Chip Prices as a Proxy for

Nonsawtimber Prices in the

Pacific Northwest

Richard W. Haynes

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Research Note

PNW-RN-537

April 1999

Abstract The heavy focus on Pacific Northwest saw-log prices makes it difficult for land managers

to develop price expectations for stands that contain both sawtimber and nonsaw-timber

logs. This raises the question: What is a reasonable proxy (or measure) for non-sawtimber prices in the Pacific Northwest? One such proxy is export chip prices, which serve

as a reasonable measure of value in three ways. First, they reflect the underlying trends

in all chip markets. Second, they reflect expected patterns of market arbitrage. Third,

they help to explain seasonality and cyclical variation in the chip market.

Keywords: Prices, stumpage, nonsawtimber, sawtimber, proxy, chip prices.

Introduction Unlike other regions in the United States, the Pacific Northwest forest sector is perceived as an almost exclusively sawtimber market.1 That is, most of the timber harvested is sold and reported in terms of saw logs–logs larger than 11 inches in diameter

and destined for one of several types of solidwood forest products mills. The notions of

value that drive land stewardship and industrial decisions in the Pacific Northwest are

based on price expectations for stumpage (saw logs) and lumber such as those shown

in figure 1. This figure shows two strong periodic increases in stumpage prices. The first

period follows World War II and reflects price adjustments due to abolishing wartime price

controls and to the 1950s housing boom. The second period starts in the mid-1960s and

reflects both increased volatility (as part of the overall volatility in commodity markets,

including large changes in energy prices in the 1970s) and upward trends in prices

(resulting from overall price inflation and increased housing demand). The average

rate of real price2 increase for saw-log stumpage shown in figure 1 is 3.9 percent

per year for the 87-year period.

RICHARD W. HAYNES is a research forester, Forestry

Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-

3890.

1 Timber markets are characterized differently in different

regions but generally a complete typology would include

four broad components for groups of softwood and hardwood species. These four groups are two roundwood

(sawtimber and nonsawtimber) and two residue (mill and

other) components. Most actual price reporting focuses on

major regional markets for specific components, such as

softwood roundwood nonsawtimber (or pulpwood) in the

South, softwood sawtimber in the Pacific Northwest, and

hardwood sawtimber in the Northeast.

2 Real prices refer to prices that have been adjusted for

inflation (in this case, using the Producer Price Index).
2

Figure 1—Lumber and stumpage prices, 1910-97.

The focus on saw-log prices (derived from logs used for lumber, plywood, poles, and

export) makes it difficult to develop price expectations for mixed stands that contain

both sawtimber and nonsawtimber logs. Nonsawtimber logs smaller than 11 inches in

diameter have long been part of the log mix, but the perception of their increasing

share of the market in the last decade has raised concerns about how to develop price

expectations. Such price expectations are key to assessing the likelihood that a timber

sale will be sold either for final harvest or as an opportunity to implement silvicultural

prescriptions through the use of timber sales. What is a reasonable basis for developing price expectations for stands that contain a wider array of potential log sizes

smaller than sawtimber? While there are widely available sawtimber prices, what

measures of nonsawtimber prices are available to help shape perceptions about the

value of small-diameter stands?

An array of products can be made from nonsawtimber, including those using chips,

such as pulp and paper. While the Pacific Northwest has a long history of reported

prices for sawtimber (see fig. 1), it has no conventionally accepted price series for

nonsawtimber markets. Without a direct price measure, proxies for nonsawtimber

markets, such as chip prices, need to be evaluated for possible use.

The purpose of this research note is to examine the available continuous price measures of a nonsawtimber commodity that can serve as a proxy for nonsawtimber

prices. The most readily available price measure is for chips. In figure 2, two measures of chip prices plus the sawtimber price from figure 1 are shown. As a caution,

sawtimber prices are reported as stumpage (standing timber) while chip prices are

typically reported as delivered prices (to mills, chip yards, etc.) and reflect stumpage,

logging, and hauling costs. As a general observation, the various prices differ but

share the same general upward trend during the 1968-96 period (roughly 2 percent per 1982 dollars/thousand board feet

400

0

100

200

300

1910 1990 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Lumber

Cut
3

Figure 2—National Forest stumpage, residue, and chip prices for the Pacific Northwest.

year). This observation raises a number of questions, such as what are the trends,

what is the relation between chips and sawtimber, and what is the relation between

the two types of chips prices? These issues will be addressed in this research note.

Chip Prices The only long-term continuously reported chip prices for the Pacific Northwest are for

the export market, which have been reported since 1968 in various issues of “Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries” (see, for example,

Warren 1997). The volume, nominal price data, and the real price data for the two customs districts3 and the average for the Pacific Northwest are in the appendix, tables 1

through 12.

In some respects export chip prices may not be a useful proxy. The experience in the

saw-log market suggests that the export market is differentiated by increased handling,

generally higher quality standards, and various forms of trade barriers, which contribute

to price premiums for export logs (see Flora and others 1993 for a discussion of these

differences and for estimates of price premiums in the export log market). Although

these differences lead to concerns about the relations between domestic and export

prices, I believe that export chip prices serve three useful roles. First, they reflect

the underlying trends in all chip markets including the emerging market for fiber logs.

Second, in peak markets, prices in the export and domestic markets are arbitraged

against each other so that export prices represent some type of higher bound to chip

prices. Third, these export prices help explain seasonality and cyclical variation in

the chip market.

3 Trade data are commonly summarized to groupings of

individual ports called customs districts. The two customs

districts of greatest interest in the Pacific Northwest are the

Seattle and Columbia-Snake Customs Districts.

1910

1915192019251930

1935194019451950195519601965

197019751980198519901995

300

0

50

100

150

200

250

National Forest stumpage

Residue

Chips

1982 dollars/thousand board feet
4

Figure 3—Price trend for chip exports from the Columbia-Snake Customs District.

Trend in Prices In past market assessments, Pacific Northwest chip markets have been treated in

scant detail but the general assumption has been that domestic chip markets exhibit

no real price trend (see Haynes and others 1995). In terms of figure 1, that means

the plot of prices is flat for the period in question. However, chip price data from the

customs districts illustrate an upward trend (2 percent per year for the ColumbiaSnake Customs District and 1.6 percent per year for the Seattle Customs District)

in the two markets when measured during the 30 years for which data exist (see

figs. 3 and 4).

These results are somewhat deceptive because figures 3 and 4 illustrate a lack of

uniformity in price movements. There seems to be two general plateaus in the chip

price series: 1968-79 and 1980-96. In the economic literature this type of trend break

often reflects an underlying structural shift in some relation between the two periods

(Cogley 1997). In this case the structural shift could be due to the deep recession

that started in 1980 and fundamentally altered cost structures in U.S. producing

regions. This hypothesis is often tested by using a Chow test for the equality of

coefficients in two relations for the period in question (Chow 1960). In this case there

is a significant break in the data, reducing the trend by roughly half to 0.9 percent per

year for the Columbia-Snake Customs District and to 0.3 percent per year for the

Seattle Customs District. 1982 dollars/short ton

'

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1968 1st

1969 1st1970 1st1971 1st

1972 1st 1973 1st

1974 1st1975 1st

1976 1st1977 1st

1978 1st1979 1st1980 1st 1981 1st 1982 1st

1983 1st1984 1st 1985 1st1986 1st1987 1st1988 1st

1989 1st1990 1st1991 1st

1992 1st

1993 1st 1994 1st

1995 1st 1996 1st

1997 1st

Trend

Actual
5

Figure 4—Price trend for chip exports from the Seattle Customs District.

As can be seen from figure 1, this pattern generally corresponds to similar movements in the sawtimber stumpage market, except in the 1980s when market prices

fell and chip prices rose. This reflects two general underlying trends. First, since chips

often are manufactured from mill residues, the drop in lumber production in the early

1980s led to a sharp increase in chip prices during a time when stumpage prices fell

to low levels. Second, since the major export chip market is in Japan, it is necessary

to consider how price increases expressed in dollars are viewed by consumers who

saw chip prices expressed in yen. Figure 5 illustrates this trend and shows that

between 1984 and 1996 U.S. and Japanese consumers of chips received different

price signals largely because of changes in the yen-per-dollar exchange rate. During

this period, Japanese consumers saw U.S. chip prices decline 28 percent while U.S.

consumers saw prices for the same chips rise 52 percent. The relative change in the

value of currencies potentially increases demand for these products in foreign markets, keeping prices high when U.S. demand might be low.

In closing, there are trends in the export chip price data that are related to underlying

differences in how price changes are perceived by different groups (in this case, nationalities) of consumers. These trends in recent years have been modest (compared to the

1970s), but upward.

1968 1st

1969 1st 1970 1st1971 1st

1972 1st 1973 1st

1974 1st1975 1st

1976 1st1977 1st 1978 1st

1979 1st1980 1st1981 1st 1982 1st

1983 1st1984 1st

1985 1st1986 1st1987 1st 1988 1st

1989 1st1990 1st1991 1st

1992 1st

1993 1st 1994 1st

1995 1st 1996 1st

1997 1st

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

1982 dollars/short ton

Trend

Actual
6

Arbitrage Between

Domestic and

Export Markets

4 In the pricing literature, these are called marketing margins

(Haynes 1977) and they serve as a general source of

information about the nature and extent of the implicit relation

between different markets (or different market levels). The

relation is export chip prices equal 5.9 plus 0.8 times domestic

chip prices.

Figure 5—Chip prices as seen by U.S. and Japanese consumers.

In general, domestic chip prices (labeled “residue” in fig. 2) illustrate many of the same

trends as those for the export market, suggesting that the two markets share related

underlying determinants (see fig. 2). The limited domestic chip price series was developed from data collected from sawmills that purchased Forest Service timber. The prices

are for chipped mill residues and reflect a condition known as clean chips (because they

contain no bark or dirt). These data were used in support of the Forest Service timber

appraisal process, which included residue prices as part of potential mill realizations

(the total value that a mill receives from a timber sale). The data were summarized

and reported by Adams and others (1988). These residue prices are no longer available because appraisal methods changed in the late 1980s.

Conventional thinking in the Pacific Northwest is that the export and domestic chip

markets coincide only at peak market periods. This reflects the proposition that the

export market shows longer term market prices for a relatively high-quality product,

whereas the domestic market is a mix of long-term contracts, spot markets (some of

which is exported), and mixed quality (and species) product. The available price data

suggest a fixed relation4 between the two markets where the domestic price is about

80 percent of the export price. There is also little evidence (see fig. 2) that the markets

coincide only in peak market periods. The relation (except in 1971) seems to be fairly

consistent. This does not change the notion that export prices might set some type

of limit but it does reduce the utility of such notions. While not in a definitive fashion,

" "

1968 1992 1971 1995 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989

700

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1968 = 100

Dollar index

Yen index
7

these results support the proposition that export chip prices are a reasonable proxy of

all chip prices because there seems to be consistent market arbitrage occurring in

different aspects of the chip market. Additionally, differences in prices represent

different underlying cost structures rather than artificial barriers.

Forest products price data are generally reported without seasonal adjustments. The

issue of seasonality in various stumpage and lumber markets was examined by Haynes

(1991) and Sohngen and Haynes (1994). In general, we found seasonal patterns in the

quarterly data that affects intrayear comparisons among quarters, but no evidence of

cyclic patterns in the annual data.

In general, a price series has four components: trend, cycle, seasonality, and randomness. The trend component suggests whether prices generally increase or decrease over

time. The cycle component relates to the business cycle in general; for example, some

component of price is determined by the general level of economic activity at the time.

Seasonality is a component causing prices to be higher or lower during certain times of

the year. Randomness represents all that cannot be explained by the other three components.

The process for determining seasonality was taken from Pindyck and Rubinfeld (1981).

From the continuous data (1968-96) for the Columbia-Snake and Seattle Customs

Districts, final seasonal adjustments for the four quarters are:

 Columbia- PNW

Quarter Snake Seattle average

First quarter 0.986 0.999 0.999

Second quarter .993 .996 .998

Third quarter 1.022 .986 1.010

Fourth quarter .994 1.021 1.000

These indices show a modest amount of seasonality similar to what was found in the

stumpage and lumber markets in the Pacific Northwest (see Haynes [1991] and Sohngen

and Haynes [1994]). The empirical evidence shows only a small amount of long-term

trend in the price data, because the sum of the seasonal indices is nearly 4.00. The

implication is that the volatility in the chip price data seems to be due to long-term

cyclic trends in the market. The cyclic trends that affect chip markets may be similar

to slumps in overall economic growth. Seasonally adjusted price data are in the

appendix, tables 13, 14 and 15.

Seasonality and

Cycles
8

Fiber Log Prices Although chip prices continue to serve as a proxy for the value of nonsawtimber,

prices are now being reported for fiber logs in addition to prices for chips derived from

mill residues. Fiber logs are a mix of logs averaging 5 inches in diameter and larger.

Stands considered to be predominantly fiber stands average roughly 8 inches in

diameter where sawtimber stands average at least 11 inches in diameter. Fiber log

prices are typically expressed on a per ton basis delivered to mills. Prices for saw

logs and fiber logs in northeastern Oregon5 during 1994-97 were:

Year Saw logs Fiber logs

 Dollars per thousand board feet

1994 411 140

1995 343 174

1996 318 132

1997 277 128

Fiber log prices generally follow sawtimber prices but there are few comparable price

series to provide a more definitive view. As shown here, both types of timber share the

same downward trend (roughly a 25 percent drop from the high prices in 1994-95 to

the 1997 level) although there are differences in the 1994-95 period.

Discussion Changes in the chip markets are interesting in their own right, but they also play an

important role as a proxy for what is happening in broader timber markets. Interest in

chip prices has increased dramatically in the 1990s as harvests shift into generally

smaller diameter second-growth stands. For example, in western Oregon and Washington, the average diameter of harvested stands on private timberland fell 35 percent

(nearly 3 percent per year) between 1976 and 1991 (Haynes and others 1995). Recently,

relative changes in both average stand diameter and sawtimber-fiber log markets have

created confusion about the feasibility of various silvicultural practices being implemented using timber sales6 as the means for achieving desired future conditions for

contiguous sets of stands. One management question has become: What is the

minimum sawtimber fraction in stands that will sell using traditional timber sales?

5 These prices are reported in the “Blue Mountain Renewable Resources Newsletter,” published quarterly by the

Oregon State Extension Service in La Grande, Oregon.

Fiber log prices were converted from a per ton basis to a

thousand board feet (MBF) basis by the conversion factor 1

MBF = 4.254 tons (of selected species common in the Blue

Mountains of Oregon).

6 On public lands, timber sale contacts are still the primary

way land managers have to implement both final harvest

and intermediate treatments, such as thinning, as well as

to restore function and process at the stand level.
9

The extent of the problem of designing and offering timber sales with a high likelihood

of selling can be illustrated from these fiber log prices. Assuming logging costs of

$115 per thousand board feet, one can compute the minimum sawtimber fraction of

stands in northeastern Oregon that will sell, and that the value of those stands will

equal or exceed the costs of logging them. This amount ranged between 20 and 33

percent during 1994-977 and exemplifies some of the difficulty recently experienced

in designing sales that can be sold. For example, a sale designed in 1995 needed only

20 percent sawtimber in order to sell, but a sale in 1997 needed 33 percent sawtimber

to sell.

A final discussion point is the relation of chip prices in the Pacific Northwest with those

in Alaska (real prices for the Anchorage Customs District are shown in the appendix,

table 12). As is argued elsewhere (Haynes and Brooks 1990), prices in Alaska for

stumpage are arbitraged against those in the Pacific Northwest because both regions

share many of the same markets. The price data for the last 25 years suggest little

actual relation between chip prices in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. This reflects

a divergence between types of pulp markets. The two operating pulp mills in Alaska

produced only dissolving pulp while mills in the Pacific Northwest produced standard

pulp. Another suggestion is that chip prices in the Pacific Northwest are related more

to lumber prices than to pulp prices, and chip prices in Alaska are related more to pulp

prices than to lumber prices. Finally, the recent closure of both pulp mills in southeastern Alaska may lead to closer relations between chip markets in the Pacific Northwest

and Alaska.

Conclusions Earlier, the question was raised: Are export chip prices a reasonable proxy of nonsaw

timber values? The preceding discussion, although lacking a definitive test, suggests

that export chip prices provide a useful proxy for nonsawtimber values in understanding trends and seasonal issues. This judgment is based on both the empirical relations

between export and domestic chip prices in the Pacific Northwest and the more subjective evaluation of the how underlying market trends have affected sawtimber and

nonsawtimber markets differently.

Finally, several general statements can be made about chip markets. First, there are

long-term upward price trends in the chip price data. This rate of increase has slowed in

recent decades and it is considerably less than for sawtimber. Second, there is a rough

fixed relation between the domestic and export chip markets. These results support the

proposition that export chip prices are a reasonable measure of all chip prices because

there seems to be consistent market arbitrage occurring in different aspects of the chip

market. Third, these indices show a modest amount of seasonality, similar to what

has been found in the stumpage and lumber markets in the Pacific Northwest.

Acknowledgments Judy Mikowski developed the various data summaries from data compiled by Debra

Warren.

7 This is computed from the identity: fiber price (1-sawtimber

fraction) + sawtimber price (sawtimber fraction) = logging

costs.
10

Literature Cited Adams, D.M.; Jackson, D.C.; Haynes, R.W. 1988. Production, consumption, and

prices of softwood products in North America: regional time series data, 1950-1985.

Res. Bull. PNW-RB-151. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Chow, G.C. 1960. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions.

Econometrica. 28: 591-605.

Cogley, Timothy. 1997. Evaluating non-structural measures of the business cycle.

FRBSF. Economic Review. 1997(3): 3-21.

Flora, D.F.; McGinnis, W.J.; Lane, C.L. 1993. The export premium: why some logs are

worth more abroad. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-462. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Brooks, D.J. 1990. An analysis of the timber situation in Alaska; 1970-

2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-264. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

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

stumpage and lumber markets. Forest Science. 23: 281-288.

Haynes, Richard W. 1991. Monthly stumpage prices for the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap.

PNW-RP-436. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

Haynes, Richard W.; Adams, Darius M.; Mills, John R. 1995. The 1993 RPA timber

assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-259. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

66 p.

Pindyck, R.; Rubinfeld, D. 1981. Econometric models and economic forecasts. New

York: McGraw-Hill. 630 p.

Sohngen, Brent L.; Haynes, Richard 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.

Warren, Debra D. 1997. Production, prices, employment and trade in Northwest forest

industries, fourth quarter 1996. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-226. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 130 p.
11

Appendix Table 1—Volume of chips, by quarter, exported from Columbia-Snake Customs

District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

 ------------------------------------Short tons-----------------------------------

1968 216,283 279,302 332,723 274,361

1969 369,751 262,584 358,644 469,690

1970 341,081 284,156 547,348 432,477

1971 457,107 393,780 21,175 632,107

1972 407,946 460,451 557,985 654,650

1973 586,999 662,377 779,110 750,343

1974 820,051 778,340 784,043 795,031

1975 449,090 576,832 749,255 661,630

1976 735,027 764,881 708,615 673,054

1977 643,794 723,641 799,343 725,464

1978 629,826 734,066 661,431 625,100

1979 691,511 807,820 870,537 755,235

1980 737,661 767,411 716,415 628,440

1981 715,962 443,236 463,096 454,318

1982 502,602 475,798 500,303 435,736

1983 400,690 441,218 438,092 388,971

1984 392,085 441,888 418,463 380,379

1985 422,788 416,802 393,944 392,956

1986 325,281 407,330 376,420 468,708

1987 349,730 451,497 566,455 485,238

1988 393,460 579,809 467,338 575,381

1989 534,906 577,542 602,796 537,038

1990 539,181 490,154 553,988 497,876

1991 498,680 550,492 585,496 507,047

1992 459,378 463,320 434,875 408,928

1993 379,056 397,364 347,428 421,056

1994 337,688 316,109 486,706 378,269

1995 316,713 314,730 294,622 403,525

1996 293,471 322,151 289,676 325,668

1997 277,599 318,235 -- --

-- = not available.
12

Table 2—Nominal value of chips, by quarter, exported from Columbia-Snake

Customs District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

------------------------------------Dollars per short tons-----------------------------------

1968 20.35 20.67 24.92 19.95

1969 21.19 21.09 20.89 21.21

1970 18.50 18.94 19.59 19.83

1971 19.42 20.92 21.02 22.07

1972 21.83 20.47 22.25 23.34

1973 23.57 25.21 24.06 26.35

1974 27.04 29.70 29.22 20.13

1975 33.55 29.25 35.15 39.85

1976 37.06 40.20 41.92 40.90

1977 42.42 43.96 43.49 43.32

1978 42.38 43.35 44.42 41.62

1979 40.73 41.61 42.35 45.45

1980 63.71 85.88 109.10 97.05

1981 87.17 82.55 85.77 86.90

1982 83.30 83.38 84.57 81.80

1983 70.19 70.65 66.44 65.22

1984 64.65 66.57 73.42 79.86

1985 74.53 75.91 73.39 72.90

1986 73.95 72.12 73.23 69.62

1987 72.62 72.85 72.69 72.82

1988 72.31 77.90 82.09 78.88

1989 72.16 94.01 109.63 109.64

1990 99.78 98.92 94.26 90.31

1991 101.30 103.02 107.71 106.47

1992 104.92 106.64 108.26 107.71

1993 106.71 105.71 102.97 101.81

1994 101.98 102.68 103.70 101.07

1995 110.66 123.67 147.29 137.62

1996 129.50 105.73 98.92 100.89

1997 91.61 92.08 -- --

-- = not available.
13

Table 3—Real value of chips, by quarter, exported from Columbia-Snake Customs

District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-------------------------------1982 dollars per short tons------------------------------

1968 62.36 63.03 75.91 60.21

1969 63.13 62.40 61.50 61.65

1970 53.31 53.96 55.50 55.55

1971 53.94 57.47 57.12 59.81

1972 58.53 54.30 58.71 61.26

1973 60.75 62.87 59.26 63.19

1974 60.90 61.75 56.85 37.98

1975 58.67 50.60 59.54 66.78

1976 61.79 66.06 68.07 65.81

1977 66.79 67.59 66.79 65.75

1978 62.80 62.37 62.94 57.66

1979 54.45 53.72 53.02 54.96

1980 73.62 97.29 119.64 104.03

1981 90.73 84.01 86.70 87.93

1982 83.30 83.38 84.57 81.80

1983 69.92 70.14 65.33 63.82

1984 62.56 63.99 70.74 77.15

1985 72.18 73.42 71.49 70.57

1986 72.68 72.24 73.71 69.83

1987 71.99 71.08 70.13 69.93

1988 69.06 73.19 76.07 72.74

1989 65.05 83.40 97.57 97.17

1990 87.83 80.75 76.72 74.11

1991 86.36 88.86 92.72 91.42

1992 90.55 90.91 91.51 91.07

1993 89.92 88.34 86.53 85.77

1994 85.77 85.59 85.28 82.66

1995 89.05 98.02 116.90 109.72

1996 102.45 83.06 77.77 78.82

1997 71.07 71.99 -- --

-- = not available.
14

Table 4—Volume of chips, by quarter, exported from Seattle Customs District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

------------------------------------------Short tons-----------------------------------------------

1968 -- 46,280 31,680 34,171

1969 23,760 39,233 53,756 43,416

1970 61,424 64,537 49,590 63,206

1971 59,559 76,562 36,897 56,219

1972 36,756 29,150 50,680 52,139

1973 41,356 45,791 71,302 113,747

1974 77,205 78,449 108,159 126,557

1975 112,651 72,668 80,695 60,069

1976 73,962 134,988 173,302 75,549

1977 74,676 53,535 76,622 76,707

1978 95,285 59,858 39,786 104,211

1979 55,907 114,584 77,179 98,539

1980 21,508 123,993 31,697 90,905

1981 49,140 79,290 60,004 108,027

1982 83,962 64,361 74,513 105,538

1983 69,722 64,243 77,917 36,053

1984 58,862 45,002 77,700 34,525

1985 67,551 54,056 103,586 50,861

1986 91,810 58,676 111,582 184,158

1987 84,041 108,308 148,451 123,626

1988 159,794 177,621 168,256 176,140

1989 198,897 206,821 236,547 158,298

1990 156,525 236,160 181,488 170,224

1991 225,541 120,991 154,151 180,368

1992 142,730 151,791 164,030 124,591

1993 173,528 125,783 174,342 114,912

1994 165,675 129,913 268,569 191,716

1995 90,506 138,652 158,401 155,135

1996 141,570 170,023 124,553 153,842

1997 159,662 211,179 -- --

-- = not available.
15

Table 5—Nominal value of chips, by quarter, exported from Seattle Custom District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-----------------------------------Dollars per short ton-----------------------------------

1968 -- 23.37 21.17 21.70

1969 22.44 23.74 24.75 26.06

1970 18.41 19.79 19.95 20.13

1971 18.98 18.43 15.35 17.57

1972 20.20 18.20 20.23 19.21

1973 19.29 18.30 21.93 24.13

1974 22.36 25.29 31.12 32.37

1975 39.95 37.21 34.74 42.72

1976 42.66 29.65 28.85 41.40

1977 49.86 47.54 49.36 47.56

1978 41.31 50.99 49.05 46.72

1979 49.83 44.80 54.00 53.18

1980 56.29 76.67 91.79 84.65

1981 73.54 84.91 77.61 82.69

1982 88.46 75.43 83.00 71.67

1983 75.40 74.74 74.34 70.86

1984 77.03 70.40 77.69 83.29

1985 80.40 75.52 73.03 77.60

1986 81.31 75.47 74.58 69.48

1987 81.47 80.10 74.77 81.64

1988 86.24 87.99 97.59 85.24

1989 75.53 96.11 72.52 102.05

1990 92.54 98.58 93.88 95.72

1991 98.41 103.30 106.01 106.38

1992 101.32 101.68 96.23 107.39

1993 97.20 106.57 89.29 90.89

1994 76.61 82.57 70.70 77.58

1995 99.36 118.97 108.25 121.32

1996 100.76 95.11 94.90 93.38

1997 72.32 66.08 -- --

-- = not available.
16

Table 6—Real value of chips, by quarter, exported from Seattle Customs District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

------------------------------1982 dollars per short ton---------------------------------

1968 -- 71.24 64.46 65.49

1969 66.85 70.24 72.86 75.75

1970 53.05 56.38 56.52 56.39

1971 52.72 50.63 41.71 47.62

1972 54.16 48.28 53.38 50.42

1973 49.72 45.64 54.01 57.87

1974 50.36 52.58 60.54 61.08

1975 69.86 64.38 58.84 71.59

1976 71.13 48.72 46.84 66.62

1977 78.50 73.09 75.80 72.18

1978 61.22 73.36 69.50 64.73

1979 66.62 57.84 67.61 64.31

1980 65.05 86.86 100.66 90.73

1981 76.54 86.41 78.45 83.67

1982 88.46 75.43 83.00 71.67

1983 75.11 74.20 73.10 69.34

1984 74.54 67.67 74.86 80.46

1985 77.86 73.05 71.14 75.12

1986 79.91 75.60 75.07 69.69

1987 80.76 78.15 72.14 78.40

1988 82.36 82.66 90.44 78.60

1989 68.09 85.26 64.54 90.45

1990 81.46 80.47 76.41 78.54

1991 83.82 89.10 91.26 91.34

1992 87.45 86.68 81.34 90.80

1993 81.91 89.06 75.03 76.57

1994 64.43 68.83 58.14 63.45

1995 79.96 94.30 85.91 96.72

1996 79.72 74.71 74.61 72.95

1997 56.11 51.67 -- --

-- = not available.
17

Table 7—Volume of chips, by quarter, exported from Pacific Northwest customs

districts

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

------------------------------------------Short tons----------------------------------------------

1968 -- 325,583 364,403 308,532

1969 393,511 301,817 412,400 513,106

1970 402,505 348,693 596,938 495,683

1971 516,666 470,342 58,072 688,326

1972 444,702 489,601 608,665 706,789

1973 628,355 708,168 850,412 864,090

1974 897,256 856,789 892,202 921,588

1975 561,741 649,500 829,950 721,699

1976 808,989 899,869 881,917 748,603

1977 718,470 777,176 875,965 802,171

1978 725,111 793,924 701,217 729,311

1979 747,418 922,404 947,716 853,774

1980 759,169 891,404 748,112 719,345

1981 765,102 522,526 523,100 562,345

1982 586,564 540,159 574,816 541,274

1983 470,412 505,461 516,009 425,024

1984 450,947 486,890 496,163 414,904

1985 490,339 470,858 497,530 443,817

1986 417,091 466,006 488,002 652,866

1987 433,771 559,805 714,906 608,864

1988 553,254 757,430 635,594 751,521

1989 733,803 784,363 839,343 695,336

1990 695,706 726,314 735,476 668,100

1991 724,221 671,483 739,647 687,415

1992 602,108 615,111 598,905 533,519

1993 552,584 523,147 521,770 535,968

1994 503,363 446,022 755,275 569,985

1995 407,219 453,382 453,023 558,660

1996 435,041 492,174 414,229 479,510

1997 437,261 529,414 -- --

-- = not available.
18

Table 8—Nominal value of chips, by quarter, exported from Pacific Northwest

customs districts

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

---------------------------Dollars per short ton--------------------------------

1968 -- 21.06 24.60 20.14

1969 21.27 21.44 21.39 21.62

1970 18.49 19.10 19.62 19.87

1971 19.37 20.51 17.42 21.70

1972 21.70 20.33 22.08 23.04

1973 23.29 24.76 23.88 26.06

1974 26.64 29.30 29.45 21.81

1975 34.83 30.14 35.11 40.09

1976 37.57 38.62 39.35 40.95

1977 43.19 44.21 44.00 43.73

1978 42.24 43.93 44.68 42.35

1979 41.41 42.01 43.30 46.34

1980 63.50 84.60 108.37 95.48

1981 86.29 82.91 84.83 86.09

1982 84.04 82.43 84.37 79.82

1983 70.96 71.17 67.63 65.70

1984 66.27 66.92 74.09 80.15

1985 75.34 75.87 73.32 73.44

1986 75.57 72.54 73.54 69.58

1987 74.33 74.25 73.12 74.61

1988 76.33 80.27 86.19 80.37

1989 73.07 94.56 99.17 107.91

1990 98.15 98.81 94.17 91.69

1991 100.46 103.07 107.36 106.45

1992 104.07 105.42 104.97 107.64

1993 103.72 105.92 98.40 99.47

1994 93.63 96.82 91.97 93.17

1995 108.15 122.23 133.64 133.09

1996 120.15 102.06 97.71 98.48

1997 84.57 81.71 -- --

-- = not available.
19

Table 9—Real value of chips, by quarter, exported from Pacific Northwest

customs districts

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

--------------------------1982 dollars per short ton-------------------------

1968 -- 64.20 74.91 60.79

1969 63.36 63.42 62.98 62.84

1970 53.27 54.41 55.58 55.65

1971 53.80 56.36 47.33 58.81

1972 58.16 53.94 58.26 60.46

1973 60.02 61.75 58.82 62.49

1974 59.99 60.91 57.30 41.15

1975 60.91 52.15 59.47 67.18

1976 62.65 63.46 63.90 65.90

1977 68.01 67.97 67.57 66.36

1978 62.60 63.20 63.31 58.67

1979 55.36 54.23 54.21 56.04

1980 73.38 95.84 118.84 102.35

1981 89.82 84.37 85.75 87.11

1982 84.04 82.43 84.37 79.82

1983 70.69 70.65 66.50 64.29

1984 64.12 64.33 71.39 77.42

1985 72.96 73.38 71.41 71.09

1986 74.27 72.66 74.02 69.79

1987 73.69 72.45 70.55 71.65

1988 72.90 75.41 79.88 74.11

1989 65.87 83.89 88.26 95.64

1990 86.40 80.66 76.64 75.24

1991 85.57 88.90 92.42 91.40

1992 89.82 89.87 88.73 91.01

1993 87.41 88.51 82.69 83.80

1994 78.75 80.71 75.63 76.20

1995 87.03 96.88 106.06 106.11

1996 95.79 81.37 77.90 78.51

1997 67.42 65.14 -- --

-- = not available.
20

Table 10—Volume of chips, by quarter, exported from Anchorage Customs

District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-----------------------------------------Short tons-----------------------------------------------

1970 -- -- -- --

1971 9,800 9,800 -- --

1972 20,185 -- -- --

1973 -- -- -- --

1974 10,725 87 21,816 2,200

1975 13,308 6,984 10,523 1,584

1976 17,252 18,658 39,554 32,188

1977 10,083 38,868 40,610 17,868

1978 11,807 11,138 8,922 --

1979 7,921 13,911 31,505 30,369

1980 30,649 57,860 40,103 22,716

1981 10,534 -- 33,499 33,616

1982 -- 27,430 32,404 14,330

1983 6,645 -- -- --

1984 11,609 -- -- 4,916

1985 -- -- -- --

1986 -- -- -- --

1987 -- -- -- 252

1988 208 -- 11,297 --

1989 14,034 48,066 23,766 --

1990 -- 4,199 15,819 8,265

1991 61,692 13,214 13,561 12,900

1992 -- -- 8,589 6,921

1993 -- 17,641 21,008 17,641

1994 42,092 6,610 9,807 14,994

1995 46,626 25,075 36,171 38,405

1996 65,782 49,286 30,452 54,343

1997 21,149 14,230 -- --

-- = not available.
21

Table 11—Nominal value of chips, by quarter, exported from Anchorage Customs

District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

----------------------------------Dollars per short ton------------------------------------

1970 -- -- -- --

1971 27.55 28.57 -- --

1972 25.76 -- -- --

1973 -- -- -- --

1974 26.57 24.14 28.07 50.00

1975 39.94 65.01 47.51 54.29

1976 53.83 45.82 34.29 29.16

1977 46.55 43.18 61.80 50.00

1978 37.94 34.87 39.12 --

1979 37.31 45.21 61.55 39.73

1980 83.49 49.94 97.34 91.76

1981 48.05 -- 86.29 68.98

1982 -- 56.53 77.99 72.44

1983 34.67 -- -- --

1984 28.53 -- -- 46.51

1985 -- -- -- --

1986 -- -- -- --

1987 -- -- -- 45.52

1988 48.08 -- 48.69 --

1989 49.88 34.74 52.60 --

1990 -- 31.91 81.23 86.15

1991 60.46 111.02 100.95 104.11

1992 -- -- 23.64 19.36

1993 -- 113.38 104.67 113.37

1994 104.13 104.08 116.75 116.98

1995 108.54 129.83 202.37 116.73

1996 96.53 89.42 72.51 69.59

1997 66.95 62.75 -- --

-- = not available.
22

Table 12—Real value of chips, by quarter, exported from Anchorage Customs

District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

---------------------------1982 dollars per short ton------------------------

1970 -- -- -- --

1971 76.53 78.49 -- --

1972 69.06 -- -- --

1973 -- -- -- --

1974 59.84 50.19 54.61 94.34

1975 69.84 112.47 80.47 90.98

1976 89.76 75.30 55.68 46.92

1977 73.29 66.39 94.90 75.89

1978 56.22 50.17 55.43 --

1979 49.88 58.37 77.06 48.05

1980 96.48 56.58 106.74 98.36

1981 50.01 -- 87.22 69.80

1982 -- 56.53 77.99 72.44

1983 34.54 -- -- --

1984 27.61 -- -- 44.93

1985 -- -- -- --

1986 -- -- -- --

1987 -- -- -- 43.71

1988 45.92 -- 45.12 --

1989 44.97 30.82 46.81 --

1990 -- 26.05 66.11 70.69

1991 51.50 95.76 86.90 89.39

1992 -- -- 19.98 16.37

1993 -- 94.75 87.96 95.51

1994 87.58 86.76 96.01 95.68

1995 87.34 102.19 160.61 93.06

1996 76.37 70.24 57.00 54.37

1997 51.94 49.06 -- --

-- = not available.
23

Table 13—Real value (seasonally adjusted), by quarter, of chips exported from

Columbia-Snake Customs District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-------------------------------1982 dollars per short ton---------------------

1968 -- 65.74 64.05 65.75

1969 62.62 62.52 58.34 57.91

1970 56.42 54.88 53.47 55.91

1971 56.75 57.40 56.89 57.74

1972 58.59 58.52 57.40 61.21

1973 61.83 61.86 60.13 61.60

1974 61.47 54.67 52.57 51.29

1975 52.38 59.22 58.30 63.88

1976 66.54 65.80 65.14 67.42

1977 67.62 67.10 64.21 64.77

1978 64.30 61.78 57.98 57.49

1979 55.43 54.34 57.47 70.09

1980 87.51 99.19 100.54 100.12

1981 92.56 87.82 83.51 85.77

1982 85.91 83.72 78.07 77.01

1983 72.74 67.67 63.95 64.26

1984 66.13 68.99 69.37 73.76

1985 74.52 72.31 70.37 72.12

1986 73.25 72.51 70.28 72.03

1987 71.68 71.17 68.43 70.95

1988 73.01 73.17 70.10 74.70

1989 80.73 86.27 89.38 91.31

1990 86.74 80.29 77.65 81.94

1991 86.63 90.34 88.79 91.88

1992 92.29 91.52 88.76 90.68

1993 90.13 88.13 84.60 86.37

1994 86.72 85.30 83.67 89.22

1995 97.92 103.99 104.30 103.57

1996 94.47 86.00 75.88 75.31

-- = not available.
24

Table 14—Real value (seasonally adjusted), by quarter, of chips exported from

Seattle Customs District

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-------------------------------1982 dollars per short ton--------------------------------

1968 -- -- 68.01 65.38

1969 68.98 71.77 68.99 63.18

1970 60.53 55.85 56.33 52.95

1971 50.45 48.40 49.25 46.95

1972 50.94 51.80 51.20 48.76

1973 50.03 52.05 52.74 52.59

1974 55.43 56.41 61.92 62.64

1975 63.65 66.48 67.48 61.28

1976 59.68 58.61 61.07 64.89

1977 73.63 75.25 71.62 69.18

1978 69.18 67.52 69.57 63.33

1979 64.31 64.40 64.65 69.49

1980 79.36 86.23 90.02 86.75

1981 83.18 81.65 85.50 79.82

1982 82.78 80.02 77.44 74.42

1983 73.64 73.28 73.88 69.69

1984 71.73 74.74 76.33 74.97

1985 75.76 74.64 75.92 73.88

1986 76.55 75.42 76.40 74.35

1987 75.31 77.73 78.92 77.26

1988 83.61 83.91 81.14 78.93

1989 74.25 77.45 81.62 77.59

1990 82.34 79.60 81.00 80.27

1991 85.83 89.30 91.12 87.34

1992 86.85 86.98 86.45 84.00

1993 84.35 81.03 77.41 69.74

1994 67.11 64.02 68.60 72.43

1995 81.04 89.65 90.49 82.52

1996 81.58 75.86 70.63 62.51

-- = not available.
25

Table 15—Real value (seasonally adjusted), by quarter, of chips exported from

Pacific Northwest customs districts

Quarter

Year 1st 2d 3d 4th

-------------------------------1982 dollars per short ton--------------------------------

1968 -- -- 65.14 65.59

1969 63.23 63.25 60.01 58.35

1970 57.06 54.81 54.30 55.32

1971 53.79 54.16 54.60 54.54

1972 57.83 57.79 57.57 60.10

1973 60.83 60.86 60.14 60.53

1974 60.74 54.92 54.50 52.85

1975 53.92 60.02 59.74 63.16

1976 64.90 64.07 64.64 66.41

1977 67.99 67.58 65.45 64.90

1978 64.47 62.04 59.52 57.87

1979 56.14 55.05 58.85 69.84

1980 86.83 97.75 100.66 98.80

1981 91.42 86.90 84.44 84.80

1982 85.28 82.79 78.51 76.35

1983 72.59 68.14 65.71 64.78

1984 66.65 69.42 70.79 73.75

1985 74.49 72.32 71.79 72.33

1986 73.69 72.80 71.79 72.45

1987 72.29 72.19 71.15 72.59

1988 75.66 75.69 73.06 75.90

1989 78.77 83.54 87.64 87.70

1990 85.63 79.86 78.71 81.55

1991 86.33 89.71 89.70 90.83

1992 90.80 89.99 88.34 88.87

1993 88.22 85.73 82.58 81.45

1994 80.47 77.94 79.07 83.90

1995 92.40 99.17 100.17 97.29

1996 91.14 83.52 75.52 72.21

-- = not available.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
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.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890, Portland

Oregon 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label