Reconsidering Price 

Projections for Selected 

Grades of Douglas-Fir, 

Coast Hem-Fir, Inland 

Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa 

Pine Lumber

Richard W. Haynes and Roger D. Fight

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-561

June 2004
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-

W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or 

call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

USDA is committed to making its information materials accessible to all USDA customers 

and employees.

Authors

Richard W. Haynes and Roger D. Fight are research foresters, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.
Abstract

Haynes, Richard W.; Fight, Roger D. 2004. Reconsidering price projections for 

selected grades of Douglas-fir, coast hem-fir, inland hem-fir, and ponderosa pine 

lumber. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-561. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p.

Grade-specific price projections were once again developed for Douglas-fir, 

coast hem-fir, inland hem-fir, and ponderosa pine lumber. These grade-specific 

price projections can be used to demonstrate the returns to land management of 

practices that lead to high-quality logs that produce a larger proportion of high 

grades of lumber. The price ratios among low, medium, and high grade groupings 

have been consistent, and interest in these “high-quality” forestry regimes has been 

persistent. 

Keywords: Lumber prices, Douglas-fir, coast hem-fir, inland hem-fir, ponderosa 

pine.
Summary

Projections of lumber prices by grade were developed to help forest managers and 

owners determine if there is an opportunity to manage for higher quality timber. 

The results support the thought that increasing scarcity of high-quality material 

will result in higher lumber prices and allow lumber producers to pay higher prices 

for logs. These higher prices provide an incentive for stumpage owners and agency 

land managers to modify management regimes to produce higher quality logs. The 

extent to which regimes are modified depends on individual assessments of the relative costs and expected returns. The price projections in this paper provide a basis 

on which to value changes in wood quality when estimating expected returns.
1

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Introduction

Silviculturists and forest managers have long been concerned about the quality and 

value of managed softwood timber. Often these concerns are expressed as an interest in growing timber that will yield a larger proportion of high-value lumber.1

 But 

different perceptions exist about the perceived price premiums for managing for 

high-quality timber. On one hand, many forest managers assume little price premium for quality and focus on volume production as an overriding consideration. In 

the Pacific Northwest this has resulted in stands being managed on relatively short 

rotations (30 to 50 years) with relatively wide initial spacing (fewer than 300 trees 

per acre) to achieve rapid volume production and reduce management costs. On the 

other hand, while the quantity of high-quality lumber has declined dramatically 

over the past 30 years, the real price of high-quality lumber has increased. These 

sustained price premiums for high-quality lumber have led some landowners and 

managers to expect higher returns for producing quality saw logs. 

Real prices for lumber are projected (see Haynes 2003) to show a long-term 

upward trend, which may increase the difference, or premium, between grades. 

These projections reflect projected increases in per capita income and in residential 

construction that suggest continued growth in demand for all grades of softwood 

lumber. Given past experience, we can expect that the prices of higher grades will 

tend to increase more than the price of lower grades and continue to influence some 

owners and managers to consider wood quality in the selection of management 

regimes. 

This paper presents both historical data and projections for prices (and production) by grade categories for major Pacific Northwest species or groups of species: 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), coast hem-fir (western hemlock and true firs [Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. and Abies]), inland hem-fir, and 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws). It updates the projections of 

lumber prices by grade made in the early 1990s for these same species (Haynes and 

Fight 1992). These projections are intended to help the forestry community assess 

management regimes that will produce timber best meeting future needs for lumber 

and other wood products.

The methods, data sources, and overall approach are similar to those used in 

earlier studies but have been updated to include price data for the past decade and 

the latest projections for softwood lumber prices in the Pacific Northwest (from 

Haynes 2003). The various grade categories are the same as those for which prices 

1

 The notions of what constitutes high-value lumber are different for different species but 

generally involve either appearance or strength.
2

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

are published annually in Warren (2003). The specific assignments of grades to 

categories are shown in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains all original price and 

volume data.

Recent Trends

Several trends in the 1990s impacted all softwood lumber prices. Figure 1 shows 

the volume-weighted average (across all grades) softwood lumber prices for the 

coast and inland regions. The volatility in these prices (see Sohngen and Haynes 

1994 for a more complete discussion) reflects changes in the markets owing to 

economic cycles and changes in federal timber harvest resulting from shifting 

goals for federal land management.2 In the 18 years portrayed in figure 1, there 

have been several recessions and economic expansions as well as substantial 

changes in federal land management policies. In 1991, for example, Federal 

District Judge William Dwyer shut down virtually the entire timber sale program on nine national forests in Washington and Oregon until the Forest Service 

could demonstrate compliance with various environmental laws. This led in 1994 

to the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan “for a sustainable economy and a 

sustainable environment” covering federal timber management in the range of the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The Northwest Forest Plan led 

to reductions in federal harvest flows such that total harvest in Washington and 

Oregon fell by 30 percent during the 1990s and the federal share fell from 29 to 

less than 5 percent of annual harvest. As expected, the harvest reductions in the 

early 1990s drove lumber prices up sharply (see again Sohngen and Haynes 1994) 

until capacity and other market adjustments reduced production and log demand 

to better fit available supplies. By the end of the 1990s, prices had declined 

substantially, but were still somewhat above the levels observed in mid-1980s as 

shown in figure 1. Throughout this period, the price differences among grades of 

lumber (for an example see table 1) were largely maintained. 

All these changes altered the basic expectations for future lumber prices. 

In 1990, softwood lumber prices were expected to increase by an average of 0.7 

percent per year for the next 50 years; by 2000, the comparable figure was 0.4 

percent.3

 But as figure 1 shows, the starting prices for the two projections (1987 

2

 Price volatility also changes perceptions of land managers and investors about planned 

rotation lengths and the mix of management activities.

3

 These price projections are taken from the timber assessments prepared each decade 

as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA 1974) 

(see Haynes 1990, 2003 for actual projections).
3

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

and 1997) were different, with 1997 on average 49 percent higher than in 1987. The 

consequence is that the overall softwood lumber price index is now expected to be 

16 percent higher in 2040 than what was predicted by the 1990 projections. 

There are two other changes that impact the prices for the high-quality grades 

of lumber. Both of these were relatively unintended consequences from the reductions in federal harvest flows. The first change was that the higher prices for solid 

wood products in the early 1990s led to the rapid diffusion of engineered wood 

products, especially in the wide (2 by 10 inches and wider) markets. These new 

products quickly gained consumer acceptance especially in the flooring market 

where wooden “I” beams replaced the wider 2 by 12s used for floor joists. As will 

be discussed later, these new products have reduced the proportion of heavy framing lumber (for all species combinations except Douglas-fir where the proportion 

has remained relatively stable) and, consequently, all grade prices. The second 

change was that high U.S. lumber prices suppressed lumber exports, which were 

already reduced as a result of weak markets in Japan and in the rest of Asia after 

1997 (see Warren 2003). These changes further affected the proportion of material 

in the higher quality markets by reducing the volumes of export Clear and export 

Common lumber included in the C and D Select groupings.

Figure 1—Weighted average f.o.b. (free on board) mill prices for coast (Douglas-fir and hem-fir) and 

inland (ponderosa pine and hem-fir) lumber.
4

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 1—Real prices for Douglas-fir lumber, coast mills, 1971–2002a

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

2002 dollars per thousand board feet b

1971 792 507 438 424 365 257 115

1972 931 546 476 469 419 309 136

1973 1,386 636 618 583 474 344 197

1974 1,173 589 589 455 349 203 116

1975 920 510 419 374 315 190 102

1976 1,053 598 496 470 377 238 106

1977 1,028 698 590 439 439 302 124

1978 1,123 769 616 748 445 322 163

1979 1,499 808 690 562 414 301 145

1980 1,370 746 538 400 305 221 125

1981 1,009 576 444 355 261 185 112

1982 858 497 375 262 211 167 103

1983 895 557 342 290 263 212 114

1984 878 520 318 285 241 175 92

1985 861 526 319 290 244 168 87

1986 959 535 317 303 252 174 89

1987 1,078 529 331 332 265 178 85

1988 1,155 590 370 355 273 172 106

1989 1,279 597 386 392 292 199 131

1990 1,413 596 349 354 265 178 117

1991 1,364 608 359 348 261 180 115

1992 1,522 650 392 394 308 231 139

1993 1,332 900 569 575 437 328 195

1994 1,550 825 524 532 422 322 162

1995 1,236 737 473 466 348 236 150

1996 — 695 540 504 408 271 139

1997 — 737 550 517 411 284 170

1998 — 695 447 406 345 282 152

1999 — 708 485 489 408 280 143

2000 — 620 417 405 333 216 123

2001 — 583 380 373 311 196 108

2002 — 666 361 367 309 201 119

Note: — = There is no longer any production in this category.

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

b

 Prices were deflated by using a rebased (from 1982 to 2002) producer price index for industrial 

commodities from Economic Report of the President 2003.

Source: Warren 2003.

Douglas-Fir

Douglas-fir lumber is grouped into seven categories with two perceived as high 

quality: C Select, and D Select and Shop (table 1). Two other categories (structural 

and heavy framing) also command premium prices. During the 1980s, the proportion of volume graded Select and Utility declined, and the proportion of volume 
5

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Figure 2—Douglas-fir volume production by groups of grades for coastal Oregon, Washington, and 

northern California.

in structural items and heavy framing and light framing categories has increased 

(fig. 2)—likely the result of several factors. One of the foremost is a decline in the 

quality of logs being sawn. During the 1980s this was attributed to the exporting of 

logs of higher than average quality, but now, with the decrease in the export market 

and reductions in national forest harvests, it reflects decline in the quality of timber 

being harvested. The decline in the proportion of Utility grade reflects a diminishing amount of lumber being sawn from highly defective material that comes from 

harvest of older stands (Howard and Ward 1988, Larsen 1990). The increase in the 

proportion of volume in structural items and heavy framing during the 1980s was 

most likely a market-driven phenomenon in which the real price of light framing 

lumber experienced wide swings and was substantially below the 1970s prices. This 

provided an incentive for producers to change sawing patterns to produce more 

heavy framing material. In the 1990s, however, the rapid diffusion of engineered 

wood products especially in the wide (2 by 10 inches and wider) markets reduced 

the incentive for and stabilized the proportion of Douglas-fir heavy framing lumber. 

During the 1990s, the proportion in structural items declined, and the proportion 

in light framing grades continued its upward trend, likely the result of continued 

decline in log quality and changes in consumer tastes. 
6

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Coast Hem-Fir

Price trends for coast hem-fir (table 2) are similar to those for Douglas-fir for the 

various grades and probably reflect substitution across species groups resulting 

from price arbitrage. Through the 1980s, the grade distribution of coast hem-fir 

lumber shifted from higher grades and the Utility grades to light and heavy framing 

grades (fig. 3), as Douglas-fir lumber did. Although the Select grades were never a 

large part of the market, both C and D Select have disappeared almost completely. 

During the 1980s, the shift of production to structural items and heavy framing 

was much less pronounced in coast hem-fir than in Douglas-fir, probably owing to 

a market preference for Douglas-fir because of its greater strength. However, in the 

1990s, the slight increase in heavy framing probably came as consumers substituted 

hemlock for Douglas-fir in some applications. Finally, the loss of export markets, 

especially for the white woods (hemlock), affected both the volumes and prices for 

hem-fir heavy framing (which includes export Common lumber). 

Inland Hem-Fir

Inland hem-fir (table 3) prices move in tandem with those for coast hem-fir. This is 

particularly true since 1977 when heavy framing was separated from light framing 

lumber in inland hem-fir grades. The clear inland hem-fir goes into moulding and 

has substituted for coast hem-fir in some applications including structural applications. During the 1990s inland hem-fir showed increases in production proportions 

for light framing (fig. 4). Inland hem-fir is not a significant player in the market for 

structural items, but it is a major player in the market for heavy framing gaining 

market share in the 1980s. 

Ponderosa Pine

Ponderosa pine is divided into 16 groups (table 4) representing several broad 

categories: 4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop, 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop, 4/4 

Common and 8/4 Standard and better, and low value. Like Douglas-fir, the highest ponderosa pine prices are for grades in which production shares have nearly 

disappeared. Prices for No. 2 and 3 Shop grades have increased, but not as much as 

those for the higher grades. During the past two decades, a shift in production has 

occurred from Select, moulding, and No. 1 Shop to No. 2 and 3 Shop lumber, and in 

the last decade to 4/4 Common (fig. 5). This trend is a result of a long-term decline 

in the quality of ponderosa pine being harvested. This trend likely will continue 

and will greatly accelerate as the harvest of ponderosa pine shifts more to thinnings 

and mature young-growth stands. These changes are stimulating major changes in 
7

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 2—Real prices for hem-fir lumber, coast mills, 1971–2002a

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

2002 dollars per thousand board feet b

1971 719 480 438 400 351 247 118

1972 802 502 492 459 406 299 136

1973 1,012 615 568 533 462 332 182

1974 1,089 577 443 443 346 200 109

1975 796 472 372 365 302 179 95

1976 925 559 436 446 355 230 104

1977 924 585 467 481 392 275 118

1978 1,112 654 490 485 421 310 162

1979 1,138 674 488 509 394 269 131

1980 1,059 597 379 361 287 194 114

1981 893 488 309 330 247 177 107

1982 943 423 267 277 209 162 93

1983 964 504 320 314 268 204 127

1984 872 445 289 291 239 164 101

1985 819 432 290 298 243 158 101

1986 800 454 319 328 261 170 99

1987 774 533 351 368 276 168 98

1988 789 574 340 360 275 171 111

1989 852 553 326 353 277 184 125

1990 938 572 309 324 256 172 111

1991 909 526 322 315 261 167 109

1992 996 550 362 352 300 212 145

1993 — 712 482 493 406 265 199

1994 — 654 478 496 421 294 180

1995 — 622 377 419 329 220 162

1996 — 617 441 453 391 253 154

1997 — 580 468 486 388 273 182

1998 — 529 394 364 333 241 162

1999 — 594 456 458 376 267 151

2000 — 512 368 351 295 205 132

2001 — 385 335 298 273 182 121

2002 — 448 341 309 280 187 132

Note: — = There is no longer any production in this category.

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

b

 Prices were deflated by using a rebased (from 1982 to 2002) producer price index for industrial 

commodities from Economic Report of the President 2003.

Source: Warren 2003.
8

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Figure 3—Coast hem-fir volume production by groups of grades for coastal Oregon, Washington, 

and northern California.

Figure 4—Inland hem-fir volume production by groups of grades for the interior West.
9

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 3—Real prices for hem-fir lumber, inland mills, 1971–2002a

 Structural Heavy Light

Year Moulding Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

2002 dollars per thousand board feet b

1971 726 511 431 0 354 247 125

1972 768 536 506 0 426 303 156

1973 900 662 538 0 485 353 212

1974 765 473 418 0 366 208 119

1975 617 340 356 0 313 184 104

1976 804 524 446 0 377 236 113

1977 841 543 500 461 390 269 122

1978 1,055 586 497 476 418 299 162

1979 1,100 574 473 497 401 262 143

1980 876 432 334 326 289 194 121

1981 813 430 293 315 250 174 120

1982 773 324 245 250 216 153 102

1983 856 452 322 298 266 202 117

1984 709 344 287 268 237 164 98

1985 655 415 289 283 242 164 97

1986 799 407 317 320 262 174 95

1987 909 456 336 361 275 170 96

1988 887 436 336 341 267 167 106

1989 882 466 329 331 273 183 122

1990 1,040 456 324 297 253 163 106

1991 898 490 320 301 257 158 108

1992 1,013 549 356 345 306 210 148

1993 1,421 738 494 488 415 307 201

1994 1,219 713 514 495 437 329 168

1995 1,195 635 429 421 343 257 148

1996 1,195 607 472 448 408 251 146

1997 990 665 507 497 411 271 180

1998 1,014 525 394 355 352 238 159

1999 1,114 631 469 461 397 249 149

2000 1,008 552 380 346 317 202 133

2001 714 427 339 303 295 184 112

2002 858 537 351 313 299 191 124

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

b

 Prices were deflated by using a rebased (from 1982 to 2002) producer price index for industrial 

commodities from Economic Report of the President 2003.

Source: Warren 2003.
10Table 4—Real prices for ponderosa pine lumber, inland mills, 1971–2002a

4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better Low value

 No. 3 No. 3

 C and Common Common 4 in 

 C and better 4 in Moulding No. 2 No. 2 6–12 in and No. 4 No. 3 No. 5

 better D and D D No. 1 and No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Common Common and 8/4 Common and and

Year 6–12 in 12 in 6–10 in 4 in Shop better Shop Shop Shop Shopout b 12 in 4–10 in dimension 4–12 in Utility Economy

2002 dollars per thousand board feet c

1971 1,335 1,067 910 685 472 1,047 766 550 463 296 465 394 324 261 254 1301972 1,338 1,111 944 700 524 1,046 821 615 521 355 549 460 402 336 299 1661973 1,410 1,206 1,086 839 610 1,154 865 682 573 467 713 609 482 423 341 2311974 1,515 1,361 1,235 754 519 1,062 777 623 515 329 669 523 350 264 182 1421975 1,464 1,238 1,029 582 393 1,082 630 467 347 220 558 426 282 200 166 1071976 1,535 1,333 962 724 505 1,150 863 706 538 310 588 475 361 279 213 1251977 1,665 1,478 1,049 734 571 1,119 927 782 583 352 676 554 400 298 251 1461978 1,895 1,715 1,271 926 660 1,768 997 876 626 390 707 623 440 348 273 1851979 2,351 2,111 1,690 894 560 1,607 931 810 511 353 741 603 442 310 244 1611980 1,750 1,276 900 592 486 1,198 810 698 453 299 663 426 349 244 179 1291981 1,500 1,304 822 631 450 1,104 796 687 480 294 520 376 330 221 171 1211982 1,571 1,146 808 531 437 1,076 727 626 407 269 595 383 313 219 161 1161983 1,586 1,835 862 670 474 1,380 865 745 524 294 508 398 291 209 202 1181984 1,741 1,484 925 637 469 1,212 794 646 445 259 552 407 300 190 158 1061985 1,877 1,107 1,000 649 439 1,395 788 639 470 262 585 401 267 184 162 971986 1,994 1,545 1,349 864 506 1,444 910 761 534 274 568 430 300 216 171 1041987 2,013 1,721 1,402 906 569 1,682 982 830 532 288 576 472 318 226 169 1021988 2,357 1,881 1,340 858 564 1,597 929 779 511 286 630 452 306 217 171 1081989 2,141 1,807 1,205 878 520 1,501 866 699 515 306 631 393 310 224 184 1251990 1,690 1,661 1,139 781 497 1,202 774 620 473 282 611 407 284 214 166 1131991 1,517 1,431 1,035 743 483 1,239 904 744 588 294 594 423 309 209 167 1131992 1,972 1,674 1,348 965 701 1,546 1,094 953 712 378 774 477 380 255 221 1501993 2,446 2,125 1,680 1,134 779 2,177 1,323 1,178 824 497 785 554 424 322 278 1941994 2,575 2,570 1,444 965 878 1,923 1,256 1,116 769 491 881 624 453 331 279 1721995 1,991 2,091 1,155 778 580 1,573 1,149 1,025 697 433 733 535 387 265 227 1671996 1,632 1,301 1,114 834 608 1,436 1,045 935 720 444 710 566 375 260 233 1471997 2,201 1,629 1,416 939 697 1,720 1,183 1,062 794 500 855 624 443 313 257 1751998 2,245 1,706 1,275 754 490 1,570 1,067 946 652 439 727 546 358 295 226 1641999 2,228 1,690 1,325 833 588 1,653 1,084 956 727 479 846 574 403 288 229 1502000 1,874 1,454 1,086 692 497 1,403 1,006 877 600 369 664 485 322 238 184 1342001 1,650 1,405 976 670 472 1,636 1,022 900 587 317 667 442 276 196 160 1072002 2,076 1,500 1,059 618 436 1,710 1,092 954 620 355 720 492 294 228 167 126a Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.b Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.c Prices were deflated by using a rebased (from 1982 to 2002) producer price index for industrial commodities from Economic Report of the President 2003.

Source: Warren 2003.
11

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

the moulding and millwork industry, which is adapting to new species (e.g., radiata 

pine [Pinus radiata D. Don] from Chile or loblolly [Pinus taeda L.], called tropical 

pine, from Brazil), engineered wood products, and plastic woodfiber composites. 

Data, Assumptions, and Methods

All historical data on the various species and grades were obtained from Western 

Wood Products Association (2003) reports. Projections of all-species, all-grade 

lumber prices were obtained from An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United 

States: 1952–2050 (Haynes 2003). The basic method for developing grade-specific 

prices is similar to the method developed for projecting the prices of national forest stumpage by individual species (Haynes et al. 1980). The method was used for 

selected grades of Douglas-fir lumber (Haynes et al. 1988) and modified to project 

the prices for selected grades of Douglas-fir, coast hem-fir, inland hem-fir, and ponderosa pine (Haynes and Fight 1992).

The general method is based on the assumption that projected lumber prices 

represent the market equilibrium prices of the average of all lumber (all grades and 

species) produced within a region. This price is the volume-weighted average of 

species and grades produced, and the method used in this study assumes that it 

can be decomposed into its individual component parts (prices for each grade and 

species). A key underlying assumption is the premise of price arbitrage; that is, 

lumber prices of different species and grades differ with each other in some fixed 

Figure 5—Ponderosa pine volume production by groups of grades for the interior West.
12

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

proportion. Prices of one species and grade will not exceed prices for other species 

of a similar grade because of the possibilities of substitution. If the price of one 

species and grade rises (or falls) out of proportion to another species of similar 

grade, then consumers will substitute the lower priced species for another as long 

as possible. Another form of this arbitrage is between similar grades. In ponderosa 

pine, for example, the prices for various grades of Common or Shop differ in 

proportion to each other fixed, in part, by their degree of substitutability.

This decomposition process is based on two sets of relations. The first are sets 

of relations (shown in tables 5 and 6) that for each species or species group relate 

individual grade prices to some determinant, most commonly the price of the grade 

that constitutes the largest proportion of production (called hereafter the dominant 

grade). The second set of relations (shown in table 7) describes the trends in shares 

of production by grade. The data in tables 1 to 4 (and app. 2, tables 9 to 16) were 

used to develop these relations.

Light framing was selected as the dominant grade for Douglas-fir and hemfir species. This is the major category (accounting for at least 40 percent of total 

production during the last two decades). Although no single grade dominates 

ponderosa pine, as is the case for Douglas-fir or hem-fir, the No. 3 Shop grade (5/4 

and thicker) was selected as the dominant grade for ponderosa pine. As before, the 

relations between the price for the dominant grade and other grades and proportions 

of total lumber produced in each grade are relatively consistent, and the various 

statistical properties are robust. The estimated price relations are summarized in 

table 5. Estimation methods follow those used in the past except that the serial 

correlation present in several of the relations was not corrected because only the 

estimated coefficients are used in estimating prices, and the presence of serial 

correlation does not bias estimated coefficients.

Several species and grade relations could not be acceptably estimated. In these 

cases, relations4

 were estimated between a grade and a similar grade within the 

species (such as the case for several ponderosa pine grades) or against similar 

grades in different species groups. We argue, in both cases, that the justification is 

price arbitrage of similar grades or uses or both. Relations for inland hem-fir could 

not be directly estimated, and instead these were estimated (in the form of price 

markup rules) as functions of coast hem-fir prices. Equations for these species and 

grades are shown in table 6.

4

 This form of relation is called a price markup rule and is used to explain the relation between 

two price series (see Haynes 1977, Haynes and Fight 1992). The significance of the estimated 

coefficients makes a statement about the form of the relation.
13

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 5—Estimated price relations, by species and gradea

Equation coefficients

Species and grade b1 b2 b3 R2 Durbin Watson Base price

Douglas-fir:

 C Selectb

 D Select 1.9490 .891727 .820773 Light framing

 Structural items 39.0719 1.1805 .907323 .693038 Light framing

 Heavy framing 1.2584 .947240 1.870045 Light framing

 Utility .7014 .953860 1.174479 Light framing

 Economy .3895 .896071 1.228117 Light framing

Coast hem-fir:

 C Selectb

 D Select 1.7061 .849792 .809640 Light framing

 Structural items 17.8880 1.1320 .989849 1.210892 Light framing

 Heavy framing 1.1912 .909517 1.925462 Light framing

 Utility .6982 .837433 2.232874 Light framing

 Economy -21.1898 .5094 .932623 1.857065 Light framing

Ponderosa pine:

 D Select, 12 inch 733.33* 1.5446 -960.2351 .784099 1.122949 5/4 No. 3 Shop

 D Select, 4 inch 1.285 .82297 .402579 5/4 No. 3 Shop

 4/4 No. 1 Shop .8582 13.3966 .89339 1.33898 5/4 No. 3 Shop

 5/4 No. 1 Shop 1.6248 .96986 1.0488 5/4 No. 3 Shop

 5/4 No. 2 Shop 1.4097 .975049 1.105347 5/4 No. 3 Shop

 4/4 No. 2 Common, 12 inch 66.39297 .987438 .94134 2.0601 5/4 No. 3 Shop

aThe general equation is sjt = b1 + b2*s1t + b3*wjt, where sjt is the regressed price for the jth species and grade in year t and wjt is the 

proportion of total lumber production in year t that comes from j

th species and grade.

b

 No equation was estimated because there is no longer any production.

* Significant at less than the 95-percent level. 

The projected production proportions are shown in table 7. In our process, the 

proportions were projected independently of expected price changes. Except for 

some of the ponderosa pine grades, most grades were projected as a continuation 

of current and recent trends. These show declines in the highest grades and 

increases in framing (both light and heavy). For ponderosa pine, these projections 

reflect an expected shift from Shop to Common grades. This shift is contrary to 

recent historical trends but reflects product recovery studies for the young-growth 

ponderosa pine that will increasingly dominate production. 

The all-species, all-grade lumber price projections for the Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine subregions were taken from An Analysis of the Timber Situation in 

the United States: 1952–2050 (Haynes 2003). The relevant price projections were 

those for the Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine subregions of the Pacific Northwest. 

The next step involved the relation between the regional all-species, all-grade 

prices (from Haynes 2003) and the various all-grade prices for each of the four 
14

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 6—Estimated price relations using the price markup equation form, by species and gradea

Equation coefficients

 Durbin

Species and grade b1 b2 R2

 Watson Base price

Inland hem-fir:

 Moulding -158.442 2.128 .967 1.281 Coast hem-fir D Select

 Shop -57.125* 1.094 .895 .710 Coast hem-fir D Select

 Structural items -28.126 1.112 .984 1.084 Coast hem-fir Structural

 Heavy framing -137.423 1.371 .828 1.115 Coast hem-fir heavy framing

 Light framing -9.231 1.067 .993 .393 Coast hem-fir light framing

 Utility 16.972* .885 .831 1.922 Coast hem-fir Utility

 Economy 7.395 .918 .985 1.274 Coast hem-fir Economy

Ponderosa pine:

 4/4 C Select and better, 6–12 inch 1.171 .875 1.374 4/4 D, 12 inch

 4/4 C Select and better, 4 inch, 

 D Select 6–10 inch .712023 .817 1.376 4/4 D, 12 inch

 5/4 moulding and better .907787 .84791 1.4759 4/4 D, 12 inch

 5/4 shopout -55.6004 1.3044 .94932 1.06068 Douglas-fir light framing

 4/4 No. 2 Common, 4–10 inch 1.471341 .928638 1.34082 Douglas-fir light framing

 4/4 Common, No. 3 Common, 

 6–12 inch, 8/4 dimension 1.044212 .890371 1.101740 Douglas-fir light framing

 4/4 Common, No. 3 Common, 

 4 inch, No. 4 Common, 4–12 inch 21.57203 .678444 .921654 1.622021 Douglas-fir light framing

 No. 3 Common, Utility .617156 .912085 .817725 Douglas-fir light framing

 No. 5 Common, Economy .413614 .900108 1.806125 Douglas-fir light framing

Note: Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.

a

 The general equation is sjt = b1 + b2* base pricejt.

* Significant at less than the 95-percent level.

species groups considered. The all-grade price for Douglas-fir (reflecting the experience of the past two decades) is assumed to be equal to the all-species, all-grade 

price in the Douglas-fir subregion. Coast hem-fir prices (excluding the C Select 

grades estimated by using the price markup equation form) were fairly consistent 

at about 80 percent of the all-grade Douglas-fir price. This relation is expected to 

continue into the future (fig. 6). The average price for grades of ponderosa pine 

estimated with the general price equation5

 reflects a substantial price premium (it 

has averaged 42 percent over the past three decades) relative to the average lumber 

prices for the subregion (fig. 6). This premium is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

5

 Specifically, D Select, 12 inch and 4 inch; 4/4, No. 1 Shop; 5/4, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Shop; and 

4/4 Common, 12 inch.
15

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 7—Historical and projected production percentages by species and grade, 1997–2050

Historical Projected

Species and grade 1989 1997 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Percent

Douglas-fir:

 C Select 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 D Select and Shop 1.6 .4 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .5

 Structural items 15.9 9.1 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.5 7.0 7.0

 Heavy framing 22.9 23.2 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.0 22.5 22.5

 Light framing 47.4 59.9 61.4 61.4 61.5 62.5 63.5 63.5

 Utility 7.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0

 Economy 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Coast hem-fir:

 C Select .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 D Select and Shop 2.0 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1

 Structural items 4.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

 Heavy framing 16.9 20.0 19.1 19.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

 Light framing 63.6 62.1 66.8 66.9 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.2

 Utility 7.4 7.9 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

 Economy 5.8 7.2 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3

Inland hem-fir:

 Moulding 1.9 .8 .3 .3 .3 .3 .4 .4

 Shop 5.6 3.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.0

 Structural items 1.9 3.4 6.6 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

 Heavy framing 30.4 30.0 22.7 22.3 21.8 21.3 20.8 20.3

 Light framing 46.1 50.1 58.3 58.3 58.3 57.9 57.6 57.2

 Utility 9.3 7.5 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3

 Economy 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8

Ponderosa pine:

 4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop—

 C and better 6–12 inch .6 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2

 D 12 inch .2 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 C and better 4 inch, D 6–10 inch .3 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1

 D 4 inch .7 .4 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5

 No. 1 Shop 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.5

 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop— 

 Moulding and better 5.6 2.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

 No. 1 Shop 2.9 1.0 .7 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5

 No. 2 Shop 17.8 7.8 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8

 No. 3 Shop 19.9 19.6 18.7 19.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

 Shopout 6.7 16.0 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better— 

 No. 2 Common 12 inch 3.8 4.0 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.5 5.8 6.0

 No. 2 Common 4–10 inch 5.8 14.6 17.2 18.4 20.0 22.5 23.8 25.0

 No. 3 Common 6–12 inch, 8/4 dimension 25.9 23.5 29.0 27.2 25.0 21.4 19.6 17.8

 No. 3 Common 4 inch, No. 4 Common 4–12 inch 5.0 6.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.5 8.8 9.0

 Low value:

 No. 3 and Utility 1.2 1.0 .9 .9 .8 .8 .7 .7

 No. 5 Common and Economy 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 .9 .8 .8 .7

Note: Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.
16

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Figure 6—Pacific Northwest softwood lumber prices by year: ZPINE = average price for selected grades of ponderosa 

pine; PLUMWE = east-side average price for all species, all grades; PLUMWW = west-side average prices for all species, 

all grades; HFC ALLGRD = coast hem-fir average price, all grades except for C Select.

Demands for lumber are expected to change. Total softwood lumber consumption is expected to increase roughly 0.6 percent per year while production in U.S. 

regions increases by 0.4 percent per year (Haynes 2003). The bulk of lumber consumption is used in new residential construction and in residential upkeep and alteration. By 2010, the relative shares of the two end uses will change in that upkeep 

and alteration of existing housing will take a larger share of lumber than will new 

construction. These market changes suggest continued strong markets for dimension lumber and lumber grades favored in millwork and other finish applications. 

In the Pacific Northwest, lumber production is expected to increase, especially 

in areas where Douglas-fir and coast hem-fir are produced. Production of all products decreased during the 1990s as federal harvests declined, as there was increased 

substitution among solidwood and engineered products, and because of the loss 

of export markets. In the next several decades, the Douglas-fir region is expected 

to become less diversified, producing primarily softwood lumber. After 2030, the 

region is expected to have production levels exceeding the peak of the 1950s. 
17

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Results

Price projections by species and grade are shown in table 8. Unlike our past projections, there are no projections for the highest grade (C Select) of both Douglas-fir 

and coast hem-fir as there has been no reported production in those grades since the 

mid-1990s (see app. 2 tables 10 and 12). The results for the other grades mostly are 

consistent with the various assumptions and estimated relations. 

The results support the notion that increasing scarcity of high-quality material 

will result in higher prices. In general, the relative price position for each grade 

remains unchanged. The grades historically priced highest will remain so in the 

future; in general, they show continued price increases but lower rates of price 

growth. Price arbitrage and substitution between products act to limit the extent 

that prices for selected species and grades will increase. The fact that prices of 

higher priced items generally increase more than those of lower priced items is 

significant to forest land management decisions; it is the dollar difference, not the 

percentage difference, that determines how much can be spent in forest management to increase quality. We believe that the current and projected premiums for 

quality and the growing volume of lower grade material globally are sufficient to 

warrant recognition by the forestry community of the importance of wood quality 

and may encourage an adjustment in the rotation ages and management regimes 

commonly employed.

Although trends in price ratios (shown in fig. 7) of high to low or medium 

grades of lumber are somewhat mixed, substantial premiums have persisted over 

the past several decades and are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Finally, the persistent higher prices for higher grades will continue to be used 

by advocates of alternative management regimes to argue for high-quality forestry 

(Barbour et al. 2003, Waggener and Fight 1999, Weigand et al. 1994). The heart of 

their argument is that management actions that lead to higher quality saw logs that 

produce a larger proportion of higher graded lumber will increase returns to land 

management.6 The various management actions in these alternative regimes include 

stocking and pruning strategies and longer rotations coupled with more frequent 

thinning. These higher prices also assume that sufficient niche markets exist to 

take advantage of the unique aspects of higher quality timber. 

A specific example shows how price premiums for high grades of lumber 

that are produced from pruned trees compare to previous projections. A financial 

analysis of pruning (Fight et al. 1993) showed the cost per tree that would yield a 

6

 Assuming perfect competition, increases in economic returns to lumber producers would be 

reflected in higher values paid for stumpage (a factor in the production of lumber).
18

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 8—Historical and projected prices by species and grade, 1997–2050

Historical Projected

Species and grade 1989 1997 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

2002 dollars per thousand board feet

Douglas-fir:

 C Select 1,279 — — — — — — —

 D Select and Shop 597 737 666 804 947 945 1,049 1,116

 Structural items 386 550 361 539 625 624 687 728

 Heavy framing 392 517 367 519 612 610 677 720

 Light framing 292 411 309 412 486 485 538 573

 Utility 199 284 201 289 340 340 377 401

 Economy 131 170 119 160 189 189 209 224

Coast hem-fir:

 C Select 852 — — — — — — —

 D Select and Shop 553 580 448 565 620 618 657 683

 Structural items 326 468 341 399 434 433 459 477

 Heavy framing 353 486 309 395 432 432 459 477

 Light framing 277 388 280 331 363 361 385 401

 Utility 184 273 187 232 253 253 269 279

 Economy 125 182 132 140 156 156 168 176

Inland hem-fir:

 Moulding 882 990 858 993 1,108 1,104 1,189 1,245

 Shop 466 665 537 543 602 600 643 673

 Structural items 329 507 351 406 446 445 474 494

 Heavy framing 331 497 313 359 410 409 448 473

 Light framing 273 411 299 342 375 375 399 416

 Utility 183 271 191 228 246 2,446 261 270

 Economy 122 180 124 139 154 154 164 171

Ponderosa pine:

 4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop— 

 C and better 6–12 inch 2,141 2,201 2,076 2,297 2,385 2,408 2,476 2,533

 D 12 inch 1,807 1,629 1,500 1,962 2,036 2,056 2,114 2,163

 C and better 4 inch, D 6–10 inch 1,205 1,417 1,059 1,397 1,450 1,464 1,505 1,540

 D 4 inch 878 939 618 824 886 902 949 990

 No. 1 Shop 520 697 436 549 592 602 634 662

 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop—

 Moulding and better 1,501 1,720 1,710 1,781 1,848 1,867 1,918 1,963

 No. 1 Shop 866 1,183 1,092 1,041 1,120 1,140 1,201 1,253

 No. 2 Shop 699 1,062 954 903 970 989 1,041 1,086

 No. 3 Shop 515 794 620 641 690 702 739 771

 Shopout 306 500 355 465 560 559 628 674

 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better—

 No. 2 Common 12 inch 631 855 720 720 768 781 818 849

 No. 2 Common 4–10 inch 393 624 492 606 715 714 792 842

 No. 3 Common 6–12 inch, 8/4 dimension 310 443 294 430 507 506 561 598

 No. 3 Common 4 inch, No. 4 Common 4–12 inch 224 313 228 282 332 332 368 392

 Low value:

 No. 3 and Utility 184 257 167 254 299 299 332 354

 No. 5 Common and Economy 125 175 126 171 201 200 222 237

Note: — = No projections were made because no production has been reported since the mid-1990s.

Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.
19

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Figure 7—Douglas-fir and coast hem-fir price ratios for grade groups.

4 percent real rate of return. That analysis was updated to 2002 dollars, and the new 

projected prices for 2040 were used for comparison. The new projected prices show 

a slightly higher break-even cost for pruning than the earlier ones (see fig. 8). This 

reinforces the conclusion that the best available empirical evidence suggests that 

substantial premiums for high-quality grades of lumber will persist for the foreseeable future and have the potential to increase the return to investments in management activities designed to improve timber quality.
20

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Figure 8—Break-even cost of pruning Douglas-fir.

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to Judy Mikowski and Debra Warren for assembling 30 years of price 

data from Western Wood Products Association quarterly reports, combining them 

into grade groupings, and estimating the various grade equations, including numerous revisions of grade groupings and equation forms.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters 

Acres .405 Hectares

Literature Cited

Barbour, R.J.; Marshall, D.D.; Lowell, E.C. 2003. Managing for wood quality. 

In: Monserud, R.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest 

management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 

299–336. Chapter 11.

Economic Report of the President. 2003. Washington, DC: GPO. 404 p.
21

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Fight, R.D.; Bolon, N.A.; Cahill, J.M. 1993. Financial analysis of pruning 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 8(2): 58–61.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [RPA]; 

16 U.S.C. 1601 (note).

Haynes, R.W. 1977. A derived demand approach to estimating the linkage 

between stumpage and lumber markets. Forest Science. 23: 281–288.

Haynes, R.W. 1990. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 

1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-199. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 286 p.

Haynes, R.W., tech. coord. 2003. An analysis of the timber situation in the 

United States: 1952-2050. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-560. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

254 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Connaughton, K.P.; Adams, D.M. 1980. Stumpage price 

projections for selected Western species. Res. Note PNW-367. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 14 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Fahey, T.D.; Fight, R.D. 1988. Price projections for selected grades 

of Douglas-fir lumber. Res. Note PNW-RN-473. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Fight, R.D. 1992. Price projections for selected grades of Douglasfir, coast hem-fir, inland hem-fir, and ponderosa pine lumber. Res. Pap. PNWRP-447. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 20 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1988. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1985. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-149. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 90 p.

Larsen, D.N. 1990. 1984 Washington mill survey: wood consumption and mill 

characteristics. Series Rep. 10. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources. 17 p.
22

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Sohngen, B.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1994. The “great” price spike of ’93: an analysis of 

lumber and stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-476. 

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

Research Station. 20 p.

Waggener, T.R.; Fight, R.D. 1999. Clearwood quality and softwood lumber 

prices: What’s the real premium? Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 

73–79.

Warren, D.D. 2003. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, all quarters 2001. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-239. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

171 p.

Weigand, J.F.; Haynes, R.W.; Mikowski, J.L., comps. 1994. High quality 

forestry workshop: the ideal of long rotations proceedings. Spec. Pap. SP-15. 

Seattle, WA: CINTRAFOR, University of Washington. 243 p. [plus appendix].

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 2003. Price summary past sales. 

Portland, OR. Monthly.
23

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Appendix 1

Grouping Group and items combined in group

Douglas-fir and coast hem-fir:

 C Select C Select; export Clear

 D Select and Shop D Select; D and better; all Shop grades

Structural items All laminating stock; all machine-stress-rated lumber; 2-inch 

 Select Structural; 2-inch No. 1; 3-inch and thicker Select Structural; 

 crossarms; scaffold planks; export Commons

 Heavy framing 2 by 10 and wider No. 2 and better; 3-inch and thicker No. 2 and 

 better; ties

 Light framing All studs; Standard and better light framing; 2 by 6 and 2 by 8 No. 2 

 and better; 1 by 4 and 1 by 6 Utility and better; 4 by 4 Utility 

 and better; 4 by 4 Standard and better

 Utility All Utility; all No. 3 grade lumber

 Economy All Economy lumber

Inland hem-fir:

 Moulding Moulding and better

 Shop All Shop grades

 Structural items All machine-stress-rated lumber; 2-inch Select Structural

 Heavy framing 2 by 10 and wider No. 2 and better

 Light framing All studs; Standard and better light framing; 2 by 6 and 2 by 8 No. 2 

 and better; 1 by 4 and 1 by 6 Utility and better

 Utility All Utility; all No. 3 grade; shopouts

 Economy All Economy lumber

Ponderosa pine:

 4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop— 

 C and better 6-12 inch C and better Select 6-12-inch widths

 D 12 inch D Select 12-inch width

 C and better 4 inch, D 6-10 inch C and better Select 4-inch width; D Select 6-10-inch widths

 D 4 inch D Select; 4-inch width; all 4/4 moulding

 No. 1 Shop No. 1 Shop; No. 3 Clear

 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop—

 Moulding and better Moulding and better; C and better Select; D Select

 No. 1 Shop No. 1 Shop; 3 Clear

 No. 2 Shop No. 2 Shop

 No. 3 Shop No. 3 Shop; stained Shop; No. 2 and better Common

 Shopout Shopout; No. 3, 4, 5 Common; resaw; box

 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better—

 No. 2 Common 12 inch No. 2 Common; 12-inch width

 No. 2 Common 4-10 inch No. 2 Common; 4-10-inch widths; No. 2 and 3 Common patterns

 No. 3 Common 6-12 inch, 8/4 dimension No. 3 Common; 6-12-inch widths; 8/4 No. 2 and better; 

 8/4 stud grade; 8/4 Standard and better studs; 8/4 Select decking; 

 Standard and better 4/4 No. 2 Shop

 No. 3 Common 4 inch, No. 4 common 4-12 inch No. 3 Common 4-inch width; No. 4 Common 4-12-inch widths; 

 4/4 shopout

 Low value:

 No. 3 and Utility No. 3; Utility 4-inch width

 No. 5 Common and Economy No. 5 Common; Economy grade
24

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 9—Nominal prices for Douglas-fir lumber, coast mills, 1971–2002a

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Dollars per thousand board feet

1971 228 146 126 122 105 74 33

1972 280 164 143 141 126 93 41

1973 471 216 210 198 161 117 67

1974 474 238 238 184 141 82 47

1975 406 225 185 165 139 84 45

1976 486 276 229 217 174 110 49

1977 504 342 289 215 215 148 61

1978 593 406 325 395 235 170 86

1979 891 480 410 334 246 179 86

1980 929 506 365 271 207 150 85

1981 747 426 329 263 193 137 83

1982 648 375 283 198 159 126 78

1983 685 426 262 222 201 162 87

1984 688 407 249 223 189 137 72

1985 671 410 249 226 190 131 68

1986 726 405 240 229 191 132 67

1987 837 411 257 258 206 138 66

1988 927 474 297 285 219 138 85

1989 1,078 503 325 330 246 168 110

1990 1,236 521 305 310 232 156 102

1991 1,200 535 316 306 230 158 101

1992 1,350 576 348 349 273 205 123

1993 1,197 809 511 517 393 295 175

1994 1,413 752 478 485 385 294 148

1995 1,172 699 448 442 330 224 142

1996 — 668 519 485 392 261 134

1997 — 711 530 499 397 274 164

1998 — 655 421 383 325 266 143

1999 — 676 463 467 390 268 137

2000 — 631 425 412 339 220 125

2001 — 598 389 382 319 201 111

2002 — 666 361 367 309 201 119

Note: — = There is no longer any production in this category.

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.

Appendix 2
25

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 10—Percentage of total volume for Douglas-fir lumber, coast mills, 

1971–2002

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Percent

1971 13.4 2.2 8.0 15.8 40.3 16.7 3.5

1972 10.9 2.0 10.1 15.8 38.4 18.1 3.8

1973 8.5 1.4 13.4 14.2 40.9 17.8 3.8

1974 7.2 1.2 12.4 17.1 41.7 15.9 4.6

1975 7.9 .7 11.0 17.7 42.8 16.2 3.7

1976 8.2 .8 12.3 17.7 41.6 15.1 4.4

1977 6.5 4.2 11.5 19.7 36.3 17.0 4.8

1978 5.2 4.3 11.1 19.6 38.6 16.3 4.9

1979 5.4 4.7 12.1 18.1 37.5 16.8 5.4

1980 5.8 4.5 11.5 21.3 35.2 16.8 4.9

1981 4.5 4.1 12.9 22.0 37.7 14.8 4.0

1982 4.5 4.3 12.3 22.3 38.1 14.6 3.9

1983 3.3 3.5 12.4 23.8 42.4 10.6 3.9

1984 2.6 3.4 15.3 22.5 42.8 9.4 4.0

1985 2.4 3.2 16.4 23.9 41.8 8.5 3.8

1986 2.1 2.3 15.6 24.0 43.7 8.6 3.6

1987 2.0 2.8 14.5 23.3 45.4 8.2 3.8

1988 1.8 2.1 16.7 21.8 46.2 7.1 4.3

1989 1.0 1.6 15.9 22.9 47.4 7.0 4.2

1990 1.0 1.5 16.1 22.5 47.9 6.5 4.5

1991 .6 1.2 14.3 23.5 48.7 7.3 4.4

1992 .3 1.0 11.6 24.3 51.9 6.6 4.2

1993 .1 .7 11.2 24.2 54.7 5.4 3.7

1994 .1 .8 11.5 23.5 55.0 5.3 3.8

1995 .1 .7 12.2 21.9 57.2 4.9 3.0

1996 0 .7 10.1 21.8 60.1 3.5 3.8

1997 0 .4 9.1 23.2 59.9 3.4 4.0

1998 0 .4 9.2 24.1 59.0 3.6 3.7

1999 0 .2 8.6 23.6 60.3 3.7 3.6

2000 0 .2 7.5 22.1 62.6 3.8 3.8

2001 0 .1 7.0 23.3 62.8 3.7 3.2

2002 0 .1 8.6 23.5 61.4 3.3 3.0

Note: Figures are a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.
26

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 11—Nominal prices for hem-fir, coast mills, 1971–2002a

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Dollars per thousand board feet

1971 207 138 126 115 101 71 34

1972 241 151 148 138 122 90 41

1973 344 209 193 181 157 113 62

1974 440 233 179 179 140 81 44

1975 351 208 164 161 133 79 42

1976 427 258 201 206 164 106 48

1977 453 287 229 236 192 135 58

1978 587 345 259 256 222 164 85

1979 676 400 290 302 234 160 78

1980 718 405 257 245 195 132 78

1981 661 362 229 244 183 131 79

1982 712 319 202 209 158 123 70

1983 737 386 245 240 205 156 97

1984 683 348 227 228 187 128 79

1985 638 337 226 232 189 123 79

1986 606 343 242 248 197 129 75

1987 601 414 273 286 215 131 76

1988 633 461 273 289 221 137 89

1989 718 466 274 298 234 155 105

1990 820 500 270 283 224 150 97

1991 800 463 283 277 230 147 96

1992 883 488 321 312 266 188 129

1993 — 640 433 443 365 238 179

1994 — 596 436 452 384 268 164

1995 — 590 357 397 312 209 154

1996 — 593 424 436 376 243 148

1997 — 560 451 469 375 263 176

1998 — 499 371 343 314 227 153

1999 — 568 436 438 359 255 144

2000 — 521 375 357 300 209 134

2001 — 395 343 305 280 187 124

2002 — 448 341 309 280 187 132

Note: — = There is no longer any production in this category.

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.
27

Reconsidering Price Projections for Selected Grades of Douglas-Fir, Coast Hem-Fir, Inland Hem-Fir, and Ponderosa Pine Lumber

Table 12—Percentage of total volume for hem-fir lumber, coast mills, 

1971–2002

 C D Select Structural Heavy Light

Year Select and Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Percent

1971 1.5 4.2 3.6 12.9 54.8 18.2 4.8

1972 1.1 4.5 3.2 12.9 53.6 19.4 5.3

1973 .6 4.8 3.2 11.4 54.5 20.5 5.0

1974 .5 3.7 3.6 10.6 55.4 19.8 6.4

1975 .9 5.3 3.6 8.8 54.5 21.2 5.8

1976 .7 5.5 3.4 1.7 53.1 19.8 6.9

1977 1.4 4.8 6.2 8.7 56.7 15.0 7.2

1978 1.5 5.2 7.3 7.8 55.3 14.6 8.3

1979 1.5 5.1 7.7 5.3 58.3 13.8 8.3

1980 1.4 5.4 7.5 4.9 60.5 14.4 5.9

1981 1.2 5.4 6.2 7.8 58.0 14.6 6.8

1982 .4 4.9 6.0 7.2 59.1 17.1 5.3

1983 .4 4.0 5.6 8.8 61.6 13.8 5.8

1984 .4 4.2 5.3 12.9 60.8 10.0 6.3

1985 .4 4.0 3.3 15.0 63.0 8.4 6.0

1986 .4 2.5 3.1 16.2 64.0 8.4 5.4

1987 .3 2.3 2.9 14.8 64.9 9.3 5.3

1988 .3 2.2 3.2 14.2 66.4 8.2 5.5

1989 .3 2.0 4.2 16.9 63.6 7.4 5.8

1990 .2 1.5 5.5 16.4 62.8 7.5 6.1

1991 .2 1.6 4.8 16.3 62.3 8.7 6.2

1992 .1 1.5 5.8 17.3 62.5 6.9 6.0

1993 0 .8 6.7 17.4 61.8 7.2 6.1

1994 0 .6 4.1 19.0 62.6 6.7 7.0

1995 0 .5 3.7 22.9 59.1 7.6 6.2

1996 0 .5 3.4 20.5 61.2 7.4 7.0

1997 0 .3 2.5 20.0 62.1 7.9 7.2

1998 0 .2 2.3 21.3 62.8 7.9 5.5

1999 0 .1 2.0 19.6 65.8 7.3 5.1

2000 0 .2 2.0 19.5 65.7 7.4 5.3

2001 0 .1 2.6 20.3 66.3 6.0 4.8

2002 0 .1 2.5 19.1 66.8 5.8 5.7

Note: Figures are a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.
28

Research Paper PNW-RP-561

Table 13—Nominal prices for hem-fir, inland mills, 1971–2002a

 Structural Heavy Light

Year Moulding Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Dollars per thousand board feet

1971 209 147 124 0 102 71 36

1972 231 161 152 0 128 91 47

1973 306 225 183 0 165 120 72

1974 309 191 169 0 148 84 48

1975 272 150 157 0 138 81 46

1976 371 242 206 0 174 109 52

1977 412 266 245 226 191 132 60

1978 557 309 262 251 221 158 85

1979 654 341 281 295 238 156 85

1980 594 293 227 221 196 131 82

1981 602 318 217 233 185 129 89

1982 584 245 185 189 163 116 77

1983 655 346 246 228 204 155 90

1984 555 269 225 210 185 129 76

1985 511 323 225 221 188 128 76

1986 605 308 240 242 198 132 72

1987 706 354 261 280 214 132 75

1988 712 350 270 274 215 134 85

1989 743 393 277 279 230 154 102

1990 910 399 283 260 221 143 93

1991 790 431 282 265 226 139 95

1992 898 487 316 306 271 186 131

1993 1,277 663 444 439 373 276 181

1994 1,111 650 469 451 398 300 153

1995 1,133 602 407 399 325 244 140

1996 1,149 584 454 431 392 241 140

1997 955 641 489 479 396 262 174

1998 956 495 371 335 332 224 150

1999 1,064 603 448 440 379 238 142

2000 1,026 562 387 352 323 206 135

2001 732 438 347 311 302 189 115

2002 858 537 351 313 299 191 124

a

 Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry 

surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.
29

Table 14—Percentage of total volume for hem-fir lumber, inland mills, 1971–2002

 Structural Heavy Light

Year Moulding Shop items framing framing Utility Economy

Percent

1971 2.2 6.5 0.8 0 66.5 16.8 7.2

1972 3.2 9.2 1.0 0 62.9 16.4 7.3

1973 3.6 8.7 1.5 0 62.4 16.8 7.0

1974 3.2 8.3 .9 0 62.0 17.6 8.1

1975 3.8 9.2 .6 0 62.8 16.6 7.0

1976 3.4 8.1 .9 0 64.4 16.8 6.3

1977 2.6 8.1 1.8 15.2 48.9 16.9 6.5

1978 2.5 8.2 1.3 16.3 47.5 17.1 7.1

1979 2.2 6.8 .8 19.3 43.6 18.5 8.8

1980 2.6 8.9 .6 20.1 41.0 18.7 8.1

1981 2.4 8.9 .7 20.0 43.2 17.4 7.3

1982 1.8 6.4 .5 20.6 49.2 15.1 6.3

1983 1.9 7.0 .7 20.9 50.3 14.0 5.2

1984 2.2 6.4 .9 22.0 49.5 13.1 5.9

1985 1.7 5.7 .9 24.5 50.2 11.5 5.5

1986 1.9 4.8 .8 28.1 48.5 10.3 5.6

1987 1.7 4.9 .6 29.3 47.8 10.0 5.6

1988 1.7 4.8 1.6 29.7 47.3 9.6 5.3

1989 1.9 5.6 1.9 30.4 46.1 9.3 4.9

1990 1.4 5.4 1.8 29.7 47.6 8.8 5.1

1991 1.3 4.6 2.0 30.9 46.1 9.7 5.4

1992 1.4 5.3 3.1 31.3 44.9 8.9 5.1

1993 1.3 4.6 4.0 29.7 47.1 8.9 4.5

1994 1.0 3.8 3.9 29.3 48.4 9.1 4.5

1995 .8 3.9 3.8 29.1 48.1 10.1 4.3

1996 .8 4.2 3.5 25.6 53.7 7.4 4.9

1997 .8 3.6 3.4 30.0 50.1 7.5 4.7

1998 .6 2.8 4.3 26.2 54.9 6.9 4.3

1999 .6 2.1 5.2 28.0 53.3 6.8 4.1

2000 .6 2.1 5.6 26.8 54.6 6.0 4.3

2001 .5 1.6 6.4 25.7 55.5 5.8 4.5

2002 .3 2.0 6.6 22.7 58.3 5.2 4.9

Note: Figures are a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.

Source: Warren 2003.
30

Table 15—Nominal prices for ponderosa pine lumber, inland mills, 1971–2002a

4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better Low value

 No. 3 No. 3

 C and Common Common 4 in 

 C and better 4 in Moulding No. 2 No. 2 6–12 in and No. 4 No. 3 No. 5

 better D and D D No. 1 and No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Common Common and 8/4 Common and and

Year 6–12 in 12 in 6–10 in 4 in Shop better Shop Shop Shop Shopout 12 in 4–10 in dimension 4–12 in Utility Economy

Dollars per thousand board feet

1971 384 307 262 197 136 301 220 158 133 85 134 113 93 75 73 38

1972 402 334 284 210 157 314 247 185 157 107 165 138 121 101 90 501973 479 410 369 285 207 392 294 232 195 159 242 207 164 144 116 781974 612 550 499 305 210 429 314 252 208 133 270 211 141 107 73 571975 646 546 454 257 173 477 278 206 153 97 246 188 125 88 73 471976 708 615 444 334 233 531 398 326 248 143 272 219 166 129 98 581977 816 725 514 360 280 549 454 384 286 173 331 272 196 146 123 721978 1,001 906 671 489 349 934 526 462 331 206 373 329 232 184 144 981979 1,398 1,255 1,004 532 333 955 554 481 304 210 441 359 263 184 145 961980 1,187 865 610 401 330 813 549 473 308 203 450 289 237 165 122 871981 1,110 965 608 467 333 817 589 509 355 218 385 278 245 164 127 891982 1,187 865 610 401 330 813 549 473 308 203 450 289 237 165 122 871983 1,214 1,404 659 513 363 1,056 662 570 401 225 388 305 222 160 155 901984 1,363 1,163 724 499 368 949 622 506 349 203 432 319 235 149 124 831985 1,463 863 779 506 342 1,087 614 498 366 204 456 312 208 143 127 751986 1,509 1,169 1,021 654 636 1,093 688 576 404 207 430 325 227 163 130 791987 1,563 1,336 1,088 703 442 1,306 762 644 413 224 447 367 247 175 131 791988 1,892 1,510 1,076 689 452 1,282 746 625 411 229 505 363 246 174 137 871989 1,805 1,523 1,016 740 438 1,265 730 589 434 258 532 331 261 189 155 1051990 1,478 1,453 996 683 435 1,051 677 542 414 247 534 356 248 187 145 991991 1,335 1,259 911 654 425 1,090 795 655 517 259 523 372 272 184 147 991992 1,749 1,484 1,195 856 622 1,371 970 845 631 335 686 423 337 226 196 1331993 2,198 1,910 1,510 1,019 700 1,957 1,189 1,059 741 447 706 498 381 289 250 1741994 2,347 2,343 1,316 880 800 1,753 1,145 1,017 701 448 803 569 413 302 254 1571995 1,887 1,982 1,095 737 550 1,491 1,089 972 661 410 695 507 367 251 215 1581996 1,569 1,251 1,071 802 585 1,381 1,005 899 692 427 683 544 361 250 224 1411997 2,123 1,571 1,366 906 672 1,659 1,141 1,024 766 482 825 602 427 302 248 1691998 2,116 1,608 1,202 711 462 1,480 1,006 892 615 414 685 515 337 278 213 1551999 2,129 1,615 1,266 796 562 1,579 1,036 913 695 458 808 548 385 275 219 1432000 1,908 1,480 1,106 705 506 1,428 1,024 893 611 376 676 494 328 242 187 1362001 1,691 1,440 1,000 687 484 1,677 1,047 922 602 325 684 453 283 201 164 1102002 2,076 1,500 1,059 618 436 1,710 1,092 954 620 355 720 492 294 228 167 126Note: Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.

a Figures are f.o.b. (free on board) prices computed as a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.Source: Warren 2003.
31

Table 16—Percentage of total volume for ponderosa pine lumber, 1971–2002

4/4 Select and No. 1 Shop 5/4 and thicker moulding and Shop 4/4 Common and 8/4 Standard and better Low value

 No. 3 No. 3

 C and Common Common 4 in Total

 C and better 4 in Moulding No. 2 No. 2 6–12 in and No. 4 No. 3 No. 5 volume,

 better D and D D No. 1 and No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Common Common and 8/4 Common and and allYear 6–12 in 12 in 6–10 in 4 in Shop better Shop Shop Shop Shopout 12 in 4–10 in dimension 4–12 in Utility Economy grades

Thousand 

Percent board feet

1971 1.6 0.5 1.2 1.1 3.8 7.1 4.3 14.3 8.6 5.6 4.3 2.4 29.2 11.2 2.4 2.3 1,995,778

1972 1.5 .5 1.1 1.3 4.1 6.6 4.0 14.8 10.4 5.2 3.7 2.0 30.1 10.0 2.5 2.2 2,029,9501973 1.3 .4 .9 1.4 3.9 7.4 4.1 14.1 10.0 4.9 3.2 1.8 32.4 8.9 2.9 2.3 1,961,3741974 1.3 .4 .9 1.5 4.0 6.4 3.4 12.7 9.3 5.0 3.1 2.2 34.6 10.3 2.3 2.6 1,691,2821975 1.3 .4 .8 1.6 3.9 6.4 3.7 13.8 9.9 4.8 3.0 2.1 33.3 9.9 2.4 2.4 1,842,4881976 1.3 .4 .9 1.5 4.1 6.5 3.7 14.2 11.2 5.2 3.0 2.4 31.7 10.0 1.9 2.2 2,046,0661977 1.1 .4 .7 1.1 3.5 6.0 3.4 13.9 12.4 7.0 2.9 5.0 29.2 9.5 1.8 2.1 2,249,8641978 .9 .3 .6 1.1 2.8 5.6 2.9 13.0 13.3 7.2 2.7 5.3 30.5 9.2 2.2 2.3 2,271,5391979 .9 .3 .6 1.2 3.3 5.6 3.0 13.2 12.6 5.6 3.0 6.0 29.8 10.5 2.0 2.5 1,849,6831980 1.0 .4 .8 1.3 3.3 6.5 3.2 14.4 12.8 4.7 3.2 6.9 27.3 9.9 2.1 2.3 1,614,8641981 1.0 .3 .8 1.1 3.3 5.9 3.1 14.8 13.4 4.7 3.9 8.7 25.7 10.0 1.5 1.8 1,474,4201982 1.1 .3 .7 .9 3.1 5.8 3.2 15.7 13.5 5.1 4.2 8.0 26.9 8.8 1.3 1.6 1,488,1031983 1.0 .3 .7 .9 2.8 5.8 3.3 17.2 15.6 5.3 3.9 7.8 25.4 7.1 1.2 1.5 1,876,7431984 1.0 .3 .6 .9 2.7 5.3 3.5 17.6 15.4 4.2 4.1 7.2 26.8 7.1 1.6 1.7 1,970,0461985 .9 .3 .6 .9 2.7 5.1 3.4 18.2 16.2 4.1 3.8 7.2 26.7 7.0 1.4 1.4 2,018,8961986 1.0 .3 .6 .8 2.8 4.9 3.3 17.9 16.6 4.5 4.3 6.7 27.6 6.1 1.4 1.3 2,164,5911987 .9 .2 .4 .7 2.4 5.7 3.1 17.9 17.5 4.7 4.0 6.0 28.1 5.3 1.6 1.4 2,331,4971988 .8 .2 .4 .7 2.7 5.8 2.7 17.2 18.0 5.4 3.9 5.5 28.4 5.2 1.7 1.5 2,252,6961989 .6 .2 .3 .7 2.2 5.6 2.9 17.8 19.9 6.7 3.8 5.8 25.9 5.0 1.2 1.4 2,204,3081990 .6 .1 .3 .6 2.0 5.3 2.7 17.8 21.3 7.0 3.7 5.4 25.0 5.2 1.1 1.7 2,045,8301991 .7 .1 .3 .7 2.1 6.0 2.9 17.8 22.7 7.8 3.6 5.6 22.0 4.7 1.3 1.6 1,789,2891992 .5 .1 .3 .7 1.8 5.9 2.5 16.5 23.2 9.8 3.1 7.0 20.9 4.9 1.1 1.4 1,643,9511993 .3 .1 .2 .5 1.6 4.7 1.8 12.6 21.5 14.8 3.3 8.9 21.9 5.2 1.4 1.2 1,844,0621994 .3 .1 .2 .5 1.4 4.1 1.5 10.8 20.8 14.7 3.4 10.4 23.5 5.5 1.3 1.5 1,712,9681995 .3 .1 .2 .4 1.5 3.8 1.3 10.2 21.0 15.0 4.0 11.9 22.1 5.8 1.3 1.1 1,519,0491996 .3 .1 .2 .4 1.5 3.3 1.2 9.4 20.8 17.7 3.5 12.1 21.2 6.2 1.1 1.1 1,421,0901997 .2 .1 .2 .4 1.5 2.4 1.0 7.8 19.6 16.0 4.0 14.6 23.5 6.7 1.0 1.2 1,304,3491998 .2 0 .2 .5 1.1 2.7 1.1 8.3 21.2 15.0 3.9 14.8 22.8 6.5 .8 1.0 1,281,0671999 .2 0 .1 .4 1.2 2.4 .9 8.3 21.9 15.3 4.0 14.0 23.2 6.1 1.0 .9 1,277,1642000 .2 0 .1 .4 1.1 2.4 .7 7.4 20.3 12.6 4.5 15.6 25.9 6.6 1.1 .9 1,159,7862001 .2 0 .2 .4 1.2 1.8 .7 7.0 19.0 11.4 4.1 16.0 28.7 7.3 1.1 1.0 1,070,0412002 .2 0 .1 .5 1.2 1.6 .7 7.0 18.7 9.6 4.5 17.2 29.0 7.9 .9 1.0 983,261Note: Shopout is shop material that does not meet No. 3 Shop requirements.Figures are a volume-weighted average of green and dry surfaced and rough grades.Source: Warren 2003.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300