|
Criterion 2 Indicator 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article Content
 |
| Rationale |
|
|
Growing Stock of Both Merchantable and Non-Merchantable Timber
One measure of forest productivity is the amount of growing stock of merchantable and non-merchantable timber. This data provides important information on the opportunity for timber harvest, based solely on the amount of timber physically available. However, this indicator does not take into account harvest regulations and practices that may affect the actual availability of these trees for harvest, nor does it take into account the many other values placed on this resource.
|
|
|
| Can This Indicator Be Quantified |
|
The data used was obtained from databases cooperatively produced for the Renewable Resources Research Act (Woudenberg and Farrenkopf, 1999; Hansen, et. al., 1992).
Table 11-1. Growing stock of both merchantable and non-merchantable timber in Oregon
| Western Oregon | | |
| Net Cubic Foot Volume By Owner | | |
| | Growing Stock (MMCF) | |
| Owner Group | Merchantable | Nonmerchantable |
| Federal | 51,818 | 27,098 |
| Industry | 11,255 | 3,685 |
| NIPF | 5,389 | 1,830 |
| Other | 3,561 | 1,721 |
| Total | 72,024 | 34,333 |
| Eastern Oregon | | |
| Net Cubic Foot Volume By Owner | | |
| | Growing Stock (MMCF) | |
| Owner Group | Merchantable | Nonmerchantable |
| Federal | 18,514 | 11,866 |
| Industry | 1,839 | 1,084 |
| NIPF | 1,293 | 595 |
| Other | 1,037 | 514 |
| Total | 22,683 | 14,058 |
| All Oregon | | |
| Net Cubic Foot Volume By Owner | | |
| | Growing Stock (MMCF) | |
| Owner Group | Merchantable | Nonmerchantable |
| Federal | 70,332 | 38,964 |
| Industry | 13,094 | 4,768 |
| NIPF | 6,682 | 2,424 |
| Other | 4,599 | 2,235 |
| Total | 94,707 | 48,392 |
Download
Figure 11-1. Growing stock of merchantable and non-merchantable timber, by landowner
Download
As the figure above shows, the vast majority of Oregon’s growing timber is on federal lands, including 74 percent of the merchantable and 81 percent of the non-merchantable totals. Because this figure does not show how much timber is in areas that allow only partial harvest or no harvest at all, it does not show what percentages of the growing stock are actually available for harvest.
|
|
|
| Trends |
|
McKay, et. al. (1996) calculated changes in growing stock on nonfederal lands in western Oregon. They found a net increase of about 366 million cubic feet (mmcf) in growing stock between the 1984-86 and 1994 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) periods. Reductions in growing stock were due to land use conversions (180 mmcf), transfers to federal owners (195 mmcf), mortality (779 mmcf), and harvesting (6,163). However, these reductions were offset by growth of 7,682 mmcf, for a net increase over the period.
McKay, Mei, and Lettman (1994) calculated changes in the growing stock of eastern Oregon for the period from 1986-87 to 1992. They found a net reduction of 301 mmcf in growing stock on nonfederal lands. The reduction was due mainly to large amounts of mortality (208 mmcf) and harvesting (674 mmcf), which exceeded growth (597 mmcf).
|
|
|
| Data Source and Availability |
|
The following sources of data were used for this indicator.
McKay, Bolsinger, Lettman, Mei, and Azuma. 1998. Timber resource trends on non-federal timberland in western Oregon between 1984-86 and 1994. July 1998.
McKay, Mei, and Lettman. 1994. Timber resource statistics for timberland outside national forests in eastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Resource Bulletin. July 1994.
USDA Forest Service. Forest inventory and analysis data records.
|
|
|
| Reliability of Data |
|
All data is reliable. Data obtained from the forest inventory and analysis data records (eastside and westside forest inventory databases) is consistent with data collected for other states. However, there are minor differences in definitions between the two databases, and care should be used when comparing data from the two.
|
|
|
| Scale |
|
The forest inventory and analysis date records provide information by state and by county. The McKay, Mei, and Lettman report (1994) and the McKay, et. al. report (1998) use statewide data, divided into western Oregon and eastern Oregon.
|
|
|
| Recommended Action for Data Collection |
|
None.
|
|
|
| Definitions |
|
None.
|
|
|
| Selected References |
|
None.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|