Wetlands and agriculture: partners for growth. Gland, 

Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat, International Water 

Management Institute. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/

wwd14_leaflet_en.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Rosser, A.R.; Haywood M.J. 2002. Guidance for CITES scientific authorities: 

checklist to assist in making non detriment findings for appendix II 

exports. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation 

of Nature. 146 p. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/8121. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Russi, D.; ten Brink, P.; Farmer, A. [and others]. 2013. The economics of 

ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. London: Institute 

for European Environmental Policy. http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/04/TEEB_WaterWetlands_Report_2013.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Sands, P.; Peel, J.; Fabra, A.; MacKenzie, R. 2012. Principles of 

environmental law, 3rd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. 988 p.

Schmidt, P.M.; Peterson, M.J. 2009. Biodiversity conservation and 

indigenous land management in the era of self-determination. 

Conservation Biology. 23(6): 1458–1466.

Schroeder, R. 2002. Case study. Contemporary subsistence use of nontimber 

forest products in Alaska. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 300–326.

Shackleton, S.; Shackleton, C.; Shanley. P., eds. 2011. Nontimber forest 

products in the global context. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 

285 p.

Shaw, E.W. 1949. Minor forest products of the Pacific Northwest. Res. Note 

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

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p.

Sills, E.; Shanley, P.; Paumgarten, F. [and others]. 2011. Evolving perspectives 

on nontimber forest products. In: Shackleton, S.; Shackleton, C.; Shanley. 

P., eds. Nontimber forest products in the global context. Heidelberg, 

Germany: Springer-Verlag: 22–51.

Small, E. 2014. Blossoming treasures of biodiversity–44. Saguaro—

threatened monarch of the desert. Biodiversity. 15: 39–53. 

Smith, C.; Morissette, J.; Forest, S. [and others]. 2007. Synthesis of 

technical information on forest wetlands in Canada. Tech. Bull. 938. 

Edmonton, AB: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 97 p.

Sparling, D.W. 2014. Natural resource administration: Wildlife, fisheries, 

forests and parks. Waltham, MA: Academic Press. 374 p.

Staudinger, M.D.; Carter, S.L.; Cross, M.S. [and others]. 2013. Biodiversity in 

a changing climate: a synthesis of current and projected trends in the US. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11: 465–473. 

Stein, B.A.; Gravuer, K. 2008. Hidden in plain sight: the role of plants in state 

wildlife action plans. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. 27 p. http://www.

natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/hidden_in_plain_

sight_0.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].
CHAPTER 7 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 191

Thornton, B. 2008. How many saquaros. Cactus and Succulent Journal. 

80(4): 160–169.

Tidwell, T.; Karr-Colque, C. 2012. U.S. National report to the tenth session of 

the United Nations forum on forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18 p. www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/

national_reports/unff10/USA.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Trask, H.K. 1991. Natives and anthropologists: the colonial struggle. In: 

Welsch, R.; Endicott, K. Taking sides: clashing views on controversial 

issues in anthropology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin: 

225–230.

Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) of 2004; 25 USC 3101 note.

United Nations (UN). 1992. Convention on biological diversity. New York: 

United Nations. 28 p.

United Nations (UN). 2014. Multilateral treaties deposited with the 

Secretary-General. New York: United Nations. https://treaties.un.org/

Pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx. [Date accessed: December 17, 2014].

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

1971. Convention on wetlands of international importance especially as 

waterfowl habitat. Netherlands: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. http://

www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/original_1971_

convention_e.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring 

Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2014a. The checklist of CITES species. Geneva, 

Switzerland: CITES Secretariat. http://checklist.cites.org. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring 

Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2014b. UNEP-WCMC trade database. 

Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. http://trade.cites.org/. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

University of Minnesota Extension. 2013. Minnesota harvester handbook. 

St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Extension Service. 118 p. http://www.

extension.umn.edu/environment/trees-woodlands/minnesota-harvesterhandbook/. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC). 2015. Resources–army 

conservation reimbursable programs. Fort Sam Houston, TX: U.S. 

Army Environmental Command. https://www.aec.army.mil/index.

php?cID=366. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (US CCR). 2003. Not in my backyard: 

Executive Order 12898 and Title VI as tools for achieving environmental 

justice. Washington, DC: U.S. CCR. 185 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Record of decision: Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment—Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement. Washington, DC: USDA. 72 p. http://www.fs.usda.

gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_046095.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. USDA action plan for tribal 

consultation and collaboration. Washington, DC: USDA. 9 p. https://

www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ConsultationPlan.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Environmental Justice Action Plan: 

2012–2014. Washington, DC: USDA. http://www.dm.usda.gov/hmmd/

FinalUSDAEJSTRATScan_1.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

USDA Forest Service. 1928. The national forest manual: regulations and 

instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 91 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Forest Service handbooks. Washington, DC. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsh_5000.html. [Date 

accessed: July 25, 2017].

USDA Forest Service. 2001. National strategy for special forest products. 

FS-713. 15 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service manual 2400—timber 

management, Chapter 2460—uses of timber other than commercial 

timber sales. Amendment No. 2400-2002-2. Washington, DC. 21 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Timber sale preparation handbook; Chapter 

80—uses of timber other than commercial timber sales. Amendment No. 

2409.18-2008-1. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service manual—timber management, 

chapter—zero Code. Amendment No. 2400–2009-2. Washington, DC. 28 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Willamette National Forest. https://www.

fs.usda.gov/willamette. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. About the agency. http://www.fs.fed.us/

about-agency. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Timber sale preparation handbook; Chapter 

80—uses of timber other than commercial timber sales, special forest 

products—forest botanical products. Interim Directive No. 2409.18-2015-

1. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Timber sale preparation handbook; Chapter 

80—Uses of Timber Other Than Commercial Timber Sales. Amendment 

No. 2409.18-2017-1. Washington, DC. https://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/

Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2409.18. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

U.S. International Trade Commission. 1991. International trade agreements 

to protect the environment and wildlife: report to the Committee on 

Finance, United States Senate, on investigation no. 332-287 under 

section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Washington, DC: U.S. International 

Trade Commission. 154 p. 

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UT DNR). 2010. Utah statewide 

forest resource assessment & strategy guide. 76 p. http://www.ffsl.utah.

gov/images/forestry/stateassessment/UtahStateAssessmentStrategyFinalLowRes.pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed, J. 2001. Special forests products: 

species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 169 p.

Vaughan, R.C., Munsell, J.F.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2013. Opportunities for 

enhancing nontimber forest products management in the United States. 

Journal of Forestry. 111(1): 26–33. http://nac.unl.edu/documents/

morepublications/NTFP_Jnl-For_Jan-2013.pdf. [Date accessed: 

September 23, 2014].

von Hagen, B.; Weigand, J.F.; McLain, R. [and others]. 1996. Conservation 

and development of nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest: 

an annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-375. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 246 p.

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR). 2013. 2013 

annual report. http://issuu.com/wadnr/docs/dnr-2013-annual-report. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR). 2017. Forest 

Practices Board. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/about/boards-and-councils/

forest-practices-board. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Washington State Legislature. 2015. Chapter 76.48 RCW: specialized forest 

products. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.48. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Weigand, J. 2002d. Case study. The American Southwest. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 65–74.

Weigand, J. 2002a. Case study. California. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 81–86.

Weigand, J. 2002e. Case study. The Caribbean Basin: Florida, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 75–80.
192 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 7

Weigand, J. 2002b. Case study. Culture and nontimber forest products in 

the American Pacific tropics. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 87–95.

Weigand, J. 2002c. Case study. Overview of cultural traditions, economic 

trends, and key species in nontimber forest products of the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber 

forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of 

Kansas: 57–64.

West, J.M.; Julius, S.H.; Kareiva, P. [and others]. 2009. U.S. natural 

resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management 

adaptation. Environmental Management. 44: 1001–1021.

West, M.B. 1992. Natural resources development on Indian reservations: 

overview of tribal, state, and federal jurisdiction. American Indian Law 

Review. 17(1): 71–98.

White, S.; Danielsen, K.C. 2002. Threats to wild plants in the ceded 

territories. Odanah, WI: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

64 p. https://data.glifwc.org/archive.bio/Project%20Report%2002-01.

pdf. [Date accessed: August 10, 2017.]

Whyte, K.P. 2014. Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation and 

responsibility. In: Maldonado, J.K.; Colombi, B.; Pandya, R., eds. 

Climate change and indigenous peoples in the United States: impacts, 

experiences and actions. New York: Springer: 9–22.

Wijnstekers, W. 2011. The evolution of CITES. 9th ed. Budapest: 

International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation. 937 p. http://

www.cites.org/common/resources/Evolution_of_CITES_9.pdf. [Date 

accessed: August 10, 2017].

Wood, M.C. 1995. Protecting the attributes of native sovereignty: a new 

trust paradigm for Federal actions affecting tribal lands and resources. 

Utah Law Review. 109: 111-139.

Workman, S. 2014. ForWarn chosen for national climate resilience toolkit 

launched for White House. CompassLive Blog. USDA-Southern Research 

Station. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/compass/2014/11/19/forwarnchosen-for-national-climate-resilience-toolkit-launched-for-white-house/. 

[Date accessed: August 10, 2017].

Wyler, L.S.; Sheikh, P.A. 2013. International illegal trade in wildlife: 

threats and U.S. policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research 

Service. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20130723_RL34395_

a407792bf33debc34c6516538db405e8eed1e6b3.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Wynberg, R.P.; Laird, S.A. 2007. Less is often more: governance of a 

nontimber forest product, marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra) in 

southern Africa. International Forestry Review. 9(1): 475–490.

Young, B.E.; Dubois, N.S.; Rowland, E.L. 2014. Using the climate change 

vulnerability index to inform adaptation planning: lessons, innovations, 

and next steps. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 39(1):174–181.
CHAPTER 8

Conclusions: 

Nontimber Forest 

Products in an Era 

of Changing Climate

Marla R. Emery

Toral Patel-Weynand

Amit R. Patel

James L. Chamberlain
CHAPTER 8 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 195

Nontimber forest species, resources, and 

products in U.S. forests and rangelands provide 

a range of ecological, social, cultural, and 

economic goods and services. This diversity 

creates challenges and opportunities for management 

and governance in an era of accelerating climatic 

variability. Climate variability and change will likely 

affect forest ecosystems with potentially increasing 

risks of negative consequences to natural resources and 

associated social-ecological systems (Ryan and Archer 

2008). Drought, insect and disease outbreaks, and 

fire, as well as extreme events are expected to impact 

species extent and composition of forests as species 

respond to climatic variability and change. There is 

also the potential for loss of species and biological 

diversity if environmental changes outpace species’ 

ability to adapt. This may in turn adversely affect the 

potential of NTFPs to provide a buffer for impacted 

human communities as sources of food, medicine, and 

other uses. As this report demonstrates, the scientific 

literature about U.S. nontimber forest products (NTFPs) 

is considerable. Significant gaps, however, remain 

in the state of the knowledge about these natural 

resources and how the social-ecological systems that 

characterize them may respond to climatic variability.

8.1

Nontimber Forest Product Ecologies 

and Climatic Variability

Climatic variability is likely to affect the ecological 

conditions necessary to support nontimber forest species 

from individual organisms to the landscape level, 

influencing the presence of wild plants and fungi and 

their biophysical properties. Because NTFPs are derived 

from a diverse array of species that span taxonomic and 

environmental boundaries, understanding the nature and 

spatial distribution of those effects requires extensive 

effort (see chapter 3). Effects on NTFP species will 

vary spatially and temporally. Life history traits may 

provide insights into likely demographic, evolutionary, 

and spatial responses to climatic variability for species 

with shared characteristics. Knowledge about habitat 

responses also will grow, especially as many NTFPs are 

understory species that are strongly influenced by the 

effects of disturbance and management on the forest 

overstory (see chapter 2). Some predicted long-term 

climate effects on forest ecologies with implications 

for NTFPs include altered frequency and intensity 

of disturbances such as wildfires, storm damage, 

flooding, invasive species incursions, insect and disease 

outbreaks and changes in forest productivity.

Projected shifts in forest types for the United States 

suggest potentially significant changes in forest 

structure and composition that will affect NTFPs 

(Melillo et al. 2014, Prasad et al. 2007). Increase 

in average minimum temperature and changes in 

precipitation will affect habitats associated with 

specific NTFPs, with some being more vulnerable 

to climate change than others (USDA 2015).

Range breadth is frequently used as an indicator of 

vulnerability to climatic-variability-driven extinction, 

because a narrow distribution may indicate sensitivity to 

changing climate as well as habitat specificity (Bellard 

et al. 2012, Brook and McLachlan 2008, Thomas et al. 

2004). At first glance, NTFPs not characterized by a 

narrow range may appear robust to changing climate. 

However, specialization to local climate conditions may 

narrow the thermal niche of a species, thus increasing 

vulnerability. Relative to trees and weedy species, many 

NTFP species display limited dispersal distances, which 

increases the likelihood of local adaptation (Bennington 

and McGraw 1995, Gregor 1946, McGraw 1985) 

but also may increase vulnerability (Davis et al. 2005, 

Etterson 2004). Further, climatic variability may interact 

with other stressors like harvesting to increase the risk 

of extirpation or extinction for NTFP populations 

and species (Brook and McLachlan 2008, Mandle 

and Ticktin 2012, Souther and McGraw 2014).

Alterations in the phenology of NTFP species are of 

particular concern for maintenance of their cultural 

values (see chapter 4) and already are being observed in 

response to changing climate. Long-term surface data 

and remote sensing measurements indicate that major 

events of plant phenology such as leaf-on and leaf-off 

dates have advanced by 2 to 3 days in spring and delayed 

by 0.3 to 1.6 days in autumn per decade over the past 

30 to 80 years, resulting in a significant extension of 

the growing season (Badeck et al. 2004, Schwartz et 

al. 2006). Warmer, shorter winters provide favorable 

conditions for pest populations as insects and diseases 

that previously would have been killed by low winter 

temperatures survive mild winters (Jamieson et al. 2012). 

In some cases, shorter winters will be characterized 

by greater fluctuations in temperature, resulting in 

mortality from extreme cold and/or repeated cycles of 
196 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 8

freezing and thawing. Earlier spring onset increases frost 

vulnerability, with consequences for successful fruiting 

and reproduction of NTFP species. When flowering 

occurs earlier, blooms are at increased risk of freezing 

(Inouye 2008, Sherry 2007, Souther and McGraw 2014). 

Mountain species particularly are experiencing frost 

damage due to early blooming. Earlier spring dates also 

may create mismatches, or phenological asynchronies, 

such as when plants bud earlier and their pollinators 

have not adapted to this shift in timing. For example, 

bees may target specific habitats with plant populations 

they historically pollinate only to find those plants have 

already bloomed (Fitzpatrick 2010). Such phenological 

asynchronies adversely impact pollinator and plant alike.

General trends notwithstanding, there is considerable 

uncertainty in any projection of likely responses to 

climatic variability by NTFP species. Long-term studies 

and biotic monitoring projects show that some species 

have responded to contemporary climatic variability in a 

manner consistent with expectations (Badeck et al. 2004; 

Hoffmann and Sgrò 2011; Parmesan 2006; Parmesan et 

al. 2000, 2013; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Walther 2010). 

For instance, many species have shifted distribution 

northward or upward in elevation and advanced the 

timing of critical life history events, such as spring 

emergence in plants or migration in avian species (Badeck 

et al. 2004; Hoffmann and Sgrò 2011; Parmesan 2006; 

Parmesan et al. 2000, 2013; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; 

Pinsky et al. 2013; Walther 2010). However, there have 

been ecological surprises as well. A significant proportion 

of species, depending on the datasets analyzed, appear 

to remain unchanged or respond in a manner opposite to 

expectations (Tingley et al. 2012, Wolkovich et al. 2012).

8.2

Social, Cultural, and Economic 

Dimensions of Nontimber Forest 

Product and Climatic Variability

Shifts in the ecology of NTFPs will condition their 

availability as social, cultural, and economic resources. 

Social disruption of climate-induced human displacement, 

accompanied by economic distress, could also make 

humans more dependent on NTFPs as sources of food, 

fuel, and utilitarian materials, as well as social anchors.

As changes associated with altered climate affect 

landscapes and social systems in which cultural uses of 

NTFPs occur, they will likely affect cultures throughout 

the United States and its affiliated territories. Among the 

contributions to human well-being at risk are the roles 

of NTFPs in food security (Lynn et al. 2013), health 

security (Kassam et al. 2010), identity formation, social 

cohesion, and livelihoods (Cocks and Wiersum 2014, 

Emery 2002, Lynn et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). 

Such alterations could have adverse consequences for 

diverse communities across rural to urban environments 

(see chapter 5). Within general parameters, specific 

effects of climatic variability on NTFP cultural functions 

will vary by region and cultural group. Each cultural 

group is vulnerable to the effects of climatic variability 

depending on their geographic location, species of 

interest, and capacity to adapt to interacting stressors at 

multiple scales (Bennett et al. 2014). Such developments 

may pose new challenges for compliance with laws 

relevant to cultural values of NTFPs in these regions.

At the same time, culture is dynamic and there are 

opportunities to mitigate and adapt to climatic variability 

effects on NTFP cultural values. Indeed, NTFPs 

frequently provide essential survival resources in times 

of disruption (e.g., Redzic 2010) and likely will do so 

during climate-related disturbances. The resilience 

of cultures and their NTFP-based practices may be a 

function of the intensity, speed, and duration of events 

that pose ecological and/or social challenges to them. 

Indigenous peoples have noted that their cultures are 

the product of millennia of adaptation to social and 

ecological change. As a consequence, indigenous peoples 

may have knowledge and wisdom to offer to adapt to 

impacts from a changing climate (Voggesser et al. 2013).

NTFPs contribute to microeconomies and 

macroeconomies, through nonmarket and formal and 

informal means (see chapter 6). NTFP harvesters and 

users face many uncertainties in their nonmarket and 

formal and informal economic activities. Climatic 

variability adds further risk of (1) changes in biological 

availability of NTFPs, (2) price pressures for scarce NTFP 

resources, (3) regulatory barriers in response to reduced 

production and increased competition, (4) changes in 

direct and indirect costs of obtaining NTFPs, and (5) 

disruption of social networks and safety nets due to loss 

of access to NTFPs. While many social, cultural, and 

economic consequences of climatic variability effects on 

NTFPs will unfold over time, others will develop rapidly. 

Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornados, and 

floods are projected to increase in severity and become 

more frequent, and produce more acute impacts (short 
CHAPTER 8 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 197

in duration but strong in magnitude) to NTFPs and 

the people who depend on them. If climatic variability 

diminishes populations of certain NTFP species, or 

changes their range, people may lose access to those 

resources as an economic safety net (see chapter 6).

Risks will be felt more keenly by some individuals 

than others. Increased food insecurity and decreased 

nutritional status are likely results for subsistence 

practitioners and others who rely on wild plants and 

fungi for significant aspects of their dietary intake. 

Full-time commercial harvesters also may be hard hit 

by climatic variability effects on NTFPs, as they tend 

to rank among the poorest populations in a region 

(Hembram and Hoover 2008, Schlosser and Blatner 

1995). Loss of access to edible plants and mushrooms 

for personal consumption and/or income from the sale 

of NTFPs may push more people to rely on assistance 

programs and make the status of those who already 

rely on these programs more precarious. Enterprises 

that rely on wild or forest farmed plants and fungi also 

may experience differing impacts, with businesses that 

rely on one or a small number of NTFPs potentially 

facing greater risks than those whose business is 

based on a diversity of species and products.

However, climate-related effects on plants and fungi 

will be complex. Along with potential disruption, 

NTFP-based opportunities likely will arise. In some 

cases, disturbance or changing conditions in a location 

may favor the presence of new NTFP species or 

increases in the population of previously scarce species. 

Where this occurs, it could result in increased supplies 

for subsistence, personal consumption, and sale in 

value-added or unprocessed forms. Again, adaptive 

capacity will condition individuals’ and communities’ 

abilites to benefit from these new opportunities.

8.3

Nontimber Forest Product Policy, 

Management, and Climatic Variability

Regulations and policies that address access, 

management, extraction, trade, and conservation of 

nontimber forest products exist at multiple governmental 

levels in the United States (George et al. 1998, 

McLain and Jones 2002; see chapter 7 for detailed 

descriptions). At the Federal level, the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA 1973), the Lacey Act (1900), and 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA 1969) 

have particular relevance. Among Federal agencies 

with jurisdiction over public lands where NTFPs 

are harvested are the Forest Service, Department of 

Defense, and three Department of the Interior agencies: 

Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to the 

ESA, Lacey Act, and NEPA, each of these Federal 

agencies operates under a suite of further laws and 

regulations that apply to NTFPs. Legal canons applying 

to Native peoples’ access to NTFPs include, but are not 

confined to, the Federal Indian Trust Responsibility, 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 

and the Hawai’i State constitution. Further laws and 

regulations are in force at State and local levels.

Maintaining natural diversity through silvicultural 

practices and other management strategies may be key to 

mitigating the impact of climate change on NTFPs. High 

species diversity increases ecological resiliency (Tilman 

and Downing 1996) and may contribute to functional 

redundancy (Peterson et al. 1998), protecting ecosystem 

functions in the face of climate-induced disturbance 

and change. Conversely, intensive management for one 

or a few high valued NTFPs may decrease diversity, 

decreasing resiliency and placing forests and NTFP 

species in them at greater risk (see chapter 2).

Managed relocation, or assisted migration, may be a 

viable option for adapting to climate change and its 

impacts on NTFP-based social, cultural, and economic 

values. Efforts are underway to see if assisted migration 

can help tree species that are imperiled by the anticipated 

impacts of increased drought and higher temperatures 

on their limited native distributions (McLachlan et al. 

2007, Williams and Dumroese 2013). Further, knowledge 

development may help address challenges with assisted 

migration of important genetic diversity within the 

native plant communities by finding seed sources with 

strong resilience to drought (Vose et al. 2012, p. 287).

Assisted migration may be a promising mitigation 

approach, but particular consideration must be afforded 

to potential negative impacts, such as gene-pool 

degradation, competition with existing native plants, 

and changes in ecosystem dynamics. The effectiveness 

of widespread assisted migration is not yet known 

(Williams and Dumroese 2013), and some have expressed 

concerns about the risk of introducing invasive species 

(Mueller and Hellman 2008). The fitness of species that 

are adapted to other sites may be negatively impacted 
198 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 8

when associations with key environmental factors are 

changed. Additionally, the introduction of nonlocal 

genotypes may cause outbreeding depression or a decline 

in fitness of subsequent generations due to infiltration 

of maladapted genotypes (Frankham 1995, Kramer and 

Havens 2009, Pertoldi et al. 2007). Nevertheless, gene 

flow from populations adapted to warmer climates may 

provide genetic variation and traits necessary to adapt 

to novel climatic conditions (Hampe and Petit 2005).

8.4

Gaps in the State of the Knowledge

There are inherent challenges to managing for NTFPs 

in a time of changing climate. Forest cover change, 

invasive species, and increased frequency and severity of 

extreme weather events all contribute to an environment 

of intensifying uncertainty. Most forest management 

is based on historical conditions. Today, we cannot be 

sure the past is an analog to future forest conditions.

Knowledge is essential to informed planning for 

and response to the effects of climatic variability 

on NTFPs. Unfortunately, there are significant 

gaps in the state-of-the-knowledge about all 

aspects of NTFP social-ecological systems. The 

knowledge needed to fill these gaps includes:

• Basic ecology of NTFP species particularly those with 

high social, cultural, and economic value.

• More detailed information on the abundance and 

distribution of major NTFPs and impacts of harvesting 

trends, disturbance, and land-use change.

• Social and ecological dynamics of NTFP management 

and use.

• Traditional and local ecological knowledge and 

practices related to NTFPs.

• Forest silviculture and management and harvest 

practices for NTFP species that addresses responses to 

climate-induced phenomena.

• Implications for food and health security.

• Climate modeling, projections, and risk-analysis at finer 

scales for entity-level decisionmaking and reporting on 

NTFPs.

8.5

Conclusions

Nontimber forest products have supported the 

peoples and cultures of the United States and its 

affiliated territories since before the founding of 

the Nation. Wild and forest farmed plants and 

fungi continue to sustain humans through personal 

consumption. They are sources of income for people 

who have limited options for other earnings and 

help to smooth chronic and occasional disruptions in 

household economies. NTFPs supply businesses from 

cottage industries to multinational corporations.

The plants and fungi from which NTFPs are derived 

number in the hundreds (appendix 4). Their responses to 

climate variability and change are proving to be diverse 

(see chapter 3). As ecological processes proceed, they 

will have social, cultural, and economic consequences. In 

some cases, the results may be favorable. It seems likely 

that in many more cases, short-term to mid-term results 

will be negative with potentially serious consequences.

Knowledge on the range of NTFP policy and 

management challenges posed by climatic variability 

is incomplete. This report identifies many potential 

outcomes and synthesizes the state of information on the 

social-ecological systems of wild plants and fungi used 

for food, medicine, and other purposes. Nevertheless, 

critical knowledge gaps remain. While there is yet much 

to learn, traditional, local, and scientific knowledge 

provide current bases for planning adaption and 

mitigation of the adverse impacts of climatic variability 

on NTFPs and the people who depend on them.

8.6 Literature Cited

Badeck, F.W.; Bondeau, A.; Bottcher, K. [and others]. 2004. Responses of 

spring phenology to climate change. New Phytologist. 162: 295–309.

Bellard, C.; Bertelsmeier, C.; Leadley, P. [and others]. 2012. Impacts of 

climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters. 15(4): 

365–377.

Bennett, T.M.B.; Maynard, N.G.; Cochran, P. [and others]. 2014. Indigneous 

peoples, lands, and resources. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, 

G.W., eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national 

climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 297–317.

Bennington, C.; McGraw, J. 1995. Natural selection and ecotypic 

differentiation in Impatiens pallida. Ecological Monographs. 65(3): 

303–324.

Brook, R.K.; McLachlan, S. 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge 

in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 17(14): 3501–3512.
CHAPTER 8 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 199

Cocks, M.L.; Wiersum, F. 2014. Reappraising the concept of biocultural 

diversity: a perspective from South Africa. Human Ecology. 42(5): 

727–737.

Davis, M.; Shaw, R.; Etterson, J. 2005. Evolutionary responses to changing 

climate. Ecology. 86: 1704–1714.

Emery, M.R. 2002. Space outside the market: implications of NTFP 

certification for subsistence use. In: Shanley, P.; Pierce, A.; Laird, S.; 

Guillen, A., eds. Tapping the green market: management and certification 

of NTFPs. London: Earthscan: 302–312.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1536, 1538–1540.

Etterson, J. 2004. Evolutionary potential of Chamaecrista fasciculata

in relation to climate change. I. clinal patterns of selection along an 

environmental gradient in the great plains. Evolution. 58(7): 1446–1456.

Fitzpatrick, M. 2010. Earlier spring brings misery to plant, animal species. 

Oregonlive. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/

earlier_spring_brings_misery _t.html. [Date accessed: January 10, 

2015].

Frankham, R. 1995. Conservation genetics. Annual Review of Genetics. 

29: 305–327.

George, S.; Snape, W.J., III; Senatore, M. 1998. State Endangered Species 

Acts: past, present and future. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 5 p.

Gregor, J.W. 1946. Ecotyptic differentiation. New Phytologist. 45: 254–270.

Hampe, A.; Petit, R.J. 2005. Conserving biodiversity under climate change: 

the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters. 8: 461–467. 

Heath, L.S.; Anderson, S.M.; Emery, M.R. [and others]. 2015. Indicators 

of climate impacts for forests: recommendations for the U.S. National 

Climate Assessment Indicators system. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-155. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 143 p.

Hembram, D.; Hoover, W.L. 2008. Nontimber forest products in Daniel 

Boone National Forest region—economic significance and potential for 

sustainability. In: Jacobs, D.F.; Michler, C.H., eds. 2008. Proceedings, 16th 

Central Hardwoods Forest Conference; 2008 April 8–9; West Lafayette, 

IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-24. Newton Square, PA: Northern Research 

Station: 148–156.

Hoffmann, A.; Sgrò, C.M. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. 

Nature. 470: 479–485.

Inouye, D. 2008. Effects of climate change on phenology, frost damage, and 

floral abundance of montane wildflowers. Ecology. 89(2): 353–362.

Jamieson, M.A.; Trowbridge, A.M.; Raffa, K.F. [and others]. 2012. 

Consequences of climate warming and altered precipitation patterns 

for plant-insect and multitrophic interactions. Plant Physiology. 160(4): 

1719–1727.

Kassam, K.A.; Karamkhudoeva, M.; Ruelle, M. [and others]. 2010. Medicinal 

plant use and health sovereignty: findings from the Tajik and Afghan 

Pamirs. Human Ecology. 38(6): 817–829.

Kramer, A.T.; Havens, K. 2009. Plant conservation genetics in a changing 

world. Trends in Plant Science. 14: 599–607.

Lacey Act of 1900; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J. [and others]. 2013. The impacts of climate 

change on tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556.

Mandle, L.; Ticktin, T. 2012. Interactions among fire, grazing, harvest and 

abiotic conditions shape palm demographic responses to disturbance. 

Journal of Ecology. 100: 997–1008.

Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate change 

impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. http://

nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

McGraw, J. 1985. Experimental ecology of Dryas octopetala ecotypes. III. 

Environmental factors and plant growth. Arctic and Alpine Research. 

17: 229–239.

McLachlan, J.S.; Hellman, J.J.; Schwartz, M.W. 2007. A framework for 

debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation 

Biology. 21(2): 297–302.

McLain, R.; Jones, E.T. 2002. Introduction. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: xvii–xxv. 

Mueller, J.M.; Hellman, J.J. 2008. An assessment of invasion risk from 

assisted migration. Conservation Biology. 22(3): 562–567.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate 

change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 37: 

637–669.

Parmesan, C.; Burrows, M.T.; Duarte, C.M. [and others]. 2013. Beyond 

climate change attribution in conservation and ecological research. 

Ecology Letters. 16(1): 58–71.

Parmesan, C.; Root, T.; Willig, M. 2000. Impacts of extreme weather and 

climate on terrestrial biota. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society. 81(3): 443–450.

Parmesan, C.; Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate 

change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 421: 37–42.

Pertoldi, C.; Bijlsma, R.; Loeschcke, V. 2007. Conservation genetics in a 

globally changing environment: present problems, paradoxes and future 

challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation. 16: 4147–4163.

Peterson, G.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S. 1998. Ecological resilience, 

biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems. 1: 6–18.

Pinsky, M.L.; Worm, N.; Fogarty, J.M. [and others]. 2013. Marine taxa track 

local climate velocities. Science. 341: 1239–1242.

Prasad, A.M.; Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.; Peters, M. 2007. A climate change 

atlas for 134 forest tree species of the eastern United States [database]. 

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree. [Date accessed: July 17, 2017].

Redzic, S. 2010. Use of wild and semi-wild edible plants in nutrition and 

survival of people in 1430 days of siege of Sarajevo during the war in 

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–1995). Collegium Antropologicum. 34(2): 

551–570.

Ryan, M.G.; Archer, S.R. 2008. Land resources: forests and arid lands. In: 

Backlund, P.; Janetos, A.; Hatfield, J. [and others], eds. The effects of 

climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources and 

biodiversity. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and 

the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency: 75–120.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible mushroom industry of 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho—a 1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 

93: 31–36.

Sherry, R.; Zhou, X.; Gu, S. [and others]. 2007. Divergence of reproductive 

phenology under climate warming. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences. 104(1): 198–202. 

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Thomas, C.; Cameron, A.; Green, R. 2004. Extinction risk from climate 

change. Nature. 427(6970): 145–148.

Tilman, D.; Downing, J.A. 1996. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. 

In: Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L., eds. Ecosystem management: selected 

readings. New York: Springer: 3–7.

Tingley, M.W.; Koo, M.S.; Moritz, C. [and others]. 2012. The push and pull of 

climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges. 

Global Change Biology. 18: 3279–3290.
200 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • CHAPTER 8

USDA. 2012. Plant hardiness zone map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service. http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/

PHZMWeb/. [Date accessed: January 14, 2015].

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J. [and others]. 2013. Cultural impacts 

to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 615–626.

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2012. Effects of climatic 

variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science 

synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 265 p.

Walther, G.R. 2010. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate 

change. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series 

B, Biological Sciences. 365: 2019–2024.

Williams, M.I.; Dumroese, R.K. 2013. Preparing for climate change: forestry 

and assisted migration. Journal of Forestry. 111(4): 287–297.

Wolkovich, E.M.; Cook, B.I.; Allen, J.M. [and others]. 2012. Warming 

experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate 

change. Nature. 485(7399): 494–497.
Appendixes
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 203

Appendix 1:Regional Summaries 

1 Grewe, N. 2009. Rural planning: the status of Alaska’s rural and indigenous communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural 

Sociological Society. Madison, WI: July 30–August 2.

Alaska

Nicole Grewe and Linda Kruger

Geography and Ownership

Alaska is a vast State covering 586,412 square miles, 

or approximately 375 million acres, an area roughly 

one-fifth the size of the contiguous United States. As 

the Nation’s “Last Frontier,” Alaska boasts its identity 

as the Nation’s largest state with the lowest population 

density (1.2 persons per square mile) (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014). An estimated one-third of Alaska is 

forested with 32 native tree species including coastal 

temperate and boreal rainforest, large expanses of 

subarctic forest or taiga, and riparian boreal forest 

located along river systems (Schroeder 2002). Of 

Alaska’s total land base, about 44 million acres belongs 

to Alaska Natives by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA 1980). The act resolved 

aboriginal land claims and divided Alaska Native 

lands among 12 native regional corporations and 

over 200 village corporations. ANCSA left about 322 

million acres under Federal, state, or local government 

ownership. Over one-half of Alaska’s total land remains 

in Federal ownership and is managed by a variety of 

agencies including the National Park Service, USDA 

Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau 

of Land Management. Apart from native corporation 

lands, very little of Alaska is in private ownership.

Population and Demographics

Nearly two-thirds of Alaska’s 2014 total population 

(735,601) is concentrated in the four urban communities 

of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan (Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

2015). Over three-quarters of Alaska communities are 

considered “rural” with populations less than 1,500 

residents.1 Approximately one-fifth of the population 

is Alaska Native including Yupik, Indian, and Aleut 

indigenous groups. There have been identified an 

additional 20 anthropologically distinct indigenous 

groups based on shared indigenous language and 

culture (Langdon 2002). In total, Alaska is home to 246 

federally recognized tribes with governing structures 

similar to city governments. Tribal governments 

generally represent local indigenous groups that maintain 

ties to geographic areas that have been traditionally 

used for fish, wildlife, and plant harvesting.

Alaska’s statewide racial composition continues to be 

dominated by Caucasian and Alaska Native. The Alaska 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

(2013) estimates approximately two-thirds of Alaskans 

are Caucasian (67 percent) and approximately onefifth are Alaska Native (15 percent). The remaining 18 

percent of the population is Asian (6 percent), African 

American (4 percent), Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1 

percent), or multiracial (7 percent). Alaskans of Hispanic 

origin comprise 7 percent of the total population. 

In 2011, the Anchorage School District reported 

90 different languages were spoken in Anchorage 

area schools (Anchorage School District 2012).

Alaska Natives and Rural Residents

Alaska Natives have resided in the state for over 

10,000 years. Many Alaska Natives participate in 

traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. 

Tlingits, Haidas, Tsimshians, and Athabaskans are the 

primary cultural groups using temperate rainforest for 

nontimber forest products. Early settlers also depended 

on Alaska’s fish, game, and forests for sustenance. 

Newer residents, especially those from outside the 

United States, have adopted the harvest and use of forest 

plants, animals, and fish as part of a natural resourcebased lifestyle commonly referred to as “subsistence.”

The term “subsistence” is used in a variety of ways 

(i.e., sustain, nourish, and give life), but remains a 

shared way of life for natives and nonnatives alike. 

Subsistence harvest activities are a cultural tradition 

with important economic implications for rural 

households and communities across Alaska (Thornton 

1998). The harvest and use of traditional foods provides 

connections to place, belief, and history that are 

particularly critical to maintaining native culture and 
204 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

identity. Historically, fish, marine and land mammals, 

and birds were main calorie sources for Alaska Natives; 

diets were supplemented with marine and terrestrial 

plants. Plants also provided medicines used to treat a 

normal range of human ailments and supported spiritual 

beliefs and practices (Garibaldi 1999, Thornton 1998). 

Over time, missionaries and colonists suppressed 

medicinal and spiritual practices and native cultures 

further lost faith in traditional practices and remedies 

after tragic epidemics. The transition from native 

language to English further fueled the loss of traditional 

knowledge and practices over time (Pilz et al. 2006).

Nontimber Forest Products

More than 75 forest plant species, with documented 

use as nontimber forest products, are utilized for 

edibles, medicinal products, arts and crafts materials, 

and other consumptive home uses (Garibaldi 1999). 

Nontimber forest products span seven primary product 

categories including: (1) arts, crafts, dyes, and floral 

greenery; (2) berries and wild fruits; (3) syrups, teas, 

and flavorings; (4) edible and medicinal plants; (5) 

native seeds; (6) edible mushrooms; and (7) medicinal 

fungi (Pilz et al. 2006; see also Garibaldi 1999).

A large quantity of arts and crafts products are produced 

with the wood and byproducts from trees including 

bark, limbs, roots, cones, berries, and boughs. Various 

plants provide leaves, berries, stems, and roots for display 

or dyes. Examples of artisan products include walking 

sticks, carvings, floral arrangements, wreaths, baskets, 

bowls, paintings, ornaments, (Chandonnet 1998) and 

high quality musical instruments and furniture. Yellow 

cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Oerst. ex 

D.P. Little), important for carving house poles and 

ceremonial masks and for weaving baskets, blankets, 

hats and other items is in decline (Hennon et al. 2012). 

Edibles, including fruits, mushrooms, and leaves, are 

harvested to make jams, jellies, syrups, sauces, teas, 

and toppings. The seeds of some plants, including 

fireweed and dwarf fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium

(L.) Holub, Epilobium latifolium (L.) Holub), seashore 

and Nootka lupine (Lupinus littoralis Dougl., Lupinus 

nootkatensis Donn ex Simms), and wild geranium 

(Geranium erianthum DC.), are collected, cleaned, and 

stored for later germination (Pilz et al. 2006). Devil’s 

club (Oplopanax horridus (Sm.) Miq.) and conks 

of wood have been historically used for medicinal 

purposes to treat a common range of human ailments 

(Pilz et al. 2006). Documentation of the economic 

value of nontimber forest products is, for the most part, 

unavailable, highlighting a significant research need.

Policies and Regulations

Alaska Natives, through their tribal governments, have 

agreements with the United States that reaffirm their 

access to and utilization of resources, for traditional, 

subsistence, and commercial uses. The Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA 1980) 

establishes that all rural residents be given “reasonable 

access to subsistence resources on the public lands.” 

Federal agencies and the state of Alaska have policies 

and manuals to facilitate collaboration, consultation, and 

planning to implement programs under this act (Alaska 

DNR 2010; Antypas et al. 2002; FWS 2012, 2014).

Federal legislation acknowledges nontimber forest 

product harvesting as an important physical, economic, 

traditional, and social activity for natives and nonnatives. 

ANILCA further defines subsistence use as: “The 

customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents 

of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family 

consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or 

transportation: for the making and selling of handicraft 

articles out of nonedible byproducts of fish and wildlife 

resources taken for personal or family consumption; for 

barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; 

and for customary trade.” In addition, ANILCA states 

“the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence 

uses by rural residents of Alaska, including Natives 

and non-Natives... is essential to Native physical, 

economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to 

non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and social 

existence.” Federal agencies periodically review and 

update subsistence and other harvest, access, and use 

regulations. Review routinely includes consultation 

with federally recognized Alaska Native tribes.

Literature Cited

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2013. Population 

by borough, census area, and economic region. http://live.laborstats.

alaska.gov/pop/index.cfm. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2015. Alaska 

local and regional information. http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/. 

[Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2010. State ANILCA 

coordination. Anchorage, AK: Department of Natural Resources. http://

dnr.alaska.gov/commis/opmp/anilca/more.htm.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 205

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] of 1980; 16 C.F.R. 

410hh. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/ALASKCN.HTML. [Date 

accessed: August 11, 2017]. 

Anchorage School District. 2012. Languages spoken at ASD. http://www.

asdk12.org/aboutasd/languages/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Antypas, A.; McLain, R.J.; Gilden, J. [and others]. 2002. Federal nontimber 

forest products policy and management. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 347–374.

Chandonnet, A. 1998. Alaska’s arts, crafts and collectables. Anchorage, AK: 

Todd Communications. 214 p.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. National Wildlife Refuge System 

policies. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/refugepolicies.

html. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Fish and Wildife Service (FWS). 2014. Legislative mandates and authorities. 

Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/mandates.html. [Date 

accessed: August 11, 2017].

Garibaldi, A. 1999. Medicinal flora of the Alaska Natives. Anchorage, AK: 

University of Alaska Anchorage. 197 p.

Hennon, P.E.; D’Amore, D.V.; Schaberg, P.G. [and others]. 2012. Shifting 

climate altered niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy for yellow 

cedar in the North Pacific coast rainforest. BioScience. 62: 147–158.

Langdon, S.J. 2002. The native people of Alaska: traditional living in a 

northern land. 4th edition. Anchorage: Greatland Graphics. 128 p.

Pilz, D.; Alexander, S.J.; Smith, J. [and others]. 2006. Nontimber forest 

product opportunities in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-671. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 79 p.

Schroeder, R. 2002. Contemporary subsistence use of nontimber forest 

products in Alaska. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. 

Nontimber forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KA: University 

Press of Kansas: 300–326.

Thornton, T.F. 1998. Alaska Native subsistence: a matter of cultural survival. 

Cultural Survival Quarterly. 22(3): 29–34. https://culturalsurvival.org/

ourpublications/csq/article/alaska-native-subsistence-a-matter-ofcultural-survival.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State and county quickfacts. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/

quickfacts/fact/table/US#viewtop. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Hawai’i and the U.S.-Affiliated 

Tropical Islands of the Pacific

Katie Kamelamela and Kathleen S. Friday

The Hawaiian Archipelago was created from a volcanic 

hotspot starting millions of years ago, and now 

stretches over 1,500 miles (figure A1.1). Hawai’i is the 

southernmost State, the most isolated and one of the 

most populous places in the world (Juvik and Juvik 

1998). From youngest to oldest, the inhabited islands are 

Hawai’i, Mãui, Kaho’olawe, Lãna’i, Moloka’i, O’ahu, 

Kaua’i and Ni’ihau. The uninhabited northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands are poetically referred to by Native 

Hawaiians as the “ancestral islands” which extend from 

Nihoa to Kure Atoll. The U.S.-affiliated islands of the 

Pacific include islands of Polynesia and Micronesia. 

Today, there is a continuum of subsistence to commercial 

gathering and management of NTFPs across these islands.

Pre-Western agroforestry practitioners and NTFP 

gatherers followed practices passed down to them over 

centuries and sometimes guarded as family secrets, as 

in the case of yams (Dioscorea spp.) in Pohnpei (Raynor 

and Fownes 1993). Many Pacific island residents now 

practice agroforestry with less benefit of traditional 

ecological knowledge and/or more concentration on 

recently introduced or cash crops. This includes younger 

generations, inter-island migrants now practicing on 

a different island (with different soils or climate), and 

migrants and contract laborers with their own cultural 

practices and crop preferences. Landowners grow 

fruit trees and other crops in home gardens or simpler 

plantation or orchard systems. NTFPs are primary 

forest products, for nutrition, cultural practices, cash 

income and practical everyday life in the islands.

Land Area in Nontimber 

Forest Product Production

Active management of NTFPs primarily takes place 

in private agroforestry systems, which comprise up 

to 85 percent of the forested areas of some islands 

(Table A1.1). Access to NTFPs harvested from public 

lands varies with who controls those lands.

In the state of Hawai’i people of diverse socioeconomic 

backgrounds gather forest products year round, from the 

mountain to the sea. The rights of Native Hawaiians, and 

Figure A1.1—Map of Hawai’i and Pacific islands. (Source: 

Olga Ramos, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry.)
206 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

the general populace, to gather NTFPs are codified in the 

State Constitution (Article 12 Section 7; Hawai’i Revised 

Statutes sections 1-1 and 7-1 (1993)). To gather resources 

from State of Hawai’i forest reserves, citizens request 

personal, commercial or cultural use permits from the 

Department of Forestry and Wildlife. To gather resources 

on private property, permission is requested from the 

owner. Consent is also required for gathering where 

permitted by the military, National Parks, and other 

Federal lands. Factors that restrict NTFP productivity 

include ungulates, invasive species, water diversion, 

urbanization, national security, and climate change.

The situation in the affiliated-islands varies, greatly. The 

laws of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI) set aside some public land 

exclusively for Chamorros and people of Northern 

Marianas descent (Chamorros and Carolinians), and 

govern access to Territory-owned and Commonwealthowned forest lands. Much of the Marianas’ forest 

land is held by the United States military and access to 

NTFPs is restricted. Indigenous Pacific islanders still 

form majorities in American Samoa and the “Compact” 

nations, which have their own Constitutions, regulations, 

authorities and policies governing land tenure and 

access to and use of NTFPs. Forested land is generally 

privately owned, held under traditional land tenure 

systems or owned by local governments. The exceptions 

are Kwajelein military base (Marshall Islands) and the 

National Park in American Samoa, which is leased 

and allows “traditional” practices (ASCC 2010).

Nontimber Forest Product 

Practices and Species

People of the affialiated islands depend on NTFPs 

for food and medicine. The richness of Pacific island 

medicinal ethnobotanical tradition is illustrated by 

the 60 plant species used as medicine in just one 

Marshallese village. Even newly introduced plants are 

used medicinally by some people (National Biodiversity 

Team 2000). General information about such medicinal 

uses has been published through collaborations between 

researchers and Pohnpeian experts (Balick 2009, Kitalong 

et al. 2011), but detailed knowledge is held closely by 

traditional healers. Trees, such as breadfruits (Artocarpus

species and hybrids), coconut (Cocos nucifera L.), Citrus

spp., mango (Mangifera indica L.), avocado (Persea

americana Mill.), and soursop (Anonona muricata L.) 

and other Annona spp. provide daily food items. Staple 

carbohydrates grown in agroforestry systems, includine 

yams, bananas (French plantain, Musa × paradisiaca 

L.), and the aroids (cocoyam, Colocasia esculenta L. 

Schott; giant taro, Alocasia macrorrhiza (L.) Schott; 

gallan, Cyrtosperma merkusii (Hassk.) Schott; and 

arrowleaf elephant’s ear, Xanthosoma sagittifolium 

(L.) Schott). The leaves eaves of taro (C. esculenta L. 

Schott) and various shrubs are collected to eat, as well.

Table A1.1—Agroforest and forest ownership in Hawai’i and U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands. Sources: ASCC 2010; Biza 2012; CNMI 2010; 

Cole et al. 1987, 1988; Donnegan et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c; Gon et al. 2006; Guam 2010; National Biodiversity Team 2000; 

Republic of Palau 2010.

State or U.S.-affiliated 

Pacific Island 

jurisdiction

Total area 

(acres)

Multistrata agroforest Forest ownership by jurisdiction (% total forest area)

Acres

% of total 

forest

Private or 

communal

Local 

government Jurisdiction Federal (U.S.)

Hawai’i 4,127,337 n/a n/a 47 44 9

American Samoa 49,280 15,510 35 ≤ 96 n/a ≥ 4 0

Republic of the 

Marshall Islands

44,800 20,000 85 100 0 0 0

Federated States of 

Micronesia

149,804 35,655 25 27–100 

(varies by State)

0–73

(varies by State)

0 0

Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana 

Islands

113,280 1,313 3 n/a Almost 50 n/a

Guam 135,680 1,921 2 51 0 19 29

Republic of Palau 114,560 2,740 4 ~ 30 ~ 70 0 0
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 207

Figure A1.2—An ahupua’a, a patchwork of nontimber forest 

products management areas between mauka (mountain) and makai 

(ocean) resources (Minerbi 1999).

A single farm may have several dozen species, and the 

Pacific at large has dozens to hundreds of cultivars of 

important crops such as yams (Raynor et al. 1992), 

breadfruit (Zerega et al. 2004), and bananas (Englberger 

et al. 2006). Fiber is obtained from a wide variety of 

products including mats and basketry from Pandanus

spp., textiles in Yap (bananas, Musa spp.; sea hibiscus, 

Hibiscus tiliaceus L.), cordage from coconut, and 

thatch from nipa palm, (Nypa fruticans (Wurmb)).

Native and introduced woods are closely tied to Pacific 

cultural lifestyles, primarily harvested and utilized 

on the same island. The traditional Samoan open fale 

(meetinghouse or guesthouse) is characterized by support 

posts (often simpleleaf bushweed, Flueggea acidoton 

(L.) G.L. Webster) arranged in an oval, roofed with 

a structure of poles and decorated with carving and 

woven sennit. Canoes, iconic for traditional fishing and 

historical navigation, are based on a hull fashioned from 

a large log. In Kosrae, the preferred wood comes from 

Terminalia (Terminalia carolinensis Kaneh.), while atoll 

islanders use planks made from breadfruit (Artocarpus 

altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg). Wood is used as fuel in large 

earthen pit ovens and meals from such ovens are integral 

to funerals, weddings, and other culturally significant 

gatherings. Artisans traditionally made a wide variety 

of tools, implements, and decorative architectural 

features from wood. Many such items are made today, 

such as ceremonial kava bowls made of matoa, Pometia 

pinnata (J.R.Forst. & G.Forst) from American Samoa; 

storyboards depicting legends from Palau carved from 

Honduras mahogany, Swietenia macrophylla (King); 

and sharks and other figures from Pohnpei carved from 

cedar mangrove, Xylocarpus granatum (K.D.Koenig).

Many people who live or manage resources in Hawai’i do 

so through an ahupua’a (figure A1.2) land management 

framework that is unique to Hawai’i. An ahupua‘a is a 

traditional land and cultural resource management unit 

with a source of water, such as a stream or subsurface 

flow that physically connect the mountains to the sea. 

Each ahupua’a has a name that reflects characteristics 

of the place. The ahupua’a of ‘Aiea bears the common 

name (‘aiea) of the endemic genus Nothocestrum (Pukui 

and Elbert 1986), and Mokihana valley and stream are 

named for the mokihana (Pelea anisata) tree that is only 

found on Kaua’i, where its flowers and seeds are strung 

into lei that represents Kaua’i (Pukui et al. 1976).

Subsistence gathering no longer meets all the needs 

of the Hawaiian community, although it continues to 

have significant economic, social, and cultural role 

(Kuokkanen 2011). Plant parts gathered include leaves, 

flowers, bark, inner bark, sap, seeds, fruit, stems, roots, 

fronds, timber and whole plants for the use of food, 

firewood, ceremony, lei (garlands), lā’au (medicine), 

mea kaua (weapons), hula (traditional dance), baskets, 

crafts, for fishing, celebrations, adornment, and 

more. Within Hawai’i there are limited data related 

to Native Hawaiians who gather resources from the 

forest and even less is known of NTFPs gathered 

by people of other cultures who have adapted and 

made Hawai’i home (i.e., Japanese, Chinese, Korean, 

Tongan, Samoan, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Kosraean, 

Americans). In all, NTFP subsistence choices significantly 

and actively contribute to Hawai’i’s shared economy 

and the cohesion of family traditions and values.

Data related to Hawai’i NTFP harvesting are focused 

nearly exclusively on hula plants (Blair-Stain 2010; 

Ticktin et al. 2006, 2007). The practice of hula is 

dependent on many NTFPs (Anderson-Fung and 

Maly 2009). Native NTFP resources are critical to 

the ceremony of the kuahu  ̃ , or the hula altar, as well 
208 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

as to the ceremonial adornment of the dancer with 

ferns (palapalai, Microlepia strigosa; and Chinese 

creeping fern or pala’a, Sphenomeris chinensis), flowers 

(‘ohi’a Lehua, Metrosideros polymorpha; and a’ali’i, 

Dodonaea viscosa), leaves (‘ohi’a Lehua; koa, Acacia 

koa), and vines (maile, Alyxia oliviformis; and ‘ie’ie, 

Freycinetia arborea) (Garcia 2002). Ticktin et al. (2006, 

2007) have demonstrated that the removal of invasive 

species by hula practitioners benefits ecosystems.

Threats and Challenges 

Posed by Climate Change

Pacific weather and sea level conditions are characterized 

by high natural variability; it is difficult to measure 

and separate the effects of long-term climate change 

from the El Niño—Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 

(NOAA 2014) and decadal oscillations (Leong et 

al. 2014). ENSO-related precipitation variability is 

predicted to intensify with long-term global warming 

(IPCC 2014). Further, each island’s topography 

affects its orographic rainfall, water storage 

capacity, and susceptibility to coastal flooding.

Nevertheless, measurable trends are being recorded, 

which may affect island NTFPs. A 15 percent decline in 

annual rainfall has been observed in the eastern islands 

of the subregion (the Marshall Islands, Kosrae, and 

Pohnpei), and slight increases in average rainfall have 

been observed in the western islands (the Marianas, 

Yap, and Palau). Models for the region predict increases 

in average rainfall and temperature by the end of the 

century (Leong et al. 2014). Extreme precipitation 

events are predicted to become more intense and 

more frequent, bringing wind, rain, and storm surges 

(IPCC 2014). In Hawai’i, average precipitation has 

been declining for nearly a century, but climate models 

generally predict average increases of up to 5 percent in 

the main Hawaiian islands and decreases of up to 10 

percent in the northwestern islands (Leong et al. 2014).

Potential and Limitations to Nontimber 

Forest Products and Climatic Variability

Upland forests and agroforests—Increases in temperature 

and changes in average rainfall will change conditions 

for wild and cultivated NTFPs. The increased variability 

in rainfall is likely to favor adaptable and invasive 

species. Even where forest cover is intact or agroforest 

cover is complex and continuous, heavy rainfall can 

cause mass wasting events that devastate watersheds. 

For example, Typhoon Chata’an caused several hundred 

landslides in Chuuk, including many that carried 

away entire agroforests and soil from some plots and 

inundated other plots with debris and mud (USGS 

2002). Droughts can lead to increases in wildfires, 

which hinder restoration of forests on the dry sides 

of Hawai’i’s largest islands, and the western Pacific 

islands with dry seasons. High-elevation ecosystems 

in Hawai’i are beginning to show the effects of higher 

temperatures combined with drought (Leong et al. 2014).

Atolls—While Hawai’i’s atolls are not inhabited, they 

are home of entire communities in Micronesia and 

the entire nation of the Marshall Islands. Atolls are 

particularly vulnerable to droughts because of their 

small freshwater lenses and lack of orographic rainfall. 

As sea level rises, saltwater intrusion during high water 

events will contaminate fresh groundwater. Increased 

groundwater salinity may reduce or eliminate the 

ability of low coral islands to support breadfruit and 

taro (Manner 2014). Storm surges and other high 

water events on top of the high sea levels recently 

experienced in the western Pacific have already led to 

salinization of coastal taro paddies (Keener et al. 2012).

Mangrove forests—Mangrove forests comprise 16 percent 

of forested acreage in the high islands of Palau and 

the Federated States of Micronesia (Cole et al. 1987, 

Falanruw et al. 1987a, 1987b; MacLean et al. 1986; 

Whitesell et al. 1986). Pacific islanders obtain NTFPs 

from mangrove forests including poles, fuelwood, and 

carving wood, as well as thatch from N. fruticans palms. 

Mangroves are vulnerable to current rates of global sea 

level rise (Keener et al. 2012). Mangroves at the seaward 

edge are expected to die off as sea levels rise because 

roots cannot get enough oxygen in consistently deeper 

waters. At the landward edge, mangroves might colonize 

new land where rising sea levels give them a competitive 

advantage over non-mangrove species, thus causing 

the landward edge of the mangrove forest to migrate 

inland. The substrates of mangrove ecosystems are very 

dynamic; rates of deposition and erosion of sediment 

change with every tide and every season, with human 

management of soils upslope, and with human impacts 

on nearshore currents. Gilman et al. (2007) predicted 

a 12-percent decrease in the extent of mangrove forests 

in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands by 2100, implying 

decreases in NTFP resources and ecosystem services.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 209

Literature Cited

American Samoa Community College [ASCC]. 2010. American Samoa forest 

assessment and resource strategy, 2011–2015. Pago Pago, American 

Samoa: American Samoa Community College. 62 p. 

Anderson-Fung, P.; Maly, K. 2009. Hawaiian ecosystems and culture; why 

growing plants for lei helps to preserve Hawai’i’s natural and cultural 

heritage. Honolulu: College of Tropical and Human Resources. 32 p.

Balick, M.J., ed. 2009. Ethnobotany of Pohnpei: plants, people, and island 

culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. 585 p.

Blair-Stahn, C.K. 2010. The hula dancer as environmentalist: (re-) 

indigenizing sustainability through a holistic perspective on the role of 

nature in hula. In: Te Rito, J.S.; Healy, S.M., eds. Recognising, engaging 

understanding difference. 4th International Traditional Knowledge 

Conference; 2010 June 6–9; Aukland, New Zealand. Aukland, New 

Zealand: University of Auckland: 60–64.

Biza, S. 2012. Micronesia—Important Forest Resource Areas (IFRA) 

mapping analysis—Forest Services programs. Kolonia, Pohnpei, 

Federated States of Micronesia: College of Micronesia. 46 p. 

Cole, T.G.; Falanruw M.C.; MacLean, C.D. [and others]. 1987. Vegetation 

survey of the Republic of Palau. Resour. Bull. PSW-22. Berkeley, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 13 p.

Cole, T.G.; Whitesell C.D.; Whistler W.A. [and others]. 1988. Vegetation 

survey and forest inventory, American Samoa. Resour. Bull. PSW-25. 

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 14 p.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI]. 2010. Statewide 

assessment and resource strategy 2010–2015+. Saipan: CNMI, 

Department of Lands and Natural Resources. 77 p. http://www.

forestactionplans.org/states/northern-mariana-islands. [Date accessed: 

April 2014].

Donnegan, J.A.; Butler, S.L.; Grabowiecki, W. [and others]. 2004a. Guam’s 

forest resources, 2002. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-243. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 32 p. 

Donnegan, J.A.; Butler, S.L.; Kuegler, O.; Hiserote, B.A. 2011a. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’ forest resources, 2004. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p. 

Donnegan, J.A.; Butler, S.L.; Kuegler, O.; Hiserote, B.A. 2011b. Federated 

States of Micronesia’s forest resources, 2006. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-262. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 56 p. 

Donnegan, J.A.; Mann, S.S.; Butler, S.L.; Hiserote, B.A. 2004b. American 

Samoa’s forest resources, 2001. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-244. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 32 p. 

Donnegan, J.A.; Trimble, S.T.; Kusto, K. [and others]. 2011c. Republic of the 

Marshall Islands’ forest resources, 2008. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-263. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 36 p. 

Englberger, L.; Schierle, J.; Aalbersberg, W. [and others]. 2006. Carotenoid 

and vitamin content of karat and other Micronesian banana cultivars. 

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 57(5/6): 399–418.

Falanruw, M.; Cole, T.G.; Ambacher, A.H. [and others]. 1987a. Vegetation 

survey of Moen, Dublon, Fefan, and Eten, State of Truk, Federated States 

of Micronesia. Resour. Bull. PSW-20. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 6 p.

Falanruw, M.V.C.; Whitesell, C.D.; Cole, T.G. [and others]. 1987b. Vegetation 

survey of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. Resour. Bull. PSW-21. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 9 p.

Garcia, S.N.K. 2002. E na halau hula, nana kakou ia laka (look to the source): 

finding balance between the practice of hula forest gathering and the 

ecological realities of Hawai’i’s native forests. Honolulu: University of 

Hawai’i at Manoa.

Gilman, E.; Ellison, J.; Coleman, R. 2007. Assessment of mangrove response 

to projected relative sea-level rise and recent historical reconstruction 

and shoreline position. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 124: 

105–130.

Gon, S.M.; Allison, A.; Cannarella, R. [and others]. 2006. A GAP analysis 

of Hawai’i. Honolulu: U.S. Geological Survey and University of Hawai’i. 

[CD-ROM]. 

Guam. 2010. Guam statewide forest resource assessment and resource 

strategy 2010–2015. Mangilao, Guam: Department of Agriculture, 

Forestry & Soil Resources Division. 142 p. http://www.forestactionplans.

org/states/guam. [Date accessed: April 2014].

Hawai’i Revised Statute SS 1-1 (1993).

Hawai’i Revised Statute SS 7-1 (1993).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate change 

2014 synthesis report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorologic 

Organization and U.N. Environment Programme. http://www.ipcc.ch/

report/ar5/syr/. [Date accessed: January 28, 2015].

Juvik, S.; Juvik, J. 1998. Atlas of Hawai’i. 3rd ed. Honolulu: University of 

Hawai’i Press.

Keener, V.W.; Marra, J.J.; Finucane, M.L. [and others], eds. 2012. Climate 

change and Pacific Islands: indicators and impacts—report for the 2012 

Pacific Islands regional climate assessment. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 199 p.

Kitalong, A.H.; Balick, M.J.; Rehuher, F. [and others]. 2011. Plants, people 

and culture in the villages of Oikull and Ibobang, Republic of Palau. 

In: Liston, J.; Clark, J.; Alexander, J.G., eds. Pacific Island heritage: 

archeology, identity & community. Canberra: Australian National 

University E Press: 63–84.

Kuokkanen, R. 2011. Indigenous economies, theories of subsistence, and 

women: exploring the social economy model for indigenous governance. 

American Indian Quarterly. 35(2): 215–240.

Leong, J.A.; Marra, J.J.; Finucane, M.L. [and others]. 2014. Hawai’i and U.S. 

affiliated Pacific Islands. In: Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., 

eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national 

climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research 

Program: 537–556. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/. 

[Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

MacLean, C.D.; Cole, T.G.; Whitesell, C.D. [and others]. 1986. Vegetation 

survey of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Resour. Bull. PSW18. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 9 p.

Manner, H.I. 2014. Sustainable traditional agricultural systems of the Pacific 

Islands. In: Elevitch, C.R., ed. Food-producing agroforestry landscapes of 

the Pacific. Holualoa, Hawai’i: Permanent Agriculture Resources (PAR). 

http://agroforestry.org. [Date accessed: September 27, 2014].

Minerbi, L. 1999. Indigenous management models and the protection of the 

Ahupuaa. In: Ibrahim Aoude’, ed. Social Process in Hawai’i. Honolulu: 

University of Hawai’i. 10 p.

National Biodiversity Team. 2000. The Marshall Islands, living atolls amidst 

the living sea: the national biodiversity report of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands. Santa Clarita, CA: St. Hildegard Publishing Company. 

345 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. 2014. Pacific 

ENSO Update. 20(3). 12 p. https://www.weather.gov/media/peac/PEU/

PEU_v20_n3.pdf. [Date accessed: November 14, 2014].

Pukui, M.K.; Elbert, S. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary: Hawaiian–English, 

English–Hawaiian. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai’i. 572 p.
210 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Pukui, M.K.; Elbert, S; Mookini, E. 1976. Place names of Hawai’i. Honolulu: 

University Press of Hawai’i. 310 p.

Raynor, W.; Fownes, J. 1993. An indigenous Pacific Island agroforestry 

system: Pohnpei Island. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-140. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 55 p.

Raynor, W.C.; Lorence, A.; Phillip, J. 1992. Traditional yam cultivation on 

Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia. Economic Botany. 46(1): 

25–33. 

Republic of Palau. 2010. The Republic of Palau statewide assessment of 

forest resources and resource strategy—A comprehensive analysis of 

forest-related conditions, trends, threats and opportunities. Ngerulmud, 

Palau: Republic of Palau, Bureau of Agriculture, Forestry Section. 106 p.

Ticktin, T.; Fraiola, H.; Whitehead, A.N. 2007. Nontimber forest product 

harvesting in alien-dominated forests: effects of frond-harvest and 

rainfall on the demography of two native Hawaiian ferns. Biodiversity 

and Conservation. 16(6): 1633–1651.

Ticktin, T.; Whitehead, A.N.; Fraiola, H. 2006. Traditional gathering of 

native hula plants in alien-invaded Hawaiian forests: adaptive practices, 

impacts on alien invasive species and conservation implications. 

Environmental Conservation. 33 (03): 185–194.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Part A: landslide reconnaissance and 

hazard evaluation. In: Landslides triggered by Typhoon Chata’an in Chuuk 

State, Federated States of Micronesia. Preliminary report of Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mission assignment subtask 

1427-DR-FM-COE-POD-05 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 9 p. 

Whitesell, C.D.; MacLean, C.D.; Falanruw, M.C.; Ambacher, A.H. 1986. 

Vegetation survey of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. Resour. 

Bull. PSW-17. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research. 8 p.

Zerega, J.C.; Ragone, D.; Motley, T. 2004. Complex origins of breadfruit 

(Artocarpus altilis, Moraceae): implications for human migrations in 

Oceania. American Journal of Botany. 91(5): 760–766. 

Northwest

Frank K. Lake

Land Area

The Northwest region of the United States encompasses 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (Melillo et al. 2014). 

Climatically, the southern area and western valleys of 

this region are more Mediterranean, with the coastal 

and Puget Sound areas having maritime influence. The 

interior areas, east of the Cascades, are continental 

climate-influenced zones (Kunkel et al. 2013). The region 

is geologically and topographically diverse, having soils 

of different sedimentary, metamorphic, volcanic, and 

ultramafic origin among others. The soils and climate 

affect potential vegetation. Across the Northwest, the 

diversity of ecoregions, ecosystems, and habitats support 

a wide variety of NTFPs harvested for various reasons 

and purposes. The associated disturbances of climate 

change, such as drought, wildfires, and insect outbreaks, 

are affecting the habitat quality and access to valued 

NTFPs in this region. These physical and biological 

conditions influence the condition and production of 

ecosystem services, such as NTFPs, utilized by public 

and other harvester communities across the Northwest.

Nontimber Forest Product 

Harvesters and Species

Human settlement in the region ranges from remote rural 

communities to densely populated cities with culturally 

diverse populations. Residents of the Northwest 

harvest hundreds of NTFPs for cultural, subsistence, 

recreational craft, and commercial purposes (Hansis 

et al. 2001). Many American Indians in the region 

harvest NTFPs for purposes associated with culture, 

spiritual, ceremonial, and subsistence practices on and 

off reservations in ceded ancestral territories (Flood 

and McAvoy 2007; Turner and Cocksedge 2001). 

Increased awareness of and opportunities for commercial 

harvesting of NTFPs has created conflict and competition 

among some harvester groups (Hansis et al. 2001).

The main basketry plants of use are California beaked 

hazel (Corylus cornuta subspec. californica (A. DC.) E. 

Murray), conifers (Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis (Bong.) 

Carrière; cedars, western red, Thuja plicata Donn. ex

D.Don and Alaskan Yellow- Callitropsis nootkatensis

(D.Don); and pine, Pinus sp.), and common beargrass 

(Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.). A few species of 

lichens and berries are used as dyes for baskets. Poles or 

uniquely shaped branches from conifers and hardwoods 

are used in subsistence fishing and hunting activities 

for construction material for frames, scaffolds, traps 

or cages, and implements (e.g., clubs, adz handles). 

Iconic and well known from the tribes of this region are 

carvings (totem poles, masks, bowls, animal figures) 

and other ceremonial sacred or artisan craft items from 

Alaskan Yellow and redcedar wood and bark. Food 

resources of significance are huckleberries (Vaccinium

spp.), other berries (salmon, thimble, black cap raspberry, 

and trailing), serviceberry (Saskatoon, Amelanchier 

alnifolia (Nutt.) Nutt.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana

L.), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea (Pursh) 

Nutt.), as well as roots (wild celeries, Lomatium spp.) 

and geophytes (small camas, Camassia quamash (Pursh) 

Greene), lilies (Liliaceae spp., Calochortus spp., Lilium, 

spp.), and onions, Allium, spp., and a few mosses and 

ferns (Lynn et al. 2013). Teas made from foliage, bark and 

roots of shrubs and trees also are medicinal importance. 

Collection of NTFPs (food and medicine) by tribal 
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 211

members was reported to be impacted by management 

operations on national forests (Flood and McAvoy 2007).

Ecological and Social Implications 

of Changing Climate

The Northwest climate is projected to increase in winter 

temperature, with warmer winters and hotter-drier 

summers. Precipitation regimes may shift, in response 

to global storm systems potentially bringing more 

precipitation to the region in some areas, but generally 

a trend of similar conditions is expected across the 

region until 2050 (Fettig et al. 2013, Kunkel et al. 

2013, Littell 2012). Increased temperatures will shift 

the proportion of snow and rain delivery across the 

coastal to interior gradient, as well as an increase in 

total amount of precipitation falling as rain. Warmer 

and drier conditions will continue to increase wildfire 

activity resulting in larger and potentially higher severity 

fires across the forests found in the range of climatic 

zones. Fire regimes are anticipated to change across 

the coast range and Olympic peninsula, interior valleys 

(Bachelet et al. 2011), Cascades, and interior mountain 

ranges that will influence the recovery of vegetation 

in the areas burned. Increases in pests, diseases, and 

pathogens are anticipated. In particular, several conifer 

trees that dominate forests are expected to have increase 

insect outbreaks (e.g., defoliators and bark beetles) 

(Fettig et al. 2013, Little 2012). Douglas-fir and pines 

are expected to decrease across the Northwest (Littell 

2012). A decline in the current climatically suitable 

range for many tree species is anticipated in the region 

by 2080 (see Coops and Waring 2011 in Littell 2012). 

In many cases, desired qualities, spatial distribution, 

and abundance of NTFP species are associated with a 

particular forest seral stage, time since disturbance, or 

severity of the disturbance. Challenges likely will arise 

around the temporal and spatial periodicity of NTFPs 

based on the type of disturbance and integrity of the 

habitats. Many of the ecological or climatic niches 

of valued NTFPs are anticipated to remain the same, 

but as the environment changes, so will the ranges of 

many species in response to disturbance (Fettig et al. 

2013). The capacity of NTFP harvesters to anticipate 

when and where valued NTFPs will occur across the 

landscape in response to climate associated disturbances 

is an evolving adaptive social-ecological system.

In the Columbia Plateau, and across the coastal 

Northwest, tribes depend on NTFPs for food, materials, 

and medicines. Prolonged droughts and changing fire 

regimes are impacting NTFP resources important to 

tribes (Chief et al. 2014). The primary NTFP food 

resources of tribal significance at risk are huckleberries 

and other berry producing shrubs, perennial forbs 

that are harvested for their roots and greens, as well 

as mushrooms (Lynn et al. 2013). Many tribes are 

working with agencies and organizations to conduct 

climate assessments that identify risk and vulnerability 

to valued natural and cultural resources. From these 

assessments, managers are developing adaptation 

and mitigation strategies to identified threats and 

stressor and how best to plan and respond. NTFPs 

in tribal reservations and under tribal management 

are jurisdictionally constrained (Chief et al. 2014). 

Coordination and consultation with tribes to preserve 

access to NTFPs within their ancestral territory, but 

outside tribal reservations, will be particularly important.

Land and resource managers may have to consider how 

access and opportunities to harvest NTFPs for the general 

public change due to climate driven processes (von Hagen 

and Fight 1999). Given the size and importance of the 

commercial NTFP sector in the region, understanding 

the potential ecological and social impacts of climate 

on high value, high use NTFPs will be necessary to 

formulate mitigation and adaptation strategies (Lynn 

et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). As forest extraction 

and product industries change in response to climate 

and disturbance, many communities that rely on NTFPs 

for subsistence (e.g., food security) and commerce 

(e.g., economic security) may be affected (Carroll et 

al. 2010, Lal et al. 2011, Sohngen and Sedjo 2005).

Regulatory Context and Responses

As disturbance regimes change in response to extreme 

weather events, prolonged drought, and increased 

wildfire (Fettig et al. 2013, Littell 2012), NTFP resources 

will be impacted at the ecosystem, habitat, species and 

individual harvester scales (Turner and Clifton 2009). 

If climate change contributes to extreme weather events 

that effect pollination, plant vigor and development, or 

habitat quality impacts to high-valued NTFP resource as 

well as harvester communities, will have to be explored 

and understood by researchers and managers (Jones 

and Lynch 2007). Increasing the resilience of forest 

habitats to the threats of climate change to support NTFP 

harvesting will require adaptability and socioeconomic 

resilience of the harvesters (Carroll et al. 2010).
212 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

A variety of laws, policies, and regulations govern the 

access to and harvesting of NTFPs. Many American 

Indians in the region retain treaty rights for harvesting 

NTFPs for traditional cultural purposes on public and 

private lands (Cultural Heritage Cooperative Authority 

of 2008). Nonnative harvesters are subject to Federal 

or state regulatory and permitting requirements set 

at national, regional or local jurisdictions. There is a 

recognized need for NTFP harvesters and commercial 

buyers to participate more in understanding the 

impacts of current policies and with the development 

of additional policies and regulations (McLain 

and Jones 2001; see also chapter 7). Carroll et al. 

(2003) identify the need to improve the classification 

of NTFP harvesters beyond commercial versus 

recreational in policies and regulatory enforcement.

Literature Cited

Bachelet, D.; Johnson, B.R.; Bridgham, S.D. [and others]. 2011. Climate 

change impacts on Western Pacific northwest prairies and savannas. 

Northwest Science. 85(2): 411–429. 

Carroll, M.S.; Blanter, K.A.; Cohn, P.J. 2003 Somewhere between: social 

embeddedness and the spectrum of wild edible huckleberry harvest and 

use. Rural Sociology. 68(3): 319–342.

Carroll, M.S.; Daniels, S.E.; Kusel, J. 2010. Employment and displacement 

among Northwestern forest products workers. Society and Natural 

Resources. 13(2): 151–156. 

Chief, K.; Daigle, J.J.; Lynn, K.; Whyte, K. P. 2014. Indigenous experiences 

in the U.S. with climate change and environmental stewardship in the 

Anthropocene. In: Sample, V.A.; Bixler, R.P., eds. Forest conservation and 

management in the Anthropocene: conference proceedings. Proceedings. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-P-71. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161–176. 

Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority of 2008; 25 U.S.C. 32a § 3055-

3057. 

Fettig, C.J.; Reid, M.L.; Bentz, B.J. [and others]. 2013. Changing climates, 

changing forests: a western North American perspective. Journal of 

Forestry. 111(3): 214–228. 

Flood, J.P.; McAvoy, L.H. 2007. Use of national forest by Salish-Kootenai 

tribal members: traditional recreation and a legacy of cultural values. 

Leisure/Loisir. 31(1): 191–216.

Hansis, R.; Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J. 2001. Recent trends: nontimber forest 

product pickers in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 

13(3–4): 141–146. 

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K.A. 2007. Nontimber forest products and biodiversity 

management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 

246: 29–37.

Kunkel, K.E.; Stevens, L.E.; Stevens, S.E. [and others]. 2013. Regional 

climate trends and scenarios for the U.S. national climate assessment. 

Part 6. Climate of the Northwest U.S., NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 

142-6. 75 p.

Lal, P.; Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Mercer, E.D. 2011. Socio-economic impacts 

of climate change on rural United States. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change. 16(7): 819–844. 

Littell, J.S. 2012. Northwest. In: Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, 

T., eds. Effects of climate variability and change on forest ecosystems: 

a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 215–218.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J. [and others]. 2013. The impacts of climate 

change on tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556.

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2001. Expanding nontimber forest product 

harvester/buyer participation in Pacific Northwest forest policy. Journal 

of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3/4): 147–161. 

Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate change 

impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. http://

nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Sohngen, B.; Sedjo, R. 2005. Impacts of climate change on forest product 

markets: implications for North American producers. The Forest 

Chronicle. 81(5): 669–674.

Turner, N.J.; Clifton, H. 2009. It’s so different today: climate change and 

indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental 

Change. 19(2): 180–190.

Turner, N.J.; Cocksedge, W. 2001. Aboriginal use of nontimber forest 

products in Northwestern North America: applications and issues. 

Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3/4): 31–57.

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J. [and others]. 2013. Cultural impacts 

to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 615–626.

von Hagen, B.; Fight, R.D. 1999. Opportunities for conservation-based 

development of nontimber forest products in the Pacific West. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-473. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 18 p.

Southwest

Frank K. Lake, Toral Patel-Weynand

Land Area

The Southwest region of the United States encompasses 

California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and 

New Mexico and has unique climate change challenges 

compared to other areas of the United States (Garfin 

et al. 2013, Melillo et al. 2014). The diversity of 

ecoregions, ecosystems, and habitats in the region 

support a wide variety of NTFPs in habitat types 

ranging from grassland valley bottoms and desert 

lowland basins to mixed hardwood/chaparral foothill 

forests and montane conifer/meadow complexes. 

Climate varies from Mediterranean, to continental, to 

desert (Peterson 2012). Biogeophysical (e.g., soils and 

geology), topographic (i.e., landforms) and elevational 

diversity contribute to corresponding diversity of forest 

types, from coastal redwood to subalpine fir (Hurteau 

et al. 2014). Rain and snowfall levels, corresponding to 

elevation gradients and rain shadows across mountain 

ranges, further influence plant diversity in the region 

and production of ecosystem services, such as NTFPs.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 213

Nontimber Forest Product 

Harvester Communities

The region’s human population is distributed across 

densely populated urban environments and remote 

rural communities. Southwesterners with diverse and 

often multiple cultural heritages harvest NTFPs for 

traditional, cultural, subsistence, recreational, leisure, 

and commercial purposes (Gomez 2008). Ethnicity 

and socioeconomic status may influence their targeted 

species, manner, and reasons for harvesting (Alm et 

al. 2008). For example, southern California residents 

of Korean and Japanese heritage harvest bracken fern 

fiddleheads as a social activity that reinforces cultural 

identity and connections to nature (Alm et al. 2008, 

Anderson et al. 2000). Many California American 

Indians harvest and use NTFPs for traditional cultural 

purposes associated with spiritual, ceremonial, and 

subsistence practices. These include basketry and 

other arts, food, and medicinal uses (Anderson 1997, 

1999; Anderson and Lake 2013; Bocek 1984). In the 

Great Basin and across the Southwest, tribes continue 

to depend on NTFPs such as pinyon (Pinus edulis

Englem.) and sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata Nutt.) for 

food, materials, and medicines to support subsistence 

and ceremonial-religious activities (Ford 1985).

Threats/Challenges for Production

In the Southwestern United States, forest diversity 

is highly influenced by fires and drought. However, 

climate, fire suppression, land management, and 

urbanization have greatly altered historic fire regimes 

in many forest types (Liverman and Merideth 2002). 

Resulting changes in tree species composition and 

density have contributed to high fuel loading in 

habitats that contain valued NTFPs, placing these 

areas and the species in them at risk. (Hurteau et 

al. 2014). The legacy of fire exclusion and warming 

climate associated with drought is expected to result in 

continuing increases in fire severity over a lengthening 

fire season (Allen et al. 2015, Hurteau et al. 2014).

As disturbance regimes change in response to climate, 

especially extreme weather, prolonged drought, and 

increased fire events (Millar et al. 2007), NTFP resources 

will be impacted at the ecosystem, habitat, species, 

and individual harvester scales. Prolonged drought and 

changes in precipitation and temperature are particular 

threats. Across Nevada and other interior states, pinyon 

pine, a major NTFP food resource, has experienced severe 

die-offs. Pinyon pine is projected to replace ponderosa 

pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex. C.Lawson), however. 

In mid-to-higher elevation mountain ranges, forests 

dominated by pine and conifer species such as lodgepole 

pine (Pinus cortata Douglas), Jeffery (Pinus jeffreyi

Balff.), and ponderosa, are susceptible to insect outbreaks. 

Increasing extent and severity of wildfires coupled with 

insect induced mortality of conifer trees are impacting 

forests, and affecting the habitat of many NTFPs. 

Bark beetles are causing large-scale forest mortality, 

which in turn is increasing fire risk (Peterson 2012). In 

California, drought is reducing vigor and production of 

oak (Quercus spp.) acorns, reducing the quantity and 

quality of acorns from tribally preferred species. Loss of 

acorns is and will continue to impact tribal ceremonial 

and subsistence food security, as well as, tribal access to 

67 wildlife species that also depend on abundant acorns 

(Lynn et al. 2013, Voggesser et al. 2013). In coastal 

northern California, the Phytophtora ramorum pathogen 

responsible for sudden oak death (SOD) is resulting in 

widespread mortality of oak-dominated forests. Loss of 

oak trees to SOD and sanitation treatments likely will 

result in reduced availability of acorns, nuts, berries, 

and other NTFPs vital to coastal tribes (Chief et al. 

2014, Voggesser et al. 2013). Other threats include 

invasive species invading areas impacted by drought, 

insects, and fire. Invasive grasses, in particular, increase 

the potential for wildfire ignition and spread, outcompeting native species and causing higher fire risk in 

a range of habitats (Peterson 2012). Challenges facing 

forest managers and cultures dependent on NTFPs 

involve coping with extensive tree mortality, managing 

forests to increase their resilience to climate-induced 

disturbances, and responding to and reacting to wildfires.

NTFP Practices to Address 

Threats/Challenges

Tribal NTFP resources are being impacted by climate 

change, primarily by prolonged droughts and changing 

fire regimes (Chief et al. 2014). The primary food 

resources of tribal significance at risk are pine nuts and 

other seed producing trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses; 

berry producing trees and shrubs; and perennial forbs 

used as “greens,” which emerge after winter and 

monsoonal rains (Bye 1985, Schauss 2009, Stoffle et al. 

1992). Many plants are breaking dormancy, emerging or 

budding out earlier. In response, many NTFP harvesters 

will shift their harvesting schedule to correspond with 

plant phenological growth stage. For many cultures 
214 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

adapting to changing environmental conditions or plant 

developmental stage will require harvesting earlier 

or finding suitable conditions across the landscape at 

the “right time” when the NTFP resource is optimal 

for harvesting. The capacity of NTFP harvesters to 

anticipate when and where valued NTFPs will occur 

will require an evolving, adaptive process. Where 

subsistence, religious, or ceremonial practices rely on 

the timing of phenological stage, adaptation may be 

especially challenging and urgent (Chief et al. 2014).

Potential Limitations

Increasing resilience of forest habitats to environmental 

stressors in support of NTFP harvesting will require 

adaptability to ensure socioeconomic stability of the 

harvester communities. In some Southwestern localities, 

the high potential for complete reorganization or a major 

shift from forest to shrub or grassland will reduce or 

eliminate desired NTFPs. In some instances, tribal uses 

of particular climatically vulnerable tree species may 

require mitigation, such as reducing existing threats and 

stressors to habitats or point protection (i.e., wildfire 

management) for species, or adaptation actions as using 

surrogates or modifying cultural practices linked with 

specific species (Redsteer et al. 2013, Stumpff 2011).

Literature Cited

Allen, C.D.; Breshears, D.D.; McDowell, N.G. 2015. On underestimation 

of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter 

drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere. 6(8): 129.

Alm, J.E.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2008. Management assumptions and 

program realities: a case study of noncommerical fern gathering. In: 

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation visitor research: 

studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 87–96. 

Anderson, J.A.; Blahna, D.J.; Chavez, D.J. 2000. Fern gathering on the San 

Bernardino National Forest: cultural versus commercial values among 

Korean and Japanese participants. Society and Natural Resources. 13: 

747–762. 

Anderson, M.K. 1997. From tillage to table: the indigenous cultivation of 

geophytes for food in California. Journal of Ethnobiology. 17(2): 149–169. 

Anderson, M.K. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of 

temperate ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian tribes. 

Human Ecology. 27(1): 79–113.

Anderson, M.K.; Lake, F.K. 2013. California Indian ethnomycology and 

associated forest management. Society of Ethnobiology. 333(1): 33–85. 

Bocek, B.R. 1984. Ethnobotany of Costanoan Indians, California based on 

collections by John P. Harrington. Economic Botany. 38(2): 240–255. 

Bye, R.A., Jr. 1985. Botanical perspectives of ethnobotany of the greater 

Southwest. Economic Botany. 39(4): 375–386. 

Chief, K.; Daigle, J.J.; Lynn, K.; Whyte, K. P. 2014. Indigenous experiences 

in the U.S. with climate change and environmental stewardship in the 

Anthropocene. In: Sample, V.A.; Bixler, R.P., eds. Forest conservation and 

management in the Anthropocene: conference proceedings. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-P-71. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161–176.

Ford, R.I. 1985. Anthropological perspective of ethnobotany in the Greater 

Southwest. Economic Botany. 39(4): 400–415.

Garfin, G.A.; Jardine, A.; Merideth, R. [and others], eds. 2013. Assessment 

of climate change in the Southwest United States: a report prepared for 

the national climate change assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

531 p.

Gómez, E. 2008. Race, ethnicity, recreation, and leisure: an assessment of 

research gaps. In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation 

visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 75–84.

Hurteau, M.D.; Bradford, J.B.; Fulé, P.E. [and others]. 2014. Climate change, 

fire management, and ecological services in the Southwestern US. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 327: 280–289.

Liverman, D.M.; Merideth, R. 2002. Climate and society in the US 

Southwest: the context for a regional assessment. Climate Research. 21: 

199–218.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J. [and others]. 2013. The impacts of climate 

change on tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556. 

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and 

forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological 

Applications. 17: 2145–2151.

Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate change 

impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. http://

nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Peterson, D. 2012. Southwest. In: Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; PatelWeynand, T., eds. Effects of climate variability and change on forest 

ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. forest 

sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

219–222.

Redsteer, M.H.; Bemis, K.; Chief, K. [and others]. 2013. Unique challenges 

facing southwestern tribes. In: Garfin, G.; Jardine, A.; Merideth, R. 

[and others], eds. Assessment of climate change in the Southwest 

United States: a report prepared for the national climate assessment. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 385–404.

Schauss, A.G. 2009. Emerging knowledge of the bioactivity of foods in the 

diets of indigenous North Americans. In: Watson, R.R.; Preedy, V.R., eds. 

Bioactive foods in promoting health: fruits and vegetables. Oxford, UK: 

Academic Press: 71–84. 

Stoffle, R.W.; Halmo, D.B.; Evans, M.J.; Olmstec, J.E. 1992. Calculating the 

cultural significance of American Indian plants: Paiute and Shoshone 

ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist. 

92(2): 416–432. 

Stumpff, L.M. 2011. String of turquoise: the future of sacred mountain peaks 

in the Southwest United States and Mexico. In: Watson, A.; MurrietaSaldivar, J.; McBride, B. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain 

wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2009 

November 6–13; Meridá, Yucatán, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. 

Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 78–83.

Voggesser, G.; Lynn, K.; Daigle, J. [and others]. 2013. Cultural impacts 

to tribes from climate change influences on forests. Climatic Change. 

120(3): 615–626.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 215

Midwest

Gregory Ormsby Mori, Badger 

Johnson, and Shibu Jose

Land Area

Agriculture is the dominant land use across the Midwest, 

home to some of the most agriculturally intensive areas 

in the world. The eight states of the region (Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, 

and Missouri) contain many rural areas with low 

population densities, but also hold 20 percent of the 

total United States population (61 million), the majority 

living in cities. A continental climate brings warm 

summers and cold winters. While not as extensively 

forested as other regions of the country, the Midwest’s 

87 million acres of forest (table A1.2) produce some of 

the Nation’s most valuable timber species and account 

for about 30 percent of the land cover of the region. 

The distinct ecotypes of the region include the oakhickory forests of Missouri, southern Illinois, Indiana, 

and Ohio; boreal and pine-aspen forests surrounding 

the northern and central Great Lakes; beech-maple 

forests of the upper Midwest; and the mesic mixedhardwood forests of southeastern Ohio (figure A1.3).

Harvesting of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) occurs 

throughout the Midwest. Some NTFP practices, such 

as maple sugaring, gathering of morel mushrooms, 

collection of black walnuts and harvesting of medicinal 

herbs including American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), 

are observed widely across the region. Others, such as 

the harvesting of forest mosses (Thuidium delicatulum, 

Hypnum imponens, and H. curvifolium) in Appalachian 

Ohio are local or subregional practices (McLain and 

Jones 2005). Upwards of 140 NTFPs are harvested 

in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula by indigenous and 

nonindigenous people, for both commercial and 

noncommercial uses (Emery 1998, 2001). Annual 

production of maple syrup, during the period 1992 to 

2010, averaged between $2.4 and $2.9 million each 

for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. Over 30 million 

pounds of black walnuts (Juglans nigra) were harvested 

in the region in 2013, from predominantly wild trees 

(Hammons Products 2014). Slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) 

is harvested for its mucilaginous inner bark and sold in 

herbal compounds (Rao et al. 2004). There is increasing 

market demand for ramps (Allium tricoccum Aiton) 

whose historical range includes most of the Midwest, 

but which has been extirpated in many areas.

In the northern Great Lakes region, a number of NTFP 

practices are observed. The bark of paper birch (Betula 

papyifera) is a traditional material used to construct 

baskets, decorations, shelters, and canoes. Black 

ash (Fraxinus nigra) is used in basket making and is 

highly prized by American Indian and other artisans 

(Diamond and Emery 2011). Boughs of balsam fir 

(Abies balsamea), arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis), and 

other conifer tree species are used to make wreaths, 

an industry with an estimated value greater than $75 

million for the northern Great Lakes region in 2010 

(Handler et al. 2012). Gathering of northern wild 

rice (Zizania palustris) by American Indian groups 

in the Great Lakes region has been practiced for 

centuries and is an integral part of these cultures.

Table A1.2—2007 total forest land acreage and percent for forest type group by State. Source: Shifley et al. 2012.

State Forest land Oak/ hickory Maple/beech Aspen/birch Spruce/ fir

Elm/ash/

cottonwood

White/red/ 

jack pine Oak/ pine

thousand acres --------------------------------------------------- percent ---------------------------------------------------

MN 16,391 9 10 40 23 9 6 2

WI 16,275 23 26 20 9 9 9 4

MI 19,545 16 32 16 13 7 10 3

OH 7,894 62 23 1 0 8 1 2

IN 4,656 62 19 0 0 11 1 3

IL 4,525 67 5 0 0 22 1 1

IA 2,879 57 11 0 0 24 0 3

MO 15,078 80 2 0 0 7 0 7
216 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Threats and Challenges to Meeting the 

Production of Nontimber Forest Products

It is difficult to predict with precision how climate 

change-related phenomena, such as altered temperature 

and precipitation patterns and an increase in extreme 

weather events, will impact NTFPs in specific settings. 

Many NTFPs in the Midwest, however, will likely 

experience declines and life-cycle alterations that will 

threaten the sustainability of their future collection.

Longer growing seasons and shorter and warmer 

winters: American ginseng, despite its wide latitudinal 

distribution throughout the Midwest, is highly adapted 

to local climate conditions. Even small changes in mean 

temperatures can adversely affect this species. (Souther 

and McGraw 2011 2014). While longer growing 

seasons might benefit some species such as goldenseal 

(Hydrastis canadensis L.) by facilitating more root 

development, higher yields, and enhanced post-harvest 

recovery (Albrecht and McCarthy 2006, Davis and 

2 NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. 2017. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/. [Date accessed:: August 22, 2017].

3 Forest Health Program, Missouri Department of Conservation. 2017. Thousand cankers disease of walnut: frequently asked questions. Available at: http://extension.missouri.edu/treepests/documents/tcdFAQ.pdf. [Date accessed: August 22, 2017].

Greenfield 2002), in other species, particularly bloodroot 

(Sanguinaria canadensis) and ramps, shorter and 

warmer winters could interfere with seed stratification 

requirements (Albrecht and McCarthy 2011, Davis and 

Greenfield 2002). Higher spring temperatures may shift 

maple syrup production to earlier in the season and 

reduce the number of sap flow days, especially at the 

southern extent of its range. Production of maple syrup 

is predicted to decline over the next century by 15 to 22 

percent (Duchesne et al. 2009, Skinner et al. 2010).

Loss of habitat—Altered temperature, precipitation 

and disturbance patterns along with changes in soil 

moisture and increased risk of drought and wildfires 

may lead to a reduction or elimination of NTFP 

habitat. Habitat for ramps and other NTFP herbs that 

prefer mesic habitat will likely be reduced with drier 

climate regimes and lower soil moisture (Bernatchez 

et al. 2013). Within the central hardwood region, 

black cohosh, considered critically imperiled in 

Illinois, is found in mesic upland forests dominated 

by ash, beech, and sugar maple, a community type 

thought to be highly vulnerable to climate change2.

Amplification of existing stressors—The many stressors 

to which forest ecosystems are exposed—pests and 

pathogens, invasive species, disturbance—are likely 

to intensify with the effects of climate change. For 

many NTFPs, there may be increased pressure from 

undesirable pests and pathogens as ranges shift 

northward and as changing climatic conditions 

change disturbance and mortality patterns (Hatfield 

et al. 2015, Vose et al. 2012). Black ash, threatened 

by emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire; 

EAB), may be at increased risk with the combined 

effects of climate change as its ecological zone shifts 

northward and warmer winter temperatures expand 

the potential range of EAB (Iverson et al. 2016). Black 

walnut production in the central hardwood region 

may decline with the threat from thousand cankers 

disease and projected declines in habitat suitability3. 

Climate change effects could exacerbate the impacts of 

Dutch elm disease on slippery elm, which has shown 

increased mortality in recent years (Lin et al. 2004).

Ecosystem shifts and conversions—Major shifts and 

conversions of ecosystems will likely accompany changes 

n Aspen/Birch n Oak/Hickory/Pine/Other

n Elm/Ash/Cottonwood n Spruce/Fir 

n Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine n White/Red/Jack Pine

n Maple/Beech/Birch

Forest Type Group

Figure A1.3—Forest type groups of the Midwest. 

(Source: Handler 2013.)
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 217

in temperature and precipitation as some species 

decline and others migrate and reassemble into new 

communities. The boreal forests are considered to be 

highly vulnerable and are expected to disappear from 

the upper Midwest region by the end of the century, 

which will severely impact the livelihoods of thousands of 

seasonal workers who depend on the harvest of balsam 

fir branches (Vose et al. 2012). Similarly, birch and black 

ash may be increasingly at risk in the northern hardwood 

forests along with the culturally significant NTFP 

practices associated with them. Warmer temperatures 

combined with lower soil moisture may facilitate 

some oak and hickory species of the central hardwood 

region to extend their range northward into areas that 

were formerly dominated by a northern hardwoods 

vegetation community type. Black walnut could become 

less viable in Missouri but may expand further north.

Insufficient migration rates—A major concern is that 

NTFP species may not be able to keep pace with 

shifting climactic conditions (Souther and McGraw 

2011) or be able to effectively colonize new areas with 

more favorable ecological conditions due to limited 

dispersal mechanisms (Bellemare et al. 2002) and seed 

predation (Furedi and McGraw 2004). Thus habitat 

loss and a high degree of fragmentation in the prairie 

parklands of the central Midwest will likely severely 

limit the ability of some NTFP species to migrate.

Practices That May Be Relevant 

to Address Threats and Challenges

Diversification and intensification through 

sustainable management of NTFPs may help offset 

some negative economic and ecological effects 

of climate change. These practices include:

Silvicultural and forest management: Silvicultural 

prescriptions might be tailored to encourage the growth 

of certain species (Zenner et al. 2006) and managing for 

NTFPs is a possible goal of such community composition 

manipulation. Single tree selection and group selection 

harvests have shown a positive effect on species richness 

compared to shelterwoods and clearcuts (Duguid and 

Ashton 2013). Studies of woodlot management in the 

upper Midwest indicate that active management of such 

woodlands can significantly increase productivity and 

biodiversity (Moser et al. 2009). Small diameter and 

low-value trees removed for timber stand improvement, 

particularly in oak-hickory forests, can be used in 

for the cultivation of mushrooms. Managing for 

understory plants may help to reduce risk of wildfires. 

Regular long-term silvicultural management for 

timber can be tailored to support goals of both maple 

syrup production and understory medicinal plants for 

additional income. An adaptation strategy for sugar 

maple might involve planting out germplasm that has 

been selected or bred for climate change adaptability.

Most private woodlands in the region are not actively 

managed. Of the 15 million acres of privately owned 

forest in Missouri, less than 10 percent are under 

management (NWOS 2015). Promotion of NTFPs 

in nonindustrial private forests provide incentives for 

landowners to manage their forests as healthy ecosystems. 

Well managed forests, can be more profitable and 

more resilient to potential impacts of climate change.

Forest farming—Forest farming has been suggested as 

a conservation strategy for wild-harvested NTFPs. 

Forest farming near canopy gaps may be more effective 

than growing NTFPs in more dense shade for some 

medicinal plants (Gillespie et al. 2006) which, while 

shade tolerant, can also make use of full sun (Vasseur 

and Gagnon 1994). The intentional cultivation of 

some vulnerable NTFPs may reduce pressure on 

native populations (Burkhart 2011) while potentially 

reintroducing species in areas where they have been 

extirpated (Boothroyd-Roberts et al. 2013).

Prescribed burning—Land managers may respond to 

the risk of increased wildfires by instituting prescribed 

fire plans. Prescribed fire may be useful to both forest 

health and the furnishing of ecosystem services, as 

well as production of NTFPs. The cessation of historic 

disturbance regimes, including fire (Farnsworth 

and Ogurcak 2006, Sinclair and Catling 2004, Van 

Sambeek et al. 1997), have likely contributed to the 

decline of certain NTFP species, especially in the 

Ozark region of Missouri. In oak-hickory forests, soil 

fertility and disturbance increase with long-term, lowseverity fires (Scharenbroch et al. 2012). Generally, 

understory floristic diversity displays neutral or positive 

net effects from low residency time dormant season 

burns, as this can be significantly closer to historic fire 

regimes (Van Sambeek et al. 1997). Fire plans should 

be adapted to the regional context (Ray et al. 2012), 

and can be tailored to support particular populations 

of NTFP species (Storm and Shebitz 2006).

Assisted migration—In the case of valuable NTFP 

species with wide ranges throughout the Midwest such 
218 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

as American Ginseng, local populations are adapted 

to present local climatic conditions. If local climatic 

conditions change more rapidly than the species can 

adapt, lower fitness could be a result (Souther and 

McGraw 2014b). Assisted migration may be the best way 

to secure some species in the medium term (Svenning 

et al. 2009). Productive wild rice habitat is already 

available north of its current range in Saskatchewan, so 

production could shift (Weichel and Archibold 1989). 

Some NTFP species might be coplanted as crops in tree 

plantations, making use of favorable niche characteristics 

which can be created by plantations ( BoothroydRoberts et al. 2013; Lugo 1997). Assisted migration 

of goldenseal and other NTFPs found throughout the 

Midwest region should aim to maintain genetic diversity 

within populations and promote gene flow between 

populations. Experimentation with assisted migration of 

some tree species is already occurring in parts of northern 

Minnesota with the pilot Adaptation Forestry Project4.

Limitations

While there are opportunities for sustainable management 

of NTFPs there are many limitations, not least of which is 

the limited knowledge and research on the cultivation and 

management of these species. There are very few studies on 

the ecology of most NTFPs. Also, for many NTFPs there 

is also a lack of market maturity, incentives, and extension 

resources to support and promote effective management. 

Efforts to regulate and monitor harvesting would require 

legislative and enforcement coordination between Federal 

entities and across the many states of the region.

Further, just as the full potential impact of climate changeinduced threats remains uncertain, other unknowns such 

the introduction of new or the expansion of existing 

invasive species and diseases or the possibility of increased 

future demand and harvest pressure, may also limit the 

potential to sustainably manage NTFPs in the region.

Literature Cited

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2006. Comparative analysis of goldenseal 

(Hydrastis canadensis L.) population re-growth following human harvest: 

implications for conservation. American Midland Naturalist. 156(2): 

229–236.

Albrecht, M.A.; McCarthy, B.C. 2011. Variation in dormancy and germination 

in three co-occurring perennial forest herbs. Plant Ecology. 212(9): 

1465–1477.

4 The Nature Conservancy. Adaptation forestry in Minnesota’s North Woods. Available at: https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/

northamerica/unitedstates/minnesota/howwework/adaptation-forestry-nemn-factsheet.pdf. [Date accessed August 21, 2017].

Bellemare, J.; Motzkin, G.; Foster, D.R. 2002. Legacies of the agricultural 

past in the forested present: an assessment of historical land-use effects 

on rich mesic forests. Journal of Biogeography. 29: 1401–1420.

Bernatchez, A.; Bussières, J.; Lapointe, L. 2013. Testing fertilizer, gypsum, 

planting season and varieties of wild leek (Allium tricoccum) in forest 

farming system. Agroforestry Systems. 87(5): 977–991.

Boothroyd-Roberts, K.; Gagnon, D.; Truax, B. 2013. Hybrid poplar plantations 

are suitable habitat for reintroduced forest herbs with conservation 

status. SpringerPlus. 2(1): 507.

Burkhart, E.P. 2011. “Conservation through cultivation”: economic, sociopolitical and ecological considerations regarding the adoption of ginseng 

forest farming in Pennsylvania. University Park: The Pennsylvania State 

University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Davis, J.M.; Greenfield, J. 2002. Cultivating ramps: wild leeks of 

Appalachia. In: Janick, J.; Whipkey, A., eds. Trends in new crops and new 

uses. Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press: 449–452.

Diamond, A.K.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Black ash (Fraxinus nigra Marsh.): local 

ecological knowledge of site characteristics and morphology associated 

with basket-grade specimens in New England (USA). Economic Botany. 

65(4): 422–426.

Duchesne, L.; Houle, D.; Côté, M.A.; Logan, T. 2009. Modelling the effect 

of climate on maple syrup production in Québec, Canada. Forest ecology 

and management. 258(12): 2683–2689.

Duguid, M.C.; Ashton, M.S. 2013. A meta-analysis of the effect of forest 

management for timber on understory plant species diversity in 

temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 303: 81–90.

Emery, M.R. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: nontimber forest products in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. 

Ph.D. dissertation. 

Emery, M.R. 2001. Nontimber forest products and livelihoods in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula. In: Davidson-Hunt, I.; Duchense, L.; Zasada, J., eds. 

Forest communities in the third millennium: linking research, business, 

and policy toward a sustainable nontimber forest product sector. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NC-217. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station: 23–30.

Farnsworth, E.J.; Ogurcak, D.E. 2006. Biogeography and decline of rare 

plants in New England: historical evidence and contemporary monitoring. 

Ecological Applications. 16(4): 1327–1337.

Furedi, M.A.; McGraw, J.B. 2004. White-tailed deer: dispersers or predators 

of American ginseng seeds? The American Midland Naturalist. 152(2): 

268–276.

Gillespie, A.R.; Yu, C.K.; Rathfon, R. [and others]. 2006. Microenvironments 

for forest-farming of medicinal herbs in varying forest structures of the 

Midwestern USA. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 27(4): 71–96.

Hammons Nut Products. 2015. Hammons Products Website. https://blackwalnuts.com/. [Date accessed: May 10, 2015]. 

Handler, S. 2013. Climate connections: drought and forest impacts in 

Midwest. The Climate Observer. http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/cliwatch/

eNews/pdf/observer201309.pdf. [Date accessed: August 17, 2017].

Handler, S.D.; Swanston, C.W.; Butler, P.R. [and others]. 2012. Climate 

change vulnerabilities within the forestry sector for the Midwestern 

United States. In: Winkler, J.; Andresen, J.; Hatfield, J. [and others], 

coordinators. U.S. National Climate Assessment Midwest Technical Input 

Report. http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Forestry.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Hatfield, J.; Swanston, C.; Janowiak, M. [and others]. 2015: Midwest and 

Northern Forests Regional Climate Hub assessment of climate change 
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 219

vulnerability and adaptation and mitigation strategies. Anderson, T., 

ed. Ames, IA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 55 p. http://climatehubs.

oce.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/Midwest%20Region%20

Vulnerability%20Assessment%203_20_2015.pdf. [Date accessed: 

March 2018].

Iverson, L.; Knight, K.S.; Prasad, A., [and others]. Potential species 

replacements for black ash (Fraxinus nigra) at the confluence of two 

threats: emerald ash borer and a changing climate. Ecosystems. 19(2): 

248–270.

Lin, Y.; Hulting, M.L.; Augspurger, C.K. 2004. Causes of spatial patterns of 

dead trees in forest fragments in Illinois. Plant Ecology. 170: 15–27.

Lugo, A.E. 1997. The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness 

on degraded lands with tree monocultures. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 99(1–2): 11–19.

McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on 

national forests in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-655. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 85 p.

Moser, W.K.; Leatherberry, E.C.; Hansen, M.H.; Butler, B.J. 2009. Farmers’ 

objectives toward their woodlands in the upper Midwest of the United 

States: implications for woodland volumes and diversity. Agroforestry 

Systems. 75: 49–60.

Nature Conservancy, 2014. Adaptation forestry in Minnesota’s Northwoods. 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/

unitedstates. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Rao, M.R.; Palada, M.C.; Becker, B.N. 2004. Medicinal and aromatic plants 

in agroforestry systems. In: Nair, P.K.R.; Rao, M.R.; Buck, L.E., eds. 

New vistas in agroforestry: a compendium for First World Congress of 

Agroforestry, 2004. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands: 107–122.

Ray, L.A.; Kolden, C.A.; Chapin, F.S., III. 2012. A case for developing placebased fire management strategies from traditional ecological knowledge. 

Ecology and Society. 17(3): 434–451.

Scharenbroch, B.C.; Nix, B.; Jacobs, K.A.; Bowles, M.L. 2012. Two decades 

of low-severity prescribed fire increases soil nutrient availability in a 

Midwestern, USA oak (Quercus) forest. Geoderma. 183–184: 80–91.

Shifley, S.R.; Aguilar, F.X.; Song, N. [and others]. 2012. Forests of the 

Northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-90. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 202 p.

Sinclair, A.; Catling, P.M. 2004. Restoration of Hydrastis canadensis: 

experimental test of a disturbance hypothesis after two growing 

seasons. Restoration Ecology. 12(2): 184–189.

Skinner, C.B.; DeGaetano, A.T.; Chabot, B.F. 2010. Implications of twentyfirst century climate change on Northeastern United States maple 

syrup production: impacts and adaptations. Climatic Change. 100(3–4): 

685–702.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J. 2011. Evidence of local adaptation in the 

demographic response of American ginseng to interannual temperature 

variation. Conservation Biology. 25(5): 922–931.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Storm, L.; Shebitz, D. 2006. Evaluating the purpose, extent, and ecological 

restoration applications of indigenous burning practices in southwestern 

Washington. Ecological Restoration. 24(4): 256–268.

Svenning, J.C.; Fløjgaard, C.; Morueta-Holme, N. [and others]. 2009. Big 

moving day for biodiversity? A macroecological assessment of the scope 

for assisted colonization as a conservation strategy under global warming. 

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 8(1): 12017.

Van Sambeek, J.W.; Kobe, J.M.; Fralish, J.S. 1997. Interference with 

shoot growth and flowering of dittany (Cunila origanoides (L.) Britton) 

by hardwood leachates. In: Pallardy, S.G.; Cecich, R.A.; Garrett, H. 

[and others], eds. Proceedings of the 11th Central Hardwood Forest 

Conference; Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-188. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 

294–303. 

Vasseur, L.; Gagnon, D. 1994. Survival and growth of Allium tricoccum AIT. 

Transplants in different habitats. Biological Conservation. 68(2): 107–114.

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2012. Effects of climatic 

variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science 

synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 265 p.

Weichel, B.J.; Archibold, O.W. 1989. An evaluation of habitat potential 

for wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) in northern Saskatchewan. Applied 

Geography. 9(3): 161–175.

Zenner, E.K.; Kabrick, J.M.; Jensen, R.G. [and others]. 2006. Responses of 

ground flora to a gradient of harvest intensity in the Missouri Ozarks. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 222(1–3): 326–334.

Great Plains

Matthew Winn and James L. Chamberlain

Description of Region

The Great Plains region lies in the central portion 

of the United States and stretches from Canada to 

northern Texas. However, there are no distinct regional 

boundaries for the Great Plains (Rossum and Lavin 

2000). Boundaries defining the Great Plains typically are 

defined by physical characteristics, cultural characteristics, 

or some combination thereof. One of the more widely 

accepted regional delineations takes into account ecology, 

geology, history, and culture Wishart (2004) (figure A1.4). 

According to Wishart, the Great Plains includes the 

entire states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska 

and Kansas, as well as eastern portions of Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. Western 

Oklahoma and northwestern Texas are also included.

The Great Plains region is vast, incorporating 

grasslands more than 1,800 miles north to south 

and 500 miles east to west (Center for Great Plains 

Studies 2016). At one time the region was considered 

a desert but now, more appropriately, it is thought 

to be a fertile, semi-arid grassland with great 

biodiversity. Altitude ranges from 2,000 feet above 

sea level (fasl) to about 5,000 fasl. Annual rainfall 

ranges from 10 to 20 inches, which contributes to 

a climate of harsh extremes with little topsoil.

Determining precise distribution of land ownership 

for the region is challenging as it does not strictly 

follow state or county borders. A rough estimate 
220 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

can be obtained by overlaying a regional map on a 

nationwide map of nonprivate land ownership (U.S. 

Geological Survey 2012). About 85 percent of the land 

is in private ownership. The remaining land is split 

between Federal (7 percent), state or local government 

(~4 percent), and tribal lands (~ 4 percent).

Predominant Vegetation

The natural vegetation of the Great Plains is dominated 

by grasses. Tall and medium grass prairie dominates the 

eastern portion, while shortgrass and bunchgrass steppes 

are found in the west. In marginal areas larger plants such 

as yucca (Yucca spp.) and plains pricklypear (Opuntia 

polyacantha Haw.) are found. Shrubs, such as sagebrush 

(Artemisia spp.), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

occidentalis Hook), and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria 

nauseosa Pall. Ex Pursch) G.L. Nesom & Baird) can 

be found in marginal sites, as well. Also found in 

marginal sites are small trees (e.g., mesquite: Prosopis

sp.). Riparian areas and other moist sites may have 

drought-tolerant trees such as box elder (Acer negundo 

L.), cottonwood (Populus deltoids (W. Bartram) ex 

Marshall ), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Marshall). Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Lawson & 

Lawson) can be found on mountains of the Black Hills. 

The natural vegetation, though, has changed drastically 

because of agriculture and grazing. While hundreds of 

Great Plains species have documented ethnobotanical 

uses (Kindscher 1989, 1992; Kerry 2010), only a few 

are traded commercially in significant volume.

American Indian Use of Great Plains Plants

Humans likely have inhabited the Great Plains region 

for tens of thousands of years (Wishart 2004). More 

than 30 distinct tribes are known to have inhabited the 

region since European settlement in North America 

(Lowie 1954). A common practice shared by all tribes 

was the gathering of native plants for food, medicine, 

religious rites and/or material culture. Kindscher et al. 

(1998) identified more than 200 native prairie species 

that were used for medicine by North American tribes. 

Few of these are traded commercially. The Oglala Sioux 

tribe frequently used herbs such as sage (Artemisia spp.), 

sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.), and alpine sweetgrass 

(Hierochloe odorata (L.) P. Beauv.; not to be confused 

with Muhlenbergia capillaris (Lam.) Trin.) as medicine 

or for religious ceremonies (Morgan and Weedon 1990). 

The Blackfoot Indians utilized over 185 plant species, 

including small camas (Camassia quamash (Pursh) 

Greene) and prairie turnip (Pediomelum esculentum

(Pursh) Rydb.), which comprised a large portion of their 

diet (Johnston 1970). The northern Cheyenne Indians 

recognized at least 138 wild plant species, 45 of which 

were used as a food source (Hart 1981). Some of the more 

important edibles used by the Cheyenne were chokecherry 

(Prunus virginiana L.), prairie turnip, milkweed 

(Asclepias speciose Torr.), and thistle (Cirsium edule

Nutt.). Red baneberry (Actaea rubra (Aiton) Willd.) was 

frequently used in religious ceremonies. Like many of the 

other plains tribes, the Plains Apache diet included prairie 

turnips as well as groundnuts (Apios Americana Medik.) 

(Jordan 2014). The use of medicinal plants was also a 

very important part of the Apache culture and included 

such species as buffalo gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima

Kunth), dodder (Cuscuta foetidissima Kunth.), 

purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia DC), bush 

morning-glory (Ipomoea leptophylla Torr.), puccoon 

(Lithospermum incisum Lehm.), star milkvine (Matelea 

biflora (Raf. Woodson), oaks (Quercus spp.), goldenrods 

(Solidago spp.), and American germander (Teucrium 

canadense). Various tree species were also used for 

fire and cultural materials. Blackjack oak (Quercus 

marilandica Münchh) was a favorite for cooking meat 

Figure A1.4—The Great Plains region (gray shading). 

(Source: Wishart 2004.)

Edmonton

Calgary

Regina

Fargo

Sioux Falls

Billings

ALBERTA

SASKATCHEWAN

MT ND

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

OK

TX NM

NE

KS CO

WY SD

ONTARIO

Cheyenne

Denver

Wichita

Fort Worth

Roswell Lubbock

Miles

0 200 400

98th Meridian

MANITOBA

Winnipeg

Lincoln

Kansas City

Oklahoma City

R o c k

y

M o u n t a i n s
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 221

and the wood of Osage-orange (Maclura pomifera (Raf.) 

C.K. Schneid.) was preferred for making hunting bows.

For centuries, purple coneflower has been the most 

widely used medicinal plant of the Plains Indians in 

North America (Kindscher 1989, 1992). Tribes used 

this abundant prairie plant to treat many ailments. The 

Dakota used the root to treat hydrophobia (rabies), 

snakebites and putrefied wounds (Smith 1928). The 

Lakota used the root and green fruit as a painkiller for 

toothaches, tonsillitis, bellyache, pain in the bowels, 

or when they were thirsty or perspiring (Munson 

1981, Rogers 1980). The Omaha used it for sore eyes 

and as a local anesthetic (Gilmore 1913). Both the 

Kiowa and the Cheyenne chewed on the root to relieve 

cold symptoms and sore throats (Grinnell 1962). 

The Kiowa also used the dried seedhead as a brush 

(Vestal and Schultes 1939). The Cheyenne used purple 

coneflower for sore mouth and gums, toothaches, and 

neck pain. They also made a tea to treat rheumatism, 

arthritis, mumps, and measles, as well as a salve for 

external treatment of these ailments (Grinnell 1962).

Prairie turnip was a staple food of the Plains tribes. 

The taproot of this perennial plant is harvested in June 

and July and consumed or stored for later. Groundnut 

produces an edible root, and is native to the prairie 

and Eastern woodlands. Although Jerusalem artichoke 

(Helianthus tuberosus L.) is cultivated around the 

world, the perennial sunflower produces an edible 

tuber that can be foraged from natural populations. 

Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) was the most important 

edible wild fruit of the Plains, and is easily grown in 

home gardens. American plum (Prunus Americana

Marshall) remains popular with residents of the Plains.

The taproot of purple coneflower is perhaps the most 

extensively commercialized Great Plains NTFP. Hayden 

(1859) first documented that the plant was found 

abundantly throughout the region and the root was 

effectively used by traders and Indians for the cure 

of rattlesnake bite. More recent research has shown 

that E. angustifolia has active medicinal constituents 

(Bonadeo et al. 1971, Moring 1984, Percival 2000, 

Stoll et al. 1950, Wagner and Proksch 1985).

Climate Change

The High Plains Regional Climate Center, based at 

the University of Nebraska, Lincoln campus, covers a 

six-state region that encompasses much of the Great 

Plains. The Center has access to climate records for the 

Great Plains that date back over 100 years that reveal 

variability and trends in climate (High Plains Regional 

Climate Center 2013). Over the last 118 years, the 

average annual temperature of the region has realized 

a warming trend of nearly 2 °F. The greatest increase 

in temperature has been in North Dakota (~ 2.9 °F), 

while the least was realized in Kansas and Nebraska 

(~1.3 °F). Precipitation trends are weaker, exhibiting 

only a 1.3-percent increase across the region.

Changes in temperature and rainfall regimes will have 

dramatic effects on crops as well as native plants. 

Changes in crop growth cycles have already been 

observed (Shafer et al. 2014) and provide insights 

into possible effects on native plants. Crops, as well 

as native plants, that leave dormancy earlier are 

susceptible to spring freezes (NOAA and USDA 2008). 

Dunnell and Travers (2011) examined flowering 

phenology patterns of 178 native plant species in North 

Dakota over 100 years and found significant shifts 

in more than 40 percent of the species. Species may 

be more or less sensitive to changes in temperature 

and precipitation, yet even small shifts in timing can 

disrupt ecological balance in natural systems.

Literature Cited

Bonadeo, I.; Bottazzi, G.; Lavazza, M. 1971. Echinacin B, an active 

polysaccharide for echinacea. Revista Italiana Essenze Profumi, Piante 

Officinali, Aromi, Saponi, Cosmetici, Aerosol. 53(5): 281–295.

Center for Great Plains Studies. 2016. About the center. Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska, Center for Great Plains Studies. http://www.unl.

edu/plains/about/about.shtml. [Date accessed: April 5, 2016].

Dunnell, K.L.; Travers, S.E. 2011. Shifts in the flowering phenology of the 

northern Great Plains: patterns over 100 years. Journal of Botany. 98: 

935–945.

Gilmore, M. 1913. A study in the ethnobotany of the Omaha Indians. Collect. 

Nebraska State Historical Society. 17: 314–357.

Grinnell, G.B. 1962. The Cheyenne Indians: their history and ways of life, 

volumes 1–2. New York: Cooper Square.

Hart, J.A., 1981. The ethnobotany of the northern Cheyenne Indians of 

Montana. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 4(1): 1–55.

Hayden, F.V. 1859. Botany. In: Report of the Secretary of War, 35th 

Congress, 2nd Session, 1858–1859, Senate Executive Document. 3(1): 

726–747. Part 3.

High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2013. Climate change on the prairie: a 

basic guide to climate change in the High Plains region—update. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska. 8 p. http://www.hprcc.unl.edu. [Date accessed: 

May 13, 2016].

Johnston, A. 1970. Blackfoot Indian utilization of the flora of the 

northwestern Great Plains. Economic Botany. 24(3): 301–324.

Jordan, J.A. 2014. Plains Apache ethnobotany. Norman: University of 

Oklahoma Press. 211 p.
222 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Kindscher, K. 1989. Ethnobotany of purple coneflower (Echinacea 

angustifolia, Asteraceae) and other echinacea species. Economic Botany. 

43(4): 498–507.

Kindscher, K. 1992. Medicinal wild plants of the prairie: an ethnobotanical 

guide. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 336 p.

Lowie, R.H. 1954. Indians of the Plains. Lincoln: University of Nebraska 

Press. 250 p.

Morgan, G.R.; Weedon, R.R. 1990. Oglala Sioux use of medicinal herbs. 

Great Plains Quarterly. 10(1): 18–35.

Moring, S.E. 1984. Echinacea: a natural immune stimulant and treatment for 

viral infections. Sunnyvale, CA: Botica Analytica. 

Munson, P.J. 1981. Contributions to Osage and Lakota ethnobotany. Plains 

Anthropologist. 26(93): 229–240.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (NOAA/USDA). 2008. The Easter freeze of April 2007: 

a climatological perspective and assessment of impacts and services. 

Technical Report 2008-01. 56 p. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/

techrpts/tr200801/tech-report-200801.pdf. [Date accessed: May 16. 2016].

Percival, S.S. 2000. Use of Echinacea in medicine. Biochemical 

Pharmacology. 60(2): 155–158.

Rogers, D.J. 1980. Lakota names and traditional uses of native plants by 

Sicangu (Brule) people in the Rosebud area, South Dakota: a study based 

on Father Eugene Buechel’s collection of plants of Rosebud around 1920. 

St. Francis, SD: Rosebud Educational Society. 112 p.

Rossum, S.; Lavin, S. 2000. Where are the Great Plains? A cartographic 

analysis. The Professional Geographer. 52(3): 543–552.

Shafer, M.; Ojima, D.; Antle, J.M. [and others]. 2014. Great Plains. Climate 

change impacts in the United States. In: Melillo J.M.; Richmond, T.C.; 

Yohe, G.W. 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States: the 

third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Climate 

Change Research Program: 441–461.Chapter 19. http://nca2014.

globalchange.gov/report/regions/great-plains. [Date accessed: May 13, 

2016].

Smith, H.H. 1928. Ethnobotany of the Meskwaki Indians. Milwaukee: 

Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee. 4(2): 175–326.

Stoll, A.; Renz, J.; Brack, A. 1950. Antibacterial substances II. Isolation and 

constitution of echinacoside, a glycoside from the roots of Echinacea 

angustifolia. Helvetica Chimica Acta. 33: 1877–1893.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Protected areas database of the 

United States (PAD–US), version 1.3 combined feature class. https://

gapanalysis.usgs.gov/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Vestal, P.A.; Schultes, R.E. 1939. The economic botany of the Kiowa Indians, 

as it relates to the history of the tribe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Botanical 

Museum. 110 p.

Wagner, H.; Proksch, A. 1985. Immunostimulatory drugs of fungi and higher 

plants. In: Wagner, H.; Hikino, H.; Farnsworth, N.R., eds. Economic and 

medicinal plant research. Volume 3. London: Academic Press. 149 p.

Wishart, D.J., ed. 2004. Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. Lincoln: University 

of Nebraska Press. 940 p. http://www.unl.edu/plains/about/about.

shtml. [Date accessed: September 1, 2017].

Northeast

Michelle J. Baumflek

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) are gathered 

throughout the Northeast region, for use as food, 

medicine, craft materials, and serve myriad cultural 

and spiritual purposes. No complete inventory of 

NTFPs exists for the Northeast, and the amount and 

types of NTFPs harvested vary across the region. 

Recent studies have documented the contemporary 

use of at least 173 vascular plants and 39 fungi in 

the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National 

Forests of Vermont and New York (Emery and Ginger 

2014), and 125 plants and fungi in northern Maine 

(Baumflek et al. 2010). Many of these species are 

gathered for multiple plant parts and multiple uses.

Forest Types and Land 

Ownership Characteristics

Three main forest types and their associated natural 

communities cover most of the region: spruce-fir forests 

thrive in the northern part of the region, as well as in 

higher altitudes further south; northern hardwood forests 

including sugar maple, American beech, and yellow birch, 

are prevalent in the central portion of the region; and 

oak-hickory forests are more common in the southern 

part of the region (figure A1.5). This diversity of forested 

landscapes provides varied habitat for different NTFPs.

Forest land ownership in the Northeast is predominantly 

private, which can impact access for NTFP gathering 

(Ginger et al. 2012). Most private forest land is owned 

by individuals and families, although Maine and West 

Virginia also support large industrial forestry operations 

(Nelson et al. 2010). Between 1993 and 2006, the region’s 

nonindustrial private forests have become increasingly 

parcelized, as evidenced by a significant increase in 

forest landowners who own 1 to 9 acres of land, and 

a 20-percent decrease in family-forest landholding 

size from 25 to 20 acres (Butler and Ma 2011).

Diverse Nontimber Forest Product 

Users of the Northeast

The Northeast region is located on the homelands 

of many different native communities, including 18 

federally recognized tribes that have distinct nation-tonation relationships with the United States Government 

(Bureau of Indian Affairs 2014), 15 state-recognized 

tribes (National Conference of State Legislatures 2014), 
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 223

and other communities that maintain a native identity 

despite lack of governmentally acknowledged status. 

NTFPs play important cultural and livelihood roles 

within these diverse communities. The traditional 

significance of hundreds of NTFPs as sources of 

medicine, food, spiritual importance, and livelihoods 

has been documented for many tribes in the region, 

including the Haudenosaunee, comprised of the 

Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and 

Tuscarora Nations (Herrick 1995, Parker 1910); the 

Mohegans (Tantaquidgeon 1928), the Wabanaki, the 

Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot 

Nations (Prins and McBride 2007, Speck 1915), and 

the Shinnecock Indian Nation (Carr and Westey 1945). 

Furthermore, NTFPs contribute to tribal food and 

health sovereignty in the region (Baumflek 2015).

NTFP collection and use in the Northeast also is 

a widespread and popular activity that cuts across 

sociodemographic categories and rural to urban 

gradients (Robbins et al. 2008). A general population 

survey in New England states found that 25 percent of 

respondents had harvested some type of NTFP in the last 

5 years. Most harvesters collect for personal use and are 

motivated by noncommercial reasons including home5 Hurley, P.T.; Emery M.R. 2014. (Unpublished data). Forageable species and uses of New York City’s urban forest.

consumption, recreation, spiritual, and familial traditions 

(Robbins et al. 2008). Qualitative research with plant 

gatherers in Maine, New York, and Vermont demonstrate 

similar findings (Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery and Ginger 

2014). Furthermore, Bailey (1999) found that 25 percent 

of West Virginians surveyed reported gathering edible 

NTFPs, and 4 percent had gathered medicinal NTFPs.

An emerging body of research has begun to 

demonstrate the importance of NTFPs gathered in 

urban and suburban areas of the Northeast (Hurley 

et al. 2015, Jahnige 2002, McLain et al. 2014). These 

plants and fungi are mainly used for edible purposes, 

and are harvested in a variety of spaces including 

greenways, parks, vacant lots, and cemeteries. 

Ururban NTFPs play key roles for culturally-distinct 

user groups, including Chinese immigrants.5

Major Nontimber Forest Product 

Markets of the Northeast

While many NTFPs are gathered in small quantities 

for personal use, some enter formal and informal 

markets as raw materials or as value-added products, 

such as jams, tinctures, and wreaths. These products 

contribute to regional, household, and individual 

economies. NTFPs diversify household earnings by 

providing sources of income that supplement full-time 

jobs, deliver seasonal funds to fill gaps between other 

types of employment, and offer flexibility to people 

who have constraints on their time, including child and 

elder care (Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery et al. 2003).

Edible NTFPs in the region include maple syrup, 

fiddleheads from ostrich ferns (Matteuccia struthiopteris

(L.) Todaro), wild leeks (Allium tricoccum Aiton), 

black walnuts (Juglans nigra L), berries and chanterelle 

mushrooms (Cantherellus sp.) (Alexander et al. 2011, 

Baumflek et al. 2010; Emery and Ginger 2014). These 

edible NTFPs enter local, regional, and national 

markets, and are commonly gathered for personal use. 

Freshly picked mushrooms such as chanterelles, oyster 

mushrooms, and morels appear seasonally in farmers’ 

markets and restaurants (Emery and Ginger 2014). 

Fiddleheads are a welcome spring vegetable, and an 

important source of income in New England (Fuller 

2012). As many as 100,000 pounds of fiddleheads may 

be harvested annually and appear for sale at roadside 

stands, grocery stores, and may be shipped across the 

Northeast forest type groups

Spruce/fir

Maple/beech/birch

Oak/hickory

Aspen/birch

Elm/ash/cottonwood

Loblolly/shortleaf pine

White/red/jack pine

Figure A1.5—Forest type groups of the Northeast. The three 

dominant forest types of the region from north to south are the 

spruce-fir group, the maple-beech-birch group, and the oak-hickory 

group. (Map rendered by Michelle J. Baumflek, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.) 
224 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

country. The Northeast also leads the Nation in maple 

syrup production (Farrell and Chabot 2012). Vermont 

currently produces the greatest volume of syrup, 

while New York and Pennsylvania have the highest 

production potential (Farrell and Chabot 2012).

Medicinal plants such as American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius L.), goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis

L.), and black cohosh (Actaea racemosa L.) support 

significant national and international markets (AHPA 

2006). Ginseng is one of the best understood NTFPs of 

northeastern forests due to its long history of harvest for 

export and considerable market value: between 2000 

and 2007, primary buyers paid gatherers an average 

of $462 for a pound of dried roots. Harvest data for 

ginseng are available for the five northeastern states that 

are allowed to export the roots: Maryland, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia (Chamberlain 

et al. 2013). While ginseng has the potential for economic 

gains under a variety of forest farming scenarios (Davis 

and Persons 2014), Burkart and Jacobson (2009) found 

that it is only cost effective to harvest other popular 

medicinals from naturally occurring populations.

Craft plants include those used for basketry and wreaths. 

Black ash (Fraxinus nigra L.), alpine sweetgrass 

(Hierochloe odorata (L.) P. Beauv), and paper birch 

(Betula papyrifera Marshall) have special significance to 

American Indian gatherers as well as other artisans in 

the region who use these plants to construct baskets and 

other items that support their cultures and livelihoods 

(McBride 1990, Mundell et al. 2008), variety of 

conifers, clubmoss species, red osier dogwood (Cornus 

sericea), and grape vines (Vitis spp.) are commonly 

harvested for wreaths. Balsam fir (Abies balsamea) 

harvests support local cottage industries as well as 

regional demand for boughs (Baumflek et al. 2010).

Ecological and Stewardship Considerations

As in many other regions, systematic data on the ecology 

and harvest volumes for most NTFPs are scarce in the 

Northeast (Alexander et al. 2011, McLain and Jones 

2005). The most detailed information likely exists for 

American ginseng, wild blueberries, and maple syrup. 

With the exception of several wild-simulated medicinal 

plants such as American ginseng, and a burgeoning 

shitake mushroom market, most NTFPs in the region 

are gathered from populations of wild plants. Systematic 

studies on plant range and ecological sustainability 

of harvest are lacking for some of the most widely 

collected species, including wild leeks and fiddleheads. 

Paucity of information, combined with harvests that 

include plant parts known to reduce population fitness 

if not done appropriately (including bulbs and fronds), 

have caused Emery and Ginger (2014) to identify wild 

leeks, fiddleheads, alpine sweetgrass, and black ash as 

northeastern NTFPs in specific need of future research 

to determine if active management is appropriate.

Gathering NTFPs often involves respectful stewardship 

practices, developed over time, involving acknowledgment 

of reciprocal relations with plants and fungi, and based 

on traditional knowledge (Kimmerer 2011). American 

Indian NTFP gatherers in the Northeast currently 

implement a wide variety of stewardship practices 

that often are grounded in cultural norms (Baumflek 

2015). Similar stewardship practices are also evident 

among other cultural and ethnic groups within the 

region (Baumflek et al. 2010, Emery and Ginger 2014). 

Systematically collected data on stewardship of ginseng 

(Burkhart et al. 2012), and wild mushrooms (Barron 

and Emery 2012) have also been obtained for the region. 

Because local NTFP gatherers have detailed knowledge 

about NTFP phenologies, ecologies, and habitat 

characteristics, their knowledge can and should contribute 

to participatory management planning for NTFPs.

Several major forest health threats with implications for 

NTFPs exist in the Northeast. Of primary concern to 

American Indian and other basketmakers in the region 

is the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB; Agrilus 

planipennis Fairmaire), an introduced beetle that causes 

mortality in all ash species (Herms and McCullough 2014). 

Insect and disease outbreaks, such as hemlock woolly 

adelgid (Adelges tsugae Annand), and beech bark disease 

(fungi of the genus Neonectria in combination with the 

beech scale insect, [Cryptococcus fagisuga Lindinger]) 

threaten major tree species of northeastern forests. In 

these examples the eastern hemlock and American beech 

not only generate important NTFPs including beechnuts, 

but their loss may result in dramatically altered canopies 

and increases in forest light availability, which could be 

detrimental to certain NTFP species that thrive in lowlight understories (Roberts and Gilliam 2003). Forest 

stressors including invasive earthworm species, and 

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) 

overbrowsing may also impact the ability of certain NTFP 

species to establish or regenerate in many Northeastern 

forests (Dobson and Blossey 2015, Frelich et al. 2006).
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 225

Effects of Climate Change on Northeastern 

Nontimber Forest Products

Existing social and ecological stressors to NTFP 

availability in the Northeast may be exacerbated by 

climate change. Average annual temperatures in the 

region have risen by 2 °F since 1970; average winter 

temperatures have risen by 4 °F. Warming has already 

led to changes including a reduced snowpack, earlier 

breakup of winter ice, and earlier spring snowmelt 

resulting in earlier peak river flows (Rustad et al. 2009). 

These shifts may affect the phenology and availability 

of NTFP species such as fiddleheads that respond to 

water conditions. Furthermore, spread of forest pests, 

including EAB, may be accelerated due to warmer 

winter temperatures that are predicted in the region 

(Crosthwaite et al. 2011). Warming temperatures also 

may be detrimental to locally adapted NTFPs with 

limited seed-dispersal ranges, such as ginseng (Souther 

and McGraw 2011, 2014). Climate change impacts are 

also predicted to reduce suitable habitat for spruce-fir 

forests, as well as some northern hardwood species, 

including sugar maple (Iverson et al. 2008, Skinner et 

al. 2010, Vose et al. 2012). By limiting access to NTFPs 

used as traditional foods, climate change is predicted to 

have significant negative impacts on American Indian 

communities in the Northeast (Lynn et al. 2013).

Access and Management of 

Nontimber Forest Products on Public 

and Private Lands of the Northeast

Opportunities to gather NTFPs on public lands exist 

in national forests, state forests, and other state-owned 

lands. Many of these activities, such as gathering berries, 

are allowed on a limited basis, although monitoring and 

enforcement are challenges. Permitting is used to regulate 

the harvest of commercially important or vulnerable 

species. For example, the Monongahela National Forest 

in West Virginia is the only Federal land in the Northeast 

that permits ginseng harvesting (USDA Forest Service 

2016). State entities, such as the Pennsylvania Bureau 

of Forestry, also enforce a moratorium on ginseng 

harvests, and district foresters issue limited permits for 

goldenseal, and rare clubmoss (Lycopodium obscurum 

L) (Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry 2003). Several major 

cities in the region, including Boston and New York have 

bans on harvesting NTFPs in urban parks (City of Boston 

Park 2014, Foderaro 2011, NYC Administrative Code 

2014), while other cities like Philadelphia promote fruit 

picking from trees in public spaces (McLain et al. 2014).

Specific considerations for access to NTFPs on Federal 

lands exist for American Indians in the region, who 

have established nation-to-nation relationships with 

the U.S. Government. This applies to national forests 

in the region that must honor treaty obligations related 

to NTFP regulations and permits (Emery and Ginger 

2014). In some instances, the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (1978) may also apply to NTFPs used 

for religious purposes. The National Park Service 

recently proposed a regulation change to Title 36 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (see chapter 7) that 

would allow American Indians to gather plants in 

the national parks they are historically associated 

with (Federal Register 2015). In the Northeast, this 

means that members of the four Wabanaki tribes of 

Maine may be allowed to gather plants in Acadia 

National Park for noncommercial purposes. The state 

of Maine also issues permits to Wabanaki gatherers 

to harvest black ash logs (Ginger et al. 2012).

Gathering on private lands are negotiated by formal 

and informal agreements (Ginger et al. 2012). Industrial 

forest managers in Maine revealed that NTFPs are not 

typically included in forest planning, with the exceptions 

of maple syrup and balsam fir permitting (Ginger et 

al. 2012). However, certain industrial forest products 

corporations are interested in allowing American 

Indians access to harvest culturally significant species 

as part of Forest Stewardship Certification compliance, 

which requires establishing relationships with local 

indigenous communities (Ginger et al. 2012).

Many Northeastern family-forest landowners cite 

reasons of aesthetics and privacy for owning forest land, 

although Butler and Ma (2011) found an increase in 

people choosing to own forests as financial investments. 

The relatively small size of average forest land holdings 

in the region, from 6 acres in Massachusetts to 36 

acres in Vermont (Butler and Ma 2011), accompanied 

by the idea that private forest landowners adopt forest 

farming as a way to generate income without having 

to rely on timber sales (Chamberlain et al. 2009), 

suggests that these landowners may be interested in 

some form of NTFP management on their lands. For 

example, Strong and Jacobson (2006) found that 36 

percent of the respondents in a survey of Pennsylvania 

landowners reported an interest in forest farming.
226 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Literature Cited

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011. Nontimber forest products 

in the United States: Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

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

Research Station. 36 p.

American Herbal Products Association [AHPA]. 2006. 2004–2005 Tonnage 

survey of select North American wild-harvested plants. Silver Spring, 

MD: American Herbal Products Association. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; 42 U.S.C. sec. 996, as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1996.

Bailey, B. 1999. Social and economic impacts of wild harvested products. 

Morgantown: West Virginia University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Barron, E.S.; Emery, M.R. 2012. Implications of variation in social-ecological 

systems for the development of U.S. fungal management policy. Society 

& Natural Resources. 25(10): 996–1011. 

Baumflek, M.J. 2015. Stewardship, health sovereignty and biocultural 

diversity: contemporary medicinal plant use in indigenous communities of 

Maine, USA and New Brunswick, Canada. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 

300 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Baumflek, M.J.; Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2010. Culturally and economically 

important nontimber forest products of northern Maine. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-68. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 74 p.

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2014. Eastern region—tribes served. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. http://

www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/RegionalOffices/Eastern/WeAre/Tribes/

index.htm. [Date accessed: December 14, 2014].

Burkhart, E.P.; Jacobson, M.G.; Finley, J. 2012. A case study of stakeholder 

perspective and experience with wild American ginseng (Panax 

quinquefolius) conservation efforts in Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: limitations 

to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 21: 3657–3679

Butler, B.J.; Ma, Z. 2011. Family forest owner trends in the Northern United 

States. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 28(1):13–18.

Carr, L.G.; Westey, C. 1945. Surviving folktales and herbal lore among the 

Shinnecock Indians of Long Island. Journal of American Folklore. 58(228): 

113–123.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Mitchell, D.; Brigham, T. [and others]. 2009. Forest 

farming practices. In: Garrett, H.E., ed. North American agroforesty: an 

integrated science and practice. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society 

of Agronomy: 219–255.

Chamberlain, J.L.; Prisley, S.; McGuffin, M. 2013. Understanding the 

relationships between American ginseng harvest and hardwood forests 

inventory and timber harvest to improve co-management of the forests of 

eastern United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32(6): 605–624. 

City of Boston. 2014. Rules & regulations. Boston: Boston Parks and 

Recreation Commission. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Parks/rules.asp. 

[Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Crosthwaite, J.C.; Sobek, S.; Lyons, D.B. [and others]. 2011. The 

overwintering physiology of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis

Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Insect Physiology. 57(1): 

166–173.

Davis, J.; Persons, W.S. 2014. Growing and marketing ginseng, goldenseal 

and other woodland medicinals. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC, Canada: New 

Society Publishers. 508 p.

Dobson, A.; Blossey, B. 2015. Earthworm invasion, white-tailed deer and 

seedling establishment in deciduous forests of north-eastern North 

America. Journal of Ecology. 103(1): 153–164.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2014. Special forest products on the Green Mountain 

and Finger Lakes National Forests: a research-based approach to 

management. Gen. Tech Rep. NRS-131. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 51p .

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C.; Newman, S.; Giammusso, M. 2003. Special forest 

products in context: gatherers and gathering in the Eastern United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-306. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 59 p.

Farrell, M.; Chabot, B. 2012. Assessing the growth potential and economic 

impact of the U.S. maple syrup industry. Journal of Agriculture, Food 

Systems, and Community Development. 2(2): 11–27. 

Federal Register. 2015. Gathering of certain plants or plant parts 

by federally-recognized Indian tribes for traditional purposes: a 

proposed rule by the National Park Service. https://federalregister.

gov/a/2015-08852. [Date accessed: May 5, 2015].

Foderaro, L.W. 2011. Enjoy park greenery, city says, but not as salad. New 

York Times. July 29. 

Frelich, L.E.; Hale, C.M.; Scheu, S. [and others]. 2006. Earthworm invasion 

into previously earthworm-free temperate and boreal forests. Biological 

Invasions. 8: 1235–1245.

Fuller, D. 2012. Ostrich fern fiddleheads: nontimber forest products: goods 

from the Maine woods. Bulletin 2540. Orono: University of Maine. 4 p.

Ginger, C.; Emery, M.R.; Baumflek, M.J.; Putnam, D.E. 2012. Access to 

natural resources on private property: factors beyond right of entry. 

Society & Natural Resources. 25(7): 700–715.

Herms, D.A.; McCullough, D.G. 2014. Emerald ash borer invasion of North 

America: history, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annual 

Review of Entomology. 59: 13–30.

Herrick, J.W. 1995. Iroquois medical botany. Syracuse: Syracuse University 

Press. 293 p.

Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; McLain, R.J. [and others]. 2015. Whose urban 

forest? The political ecology of foraging urban nontimber forest products. 

In: McDonough, G.; Isenhour, C.; Checker, M., eds. Sustainability in the

global city: myth and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press: 

187–212.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 2008. Estimating 

potential habitat for 134 eastern U.S. tree species under six climate 

scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 390–406.

Jahnige, P. 2002. The hidden bounty of the urban forest. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Kimmerer, R. 2011. Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of 

traditional ecological knowledge. In: Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.; Abrams, J., 

eds. Human dimensions of ecological restoration. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 257–276.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J. [and others]. 2013. The impacts of climate 

change on tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556.

McBride, B. 1990. Our lives in our hands: Micmac Indian Basketmakers. 

Gardiner, ME: Tilbury House.

McLain, R.; Jones, E.T. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on 

national forests of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-655. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 85 p.

McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M.R. 2014. Gathering “wild” 

food in the city: rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem 

planning and management. Local Environment. 19(2): 220–240. 

Mundell, K.; Benedict, S.; Herne, S.E. 2008. North by northeast: Wabanaki, 

Akwesasne Mohawk, and Tuscarora traditional arts. Gardinier, ME: 

Tilbury House Publishers. 128 p.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 227

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2014 Federal and state 

recognized tribes. http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/

list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx. [Date accessed: 

December 12, 2014].

Nelson, M.D.; Liknes, G.C.; Butler, B.J. 2010. Map of forest ownership in 

the conterminous United States. [Scale 1:7,500,000.] Res. Map NRS-2. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station.

NYC Parks Administrative Code. 2014. Title 56-Department of Park and 

Recreation-prohibited uses. New York, NY: Department of Parks and 

Recreation. https://www.nycgovparks.org/rules/section-1-04 [Date 

accessed: August 11, 2017].

Parker, A.C. 1910. Iroquois uses of maize and other food plants. Education 

Dept. Bull. 482. Albany: University of the State of New York. Vol. 144. 

202 p.

Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry. 2003. Pennsylvania State Forest resource 

management plan. http://www.apps.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/

nontimber.htm. [Date accessed: February 3, 2015].

Prins, H.E.L.; McBride, B. 2007. Asticou’s island domain: Wabanaki peoples 

at Mount Desert Island, 1500–2000: Acadia National Park ethnographic 

overview and assessment. Vol.1. Boston: National Park Service, 

Northeast Region Ethnography Program. 242 p.

Robbins, P.; Emery, M.R.; Rice, J.L. 2008. Gathering in Thoreau’s backyard: 

nontimber forest product harvesting as practice. Area. 40(2): 265–277. 

Roberts, M.R.; Gilliam, F.S. 2003. Response of the herbaceous layer to 

disturbance in eastern forests. In: Gilliam, F.S.; Roberts, M.R., eds. The 

herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. New York: Oxford 

University Press: 302–320.

Rustad, L.; Campbell, J.; Cox, R. [and others]. 2009. NE Forests 2100: a 

synthesis of climate change impacts on forests of the Northeastern U.S. 

and Eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 39: v–vii.

Skinner, C.B.; DeGaetano, A.T.; Chabot, B.F. 2010. Implications of twentyfirst century climate change on Northeastern United States maple 

syrup production: impacts and adaptations. Climatic Change. 100(3–4): 

685–702. 

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2011. Evidence of local adaptation in the 

demographic response of American ginseng to interannual temperature 

variation. Conservation Biology. 25: 922–931.

Souther, S.; McGraw, J.B. 2014. Synergistic effects of climate change and 

harvest on extinction risk of American ginseng. Ecological Applications. 

24(6): 1463–1477.

Speck, F.G. 1915. The Eastern Algonkian Wabanaki confederacy. American 

Anthropologist. 17(3): 492–508.

Strong, N.; Jacobson, M. 2006. A case for consumer-driven extension 

programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania. 

Agroforestry Systems. 68(1): 43–52. 

Tantaquidgeon, G. 1928. Mohegan medicinal practices, weather lore 

and superstitions. Forty-third annual report. U.S. Bureau of American 

Ethnology: 264–79.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Forest products permits. Elkins, WV: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Monongehela National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/mnf/passes-permits/forestproducts. 

[Date accessed: June 13, 2016].

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2012. Effects of climatic 

variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science 

synthesis for the U.S. forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. 

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

Northwest Research Station. 265 p.

Southeast

James L. Chamberlain

Introduction

The forests of the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, and Virginia) are biologically diverse and the 

source of many nontimber forest products (NTFPs) 

that are embedded in the region’s culture and economy. 

The significant lack of data on most NTFPs does 

not reflect the tremendous number and diversity of 

products. There are a few NTFPs that demonstrate the 

importance of these products to the Southeast. To fully 

understand the social, ecological, and economic value 

of NTFPs it is important to examine them through 

various lenses. An ecoregional perspective portrays 

a cornucopia of biological diversity that interweaves 

to support diverse landscapes from coastal plains to 

high peaks. The forests of the region are vulnerable to 

changes in climate and other anthropogenic stressors, 

but the most immediate limitation to realizing the 

tremendous potential of these resources and products 

is the lack of recognition that they are natural 

resources and require relative management actions.

Land Area in Nontimber 

Forest Product Production

Forests and products—The forest lands of the Southeast 

United States are expansive and diverse. The Southeast 

has nine ecoregions (figure A1.6) that encompass five 

geopolitical subregions (Bailey 1995, Wear et al. 2009). 

Examining the makeup of the forests provides insights 

into the diversity of nontimber forest products of the 

region. The Southeast has five major forest management 

types (Wear et al. 2009), and about 80 percent of this 

is in private ownership. About 20 percent of the total 

forest area is planted pine, while about 15 percent is 

considered natural pine forests. About 40 percent of the 

forests are upland hardwoods, which are the predominant 

forest type in the Southeast. Lowland hardwood 

forests account for about 16 percent of the total, while 

the oak-pine group accounts for about 4 percent.

The Appalachian-Cumberland subregion may the 

most biologically diverse area, represented by three 

distinct ecoregions that define the forests. The Central 

Appalachian Broadleaf Forest—Coniferous Forest—
228 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Meadow Province extends along the mountain ranges to 

the west of the Piedmont, from north Georgia north and 

east through North Carolina and Virginia. To the west of 

this ecoregion is the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) 

Province, which extends through eastern Kentucky, the 

tip of southwestern Virginia, eastern Tennessee and 

small portions of Georgia, and Alabama. The Eastern 

Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province covers much of 

the western portion of the Appalachian-Cumberland 

subregion, through central and western Kentucky, 

Tennessee, and into northern Alabama and Arkansas.

The Cumberland Mountains in this subregion are 

known for high biological diversity and are considered 

the center of the mixed mesophytic vegetation type 

(Keyser et al. 2014). The mixed mesophytic forests are 

the sources of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius 

L) and many other medicinal forest products that are in 

commerce (table A1.3). More than 469,000 pounds of 

dried American ginseng root were harvested from the 

forests of seven southeastern states, from 2000 through 

2013 (figure 2.2). The national forests in Georgia, 

Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee accounted for 

31 to 35 percent of the total value of American ginseng 

harvest reported from those states, from 2009 to 2013.

There are many other nontimber forest products from 

these forests that are ecologically and economically 

important to the region. For example, galax (Galax 

urceolata (Poir) Brummitt), is an herbaceous groundcover 

with glossy green leathery, heart-shaped leaves that 

are harvested for the floral industry (Predny and 

Chamberlain 2005). Most of the harvest occurs 

on Federal lands (Greenfield and Davis 2003), and 

as national forest and national park lands adjoin, 

management and controlling poaching are challenging. 

Ramps (Allium tricoccum Aiton) are spring ephemeral 

herbs native to mixed-mesophytic forests with rich 

moist soils most often found on north-facing slopes. 

Most harvesting was for personal use until the mid-20th 

century when community groups started organizing ramp 

festivals as a source of revenue to support local needs. By 

the end of that century commercial demand had grown 

enough to draw concerns for the long-term conservation 

of the plant. Ramps are a cultural icon for many rural 

people of the Appalachian-Cumberland region. Other 

edible forest products of this subregion include wildharvested black walnuts, mushrooms, and maple syrup.

The Piedmont section of the Southeast is predominantly 

the Southern Mixed Forest Province and stretches from 

northern Virginia through North and South Carolina, 

Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, northern Louisiana, 

and southern Arkansas (Bailey 1995, Rummer and 

Haffer 2014, Wear et al. 2009). Naval stores and other 

pine products were, at one time, major products from 

Piedmont forests. The Piedmont forests are sources 

of native NTFP species such as black cohosh (Actaea 

racemose), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), jack 

in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum L.), joe pye weed 

(Eutrochium spp. Raf.), mayapple (Podophyllum 

peltatum L.), and wild ginger (Asarum canadense 

L.), although they are probably not harvested in 

this region. Tree species native to the Piedmont and 

valued for their nontimber products, include pawpaw 

(Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal), sassafras (Sassafras 

albidum (Nutt.) Nees), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), 

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.), and tulip 

poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera; also commonly 

known as yellow-poplar). Many of these are found 

throughout the region as well as other subregions.

Figure A1.6—Ecoregions of the Southeast. (Source: Adapted from 

Bailey 1995 and Wear et al. 2009)

221-Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic) Province

M221-Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest--Coniferous Forest--Meadow Province

222-Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental) Province

M222-Ozark Broadleaf Forest--Meadow Province

231-Southeastern Mixed Forest Province

M231-Ouachita Mixed Forest--Meadow Province

232-Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province

234-Lower Mississippi Riverine Forest Province

411-Everglades Province
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 229

The Coastal Plains subregion of the Southeast is defined 

by Outer Coastal Plains Mixed Province and extends 

from tidewater of Virginia through North and South 

Carolina, Georgia, most of Florida, the southern portion 

of Alabama and Mississippi, and into Louisiana (Bailey 

1995, Klepzig et al. 2014). Sparse open canopied pine 

stands with dense understory of herbaceous plants 

cover much of the Coastal Plains. Prior to European 

settlement, the pine forests of the Coastal Plains were 

made up of a few species, most notably longleaf pine. 

In much of the North and South Carolina region, there 

is a long history of using sweetgrass (Muhlenbergia 

filipes, M. sericea or M. capillaris) for baskets.

By the early 20th century, the longleaf pine forest 

ecosystem was basically extirpated. Two centuries earlier, 

there was a vibrant economy based on the nontimber 

values of longleaf pine. In the late 1700s, naval stores 

from naturally regenerated longleaf pine forests were 

the colony’s most important industry (Walbert 2015). 

North Carolina was producing more than 70 percent 

of the pine tar exported from North America, and half 

of the turpentine, by the 1770s. Today, other NTFPs 

from pines, particularly pine straw, which is a major 

nursery and landscape forest product, are prominent. 

The long slender needles of longleaf pine are preferred, 

though “straw” is harvested from other pine trees as 

well. Production figures on pine straw suggest that it 

is of significant importance to some states (Harper 

et al. 2009), though data are not readily available 

making assertions for the entire region challenging.

Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) is the other major NTFP 

of the Coastal Plains. The fruit of saw palmetto, a 

short palm with sawlike teeth, and ubiquitous to low 

pine and savanna forests is harvested for its medicinal 

properties. The palm is endemic to the Coastal 

Plains region, from South Carolina to southeastern 

Louisiana, including most of Florida. The palm is a 

common understory shrub in coastal stands and oakpine communities (Duever 2011). Total estimated 

harvest volume of saw palmetto for 1997 through 

2010 was 38.3 million dried pounds (AHPA 2012), 

or an average annual harvest of 2.7 million pounds.

The Coastal Plains forests are the sources of other 

NTFPs, though much less is known about them. For 

example, Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides (L) L), 

harvested from forests of Coastal Plains states, is 

readily available over the Internet. There are ready 

and vibrant markets for cones (green and dry) for 

forest regeneration and for fine arts and crafts. 

Other ferns and plant parts, such as shrub branches 

from crooked-wood (Lyonia ferruginea (Walter) 

Nutt), are harvested for use in the floral industry.

Table A1.3—Average annual harvest of medicinal forest products tracked by American Herbal Products Association and 

found in southeastern forests. Sources: AHPA 2012, Chamberlain et al. 2013.

Latin name Common name Plant part

Average annual 

harvesta

2001–2005

Average annual 

harvesta

2006–2010

Percent 

change

Actaea racemosa Black cohosh Root 224,072 284,162 26.8

Aletris farinosa White colicroot Root 1,012 690 -31.9

Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Root 121 43 -64.2

Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue cohosh Root 6,651 5,169 -22.3

Chamaelirium luteum Fairywand Root 4,688 4,541 -3.1

Cypripedium spp. Lady’s slipper Whole plant 51 48 -4.3

Dioscorea villosa Wild yam Tuber 33,422 37,692 12.8

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Root and leaf 73,619 74,708 1.5

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng Root 62,294 63,461 2.0

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Root 24,823 5,056 -79.6

Serenoa repens Saw palmetto Fruit 3,293,377 2,432,841 -26.1

Trillium erectum Red trillium Whole plant 1,099 1,445 31.5

Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Bark 182,435 304,207 66.7

a Average annual wild harvest (pounds dry weight) for 5-year periods.
230 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

The Lower Mississippi Riverine Forest Province, as 

defined by Bailey (1995) and that once covered most 

of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley subregion, has 

changed so much that only remnants of the Province 

can be found. Prior to most of it being converted to 

agricultural lands, this was a vast forest of bottomland deciduous trees. A few species identified that are 

harvested for their nontimber values include giant cane 

(Arundo donax L.), pawpaw, common persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana L.), eastern redcedar (Juniperus 

virginiana L.), sweetgum, red mulberry (Morus rubra 

L.), and sassafras. Muscadine grapes (Vitis rotundifolia 

Michx.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), and other edible 

forest products are found in forests of the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley. Spanish moss grows in the canopy 

and may be collected for its decorative properties.

The Mid-South subregion is comprised of three 

ecoregions in Arkansas. Parts of this subregion, 

especially the northern third, are the source of 

American ginseng and other medicinal forest 

products. As biological diversity of this region 

declines the number of NTFPs are fewer.

National forests of the Southeast—Federal ownership 

controls less than 20 percent of the forest lands in 

the Southeast, and these forests are the sources and 

refugia of many NTFPs. The national parks and 

other protected areas are the last refuge for many of 

the plants and fungi harvested for nontimber values. 

They harbor the genepool that ensures the resiliency 

of NTFP resources. The national forests have multiple 

roles in the protection and conservation of NTFPs. 

The management of NTFPs on national forests is 

guided by recent legislation (DOI appropriations 

2000, 2004, 2008). The permitted harvest records 

from national forests of the Southeast provide another 

perspective of the importance of NTFPs in the region.

The units of measure for permitted NTFP harvests are 

not convertible to those used for timber, and as such 

comparing the two types of products is not possible 

(USDA Forest Service 2015). Over a 5-year period 

(table A1.4), ending in 2014, the national forests of 

the Southeast permitted the harvest of 800 cubic 

feet, 2.1 million pounds, 108,000 pieces, and 2,000 

bushels of nontimber forest products. The national 

forests of Alabama reported the most “cubic feet” of 

“nonconvertible product”, which were pine needles. 

The Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas reported 

tons of “other plant” products, which was converted to 

“pounds” for this summary and may distort those figures. 

The National Forests of North Carolina reported about 

600,000 pounds of NTFPs that included foliage, herbs, 

roots, and vines. The leaves of galax are a major portion 

of the products reported as harvested for foliage. The 

Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee issued harvest 

permits for 24,000 “pieces” that were transplants (live 

plants dug from the forests for nursery and landscaping).

Revenues generated from NTFP harvest permits by 

the national forests (table A1.5) may be indicative of 

the total market value, but extrapolating total market 

value from these figures is problematic. Nonetheless, 

the national forests in the Southeast generated about 

$470,000 from issuance of harvest permits for NTFPs 

for the 5-year period ending in 2014. The National 

Forests of North Carolina were responsible for 70 

percent of the total, while the National Forests of 

Florida accounted for about 12 percent. Most of 

the value realized by the National Forests of North 

Carolina came from the sale of foliage (e.g., galax 

leaves) and roots (e.g., American ginseng). About 80 

percent of the value realized by National Forests of 

Florida was from the sale of limbs/boughs and foliage.

Other national forests generated revenues from the sale 

of NTFPs, though they did not add significantly, to 

the overall total. Even though, some national forests 

realized significant revenues from specific products. For 

example, the National Forests of Alabama generated 

nearly all of its NTFP revenues from the sale of 

needles. The Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana 

generated nearly all of its NTFP revenues in 2010 

from the sale of cones. The Daniel Boone National 

Forest (KY) and the Chattahoochee/Oconee (GA) have 

consistently generated about 80 percent of their NTFP 

revenues from the sale of roots over the last 5 years.

Threats and Challenges 

to Meeting Production

The production of NTFPs from the region’s forests 

is vulnerable to changes caused by climate and 

other anthropogenic stressors. Urbanization, 

parcelization, and other development may lead to 

lose of critical habitats. Unmanaged harvesting 

pressures can lead to species extirpation, loss of 

genetic resources, and a decline in forest resiliency.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 231

The forests of Florida and other low lying areas in the 

Coastal Plains that dominate much of the Southeast, 

are especially vulnerable to changes in sea levels. This 

will reduce the habitat for important NTFPs such as 

saw palmetto that supplies the raw materials for herbal 

medicines used to treat prostate issues. Sweetgrass 

that grows in coastal forests of South Carolina would 

be directly affected by changes in sea levels, which 

will impact ethnic artisans that use the grass to 

make traditional baskets. Encroachment of sea levels 

into other low lying forests also could impact other 

habitats that are valuable for production of NTFPs.

Changes in climate will affect understory NTFPs in 

more biodiverse upland forests in the Southeast. Some 

temperate hardwood forests in the mountainous regions 

are high in biological diversity and many of the plants 

are sensitive to climate change. In particular, spring 

ephemeral herbs, such as ramps (a culinary onion), 

that grow on the forest floor are affected by small 

changes in temperature and moisture. Changes in soil 

dynamics may affect NTFPs that are harvested for 

their roots, such as American ginseng, and many other 

medicinal forest products. Changes in the understory 

composition and complexity will impact the biodiversity 

of the region, as well as forest health and resiliency.

The most immediate challenge to production of NTFPs is 

recognizing that these are natural resources of ecological 

and economic value, and require action to manage 

them like other natural resources. Many NTFPs are 

harvested for their roots, rhizomes, and the entire plant, 

Table A1.4—Permitted harvest volumes of NTFPs from national forests (NFs) of the Southeast. Source: USDA Forest Service 2015.

State National forest

Unit of 

measure 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

AL NFs in Alabama Cubic feet 80 220 83 344 63 790

Pounds 2 2 4

KY Daniel Boone Pounds 554 1,060 443 515 452 3,024

GA Chattahoochee/Oconee Pieces 2,139 2,531 1,261 1,420 880 8,231

Pounds 6,200 1,829 4,021 2,623 1,817 16,490

TN Cherokee Pieces 3,622 6,572 4,732 3,985 5,090 24,001

Pounds 4,845 3,196 3,757 3,310 6,155 21,263

FL NFs in Florida Pieces 133 138 271

pounds 138,698 135,711 95,610 59,399 85,795 515,213

LA Kisatchie Cubic feet 10 10

Bushels 2,000 4 28 28 2,060

MS NFs in Mississippi Bushels 500 500 200 100 40 1,340

VA GW & Jefferson Pounds 20 20 8 48

AR Ouachita Pounds 230,000 230,000 282,000 90,000 50,000 882,000

AR Ozark St. Francisa

NC NFs in N orth Carolina Pieces 10,592 16,327 16,594 20,572 11,955 76,040

Cubic feet 1 1

Bushels 35 35

Pounds 101,521 112,938 129,061 120,538 141,596 605,654

SC Francis Marion Pounds 12,000 6,000 14,000 8,000 14,000 54,000

TN/KY Land Between the Lakesa

Totals Cubic feet 90 220 83 344 64 801

Pounds 493,820 490,736 528,912 284,405 299,823 2,097,696

Pieces 16,486 25,568 22,587 25,977 17,925 108,543

Bushels 2,000 39 28 28 2,095

a No permit harvest reports issued by these national forests.
232 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

which has direct impact on the populations’ abilities 

to sustain and regenerate. This can have deleterious 

impacts on natural populations if done with disregard 

to the long-term effects. There is little information about 

the long-term impacts of harvesting NTFPs and how to 

manage them without detriment to natural populations. 

Sustainable management of NTFP resources requires 

more knowledge and the integration of that knowledge 

into forest management. The management of forests to 

include NTFPs is essential for health of the forests and 

the communities that depend on them for these products.

Potential and Limitations

The Southeast is referred to as the “wood basket” 

for the forest products industry, as the region is the 

source for most of the timber for the industry. Those 

same forests are the source of many other forest 

products, and many of those forests produce “green 

gold,” a term of endearment for American ginseng 

because of the tremendous economic potential of this 

understory NTFP. The incredible biological diversity 

of the Southeast’s forests means that there is great 

potential for them to be the source of many products 

for many uses. To realize this potential, we must 

address the greatest limitation, which is the lack of 

management of these resources, relative to their social, 

cultural, ecological, and economic importance.

Literature Cited

American Herbal Products Association [AHPA]. 2012. Tonnage surveys of 

select North American wild-harvested plants, 2006–2010. Silver Springs, 

MD: American Herbal Products Association. 24 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA 

Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt. [Date accessed: 

April 23, 2015].

Chamberlain, J.L.; Prisley, S.; McGuffin, M. 2013. Understanding the 

relationship between American ginseng harvest and hardwood forests 

inventory and timber harvest to improve co-management of the forests of 

Eastern United States. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32(6): 605–624.

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000 

[DOI appropriations 2000]. 113 Stat. 1501. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

PLAW-106publ113/pdf/PLAW-106publ113.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

11, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 

[DOI appropriations 2004]. 117 Stat. 1312. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-108publ108/pdf/PLAW-108publ108.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 10, 2017].

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 

[DOI appropriations 2008]. 123 Stat. 2960. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/PLAW-111publ88/pdf/PLAW-111publ88.pdf. [Date accessed: August 

10, 2017].

Duever, L.C. 2011. Ecology and management of saw palmetto. A report to 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Gainesville, FL: 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 81 p.

Greenfield, J.; Davis, J.M. 2003. Collection to commerce: Western North 

Carolina nontimber forest products and their markets. Raleigh: North 

Carolina State University. 106 p.

Harper, R.A.; McLure, N.D.; Johnson, T.G. [and others]. 2009. Georgia’s 

forests, 2004. Resour. Bull. SRS-149. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 78 p.

Table A1.5—Revenues from the permitted harvest of NTFPs from southeastern national forests (NFs). Source: USDA Forest Service 2015.

State National forest 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Total

--------------------------------------- U.S. dollars --------------------------------------- percent

AL NFs in Alabama 880 1,840 830 830 630 5,010 1.1

KY Daniel Boone 1,900 2,540 1,740 2,700 1,890 10,770 2.3

GA Chattahoochee/ Oconee 2,043 1,275 2,610 4,105 855 10,888 2.3

TN Cherokee 7,519 8,569 9,765 9,170 7,245 42,268 8.9

FL NFs in Florida 15,226 14,350 9,258 9,056 9,818 57,706 12.2

LA Kisatchie 10,100 20 182 182 10,484 2.2

MS NFs in Mississippi 250 250 100 50 20 670 0.1

VA GW & Jefferson 20 20 8 48 0.0

AR Ouachita 115 115 141 180 125 676 0.1

AR Ozark St. Francisa

NC NFs in North. Carolina 58,768 61,979 71,618 75,000 67,453 334,817 70.6

SC Francis Marion 150 75 155 100 175 655 0.1

TN/KY Land Between the Lakesa

Total 96,950 91,013 96,418 101,393 88,219 473,992

a No permit revenues reported by these national forests.
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 233

Keyser, T.; Malone, J.; Cotton, C.; Lewis, J. 2014. Outlook for AppalachianCumberland forests: a subregional report from the Southern Forest 

Futures Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-188. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 83 p.

Klepzig, K.; Shelfer, R.; Choice, Z. 2014. Outlook for Coastal Plain forests: a 

subregional report from the Southern Forest Futures Project. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-196. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 68 p.

Predny, M.L.; Chamberlain, J.L. 2005. Galax (Galax urceolata): an annotated 

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-87. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 33 p.

Rummer, R.B.; Hafer, M.L. 2014. Outlook for Piedmont forests: a subregional 

report from the southern Forest Futures Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-195. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 84 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Cut and sold reports. http://www.fs.fed.

us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/cut-sold.shtml. [Date 

accessed: January 15, 2015].

Walbert, D. 2015. Naval stores and the longleaf pine. Learn NC—North 

Carolina digital history. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 

School of Education. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchistcolonial/4069. [Date accessed: May 5, 2015].

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: using public input to define the issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-115. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 17 p.

Caribbean

Sarah Workman

Introduction

As part of the Lesser Antillean archipelago, the U.S. 

Caribbean islands consist primarily of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). There are six 

subtropical Holdridge Life Zones on the island of 

Puerto Rico (Ewel and Witmore 1973), representative 

of the USVI also (Woodbury and Weaver 2007), 

with diverse terrestrial, wetland, coastal, and marine 

ecosystems as well as agroforest and urban systems 

(Miller and Lugo 2009). The other U.S. Caribbean 

islands share a tropical maritime climate that has little 

annual variation in temperature and distinct seasonal 

rainfall, with a rugged topography in short distances 

from ocean to mountaintops. The predominant forest 

types are subtropical moist forest and dry forest with 

some lowland montane rainforest on Puerto Rico 

(Holdridge 1967). Natural vegetation in the Puerto Rico 

Province (M411) ecoregion includes orchids, vines, and 

grasses. South-facing xeric sites support thorn scrub 

(e.g., acacia), royal palm (Roystonea regia (Kunth) 

O.F.Cook), agave (Agave spp.), and cacti (Bailey 1995).

Puerto Rico is the largest island of a group of cays and 

islands that includes Mona, Monito, and Desecheo to 

the west and Culebra and Vieques to the east. Fifty-three 

percent of the island of Puerto Rico is mountainous 

(three ranges) with nearly 12 percent of the landscape 

in ridges, 25 percent in plains, and 20 percent hilly. Dry 

climatic conditions prevail on nearly 30 percent of the 

island and, of the 57 landscape units of the islands of 

Puerto Rico, the most abundant landforms are moist 

and wet slopes, primarily on volcanic soils (Puerto 

Rico DNER 2009, Gould et al. 2008, Martinuzzi et 

al. 2007). Puerto Rico consists of 49 percent forest, 33 

percent agriculture/pasture, and 14 percent developed 

land. Private ownership comprises 82 percent of 

forests on Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico DNER 2009).

The USVI has three large islands, St. Croix, St. John, and 

St. Thomas, and includes nearby Water Island along with 

68 smaller islands and cays. Most of the forested land 

is privately owned on the two larger islands (89 percent 

St. Croix, 94 percent St. Thomas) while 74 percent of 

St. John’s forest is managed as the VI National Park. 

The topography is characterized by central mountain 

ranges and small coastal plains. The uplands are rocky, 

rugged slopes; 50 percent of St. Croix’s land area contains 

slopes of 25 percent to 35 percent. Natural influences 

such as landslides, hurricanes-tropical storms, and fire 

are key to shaping the environment and the marine and 

terrestrial communities of the islands (Chakroff 2010).

Cultural Perspective

Understanding nontimber forest products (NTFPs), 

their uses, markets, and most importantly their ecology 

for their conservation and continued viability, is an 

important aspect of forest management (Chamberlain 

2014, FAO 2010, IFCAE 1998, USDA Forest Service 

2014). NTFPs are valued by people as resources for 

their health and well-being. As testament to their role 

in the economy and culture of the islands, over 500 

native and introduced tree species are recognized as 

materials for arts, crafts, building components, or 

charcoal (FAO 2010, Kicliter 1997). Stewardship of 

NTFPs and awareness of needs for conservation of 

native plants harvested for commercial and personal 

use is important since island ecosystems, with limited 

biological buffering capacity, are especially vulnerable 

to change (Ewel et al. 2013). More than 165 commercial 

species of NTFPs are listed in the United States NTFP 

species database (IFCAE 1998) for Puerto Rico.

Most of the NTFPs collected or cultivated have 

traditions based on inherited knowledge and cultural 
234 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

identity from the many peoples who have immigrated 

to the islands. NTFPs are part of the region’s history 

and have a long tradition of local and commercial 

benefits that include development of medicinal plants, 

arts and crafts materials, food, fibers, animal forage, 

resins, and oils (Acevedo-Rodriquez 1985; Robinson 

et al. 2014). Some local artisans are using native 

and other locally grown wood to produce musical 

instruments (Kicliter 1997) and materials for artisanal 

woodworking are important nontimber forest products.

Kicliter (1997) found a large variety of NTFPs used by 

artisans to make crafted items from forest materials

(table A1.6). Wood carving, especially of native bird 

and animal species, has a rich history in Puerto Rico. 

Carved figures of saints or santeros, primarily from 

Spanish cedar and mahogany (Swietenia L. spp.), are 

renowned as folkart and traditional artistry. Kicliter 

(1997) noted that local artisans on Puerto Rico express 

concern about availability of the most commonly 

used species and note some problems of scarcity.

Across the islands, many NTFPs are valued for fibers 

and as components of crafts. Seeds, bark and other tree 

parts are used for items that vary from jewelry, nursery 

stock, and medicines (Jones 1995, Kicliter 1997, Petersen 

1990, Thomas et al. 1997, van Andel 2006). Trees and 

woody plants in forest and woodland habitats important 

for bee-keeping and honey production help maintain 

pollinator populations and other ecosystem services, and 

provide material for value-added products such as mead, 

a novel product flavored with infusions of tropical fruits.

A number of trees and shrubs yield edible fruits (Aleman 

et al. 2005, Birdsey and Weaver 1982, Kicliter 1997, 

Little and Wadsworth 1999, Vila-Ruiz et al. 2014). 

Traditional varieties of fruits (e.g., indigenous fruits like 

guavaberry [Myrciaria floribunda (West ex Willd.) Berg] 

or avocado [Persea americana Mill. var. americana]) or 

mixtures of culinary crops under tree shade have cultural 

antecedents. Guamo (Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd.) or river 

koko (Inga vera Willd.) have provided shade for coffee 

plantings in Puerto Rico (Morgan and Zimmerman 

2014, Birdsey and Weaver 1982). Many others, such as 

mango (Mangifera indica L.), coconut (Cocos nucifera

L.), bananas and plantains (Musa spp.), sea or tropical 

almond (Terminalia catappa L.), tamarind (Tamarindus 

indica L.), and baobab trees (Adansonia digitate L.), were 

introduced from the Old World. Others were introduced 

from South America, such as the mamee apple (Mammea 

Americana L.), stinkingtoe or West Indian locust 

(Hymenaea courbaril L.), and Spanish lime (Melicoccus 

bijugatus Jacq.). References for the silvics (Francis et 

al. 2000), forest inventory (Brandeis and Turner 2013, 

FAO 2010), and flora of the islands (Acevedo-Rodriquez 

1996, Little and Wadsworth 1999, Little et al. 1988) help 

clarify native, naturalized, and exotic status of species.

Seeds from more than 30 tree species (Kicliter 1997) 

are used for rosary beads and jewelry or other crafts. 

Other species are of note for charcoal or fence posts 

or fuelwood (Birdsey and Weaver 1982, Kicliter 

1997). Harvesting bayrum (Pimenta racemose (Mill. 

J.W. Moore) leaves and berries to make perfume and 

cosmetics was a big industry on the island of St. John, 

Table A1.6—Categories of items crafted from nontimber wood in Puerto Rico. Adapted from Kicliter 1997, p. 23.

Carving—general

Carved saints

Musical instruments Wooden barrels for drums, bamboo, calabash, rods

Wood models and replicas Boats, houses, toys, trays, facades, brooms, etc.

Images and scenes Painted, wood relief

Turned wood Balustrades, vases, bowls, cups, pens, etc.

Coconut Sculpted heads, cups, flower planters, piggy banks, masks, earrings, bracelets, etc.

Calabash Utensils, bowls ,etc.

Basket weaving Vines

Other weaving Palms, potato, hammocks, figures, hats, etc.

Jewelry From wood, seeds

Other crafts from forest products Stone sculptures, forest clay, wooden handles
APPENDIX 1 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 235

USVI, from 1880 to 1950 (Weaver 2009). Fibers are 

used for hats, baskets, mats, brooms, and as thatch 

or Mauritius hemp (Furcraea foetida (L.) Haw.) for 

traditional hammocks (Kicliter 1997, van Andel 2006).

Medicinal plants play an important role in rural and 

traditional household life and are widely used in the 

islands (Kicliter 1997, Liogier 1990, Palada et al. 2005, 

Petersen 1990, Thomas et al. 1997). There are dozens 

if not hundreds of plants utilized traditionally for their 

curative properties. Examples include lignum-vitae 

(Guaiacum officinale L.) used to treat yaws, achiote 

(Bixa orellana L.) to treat headaches, chaneyroot (Smilax 

coriacea Spreng.) used as a tonic and stimulant, the 

plant of many applications worrywine (Stachytarpheta 

jamaicensis (L.) Vahl) as an anti-inflammatory, congoroot (Petiveria alliacea L.) for sinus congestion, and 

bayrum for essential oil and as a fragrance plant. 

Useful medicinal products are sought from the soursop 

(Annona muricata L.), the turpentine tree (Bursera 

simaruba (L.) Sarg.), the bloodwood or campeche 

(Haematoxylum campechianum L.), and many others. 

From bush tea herbs to stimulants and curatives, local 

plants and botanical products from forests may be 

cultivated and have both formal and informal markets.

The tropical islands are home to some of the world’s 

most biologically diverse forest ecosystems—sources of 

a large variety of NTFPs. These forests have changed 

drastically since first contact with nonnative inhabitants. 

The potential impacts to tropical NTFPs from climate 

change and other stressors are tremendous. Increased 

catastrophic weather events may result in extirpation of 

habitats and species. Changes in temperature regimes 

may result in irreversible alterations in forest habitat 

that eliminate species. Livelihoods related to the tourist 

industry, a foundation for the economy, could suffer 

with loss of raw materials for fine arts and crafts.

Literature Cited

Acevedo-Rodriquez, P. 1996. Flora of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Memoirs 

of the New York Botanical Garden Vol. 78. Bronx: New York Botanical 

Garden. Vol. 78. 581 p.

Aleman, G.; Ledesma, N.; Campbell, R.J.; Herrera, J.C. 2005. The 

introduction of West Indian avocados to South Florida. Proceedings 

Florida State Horticulture Society. 118: 244–246. 

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA 

Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt. [Date accessed: 

August 14, 2017].

Birdsey, R.A.; Weaver, P.L. 1982. The forest resources of Puerto Rico.

Resour. Bull. SO-85. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Brandeis, T.J.; Turner, J.A. 2013. U.S. Virgin Islands’ forests, 2009. Resour. 

Bull. SRS-196. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/

rb/rb_srs196.pdf. [Date accessed: August 14, 2017].

Chakroff, M. 2010. U.S. Virgin Islands forest resources assessment and 

strategies. VI Department of Agriculture. 100 p. http://vifresh.com/

forestry.php.

Chamberlain, J. 2014. Integrating understory herbaceous plants into forest 

management. Journal of Forestry. Proceedings of National Convention of 

Society of American Foresters. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/47170.

Ewel, J.J.; Mascaro, J.; Kueffer, C. [and others]. 2013. Islands: where 

novelty is the norm. In: Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.S.; Hall, C.M., eds. Novel 

ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. 1st ed. 

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Chapter 4.

Ewel, J.J.; Whitmore, J.L. 1973. The ecological life zones of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Research Paper ITF-18. Río Piedras, PR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Institute of Tropical 

Forestry. 72 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Forestry 

Department. 2010. County report: United States Virgin Islands. In: 

Brandeis, T.; Chakroff, M., eds. FRA2010/224, Global Forest Resources 

Assessment 2010. www.fao.org/forestry/fra. [Date accessed: August 

14, 2017].

Francis, J.K.; Lowe, C.A., eds. 2000. Bioecología de arboles nativos y 

exóticos de Puerto Rico y las Indias Occidentales (Silvics of native and 

exotic trees of Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Islands). Gen. Tech. Rep. 

IITF-15. Río Piedras, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

International Institute of Tropical Forestry.

Gould, W.A.; Martinuzzi, S.; Ramos Gonzalez, O.M. 2008. Developed land 

cover of Puerto Rico. Res. Map IITF-RMAP-10. Río Piedras, PR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of 

Tropical Forestry. [map].

Holdridge, L.R. 1967. Life zone ecology. San Jose, CR: Centro Científico 

Tropical.

Institute for Culture and Ecology [IFCAE]. 1998. NTFP species database. 

Portland, OR: NTFP Info.us. Institute for Culture and Ecology. http://

www.ntfpinfo.us/cgi-bin/ntfp/db/dbsql/db.cgi?db=prod&uid=default&s

b=1&so=ascend&Synon=&Common=&Family=&Products=---&ThisRan

ge=PR&mh=1401&vr=Perform+Search. [Date accessed: April 20, 2015].

Jones, K.D. 1995. Native trees for community forests. St. Croix, VI: St. 

George Village Botanical Garden. 124 p.

Kicliter, V. 1997. Forest products of Puerto Rico. An overview of trends in 

forest products use, August 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Published by U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service - El 

Atlántico RC&D Area, Arecibo, Puerto Rico. 61 p. 

Liogier, A.H., 1990. Plantas medicinales de Puerto Rico y del Caribe (Vol. 4). 

San Juan, Puerto Rico: Iberoamericana de Ediciones xvii, 566p.-illus. 

Sp Geog. 

Little, E.L.; Woodbury, R.O.; Wadsworth, F.H. 1988. Arboles de Puerto Rico 

y Las Islas Virgenes, Vol 2. Agric. Handb. 449-S. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1177 p.

Little, E.L., Jr.; Wadsworth, F.H. 1999. Common trees of Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands. Agric. Handb. 249. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 572 p.

Martinuzzi, S., Gould, W.A.; Ramos González, O.M. 2007. Land development, 

land use, and urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and 

population census data. Landscaping and Urban Planning. 79: 288–297.

Miller, G.L.; Lugo, A.E. 2009. Guide to the ecological systems of Puerto Rico. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-35. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry. 437 p.
236 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 1

Morgan, M.; Zimmerman, T.W. 2014. Agroforestry in the Caribbean, 

traditional systems, both sustainable and biodiverse. In: Nandwani, D., 

ed. Sustainable horticultural systems, sustainable development and 

biodiversity. Volume 2. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing: 

129–142.

Palada, M.C.; Mitchell, J.M.; Becker, B.N.; Nair, P.K.R. 2005. The integration 

of medicinal plants and culinary herbs in agroforestry systems for the 

Caribbean: a study in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Acta Horticulture. 676: 

147–153. 

Petersen, A. 1990. Herbs and proverbs of the Virgin Islands. St. Thomas: St. 

Thomas Graphics. 78 p. http://www.bing.com/search?q=arona+peterse

n+youtube&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02. [Date accessed: August 

14, 2017].

Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources [DNER]. 

2009. Puerto Rico statewide assessment and strategies for forest 

resources. San Juan, PR. 100 p. 

Robinson, K.; Bauer, J.; Lugo, A.E. 2014. Passing the baton from the Tainos 

to tomorrow: forest conservation in Puerto Rico. FS-862. San Juan, PR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of 

Tropical Forestry.

Thomas, T.; O’Reilly, R.G.; Davis, O. 1997. Traditional medicinal plants of 

St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John: a selection of 68 plants. St. Thomas: 

University of Virgin Islands. 187 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Inventory and Analysis: fiscal year 

2013 business report. FS-1040. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

van Andel, T. 2006. Agrodok 39: nontimber forest products, the value of wild 

plants. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Agromisa Foundation and CTA. 69 

p. http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/AD39.pdf. [Date accessed: 

August 14, 2017].

Vila-Ruiz, C.P.; Meléndez-Ackerman, E.; Santiago-Bartolomei, R. [and 

others]. 2014. Plant species richness and abundance in residential yards 

across a tropical watershed: implications for urban sustainability. Ecology 

and Society. 19(3): 22. 

Weaver, P.L. 2009. Long-term diameter growth for trees in the Cinnamon 

Bay Watershed. Acta Científica. 23(1–3): 23–33.

Woodbury, R.O.; Weaver, P.L. 1987. The vegetation of St. John and Hassel 

Island, U.S. Virgin Islands. Research/Resources Management Report 

SER-83. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service.
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 237

Appendix 2: Assessment of Risk 

Due to Climate Change

A variety of nontimber forest product (NTFP) 

species were selected to represent a range of taxa (e.g., 

tree, shrub) from different U.S. regions. Species that are 

presented in this appendix reflect an effort to compile 

and synthesize available information to construct risk 

matrices identifying the climate related stressors, threats, 

and vulnerability to the species as understood within 

the predictive capacity for different climate models.

Paper Birch 

(Betula papyrifera Marsh.)

Marla R. Emery and Louis Iverson

Nontimber Forest Products and Values

Paper birch bark is used by peoples from Alaska to 

Maine for personal, commercial, and traditional 

cultural purposes. Paper birch is a cultural keystone 

species for Anishinaabe (also referred to as Ojibwe or 

Chippewa) peoples of the Upper Midwest, for whom 

the tree plays a central role in cultural teachings and 

practices (Emery et al. 2014). Birch bark also is an 

important part of the cultural traditions of Americans 

with roots in Scandinavia and Russia (North House Folk 

School 2007, Yarrish et al. 2009). The many current 

and historical uses of paper birch bark include canoes, 

baskets, sheeting to cover structures, and writing media 

(Emery et al. 2014, Turner et al. 2009). These uses 

take advantage of the unique mechanical and chemical 

properties of birch bark, which is flexible but tough, has 

many separable layers, and contains compounds such as 

suberine and betuline, which make it highly flammable 

yet waterproof and retard decay of the bark and items 

stored in it (Krasutsky 2006). Unlike most tree species, 

the bark of paper birch can be harvested around the 

entire circumference of a tree without killing it, provided 

the cambium layer remains intact (Turner et al. 2009).

Ecology

In 1990, Safford et al. stated that the native range 

of paper birch:

“closely follows the northern limit of tree growth 

from New Foundland and Labrador west across the 

continent into northwest Alaska; Southeast from 

Kodiak Island in Alaska to British Columbia and 

Washington; east in the mountains of Northeast 

Oregon, northern Idaho, and western Montana 

with scattered outliers in the northern Great Plains 

of Canada, Montana, North Dakota, the Black 

Hills of South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and 

the Front Range of Colorado; east in Minnesota 

and Iowa, through the Great Lakes region into 

New England. Paper birch also extends down 

the Appalachian Mountains from central New 

York to western North Carolina.” (figure A2.1)

Figure A2.1—Suitable habitat (Iverson and Prasad 2002) for paper birch across the eastern United States according to (a) 

current USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis data, (b) projected future habitat for the year ~2100 under a mild 

scenario of climate change (PCM B1), and (c) a harsh scenario (GFDL A1FI).
238 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

Throughout its range, paper birch occurs in both pure 

stands and as a component of mixed forests, including 

other hardwood and softwood tree species (Moser 

et al. 2015). It commonly occurs with a variety of 

shrubs with NTFP values. In the east, these include 

beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta Marshall), bearberry 

(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.), wintergreen 

(Gaultheria procumbens L.), sarsaparilla (Aralia 

nudicaulis L.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), raspberries 

and blackberries (Rubus spp.), elderberry (Sambucus 

canadensis L.), and hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides

Michx.). Among common woody companion NTFPs 

in the Alaskan interior are high bush cranberry 

(Viburnum edule (Michx.) Raf.), Labrador tea (Ledum 

groenlandicum Oeder), and roses (Rosa spp.). While 

tolerant of a wide range of precipitation patterns and 

volumes, paper birch does not readily tolerate high 

temperatures and rarely grows naturally where average 

July temperatures exceed 70 °F (Safford et al. 1990).

Climate Change-Related Risks

In the United States, paper birch and NTFP uses of its 

bark appear to be particularly vulnerable to climate 

change effects (Iverson and Prasad 2002). Paper 

birch is on the International Union for Conservation 

of Nature (IUCN) List of Threatened Species, or 

Red List6 with the note that “Climate change will 

extirpate paper birch at its southernmost distribution, 

especially in the mid- to southern Appalachian 

Mountains,” although the northern extent of its range 

in eastern Canada may increase (Stritch 2014).

A complex of interacting climate change-related factors 

are likely to adversely affect paper birch populations 

in eastern North American and, consequently, the 

availability of birch bark. Among these factors are rising 

temperatures (Ashraf et al. 2015) and tropospheric ozone 

levels (Karnosky et al. 2005), as well as increased winter 

temperature variability (Man et al. 2014). Further, among 

eastern hardwood species, paper birch is especially 

susceptible to ice damage and subsequent mortality, 

making it vulnerable to projected increases in frequency 

and severity of ice storms (Bruederle and Stearns 1985, 

Duguay et al. 2001, Hopkin et al. 2003, Rustad and 

Campbell 2012). In an analysis of vulnerabilities to climate 

change among forest communities in northern Wisconsin 

6 The report also provides technical input to the 2017 National Climate Assessment (NCA) Given the global perspective of the IUCN and 

projected expansion of the paper birch range in eastern Canada, the species is rated “Least Concern” on the Red List.

and western Upper Peninsula Michigan, aspen-birch, 

upland spruce-fir, lowland conifers, lowland-riparian 

hardwoods, and red pine forests were determined to be the 

most vulnerable ecosystems by a panel of experts reviewing 

ecological and model information (Janowiak et al. 2014).

We used the “Climate Change Tree Atlas” (Iverson et al. 

2008) and methods developed for the National Climate 

Assessment (Iverson et al. 2012) to generate a risk matrix 

for paper birch in the northeastern United States (northern 

Wisconsin and northern New York to western Maine) for 

three future periods: 2010 to 2014, 2040 to 2070, and 

2070 to 2100. Two scenarios of climate change by century 

end were evaluated according to Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change scenarios (Nakicenovic et 

al. 2000): mild (Parallel Climate Model [PCM] B1; 

Washington et al. 2000) and harsh (Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamic Laboratory [GFDL]; Delworth et al. 2006).

When we evaluate the risk matrix for the two locations, 

both show increasing risk with time as habitat is projected 

to move north (figure A2.2). Northern Wisconsin is 

poised to lose substantially more suitable habitat by 

2070 as compared to northern New York and western 

Maine under either high or low emissions scenarios. Both 

locations are in the “develop strategies” zone, the highest 

level of risk, by 2070 under the harsh GFDL scenario and 

northern Wisconsin hits this level of risk even under the 

mild PCM scenario by 2070. The species is also low in its 

overall level of adaptability to increased disturbances from 

climate change, especially by century’s end (figure A2.2)

Conclusions

It appears likely the 21st century will be challenging for 

paper birch in the United States and those who depend 

on its bark for livelihood and culture. Potential ecological 

adaptation strategies will include silvicultural approaches 

to assist the resistance and resilience of the species in situ, 

and potentially northward assisted migration of southern 

genotypes. Social adaptation strategies may include 

development of trade networks that make northern 

paper birch bark available to peoples in southern regions 

where the species has become scarce to absent. The 

longer-term outlook for the species is tenuous but there 

may be room for optimism that through concerted 

effort it may be possible to maintain stands for those 

who need a supply of birch bark (Huang et al. 2013).
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 239

Literature Cited

Ashraf, M.I.; Bourque, C.P.A.; MacLean, D.A. [and others]. 2015. Estimation 

of potential impacts of climate change on growth and yield of temperate 

tree species. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 

20(1): 159–178.

Bruederle, L.P.; Stearns, F.W. 1985. Ice storm damage to a southern 

Wisconsin mesic forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 112(2): 

167–175.

Delworth, T.L.; Broccoli, A.J.; Rosati, A. [and others]. 2006. GFDL’s CM2 

global coupled climate models. Part I: formulation and simulation 

characteristics. Journal of Climate. 19(5): 643–674.

Duguay, S.M.; Arii, K.; Hooper, M.; Lechowicz, J. 2001. Ice storm damage 

and early recovery in an old-growth forest. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment. 67: 97–108.

Emery, M.R.; Wrobel, A.; Hansen, M.H. [and others]. 2014. Using traditional 

ecological knowledge as a basis for targeted forest inventory: paper birch 

(Betula papyrifera) in the U.S. Great Lakes region. Journal of Forestry. 

112(2): 207–214.

Hopkin, A.; Williams, T.; Sajan, R. [and others]. 2003. Ice storm damage 

to eastern Ontario forests: 1998–2001. The Forestry Chronicle. 79(1): 

47–53.

Huang, J.G.; Bergeron, Y.; Berninger. F. [and others]. 2013. Impact of future 

climate on radial growth of four major boreal tree species in the eastern 

Canadian boreal forest. PLOS ONE. 8(2): e56758. 

Iverson, L.; Matthews, S.; Prasad, A. [and others]. 2012. Development 

of risk matrices for evaluating climatic change responses of forested 

habitats. Climatic Change. 114: 231–243.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M. 2002. Potential redistribution of tree species 

habitat under five climate change scenarios in the eastern US. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 155: 205–222.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 2008. Estimating 

potential habitat for 134 eastern U.S. tree species under six climate 

scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 390–406.

Janowiak, M.K.; Iverson, L.R.; Mladenoff, D.J. [and others]. 2014. Forest 

ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern 

Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods 

Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 247 p.

Karnosky, D.F.; Pregitzer, K.S.; Zak, D.R. [and others]. 2005. Scaling ozone 

responses of forest trees to the ecosystem level in a changing climate. 

Plant, Cell & Environment. 28: 965–981.

Krasutsky, P.A. 2006. Birch bark research and development. Natural Product 

Reports. 23(6): 919–942.

Man, R.Z.; Colombo, S.; Lu, P.X. [and others]. 2014. Trembling aspen, balsam 

poplar, and white birch respond differently to experimental warming in 

winter months. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(12): 1469–1476.

Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.H.; Gormanson, D. [and others]. 2015. Paper birch 

(Wiigwaas) of the lake states, 1980–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-149. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 37 p.

Nakicenovic, N.; Alcamo, J.; Davis, G. [and others]. 2000. IPCC special report 

on emissions scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

North House Folks School. 2007. Celebrating birch: the lore, art and craft of 

an ancient tree. Petersburg, PA: Fox Chapel Publishing. 192 p.

Rustad, L.E.; Campbell, J.L. 2012. A novel ice storm manipulation experiment 

in a northern hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42: 

1810–1818.

Safford, L.O.; Bjorkbom, J.C.; Zasada, J.C. 1990. Paper birch (Betula 

papyrifera Marsh). In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. 1990. 

Silvics of North America. 2: Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service: 158–171. 

Figure A2.2—Risk of habitat decline in paper birch in northern Wisconsin and northern New 

York to western Maine. Northern Wisconsin (yellow ellipse) is poised to lose substantially more 

suitable habitat by 2070 as compared to New England (white ellipse), under either high or low 

emissions scenarios. Both locations are in the “develop strategies” zone by 2070 under GFDL 

scenario, and northern Wisconsin hits this level of risk even under the mild PCM scenario by 2070.

Relative likelihood of decline in suitable habitat

Magnitude of adaptability to climate change

Risk of habitat decline in paper birch

Northern Wisconsin and northern New York-western Maine

Low Medium High

Low Medium High Very high

Develop strategies

Evaluate further/

Develop strategies

Watch

PCMlo - WI

GFDLhi - WI

PCMlo - NY/ME

GFDLhi - NY/ME
240 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

Stritch, L. 2014. Betula papyrifera. The IUCN red list of threatened species. 

Version 2015.2. www.iucnredlist.org. [Date accessed: June 25, 2015].

Turner, N.J.; Ari, Y.; Berkes, F. [and others]. 2009. Cultural management of 

living trees: an international perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology. 29(2): 

237–270.

Washington, W.M.; Weatherly, J.W.; Meehl, G.A. [and others]. 2000. 

Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate 

Dynamics. 16: 755–774.

Yarish, V.; Hoppe, F.; Widess, J. 2009. Plaited basketry with birch bark. New 

York: Sterling Publishing Company. 279 p.

Thinleaf (Vaccinium membranaceum

Doublas ex Torr.) and Evergreen 

(V. ovatum Pursh) Huckleberries

Frank K. Lake

NTFP Uses and Values

Huckleberries are valued as sources of food and medicine, 

as well as inputs to the floral and nursery industries 

by diverse peoples from the coastal Pacific Northwest 

and Cascades Mountains of northern California to 

the interior mountain ranges of Idaho and Montana. 

An important food with many nutritional and health 

benefits (Hummer 2013, Lee et al. 2004, Tirmenstein 

1990), the fruits of thinleaf (also known as black) and 

evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum

Doublas ex Torr. and V. ovatum Pursh, respectively) are 

used for personal consumption, local commerce, and 

value-added markets (i.e., jams, syrups, pies; Alderman 

1979, Kerns et al. 2004). Historically, American Indians 

in the region utilized thinleaf and evergreen huckleberry 

for a variety of cultural and culinary purposes and 

continue to do so today (Hummer 2013, Kerns et al. 

2004, Minore et al. 1979). Leaves of both species are 

recognized as having medicinal properties associated 

with improving human health (Hummer 2013).

While there are some overlaps, the predominant uses 

of thinleaf and evergreen huckleberry differ. Thinleaf 

huckleberry is the primary source of highly soughtafter fruits. Commercial sale of thinleaf huckleberry 

fruit is a multimillion dollar industry for the states of 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana (Kerns et al. 

2004). Evergreen huckleberry fruits also are sold or used 

for personal consumption. However, this species is valued 

especially for decorative and landscaping purposes. 

Evergreen huckleberry branches are used as greens in 

floral arrangements, with older branches providing a 

dark green, glossy background, while the reddish leaves 

and open branching of younger growth offer colorful 

texture (Kerns et al. 2004). Commodity chains for 

evergreen huckleberry branches often involve small 

groups of harvesters who sort and bundle the two branch 

types separately and sell them to regional buyers, who 

then transport and sell them to larger floral distributors 

(Vasquez and Buttolph 2010). In addition, evergreen 

huckleberry plants are sold as a garden and landscaping 

species (Kerns et al. 2004, Wender et al. 2004).

Ecology

Like the hundreds of other species in the genus Vaccinium

found across the northern hemisphere (Ballington 2000, 

Hummer 2013), thinleaf and evergreen huckleberry 

are understory shrubs. However, each occupies distinct 

habitats and exhibits differing reproductive strategies 

and morphologies (i.e., physical forms or appearances). 

Thinleaf huckleberry is associated with mid-to-high 

elevation subalpine forests located predominantly in 

the Pacific West, but with broad distribution from 

Alaska to Arizona and a limited presence in the 

Northeast (Gorzelak et al. 2012). Reproducing primarily 

through vegetative production from rhizomes and 

root crowns (Simonin 2000), new leaves and flowers 

emerge in the spring, with the fruit developing over 

the summer, ripening in late summer to early fall. 

Habitat dominance or site abundance tends to be 

greatest in mature and old growth forests. However, 

thinleaf berry production declines under closed-canopy 

conditions (Kerns et al. 2004) and is most abundant 

in montane forest gaps and meadow habitats, where 

increased sunlight, soil moisture, and nutrients are 

available (Kerns et al. 2004, Minore et al. 1979).

Evergreen huckleberry grows primarily in coastal 

forests and mountains of the Pacific Northwest and 

northern California. The species lacks or has reduced 

rhizomatous vegetation growth (Kerns et al. 2004). 

New leaves and flowers emerge in the spring, with fruit 

developing through summer and ripening in late summer 

through fall. Several variants occur across the species’ 

range, resulting in differences in fruit size and a range 

of colors from dark purple to light blue. Most have a 

bloom on the fruit skin that contributes to differences 

in taste, color, time of ripeness (Alderman 1979), and 

nutrient values (Taruscio et al. 2004). A shade tolerant 

species that expands or colonizes slowly, evergreen 

huckleberry is most abundant under closed forests 

with high canopy cover. However, as with thinleaf, 
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 241

evergreen huckleberry flowering and berry production 

appear to increase in forest gaps (Vance et al. 2001).

Both thinleaf and evergreen huckleberry are adapted to a 

variety of natural (e.g., fire, drought, and browsing) and 

human disturbances (e.g., berry and foliage harvesting) 

and can colonize or regain dominance in forest patches 

following fire, timber harvest, landslides, or windstorms 

that open gaps (Simonin 2000, Tirmenstein 1990). 

However, recovery of evergreen huckleberry may be 

slower (Kerns et al. 2004). In addition to their value to 

humans, huckleberries are important sources of food 

for wildlife (Holden et al. 2012, Kerns et al. 2004).

Climate-change Related Risks

Thinleaf and evergreen huckleberries are adaptive, 

disturbance-tolerant species capable of surviving 

a range of stressful circumstances. However, their 

adaptability is not limitless and the two species likely 

will respond differently to the effects of climate change 

(figure A2.3). Among risk factors relevant to both 

species, significant changes in the extent and timing 

of snow cover and air and soil temperatures may lead 

to plant-pollinator asynchronies with impaired fruit 

and seed set resulting (Straka and Starzomski 2015). 

Drought and fires are likely to affect soil nutrient, 

temperature, and moisture levels, which also can affect 

seed viability and longevity (Hill and Vander Kloet 

2005). The adaptability of huckleberries to changing 

soil conditions are linked to and mediated in part by 

mycorrhizal relationships, which are strongly affected 

by soil moisture and temperature regimes (Gorzelak et 

al. 2012). Some models suggest likely reductions in the 

area of montane-subalpine ecosystems and maritime 

conifer forests, which could reduce habitat for thinleaf 

and evergreen huckleberry, respectively (Bachelet et al. 

2011). However, the same analysis projects potential 

increases in the temperate shrubland vegetation type, 

which potentially could benefit huckleberries if stressors 

do not impact other growth or reproductive processes.

In the specific case of thinleaf huckleberry, persistence 

and berry production may be differentially affected by 

climate change related stressors. Projected increases in 

drought, which heightens potential for more extensive 

fires, may reduce tree and other vegetation, allowing 

populations of thinleaf huckleberry to regain site 

dominance following this disturbance (Minore et 

al. 1979, Simonin 2000). Conversely, soil moisture 

stress resulting from reduced snow and precipitation 

may reduce plant vigor and berry production and 

increase mortality. Extreme weather events such as late 

spring snow or freezing during flowering can damage 

stem tissue and hinder pollinators, compromising 

flower development and fruit set. In the Olympic 

Mountains of western Washington, upward movement 

of firs (e.g., Abies amabilis Douglas ex J.Forbes) on 

southwestern slopes with climate change is expected 

Figure A2.3—Adaptive capacity of thinleaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) 

and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) under projected low, medium, and high 

magnitude changes in their respective habitats. 

Relative expected change in suitable habitat

Adaptability: VAME starts with a higher adaptive potential, and will likely maintain 

resilience despite greater projected change in subalpine forested habitat. VAOV 

starts with a lower adaptive potential, and is predicted to have neutral to less 

resilience for a greater projected change in coastal forested habitat. Magnitude of adaptability to climate change

Climate model scenarios:

A2-Higher magnitude of change 

predicted for temperature (warmer) 

and precipitation (reduction), more 

rain/snow affecting species life 

history traits and habitat.

B1-Lower magnitude of change 

predicted affecting species and 

habitat.

Projection dates and change:

2040 to 2100 magnitude of change 

expected with trajectory of species 

potential resilience to threats, 

stressors, and change in suitable 

habitat.

Risk-based framework for evaluation of climate related 

threats and stressor to huckleberries of the Pacific West

Low Medium High

Low Medium High
242 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

to supplant subalpine meadows and mountain 

hemlock forests that currently provide thinleaf 

huckleberry habitat (Zolbrod and Peterson 1999).

Evergreen huckleberry ecology and social values 

may be similarly affected. Increased drought may 

compromise leaf quality required by floral markets 

and reduce berry production for human and wildlife 

consumption. Sudden oak death (SOD; Phytophthora 

ramorum), which reduces evergreen huckleberry 

plant vigor and increases its mortality rates (Rizzo 

and Garbelotto 2003), demonstrates the potential 

impacts of climate-related increases in pathogens.

Conclusions

Thinleaf and evergreen huckleberry are culturally, 

economically, and ecologically important NTFPs of the 

coastal to interior mountains of the Pacific West. As 

forests change in response to tree mortality from drought 

stress and fire, huckleberries may maintain or expand 

their site dominance. However, evergreen huckleberry 

is potentially less resilient than thinleaf huckleberry. 

Climate related stressors, such as temperature and 

type and amount of precipitation likely will have 

different effects on the two huckleberry species and 

their respective habitats with particular implications 

for berry production and leaf characteristics.

Literature Cited

Alderman, D.C. 1979. Native edible fruits, nuts, vegetables, herbs, spices, 

and grasses of California. II small or bush fruits. Leaflet 2278. Berkley: 

University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. 

Bachelet, D.; Johnson, B.R.; Bridgham, S.D. [and others]. 2011. Climate 

change impacts on Western Pacific northwest prairies and savannas. 

Northwest Science. 85(2): 411–429. 

Ballington, J.R. 2000. Collection, utilization, and preservation of genetic 

resources in Vaccinium. HortScience. 36(2): 213–220.Gorzelak, M.A.; 

Hambleton, S.; Massicotte, H.B. 2012. Community structure of ericoid 

mycorrhizas and root-associated fungi of Vaccinium memberanaceum

across an elevation gradient in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Fungal 

Ecology. 5: 36–45. 

Hill, N.M.; Vander Kloet, S.P. 2005. Longevity of experimentally buried seed 

in Vaccinium: relationship to climate, reproductive factors and natural 

seed banks. Journal of Ecology. 93: 1167–1176. 

Holden, Z.; Kasworm, W.F.; Servheen, C. [and others]. 2012. Sensitivity of 

berry productivity to climatic variation in the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear 

recovery zone, northwest United States, 1989–2010. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 36(2): 226–231.

Hummer, K.E. 2013. Manna in winter: indigenous Americans, huckleberries, 

and blueberries. HortScience. 48(4): 413–417. 

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Bailey, J.D. 2004. Huckleberry abundance, 

stand conditions, and use in Western Oregon: evaluating the role of 

forest management. Economic Botany. 58(4): 668–678. 

Lee, J.; Finn, C.E.; Wrolstrad, R.E. 2004. Comparison of anthocyanin 

pigment and other phenolic compounds of Vaccinium membranaceum

and Vaccinium ovatum native to the Pacific Northwest of North America. 

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 52: 7039–7044. 

Minore, D.; Smart, A.W.; Dubrasich, M.E. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and 

management research in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTRPNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Rizzo, D.M.; Garbelotto, M. 2003. Sudden oak death: endangering California 

and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

1(5): 197–204. 

Simonin, K.A. 2000. Vaccinium membranaceum. In: Fire effects information 

system. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacmem/all.html. [Date 

accessed: May 6, 2015].

Straka, J.R.; Starzomski, B.M. 2015. Fruitful factors: what limits seed 

production of flowering plants in the alpine? Oecologia. 178: 249–260.

Taruscio, T.G.; Barney, D.L.; Exon, J. 2004. Content and profile of flavanoid 

and phenolic acid compounds in conjunction with the antioxidant capacity 

for a variety of Northwest Vaccinium berries. Journal of Agricultural and 

Food Chemistry. 52: 3169–3176.

Tirmenstein, D. 1990. Vaccinium ovatum. In: Fire effects information system. 

Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. https://www.feiscrs.org/feis/. [Date accessed: August 16, 2017].

Vance, N.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D. [and others]. 2001. Special forest products. 

Species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Vasquez, S.; Buttolph, L. 2010. Huckleberry market analysis: a business 

planning guide for small woodland owners. Portland, OR: Institute for 

Culture and Ecology. www.ifcae.org/ntfp. [Date accessed: May 6, 2015].

Wender, B.W.; Harrington, C.A.; Tappeiner, J.C., III. 2004. Flower and fruit 

production of understory shrubs in Western Washington and Oregon. 

Northwest Science. 78(2): 124–140.

Zolbrod, A.N.; Peterson, D.L. 1999. Response of high-elevation forests in 

the Olympic Mountains to climatic change. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 29: 1966–1978.
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 243

Whitebark Pine 

(Pinus albicaulis Engelm)

Mary Mahalovich

American Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest have 

strong cultural ties to whitebark pine that date back 

to their first encounter with this high elevation tree. 

They traditionally used the ‘nuts’ and cambium to 

nourish their bodies, and the sap to heal ailments 

(Augare-Estey 2011, Blankinship 1905, Johnston 1970, 

Turner 1988). Consumption for food and medicine 

was foundational for the cultural value bestowed to 

this tree. From 1860 to 1940 the whitebark pine was 

extensively cut for timber to feed the Montana mining 

industry for mine supports and fuel for smelters and 

home heating (figure A2.4) (Arno and Hoff 1990). The 

habitat for this culturally important tree has declined 

with an associated reduction in availability for food 

and medicine (Martinez 2003). Although consumption 

for nutrition and healing has decreased, the cultural 

value to the American Indians has remained strong. 

In an effort to ensure the sustainability of the cultural 

value of this tree, the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, and others are cooperating with the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

and Bureau of Land Management to reestablish 

whitebark pine populations. This cooperation is 

merging traditional ecological knowledge with sciencebased knowledge for the health and viability of a tree 

species that is invaluable for the cultural wellbeing 

of the people who first inhabited the region. This 

collaboration could benefit other American Indian 

tribes with access to whitebark pine in the northern 

Rockies such as the Coeur d’Alene, Colville, Nez Perce, 

Shoshone-Bannock, Crow, and Blackfoot. All these 

tribes traditionally gathered the nutrient-rich seeds 

of whitebark pine in the autumn and harvested the 

cambium as a food supplement in springtime, a period 

when food sources were relatively scarce (AugareEstey 2011, Blankinship 1905, Johnston 1970).

Whitebark pine, a keystone species, maintains subalpine 

biodiversity and provides a nutritional source of food 

for several important wildlife species (Lorenz et al. 

2008). The stability and long-term persistence of 

the species is jeopardized by a nonnative pathogen 

white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola A.Dietr.), 

mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae

Hopkins), altered fire regimes resulting in successional 

replacement in mixed-conifer stands, and changes in 

climatic conditions (Federal Register 2011, Keane et al. 

2012). The species occurs from 37° to 55° N latitude, 

107° to 128° W longitude, from subalpine to tree 

line and elevations from 2,952 to 12,000 feet. As a 

foundation species, whitebark pine protects watersheds 

and promotes post-fire regeneration (Keane et al. 2012).

The species could become extinct due to small habitat 

shifts. From 1901 to 2009, temperatures in the Pacific 

and Inland Northwest increased 1.3 °F (Rupp et al. 

2013), while precipitation patterns did not change 

consistently. East of the Continental Divide, particularly 

in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, precipitation 

has decreased in the high elevation ecosystems and the 

overall patterns have changed from largely snowpack to 

rainfall (Tercek et al. 2015). Research projecting future 

habitat for whitebark pine indicate declining habitat 

above tree line (Bartlein et al. 1997, Chang et al. 2014, 

Crookston et al. 2010, Rehfeldt et al. 2012, Schrag et al. 

Figure A2.4—Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) exhibits 

three growth habits from single-stem erect (shown), multiple-stem 

erect, and wind-swept krummholz common at tree line. Huson Peak 

Research Natural Area, Kootenai National Forest. (Photo credit: 

Mary Mahalovich, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service).
244 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

2008). By the end of the 21st century, dramatic decreases 

are anticipated in suitable habitat for whitebark pine.

As more than 90 percent of whitebark pine grows 

on public lands, the USDA Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) are collaborating on 

science to assess the current and future vulnerability 

of the species. The Northern Rockies Adaptation 

Partnership (NRAP), with Forest Service leadership, is 

a science-management collaboration with the goals of 

assessing vulnerability of natural resources and ecosystem 

services, and developing science-based strategies for land 

managers to understand and mitigate the negative effects 

of climate change (http://adaptationpartners.org/nrap/).

The NRAP process has classed whitebark pine with 

one of the highest vulnerability scores in the northern 

Rockies (Keane et al. 2017). The broad-scale climate 

change effects impacting whitebark pine are characterized 

as increased warming temperatures combined with a 

limited ability to compete with encroaching conifers. 

Natural regeneration is anticipated to be reduced by 

warming temperatures and low seed availability. Negative 

impacts may be favorably modified by attributes of its 

adaptive capacity, as whitebark pine exhibits a generalist 

adaptive strategy (Mahalovich et al., 2016) and, coupled 

with increased wildland fire, seed dispersal by Clark’s 

nutcracker may allow rapid colonization of burned areas. 

Management recommendations for restoration actions 

and prioritizing areas to promote resilience are ongoing.

The companion vulnerability assessment with DOI 

leadership, using Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

as a focal point, is tasked with developing strategies for 

managing climate-change impacts across all Federal lands 

(DOI 2009). Common to both is a synthesis of climate 

science and research on whitebark pine. Where data are 

lacking, the sensitivity and exposure components are 

supplemented with expert opinion. Following selection 

of scale for analysis and models emphasizing IPCC 

CMIP5 RCP8.5 (equivalent to “business as usual” A2 

emission scenario) and the RCP4.5 (equivalent to B1 

global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions), data are 

combined in a linear index (NRAP) or metadata analysis 

(DOI) to assign a vulnerability score for whitebark pine.

Hansen and Philipps (2015) through a metadata 

analysis of bioclimatic suitability models and land-use 

patterns, noted that significant studies (Coops and 

Waring 2011, Crookston et al. 2010) demonstrated 

one of the highest vulnerability scores among conifers. 

Results suggest that less than 10 percent of the species 

distribution will remain in the northern Rockies by 

the end of the century (figure A2.5). The authors 

concluded that managers are unable to influence climate 

over large landscapes, but they can manipulate many 

other factors that influence tree population viability. 

Reforestation using genetically appropriate blister 

rust resistant and drought tolerant seedlings may 

prove viable approach to reestablishing populations of 

whitebark pine. Furthermore, knowledge of whitebark 

pine’s climate suitability is a critical filter for deciding 

where to use management actions to protect, restore, 

or establish tree populations under changing climates.

Interpretation of the studies were represented for a 

generalist (whitebark pine) and specialist (lodgepole 

pine, P. contorta var. latifolia) in upper subalpine 

ecosystems using Lake’s relative risk matrix (Lake, this 

volume). Mountain pine beetle and altered fire regimes 

for climate models A2 and B1 were contrasted for 

active and no active management. A moderate change 

in suitable habitat is indicated for both species with 

active management (figure A2.6). Changes for lodgepole 

pine are offset with planting and high potential for 

natural regeneration. However, whitebark pine with the 

added stressor of blister rust, exhibits a higher relative 

change in suitable habitat, tempered by planting rust 

resistant seedlings (longer arrows). In the case of no 

active management (figure A2.7), the trajectory for 

lodgepole pine is similar to active management due 

to its high natural regeneration potential. An upward 

shift in the relative change of suitable habitat for 

whitebark pine is evident, as it relies solely on birddispersed seed to support natural regeneration.

The collaborative research to reestablish populations 

of whitebark pine demonstrates the recognition of 

Federal agencies to the cultural value of the species. 

Cooperation with American Indian tribes helps to 

ensure that efforts address appropriate concerns. The 

integration of traditional ecological knowledge with 

science could serve as an invaluable model for restoration 

of other cultural nontimber species. Integrative 

research opportunities abound for many nontimber 

forest species that are of significant cultural value.
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 245

Figure A2.6—(left) Risk matrix for whitebark pine (a generalist) and lodgepole pine (a specialist) under climate model scenarios A2 and 

B1 with active restoration. Under conditions of mountain pine beetle predation, altered fire regimes, and climate change tempered by 

reforestation and high natural regeneration potential, suitable habitat for lodgepole pine (dark blue arrows) can be expected to exhibit 

moderate change. With the added stressor of blister rust, tempered by planting rust-resistant seedlings, whitebark pine habitat change (light 

blue arrows) likely would show greater change.

Figure A2.7— (right) Risk matrix for whitebark pine (a generalist) and lodgepole pine (a specialist) under climate model scenarios A2 

and B1 without active restoration. Under conditions of mountain pine beetle predation, altered fire regimes, and climate change offset by 

natural regeneration potential through wind dispersal of seeds, suitable habitat for lodgepole pine (dark blue arrows) is expected to exhibit 

moderate change. With the added stressor of blister rust, in the absence of active human management, whitebark pine habitat (light blue 

arrows) likely would show greater change.

Relative expected change in suitable habitat

Adaptability: PIAL starts with a higher adaptive potential without active 

restoration, but continued pressure by blister rust, mountain pine beetle, 

altered fire regimes, and bird-dispersed seed compound its ability to 

maintain resilience with rapidly shrinking habitat. PICOL starts with a 

medium adaptive potential, and combined with frequent cone crops and 

wind-disseminated seed, it is projected to maintain some resilience with 

fewer threats and a moderate projected change in forested habitat. Magnitude of adaptability to climate change

Climate model scenarios:

A2-Higher magnitude of change 

predicted for temperature 

(higher) and precipitation 

(reduction); warmer temperatures and changes in 

precipitation patterns will impact 

species life history traits, insect 

and disease issues, and habitat.

B1-Lower magnitude of change 

predicted affecting species and 

habitat; insect and disease 

issues remain.

Projection dates and change:

2020 to 2090 magnitude of 

change expected with trajectory 

of species’ potential resilience to 

threats, stressors, change in 

suitable habitat, and projected 

increase in suitable habitat.

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Relative expected change in suitable habitat

Adaptability: PIAL starts with a higher adaptive potential with active 

restoration, but continued pressure by blister rust, mountain pine beetle, 

altered fire regimes, and bird-dispersed seed compound its ability to 

maintain resilience with rapidly shrinking habitat. PICOL starts with a 

medium adaptive potential, and combined with frequent cone crops and 

wind-disseminated seed, it is projected to maintain some resilience with 

fewer threats and a moderate projected change in forested habitat. Magnitude of adaptability to climate change

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Risk-based framework for evaluation of climate related 

threats and stressor to pines of the Inland West

Suitable (ref. period) to unsuitable (2020s-2080s)

Suitable (ref. period-2080s)

Unsuitable (ref. period) to suitable (2020s)

Unsuitable (ref. period) to suitable (2050s)

Unsuitable (ref. period) to suitable (2080s)

GNLCC boundary

paces

Figure A2.5—Metadata analysis of projected change in modeled spatial distribution of climate suitable areas for whitebark pine 

(Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) in Idaho, Montana, and northwestern Wyoming across the reference and three future time periods (2020, 

2050, 2080), under the A2 emission scenario based on (a) Coops and Waring (2011) and (b) Crookston et al. (2010). Whitebark pine 

is projected to have one of the largest losses of climate suitable areas and the least area of newly suitable areas, with only 0.5 

percent (b) to 7 percent (a) of suitable habitat remaining by 2080. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) 

boundary is noted in black, and areas considered essential to maintaining natural processes within a national park or a protectedarea centered ecosystem (PACE) are shown in yellow. (From Hansen and Philipps 2015, used with permission.)
246 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

Literature Cited

Arno, S.F.; Hoff, R.J. 1990. Pinus albicaulis Engelm. Whitebark pine. 

In: Silvics of North America. Vol. 1: conifers. Agriculture Handbook. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 

268–279.

Augare-Estey, K.J. 2011. Whitebark pine forest restoration: cultural 

perspectives from Blackfoot Confederacy members. Missoula: University 

of Montana. Ph.D. dissertation. 118 p.

Bartlein, P.J.; Whitlock, C.; Shafer, S.L. 1997. Future climate in the 

Yellowstone National Park region and its potential impact on vegetation. 

Conservation Biology. 11: 782–792.

Blankinship, J.W. 1905. Native economic plants of Montana. Bulletin 56. 

Bozeman: Montana Agricultural Experimental Station.

Chang, T.; Hansen, A.J.; Piekielek, N. 2014. Patterns and variability 

of projected bioclimate habitat for Pinus albicaulis in the Greater 

Yellowstone area. PLOS ONE. 9(11): e111669.

Coops, N.C.; Waring, R.H. 2011. Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree 

species under changing climate in Northwest North America. Ecological 

Modelling. 222(13): 2119–2129.

Crookston, N.L.; Rehfeldt, G.E.; Dixon, G.E.; Weiskittel, A.R. 2010. 

Addressing climate change in the forest vegetation simulator to assess 

impacts on landscape forest dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management. 

260: 1198–1211.

Federal Register. 2011. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a 

petition to list Pinus albicaulis as endangered or threatened with critical 

habitat. Federal Register 76(138): 42631–42654.

Hansen, A.J.; Phillips, L.B. 2015. Which tree species and biome types 

are most vulnerable to climate change in the U.S. Northern Rocky 

Mountains? Forest Ecology and Management. 338: 68–83. 

Johnston, A. 1970. Blackfoot Indian utilization of the flora of the 

northwestern Great Plains. Economic Botany. 24(3): 301–324.

Keane, R.E.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Bollenbacher, B.L. [and others]. 2017. 

Effects of climate change on forest vegetation in the Northern Rockies. 

In: Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L., eds. Climate change and Rocky 

Mountain ecosystems, advances in global change research. 236 p. doi: 

10.1007/978-3-319-56928-4_5.

Keane, R.E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A. [and others]. 2012. A range-wide 

restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Lake, F. 2018. Thinleaf (Vaccinium membranaceum Doublas ex Torr.) and 

evergreen (V. ovatum Pursh) huckleberries. In: Chamberlain, J.L.; PatelWeynand, T.; Emery, M.R., eds. Assessment of nontimber forest products 

in the United States under changing conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-232. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: appendix 2.

Lorenz, T.J.; Aubry, C.; Shoal, R. 2008. A review of the literature on seed 

fate in whitebark pine and the life history traits of Clark’s nutcracker 

and pine squirrels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-742. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 62 p.

Mahalovich, M.F.; Kimsey, M.J.; Fortin-Noreus, J.K.; Robbins, C.T. 2016. 

Isotopic heterogeneity in whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) 

nuts across geographic, edaphic and climatic gradients in the Northern 

Rockies (USA). Forest Ecology and Management. 359: 174–189. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.047.

Martinez, D. 2003. Protected areas, Indigenous peoples, and the western 

idea of nature. Ecological Restoration. 21(4): 247–250.

Rehfeldt, G.E.; Crookston, N.L.; Saenz-Romero, C.; Campbell, E.M. 

2012. North American vegetation model for land-use planning in a 

changing climate: A solution to large classification problems. Ecological 

Applications. 22(1): 119–141.

Rupp, D.E.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Hegewisch, K.C.; Mote, P.W. 2013. Evaluation 

of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest 

USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118(19): 10884–

10906. 

Schrag, A.M.; Bunn, A.G.; Graumlich, L.J. 2007. Influence of bioclimatic 

variables on tree-line conifer distribution in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem: implications for species of conservation concern. Journal of 

Biogeography. 35: 698–710.

Tercek, M.; Rodman, A.; Thoma, D. 2015. Trends in Yellowstone’s snowpack. 

Yellowstone Science Special Issue: Ecological implications of climate 

change on the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 23(1): 20–27.

U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI]. 2009. Secretarial Order 3289. 

Addressing the impacts of climate change on America’s water, land, and 

other natural and cultural resources. Issued September 14, 2009.

Saw Palmetto 

(Serenoa repens W. Bartram Small)

Christine Mitchell

Saw palmetto is the most common palm found in 

Florida (Bennett and Hicklin 1998), growing wild 

throughout the state. Its name derives from the sharp 

needle-like growths (petioles) found along the edges 

of its leaves (Tanner et al. 1996). Tanner et al. (1996) 

estimate that some saw palmetto plants could be 500 to 

700 years old, and note that though it is little studied, 

it is an ecologically and economically important native 

palm in Florida. Abrahamson and Abrahamson (2009) 

highlighted that though saw palmetto is common in 

the landscape, showing “extraordinary persistence 

and tolerance” in its environment, it does so at “a cost 

of exceptionally slow growth rates” (Abrahamson 

and Abrahamson 2009, p. 123). Abrahamson and 

Abrahamson found that seedling reproduction can take 

multiple decades and that in disturbed habitats that 

much effort would be needed to restore the palm (2009, 

p. 123). Takahashi et al. (2011) assert that because saw 

palmetto spreads clonally, understanding its genetic 

diversity through the measurement and distribution 

of its genets can help us understand its reproduction, 

life span, and the effects of continued anthropogenic 

disturbances on the population. Takahashi et al. (2011) 

concluded that Serenoa primarily propagate via vegetative 

sprouts and conservatively estimated genet ages to be 

between 1,227 and 5,215 years (2011, p. 3736) and 

further conservatively estimated that it could take 100 

years for a seedling to become an adult (2011, p. 3737). 
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 247

Takahashi et al. (2011) further note that saw palmetto 

has been part of the ecosystem for at least 37,000 

years, despite “historical climate oscillations” (2011, p. 

3737). Takahashi et al. (2011, p. 3739) note that “its 

invasion into new sites is unlikely.” Though the species 

is climatically resilient and has remarkable longevity, 

there is a risk to it from climate change in the form of 

expected sea level rise (SLR) with associated reduction 

in habitat availability. The species slow growth will 

impede its ability to redistribute through the landscape, 

while continuing anthropogenic land use changes such as 

the conversion of habitat to agriculture or development 

will reduce both the quality and amount of habitat 

available to the palm, compounding its vulnerability.

Saw palmetto is part of an ecological system that is 

important for Florida wildlife that utilizes the palm for 

shelter, denning, and more (Maehr and Layne 1996). A 

reduction of quality habitat may create localized stress 

for wildlife, and restoration efforts to create a “naturally 

functioning ecosystem will take considerable time and 

will be a challenge to accomplish” (Takahashi et al. 

2011, p. 3739). Many species rely on the annual palm 

production of drupes or berries to supplement their diets 

as the palm produces fruit from September through 

October, a period when other food sources might be 

scarce (Maehr and Layne 1996). Maehr and Brady (1984) 

showed that Florida black bears (Ursus americanus 

floridanus) utilized saw palmetto drupes in their fall 

diets, leading researchers to turn their attention to the 

fruiting patterns, reproduction, longevity, and more of the 

palm (Abrahamson 1995, Abrahamson and Abrahamson 

2009, Bennett and Hicklin 1998, Maehr and Layne 

1996), though much about the species remains unknown.

Research into habitats associated with the palm, fruiting 

conditions and more are driven in part by the growth 

of the berries popularity as an herbal supplement in the 

United States and as an ingredient in pharmaceuticals 

in Europe (Bennett and Hicklin 1998). The harvesting, 

drying, and exporting of saw palmetto fruits, or 

berries, from Florida has been documented since at 

least 1898 (Hale 1898). Since the mid-1990s consumer 

demand for the berry as either a dietary supplement or 

drug has grown though not much is known about the 

scale of the harvest to supply the industry, though saw 

palmetto is the most harvested NTFP in the United 

States in volume (AHPA 2012). Maehr and Layne 

wondered in 1996 if competition between the berry 

industry and wildlife could have deleterious effects on 

local Florida wildlife (Maehr and Layne 1996). Also 

noted by Maehr and Layne was the potential negative 

impact that growing development in Florida could 

have on both the saw palmetto and palmetto habitat. 

Population growth in Florida over the decades has led 

to its becoming the second most populous state in the 

Nation, with a population greater than New York State.

Population growth, development, and eradication 

programs on natural and agricultural lands have nearly 

certainly led to a decline in the amount and quality of 

saw palmetto habitat throughout Florida, though how 

much of a decline is unknown. An anonymous author 

(1947, in Bennett and Hicklin 1998) estimated that after 

World War II there were about 1.4 million ha of saw 

palmetto throughout the state, covering about 10 percent 

of the state’s land surface (Bennett and Hicklin 1998). 

No other estimate has been conducted since then to 

determine the amount of habitat available throughout the 

State, except an initial habitat analyses by Mitchell (2014) 

which showed that a total of 3.7 million ha of habitat 

may exist, though of this only 804,000 ha is habitat 

where the saw palmetto is prime or dominant, such as dry 

prairie which is likely to have been the habitat assessed 

by the anonymous author in 1947. An initial analysis 

suggests a decline of 43 percent of dominant habitat 

(Mitchell 2014, p. 112). The amount of current habitat 

and where it exists is fundamental to understanding 

habitat risk due to climate change, the impacts of this 

potential change on wildlife, and the sustainability of 

the saw palmetto berry industry harvest. Loss of saw 

palmetto habitat due to the conversion of natural lands 

and to sea level rise requires further study to understand 

potential effects on wildlife and the berry industry.

An analysis of the spatial impacts of SLR on saw 

palmetto habitat suggest that 59,770 acres (3.3 percent) 

out of 1,795,316 acres of saw palmetto habitat could be 

lost due by 2050. By 2100, 102,730 acres (5.72 percent) 

of saw palmetto habitat could be affected by SLR. 

Using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2017) 

high curve of sea level rise with mean sea level (MSL), 

the habitat at potential risk of inundation increases to 

160,689 acres, or 8.95 percent of the total potential 

habitat (figure A2.8). The estimated area of saw palmetto 

habitat that could be affected by sea level rise is less than 

6 percent of the total area of suitable habitat under the 

medium curve scenario, but rises to 9 percent under the 

high curve scenario by 2100. Like other NTFPs, saw 

palmetto is not evenly distributed across its range, and 
248 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

not all habitats are high quality habitat that will host an 

abundance of plants. Some habitat may be suitable but 

have none of the palms within it, while others may have 

many saw palmettos. Likewise, people and wildlife are 

also not evenly distributed across the landscape, thus 

where habitat is found and potentially affected by sea 

level rise has several implications for the management 

of suitable habitat for both palms and wildlife.

The size of saw palmetto habitat patches affected by 

the MSL rises ranges from just 0.23 acres up to 11,050 

acres of continuous habitat. While the mean patch size 

affected is about 59 acres, a standard deviation of 400 

acres suggests that more analysis of which patches and 

where they occur is necessary. Using the high curve 

scenario, minimum patch sizes lost are 0.22 acres with a 

continuing maximum of 11,050 though the mean changes 

to 35 acres with a standard deviation of 261 acres.

Where habitat can potentially be lost is important as 

continued conservation efforts seek to protect and 

expand habitat suitable for wildlife, which includes saw 

palmetto habitat. In this analysis, both the Big Cypress 

Wildlife Management Areas within the Big Cypress 

Preserve and the Picayune Strand Wildlife Management 

Area lose saw palmetto habitat. The Big Cypress 

Preserve is home to the Big Cypress subpopulation of 

Florida black bears whose secondary ranges include 

coastal areas expected to be affected by sea level rise 

and which also contain stands of saw palmetto habitat. 

This suggests that wildlife may have to adapt and range 

outside of these stands to find saw palmetto for denning, 

shelter, and food. The saw palmetto berry industry will 

also see a reduction of suitable stands for harvesting, 

placing pressure on remaining stands as national and 

international demand for the berry continues to grow.

The saw palmetto risk matrix incorporates the medium 

and high USACE curves and MSL projections on 

the X axis, showing an expected decline in suitable 

habitat ranging from 6 to 9 percent by 2100. The Y 

axis reflects a high resilience to climate change and 

medium to high ability to adapt to climate changes. 

Loss of habitat due to sea level rise, combined with 

continuing anthropogenic land-use conversions of natural 

habitat lead to medium to low adaptation capacity.

Risks and the degree of vulnerability associated 

with these risks are variable for specific sites, in this 

case habitat vulnerable to sea level rise. Storm wave 

frequency and intensity, precipitation, and other risk 

factors need to be accounted for but are outside of the 

scope of this analysis. Anthropocentric responses to 

SLR could include increased demand for development 

inland, placing further pressure on natural areas and 

wildlife. Though saw palmetto habitat exists throughout 

Florida, a major threat is the continuing conversion of 

natural habitats into development. The palm is adapted 

to drought, fire, and other natural disturbances, but it 

is unknown how it might respond to higher seasonal 

temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other 

anticipated effects of climate change. The plant becomes 

less abundant at the northern limits of its range (Georgia, 

South Carolina). Resilience and adaptation to changing 

conditions is possible, but assistance may be needed to 

fully exploit habitat in the northern part of its range, 

though as Takahashi et al. (2011) noted, seedlings 

have very slow growth rates and are unlikely to be 

able to colonize disturbed habitat without assistance, 

and even then recolonization can be quite slow.

Counties

Saw palmetto habitat at risk

2050 sea level rise medium

Florida saw palmetto habitat and 2050 sea level rise

USACE Intermediate (medium) rate 

and mean sea level (tidal datum)

Figure A2.8—Saw palmetto habitat distribution. Results show 

that almost 60,000 acres of approximately 1.8 million acres of saw 

palmetto habitat will be lost by sea level rise by 2050. The area in 

red is habitat at risk. (Map rendered by C.M. Mitchell.)
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 249

Literature Cited

Abrahamson, W.G. 1995. Habitat distribution and competitive neighborhoods 

of two Florida palmettos. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 122(1): 1–14.

Abrahamson, W.G.; Abrahamson, C.R. 2009. Life in the slow lane: 

palmetto seedlings exhibit remarkable survival but slow growth 

in Florida’s nutrient-poor uplands. Castanea. 74: 123–132.

American Herbal Products Association [AHPA]. 2012. Tonnage surveys 

of select North American wild-harvested plants, 2004–2005. 

Silver Spring, MD: American Herbal Products Association.

Bennett, B.C.; Hicklin, J.R. 1998. Uses of saw palmetto (Serenoa 

repens, Arecaceae) in Florida. Economic Botany. 52(4): 381–393.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2012. Florida conservation 

areas, Version 2.3. http://www.fnai.org.

Hale, E.M. 1898. Saw palmetto (Sabal serrulata, Serenoa serrulata): its 

history, botany, chemistry, pharmacology, provings, clinical experience 

and therapeutic applications. Philadelphia: Boericke and Taffel.

Maehr, D.S.; Brady, J.R. 1984. Food habits of Florida black bears. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 48: 230–235.

Maehr, D.S.; Layne, J.N. 1996. Florida’s all purpose plant: 

the saw palmetto. The Palmetto. 16(4): 6–16.

Mitchell, C.M. 2014. Contested spaces: NTFPs, livelihoods, and conservation 

planning. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Takahashi, M.K.; Horner, L.M.; Kubota, T. [and others]. 2011. Extensive 

clonal spread and extreme longevity in saw palmetto, a foundation 

clonal plant. Molecular Ecology. 20(18): 3730–3742.

Tanner, G.W.; Mullahey, J.J.; Maehr, D. 1996. Saw-palmetto: an ecologically 

and economically important native palm. WEC 109. Gainsville: University of 

Florida. www.plantapalm.com/vpe/misc/saw-palmetto.pdf. (June 9, 2012).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. 2017. Responses to Climate 

Change: Climate change adaptation. http://www.corpsclimate.

us/ccaceslcurves.cfm [Date accessed: August 14, 2017]

Sugar Maple 

(Acer saccharum Marshall)

Louis Iverson and Stephen Matthews

The Climate Change Tree Atlas (Prasad et al. 2007) 

provides information about how individual tree species 

may respond to a changing climate. Projections of 

suitable habitat from the Tree Atlas models describe 

the environmental and climatic factors that could 

affect species distribution and abundance across the 

landscape (Iverson et al. 2008). The modifying factors 

detail life-history traits that may influence the ability of 

a tree species to cope with disturbances and biological 

stressors at both broad and fine scales (Matthews et al. 

2011). The combined use of these Tree Atlas components 

allows for a more comprehensive understanding of 

the response of tree species to climate change and 

can inform policy and management (Iverson et al. 

2011). As with the development of the most recent 

National Climate Assessment (NCA), risk assessment 

diagrams are used in this NTFP assessment as a tool for 

organizing information about key vulnerabilities and 

risks (Melillo et al. 2014). Risk is defined in the NCA 

as the product of the likelihood of an event occurring 

and the consequences or effects of that event. In the 

context of species habitats, likelihood is related to 

potential changes in suitable habitat at various times in 

the future. Consequences are related to the adaptability 

of a species to cope with the changes, especially the 

increasing intensity or frequency of future disturbance 

events. In this context, qualitative or quantitative 

estimates are used to describe the likelihood of impact 

(X axis) and the magnitude of consequence (Y axis).

The production of maple syrup is an important NTFP 

throughout much of its range in the Midwest and 

Northeast, and sustaining this ecosystem service is of 

considerable interest and concern (Duchesne et al. 2009; 

Whitney and Upmeyer 2004). Tree Atlas models project a 

loss in sugar maple (Acer saccharum) habitat throughout 

the century, especially in locations at the southern portion 

of its range (figure A2.9); a continuation of current trends 

in maple decline (Long et al. 2009). As an example of the 

application of a risk-centered approach to vulnerability 

assessment, Tree Atlas results for suitable habitat for 

sugar maple were generated for three locations across 

the eastern United States, and were translated into a risk 

matrix for three future periods: 2010 to 2040, 2040 to 

2070, and 2070 to 2100 (Iverson et al. 2012a; 2012b;) 

(figure A2.10). Two scenarios of climate change were 

also evaluated according to Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change scenarios (Nakicenovic et al. 2000) 

ranging from mild changes (PCMlo [Washington et 

al. 2000]) to harsh climatic changes by century end 

(Hadleyhi [Pope 2000]). The locations used here include 

northern Wisconsin (Janowiak et al. 2014), Vermont, 

and Kentucky (Matthews et al. 2014). This effort was 

intended as a “proof of concept” on how complex 

information could be represented in a way that helped to 

organize thinking regarding climate change vulnerability 

and risk. In translating the Tree Atlas information into 

this framework, projected changes in suitable habitat were 

used to indicate the likelihood of impact. Thus, a large 

projected decrease in suitable habitat suggests a greater 

likelihood (the X axis) that that species will have reduced 

habitat under future climatic conditions. The magnitude 

of consequence was inversely related to the adaptability of 

the species to climate change based upon the modifying 

factors; thus, the lower the capacity to cope, the greater 

the risk for habitat loss and the greater the consequences 
250 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 2

Figure A2.9—Suitable habitat for sugar maple across the eastern United States according to (a) current estimates for 1980 to 

2000, (b) projected future habitat for the year ~2100 under a mild scenario of climate change (PCM B1), and (c) a harsh scenario 

(Hadley A1FI). The Xs mark the northern Wisconsin (upper left), Vermont (upper right), and Kentucky (lower center) locations for 

the risk matrices presented in figure A2.10.

Relative likelihood of change in suitable habitat

Magnitude of adaptability to climate change

Risk of habitat change in sugar maple

Low Medium High

Low Medium High Very high

Develop strategies

Evaluate further/

Develop strategies

Watch

Figure A2.10—Risk matrix for sugar maple in northern Wisconsin, Vermont, and Kentucky. The 

numbers on the X-axis reflect projected suitable habitat, where 1.0 indicates no change from 

current values and 0 indicates complete loss of habitat. The numbers on the Y-axis are based on 

modifying factors, with increasing influence of disturbance factors over time. Values are plotted 

for three 30-year periods: 2040 (2010 to 2040), 2070 (2040 to 2070), and 2100 (2070 to 2100). (See 

Iverson et al. (2012b) for complete methods and additional examples.)
APPENDIX 2 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 251

from climate change (the Y axis) (Iverson et al. 2012a, 

2012b). To assess changes in consequence over time, 

adaptability scores were adjusted to account for projected 

increases in disturbance over time (Iverson et al. 2012b).

The risk matrix for the three locations all show 

increasing risk with time as habitat is projected to move 

north (figure A2.10). The two northern locations were 

of fairly similar risk (slightly more risk in Wisconsin 

than Vermont) of large losses of suitable habitat by 

century’s end according to this analysis, as a result 

from increasing risk throughout the century especially 

under the harsh scenario. However, at the southern 

portion of sugar maple, represented by Kentucky, serious 

risk is already present according to this analysis.

Based only on the potential for change in habitat and 

adaptability, in all locations, there is an increased risk 

of a decline in sugar maple habitat (figure A2.10), but 

Kentucky is under relatively greater urgency to develop 

strategies to cope with this decline. However, this risk 

matrix only paints a portion of the picture for sugar 

maple. Vermont produces over 30 percent of the maple 

syrup produced in the United States and ranks first in 

number of taps while Wisconsin ranks fourth in number 

of taps whereas in Kentucky, the commercial syrup 

market less developed (Farrell and Chabot 2012). Thus, 

this socioeconomic dimension to sugar maple’s relative 

importance/consequences needs to be added to the 

interpretation of the weightings shown in the matrix. In 

this case, even though the Kentucky location is projected 

to lose relatively more habitat, there will be a greater 

loss in Vermont and Wisconsin of the services that sugar 

maple provides in terms of monetary and cultural value 

(Farrell and Chabot 2012, Groffman et al. 2012). These 

services will not be readily transferable to other species.

Literature Cited

Duchesne, L.; Houle, D.; Côté, M.A.; Logan, T. 2009. Modelling the effect 

of climate on maple syrup production in Québec, Canada. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258: 2683–2689.

Farrell, M.; Chabot, B. 2012. Assessing the growth potential and economic 

impact of the U.S. maple syrup industry. Journal of Agriculture, Food 

Systems, and Community Development. 2: 11–27.

Groffman, P.M.; Rustad, L.E.; Templer, P.H. [and others]. 2012. Long-term 

integrated studies show complex and surprising effects of climate 

change in the northern hardwood forest. BioScience. 62: 1056–1066.

Iverson, L.; Matthews, S.; Prasad, A. [and others]. 2012a. Development 

of risk matrices for evaluating climatic change responses of forested 

habitats. Climatic Change. 114: 231–243.

Iverson, L.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S. [and others]. 2011. Lessons learned 

while integrating habitat, dispersal, disturbance, and life-history traits 

into species habitat models under climate change. Ecosystems. 14: 

1005–1020.

Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.N.; Prasad, A.M. [and others]. 2012b. Risk 

assessment for forested habitats in northern Wisconsin. Appendix 2. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 253–255.

Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M.; Matthews, S.N.; Peters, M. 2008. Estimating 

potential habitat for 134 eastern U.S. tree species under six climate 

scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 390–406.

Janowiak, M.K.; Iverson, L.R.; Mladenoff, D.J. [and others]. 2014. Forest 

ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern 

Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the northwoods 

climate change response framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 247 p.

Long, R.P.; Horsley, S.B.; Hallett, T.A.; Bailey, S.W. 2009. Sugar maple 

growth in relation to nutrition and stress in the northeastern United 

States. Ecological Applications. 19: 1454–1466.

Matthews, S.; Iverson, L.R.; Peters, M. [and others]. 2014. Assessing and 

comparing risk to climate changes among forested locations: implications 

for ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology. 29(2): 213–228.

Matthews, S.N.; Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.M. [and others]. 2011. Modifying 

climate change habitat models using tree species-specific assessments 

of model uncertainty and life history factors. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 262: 1460–1472.

Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate change 

impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 p. http://

nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/. [Date accessed: August 11, 2017].

Nakicenovic, N.; Alcamo, J.; Davis, G. [and others]. 2000. IPCC special report 

on emissions scenarios. Cambidge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 570 p.

Pope, V.D.; Gallani, M.L.; Rowntree, P.R. [and others]. 2000. The impact 

of new physical parameterizations in the Hadley Centre climate model: 

HadCM3. Climate Dynamics. 16(2/3):123–146.

Prasad, A.M.; Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.; Peters, M. 2007. A climate change 

atlas for 134 forest tree species of the eastern United States [database]. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree. [Date 

accessed: July 13, 2017].

Washington, W.M.; Weatherly, J.W.; Meehl, G.A. [and others]. 2000. 

Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate 

Dynamics. 16: 755–774.

Whitney, G.G.; Upmeyer, M.M. 2004. Sweet trees, sour circumstances: 

the long search for sustainability in the North American maple 

products industry. Forest Ecology and Management. 200: 313–333.
252 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 3

Appendix 3: State Law Websites

Amit R. Patel

Definitions and regulations associated with nontimber forest products (NTFPs) vary considerably 

between U.S. federal agencies and amongst the nation’s states and affiliated territories. While it would 

be impossible to assemble an exhaustive compendium of all regulatory measures relevant to NTFPs, the 

information provided in this appendix is intended as a starting point for researchers and decisionmakers 

interested in laws and policies that impact NTFP species and their harvests. Table A3.1 provides a list of laws 

and regulations listed elsewhere in this assessment (see, especially, chapter 7). Table A3.2 compiles links to 

websites relevant to NTFP governance at the state, territorial, and local levels at the time of this writing.

Table A3.1—Laws and acts referenced in this assessment.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

Alaskan National Interest Land Claims Act

American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act

American Indian Freedom of Religion Act

American Indian Law

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 1978

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010

Endangered Species Act

Endangered Species Act of Guam

Farm Bill

Federal Indian Law

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

Immigration Act 06 1986

Indian Self-Determination Act

Lacey Act

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

National Environmental Policy Act

National Forest Management Act of 1976

National Historic Preservation Act

National Indian Forest Resources Management Act

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996

Organic Act

Organic Administration Act of 1987

Pilot Program Act

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

Refuge Improvement Act of 1997

Sikes Act

Tribal Forest Protection Act

Tribal Law
APPENDIX 3 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 253

Table A3.2—Some State, territory, and local laws relevant to nontimber forest product governance.

State Website

Alabama http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/

Alaska http://www.dnr.alaska.gov/

American Samoa http://www.asbar.org/

Arizona http://www.azleg.gov/

Arkansas http://www.forestry.arkansas.gov/

California http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/

Colorado http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

Connecticut https://www.cga.ct.gov/

Delaware http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/

District of Columbia http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/

Fed. States of Micronesia http://www.fsmsupremecourt.org/

Florida http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/

Georgia http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

Guam http://www.guamcourts.org/CompilerofLaws/gca.html

Hawai’i http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/

Idaho http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/TOC/IDStatutesTOC.htm

Illinois http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/

Indiana http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/

Iowa https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/iowacode

Kansas http://www.kslegislature.org/li/

Kentucky http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/

Louisiana http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/lawsearch.aspx

Maine http://www.legislature.maine.gov/statutes/

Maryland http://www.mgaleg.maryland.gov/

Massachusetts https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/

Michigan http://www.legislature.mi.gov/

Minnesota https://www.revisor.mn.gov/pubs/

Mississippi http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mscode/

Missouri http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/

Montana http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/mtcode/

Nebraska http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/

Nevada http://www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfm

New Hampshire http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/

New Jersey http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/njcode/

New Mexico http://164.64.110.239/nmac/

New York http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode

North Carolina http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/Statutes.asp

North Dakota http://www.legis.nd.gov/general-information/north-dakota-century-code

Northern Mariana Islands http://www.cnmilaw.org/

Ohio http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/

Oklahoma http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html

Oregon https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/

Palau http://www.paclii.org/pw/indices/legis/palau-national-code-index.html

Pennsylvania http://www.pacode.com/secure/browse.asp

Puerto Rico http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lawsofpuertorico/

Rep. of the Marshall Islands http://www.rmiparliament.org/

Rhode Island http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/Statutes.html

South Carolina http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/statmast.php

South Dakota http://www.legis.sd.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/default.aspx

Tennessee http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

Texas http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes

U.S. Virgin Islands http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/vicode/

Utah http://www.le.utah.gov/Documents/code_const.htm

Vermont http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/vtstatutesconstctrules/

Virginia http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode

Washington http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/

West Virginia http://www.legis.state.wv.us/

Wisconsin http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/stats.html

Wyoming http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/wystatutes/
254 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 4

Appendix 4: Nontimber Forest Product 

Species Referenced in this Assessment

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Abies balsamea Balsam fir Boughs Decorative Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Abies fraseri Fraser fir Whole plant Landscaping Southeast

Abies procera Noble fir Boughs Decorative Northwest, Southwest

Acacia koa Koa Wood Crafts Hawai’i

Acer negundo Box elder Wood Southeast

Acer nigrum Black maple Sap Edible Northeast, Southeast

Acer rubrum Red maple Sap Edible Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Acer saccharum Sugar maple Sap Edible Northeast, Southeast

Acorus calamus Sweet flag Leaves Medicinal Great Plains

Actaea racemosa Black cohosh Root Medicinal Northeast, Southeast

Actaea rubra Red baneberry Root Medicinal Great Plains

Adansonia digitata Baobab tree Wood Crafts Caribbean

Aglaia samoensis Laga’ali Cosmetics Hawai’i

Albizia lebbeck Woman’s tongue Crafts Caribbean

Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Leaves Edible Invasive

Allium tricoccum Ramps, leeks Whole plant Edible, 

medicinal

Northeast, Southeast

Alocasia macrorhiza Giant taro Tuber Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i

Aloe spp. Aloe Leaves Medicinal Southwest

Alyxia stellate Maile Leaves Decorative Hawai’i

Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry Fruit Edible Northwest

Apios americana Ground nut Tuber Edible Great Plains

Apios priceana Price’s potato-bean Root Edible Midwest, Southeast

Annona muritca Soursop Fruit Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i

Arabidopsis thaliana Mouseear cress Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest

Areca catechu Betel nut palm Fruit Medicinal Hawai’i

Arisaema triphyllon Jack-in-the-pulpit Roots Medicinal Northeast, Southeast

Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Root Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Aristolochia tomentosa Dutchman’s pipe Stem Decorative Southeast

Arnica cordifolia Heartleaf arnica Whole plant Medicinal Northwest

Artemisia tridentata Sage brush Leaves Medicinal Southwest

Artemisia vulgaris Common wormword Leaves Medicinal Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast

Artocarpus altilis Breadfruit Fruit Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i

Artocarpus mariannensis Dokdok Fruit Edible Caribbean

Arundo donax Giant cane Stem Decorative Southeast

Asarum canadense Wild giner Root Edible Northeast, Southeast

Asclepias speciose Milkweed Fruit Great Plains

Asimina triloba Pawpaw Fruit Edible Northeast, Southeast

Azadirachta indica Neem Leaves Medicinal Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

(continued)
APPENDIX 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 255

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Bambusa vulgaris Bamboo Stem Crafts Southeast

Betula papyrifera Paper birch Bark Decorative Midwest, Northeast

Bischofia javanica O’a Dyes Hawai’i, Pacific

Bixa orellana Lipstick tree Caribbean

Boletus spp. Bolete Fruiting body Edible Northwest

Bursera simaruba Turpentine tree Sap Caribbean

Callitropsis nootkatensis Yellow cedar Wood Crafts Alaska

Camassia spp. Camas Caribbean

Cananga odorata Moso’oi Cosmetics Hawai’i, Pacific

Cantharellus spp. Chanterelles Fruiting body Edible

Carapa spp. African crabwood Wood Crafts Caribbean

Castanea mollissima Chinese chestnut Seeds Edible Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Caulophyllum 

thalictroides

Blue cohosh Root Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Cedrela odorata Spanish cedar Wood Crafts Caribbean

Chamaelirium luteum Fairywand Root Medicinal Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Cirsium edule Thistle Medicinal Great Plains

Citrus x aurantiifolia Key lime Fruit Edible Southeast

Citrus x aurantium Sour orange Fruit Edible Caribbean

Cocos nucifera Coconut Fruit Crafts, edible Southeast

Coffea arabica Coffee Fruit Edible Hawai’i, Pacific

Collinsonia canadensis Stone root Root Medicinal Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Colocasia esculenta Taro Tuber Edible Hawai’i, Pacific

Cordia alliodora Spanish cedar Wood Crafts Caribbean

Cornus sericea Redosier dogwood Stem Decorative Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Corylus americana American hazelnut Fruit Edible Northeast, Southeast

Corylus cornata Beaked hazel Alaska, Northwest

Crescentia cujete Common calabash 

tree

Southeast

Cryptosperma merkusii Gallen Hawai’i, Pacific

Cucurbita foetisdissima Buffalo gourd Tuber Edible Great Plains

Cuscuta spp. Dodder Great Plains

Cypripedium spp. Lady’s slipper Whole plant Landscaping Southeast

Dennstaedtia 

punctilobula

Eastern hayscented 

fern

Leaves Decorative Northeast, Southeast

Dichelostenna capitatum Bluedicks West

Dionaea muscipula Venus fly-trap Whole plant Medicinal, 

decorative

Southeast

Dioscorea spp. Yam Tuber Edible Hawai’i, Pacific

Dioscorea villosa Wild yam Tuber Edible, 

medicinal

Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Diospyros virginiana Common persimmon Fruit Edible Northeast, Southeast

Dodonae viscosa A’ali’i Hawai’i, Pacific

Echinacea angustifolia Blacksamson 

echinacea

Root and herb Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest

(continued)
256 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 4

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Echinacea pallida Pale purple 

coneflower

Root and herb Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Echinacea purpurea Eastern purple 

coneflower

Root and herb Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Epilobium angustifolim Fireweed Seeds Landscaping Northwest

Epilobium latifolium Dwarf fireweed Seeds Landscaping Northwest

Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbit bush Southwest

Erythrina subumbrans Erythrina Leaves Edible (fodder) Hawai’i, Pacific

Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian bluegum Essential oil Invasive Southwest

Euphorbia antisyphilitica Candelilla Sap Medicinal Southwest

Euthrochium spp. Joe Pye weed Leaves Medicinal Southeast

Fluegga acidoton Simple leaf bushweed Hawai’i, Pacific

Forsythia suspensa Weeping forsythia Stem Decorative Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Fragaria spp. Strawberry Fruit Edible Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Frangula purshiana Cascara buckthorn Bark Medicinal Northwest

Fraxinus nigra Black ash Wood Crafts Northeast, Southeast

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Wood Crafts Northeast, Southeast

Fraxinus spp. Ash Wood Crafts Northeast, Southeast

Freycinetia arborea Ie’ie Hawai’i, Pacific

Furcraea foetida Mauritius hemp Fiber Crafts Caribbean

Galax urceolata Galax Leaves Decorative Southeast

Gaultheria shallon Salal Leaves Decorative Northwest

Gaylussacia spp. Huckleberry Fruit Edible Northwest

Geranium erianthum Geranium

Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo Leaves Medicinal Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Guaiacum officinale Lignum-vitae Wood Crafts, 

medicinal, 

ornamental

Southeast

Guarea guidonia Muskwood Wood Crafts Caribbean

Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Whole plant Medicinal

Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Bark Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Tuber Edible Great Plains

Hepatica nobilis Hepatica, liverwort Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Hibiscus tiliaceus Sea hibiscus

Hierochloe odorata Alpine sweetgrass Stem Crafts Great Plains, Northeast

Hydnum repandum Hedgehog mushroom Fruiting body Edible

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Root and leaf Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Hymenaea courbaril West Indian locust Wood Crafts Caribbean

Hypnum curvifolium Curveleaf hypnum 

moss

Whole plant Decorative Southeast

Hypnum imponens Hypnum moss Whole plant Decorative Southeast

Hypomyces latifolium Lobster mushroom Fruiting body Edible

Ilex verticillata Common winterberry Leaves, twigs Decorative Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Inga laurina Guamo Caribbean

(continued)
APPENDIX 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 257

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Inga vera River koko Caribbean

Intisa bijuga Ifilele Wood Crafts, canoe Hawai’i, Pacific

Ipomoea leptophylla Brush morning glory Great Plains

Juglans nigra Black walnut Fruit Edible, 

medicinal

Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Juniperus communis Common juniper Alaska

Juniperus virginiana Eastern redcedar Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest

Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel Whole plant Landscaping Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Ledum groenlandicum Bog labrador tea Fruit, leaves Edible, 

medicinal

Alaska

Lentinula edodes Shiitake Fruiting body Edible

Ligusticum porteri Osha Root Medicinal Great Plains, Southwest

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum Bark Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree Bark Siding Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Lithospermum incisum Puccoon

Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw’s lomatium

Lomatium dissectum Fernleaf biscuitroot Great Plains, Northwest, Southwest

Lomatium spp. Wild celeries

Lonicera spp. Honey suckle

Lupinus littoralis Seashore lupine

Lupinus nootkatensis Noothka lupine Alaska

Lupinus spp. Lupines Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Lycopodium obscurum Rare club moss Northeast

Lycopodium spp. Clubmoss Whole plant Decorative Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Lyonia ferrugina Crooked wood Stem Decorative Southeast

Lysichiton americanus American 

skunkcabbage

Root Medicinal Alaska

Maclura pomifera Osage-orange Great Plains

Mahonia nervosa Cascada barberry Leaves, roots, 

stem

Decorative Northwest

Mammea americana Mamee apple Fruit Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

Mangifera indica Mango Fruit Edible Southeast

Matelea biflora Star milkweed Great Plains

Matteuccia 

struthiopteris

Ostrich fern Frond Edible Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Melicoccus bijugatus Spanish lime Fruit, wood Charcoal, 

edible

Southeast

Metrosideros 

polymorpha

Ohia Leaves Decorative Hawai’i, Pacific

Microlepia strigosa Palapalai Hawai’i, Pacific

Microstegium vimineum Japanese stiltgrass Invasive Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Morchella spp. Morel Fruiting body Edible

Morinda citrifolia Noni Fruit Medicinal Caribbean, Hawai’i

Moringa oleifera Moringa Leaves, pods Medicinal Caribbean, Hawai’i

(continued)
258 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 4

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Morus nigra Black mulberry Fruit Edible Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Muhlenbergia filipes Sweetgrass Leave Crafts Southeast

Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass

Muhlenbergia sericea Sweetgrass Leaves Crafts Southeast

Musa spp. Banana Fruit Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

Myrciaria floribunda Quava berry Fruit Edible Caribbean

Nypa fruticans Nipa palm Leaves Decorative Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

Oplopanax horridus Devilsclub Bark Medicinal Alaska

Opuntia polyacantha Plains prickly pear Great Plains

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng Root Medicinal Northeast, Southeast

Pandanus tectorius Tahitian screwpine Fruit, leaves, 

wood

Crafts, edible Hawai’i, Pacific

Pediomelum esculentum Prarie turnip Root Edible Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Persea americana Avocado Fruit Edible Southeast

Phytolacca americana American pokeweed Young shoots Edible, 

medicinal

Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest

Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce Tips Edible, crafts Alaska

Pimenta racemosa Bayrum treet Leaves Cosmetics Caribbean

Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine Alaska, Great Plains, Northwest, Southwest

Pinus edulis Twoneedle pinyon Seeds Edible Southwest

Pinus elliotti Slash pine Needles Decorative Southeast

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffery pine Southwest

Pinus monophylla Singleleaf pinyon Seeds Edible Northwest, Southwest

Pinus palustris Longleaf pine Needles Decorative Southeast

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine Southwest

Pinus taeda Loblolly pine Needles Decorative Southeast

Piper methysticum Kava Fruit Edible Hawai’i, Pacific

Pleurotus ostreatus Oyster mushroom Fruit Edible, 

medicinal

Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Pluchea carolinensis Cure-for-all Caribbean

Podophyllum peltatum Mayapple Roots Medicinal Great Plains, Southeast

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Leaves Edible Invasive

Polystichum munitum Western swordfern Leaves Decorative Northwest

Populus balsamifera Balsam poplar Wood Crafts Alaska

Populus deltoides Cottonwood Great Plains, Southwest

Prosopis spp. Mesquite Wood Cooking Southwest

Prunus americana American plum Fruit Edible Great Plains

Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Alaska, Great Plains

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Branches, 

needles, tips, 

poles

Ceremonial, 

crafts

Northwest, Southwest

Pteridium aquilinum Western brackenfern Leaves Edible Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Pycnanthemum spp. Mountain mint Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Quercus marilandica Blackjack oak Great Plains

(continued)
APPENDIX 4 • ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS 259

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Quercus spp. Oak Wood Crafts Northeast, Southeast

Rhododendron maximum Great laurel Whole plant Landscaping Southeast

Rhododendron spp. Azalea, rhododendron Whole plant Landscaping Northeast, Southeast

Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Ribes bracteosum Stink currant Fruit Edible Alaska

Ribes lacustre Prickly currant Fruit Edible Alaska

Ribes laxiflorum Trailing black currant Fruit Edible Alaska

Roystonea regia Royal palm Fruit, leaves Caribbean

Rubus arcticus Arctic raspberry Fruit Edible Alaska

Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Fruit Edible Northwest

Rubus idaeus American red 

raspberry

Fruit Edible Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Rubus leucodermis Whitebark raspberry Fruit Edible Alaska

Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry Fruit Edible Alaska, Northwest

Sabal palmetto Cabbage palmetto Leaves Crafts Southeast

Salix alba White willow Bark Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest

Salix purpurea Purpleosier willow Stems Decorative Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Sambucus canadensis American black 

elderberry

Fruit Medicinal Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Root Medicinal Northeast, Southeast

Santalum paniculatum Sandalwood Wood Crafts Hawai’i

Sarracenia spp. Pitcherplants Whole plant Decorative Southeast

Sassafras albidum Sassafras Bark, leaves Edible, 

medicinal

Northeast, Southeast

Serenoa repens Saw palmetto Fruit Medicinal Southeast

Shepherdia argenta Silver buffalo berry Fruit Edible Alaska

Smilax coriacea Smilax Caribbean

Solidaga spp. Goldenrod Great Plains

Sphenomersi chinensis Chinese creeping fern Caribbean

Spiraea virginiana Virginia 

meadowsweet

Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Stachytarpheta 

jamaicensis

Worrywine Medicinal Caribbean

Streptopus amplexifolius Claspleaf twistedstalk Fruit Edible Alaska

Streptopus roseus Twistedstalk Fruit Edible Alaska

Swetenia macrophylla Mahogany Wood Crafts Caribbean

Swetenia mahagani Mahogany Wood Crafts Caribbean

Symphoricarpus 

occidentalis

Western snowberry Fruit Edible Southwest

Syringa spp. Lilacs Whole plant, 

flowers

Decorative, 

landscaping

Tamarindus indica Tamarind Fruit Edible Caribbean

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Leaves Edible Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Taxus brevifolia Pacific yew Bark Medicinal Northwest

Taxus canadensis Canada yew Bark Medicinal Northwest

(continued)
260 ASSESSMENT OF NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS • APPENDIX 4

Appendix 4— (continued) Nontimber forest product species referenced in this assessment.

Scientific name Common name

Harvested 

organ(s) Usage(s) Region

Terminalia catappa Tropical almond Caribbean

Terminalia carolinensis Terminalia Wood Crafts Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

Teucrium canadense American germander Great Plains

Theobroma cacao Cacao Fruit Edible Caribbean, Hawai’i, Pacific

Thuidium delicatulum Delicate thuidium 

moss

Whole plant Decorative Southeast

Thuja plicata Western redcedar Wood Crafts Alaska, Northwest

Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss Whole plant Decorative Southeast

Tricholoma magnivelare Matsutake Fruit Edible Northwest

Trillium erectum Red trillium Whole plant Decorative Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Trillium spp. Trillium Whole plant Landscaping Southeast

Tsuga heterophylia Western hemlock Wood Crafts Alaska

Tsuga mertensiana Mountain hemlock Wood Crafts Northwest

Tuber gibbosum Truffles Fruiting body Edible

Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Bark Medicinal Northeast, Southeast

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle Leaves Edible, 

medicinal

Northwest

Usnea spp. Beard lichen Whole plant Alaska, Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, 

Southwest

Vaccinium alaskaense Alaska blueberry Fruit Edible Alaska

Vaccinium angustifolium Lowbush blueberry Fruit Edible Midwest, Northeast, Southeast

Vaccinium edule Highbush cranberry Fruit Edible Alaska

Vaccinium myrtilloides Velvetleaf huckleberry Fruit Edible Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast

Vaccinium ovatum California huckleberry Branch tips, 

fruit, vines

Decorative Northwest

Vaccinium oxycoccos Bog cranberry Fruit Edible Alaska

Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry Branches Decorative Northwest

Vitis spp. Grape vine Vine Decorative Southeast

Vitis rotundifolium Muscadine grape Fruit Edible Southeast

Xanthosoma 

sagittifolium 

White yam Tuber Edilbe Caribbean

Xerophyllum tenax Common beargrass Leaves Decorative Northwest

Xylocampus granatum Cedar mangrove Caribbean

Yucca spp. Yuca Southwest

Zizania palustris Northern wildrice Seeds Edible Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest
Chamberlain, James L.; Emery, Marla R.; Patel-Weynand, Toral, eds.

2018. Assessment of nontimber forest products in the United States 

under changing conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–232. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 260 p.

Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) are fundamental to the 

functioning of healthy forests and play vital roles in the cultures and 

economies of the people of the United States. However, these plants 

and fungi used for food, medicine, and other purposes have not been 

fully incorporated into management, policy, and resource valuation. 

This report is a forest-sectorwide assessment of the state of the 

knowledge regarding NTFPs science and management information 

for U.S. forests and rangelands (and hereafter referred to as the 

NTFP assessment). The NTFP assessment serves as a baseline science 

synthesis and provides information for managing nontimber forest 

resources in the United States. In addition, this NTFP assessment 

provides information for national-level reporting on natural capital 

and the ecosystem services NTFPs provide. The report also provides 

technical input to the 2017 National Climate Assessment (NCA) 

under development by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP).

Keywords: Climate variability, ecosystem services, nontimber forest 

products (NTFP), management, regulations.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil 

rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs 

are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, 

national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including 

gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation 

for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all 

programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary 

by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 

communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages 

other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the 

USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at http://www. ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_

cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed 

to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint 

form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or 

letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) 

fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.