United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-934

April

2016

Tongass National Forest 

Timber Demand: 

Projections for 2015 to 2030

Jean M. Daniels, Michael D. Paruszkiewicz, and Susan J. Alexander
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.

Authors

Jean M. Daniels is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW 

Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Michael D. Paruszkiewicz is an economist, Northwest Economic Research Center, Portland State University, P.O. Box 

751, Portland, OR 97207; Susan J. Alexander is a program manager; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 11175 Auke Lake Way, Juneau AK 99801.
Abstract

Daniels, Jean M.; Paruszkiewicz, Michael D.; Alexander, Susan J. 2016. 

Tongass National Forest timber demand: projections for 2015 to 2030. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-934. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Projections of Alaska timber products output; the derived demand for logs, 

lumber, residues, and niche products; and timber harvest by owner were developed 

using a trend-based analysis. This is the fifth such analysis performed since 1990 

to assist planners in meeting statutory requirements for estimating planning-cycle 

demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest. Results reflect the consequences of recent changes in Tongass forest policy, the Alaska forest sector, and 

trends in markets for Alaska products. Demand for Alaska national forest timber 

currently depends on markets for sawn wood and exports of softwood logs. Three 

scenarios are presented that display a range of possible future market conditions. 

The model was most sensitive to changes in Pacific Rim log demand. Areas of 

uncertainty include the prospect of continuing changes in markets and competition, the impact of the transition to young-growth timber, and the rates of investment in manufacturing in Alaska.

Keywords: Tongass National Forest, Alaska, forest sector models, lumber, 

young-growth transition, timber products output.
Contents

1 Introduction

2 Literature Review

4 Changes Since the Last Study

21 Methods

22 Steps Used for This Analysis

23 Identifying Markets

25 Assembling Historical Market Data

28 Baseline Model

32 Baseline Projected Demand and Harvest Estimates

32 Scenario 1

38 Scenario 2

44 Scenario 3

45 Sensitivity of the Model

45 Selecting an Alternative

48 Discussion and Conclusion

49 Acknowledgments

49 Metric Equivalents

49 Literature Cited 
1

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Introduction

The Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA 1990) states that the Secretary of Agriculture will “...seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest 

which (1) meets the annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) 

meets the market demand for timber from such forest for each planning cycle.” 

Although all national forests are required to estimate demand for timber during 

forest planning efforts, the “seek to meet” requirement is unique to the Tongass 

National Forest. The USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station has 

a tradition of conducting timber demand and price forecasting to support forest 

planning on the Tongass. Previous analyses have estimated the quantity of national 

forest timber required to satisfy projected demand for forest products given harvest 

by other owners and assumptions about future market conditions and prices. 

The Pacific Northwest Research Station has been asked to assist planners in 

meeting the TTRA requirement for estimating planning cycle demand for timber 

from the Tongass. This is the fifth such analysis performed by the station. Results 

from this long-term analysis will be used by the Forest Service’s Alaska Region as 

an input in calculations of annual demand for Tongass timber and to inform new 

efforts to amend the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). Results presented 

reflect the standing volume sold from an average forest stand on the Tongass.

Several findings in a 5-year review of the 2008 TLMP, including changes in 

forest policy regarding the harvest of timber on the Tongass and land ownership 

changes, resulted in a decision to amend the plan. Efforts were set into motion by 

evolving USDA policy limiting old-growth harvesting and encouraging the harvest 

of younger second-growth forest stands. In addition, some national forest lands 

were recently transferred to the Sealaska Corporation. These changes require a new 

analysis of planning-cycle timber demand projections to support planning efforts. 

Several other events have occurred that invalidate many of the assumptions for the 

last timber demand analysis. These include developments in Alaska’s forest sector and domestic and export forest product markets, the entry of Tongass sawlogs 

into international export markets, rising fuel costs, and efforts to promote biomass 

energy products and technology for space heating and electricity generation. 

The Tongass National Forest covers most of southeast Alaska; this analysis 

defines southeast Alaska explicitly as the region comprised by the Haines, HoonahAngoon, Juneau, Ketchikan-Gateway, Prince of Wales-Hyder, Petersburg, Sitka, 

Skagway, Wrangell, and Yakutat Census areas. A review of the literature with 

respect to previous demand studies and to changes to the forest products industry 

in southeast Alaska is presented next.

Results from this 

long-term analysis 

will be used by the 

Forest Service’s Alaska 

Region as an input in 

calculations of annual 

demand for Tongass 

timber and to inform 

new efforts to amend 

the Tongass Land 

Management Plan.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Literature Review

The Pacific Northwest Research Station has published four previous studies 

conducted in support of Tongass Land Management planning efforts. Brooks and 

Haynes (1990), Brooks and Haynes (1994), Brooks and Haynes (1997), and Brackley et al. (2006b) all estimated derived demand for timber in southeast Alaska and 

projected the volume of timber required to meet that demand over the life of the 

forest plan. “Derived demand” in these studies is defined as the volume of national 

forest harvest needed to meet the projected consumption of Alaska forest products 

over time, given the harvest levels of private, state, and other federal forest ownerships. Each used scenario-based analyses based on assumptions about future market 

conditions for sawtimber and utility volume from the Tongass National Forest. 

Results from previous analyses are provided in table 1. The most recent demand 

study (Brackley et al. 2006b) was initiated when sales to domestic markets rose to 

account for more than 35 percent of lumber produced in southeast Alaska sawmills.

Past demand studies have been criticized for not accurately estimating market 

demand for Tongass timber. EarthJustice and other environmental groups in southeast Alaska developed figure 1 to show how timber harvests, a measure of supply, 

have declined far below levels in demand estimates (Waldo 2014). For example, timber harvest for FY 2012 was 20.8 million board feet (MMBF), almost 14 MMBF less 

than the most recent projected market demand of 34.7 MMBF. Although this is an 

analysis of timber demand, it is important to remember that the interaction between 

demand and supply is what ultimately determines trends in markets. Figure 1 displays generally declining trends in timber harvest; however, caution is recommended 

Table 1—Past projections of average annual derived demand for Alaska national 

forest timbera

Period

Brooks and 

Haynes (1990)

Brooks and 

Haynes (1994)

Brooks and 

Haynes (1997)

Brackley, Rojas, 

and Haynes (2006)

Million board feet

1983–1987 281.0 281.0 281.0 281.0

1988–1992 414.0 414.0 414.0 414.0

1993–1997 404.0 300.0 192.0 200.2

1998–2002 403.0 315.0 113.0 93.3

2003–2007 397.0 332.0 152.0 30.0

2008–2012 401.0 335.0 174.0 34.7

2013–2017 38.7

2018–2022 43.0

2022–2025 46.7

a

 Five-year averages. Data that were not historical at the time of the projection are in boldface.

The interaction between 

demand and supply 

is what ultimately 

determines trends 

in markets.
3

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

when inferring causality between timber harvest and market demand. Supply of 

timber from the Tongass is constrained by several factors, including budgets and the 

amount of time required to plan and implement timber sales. 

In the most recent demand study, Brackley et al. (2006b) developed four alternative future scenarios (table 2), as opposed to the three-scenario framework used in 

previous analyses. The “Limited Lumber Production” and “Expanded Lumber Production” scenarios assumed that the wood processing industry in southeast Alaska 

would focus on processing only sawlogs. The primary difference between the two 

scenarios was that Alaska’s share of North American wood product exports was 

assumed to increase in the Expanded Lumber scenario, whereas the Limited Lumber scenario assumed a constant market share. Both scenarios assumed that Pacific 

Rim lumber imports from the North American market would increase by more 

than 30 percent by 2025. The “Medium Integrated Industry” and “High Integrated 

Industry” scenarios assumed that either one or two chip and utility log processing 

facilities would join the southeast Alaska wood processing industry. The Medium 

Integrated scenario assumed that one such facility would begin operating in 2008, 

whereas the High Integrated scenario assumed one facility would be built in 2008 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Tim

ber v

olume (M

M

BF)

Actual Harvest per year 1990 Brooks and Haynes 1994 Brooks and Haynes

1997 Brooks and Haynes 2006 Brackley, Scenario 2

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

20122013

Year

Figure 1—History of Tongass timber demand projects and harvest (Waldo 2014).
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

and another in 2012. To date, neither of these facilities has been built. Demand for 

low-grade material could have increased owing to factors such as market demand 

for whole-log, utility-grade material in another location, but so far these markets 

have not materialized.

Changes Since the Last Study

Market conditions for the Alaskan forest sector have changed considerably since 

the last demand study. Efforts to end harvesting of old-growth timber on the Tongass National Forest have spurred multiple initiatives focused on transitioning to a 

young-growth timber base. The young-growth transition is expected to affect timber 

supply for the remaining southeast Alaska forest products industry, where industrial 

capacity, capacity utilization, and production have fallen by about 50 percent since 

the last demand study. In addition, land exchanges and administrative changes to the 

harvestable land base have reduced the acres available for harvest. Another significant development is the Tongass Limited Export Policy (last revised in 2015), which 

authorizes the export of roundwood harvested from the Tongass to the continental 

United States and international destinations (USDA FS 2015). Lastly, the ascendancy 

of China to dominant overseas purchaser of Alaskan softwood logs, supplanting 

Japan, has changed the profile of foreign log demand. Whereas Japanese purchasers 

have historically preferred higher quality and higher value old-growth logs, Chinese 

log demand swings toward the quantity end of the quantity/quality spectrum. Each 

of these developments is discussed in detail in the following sections. 

Table 2—Characteristics of demand scenarios for Alaska roundwood from Brackley et al. (2006b)

Scenario

Characteristic

Limited lumber 

production

Expanded lumber 

production

Medium integrated 

industry

High integrated 

industry

Million cubic meters

Pacific Rim lumber imports:

Starting 8077 8077 8077 8077

Ending 11 042 11 042 9099 10 098

Percent

Alaska share of North American market:

Starting 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

Ending 0.39 1.14 1.60 2.34

Estimated low-grade material in 

sawmill log mixa

33 33 10 10

Demand stimulation No Yes Yes Yes

Market for low-grade logs No No Yes Yes

a

 Estimated volume of low-grade and utility-grade logs delivered to sawmills for use as saw logs, meeting the definition of a number 2 saw logs at least 12 

feet long.

Efforts to end 

harvesting of oldgrowth timber on the 

Tongass National Forest 

have spurred multiple 

initiatives focused 

on transitioning to 

a young-growth 

timber base.
5

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Young-growth issues and studies—

In 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture, in Memorandum 1044-009, directed the 

Forest Service to speed the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting 

on the Tongass National Forest and move to a forest industry that utilizes secondgrowth forests in a way that preserves a viable timber industry (USDA 2013). The 

USDA’s goal is to complete this transition in 10 to 15 years, at which time the vast 

majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be second growth. Significant effort 

has been directed toward measuring the young-growth inventory on the forest, 

predicting volume available after the conversion, and estimating the impact on the 

southeast Alaska forest industry. Two issues that consistently arise are that younggrowth trees have not reached their maximum rate of growth, and that planned 

timber sales must appraise positively before they can be offered for sale. These are 

discussed next, followed by a review of published and internal documents examining the young-growth timber resource and industry implications of the transition.

One hurdle in transitioning to young growth is the lack of older and larger 

young-growth stands that have reached their maximum rate of growth, called the 

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). Most young growth originated 

between the 1950s and the 1980s, creating a lack of older managed stands. The 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), expressed in 16 U.S. Code 

1604(m)1, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards to ensure that 

trees in the National Forest System (NFS) will have reached CMAI before harvest, 

with certain exceptions, such as salvage of damaged stands. CMAI is designed to 

restrict harvest to stands where the rate of growth has slowed, which maximizes 

forest growth but limits opportunities to harvest stands at earlier ages. Because 

most of young-growth stands on the Tongass have not yet reached the CMAI, they 

are not eligible to be harvested under this part of the statute. However, the next 

section, 16 U.S. Code 1604(m) 2, states that the Secretary shall establish:

“...exceptions to these standards for the harvest of particular species of trees 

in management units after consideration has been given to the multiple uses 

of the forest including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and 

range and after completion of public participation processes.” 

Discussions with managers suggest that the likely administrative response will be to 

exempt certain species in Tongass young-growth stands from CMAI requirements. 

Another major challenge to young-growth transition is that, since 2003, annual 

appropriation legislation has prohibited the Forest Service from offering commercial 

timber sales on the Tongass that do not receive a positive appraisal (Coleman 2013). 

Appraising young-growth stands on the Tongass is difficult because of a lack of standlevel information on species composition, tree size, and logging systems, and because 

Two issues that 

consistently arise are 

that young-growth 

trees have not reached 

their maximum rate 

of growth, and that 

planned timber 

sales must appraise 

positively before they 

can be offered for sale.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

little young-growth timber has been harvested on the forest. Note that the positive 

appraisal rule excludes timber harvested for habitat improvement, precommercial thinning, or harvest resulting from nontimber purposes like mining or road construction.

Many studies (both published and internal) examining the availability and 

implications of the young-growth transition have been conducted since 2009. The 

Meridian Institute was selected to facilitate and coordinate the 15-member Tongass 

Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the 

Forest Service on transitioning the Tongass National Forest to young-growth forest 

management. The Meridian Institute website contains an exhaustive list with links 

to the full text of these studies, as well as synopses of them (Meridian Institute 

2015). Generally, these studies attempt to quantify the young-growth timber resource 

available on the Tongass, the policy and economic challenges to implementing a 

young-growth strategy, and the impact of the transition on Alaska’s forest industries.

Changes in the Tongass land use designations—

Federal land comprises about 94 percent of southeast Alaska and the Tongass 

National Forest administers 17 million acres of this total. Legislative action and 

administrative decisions over time have moved large tracts of the Tongass into 

preservation and conservation status and have reduced the acreage available for 

timber harvest. With each law or policy decision, some number of harvestable 

acres has been removed from the timber management base. The proportion of land 

in southeast Alaska designated for timber harvest (Timber Development Lands) 

is small compared to the vast amount under federal ownership. Harvestable acres 

are divided between old- and young-growth timber. Policies that have limited the 

area available for timber harvest on the Tongass include efforts to protect riparian 

resources, beach fringe areas, and karst geologic formations, nondevelopment land 

use designations, and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

Land adjustments and exchanges—

Federal legislation passed in December 2014 finalized the Sealaska Corporation’s remaining land entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANSCA). The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs 

Protection Act (also known as the Sealaska Lands Bill) conveyed 70,075 acres of 

NFS lands on the Tongass to Sealaska, an Alaska Native Corporation, to satisfy 

outstanding land claims under ANSCA. The 18 parcels selected include a large 

proportion of the Tongass’s older second-growth volume. Moreover, the Alaska 

Mental Health Trust has proposed an administrative, equal-value land exchange 

under which substantial amounts of both old-growth and young-growth timber 

lying within the viewshed of several southeast Alaska communities would change 

hands from the Forest Service to the Mental Health Trust.

Legislative action 

and administrative 

decisions over time 

have moved large 

tracts of the Tongass 

into preservation and 

conservation status 

and have reduced the 

acreage available for 

timber harvest. 
7

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Changes to Alaska’s forest sector—

Two of the four scenarios considered in the last Forest Service demand study 

(Brackley et al. 2006b) predicted possible industry expansion through the reestablishment of an integrated processing industry. Demand for low- and utility-grade 

logs would result from opening of either one or two facilities producing mediumdensity fiberboard. To date, neither of these facilities has been built, markets for 

low-quality and utility logs have not emerged, and the southeast Alaska forest 

industry is primarily focused on processing sawlogs into lumber and exporting 

roundwood logs. Trends in industrial production and capacity in Alaskan wood 

processing mills are discussed next, along with two TPO reports published since 

the Brackley et al. (2006b) study. These provide direct measures of the relationship 

between final product markets and timber harvested in Alaska.

There are two published sources for wood processing industry data in Alaska. 

The Alaska Region has supported an annual survey of southeast Alaska sawmills 

since 2000 (Alexander and Parrent 2010, 2012; Brackley and Crone 2009; Brackley 

et al. 2006a; Kilborn et al 2004). These surveys were relatively new when the previous demand study was conducted and will be referred to hereafter as the “annual 

mill surveys.” These surveys report installed capacity, lumber production by product 

type, and product destinations for the forest products industry in southeast Alaska. 

One important distinction is that the lumber production numbers reported in the 

annual mill surveys are not measurements of lumber output, but rather of the board 

feet of logs that were milled into lumber. Capacity is defined as the maximum timber 

volume that can be processed in a 250-day work year and two 8-hour shifts per day. 

Table 3 shows that capacity, production, and employment have declined by about 66 

percent since 2005. Capacity utilization rates indicate that most of Alaska’s wood 

processing capability is unused; the 14.6-percent value in CY 2013 is the best utilization rate since before 2005. Note that log exports from mills have not been reported 

since 2006; inconsistencies in reporting resulted in the discontinuation of that series.

Originally, the 20 largest and/or most active sawmills were included in the 

survey. As of CY 2013, eight of those mills were out of business and two were idle; 

only 10 of the original 20 remained in operation. Table 4 lists open and idled mills, 

along with their capacity, production, and capacity utilization rates in CY 2013. 

The southeast Alaska wood industry is characterized by one large lumber mill and 

several smaller mills focusing on unique or niche products. All mills produced at a 

fraction of their capacity, with utilization rates ranging from 0.67 to 18.75 percent. 

Of the 10 mills operating in 2013, the vast majority of capacity and production 

is located at the Viking Lumber Company in Klawock on Prince of Wales Island. 

Using only 18 percent of its installed capacity, 2013 production at Viking was far 

greater than all other mills combined. Figure 2 shows production from the Viking 

The southeast Alaska 

forest industry is 

primarily focused on 

processing sawlogs into 

lumber and exporting 

roundwood logs.

The southeast Alaska 

wood industry is 

characterized by one 

large lumber mill and 

several smaller mills 

focusing on unique or 

niche products.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Table 3—Installed capacity and production in Alaska sawmills, CY 2005–2013

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Thousand board feet

Installed mill 

capacity 359,850 354,350 292,350 282,350 249,350 155,850 160,000 120,400 120,400

Estimated mill 

production 34,695 32,141 31,717 23,666 13,422 15,807 11,546 13,842 17,593

Volume not included in mill production:

Manufactured 

productsa 0 7,620 4,015 3,513 1,250 385 1,295 899 920

Log exports 3,541 2,646 — — — — — — —

Total 3,541 10,266 4,015 3,513 1,250 385 1,295 899 920

Percentage of mill 

utilization 9.64 9.07 10.85 8.38 5.38 10.14 7.22 11.5 14.6

Number of 

employees 136 122.75 158b 94 57.5 63.5 55.75 58 59.5

a

 Primarily chips and bark manufactured from utility logs, but may also include firewood.

b

 Included 35 positions reported at the reopened Ketchikan Renaissance Group veneer mill, which operated for only a few months.

— = Data not collected.

Table 4—Estimated installed mill capacity and production, CY 2013 (Parrent and Grewe 2014)

Mill name

Estimated mill 

capacity

Estimated mill 

production

Utilization of 

installed capacity

Thousand board feet, log scale Percent

Icy Straits Lumber & Milling Co. 3,000 400 13.33

Viking Lumber Co. 80,000 15,000 18.75

D&L Woodworks 1,750 55 3.14

Northern Star Cedar 2,500 Idle 0

Western Gold Cedar Products 6,500 650 10.00

Thorne Bay Enterprises 1,000 Idle 0

Falls Creek Forest Products

(formerly southeast Alaska Wood Products)

3,000 20 0.67

Good Faith Lumber Co. LLC

(formerly Thorne Bay Wood Products)

5,500 785 14.27

Thuja Plicata Lumber 7,500 250 3.33

Porter Lumber Co. 2,500 202.5 8.10

St. Nick Forest Products 

(formerly W.R. Jones & Son Lumber Co.)

1,150 170 14.78

The Mill 6,000 60 1.00

Total 120,400 17,592.5 14.6
9

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

mill compared to other southeast Alaska mills over time. Viking’s share of industrial 

output has grown from just over 50 percent in 2005 to 85 percent in 2013. The concentration of industrial capacity in this single producer raises concerns about market 

durability and monopolistic influence, especially because it is the only mill capable 

of processing a significant volume of young-growth timber in southeast Alaska. 

The second source of mill data is two statewide surveys of Timber Products 

Output (TPO) from Alaska wood processing mills conducted in 2005 and 2011 

(Berg et al. 2014, Halbrook et al. 2009). The University of Montana’s Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research (BBER), in conjunction with the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (PNW-FIA) program, conducts 

a census of timber processors for all Western states every 5 years. These will be 

referred to hereafter as the “BBER surveys.” Through a written questionnaire or 

telephone interview, timber-processing and residue-utilizing facilities provided 

information about their operations. The BBER surveyed 116 mills statewide, 41 of 

which were located in southeast Alaska. Facility-level information was compiled and 

summarized to avoid disclosing firm-level production information. Because TPO 

reports are based on a census, rather than sample of firms, there is no sampling error 

associated with the results presented. The reports provide information including: 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill production (M

M

BF 

Scribner)

Viking

Not Viking

Year

Figure 2—Lumber production, Viking Lumber Company and all other southeast Alaska producers. 

Facility-level 

information was 

compiled and 

summarized to avoid 

disclosing firm-level 

production information.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

• Facility location, production, capacity, and employment.

• Volume of raw material received, by borough/census area, and ownership.

• Species of timber received and live/dead proportions.

• Finished product volumes, types, sales value, and market locations.

• Volume, utilization, and marketing of manufacturing residue.

The BBER survey data include product markets and materials balance information obtained directly from mills that Brackley et al. (2006b) had to estimate. These 

surveys are more detailed than the annual mill surveys and cover the entire state. Key 

pieces of information found in the BBER surveys that are not included in the annual 

mill surveys are estimates for mill residue production, as well as exports of roundwood logs and chips to domestic and foreign destinations. Figure 3 is reproduced 

from the 2011 TPO report and shows that Alaska’s timber harvest of 30,612 thousand 

cubic feet (mcf) was channeled into five primary wood using industries: sawmills, log 

and chip exports, house logs, firewood, and other, which was comprised mainly of 

local tonewood, furniture, and niche production. Statewide, the majority of residues 

were channeled into the fuelwood sector (805 mcf), followed by chip exports (716 

mcf), and miscellaneous uses (186 mcf). Unutilized residues amounted to 282 mcf, 

which represents 14 percent of total residue generation in 2011. This could represent 

an important source of supply for developing markets for wood energy products. 

Figure 3 also shows that the majority (86 percent) of Alaska’s timber harvest 

was sent to markets out of state. Traditionally, exports were comprised mostly of 

unprocessed logs shipped from Native Corporation and state lands, as well as 

high-quality lumber.1 The emergence of the Tongass National Forest as an international supplier of softwood logs is a major development since the date of the last 

demand study that was incorporated into new demand projections. In 2007, in 

response to housing and wood products market crises resulting from the Great 

Recession, the Alaska Region initiated a Limited Shipping Policy for the Tongass 

(see footnote 1). The policy modified how timber sales were appraised, and allowed 

shipment of up to 50 percent of standing timber volume to the most advantageous 

market, either the continental United States or internationally. The policy was 

expanded, and currently allows the purchaser limited export of unprocessed western hemlock (Tsuga microphylla) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) logs, up to 50 

percent of the total sale volume out of state in whole log form. Pricing for export 

markets helps the Tongass meet the positive appraisal requirement for timber sales. 

Foreign market appraisal values were established for new timber sales to reflect 

export prices for Alaska species. 

1 Alaskans use the term “exports” to refer to both domestic U.S. and international destinations.

The emergence 

of the Tongass 

National Forest as an 

international supplier 

of softwood logs is a 

major development.
11

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Total harvest

30,612 MCFa

Other manufacturersb

190 MCF

House log and log

home manufacturers

259 MCF 

Fuelwood

manufacturers

869 MCF

Sawmills

2,995 MCF

Log and chip

exports

26,299 MCF

Use of Alaska’s 2011 timber harvest

Pulp chip

residue

716 MCF

Residue for

fuelwood

4 MCF Residue for

fuelwood

742 MCF

Residue for

fuelwood

59 MCF

Residue for

miscellaneous uses

22 MCF

Residue for

miscellaneous uses

9 MCF

Unutilized 

residue

164 MCF

Shrinkage

45 MCF

Residue for

miscellaneous uses

137 MCF

Residue for

miscellaneous uses

18 MCF

Unutilized 

residue

57 MCF

Unutilized 

residue

27 MCF

Unutilized 

residue

34 MCF

Shrinkage

4 MCF

Products produced by

other manufacturersb

103 MCF

Products produced

by house log sector

155 MCF

Products produced

by fuelwood sector

1,631 MCF

Exported

logs and chips

27,015 MCF

Product produced

by sawmill sector

1,191 MCF

a

Thousand cubic feet (MCF) excludes bark. b

Other manufacturers include manufactures of log furniture, tonewood, novelty items, and cedar products.

Figure 3—Use of Alaska’s 2011 timber harvest, reproduced from Berg et al. (2014).
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Changes in domestic and export product markets—

Previous demand studies were performed when Japan was the primary market 

for export logs from Alaska and before the Tongass began exporting logs to U.S. 

domestic and international markets. These developments have changed the competitive position of Alaskan exports compared to Washington and Oregon. The proportion of Alaska products being sent to the lower 48 states has also changed. These 

and the unique issues associated with Alaska trade statistics are discussed next.

The International Trade Commission within the U.S. Census Bureau collects 

and provides trade statistics by U.S. customs district using the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) and distributes these data in an online database (USITC 2014). 

Port-level data for the state of Alaska are aggregated into the state-level Anchorage Customs District. Table 5 shows softwood chip, log, and lumber exports from 

the Anchorage Customs District from 2005 to 2013 by export destination. Chips 

have not been exported in any consequential volume since 2005, although a shipment of 4.4 thousand metric tons went to Canada in 2013. Softwood log exports 

to China have risen dramatically in recent years, while log exports from Alaska 

to all other destinations have fallen. China supplanted Japan as the primary 

destination for Alaskan logs in 2010. Figure 4 illustrates trends in log exports to 

China and Japan over time. Japanese exports have fallen, but the decline is less 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Japan

China

Year

Softwood log export volume (thousand cubic meters)

Figure 4—Log exports to China and Japan from the Anchorage Customs District, 2005 –2013.

Softwood log exports 

to China have risen 

dramatically in 

recent years.
13

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Table 5—Softwood log, lumber, and chip exports from the Anchorage Customs District

Year Canada China 

Hong 

Kong Japan Korea Philippines Switzerland Taiwan Vietnam Total

Metric tons

Softwood chips:

2005 31 021 0 0 19 230 0 0 0 0 0 50 251

2006 5843 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5843

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23

2009 5800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5800

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

2013 4403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4403

2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7

Cubic meters

Softwood logsa

2005 377 43 122 0 401 272 493 856 0 0 28 467 0 967 094

2006 1200 88 075 0 386 704 612 833 0 20 550 21 801 0 1 131 163

2007 3802 165 330 0 411 530 288 603 0 818 24,996 0 895 079

2008 12 292 209 536 0 331 478 260 411 0 21 476 16 082 0 851 275

2009 9822 455 686 0 262 694 172 946 0 0 26 893 0 928 041

2010 70 658 240 0 203 114 315 972 1 0 95 231 0 1 272 628

2011 24 583 604 185 0 314 405 278 661 0 0 27 912 0 1 249 746

2012 3718 845 757 0 224 115 178 461 0 0 71 025 0 1 323 076

2013 8602 907 600 0 134 581 203 748 0 0 0 0 1 254 531

2014 1903 680 784 0 155 458 64 926 0 0 0 0 903 071

Cubic meters

Softwood lumber:

2005 0 0 0 6299 0 0 0 0 0 6299

2006 0 0 0 5112 0 0 0 0 0 5112

2007 7 0 0 4149 0 0 0 0 0 4156

2008 220 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 278

2009 251 114 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 377

2010 534 273 121 0 0 0 0 16 0 944

2011 82 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 112

2012 0 0 0 7 0 16 0 0 1 24

2013 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374

2014 0 7 0 2656 0 0 0 0 0 2663

a

 Excludes pulpwood logs.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

steep than the rise in exports to China. Softwood lumber exports to Japan were 

strongest from 2005 to 2007, but dropped by 93 percent in 2008 with few signs 

of recovery. To summarize, international exports of primary wood products from 

Alaska have fallen for all products, except for sharp growth in softwood log 

exports to China.

The Anchorage Customs District contains data for all Alaska ports. International export data are not publicly available at the port level; all data are 

aggregated and reported at the customs district level. The volume of exports 

leaving ports in southeast Alaskan (those most likely to contain Tongass timber) 

is not available from this dataset. However, USITC data are useful for comparing 

exports from Alaska to those by competitors in Washington and Oregon. Figures 

5, 6, and 7 show softwood log exports to China, Japan, and South Korea, respectively, from the Anchorage, Columbia-Snake, and Seattle Customs District from 

Seattle

Columbia-Snake

Anchorage

Year

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

2012

20132014

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Softwood log export volume (million cubic meters)

Figure 5—Softwood log exports from Pacific Northwest Customs Districts to China, 2000–2014.

International exports 

of primary wood 

products from Alaska 

have fallen for all 

products, except 

for sharp growth in 

softwood log exports 

to China.
15

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

2000 to 2014. The Columbia-Snake Customs District includes all ports along the 

Oregon coast and the Columbia River and generally reflects the state of Oregon, 

although the Port of Longview, Washington, is included. The Seattle Customs 

District includes all ports in Washington, except for the Port of Longview. The 

figures show that Alaska has made inroads, but the volume of logs exported to 

L

o

g ex

p

ort v

olume (million cubic meters)

Year

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

201220132014

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Seattle

Columbia-Snake

Anchorage

L

o

g ex

p

ort v

olume (million cubic meters)

Year

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Seattle

Columbia-Snake

Anchorage

Figure 7—Softwood log exports from Pacific Northwest Customs Districts to South Korea, 2000–2014.

Figure 6—Softwood log exports from Pacific Northwest Customs Districts to Japan, 2000–2014.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

China represented only 14 percent of the total in 2014. The 5-year average of 

logs received from Alaska into Chinese markets was 17 percent. Log exporters 

in Washington and Oregon each have managed to supply about 40 percent of log 

exports to China. 

Tongass timber purchasers are required to obtain a permit to export logs from 

Alaska. Permit data are publicly available and are the basis of figure 8, which 

presents the volume of log exports from the Tongass National Forest by destination 

(USDA FS 2014). Trends largely mirror HTS district-level data shown in table 5. 

Logs exported from the Tongass to markets outside Alaska have gone primarily 

to Pacific Rim nations (China, Japan, and Korea) with some going to domestic 

markets in the continental United States. Canada has been a very minor purchaser. 

Tongass exports fell dramatically in 2006, likely in response to pressure on the 

housing industry during the Great Recession (Keegan et al. 2012), but began 

recovering by 2009. The export permits combine information for the Pacific Rim; 

data showing export trends for individual Pacific Rim destinations (China, Japan, 

and Korea) are withheld to prevent disclosure of information about individual 

firms. Tongass domestic log exports to the lower 48 were fairly significant in 2005, 

2006, and 2011 but otherwise never reached more than 10 percent of the total.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tongass l

o

g ex

p

ort v

olume (million board feet)

United States

Pacific Rim

Canada

Year

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 8—Tongass log export volume by destination, from permits filed by sale purchasers.

Logs exported from 

the Tongass to markets 

outside Alaska have 

gone primarily to 

Pacific Rim nations 

(China, Japan, and 

Korea) with some going 

to domestic markets 

in the continental 

United States.
17

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Figure 9 shows the proportion of Tongass log exports in all softwood logs 

exported from Alaska to international destinations (exports to the lower 48 states 

were omitted). Tongass log export volume was gathered from export permits. 

We converted the volume (in mbf) to cubic meters by using the conversion factor 

4.53mbf = 1m3 (Zhou 2013). Then we subtracted the export volume from the total 

log volume exported from Alaska to foreign ports. Overall, international exports 

from the Tongass constituted between 0.5 and 7.5 percent of logs exported from 

the Anchorage customs district over the period 2005–2013. The major supplier of 

export logs was the Native Corporation. Notably, the Tongass share of log exports 

exceeded 5 percent in only 2 years since 2005, and peaked in 2009. 

Sawn wood products are also exported from Alaska. Annual surveys of 

southeast Alaskan producers discussed above (Alexander and Parrent 2010, 2012; 

Brackley and Crone 2009; Brackley et al. 2006a; Kilborn et al 2004) report the final 

destination of Alaska sawn products, including local Alaska, the continental United 

States, Canada, the Pacific Rim, and “Other” (figure 10). Here, in contrast to the 

HTS data, lumber exports to the Pacific Rim appear fairly consistent, as does the 

proportion of lumber remaining in Alaska for local use. Overall, trends observed in 

southeast Alaska sawn product exports are largely explained by the proportion of 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

L

o

g ex

p

orts (thousand cubic meters)

Tongass National Forest

Other exporters

Figure 9—Proportion of Tongass log exports in all logs exported from the Anchorage Customs District.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

mill production shipped to markets in the continental United States. These domestic 

shipments declined from 26 MMBF to 6.7 MMBF between 2005 and 2011 but rose 

to 9.5 MMBF in 2013. Again, trends reflect recessionary pressures on the housing 

industry felt nationally, although markets have slowly recovered since the low that 

occurred in 2009.

Export volumes reported by respondents to mill surveys are difficult to 

verify using HTS data, primarily because of accounting issues associated with 

trade data. One would expect the foreign exports of sawn material from all 

of Alaska as reported by the Anchorage Customs District to be similar to the 

amount reported by sawmills if products were shipped directly to their final 

destination. As can be seen in table 6, lumber exports reported in the HTS data 

are significantly lower than exports of sawn products reported by southeast 

Alaska mill owners, reflecting three possible discrepancies. The first is that HTS 

data are statewide and include sawn products from mills in all regions of Alaska. 

The second is that in the annual mill surveys, mills report the volume of logs 

processed into lumber rather than the volume of lumber produced, which could 

bias production estimates. A more significant discrepancy arises when products 

from Alaska are routed elsewhere before ultimately being shipped out of the 

United States. These are called transshipments. For example, southeast Alaska 

sawn products may be transshipped to the Seattle Customs District, then sent to 

final foreign markets in Asia. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

E

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 stimated

mill pro

duction (M

M

BF Scribner)

Year

Pacific Rim

Other

Continental United States

Canada

Alaska

Figure 10—Destination of lumber manufactured in southeast Alaska sawmills, 2005–2013 (million 

board feet, Scribner log scale).
19

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

This issue is especially problematic for log exports; HTS data actually show 

log export volume alone as greater than the entire Alaska harvest (table 7). Part of 

this discrepancy can be attributed to conversion factors, how volume is measured 

at harvest versus how it is measured in the sort and export yard, scaling diameter 

changes owing to remanufacture (such as cutting a long log into smaller pieces), and 

purchaser-specific top diameter requirements. This illustrates some of the difficulty 

in getting accurate log export data in Alaska. 

Table 6—Sawn wood products exports from Alaska

Year 

Southeast Alaska sawmills 

reported foreign exports

HTS lumber exports from the 

Anchorage Customs District

Thousand board feet

2005 6,146 2,669

2006 5,483 2,166

2007 6,005 1,761

2008 5,707 118

2009 5,416 160

2010 4,307 400

2011 3,798 47

2012 3,644 10

2013 6,325 158

Sources: annual southeast Alaska mill surveys vs. USITC database, softwood lumber.

Table 7—The difference between total reported Alaska harvest and 

reported log export volume

Year Softwood log exports 

Harvest volume from all 

owners Difference 

Thousand board feet

2005 213,486 255,869 42,383

2006 249,704 160,472 -89,232

2007 197,589 117,910 -79,679

2008 187,919 133,206 -54,713

2009 204,865 150,044 -54,821

2010 280,933 184,292 -96,641

2011 275,882 175,394 -100,488

2012 292,069 NA NA

2013 276,938 NA NA

NA = data not available.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Changes in lumber product type and markets—

Table 8 shows statewide Alaskan lumber production and destination by product 

from the BBER surveys. Not only does this table show that statewide lumber 

production declined by more than half between 2005 and 2011, but that the product 

type and destinations changed. The Western Wood Products Association defines 

dimensional lumber as a structural framing product graded for strength and other 

physical properties; appearance is secondary. Shop lumber is considered an industrial product intended for remanufacturing and graded to be recut for the recovery 

of clear pieces in predetermined sizes (WWPA 2015). In general, shop lumber is of 

higher quality and worth more than dimension lumber (Brackley and Crone 2009). 

In 2005, the majority of Alaskan production was minimally processed cants 

and timbers, typically available from old-growth logs, followed by shop-grade and 

dimensional lumber. By far, the majority of all production was sent to domestic 

markets in the lower 48 states, followed by destinations in the Pacific Rim. By 2011, 

not only had production overall declined by 30 million board feet, but the majority of output was lower grade dimension lumber that remained within the United 

States. Shipments to the Pacific Rim were dominated by higher quality shop grades. 

However, between 2005 and 2011, shipments of shop-grade lumber to the Pacific 

Rim fell by almost 6 million board feet, a 70-percent decline. These trends suggest 

that southeast Alaska producers have been refocusing toward providing dimension 

lumber to domestic markets, and away from high-quality shop grades to Pacific 

Rim markets. 

Table 8—Volume of lumber production and destination from Alaska’s forest 

products industry by product type

Lumber product

Year Destination

Cants and 

timbers

Dimensional 

lumber

Shop-grade 

lumber Total

Thousand board feet

2005 Alaska 545 6,950 1,074 8,570

Canada 89 371 401 861

Domestic U.S. 12,422 10,273 10,793 33,488

Pacific Rim 89 525 8,381 8,996

2005 total 13,146 18,119 20,650 51,914

2011 Alaska 1,912 4,993 416 7,320

Canada 8 8 0 15

Domestic U.S. 3,249 3,415 4,016 10,680

Pacific Rim 0 0 2,461 2,461

2011 total 5,168 8,416 6,893 20,477

Trends suggest that 

southeast Alaska 

producers have been 

refocusing toward 

providing dimension 

lumber to domestic 

markets, and away 

from high-quality 

shop grades to 

Pacific Rim markets.
21

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Methods

The objective of this analysis is to estimate and project demand for timber from the 

Tongass National Forest. The projected national forest timber demand is the quantity 

of timber required to satisfy projected demand given harvest by other owners based 

on assumptions about product markets. As in past efforts, demand for Tongass timber will be estimated using a materials balance approach based on forecasted trends 

in product markets. Our methods are adapted from previous analyses of Tongass 

timber demand performed by Brackley et al. (2006b), Haynes and Brooks (1990), 

Brooks and Haynes (1994), and Brooks and Haynes (1997). Since the Brackley 

demand analysis, the two TPO reports discussed above were published, and these 

provide data on the relation between timber harvest and end markets not available 

for previous studies. In addition, the annual mill surveys were relatively new; the 7 

additional years of sawmill processing data have been incorporated into this effort. 

These sources of published forest sector data for Alaska helped reduce the uncertainty associated with past demand projections where data were more limited.

Projected harvest from the Tongass National Forest is calculated as the volume 

of timber required to meet the shortfall between projected demand and harvest from 

other ownerships, primarily Native Corporation and State of Alaska lands. In other 

words, derived demand for Tongass timber is computed as a residual—the quantity 

of national forest timber necessary to balance the market. Figure 11 shows timber 

Native Corporation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Tongass National Forest

State of Alaska

Year

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

19881989

19901991

1992

1993199419951996

1997

1998

1999

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Harvested volume (million board feet)

Figure 11—Southeast Alaska timber harvest by ownership, Scribner log scale.

As in past efforts, 

demand for Tongass 

timber will be 

estimated using a 

materials balance 

approach based on 

forecasted trends in 

product markets.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

harvest by ownership in Alaska from 1988 to 2011. Historical trends and assumptions about the share of harvest by other ownerships were used to project the share 

of future harvest to be met by the Tongass. The method is based on quantity, rather 

than price, because timber harvests from public lands are generally planned based 

on multiple policies and objectives, rather than on prices alone. Arguably, Native 

Corporation and state harvests are motivated by considerations other than price as 

well, as duties to tribal shareholders and trust beneficiaries drive harvest levels as 

much as prices.

Steps Used for This Analysis

Estimates of derived demand for Alaska national forest timber were developed in 

four stages: (1) historical estimates of Alaska forest products output (by product 

and destination) are gathered and projected to the year 2030; (2) the raw material 

requirements necessary to support this output are calculated by using explicit product recovery and conversion factors; (3) the timber harvest equivalent is calculated 

and allocated by timber owner; and (4) the analysis is repeated to model the impact 

on harvest from three alternative management scenarios. The result is an estimate 

of the timber harvest volume necessary to meet projected demand from the Tongass 

National Forest, the State of Alaska, and Native Corporations. The process involves 

assembling historical data that describe relevant components of the Alaska forest 

sector and computing possible future timber harvests by using an analysis of trends 

in factors that determine harvests.

The base case projections of demand for Tongass timber were based on historical data and an explicit set of assumptions. Data required for this baseline analysis 

and sources include:

• Timber harvest by owner (annual Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 706(a) (ANILCA 1980) (USDA FS 2015).

• Mill level timber product output data (BBER 2005, 2011). 

• Mill level production and product destination for southeast Alaska woodusing mills (annual mill surveys, multiple years).

• Log, lumber, and mill residue exports from the Anchorage Customs District 

to all destinations (USITC DataWeb searchable database).

• Conversion factors, overrun and lumber recovery factors (Briggs 1994, 

Keegan et al. 2011)

• Tongass log export permit data: (U.S. Forest Service Alaska Region website). 

• Log, lumber, and mill residue imports for international trade partners and 

consumption for the United States (United Nations Food and Agricultural 

Organization searchable database) (FAOSTAT 2014).

The base case 

projections of 

demand for Tongass 

timber were based 

on historical data 

and an explicit set of 

assumptions.
23

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Data will be stored with the corresponding author and available with one 

exception. To protect the identity of individual firms, mill-level data from the BBER 

surveys are confidential and will not be disclosed. The BBER conducts mill surveys 

in Alaska and other Western states for the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) program. BBER data used in this analysis were obtained only after 

finalizing a Data Security Plan and a Memorandum of Cooperation with FIA to prevent disclosing any proprietary information. All remaining data was acquired from 

public or published sources and will be shared upon request.

Identifying Markets

After Alaska forest industry data were amassed, all markets receiving wood 

products from Alaska were identified. We were able to gather information about 

production, shipments, and relative scale of markets served by southeast Alaska 

producers. These were combined with projections of total wood product consumption (for domestic markets) or product imports in destination regions to arrive at the 

market share supplied by southeast Alaska timber producers. 

Softwood sawlogs—

The majority of timber harvested in southeast Alaska is exported to Pacific Rim 

(China, Japan, and South Korea) destinations as unprocessed sawlogs. Traditional 

sources of trade statistics are problematic for tracking Alaska log exports for two 

reasons. The U.S. International Trade Commission maintains a searchable database for 

foreign trade statistics by U.S. Customs District (USITC). As discussed above, the usefulness of USITC data in Alaska is limited because data are only available at the state 

level, rather than by port, making it impossible to track shipments solely from southeast Alaska. In addition-softwood log export data for Alaska are notoriously unreliable 

owing to the transshipment issues and data discrepancies between harvest volume and 

softwood log export volume described above, as well in the 2011 BBER Survey.

Instead, we used published mill surveys of southeast Alaska wood processors. 

The annual mill surveys do not cover log exports, but 2005 and 2011 BBER mill 

data show that southeast Alaska softwood logs were sent to domestic markets in the 

lower 48 states and to international markets. By far, the majority southeast Alaska 

logs were sent to the Pacific Rim; the share of logs sent there was over 90 percent 

in both 2005 and 2011. China is by far the largest single purchaser, but mill survey 

data were available only at an aggregated regional Pacific Rim level. Consequently, 

we combined data for China, Japan, and South Korea into one series for Pacific 

Rim markets in all subsequent analysis. We also included softwood logs to Canada 

because USITC data show that modest shipments were sent there in several years 

not covered by the BBER sueveys.

The majority of timber 

harvested in southeast 

Alaska is exported to 

Pacific Rim (China, 

Japan, and South 

Korea) destinations as 

unprocessed sawlogs.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Utility logs—

We were unable to find evidence of market demand for utility logs. Discussions 

with Forest Service staff and industry representatives suggest that much of the 

harvested volume of utility logs is left in the woods because of their low economic 

value. Utility volume data were assembled but not assigned a market initially. They 

play an important role in the management scenarios.

Softwood lumber—

Markets for southeast Alaska sawn wood products were identified using two 

sources for mill survey data. The annual mill surveys gathered consistent information on the same 20 wood processing mills over time. Half have shut down since 

the survey began, but annual lumber production volume and product destination are 

reported in these surveys. Data from 2002 to 2013 show that shipments of Alaskan 

lumber were sent to markets in the Pacific Rim and the lower 48 states or remained 

locally in Alaska. The 5-year average share (2009 to 2013) of lumber production 

in southeast Alaska sent to these markets was 57 percent to the lower 48 states, 32 

percent to the Pacific Rim, 10 percent to local Alaska markets, and 1 percent to 

Canada. These findings for lumber markets are consistent with the BBER surveys 

conducted in 2005 and 2011.

Mill residue—

Mill residues are reported in detail in the BBER surveys. However, destination data 

were lacking; volume of residues sold was reported only as either in state and out of 

state. As a result, we based the market assumptions for residue on the proportion that 

was unsold vs. sold and, further, sold for energy purposes. In the 2011 BBER mill 

data, the proportion of residues unsold, sold, and sold for energy was 11.8, 56.0, and 

32.1 percent, respectively. The proportion sold for energy rose from the 22.4 percent 

reported in the 2005 survey. Of the bdus (bone-dry units) sold, we know the proportion sold for wood energy purposes. Estimating the volume of residue sold for energy 

was key for bioenergy assumptions considered for Tongass management scenarios. 

There is little evidence that significant markets for residue from Alaska processors currently exist outside of Alaska. Because we had no destination information 

from the BBER survey, USITC data were examined for state level trends in residue 

shipments. We wanted the option to model growth in residue exports as part of 

a Tongass management scenario.2 For every year after 2002, most of the small 

volume of residue exported from Alaska went to Canada until shipments began 

to dwindle after 2010. By 2014, the only shipment of residue reported as exported 

2 Query of fuel wood, coniferous chips, sawdust and slabs, wood pellets, and other. 

Harmonized Trade Schedule codes used were 4401.10.0000, 4401.21.0000, 4401.30.0000, 

4401.31.0000, and 4401.39.0000.

There is little evidence 

that significant markets 

for residue from Alaska 

processors currently 

exist outside of Alaska.
25

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

from Alaska was a shipment of 7 metric tons of coniferous chips to Taiwan. To 

date, there has been no record of any wood pellets exported from Alaska to any 

international destination. Evidence suggests that rapid expansion of the pellet 

industry in western Canada has dramatically increased the production and exports 

of pellets from competitors in Canada, which will hinder the development of export 

markets for southeast Alaska residues in the foreseeable future.

Other products—

Berg et al. (2014) found southeast facilities that produced bowls, furniture, houselogs, molding, shingles, shakes, and siding. These were combined into an “other” 

market to capture niche markets that are popular with advocates for small producers 

and micro sales. The majority of these products remained in Alaska or went to the 

lower 48 states, but modest shipments were sent to Canada and the Pacific Rim. For 

the model, Alaska and the lower 48 were combined into a “U.S. other” series.

To summarize, log, lumber, residue and other niche product markets were identified for southeast Alaska forest products using published sources and databases. 

The next step was to assemble historical time-series datasets for each of these 

markets for use in projections.

Assembling Historical Market Data

Softwood log exports—

Softwood logs from southeast Alaska have been exported to Canada, China, Japan, 

and South Korea, as well as to domestic markets in the lower 48 states. To model 

each of these markets, we downloaded the historical volume of softwood logs3

imported by each of these countries from 1997 to 2012 from the FAOSTAT Forestry 

Database (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014). After 

completing our projections (discussed below), data for China, Japan, and South 

Korea were combined to create one Pacific Rim series. FAOSTAT also contains 

trade data between trading partners, so next we downloaded the volume of softwood log imports in each destination that originated from the United States. From 

the two series, we calculated the shares of Canadian and Pacific Rim log imports 

met by the United States.

Next, we estimated the proportion of the flow of U.S. softwood logs to Canada 

and the Pacific Rim met by southeast Alaska producers. Sawlog export volume 

from the Tongass to Canada and the Pacific Rim from 2001 to 2011 was directly 

available from Tongass export permits. These were combined with the estimated 

volume of logs harvested from Native Corporation and State of Alaska lands 

3 Coniferous industrial roundwood, reported in cubic meters. FAOSTAT code 1651.

Log, lumber, residue 

and other niche 

product markets 

were identified for 

southeast Alaska 

forest products using 

published sources and 

databases.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

available in the ANILCA 706(a) reports from 1988 to 2011. From discussions with 

national forest, state, and industry representatives, we used the assumption that 90 

percent of the Native harvest and 70 percent of the state harvest were exported to 

the Pacific Rim. The result was the share of logs imported from the United States 

into Canada and the Pacific Rim met by southeast Alaska exporters.

Domestic log market—

The remaining sawlogs not sent to southeast Alaska processing mills were sent 

to the lower 48 states. Production, imports, and exports were downloaded from 

FAOSTAT then used to calculate a historical data series for U.S. softwood log 

consumption (consumption = production – exports + imports). Next, we subtracted 

imports to generate another series for the volume of U.S. softwood log demand met 

by domestic producers. These two series were used to calculate the share of U.S. log 

demand met by producers located in the United States. 

Next, we gathered historical data pertaining to shipments from southeast 

Alaska. The volume of sawlogs sent to lower 48 destinations from the Tongass 

was available in the Tongass export permits. We assumed that, in addition to logs 

from the Tongass, 10 percent of the Native Corporation harvest (obtained from the 

ANILCA 706(a) reports) was channeled to the lower 48 states.4 The result was the 

volume of logs sent to the lower 48 from southeast Alaska. The share of U.S. log 

demand met by southeast Alaska producers was then calculated.

Utility logs—

Historical utility log harvest data from 1988 to 2011 were gathered from the 

ANILCA 706(a) reports. Because they were not assigned a market initially, no 

market share calculations were performed.

Lumber—

The process for generating historic lumber market data was similar to the one just 

described for softwood log markets. For international markets, we obtained from 

FAOSTAT the historical volume of softwood lumber5 imported by Canada, China, 

Japan, and South Korea from 1997 to 2012. Data for China, Japan, and South Korea 

4 Per Forest Service staff consultations; see above for discussion. 

5 FAOSTAT code 1632, coniferous sawnwood, reported in cubic meters. Defined as “wood 

produced from both domestic and imported roundwood, either by sawing lengthways or 

by a profile-chipping process and that exceeds 6 mm in thickness. Includes planks, beams, 

joists, boards, rafters, scantlings, laths, boxboards and ‘lumber,’ etc., in the following 

forms: unplaned, planed, end-jointed, etc. Excludes sleepers, wooden flooring, mouldings 

(sawnwood continuously shaped along any of its edges or faces, like tongued, grooved, 

rebated, V-jointed, beaded, moulded, rounded or the like) and sawnwood produced by 

resawing previously sawn pieces.”
27

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

were combined to create one Pacific Rim series after individual projections were 

made for each country. Next, we obtained the volume of softwood lumber received 

by each country from the United States. The result was the share of lumber imports 

met by the United States. Softwood lumber consumed in domestic U.S. markets 

was calculated from production, import, and export data obtained from FAOSTAT. 

U.S. imports of softwood lumber were subtracted from U.S. lumber consumption, 

to arrive at the volume of U.S. consumption met by U.S. producers. These were then 

used to calculate the U.S. share of domestic lumber consumption.

Southeast Alaska lumber production data are available from the annual mill 

surveys of southeast Alaska processing facilities from 2002 to 2013. Lumber in 

these surveys is defined as cants, shop and board, and dimension grades of Sitka 

spruce, western hemlock, western redcedar, and Alaskan yellow-cedar. The surveys 

include mill production, measured as the volume of logs produced into lumber in 

MBF log scale, and destination of final product. The volume and proportion of 

lumber heading to Canada, the Pacific Rim, the continental U.S. and remaining in 

Alaska are reported annually. These were used to generate series for the southeast 

Alaska share of each lumber export market. The baseline includes demand within 

Alaska within total U.S. demand, but local Alaska markets are explicitly incorporated based on data in the BBER surveys. Berg et al. (2012) found that the average 

overrun in Alaska lumber mills in the 2011 mill survey was 1.19. Because the 

annual mill surveys were used only to calculate market shares and not used for the 

lumber demand projections, we opted to use volume numbers reported directly in 

log scale rather than adjust for product recovery.

Mill residue—

After attempting to use published sources and finding them either incompatible or 

incomplete, residue volume was estimated by assuming that 55 percent of a log was 

recovered as lumber or “other” products. The remaining 45 percent was residue, 

defined as either coarse (chips, edging, and slabs), sawdust, planer shavings, or bark. 

BBER mill survey data contained information about the proportion of residue that 

remained in state vs. shipped out of state, but destination data for residue shipments 

were not available. We suspect that the modest shipments sent out of state went to 

Canada, but we did not model residue markets to Canada in the baseline scenario 

for reasons discussed above. We assumed that residue produced in southeast Alaska 

remained in Alaska.

The BBER surveys do contain usable information about the disposition of 

residues produced in southeast Alaska mills. Survey respondents estimated the 

proportion of residue that was unused, sold, or used but unsold. Of the sold residue, 

producers reported the amount that was sold for energy purposes such as hog fuel 

Residue volume 

was estimated by 

assuming that 55 

percent of a log was 

recovered as lumber or 

“other” products. The 

remaining 45 percent 

was residue, defined 

as either coarse 

(chips, edging, and 

slabs), sawdust, planer 

shavings, or bark.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

or firewood. Thus we were able to calculate the market shares for residues that were 

sold and further divide sold residue into markets for energy uses vs. other uses. 

Because there were only two data points (2005 and 2011), we held the 2005 share 

constant for the period from 2005–2010 and the 2011 share constant from 2011–2013.

Other products—

Products in this category are highly disparate and characterized by incompatible 

measurement units. Historical baseline series were estimated based on assumptions from both the annual and BBER surveys. Mills classified as sawmills in the 

annual mill surveys could be making additional products that would be classified 

as “other” in the BBER survey, such as cedar products and siding. We made an 

assumption that “other” products measured in MBF could have been produced in 

the annual mill surveys. Then we averaged the 2005 and 2011 “other” volume and 

held those values constant for each reported destination. On average, 6 percent of 

“other” production was sent to Canada and 14 percent to the Pacific Rim, and the 

remaining 80 percent remained in the United States. We acknowledge the uncertainty of this process; we felt the necessity to have an “other” category outweighed 

the data limitations, especially because “other” volume was never greater than 1.5 

percent of total southeast Alaska production.

Baseline Model

After assembling the historical datasets necessary to represent southeast Alaska 

timber markets, we developed a baseline model based on projections and market shares for each market served by southeast Alaska producers for the period 

2015–2030. The baseline is a deterministic model based on the assumption that the 

industry in southeast Alaska production would remain at post-2008 recession levels 

for the next 15 years. The first step was to project conditions in product markets. 

Several projection methods were explored; experience and discussion with stakeholders all emphasized the need for straightforward, logical, and repeatable methodology for this foundation piece of our analysis. We thus chose to use a trend-based 

approach to project each of the product markets in the baseline model according 

to historical trends. In short, this entailed calculating the annual average change in 

each market time series over the available historical data, and applying that change 

to each subsequent year of the projections. In a few cases, recent market conditions 

(since the late 2000s recession) clearly broke from historical trends. In these cases, 

we restricted the analysis6 to a period ending before the recession to reflect a return 

to historical trends. In other words, our assumption was that long-run conditions in 

each market would continue into the projection period from 2015 to 2030. 

6 These cases were U.S. and Canadian sawlog consumption and China’s lumber imports. 

The baseline is 

a deterministic 

model based on the 

assumption that the 

industry in southeast 

Alaska production 

would remain at post2008 recession levels 

for the next 15 years.
29

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Figure 12 illustrates the conceptual features of the model. Starting at the top 

center, all logs harvested from southeast Alaska forests are classified as either sawlogs or utility logs. Sawlogs arrive at either wood processing mills or export yards; 

utility logs have not been assigned a market in the baseline case. All log material 

received by mills and export yards continues to (a) domestic or international log 

markets, (b) domestic or international sawnwood markets, (c) domestic or international “other” markets. Sawnwood and “other” markets generate (d) mill residues, 

a portion of which is ultimately utilized. Given this accounting of all material 

leaving the forest, our task was to estimate the volume of wood necessary to meet 

projected demand in each market. In the cases of mill residues and utility logs, 

useable market data were not available. The method to project those two markets 

are explained below.

The foundation of the model consists of market projections for each potential 

southeast Alaskan sawlog destination. Projections were performed for softwood 

sawnwood, softwood logs, utility logs, and other products for the destinations 

of Canada, the Pacific Rim (an aggregation of China, Japan, and Korea), and the 

United States. They are based on historical relations between market demand 

(imports or consumption), the share of that demand met by U.S. suppliers (U.S. 

market share), and the share of the U.S. supply to that market coming from southeast Alaska (southeast Alaska market share). Mill residue was calculated as a 

Tongass

harvest

Sawlogs

Sawmills and

export yards

Utility logs

Mill

residues

Other

markets

U.S. log

market

Utility

log

supply

U.S.

lumber

markets

International

lumber

markets

International

log

markets

Projections based 

on demand trends

Projections based 

on supply trends

Figure 12—Southeast Alaska timber markets.

Our task was to 

estimate the volume 

of wood necessary to 

meet projected demand 

in each market.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

proportion of projected lumber and other production. For illustration, the market 

equation describing southeast Alaskan sawlog production destined for country i’s 

market for wood product j is:

Dij × αij × βij = Sij

where:

Dij = market demand in country i for product j

αij = the U.S. share of the market for product j in country i

βij = southeast Alaskan suppliers’ share of the U.S. flow of product j to country i

Sij = southeast Alaska production of product j destined for country i

Utility logs, other products, and mill residues could not be modelled as a function of market demand in this way. Instead, utility logs are modeled according to 

historical harvest data for the Tongass National Forest, State of Alaska lands, and 

Native Corporation lands. Mill residue production data were available only for 2005 

and 2011 from the BBER surveys, so mill residue production values were derived 

using assumptions about product recovery for sawnwood and “other” production 

that remained constant into the future. Explicitly, the assumption was that product 

recovery represented 55 percent of a typical log entering southeast Alaska sawmills 

and the remaining 45 percent became residue. Based on information in published 

sources, we reallocated a modest portion of projected lumber production to create an “other” series to account for niche products like houselogs, molding, cedar 

products, shingles, and siding. 

The baseline model assumes that parameter values for α and β appearing above 

remain constant over time. For example, we have historical data for Chinese lumber 

imports from 1997 to 2012, as well as the volume of Chinese lumber imported specifically from the United States (both from the FAO). We can then calculate α—the 

U.S. market share—in each year. Summed across all Pacific Rim countries (China, 

Japan, and Korea), these values can be compared to the portion of lumber production destined for the Pacific Rim published in the BBER surveys and the annual 

mill surveys to calculate β, southeast Alaska suppliers’ share of the U.S. flow to 

the Pacific Rim market in each year. For the baseline projections, we assume that 

both the annual the rate of change and the U.S. and southeast Alaska share of each 

product market remained constant from 2015 to 2030. The management scenarios 

discussed next were developed by adjusting either market projections or shares to 

represent various alternatives.

The management 

scenarios discussed 

next were developed 

by adjusting either 

market projections or 

shares to represent 

various alternatives.
31

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Market share assumptions—

For the baseline, the shares applied to the projections were held constant at an average of the annual historical shares for years following the recession. In this way, 

we accounted for the volatility caused by the recession described above. The share 

of each market met by U.S producers and the part of the U.S. share met by producers in southeast Alaska after the recession were held constant for the entire period 

from 2015 to 2030. The assumed southeast Alaska market shares used for the 

baseline projections appear in table 9. Market share captured by southeast Alaska 

producers is modest, with the strongest presence in Pacific Rim log markets.

When combined, the projected values and shares for softwood logs, sawnwood, 

other products, and residues represent the total demand in southeast Alaska wood 

product markets. The last steps were to combine sawlogs with utility logs, estimate 

the harvest equivalent to meet this demand from southeast Alaska forests, and 

allocate total harvest volume among the three southeast Alaska timber producers 

(the Tongass National Forest, the State of Alaska, and the Native Corporations). The 

portion of the volume originating in the Tongass National Forest was derived as:

Sij × θk = T

where:

Sij = southeast Alaska production of product j destined for market i (from above),

θk = the 5-year average Tongass share of total harvest among k forest owners, and

T = Tongass National Forest harvest.

Thus, by applying an assumed share of sawlog and utility log harvest attributable to each forest owner, we arrived at the projected Tongass National Forest 

harvest in each year. 

Table 9—Southeast Alaska producer market shares 

used for baseline timber demand estimates

Market Southeast Alaska market share

Percent

Canada logs 0.002

Pacific Rim logs 5.600

U.S. logs 0.027

Canada lumber 0.144

Pacific Rim lumber 0.838

U.S. lumber 0.051

Market share captured 

by southeast Alaska 

producers is modest, 

with the strongest 

presence in Pacific 

Rim log markets.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Baseline Projected Demand and Harvest Estimates

Table 10 contains the projected volume of demand in each southeast Alaska product 

market from 2015 to 2030. Demand for logs, lumber, and other products in each 

market was taken directly from our calculations. Residue was first decomposed into 

sold vs. unsold residue; sold residue was calculated as a constant 88 percent of the 

total residue volume based on proportions found in the 2011 BBER survey.

Data from the table above were combined with harvested utility logs and unsold 

residue volume to estimate total harvest allocated by industry (table 11). Projected 

demand for logs and lumber in Canada, the Pacific Rim, and the United States 

was combined into series representing log exporters and sawmills. This interim 

step was used to compute the final results, projected harvest by owner (table 12). 

Projected market volume was allocated to each timber owner using an average of 

the last 5 years’ share of total sawlog harvest according to the ANILCA 706(a) 

reports. Shares used to allocate sawlogs were 29.76 percent Tongass, 57.57 percent 

Native Corporation, and 13.65 percent state. Utility logs were allocated in the same 

fashion; shares used were 35.60 percent Tongass, 50.75 percent Native Corporation, and 13.65 percent state. Residues were allocated only to the Tongass and the 

state because we assumed that 100 percent of the Native Corporation harvest was 

exported in log form. Table 12 shows that the majority of harvest is allocated to 

Native Corporation lands, followed by the Tongass and State of Alaska lands. 

The baseline model was used to construct three management scenarios representing alternative futures for timber harvest in southeast Alaska. The first scenario (S1) 

establishes a timeline for the young-growth transition and reflects the current state 

of knowledge and professional judgment of regional forest managers. The second 

scenario retains the assumptions from S1, but builds in an expansion of bioenergy 

markets. Scenario 3 also retains the young-growth transition assumptions from S1, 

but adds an increase in forecasted demand in the United States arising from recovery 

of housing markets with corresponding demand for wood products for construction.

Scenario 1

Scenario 1 (S1) incorporates the young-growth transition and the resulting changing 

quality of timber from the Tongass National Forest over time. It includes a transition 

period of 10 years in which tapering levels of old growth will be harvested while 

the industry adjusts and more young-growth timber becomes available. The Tongass will continue to supply more than 90 percent of the logs received by southeast 

Alaska mills. By 2025, old-growth harvest will be constrained at 5 MMBF annually 

in perpetuity for micro-sales designed to provide raw material for small businesses 

and specialty products. The timing of the transition and post-transition micro-sale 

The baseline model 

was used to construct 

three management 

scenarios representing 

alternative futures 

for timber harvest in 

southeast Alaska.

Scenario 1 (S1) 

incorporates the younggrowth transition and 

the resulting changing 

quality of timber from 

the Tongass National 

Forest over time.
33

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Table 10—Projected baseline demand for each southeast Alaska forest product market

Year

Canada 

logs

Canada 

lumber

Canada 

othera

Pacific 

Rim logs

Pacific 

Rim 

lumber

Pacific 

Rim 

othera U.S. logs

U.S. 

lumber

U.S. 

othera

Sold 

residue

Total 

demand

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 14 326 8 77,951 4,942 25 6,580 9,530 864 11,318 111,556

2016 14 330 8 80,032 5,084 25 6,587 9,578 864 11,459 113,981

2017 14 334 8 82,113 5,227 25 6,594 9,627 864 11,599 116,405

2018 14 339 8 84,195 5,369 25 6,602 9,675 864 11,740 118,830

2019 14 343 8 86,276 5,511 25 6,609 9,724 864 11,881 121,254

2020 14 347 8 88,357 5,654 25 6,616 9,773 864 12,022 123,679

2021 14 351 8 90,438 5,796 25 6,623 9,821 864 12,162 126,103

2022 14 355 8 92,520 5,939 25 6,630 9,870 864 12,303 128,528

2023 14 360 8 94,601 6,081 25 6,638 9,918 864 12,444 130,952

2024 14 364 8 96,682 6,224 25 6,645 9,967 864 12,585 133,377

2025 14 368 8 98,763 6,366 25 6,652 10,015 864 12,726 135,801

2026 14 372 8 100,845 6,509 25 6,659 10,064 864 12,866 138,226

2027 14 376 8 102,926 6,651 25 6,667 10,113 864 13,007 140,650

2028 14 381 8 105,007 6,793 25 6,674 10,161 864 13,148 143,075

2029 14 385 8 107,089 6,936 25 6,681 10,210 864 13,289 145,500

2030 14 389 8 109,170 7,078 25 6,688 10,258 864 13,430 147,924

a

 “Other” includes bowls, furniture, houselogs, molding, shakes, posts and poles, and siding.

Table 11—Projected southeast Alaska timber harvest by product type

Year Sawlog exports Sawmills Utility logs Total residuea Other Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 84,544 14,797 7,540 12,841 897 120,619

2016 86,633 14,992 7,400 13,000 897 122,922

2017 88,721 15,188 7,260 13,160 897 125,226

2018 90,810 15,383 7,120 13,320 897 127,529

2019 92,898 15,578 6,980 13,480 897 129,833

2020 94,987 15,773 6,840 13,639 897 132,136

2021 97,075 15,969 6,700 13,799 897 134,440

2022 99,164 16,164 6,560 13,959 897 136,743

2023 101,252 16,359 6,420 14,118 897 139,047

2024 103,341 16,554 6,280 14,278 897 141,350

2025 105,429 16,749 6,140 14,438 897 143,654

2026 107,518 16,945 6,000 14,598 897 145,957

2027 109,607 17,140 5,860 14,757 897 148,261

2028 111,695 17,335 5,720 14,917 897 150,564

2029 113,784 17,530 5,580 15,077 897 152,868

2030 115,872 17,726 5,440 15,237 897 155,171

a

 Assumes that 55 percent of the log is utilized for lumber and other production.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

harvest volume are the best available estimates and were obtained from discussions 

with Forest Service staff (Harris 2015, Spores 2015). We assume that all current 

purchasers of Forest Service timber sales can bid on these micro-sales and that 

existing mills will make any machinery upgrades necessary for the young-growth 

transition, but that rates of utilization may fluctuate. For the years before 2025, 

we retained assumptions from the baseline model, including: log exports from all 

owners will continue at their 5-year average rate; “other” production will remain 

constant; markets for utility logs and other low-grade material will remain elusive; 

and 88 percent of residues will be sold. Finally, none of the scenarios is constrained 

by CMAI requirements; we assume that the Tongass will receive an exemption.

For the years from 2025 to 2030, the key impact of the young-growth transition 

on timber demand from southeast Alaska is on markets for high-quality lumber. 

Alaskan high-quality sawn product markets are traditionally tied to the Pacific Rim. 

Because of the changing log characteristics as harvests transition to young growth, 

southeast Alaska sawmills are more likely to produce more dimension lumber in the 

future and thus are unlikely to remain as competitive in the Pacific Rim. We assume 

that purchasers in the Pacific Rim will not be willing to substitute dimension-grade 

lumber for shop grade, nor will demand for dimensional southeast Alaska lumber in 

the United States grow beyond the baseline projections. The competitive position and 

markets for logs exported from southeast Alaska are assumed to remain unchanged. 

Table 12—Projected southeast Alaska timber harvest by owner

Year

Tongass National 

Forest State of Alaska

Alaska Native 

Corporations Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 40,858 18,232 61,529 120,619

2016 41,592 18,558 62,772 122,922

2017 42,325 18,885 64,016 125,226

2018 43,059 19,211 65,260 127,529

2019 43,792 19,537 66,503 129,833

2020 44,526 19,864 67,747 132,136

2021 45,259 20,190 68,990 134,440

2022 45,993 20,516 70,234 136,743

2023 46,726 20,843 71,478 139,047

2024 47,460 21,169 72,721 141,350

2025 48,193 21,495 73,965 143,654

2026 48,927 21,822 75,208 145,957

2027 49,661 22,148 76,452 148,261

2028 50,394 22,474 77,696 150,564

2029 51,128 22,801 78,939 152,868

2030 51,861 23,127 80,183 155,171

For the years from 2025 

to 2030, the key impact 

of the young-growth 

transition on timber 

demand from southeast 

Alaska is on markets 

for high-quality lumber.
35

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

To account for the predicted change in foreign demand for lumber from southeast Alaska, we retained all assumptions and results from the baseline scenario 

until 2025 (table 13). In that year, we began including the micro-sale constraint 

that 5 MMBF would be harvested for niche markets in perpetuity. We held the 

volume necessary to meet demand in “other” markets constant, and then allocated 

the 5 MMBF until demand in those markets was met. We assumed that any 

remaining old-growth volume would be sawn into shop- or board-grade lumber 

to the degree allowed by the raw material characteristics and sent to the Pacific 

Rim, and that young-growth volume would be sawn into dimensional lumber. 

Interestingly, the model projected the impact on southeast Alaska lumber production to be substantial, but that Pacific Rim lumber markets could be retained. 

Between 2024 and 2025, Pacific Rim lumber demand is projected to decline from 

6.2 MMBF to 4.1 MMBF and then remain constant. This represents a loss of 2.1 

MMBF, or 33 percent. Southeast Alaska’s share of U.S. domestic and Canadian 

lumber markets is assumed to remain unchanged and for total demand to grow at 

the baseline rate. The volume of residue declines in proportion to the decline in 

lumber sawn for Pacific Rim markets.

Table 13—Projected demand for each southeast Alaska forest product market, Scenario 1

Year

Canada 

logs

Canada 

lumber

Canada 

othera

Pacific 

Rim logs

Pacific 

Rim 

lumber

Pacific 

Rim 

othera U.S. logs

U.S. 

lumber

U.S. 

othera

Sold 

residue

Total 

demand

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 14 326 8 77,951 4,942 25 6,580 9,530 864 11,318 111,556

2016 14 330 8 80,032 5,084 25 6,587 9,578 864 11,459 113,981

2017 14 334 8 82,113 5,227 25 6,594 9,627 864 11,599 116,405

2018 14 339 8 84,195 5,369 25 6,602 9,675 864 11,740 118,830

2019 14 343 8 86,276 5,511 25 6,609 9,724 864 11,881 121,254

2020 14 347 8 88,357 5,654 25 6,616 9,773 864 12,022 123,679

2021 14 351 8 90,438 5,796 25 6,623 9,821 864 12,162 126,103

2022 14 355 8 92,520 5,939 25 6,630 9,870 864 12,303 128,528

2023 14 360 8 94,601 6,081 25 6,638 9,918 864 12,444 130,952

2024 14 364 8 96,682 6,224 25 6,645 9,967 864 12,585 133,377

2025 14 368 8 98,763 4,078 25 6,652 10,015 864 11,076 131,864

2026 14 372 8 100,845 4,078 25 6,659 10,064 864 11,114 134,043

2027 14 376 8 102,926 4,078 25 6,667 10,113 864 11,152 136,222

2028 14 381 8 105,007 4,078 25 6,674 10,161 864 11,190 138,402

2029 14 385 8 107,089 4,078 25 6,681 10,210 864 11,228 140,581

2030 14 389 8 109,170 4,078 25 6,688 10,258 864 11,266 142,760

a Other includes bowls, furniture, houselogs, molding, shakes, posts and poles, and siding.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Tables 14 and 15 show the model results of S1 on timber harvest. Table 14 

shows that sawmills and residue-dependent industries are affected by the younggrowth transition. The loss of Pacific Rim lumber market demand was allocated 

entirely to the Tongass harvest, rather than distributed across the three southeast 

Alaska timber owners. Table 15 shows that the harvest volume differs from the 

baseline model only by a reduction in timber harvested from the Tongass. There 

are several reasons to support the idea that the young-growth transition will reduce 

demand for Tongass timber. First, the high costs of harvesting and transportation 

in remote areas of southeast Alaska and the relatively lower price commanded in 

dimensional lumber markets limits the profitability of commodity products sawn 

from young growth. In addition, historical trends, market analyses, and discussions 

with subject matter experts all suggest that Pacific Rim purchasers would not be 

willing to substitute dimensional lumber for shop lumber in the future. One possibility is that the Tongass could simply take the volume directed into Pacific Rim 

lumber markets and export it in log form. However, Tongass sawlog exports are 

limited by both the Limited Export Policy and by the competitive position of the 

forest. This log supply constraint is coupled with a competitive disadvantage in log 

markets traditionally served by Native Corporations and the state of Alaska, as well 

as domestic competitors in the Pacific Northwest and international competitors such 

as New Zealand and Russia. Developments in any competing regions could affect 

the comparative advantage of southeast Alaskan producers and change their share 

of foreign exports. The majority of harvest is allocated to Native Corporation lands, 

followed by the Tongass and the state of Alaska. Residues were allocated only to the 

Tongass and the state. To summarize, the S1 alternative describes a future in which 

the young-growth transition is completed by 2025 and results in a loss of demand in 

Pacific Rim lumber markets that will reduce harvest from the Tongass and leave the 

harvest from Native or state timberlands unchanged from the baseline. 

The largest source of uncertainty in this scenario is whether the state of Alaska 

has enough supply of high-quality timber and a willingness to increase allowable 

harvest to meet the projected shortfall in material for shop-grade lumber producers 

and their clients. We designed the young-growth model to maintain the assumption 

that the state harvest consists of 70-percent log exports and 30-percent local southeast Alaska processing. 

Table 15 displays a future in which demand for export logs grows, lumber 

demand declines, and demand for other products remains constant compared to the 

baseline rate. Our best professional estimation is that a greater proportion of timber 

harvested from the Tongass will be unsuitable to meet the specifications for shopand board-grade lumber and that southeast Alaskan producers will be unable to 

Developments in any 

competing regions 

could affect the 

comparative advantage 

of southeast Alaskan 

producers and change 

their share of foreign 

exports.
37

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Table 14—Projected timber harvest by product type, Scenario 1

Year Sawlog exports Sawmills Utility logs Total residuea Other Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 84,544 14,797 7,540 12,841 897 120,619

2016 86,633 14,992 7,400 13,000 897 122,922

2017 88,721 15,188 7,260 13,160 897 125,226

2018 90,810 15,383 7,120 13,320 897 127,529

2019 92,898 15,578 6,980 13,480 897 129,833

2020 94,987 15,773 6,840 13,639 897 132,136

2021 97,075 15,969 6,700 13,799 897 134,440

2022 99,164 16,164 6,560 13,959 897 136,743

2023 101,252 16,359 6,420 14,118 897 139,047

2024 103,341 16,554 6,280 14,278 897 141,350

2025 105,429 14,462 6,140 12,566 897 139,494

2026 107,518 14,514 6,000 12,609 897 141,538

2027 109,607 14,567 5,860 12,652 897 143,583

2028 111,695 14,620 5,720 12,696 897 145,627

2029 113,784 14,673 5,580 12,739 897 147,672

2030 115,872 14,725 5,440 12,782 897 149,716

a

 Assumes that 55 percent of the log is utilized for lumber and other production.

Table 15—Projected timber harvest by owner, Scenario 1

Year

Tongass National 

Forest

State of 

Alaska

Alaska Native 

Corporations Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 40,858 18,232 61,529 120,619

2016 41,592 18,558 62,772 122,922

2017 42,325 18,885 64,016 125,226

2018 43,059 19,211 65,260 127,529

2019 43,792 19,537 66,503 129,833

2020 44,526 19,864 67,747 132,136

2021 45,259 20,190 68,990 134,440

2022 45,993 20,516 70,234 136,743

2023 46,726 20,843 71,478 139,047

2024 47,460 21,169 72,721 141,350

2025 44,034 21,495 73,965 139,494

2026 44,508 21,822 75,208 141,538

2027 44,983 22,148 76,452 143,583

2028 45,457 22,474 77,696 145,627

2029 45,932 22,801 78,939 147,672

2030 46,406 23,127 80,183 149,716
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

increase shipments of dimensional lumber to traditional North American markets. 

The model estimated an overall decline in harvest from the Tongass beginning in 

2025 of 3.4 MMBF from the previous year. By 2030, the cumulative impact on 

harvest compared to the baseline model is a decline in harvesting from the Tongass 

of 5.5 MMBF. 

Scenario 2

The second scenario (S2) builds upon S1 by adding markets for wood-based 

energy products. The motivation behind this scenario is a policy goal set by the 

Forest Service to support the conversion of distillate fuel use in southeast Alaska 

to wood-based fuels (Deering 2014). The scenario incorporates a Forest Service 

target of 30-percent conversion from distillate fuels to wood-based energy products 

in southeast Alaska’s residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Expanding markets for biomass energy will affect timber harvest from the Tongass by 

generating demand for two sources of biomass—sawmill residues and low- and 

utility-grade logs. Logging slash was excluded because of its high moisture content 

and transport cost (Beck Group 2009). The scenario includes estimates of derived 

demand for Tongass timber as the conversion from heating oil to wood-based fuel 

is phased in over time, although findings suggest that the 30-percent goal may be 

too ambitious. For our purposes, the terms “distillate fuels” and “heating oil” are 

used interchangeably.

The methodology and results of this analysis are described in depth in a supporting document we produced for scenario 2 (Donels et al. 2016). The approach 

began with estimating the amount of raw material required to substitute an 

equivalent amount of Btus from heating oil with Btus of wood. First, we gathered 

data on the number of establishments and distillate-fuel use in Alaska’s residential, 

commercial, and industrial sectors (USDC CB 2014a, 2014b; USDE EIA 2014). 

We selected 2012 as the base year for the 30-percent target; the total amount of 

heating oil used statewide in 2012 was 39.7 trillion Btus. To estimate the effect 

on wood demand from southeast Alaska, we converted the Btus of heating oil to 

wood equivalents (MBF), assuming that distillate fuel and wood heating equipment 

would operate at 85- and 65-percent efficiency, respectively, and that wood material would have 10-percent moisture content.7

 The U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides both historical and forecasted 

consumption data for each end-use sector at the state level; we defined the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors using the same North American Industry 

7 Oven-dry basis.

The motivation behind 

this scenario is a 

policy goal set by 

the Forest Service to 

support the conversion 

of distillate fuel use in 

southeast Alaska to 

wood-based fuels.
39

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Classification System (NAICS) criteria as the EIA. Southeast Alaska’s share of the 

state consumption was allocated using its share of occupied homes using distillate 

fuels for their primary source of heat for the residential sector, and its share of 

businesses in the commercial and industrial sectors. After adjusting for climate 

using the statewide values for heating degree days (Alaska Climate Research Center 

2014), we calculated that the number of Btus necessary to replace 30 percent of 

distillate fuel use in southeast Alaska was 1.4 trillion Btus. Table 16 shows heating 

oil purchases statewide and in southeast Alaska for the residential, commercial, and 

industrial sectors, along with the volume of wood necessary to replace 30 percent of 

the heating oil used in southeast Alaska.

The next step was to simulate the markets and harvest requirement of the 

30-percent goal using our model. We began with the young-growth transition modeled in Scenario 1, then added the assumption that 5 percent of the 30-percent goal 

would be achieved every year starting in 2015.8 This assumption means that every 

year, 5 percent of the total conversion target will be met, translating to 70.8 billion 

additional Btus of energy annually. We assume that initially this demand would 

create a market for the unsold mill residues estimated in our baseline analysis. The 

BBER surveys showed that almost 15 percent of mill residue in Alaska was unused 

in 2011. Those were the first channeled into wood energy markets and the supply 

was exhausted in the first year of the projection period. Next, mill residues that 

were previously sold for non-energy purposes9 were assumed to be rechanneled 

into bioenergy markets. When that supply was exhausted (in the second year of our 

scenario), we assumed that the supply of southeast Alaska utility-grade logs would 

begin to flow into a growing market for wood energy.

Until this point in the scenario, all new demand was assumed to be met by a 

reallocation of existing supply—first from previously unsold material, then from 

material previously destined for other markets. In the fourth year of the proposed 

conversion, however, the entire supply of utility logs projected by the baseline 

model was exhausted alongside the supplies of mill residues. The last step was 

to calculate the additional low- and utility-grade material necessary to fill any 

remaining shortfall to meet the substitution goal. Thus, the considerable remaining 

demand for wood energy not met by existing supplies was met by additional harvest 

of utility-grade logs. We assumed that this additional material was harvested from 

each of southeast Alaska’s forest ownerships according to their 5-year average share 

8 At an annual rate of 5 percent, the 30-percent goal is not achieved by the end of the 

forecast horizon of 2030.

9 Such as animal bedding and industrial use.

Thus, the considerable 

remaining demand for 

wood energy not met 

by existing supplies 

was met by additional 

harvest of utilitygrade logs.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Table 16—Distillate fuela use in Alaska by economic sector, 2003–2012

Residential sector Commercial sector Industrial sector

Year Statewide total

Southeast Alaska, 

30 percentb Statewide total

Southeast Alaska, 

30 percent Statewide total

Southeast Alaska, 

30 percent

Thousand 

barrels

Billion

Btus

Billion

Btus

Thousand 

board feet

Thousand 

barrels

Billion

Btus

Billion

Btus

Thousand 

board feet

Thousand 

barrels

Billion

Btus

Billion

Btus

Thousand 

board feet

2003 1,472 8,480 433 40,385 932 5,369 166 15,479 2,195 12,645 408 38,0212004 1,687 9,719 497 46,283 1,158 6,671 206 19,233 2,089 12,035 388 36,1842005 1,619 9,327 477 44,418 1,006 5,796 179 16,708 1,912 11,015 355 33,1192006 1,932 11,130 569 53,005 1,166 6,717 208 19,366 2,187 12,599 406 37,8822007 1,458 8,400 429 40,000 981 5,652 175 16,293 2,691 15,503 500 46,6122008 1,248 7,190 367 34,239 1,226 7,063 218 20,362 2,709 15,607 503 46,9242009 1,500 8,642 442 41,153 1,093 6,297 195 18,153 3,292 18,965 612 57,0222010 1,504 8,665 443 41,263 1,924 11,084 343 31,955 2,455 14,143 456 42,5242011 1,393 8,025 410 38,217 1,743 10,041 311 28,949 3,309 19,063 615 57,3172012 1,356 7,812 399 37,202 1,481 8,532 264 24,597 4,056 23,367 754 70,256a Fuel oil; kerosene; and bottle, tank, or liquefied petroleum gas.b Adjusted for heating degree days, prorated by number of households and establishments, multiplied by 30 percent.
41

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

of utility log production. Recall that utility log shares used were 35.60 percent from 

the Tongass National Forest, 50.75 percent from Native Corporations, and 13.65 

percent from the state.

This analysis is the first attempt to estimate the harvest equivalent for 

the 30-percent bioenergy conversion policy. Applying the assumptions of (1) 

5-percent annual rate of adoption, (2) 65-percent combustion efficiency, and 

(3) 10-percent moisture content, we were able to replace only 68 percent of the 

heating oil use in southeast Alaska by 2030. Tables 17, 18, and 19 show derived 

demand in product markets, projected timber harvest by product type, and 

harvest by owner for S2, respectively. By 2030, the harvest necessary to meet 

demand for the wood energy scenario is more than double the entire 2011 southeast Alaska timber harvest and almost 79 MMBF greater than the baseline. We 

assumed that the harvest would be distributed proportionally among the timber 

owners, because each has a supply of utility logs and no barriers to entering 

bioenergy markets. According to our calculations, the rate of adoption of wood 

energy technology necessary to meet the 30-percent goal is just shy of 7 percent 

per year.

In addition to the expansion of bioenergy markets in the region, this scenario’s results could reflect any alternative future characterized by increased 

use of low-grade and utility logs. One such potential is large-scale ecological 

restoration and habitat improvement. Concerns about subsistence and the fate of 

Alaska wolf populations have risen along with concerns about deer habitat on 

the Tongass. These concerns are reflected in a 2011 petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) as either threatened or endangered, 

filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In March 2014, in response to the 

petition, the agency made a positive initial finding that listing the species as 

threatened or endangered “may be warranted,” and that it will prepare a formal 

status review. High-density regrowth in previously harvested areas precludes the 

development of deer browse in the forest understory for a period of time, called 

stem exclusion. Harvest for habitat improvement could potentially add to the 

stock of harvestable utility grade second-growth timber. Thus S2 supports the 

growth of markets for mill residues and low- and utility-grade logs from southeast Alaska, whether from increased demand for bioenergy, demand for habitat 

and ecological improvement, or some other unforeseen market developing for 

low-grade and utility logs.

By 2030, the harvest 

necessary to meet 

demand for the wood 

energy scenario is more 

than double the entire 

2011 southeast Alaska 

timber harvest and 

almost 79 MMBF greater 

than the baseline.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Table 17—Projected demand for each southeast Alaska forest product market, Scenario 2Year

Canada 

logs

Canada 

lumber

Canada 

othera

Pacific 

Rim 

logs

Pacific 

Rim 

lumber

Pacific 

Rim 

othera

U.S. 

logs

U.S. 

lumber

U.S. 

othera

Sold 

residue

Utility 

logs

Total 

demand

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 14 326 8 77,951 4,942 25 6,580 9,530 864 11,318 0 111,5562016 14 330 8 80,032 5,084 25 6,587 9,578 864 13,000 4,232 119,7542017 14 334 8 82,113 5,227 25 6,594 9,627 864 13,160 10,229 128,1952018 14 339 8 84,195 5,369 25 6,602 9,675 864 13,320 16,226 136,6362019 14 343 8 86,276 5,511 25 6,609 9,724 864 13,480 22,224 145,0762020 14 347 8 88,357 5,654 25 6,616 9,773 864 13,639 28,221 153,5172021 14 351 8 90,438 5,796 25 6,623 9,821 864 13,799 34,218 161,9582022 14 355 8 92,520 5,939 25 6,630 9,870 864 13,959 40,215 170,3992023 14 360 8 94,601 6,081 25 6,638 9,918 864 14,118 46,213 178,8402024 14 364 8 96,682 6,224 25 6,645 9,967 864 14,278 52,210 187,2802025 14 368 8 98,763 4,078 25 6,652 10,015 864 12,566 59,353 192,7072026 14 372 8 100,845 4,078 25 6,659 10,064 864 12,609 65,422 200,9602027 14 376 8 102,926 4,078 25 6,667 10,113 864 12,652 71,491 209,2142028 14 381 8 105,007 4,078 25 6,674 10,161 864 12,696 77,559 217,4672029 14 385 8 107,089 4,078 25 6,681 10,210 864 12,739 83,628 225,7202030 14 389 8 109,170 4,078 25 6,688 10,258 864 12,782 89,697 233,973a Other includes bowls, furniture, houselogs, molding, shakes, posts and poles, and siding.
43

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Table 18—Projected timber harvest by product type, Scenario 2

Year Sawlog exports Sawmills Utility logs Total residuea Other Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 84,544 14,797 7,540 12,841 897 120,619

2016 86,633 14,992 7,400 13,000 897 122,922

2017 88,721 15,188 10,229 13,160 897 128,195

2018 90,810 15,383 16,226 13,320 897 136,636

2019 92,898 15,578 22,224 13,480 897 145,076

2020 94,987 15,773 28,221 13,639 897 153,517

2021 97,075 15,969 34,218 13,799 897 161,958

2022 99,164 16,164 40,215 13,959 897 170,399

2023 101,252 16,359 46,213 14,118 897 178,840

2024 103,341 16,554 52,210 14,278 897 187,280

2025 105,429 14,462 59,353 12,566 897 192,707

2026 107,518 14,514 65,422 12,609 897 200,960

2027 109,607 14,567 71,491 12,652 897 209,214

2028 111,695 14,620 77,559 12,696 897 217,467

2029 113,784 14,673 83,628 12,739 897 225,720

2030 115,872 14,725 89,697 12,782 897 233,973

a

 Assumes that 55 percent of the log is utilized for lumber and other production.

Table 19—Projected timber harvest by owner, Scenario 2

Year

Tongass 

National Forest

State of 

Alaska

Alaska Native 

Corporations Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 40,858 18,232 61,529 120,619

2016 41,592 18,558 62,772 122,922

2017 43,382 19,290 65,523 128,195

2018 46,301 20,454 69,881 136,636

2019 49,220 21,618 74,239 145,076

2020 52,138 22,782 78,597 153,517

2021 55,057 23,946 82,955 161,958

2022 57,976 25,110 87,313 170,399

2023 60,894 26,274 91,672 178,840

2024 63,813 27,438 96,030 187,280

2025 62,980 28,758 100,969 192,707

2026 65,665 29,932 105,364 200,960

2027 68,350 31,105 109,758 209,214

2028 71,035 32,279 114,152 217,467

2029 73,720 33,453 118,547 225,720

2030 76,405 34,626 122,941 233,973
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Scenario 3

Underlying the model’s baseline scenario are demand projections of each product 

market for southeast Alaska forest products. These projections are based on available historical data, as outlined above. Scenario 3 (S3) is motivated by uncertainty 

regarding the future of a critical driver of global lumber demand—the U.S. housing 

market—and assumes a higher trajectory for this market by considering only the 

pre-recession rate of growth in domestic lumber consumption, as opposed to more 

conservative growth rates used in the model’s baselines. 

As we finalized this publication in summer 2015, U.S. sawnwood consumption 

had grown from a Great Recession trough in 2009 to levels approaching those seen 

during the pre-recession housing boom. It is still too soon to determine whether this 

recovery will be sustained past the very near term; early evidence10 suggests that 

the recovery is underway, although whether it will match the velocity seen before 

the 2007–2009 collapse is yet unknown. Scenario 3 was built on the possibility that 

domestic sawnwood demand growth will continue at a pre-recession rate through 

the entire projection period. 

This scenario affects southeast Alaska harvest and production through two 

channels. The first is domestic demand for locally produced lumber, which has 

averaged over 10 MMBF (0.05 percent of total U.S. demand) since 2009. The 

second channel is the demand of domestic lumber producers for locally harvested 

logs as a raw material input for production. In both 2012 and 2013, approximately 

6.5 MMBF of logs left southeast Alaska for domestic destinations, comprising 

0.03 percent of total market demand. The approach for this scenario traced higher 

lumber demand growth through both channels to local harvest impacts. The first 

step was generating new projections for U.S. sawnwood based on average growth 

prior to 2007, and thus prior to the recession, from our calculation. Maintaining our 

baseline assumptions for southeast Alaska’s share of this market, growth in domestic demand for housing generates greater demand for locally produced lumber.

Accelerated domestic lumber consumption necessarily requires greater domestic log consumption. To account for this second effect on southeast Alaska production, we revised the underlying projection for U.S. log consumption in proportion 

to the projected increase in U.S. sawnwood consumption. Again maintaining the 

baseline for southeast Alaska’s share of the market, we generated revised projections of demand for locally sourced logs. The method to estimate mill residue and 

other niche production remained unchanged from the baseline procedure. Table 20 

10 See FPL-GTR-219 (http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr219.pdf), Effects on 

U.S. Timber Outlook of Recent Economic Recession, Collapse in Housing Construction, 

and Wood Energy Trends, among others.

Scenario 3 was built 

on the possibility that 

domestic sawnwood 

demand growth 

will continue at a 

pre-recession rate 

through the entire 

projection period.
45

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

shows that markets for Pacific Rim lumber, U.S. logs, U.S. lumber, and sold residue 

are affected by the assumptions for S3, compared to the baseline. 

Scenario 3 essentially models the change in harvest by incorporating an 

increased demand for housing into projections for domestic lumber consumption 

but leaving the market share of southeast Alaska producers constant. Tables 21 

and 22 show the projected harvest by industry and timber owner. Interestingly, 

the results of this scenario are quite similar to the baseline that does not include 

the young-growth transition; the increase in total harvest spurred by stronger U.S. 

housing demand almost exactly offsets the losses from the Tongass young-growth 

policy beginning in 2025. Scenario 3 suggests that the model is relatively insensitive to accelerated domestic lumber demand. Here, a 25-percent increase in the projection for domestic lumber consumption translated to 3.3 and 3.5 percent increases 

in Tongass and total southeast Alaska harvest from the baseline, respectively. 

Sensitivity of the Model

Our approach to incorporating and displaying uncertainty has two components. 

The first is the design and analysis of the three management scenarios. The second 

is a sensitivity analysis in which we examined the effects of changes in individual 

elements of the projections. The sensitivity analysis showed model results to be most 

sensitive to changes in Pacific Rim log export markets. This highlights the importance of competitiveness relative to producers in the Pacific Northwest and other 

global log suppliers. Our model showed that the young-growth transition is most 

likely to affect lumber production; maintaining Pacific Rim log export markets in the 

face of changing raw material quality and the high costs of harvesting and transporting material are central issues facing the competitiveness of the Alaska forest sector.

Selecting an Alternative

The alternative management scenarios presented here represent three different 

futures for timber demand in southeast Alaska. In the last study, Brackley et al. 

(2006b) initially avoided labeling a “most likely” projection, but later asserted that 

the limited lumber scenario had the greatest likelihood of occurrence because it 

depended only on maintenance of the status quo. We also are avoiding recommending any one scenario as a “most likely” projection because of the relatively high 

degree of uncertainty surrounding developments in southeast Alaska. Our objective 

is to focus attention on key market drivers like competitiveness, efficiency, access 

to affordable energy, and global and domestic macroeconomic conditions. These in 

turn were translated into a range of values for parameters in our model. The model is 

a framework for quantifying assumptions about the future for Alaska and displaying 

their implications in terms of demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest.

Scenario 3 essentially 

models the change 

in harvest by 

incorporating an 

increased demand for 

housing into projections 

for domestic lumber 

consumption but 

leaving the market share 

of southeast Alaska 

producers constant.

The sensitivity analysis 

showed model results 

to be most sensitive to 

changes in Pacific Rim 

log export markets.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Table 20—Projected demand for each southeast Alaska forest product market, Scenario 3Year

Canada 

logs

Canada 

lumber

Canada 

othera

Pacific 

Rim logs

Pacific Rim 

lumber

Pacific 

Rim 

othera

U.S. 

logs

U.S. 

lumber

U.S. 

othera

Sold 

residue

Total 

demand

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 14 326 8 77,951 4,942 25 6,816 9,262 864 11,125 111,3322016 14 330 8 80,032 5,084 25 6,941 9,445 864 11,363 114,1052017 14 334 8 82,113 5,227 25 7,066 9,628 864 11,600 116,8792018 14 339 8 84,195 5,369 25 7,191 9,811 864 11,838 119,6532019 14 343 8 86,276 5,511 25 7,316 9,994 864 12,076 122,4262020 14 347 8 88,357 5,654 25 7,442 10,177 864 12,313 125,2002021 14 351 8 90,438 5,796 25 7,567 10,360 864 12,551 127,9742022 14 355 8 92,520 5,939 25 7,692 10,543 864 12,788 130,7472023 14 360 8 94,601 6,081 25 7,817 10,725 864 13,026 133,5212024 14 364 8 96,682 6,224 25 7,942 10,908 864 13,264 136,2952025 14 368 8 98,763 4,078 25 8,067 11,091 864 11,851 135,1302026 14 372 8 100,845 4,078 25 8,193 11,274 864 11,986 137,6592027 14 376 8 102,926 4,078 25 8,318 11,457 864 12,121 140,1872028 14 381 8 105,007 4,078 25 8,443 11,640 864 12,256 142,7162029 14 385 8 107,089 4,078 25 8,568 11,823 864 12,391 145,2442030 14 389 8 109,170 4,078 25 8,693 12,006 864 12,526 147,773a Other includes bowls, furniture, houselogs, molding, shakes, posts and poles, and siding.
47

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Table 21—Projected timber harvest by product type, Scenario 3

Year Sawlog exports Sawmills Utility logs Total residuea Other Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 84,780 14,530 7,540 12,622 897 120,369

2016 86,987 14,859 7,400 12,891 897 123,034

2017 89,193 15,189 7,260 13,161 897 125,700

2018 91,399 15,518 7,120 13,431 897 128,366

2019 93,606 15,848 6,980 13,700 897 131,031

2020 95,812 16,178 6,840 13,970 897 133,697

2021 98,019 16,507 6,700 14,240 897 136,362

2022 100,225 16,837 6,560 14,509 897 139,028

2023 102,432 17,166 6,420 14,779 897 141,694

2024 104,638 17,496 6,280 15,048 897 144,359

2025 106,845 15,537 6,140 13,446 897 142,865

2026 109,051 15,724 6,000 13,599 897 145,272

2027 111,258 15,912 5,860 13,752 897 147,678

2028 113,464 16,099 5,720 13,905 897 150,085

2029 115,671 16,286 5,580 14,058 897 152,492

2030 117,877 16,473 5,440 14,212 897 154,898

a

 Assumes that 55 percent of the log is utilized for lumber and other production.

Table 22—Projected timber harvest by owner, Scenario 3

Year

Tongass 

National Forest

State of 

Alaska

Alaska Native 

Corporations Total

Thousand board feet, log scale

2015 40,784 18,200 61,385 120,369

2016 41,625 18,572 62,837 123,034

2017 42,466 18,945 64,289 125,700

2018 43,308 19,317 65,741 128,366

2019 44,149 19,689 67,193 131,031

2020 44,990 20,062 68,645 133,697

2021 45,831 20,434 70,097 136,362

2022 46,673 20,806 71,549 139,028

2023 47,514 21,178 73,001 141,694

2024 48,355 21,551 74,453 144,359

2025 45,037 21,923 75,906 142,865

2026 45,619 22,295 77,358 145,272

2027 46,201 22,667 78,810 147,678

2028 46,784 23,040 80,262 150,085

2029 47,366 23,412 81,714 152,492

2030 47,948 23,784 83,166 154,898
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Discussion and Conclusion

Over the period from 2000 to 2011, harvest of timber from the Tongass National 

Forest declined by nearly 70 percent. Factors contributing to the decline included 

changes in the structure of the Alaska forest sector, macroeconomic conditions both 

in the United States and overseas, markets for Alaskan products, and conditions 

faced by Alaska’s competitors. Taking these changes into account, our projections 

of the average demand for Tongass timber over the next 15 years (2015 to 2030) 

range from 46 to 76 million board feet. Three different scenarios display alternative 

futures for southeast Alaska that all incorporate the young-growth transition on 

the Tongass. These scenarios differ in the use of the projected harvest, in that the 

young-growth scenario calls for a reduction in harvest from the Tongass, the wood 

energy scenario focuses on demand for utility logs, and the U.S. housing scenario 

includes projected increased demand for sawlogs for lumber. 

We encountered several challenges in completing this analysis. Foremost was 

the lack of published market data for Alaskan forest products. Of the two sources 

available, one measures only lumber production from a predetermined set of 

southeast Alaska mills; the other is performed only every 5 years. In many cases, 

the most recent data were from 2011. Disclosure and confidentiality issues abound, 

owing to an industry structure characterized by a small number of producers. 

Traditional sources of international trade data were of little use owing to the issues 

surrounding transshipments and the fact that trade data showed export volume to 

exceed what was actually harvested by a significant amount. Efforts to explain 

these discrepancies in Alaskan trade data are underway. Last, we hope that Tongass 

timber sale administrators will devise a reporting method to differentiate between 

young- and old-growth sales to enable tracking the progress of the young-growth 

transition from outside the local area. 

The changes occurring in southeast Alaska represent a shift in federal forest 

policy that recognizes changing societal expectations about goods and services provided from public lands. Whether Alaskan products will remain competitive during 

the young-growth transition will depend on a variety of factors. Many stakeholders 

expressed hope that the emergence of bioenergy markets could increase the profitability of operations owing to increased utilization of low-quality material, especially utility-grade logs and mill residues. Interest has been focused on developing 

a wood pellet industry in southeast Alaska, both in terms of increasing demand for 

timber and generating additional forest sector employment. Although economic 

feasibility will depend on capital investment and product prices, producers may 

We hope that 

Tongass timber sale 

administrators will 

devise a reporting 

method to differentiate 

between young- and 

old-growth sales to 

enable tracking the 

progress of the younggrowth transition from 

outside the local area.
49

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

find it difficult to compete with pellet producers in British Columbia in international markets. In addition, transportation challenges make it difficult for southeast 

Alaska producers to ship material to other regions within Alaska itself. There 

also is tremendous interest in developing markets for value-added niche products. 

Whether demand for these products could be sufficient to sustain a timber industry 

in southeast Alaska will likely be the subject of debate for many years to come. 

Acknowledgments

This study was completed with funding from the USDA Forest Service Alaska 

Region. The authors are grateful for the assistance of many people during the 

completion of this project. We thank the staff from the Alaska Region and the 

Tongass National Forest, including Dave Harris, Nicole Grewe, Sheila Spores, 

Randy Coleman, and Forrest Cole. Clarence Clark with the State of Alaska provided data and contacts, and facilitated access to southeast Alaska mill owners and 

exporters. Buck Lindekugel, Tom Waldo, and Keith Rush provided valuable insights 

and materials from the southeast Alaska environmentalist community. Bob Deering shared his vision for the development of wood-based energy resources. Finally, 

Richard Haynes, Allen Brackley, and Erik Berg were kind enough to share their 

perspectives from working within the southeast Alaska research community and to 

perform technical reviews of this manuscript. Mill-level TPO data were acquired 

after completing a Memorandum of Cooperation and data confidentiality plan with 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis group at the Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters

Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters

Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares

Cubic feet (ft3) 0.0283 Cubic meters

Board feet, logs 0.00453 Cubic meters, logs

Board feet, lumber 0.00236 Cubic meters, lumber

British thermal units (Btus) 3,412.14 Kilowatt-hour

British thermal units 100,000 Therms

Pounds 2,400 Bone-dry units
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Literature Cited 

Alaska Climate Research Center. 2014. Mean annual heating degree days for selected 

base years 1981–2010. http://akclimate.org/Climate/Normals. (July 18, 2014).

Alexander, S.J.; Parrent, D.J. 2010. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for 

Tongass timber: 2007 and 2008 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-565. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 15 p. 

Alexander, S.J.; Parrent, D.J. 2012. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for 

Tongass timber: 2009 and 2010 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-568. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 15 p. 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 [ANILCA]. Public 

Law No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371.

Beck Group. 2009. Transitioning to young growth: Prince of Wales Island, 

southeast Alaska. http://www.merid.org/en/TongassAdvisoryCommittee/~/

media/Files/Projects/tongass/Ecological/Transitioning%20to%20Young%20

Growth%20on%20POW%20BECK%20report%202009.pdf. (August 10, 2014).

Berg, E.C.; Gale, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Brackley, A.M.; Keegan, C.E.; 

Alexander, S.J.; Christensen, G.A.; McIver, C.P.; Scudder, M.G. 2014. 

Alaska’s timber harvest and forest products industry, 2011. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-903. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 p. 

Brackley, A.M.; Crone, L.K. 2009. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for 

Tongass timber: 2005 and 2006 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-561. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 15 p. 

Brackley, A.M.; Parrent, D.J.; Rojas, T.D. 2006a. Estimating sawmill processing 

capacity for Tongass timber: 2003 and 2004 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-553. 

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

Research Station. 15 p. 

Brackley, A.M.; Rojas, T.D.; Haynes, R.W. 2006b. Timber products output and 

timber harvests in Alaska: projections for 2005–2025. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-677. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 33 p. 
51

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

Briggs, D. 1994. Forest products measurements and conversion factors: with 

special emphasis on the U.S. Pacific Northwest. IFR Contribution No. 75. Seattle, 

WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 168 p. 

Brooks, D.J.; Haynes, R.W. 1990. Timber products output and timber harvests in 

Alaska: projections for 1989–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-261. Portland, 

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

Station. 48 p. 

Brooks, D.J.; Haynes, R.W. 1994. Timber products output and timber harvests in 

Alaska: projections for 1992–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-334. Portland, 

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

Station. 48 p.

Brooks, D.J.; Haynes, R.W. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in 

Alaska: projections for 1997–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, 

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

Station. 17 p.

Daniels, J.M.; Paruszkiewicz, M.D. 2016. Estimates of wood energy demand for 

residential use in Alaska: an update. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-928. Portland 

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

Station. 32 p.

Deering, R. 2014. Local biomass pellets provide heat and jobs. Ketchikan, AK: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. http://

www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/news-events/?cid=STELPRD3792905. (January 

14, 2015).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division 

[FAOSTAT]. 2014. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E. (November 14, 2014)

Halbrook, J.M.; Morgan, T.A.; Brandt, J.P.; Keegan, C.E., III; Dillon, T.; 

Barrett, T.M. 2009. Alaska’s timber harvest and forest products industry, 2005. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-787. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p.

Harris, D.P. 2015. Personal communication. Director of Forest Management, 

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

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels J.M. 2011. Trends in 

lumber processing in the western United States. Part II: Overrun and lumber 

recovery factors. Forest Products Journal. 60( 2): 140–143.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-934

Keegan, C.E., III; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Daniels J.M. 

2012. Impact of the Great Recession and housing collapse on the forest products 

industry in the western United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 5–9.

Kilborn, K.A.; Parrent, D.J.; Housley, R.D. 2004. Estimating sawmill processing 

capacity for Tongass timber. Res. Note PNW-RN-545. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p. 

Meridian Institute. 2015. Background materials. http://www.merid.org/en/

TongassAdvisoryCommittee/Background_Materials.aspx. (January 13, 2015).

Parrent, D.; Grewe, N. 2014. Tongass National Forest: 2013 sawmill 

capacity and production report. 9 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, 

Juneau, AK 99802-1628. 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act of October 22, 1976; 16 

U.S.C. 1600.

Spores, S.R. 2015. Personal communication. Forest silviculturist, Tongass National 

Forest, 648 Mission Street, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 [TTRA]; Public Law No. 101-626, 104 Stat. 4426.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2013. Secretary’s memorandum 1044-

009: addressing sustainable forestry in southeast Alaska. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/

document/secretarys-memorandum-1044-009. (October 14, 2014).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2010. Alaska Mental 

Health Trust Authority Land Exchange. Issue paper, July 2010. Juneau, AK: Alaska 

Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5252637.pdf. 

(October 14, 2014).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2014. Forest 

management reports and accomplishments: log exports and interstate shipments. 

Juneau, AK: Alaska Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/landmanagement/

resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev2_038785. (September 8, 2014).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015. Briefing papers 

2015. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/

news-events/?cid=stelprdb5299987. (October 27, 2015).
53

Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2014a. Selected 

housing characteristics—2011 American community survey 1-year estimates. http://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. 

(December 20, 2014).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2014b. 2013 County 

business patterns. http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl. (December 

20, 2014). 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (USDE EIA). 

2014. Alaska—Consumption, price and expenditure estimates—State Energy 

Demand System (SEDS). http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/. (October 13, 2014). 

U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC]. 2014. USITC interactive tariff and 

trade dataweb [Database]. Version 3.1.0. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp. 

(October 5, 2014). 

Waldo, T. 2014. Personal communication. History of Tongass timber demand projects 

and harvest. On file with: Earthjustice, Alaska Regional Office, 325 Fourth Street, 

Juneau, AK 99801.

Warren, D. 2005–2011. Production, prices employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 148 p. 

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 2015. Western lumber grades and 

quality control. http://www.wwpa.org/TECHGUIDE/Grades/tabid/849/Default.aspx. 

(March 18, 2015).

Wisertrade. 2013. World Institute for Strategic Economic Research. http://www.

wisertrade.org/home/portal/index.jsp. (October2, 2014).

Zhou, X. 2013. Production, prices employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 148 p.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300