The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Richard W. Haynes, Darius M. Adams, Ralph J. Alig, Peter J. Ince, John R. Mills, and Xiaoping Zhou

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

A Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 

Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment

A Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 

Interim Update of the 2000 RPA Assessment
Authors

Richard W. Haynes and John R. Mills are research foresters and Xiaoping Zhou

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

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 

97208; Darius M. Adams is a professor at Oregon State University, Department of 

Forest Resources, Corvallis, OR 97331-5703; Ralph J. Alig is a research forester, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, 

OR 97331; Peter J. Ince is a research forester, timber demand and technology 

assessment research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 

Products Laboratory, 1 Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398.
Abstract

Haynes, Richard W.; Adams, Darius M.; Alig, Ralph J.; Ince, Peter J.; Mills, 

John R.; Zhou, Xiaoping. 2007. The 2005 RPA timber assessment update. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-699. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 212 p.

This update reports changes in the Nation’s timber resource since the Analysis of 

the Timber Situation in the United States was completed in 2003. Prospective trends 

in demands for and supplies of timber, and the factors that affect these trends are 

examined. These trends include changes in the U.S. economy, increased salvage of 

British Columbia beetle-killed timber, and a stronger U.S. dollar. Other prospective 

trends that might alter the future timber situation are discussed including changes 

in U.S. timberland area, reductions in southern pine plantation establishment, 

impacts of climate change on forest productivity, increased restoration thinning on 

Western public lands, and the impact of programs to increase carbon sequestration 

through afforestation. Various management implications such as the influence of 

prices on forest management, concerns about changes in forest area, the emerging 

open space issue, forests as a set of commons, seeking to find greater compatibility 

in forest management, and the stewardship agenda are discussed.

Keywords: RPA assessments, timber projections, supply, demand, management 

alternatives, resource trends. 
Summary: 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

The 2005 update base projection envisions a 38-percent expansion in total U.S. 

forest products consumption to 27.0 billion cubic feet per year by 2050. Per capita 

consumption will decline slightly below historical averages. Imports will continue 

to rise but supply a smaller portion of the growth in domestic wood requirements 

(consumption plus exports), and domestic sources a correspondingly larger share, 

over the next 50 years than was the case during the previous five decades. At the 

same time, real product price growth will fall below long-term historical rates for 

all products.

Product Output and Trade

• Domestic product output will shift toward pulp and paper products, with a 

declining share for lumber and a steady share for composites. 

• The share of imports in U.S. timber consumption will rise from 25 percent 

to nearly 30 percent over the next decade, then decline to 28 percent by 

2050 as domestic production expands.

• U.S. softwood lumber production will expand 20 percent by 2050 relative 

to recent levels with increases primarily in the South and Pacific Northwest 

West. Pulp and paper production will increase primarily in the South.

• Canada’s share of U.S. lumber consumption will rise to nearly 39 percent 

in the period to 2015 as salvage of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae) mortality in interior British Columbia proceeds, then decline 

to 26 percent by 2050 in the face of growing restrictions on allowable cut 

and strong competition from offshore imports.

• Offshore softwood lumber imports (from Europe and the Southern 

Hemisphere) will capture nearly 15 percent of U.S. consumption by 2020.

• Oriented strand board (OSB) will largely displace softwood plywood in all 

markets; hardwood lumber output will show little growth.

Timberland Area and Forest Management Types 

• U.S. timberland area will decline 3 percent by 2050 owing primarily to 

conversion to developed uses.

• Land held by the firms integrated to processing will continue to decline 

through sales to institutional investors (timberland investment organization 

and real estate investment trusts).
• The area of planted pine in the South will continue to expand as U.S. timber 

production is concentrated on fewer acres. By 2050, 54 percent of U.S. 

softwood harvest will come from 9 percent of the U.S. timberland base.

• Hardwood types will continue to dominate the forest land base in the South 

(60 percent) and throughout the Eastern United States (67 percent). 

Timber Harvest and Inventories 

• U.S. softwood growing-stock removals rise 24 percent over the projection, 

driven by expansion of pulpwood consumption (for OSB and wood pulp). 

• Hardwood removals rise 15 percent by 2025, again owing to expansion of 

pulpwood use. 

• Aggregate U.S. forest inventory rises 35 percent for all owners; cut is less 

than growth over the next five decades.

• For all regions and private owner groups, softwood inventories rise by 2050 

despite increasing removals. 

• Private hardwood inventories rise sharply by 2050, with continued 

expansion in the North offsetting modest reductions in the South. 

Prices 

• Solid-wood products prices will rise at rates less than 0.3 percent per year, 

well below historical experience. 

• Prices of paper and paperboard are expected to decline in real terms.
Contents

1 Chapter 1: Overview 

1 Introduction

2 Background

4 Forces Shaping Demand and Supply

6 The U.S. Forest Sector in the Context of Global Forest Resources 

 and Wood Use

9 Chapter 2: Assumptions and Projection Methods

9 Introduction

9 Macroeconomic Activity 

11 Population and Labor Force 

12 Productivity 

12 Gross Domestic Product

12 Prices, Inflation, and Interest Rates

13 Housing

14 International Trade in Forest Products

19 Fuelwood Demand Projections

19 Timber Supply Assumptions

20 Projected Area Changes for Land Uses and Forest Management Cover Types

21 Historical Trends in Timberland Area

24 Historical Trends in Forest Cover Areas

25 Area Projections by Region 

31 Timber Management and Investment in Private Land Management 

 Intensity Classes

32 Management Intensity Class Allocations

39 Adjustments for Timber Removed From Inventories

41 Timber Harvests on Public Lands

41 National Forest Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections 

43 Other Public Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections

45 Chapter 3: Timber Demand and Supply Relationships: Base Projection

45 Introduction

46 Projected Consumption, Production, Trade, and Prices for Timber Products
46 Solid Wood Products

56 Paper and Paperboard

60 Product Price Projections

63 Shifts in U.S. Forest Products Production and Source Material

63 Total Roundwood Use for Consumption, Production, and Trade

65 Stumpage Markets

71 Softwoods

74 Hardwoods

74 Stumpage Prices

77 Trends in Timber Removals, Inventory, Growth, and Private 

 Management Investment

79 Softwoods

85 Hardwoods

85 Projections of Canadian Harvest

89 Broad-Scale Trends in Forest Conditions

89 Trends in Structure

90 Trends in Diversity 

97 A Composite Index to Describe Broad-Scale Trends in Forest Conditions

101 Disaggregating the Projections

105 Chapter 4: Alternative Views of the Future

105 Introduction

106 Reduction in Nonindustrial Private Timberland Area

110 Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Forests and Forest Products Markets 

113 Restoration Thinning on Public Lands in the West

118 Sequestration of Atmospheric Carbon in Forest Plantations

121 Reduced Southern Pine Plantation Establishment

129 Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion

129 Future Trends and Conditions

129 Expected Market Changes

130 Timberland Area and Forest Management Types

131 Softwood Harvest

133 Hardwood Harvest
134 Private Inventories

135 Prices

135 Main Results from the Projections

139 Observations

139 The Importance of Rising Prices to Forest Management and 

 Retention of Forest Cover

141 Urbanization and Rural Development Affecting America’s Forests

143 Substitution Regulates Impacts of Market and Resource Changes

144 The State of Overall Forest Conditions

146 Acknowledgments

146 Equivalents

147 References

161 Glossary

176 Species List

178 Appendix 1: Background Tables

205 Appendix 2: A Price-and-Yield-Sensitive Mechanism for Allocation of 

 Regeneration Area to Management Intensity Classes in ATLAS

Tables

Chapter 1

6 Table 1—Population, population growth rate, and forest area in 2000, and 

 average annual change in forest area 1990–2000, by geographic region 

Chapter 2

10 Table 2—Population, gross domestic product, and disposable personal 

income in the United States, selected years, 1950–2002, with projections 

 to 2050

18 Table 3—Value of all wood products imported to and exported from U.S. 

 customs districts

26 Table 4—Area of forest land and timberland in the United States by 

ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to 2050

33 Table 5a—Proportions of timberland base by management intensity class 

(MIC) for Southern and Pacific Northwest West private owners, projected 

by using a fixed-area allocation 
34 Table 5b—Proportions of timberland base by management intensity class 

(MIC) for Southern and Pacific Northwest West private owners, projected 

 by using price-sensitive allocation

Chapter 3

61 Table 6—Historical and projected base case rates of product price change

61 Table 7—Indices of deflated prices for selected timber products in the United 

States, by softwoods and hardwoods, 1952–2002, with projections to 2050

64 Table 8—Apparent roundwood consumption in the United States, by species 

group and product, 1952–2002, with projections to 2050

65 Table 9—Apparent roundwood consumption, exports, imports, and harvests 

in the United States, by species group, 1952–2002, with projections to 2050

66 Table 10—Timber harvests from forest land in the contiguous states, by 

region, 1952–2002, with projections through 2050

67 Table 11—Deflated (1982) stumpage prices in the contiguous United States, 

by region, 1952–2002, with projections to 2050

68 Table 12—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and 

inventory in the United States, by region, 1952–2002 with projections to 2050 

69 Table 13—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and 

inventory in the United States, by ownership, 1952–2002, with projections 

 to 2050

90 Table 14—Diversity indices for national forest timberlands

91 Table 15—Diversity indices for other public timberlands

92 Table 16—Diversity indices for private timberlands

98 Table 17—Indicies of changes for selected indicators for the United States

Chapter 4

107 Table 18—Timberland area in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) ownership 

by region, base case, and reduced NIPF timberland scenario

121 Table 19—Southern private timberland area by cover type for base and 

 reduced planted pine area scenarios

Appendix 1: Tables

178 Table 20—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for the 

national forests timberlands, 1952–2002 with projections to 2050

180 Table 21—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for the 

national forest timberlands, 1952–2002 with projections to 2050

181 Table 22—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other 

public timberlands, 1952–2002 with projections to 2050
182 Table 23—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other 

public timberlands, 1952–2002 with projections to 2050 

184 Table 24—Population and lumber consumption in the United States, 

per capita and by end use, 1962–2002, with projections to 2050

184 Table 25—Lumber consumption, imports, exports, and production in the 

United States, 1962–2002, with projections to 2050 

185 Table 26—Lumber production in the contiguous United States, by softwoods 

and hardwoods and region, 1952–2002, with projections to 2050

186 Table 27—Population and structural panel consumption in the United States, 

per capita, and by end use, 1962–2002, with projections to 2050 

186 Table 28—Structural panel consumption, imports, exports, and production 

in the United States, 1962–2002, with projections to 2050

187 Table 29—Structural panel production in the contiguous United States, by 

region, 1962–96, with projections to 2050

188 Table 30—Nonstructural panel consumption, imports, exports, and 

production in the United States by type, 1962–2002, with projections to 2050

189 Table 31—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest 

industry timberlands in the contiguous United States, 1952–2002, with 

projections to 2050 

190 Table 32—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest 

industry timberlands in the contiguous United States, 1952–2002, with 

projections to 2050

192 Table 33—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on 

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–2002, with 

projections to 2050

193 Table 34—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on 

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–2002, with 

projections to 2050

195 Table 35—Average diameter of timber harvested on private timberlands 

 in the timber assessment regions

195 Table 36—Projections of Canadian softwood harvest 

196 Table 37—National forest timberlands by seral stage

197 Table 38—Other public timberlands by seral stage

198 Table 39—Private timberlands area by seral stage

199 Table 40—Indicies of change for selected indicators for the North, 

 South, and West regions

200 Table 41—Summary of base case and alternative scenarios
Figures

Chapter 1

4 Figure 1—Per capita consumption of timber products by major product.

Chapter 2

15 Figure 2a—United States wood products trade balance, 1978–2003.

15 Figure 2b—United States pulp, paper, and paperboard trade balance, 

 1978–2003.

16 Figure 2c—United States solid wood products trade balance, 1978–2003.

17 Figure 3a—Total value of U.S. wood product imports by source, 1978–2003.

17 Figure 3b—Total value of U.S. fiber product imports by source, 1978–2003.

23 Figure 4—Forest acres per resident in selected regions, 1952–1997, with 

projections to 2050 and U.S. population. 

42 Figure 5—National forest softwood timber harvest 1950–2000 with 1989, 

 1993, 2000, and 2005 national forest harvest assumptions.

42 Figure 6—National forest timberland area by age showing the initial (2002) 

and the projection (2050) distributions. 

44 Figure 7—Other public timberland area by age showing the initial (2002) 

and the projection (2050) distributions. 

Chapter 3

46 Figure 8—Total U.S. roundwood consumption, harvest, and trade, with 

projections to 2050.

49 Figure 9—U.S. production, consumption, and trade of softwood lumber, 

with projections to 2050.

49 Figure 10—Softwood lumber imports by source as a percentage of U.S. 

consumption, with projections to 2050.

51 Figure 11—Softwood lumber production by U.S. region, with projections 

 to 2050.

51 Figure 12—U.S. hardwood lumber production, consumption, and trade, 

with projections to 2050.

52 Figure 13—U.S. hardwood lumber production by major region, with 

projections to 2050.

53 Figure 14—U.S. softwood plywood and oriented strand board consumption, 

with projections to 2050.

53 Figure 15—U.S. production, consumption, and trade of oriented strand 

board, with projections to 2050.

54 Figure 16—U.S. oriented strand board production by region, with

projections to 2050.
55 Figure 17—U.S. softwood plywood production by region, with 

projections to 2050.

55 Figure 18—U.S. consumption of nonstructural panels by type, with 

projections to 2050.

57 Figure 19—U.S. consumption of paper and paperboard per capita and per 

million dollars of real gross domestic product, with projections to 2050.

58 Figure 20—U.S. consumption, production, imports, and exports of 

paper and paperboard, with projections to 2050.

59 Figure 21—U.S. receipts of pulpwood at pulp mills by species group, 

with projections to 2050.

62 Figure 22—Real prices of solid wood products in the United States, 

with projections to 2050.

62 Figure 23—Real prices of paper and paperboard in the United States, 

with projections to 2050.

72 Figure 24—U.S. timber harvest by species and product category, 

with projections to 2050.

72 Figure 25—Softwood sawtimber harvest all owners, by region, 

with projections to 2050.

73 Figure 26—Softwood nonsawtimber harvest all owners, by region, 

with projections to 2050.

73 Figure 27—Private softwood growing-stock inventory, with projections 

 to 2050.

75 Figure 28—Hardwood nonsawtimber harvest all owners, by region, 

p with rojections to 2050.

75 Figure 29—Hardwood sawtimber harvest all owners, by region, with 

projections to 2050.

76 Figure 30—Private hardwood growing-stock inventory, with projections 

 to 2050. 

76 Figure 31—Real softwood sawtimber stumpage prices by U.S. region, 

with projections to 2050.

78 Figure 32—Real hardwood sawtimber stumpage prices by U.S. region, 

with projections to 2050.

78 Figure 33—Real Southern softwood and hardwood pulpwood stumpage 

prices, with projections to 2050.

80 Figure 34—Softwood removals, growth, and inventory for Southern 

forest industry and other private and Pacific Northwest West forest 

industry lands, current and projections to 2050.
81 Figure 35—Fraction of softwood timblerland area by management intensity 

 groupings for Southern forest industry planted pine, Southern nonindustrial 

private other softwood types, and Pacific Northwest West forest industry, 

with projections to 2050.

83 Figure 36—Percentage of area by age class for softwood types (all types for

Pacific Northwest West at three time points for three region/owner groups, 

and change in area proportions between time points and periodic annual 

growth from a typical even-age yield function for the region/owner group.

84 Figure 37—Area by forest cover type for three critical softwood supply 

groups, with projections to 2050.

86 Figure 38—Hardwood inventory, growth and removals for North and 

South other private ownerships, with projections to 2050.

88 Figure 39—Canadian harvest by product category and total annual 

allowable cut for recent years, with projections to 2050.

93 Figure 40—Age class distribution for all softwood and hardwood forest 

types on timberland area for the Northern United States, by ownership, 

with projections to 2050.

94 Figure 41—Age class distribution for all softwood and hardwood forest types 

on timberland area for the Southern United States, by ownership, with 

projections to 2050.

95 Figure 42—Age class distribution for all forest types on timberland area 

for the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains, by ownership, with projections 

 to 2050.

96 Figure 43—Diversity index for private lands by region and species for 2000.

99 Figure 44—Total timberland integrity, with projections to 2050.

102 Figure 45—Distribution of timberland inventory on private timberland 

 in 2002.

102 Figure 46—Distribution of timberland inventory on public timberland 

 in 2002.

103 Figure 47—Average annual removals from private timberland (2000 to 2050).

103 Figure 48—Timber importance index for all ownerships.

Chapter 4

108 Figure 49—Softwood growing-stock inventory for base and reducedNIPF-timberland-area scenario, for Pacific Northwest West and Southern 

nonindustrial private (NIPF) land.

108 Figure 50—Hardwood growing-stock inventories for base and reduced-NIPFtimberland-area scenario, for Southern nonindustrial private (NIPF) land.
109 Figure 51—Softwood growing-stock removals for base and reduced-NIPFtimberland-area scenario, for Southern nonindustrial private (NIPF) land.

112 Figure 52—Total U.S. softwood and hardwood growing-stock inventory on 

private lands under the base, global change No. 1 (climate + CO2

) and global 

change No. 2 (climate only) scenarios.

113 Figure 53—Softwood lumber market effects of a restoration thinning 

program in the Interior West region and United States projected to 2050.

116 Figure 54—Interior West softwood sawtimber harvest by owner and private 

softwood growing stock for base and restoration thinning projected to 2050.

120 Figure 55—Softwood growing-stock inventory for nonindustrial private 

owners in selected regions under base and increased afforestation cases 

projected to 2050.

120 Figure 56—Softwood growing-stock removals (all owners) by major region 

under base and increased afforestation cases projected to 2050.

122 Figure 57—Private softwood growing-stock inventory in Southern regions 

for base and reduced-planted-pine scenarios projected to 2050.

122 Figure 58—Softwood growing-stock removals for Southern regions for 

base and reduced-planted-pine scenarios projected to 2050.

123 Figure 59—Softwood sawtimber stumpage price for Southern region, 

base and reduced-planted-pine scenarios projected to 2050.

Chapter 5

132 Figure 60—U.S. paper, paperboard, and pulp production projected to 2050. 

134 Figure 61—U.S. private growing-stock inventory by region and species 

group projected to 2050.

136 Figure 62—U.S. forest products consumption per capita by type of product, 

projected to 2050.

139 Figure 63—Stumpage prices for Douglas-fir and southern pine sawtimber.

144 Figure 64—Composite index and total harvest index, 1952–2002 and 

projections to 2050. 


The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Introduction

For the past century, national assessments of supply-and-demand trends for timber 

have helped shape public perceptions of future commodity consumption and 

have informed discussions of the need for, or the effectiveness of, various forest 

policies.1 The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 

1974 (amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976) formalized the 

conduct of these analyses by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a 

renewable resource assessment every 10 years. The purpose of this assessment is 

to analyze the timber resource situation to provide indications of the future cost 

and availability of timber products to meet the Nation’s demands. The analysis also 

identifies developing resource situations, emerging policy issues, and opportunities 

that may stimulate both private and public investments. 

This report presents the results of the sixth RPA timber assessment in five 

parts. Chapter 1 sets the context for the 2005 timber assessment update. Chapter 2 

describes the major demand and supply assumptions including a description of the 

models used to make the various projections. Chapter 3 describes the base projections for both the product and stumpage markets. Chapter 4 describes how the base 

projections would be modified if we considered selected alternative futures. Chapter 

5 describes selected implications, conclusions, and emergent lessons.

The map shown on page 212 shows the regions used in the timber assessment. 

Much of the information presented will be for four summary assessment regions 

(North, South, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Coast). Some of the projections 

and industry descriptions will be provided in subregion detail (Northeast, North 

Central, Southeast, South Central, Northern Rocky Mountains, Southern Rocky 

Mountains, Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest West (the west side of the Cascade 

crest in Oregon and Washington, also called the Douglas-fir subregion) and Pacific 

Northwest East (the east side of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington, also 

called the ponderosa pine subregion). The RPA timber assessment regions correspond to USDA Forest Service regions in the East and aggregations of USDA Forest 

Service regions in the West. All dollar values for price and costs are given 

in constant dollars (1982 dollars2 unless otherwise noted).

Chapter 1: Overview

1

The past five timber assessments were the 1982 timber situation (USDA Forest Service 

1982), the 1983 timber update (Haynes and Adams 1985), the 1989 timber assessment 

(Haynes 1990), the 1993 RPA timber assessment update (Haynes et al. 1995) and 2000 

analysis of the timber situation (Haynes 2003). Hereafter these reports will be referred to 

by the year such as the 1989 assessment.

2

The producer price index (1982 = 100) is used as the primary deflator.

This is the sixth RPA 

timber assessment.


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Background

This assessment continues a long tradition of forest sector assessments starting in 

1878 with F.B. Hough’s Report Upon Forestry prepared for the U.S. Congress (see 

app. C of the 1989 RPA timber assessment for a brief history [Haynes 1990]). Much 

of the impetus for the early timber assessments derived from the observations made 

by George Perkins Marsh (1864) about human impact on nature. He argued that by 

deforesting hillsides, Mediterranean cultures had brought about their own collapse 

as erosion destroyed the natural fertility that sustained well-being (see Marsh 1864). 

His warnings inspired conservation and reform leading to a century of conservation efforts that included the retaining of common spaces as public lands, increased 

attention to maintaining agricultural productivity, and, more recently, the use 

of various incentives such as tax policies and conservation easements to modify 

private management practices. 

Marsh’s concerns are manifest in the traditional assessment questions that focus 

on the dual goals of conserving valuable natural resources while simultaneously 

meeting demands for timber resources. These questions dominated the timber 

assessments until the 2000 timber assessment showed that increasing demands for 

forest products could be met by increases in trade of forest products and increases 

in U.S. harvest owing to continued expansion in inventory despite decreasing 

private timberland area. 

During the past century, both public and private actions have combined to 

produce a large and rapidly growing (in volume if not in area) forested estate in the 

United States. In the public sector, key efforts included the reservation of portions 

of the public domain as national forests and parks and the provision of fire protection for all forests. On private lands, driven in part by persistently rising stumpage 

prices and anticipated financial return, owners have invested in forest management 

and protection that have enhanced forest growth and vigor. This vast forested estate 

produces a variety of services and goods for society. Some, like the harvestable 

timber on private lands, are available only to their owners or those who acquire the 

rights to their consumption. Others, including amenities and ecosystem services 

such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection, and wildlife habitat, are more 

like positive externalities being essentially free to those who choose to enjoy or 

appreciate them and like public goods in that they are not depleted by others’ appreciation. Although largely unheralded, the emergence of this estate has conditioned 

society’s views about the treatment of forests and led to expectations that future 

forests will be equally well-managed and productive, capable of producing a wide 

array of goods and services. 


The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Changing conditions, however, raise concerns that future U.S. forests may be 

unable to meet societal expectations for sustainable forest management (see Haynes 

2004) and the provision of the variety of ecosystem services expected by increasingly urbanized populations. Expanding global competition has acted to stabilize 

product prices, and domestic production costs remain high relative to other regions, 

limiting expected returns to private investment. And public lands, altered by 

decades of fire suppression and restricted silviculture, are facing declining growth 

and an array of hazards from catastrophic fire and insect attacks. These changing 

conditions set some of the context facing those who advocate for improving forest 

management whether they are landowners, managers, or activists. 

Growing public recognition of the array of goods and services provided by 

forests has changed the nature of governance for forest management actions. Here 

governance is defined as exercising authority over actions and has evolved in the 

United States from being market based to a mix of market and regulatory functions 

(see Haynes et al. 2003 for an expanded discussion of how this has evolved in the 

Pacific Northwest). For federal forest lands, formal forest plans are developed to 

implement forest management. These involve formal processes, broad management 

objectives, and increased stakeholder participation. Management on private forest 

lands is determined by a mix of market and regulatory functions. Different regulations (e.g., state forest practice acts) influence both the design and application of 

forest management practices.

For the most part, these planning processes and regulations reflect a manifestation of public concern about forest lands or forest conditions. These evolving 

public concerns have been a determinant of forest policies, and since the early 

1990s, forest policy has increasingly been internationalized (see the discussion in 

Brooks et al. 2001) in both the context of economic globalization and sustainable 

development. Currently, much of the international debate on forest policy deals with 

different suggestions about the need to supplement market-determined actions with 

processes that endeavor to find an equilibrium among interests advocating environmental protection, employment that contributes to economic prosperity, public 

access, and social justice (see Andersson et al. 2004 for a variety of perspectives 

on these issues). 

The combination of resource, market, regulatory, and societal changes set the 

context for assessing prospective trends in timber supply, demand, and resource 

conditions. This assessment will provide input to the discussion about measures 

to further forest-based conservation over the next several decades. It also provides 

background to the following questions: How do we prevent our open spaces from 


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

dwindling away? What tools and approaches do we have to help landowners and 

managers stay on the land and to manage it sustainably? How can there be social or 

civic engagement that seeks to increase environmental protection, rewards responsible behavior of landowners and managers, respects property rights, and increases 

economic prosperity?

Forces Shaping Demand and Supply

The U.S. demand for forest products is varied and large (it averages 71.4 cubic feet 

or about 1,800 pounds per person per year) and is shaped by economic forces and 

evolving consumer tastes. In general, the per capita consumption of wood products 

has been relatively constant over the past 50 years as shown in figure 1. Consumers 

value wood in a variety of uses because of its abundance and versatility. Since 

World War II, the trends among the three main types of products (solid wood, 

pulp, and fuelwood) have changed, reflecting changes in tastes, relative prices, the 

attractiveness of wood for home and building construction, and changes in the role 

of wood as an industrial commodity. The United States has undergone significant 

shifts in its competitive position relative to other country markets leading in the 

last decade to increased imports of wood products to satisfy consumer demands.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

19901995

2000

Year

Per capita consumption 

(cubic feet per person)

Fuelwood

Solid wood

Pulp products

Figure 1—Per capita consumption of timber products by major product.

Per capita 

consumption of 

forest products is 

about 1,800 pounds 

per year.


The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

The supply of wood has been shaped by a changing array of forces influencing 

land use and forest management. In the past 200 years, these forces have included 

clearing land for agricultural uses while using the wood for products such as rails 

for fences and logs and lumber for homes and barns. After the Civil War, concerns 

arose about potential timber famines from rapid land clearing, rising industrial use 

of wood, and settlement of the West (see Marsh 1864). In 1866, these concerns were 

addressed in the first study of forest conditions (Starr 1866) and by the development of several federal agencies that eventually evolved in 1905 to the U.S. Forest 

Service.

The advent of forest management focused the development of land management strategies on an understanding of the relations between timber inventories, 

their attributes, land management objectives, and timber markets. Since World War 

II, much attention has been given to the development of explicit forest regulation 

models (both area and volume approaches) and to the notion of timber availability 

as a function of owner objectives and an array of stand and market conditions. 

Various state initiatives that have increased regulation of private timberlands have 

influenced the behavior of timberland owners over the past 20 years (see Greene 

and Siegel 1994 for a discussion of the various state regulatory efforts). 

The forest products industry remains an important manufacturing industry 

in the United States. In 2002, roughly 16.5 billion cubic feet of roundwood timber 

products were harvested in the United States (Howard 2003). Overall, roundwood 

timber remains one of the highest valued agricultural commodities differing in 

importance among regions. In the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the timber industry comprises 3 of the 21 manufacturing industry 

categories in the U.S. economy, but employment has fallen since the late 1990s 

mirroring overall trends in manufacturing employment. In 2002, in terms of total 

value of industry shipments, paper manufacturing (NAICS 322) ranked 9th at $152 

billion, wood products manufacturing (NAICS 321) ranked 16th at $88 billion, 

and furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS 337) ranked 17th at $74 

billion. In 2002, these three timber processing industries combined accounted for 

slightly over 8 percent of all manufacturing shipments and nearly 11 percent of U.S. 

manufacturing employment. Total employment in 2002 by the timber processing 

industries totaled more than 1.6 million people, with the Eastern States having the 

largest timber-processing industry employment.


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Half of the world’s forests, and 80 percent of the world’s population, are in 

Asia, Latin America, and Africa (table 1). These are predominantly, although not 

exclusively, developing countries, and the forests are predominantly, although 

not exclusively, tropical. About one-fourth of the world’s forests, nearly half of 

the world’s tropical forests, and more than half of the world’s wet tropical forests 

(rain forest, and moist lowland forest) are in Latin America. Nearly 58 percent of 

the world’s forests are in temperate zones; the boreal region in the temperate zone 

accounts for more than one-third of the world’s forests. 

The U.S. Forest Sector in the Context of Global 

Forest Resources and Wood Use

Forests in the United States account for about 6 percent of world forest cover (table 

1). World forests cover nearly 9.6 billion acres (just under 3.9 billion hectares) of the 

Earth’s surface, about 30 percent of the land area. Almost 84 percent of the world’s 

forests are in some form of public ownership (FAO 2005). The world’s forest land 

includes all types of forests: closed and open natural forest, forest plantations, and 

other forest land. Shrub, scrub, and brushland cover about 2.5 billion additional 

acres (about 1 billion hectares). This forest land can be broken into four broad forest 

types: tropical, subtropical, temperate, and boreal/polar. As table 1 shows, the 

proportions among these types differ considerably among regions. 

Table 1—Population, population growth rate, and forest area in 2000, and average annual change in forest 

area 1990–2000, by geographic region

Population

Forest types Annual Total Per capita Average

growth rate forest Sub- Boreal/ forest annual change,

Region Totala 1995–2000 area

b Tropical tropical Temperate polar area 1990–2000

 Million Acres/

Millions Percent acres Percentage of region’s forest area person Percent

Asia 3,634 1.4 1,354 61 23 14 2 0.37 ‐0.1

Africa 767 2.4 1,606 98 1 0 0 2.09 ‐.8

Europec 729 0 2,566 0 5 22 73 3.52 .1

North and 478 1.6 1,356 15 16 29 40 2.84 ‐.1

Central America

United Statesd 276 .8 558 0 37 48 15 2.02 .2

South America 341 1.5 2,188 96 2 1 0 6.42 ‐.4

Oceania 30 1.3 487 62 30 8 0 16.22 ‐.2

World 5,978 1.3 9,556 52 9 13 25 1.60 -.2

a

Data for 1999.

b

Data do not include “other wooded land.”

c

Includes Russian Federation.

d

United States data are included in North and Central America.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization (2003). Original area data are metric, converted to acres.


The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Between 1990 and 2000, the area of forest worldwide declined by 2 percent, 

while world population increased by nearly 15 percent. By 2000, world forest cover 

(excluding other wooded land) was 1.6 acres (0.65 hectare) per capita, but was only 

about one-third of the world forest endowment in the early 1900s (Gardner-Outlaw 

and Engelman 1999). Deforestation is still occurring at rates estimated from 0.3 

to 0.6 percent per year (27.2 million to 49.4 million acres [11 million to 20 million hectares] per year) mostly as a function of agricultural expansion, especially 

in densely populated countries. Since 1987, the Brundtland Commission report 

(WCED 1987)3 has set the context for discussions of sustainable development. In 

those discussions, the forest sector is receiving greater attention because of the 

growing emphases on environmental protection, food security, and poverty alleviation (FAO 2003). At the same time, there are fundamental institutional changes 

underway because of restructuring mostly involving decentralization, shifts in 

ownership patterns that result in property rights devolving to individuals and communities, and wider recognition of the multiple benefits that forests provide (FAO 

2003). 

About 4.8 percent of the world’s forests are plantation forests (FAO 2003). 

Plantations are estimated to account for about 7 percent of the forest area of the 

United States. They are an important component of industrial timber production 

in the temperate zone and are a source of both industrial timber and nonindustrial 

products in the tropical zone. Temperate zone plantations, predominantly coniferous 

species, are mostly managed for industrial wood products and are the consequence 

of reforestation rather than afforestation. Native species account for the majority 

of the plantation area in most Northern Hemisphere, temperate zone countries. In 

the temperate zone of the Southern Hemisphere, most plantations are fast-growing, 

exotic species with a shorter production cycle than that of native species. Production from exotic softwood plantations in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing 

and is expected by the year 2020 to be as much as four times current harvest. 

Worldwide, plantations are projected to account for more than 40 percent of 

world timber harvest by 2030 (ABARE 1999). 

Forest management goals differ among countries, but in the developed countries these goals increasingly recognize that forests are valued for a variety of 

goods and services including both the production of industrial commodities and 

environmental services (such as maintaining biodiversity and sequestering carbon). 

3

The Bruntland Commission Report defined sustainable development as meeting “the 

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 

own needs.” 


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

In developing countries, forests are predominantly a source of fuel and land for 

food production, although there is growing appreciation of their role in providing 

local as well as regional and global environmental services. These differences in 

basic needs and values contribute to the challenge of finding a basis and means 

for implementing global agreements on management and use of forests. 

Wood consumption in the United States (on a per capita basis) is similar to 

other developed, wood-rich countries (for example, Canada, Sweden, Finland, 

Norway, and Austria), about twice the average for all developed countries, and 

more than three times the world average for developing countries (see Brooks 

1993). As in other wood-rich countries, consumption of timber in the United 

States is primarily (91 percent in 2000) in the form of industrial raw material 

(FAO 2003).


The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Introduction 

Projections of the U.S. forest sector in this 2005 update are based on a set of 

underlying assumptions about future developments in the overall economy, forest 

products trade, and conditions affecting timber supply on public and private lands. 

The following sections summarize key aspects of these conditions with special 

emphasis on differences from the 2000 Resources Planning Act (RPA) timber 

assessment.

Macroeconomic Activity 

The starting point for forest sector projections is an estimate of future general 

activity in the U.S. economy.1 Levels of aggregate output and income, such as gross 

domestic product (GDP) or disposable personal income, are critical to projections 

of future demand for paper and paperboard products because they are widely 

used across many sectors of the economy. Estimates of activity in construction, 

particularly new residential construction and residential upkeep and alteration, 

are important determinants of future demand for the solid wood industry. 

The macroeconomic outlook (see table 2) entails the following major 

developments.2 

• Labor force growth will decline, averaging only 0.8 percent over the period 

to 2050 because of the sharp drop in population growth after the baby 

boom of 1946–66. Growth in the core population (ages 18 to 65) will fall 

below 1.0 percent to average 0.5 percent.

• Labor productivity (GDP/employed worker) will average 1.1 percent over 

the period to 2050, roughly equivalent to average productivity growth 

since 1960.

• Consumer price index (CPI) inflation will stabilize at about 3.0 percent per 

year owing to long-term balance in the federal budget and an absence of 

materials cost pressures.

Chapter 2: Assumptions and Projection Methods

1

The basic structure of the macroeconomic forecast was developed for the USDA Forest 

Service by the USDA Economic Research Service, Commercial Agricultural Division. 

On file with: Linda Langner, WO RVUR Staff, Forest Service, RP-C 4th floor, P.O. Box 

96090, Washington, DC 20090. Street address is 4th floor RP-C, 1601 North Kent Street, 

Arlington, VA.

2

The projection presented here was based on an earlier U.S. population projection discussed by Day (1996) completed prior to the 2000 census. Subsequent projections (USDC 

BC 2004) show somewhat higher levels of projected population and population growth. 

The revised 2050 total resident population projection from USDC Bureau of the Census 

(2004) is 6.2 percent higher than the estimate shown in table 2 (420 million versus 394 

million), and the projected population growth rate is 0.80 percent compared to 0.69 percent 

in the earlier projection. Given the assumptions used to generate our GDP forecast, this 

difference would raise our GDP projection by roughly 0.1 percent per year.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Table 2—Population, gross domestic product, and disposable personal income in the United States, selected 

years, 1950–2002, with projections to 2050

Real unchained Real unchained

gross domestic disposable

Population product personal income Civilian Labor

Labor force labor force productivity

Annual Annual Annual participation annual annual

Year growth growth growth rate growth growth

 Billion Billion

Millions Percent 1987 dollarsa Percent 1987 dollarsa Percent - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - -

1950 151.7 1.7 1,419 8.7

1955 165.3 1.8 1,768 5.6 1,182 7.4 59.2 2.0 3.5

1960 180.8 2.1 1,971 2.2 1,377 2.4 60.0 1.9 .3

1970 194.3 1.3 2,874 0 2,095 3.1 61.2 2.6 -2.5

1980 226.5 1.0 3,776 -.5 2,644 -2.3 65.7 1.9 -2.4

1981 229.5 1.3 3,843 1.8 2,659 .6 65.4 1.6 .2

1982 231.7 1.0 3,760 -2.2 2,662 .1 65.3 1.4 -3.5

1983 233.8 .9 3,907 3.9 2,769 4.0 65.1 1.2 2.7

1984 235.8 .9 4,149 6.2 2,918 5.4 65.5 1.8 4.3

1985 237.9 .9 4,280 3.2 2,997 2.7 65.9 1.7 1.4

1986 240.1 .9 4,405 2.9 3,123 4.2 66.5 2.1 .8

1987 242.3 .9 4,540 3.1 3,206 2.6 66.9 1.7 1.3

1988 244.5 .9 4,719 3.9 3,340 4.2 67.1 1.5 2.4

1989 246.8 .9 4,838 2.5 3,462 3.7 67.5 1.8 .7

1990 249.6 1.1 4,897 1.2 3,528 1.9 68.1 1.6 -.4

1991 253.0 1.3 4,868 -.6 3,518 -.3 67.5 .4 -1.0

1992 256.5 1.4 4,979 2.3 3,644 3.6 67.6 1.4 .9

1993 259.9 1.3 5,135 3.1 3,700 1.5 67.3 .8 2.2

1994 263.1 1.2 5,344 4.1 3,846 3.9 67.4 1.4 2.6

1995 266.3 1.2 5,513 3.2 3,954 2.8 67.2 1.0 2.2

1996 269.4 1.2 5,710 3.6 4,071 3.0 67.3 1.2 2.3

1997 272.6 1.2 5,966 4.5 4,215 3.5 67.6 1.8 2.7

1998 275.9 1.2 6,215 4.2 4,462 5.8 67.3 1.0 3.1

1999 279.0 1.2 6,492 4.4 4,594 3.0 67.3 1.2 3.2

2000 282.2 1.1 6,730 3.7 4,817 4.8 68.2 2.3 1.3

2001 285.1 1.0 6,780 .8 4,910 1.9 67.7 .8 -.1

2002 287.9 1.0 6,906 1.9 5,061 3.1 67.3 .8 1.1

2003 290.8 1.0 7,117 3.0 5,178 2.3 67.3 1.2 1.8

2010 297.7 .8 8,018 2.1 5,693 1.9 74.1 1.0 1.1

2020 322.7 .8 9,750 2.0 6,922 2.0 74.1 .9 1.1

2030 346.9 .7 11,671 1.8 8,266 1.4 74.3 .7 1.1

2040 370.0 .6 13,889 1.8 9,861 1.8 74.6 .6 1.1

2050 393.9 .6 16,569 1.8 11,781 1.8 76.0 .7 1.1

a

Unchained (see glossary, chain weighted) GDP (gross domestic product).

Sources: GDP, labor force participation rate, labor force and productivity growth projections from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Commercial Agriculture Division (see footnote 1 in chapter 2). Historical population data from USDC BC 1997, projections from Day 1996. 
11

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

• Long-term nominal interest rates will stabilize at about 5.0 percent despite 

near-term growth in the federal debt relative to GDP and in trade deficits 

because of a higher savings rate from an aging population, low anticipated 

inflation, and the expected continued attractiveness of the United States for 

foreign investments. Low inflation will reduce the risk premium on longterm bonds, and the term structure of interest rates will flatten somewhat. 

Higher savings rates will increase the supply of loanable funds. The longterm interest rate will drop to 5.5 percent stimulating capital spending and 

allow a return to long-term labor productivity growth rates of roughly 1.1 

percent.

• Combining productivity and labor force growth, real GDP will grow at 

about 2.0 percent per year in the period to 2050.

Population and Labor Force 

Population change is one of the primary drivers of long-term economic growth 

because it determines in large part the growth of the labor force. In the United 

States, as in other developed countries, population growth has slowed steadily over 

the past two to three decades. In the projection, growth of the U.S. adult population (over 18 years) slows to roughly 0.6 percent by 2040 and remains at that rate 

through 2050. Growth of the core population (ages 18 to 65), from which the bulk 

of the labor force is recruited, will decline from about 1 percent in recent years to 

near zero by 2025, then rise slowly until 2050. At the same time, the population will 

continue to grow older on average. The ratio of persons over 65 years to the core 

population (persons age 65+/persons age 18–65) will rise from about 21 percent 

today to nearly 37 percent by 2040.

These demographic trends imply declining growth in the labor force. They also 

suggest that future patterns of labor force participation will play an important role 

in long-term U.S. economic growth. Labor force participation rates have been relatively stable in the United States since the late 1980s (see table 2). The projection 

envisions sharply rising rates in the near term, with lengthening periods of working 

years (retirements well beyond age 65), continued growth in female participation, 

and an increase in the currently static male participation rates (induced in part by 

rising compensation). But even with these higher participation rates, growth in the 

civilian labor force (and employment) averages only 0.8 percent per year over the 

full projection (table 2). After 2030, employment growth drops between 0.6 and 0.7 

percent annually, the lowest rates since the 1932 Depression.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Productivity 

Long-term growth in labor productivity depends on investment in production 

technology and facilities, research and development, domestic infrastructure, and 

education. Although productivity expansion has been quite rapid in recent years, 

the projection calls for an average productivity growth of 1.1 percent over the 

period to 2050. This is roughly equal to the average growth of productivity since 

1960. Although lower than growth in recent experience, the projection is based on 

positive signs: low raw material input cost growth, likely expansion in personal 

savings rates as the population ages, and low overall inflation. The rate is no higher, 

on the other hand, because of the aging population (and loss of skilled workers) and, 

accompanying an aging population, a shift away from durable goods consumption 

toward services.

Gross Domestic Product

Gross domestic product growth is the sum of growth rates of the labor force 

and labor productivity. As shown in table 2, the projection calls for a post-2000 

real GDP growth rate of nearly 2.0 percent. In contrast, the average post-World 

War II GDP growth rate has been about 3.4 percent. The primary reason for the 

lower projection is the slowdown in labor force growth. Despite marked projected 

increases in participation rates, labor force growth falls steadily in the projection. 

In this context, per capita GDP will continue to increase steadily, but maintaining 

aggregate GDP growth in the neighborhood of the post-World War II average would 

require productivity growth more than double our historical experience.

Prices, Inflation, and Interest Rates

The core rate of annual consumer price inflation is projected to be 3.0 percent, 

whereas producer prices grow at 2.5 percent per year. This is a stable inflationary 

environment because it means less uncertainty about the future for investors. As 

noted above, this is based in part on an assumption of limited growth in key raw 

material and energy costs. Mineral prices are assumed to rise at less than 2 percent, 

and agricultural prices will continue to fall in real terms. Real crude oil prices are 

assumed to rise at about 2 percent per year, a modest rate of increase that will be 

largely offset by likely gains in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in 

sectors such as pulp and paper.3 Between 1982 and 1998, real petroleum import 

3

Recent petroleum price projections are consistent with this view. For example, the Energy 

Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (USDE EIA 2005) reported 

a range of future real world oil price projections, the highest of which (termed, “High A”) 

shows a 2003–2025 growth rate of 1.6 percent.
13

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

prices in the United States declined by 3.4 percent per year on average (real 

domestic prices declined by nearly 6 percent per year). Recent real price increases 

(beginning in 1999) are considered to be due, in part, to (1) long-term efforts by 

the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to recover the loss in 

real petroleum prices over the past 25 years and to maintain values in the future, 

(2) particularly rapid expansion of energy consumption in developing economies, 

and (3) conflicts in the Middle East. 

Real long-term interest rates are projected to average 2.5 percent after 2010, or 

5 percent in nominal terms after adding inflation (2.5 percent) in the all-commodity 

producer price index (PPI). The long-run real Treasury bill rate (short-term interest 

rate) is expected to range near 1.5 percent (4.0 percent nominal)—close to its average since 1970 (averaged over years with inflation less than 5 percent).

Housing

Housing starts of all types are projected to remain at relatively high levels, reflecting, in part, growth in the number of households.4

 The number of new households 

will average 1.4 million per year over the next 50 years, while housing starts will 

average 1.9 million per year. This compares to roughly 1.4 million new households 

and 1.8 million housing starts per year in the period 1963-2003. The gap between 

housing starts and new households does not narrow in the future because an aging, 

but healthy, retired population will be more likely to acquire second homes, and 

the aging housing stock will require higher than historical replacements of existing 

units. 

Single-family dwellings will account for most of the increase in housing starts 

relative to new households. The decreasing proportion of young adults in the 

population will lead to less demand for multiple-family housing (apartments). And 

increasing income will raise the likelihood that home ownership will be attainable. 

The upward shift in the single-family homes projection in 2010-2015 derives from 

the housing of the “Baby Boom echo” (children of the Baby Boom). The increase 

after 2030, in contrast, depends on growth in numbers of second homes and the 

replacement of older housing units in the stock. 

The average size of single-family homes doubled between 1953 and 2003, while 

multifamily units increased in size by roughly 50 percent and mobile homes more 

than tripled in average size. The projection envisions a stabilization of the average 

size of all types of units at near current levels until 2030 or 2040. As the population 

in older age cohorts (with smaller average numbers of occupants per household) 

4

Details of the housing model and an analysis of housing forecasts are given in 

Montgomery 2001.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

begins to rise rapidly over the next four decades, the expanding wealth that has led 

to increased house size in the past is expected to be reflected instead in multipledwelling-unit ownership. After 2030–2040, sizes begin to rise again but at a 

reduced rate.

Expenditures on residential upkeep and alteration depend heavily on family 

income, age of household occupants (middle-aged householders spend more) and an 

array of interest rate, inflationary expectation, and taxation considerations. In the 

projection, continued steady income growth and an aging population drive residential upkeep and improvement spending to roughly 80 percent above its current 

levels by 2050. Although this is a substantial increase, it actually entails roughly 

constant expenditures per household until 2030, in amounts no larger than observed 

on average since 1986. After 2030, expenditure per household begins to rise slowly, 

reflecting continued growth in income.

International Trade in Forest Products 

The past decade has seen two fundamental shifts in U.S. forest products trade. 

First, there has been a shift in the relation between import and export levels. 

Second, there has been a shift in the importance of trade across geographic regions 

in the United States. 

In the past, there were periods when the values of imports and exports were 

either in balance or rising simultaneously, but since 1994, the value of exports has 

been in a gradual decline while the value of imports has continued to increase (see 

fig. 2a). Figures 2b and 2c illustrate trends in values of imports and exports for pulp, 

paper, and paperboard (2b), and solid wood products (2c). A decline in the value 

of solid wood product exports began in the early 1990s around the same time that 

pulp, paper, and paperboard exports peaked and leveled out, with notable declines 

in log and high-quality lumber exports to Pacific Rim countries. The impact of a 

highly valued dollar in the late 1990s on paper exports to Western Europe and the 

downturn in Asian economies starting in 1997 are cited often as reasons for recent 

shifts in pulp, paper, and paperboard trade. The slowdown of the Japanese economy 

during the 1990s is often cited as a reason for the collapse of the log export market 

(see Daniels, n.d.). In addition, during this period, China has emerged as a major 

global economy developing a large paper manufacturing capacity, further reducing 

U.S. exports. 
15

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Figure 2a—United States wood products trade balance, 1978–2003.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19781980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Total wood products trade 

(billion dollars)

Imports

Exports

Figure 2b—United States pulp, paper, and paperboard trade balance, 1978–2003.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Pulp, paper, paperboard trade 

(billion dollars)

Imports

Exports
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

The rise in imports has come from an increasing variety of suppliers to the U.S. 

market (see fig. 3a). For example, we now import softwood lumber from a variety of 

European countries that are relatively new in U.S. markets. Their share is growing, 

but Canada still supplies about 90 percent of all lumber imports. This is also true 

for fiber products, but Canada has been less dominant among the suppliers than in 

the solid wood products (see fig. 3b). 

The second shift reflects changes in the origin of exports and where imports 

enter the United States. These changes are summarized in table 3 and reveal the 

relative shifts among U.S. regions. For example, although the bulk of imports still 

arrive in the North (reflecting both its population and proximity to Canada), an 

increasing amount is arriving at Southern ports. Among exports, the declines in the 

Pacific Northwest reflect changes in industry structure associated with reductions 

in timber harvest on federal timberlands and the decline in the Japanese economy. 

Federal timber was generally of relatively high quality, and some was manufactured 

into high-value products for Japanese housing construction (there have been prohibitions on the export of federal logs since the mid 1960s). The increases in exports 

from the North reflect increased trade with Canada and the European Union. The 

higher participation of the Pacific Northwest in export markets generally raised 

stumpage prices in the region relative to other regions, giving higher returns to land 

management. Stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest have decreased as export 

markets have declined. There has been speculation that the increases in lumber 

Figure 2c—United States solid wood products trade balance, 1978–2003.

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Solid wood products trade 

(billion U.S. dollars)

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Imports

Exports
17

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Figure 3a—Total value of U.S. wood product imports by source, 1978–2003.

Figure 3b—Total value of U.S. fiber product imports by source, 1978–2003.

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Solid wood import value (billion U.S. dollars)

Africa

Asia

Canada

China

Euro Econ Area

Japan

Latin America

Middle East

Oceania

Other

Other Europe

Russia

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Fiber import value (billion U.S. dollars)

Africa

Asia

Canada

China

Euro Econ 

 Area

Japan

Latin America

Middle East

Oceania

Other

Other Europe

Russia

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

imports in the past decade have been the primary reason that lumber prices have 

remained relatively stable during a strong housing market.

Beyond the noted shifts in the values of imports and exports over the past 

decade or so, there was also a noteworthy shift in the locus of growth in global 

demands for forest products, particularly for pulp, paper, paperboard, hardwood 

lumber, and nonstructural wood panel products, as the concentration of growth 

in manufacturing capacity has generally shifted from the United States to other 

global regions. Over the past decade, foreign inflows of capital, low interest rates, 

a doubling of home mortgage debt, and rising home prices facilitated a housing 

construction boom that helped the United States to retain its global lead in demand 

for softwood lumber and structural wood panels (used chiefly in housing construction). At the same time, declining growth in U.S. manufacturing and the shift of 

some industrial manufacturing to other countries contributed to a shift in global 

wood product demands. For example, as growth in manufacturing capacity moved 

to other countries, so did growth in demand for paper and paperboard (used heavily 

in packaging and print advertising). Thus, world paper and paperboard output and 

consumption increased by 26 percent in the decade from 1994 to 2003 (DeKing 

2004), whereas there was essentially no net increase in U.S. paper and paperboard 

output and only a small net increase in U.S. consumption (3 percent) over that 

decade. Similarly, as production of wood furniture shifted over the past decade 

from North America to other global regions such as Asia (and particularly China) 

growth in U.S. demands for hardwood lumber and nonstructural wood panels 

peaked and then fell, as demands shifted to other regions. In general, economic 

Table 3—Value of all wood products imported to and exported from U.S. customs 

districts

Customs districts

Year	 Northern	 Southern	 Pacific Northwest	 Other Western	 Total

Million dollars

Imports:

1978 5,435 923 1,117 465 7,940

1986 8,227 1,793 1,294 873 12,187

1991 9,641 1,549 1,621 892 13,703

1997 16,337 2,645 3,011 1,440 23,433

2002 17,396 4,045 3,023 2,143 26,607

Exports:

1978 861 1,415 1,901 357 4,534

1986 1,079 2,737 2,680 609 7,105

1991 2,662 6,063 4,547 1,444 14,716

1997 4,551 8,521 4,027 1,868 18,967

2002 5,234 7,108 2,214 1,866 16,422

Source: Daniels, n.d.
19

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

globalization throughout manufacturing is contributing to global realignment of 

growth in raw material demands, with countries such as China emerging in the 

21st century as growth leaders in wood raw material and industrial wood product 

demand (Ince et al., in press). Except for the buoyant housing sector, growth in U.S. 

demand for wood fiber and wood products has generally fallen far behind other 

growth leaders (such as China) over the past decade. Many of the shifts observed 

in the last decade will continue. For example Turner et al. (2005) predicted that 

China will be the world’s largest market for raw wood and intermediate and final 

forest products. They predicted that the United States would increase its share of 

global exports but that Finland, Austria, Latvia, Chile, Republic of Korea, and New 

Zealand would also increase their market share. 

Fuelwood Demand Projections5

In the United States, roundwood use for fuelwood declined from 3.53 billion cubic 

feet (bcf) in 1986 to 1.52 bcf in 2002, but is projected to increase to 3.46 bcf by 

2050. Industrial, commercial, and utility use of roundwood for fuel is projected to 

increase steadily from 0.18 bcf in 1996 to 0.52 bcf in 2050 owing to increasing nonwood fuel prices for these sectors. Residential use is projected to decline, however, 

from 2.95 bcf in 1986 to 2.15 bcf in 2000 then slowly increase to 2.94 bcf in 2050. 

The growing-stock portion of roundwood used for fuel is assumed to remain 

relatively constant over the projection period at 27 percent. The proportion of growing stock used for fuel that is hardwood is projected to decline from 77 percent in 

1996 to 66 percent in 2050.

Timber Supply Assumptions

The supply of timber derives from harvests on national forest, other public, forest 

industry, and nonindustrial private ownerships. Harvest from public landowners 

is set by policies of the respective agencies and in the long term is generally not 

sensitive to prices or other timber market conditions. In the 2005 update, public 

5

National projections of roundwood used for fuel have been constructed in three steps. 

First, USDA Forest Service estimates of roundwood used for fuel in 1986 (Waddell et al. 

1989) are linked by conversion factors to Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of total 

wood energy use in each sector—residential, industrial, commercial, and utility. Only a 

portion of wood energy in each sector comes from roundwood; mill residue and black liquor 

are excluded. Second, DOE projections of wood energy use to 2020, by sector, (USDE 

EIA 1997, reference case) are extended to 2050 by using GDP to project total energy use in 

each sector. Third, projections of roundwood use are made for each sector by multiplying 

the extended projections of wood energy use in each sector by the portion that is made 

from roundwood. Projections of roundwood use for fuel are subdivided by region, and into 

hardwood or softwood, growing stock or other source by using Forest Service estimates 

(Powell et al. 1993, Smith et al. 2001, Waddell et al. 1989).
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

harvests for the base projection follow a set of fixed patterns designed to mimic 

current agency timber programs. Timber supplies from the two private landowners, 

in contrast, are influenced by market activity and are modeled, in part, as functions 

of private timber inventory levels and stumpage prices. That is, as inventories and 

prices rise so should harvest levels. Private harvests also depend on the area of 

private land available for timber production (timberland) and the forest cover types 

on this land, trends in future silvicultural practices and management investment, 

the efficiency of harvest utilization, and the relation between the volume of timber 

harvested for products and the volume of timber removed from the live growing 

stock in the forest. 

Projected Area Changes for Land Uses and 

Forest Management Cover Types

Change in total timberland area is the net result of the conversion of timberland to 

nonforest uses and the shifting of nonforest uses to timberland by natural reversion or afforestation. Ownership changes in the timberland base may also occur 

and result in different land management objectives or new owners with different 

resources available to invest in forest management. Changes in the areas of forest 

cover types often reflect differences in land management objectives among owners 

and indicate the differential influence of natural and human-caused management 

forces.

Projections of area changes for the timberland base were made for major 

regions in the United States and within regions for two private forest ownership 

classes—forest industry (FI), and nonindustrial private forest (NIPF). Public 

timberland projections were developed from estimates provided by public agencies 

and modified for recent harvest trends (see Adams et al. 2006). The private area 

projections involve two major steps: (1) estimation of future shifts in the major land 

uses (among forestry, agriculture, urban or developed, and other), and (2) projection of changes in area by forest cover type (e.g., among planted pine, natural pine, 

and an array of other types in the South or among Douglas-fir and other coniferous 

and hardwood types in the Pacific Northwest West). Details of the methods are 

described in Alig et al. (2003), Alig and Butler (2004), and Haynes (2003). 

These projections maintain the traditional classifications of “forest industry” 

and “nonindustrial private” timberland ownerships, although the nature of firms 

in the FI class is rapidly changing. In the past, FI has been composed of firms 

that own and grow timber for industrial use and own processing facilities. These 

FI timberlands are managed with a primary objective of timber production. The 

emergence of timberland-holding firms with timber production objectives (timber 
21

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

investment management organizations [TIMOs] and real estate investment trusts 

[REITs]) that are not linked to processing facilities has created some difficulties 

in this traditional taxonomy. Lacking processing facilities, these firms would be 

grouped in the NIPF class. Yet their timber management behavior is more closely 

akin to the integrated firms in FI. Shifts from traditional integrated FI ownership to 

the TIMO/REIT class have been extremely rapid in the late 1990s and early 2000s, 

and it is likely that the future will see still further decline in traditional integrated 

FI ownership. 

In the current projections, these classification changes and associated timber 

management and harvesting behavior are treated in two ways. We do not employ 

a separate TIMO/REIT owner category and do not project future spinoffs to the 

TIMO and REIT classes. Our inventory database did not allow this split, although 

changes underway in the inventory process will enable this distinction in future 

assessments. As a result, lands in the FI class in the inventory at the start of the 

projection are not differentiated as to their linkage to processing over the projection. 

All lands in the FI class are assumed to be managed in similar ways and to respond 

to market price signals in a similar fashion regardless of their link to processing. 

Also in the inventory at the start of the projection, some of the lands in the NIPF 

group are in TIMO/REIT ownership, having been shifted to NIPF in earlier inventory measurements because they lacked processing facilities. In general, this group 

is classed as “miscellaneous corporate” within the NIPF category. In the projections, silvicultural investments on these lands are assumed to follow more closely 

the behavior in the FI group, whereas harvest responses to price and other market 

signals are the same as the general NIPF class. Thus the overall TIMO/REIT group 

is modeled with a mixed FI/NIPF form of timber supply response but with silvicultural investment behavior more closely aligned with traditional FI.

Historical Trends in Timberland Area

Between 1760 and 1920, the area of forest land in the United States declined by 

more than 300 million acres or 30 percent, as the country was settled (Smith et al. 

2004). Some of the converted forest land was used for urban and infrastructure 

developments, but most was cleared for agriculture. Since 1920, the rate of net forest area loss has slowed, with some land returning to forest cover either naturally or 

through afforestation. Between 1920 and 2000, the area of forest land in the United 

States declined in net by 13 million acres or 2 percent (Smith et al. 2004).

Between 1953 and 2002, U.S. forest area declined in net by about 7 million 

acres or 1 percent. Changes in the timberland subset of forest land roughly parallel 

those for total forest land. Between 1953 and 2002, the net loss in U.S. timberland 

The U.S. forest area 

has declined by 1 

percent in the last 

50 years.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

area has been 5 million acres, or 1 percent (Smith et al. 2004). This 50-year interval 

was marked by cycles in timberland area change, with losses from 1953 to 1987, 

major gains from 1987 to 1997, and then a slight net loss between 1997 and 2002. 

However, rural land use remains highly mutable in the short term, and substantial 

acreages continue to shift back and forth between uses each decade. Over the last 

40 years, an average of 1.8 million acres per year of cropland and the same area of 

pastureland have been transferred either into or out of the agriculture base, while 

1.5 million acres per year have moved in and out of forestry (USDA ERS 1995). 

Trends in timberland area differ notably by ownership. For the largest forest 

ownership aggregate in the country, NIPF, timberland areas declined by 14 million 

acres, or 5 percent, between 1953 and 2002. The largest concentration of NIPF 

owners is in the South, and this timberland area fell 6 percent. Most forest land 

development for nonforest uses occurs on land owned by NIPF owners (Alig et al. 

2003). The NIPF owners control the largest share of U.S. timberland—58 percent 

(291 million acres) of the total. 

The declining trend for NIPF timberland area observed in the South is also 

seen in the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest, two other regions experiencing 

above-average growth rates in population and increases in developed area. In the 

Pacific Northwest, NIPF timberland area dropped by 4.4 million acres or 34 percent 

between 1953 and 2002, while the corresponding reduction in California (Pacific 

Southwest) has been 1.5 million acres and 25 percent, respectively. In the Pacific 

Northwest, NIPF owners often control land that is critical to threatened and endangered species, such as lowlands or riparian areas (Bettinger and Alig 1996).

Land ownership can be an important determinant of how forest land is 

managed and the levels of investments in different practices (e.g., Alig et al. 1999). 

The relative proportions of private and public timberland have remained fairly 

stable since 1953, with about 29 percent of U.S. timberland in public ownership. 

Within the private timberland group, the proportion of NIPF ownership dropped 

slightly, from 84 percent to 82 percent of total private between 1953 and 2002. 

Forests owned by families are a large component of the NIPF ownership class. The 

number of family forest owners increased from 9.3 million in 1993 to 10.3 million 

in 2003, and these owners control 42 percent of the Nation’s forest land (Butler and 

Leatherberry 2004). The NIPF ownership class is the one most subject to land use 

changes (Alig et al. 2003), as evidenced by the 14-million-acre reduction in NIPF 

timberland area since 1953. In contrast, FI ownership increased by 7 million acres. 

Overall, forest area per person has declined notably since 1953 (fig. 4). 
23

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Since 1953, the area of U.S. FI timberland peaked in 1987 at 70 million acres. 

Since then, U.S. FI timberland area has declined by about 5 million acres (Smith 

et al. 2004), with some reclassified as NIPF timberland because of a transition to 

institutional and other financial investors without timber processing facilities.6

About half of that net reduction was in the Southeast, with a transition of land 

ownership from consolidated forest products companies to stand-alone financial 

ownerships. Institutional investors currently hold about 8 percent of the investable 

U.S. timberland (Wilent 2004). By the end of 2003, one source estimated that the 

top 10 TIMOs managed about 9 million acres of U.S. timberland, and some analysts 

predicted that TIMOs and other investor groups will purchase another 10 to 15 

million acres in the next decade (Wilent 2004). 

The South has the largest concentration of both FI and NIPF ownerships in the 

United States, and that region has been the most affected by recent exchanges of 

timberland among owners. More than 18 million acres of timberland have been sold 

over the past decade, with the primary sellers being traditional vertically integrated 

6

Past periodic Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) surveys as summarized in Smith et al. 

(2004) may have lagged actual changes in ownership in some cases by several years. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis units have now moved to an annual survey basis to reduce such 

lags between data collection and reporting and current changes in timber resources and 

ownership.

Figure 4—Forest acres per resident in selected regions, 1952–1997 (Smith et al. 2001), with 

projections to 2050 (Alig et al. 2003) and U.S. population. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1952

1962

1977

19871997

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Forest area per person (acres)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Million persons

Year

PNW

South

North

United States

U.S. population
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

forest products companies (Mendell et al., in press). The net purchasers of such 

timberlands include institutional investors and other tax-advantaged entities such as 

REITs or subchapter S corporations. In many cases, the timberland changing hands 

is managed similarly as under previous owners, and there appears to be no significant direct impact on the properties (Mendell et al., in press). Many of the timberland investments made on behalf of institutional clients are managed by TIMOs, 

who appear to be somewhat less inclined to invest in longer term silvicultural 

practices, on average, than the traditional forest products companies (Mendell et al., 

in press). Their interest in shorter term treatments includes midrotation fertilization. In some cases, as timberlands are sold, the “higher and better use” parcels are 

identified and sold separately into the real estate market. Monetizing real estate 

opportunities contributes to forest fragmentation on the urban-rural fringe. 

Given growing cities and other urban areas, forest land development brings 

more people living closer to remaining forest lands. A Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) measure added in recent periodic surveys has been the identification 

of forest lands by rural-urban continuum class. Based on nationwide rural-urban 

continuum classes (Smith et al. 2004), 13 percent of U.S. forest land now is located 

in major metropolitan counties and 17 percent in intermediate and small metropolitan counties and large towns, together making up 30 percent of all U.S. forest 

land (Smith et al. 2004: 47). Between 1997 and 2002, the forest area in major metro 

areas increased by 5 percent, or more than 5 million acres, as the developed areas 

in the United States expanded. 

Historical Trends in Forest Cover Areas

Forest cover type affects the forest’s role in wildlife habitat, timber supply, global 

climate change, water yield and quality, recreation, and other forest ecosystem 

goods and services. Land cover is the observed (bio)physical cover on the Earth’s 

surface, e.g., oak-hickory forest. Cover types are related to land use changes, but 

note that land use is the purpose to which land is put by humans, e.g., protected 

areas, forestry for timber products, plantations, row-crop agriculture, pastures, or 

human settlements. Examining historical trends of forest-land area by forest cover 

type help explain forest dynamics. 

Since 1953, the largest three historical changes in U.S. forest cover have been 

in the East. Area of planted pine in the South has increased more than 10-fold since 

1953, mostly on private lands. The growth in planted pine area illustrates that the 

largest recent impact on forest cover dynamics in the United States has been human 

influences, especially changes in land management objectives. In the last half of 

the 20th century, science has enabled increased productivity through more intensive 
25

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

practices such as managed pine plantations. This has in some cases influenced the 

composition, structure, and ecological processes of forests. Some plantations represent reclamations from agricultural land uses, and others represent plantations that 

followed harvests of naturally regenerated timber stands. An example is conversion 

of naturally regenerated longleaf and slash pine stands (see “Species List” for scientific names) with loblolly pine plantations, resulting in a reduction of 50 percent in 

the area of the longleaf and slash pine type since 1953 (Smith et al. 2004). 

Along with human-caused changes are the successional forces that led to a 

doubling of the area for maple-beech-birch type between 1953 and 2002 in the East. 

Two other hardwood types, oak-hickory and oak-pine, also increased in area more 

than 20 percent, gaining some area after timber harvests of other types. Although 

planted pine has increased in parts of the East, the hardwood types continue to 

dominate in terms of area in the region. 

Softwood types dominate forest cover in the West, but the doubling of western 

hardwoods types is the largest increase (Smith et al. 2004). Within softwood types, 

Douglas-fir area has increased, sometimes at the expense of the western hemlockSitka spruce type. At higher elevations, the spruce-fir type has almost doubled its 

area since 1953, as successional forces have led to it replacing other species. 

Area Projections by Region 

The total area of U.S. timberland is projected to decrease about 3 percent between 

2002 and 2050 (table 4). During the 1970s, a significant portion of the decline in 

forest area resulted from conversion of forest to cropland, particularly on Southern 

river bottoms and deltas. In the future, however, reduction in forest land area will 

mainly result from conversion to developed land uses such as urban expansion 

(Alig et al. 2003, 2004b; Alig and Butler 2004), highway and airport construction, 

surface mining, and reservoirs. 

There is always uncertainty associated with projections of land use, and at 

present, the outlook for cropland seems especially uncertain. Part of the uncertainty 

associated with cropland projections is created by (1) ongoing technological developments (e.g., genetically modified crops) and the uncertain social acceptability of 

these innovations, and (2) major changes in agricultural policy over the last decade, 

eliminating some crop supports and land retirement programs and potentially leading to much wider swings in crop prices. Tens of millions of acres of agricultural 

land, primarily in the South, are suitable for afforestation (Alig et al. 1998). Future 

fluctuations in relative prices of agricultural and forestry commodities could lead to 

further cycles of shifts in these lands, alternating from forestry to agriculture and 

back. But because the baseline projections indicate only limited increases in timber 

Forest land area is 

projected to decrease 

3 percent between 

2002 and 2050.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Table 4—Area of forest land and timberland in the United States by ownership and region, 1953–2002, with 

projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1953 1963 1977a 1987a 1997 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million acres

Forest land:

Region—

North 160.8 165.7 164.2 165.5 170.3 169.7 172.1 171.0 168.6 166.2 163.8

South 226.0 228.4 217.0 211.1 214.1 214.6 213.2 212.6 211.8 211.2 210.5

 Rocky Mountainsb 141.6 140.4 138.2 139.6 143.2 144.3 144.3 144.2 143.8 143.2 142.5

Pacific Coast 227.8 227.4 224.2 221.5 219.3 220.3 216.3 213.9 211.6 209.4 207.1

Total U.S.: 756.2 761.9 743.6 737.8 747.0 748.9 745.9 741.7 735.9 729.9 723.8

Timberland:

North— 

Public 29.1 28.4 28.6 30.0 32.2 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5

 Forest industryc 13.7 13.7 17.5 16.9 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.3 14.1 13.9

NIPFd 111.4 114.5 107.4 107.5 112.4 111.5 112.5 111.1 109.1 106.7 104.8

Total 154.3 156.6 153.4 154.4 159.4 158.7 159.6 158.2 155.9 153.3 151.2

South— 

Public 17.4 17.8 18.4 19.9 20.9 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2

 Forest industryc 31.8 33.6 36.9 38.0 37.0 35.9 36.8 36.6 36.4 36.3 36.3

NIPFd 155.3 157.3 144.3 139.4 143.2 145.5 142.6 142.1 142.0 141.4 140.7

Total 204.5 208.7 199.6 197.3 201.1 202.7 200.6 199.9 199.6 198.9 198.2

Rocky Mountainsb— 

Public 46.5 47.0 40.6 41.4 49.9 50.3 50.3 50.3 50.3 50.3 50.3

 Forest industryc 2.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

NIPFd 17.9 17.6 17.5 16.8 18.2 17.4 18.5 18.5 18.4 18.2 18.0

 Total 66.6 66.9 60.2 61.1 71.0 70.6 71.8 71.8 71.7 71.5 71.3

Pacific Coast—

Public 52.4 52.9 50.5 41.2 43.0 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2

 Forest industryc 11.2 11.9 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.8

NIPFd 19.8 18.1 16.0 19.9 17.1 16.2 15.9 15.3 14.9 14.6 14.5

Total 83.4 82.9 79.1 73.5 72.2 71.5 71.1 70.5 70.1 69.8 69.5

Total U.S.—

Public 145.4 146.2 138.2 132.4 146.1 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3 147.3

Forest industryc 59.0 61.4 68.9 70.3 66.9 65.6 66.4 66.1 65.6 65.2 64.9

NIPFd 304.4 307.5 285.3 283.6 290.8 290.7 289.6 287.0 284.4 281.0 278.1

Total 508.9 515.1 492.4 486.3 503.8 503.6 503.3 500.4 497.3 493.5 490.3

Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

Note: Data for 1953 and 1963 are as of December 31; all other years are as of January 1.

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.

b The Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains. 

c

Lands held by firms with commercial timber production objectives but no processing facilities (e.g.,timberland investment organizations 

[TIMOs] and real estate investment trusts [REITs] are included in both forest industry and nonindustrial private forest categories, depending 

on their classification in the starting (approximately 1995) inventory data. See text in chapter 2 “Projected Area Changes for Land Uses and 

Forest Management Cover Types” section for further discussion.

d Indian lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands.

Source: Historical: Smith et al. 2004; Projections Alig et al. 2003; only private lands are modeled, and public timberland area is assumed 

to be constant in the future.
27

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

stumpage prices, little improvement is foreseen in existing market incentives for 

afforestation of agricultural land in the private sector. Thus, although some expansion in the area of timber plantations is expected, particularly in the South, the 

projections by no means approach the limits of afforestation in the United States. 

North—

Projections for the North (table 4) show a slow declining trend in timberland area. 

The total timberland area in the North drops from about 159 million acres in 2002 

to 151 million acres in 2050. The percentage drop is largest in the Northeastern 

States where substantial relative increases in population and economic activity 

are expected. Timberland area in the Lake States is also projected to decline, as 

conversions to urban and developed uses dominate natural reversions from former 

agricultural land. In most of the other states, the projected changes are small, and in 

some states the area of timberland is rising or essentially constant in the latter part 

of the period. In line with historical trends, converted timberland area is projected 

to come largely from NIPF lands, with a slight projected decrease in FI ownership. 

Maple-beech-birch and aspen-birch will remain the most abundant forest cover 

types on private timberlands in the Lake States, and maple-beech-birch and oakhickory in the Northeast. Projected area changes for hardwood forest cover types 

in the North are largely based on a continuation of recent trends, whereas softwood 

cover types are projected to diverge somewhat from historical trends.

South—

Projections of changes in southern timberland area (table 4) show a decline from 

about 203 million acres in 2002 to 198 million acres in 2050, with all the decline on 

private timberlands. Most of the projected net reduction is in the Southeast region, 

especially around large urban areas such as Atlanta. In some states, particularly in 

the east Gulf area, where substantial increases in population and economic activity 

are expected, the drop is also fairly large. In most of the other Southern States the 

projected changes are small, and in the mid-South the aggregate area of timberland 

is projected to increase slightly. 

The projected net reduction in timberland area in the Southeast largely reflects 

the direct conversion of timberland to urban and developed uses. Some other 

timberland acres, in turn, may be converted to replace cropland lost to urban and 

developed uses. A small reduction in crop area is projected, whereas urban and 

related uses rise by nearly 35 percent. Pasture and range area is projected to drop. 

The projected increase in timberland area in the South Central region is due to 

conversion of agriculture land to forestry, given the assumption that real prices will 

be constant or fall for agricultural commodities (FAPRI 2003).
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Between 1987 and 2002, the area of FI timberland declined, while the area 

of NIPF timberland increased. Some of that measured shift can be attributed to a 

restructuring of FI with the sale of their timberlands to private investment groups. 

This conversion of corporate timberlands is because of favorable tax treatments, 

attempts to improve corporate financial performance, low costs of capital, and the 

potential of timberlands to provide stable and attractive investor returns. This conversion is continuing unabated generating great interest both among the investment 

community (see Browning 2005) and the forestry community (see Random Lengths 

2005, Wallinger 2005).

Other individual and corporate private owners have acquired many of the 

timberland acres that were once owned by farmers. The role of TIMOs and other 

corporate ownership is projected to increase in size. This is partly due to investment in southern pine timberland,7

 but it is uncertain how all of these corporate 

lands will be managed in the future (USDA FS 1988, Zinkhan 1993). In this 

analysis, it was assumed that these corporate lands will continue to be managed 

largely as if they were industrial forest lands. That is, they will be managed for 

stable investor returns by producing efficient and expanded output of timber crops, 

primarily southern pine in the South. Individual owners, the other component of the 

NIPF group, are the largest ownership class. This diverse set of owners holds over 

one-third of the Southern timberland base—almost four times as much as corporate 

owners. Unlike the corporate owners, individuals in the NIPF owner group are 

projected to reduce their holdings of timberland in the future. 

In 2002, FI owned about 36 million acres of timberland in the South, 4 million acres more than in 1953. However, the area of industrial ownership peaked in 

1987, and declined by 2 million acres between 1987 and 2002 (Smith et al. 2004). 

The shift of industrial timberland to financial investors discussed above has been 

concentrated in the South (Mendell et al., in press). Several factors seem to be operating that reduce the attractiveness of industrial ownership of timberland. These 

include cashflow and tax considerations, other investment opportunities, refocusing 

of corporate priorities, opportunities for leasing land or long-term harvesting rights, 

and the increased substitution of more-intensive forestry practices in place of land 

acquisition. It was assumed that the total Southern area in FI ownership will slowly 

7

A survey of TIMO ownership in the South by North Carolina State University researchers revealed that about 70 percent of their timberland is planted pine and that planned 

conversions to pine plantations will continue, although there is significant variation among 

TIMOs in level of timber management intensity. Total timberland holdings by TIMOs 

are still relatively low (less than 3 percent of total). Compared to forest industry and 

other private owners, however, they continue to display a strong growth potential (J. Siry, 

presentation at 2001 Southern Forest Economics Workers Conference, March 27–28, 2001, 

Atlanta, Georgia).
29

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

decrease from 2010 through 2050. This is particularly true for the Southeast, which 

generally has higher opportunity costs for timberland. 

In 2002, the area of private timberlands of the Southern United States was 

dominated by upland hardwoods, followed by planted pine, natural pine, lowland 

hardwoods, and oak-pine forest types. The largest projected percentage change in 

net area is for planted pine, increasing by about 14 million acres by 2050, approximately a 50-percent increase. More than half of the additional plantations would be 

on FI lands. With management intensification on these lands, many harvested natural pine, mixed oak-pine, and hardwood stands are being artificially regenerated. 

Even with such projected change, hardwoods will continue to dominate the forested 

landscape of the South and will cover about one-half of the private timberland base 

in 2050. Naturally regenerated forests (of both softwood and hardwood types) are 

projected to compose three-fourths of the Southern private timberland in 2050.

In contrast, the area of natural pine on private lands is projected to decrease by 

15 percent over the projection period. Many exchanges occur between forest cover 

types owing to natural succession and management (e.g., regeneration method after 

harvest). Causes of loss include an assumed continuation of trends in substantial 

hardwood encroachment after harvest of pine stands on NIPF lands. Sources of 

gain include reversions to timberland from abandoned agriculture land that seed 

in as pine in some cases, and some transitions from oak-pine to natural pine dominance in a stand.

The largest projected area decrease is for the upland hardwood type, with an 

11-million-acre loss projected by 2050. The projection represents a change from 

long-term historical trends for the South. A combination of factors underlies the 

projected reduction: conversion to nontimberland uses (e.g., developed uses), 

conversion to pine plantations, and transitions to other types including oak-pine. 

The projected rate of reduction in upland hardwood area slows as market incentives 

for conversion to pine plantations lessen with stable softwood prices. Transitions 

between planted and naturally regenerated stands involve significant two-way 

flows, including substantial numbers of harvested pine plantations reverting to 

naturally regenerated forest types.

In addition to the area decreases, roughly 18 percent of upland hardwood 

timberland on NIPF lands was assumed to be unavailable for timber harvest in 

the future (Moffat et al. 1998a, 1998b). This estimate was developed from surveys 

of land managers and state foresters conducted in the South about management 

intentions on private timberlands. These surveys found that a significant number of 

owners did not intend to actively manage or harvest their timberland. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Rocky Mountains and Great Plains—

Total timberland area in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains is projected to 

increase slightly from 70.6 million acres in 2002 to 71.8 million acres in 2020 and 

then slowly decrease through 2050. The projected decrease is largely on the NIPF 

ownership. Substantial areas of privately owned forests have been subdivided for 

home sites, particularly in the mountainous areas of Montana, Idaho, and Colorado. 

The projected net area changes reflect some initial gains from agriculture that are 

later reversed by direct conversion of timberland to urban and developed uses and 

other acres converted to replace cropland lost to urban and developed uses. The 

area of cropland is projected to drop by several million acres, while area of urban 

and related uses increases (Alig et al. 2004b). Pasture and range area is projected 

to have a downward long-term trend, especially later in the projection period when 

some Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands are converted to crop use. 

Only small changes in area of softwood and hardwood forest types are projected 

for this region by 2050.

Pacific Coast—

Total timberland area in the Pacific Coast region is projected to fall from 71.5 

million acres in 2002 to 69.5 million acres by 2050. As in the Rocky Mountains, 

most of the projected reduction is for the NIPF ownership. Much of the current 

timberland in the Pacific Coast region is located on lands where forestry has a 

comparative advantage or is a residual use owing to topography, and projected 

changes are smaller than historical shifts. The projections reflect direct conversion 

of timberland to urban and developed uses (Alig et al. 2004b) and other acres 

converted to replace cropland lost to urban and developed uses. 

Currently, FI owns approximately 17 percent of the Pacific Coast timberland, 

up from the 13 percent share in 1953. This share is projected to change little by 

2050. Future area transfers between ownerships are expected to be much smaller 

than historical levels, with total timberland area on the NIPF ownership projected 

to drop 10 percent by 2050.

The largest cover type changes in the Pacific Coast region are projected to 

occur on FI lands, as more acres are planted to Douglas-fir. These changes are 

being spurred by the increased value of Douglas-fir. Conversely, hardwood area on 

this ownership is projected to decline. Projected timberland losses on NIPF lands 

are distributed across all forest types. 
31

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Timber Management and Investment in 

Private Land Management Intensity Classes

Future private timber growth and inventory were projected by means of the Aggregate Timberland Assessment (ATLAS) inventory model (see Haynes 2003, Mills 

and Kincaid 1992 for details). These projections depend critically on assumptions 

about future management investment. In ATLAS, the form and extent of management investment is characterized by a set of management intensity classes (MICs), 

each corresponding to a specific regime of silvicultural treatments. These MICs 

were developed from regionwide studies through the use of expert opinion and 

surveys targeting industrial managers and Southern state foresters (AF&PA 

1999; Moffat et al. 1998a, 1998b; Siry 1998, 2002). Each MIC is associated with a 

regional average growth response or yield curve for a particular ownership, forest 

type, and site productivity class. Treatments or silvicultural regimes range from 

a low-investment, custodial land management approach to very intensive higher 

cost regimes. There is also a custodial class that is not harvested known as the 

unavailable class (see app. 2 for an expanded discussion on this category). For each 

owner-type-site combination, up to 12 regimes are employed in the South and 6 

in the Pacific Northwest West. In regions outside the Pacific Northwest West and 

South a single, “average” management regime represents each owner-forest type 

combination. 

At the start of the projection, land is allocated to MICs based on timberland 

inventory data derived from FIA plots.8 In the South and Pacific Northwest West, 

area shifts among MICs over time to simulate changing investment and management preferences. Mechanically, this process takes place in ATLAS after harvest 

as land area that is to be regenerated is allocated to the various MICs for the next 

rotation (land stays in a given MIC until harvested again in the future). Two methods were used to project area change by MIC in this 2005 update. 

The first approach, employed in all past assessment studies, uses a preset future 

pattern of proportional MIC allocations. In this scheme, the proportions of regeneration area by MIC can differ from period to period (and by owner, region, forest 

cover type, and site productivity class), but these changes are determined at the 

8

The initial assignment of timberland acres to an MIC, including the management class 

considered unavailable for timber harvest, is an arbitrary process. Based on the ownership 

surveys we know what percentage, on a regional basis, of a particular forest condition 

should be in each MIC; however, the FIA field plot variables do not contain enough 

information to match the starting inventory to particular MICs. We therefore make the 

assumption that all acres within each owner, type, site, age class, stratification are equal in 

their availability for distribution to the representative set of MICs. From this common pool 

of timberland, we then assign area and volume to each MIC based on the desired target 

distribution.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

start of the projection. As described in Haynes (2003), judgments about the forms 

of these time patterns have been derived from extensive consultation with owner 

groups and public agencies knowledgeable about the various regions and specific 

lands in question. Adjustments to the allocation rates were made by using an ad hoc 

price feedback approach over a series of projections, so as to “synchronize” the rate 

of investment with stumpage price trends. But the temporal pattern of allocations 

is developed specifically for the base case conditions. Simulations of alternative 

futures (as in chapter 4) could require modification of these MIC allocations, but 

no explicit mechanism is available (short of additional consultations with expert 

groups) to make these changes. As a result, the base allocations have generally been 

used for all projections.

A second method was developed for this 2005 update in which the allocation 

of regeneration areas to MICs depends on an explicit model of private management 

investment decisions (for details see app. 2). In this approach, owners are assumed 

to consider the potential investment returns from managing lands under the several 

MICs available (they compute the present worth of projected future net returns 

[present net worth]). When considering the allocation of regeneration land across 

MICs for a given future period, owners are assumed to adjust the proportions used 

in the previous period based in part on present net worth (MICs with higher present 

net worth get a higher allocation) differing by owner, region, site productivity, and 

forest cover type. Over time, more land tends to migrate into the MICs with higher 

present net worth. In the present application, however, there are no cases where all 

regeneration area is allocated only to the option with the highest investment return. 

The approach was calibrated for the South by using historical information on owner 

regeneration intentions. Judgment methods were used in the Pacific Northwest 

West. Because the estimated investment returns depend on prices from the projections, this approach—unlike the previous method—gives different MIC allocations 

for different scenarios. In this 2005 update, this second scheme is used for the base 

scenario. Its results are compared to the first (fixed-allocation) case as an alternative 

future. 

Management Intensity Class Allocations

The following section compares the area allocated among the MICs under the fixedallocation approach and the price-sensitive approach. Underlying both approaches 

is the general assumption that over time, private owners will increase the proportion of area under some form of noncustodial management. The results are summarized by broad categories of management by region and forest cover type for tables 

5a and 5b. The fixed method, used in past assessments is presented first, followed 
33

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

Table 5a—Proportions of timberland base by management intensity class (MIC) for Southern and Pacific 

Northwest West private owners, projected by using fixed-area allocation

Year and owner South Pacific Northwest West

Forest industry:

Planted pine All conifers

Low Medium High Unavailable Low Medium High

2000 0.25 0.48 0.26 0 0.29 0.33 0.38

2020 .03 .48 .49 0 .19 .33 .47

2050 .03 .47 .50 0 .18 .35 .47

Natural pine and oak-pine

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .38 .37 .18 .08

2020 .52 .24 .14 .10

2050 .55 .20 .12 .13

Hardwoods

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .18 .68 .05 .08

2020 .20 .60 .07 .13

2050 .20 .41 .21 .17

Other private:

Planted pine All conifers

Low Medium High Unavailable Low Medium High

2000 .10 .58 .28 .03 .66 .19 .15

2020 .07 .47 .42 .04 .57 .25 .18

2050 .05 .43 .47 .05 .57 .26 .17

Natural pine and oak-pine

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .43 .37 .14 .07

2020 .34 .26 .29 .14

2050 .35 .13 .36 .20

Hardwoods

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .53 .33 .04 .10

2020 .53 .28 .05 .14

2050 .57 .17 .08 .17
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Table 5b—Proportions of timberland base by management intensity class (MIC) for Southern and Pacific 

Northwest West private owners, projected by using price-sensitive allocation

Year and owner South Pacific Northwest West

Forest industry:

Planted pine All conifers

Low Medium High Unavailable Low Medium High

2000 0.25 0.48 0.26 0 0.29 0.33 0.38

2020 .02 .43 .55 0 .29 .28 .43

2050 .01 .41 .58 0 .50 .16 .34

Natural pine and oak-pine

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .38 .37 .18 .08

2020 .52 .15 .23 .10

2050 .56 .06 .26 .13

Hardwoods

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .18 .68 .05 .08

2020 .20 .60 .07 .13

2050 .24 .45 .14 .17

Other private:

Planted pine All conifers

Low Medium High Unavailable Low Medium High

2000 .10 .58 .28 .03 .66 .19 .15

2020 .11 .39 .46 .04 .60 .22 .18

2050 .10 .33 .53 .05 .61 .18 .21

Natural pine and oak-pine

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .45 .35 .14 .07

2020 .38 .26 .24 .13

2050 .38 .16 .28 .21

Hardwoods

Partial cut Low even-aged High even-aged Unavailable

2000 .55 .31 .04 .10

2020 .58 .22 .07 .14

2050 .60 .11 .10 .20
35

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

by the price-sensitive projection used as the basis for this assessment. The MIC 

allocation method does not affect the projections of timberland area, so the area by 

owner, forest (management) type, and site class is the same for both approaches. 

Pacific Northwest West—fixed allocation—

In the Pacific Northwest West region, only the Douglas-fir and western hemlock 

forest types were considered for various levels of active management. In 1990, 

these types supported nearly 95 percent of all forest industry softwood growingstock volume and 83 percent of the softwood volume on nonindustrial private 

lands. The remaining softwood types are a mixture of conifers that often includes 

these species mixed with true fir, spruce, and cedar. Management classes 

represented broad regional averages and were tailored for each ownership. When 

stratified by site class and type, there were 21 management classes or categories 

available per ownership. To compare the projection outcomes in tables 5a and 5b, 

the individual classes were aggregated into three categories, high, medium, and 

low, where low represents a low investment or custodial approach to management 

and high represents a level of investment that might include site preparation, 

planting, commercial thinning, and fertilization. This comparison includes all 

softwood forest types; the mixed types not explicitly managed are assumed to 

remain in the “low” category. 

The fixed-management allocation was originally calibrated for the 2000 

assessment (Haynes 2003) when it was assumed that stumpage prices would fall 

in the short term and then increase to 2020 before falling again. The management 

response to rising prices was to invest money in regeneration and management. 

The biggest shifts in investment occur during this price rise as both types of owners move harvested lands under “modern” forms of management. Although both 

types of owners tend to increase intensive forms of management during this time, 

there is an apparent difference between their aggregate objectives. 

By 2020, forest industry owners have increased the area under the highest 

management by 28 percent while the area under medium-intensity management 

stays relatively steady and the area in the lowest management class drops by nearly 

a third. This represents a shift “through” the medium classes as area is bumped 

up from low to medium investment levels, and the area in the medium class is 

bumped up to the high class. After 2020, the stumpage prices used to calibrate the 

MIC shifts fell more steeply and then slowly rose to 2050. During this time, little 

change in management strategy occurs, and the highest management class holds 

steady, accounting for 47 percent of all softwood timberland in the forest industry 

ownership. 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

The nonindustrial private ownership consists of a broad range of owners with 

diverse objectives for owning timberland. Initially, two-thirds of the ownership’s 

timberland is under low investment or custodial forms of management. The investment trend is similar to industry’s, but not nearly as aggressive. The medium 

management class makes the largest gain in area, increasing 27 percent by 2020, 

while the low management class shrinks by 13 percent. The highest management 

class increases by 16 percent and then declines slightly as prices fall and inventories 

begin to build. From 2020 to the end of the projection, 57 percent of all the nonindustrial private softwood area remains under the lowest forms of management, 

and the projection ends with 17 percent in the highest class. 

Pacific Northwest West—price-sensitive allocation—

As the projection proceeds using the price-sensitive management allocations, owners initially experience a rather large stumpage price drop, followed by a rebound 

that occurs between 2010 and 2020; then prices fall slightly, remain flat, and recover 

by 2050. Both industrial and nonindustrial owners increase their area under higher 

levels of investment during the price increase. By 2020, the shifts almost match the 

fixed-allocation projection, but overall prices are lower than the 2000 assessment 

and more area remains in the lowest investment class. The price decline after 2020 

causes investment to slow further, then the projected MIC trajectories diverge. 

Prices continue to slide and do not begin a rebound until 2040, but by then the area 

in the medium levels of management has dropped significantly for both owners. 

This drop in the medium category is an indication that either less investment occurs 

or investment in aggressive management is preferable in times of flat prices. For 

nonindustrial owners, the proportion of area under the highest class of management actually increases by 2050. For industry it falls below the starting point, and 

about half of the industry softwoods move under the lowest form of management, 

a big change from the fixed projection’s more aggressive approach, leaving just 18 

percent in lower management. 

South—fixed allocation—

The southern management intensity classes were developed for all forest types (or, 

forest management types as they are referred to in the South). In each Southern 

region, forest industry owners had inventory stratified among roughly 77 MICs, 

and the nonindustrial private owners had inventory spread among 67 MICs. For 

comparison here, these were grouped into the high, medium, and low categories. 

In the year 2000, the planted pine forest type accounted for nearly 60 percent of 

the area occupied by forest industry softwood forest types, and this ratio increases 
37

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

to 75 percent (a gain of 6.4 million acres) by 2050. Although the NIPF ownership 

began the projection with nearly as many acres of planted pine, the natural pine 

and oak-pine management types make up roughly three-quarters of nonindustrial 

private owners’ softwood timberland. These forest owners are predicted to increase 

the area of planted pine by 6.0 million acres by 2050, and much of this increase will 

be a conversion of upland hardwood forests. In the end, two-thirds of the nonindustrial softwood area will remain in the natural pine and oak-pine types. Although 

both types of owners are projected to aggressively manage planted pine, investment 

within the forest industry ownership moves future stands out of the low category 

and into the medium and high levels of management where most stands receive at 

least one commercial thinning. The shift in NIPF planted pine is not as dramatic; 

as all classes gain area owing to the enrollment of area into planted pine, shifting 

occurs and the low and medium management intensity classes hold almost steady 

in total area. The high management class nearly doubles in area by 2020, and then 

by 2050 is up 143 percent. Although much smaller, the nonindustrial “unavailable” 

class gains more than a half-million acres, doubling in size by 2050. These are areas 

planted with pine for reasons other than timber production. Although management 

objectives for nonindustrial pine plantations may not be the same as objectives on 

forest industry lands, expansion of nonindustrial pine plantation area is promoted 

not only by market incentives but also by various state and federal forestry incentives, and by many local cooperative arrangements with industry. 

Shifts in management among the remaining forest types can be seen in table 5a, 

where forest industry carries a much smaller relative share of the timberland area. 

Management regimes using partial cutting are increasingly applied in these types, 

especially in stands of natural pine and oak-pine. Between 2000 and 2050 there is 

a 33-percent net loss of area supporting these forest types (7 million acres). Similar 

to what happens on nonindustrial private lands, most of this change is not a loss of 

timberland but a conversion of harvested upland hardwood and natural pine stands 

to managed pine. As hardwood area declines, hardwood inventories drop and prices 

rise, and investment in hardwood management increases. 

The largest upward shift in management of the remaining forest types occurs 

on the nonindustrial private ownership. The shift to managed stands outweighs 

the loss of area, as the total area enrolled under the higher regimes more than 

doubles. Of significance for this ownership is a 10-million acre increase in area of 

the unavailable class, where most of the increase occurs in the oak-pine type. In 

contrast, the industrial owners see a modest 450,000 acre increase in the unavailable class, occurring mostly in the bottomland hardwood forest type. 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

South—price-sensitive allocation—

Investment in the South is very similar under both MIC-shifting scenarios, 

although, in spite of flat or falling stumpage prices, the high-investment MICs of 

both ownerships are more attractive than the medium classes. Both owners profit 

by aggressively managing planted pine. The allocation results are most similar for 

the forest industry ownership, where investment moves nearly all future stands 

out of the low category and into the medium and high levels of management. The 

difference is that under the price-sensitive MIC shift scenario, more area is moved 

to the high level of investment, leaving the medium class with fewer acres than 

the fixed-allocation scenario. The shift in nonindustrial private planted pine is not 

quite as dramatic; greater area remains with little or no investment, while the high 

class gains the most area, eventually representing over half of planted pine type. 

The unavailable class gains in this scenario too, but because timber production is 

not the main objective of this class, a “fixed” method of moving area to this MIC 

was employed. In most cases, the area in this class is similar when using both 

techniques. 

The price-sensitive shifts in management among the remaining forest types 

can be seen in table 5b. The same area changes apply as they do in the base projection, where there is a net loss of area in most forest types. The largest difference 

between the shifting techniques is the way natural pine and oak-pine are projected 

to be managed. Under the price-sensitive base projection, industrial owners put 

more emphasis on investment than they do under the fixed-allocation assumptions. 

This indicates the return on investment is positive, even when prices are soft. In 

this case, the area under partial cutting and higher management gain slightly, while 

a 3.4-million-acre loss occurs in the low-investment category. This seems reasonable that conversion to plantations or withdrawals for agriculture or development 

would occur where mixed softwood stands were providing lower financial returns. 

Meanwhile, the nonindustrial private allocation trend is similar, but is influenced 

not by conversion but shifts to the unavailable class. The total area in the natural 

and mixed softwood forest types remains fairly stable, while the unavailable class 

grows to represent 20 percent of the area by 2050, a 5.4-million-acre shift away 

from the other management categories. On a net basis, all of this growth in the 

unavailable class comes out of the lower management investment classes. Whereas 

industry saw little net change in the area of partial cutting and higher management class, under both allocation schemes, the nonindustrial private owners ramp 

up investment significantly while reducing the area of both partial cutting and 

low-intensity even-age management. Under the fixed-allocation scheme, the area 
39

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

of higher management increases 111 percent (10.9 million acres), and under the 

price-sensitive scheme the area goes up by 72 percent. 

The trends in hardwood management are similar between allocation schemes, 

but the magnitudes differ. An issue for forest industry is a 39-percent loss of 

hardwood area, most of which is converted to softwood species. Only a small 

amount of industrial hardwood stands see any investment in stocking control or 

other growth-enhancing operations. The conversion to pine seems to come out of 

the nonmanaged stands as the high-intensity class gains some area. This gain is 

bigger under the fixed-allocation scenario, where hardwood prices rose throughout 

the projection. Most of what remains is managed at low intensity. Perhaps, the most 

interesting result for industrial owners is a final allocation of between 17 and 21 

percent of the hardwood area to become unavailable for harvest. This is about the 

same percentage as for the nonindustrial owners, although the actual area held in 

this class ranges from 13 to 15 million acres, more than 10 times the area considered unavailable for harvest on industry lands. The remainder of the nonindustrial 

hardwood management scenario looks about the same under both allocation methods. The price-responsive method adds more area in higher management, doubling 

in both cases, while partial cutting area drops slightly. The area in the lower forms 

of management plunges as stands are converted to planted pine or moved into the 

unavailable class. Overall, in spite of increased investment, the results indicate that 

most hardwood stands will not be actively managed. 

Partial cutting, as shown in tables 5a and 5b was accounted for differently 

by owner group. As a harvest treatment it was considered a form of management 

and incorporated into several of the management intensity classes. For industrial 

owners, partial cutting took place in an MIC dedicated to partial cutting under a 

specific low-investment custodial-management regime. For nonindustrial owners, 

partial cutting was a harvest treatment option incorporated into both the low and 

higher investment regimes. The results show that for both owners, the type of MIC 

allocation did not significantly change the trends or area of stands treated by partial 

cutting. 

Adjustments for Timber Removed From Inventories

The link between the wood volume equivalent of all forest products produced and 

the actual volume of timber removed from timber inventories is established by a 

set of assumptions on the sources and disposition of harvest. The actual volume of 

timber removed from inventory is called “removals from growing stock,” as shown 

in appendix 1, tables 20–23 and 31–34. Wood used to produce forest products, however, comes from both growing-stock and non-growing-stock sources. Additional 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

volumes are removed from the forest as logging residues and “other” removals. 

The largest fraction of wood used in products comes from the portion of the timber 

inventory defined as growing stock: live trees of commercial species meeting 

minimum standards of quality and vigor that are at least 5 inches in breast-height 

diameter. The remainder comes from non-growing-stock sources, such as dead 

timber or trees harvested from nonforest land such as urban areas. Other removals 

include noncommercial thinnings and other types of cutting in which the harvested 

stems are not used. Timber removals from growing stock are computed by subtracting the removals from non-growing-stock sources from projected total timber 

harvest, then adding the other components of removals—logging residues and other 

removals. Mathematically the link between removals and harvest is summarized in 

the following equation:

Growing-stock removals = 

Timber harvest × (1 - non-growing-stock fraction) × (1 + other removals fraction)

(1 - logging residue fraction) 

where

non-growing-stock fraction is the fraction of harvest coming from 

non-growing-stock sources,

other removals fraction is the proportion of growing stock that is cut or killed 

from cultural operations or timberland clearing and left in the forest, and

logging residue fraction is the fraction of total removals left as logging 

residue in the forest.

The data for these three adjustments are derived from the timber product 

output tables given in Smith et al. (2001) and Smith et al. (2004). Projections were 

developed from trend relations for each region in the 2000 RPA timber assessment 

(shown in tables 6 and 7 of Haynes 2003). In general, past trends are expected to 

continue in all regions except in the North and West where aging timber inventories 

lead to higher proportions of harvest coming from non-growing-stock sources. Logging residues, on the other hand, have been declining and are expected to continue 

to decline as a percentage of the total. These declines largely reflect the effects 

of technological innovations that have made it economical to remove more of the 

lower quality material. 

Finally, an additional class of “other removals” or reclassifications not reflected 

in these coefficients arises owing to changes in land use and cover type and the 

disposition of the timber on these lands at the time of the change. These volumes 

are recognized in the ATLAS inventory projection system through assumptions 

about the proportion of wood that is utilized from timberland that is projected to 
41

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

change land use. In fact, land use change accounts for the majority of “other timber 

removals” given the size of projected losses from timber inventories resulting from 

the diversion of timberland to other uses such as crop or pasture land, roads, urban 

areas, parks, and wilderness.

Timber Harvests on Public Lands

National Forest Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections 

Harvests from timberland within the national forests (NFs) decreased in the 1990s 

as the result of changing goals for federal land management. Under the base case 

assumption of continuation of current policies, national forests harvest is projected 

to remain at these lower levels for the next five decades. 

There is an alternative that considers increased NF harvest as part of an effort 

to restore the health of Western forest lands. Projecting these lower harvest levels 

represents a continuation of the current impasse among commodity interests, communities, habitat conservation advocates, environmentalists, and other stakeholders. Harvests do rise slightly in some regions reflecting actions to maintain forest 

health consistent with current legislation and regulations. The inventory projections 

for NF were updated by using the most recent RPA database (Smith 2004) with 

assumptions about additional impacts of higher levels of fire, regeneration failure, 

and insects and diseases. A detailed description of these disturbances and their 

impacts for the national forest projections is given in Mills and Zhou (2003). 

Historical and projected levels of total NF softwood harvest are shown in figure 

5 and in appendix 1, table 20; hardwood harvest is shown in appendix 1, table 21. 

These inventory projections were developed by using the ATLAS model (Mills 

and Kincaid 1992) in a manner similar to that used for private timberlands. The 

approach applies three management regimes on NF lands based on current management directions. The first management regime allows regeneration removals; that is, 

the stands will undergo final harvest over a range of ages; the second regime allows 

partial cutting; the third management regime places stands in a reserved status 

where they are not available for harvest. Most area falls in this third regime.

Although the inventory change differs across regions, the total NF inventory 

is projected to increase 45 percent for softwoods and 65 percent for hardwoods 

under the current projected removal levels. Both softwoods and hardwoods on the 

NFs are expected to increase sharply in all regions ranging from 36 to 94 percent 

for softwoods, and 53 to 73 percent for hardwoods. As the inventory grows, more 

timberland area accumulates in older age classes. Figure 6 shows the area distribution of NF timberland (92.9 million acres) by age classes for the entire United States 

(except for Alaska) and for the West (71.7 million acres). In 2002, 17 percent of 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Figure 5—Actual national forest softwood timber harvest 1950–2002 with 1989, 1993, 2000, and 2005 

national forest harvest assumptions.

Figure 6—National forest timberland area by age showing the initial (2002) and the projection (2050) 

distributions. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Softwood timber harvest (million cubic feet)

1989

1993

2000

2005

Timberland area

(million acres) 

Timberland area

(million acres) 

2050 U.S.

2050 West

10

8

6

4

2

0

Age class

5

15

25

3545

556575

85

95

105115

125

135

145

155

165175

185

195

205215

225

235245

255

Age class

5

15

25

3545

556575

85

95

105115

125

135

145

155

165175

185

195

205215

225

235245

255

10

8

6

4

2

0

2002 U.S.

2002 West
43

The 2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update

the NF timberlands had trees older than 150 years. This is expected to increase to 

37 percent by 2050. Currently, about 20 percent of NF timberland in the West has 

trees older than 150 years. This fraction is expected to double to 40 percent by 2050 

under the current removal and disturbance assumptions. 

Other Public Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections

Other public ownerships comprise a diverse collection of landowners, including 

the Department of Defense, State, local (county, municipal, etc.) and the Bureau 

of Land Management. For the first time, the inventory projections for other public 

are developed by using the updated ATLAS projection model (Mills and Kincaid 

1992) in the same way as for private and national forest ownerships. The management regimes for the other public are the same as those for NF (Mills and Zhou 

2003), that is, three management regimes were applied on other public timberland 

for inventory projections. The yields on other public timberland were developed by 

using the same procedure as that of NFs (Mills and Zhou 2003) based on the FIA 

plot information from this ownership.

The most recent RPA data (Miles et al. 2001) were used as starting conditions 

for other public inventory projections. Historical and projected harvest, net annual 

growth, and growing-stock inventories are shown in appendix 1, table 22 for 

softwoods and appendix 1, table 23 for hardwoods. Given the expected increases 

in inventory and assuming that many of these lands are managed in some type of 

trust for public funding (such as school common funds), harvest levels were allowed 

to increase in proportion to inventories. Softwood removal is projected to increase 

by 25 percent from 553 million cubic feet to 691 million cubic feet in 2050, and 

the hardwood removal will increase by 20 percent from 381 million cubic feet to 

456 million cubic feet. However, the removal levels differ from region to region. 

Removals in some regions remain relatively stable, but removals in the Rocky 

Mountains and in the South are expected to increase significantly during the next 

five decades compared to the current levels.

Both softwood and hardwood inventories on other public lands are projected 

to increase over 60 percent during the projection period for the Nation. It ranges 

from -3 percent to 100 percent for softwood, and 15 percent to 89 percent for 

hardwood. Although all the regions are experiencing increases in inventory, the 

softwood inventory in the Pacific Northwest East will decrease until 2030 and then 

slowly increase owing to the lower softwood net growth in that region. The age 

structure of other public timberland in the West is more stable compared with NF 

timberland. However, the accumulation of inventory in the North contributes to an 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-699

Figure 7—Other public timberland area by age showing the initial (2002) and the projection (2050) 

distributions. 

increase in the older stands for the Nation. Figure 7 shows the area (45.0 million 

acres) distribution of other public timberland by age classes for the entire United 

States (except for Alaska) and for the West (12.1 million acres). In 2002, 6 percent 

of the other public timberlands had trees older than 150 years. This is expected 

to increase to 11 percent by 2050. Currently, about 8 percent of the other public 

timberland in the West has trees older than 150 years. This fraction is expected 

to increase to 12 percent by 2050 under the current removal and disturbance 

assumptions. Details of these projections are given in Zhou et al. (in press).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

15

25

3545

556575

8595

105115

125

135

145

155

165175

185

195

205215

225

235245

255

Timberland area (million acres)

2002 U.S.

2002 West

Age class

5

15

25

3545

556575

8595

105115

125

135

145

155

165175

185

195

205215

225

235245

255

Age class

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Timberland area (million acres)

2050 U.S.

2050 West