126 

### Introduction 

# Chapter 4: Alternative Futures 1

Since the 1983 RPA timber assessment supplement (Haynes and Adams 1985), timber assessments have contained sets of alternative projections or scenarios. 2 These alternatives have been designed to represent different views of the future derived fromoften divergent opinions about trends and conditions in the major determinants of supply and demand. Results from these alternatives, when compared to the base case, may help identify emerging problems or assess the potential effects of some proposedpolicy change. In the 1980s, for example, the RPA timber assessment and other studies developed numerous scenarios looking at the relations between changes in federal timber flows (largely in the West) and stumpage prices and private timber harvestlevels in the United States (see Haynes 1990, Haynes and Adams 1985). When federal timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest declined in the early 1990s, the consequences (in terms of impacts on markets and on private lands in the West and South) were reasonably understood by policymakers and various interest groups because of this history of scenario planning.
In this fifth timber assessment, the initial scenario is the “base case” that has been discussed in detail in chapter 3. It represents a starting point, employing one view of the influences affecting supply and demand and assuming no fundamental changes in existing forest policies or environmental regulations. The various alternative futurescenarios reflect differences in one or a few selected elements of the base case. Because the analysis derives from economic equilibrium models, changes in just one input variable can displace projected market equilibria and affect all projected output variables.

1 The authors for this chapter are Darius M. Adams, Peter J. Ince, Richard W. Haynes, Ralph J. Alig and John R. Mills.

2 These scenarios provide users of the RPA timber assessment with a basis for “scenario planning” by using classical sensitivity analysis, where a limited number of key exogenous and endogenous elements are varied in a projection, and key results are examined for differences. These differences allow the identification of emerging problems and provide a way to measure the effectiveness of possible solutions to those problems (Schwartz 1991).127 Three groups of scenarios are examined in this timber assessment report. 1. Changes in timber supply. This group comprises four scenarios: a) Elimination of all national forest harvest in all regions and for all species and products. b) Increasing national forest harvest in the “interior West” regions to twice its level in the base case. c) Decreasing Canadian sawtimber harvest. In the base case, Canadian sawtimber harvest after 2010 is reduced to near the average levels of the 1985-95 period. In the lower harvest scenario, harvest after 2010 is reduced a further 20 percent to the levels of the late 1970s. d) Increasing nonindustrial private forest afforestation. An additional 6 million acres of agricultural land are afforested under a hypothetical public program, augmenting the timberland base in nonindustrial private forest ownership. Most of the afforested area comes as pine plantations in the South. 2. Reduced sawtimber demand—lower U.S. housing activity. The average size of new residential housing units remains constant from 2030 to 2050. 3. Reduced demand for paper—lower consumption of newsprint and printing andwriting papers. Consumption of newsprint and printing and writing papers is reduced by 14 million tons by the year 2050. As a result, per capita U.S. paper and board consumption remains roughly stable in the projection at 750 pounds per person, approximately the 1999 level.

Timber management has not always been the dominant management model for national forests. Until 1944, the national forests—including those in the Pacific Northwest—were largely managed with the goal of resource conservation while integrating the needs of specific user groups. At the end of World War II, leaders of the Forest Service rapidly increased harvest rates to support lumber and plywood production (see fig. 12). Public lands were recognized as the major remaining source of timber, and timber management the primary goal of national forests. Harvest during the 1950s in the Pacific Northwest equaled the harvest for all prior years. Expansion continued until the early 1960s, when increasingly complex and contentious demands on public lands led to countervailing pressures on Forest Service leaders. During the 1990s, management changes set in motion by habitat conservation requirements for the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest West pushed harvests back to levelsobserved in the early 1950s. While there have been many proposals for further modifications of national forest harvests, two scenarios illustrate the range of recent discussions. First, there have been calls for a total elimination of national forest timberharvests (see, for example, Fairbanks and Green 2001, Niemi and Fifield 2000). Second, the perceived forest health crisis in the interior Western States has stimulatedinterest in the use of thinning as one means of restoring ecosystem process and function (and presumably forest health). Scenarios developed to examine these cases are shown in figure 73.
In the first case, all timber harvests on the national forests were halted effective in 2002. Results for a selection of price, production, and inventory measures are shown in table 22. In the second case, base-level timber harvests were doubled in the interior 

### Changes in National Forest Harvest Level128 Figure 73—National forest softwood harvest in base, zero harvest, and doubled interior West harvest scenarios.

West (Pacific Northwest East, Pacific Southwest, Rocky Mountains) regions, assuming the same mix of sawtimber and pulpwood-size material as was harvested from these forests in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The zero cut scenario involves an average annual reduction in national forest softwood roundwood harvest of about 700 million cubic feet for the United States as a whole—about 6 percent of the U.S. average annual softwood harvest in the base case. Doubling cut on the interior West national forests would involve a 445-million-cubic-feet-per-year increase—about 4 percent of the U.S. average annual softwood harvest in the base case. Both of these scenarios have their largest impacts on softwood solid wood markets and on softwood timber harvests in the W est (see table 22). Eliminating harvests from the national forests reduces U.S. softwood lumber production by 2 to 7 percent and U.S. consumption by 1 to 2 percent. 3Softwood lumber price effects increase gradually over time, about 9 percent by 2050, reflecting the low responsiveness (inelasticity) of demand for these products to changes in their prices. Softwood sawtimber and growing-stock harvests in the United States fall by less than the reduction in nationalforest harvest as private forest owners respond to increased stumpage prices. Reductions in national forest harvest in the West entail a shift in harvest to private lands inthe East. Aggregate harvest falls in the West (because private lands there have a limited ability to increase harvest) and rises on private lands in the South. Private softwood growing-stock inventory falls below base levels by expanding percentages in all regions as the projection proceeds.

3 In the base case and all scenarios, Canadian sawtimber harvest is constrained by the bounds assumed and discussed in chapter 3. As a consequence, there is no upward response from Canadian softwood lumber imports in cases that restrict United States supplies. Further, although imports from non-Canadian sources are sensitive to price in the short term, a sustained price increase does not act to extend or augment the base-case supply assumptions. That is, the non-Canadian import supply curves do not shift from their base-case locations.129 Softwood lumber Million production board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 36,674 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 32,467 -2.1 1.4 0 0 0 0 2020 36,079 -3.3 1.6 6.0 0 .3 0 2030 37,444 -3.5 3.0 9.2 0 .8 0 2040 39,546 -5.8 2.4 10.2 -3.1 5.0 -.1 2050 43,310 -7.2 2.5 9.1 -5.5 85 -.1

Softwood lumber Million consumption board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 54,421 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 56,289 -.7 .5 0 0 0 0 2020 57,889 -1.1 .6 -2.9 0 .1 0 2030 60,456 -1.1 .9 -2.1 0 .2 0 2040 64,621 -1.8 .8 -1.7 -3.0 1.5 0 2050 70,014 -2.3 .8 -1.7 -5.6 2.7 0

Softwood lumber Million imports board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 19,178 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 25,322 1.2 -.8 0 0 0 0 2020 23,310 2.3 -1.1 -16.4 0 -.2 0 2030 24,511 2.5 -2.2 -19.3 0 -.6 0 2040 26,575 4.3 -1.7 -19.2 -2.6 -3.8 .1 2050 28,204 5.5 -1.8 -18.2 -5.4 -6.3 .1

Real softwood lumber price index 1982 = 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 1.559 0 0 0 0 0 2010 1.460 3.8 -2.5 0 0 -.1 0 2020 1.703 4.6 -2.3 16.4 0 -.5 0 2030 1.661 4.9 -3.7 8.9 0 -1.4 .1 2040 1.872 6.8 -2.9 5.1 -5.1 -8.5 .1 2050 1.988 8.7 -3.0 5.4 -10.2 -13.3 .1 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios130 Real hardwood lumber price index 1982 = 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 1.410 0 0 0 0 0 2010 1.592 .4 -.2 0 0 0 0 2020 1.709 .8 -.1 1.3 0 -.1 0 2030 1.756 .7 -.3 .7 0 -.1 0 2040 1.795 .8 -.2 .3 -.4 -.8 .1 2050 1.823 .9 -.2 .2 -1.1 -1.3 0

Real South softwood sawtimber 1982 harvest price dollars/mbf b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 231 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 294 3.6 -1.4 .8 0 -.3 0 2020 305 4.2 -.8 3.8 0 -3.6 0 2030 299 4.8 -2.2 4.7 -.4 -9.4 -.3 2040 311 7.4 -2.1 5.4 -2.4 -23.3 -.3 2050 316 8.2 -2.4 5.6 -4.3 -37.5 -.5

Real Pacific Northwest West softwood sawtimber 1982 harvest price dollars/mbf b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 280 11.9 -4.5 1.4 0 -.1 0 2020 291 15.9 -7.3 11.7 0 -1.0 0 2030 279 19.7 -4.9 4.0 -.5 -1.7 0 2040 305 17.0 -4.0 2.3 -2.7 -5.4 0 2050 339 11.9 -4.7 3.1 -7.1 -10.4 0

Real North hardwood sawtimber 1982 harvest price dollars/mbf b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1997 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 210 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 2020 218 1.2 -.1 .4 0 0 0 2030 223 1.0 -.2 .1 0 0 0 2040 229 .8 -.1 .1 -.1 -.1 0 2050 238 .6 -.1 0 -.1 .1 0 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios131 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios

Real South

hardwood sawtimber 1982 harvest price dollars/mbf b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1997 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 92 .9 -.1 0 0 -.1 0 2020 107 10.1 -.1 6.0 0 -.4 0 2030 149 5.2 -1.7 3.8 -.1 -.7 -.1 2040 181 3.0 -.6 1.1 -1.6 -2.8 -.2 2050 201 2.4 -.7 .5 -3.2 -4.2 -.1

North softwood

growing-stock Million removal cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 706 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 638 0 -.2 0 0 0 0 2020 606 -.4 -.2 .8 0 0 0 2030 603 -.9 -1.1 -.2 -.1 -.1 0 2040 611 -1.1 -.8 -.2 -.3 -.3 0 2050 616 -.8 -.8 0 -.5 -.5 0

South softwood

growing-stock Million removal cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 6,281 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 5,941 .3 -.4 0 0 0 0 2020 6,965 .5 -.4 3.0 0 .3 .5 2030 7,973 .2 -1.1 2.7 -1.2 1.3 -.8 2040 8,576 1.1 -1.7 3.6 -2.0 4.3 -1.4 2050 9,333 -.2 -2.3 1.3 -5.3 6.6 -2.4

West softwood growing-stock Million removal cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 3,243 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 2,880 -4.7 3.6 0 0 0 0 2020 3,054 -6.7 3.7 3.4 0 -.1 0 2030 3,036 -8.2 5.2 5.9 0 -.4 0 2040 3,246 -14.2 5.3 4.7 -1.4 -1.7 0 2050 3,443 -16.6 5.9 4.2 -2.9 -3.1 0132 North hardwood growing-stock Million removal cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 2,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 2,094 .5 0 0 0 0 0 2020 2,287 -.3 -.2 .2 0 -.3 .5 2030 2,340 -1.5 -2.1 -.8 .5 -.2 .3 2040 2,417 -1.5 -3.0 .9 -.1 -.8 .2 2050 2,544 .2 -2.7 3.6 -1.6 -.4 -.7

South hardwood growing-stock Million removal cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 4,209 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 4,220 0 -.1 0 0 0 0 2020 4,559 -.2 .2 2.4 0 .1 .3 2030 4,873 0 .3 1.0 -1.1 .2 -1.0 2040 4,952 -.6 .5 .4 -.3 -.6 -1.6 2050 4,906 -.8 -.9 -4.6 .7 -.5 -.4

U.S. softwood sawtimber Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 6,373 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 5,244 -1.8 1.2 0 0 0 0 2020 5,514 -2.7 1.5 4.7 0 .2 0 2030 5,555 -2.7 2.8 7.4 0 .7 0 2040 5,683 -4.5 2.3 8.4 -2.7 4.5 -.1 2050 5,978 -5.6 2.4 7.7 -4.9 7.6 -.1

U.S. softwood

nonsawtimber Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 3,954 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 4,432 -.5 -.4 0 0 0 0 2020 5,333 -.6 -.1 .8 0 0 .6 2030 6,286 -1.4 -1.3 -.6 -1.5 .8 -.9 2040 7,009 -1.8 -1.5 -.7 -.7 .5 -1.7 2050 7,688 -3.4 -2.0 -2.8 -3.7 .1 -2.8 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios133 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios

U.S. hardwood

sawtimber Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 2,668 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 2,768 .1 -.1 0 0 0 0 2020 2,811 0 -.1 .5 0 0 0 2030 2,823 -.1 -.2 .3 0 0 0 2040 2,843 .1 -.1 .3 -.1 -.2 0 2050 2,862 .2 -.1 .3 -.3 -.4 0

U.S. hardwood

nonsawtimber Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 4,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 4,746 .3 0 0 0 0 0 2020 5,215 -.3 .1 1.6 0 0 .4 2030 5,557 -.6 -.6 .2 -.6 .1 -.7 2040 5,757 -1.2 -.8 .5 -.2 -.7 -1.1 2050 5,920 -.6 -1.8 -1.6 0 -.3 -.6 North private

softwood growing-stock Million inventory cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 38,042 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 40,872 -.5 0 0 0 0 0 2020 43,292 -1.1 0 -.1 0 .1 0 2030 45,281 -1.6 .1 -.1 0 .1 0 2040 46,590 -1.9 .2 -.1 0 .2 0 2050 47,653 -2.2 .3 0 .1 .3 0 South private softwood

growing-stock Million inventory cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 87,678 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 97,414 -1.1 .1 0 0 .9 0 2020 112,311 -2.6 .5 -.9 0 6.5 0 2030 122,576 -4.1 .9 -3.1 .2 10.5 .1 2040 127,863 -5.6 1.6 -5.4 1.0 11.1 .3 2050 126,132 -7.5 2.8 -7.4 2.7 10.2 1.2134 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios

West private

softwood growing-stock Million inventory cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 70,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 70,186 -2.5 2.1 0 0 0 0 2020 71,518 -5.9 5.7 -.8 0 .1 0 2030 74,131 -9.7 9.8 -2.8 0 .7 0 2040 79,214 -9.9 12.8 -4.2 .2 1.5 0 2050 82,295 -10.9 16.5 -6.7 1.1 3.4 0 North private

hardwood growing-stock Million inventory cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 141,486 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 159,201 -.2 0 0 0 0 0 2020 172,834 -.5 .0 -.1 0 0 0 2030 183,983 -.7 .1 0 0 0 -.1 2040 192,773 -.7 .4 0 0 0 -.1 2050 199,660 -.8 .6 -.2 .1 .1 -.1 South private

hardwood growing-stock Million inventory cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 130,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 131,687 -.2 0 0 0 .1 0 2020 129,502 -.5 -.1 -.3 0 .5 0 2030 123,445 -.8 -.3 -1.3 .1 .9 0 2040 115,913 -1.1 -.6 -2.0 .3 1.2 .5 2050 108,562 -1.2 -.7 -2.1 .2 1.5 1.1 Real price index

for paper 1982 = 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 1.005 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0.984 0 0 0 0 0 .1 2020 0.997 0 -.1 .4 0 -.2 -.1 2030 0.989 .4 .4 1.0 .5 .3 -.6 2040 0.985 .6 0 1.1 .4 .7 -.3 2050 1.003 -.3 -.8 -.4 -.6 -1.2 -1.9135 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios

Real price

index for paperboard 1982 = 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 1.088 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 1.146 0 .2 0 0 0 0 2020 1.172 -.1 -.6 .8 0 0 .6 2030 1.150 .1 -.5 1.0 .5 -.7 -.5 2040 1.152 .9 -.1 2.2 .6 .5 .9 2050 1.170 1.7 1.2 2.2 -1.0 -1.6 .1

Real Southern

softwood 1982 pulpwood price dollars/cord - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 19.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 13.14 -1.5 .7 0 0 -.2 0 2020 11.00 1.1 3.6 7.2 0 -7.2 1.8 2030 9.11 4.4 5.2 15.7 .7 -19.5 -5.4 2040 12.66 10.1 6.7 23.1 8.3 -23.4 -2.7 2050 14.69 14.0 6.9 28.8 -3.3 -26.2 -9.4

Real Southern

hardwood 1982 pulpwood price dollars/cord - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 12.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 3.76 3.1 -.3 0 0 0 0 2020 3.78 7.3 .9 44.8 0 -2.5 6.2 2030 9.29 12.9 9.1 32.3 -7.5 -3.9 -8.3 2040 19.15 1.0 9.3 32.1 -5.9 -5.2 -24.2 2050 25.04 4.2 6.2 -2.0 -7.6 -14.8 -15.0 U.S. paper

production Million tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 44 0 .1 0 0 0 0 2020 50 0 1.2 4.5 0 .1 .2 2030 53 1.0 3.3 4.2 -2.3 -.1 -2.1 2040 55 1.1 4.6 3.8 -1.6 -1.0 -4.4 2050 57 1.2 5.1 3.3 -1.3 1.7 -6.9136 Table 22—Summary of scenarios: base case in absolute units, scenarios in percentage changes from the base (continued)

Variable and year Base

case Zero NF cut Double NF harvest in interior West Lower Canadian

harvest Lower housing Increased NIPF a afforestation Intelligent consumption Alternative scenarios

U.S. paperboard

production Million tons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 60 1.0 .6 .1 0 .3 .5 2030 68 -.7 -.7 .2 -.5 .8 -1.1 2040 73 -1.7 -.9 .2 .1 1.1 -.5 2050 79 -2.0 -1.3 -.8 -1.7 1.0 -2.2

U.S. softwood

pulpwood Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 3,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 3,806 -.5 .2 0 0 0 0 2020 4,673 -.9 -.3 1.0 0 .1 .7 2030 5,496 -.9 -.7 .6 -1.7 .8 -1.1 2040 6,169 -1.8 -.7 .1 -.8 .6 -1.9 2050 6,772 -3.5 -1.7 -2.6 -3.9 .2 -3.1

U.S. hardwood

pulpwood Million harvest cubic feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1999 2,718 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 2,634 .5 .1 0 0 0 0 2020 3,003 0 .6 3.1 0 -.1 .7 2030 3,246 -.9 -.9 .3 -1.1 .2 -1.1 2040 3,299 -2.0 -1.6 .8 -.4 -1.2 -1.9 2050 3,283 -1.1 -3.0 -3.0 .1 -.6 -1.1 U.S. wastepaper

recovery rate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1999 .447 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 .496 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 .498 -.1 .1 -.1 0 0 1.5 2030 .498 -.4 .2 0 .1 -.3 4.9 2040 .498 -.6 .7 .5 .1 .3 6.4 2050 .497 -.1 1.3 .6 .5 .8 6.4

a NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.
b 1982 dollars per thousand board feet.137 Doubling harvest on national forests in the interior West shifts markets in the opposite direction compared to the zero national forest cut scenario. Softwood lumber output rises, prices of both lumber and softwood sawtimber stumpage fall, public harvest issubstituted for private, and private inventories rise relative to the base case. The relative responses to the harvest increase are not symmetric to those for the harvest reduction scenario both because the sizes of the public cut changes differ and becausethe demand and supply relations in regional and national markets do not exhibit symmetric responses to public supply increments and decrements. For example, private harvest in the West can move readily in a downward direction in response to a price decline (as in the cut-doubling scenario), but limited merchantable inventory prevents it from rising in a proportional fashion when prices increase (as in the zero-cut case). The alternative projection explicitly incorporating fire-induced mortality, discussed in chapter 2, impacted national forest inventories, but did not impact harvest flows. If, however, high levels of fire lead to higher levels of salvage harvesting, there would be market impacts similar to those shown under the scenario of doubled national forest harvest in the West. In the cases where this additional mortality is salvaged, softwood lumber outputs would be increased. In those regions, this would push stumpage pricesslightly lower, leading to small increases in privately held inventory and a small decrease in softwood lumber imports.Reflecting the limited role of national forest harvests in pulpwood supply, these scenarios generally have less marked impacts on the pulp and paper sector. Paper andpaperboard price changes are mixed but generally rise under zero national forest harvest and fall for the doubling interior national forest harvest case.

As noted in chapter 3, there is some uncertainty about future prospects for Canadian timber harvest. Although the assumptions made in the base case are reasonable given current policies and recent trends, future developments are highly uncertain. In this scenario, we examine a case in which harvest restrictions are more severe than the base case. Canadian softwood sawtimber harvest falls by an additional 20 percent relative to base levels in 2020 (see fig. 74). This amounts to a reduction in Canadian sawtimber harvest of some 830 million cubic feet per year, relative to the base, after 2020. This alternative acts as a constraint on softwood sawtimber supply to U.S. markets not unlike the zero national forest harvest scenario. As a result, prices and volumes in thesolid wood sector and timber markets respond as described for that scenario. Softwood lumber imports from Canada decline by about 35 percent, raising softwood lumber prices, lowering U.S. consumption, and stimulating U.S. production and imports from non-Canadian sources. Demand for U.S. sawtimber rises, increasing stumpageprices and harvest on private lands and reducing inventory in the long term. The largest sawtimber stumpage impacts are in the West and South, where softwood lumber production is concentrated. Impacts in the pulp and paper sector are small comparedto the solid wood sector, although pulpwood prices tend to be somewhat more sensitive. In addition, some measures of activity in the sector move in opposite directions from the zero National Forest cut case (also a supply-reduction scenario). This reflectschanges in residue supplies in Canada that accompany a reduction in softwood lumber production and the associated impacts on Canadian paper and paperboard output and trade with the United States. 

### Lower Canadian Harvest138 Results of this simulation are comparable to findings for similar scenarios in past RPA timber assessments (see, for example, Haynes et al. 1995) and reemphasize that the United States and Canadian forest sectors are closely linked. Changes in one countryquickly transmit price and production signals through North American products markets, affecting producers, consumers, and timberland owners in both countries. Canadian timber supply changes do have direct effects on U.S. markets, and the size of these impacts may rival or exceed those of domestic market shifts under appropriate circumstances.

Nonindustrial private forest ownerships include large areas of land suitable for bothagricultural and forest uses. Over the past 50 years, these lands have been the primary source of fluctuations in private timberland area, with uses shifting to agriculture in some periods and back to forestry in others. Public programs, such as the Soil Bank in the late 1950s and the Conservation Reserve Program in the late 1980s and early 1990s, have attempted to return some of these lands (with highly erodible soils) toforest cover by means of afforestation subsidies. This scenario examines a hypothetical program designed to afforest 6 million acres of marginal nonindustrial private forest agricultural land over the next decade. The program would be aimed at all regions,but the largest part of the additional timberland area would come in the South (90 percent). The remainder would occur in the Pacific Northwest West, North-Central, and Northeast regions. Based on experiences with past afforestation programs, most of the converted area would be planted to softwood species (Hernandez and Moulton 1999). For this projection, we assumed pines would be planted in the South and North, whereas Douglas-fir is planted in the Pacific Northwest. Apart from regeneration, themanagement of these lands would be of relatively low intensity given the limited importance of forest production in the objectives of most nonindustrial private forest owners. In this scenario, newly afforested southern pine stands receive less investment than average and are managed under a “custodial” regime. Once established, treatment is similar to natural pine stands. We assumed that 10 percent of the stands would be subject to a pulpwood thinning followed by a mix of final and partial harvests. Two Figure 74—Canadian softwood sawtimber harvest in base and lower harvest scenario.



### Increased Nonindustrial Private Afforestation139 percent were placed in an unavailable class, counted as inventory but not subject to harvest. The remaining stands were eligible for final harvest beginning at an age 5years older than similar managed plantation stands. Because we assumed these efforts would be occurring on former agricultural lands, the growth response was based on the high site-class category. Outside the South, the management treatment was comparable to the average nonindustrial private forest timberland acre in the base case. Because the minimum harvest ages in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest were greater than 40 years in the simulation, no additions to available softwood fiber were seen before 2050. In the North-Central region, a small amount of fiber became available in the last decade, whereas with the shorter rotation ages in the South, some additional fiber first became available in 2025. In the projection, an additional 3.6 million acres were afforested in the South-Central region, representing 29 percent of the nonindustrial private forest planted pine acres. This was 9 percent of the South-Central nonindustrial private forest area classified as a softwood forest type. In the Southeast, 1.8 million additional acres were afforested, representing 15 percent of the area in planted pine and 6 percent of the area classified as softwoods. Because these acres are managed on a custodial basis, they produceless than their proportionate share of softwood fiber among planted pine acres. Between 2040 and 2050, the afforested acres in the South-Central and Southeast regions contribute 14 and 10 percent, respectively, of the softwood volume harvestedfrom planted stands, and 7 and 6 percent of all softwood removals from the nonindustrial private forest ownership. This is less than their share of plantation area but about the same as their proportion of all softwood types. In the South, increased afforestation would expand growth and raise the inventory above base-case levels. Inventory increments over the base reach their maximum in 2030, when the increase in South-Central nonindustrial private forest softwood is nearly 20 percent, and the gain in the Southeast is almost 9 percent. These are large impacts given that the overall increase in timberland area is just 4.4 and 3.1 percent inthe South Central and Southeast, respectively. The large changes are due to our assumption that former agricultural land would produce growth rates associated with the higher site-productivity classes. As nonindustrial private forest harvest increases in response to additional available volume and stumpage prices decline, some harvest shifts away from forest industry owners. As a result, industrial inventories rise relative to the base as the projection progresses. Greater removals also serve to reduce thedifference between base and scenario inventories for nonindustrial private forest owners after 2030. In the Pacific Northwest, the scenario did not produce any additional volume available for harvesting by 2050, but inventory did rise. Timberland area in the nonindustrial private forest ownership was up 9 percent (400,000 acres), and by 2050, nonindustrial private forest softwood inventory volume was 15 percent higher than the base. Part of this response is attributable to lower stumpage prices in the South pulling away some processing capacity and associated timber demand. This is reflected in a 3-percent increase in forest industry inventory over the base.The afforestation area increase predicted in the North was much smaller. It represented less than 0.1 percent of all nonindustrial private forest timberland (100,000 acres) in that region. Softwood inventories ended the projection just 0.3 percent above the base.140 The market impacts of expanded timber growth, inventory, and ultimately harvest areshown in table 22. Both sawtimber and pulpwood stumpage prices decline and softwood lumber output and consumption rise, while lumber prices and lumber importsfall. Inventory and output expansion are greatest in the South and displace some production in the West. Responses in the pulp and paper sector are mixed. Pulpwood harvest generally rises for both softwoods and hardwoods but not in all years. Paper and paperboard output rise, again excepting a few years, with the largest gains inpaperboard. Because the impacts of added timberland occur gradually as newly regenerated areas grow, all the market effects are delayed and rise toward the end of the projection.

Projections of housing construction activity developed in past RPA timber assessments have always spawned controversy, with some groups arguing that they were too high and others that they were too conservative. Development of the housing models used in the timber assessment (see discussion in chapter 2) was stimulated in part by a debate that started nearly 20 years ago. At that time, housing projections were driven largely by demographics (see, for example, Marcin 1972) and provided limited explanation for the major housing cycle observed in the 1980s. Concerns about thetreatment of housing unit replacements and rapid increases in expenditures for residential repair and alteration during this same period generated additional controversy and impetus to seek alternative modeling methods.This scenario examines the sensitivity of the projections to both a lower level of housing activity and to a change originating on the demand side of the solid wood products market. In the base housing projections (app. table 27), there is a period of relativelyrapid increase in average unit size after 2030 spurred by continued growth in household income. In this alternative scenario, this increase is eliminated, and average unitsize is held constant for all unit types. Household expenditures on housing stock continue to rise but are assumed to be directed toward other attributes of the housing unit rather than its size (this might include built-in electronics, special recreational or healthfacilities, etc.). The impact on total floor area of new residential construction is illustrated in figure 75. By 2050, the floor area of new residential construction is lower by some 1.4 million square feet per year, more than 23 percent below the base case. And because the most rapid growth in base-case house size during this period comes in single-family units, the impacts on materials consumption in residential construction will be disproportionately large. As noted in chapter 3, new residential construction is one of the primary drivers of solid wood demand. The simulated decline in housing construction reduces demand for softwood lumber (by nearly 6 percent in 2050, see table 22) and structural panels and to a much lesser extent for certain classes of hardwood lumber. Lumber prices fall, together with the demand for softwood sawtimber stumpage and sawtimber stumpage prices. Softwood sawtimber harvest falls, and softwood inventories rise relative to the base, especially late in the projection period. Impacts in the paper and board sector are modest. With lower solid wood output there is less softwood residuegenerated, higher softwood pulpwood prices, lower pulpwood harvest, and higher recycling rates. Prices of paper and paperboard rise except in the last decade of the projection. Substitution of softwoods for hardwoods in pulping leads to a reduction in hardwood pulpwood harvest and price. 

### Lower Housing Activity141 In a recent report, the Intelligent Consumption Project concluded that, “Supporting theexpanding world population at anything approaching current U.S. per capita consumption rates will impose a substantially increased burden on the world’s ecological systems. Reduced consumption of wood and wood products is an important response to this state of affairs” (Strigel and Meine 2001). Other groups have similarly called for reductions in consumption of wood and wood products, notably focusing on trends inU.S. paper consumption. The United States has the highest per capita paper and paperboard consumption in the world, peaking at around 750 pounds recently in 1999,and currently at around 700 pounds (Strigel and Meine 2001). The baseline RPA projections indicate that the current recession in the pulp and paper sector will be reversed, and eventually paper and paperboard consumption will climb above recent peak levels and reach approximately 830 pounds per capita by the year 2050. Thisassessment projects a much more modest increase in per capita paper and paperboard consumption than do past RPA assessments, but nevertheless consumption is still projected to increase in the long run. This alternative scenario posits a different future, one in which per capita consumptiongradually recedes in the long run. The scenario is based on the possibility that consumers of newsprint and printing and writing paper could seek to obtain greater use ofelectronic media in the future in substitution for print media, thereby reducing consumption of communication grades of paper. The scenario is implemented in the partial equilibrium supply-demand analysis by imposing significant reductions in projected demands for printing and writing paper and newsprint after the year 2010. Such futurereductions in demand growth could occur as a result of increased substitution of electronic media for print media, with no change in the macroeconomic outlook for U.S. population or GDP growth. Figure 75—Total floor area of new residential housing construction in the United States in base case and lower housing scenario.



### Reduced Consumption of Paper and Paperboard— Intelligent Consumption142 In the base case, domestic demands for paper and paperboard are projected to recover from the current recession, with total consumption in 2010 projected to be slightly higher than the recent historical peak of 1999. Consumption is projected to gradually increase over the projection period, approaching 160 million tons by 2050. In the alternative scenario, U.S. paper and paperboard consumption is projected to reach only 145 million tons by 2050. The overall reduction in consumption amounts to about 14 million tons per year by 2050, with reductions in consumption of printing and writing paper and newsprint from 2010 to 2050. The U.S. demands for paper and paperboard have been decelerating over the past two decades. Consumption has been declining on a per capita basis for some product grades such as newsprint and kraft paper, while per capita consumption of other product grades continues to increase. In the alternative scenario, per capita consumption of paper is projected to gradually decline after 2010, dropping from over 400 pounds per capita to around 320 pounds per capita by 2050. This leads to a relatively “flat” projected trend in total paper and paperboard consumption per capita, close to 750 pounds per capita. The U.S. trade balance in paper and paperboard commodities has deteriorated in recent years along with an overall increase in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit, owing in part to a strong U.S. dollar and overseas capacity expansion. With only a modest projected decline in the U.S. dollar value and continued expansion in overseas production capacity, imports of paper and paperboard in the base case are projected to continue increasing in the decades ahead, whereas U.S. exports are projected to experience little growth. In the alternative scenario, reduced consumption of printing and writing paper and newsprint beyond 2010 is associated with reduced imports of those commodities, an overall reduction in annual imports of about 7 million tons by2050. Thus about half of the reduction in domestic consumption translates into reduced imports. In addition, there is a small increase in projected exports, as reduced consumption results in excess domestic production capacity. As illustrated in table 22, declining demand for paper leads to reductions in paper and paperboard production (paperboard output declines, but it gains a slightly higher shareof total output) and an increase in the rate of use of recovered paper. Reduced paperboard output derives from higher paperboard imports from Canada and an overall reduction in the recycled fiber supply so critical to many types of paperboard products.Overall paper prices decline as a result, but there is some increase in price of paperboard as supplies of recycled fibers shrink and costs rise. Both softwood and hardwood pulpwood harvests drop together with pulpwood stumpage prices. Private inventory changes are minimal. Impacts in the solid wood sector are also small.

It is difficult to rank the various scenarios based solely on comparison of their absolute or proportional impacts because the extent of the policy or trend shift that underlies each scenario is essentially arbitrary. The reduced Canadian sawtimber harvest case,for example, has some of the largest impacts of any of the scenarios. Yet the 20-percent harvest reduction assumed in the scenario is only one possible view of the future. A smaller reduction would correspondingly reduce the impacts of the case. Thus, there is no firm basis for asserting that one type of shift is more “important” or significant than another. Useful generalizations about the scenarios can be made, however, by examining some of the broader characteristics of their impacts. These generalizationsinclude differences in regional and product impacts and in the timing of changes induced by the scenarios in prices and volumes. 

### Discussion143 There is a difference among the scenarios in the extent to which changes originating in one sector spill over into other sectors. The four scenarios whose initial changes are related primarily to the solid wood and sawtimber sector (the national forest harvest changes, lower Canadian harvest, and lower housing cases) all have their largest impacts on aspects of the solid wood market and sawtimber (see table 22). At the same time, they produce smaller but noteworthy shifts in pulpwood markets and otherparts of the paper and board sector. The intelligent consumption scenario directly relating to the paper and board sector, in contrast, has significant impacts in that sector but only modest effects on the solid wood and sawtimber stumpage markets. Theincreased nonindustrial private forest afforestation scenario, because it impacts longterm sawtimber and pulpwood supplies, produces changes in both sectors although the largest are for sawtimber. The solid wood/sawtimber sector is related to paper and board via the quantities of residues produced in solid wood processing (which aresubstitutes for pulpwood and other types of fiber) and the prices of sawtimber stumpage (which represents an output alternative to pulpwood for timber producers). The paper and paperboard sector, in turn, is linked to solid wood/sawtimber through the prices received for residues (determined together with other fiber prices) and the prices of pulpwood stumpage. Scenario results illustrate an asymmetry in responses of markets within the forest sector. Changes originating on the sawtimber side may produce some shifts in the pulpwood sector, but changes in the paper and paperboard sector may have only muted impacts on solid wood.These same groups of scenarios also differ in the regional concentrations of their impacts. The national forest cases have major impacts in the West. The other solidwood/sawtimber cases have large impacts both in the West and East. Changes resulting from the paper and board scenario are somewhat bigger in the East. This reflects, of course, the geographic concentrations of the two industries and of the harvest of timber from the national forests. National forest harvest comes mostly from Western regions, Western industry is predominantly solid wood-producing, and sawtimber isthe primary product of Western forests. Paper and board production is heavily concentrated in Eastern regions, but the largest part of U.S. solid wood processing (since the early 1990s) also occurs in the East, and pulpwood represents a significant portion of the timber harvested in Eastern forests.With regard to the timing of impacts observed in the scenarios, it is clear that the onset of changes is governed in part by the conditions of the cases; the low housing case does not change until 2030, the lower Canadian harvest scenario does not reach full impact until 2020. Changes in other cases arise before 2010. Shifts beyond the onset period are also linked in part to the form of the scenario. For example, the lowhousing, increased nonindustrial private forest afforestation and intelligent consumption scenarios show rising impacts for many measures as the projections proceed. These scenarios all involve significant departures from trends in the base case. The rising trend in floor area in the later years of the base case is replaced by a future ofconstant floor area construction. Base case trends in nonindustrial private forest timberland area are replaced by a more rapid rate of accumulation. The intelligent consumption case reduces the strong consumption growth of certain paper products. As aresult, impacts measured relative to the base get bigger over time as conditions driving the scenarios depart further and further from the base.144 Two of the scenarios (low housing and intelligent consumption) deal with examples of demand contraction, and the results serve to illustrate some general characteristics of the responses of forest products markets to demand changes. • Prices and quantities in the initially impacted forest products markets (i.e., solid wood or paper) decline. • Use of wood and fiber inputs in production of these commodities declines. The sawtimber input to solid wood products clearly drops in the low-housing case (see table 22). Total fiber input to paper and paperboard production also falls in the intelligent consumption scenario after initial trade adjustments are complete in 2020. • Roundwood and fiber prices fall. • Timber inventories rise as a result of lower harvests during at least some portion of the projection period. These changes will be small in percentage terms, as the inventory is large relative to harvest and growth and is slow to change.
Shifts would be in the opposite direction, although not necessarily symmetric in size, in scenarios of augmented demand.145 

### Softwood Stumpage Price Projections Introduction 

# Chapter 5: Management Implications 1

In this chapter we consider in greater detail the findings of the various projections as they relate to a number of contemporary issues facing the forest sector. These include(1) stumpage prices for softwoods (this discussion also includes a review of assessment price projections over the past 20 years to provide context for the current forecasts), (2) forest fragmentation, (3) sustainable forest management, (4) trends in forest diversity and structure, (5) the question of whether Southern timberlands can provide the bulk of harvest increases, (6) forest health, (7) globalization and its effect on the forestry sector, and (8) disaggregation of projections.

The base projection shows relatively limited growth in prices for softwood stumpage in the major producing regions. Sawtimber stumpage prices rise at less than 0.5 percent per year in the projection after 2010 in the South and Pacific Northwest West, while softwood pulpwood stumpage shows a strong cycle but no trend in the South. In terms of underlying changes in softwood stumpage markets, demands for both sawtimber and pulpwood expand markedly in the projection, but supplies, albeit from different sources, keep pace and limit any price growth. In addition, increased dependence on global product markets helps limit U.S. stumpage price growth. Slow price growth represents a sharp break from the experience of the past decade. But the unusual conditions of demand and supply that lead to rapid price growth in the recent past have changed, and price growth is expected to moderate as a result. At the sametime, prices will not fall back to levels observed in earlier decades. Softwood stumpage prices have taken another, essentially permanent, step upward just as they have in many similar periods in the past. And although the timber assessment projection of modest long-term price growth is noteworthy in contrast to recent history, it is not a new result. Timber assessment reports since 1989 have projected slower growth in softwood timber prices beginning in the 2000–10 period based on essentially the same fundamental vision of future markets.

1 The authors for this chapter are Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, Brett J. Butler, Ralph J. Alig, Kenneth E. Skog, John R. Mills, Peter J. Ince, David J. Brooks, and Xiaoping Zhou.146 In future sawtimber stumpage markets, conditions that retard price growth will differ in the periods before and after 2015. In the near term, demand differs markedly acrosssawtimber products. Lumber use remains near recent peak levels. In contrast, consumption of softwood plywood and miscellaneous products declines, freeing somesawtimber supply for lumber use. As a result, total U.S. consumption of softwood sawtimber is nearly unchanged between 1996 and 2020. At the same time, U.S. sawtimber harvest continues the lengthy decline begun in the late 1980s, reaching its nadir in about 2015. Reductions in the past have been concentrated in the West but will occurin parts of the South as well over the 2000–10 period (see table 13). As noted in chapter 3, domestic harvest limitations in this period derive largely from imbalances in theage-class structures of private forest ownerships. The primary offset for declining domestic supply during this period will be continued growth in softwood lumber imports both from eastern Canada and non-Canadian sources. Beyond 2015, U.S. demand for softwood sawtimber products increases once again (reaching 9.4 billion cubic feet by 2050), owing entirely to growth in lumber use. Withthe growth of large areas of young timber above the minimum merchantability threshold, harvest after 2010–15 will expand rapidly in p arts of the South and stabilize in the Pacific Northwest West. The net effects on supply will be partially offset by reductions in sawtimber harvest in Canada, but the upward price pressures of these limitationswill be overcome by growing Southern output after 2020 and continued growth in imports from non-Canadian sources.Unlike sawtimber demand, some growth is anticipated in the first portion of the projection in net U.S. demand for softwood pulpwood (it rises from 3.5 to 4.3 billion cubic feet between 1996 and 2010). During this period, softwood pulpwood use associated with rapidly rising consumption of oriented strand board (OSB) augments growth in paper and paperboard consumption. The U.S. softwood pulpwood supply, just as the sawtimber supply, faces near-term limits, particularly in the South. As a result, importsof pulp, paper, and paperboard rise markedly in this period. The effect is to keep pulpwood prices near the low levels of the late 1990s until 2015. In later years, pulpwood demand for paper and paperboard and OSB grows steadily (total U.S. demand for pulpwood reaches nearly 8.0 billion cubic feet by 2050). At the same time, pulpwoodharvest in the South expands markedly (for the same reasons noted above for sawtimber). The initial impact is to push prices downward until about 2025 to levels somewhat below the lows of the late 1980s. At this point, softwood harvest begins toapproach growth on key Southern ownerships, and supply tightens. Prices turn upward and finish the projection near early 1990s levels in the South. On nonindustrial lands in the North, reluctance to harvest because of higher opportunity costs pushes prices steadily upward in that region after the 2025 trough.

The historical record suggests that real softwood sawtimber prices both in the PacificNorthwest West and the South have moved upward episodically, with periods of increase interspersed among periods of relative stability or even decline, in a step-like fashion (see fig. 76). The timing of upward shifts has corresponded to major changes in resource or market conditions. Prices moved up sharply following the removal of price controls after World War II and the advent of the post-World War II housing boom. Prices shifted upward again in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the log export market became a significant source of demand and housing activity shifted up to a Demand-Supply Basis for Limited Price Growth

Projections in Historical Context147 steadily higher average level. 2 The most recent increase began in 1990 spurred by reductions in Western public timber harvest, a further upward shift in housing activity, and restrictions in the availability of timber from Canada (both the limitation of harvestsin western provinces and the softwood lumber import quota system have been important). Although some of these elements could be transitory with changing public policies, under the constant policy assumptions of the base projection the price shift is permanent. Unlike sawtimber markets, the markets for pulpwood are not subject to the variationsinduced by housing activity. Demand for paper and board is dispersed across all sectors of the economy and moves closely with broad indicators of general economic activity such as gross domestic product (GDP). As illustrated in figure 77 for the South, pulpwood stumpage prices also are somewhat less volatile than sawtimber prices in the short run. Over longer periods, however, they still show pronounced multiyear cycles, driven by the interplay of regional production capacity and periods of varying growth in the timber resource and pulpwood supply. The early development and expansion of paper and board production in the Southdrew up prices through the late 1950s (including a small upward shift with the elimination of World War II price controls). Stable prices during the 1960s reflected the dramatic growth in the softwood forest resource and expansion of pulpwood supply to meet the needs of the growing industry (harvest increased by nearly 60 percent during this decade while softwood inventory expanded by approximately 23 percent). Figure 76—Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest West and South, with projections to 2050.

2 With the movement of the “baby boom” generation into the housing market, the average annual floor area of new conventional residential construction shifted from 1.81 billion square feet in the 1950–69 period to 2.38 billion square feet during 1970–89. The average rate of construction shifted once again during the decade of the 1990s to 2.61 billion square feet.148 The downward price trend in the 1970s and early 1980s accompanied a period of somewhat slower growth in the regional industry but continued expansion in timber inventory and stumpage supply and growing use of hardwood fiber. Prices jumped again in the 1990s in response to the same public harvest, housing demand, and lumber import restrictions that affected the sawtimber market, increasing competition for wood of all types in the South. The base projection shows another major pulpwood price cycle. As discussed above, the same forces of markedly rising timber growth and expanding stumpage supply are at work in this future cycle as they have been over the past four decades.

As illustrated in figures 78 and 79, timber assessment softwood sawtimber stumpage price forecasts since 1989 have all envisioned declining growth in prices after 2010. In earlier projections completed in 1979 and 1983, however, sawtimber prices rose steadily. Pulpwood prices have been projected only in the most recent assessments. The 1989 RPA timber assessment forecast a slow rise in Southern pulpwood prices to near 1960s levels by 2040, whereas the 1993 RPA timber assessment update showed a shallow cycle returning to the same 2040 levels as the 1989 projection (see fig. 77). For sawtimber, the differences between the rising trend projections in 1979–83 and more recent projections result primarily from changes in the methods used to projectthe private forest inventory. Earlier models represented the inventory on a diameterclass basis and projected growth by shifting trees from one diameter class to the next. In long-term projections, it was assumed that the diameter growth rates observed in the historical inventory data would remain the same in the future. In retrospect, the resulting aggregate growth projections, particularly for forest industry lands, were extremely conservative, leading to sharply lower inventory projections and stable or contracting sawtimber supply over the projection. Because demand forecasts did not differ greatly from those of later assessments, the result was rising price projections. The effects of more realistic estimates of inventory growth can be seen in a simulation experiment conducted in the 1979 RPA timber assessment (labeled “1979-INT” in figs. 78 and 79). In this analysis, diameter growth rates were adjusted upward to reflect a Current Versus Past Assessment Projections Figure 77—Softwood pulpwood stumpage price in the South, with projections from current and past RPA timber assessments.149scenario of active investment in forest management (see Adams et al. 1982 for details). The result, in both the Pacific Northwest West and South, is stable to declining prices 10 years into the projection. At least until 2020, this projection is much closer to the current timber assessment base than the static investment and growth scenario of the 1979 base.Figure 78—Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices in the Pacific Northwest West, with projections from the five timber assessments. 1979-INT = Intensive land management (1979 alternative run).

Figure 79—Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices in the South, with projections from five timber assessments. 1979-INT = Intensive land management (1979 alternative run).150 Preliminary findings from the timber assessment indicate that approximately 15 to 20 million acres of U.S. forest land could be converted to urban and developed uses overthe next 50 years. Such land use conversions could result from residential development in forested landscapes, as the U.S. population grows by another 126 million people. Particularly rapid growth rates are expected in the key timber supply regions ofthe South and Pacific Northwest. Forest fragmentation (see “What is Forest Fragmentation?” section) resulting from changing land use and land cover patterns is becoming an increasingly important topic in the United States, as concerns are being raised abouthabitat protection, timber supply, and myriad other issues. Although some wildlife species need the edge areas present in fragmented forested areas, forest fragmentation presents potential unfavorable consequences, such as loss of biodiversity, increasedpopulations of invasive and nonnative species, changes in biotic and abiotic environments, changing landowner objectives, and decreased or more costly natural resource availability as in the case of timber management. Forest fragmentation is receivingincreased attention, but there is relatively little national data and few macroscale analyses on the topic. The absence of a standard definition for fragmentation is part of the challenge. In the following sections, we discuss definitional issues, causes of forest fragmentation, and the timber assessment findings relative to fragmentation.

Definitions of forest fragmentation appear to differ across disciplines and are influenced by the questions or policy issues of interest. For example, it is equally valid to discuss the fragmentation of forest vegetation as it is to discuss the fragmentation of ownership of the land (e.g., parcelization). Fragmented forests may occur naturally across the landscape (such as the Great Basin, Nevada), or such a pattern may be a result of human activities. A dichotomy in forest fragmentation definitions is betweentreatment of fragmentation as a process or as a pattern (Alig et al. 2000). Various spatial indices of landscape structure used to quantify fragmentation have ranged from(1) comparisons among old-growth and managed forests and associated rates of disturbances and changes in patterns over time in managed forests to (2) evaluating land use and landscape change over time. Such indices and associated statistics cannot provide a definitive threshold for identifying a fragmented landscape. They only provide a means for comparing the relative degree of fragmentation to other landscapes or of the same landscape at different periods (Alig et al. 2000). Some of the common terms used in discussions of fragmentation include edge, core or interior habitat, and interspersion. The borders or perimeters between different landuses or land covers are known as “edges.” The core area is the area that is not influenced by neighboring land uses or land covers; i.e., the area of the patch minus the area that is influenced by edges. Interspersion is a description of the juxtaposition of landscape elements and is often calculated as the probability of adjacency betweencategories (e.g., Turner 1989). The terms associated with forest fragmentation emphasize the focus of a particular study question and its scale. For example, harvesting of forests may lead to age-class fragmentation, but the underlying forest base has not been fragmented if natural or human-caused reforestation follows the timber harvest.

Forest fragmentation can result from disturbances that are initiated by natural elements or humans. Often, human and natural agents or elements interact to either enhance or lessen the resulting fragmentation effects. A significant difference betweenhuman-caused and natural fragmentation is that human actions are often more frequent (e.g., Butler and Alig, n.d), less random, and more permanent than natural processes. Natural fragmentation processes include fire, wind, and flooding. What Is Forest Fragmentation?

What Causes Forest Fragmentation? 

### Forest Fragmentation151 Human actions that cause fragmentation include land use conversions, changing ownership patterns, and other disturbances, such as timber harvesting. Some of the timber harvesting is on forest land that is being cut for the last time in preparation for development. Further, the process of forest fragmentation is generally not random. In the case of urban development, land is converted by persons with specific needs and individual preferences for land with certain characteristics (such as, accessibility, tree cover, septic suit ability, slope, etc.). Similarly, when forest land is converted for agriculture use, specific areas with agricultural potential are targeted. Along with land use conversions, changing landowner demographics are having notable effects on forestfragmentation and parcelization, and on the ability of fragmented landscapes to provide specific amenities. Because forest harvesting is most often followed by reforestation (Smith et al. 2001), effects of such age-class fragmentation are often not as severe in the longer term as, for example, conversion of forests to other land uses such as urban development.

For the timber assessment, preliminary projections of area changes for land use, land cover, and forest ownership (Alig et al., n.d.) are relevant elements in an analysis of forest fragmentation. Population changes are a major determinant of future timberland area (e.g., Mauldin et al. 1999a). The area change projections consider afforestation, deforestation, reforestation, and successional processes. The first two of these also involve land use changes, so the land use and land cover projections are interrelated. The 126-million-person increase in U.S. population by 2050 is accompanied by a 76- million increase in the number of households. In the past, each additional household consumed about 1 acre of land. These projections lead to about 40 million acres of total rural land being converted to urban/developed uses by 2050. If historical trends continue, 3 15 to 20 million acres of this land could come from forests. Population growth is projected to be strongest in the South and West, regions that contain the Nation’s key timber supply areas. In the South and West, for example, where urban growth is above the national average (nationally, urban areas doubled in size between 1942 and 1992 [Alig et al. 1999]), expansion of urban and agricultural areas is acting to fragment some forests. In addition to the area of forests lost to urbanization and sprawl, population growth is likely to add to the fragmentation and parcelization (i.e., breaking up of large holdings into small holdings, which some also call fractionalization) of croplands and forestlands. This has two effects. First, it could reduce the amount of economically harvestable area, as owners of smaller forests or woodlots may decide not to harvest. Although a specific area may still be in forest cover, the small size of a holding may adversely affect the economics of commodity harvests in some cases (Row 1978). Decreasing average tract size for nonindustrial private forest timberlands is already a reality. In 1994, the average noncorporate individual owner had 24 acres (Birch 1996). This number is projected to decrease to 17 acres by 2010 (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). At the same time, a consolidation of larger land holdings is occurring. The average area of the land holdings of large forest owners (i.e., holding more than 500 acres) increased from 2,500 acres per ownership in 1978 to 2,600 acres in 1994 (Birch 1996). Results from the Current Timber Assessment

3 Approximately 40 percent of rural lands converted to urban/ developed uses between 1982 and 1992 came from forested areas (USDA NRCS 2001).152 The second effect associated with fragmentation is change in the values and perceptions of the forest landowners. These new rural immigrants sometimes have attitudes toward the land and land management that contrast with the attitudes of the original residents who often have more conservation and utilitarian oriented views of natural

resources. The nonindustrial private forest ownership (1) has historically been subject to thelargest and most frequent land use changes of any owner group, (2) has a heterogeneous owner composition, and (3) has notable variation in size of forest holdings andmanagement intensities within and across regions (Alig 1990). Although some speculate that forest fragmentation may significantly reduce timber supply from the nonindustrial private forest land, the historical trend indicates that the net outcome of the many forces operating on the ownership has been a fairly steady supply of timber at an aggregate level. The percentage of U.S. timberland harvest from the nonindustrial private forest ownership has gone from 57 to 60 percent between 1952 and 1997. Further, the percentage of nonindustrial private forest harvest relative to total timber inventory has changed little over that period, at about 2.6 to 2.7 percent. At the same time, nonindustrial private forest timberland area decreased by 5 percent between 1952 and 1997, with increased productivity per acre owing in part to increases in pine plantation area (Alig et al. 1999). As discussed elsewhere (e.g., Kline et al. 2000, Londo 2000, Schmidt and McWilliams 2000), trends in nonindustrial private forest timberland area and timber supply impacts can differ by region. For example, private timberlands in the North are increasing in average stand size, stocking, and age (Schmidt and McWilliams 2000). In contrast, Sampson (2000) points out that forests in the South are increasingly impacted by parcelization, higher road densities, and increased clearing and conversion for homes and other land use. Few studies have examined the impacts of urbanization and forest fragmentation on timber harvest and timber supply. In an empirical analysis, Barlow et al. (1998) found that the proximity of urban development and higher population densities are correlated with reduced rates of timber harvest on private timberlands in the South. Wear et al. (1999) found that higher population densities are correlated with a reduced likelihood that private timberlands are managed for commercial timber production. Alig and Healy (1987), Munn et al. (2002), and Wear et al. (1999) suggest that increasing population densities may reduce private forest investment as forest owners anticipate continued population growth and eventual conversion of their forest land to urban and developed uses. In chapter 2, we described adjustments of timber inventories in the timber assessment to reflect their “availability,” a process intended to reflect impacts from increased population densities on the landscape. Estimates of inventories that may be withheld were based on surveys of state foresters in the South (see chapter 2).
The land use and land ownership dynamics discussed above are important components of fragmentation. Measurement of the spatial component of land use can add additional information. Specifically, patterns related to the amount of edge and interior habitat and the arrangement or interspersion of landscape elements are important for a spatially explicit understanding of changing land use dynamics. Alig et al. (2000) analyzed fragmentation at the national scale by using coarse-resolution data (1-km minimum resolution). These data are not fine enough to supply information about local dynamics or patterns, but developing indexes from the data is useful for creating maps of fragmentation. These combined indices of the ratio of edge to interior habitats and interspersion were summarized at the county level, calculated from the forest type153groups map of the United States produced by the U.S. Forest Service with 1-km resolution advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) data and other information (Powell et al. 1993, Zhu and Evans 1994). The resulting (static) map of composite indices indicates relatively more forest fragmentation in the Midwest, southern Florida, and parts of the Great Plains, some owing to natural forest fragmentation (Alig et al. 2000). By contrast, the upper Lake States region, portions of Maine, and parts of the Pacific Northwest are examples of regions with relatively lower fragmentation indexes. Some native forests have been converted to agricultural and urban uses, notably in the Eastern and Midwestern United States.

There are several dimensions to fragmentation that have emerged as critical issues. First, there are concerns that changes in land use and land cover alter both the spatial pattern and distribution of habitats and create new habitats that are intensively used by humans. Second, there is a greater interest in looking at consequences (both intendedand unintended) of various policies (e.g., policies such as extensive public investments in improved automobile transportation systems) in terms of their impacts on land use. Third, there is the consequence of more houses, streets, parking lots, malls, and office buildings (DeCoster 2000). At the same time, we have added forest area either through plantations as part of overall afforestati on or where forests have regrown on abandoned agricultural lands. Discussions of fragmentation are hindered by limited data. Work is needed to betterunderstand forest fragmentation, its extent, location, and rate of change. Better documentation of forest fragmentation requires developing a long-term database (Alig 2000) and improving methods for projecting the distribution of people over the national landscape. There is also a need to develop a standardized terminology. Fragmentation and parcelization are often used interchangeably but often have different meanings in application. Forest fragmentation, as proposed in one definition, includes land use conversion where conversion of forests to nonforest increases the edge areas relative to core forest areas. Parcelization, in contrast, is ownership-related. Others speak offragmentation with regard to area changes for forest cover where species compositions are altered, or where timber harvests have led to age-class fragmentation.

The United States is committed to using the criteria and indicators in the Santiago Declaration of the Montreal Process 4 to assess the sustainability of forest management in the United States. These criteria provide a broad basis for discussing forestmanagement organized around 67 indicators of resource, economic, and social conditions grouped into seven broad criteria. The timber assessment results provide a number of both direct and proxy measures for some of these indicators. The three criteria we discuss provide information onvalues we hold for conservation of biological diversity (hereafter, biodiversity conservation), maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems (hereafter, maintenance of productive capacity), and maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies (hereafter, maintenance of socioeconomic benefits). What Are the Critical Issues?



### Sustainable Forest Management

4 For more information on the Montreal Process see http:// www.mpci.org/home_e.html. For a list of the criteria and indicators see http://www .mpci.org/whatis/criteria_e.html.154 We provide a section with a synthesis of national information for indicators under thethree criteria, a section with detailed information by region, and a section with a synthesis of regional information.

Aggregate national trend data and projections for indicators are shown in table 23.

Direct measures are: • Extent of area by forest type (percentage of timberland in softwood types).

• Area of timberland. • Total growing stock. • Ratio of removals to net growth. • Consumption of wood products. • Roundwood harvest overseas for net imports as a percentage of all roundwood needed for U.S. consumption.

Indirect or proxy measures are: • Average diameter of private timber stands (for extent of area by age class or successional stage). • Annual area harvested (as a measure of fragmentation of the land base). • Harvest volume (as a proxy for wood product production).
The data were developed by aggregating regional data and are shown as indices computed by dividing each value by the 1952 value for that series (1976 for extent of older stands). The exceptions are the ratio of removals to growth, the softwood proportion of total inventory, and the roundwood equivalent 5 for net imports versus consumption. With the timber assessment data, the discussion of sustainability can be developed by comparing biodiversity conservation and maintenance of productive criteria changes with changes in criteria for maintenance of socioeconomic benefits over time. • Data in table 23 show that there have been changes in many of the biodiversity conservation and maintenance of productive capacity criteria indicators over the historical period, but these aggregate changes have slowed in the recent past. • During this same period, socioeconomic benefits increased as measured by increasing harvest, suggesting there may have been a tradeoff between changing ecological conditions and economic growth. • As there have been slowing changes in biodiversity conservation and maintenance of productive capacity criteria, there has also been a shift to meet more of our consumption needs from imports. This suggests a second tradeoff of lowered harvest and attendant effects in the United States for increased harvest and attendant effects in other countries. • Slower declines in the biodiversity conservation and maintenance of productive capacity measures in recent years may suggest that improving forest management and increased productivity of forest lands have helped reduce the extent of the tradeoff between ecological conditions and harvest in some cases. For example, Synthesis of National Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators

5 Roundwood equivalent is the amount of roundwood needed to make the products in the United States.155 increases in average stocking levels have helped to reduce the area harvested for a given volume removed (hence reducing the fragmentation measure), and there has been a slowing in the shift from softwoods to hardwoods.
Although past movement in some of the biodiversity conservation and maintenance ofproductive capacity criteria indicators could be interpreted as undesirable, the projection indicates approaching stability for a number of indicators at the national level. • Harvest area (fragmentation) falls slowly with waves of new stands reaching maturity, primarily in the South. Harvest rises, but growth remains above harvest, and inventory expands. • Although aggregate area, age, and fragmentation indicators tend to stabilize, there are projected harvest increases, and growth remains above removals but by a decreasing margin.• To provide for increasing consumption, projections suggest there will be an increasing proportion of harvest needs that will be met by harvest in other countries. The relative shift of harvest needs to other countries will, over time, have an effect, from lowered U.S. harvest, on many indicators under other criteria.
These results suggest that, at the national level, the future sustainability debate might be framed more in terms of balancing domestic environmental gains, U.S. economic development, and effects of imports in changing forestry and forest industry in othercountries, rather than the traditional “U.S. economy or U.S. environment” confrontation. At the same time, these national indexes hide significant regional and owner-level Percent Index Index Index Index Percent Index Percent
1952 70 100 100 100 128 100 89 1962 68 89 99 108 161 95 84 1970 66 97 97 114 164 111 86 1976 64 100 96 95 119 171 118 84 1986 59 76 124 96 124 125 162 82 1991 57 74 124 99 128 121 164 85 2000 58 67 110 99 136 144 151 80

2010 58 66 108 98 153 140 167 71 2020 60 65 107 97 166 130 181 73 2030 61 65 106 97 177 123 193 73 2040 62 65 105 96 186 117 202 74 2050 62 65 105 96 193 110 212 73

Source: Computed from tables 5, 12, 14, 16, and 17. Table 23—Selected sustainability indicators for the United States (indexes equal to 100 in base year unless otherwise noted)

Extent of softwood

area Year Extent of older stands Area of timberland Totalgrowingstock inventory Ratio of growth to

harvest Total harvest Consumption from domestic

supply Fragmentation Biodiversity conservation Maintenance of productive capacity Maintenance of socioeconomic benefits156 tradeoffs: for example, most of the increase in softwood inventories comes in the West, but nearly all of the increases in softwood harvest come in the South; Southern hardwood harvest exceeds growth after 2010 while Northern hardwood inventories grow markedly above current levels. Clearly, conclusions about sustainability can differ at different geographic scales.

This section provides rationale for why selected indicators are important for understanding sustainability of forest management (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000), historical trends, and current status of the indicators in the Forest Service 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands (USDA FS 2001), and projections from this timber assessment.The projections used here are based on numerous assumptions (including assumptions about increased imports of forest products) that become less certain as we move further into the future and to greater levels of regional and ownership detail. They should be taken as only one of several plausible internally consistent pathways for these indicators.
Conservation of biological diversity —Biodiversity enables the ecosystem torespond to external influences, to recover after disturbance, and to maintain the organisms essential for its ecological processes. Human activities can have adverse impacts on biodiversity by altering habitats, introducing invasive species, or reducing the population or ranges of species. Conserving the diversity of organisms should support the ability of ecosystems to function and remain productive.
Extent of forest area by forest type relative to total forest area

— This indicator is intended to be a monitor of overall U.S. trends in forest coverage (by type), ecological processes, and viable populations of species that are dependent on a contiguous ecosystem or ecosystems of a certain minimum size. Each forest type is considered to represent a separate ecosystem, and is itself composed of a variety of ecosystem components. If sufficient area of each forest type is not maintained, these ecosystemsbecome vulnerable to loss from fires, hurricanes or typhoons, disease, and other disasters. Since 1920, forest land area has remained relatively stable at approximately one-third of the total U.S. land area. Projections suggest forest land area and timberland area will decline 5.5 percent and 3.0 percent, or 23.2 and 14.8 million acres, respectively, by 2050. Half of the forest area loss is in the Pacific Coast region and one-third is in the South (table 5).In the East, area has increased in loblolly-short leaf pine, oak-gum-cypress, oakhickory, and maple-beech-birch. In the West, area has increased for Douglas-fir, hemlock-Sitka spruce, redwood, other softwoods, pinyon-juniper, and hardwoods. In Alaska, area has declined for hardwoods, the area of fir-spruce has increased, and the area of hemlock-Sitka spruce has remained constant. Projections suggest forest cover types in the South will shift away from area in uplandhardwoods and toward planted pine. Area is stable for oak-pine and lowland hardwoods, and there is slight decline in the area of natural pine (fig. 3). Regional Detail in Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators157 Forest cover types in the Pacific Northwest West are projected to shift slightly towardmore area in Douglas-fir and less in red alder. Areas for other hardwoods, other softwoods, and hemlock-Sitka spruce are relatively stable (fig. 4).
Extent of forest area by forest type and by age class or successional class

—Many species are wholly or partly dependent on a particular successional stage. Therefore, all normally occurring successional stages should be present with sufficient area to support these species. Ecological processes and the species associated with those processes within a forest ecosystem or forest type are often associated with vegetative structure. It should be noted that some forest types are predominantly composed of stands of uneven age or otherwise difficult to ascribe to particular age classes. Foresttype and forest age are important determinants of timber growth and yield, the occurrence of game animals, other nontimber forest products, and the forest’s aesthetic and recreational values.In the East, there has been an increase in the area of forest types that are representative of later stages of succession; some 71 percent of timberland is classed as having a stand age more than 40 years. Area with sawtimber was 30 percent in 1952 and 46percent in 1997. Eastern forests are still younger than those prior to European settlement. The representation of some seral stages and forest types will likely decrease with an increase in area in later seral stages.In the West, average stand age is older than in the East. In 1997, 64 percent of timberlands were classed as sawtimber size.This timber assessment projects area by stand-age category for private land and national forest land rather than by timber size categories used above. So for the discussion below, look primarily at the projected trend in area in sawtimber (young, mature, and old mature seral stages; see app. tables 49 and 50) between 2000 and 2050 rather than comparing projected percentage of area to historical percentages above. Generally, projections suggest an increasing proportion of area of timberland with sawtimber-size trees with the exception that sawtimber area proportion is projected to decrease for private hardwood timberland in the South. National forests will continue to have a higher proportion of sawtimber acres thanprivate lands for both hardwoods and softwoods. For 2050, the proportions of sawtimber acres for softwood and hardwood forest types, respectively, are as follows:
Percentage of timberland acres that classify as sawtimber (based on seral stages) projected for 2050

Forest sector Softwood forest Hardwood forest

Percent National forest:

West 97 100 South 93 100 North 77 89

Private land:

West 66 71 South 63 65 North 79 73158 Projections suggest that for private lands in the East (the North and South), area in sawtimber will increase from 64 percent in 2000 to 68 percent by 2050 (app. table 49),but this masks differences between species and subregions. The percentage of sawtimber increases in the North for both hardwood and softwood—62 to 73 percent, and 65 to 79 percent, respectively—but for the South, the percentage of sawtimber area decreases for hardwood from 74 to 65 percent, and increases for softwood from 56 to 63 percent.Projections suggest that for the private lands in the West, area in sawtimber will increase from 63 to 66 percent between 2000 and 2050, including both hardwoods and softwoods (app. table 49). For national forest lands in the West, area in sawtimber will increase from 87 to 97 percent of timberland between 2000 and 2050, including both hardwoods and softwoods (app. table 50). For national forest lands in the East, area in sawtimber will increase from 79 to 93 percent of timberland between 2000 and 2050, including both hardwoods and softwoods (app. table 50).
Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems —Many human populations depend on forests directly or indirectly for a variety of extractive and nonextractive goods and services. Opportunities to provide goods and services sustainably are clearly linked to the productive capacity of forests. If the productive capacity of forests is exceeded, there is the risk of ecosystem decline. For forests to continue to function, it is necessary to maintain the presence of the forest itself, to understand the levelsof goods and services now provided, and to determine levels that are likely to be sustainable.
Area of forest land and net area of forest land available for timber production

— This indicator provides information fundamental to calculating the timber-producing capacity of existing forests. It shows how much land is available for timber production compared with the total forest area. The difference between total area and net area demonstrates that some forests are not going to be harvested for a variety of reasons.Some 504 million acres, or 67 percent of total forest land area, is classed as timberland–forest area that is capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood and that is not withdrawn from timber harvest by statute or administrative regulation (Smith et al. 2001). Timberland area has consistently amounted to about two-thirds of U.S. forest land area since the 1950s. Timberland area is projected to decline 2.9 percent (or 14.8 million acres) from 504 to 489 million acres between 1997 and 2050. This is a somewhat larger decrease than over the past 50 years (5.1 million acres). About three-fifths of the projected decrease is in the North and one-fifth each in the South and Pacific Coast (table 5). Timberland will remain about two-thirds of total forest area.
Total growing stock of both merchantable and nonmerchantable tree species on forest land available for timber production —Growing stock is a fundamental element in determining the productive capacity of the area identified by the indicator, extent of forest area by forest type and by age class or successional class. Knowledge of growing stock and how it changes is central to considerations of a sustainable use of wood products by industry. In addition, knowledge of the growth rates of forests may assist with the interpretation of this indicator and of the forest ecosystem health criterion.159 The volume of hardwood growing-stock inventory on timberland generally increased for the Nation as a whole and across ownerships from 1952 through 1997 (by 192 percent), with the exception of a decrease since 1986 in inventories on forest industry lands. This may be due to conversion from hardwood to softwood stands (tables 16 and 17). The volume of softwood growing stock increased from 1952 through 1977, declinedthrough 1991, then increased through 1997. Between 1952 and 1997, inventory increased continuously on national forest and other public lands (220 percent for each) (table 17).Projections suggest hardwood growing-stock inventory will increase 23 percent between 1997 and 2050. Half of the increase will be on nonindustrial private land, 30 percent on national forest land, and 20 percent on other public land. Hardwood volume on forest industry land, overall, stays steady. Volumes increase continuously in the North and Pacific Coast, and decline in the South after 2020 (tables 16 and 17).Projections suggest softwood growing-stock inventory will increase 56 percent between 1997 and 2050. Inventory increases on all regions and for all ownerships (fig. 80). About half of the increase is on national forest land, one-quarter on nonindustrial private land, 15 percent on other private land, and 8 percent on forest industry land (table 17).Projections suggest average annual growing-stock growth rates per acre for softwoods on private lands will increase most in the South and West between 2000 and 2050; 67 to 94 cubic feet per acre and 63 to 71 cubic feet per acre, respectively. These rates are almost twice the static average growth rate for the North—about 37 cubic feet per acre (computed from the inventory and area data summarized in app. tables 30–33, 42, 44, and 49). • Growth rates will be highest and increase substantially for forest industry plantations in the South and Pacific Northwest West, from 112 to 174 cubic feet per acre, and 167 to 201 cubic feet per acre, respectively. • Growth rates for plantations on nonindustrial lands in the South and Pacific Northwest West also increase from 100 to 120 cubic feet per acre and 128 to 182 cubic feet per acre, respectively.
Plantations of softwood species will play an important role in future domestic harvest expansion. By 2050, 54 percent of total U.S. softwood growing-stock removals will come from plantations in private ownership. These plantations will occupy 30 percent of the U.S. private softwood timberland base, 13 percent of the total private timberland base (including softwoods and hardwoods), and 9 percent of the total U.S. timberland base (all owners and species) (table 19, app. tables 49 and 50). Projections suggest average growth rates per acre for softwoods on national forestlands will decline in the North, South, and West between 2000 and 2050 as more timber reaches older age classes (app. tables 34 and 50). • In the North, the growth rate declines from 36 to 24 cubic feet per acre. • In the South, growth rate declines from 41 to 27 cubic feet per acre. • In the West, growth rate declines from 46 to 41 cubic feet per acre.160 Figure 80—Total growing-stock inventory for the United States by region, with projections to 2050.

Projections suggest average growth rates per acre for hardwoods on private land will increase in the South from 42 to 59 cubic feet per acre, remain stable in the North at about 34 cubic feet per acre, and decline in the West from 87 to 78 cubic feet per acre (app. tables 43, 45, and 49).
The area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species —Thisindicator is a measure of the degree to which forest management agencies and organizations are establishing plantations in response to increasing demand for forest products. The provision of forest products from intensively managed plantations may impact biodiversity and demands for services from native, or natural, forests. The use of both native and exotic species in plantation management may enhance the potential range and quantity of goods and services available from the forest sector but, under certain circumstances, may produce unintended environmental effects.The planted forest area in the East in 1997 was 40.1 million acres or about 10.4 percent of all forest land in the East. About three-fourths of the area is southern pines. The planted forest area in the West is currently about 13.6 million acres. Planted treesare often used to supplement natural regeneration, and after about 5 years, it is difficult to differentiate planted from natural areas. Projections suggest that the area in managed softwood plantations in both the East and West (a portion of all planted forest areas) will increase from 28 to 45 million acres between 1995 and 2050 and to 16 to 18 percent of all softwood timberland area by 2050 (tables 5, 19, app. table 49). In 2050, about 86 percent of private softwood plantation area is in the South. For private land softwood plantations in the South, the annual growth rate in 2000 is twice the growth rate of nonplantation softwoods in the South–130 versus 60 cubic feet per acre. By 2050, the plantation growth rate is projected to be 2.5 times the nonplantation softwood forest rate.161 For private land softwood plantations in the Pacific Northwest West, the annual growth rate in 2000 is 1.3 times the growth rate of nonplantation softwoods in the Pacific Northwest West—162 versus 120 cubic feet per acre. By 2050, the plantation growth rate is projected to be 1.7 times the nonplantation softwood forest rate. Annual removals of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable—This indicator is intended to compare actual harvest against the sustainable level of harvesting permitted by forest management plans as a measure of the forest’s ability to maintain its productive capacity over time.Given that forest management planning methods in the United States differ by individual owners, it is not possible to provide numbers on the sustainable level of harvest permitted by such plans for the United States as a whole. As a substitute, we look atgrowth-to-removal ratio for growing stock on timberland. A notion of sustainable production would at least require an overall ratio, and ratios for regions, of one or more in the long run. Watching the size and change in this ratio has many shortcomings as a measure of sustainability. It does not indicate amount or change in biodiversity, size of trees, or forest types. Changes need to be evaluated over longer periods. Short-term increases may be due to changes in market conditions rather than changes in growth patterns. Short-term decreases may be due to shifts in forests to acceptable structures withlower inventory. There may be cycles in the ratio owing to nonuniformity of age distributions, with growth increasing in a certain area as a greater proportion of trees reach more productive age classes, or conversely, decreasing when a greater proportion of trees are in less productive age classes. For the Nation as a whole, growth-to-removal ratio was higher in 1997 than in 1952 for both softwoods and hardwoods, with increases from 1.0 to 1.3 for softwoods and 1.5 to 1.7 for hardwoods. Projections suggest the ratios will decline by 2050 to 1.2 for both softwoods and hardwoods.Projections indicate that, generally, the ratio will be lower in 2050 than in 1997 for softwood and hardwood groups in all regions. The ratio will still be 1.0 or above in 2050 for all regions and species except for 0.9 for hardwoods in the South. Within each region, the pattern of change in the ratio differs widely by ownership and species (table 24). Projections indicate changes for private land softwoods in the South with the ratio increasing from 0.9 to 1.2 as plantations mature then declining to 0.9 as they shift tolower growth, younger age classes by 2050. The runup in the ratio is greater for nonindustrial lands than for forest industry lands. The ratio for public lands remains high but decreases as growth rate decreases on maturing timber. Projections indicate continuing ratios about 1.0 for private land hardwoods overall in the South through 2030 but about 0.7 for forest industry land. By 2050, the overall ratio decreases to 0.8. The hardwood ratio for public land in the South remains high.Projections indicate that ratios for the North will remain well above 1.0 for both hardwoods and softwoods and will be increasing for industry land and for softwoods on other public land.Projections indicate that ratios for the West will remain well above 1.0 for both hardwoods and softwoods. The ratio is increasing for forest industry lands generally andfor softwoods on other private land. The ratio is highest, although declining, for softwoods and hardwoods on national forest land, 4.6 and 16.0, respectively, in 2050.162 Maintenance and enhancement of long-term socioeconomic benefits

— Value and volume of wood and wood products production, including value added through downstream processing —This indicator measures the size and economic health of the wood products sector by identifying trends in the value and volume of wood and wood products production and allowing comparison of those trends against management objectives. Value and volume of wood and wood products are a coarse indicator of wood and wood products sector health and ability to maintain certain timber values for forest land that could aid in maintaining or enhancing forest conditions. This assessment provides information on production volumes, which are part of this indicator—production of roundwood (U.S. timber harvest) and production of wood and paper products. We also provide information on the trend in value of production as indicated, in part, by the trend in prices for roundwood and for primary products. The contribution of roundwood harvest differs by region and size of timber harvested, andthe contribution of wood and paper products production varies by region, type of product, and amount of product exported. In general, U.S. production of roundwood (U.S. timber harvest) increased steadilybetween 1952 and 1997—by 34 and 87 percent, respectively, for softwood and hardwood. Projections indicate softwood harvest will decline in the near term through 2010 then increase through 2050 for an overall increase of 35 percent. Hardwood harvest will increase at a lower rate than during the last 50 years, by 49 percent through 2050 (table 16). Softwood harvest remains concentrated in the West and South, about 86 percent of all harvest, but the share from the South increased from 1950 to 1997, and continues to 2050, 41, 61, and 65 percent, respectively.Hardwood harvest remains concentrated in the North and South, with the West gaining a 6-percent share by 2050. In the North and South, shares are roughly stable between 1997 and 2050, with 44 and 50 percent, respectively in 2050. The projected portion of U.S. roundwood harvest that is exported as logs or chips decreases from 6 to 3 percent between 1997 and 2050. Table 24—Projected growth-to-removal ratios for growing-stock timber in 2050 and direction of change since 1997

Softwoods Hardwoods

Forest Non- National Other Forest Non- National Other Area industry industrial forest public All industry industrial forest public All

North 3.3+ 1.6- 2.2- 3.6+ 1.6- 1.8+ 1.2- 2.5s 1.4s 1.5- South .9s .8- 1.3s 1.3+ 1.0+ .7s .8- 2.7+ 1.3+ .9- West 1.1+ 1.3- 4.6- 3.0+ 1.9+ 1.8- 1.9- 16.0- 2.1- 2.5-

United States 1.1+ .9- 3.8- 2.6+ 1.2- 1.0- 1.0- 3.8- 1.9- 1.2-

Note: s = same level as 1997. Source: Tables 16, 17, 34–37, 42–45.163 Production of wood and paper products will increase more than roundwood harvest, 30 percent versus 24 percent between 1997 and 2050, owing to increasing use of recovered paper, fillers, and adhesives in products. The component of production with the largest increase over the next 50 years is projected to be paper and paperboard(up 41 percent), followed by composite products (38 percent), and lumber and miscellaneous products (up 18 percent). Paper and paperboard production, however, is projected to decline temporarily in the next several years (fig. 43). The value of wood harvested will be determined in part by its end uses. Virtually all of the projected increase in harvest is in nonsawtimber trees—trees used for oriented strand board (OSB) or paper and paperboard. The price for hardwood and softwood pulpwood (nonsawtimber) is projected to decline somewhat from the 1997 level in the South and remain similar to 1980s levels for up to three decades, then increases (table 15). This price trend is due to: • A projected decrease in demand for paper and paperboard in the near term. • An increase in imports of market pulp, paper, and paperboard. • Limited growth in paper and paperboard exports. • Continued increases in paper recycling. • Continued availability of domestic nonsawtimber-sized trees.
The value of softwood sawtimber as indicated by stumpage price is projected to increase most in the South and West, about 70 percent through 2050. This is a somewhat greater increase overall than the last 50 years. Hardwood sawtimber stumpage price is projected to increase more slowly, 10 and 33 percent in the North and South, respectively, through 2050. This is a much slower increase than for the last 50 years (table 15).
Supply and consumption of wood and wood products, including consumption per capita —This indicator measures the demand and extent to which the supply of wood and wood products meets the needs for domestic consumption. A measure of consumption per capita might reflect a cultural affinity to wood products, the level of disposable income, the price or availability of wood products and their substitutes, orthe efficacy of conservation, recycling, and reuse measures. High per capita consumption levels may also put pressures on forest resources. In general, U.S. consumption of wood and paper products is projected to increasemore slowly in the future, but it will still increase faster than U.S. timber harvest. Increases in paper and wood recycling and import of products will allow consumption to increase faster than harvest. Consumption of wood and paper products is projected to increase from 223 to 310 million tons, or 39 percent, between 1998 and 2050. In comparison, the United Statesconsumed 138 million tons of steel and 113 million tons of cement in 1998. This projected increase is less than half the annual rate of increase from 1965 to 1998. United States roundwood harvest to meet domestic and export demands is projected to increase from 18.0 to 22.4 billion cubic feet, or 24 percent, over the next 50 years. This is less than one-third the annual rate of the past 44 years. Our current projections for roundwood harvest and roundwood for exports for 2040 are less than amounts we164 projected in 1993. Exports of wood and paper products stay near 2.2 billion cubic feet roundwood equivalent (see footnote 5) and shift from 12 to 10 percent of total harvest through 2050.The portion of U.S. consumption met from U.S. harvest decreased from 89 to 80 percent between 1952 and 1997 and is projected to decrease to 73 percent in 2050 (table 12). 6
Net imports of products to the United States as a portion of all industrial roundwood harvest outside the United States are projected to increase from 5 percent in 1996 to about 8 percent in 2050. As noted in chapter 3, the expected increase in imports ofmanufactured products to the United States is expected to come from managed forests and plantations in Europe, Latin America, and Asia (see footnote 5). Total exports from the United States are expected to be relatively stable.
Projected wood and paper products consumption per capita stays about the same, averaging 1,565 pounds per year between 1998 and 2050, up from 1,243 pounds per year in 1965 (fig. 46). Projected U.S. roundwood harvest per capita decreases from 64 to 56 cubic feet per capita. This is down from 76 cubic feet per capita in 1952.
Roundwood harvest per capita has declined and is projected to continue to decline,while consumption per capita remains stable owing to increased imports, lower exports, and increased efficiency of roundwood use measured by product output per unit of roundwood input. Increased roundwood use efficiency has been a key factor in decreasing roundwood consumption with an efficiency increase of 35 percent between 1950 and 1998. The increase has been due primarily to increased paper recycling and increased use of wood residue for products. Efficiency increases are projected to slow over the next 50years with slower increases in recycling and use of residue for products. Further efficiency gains are possible, however, by decreasing wood and paper product used per unit of end use such as housing or packaging, or by increasing solid wood recycling.

Projections suggest U.S. consumption of wood and paper products will continue toincrease per capita while the share from U.S. production decreases. The U.S. roundwood harvest, although increasing, will decline somewhat per capita but will remain above the average level of other developed countries. As in the past, U.S. imports and exports will influence wood and fiber use in the United States and in other countries. The portion of U.S. consumption met from U.S. harvest continues to decrease—from 89 to 80 percent between 1952 and 1997 to 73 percent in 2050.

Roundwood harvest increase in the United States will be in nonsawtimber trees whose value per cubic foot is projected to remain stable or decline somewhat for the nextseveral decades but increase by 2050. Value per unit of softwood sawtimber is projected to increase somewhat faster than during the last 50 years and hardwood sawtimber somewhat slower than during the last 50 years.

6 Imports and exports are expressed in roundwood equivalents. For 1996 we have 100 × (18.0 - 2.2)/19.7 = 80 percent. For 2050 we have 100 × (22.4 - 2.3)/27.5 = 73 percent (data are from table 12). Synthesis of Regional Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators165 The potential effects of harvest and the ability to sustain harvest on forest land as indicated by growth-to-removal ratios differ widely. The ratio is projected to remain above 1.0 through 2050 for most combinations of region, species, and ownerships. Two exceptions are for forest industry and nonindustrial private lands in the South. For private land softwoods, the ratio increases from 0.9 to 1.2 between 1997 and 2010 as plantations mature, then declines to 0.9 as harvest increases and plantation area shifts to lower growth, younger age classes by 2050. For private land hardwoods in the South overall, the ratio is above 1.0 through 2030 but decreases to 0.8 by 2050. The capability to support high levels of harvest is focused on the same lands that are closest to a growth-to-removal ratio of 1.0–private lands, particularly plantations, in the South. Private lands in the Pacific Northwest also have high productivity. Growth rates will be highest and increase substantially for forest industry plantations in the South and Pacific Northwest West where growth will increase from 112 to 174 cubic feet per acre, and 167 to 201 cubic feet per acre, respectively. Growth rates for plantations on nonindustrial lands in the South and Pacific Northwest West will be from 100 to 120 cubic feet per acre and 128 to 182 cubic feet per acre, respectively. Because of the high growth-to-removal ratio for softwood, inventory will increase most on national forest lands. Softwood growing-stock inventory will increase 56 percent between 1997 and 2050. Inventory increases in all regions and for all ownerships. About 60 percent of the increase is on national forest land, 14 percent on nonindustrial private land, 16 percent on other public land, and 10 percent on forest industry land. The combined effects of growth and removals will influence shifts in proportion of acres in various forest types and seral stages. Forest types will remain relatively stablewith the exception that forest cover types in the South will shift away from upland hardwoods and toward planted pine. Generally, projections suggest an increasing proportion of timberland area in older seral stages (sawtimber-size trees) with the exceptionthat sawtimber area proportion is projected to decrease for private softwood timberland in the South. The highest proportion of acres in older seral stages will be on national forest land in all regions, followed by private land in the North.

Aggregate trend data and projections for indicators for these criteria are shown in table 23 at the national level.

The base projections were presented in chapter 3 as were the various implications for inventory volumes and growth. Although these measures have important impacts on timber markets, they are only some of the conditions for the broader considerations of sustainable forest management. This section examines the implications of the base projections for trends in diversity of forest types and structure. Both of these variables are cited as important components in broad-scale measures of ecosystem condition and change. 7 Synthesis of National Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators


### Trends in Diversity and Structure

7 See the National Research Council report (2000) for a discussion about broad-scale ecological measures and Haynes and Quigley (2001) for an example where broad-scale measures were used to examine the consequences of land management actions.166 The discussion about sustainable forest management represents a broadening of the goals for forest management and raises questions about the compatibility of timber production with other goals such as biodiversity or ecological integrity. At the same time, advocates within the environmental community are articulating an agenda for effective conservation of private U.S. forests. Such an agenda includes efforts to reduce timberland loss, increase reforestation of former timberlands, reduceparcelization of larger forest properties, increase forest age, reassemble forest landscapes through joint stewardship opportunities, and expand access to the capitaland resources needed for stewardship (Best and Wayburn 2001). Many of these concerns evolved with the increases in harvest levels since World War II that have led tothe loss of older stands and their associated benefits for habitat, recreation, and spiritual values. These changes have yielded concerns that increases in forest management and harvest have simplified forest types and structures. Inventory structure in this usage refers to the relative abundance of different size classes of stands within a forest. First, concern about the structure of the inventory reflects notions that there is value in maintaining a diverse range of different stages of forest development. 8 Popular literature often suggests we are seeing a progressive decrease in amount of olderseral stages and an increase in the younger seral stages. The data for public and private lands are shown in appendix tables 49 and 50, and summarized in tables 25 and 26. They reveal a more complex story but one much like that revealed in figures 68 through 70. For much of the country, we are seeing an aging of the forests and an accumulation of acres in the older seral stages as production shifts to fewer acres. This is especially true in the both the West and the North. In the South, however, there is a shift from older hardwood stands to younger softwood stands because of forest management decisions. From another perspective, the data in table 14 imply that much of the change in seral stage probably occured before 1986 when the averagediameter of harvested timber fell, especially in the West. From 1976 to 1986, the transition from natural to managed stands occurred in both the South and Pacific Northwest West, reducing the size of trees for final harvest. These trends are now expected (as shown in tables 25 and 26) to be relatively stable. Another cited concern is the lack of diversity associated with managed forests. Most U.S. regions, however, are expected to maintain their current diversity of timber types over the next five decades (fig. 81). The highest diversity (number) of types is in the Pacific Northwest East (PNWE). Some of the lowest relative diversity is for softwood and hardwood types in the Pacific Northwest West, for softwood types in the Great Plains, and for hardwood types in the South. Changes are expected in current levels of diversity of forest types for hardwood types in the South Central and softwood types in the Great Plains and northern Rocky Mountains. In these regions, timberland area lost or type conversions result in less abundance of some timber types in the future relative to the mid-1990s.

8 Forest development is often described as a progression through a series of relatively transitory communities representing ecological succession from bare ground to climax stages. In contemporary usage, this development is often described in five stages: seedlings, poles and saplings, young, mature, and old mature (see glossary for definitions).167Seral stage diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 .968 1.006 .990 .980 1.050 .928 .964 .996 .947 .9732020 .980 .993 .987 .937 1.032 .876 .980 .939 .951 .9632030 1.008 1.006 .994 .960 1.035 .871 .948 .955 .955 1.0142040 .960 1.013 .997 .970 1.038 .902 .998 1.036 .981 1.0692050 1.027 1.022 1.012 .950 1.022 .857 1.029 1.050 .988 1.065Type diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 .994 .992 .995 .993 .888 .978 .658 1.000 .980 .9912020 .989 .987 1.002 .991 .820 .958 .650 1.000 .978 .9862030 .981 .983 1.003 .988 .781 .940 .643 .999 .981 .9832040 .974 .979 1.006 .984 .768 .918 .637 .999 .986 .9892050 .970 .976 1.011 .983 .768 .901 .630 1.002 .988 .985Seral x type diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 .977 .996 .992 .994 1.029 .952 .990 1.008 .965 .9902020 .981 .991 .995 .971 1.022 .914 .968 .964 .963 .9792030 .988 .991 1.001 .977 1.032 .886 .934 .943 .950 .9892040 .943 .999 1.006 .977 1.039 .899 .960 .990 .953 1.0162050 .991 1.004 1.017 .975 1.036 .862 .969 .976 .965 1.001aPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) the ponderosa pine subregion.NortheastYearLakeStatesSoutheastSouthCentralNorthernRockiesPacificSouthwestPacificNorthwestWestaPlainsStatesNorth CentralPacificNorthwestEastaSouthernRockiesTable 25—Diversity indexes for private timberlandsRegion168Seral stage diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 .836 .972 .976 .908 .934 .937 .908 .932 .910 .9412020 .808 .950 .966 .767 .920 .895 .867 .934 .878 .9262030 .786 .905 .886 .706 .961 .890 .863 .897 .825 .9152040 .824 .888 .915 .662 .931 .827 .846 .756 .740 .8702050 .761 .890 .928 .635 .878 .828 .821 .716 .711 .863Type diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002020 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002030 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002040 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002050 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Seral x type diversity2000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0002010 .919 .984 .979 .946 .977 .969 .962 .977 .954 .9722020 .904 .979 .969 .868 .962 .949 .947 .977 .937 .9652030 .897 .961 .929 .825 .976 .945 .943 .969 .911 .9602040 .926 .949 .941 .794 .938 .913 .938 .932 .871 .9392050 .894 .951 .949 .791 .914 .915 .930 .915 .857 .936aPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) the ponderosa pine subregion.NortheastYearLakeStatesSoutheastSouthCentralNorthernRockiesPacificSouthwestPacificNorthwestWestaPlainsStatesNorth CentralPacificNorthwestEastaSouthernRockiesTable 26—Diversity indexes for national forest timberlandsRegion169 Diversity of forest type and seral stage can be combined and represented as a single index. These results are shown in the bottom part of tables 25 and 26. In general, the results show remarkable stability in forest conditions for the next 50 years. In manyways this reflects the dynamic nature of forested ecosystems where regrowth, increasing productivity, and harvest all help balance ecosystem conditions.Some of the biggest changes are expected to be on public timberlands. There, declines in the combined indexes reflect shifts in seral stages toward older stands and a diminishment in the proportion of stands in young seral stages. For example, in theWest, currently 24 percent of the area is in late-seral conditions, but by 2050 this proportion rises to 53 percent with most of the change coming from a reduction of acres in the younger and midseral stages (see app. table 50 for details). These results have enormous implications for future forest policy discussions. Much of the current policy debate (such as sustainable forest management and certification) is stimulated by the assertion that ecological conditions are in decline. Although thoseperceptions have been shaped by events of the past several decades, it seems unlikely that we will see changes of those magnitudes repeated in the next several decades. For example, the creation of a planted pine type in the South starting in the 1950s is a relatively recent event that created a new forest type primarily from three existing forest types (natural pine, oak-pine, and upland hardwoods). In the West, the attempts to regulate forest management on public timberlands starting in the 1950schanged age-class structures. Changes of these magnitudes and the associated ecological changes are not expected in the next 50 years. This broad-scale view of relative stability of ecological conditions takes a strategicview of what is happening but ignores the impact of these issues at the local or individual owner scale. These results, as well as the earlier results, point out that the Figure 81—Diversity index for private lands by region and species for 2000.170 United States is well on its way to having large parts of the timberland base managedeither in some type of reserve status or in a custodial fashion while remaining exploitable forests are managed more intensively. Where this issue is being discussed inother major softwood producing areas (see Verkaik and Nabuurs 2000), policy decisions about the management of public lands (for greater emphasis on habitat conservation strategies) and the collective decisions of private timberland owners have already placed the United States on this policy trajectory.

Table 16 suggests that the largest part of projected increases in domestic softwood removals will come from private timberlands in the South. Figure 48 in chapter 3, shows that both the consumption and harvest of softwood timber are projected to rise steeply in the last 30 years of the projection. Hardwood consumption also rises, but ata slower rate (fig. 49). Figures 51 and 60 show the importance of the South in supplying both softwood and hardwood fiber. The harvest increase in the South is particularly dramatic, increasing by more than 40percent for softwoods and 20 percent for hardwoods, and is attributed to a combination of available inventories and market forces. As discussed in chapters 2 and 3, investment by private landowners increases available softwood inventories by pushing up the rate of growth and hence the yield volume per unit of area harvested. In the face of expanding inventory and limited growth in stumpage prices, wood processing capacity follows inventory and expands to use the available resource. In the context of privately owned timberland, the South is the largest timber production region in terms of both area and volume. With 37 million acres of industrial timberland, the South has almost four times the area devoted to timber production as does the Pacific Northwest West, and more than twice that of the North. The South supports a broad nonindustrial base, again the largest, with significant area managed for timber under miscellaneous corporate ownership and a significant number of acres leased to industry.When comparing regions as measured by the percentage of inventory removed annually, the South supports the highest harvesting intensity. Figure 82 shows that the South is initially 1 percentage point above the Pacific Coast 9(about a 25-percent difference), and while the other regions decline or remain relatively stable, this ratio forthe South trends upward. This level of harvest is supported by a relatively high growthto-inventory percentage as shown in figure 83. So although harvest is high relative to other regions, growth is replacing stands at a comparable rate. Where the growth rateexceeds the removals rate, inventories will build; when removals exceed growth, inventories fall. The projected growth rate in the South rises initially and remains fairly constant (at 5.1 percent), but after 2010 the removals rate begins to rise and exceed the growth rate near 2035. If we put these ratios together and compare growth to removals (fig. 84), we can quickly determine the net effect on inventories. Initially, the Pacific Coast and South have the lowest ratios, just less than 1.0, meaning removals are slightly exceeding growth resulting in an inventory drop. In the South, as harvest falls in response to less available inventory, a wave of growth occurs on young stands, and the ratio rises above 1.0 as inventories begin to build. As they mature, harvest rises to use the newly 

### Can Southern Timberlands Provide the Bulk of U.S. Softwood Timber Harvest?

9 For figures 82, 83, and 84 the Pacific Coast = Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest West; elsewhere Pacific Coast = Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest.171 Figure 82—Annual removals as a percentage of growing-stock inventory on private timberland, by region and decade. Pacific Coast includes Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest West; Intermountain includes Pacific Northwest East and Rocky Mountains.

Figure 83—Net annual growth as a percentage of growing-stock inventory on private timberland, by region and decade. Pacific Coast includes Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest West; Intermountain includes Pacific Northwest East and Rocky Mountains.172 available inventories, eventually increasing faster than the increase in growth, and by 2035, the ratio approaches and drops below 1.0 signaling a downward trend in the inventory cycle. Total inventory is still up 11 percent from start of the projection in 1995. As figures 66 and 67 have shown, softwoods and hardwoods have different trajectories; by 2035, a 40-percent gain in softwood volume overshadows an 8-percent decline in hardwood inventories. The longer term outlook in other regions is for growth to exceed removals, perhaps indicating long-term balance between removals and inventories, or possibly a consistent underutilization of the available resource. Hidden in the Southern softwood projections is the continuation of a cycle of growingand maturing inventories followed by periods of increased harvests and stable-todeclining inventories resulting from shifts in the age-class structures on private land (see figs. 55, 56, 66, and 69). After each period of increased harvest is a bulge of the area in young age classes. The subsequent generation of pine is managed with higher efficiency in terms of improved planting stock and effective practices that increaseyields and retain a greater proportion of planted pine acres. As these inventories mature, removals can increase. The hardwood situation is different; inventories do not appear to be following the same cycle as for softwoods. The growth-to-removals ratio by fiber type (fig. 85) showshardwood removals exceeding growth early in the projection. As the projection proceeds, hardwood removals remain relatively high, increasing 20 percent by 2050 whileinventories drop. As investment dollars are focused on softwoods, there is a 13-percent loss of area supporting hardwoods, much of it regenerated with higher valued stands of pine—lowering the potential for available hardwood fiber. Figure 67 shows that, over time, a greater share of hardwood area becomes unavailable for timber production. As figure 60 indicates, however, hardwood removals are expanding in the North, and as the high growth-to-removals ratio implies, they could potentially expandfurther. With a fall in volume, prices rise and nonindustrial private forest harvests increase as higher prices promote additional volume to become “available.” This would Figure 84—The projected ratio of growing-stock growth to removals on private timberland, by region and decade. Pacific Coast includes Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest West; Intermountain includes Pacific Northwest East and Rocky Mountains.173be a short-term source of supply, however, because after 2050 there would be a reduction of capacity, with consumption shifting to additional hardwood volume in the form of both short-rotation production on agricultural land and imports. A key assumption underlying the softwood projections was that after 2015, private timberland owners would reduce the rate that area was enrolled into more intensive management as they perceived the implications of essentially constant stumpage prices (shown in table 15). This assumption recognizes that perceptions of future returns to forest investments do change landowner propensities for investments; if investment rates had been held to their initial values, the additional inventory volume would have resulted in declining real stumpage. When the projection begins in 1995,owners face increasing prices and reductions in harvest over the first decade. Investment levels are high, but after investments made in the 1990s pay off in higher yields and bigger inventories, prices level off, reducing the incentive to enroll additional acres under the highest, most expensive, management regimes. As discussed in chapter 2 (see figs. 9 to 11), the greatest increase in the upper levels of investment will have occurred by 2025. Inventories will have risen while prices remain level, and many acres then will remain under medium and low investment levels until 2035 when a tightening in supplies boosts investment in strategies to further increase growth and yield.
Still, the South becomes the dominant source of softwood fiber and home to most of the forest products industry. This industry depends on a highly productive resource base that in itself depends on high levels of investment. Much of this management is designed to produce sawtimber and wood fiber on relatively short rotations that lead to frequent harvest activity and relative parity between growth and harvest. The cycle will likely continue as harvests adjust to changes in available inventory and investment boosts future fiber output in hopes of raising sustainable production, perhaps buffering what we see as the downward part of the cycle. Figure 85—The projected ratio of growing-stock growth to removals on private timberland in the South, by fiber type and decade.174 The forests of the interior West face unique forest health and fire hazard issues that have been compounded by federal, state, and local efforts to suppress or limit forestfires since the early 1900s. These efforts have, ironically, added to the natural accumulation of forest fuels, particularly smaller diameter trees or brush that might otherwise have been cleared by periodic wildfires. This set of conditions significantly departs from the historical or “natural” conditions, especially on public lands (Hann et al. 1997). Recently, public attention has focused on strategies to reduce the risks of wildfire while at the same time restoring forest conditions in the interior West. Key inthese strategies is the consideration of thinning forest stands on public lands to remove excessive accumulation of smaller diameter timber. In this discussion, smalldiameter timber or logs are from stands whose average diameter is roughly 8 inches in an area where sawtimber is conventionally thought of as starting at 11 inches in diameter. The timber assessment provides information about the likelihood that there will be markets for the types of material resulting from thinning operations undertaken tosupport restoration strategies. There are three aspects to consider: production capacity sufficient to process large volumes of thinning material; the scale of the forest health problem; and whether this small timber can be sold by using existing timber sale mechanisms.

The interior West can be characterized by the predominance of the softwood lumber industry. In 2000, the softwood lumber industry consumed 830 million cubic feet of logs to produce nearly 5.8 billion board feet of lumber and 485 million cubic feet of residues. Various other types of processing, including the pulp and paper industry, use about 1 billion cubic feet of roundwood and residues. Product technologies that usepulpwood have the greatest potential for profit and use the largest volumes of smalldiameter timber. In the West, there are also many smaller enterprises that use some small-diameter timber, such as small-log sawmills, log cabin manufacturers, and wooden pole and post producers, along with various other types of smaller scale wood-based enterprises. The volume of small-diameter timber that is projected to be used by such enterprises is, however, relatively small.Pulpwood consumption in the interior West has fallen since the mid-1980s as processing capacity has adjusted to higher cost federal timber associated with declining publicharvests. There have been notable declines in regional production capacity for products such as wood pulp and OSB owing to declining relative profitability. Expanding these types of production capacity requires large capital investments, and exposure touncertain pulpwood supply is undoubtedly a risk factor that inhibits new mill investments. Lack of investment will have profound implications for opportunities to commercially thin large volumes of small-diameter timber to restore the health of forest ecosystems in the region.The base projections show the Western United States will continue to recede in relative importance in terms of pulpwood supply and demand. Projections show modest increase in regional OSB capacity in the West and continued pulpwood exports, but total regional pulpwood supply and demand is projected to remain at approximately 1 billion cubic feet, about half of that in the form of residues from softwood lumber production. 

### Western Forest Health and Small-Log Markets

Production Capacity175 Little recognition has been given to the magnitude of the market impact and market challenge presented by the option of thinning large volumes of timber on public lands (see figs. 86A and 86B for an estimate of the increase in federal inventories for theRocky Mountain region). There is no assurance that there will be a future match between volumes of small logs that can be produced by thinning operations on publiclands and the actual market demand or production capacity to use such timber. A reasonable estimate of the volume of small-diameter timber that could be removed through thinning operations on public lands in the West can be calculated assuming a small fraction of this timber is thinned annually. There are no firm estimates of timber that ultimately may be removed by thinning operations on public lands in the West, but a figure of 1 billion cubic feet per year (1,000 cubic feet per acre times 1 million acres per year) is a reasonable estimate and is a small fraction of the timber volume that needs to be thinned in the West. One billion cubic feet of wood is roughly equivalent to the current total consumption of all 28 wood pulp mills in the Western United States(including both roundwood and residues). Thinning and removal for market of an additional 1 billion cubic feet of pulpwood per year would require an additional 30 to 35pulp mills. In terms of OSB mills, 1 billion cubic feet of pulpwood per year is a sufficient volume of wood supply for about 50 modern OSB plants. In both cases, the number of these mills has been declining since the early 1990s, and no increase is projected. Some sawmills in the region already are focused on utilization of small logs. Data from the Western Wood Products Association (see WWPA 1999) indicate that the number of sawmills in the Western United States has declined precipitously over the past decade from over 500 sawmills in 1990 to only around 300 by 1999, with the greatest loss coming in small sawmills (those with less than 20 million board feet of production capacity). One billion cubic feet of small-log material would be sufficient toprovide annual raw material input for at least 250 small sawmills (assuming an average lumber production capacity of 20 million board feet per year). In addition, any increase in lumber production also increases residue production offering further utilization challenges. A key question is how to improve the investment environment. Considerations include a predictable supply of relatively consistent material and working with the industry and communities to develop processing capabilities for the available materials that can be marketed in a competitive environment.

The third aspect of thinning Western forests is how to design and offer federal timbersales with a high likelihood of being sold. Looking at fiber and saw log prices for northeastern Oregon, we estimate that in 1997 (a year with relatively low fiber-log prices),sales needed to have 68 percent sawtimber (that is, logs over 11 inches) to be breakeven sales (see Haynes 1999). The sawtimber also needs to be green, as wood recovery from dead timber is generally poor (Lowell et al. 1992). In general, sawtimber and chip markets do not necessarily move in parallel. Typically, chip prices have gone up in the West when lumber, sawtimber, and residue production declined, or when export markets have increased. However, Western chip prices have generally declined in the 1990s in association with declining wood pulp and OSB capacity in the West. Itwould seem likely that any substantial expansion of the supply of chip logs or pulpwood from thinning on public lands would further depress markets for chips and small logs in the West, making it even less economical to sell small-diameter timber. Scale of the Forest Health Problem

Can Small-Timber Sales Be Sold?176 Countries are linked through trade in commodities and services, through cross-borderinvestment, and through a variety of formal international agreements and intergovernmental processes. In the last decade of the 20 th century, the extent and the complexity of these international links increased, as did their interactions with broad-scale trendssuch as technological, political, and environmental change (fig. 87). As a consequence, the management and policy implications of the outlook for domestic resources are broadly set in an international context. The commodity trade dimension of this interdependence and its importance to the U.S. forest sector have been recognized for some time. Forest products trade, along with the implications of resource conditions and demand and supply trends in other countries have been addressed in each of the previous RPA timber assessments. The projections in this timber assessment describe a future in which U.S. forest sector and forest products markets remain closely linked to the rest of the world throughcommodity trade. Although this projection is similar to previous RPA timber assessments, in many respects, the level of import dependence and trend differ from previous assessments. 

### Complex International Links Figure 86—Projected National Forest System timber volumes in Northern Rocky Mountains and Southern Rocky Mountains by type, for the years 2000, 2030, 2050.177 Figure 87—Global issues affecting the forest sector.178 Sustained economic growth in the 1990s contributed to increasing U.S. dependence on forest products imports. We expect this trend to continue in the short term (10 to15 years) as U.S. demand continues to grow, and opportunities for expanded domestic production are limited. Over the longer term (beyond 2015), U.S. dependence on imports is projected to decrease as domestic production expands. Throughout the projection period, international markets are expected to continue to be important to U.S. producers, although in the aggregate, the share of U.S. production exported is expected to remain below the level reached in the early 1990s (more than 15 percent).In some of the alternative futures, the magnitude and composition of U.S. forest products trade change, but all of the alternatives describe a future in which trade plays an important role. One immediate implication of this outlook is that trade policies and trade-related agreements will affect the U.S. forest sector. Given the importance of trade 10 and interaction with domestic markets, trade agreements (especially those targeting forest products) may have broad consequences for domestic resources that extendbeyond trade flows. For example, domestic prices and trade agreements may influence patterns of resource production and management. The nature and the magnitude of trade and effects of trade policy on domestic resources are likely to vary.Unanticipated and unintended interactions with “traditional” resource policies and management objectives may be among the most significant consequences of the increasing role of trade in the U.S. forest sector. Prospective extensions of recent multilateral trade agreements (such as the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) appear likely to have only a small effect on the overall level of U.S. timber harvest and trade (Brooks et al. 2001). However, historical and prospective future tariff reductions do affect patterns of trade (trading partners) and the structure of trade (generally encouraging increasing trade in manufactures as compared to trade in raw material). Therefore, these projections imply that consideration of the possible effects of trade policies must be an explicit component of forest sector policies. Nontariff trade policies (such as phytosanitary agreements and standards) may be considerably more important than tariff rates in terms of their long-term consequences for domestic resources. As compared to further tariff reductions, a development with greater implications forresource management and policy is the explicit consideration of environmental consequences in trade agreements. Although “environmental review” of trade agreements is a relatively new development, 11 recognition of the links between trade and environment, and the possible use of trade policies as an instrument of environmental policy are not new (see Tomberlin et al. 1998 for a review). For the U.S. forest sector, the current Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) with Canada provides a clear example of a trade policy that interacts with domestic forest policies. The SLA is the most recentresponse to a long-standing debate that reflects the interdependence of lumber producers and consumers within North America. The current debate has added forest policy, forest management, and environmental considerations to a dispute that once was more narrowly focused on a comparison of timber prices and production costs.

10 In the late 1990s, imports accounted for more than 25 percent of U.S. consumption of forest products (roundwood equivalent).

11 Executive Order 13141 (“Environmental Review of Trade Agreements”) was signed in November 1999 (see 63 Fed. Reg. 63169 November 18, 1999).179Commodity trade is now only one among a number of ways in which producers, consumers, resource managers, and policymakers must consider the international context of their decisions. Integration of national economies—and therefore natural resource conditions—also takes place through foreign investment and through firmsthat operate in multiple countries (multinational corporations). Foreign direct investment abroad by U.S. forest industries averaged more than $10 billion per year throughout the 1990s (see http://www/bea.doc.gov). During the same period, therewas evidence of increasing foreign investment in forests and timber-based manufacturing facilities in the United States. Although it is widely argued that domestic andinternational economic growth depends on a willingness to accept continuing international economic integration, it is also increasingly acknowledged that effective domestic policies and institutions are needed to ensure that unintended consequences (notably environmental and social) can be anticipated and mitigated. Among the implications—and challenges—for forest policies and management are the possible weakening of local influence over manufacturing and management decisions, increases in the speed and magnitude of change (for example, in capital flows), and shifts in patterns of comparative advantage brought about by reductions in barriers toinvestment. The effect of economic integration on environmental standards and performance is a subject of continuing debate. Nevertheless, forest policy goals, processes, and tools that were effective in an era of locally owned firms are unlikely to be equallyeffective addressing more complex and more remote patterns of ownership and management.In addition to international economic integration, there has been a broadening of management and policy issues, and a linking of policy processes across national boundaries. Both developments have been motivated, in part, by increasing concern for the global environment and the role of forests in sustaining environmental services (suchas carbon sequestration and maintaining biodiversity). In the 1990s, a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) were signed that address forest-related issues and have implications for domestic policies and management. 12 Often the scope and magnitude of implications for domestic management are not based on thebreadth of the issue addressed or the degree of formality of the agreement. An example of this is the extent to which the use of criteria and indicators (and, specificallythe Montreal Process criteria and indicators) has become inextricably linked to sustainable management, even at lower spatial scales never intended by the original, informal, intergovernmental process. The interdependence of the U.S. forest sector with other countries—through trade, investment, and international agreements and policy processes—is likely to expand and become increasingly complex. However, few of the domestic institutions andprocesses that have historically provided effective management of U.S. natural resources have fully taken into account these new circumstances. Therefore, among the emerging challenges is the need to modify forest policy and management goals, processes, and methods to reflect greater and more complex international interaction.

12

See Wisdom, Harold; Brooks, David. 2000. International agreements and forest management. Manuscript on file with: Human and Natural Resources Interactions Program, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.180 The projections of forest inventories start with measurements obtained from a set ofpermanent ground plots established on timberland in each state. Each plot, and associated data describing the forest, is identified by its specific ground location. In the process of developing resource projections, the data are aggregated upward from hundreds of thousands of tree records, to thousands of plots, to the level we have traditionally found useful in assessments, that being nine multistate regions. However, given the evolution toward faster computers, the availability of geographic information system tools, and the popularity of colorful visual displays, we think it is relevant to display the projections visually—showing them in a geographic context. We developed a model that allows us to aggregate the plot data up to any scale while disaggregating the regional solution downward to smaller scales. The projections presented in this section were made with a version of aggregate timberland assessment system (ATLAS) 13 configured to project and track county-level inventories, and to do so consistent with the regional modeling framework. This process did require the disaggregation of regional data accounting for timberremovals and land area change. Algorithms were developed to allocate regional components of change to county inventories by using the same rules applied in the regional projections. A key assumption in this process has to do with the apportioning of removals from the TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS (timber assessment market model/North American pulp and paper model) solution among counties. In this case, the share of removals volume allocated to a particular county depended, in accordance with the allocation parameters, on the proportional share of available volume within the county. Area loss and gain also originally were derived at the regional level and allocatedamong counties with rules compatible with those in the aggregate model. These projections may not be accurate for a particular county. When added together, however,the resulting county-level growth, removals, and inventory matched the results projected with the region-level model.What these projections show is a way of looking “inside the box” to see the consequences of the various assumptions when they are linked back to the landscape. The county-level model shows where the wood was assumed to come from, where the projected investment in plantations occurs, and where growth and removals are in or out of balance. These assumptions are implicit in the regional solution; now we have a way to view the result at the county level. A set of county-level maps are shown in figures 88 through 92. Figures 88 and 89 show the current distribution of timber inventories on private and on national forest 14 timberlands. These maps illustrate the spatial extent of forests in the United States and some of the differences and similarities between public and private timberlands. The volume classes represent a relative weight assigned to each county that is based on the average of all timberland in the county, irrespective of county size. The highest averages are concentrated in the Eastern and Pacific States.

13 This modified version of ATLAS (known as ATLAS-T) developed by using SAS (Version 6.12, SAS Institute) is compatible with the main version but has the added flexibility of aggregating inventory at multiple scales.

14 As a caution, the display of national forest timberlands is incomplete for the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Missing data are attributed to inventory plots that were not coded with county identifier. 

### Disaggregating the Projections181 Figure 90 shows the projected average removals on private timberlands over the next five decades. Counties along the coast in the South and Pacific Northwest account for most of the timber harvested. In these regions, industrial owners were assumed to be investing in management practices aimed at increasing wood production efficiency.The counties with higher levels of removals have attributes favorable for wood production (better site productivity, favorable mix of available stands, concentration of timberoriented ownerships). Finally, figures 91 and 92 show the growing-stock change on private and national forest timberlands. In most cases, inventory accumulates on thenational forests where net growth exceeds removals, whereas private timberland inventory accumulates in areas where harvesting is relatively light (for example, the Northeast and North-Central States). In the major timber-producing areas, such as the coastal counties in the South and Pacific Northwest, the pattern is more mixed with higher removal levels offsetting some of the inventory accumulation. Figures 91 and 92 show that the South dominates fiber production but that the distribution of harvest differs across the region with the heaviest removals in the coastal plain and the areas along the Alabama-Mississippi and Louisiana-Arkansas-Texas borders. These areas are likely to support softwood plantations. The yellow and purple counties in Kentucky and Tennessee represent the projected removal of hardwood volume and a reduction of the hardwood inventory. Harvests in the North, which produces proportionally more nonsawtimber, are spread more evenly across the region.Do these maps reveal any particular problems that could be alleviated with early actions? Perhaps the most prominent concern revealed in these figures is on figure 91, which shows a drop in the hardwood resource of Kentucky, Tennessee, and a little along the Mississippi River. But as we know from tables 16 and 17, the decline in hardwoods is more than offset by an increase in softwood volume, making the net inventory change in this region positive. These figures show where the resources are and that within regions, inventory change is uneven.182Figure 88—Distribution of timberland inventory on private land in 2000 showing average volumes by county.183Figure 89—Distribution of timberland inventory on national forest lands in 2000 showing average volumes by county. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, NewMexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming are missing county codes for some of the data.184Figure 90—Average annual volume removals from private timberland, 2000 to 2050, by county.185Figure 91—Volume change as percentage of growing-stock inventory on private timberland, 2000 to 2050, by county.186Figure 92—Volume change as percentage of growing-stock inventory on national forest timberland, 2000 to 2050, by county. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada,New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming are missing county codes for some of the data.187 

### Introduction 

# Chapter 6: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 1

1 The authors for this chapter are David J. Brooks, Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, and Kenneth E. Skog.

2 Ecosystems are said to have “integrity” when they have their native components (plants, animals, and other organisms) and processes (such as growth and reproduction) intact. In entering upon a consideration of the points of inquiry specified in the law under which this report is made, it is not deemed necessary to present facts tending to show the importance of a suitable supply and proper distribution of woodlands in the country, nor to urge the necessity of forest products for the supply of these materials for the daily wants of life, and the manifold uses to which they are applied in the arts. It is believed that no differences of opinion could arise as to the close dependence of our national welfare and individual comfort upon the maintenance of these supplies of wood and wood-products,or upon the importance of having a sufficient amount within a convenient distance, at moderate prices, through an indefinite period of coming time.

— F. B. Hough, Report Upon Forestry , 1878

In the middle of the 19 th century, George Perkins Marsh documented the transformation of the environment as a feature of human history. Marsh (1864) also describedthe central role played by forests—especially the clearing of forests—in human development. The broad-scale and long-term perspective that Marsh brought to analysis of environmental change has been credited with an influential role in the rise of the conservation movement in the early 20 th century, and as an intellectual precursor of the environmental movement of the mid to late 20 th century. Reference to documents now well over a century old is helpful in an effort to look decades into the future, and encourages us to recognize that the lens through which we view—and therefore judge—transformations of the environment changes from generation to generation. This change in perspective is both inevitable and positive. Goals for natural resource management in the early 21 st century are diverse and include an emphasis on maintaining the integrity 2 of ecological systems while seeking 

### The Role of the RPA Timber Assessment188 to provide goods and services for current consumption. Recognition of the value inbalancing present needs with preservation of future options is reflected in public debate as well as in formal, intergovernmental agreements (e.g., United Nations 1992, World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Success in this effort requires careful and explicit consideration of prospective management of land and forest resources by a diverse set of owners, changes in biological systems, and changes in the levels and patterns of demand for goods and services derived from these systems. The role of this assessment is to provide early indications of trends and prospective outcomes for the forests and forest sector of the United States. In its description of possible future pathways for U.S. forests, and supply and demand for forest products,this assessment joins a collection of studies that now span more than 100 years. Formal, congressional interest in forest sector studies dates back to a request for a report on forestry in the late 19 th century (Hough 1878). General concern over forest conditions and interest in the outlook for forest resource availability can be traced back to European settlement in the 17 th century. Broadly, the challenge for resource managers is to develop and implement strategiesthat provide the range of goods and services expected from forests. In the last decade, “sustainable management” has been increasingly advocated as a standard for resource management. As is the case with “sustainable development” (see UnitedNations 1992), this is an attractive but vague goal. It is important to recognize, in addition, that any operative definition of “sustainability” will be a reflection of values—and therefore is subject to change. Although there is a necessary biophysical component in the range of possible choices, biophysical information, alone, is not sufficient todetermine whether forests are sustainably managed. That question can only be definitively answered in hindsight, and with reference to what is to be sustained, and forwhom. The timber assessment describes a significant part of the context for developing these management strategies.Acknowledging the inevitability of change in the forested landscape and in the standards used to judge those changes presents particular challenges for forest management and policy. The importance of forests (in social, environmental, and economicterms), the relatively long period between management actions and final consequences, and the accelerating pace of social and technological change are elements of these challenges. In its effort to identify likely economic and ecological outcomes of forest management practices and production and consumption trends, this timber assessment is designed to contribute to dialogue and debate by informing perceptions of the future.

This timber assessment focuses on markets and market processes in its approach to providing context. Markets have played, and can be expected to continue to play,a central role in shaping the forested landscape of the United States. Markets for timber and forest products are, therefore, an integral component of forest management. Opportunities to sell a variety of goods and services can be one of the most powerful incentives to use management practices that sustain a diversity of forest conditions and outputs. Markets also are a widely preferred mechanism for revealing the value of specific outputs, and an important source of information on the relative importance of management alternatives. 

### Markets and Forest Management189 Forest product markets are dynamic and, at times, volatile. This is neither a profound observation, nor is it unique to the forest sector. Nevertheless, the implications of these characteristics of markets are easily and often overlooked in discussions of forest management and policy. This assessment covers about 100 years—nearly 50 years of historical data and a projection 50 years into the future. Over this time span, most markets undergo substantial change. Comparing current patterns and levels of U.S. consumption, production, and trade in forest products to those at the beginning of the 20 th century provides ample evidence of the type and the magnitude of change that can be expected over an extended period. Market dynamics, including changes in the mix of products and the technologies used to manufacture them, affect demand for timber raw material. The magnitude and speed of change in forest products markets, especially response to business cycles (as illustrated in fig.1 price panel), is often greater than expected orrecognized by resource managers or policymakers. As a result, market-based “disturbance” events, such as economic recessions, the introduction of new technologies orproducts, the opening of new markets, or shifts in exchange rates often have unanticipated effects on forests that are an order of magnitude greater than those resulting from endemic biophysical processes. In the baseline analysis, and through scenarios, this assessment provides a quantitative basis for examining potential developments in forest products markets and their effects on forests.The importance of the broad-scale economic outlook is a long-standing theme of forestry outlook studies, and this assessment rests on a similar observation. This timber assessment also emphasizes, however, the importance of both international as well as domestic economic conditions as factors in the outlook for U.S. resources. Over the past few decades, international economic conditions have had an increasing effecton both producers and consumers of forest products. For example, the effects of exchange rates and patterns of international economic growth are obvious in U.S. forest products trade. Less obvious, perhaps, are the cumulative effects that internationaleconomic integration (“globalization”) has on domestic markets and, as a consequence, on domestic resources. In many respects, therefore, international linkages (including, but not limited to commodity trade) are unavoidable and important elements of discussions of “sustainable” resource management.

United States consumption of forest products will continue to increase over the next 50 years, but the rate of increase will be slower than over the last 50 years. Rising consumption will be accompanied by increases in U.S. timber harvest; rising log, chip, and product imports; and greater use of recovered paper. The composition of both production and consumption will change. Pulp and paper products will account for a larger share, the relative importance of composite products will remain steady, and the importance of lumber will decline. Per capita consumption of U.S. forest products will remain static, whereas per capita U.S. timber harvest will decline.

Over the next 50 years, prices of most major classes of forest products will continue along their recent historical trends. Commodities whose consumption will grow most rapidly, including oriented strand board (OSB) and paper and paperboard, will realizethe slowest price growth rates, and price levels will remain well below the peaks observed in the 1980s and 1990s. Lumber, in contrast, will experience slower rates of consumption growth but more rapid price growth, and prices are expected to surpass the peak levels observed in the 1990s. Plywood prices are expected to remain stable at the recent historically high levels. 

### Highlights of the Projections Trends in Consumption and Production of Forest Products

Price Growth190 Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices are projected to increase over the next 50 years, but at a rate (0.6 percent per year) considerably below that of the past 50 years(1.9 percent per year). Prices for small-diameter softwood logs (in the West) and softwood pulpwood (in the East) are projected to remain at or below current levels until the last 20 years of the projection. The projected price of sawtimber in the South is a notable exception to the overall projection of moderate price increases: the price is projected to rise as a result of limited availability.

Over the next 50 years, most of the increase in the Nation’s timber harvest will occur in the East and especially on nonindustrial lands in the South. United States timber harvest is expected to increase 24 percent by 2050; harvest of softwoods will increase 30 percent, and harvest of hardwoods will increase by 17 percent. Virtually all of the increase will be used for manufacturing paper, paperboard, and composite products. Plantations of softwood species will play an important role in future domestic harvest expansion. By 2050, 54 percent of total U.S. softwood growing-stock removals will come from plantations in private ownership. These plantations will occupy 30 percent of the U.S. private softwood timberland base, 13 percent of the total private timberland base (including softwoods and hardwoods), and 9 percent of the total U.S. timberland base (all owners and species). Timber inventories will increase over the next 50 years. Softwood timber inventories will rise on all ownerships in all regions by 53 percent for the United States as a whole;softwood inventories on public lands alone will rise by more than 70 percent. Hardwood inventories, almost entirely in private forests, will increase by 27 percent. Increases in inventories in the North will offset reductions in the South.Over the next 50 years, the species composition of U.S. forests will shift toward softwoods in the South and toward hardwoods in the North, but remain largely unchanged in other regions. The changes in species composition are not large (measured in terms of the percentage of total area in each region). By 2050, the age structure of forests managed on an even-age basis will be similar to current conditions on privatelands but shift toward older age classes on public lands. Diversity indexes that combine information on both age and forest types exhibit limited change over the period of the projection for the United States as a whole. All of these changes in resource conditions are influenced by the trade assumptions. Without increased imports of softwood lumber and pulp, timber inventories would be lower and trees generally smaller in size. The type of diversity indexes would likely be less stable than described in these projections.

The United States will continue to rank among the world’s leading importers and exporters of forest products. Although domestic production will continue to account for most U.S. consumption, the share of total consumption met by imports will rise from 20 percent today to 26 percent by 2050. These projections assume that the U.S. dollar will retain its strength relative to other currencies. The trade, consumption, production, and resource projections of this assessment would change if there were significantchanges in the exchange value of the U.S. dollar, or in other factors affecting international trade. Imports from non-Canadian sources will account for the bulk of import growth. Canada’s share of U.S. softwood lumber consumption is expected to decline from just over 35 percent in 2010 to 25 percent by 2050; the share of imports from other Changes in Harvest and Inventory

Forest Products Trade191 countries is expected to increase to 15 percent. The Canadian import share of U.S. paper and paperboard consumption is expected to decrease from 14 percent in 2000 to 12 percent by 2050, while non-Canadian sources, which provide about 3 percent today, will account for 10 percent of consumption by 2050.

• The United States will become increasingly dependent on imports as our forest products consumption expands in the future. Our relative import dependence has risen in the past, and the magnitude of the anticipated increase is small compared to trends over the past 100 years. The projected level of net import dependence (19 percent by 2050) is, however, higher than we have experienced in the past (fig. 93). Because of the importance of trade, specifically imports, the United States will have reason for increasing interest in the forest resource and forest industry policies of trading partners and all nations. • Based on the projected broad-scale measures of forest resource condition, 3 we do not expect to see large or dramatic changes in U.S. forest conditions over the next 50 years, even as harvest rises. There will continue to be adjustments in the extent of certain forest types (expanding in some regions and contracting in others),shifts in age-class structures (some continuous and some transitory), an accumulation of older stands on public lands in the West, and an array of other variations, but most are expected to be gradual and not large relative to historical experience over the past 50 years. This does not suggest that deliberations on issues of forest protection, stewardship, and the adequacy of forest-based environmental servicesare moot; but these discussions and debates do not need to proceed in an atmosphere of impending crisis based on fiber scarcity or large-scale ecological change. • In the South, demand for solid wood and fiber is expected to continue to rise in the future. In the case of hardwoods, the increase in demand surpasses growth and ultimately lowers inventories. In the case of softwoods, the increase in demand is 

### Emergent Lessons

3 The measures include the aggregate timber inventory, stand age (or size), forest type, and a Shannon-Weaver diversity index that combines age and type. Figure 93—Total imports and net imports as a percentage of all consumption in the United States (based on roundwood equivalent volume).192 more than met with a combination of maturing young timber stands and intensification of management that leads to expanding growth that more than offsets increase in harvest. Hardwood forest types in the South, on the other hand, have the lowest rates of timber growth, the least intensive forms of management, and expected declines in the area available for timber production. The knowledge of intensive hardwood culture is limited, and silvicultural activities in hardwood stands are complex owing to the diversity of trees and forest types. To date, silvicultural research has emphasized softwood stand management, even as the share of hardwoods in total harvest has been rising. Although inventories are decreasing and there is an increase in harvest, fiber prices are projected to remain low for several decades and would not tend to support intensified management. In addition most of the Southern hardwood forests are in small parcels, held by nonindustrial private owners with various objectives. It will be difficult to design and implement programs to increase the extent and intensity of hardwood management. Finally, the area of hardwood types is expected to decline 7 percent (15.4 million acres) over the projection through conversion to other types (predominantly softwoods), losses to urban and developed uses, and reservations for nontimber purposes. • These projections suggest a future in which recent concerns about the broad-scale consequences of increasing production from hardwood forests, such as loss of understory plants, noncommercial tree species, and wildlife habitat will continue or intensify. We project that there will be greater pressure for timber production in the hardwood forests of the South, and relatively less in the hardwood forests of the North. Among the assumptions of the baseline projection is, however, thecontinued withdrawal of some Southern hardwood forests from availability for timber production. We assume that the owners of these forests may have long-term objectives other than timber production, including habitat protection and biodiversity conservation. By 2050, this “reserved” forest area accumulates to 14.9 million acres. This area is relatively large (amounting to 18 percent of the private hardwood timberland, and 8.4 percent of all private timberland in the South), and this may temper some concerns about increasing production on remaining hardwood forests. Nevertheless, the hardwood forests of the East, although extensive and highly productive, cannot be expected to sustain high levels of timber production and, at the same time, retain the current scale and distribution of native flora and fauna.• A continuation of current policies is an assumption of this analysis; as a consequence, private lands are the suppliers of virtually all future increases in harvest in the United States, and there is a limited contribution to timber supplies from public timberland. It is expected that a larger portion of private timberland will beshifted into more intensive management as a result. Even so, more than threefourths of the private land base will remain in native forest types with little or no active management. Our projection envisions the development of a mixed pattern of management on private lands with some areas used intensively for wood production while most of the land base is used for timber production at a lower level of intensity, or for provision of nonwood outputs and services. The potential value of this diversity in management objectives and resource conditions has been advocated by some as a goal for domestic forest policy (see, for example, Binkley 1999, Sample 2001, Victor and Ausubel 2000).193 In the past 50 years, policies to ensure timber supplies—either through public timber harvests or incentives to private owners or managers—have been central elements of the forest policies of the United States. The focus on forest management as a means of ensuring future timber supplies has been motivated by a perceived need to forestall “gaps” between demand and supply (especially for softwoods) or, in economic terms, projected increases in real prices for timber and forest products.Our projections of future conditions in U.S. markets and forests suggest an opportunity to change this emphasis. In the next 50 years, forest products and timber markets in the United States are expected to produce a balance between demand for timber and timber supply, satisfied at the national scale by higher dependence on imports. Market conditions will differ, however, by region. The management decisions of private owners and the productivity of intensively managed forests are expected to play a central role in these developments. Projected market conditions also are dependent, in no small measure, on a continuation—and an extension—of the degree to which the United States is linked to the rest of the world through trade in forest products.
It is an open question, however, whether these prospective trends are consistent with evolving—and with future—social preferences for the role of forests in supplying both commodities and environmental services. No matter what role timber supply has in forest policy debates, these projections suggest a number of key guideposts for future deliberations. Patterns of forest ownership, along with broad differences in management objectives, lead to accumulating timber inventories in the West on public lands, and increased timber production and more intensive management in the East on private lands. For more than 100 years, the United States has benefitted from the scale and diversity of resources within its borders, and forest-based industries that have been mobile. Shiftsin the regional locus of timber production, including greater reliance on timber production in other countries, have occurred in the past few decades, and this sets the stage for expected patterns of production over the next decades. Regional differences inpatterns of timber production and, for example, habitat conservation, are likely to result in differences in the type and distribution of economic, social, and ecological benefits of U.S. forests. To date, however, there has been relatively little success reaching any consensus related to these differences.

As the work of George Marsh (1864) illustrates, recognition of the ecological consequences of human development has a long history. For much of the 20 th century, forest policy in the United States was attentive to the need to strike a balance between production of raw material for industry and consumers, and interest in conservation and preservation of flora and fauna. The associated public and policy debates areevolving from “jobs vs. the environment” to a richer, more complex set of issues. However we are still in the early days of understanding and effectively framing the issuesassociated with the interaction of resource management policies and social and economic policies. This assessment projects a future in which a relatively small portion ofthe Nation’s timberland base produces a significant share of timber raw material requirements. This concentration of timber production has been underway for several decades, but its effects on ecological outputs (both short term and longer term, and at the local, regional, and national scale) are still evolving. 

### Implications for Policy and Management

Regional Distribution of Economic and Social Benefits and Ecological Change

Economic and Social Benefits of Noncommodity Objectives194 Among the simple, but difficult lessons of the environmental movement of the 1970s is the observation that “everything is connected to everything else.” This can be appliedto the policy environment in the same manner as it has been used for the natural environment. In both cases, the observation is descriptive and therefore contains only a caution; there are no embedded, normative conclusions that can be drawn. In the recent past, and for the prospective future, however, we can expect to experience increasing interaction between policies or policy objectives to the extent that they are narrowly framed. For forests, examples of broad policy topics that interact include trade, biodiversity, technology, energy, climate, and agriculture. In the United States(and in many other countries), there is an imperfect interaction among the policy processes and communities of interest for each of these broad topics. The result may bepolicies that appear well conceived in a narrow (sectoral) context, but are unsustainable in the broader context. The baseline projection of this assessment assumes a continuation of current policies—in all sectors—and therefore does not consider the prospect of significant, cross-sectoral interactions.

Finally, both forest policy and forest management face challenges anticipating andadapting to social, economic, and technological change whose frequency and magnitude are often inconsistent with the response of biophysical systems to management actions. This assessment describes a number of significant changes that have alreadyaffected forest management and policy, and a future in which these continue. Examples include the importance of imports and the role of non-Canadian regions as a source of consumption, and the shift toward shorter rotations and intensive forest management. Among the challenges of forest management and policy is the need to recognize changes that have already taken place and to adapt current and future plans accordingly.

The terms in this glossary were taken from several sources including Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Report (1993), The Dictionary of Forestry (Helms 1998), Forest Resources of the United States ( Powell et al. 1993), and Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Smith et al. 2001).

Afforestation —The establishment of a forest or stand in an area where the preceding vegetation or land use was not forest. Age class —An interval into which the age range of trees is divided for classification or use. Ten-year intervals are used most commonly except in the South where 5-year intervals are used. Chain weighted —A form of adjusting gross domestic product (GDP) for inflation that accounts for both changes in quantities and prices from year to year. GDP series not adjusted for inflation are referred to as being in unchained dollars.

Chemical wood —Trees used as a source of various chemicals such as acetic acid, methanol, and wood alcohol. Usually, timber that is not of sufficient size or quality to make lumber or plywood.

Cord —A traditional measure of wood volume defined as the amount of round wood that can be stacked in a 4 by 4 by 8 foot space, equivalent to roughly 75 to 80 cubic feet of solid wood volume inside the bark for pulpwood, or about 500 board feet, log scale. Adapting to Change Increasing Attention to Intersectoral Interaction



### Glossary195 Cropland— Land used for the production of adapted crops for harvest, including row crops, small grain crops, hay crops, nursery crops, orchard crops, and other specialty crops. The land may be used continuously for these crops, or they may be grown in rotation with grasses and legumes.

Cull tree —A live tree, 5.0 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, that isunmerchantable for sawlogs now or prospectively because of rot, roughness, or species. (See definitions for rotten and rough trees).

Diameter class —A classification of trees based on diameter outside bark measured at breast height (4 1/2 feet above ground). The common abbreviation for “diameter at breast height” is d.b.h. With 2-inch diameter classes, the 6-inch class, for example, includes trees 5.0 through 6.9 inches d.b.h. Douglas-fir subregion —The area in the states of Oregon and Washington that is west of the crest of the Cascade Range (also called Pacific Northwest West).
Doyle Rule –A log rule or formula for estimating the board-foot volume of logs. The formula is: V = [(D-4) 2 /4]L , where D is diameter inside bark at the small end in inches and L is length in feet. Dry weight —The weight of wood and bark, oven-dry basis (excluding all moisture). Engineered wood products —Composite wood products designed to substitute directly for dimension lumber in many building and structural applications. Includes prefabricated wood I-joists, glued laminated timber, and structural composite lumber (laminated veneer lumber, parallel strand lumber, and oriented strand lumber). Prefabricated wood I-joists (Wood I-joists) —Structural, load-carrying membersdesigned for roof and floor joist applications, offering long lengths with low material weights. The I-joist flange is typically dimension lumber or structural composite lumber; the web material is oriented strand board. Glued laminated timber (Glulam) —Engineered, stress-rated product created by adhesively bonding individual pieces of lumber having a thickness of 2 inches or less. It is versatile and can be shaped into forms ranging from straight to complex curved beams. Uses include headers, girders, purlins, beams, and arches. Structural composite lumber (SCL) —Composite products designed to be dimension lumber substitutes. Includes laminated veneer lumber, parallel strand lumber, and oriented strand lumber. Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) —A structural composite lumber product made by adhesively bonding thin sheets of wood veneer into a large billet. The grains of the veneers are all parallel in the “long” direction. The billet is then sawn to desired dimensions. Uses include headers, beams, rafters, scaffold planking, and flanges for prefabricated wood I-joists. Parallel strand lumber (PSL) —A structural composite lumber product made by adhesively bonding veneer that has been chopped into strands to take out knots and other imperfections. A billet is formed with the grain of the strands in the long direction and then sawn. Uses include beams and garage door headers.196 Oriented strand lumber (OSL) —A structural composite lumber product made from flaked wood strands that have a high length-to-thickness ratio. The strandsare oriented with the grain in the long direction into a billet and then sawn to desired dimension. Uses include millwork parts, studs, and flanges for prefabricated wood I-joists.

Farmer-owned lands— Lands owned by a person who operates a farm, either doing the work themselves or directly supervising the work. Fiber products —Products made with largely intact plant fibers (or wood fibers) derived primarily from pulpwood, pulpwood chips, and recovered paper, such as woodpulp, paper or paperboard products, and also (in this publication) products made primarily from pulpwood roundwood, such as oriented strand board, but not including other panel products made primarily from fine wood residues, sawdust, or bark.

Fine materials —Wood residues not well suited for chipping or for use in fiber products because of small particle size and a large proportion of fibers that are cut or broken, such as planer shavings and sawdust (used in panel board products such as particleboard, but not in oriented strand board, and seldom used for pulpwood because of poor fiber quality). Forest industry (FI) —A diverse group of manufacturers that harvest, process, anduse timber products in their final products. Activities include the harvesting of the timber resource; conversion of logs to primary timber products, such as lumber, plywood, and wood pulp; and the conversion of primary timber products to secondary or final products, such as pallets, furniture, and paper products.

Forest land —Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, includingland that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between heavily forested and nonforested lands that are at least 10 percent stocked with forest trees, and forestareas adjacent to urban and built-up lands. Also included are pinyon-juniper and chaparral areas in the West, and afforested areas. The minimum area for classification of forest land is 1 acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of timber must have a minimum crown width of 120 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified as forest if less than 120 feet in width. Forest management type —A classification of timberland based on the species and source of trees forming a plurality of live trees present. Forest inventory types —A classification of forest land based on the species forming a plurality of the live-tree stocking. Major forest type groups recognized in the timber assessment include: White-red-jack pine —Forests in which eastern white pine, red pine, or jack pine, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include hemlock, aspen, birch, and maple. Spruce-fir —Forests in which spruce or true firs, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include white-cedar, tamarack, maple, birch, and hemlock.197 Natural pine —A southern management type representing stands that (a) have not been artificially regenerated, (b) are classed as a pine or other softwood forest type, and in which 50 percent or more of the naturally established stand is loblolly pine, slash pine, shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, or other southern pines singly or in combination. Common associates include oak, hickory, and gum.
Planted pine —A southern management type representing forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is loblolly pine, slash pine, shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, or other southern pines that have been established by planting or direct seeding.

Lowland hardwood —A southern management type composed of forests in which50 percent or more of the stand is tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oak, and southern cypress, singly or in combination, and southern pine makes up less than 25 percent. Common associates include cottonwood, willow, oak, elm, hackberry, and maple. This type is found on the alluvial flood plains of the Mississippi and other southern rivers. May also be called bottomland hardwood. Oak-pine —A southern management type composed of forests in which 50 percent or more of the stand is hardwood, usually upland oaks, and southern pines make up 25 to 49 percent of the stocking. Common associates include upland oak-shortleaf pine in the foothills and plateaus; mixed hardwood-loblolly pine on moist sites; and scrub oak-longleaf pine in the sand hills of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. Other associates include gum, hickory, and yellow-poplar. May also be called mixed pine-hardwood. Oak-gum-cypress —Bottomland forests in which tupelo, blackgum, sweetgum, oaks, or southern cypress, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking except where pines make up 25 to 50 percent, in which case the stand would be classified as oak-pine. Common associates include cottonwood, willow, ash, elm, hackberry, and maple.

Elm-ash-cottonwood —Forests in which elm, ash, or cottonwood, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include willow, sycamore, beech, and maple. Maple-beech-birch —Forests in which maple, beech, or yellow birch, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include hemlock, elm, basswood, and white pine. Aspen-birch —Forests in which aspen, balsam poplar, paper birch, or gray birch, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include maple and balsam fir. Douglas-fir —Forests in which Douglas-fir composes a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include western hemlock, western redcedar, the true firs, redwood, ponderosa pine, and larch. Hemlock-Sitka spruce —Forests in which western hemlock, Sitka spruce, or both compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include Douglas-fir, silver fir, and western redcedar.

Redwood —Forests in which redwood composes a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include Douglas-fir, grand fir, and tanoak.198 Ponderosa pine —Forests in which ponderosa pine composes a plurality of thestocking. Common associates include Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, limber pine, Arizona pine, Apache pine, Chihuahua pine, Douglas-fir, incense-cedar, and white fir.
Western white pine —Forests in which western white pine composes a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include western redcedar, larch, white fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce. Lodgepole pine —Forests in which lodgepole pine composes a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include alpine fir, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, aspen, and larch.

Larch —Forests in which western larch composes a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include Douglas-fir, grand fir, western redcedar, and western white pine. Fir-spruce —Forests in which true firs, Engelmann spruce, or Colorado blue spruce, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Common associates include mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine.

Western hardwoods —Forests in which aspen, red alder, or other western hardwoods, singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking. Pinyon-juniper —Forests in which pinyon pine and juniper singly or in combination compose a plurality of the stocking.
Upland hardwoods —A southern management type composed of stands thathave at least 10 percent stocking and classed as an oak-hickory or maple-beechbirch forest type. Common associates include yellow-poplar, elm, maple, and black walnut.

Fuelwood —Wood used by conversion to some form of energy, primarily residential

use.
Green ton —Weight measure for pulpwood roundwood or pulpwood chips that arefreshly cut and have not had enough time to age or lose free moisture, generally assumed to be the weight of wood at 50 percent moisture content on a total weight basis (2.0 green tons = 1 bone dry ton). Growing stock —A classification of timber inventory that includes live trees of commercial species meeting specified standards of quality or vigor. Cull trees are excluded. When associated with volume, includes only trees 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger.

Hardwood —A dicotyledonous (nonconiferous) tree, usually broad leaved and deciduous.
Harvest —(a) An intermediate or final cutting that extracts salable trees. (b) The volume of roundwood harvested from both growing-stock and nongrowing-stock sources that is extracted from harvest sites. Highly erodible cropland— All cropland in land capability classes (classifications used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to rate the suitability of soils for agricultural production) 3e, 4e, 6e, and 7e.

Industrial wood —All commercial roundwood products except fuelwood.199 International 1/4-inch rule —A log rule, or formula, for estimating the board-foot volume of logs. The mathematical formula is: (0.22D 2 - 0.17D)(0.904762) ,

for 4-foot sections, where D = diameter inside bark at the small end of the section.

Land area —(a) Bureau of the Census: The area of dry land and land temporarily or partly covered by water, such as marshes, swamps, and river food plains; streams, sloughs, estuaries, and canals less than 1/8 statute mile wide; and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds less than 40 acres in area. (b) Forest Inventory and Analysis: same as (a) except that the minimum width of streams, etc., is 120 feet, and the minimum size of lakes, etc., is 1 acre. This latter definition is the one used in this publication.

Live cull —A classification that includes live, cull trees. When associated with volume, it is the net volume in live, cull trees that are 5.0 inches d.b.h. and larger. Log scale —The volume contents of individual trees or logs prior to processing. In the United States the most common rules for measuring board-foot volumes for sawtimber are the Scribner log rule, International 1/4-inch log rule, and the Doyle log scale. Logging residues —The unused portions of growing-stock trees cut or killed by logging and left in the woods. Managed plantations —Stands of trees established by artificial means (e.g., planting or direct seeding) composed primarily of single or related species, treated to have uniform structure and age class, and projected to receive at least minimal treatment for growth enhancement. Management intensities —Growth and yield categories developed for the aggregatetimberland assessment system (ATLAS) to represent the development of stands under various improved management practices (i.e., genetic improvement, stocking control, fertilization, commercial thins, etc.). Marginal cropland and pasture —Cropland and pasture that would yield higher rates of return to the owner if planted to pine.
Market pulp —Mostly bleached kraft or sulfite pulp produced for sale to pulp customers. Net annual growth —The average annual net increase in the volume of trees during the period between inventories. Components include the increment in net volume of trees at the beginning of the specific year surviving to its end, plus the net volume of trees reaching the minimum size class during the year, minus the volume of trees that died during the year, and minus the net volume of trees that became cull trees during the year.

Net volume in cubic feet —The gross volume in cubic feet less deductions for rot, roughness, and poor form. Volume is computed for the central stem from a 1-foot tallstump to a minimum 4.0-inch top diameter outside bark, or to the point where the central stem breaks into limbs.

Nonforest land —Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested where use of timber management is precluded by development for other uses. (Note: Includes area used for crops, improved pasture, residential areas, city parks, improved200 roads of any width and adjoining clearings, powerline clearings of any width, and 1- to 40-acre areas of water classified by the Bureau of the Census as land. If intermingled in forest areas, unimproved roads and nonforest strips must be more than 120 feet wide, and clearings, etc., more than 1 acre in size, to qualify as nonforest land). Nongrowing stock —A classification of inventory that includes all trees not meeting the standards for growing stock. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) —An ownership class of private forest lands whose owner does not primarily operate wood-using plants (distinguished from land owned by forest industry).

Nonsawtimber —Timber that is not used by sawmills or veneer mills, but is used in the manufacture of pulp, paper, OSB, various nonstructural panels, or used for fuelwood.

Nonstocked areas —Timberland less than 10 percent stocked with growing-stock trees. Oriented strand board (OSB) —An engineered structural-use panel made from wood strands that are cut longitudinally from small-diameter logs or pulpwood roundwood.The strands have a high length-to-thickness ratio and are bonded together with waterproof resin under heat and pressure. The strands are oriented along the length or width of the panel in alternating layers to take advantage of the inherent longitudinal fiber strength of wood. The panels are used in construction for roof, wall, and floor sheathing and for the web for prefabricated wood I-joists.

Other forest land —Forest land other than timberland and productive reserved forest land. It includes reserved forest land, and available land that is incapable of producing annually 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood under natural conditions because of adverse site conditions such as sterile soils, dry climate, poor drainage, high elevation, steepness, or rockiness. Urban forest land is also included that, owing to its location, is considered unavailable for sustained timber harvesting. Other industrial timber products —Also called a miscellaneous products category of roundwood products that includes such items as poles; pilings; posts; round mine timbers; hewn ties; bolts used for shingles, handles, and woodturnings; cooperage logs; chemical wood; and miscellaneous items.

Other land —Nonforest land less the area in streams, sloughs, estuaries, and canals between 120 and 660 feet, and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds between 1 and 40 acres in area (i.e., nonforest land less non-Census water area).

Other removals —Unutilized wood volume from cut or otherwise killed growing stock, from cultural operations such as precommercial thinnings, or from timberland clearing.Does not include volume removed from inventory through reclassification of timberland to productive reserved timberland.

Other sources —Sources of roundwood products that are nongrowing stock. These include salvable dead trees, rough and rotten trees, trees of noncommercial species, trees less than 5.0 inches d.b.h., tops, and roundwood harvested from nonforest land (e.g., fence rows).

Other white oaks —A group of species in the oak genus that includes overcup, chestnut, and post.201 Overrun —The difference between the greater volume actually sawn and the lesser estimated log scale volume. Ownership —Categories of property owners: a combination of persons; a legal entity such as a corporation, partnership, club, or trust; or a public agency. All parcels of land in the United States are assigned to one of the categories of ownership.

Plantation —See managed plantation.
Plant byproducts —Wood material (such as slabs, edgings, trimmings, miscuts, sawdust shavings, veneer cores and clippings, and pulp screenings) from primary manufacturing plants used for pulp, particleboard, fuelwood, and other products.

Poletimber —Live trees at least 5.0 inches in diameter, but smaller than sawtimber trees (9.0 inches or greater). Ponderosa pine subregion —The area in the states of Oregon and Washington that is east of the crest of the Cascade Range, (also called Pacific Northwest East). Primary wood-using mill —A mill that converts roundwood products into other wood products. Common examples are sawmills that convert sawlogs into lumber and pulp mills that convert pulpwood roundwood into wood pulp. Private ownerships : Forest industry (FI) —An ownership class of private lands owned by companies that grow timber for industrial use and own wood processing facilities. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF )—An ownership class of private lands wherethe owner does not operate wood-use plants. This includes lands owned by operators of farms, lands owned by private individuals, and lands owned by private corporations.

Native American —(a) Lands held in trust by the United States or states for Native American tribes or individual Native Americans. (b) Lands owned in fee by Native American tribes whether subject to federal or state restrictions against alienation or not. Since 1990, these lands are grouped with other private lands in the NIPF ownership group.
Productivity class —A classification of forest land in terms of potential annual cubicfoot volume growth per acre at culmination of mean annual increment in fully stocked natural stands. Public ownerships :
Federal —An ownership class of public lands owned by the U.S. Government.

National forest —An ownership class of federal lands, designated by Executive order or statute as national forests or purchase units, and other lands under theadministration of the Forest Service including experimental areas and BankheadJones Title III lands. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) —An ownership class of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. County and municipal —An ownership class of public lands owned by counties or local public agencies, or lands leased by these governmental units for more than 50 years.202 Other public —An ownership class that includes all public lands except nationalforest. This category generally includes federal, state, county, and municipal ownerships.

State —An ownership classification of public lands owned by states or lands leased by states for more than 50 years.

Pulpwood —Roundwood, wood chips, or wood residues that are the wood raw materials used for the production of wood pulp or (in this publication) the roundwood inputs for reconstituted panels (such as oriented strand board). In this publication, pulpwood does not include wood residues used for reconstituted panels. Reconstituted panels —The entire family of wood panel products that are reconstituted from small wood particles, fibers, or strands, including oriented strand board, insulating board, hardboard, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard (MDF), but excluding plywood.
Recovered paper —Paper that is recovered after commercial or consumer use for recycling back into products, primarily into recycled paper or paperboard products.

Reserved timberland —Forest land withdrawn from timber use through statute, administrative regulation, or designation without regard to protective status.

Residues —Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary wood-using mills when roundwood products are converted to other products. Examples are slabs, edgings, trimmings, miscuts, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, and pulpscreenings. Includes bark residues and wood residues (both coarse and fine materials) but excludes logging residues.

Removals— The net volume of growing-stock trees removed from the inventory by harvesting; cultural operations, such as timber stand improvement or land clearing; or changes in land use.

Rotten tree —A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a sawlog now or prospectively, primarily because of rot (i.e., when rot accounts for more than 50 percent of the total cull volume). Rough tree —(a) A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a sawlog now or prospectively, primarily because of roughness (i.e., a sound tree that is culled because of such factors as poor form, splits, or cracks affecting more than 50 percent of its total cull volume); or (b) a live tree of noncommercial species.

Roundwood —Logs, bolts, or other round sections cut from growing-stock and nongrowing-stock sources such as trees smaller than 5.0 inches d.b.h.; stumps, tops, and limbs of growing stock trees; rough and rotten trees; dead trees; and trees that grow on land other than timberland. Roundwood equivalent— The volume of logs or other round products required toproduce given quantities of lumber, plywood, wood pulp, paper, or other similar products, after deducting the proportion of wood raw material input that is obtained notfrom logs or roundwood but from plant byproducts or recycled wood fiber (from recovered paper).203 Salvable dead tree —A standing or down dead tree that is considered currently or potentially merchantable by regional standards. Sawlog —A log meeting minimum standards of diameter, length, and defect, including logs at least 8 feet long, sound and straight, and with a minimum diameter inside bark of 6 inches for softwoods and 8 inches for hardwoods, or meeting other combinationsof size and defect specified by regional standards. A log usually used in the manufacture of lumber and plywood.

Sawtimber —Stands at least 10 percent occupied with growing-stock trees, with halfor more of total stocking in sawtimber or poletimber trees, and with sawtimber stocking at least equal to poletimber stocking.

Sawtimber trees —Live trees containing at least one 12-foot saw log or two noncontiguous 8-foot logs, and meeting regional specifications for freedom from defect. Softwood trees must be at least 9.0 inches d.b.h., and hardwood trees must be at least 11.0 inches d.b.h. Seral stage —A stage or recognizable condition of a plant community that occurs during its development from bare ground to climax. Forests are assumed to progress through five recognized stages: seedlings; poles and saplings; young; mature; and oldmature. These stages are represented by grouping age classes. The age-class groupings differ by broad regions reflecting successional differences among various timber types. Seedlings stage —The stand establishment stage. Includes the first age class (average age of 5 years) in all regions for both hardwood and softwood types, except for softwood types in the North where it includes the first two (5 and 15) age classes. Grass, herbs, or brush are plentiful. Poles and saplings stage —Young stands; crown closure occurs early in this stage.As stand density increases, grass, herbs, or brush rapidly decrease. Usually considered not to be merchantable, although both precommercial and commercial thinning can occur depending on market conditions.
Hardwood Softwood
Age classes
North 15 to 35 25 to 35
South 10 to 20 10 to 15
West 15 to 35 15 to 35

Young stage —Young stands where the crown differentiation is starting to occur. These stands contain a mix of sawtimber and nonsawtimber trees and little understory vegetation. For many private landowners, these stands are often considered to reflect typical rotation lengths.

Hardwood Softwood
Age classes
North 45 to 65 45 to 65
South 25 to 55 20 to 35
West 45 to 55 45 to 75204 Mature stage —Stands composed mostly of sawtimber. For softwoods, often thought to be at or just over the age where net annual growth has peaked. For hardwoods, these stands often are considered merchantable. In some types, there is gradually increasing stand diversity, hiding cover, and forage.

Hardwood Softwood
Age classes
North 75 to 135 55 to 135
South 60 to 75 40 to 75
West 65 to 135 85 to 135

Old mature —Stands considered to be overmature. Stand ages are past the pointwhere net annual growth has peaked. For some types, the stands represent the potential plant community capable of existing on a site given the frequency of natural disturbance events.

Hardwood Softwood
Age classes
North ≥ 145 ≥ 145
South ≥ 80 ≥ 80
West ≥ 145 ≥ 145

Scribner rule —A diagram log rule that assumes 1-inch boards, is based on diameter at the small end of the log, disregards taper, and does not provide for overrun. Site productivity class —A classification of forest lands in terms of inherent capacity to grow crops of industrial wood. The class identifies the average potential growth incubic feet per acre per year and is based on the culmination of mean annual increment of fully stocked natural stands. High sites —Land capable of growing at least 85 cubic feet of wood per acre per year.
Medium sites —Land capable of growing 50 to 85 cubic feet of wood per acre per year.
Low sites —Land capable of growing 20 to 49 cubic feet of wood per acre per year.

Softwood —A coniferous tree, usually evergreen, having needles or scalelike leaves. Southern pine —This is not a forest type but a common name for stands that are composed of loblolly, slash, shortleaf, longleaf pine, or other pines grown in the South; also called southern yellow pine.

Sound dead —The net volume in salable dead trees. Stocking —The degree of occupancy of land by trees, measured by basal area or number of trees by size and spacing, or both, compared to a stocking standard; i.e., the basal area or number of trees, or both, required to fully use the growth potential of the land. Stumpage —Standing timber (trees) in the forest.205 Stumpage price— The price paid for standing timber (trees) in the forest. Usually expressed as dollars per thousand board feet, log scale.

Succession –A series of dynamic changes by which one community succeeds another through stages leading to potential natural community or climax. The sequence of communities is called a sere, or seral stage. Timber supplies —The volumes of roundwood actually harvested, range of volumeavailable for harvest at varying price levels, or future volumes estimated to be harvested at market equilibrium. Includes roundwood from growing-stock and nongrowing-stock sources.

Timberland —Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood and not withdrawn from timber use by statute or administrative regulation. Areas qualifying as timberland have the capability of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and inoperable areas are included.
Tops —The wood of a tree above the merchantable height (or above the point on the stem 4.0-inches diameter outside bark [dob]). It includes the usable material in the uppermost stem and branches.

Unreserved forest land —Forest land (timberland and woodland) that is not withdrawn from use by statute or administrative regulation. Includes forest lands that arenot capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per year of industrial wood in natural stands.

Urban and other areas— Areas within the legal boundaries of cities and towns; suburban areas developed for residential, industrial, or recreational purposes; school yards;cemeteries; roads and railroads; airports; beaches, power lines, and other rights-ofway; or other nonforest land not included in any other specified land use class. Veneer logs —The logs used in the manufacture of veneer. A roundwood product from which veneer is sliced or sawn and that usually meets certain standards of minimum diameter and length and maximum defect.
Wood pulp —A fibrous raw material made from plant fiber (chiefly wood fiber in the United States) and used primarily to make paper and paperboard products.

Common Name Scientific Name
Alpine fir (Subalpine fir) Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. Apache pine Pinus engelmannii Carr. Arizona pine Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica (Engelm.) Shaw Ash Fraxinus spp. Aspen Populus spp. Balsam fir Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera L. Basswood Tilia spp. Beech Fagus spp. Birch Betula spp Blackgum (Black tupelo) Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. var. sylvatica Black walnut Juglans nigra L. Chestnut oak Quercus muehlenbergii Engelm. Chihuahua pine Pinus (associates with Apache pine) 

### Species List206 Colorado blue spruce Picea pungens Engelm. Cottonwood Populus spp. Cypress Taxodium spp. Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Eastern white pine Pinus strobus L. Elm Ulmus spp. Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. Grand fir Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. Gray birch (yellow birch) Betula alleghaniensis Britton Gum Liquidambar spp. Hackberry Celtis occidentalis L. Hemlock Tsuga spp. Hickory Carya spp. Incense-cedar Libocedrus decurrens Torr. Jack pine Pinus banksiana Lamb. Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi Grev. & Balf. Juniper Juniperus spp. Larch Larix spp. Limber pine Pinus flexilis James Loblolly pine Pinus taeda L. Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. Longleaf pine Pinus palustris Mill. Maple Acer spp. Mountain hemlock Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr. Oak Quercus spp. Overcup oak Quercus lyrata Walt. Paper birch Betula papyrifera Marsh. Pinyon Pinus edulis Engelm. Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws Post oak Quercus stellata Wangenh. Red alder Alnus rubra Bong. Red pine Pinus resinosa Ait. Redwood Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. Scrub oak Quercus laevis Walt. Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata Mill. Silver fir (Pacific silver fir) Abies amabilis Dougl. ex Forbes Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. Slash pine Pinus elliottii Engelm. Sugar pine Pinus lambertiana Dougl. Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua L. Sycamore Platanus occidentalis L. Tamarack Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch Tanoak Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehd. True firs Abies spp. Tupelo Nyssa spp. Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Western redcedar Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don Western white pine Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don White-cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) B.S.P.207 White fir Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. White pine See western white pine Willow Salix spp. Yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera L.

Source: Burns and Honkala 1990a, 1990b.

Many people in the Forest Service, other federal agencies, state forestry agencies, universities, environmental groups, and forest industry associations and companieshave contributed in significant ways to this study. Their help is gratefully acknowledged. The names of the principal and substantive contributors are listed below. (Contributors are employees of the USDA Forest Service unless otherwise noted.) The principal author of “Chapter 1— Overview ” is Richard W. Haynes. David B. McKeever and Kenneth E. Skog authored “The Importance of the Forest Products Industry” section. David J. Brooks authored “Relations of the U.S. Forest Sector to the Rest of the World” section. The principal authors of “Chapter 2— Assumptions and Methods Used in Projections ” are Darius M. Adams (Oregon State University) and Richard W. Haynes. Peter J. Ince authored the “Pulpwood Demand and Supply” section. David J. Brooks authored “Context for Trade Assumptions” section. Kenneth E. Skog authored the section on fuelwood demand. Ralph J. Alig and Brett J. Butler coauthored the sections on area change. John R. Mills authored sections on management intensity classes and trends in timber management. Xiaoping Zhou authored the national forest harvest and inventory section. The principal authors of “Chapter 3— Timber Demand-Supply Relations: Base Projection ” are Darius M. Adams (Oregon State University), Peter J. Ince, and Richard W. Haynes. Darius M. Adams authored the projection sections on solid wood products. David B. McKeever authored the historical trends sections on solid wood products. Peter J. Ince authored the “Paper and Board” section. Kenneth E. Skog and Richard W. Haynes authored the section “Shifts in U.S. Products Produced and Source Materials.” John R. Mills authored the “Selected Plantations” section. Irene Durbak and David J. Brooks contributed to the discussions of trade. The principal authors of “Chapter 4— Alternative Futures ” are Darius M. Adams (Oregon State University) and Richard W. Haynes. Peter J. Ince authored the sections on pulp and paper. John R. Mills and Ralph J. Alig authored the section on increased nonindustrial private forest afforestation. The principal authors of “Chapter 5— Management Implications ” are Richard W. Haynes and Darius M. Adams (Oregon State University). Ralph J. Alig and Brett J. Butler coauthored the “Forest Fragmentation” section. Kenneth E. Skog and Richard W. Haynes authored the “Sustainable Forest Management” section. John R. Mills authored the “Can Southern Timberlands Provide the Bulk of U.S. Softwood Timber Harvest?” section. Peter J. Ince and Richard W. Haynes authored the “Western Forest Health and Small-Log Markets” section. David J. Brooks authored the “Complex International Links” section. Xiaoping Zhou and John R. Mills authored the section “Disaggregating the Projections.” The principal authors of “Chapter 6— Summary, Conclusions and Implications ” are David J. Brooks, Darius M. Adams (Oregon State University), Richard W. Haynes, and Kenneth E. Skog. 

### Acknowledgments208 We are grateful to our formal technical reviewers: John Perez-Garcia (University of Washington); Susan Phelps and Darcie Booth (Canadian Forestry Service); Jeff Stier (University of Wisconsin); Ian Munn (Mississippi State); Lisa Stocker and Alberto Goetzl (American Forest and Paper Association); and Fred Cubbage, Jacek Siry, Robert Abt, and SoEun Ahn (North Carolina State University). Their comments and concerns were instrumental in improving technical aspects and in the presentation of key points in the assessment. We also thank all who provided comments at a number of professional meetings and special review meetings where methods and preliminary results were presented. Our interactions with reviewers continuously reminded us that assessments are based in science and depend on open discourse with interested collaborators and stakeholders. The planning and general direction of the study and much of the final drafting were provided by Richard Haynes, assisted by Judy Mikowski. David Darr provided a number of insightful comments on early drafts. Adrienne Van Nalts (Oregon StateUniversity) provided excellent programming assistance. Irene Durbak provided extensive aid in preparing projections of trade for the pulp and paper sector. C. DeniseIngram prepared an initial draft and reviewed the section on sustainable forest management in Chapter 5. James Howard provided historical statistics from his reports on timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics. Fred Kaiser served as a champion for our efforts with various Forest Service staffs. We acknowledge the guidance from Dwight Hair who admonished us “to tell a good story.”Xiaoping Zhou developed and maintained the Web site where the drafts were available. We benefitted from the editorial efforts and guidance provided by Lynn Starr who improved our storytelling abilities.

When you know Multiply by: To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters
Feet .304 Meters Square feet .092 Square meters
Cubic feet* .2 Board feet
Cubic feet .028 Cubic meters Acres .405 Hectares (ha) Cubic feet per acre .07 Cubic meters per hectare Pounds .454 Kilograms
Tons .907 Metric tonnes

* For the purposes of this report, we used 5 board feet per cubic foot (log scale), but the actual conversion varies widely by region depending on type of log scale used and the physical characteristics of the timber (diameter, length, taper, defect).

Adair, C. 2000. Regional production and market outlook for structural panels and engineered wood products 2000–2005. Report E66. Tacoma, WA: APA-The Engineered Wood Association. 57 p. Adams, D.; Alig, R.; Anderson, J. [et al.]. 1992. Future prospects for western Washington’s timber supply. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 74. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 201 p. 

### Equivalents

References209 Adams, D.M.; Alig, R.J.; McCarl, B.A. [et al.]. 1996a . An analysis of the impacts of public timber harvest policies on private forest management in the U.S. Forest Science: 42(3): 343–358. Adams, D.M.; Alig, R.J.; McCarl, B.A. [et al.]. 1996b . The forest and agricultural sector optimization model (FASOM): model structure and policy simulations. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-495. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 60 p.
Adams, D.M.; Boyd, R.; Angle, J. 1992. Evaluating the stability of softwood lumber demand elasticity by end-use sector: a stochastic parameter approach. Forest Science. 38(4): 825–841.
Adams, D.M.; Haynes, R.W. 1980. The softwood timber assessment market model: structure, projections, and policy simulations. Forest Science. Monograph No. 22. 62 p. Adams, D.M.; Haynes, R.W. 1996. The 1993 timber assessment market model: structure, projections, and policy simulations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-368. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 58 p. Adams, D.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Dutrow, G.F. [et al.] 1982. Private investment in forest management and the long-term supply of timber. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 64(2): 232–241. Ahn, S.; Plantinga, A.J.; Alig, R.J. 2001. Historical trends and projections of land use for the South-Central United States. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-530. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20 p. Ahn, S.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 2002. Determinants and projections of land uses in the South Central U.S. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(2): 78–84. Alig, R. 1985. Modeling area changes in forest ownerships and cover types in the Southeast. Res. Pap. RM-260. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p. Alig, R. 1990. Nonindustrial private forests: timber supply for an uncertain future. Western Wildlands. Fall: 11–14. Alig, R. 2000. Where do we go from here? Preliminary scoping of research needs. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 371–372. Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Haynes, R. 1983 . Long-range projection of forest area change: new approaches are needed. Journal of Forestry. 81(11): 723–727. Alig, R.; Adams, D.; Haynes, R. [et al.]. 2001. Large-scale forest scenario analysis in the United States: projections of forest investment using a network of models. Silva Fennica. 35(3): 265–276. Alig, R.; Adams, D.; McCarl, B. 1998a . Impacts of federal farm and conservation programs on the agriculture and forestry sections. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 30(2): 389–401.210 Alig, R.; Benford, F.; Moulton, R.; Lee, L. 1999. Long-term projections of urban developed land changes in the United States. In: Delany, C.; Otte, K., eds. Keep America growing: unnumbered conference proceedings [CD ROM]. Washington, DC: America Farmland Trust: 124–138. Alig, R.; Butler, B.; Swenson, J. 2000. Fragmentation and national trends in private forest lands: preliminary findings from the 2000 RPA assessment. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 34–46. Alig, R.; Dicks, M.; Moulton, R. 1998b. Land use dynamics involving timberland: recent trends in the U.S. South. In: Abt, K.; Abt, R., eds. Proceedings of SOFEW conference. Research Triangle Park, NC: North Carolina State University. 218 p. Alig, R.; Healy, R. 1987. Urban and built-up land area changes in the United States: an empirical investigation of determinants. Land Economics. 63: 215–226. Alig, R.; Mills, T.; Shackelford, R. 1980. Most soil bank plantings in the South have been retained; some need follow-up treatment. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(1): 60–64. Alig, R.; Plantinga, A.; Ahn, S.; Kline, J. [N.d.]. Land-use changes and projections in the United States for the 2000 RPA assessment. Manuscript in preparation. On file with: R. Alig, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Alig, R.; Wyant, J. 1985. Projecting regional area changes in forestland cover in the U.S.A. Ecological Modeling. 29: 27–34. Alig, R.J.; Hohenstein, W.G.; Murray, B.C.; Haight, R.G. 1990. Changes in area of timberland in the United States, 1952–2040, by ownership, forest type, region, and state. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-64. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 34 p.
American Forest & Paper Association [AF&PA]. 1999. AF&PA forest management intensity surveys. Unpublished report. [No pagination]. On file with: John Mills, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890.
American Forest & Paper Association [AF&PA]. 2000. Wood statistical roundup. Washington, DC. Monthly.
American Forest & Paper Association [AF&PA]. 1991–2001. Paper, paperboard & wood pulp statistical summary. Washington, DC. Monthly.
American Pulpwood Association. 1999 . Annual pulpwood statistics summary report 99-A-11. Rockville, MD. 23 p. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics [ABARE]. 1999. Executive summary: a study on the global outlook for plantations. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, Ministry of Forestry and Conservation. 12 p.
Barlow, S.; Munn, I.; Cleaves, D.; Evans, D. 1998. The effect of urban sprawl on timber harvesting. Journal of Forestry. 96: 10–14. Best, C.; Wayburn, L.A. 2001. America’s private forests: status and stewardship. Santa Rosa, CA: Island Press. 267 p.211 Beuter, J.N.; Johnson, K.N.; Scheurman, H.L. 1976. Timber for Oregon’s tomorrow, an analysis of reasonable possible occurrences. Res. Bull. 19, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 111 p. Binkley, C.S. 1999. Forestry in the next millennium: challenges and opportunities for the USDA Forest Service. Discussion Paper 99-15. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 13 p.
Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States. Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 44 p.
Bourke, I.J.; Leitch, J. 1998. Trade restrictions and their impact on international trade in forest products. Forestry Paper. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization, Forestry Department. [Pages unknown].
Brooks, D.J. 1993. U.S. forests in a global context. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-228. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p.
Brooks, D.J.; Ferrante, J.A.; Haverkamp, J. [et al.]. 2001. Economic and environmental effects of accelerated tariff liberalization in the forest products sector: a study of the economic and environmental effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-517. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p.
Brown, C. 2000. The global outlook for future wood supply from forest plantations. Working group paper GFPOS/WP/03. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Division, Forestry Policy and Planning Division. 146 p.
Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. 1990a. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 765 p.
Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. 1990b. Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 877 p. Butler, B.; Alig, R. [N.d.]. Forest cover type changes in the United States: historical trends and projections to 2050. Manuscript in preparation. On file with: R. Alig, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Calmels, P.; Buongiorno, J.; Zhang, D. 1990. PELPS II: a microcomputer priceendogenous linear programming system for economic modeling. R3477. Madison, WI: Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin. 40 p.

Canadian Forest Service. 1999. The state of Canada’s forests 1998–1999. Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canada. 112 p.
Clawson, M. 1979. Forests in the long sweep of American history. Science. 204: 1168–1174.

Council of Economic Advisors. 2000. Economic report of the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 284 p. [plus appendices]. Day, J.C. 1996. Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 25–1130.212 DeCoster, L. 2000. Summary of the fragmentation 2000 conference: how forests are being nibbled to death by DUC’s, and what to do about it. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 358–359.
Fairbanks, R.; Green, J. 2001. Zero cut: the wrong solution. Forest Magazine. Eugene, OR: Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. 3(1): 45–48.
Field, B.C. 1994. Environmental economics: an introduction. New York: McGraw Hill. 482 p. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 2001a. Forest products 1998. Forestry Series 33. Statistics series 155. Rome, Italy: United Nations. 243 p. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]

. 2001b. State of the world’s forests. Rome, Italy: United Nations. 181 p. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [RPA] ; 16 U.S.C. 1601 (note). Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.]. [Irregular pagination].

Forest Resources Association. 2001. Annual pulpwood statistics summary report, 1996–2000. Report 01-A-7. Rockville, MD. 27 p. Gardner-Outlaw, T.; Engelman, R. 1999. Forest futures. Washington, DC: Population Action International. 68 p. Gilless, J.K.; Buongiorno, J. 1985. PELPS: price-endogenous linear programming system for economic modeling. R3329. Madison, WI: Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin. 34 p. Greene, J.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1994. The status and impact of state and local regulation on private timber supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-255. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.
Hann, W.J.; Jones, J.L.; Karl, M.G. [et al.]. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 337–1055. Vol. 2.
Hardie, I.; Parks, P. 1997. Land use with heterogenous land quality: an application of an area base model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79: 299–310.
Haynes, R.W., coord. 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. 1993. Forestry sector analysis for developing countries: issues and methods. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-314. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 47 p.213 Haynes, R.W. 1999. Chip prices as a proxy for nonsawtimber prices in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Note PNW-RN-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 25 p.
Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M. 1985. Simulations of the effects of alternative assumptions on demand-supply determinants on the timber situation in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Resources Economics Research. 113 p. Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Mills, J.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. Haynes, R.W.; Horne, A.L. 1997. Economic assessment of the interior Columbia basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1715–1869. Vol. 4 (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). Haynes, R.W.; Quigley, T.M. 2001. Broad-scale consequences of land management: Columbia basin example. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management. 153: 179–188.
Helms, J.A., ed. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 210 p.
Hernandez, G.A.; Moulton, R.J. 1999. Tree planting in the United States—1997. Tree Planters’ Notes. 49(1): 1–15. Hough, F.B. 1878 . Report upon forestry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 650 p.
Howard, J.L. 2001. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1965–1999. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-595. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 90 p.
Ince, P.J. 1994. Recycling and long-range timber outlook. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-242. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 23 p.
Ince, P.J. 1999. Long-range outlook for U.S. paper and paperboard demand, technology, and fiber supply-demand equilibria. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 1998 national convention. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 330–343. Ingram, D.; Ince, P.J.; Mehlberg, R.L. 1999 . United States pulpwood receipts, softwood and hardwood, roundwood and residues. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-115. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 34 p.
Johnson, K.N.; Scheurman, H.L. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives. Forest Science Monograph. 18 p.214 Kallio, M.; Dykstra, D.P.; Binkley, C.S. 1987. The global forest sector: an analytical perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 703 p. Kline, J.; Alig, R. 1998. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm land? Growth and Change. 30: 3–22.
Kline, J.; Benford, F.; Swenson, J. 2000. Historic and projected trends in private forest land in the western U.S. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 73–79. Kline, J.D.; Alig; R.J. 2001 . A spatial model for land use change for western Oregon and western Washington. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-528. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p. Knight, H. 1973. The pine decline. Journal of Forestry. 85(1): 25–28.
Koch, P. 1992. Wood versus nonwood materials in United States residential construction—some energy-related global implications. Forest Products Journal. 42(5): 31–42.
Londo, A. 2000. Effects of fragmentation on forest management for Mississippi forest landowners. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 116–124.
Lowell, E.C.; Willits, S.A.; Krahmer, R.L. 1992. Deterioration of fire-killed and fire damaged timber in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-292. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.
Luppold, G.W.; Dempsey, P.G. 1989. New estimates of central and eastern U.S. hardwood lumber production. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 120–123.
Marcin, T.C. 1972. Projections of demand for housing by type of unit and region. Agric. Handb. 428. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 76 p.
Marsh, G.P. 1864 . Man and nature, or physical geography as modified by human action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 472 p. Mauldin, T.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 1999a . Determinants of land use in Maine with projections to 2050. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 16(2): 82–88. Mauldin, T.; Plantinga, A.; Alig, R. 1999b . Land use in the Lake States region: an analysis of past trends and projections of future changes. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-519. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.
McKeever, D.; Howard, J.L. 1995. Value of timber and agriculture in the United States, 1991. Forest Products Journal. 46(10): 45–50.
McKeever, D.B. 2002. Domestic market activity in solid wood products. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-524. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.
Mills, J.; Kincaid, J. 1992. The aggregate timberland analysis system—ATLAS: a comprehensive timber projection model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-281. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 160 p.215 Mills, J.; Zhou, X. 2003. Projecting national forest inventories for the 2000 RPA timber assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-568. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 58 p.
Mills, J.R. 1989. Inventory, growth, and management assumptions for the 1989 RPA timber assessment. Part I: The South and Part II: The North and West. Unpublished document. 606 p. On file with: John Mills, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890.
Mills, J.R. 1990. Developing ATLAS growth parameters from forest inventory plots. In: Proceedings, state of the art methodology of forest inventory symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-263. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 112–118.
Mills, J.R. 1993. Inventory, growth, and management assumptions for the 1993 RPA timber assessment update. Unpublished document. 531 p. On file with: John Mills, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890. Moffat, S.; Cubbage, F.; Cascio, A.; Sheffield, R. 1998a. Estimations of future forest management intensity on NIPF lands in the South: results of the Southern State Foresters’ survey. Working Paper Series, SOFAC Rep. 14. Research Triangle Park, NC: The Southern Forest Resource Assessment Consortium. 7 p. [plus appendices]. Moffat, S.; Cubbage, F.; Cascio, A.; Sheffield, R. 1998b. The future of forest management on NIPF lands in the South: results of an expert opinion survey. In: Abt, K.; Abt, R., eds. Proceedings of SOFEW conference. Research Triangle Park, NC: North Carolina State University: 17–24. Montgomery, C.A. 2001. The future of housing in the United States: an econometric model and long-term predictions for the 2000 RPA timber assessment. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-531. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 38 p. Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Technical notes, Criteria 1–6. http://www.mpci.org/meetings/tac-mexico/tn1-6_e.html#s3 (June 2001).
Munn, I.A.; Barlow, S.A.; Evans, D.L.; Cleaves, D. 2002 . Urbanization’s impact on timber harvesting in the south-central United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 64(1): 65–76. National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA] ; Act of October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600. National Research Council [NRC]. 2000. Ecological indicators for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 180 p.
Niemi, E.; Fifield, A. 2000 . Seeing the forests for their green. Eugene, OR: ECONorthwest; Washington, DC: Sierra Club. 31 p.

Northern Forest Lands Council. 1994. Finding common ground: conserving the northern forest: the recommendations of the Northern Forest Lands Council. Concord, NH. 101 p.
Parks, P.; Murray, B. 1994. Land attributes and land allocation: nonindustrial forest use in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science. 40: 558–575.216 Plantinga, A.; Mauldin, T.; Alig, R. 1999. Land use in Maine: determinants of past trends and projections of future changes. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-511. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20 p. Powell, D.S.; Faulkner, J.L.; Darr, D.R. [et al.]. 1993. Forest resources of the United States, 1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 132 p.+ map [revised, June 1994]. Random Lengths. 1998. Forest product market prices and statistics. Yearbook. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 250 p.
Row, C. 1978. Economies of tract size in timber growing. Journal of Forestry. 76(9): 576–579. Sample, V.A. 2001. Sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation: toward a new consensus. Discuss. Pap. DP-12-01. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 10 p. Sampson, N. 2000. People, forests, and forestry: new dimensions in the 21 st century. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 53–59. Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L. 1997. Public programs for private forestry: a reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: American Forests. [Pages unknown].
Schmidt, T.; McWilliams, W. 2000. Current status and trends of privately owned northern U.S. timberlands. In: Sampson, N.; DeCoster, L., eds. Proceedings, forest fragmentation 2000. Washington, DC: American Forests: 64–72.
Schwartz, P. 1991. The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Doubleday. 258 p.
Sendak, P. 1994. Northeastern regional stumpage prices: 1961-91. Res. Pap. NE-683. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. Siry, J. 1998. Southern plantation pine yield tables. SOFAC (The Southern Forest Resource Assessment Consortium) report. Unpublished document. 5 p. [plus appendices]. On file with: John Mills, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890. Smith, W.B.; Vissage, J.S.; Sheffield, R.; Darr, D.R. 2001. Forest resources of the United States, 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 109 p. Spelter, H. 1984. Price elasticities for softwood plywood and structural particleboard in the United States. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 14: 528–535. Spelter, H. 1985. A product diffusion approach to modeling softwood lumber demand. Forest Science. 31(3): 685–700. Spelter, H. 1992. Technology-driven substitution in the forest sector: the variable price elasticity model revisited. In: Lönnsted, L., ed. Forest sector analysis. Proceedings P06.02 FORESEA, IUFRO Centennial 1992. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Forest-Industry-Market Studies: 24–29.217 Starr, F., Jr. 1866. American forests: their destruction and preservation. Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1865. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: 210–234. Strigel, M.; Meine, C., eds. 2001. Report of the Intelligent Consumption Project: a collaborative project of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 30 p.
Tedder, P.L.; LaMont, R.N.; Kincaid, J.C. 1987. The timber resource inventory model (TRIM): a projection model for timber supply and policy analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-202. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 82 p. Tomberlin, D.; Buongiorno, J.; Brooks, D. 1998. Trade, forestry and the environment: a review. Journal of Forest Economics. 4(3): 177–206.
Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 20: 171–197.
Ulrich, A. 1989. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption and price statistics, 1950– 1987. Misc. Publ. 1471. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 77 p.

United Nations. 1992. Earth summit, agenda 21: the United Nations programme of action from Rio. New York: United Nations, Department of Public Information. 294 p. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), ed. 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperate /boreal countries). New York: United Nations Publications: [Pages unknown]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1995. Major uses of land in the United States, 1992. ERS Agric. Econ. Rep. 723. Washington, DC: 39 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2000. Agricultural outlook. ERS Rep. AO-276. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, Agriculture Outlook. [Pages unknown]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1958. Timber resources for America’s future. For. Resour. Rep. 14. Washington, DC. 713 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1965. Timber trends in the United States. For. Resour. Rep. 17. Washington, DC. 235 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. The outlook for timber in the United States. For. Resour. Rep. 20. Washington, DC. 367 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States 1952–2030. For. Resour. Rep. 23. Washington, DC. 499 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. The South’s fourth forest: alternatives for the future. For. Resour. Rep. 24. Washington, DC. 512 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. 2000 RPA assessment of forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC. 78 p.218 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Reforestation and timber stand improvement needs report. FS-2400-K. Unpublished document. On file with: Frank Burch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Policy Analysis Staff, 201 14 th Street, at Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. The 1997 national resource inventory in the United States (revised). Unnumbered Report. Washington, DC. [Pages unknown]. U.S. Department of Commerce

. 1958–96. Lumber production and mill stocks. Curr. Ind. Rep. Ser. MA-24T. Washington, DC. Annual. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Projections of the population of the United States: 1995 to 2010. Report P25-1129. Washington, DC. [Pages unknown]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1997. Annual energy outlook, 1998. DOE/EIA-0383(98). Washington, DC. 223 p. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1958–96. Producer prices and price indexes. Washington, DC. Monthly and annual.
Verkaik, E.; Nabuurs, G.J. 2000. Wood production potentials of Fenno-Scandinavian forests under nature-oriented management. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 15: 445–454. Vesterby, M.; Heimlich, R.; Krupa, K. 1994. Urbanization of rural land in the United States. Agric. Econ. Rep. 673. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 36 p.
Victor, D.G.; Ausubel, J.H. 2000 . Restoring the forests. Foreign Affairs. 79(6): 127–144.
Waddell, K.L.; Oswald, D.D.; Powell, D.S. 1989. Forest statistics of the United States, 1987. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-168. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 106 p.
Wear, D.; Lui, R.; Foreman, J.; Sheffield, R. 1999. The effects of population growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management. 118(1-3): 107–115.
Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1999. 1999 statistical yearbook of the western lumber industry. Portland, OR. 36 p.
Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1992–98. Statistical yearbook of the western lumber industry. Portland, OR. [Pagination varies]. Annual. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987 . Our common future. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 400 p.
Zhang, Y. 1995. Demand for paper and paperboard products in the United States: econometric models and forecasts. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. 158 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Zhang, Y.; Buongiorno, J. 1997. Communication media and demand for printing and publishing papers in the United States. Forest Science. 43(3): 362–377.219 Zhang, D.; Buongiorno, J.; Ince, P. 1993. PELPS III: a microcomputer price endogenous linear programming system for economic modeling: version 1.0. Res. Pap. FPL-526. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 43 p. Zhang, D.; Buongiorno, J.; Ince, P.J. 1996. A recursive linear programming analysis of the future of the pulp and paper industry in the United States: changes in supplies and demands, and the effects of recycling. Annals of Operations Research. 68: 109–139.
Zhu, Z.; Evans, D.L. 1994. US forest types and predicted percent forest cover from AVHRR data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 60(5): 525–531.
Zinkhan, C. 1993. Timberland investment management organizations and other participants in forest asset markets: a survey. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(1): 32–38.220 

### Appendix

Table 27—Projections of number of households, new housing units, and average size of new units

New housing units Average size per new unit Single Multiple Mobile Single Multiple Mobile Year Households Total family family home a family family home a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Millions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Square feet - - - - - - - 1963 55.2 1.754 1.012 0.591 0.151 1,377 877 622 1970 62.9 1.835 .813 .621 .401 1,500 956 732 1980 79.1 1.526 .852 .440 .234 1,740 979 1,050 1981 82.4 1.313 .705 .379 .229 1,720 980 1,015 1982 83.5 1.296 .663 .399 .234 1,710 990 1,000 1983 83.6 1.981 1.068 .635 .278 1,725 942 1,035 1984 85.4 2.038 1.084 .666 .288 1,780 914 1,060 1985 86.8 2.025 1.072 .670 .283 1,785 922 1,080 1986 88.5 2.061 1.179 .626 .256 1,825 911 1,110 1987 89.5 1.859 1.146 .474 .239 1,905 980 1,140 1988 91.1 1.712 1.081 .407 .224 1,995 990 1,175 1989 92.8 1.577 1.002 .372 .203 2,035 1,000 1,195 1990 93.2 1.388 .895 .298 .195 2,080 1,005 1,205 1991 94.3 1.188 .840 .174 .174 2,075 1,020 1,225 1992 95.7 1.412 1.030 .170 .212 2,095 1,040 1,255 1993 96.4 1.531 1.126 .162 .243 2,095 1,065 1,295 1994 97.1 1.748 1.198 .259 .291 2,100 1,035 1,335 1995 99.0 1.673 1.076 .278 .319 2,095 1,080 1,360 1996 99.6 1.815 1.161 .316 .338 2,120 1,070 1,385 1997 101.0 1.810 1.134 .340 .336 2,150 1,095 1,420 1998 102.5 1.991 1.271 .346 .374 2,190 1,065 1,455
2010 122.1 1.757 1.078 .352 .327 2,261 1,110 1,555 2020 138.5 1.880 1.187 .337 .356 2,259 1,114 1,581 2030 154.2 1.911 1.168 .376 .367 2,258 1,119 1,586 2040 166.9 2.101 1.317 .415 .369 2,316 1,123 1,670 2050 178.1 2.151 1.362 .407 .382 2,587 1,209 1,946

a Mobile home placements. Sources: Historical Data: Council of Economic Advisors 2000, except for mobile homes. Mobile home data from Department of Comme rce, Bureau of the Census, http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/const/www/mhsindex.html; projections: Montgomery 2001.221 Table 28—Projections of major determinants of solid wood products demand

Value of Residential upkeep nonresidential Index of Year and improvements construction man ufacturing Pallets a

Billion 1987 dollars Billion 1992 dollars 1992 = 100 Millions

1963 39.2 39.5 72 1970 46.8 239.1 54.8 126 1980 59.0 253.0 75.5 258 1981 54.7 256.6 76.7 252 1982 51.3 253.6 72.1 228 1983 55.9 236.9 76.3 258 1984 76.5 265.9 83.8 304 1985 86.1 291.8 85.7 335 1986 93.9 282.7 88.1 373 1987 93.0 279.0 92.8 419 1988 96.1 280.6 97.1 466 1989 92.3 286.6 99.0 505 1990 95.2 291.0 98.5 536 1991 86.9 268.6 96.2 541 1992 90.9 264.3 100.0 566 1993 90.7 260.6 103.7 536 1994 91.5 262.6 109.9 501 1995 84.5 275.7 115.7 411 1996 86.0 286.5 121.4 360 1997 85.9 298.4 130.8 400 1998 85.5 305.5 138.2 406 1999 NA b 144.8

2010 1 18.9 330.4 196.2 451 2020 138.5 362.1 238.6 485 2030 147.0 397.9 285.7 495 2040 165.9 437.9 339.9 480 2050 187.8 461.3 405.5 480

a 1985–91 pallet data revised, 1992–98 Forest Service estimates of production.
b Residential repair and alteration data not available for 1999 in same format as earlier years owing to revisions in data collection. Source: Historical data: U.S. Department of Commerce (expenditures on residential upkeep and improvement; value of nonresidential construction); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (index of manufacturing production); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (pallet production). All on file with: Dave McKeever, USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398.222 Table 29—Fuelwood consumed a in the United States, by species group and source, in 1986 and 1996 with projections to 2050

Roundwood Growing stock

Year Total Hardwood Softwood Total Hardwood Softwood

Billion cubic feet Northeast:

1986 0.98 0.89 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.01 1996 .47 .42 .05 .06 .06 .01

2010 .55 .49 .06 .07 .07 .01 2020 .58 .51 .07 .08 .07 .01 2030 .61 .53 .08 .08 .07 .01 2040 .65 .57 .08 .09 .08 .01 2050 .70 .61 .09 .09 .08 .01

North Central: b

1986 0.79 0.75 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.01 1996 .38 .36 .02 .07 .06 .01

2010 .44 .43 .02 .08 .07 .01 2020 .46 .44 .02 .08 .08 .01 2030 .49 .46 .02 .09 .08 .01 2040 .52 .49 .02 .09 .09 .01 2050 .56 .53 .03 .10 .09 .01

South:

1986 0.75 0.69 0.05 0.32 0.29 0.03 1996 .95 .84 .11 .51 .45 .06

2010 1.12 .99 .13 .60 .53 .08 2020 1.18 1.03 .15 .63 .55 .08 2030 1.24 1.08 .16 .67 .57 .09 2040 1.33 1.15 .17 .71 .61 .10 2050 1.42 1.24 .19 .76 .66 .11 Rocky Mountains: c

1986 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 1996 .18 .07 .11 .01 0 0

2010 .21 .09 .13 .01 .01 0 2020 .23 .09 .14 .01 .01 0 2030 .25 .10 .16 .01 .01 0 2040 .27 .10 .17 .01 .01 0 2050 .29 .11 .18 .01 .01 .01223 Billion cubic feet Pacific Coast:

1986 0.44 0.15 0.28 0.22 0.07 0.15 1996 .30 .10 .20 .14 .04 .10

2010 .36 .12 .24 .17 .05 .12 2020 .39 .12 .27 .18 .05 .14 2030 .42 .13 .30 .20 .05 .15 2040 .45 .14 .32 .21 .05 .16 2050 .49 .14 .34 .23 .06 .17

United States: d

1986 3.11 2.57 0.55 0.80 0.59 0.21 1996 2.28 1.79 .49 .79 .61 .18

2010 2.69 2.11 .58 .93 .72 .21 2020 2.85 2.20 .65 .99 .75 .24 2030 3.02 2.30 .71 1.05 .78 .26 2040 3.22 2.45 .77 1.12 .84 .28 2050 3.46 2.63 .83 1.20 .90 .30

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a Excludes logging residue used for fuel.
b Includes North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

c Excludes North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
d Excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Source: Historical data: Smith et al. 2001, Waddell 1989. Table 29—Fuelwood consumed a in the United States, by species group and source, in 1986 and 1996 with projections to 2050 (continued)

Roundwood Growing stock

Year Total Hardwood Softwood Total Hardwood Softwood224 Table 30—Area of forest land and timberland in the North, by ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1953 1963 1977 a 1987 a 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million acres Forest land:

Northeast 76.6 81.6 84.3 85.3 85.5 86.0 85.8 84.7 83.4 82.3 North Central 84.2 84.2 79.9 80.2 84.8 86.0 85.2 83.9 82.7 81.4

Total forest land 160.8 165.7 164.2 165.5 170.3 172.1 171.0 168.6 166.2 163.8

Timberland:

Northeast—

Public 7.3 7.5 8.2 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 Forest industry 10.1 10.1 12.8 12.6 11.0 10.9 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.4 NIPF b 55.6 60.3 57.5 57.7 58.3 58.2 57.6 56.6 55.3 54.4

Total Northeast 73.0 77.9 78.6 79.8 78.9 78.7 78.1 76.8 75.5 74.4

North Central—

Public 21.9 20.9 20.3 20.4 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6 Forest industry 3.6 3.6 4.7 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 NIPF b 55.8 54.2 49.9 49.8 54.1 54.3 53.5 52.5 51.4 50.4

Total North Central 81.2 78.7 74.9 74.6 80.5 80.7 79.8 78.8 77.6 76.6

North—

Public 29.1 28.4 28.6 30.0 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 Forest industry 13.7 13.7 17.5 16.9 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.3 14.1 13.9 NIPF b 111.4 114.5 107.4 107.5 112.4 112.5 111.1 109.1 106.7 104.8

Total timberland 154.3 156.6 153.4 154.4 159.4 159.4 157.9 155.6 153.1 151.0

Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Note: Data for 1953 and 1963 are as of December 31; all other years are as of January 1.

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.
b American Indian and Alaska Native lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands. Source: Alig et al., n.d.; Smith et al. 2001.225 Table 31—Area of forest land and timberland in the South, by ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1953 1963 1977 a 1987 a 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million acres Forest land:

Southeast 93.0 94.7 90.5 88.6 88.7 87.5 86.6 85.6 84.8 83.9 South Central 133.1 133.7 126.6 122.6 125.4 125.7 126.0 126.2 126.4 126.6

Total forest land 226.0 228.4 217.0 211.1 214.1 213.2 212.6 211.8 211.2 210.5

Timberland:

Southeast—

Public 7.9 8.2 8.5 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 Forest industry 13.9 14.8 15.3 16.6 14.5 14.2 13.9 13.7 13.5 13.5 NIPF b 67.2 68.0 64.0 59.5 60.9 60.1 59.4 59.2 58.4 57.6

Total Southeast 89.1 91.0 87.8 85.1 84.8 83.7 82.7 82.2 81.3 80.5

South Central—

Public 9.6 9.6 10.0 10.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Forest industry 17.9 18.8 21.5 21.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.8 NIPF b 88.1 89.3 80.3 79.8 82.2 82.5 82.7 82.9 83.0 83.1

Total South Central 115.5 117.7 111.8 112.1 116.3 116.6 116.9 117.1 117.2 117.3

South—

Public 17.4 17.8 18.4 19.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 Forest industry 31.8 33.6 36.9 38.0 37.0 36.8 36.6 36.4 36.3 36.3 NIPF b 155.3 157.3 144.3 139.4 143.2 142.6 142.1 142.0 141.4 140.7

Total timberland 204.5 208.7 199.6 197.3 201.1 200.3 199.6 199.3 198.6 197.8

Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Note: Data for 1953 and 1963 are as of December 31; all other years are as of January 1. Includes Kentucky in addition to the 1 2 states examined in “The South’s Fourth Forest” (USDA FS 1988).

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.
b American Indian and Alaska Native lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands. Source: Alig et al., n.d.; Smith et al. 2001.226 Table 32—Area of forest land and timberland in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, by ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1953 1963 1977 a 1987 a 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million acres Forest land:

Great Plains 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.8 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 Intermountain 136.3 135.6 133.7 135.4 138.4 139.3 139.3 139.1 138.6 138.1

Total forest land 141.6 140.4 138.2 139.6 143.2 144.3 144.2 143.8 143.2 142.5

Timberland:

Great Plains–

Public 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Forest industry .02 .02 .02 .02 0 0 0 0 0 0 NIPF b 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9

Total Great Plains 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.5 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2

Intermountain—

Public 45.3 45.8 39.4 40.3 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6 48.6 Forestindustry 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 NIPF b 15.1 15.0 15.0 14.4 15.1 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.1

Total Intermountain 62.6 63.1 56.5 57.6 66.7 66.8 66.8 66.8 66.7 66.7 Rocky Mountains—

Public 46.5 47.0 40.6 41.4 49.9 49.9 49.9 49.9 49.9 49.9 Forest industry 2.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 NIPF b 17.9 17.6 17.5 16.8 18.2 18.5 18.5 18.4 18.2 18.0

Total timberland 66.6 66.9 60.2 61.1 71.0 71.4 71.3 71.2 71.0 70.9

Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Note: Data for 1953 and 1963 are as of December 31; all other years are as of January 1. Includes the States of North Dakota, S outh Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, in addition to the Rocky Mountain states.

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.
b American Indian and Alaska Native lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands. Source: Alig et al., n.d.; Smith et al. 2001.227 Table 33—Area of forest land and timberland in the Pacific Coast region, by ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1953 1963 1977 a 1987 a 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million acres Forest land:

Alaska 129.1 129.1 129.1 129.0 127.4 126.1 125.1 124.1 123.1 122.1 Pacific Northwest 54.1 53.8 53.0 51.3 51.6 50.9 50.4 49.9 49.3 48.8 Pacific Southwest 44.5 44.5 42.1 41.1 40.3 39.3 38.5 37.7 36.9 36.2

Total forest land 227.8 227.4 224.2 221.5 219.3 216.3 213.9 211.6 209.4 207.1

Timberland:

Alaska—

Public 20.1 19.7 19.2 9.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 Forest industry 0 0 0 0 0 00000 NIPF b .3 .4 .6 6.2 3.8 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8

Total Alaska 20.3 20.1 19.7 15.8 12.4 11.9 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.4

Pacific Northwest—

Public 22.9 23.4 22.4 22.1 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 Forest industry 9.0 9.4 9.8 9.7 9.1 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 NIPF b 12.9 11.7 9.9 8.6 8.5 8.2 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8

Total Pacific Northwest 44.9 44.5 42.1 40.3 41.2 40.7 40.5 40.3 40.2 40.2

Pacific Southwest c

—

Public 9.4 9.8 9.0 9.5 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 Forest industry 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 NIPF b 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.9

Total Pacific Southwest 18.2 18.3 17.3 17.4 18.7 18.4 18.2 18.0 17.9 17.7

Pacific Coast—

Public 52.4 52.9 50.5 41.2 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Forest industry 11.2 11.9 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.8 NIPF b 19.8 18.1 16.0 19.9 17.1 15.9 15.3 14.9 14.6 14.5

Total timberland 83.4 82.9 79.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 70.3 69.9 69.6 69.3

Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Note: Data for 1953 and 1963 are as of December 31; all other years are as of January 1.

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.
b American Indian and Alaska Native lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands.

c Hawaii is included in the Pacific Southwest. Source: Alig et al., n.d.; Smith et al. 2001.228Table 34—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for the national forest timberlands, 1952–97, with projections to2050Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals3333655 44545Harvest3332676 67777Net annual growth 13 15 16 18 19 17 14 12 11 11 10 10Inventory 459 532 637 636 678 723782 1,044 1,118 1,184 1,243 1,297North Central:Removals 22 30 28 3426 48 25 26 27 28 28 29Harvest 24 28 34 32 29 56 28 26 28 29 30 31Net annual growth 57 73 75 98 118 84 94 76 70 60 57 57Inventory 1,3361,988 2,170 2,542 3,270 3,216 3,578 4,560 5,046 5,451 5,766 6,058Southeast:Removals 15 28 35 6774 59 47 28 35 36 36 36Harvest 14 27 33 61 59 54 45 26 34 34 34 34Net annual growth 80 90 129 137 94 50 57 99 70 54 49 47Inventory 2,0742,243 2,705 2,946 2,848 2,826 2,991 4,116 4,627 4,879 5,030 5,147South Central:Removals 145 94 156 181 174 169139 77 93 94 93 93Harvest 141 90 147 174 163 163 132 72 92 93 93 93Net annual growth 211 336 314 245 231 174 192 155 132 124 121 114Inventory 3,1234,874 4,952 5,670 6,466 6,013 6,396 7,501 8,054 8,383 8,672 8,908Rocky Mountains:aRemovals 229 412 524 463 468 389 130 142 172 183 193 200Harvest 218 387 480 426 465 425 186 147 187 199 210 219Net annual growth 689776 905 1,044 1,296 1,285 1,274 1,597 1,465 1,273 1,101 955Inventory 58,013 62,979 63,82565,081 70,832 71,657 84,993 103,127 117,191 129,510 139,863 148,486Pacific Southwest:bRemovals 117 263 378 306 334 314 96 108 132 139 145 148Harvest 89 216 346 286 347 336 117 108 141 148 153 158Net annual growth 162 186 338 364 422 463 616 642 648 648 638 628Inventory 29,590 29,391 28,69428,073 27,213 31,448 29,539 36,765 42,055 47,197 52,244 57,137Pacific Northwest West:cRemovals 364 567 530 525 538 26666 49 63 74 86 94Harvest 361 586 489 511 659 297 73 46 61 73 85 95Net annual growth 180 197 240 227 320 320 778 898 848 782 740 692Inventory 47,584 47,704 45,47844,088 33,607 33,621 51,399 62,799 71,103 78,727 85,640 92,011229Table 34—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for the national forest timberlands, 1952–97, with projections to2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetPacific Northwest East:cRemovals 121 256 314 313 387 330 72 68 87 103 120 130Harvest 100 232 286 292 378 352 83 66 87 104 121 135Net annual growth 261 310 329 312 269 269 320 377 352 327 306 288Inventory 23,408 25,75725,911 23,649 17,331 17,338 23,915 28,039 30,992 33,517 35,642 37,418Alaska:Removals 13 75 114 95 54 99 51 29 29 29 29 29Harvest 11 66 100 83 47 99 43 44 44 44 44 44Net annual growth 10 16 20 23 15 85 85 85 85 85 85 85Inventory 38,850 38,228 37,55535,414 24,068 18,733 18,733 19,290 19,847 20,404 20,961 21,518United States:Removals 1,028 1,728 2,082 1,986 2,061 1,681 630 532 642 691 735 763Harvest 961 1,6351,918 1,867 2,153 1,789 712 542 682 732 778 816Net annual growth 1,664 1,999 2,367 2,468 2,783 2,747 3,431 3,941 3,682 3,364 3,107 2,874Inventory204,437 213,696 211,927 208,099 186,313 185,574 222,326 267,241 300,033 329,252 355,061 377,980aRocky Mountains region historical data include the Great Plains States. For projections, western South Dakota is in Rocky Mountains; eastern South Dakota and otherGreat Plains States are in the North-Central region.bPacific Southwest excludes Hawaii.cPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.Sources: For historical data Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001; projections from Mills and Zhou 2003.230Table 35—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for the national forest timberlands, 1952–97, with projections to2050Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 10 11 19 2913 22 16 8 10 10 11 10Harvest 9 9 15 21 26 42 19 14 15 15 15 16Net annual growth 69 88 105 117 131 88 68 60 57 54 50 47Inventory 1,9832,580 3,007 3,749 4,074 3,711 3,696 4,237 4,743 5,203 5,629 6,015North Central:Removals 28 35 46 4953 61 64 44 45 46 47 47Harvest 32 34 40 43 76 95 68 60 63 64 66 66Net annual growth 112 141 140 159 154 123 139 165 137 112 104 100Inventory 2,4823,491 3,994 4,483 5,470 5,228 6,281 7,932 8,925 9,609 10,200 10,741Southeast:Removals 12 18 26 2114 13 51 8 10 10 10 10Harvest 9 11 17 15 14 11 4799999Net annual growth 73 86 122 141 139 114 105 110 78 53 39 31Inventory 2,7843,335 3,511 4,679 5,503 5,565 5,773 7,397 8,213 8,743 9,094 9,338South Central:Removals 61 52 36 2634 36 56 24 29 30 30 30Harvest 41 29 32 18 35 37 52 23 24 24 24 24Net annual growth 67 111 122 144 135 147 144 147 134 115 88 64Inventory 1,7852,793 3,947 3,576 4,502 4,959 5,249 7,073 8,213 9,152 9,867 10,304West:aRemovals 6 11 19 5 45 54 1178999Harvestb9 14 19 4 16 12 32 7 9 9 10 10Net annual growth 74 82 85 97 58 71 218 193 156 144 145 142Inventory 4,5225,008 5,262 5,080 5,558 6,178 8,790 10,902 12,653 14,099 15,459 16,812United States:Removals 117 126 146 130 160 186 198 91 102 104 106 106Harvest 100 97 123 101 166 197 217 114 119 122 124 125Net annual growth 396 508 573 658 617 544 674 675 561 478 426 384Inventory 13,556 17,207 19,72121,567 25,107 25,641 29,789 37,541 42,747 46,806 50,249 53,210aWest excludes Hawaii. The 1997 increase in growth data is due to Rocky Mountain changes in inventory procedures.b1991 West harvest value has been corrected.Sources: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001; projections from Mills and Zhou 2003.231Table 36—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other public timberlands, 1952–97, with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991a1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 7 6 9 14 1613 13 109999Harvest 7 5 7 13 18 21 20 14 14 14 14 14Net annual growth 27 32 37 49 54 52 61 71 79 83 88 93Inventory 885 1,0441,275 1,555 2,496 2,307 2,797 3,505 4,160 4,881 5,651 6,468North Central:Removals 35 39 43 4833 29 71 60 60 60 59 59Harvest 33 35 38 41 43 37 74 65 65 65 65 65Net annual growth 92 120 126 142 168 134 141 141 141 141 140 140Inventory 2,1622,943 3,237 3,728 4,840 4,945 5,272 6,254 7,063 7,874 8,683 9,491Southeast:Removals 52 45 71 80 120 114 112 81 81 81 81 81Harvest 51 43 69 88 100 106 109 78 78 78 78 78Net annual growth 70 84 126 149 148 132 145 142 140 140 140 140Inventory 1,5842,089 2,278 2,770 3,639 3,765 4,452 5,052 5,654 6,244 6,835 7,427South Central:Removals 43 32 38 5174 79 61 69 69 69 69 69Harvest 30 30 32 51 64 77 57 65 65 65 65 65Net annual growth 56 58 78 71 55 52 66 63 61 61 60 60Inventory 780 824 1,2251,340 1,458 1,876 1,951 1,950 1,885 1,807 1,725 1,640Rocky Mountains:bRemovals 79 86 86 9376 108 49 104 104 105 105 104Harvest 72 78 78 85 79 173 54 118 118 118 118 118Net annual growth 119 141 162 162 220 171 168 169 170 170 170 170Inventory 9,92310,147 10,399 10,429 11,094 8,352 8,427 9,623 10,275 10,930 11,584 12,239Pacific Southwest:cRemovals 5 18 27 24 15 11 23 11 11 12 12 12Harvest 3 16 26 22 12 13 24 12 12 12 12 12Net annual growth 14 14 14 14 25 24 29 30 31 32 32 33Inventory 1,8921,435 1,150 1,108 1,245 953 1,323 1,484 1,676 1,875 2,079 2,289Pacific Northwest West:dRemovals 155 274 359 439 419 226 159 164 164 164 164 164Harvest 158 290 343 428 418 258 163 167 167 167 167 167Net annual growth 193 316 356 371 495 388 491 479 541 575 600 625Inventory 20,085 19,787 19,61019,161 19,576 16,218 19,243 23,372 27,142 31,253 35,612 40,220232Table 36—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other public timberlands, 1952–97, with projections to 2050(continued)Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991a1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetPacific Northwest East:dRemovals 52 64 103 96 102 3467 54 54 54 54 54Harvest 48 61 97 89 77 81 73 56 56 56 56 56Net annual growth 66 88 91 96 139 109 67 143 130 124 127 130Inventory 7,7926,536 6,483 6,748 7,027 5,821 2,537 3,187 3,701 4,261 4,856 5,485Alaska:Removals 1 4 146333 33333Harvest 1 4 125333 33333Net annual growth 93 108 123 137 67 68 40 40 40 40 40 40Inventory 10,081 10,915 11,864 12,200 5,880 5,765 5,090 5,567 5,934 6,301 6,670 7,040United States:Removals 429 568 750 851 858 616 561 556 556 555 555 554Harvest 403 562 702 822 814 769 577 578 578 578 578 578Net annual growth 730 961 1,1131,191 1,371 1,130 1,208 1,279 1,333 1,366 1,398 1,431Inventory 55,184 55,720 57,52159,039 57,255 50,002 51,092 59,994 67,491 75,427 83,695 92,299Note: Data for 1952–1986 contain American Indian and Alaska Native lands; in 1991 American Indian and Alaska Native lands transferred to nonindustrial private forest.Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumption shown in some tables. For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aPacific Northwest West and Pacific Northwest East 1991 inventory and growth calculated based on 1986 Pacific Northwest total fractions of inventory and growth.bRocky Mountains region historical data (excluding harvest) include the Great Plains States. For projections, western South Dakota is in the Rocky Mountains region;eastern South Dakota and other Great Plains States are in North-Central region.cPacific Southwest excludes Hawaii.dPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.Sources: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001.233Table 37—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other public timberlands, 1952–97 with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 24 30 37 3028 70 45 105 109 108 106 107Harvest 23 26 28 23 23 62 92 170 170 170 170 170Net annual growth 142 182 210 238 265 200 151 188 186 182 176 172Inventory 3,8034,838 5,697 6,478 9,110 9,333 10,158 11,381 12,179 12,936 13,656 14,327North Central:Removals 44 55 77 8774 154 231 195 197 195 193 191Harvest 45 51 70 72 81 117 249 284 284 284 284 284Net annual growth 213 270 278 304 341 270 237 277 276 276 279 286Inventory 4,5836,619 7,649 8,343 10,112 10,193 11,430 11,998 12,807 13,611 14,448 15,355Southeast:Removals 15 16 29 3436 35 39 33 33 33 33 32Harvest 12 10 20 31 62 30 34 30 30 30 30 30Net annual growth 27 32 55 71 86 88 100 87 82 85 99 99Inventory 845 1,1551,547 1,992 3,006 3,359 4,062 4,812 5,331 5,838 6,432 7,102South Central:Removals 50 40 35 5262 44 53 37 38 38 38 38Harvest 33 36 36 53 66 56 49 30 30 30 30 30Net annual growth 55 71 90 109 101 128 181 102 98 111 132 132Inventory 1,3651,750 2,106 2,401 3,307 4,552 4,956 6,208 6,831 7,499 8,340 9,284Rocky Mountains:aRemovals2432212 44444Harvest2211123 55555Net annual growth 8 9 10 11 27 17 45 11 11 10 8 8Inventory 566 624 670 682 974 689823 1,143 1,212 1,278 1,326 1,367Pacific Southwest:bRemovals1222111 11111Harvest1112121 33333Net annual growth6 5 7 7 16 13 5 5 5 4 4 4Inventory 218 190 263 283 554 407 440 493 533 568 597 627Pacific Northwest:Removals 5 3 13 15 15 2013 47 48 50 51 52Harvest 6 4 10 13 36 35 14 76 76 76 76 76Net annual growth 34 58 92 93 88 63 74 41 44 46 51 47Inventory 1,1351,584 2,089 2,322 2,442 2,573 2,846 3,202 3,149 3,109 3,092 3,066234Table 37—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory for other public timberlands, 1952–97 with projections to 2050(continued)Historical ProjectionsItem and region 1952 19621970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetAlaska:Removals (c) (c)33521 11111Harvest (c) (c)44662 22222Net annual growth7 7 7 7 55 55 49 61 61 61 61 61Inventory 3,9023,861 3,873 3,864 1,751 1,751 1,930 2,624 3,220 3,815 4,410 5,005United States:Removals 141 150 199 225 223 327 386 424 431 430 428 427Harvest 122 130 170 199 276 309 445 600 600 600 600 600Net annual growth 492 634 749 840 978 834 841 771 763 776 811 810Inventory 16,417 20,621 23,89426,365 31,256 32,857 36,645 41,861 45,261 48,654 52,300 56,133Note: Data for 1952–86 contain American Indian and Alaska Native lands; in 1991 American Indian and Alaska Native lands transferred to nonindustrial private forest(NIPF).Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumption shown in some tables. For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aRocky Mountains region historical data (excluding harvest) include the Great Plains States. For projections, western South Dakota is in the Rocky Mountains, easternSouth Dakota and other Great Plains States are in the North-Central region. The 1997 increase in growth data is due to changesin inventory procedures.bPacific Southwest excludes Hawaii.cLess than 0.5 million cubic feet.Sources: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001.235Thousands Board feet - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Billion board feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -1962a186,500 209 39.1 14.1 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.5 7.31970 205,100 199 40.7 14.0 5.0 4.7 4.7 5.7 6.71976 218,000 202 44.1 18.3 6.3 4.5 4.9 5.9 4.31986 240,700 238 57.4 20.8 15.4 5.3 6.1 5.9 3.81996 265,500 231 61.3 19.8 15.3 4.9 7.9 6.4 7.01998 270,509 237 64.2 22.2 14.1 5.4 8.4 7.2 6.92010 298,026 228 67.9 16.7 22.4 6.0 7.9 7.7 7.12020 323,052 217 70.0 17.3 23.6 6.2 8.0 8.0 7.02030 347,209 210 72.9 17.0 25.1 6.6 8.1 8.1 8.02040 370,290 209 77.3 19.0 27.1 7.0 8.2 7.9 8.12050 394,241 211 83.0 21.5 29.1 7.3 8.5 7.8 8.8Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.aHistorical data 1962–86 updated to reflect revisions in new housing and residential repair and alterations.Source: Historical data: McKeever 2002.Table 38—Population and lumber consumption in the United States, per capita and by end use, 1962–98, with projections to 2050Lumber consumptionEnd useResidential NewPer capita New upkeep and nonresidential Packing AllYear Population use Total housing improvements construction Manufacturing and shipping other236Table 39—Lumber consumption, imports, exports, and production in the United States, 1962–98, with projections to 2050Billion board feet1962b39.1 30.8 8.3 4.9 4.6 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 34.9 26.8 8.11970 40.7 32.2 8.5 6.1 5.8 .3 1.2 1.1 .1 35.9 27.5 8.31976 44.1 36.0 8.0 8.2 8.0 .3 1.8 1.6 .2 37.7 29.7 8.01986 57.4 47.1 10.2 14.0 13.8 .3 2.4 1.9 .5 45.7 35.3 10.51996 61.3 49.5 11.8 18.4 18.0 .4 2.9 1.8 1.1 45.8 33.3 12.51998 64.2 52.0 12.2 19.0 18.5 .5 2.2 1.1 1.1 47.4 34.7 12.72010 67.9 56.3 11.6 25.7 25.3 .4 3.0 1.5 1.5 45.2 32.5 12.72020 70.0 57.9 12.1 23.7 25.3 .4 3.0 1.5 1.5 49.3 36.1 13.22030 72.8 60.4 12.4 24.9 24.5 .4 3.0 1.5 1.5 50.9 37.4 13.52040 77.3 64.6 12.7 27.0 26.6 .4 3.0 1.5 1.5 53.3 39.5 13.82050 83.0 70.0 13.0 28.6 28.2 .4 3.0 1.5 1.5 57.4 43.3 14.1Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.aIncludes small volumes of mixed species not classified as softwoods or hardwood.bHistorical data 1962–86 updated to reflect revisions in new housing and residential repair and alterations.Source: Historical data: McKeever 2002.Year TotalSoftwoodlumberHardwoodlumber TotalSoftwoodlumberaHardwoodlumber TotalSoftwoodlumberaHardwoodlumber TotalSoftwoodlumberConsumptionProductionExportsImportsHardwoodlumber237 Table 40—Lumber production in the contiguous United States, by softwoods and hardwoods and region, 1952–96, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections Species group and region 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Billion board feet, lumber tally Softwoods:

Northeast 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 North Central a .4 .3 .3 .4 .3 .3 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 Southeast 5.2 2.7 2.9 3.4 5.3 5.6 6.7 7.3 7.8 6.8 4.6 4.8 South Central 3.6 3.2 4.3 4.6 6.2 6.4 8.7 7.8 8.9 11.5 13.7 15.1 Rocky Mountains— 2.5 3.6 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Northern Rockies 1.6 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.1 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Southern Rockies .9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.5 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Pacific Northwest b

— Westside c 10.3 8.6 7.6 8.5 9.3 9.0 7.4 8.3 9.6 9.9 11.3 12.8 Eastside c 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 Pacific Southwest d 4.6 5.0 5.2 4.8 5.2 5.3 3.4 2.7 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

Total U.S. softwoods 30.2 26.8 27.5 29.7 35.3 35.8 33.3 32.5 36.1 37.4 39.5 43.3

Hardwoods:

Northeast .9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 North Central a 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 Southeast 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 South Central 2.3 3.3 2.9 1.8 2.7 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 West 0 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5

Total U.S. hardwoods 7.2 8.1 8.3 8.0 10.5 12.3 12.5 12.7 13.2 13.5 13.8 14.1

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a Includes Great Plains.
b Excludes Alaska.

c Pacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific Northwest East (eastern Oregon and eastern Washington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.
d Excludes Hawaii. Source: Historical data for softwoods WWPA 1992–98, AF&P A 1991–2001, USDC 1958–96; for hardwoods AF&PA 1991–2001, USDC 1958–96, Luppold and Dempsey 1989.238SquareThousands feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -Billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -1962 186,500 51 9.5 9.5 (E)a3.9 1.7 1.7 0.7 0.2 1.31970 205,100 69 14.2 14.3 (E)a5.9 2.3 1.9 .9 .3 3.01976 218,000 82 17.8 17.7 (E)a8.7 3.2 1.9 1.1 .3 2.61986 240,700 107 25.7 21.6 4.2 11.8 7.1 3.1 1.8 .4 1.71996 265,500 119 31.6 18.1 13.6 17.0 7.5 2.5 3.2 .5 .81998 270,509 129 34.8 17.2 17.6 19.4 7.3 2.9 3.7 .6 .82010 298,026 124 36.9 11.5 25.5 18.7 8.9 3.0 3.5 1.3 1.42020 323,052 122 39.5 10.3 29.3 19.5 9.4 3.3 3.9 1.9 1.62030 347,209 118 40.9 9.9 31.0 18.6 10.0 3.7 4.3 2.6 1.62040 370,290 121 44.9 9.9 35.0 20.0 10.8 4.2 4.9 3.6 1.42050 394,241 129 50.8 9.9 40.9 21.8 11.8 4.5 5.6 4.8 2.4Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.a(E) = less than 50 million square feet.Source: Historical data: McKeever 2002.Table 41—Population and structural panel consumption in the United States, per capita, by panel type and end use, 1962–98,with projections to 2050Panel type End usePer OSB/ Residential New non- Packagingcapita Total Softwood wafer- New upkeep andresidentialManu- and AllYear Population use use plywood board housing improvements construction facturing shipping other239Table 42—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest industry timberlandsain the contiguous United States,1952–97, with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 105 92 138 182 273 317 118 160 118 103 95 90Harvest 99 87 128 168 356 381 144 235 183 159 144 136Net annual growth 179 236 339 377 188 188 65 140 139 138 135 131Inventory 5,2466,427 9,753 10,824 9,191 9,608 5,803 4,848 4,800 5,042 5,358 5,715North Central:aRemovals 34 23 28 3337 31 32 17 19 19 20 21Harvest 30 22 25 28 41 52 34 19 21 21 22 23Net annual growth 43 44 63 55 50 42 35 45 48 51 50 52Inventory 917 1,3141,521 1,690 1,653 1,664 1,426 1,832 2,114 2,420 2,703 3,006Southeast:Removals 325 262 458 518 821 870 961 937 1,457 1,854 1,632 1,530Harvest 318 252 430 473 740 747923 927 1,439 1,835 1,613 1,509Net annual growth 375 411558 688 725 761 890 1,449 1,517 1,547 1,655 1,684Inventory 6,8037,809 8,670 9,142 10,717 10,750 10,231 14,402 17,540 16,826 14,882 16,078South Central:Removals 494 341 564 898 1,088 1,271 1,259 1,370 1,788 2,186 2,318 2,329Harvest 484 328 530 8931,045 1,096 1,196 1,312 1,709 2,083 2,212 2,232Net annual growth 707 971 889894 829 924 1,135 1,704 2,207 2,399 2,427 2,424Inventory 9,73813,087 13,501 14,430 13,515 13,306 14,231 16,088 21,581 25,779 27,129 28,113Rocky Mountains:Removals 99 130 186 177 158 172154 108 85 90 86 80Harvest 128 145 138 115 178 198 152 114 92 98 95 88Net annual growth 79 92 103 105 125 127 126 103 103 120 146 167Inventory 6,7676,447 5,939 5,156 5,343 4,815 4,773 3,466 3,513 3,802 4,347 5,166Pacific Southwest:Removals 456 449 318 344 435 401 357 242 230 101 78 65Harvest 393 385 294 321 452 452 371 269 259 118 91 77Net annual growth 90 108 135 139 205 244 247 204 187 196 218 233Inventory 11,2689,639 8,244 7,457 7,918 9,051 8,592 6,434 5,844 5,913 7,193 8,785Pacific Northwest West:bRemovals 1,150 909 1,272 1,302 1,222 901 657 976 984 926 937 1,014Harvest 1,244 9761,234 1,268 1,244 1,106 643 1,006 1,010 950 957 1,034Net annual growth 337 393 455 606 915 806 799 952 964 1,005 1,074 1,107Inventory 32,725 27,399 23,76721,978 20,137 17,921 17,648 17,179 16,998 17,182 19,551 20,875240Table 42—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest industry timberlandsain the contiguous United States,1952–97, with projections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetPacific Northwest East:bRemovals 103 95 120 162 179 151 144 96 93 97 108 118Harvest 100 94 117 151 166 100 160 104 100 103 113 124Net annual growth 62 71 84 85 115 98 85 120 123 132 143 151Inventory 3,9753,972 4,038 3,849 4,279 3,842 3,557 3,877 4,163 4,475 4,878 5,248United States:Removals 2,765 2,301 3,084 3,615 4,213 4,114 3,683 3,905 4,774 5,376 5,273 5,247Harvest 2,7962,289 2,896 3,417 4,221 4,134 3,623 3,986 4,812 5,366 5,247 5,223Net annual growth 1,872 2,326 2,626 2,949 3,152 3,190 3,382 4,716 5,288 5,588 5,849 5,949Inventory 77,439 76,094 75,433 74,526 72,753 70,957 66,261 68,126 76,552 81,438 86,041 92,986Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of the harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumptionshown in some tables. For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aData for the Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains region for the historical period. For projections, western SouthDakota is in the Rocky Mountains region,eastern South Dakota and other Great Plains States are in the North-Central region.bPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.Source: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data Smith et al. 2001.241Table 43—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest industry timberlandsain the contiguous United States,1952–97, with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 47 51 91 121 110 256 158 109 108 108 107 108Harvest 44 45 69 89 216 253 199 164 130 122 118 121Net annual growth 129 156 193 226 230 233 196 217 212 206 199 190Inventory 4,7425,554 6,819 7,636 8,835 9,090 8,700 10,054 11,019 11,912 12,735 13,469North Central:aRemovls 74 45 64 69 142 119 105 57 48 48 48 49Harvest 73 41 57 55 201 258113 108 95 94 94 94Net annual growth 99 100 118 118 105 89 86 81 78 71 64 65Inventory 2,0482,673 3,129 3,376 3,430 3,620 3,274 3,398 3,622 3,772 3,833 3,935Southeast:Removals 169 158 161 147 185 286 285 194 160 189 230 208Harvest 127 96 108 107 176 185 257 233 204 185 202 191Net annual growth 171 174 230 259 246 216 191 179 160 148 149 147Inventory 5,5886,220 7,248 7,542 8,157 7,423 6,857 5,013 4,781 4,676 3,984 3,202South Central:Removals 211 375 202 213 322 480 454 358 314 370 400 395Harvest 157 227 213 184 323 342 430 482 403 334 291 266Net annual growth 203 285 379 453 348 395 358 370 335 314 312 315Inventory 5,6567,753 8,086 9,661 9,594 9,531 9,488 8,678 8,719 8,518 7,717 6,889Rocky Mountains:bRemovals3 6 3 3 11 1 3 29 33 36 39 40Harvest0 0 1 1 27 0 3 72 77 82 89 92Net annual growth2222118 11111Inventory 103 101 100 64 33 33 31 24 22 24 27 32Pacific Southwest:Removals3 4 5 4 4 11 5 18 16 15 14 14Harvest2 3 3 3 24 12 25 49 50 51 53 54Net annual growth 11 15 24 19 46 54 45 52 53 54 57 56Inventory 336 449 717 6791,374 1,634 1,701 2,052 2,396 2,760 3,153 3,564Pacific Northwest:Removals 18 24 44 44 44 39 40 95 87 80 74 70Harvest 18 22 37 34 57 71 42 138 126 114 105 100Net annual growth 75 98 124 145 154 111 101 120 121 126 125 121Inventory 1,9002,675 3,282 3,355 3,888 3,475 3,475 3,280 3,480 3,839 4,329 4,789242Table 43—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on forest industry timberlandsain the contiguous United States,1952–97, with projections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetUnited States:Removals 525 663 570 600 818 1,192 1,050 860 766 845 913 883Harvest 421 434 488 473 1,025 1,1201,069 1,246 1,084 983 952 919Net annual growth 690 8301,070 1,222 1,130 1,099 986 1,020 960 920 907 895Inventory 20,37325,425 29,381 32,313 35,311 34,806 33,526 32,497 34,037 35,501 35,776 35,880Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of the harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumptionshown in some tables. For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aData for the Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains region for the historical period. For projections, western SouthDakota is in the Rocky Mountains region,eastern South Dakota and other Great Plains States are in the North-Central region.b1997 increase in growth data is due to changes in inventory procedures.Source: For historical, data Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data Smith et al. 2001.243Table 44—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–97, withprojections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 358 274 263 300 226 162 278 215 214 225 238 246Harvest 338 258 244 278 296 258 375 285 291 315 341 358Net annual growth 433 539 510 623 441 457 508 443 408 380 349 318Inventory 13,438 16,031 16,21417,976 19,244 20,942 21,563 24,242 25,602 26,440 26,748 26,845North Central:aRemovals 59 61 72 79 109 117 132 151 161 162 163 162Harvest 62 63 70 74 119 125 144 166 177 180 182 183Net annual growth 128 152 170 196 250 240 257 271 261 245 228 216Inventory 2,6103,382 4,010 4,899 6,246 7,572 8,155 10,458 11,297 11,914 12,328 12,651Southeast:Removals 1,444 1,234 1,235 1,365 1,821 1,730 1,826 1,758 1,717 1,710 1,977 2,210Harvest 1,4141,189 1,157 1,247 1,640 1,456 1,741 1,677 1,644 1,653 1,947 2,183Net annual growth 1,349 1,567 1,8822,130 1,656 1,435 1,688 1,968 2,002 2,067 2,011 1,924Inventory 25,087 28,033 32,17936,150 35,415 34,590 34,187 37,963 40,298 43,217 45,805 43,810South Central:Removals 606 787 1,117 1,278 1,569 1,548 2,072 1,600 1,732 1,937 2,332 2,859Harvest 584 748 1,1291,264 1,507 1,583 1,995 1,545 1,682 1,882 2,257 2,759Net annual growth 792 1,182 1,668 2,000 1,762 1,572 1,719 1,939 2,066 2,278 2,462 2,385Inventory 11,27316,128 23,646 28,760 31,555 29,801 30,408 29,015 32,949 36,815 40,113 38,203Rocky Mountains:Removals 127 111 93 109 137 173 184 284 295 301 317 313Harvest 79 74 118 147 154 200 221 401 428 449 480 486Net annual growth 213 247 276 283 315 402 458 382 355 357 379 404Inventory 12,842 13,649 14,112 14,445 13,02916,663 16,489 17,095 17,599 18,022 18,564 19,364Pacific Southwest:Removals 542 271 178 145 34 105 145 152 163 209 245 262Harvest 468 230 163 136 35 59 164 169 183 245 288 311Net annual growth 178 192 211 197 238 205 270 226 207 203 207 203Inventory 15,256 12,9009,608 9,337 9,931 8,679 9,717 10,696 11,078 11,307 10,958 10,412Pacific Northwest West:bRemovals 302 201 259 200 203 377 305 322 369 408 490 525Harvest 317 207 245 195 232 427 298 332 378 418 500 535Net annual growth 265 308 358 340 409 411 404 385 432 511 541 475Inventory 9,5109,520 10,304 8,458 10,171 11,145 10,336 10,057 10,858 12,199 13,000 12,604244Table 44—Softwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–97, withprojections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetPacific Northwest East:bRemovals 103 68 49 65 70 108183 99 126 154 181 201Harvest 100 67 48 60 65 61 198 106 134 162 190 210Net annual growth 109 136 148 121 122 164 217 187 191 191 191 193Inventory 4,4954,319 4,725 4,604 3,896 7,322 7,321 9,147 9,958 10,492 10,810 10,848Alaska:cRemovals (d) (d) 4 2 61 133 123 58 29 29 29 29Harvest (d) (d) 5 2 54 123 93 60 30 30 30 30Net annual growth 1 2 2 3 21 19 11 11 11 11 11 11Inventory 218 283 323 6637,103 6,646 5,987 4,951 4,626 4,446 4,266 4,086United States:Removals 3,541 3,007 3,270 3,543 4,230 4,453 5,249 4,640 4,806 5,134 5,971 6,807Harvest 3,3622,836 3,179 3,403 4,102 4,291 5,188 4,742 4,949 5,334 6,214 7,057Net annual growth 3,468 4,325 5,232 5,893 5,214 4,906 5,532 5,812 5,934 6,244 6,378 6,130Inventory 94,729104,245 115,121 125,292 136,590 143,360 144,163 153,624 164,265 174,852 182,595 178,823Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of the harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumptionshown in some tables For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aData for the Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains region for the historical period. For projections, western SouthDakota is in the Rocky Mountains region,eastern South Dakota and other Great Plains States are in the North-Central region.bPacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific NorthwestEast (eastern Oregon and easternWashington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.cThe increase in NIPF removals, harvest, growth, and inventory data in Alaska after 1986 was the result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that enabled Nativecorporations to select about 500,000 acres of land from the Tongass National Forest.dLess than 0.5 million cubic feet.Source: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data Smith et al. 2001.245Table 45—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–97, withprojections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNortheast:Removals 424 503 591 623 630 472 643 784 895 932 981 1,053Harvest 404 438 448 4621,241 1,315 999 1,016 1,323 1,578 1,746 1,883Net annual growth 1,018 1,296 1,465 1,491 1,620 1,857 1,767 1,485 1,483 1,476 1,443 1,394Inventory 32,669 39,863 44,75149,457 58,505 66,086 67,680 80,263 86,094 90,559 93,828 96,395North Central:aRemovals 629 661 797 793 932 875 857 826 890 912 950 973Harvest 751 685 738 7371,326 1,542 1,079 1,253 1,262 1,312 1,376 1,480Net annual growth 961 980 1,084 1,137 1,377 1,288 1,525 1,651 1,630 1,577 1,513 1,441Inventory 24,385 29,009 31,82135,636 42,884 48,881 53,655 66,700 73,478 79,288 84,098 87,761Southeast:Removals 817 861 843 801 1,096 1,049 1,138 1,526 1,665 1,738 1,703 1,678Harvest 617 523 566 5861,043 1,053 1,035 1,457 1,580 1,600 1,547 1,507Net annual growth 1,020 1,175 1,439 1,715 1,633 1,526 1,559 1,539 1,455 1,459 1,471 1,492Inventory 32,316 36,288 40,58346,478 51,487 52,594 54,432 55,250 53,637 50,860 48,159 46,007South Central:Removals 1,396 1,313 1,012 948 1,208 1,143 1,633 2,065 2,337 2,446 2,517 2,537Harvest 937 730 848 7131,212 1,171 1,535 2,322 2,420 2,487 2,550 2,592Net annual growth 1,424 1,459 1,845 2,117 1,800 2,116 2,239 2,212 2,153 2,123 2,160 2,171Inventory 37,669 39,691 42,24345,836 53,471 59,684 60,699 62,795 62,426 59,465 56,139 52,562Rocky Mountains:bRemovals 27 18 18 17 7 19 20 38 41 44 47 48Harvest1 1 1 1 17 9 29 83 89 94 100 103Net annual growth 46 51 57 60 84 102 284 49 42 41 41 42Inventory 2,2512,412 2,600 2,720 3,462 4,245 4,971 2,942 2,907 2,838 2,751 2,657Pacific Southwest:Removals 4 7 108 1 3 2 31 26 22 19 17Harvest2 4 7 7 8 32 14 61 59 58 58 58Net annual growth 29 30 40 36 95 84 80 93 89 83 78 72Inventory 998 1,0501,562 1,598 3,352 2,992 4,208 5,068 5,646 6,226 6,599 6,914Pacific Northwest:Removals 8 29 22 47 7 30 46 141 126 113 101 94Harvest 6 24 16 37 9 95 51 189 168 149 133 124Net annual growth 99 131 156 148 189 163 150 165 170 173 162 163Inventory 3,1973,972 4,711 3,807 5,201 5,350 5,185 5,576 5,876 6,378 6,915 7,560246Table 45—Hardwood removals, harvest, growth, and inventory on nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) timberlands, 1952–97, withprojections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem 1952 1962 1970 19761986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetAlaska:cRemovals (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)33 33333Harvest (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)33 33333Net annual growth (d) (d) (d) (d) 38 38 21 43 50 58 68 79Inventory 39 82 102 121 2,312 2,3121,040 1,415 1,850 2,360 2,960 3,665United States:Removals 3,305 3,392 3,293 3,237 3,881 3,594 4,341 5,413 5,983 6,211 6,322 6,403Harvest 2,7182,405 2,624 2,543 4,856 5,249 4,663 6,385 6,904 7,281 7,511 7,750Net annual growth 4,597 5,122 6,086 6,704 6,836 7,174 7,625 7,237 7,072 6,990 6,936 6,852Inventory133,524 152,367 168,373 185,653 220,674 242,144 251,870 280,009 291,913 297,974 301,449 303,521Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of the harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumptionshown in some tables. For the projectionyears, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and1962 are as of December 31. Inventorydata for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1997 are as of January 1 of following year.aData for the Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains region for the historical period. For projections, western SouthDakota is in the Rocky Mountains region,eastern South Dakota and other Great Plains States are in the North-Central region.b1997 increase in growth data is due to changes in Rocky Mountain inventory procedures.cThe increase in NIPF removals, harvest, growth, and inventory data in Alaska after 1986 was the result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that enabled Nativecorporations to select about 500,000 acres of land from the Tongass National Forest.dLess than 0.5 million cubic feet.Source: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data Smith et al. 2001.247Billion square feet (3/8-inch basis)1962 9.5 9.5 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 9.5 9.5 (b)1970 14.2 14.2 (b) (b) (b) (b) 0.1 0.1 (b) 14.3 14.3 (b)1976 17.8 17.7 0.1 (b) (b) (b) .7 .7 (b) 18.5 18.4 0.11986 25.7 21.6 4.2 0.8 0.1 0.7 .6 .6 (b) 25.6 22.0 3.51996 31.6 18.0 13.6 4.5 .1 4.4 1.4 1.2 .2 28.5 19.2 9.31998 34.8 17.2 17.6 6.7 .2 6.5 .9 .8 .1 29.0 17.8 11.22010 36.9 11.5 25.5 10.3 .1 10.3 1.0 1.0 (b) 27.6 12.4 15.22020 39.5 10.3 29.3 10.7 .1 10.6 1.0 1.0 (b) 29.9 11.2 18.72030 40.9 9.9 31.0 10.4 .1 10.3 1.0 1.0 (b) 31.5 10.8 20.72040 44.9 9.9 35.0 11.0 .2 10.8 1.0 1.0 (b) 34.9 10.8 24.22050 50.8 9.9 40.9 13.2 .2 13.0 1.0 1.0 (b) 38.7 10.8 27.9Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.aIncludes production from both domestic and imported species.bLess than 50 million square feet.Table 46—Structural panel consumption, imports, exports, and production in the United States, 1962–98, with projections to 2050Year TotalSoftwoodplywoodOSB/waferboard Total Total TotalConsumptionProductionExportsImportsSoftwoodplywoodOSB/waferboardSoftwoodplywoodOSB/waferboardSoftwoodplywoodaOSB/waferboard248 Table 47—Structural panel production in the contiguous United States by region, 1962–96, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections Species group and region 1962 1970 1976 1986 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) Softwoods:

Northeast 0 0 0.1 0.6 1.0 2.7 3.8 4.5 5.2 6.2 North Central a 0 0 .1 1.7 3.0 4.0 4.8 5.3 6.0 7.2 Southeast 0 .9 1.7 3.5 6.2 7.2 7.3 7.6 8.8 9.4 South Central 0 2.4 5.1 8.7 12.2 9.6 10.7 11.0 11.7 12.5 Rocky Mountains .2 .9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 Pacific Northwest b

West c 8.0 8.7 8.8 8.6 3.8 1.7 .9 .8 .8 .8 East c .1 .6 .9 .9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Pacific Southwest d 1.2 .8 .6 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0

United States 9.5 14.3 18.5 25.6 28.5 27.6 29.9 31.5 34.9 38.7

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.

a The Great Plains are included in the North-Central region.
b Excludes Alaska.

c Pacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific Northwest East (eastern Oregon and eastern Washington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.
d Excludes Hawaii.249 Billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) 1962 8.0 2.4 3.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 ( b ) 0.1 ( b ) 1970 13.5 3.8 4.3 1.7 3.7 2.3 2.0 .1 .2 ( b ) 1976 17.0 3.4 4.5 2.3 6.9 2.7 2.4 .1 .2 0.1 1986 21.2 4.5 3.2 2.1 1 1.4 6.7 3.2 .5 .3 2.8 1990 17.6 3.0 3.3 1.7 9.5 3.0 1.6 .4 .2 .7 1997 21.7 3.6 3.3 1.5 13.4 4.8 2.0 .4 .4 1.9

2010 25.8 3.5 3.5 2.1 16.7 5.8 1.7 .4 .6 3.1 2020 26.8 3.2 3.3 2.2 18.1 6.2 1.7 .4 .6 3.5 2030 27.8 3.0 3.0 2.3 19.6 6.6 1.7 .5 .7 3.8 2040 29.4 2.7 2.7 2.4 21.6 7.1 1.7 .5 .7 4.2 2050 30.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 23.6 7.5 1.7 .5 .7 4.5 Year Total Hardwood plywood Insulating board Hardboard Particleboard a Consumption Table 48—Nonstructural panel consumption, imports, exports, and production in the United States by type, 1962–97, with projections to 2050

Total Hardwood plywood Insulating board Hardboard Particleboard a Imports

Billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) 1962 ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) 7.0 1.5 3.8 0.8 0.8 1970 0.2 0.1 0.1 ( b ) ( b ) 11.2 1.8 4.3 1.5 3.7 1976 .4 .1 .1 0.1 0.2 14.8 1.1 4.5 2.3 6.9 1986 .5 .1 .2 .1 .2 15.0 1.4 2.9 1.9 8.8 1990 1.3 .2 .2 .2 .7 15.9 1.5 3.2 1.7 9.5 1997 1.3 .3 .2 .4 .4 18.2 1.8 3.1 1.5 11.8

2010 1.7 .3 .3 .3 .8 21.7 2.1 3.4 1.8 14.4 2020 1.7 .3 .3 .3 .8 22.3 1.9 3.1 1.9 15.5 2030 1.8 .3 .3 .3 .8 22.9 1.6 2.8 1.9 16.6 2040 1.8 .4 .3 .3 .9 24.2 1.4 2.5 2.0 18.3 2050 1.9 .4 .3 .3 .9 25.3 1.1 2.2 2.1 20.0

Note: Data may not add to total because of rounding.

a Includes medium density fiberboard.
b Less than 50 million square feet. Source: Historical: McKeever 2002 from Ulrich 1989 and Howard 2001. Exports Production

Year Total Hardwood plywood Insulating board Hardboard Particleboard a Total Hardwood plywood Insulating board Hardboard Particleboard a250 Table 49—Private timberlands area by seral stages

Seral stage

Poles- Old Species and area Seedlings a saplings b Young c Mature d mature e Total

Hardwood: Thousand acres

North—

2000 11,095 29,946 36,476 28,759 616 106,891 2010 8,868 27,489 41,334 29,189 1,261 108,140 2020 7,358 27,715 32,877 37,908 1,587 107,445 2030 7,040 28,049 29,471 38,916 2,856 106,333 2040 6,489 23,601 27,184 43,880 3,574 104,728 2050 6,562 21,132 27,378 42,124 6,171 103,367

South—

2000 6,061 18,915 42,498 19,180 8,867 95,521 2010 4,944 19,423 35,764 18,221 12,026 90,379 2020 5,622 15,236 39,558 13,302 13,255 86,973 2030 6,298 18,201 38,811 8,461 12,955 84,726 2040 6,329 21,238 39,377 6,726 10,354 84,025 2050 6,117 23,031 40,795 6,030 8,010 83,982

West—

2000 461 1,571 1,837 3,308 81 7,259 2010 633 1,409 1,515 3,437 72 7,067 2020 562 1,527 1,095 3,666 117 6,966 2030 451 1,673 898 3,705 187 6,915 2040 474 1,680 795 3,617 327 6,893 2050 477 1,523 942 3,466 490 6,900

Softwood:

North—

2000 2,859 5,394 8,048 6,977 230 23,508 2010 3,525 2,692 9,238 6,604 311 22,371 2020 2,643 2,917 6,840 8,620 353 21,373 2030 2,099 3,566 5,593 8,394 548 20,200 2040 1,691 2,673 4,550 9,486 653 19,052 2050 1,750 2,118 4,118 9,133 1,102 18,222

South—

2000 12,102 25,294 31,641 14,548 901 84,487 2010 11,853 25,840 38,882 11,693 793 89,061 2020 10,602 23,147 45,067 12,045 967 91,828 2030 11,209 21,770 43,567 15,827 1,322 93,695 2040 11,325 22,179 39,450 18,928 1,818 93,701 2050 11,606 22,638 39,152 17,372 2,275 93,043251 Thousand acres West—

2000 6,407 9,299 10,689 12,149 2,581 41,124 2010 4,568 13,983 7,528 12,563 2,352 40,994 2020 3,478 16,050 6,493 11,386 3,450 40,856 2030 3,369 14,638 8,114 11,028 3,447 40,596 2040 3,266 11,579 12,074 8,748 4,893 40,559 2050 3,640 10,238 13,888 6,850 5,806 40,422

a Seedlings seral stage = age 5 all regions and fiber except North softwood, which includes 5 to 15.
b Poles and saplings seral stage = age 25 to 35 North softwood; 15 to 35 North hardwood; 10 to 15 South softwood; 10 to 20 South hardwood; 15 to 35 West hardwood and softwood.

c Young sawtimber seral stage = age 45 to 65 North; 20 to 35 South softwood; 25 to 55 South hardwood; 45 to 75 West softwood; 45 to 55 West hardwood.
d Mature sawtimber seral stage = age 75 to 135 North; 40 to 75 South softwood; 60 to 75 South hardwood; 85 to 135 West softwood; 65 to 135 West hardwood.

e Old mature sawtimber seral stage = age 145+ North; 80+ South; 145+ West. Table 49—Private timberlands area by seral stages (continued)

Seral stage

Poles- Old Species and area Seedlings a saplings b Young c Mature d mature e Total252 Table 50—National forest timberlands area by seral stages

Seral stage

Poles- Old Species and area Seedlings a saplings b Young c Mature d mature e Total

Softwood: Thousand acres

North—

2000 400 599 1,147 613 100 2,859 2010 261 571 1,151 778 98 2,859 2020 220 400 1,066 1,062 111 2,859 2030 197 263 889 1,372 139 2,859 2040 180 221 751 1,511 197 2,859 2050 167 199 558 1,691 245 2,859

South—

2000 382 716 1,787 2,726 301 5,912 2010 126 511 1,602 3,149 525 5,912 2020 142 268 1,516 3,061 925 5,912 2030 134 286 1,147 2,949 1,396 5,912 2040 118 259 961 2,767 1,807 5,912 2050 116 234 952 2,461 2,149 5,912

West—

2000 4,121 4,079 13,669 29,356 15,939 67,164 2010 428 7,148 9,598 30,792 19,198 67,164 2020 434 6,157 7,680 30,155 22,737 67,164 2030 515 5,063 6,917 26,965 27,704 67,164 2040 474 1,456 9,645 24,516 31,072 67,164 2050 508 1,501 9,080 20,343 35,732 67,164

Hardwood:

North—

2000 486 1,320 2,819 2,312 192 7,129 2010 224 1,452 1,918 3,315 221 7,129 2020 221 1,203 1,560 3,862 285 7,129 2030 197 938 1,367 4,259 369 7,129 2040 187 643 1,512 4,169 618 7,129 2050 173 609 1,273 4,236 837 7,129

South—

2000 205 326 1,843 1,457 1,308 5,139 2010 333 1,219 1,680 1,907 5,139 2020 883 1,491 2,765 5,139 2030 641 910 3,587 5,139 2040 426 457 4,256 5,139 2050 205 437 4,498 5,139253 Thousand acres West—

2000 362 414 432 2,857 386 4,451 2010 657 281 3,053 459 4,451 2020 515 261 3,081 593 4,451 2030 362 296 3,012 780 4,451 2040 516 2,612 1,323 4,451 2050 362 2,381 1,707 4,451

a Seedlings seral stage = age 5 all regions and fiber except North softwood which includes 5 to 15.
b Poles and saplings seral stage = age 25 to 35 North softwood; 15 to 35 North hardwood; 10 to 15 South softwood; 10 to 20 South hardwood; 15 to 35 W est hardwood and softwood.

c Young sawtimber seral stage = age 45 to 65 North; 20 to 35 South softwood; 25 to 55 South hardwood; 45 to 75 West softwood; 45 to 55 West hardwood.
d Mature sawtimber seral stage = age 75 to 135 North; 40 to 75 South softwood; 60 to 75 South hardwood; 85 to 135 West softwood; 65 to 135 West hardwood.

e Old mature sawtimber seral stage = age 145+ North; 80+ South; 145+ West. Table 50—National forest timberlands area by seral stages (continued)

Seral stage

Poles- Old Species and area Seedlings a saplings b Young c Mature d mature e Total254The 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, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.