United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS–168

The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: 

Summary Report

David N. Wear and John G. Greis

The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

Summary Report

David N. Wear and John G. Greis
The Authors:

David N. Wear, Project Leader, Forest Economics and 

Policy Research Work Unit, Southern Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709; and John G. Greis, Resource Analyst, State 

and Private Forestry, Southern Region, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL 32399.

October 2012

Southern Research Station

200 W. T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov
The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

Summary Report

David N. Wear and John G. Greis

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

The Forest Landscape of the Southern United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Key Findings of the Southern Forest Futures Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Overview of Chapters from the Technical Report of the Southern Forest Futures Project

Contents
vi

Figure 1—The 13 State regions evaluated by the Southern Forest Futures Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Figure 2—Proportional changes in some key variables affecting the forests of the Southern United States, 

from a base year of 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 3—The three phases of the Southern Forest Futures Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Figure 4—Subregions and sections for analysis in the Southern Forest Futures Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Figure 5—Schematic of the U.S. Forest Assessment System (Wear and others, in press). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 6—The six Cornerstone Futures defined by permutations of two 2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

Assessment/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change storylines (USDA Forest Service 2012) and two timber 

price futures (see chapter 2 of the technical report of the Southern Forest Futures Project); and then extended 

by evaluating increased and decreased forest planting rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 7—Proportion of counties in forestland use, based on land use data from the 1997 National Resource Inventory 

(USDA 2009; see also chapter 4 of the technical report of the Southern Forest Futures Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Figure 8—Forest area by broad forest management type in the Southern United States, 2010. “Mixed” refers to the 

oak-pine forest management type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 9—Distribution of forests in the Southern United States by broad forest management types, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 10—Roundwood production in the Southern United States, all products, 1953–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 11—Timber harvest in the United States by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 12—Historical trends in forest area by broad management type, 1952–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 13—Trends in standing biomass measured as volume of growing stock inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 14—County-level counts of native terrestrial vertebrate species in the Southern United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 15—County-level counts for terrestrial vertebrate species of conservation concern in the Southern United States . . . . 15

Figure 16—Number of species of conservation concern (the sum of vulnerable, imperiled, and critically imperiled species) 

in the Southern United States for (A) terrestrial vertebrates and (B) vascular plants. Source: NatureServe 2011 . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 17—Percentage of forested survey plots in which one to four nonnative invasive plant species were reported in the 

Mid-South, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Coastal Plain, Appalachian-Cumberland highlands, and Piedmont . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 18—Water supply stress index (defined by the Water Supply Stress Index or WaSSI and calculated by 

ividing water supply into water demand) under baseline (1995–2005) conditions. Darker colors indicate higher 

levels of stress (see chapter 13 of the technical report of the Southern Forest Futures Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 19—Projections of population in the Southern United States for Cornerstone Futures A and B and 

Cornerstone Futures C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 20—Projection of population change (change in people per square mile) for Cornerstone Futures A and B; 

counties in green have forecasted population losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Figures
vii

Figure 21—Predicted annual air temperature (2010, 2020, 2040, 2060, and 2090) for the Southern United States as 

forecasted by four Cornerstones Futures (A–D), each of which represents a general circulation model paired with 

one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use, 

and B2 representing moderate growth and use. Source: IPCC 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 22—Predicted annual precipitation (2010, 2020, 2040, 2060, and 2090) for the Southern United States as 

forecasted by four Cornerstones Futures (A through D), each of which represents a general circulation model paired with 

one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use, 

and B2 representing moderate growth and use. Source: IPCC 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 23—Change in precipitation (percent) from 2010 to 2050 by Cornerstone Future (A through D); 

Cornerstone Future E has the same climate as A and Cornerstone Future F has the same climate as D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 24—Forecasts of timber harvest quantities assuming constant demand for timber and land uses/economic 

growth associated with Cornerstone Futures A (high population/income growth with increasing timber prices) 

and B (high population/income growth with decreasing timber prices) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 25—Percent of survey plots within a county occupied by one to four invasive plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 26—Forecasted change in the proportion of counties in urban land use for Cornerstone Futures A and B 

(high population/income growth) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 27—Forecasted change in the proportion of counties in forest land use for Cornerstone Future B 

(high population/income growth with decreasing timber prices) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 28—Change in area of forest land uses for the South from 1997 to 2060 under four Cornerstone Futures: 

(A) large urbanization gains with increasing timber prices, (B) large urbanization gains with decreasing timber prices, 

(C) moderate urbanization gains with increasing timber prices, and (D) moderate urbanization gains with decreasing 

timber prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 29—Change in forest area by southern subregion from1997 to 2060, expressed in percent, based on an 

expectation of large urbanization gains with decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 30—Total forest carbon stock (million tons of carbon), 2010–60, by Cornerstone Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 31—Roundwood harvests in the Southern United States by product, 1952–2006, various years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure32—Real stumpage prices in the Southern United States by product, 1977–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 33—Forecasts of standing timber harvest quantities and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming a constant 

timber demand and Cornerstone A economic scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure34—Forecasts of timber production and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming an expanding timber 

demand and Cornerstone A economic scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 35—Forecasts of timber production and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming an expanding timber 

demand and productivity growth supply scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 36—Total forest biomass measured as growing stock volume (million cubic feet) for the Southern United States, 

2010–60, by Cornerstone Futures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

List of Figures
viii

Figure 37—Woody biomass demand for energy in the South under low-, medium-, and high-consumption scenarios; 

with demand from traditional forest industry and availability from urban wood waste, 2010–50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 38—Forecasted forest area by forest management type, 2010–60, for (A) Cornerstone E, which is characterized 

by high urbanization, high timber prices, and higher planting rates; and (B) Cornerstone F, which is characterized by 

low urbanization, low timber prices, and lower planting rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 39—Projected increases (shown as percentage of change) in urban cover in three major river basins of the 

Southern United States from 1997 to 2060 under Cornerstone Future A (high population/income growth with 

increasing timber prices) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 40—Average monthly water supply stress (defined by the Water Supply Stress Index or WaSSI and calculated 

by dividing water supply into water demand) among all Natural Resource Conservation Service Watershed Boundary 

Dataset Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds (HUCs) in the South under historic and four future climate scenarios . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 41—Projected average river flows among the 674 Natural Resources Conservation Service Watershed Boundary 

Dataset 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds (HUCs) in the Southern United States South under four future 

climate scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 42—Percent change in water supply stress due to climate change (defined by the Water Supply Stress Index 

(WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water supply into water demand) by 2050 under four Cornerstone Futures . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 43—Probable spread of laurel wilt disease (Raffaelea lauricola) from 2006 to 2040, based on the current rate of 

spread and known distribution of the redbay (Persea bourbonis) host (Koch and Smith 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 44—County-level distribution of established hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) (Adelges tsugae) populations, 

as reported by State forest health officials in 2009; populations are not distributed evenly in infested counties . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 45—Predicted climatic suitability for establishing sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) in the conterminous 

United States based on an ecoclimatic index excluding environmental stresses (Venette and Cohen 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 46—Tallowtree (Triadica sebifera): potential for occupation into 2060 under (1) status quo assumption that current 

trends will continue; (2) maximal warming and drying conditions, Cornerstones A and E; (3) moderate warming and 

minimal drying conditions, Cornerstone C; (4) minimal warming with increased rainfall, Cornerstone B; and (5) cooling 

and drying conditions, Cornerstones D and F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 47—Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum): the actual current proportion of survey plots (line), 

(1) status quo assumption that current trends will continue; (2) maximal warming and drying conditions, 

Cornerstones A and E; (3) moderate warming and minimal drying conditions, Cornerstone C; (4) minimal 

warming with increased rainfall, Cornerstone B; and (5) cooling and drying conditions, Cornerstones D and F at high 

(agreement of both models) and moderate (predicted by one model) probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 48—Seasonal view of fire potential for current conditions for Cornerstone B. Brown (blue) areas depict areas 

with positive (negative) PDI. White areas reflect a PDI near zero indicating a balance between evapotranspiration and 

precipitation. Color intensity relates to the magnitude of departure from this balanced state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 49—Change in seasonal fire potential in 50 years for Cornerstone B. Brown areas depict areas with positive 

PDI. Blue areas depict areas with negative PDI. White areas reflect a PDI near zero indicating a balance between 

evapotranspiration and precipitation. Color intensity relates to the magnitude of departure from this balanced state . . . . . . . 38

Figure 50—Distribution of forest ownership in the Southern United States, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

List of Figures
ix

Figure 51—Percent of family forests by total area and number of owners in each of nine size classifications for the 

Southern United States, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 52—Corporate forest ownership for forest products industry (also known as vertically integrated timber products 

companies), timber investment management organizations (TIMO), real estate investment trusts (REIT), and other 

corporate in 1998, 2003, and 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 53—Decline in forest products industry ownership by State, 1998 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 54—County-level counts for Federal status vascular plant species in the Southern United States 

(NatureServe 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 55—County-level counts for Federal status terrestrial vertebrate species in the Southern United States 

(NatureServe 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 56—County-level counts for species of conservation concern by taxa in the Southern United States. 

(NatureServe 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 57—Growth in number of people and number of activity days in 60 outdoor recreation activities in the 

Southern United States, 2000–08. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 58—Acres per capita of Federal and State land area within a 75-mile recreation day trip of each U.S. county, 2008 . . . 48

List of Figures

Abstract

The Southern Forest Futures Project provides a science-based “futuring” 

analysis of the forests of the 13 States of the Southeastern United States. 

With findings organized in a set of scenarios and using a combination 

of computer models and science synthesis, the authors of the Southern 

Forest Futures Project examine a variety of possible futures that could 

shape forests and the many ecosystem services and values that forests 

provide. The science findings and modeling results could inform 

management and policy analysis of the South’s forests. In this summary 

report, the authors distill detailed results from the Southern Forest 

Futures Project technical report and provide a set of key findings and 

implications.

Keywords: Forest conservation, futuring, integrated assessment, 

Southern Forest Futures Project, sustainability.

Introduction

This report summarizes the findings of the Southern Forest 

Futures Project, also referred to in these pages as the Futures 

Project. The Southern Forest Futures Project is an effort 

to anticipate the future and analyze what the interaction of 

future changes might mean for the forests of the South and the 

services the forests provide in the region’s 13 States (fig. 1). 

We explore a labyrinth of driving factors, forest outcomes, 

and human implications to sketch how the landscape of the 

South might change. In this summary report, we consolidate 

the findings of 17 detailed analyses on specific forecasts and 

natural resource issues, and we synthesize them into a set of 

key findings; throughout this summary report, references to 

specific chapters guide the reader to more detailed information 

in the technical report (Wear and Greis, in press).1 A 

subsequent phase of this effort will be to develop management 

and restoration implications for the various forest types and 

subregions in the South.

Why might we want to spend several years sorting through 

the various facets of this complicated puzzle? The reasons are 

varied but they all revolve around one notion, that knowing 

more about how the future might unfold can improve 

decisions that have long-term consequences. Knowing 

more about future land use changes and timber markets can 

guide timber investment decisions. Knowing more about the 

intersection of anticipated urbanization, intensive forestry, 

and imperiled species can guide forest conservation policy 

and investments. And knowing more about the potential 

1 All chapters may be accessed on the Futures Project Web site: http://www.

srs.fs.fed.usda.gov/futures/

development of fiber markets can improve bioenergy policies. 

Consequently, our intended audiences are natural resource 

decision makers and professionals (managers and policy 

analysts) as well as members of the broader public who care 

about natural resource sustainability and policy.

This summary report starts with a description of southern 

forests and the forces acting upon them. A description of 

research methods and the assessment process is followed by 

descriptions of the following 10 key findings.

• The interaction of four primary factors will define the 

South’s future forests: population growth, climate change, 

timber markets, and invasive species.

• Urbanization is forecasted to result in forest losses, 

increased carbon emissions, and stress to other forest 

resources.

• Southern forests could sustain higher timber production 

levels, but demand is the limiting factor and demand growth 

is uncertain.

• Bioenergy futures could bring demands that are large 

enough to trigger changes in forest conditions, management, 

and markets.

• A combination of factors has the potential to decrease water 

availability and degrade quality; forest conservation and 

management can help to mitigate these effects.

•Invasive species create a great but uncertain potential for 

ecological changes and economic losses.

The Southern Forest Futures Project: Summary Report

David N. Wear and John G. Greis

Figure 1—The 13 State regions evaluated by the Southern Forest Futures 

Project.
2

• An extended fire season combined with obstacles to 

prescribed burning would increase wildland fire-related 

hazards.

• Private owners continue to control forest futures, but 

ownership patterns are becoming less stable.

• Threats to species of conservation concern are widespread 

but are especially concentrated in the Coastal Plain and the 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregions.

•Increasing populations would increase demand for forest 

based recreation while the availability of land to meet these 

needs is forecasted to decline.

These key findings summarize a number of potential futures 

for southern forests. To be clear, this is not an attempt to 

prescribe decisions or advice on how best to form policy in 

response to anticipated changes. Rather, the findings provide 

a foundation of information for others to evaluate management 

and policy alternatives in light of possible futures. Our 

ultimate measure of success will be the extent to which the 

findings are used for such analysis.

BACKGROUND

On a day-to-day basis, forests change less rapidly than most 

other aspects of the modern world. Trees live long lives, and 

harvesting or natural disturbances are relatively infrequent. 

Nevertheless, forests are diverse and dynamic. Today’s 

southern forests stand in sharp contrast to the landscape 

observed centuries ago by European settlers. The forests also 

differ substantially from the cutover forests that dominated 

the South at the start of the Great Depression. The forests 

even are structurally dissimilar to the forests of just 30 years 

ago. As these differences demonstrate, slow change does not 

necessarily equate to small change.

Southern forests are unique, exceptionally diverse, and 

nationally significant. They develop much more rapidly than 

forests in other regions, partly because of humid temperate 

and subtropical climates and partly because of the relatively 

fast growth rates of native tree species. Another factor is the 

southern forest products sector, which harvests a majority of the 

Nation’s fiber and has invested in forest growth, largely through 

relatively short-rotation pine plantations. Private corporations 

and families own and manage the vast majority of southern 

forests for a variety of products and services, with the result that 

landscape conditions can and do change, sometimes suddenly, 

in response to a variety of economic forces.

Several important socioeconomic changes continue to 

influence forest conditions and uses in the South (fig. 2). 

Recent population and economic growth has outstripped 

national growth rates, with the resulting urbanization steadily 

consuming forests and other rural lands. Changes in Federal 

public lands policies in the 1990s reduced timber harvesting 

from the western forests and increased demand for southern 

timber. Economic events at the turn of the century suddenly 

and irreversibly altered the commercial ownerships that 

controlled a large portion of the South’s forests and that had 

long been seen as semi-permanent but that now appear much 

less stable. Policy decisions at multiple scales could play an 

important role in determining the trajectory of forest changes 

by influencing markets and land management practices.

Other changes, some unprecedented, may also hold important 

implications for forests in the coming decades. Shifts in 

climate patterns and associated changes in precipitation and 

air temperature could change species ranges and productivity. 

Insects, diseases, and newly introduced nonnative plants 

could similarly restructure forest species composition with 

unclear implications for wildlife. Interactions between climate 

change and invasive species could amplify their individual 

impacts. Recent declines in forest product demand combine 

with potential new demand for bioenergy to make markets and 

forest values uncertain.

The impetus for the Southern Forest Futures Project comes from 

a desire to understand the implications of potential changes. 

An assessment of forest sustainability (Wear and Greis 2002a, 

2002b) had been completed in 2002, but the rapid pace of these 

various forces of change and the sudden emergence of new 

and complex natural resource issues called for a new study that 

could take advantage of recent science findings and forecasting 

methods to address the questions of the day. In December 

2007, the authors of this report were assigned leadership of the 

Southern Forest Futures Project, a collaborative venture between 

the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and the 

Southern Group of State Foresters.

Figure 2—Proportional changes in some key variables affecting the forests 

of the Southern United States, from a base year of 1970. Notes: From 1970 to 

2010, population grew by 88 percent and disposable personal income more 

than doubled. From 1970 to 2000, the volume of timber products more than 

doubled while the amount of forest biomass grew steadily and forest area 

declined slightly. 

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

1.5	
  

2	
  

2.5	
  

1970	
   1980	
   1990	
   2000	
   2010	
  

index	
  (1970=1.0)	
  

Popula0on	
   Personal	
  Income	
  

Timber	
  Produc0on	
   Forest	
  Biomass	
  

Forest	
  Area	
  
3

The Future of Southern Forests: An Ongoing Conversation

At least since the 1960s, trends in southern forest conditions and uses and the potential for change have been 

the focus of study and deliberation by natural resource professionals. The Southern Forest Futures Project 

represents the fourth broad scale assessment of southern forests in 5 decades. Each new assessment has 

addressed a broader complement of issues, and the time step between assessments has decreased, perhaps 

indicating an accelerated rate of change.

1969—The South’s Third Forest. Supported by the wood products industry and owners of large private forests, 

the Third Forest Report uses literature reviews and an evaluation of trends to examine the future of the South’s 

timber supply (Wheeler 1970). Its focus is on timber supply issues in light of increased demand for wood 

products and perceived underinvestment by private landowners. Concerned that timber scarcity could limit 

expansion of the forest products sector, the authors recommend policies to increase planting and management 

of private forests; protect forests from insects, diseases, and fires; and build stronger institutions to support 

forestry training, technology transfer, and forest research. They foresee the population-driven urbanization and 

the expansion in timber growing and timber production that was realized in the South between 1970 and 2000.

1988—The South’s Fourth Forest: Alternatives for the Future. Nearly 20 years after the Third Forest Report, 

the Forest Service authors ask some of the same questions about the future of timber-producing in the South 

(USDA Forest Service 1988). In the Fourth Forest Report, forecasts of increasing timber scarcity derive from 

a timber market model, and technical analysis focuses on potential investments by nonindustrial private forest 

owners. Findings anticipate the growth in timber production realized through the 1990s and highlight again the 

potential for programs and policies to encourage reforestation, management, and forest protection. Although a 

few pages are dedicated to the impacts of timber projections on wildlife and water, the emphasis is squarely on 

the future of timber management and production.

2002—The Southern Forest Resource Assessment. The growth in forest management and timber production in 

the South (largely anticipated by the Third and Fourth Forest Reports) coupled with the emergence of satellite 

chip mills in the late 1990s raised several questions about the sustainability of forests in the South (Wear 

and Greis 2002a and 2002b). An interagency effort led by the Forest Service and driven by a set of questions 

developed from public meetings conducted around the region, the Southern Forest Resource Assessment draws 

knowledge from the extensive literature and databases to address concerns ranging from imperiled terrestrial 

and aquatic species to wetlands; from outdoor recreation to the influence of policies, regulations, and laws on 

forest management; from air pollution to the future course of timber markets and land use changes. It identifies 

urbanization as a key threat to forest sustainability and raises additional concerns about the effects of multiple 

forces on wildlife habitats, water resources, and forest health. It also identifies several rare forest communities 

and highlights an increasing scarcity of recreational opportunities in parts of the South. 

Today—The Southern Forest Futures Project. Five years after completion of the Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment, new issues and questions about the future of forests in the South emerged from the natural 

resource community. Forest industry has largely divested its land holdings, science has provided new insights 

into potential future climates, and questions about water sustainability have intensified. To address these and 

other questions—again deriving from extensive public involvement—the Forest Service and the Southern 

Group of State Foresters commissioned the Southern Forest Futures Project. Where its predecessor relied 

mostly on literature reviews and stand-alone analyses of future impacts, the Futures Project focuses on 

forecasting the future under a variety of assumptions that integrate findings across multiple questions. The 

Futures Project builds from the knowledge foundation of former assessments, updates some topical areas, and 

lays out a range of futures for consideration by policy makers and forest managers.
4

Designing the Futures Project

Design of the Southern Forest Futures Project started 

with defining a set of relevant questions and then defining 

a targeted and robust process for answering them. This 

process required enumerating the critical socioeconomic 

and biophysical changes affecting forests, defining the most 

important management and policy information needs, and 

addressing forecasts and questions at the most useful scale of 

analysis (chapter 1) (throughout the summary report, we refer 

to the findings from the companion technical report by chapter 

number). A series of public information gathering sessions 

addressed the first two issues: more than 600 participants with 

a wide array of backgrounds and perspectives at 14 meetings, 

with at least one meeting in each of the 13 states, contributed 

their input on what they saw as the important issues affecting 

forests and the key future uncertainties (Wear and others 

2009). These meetings shaped the thinking about alternative 

futures and led to the selection and definition of 10 metaissues (table 1), each of which describes an interrelated 

complex of questions about the future of forests in the South 

(e.g., the bioenergy meta-issue is constructed from a set of 

questions that address conversion technologies, impacts 

on sustainability, Federal and State policies, and economic 

impacts). Additional issues, undoubtedly important to many 

people in the region, nevertheless did not surface during 

the public meetings, e.g., aquatic ecosystems and their 

relationship to forest conditions. Furthermore, in this case 

and others, technical analysis in the 2002 assessment was 

considered up to date (Wear and Greis 2002a). 

The South, a discernible biological and socioeconomic region 

of the United States, contains a vast diversity of biota and 

socioeconomic settings within its boundaries. The meta-issues 

and forecasts of future conditions were analyzed at the broad 

regional level, with results broken down to finer grains of 

analysis, where feasible and appropriate. However, our broadscale approach was not appropriate for addressing the specific 

implications that these forecasts and issue analyses hold for 

forest management and restoration activities. These implications 

are best evaluated at a scale that more closely matches the 

different forest ecosystem types in the South (fig. 3). In the 

second phase of the Futures Project, separate efforts examine 

the management/restoration implications for five subregions 

of the South (fig. 4): the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, the 

Appalachian-Cumberland Highlands, the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley, and the Mid-South (which includes all of Texas and 

Oklahoma). Further spatial resolution is provided by breaking 

the subregions into a number of sections, and some issues are 

discussed at that scale as well.

The analytical centerpiece of the Futures Project is a set of 

forecasting models from the U.S. Forest Assessment System. 

Developed for the Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning 

Act (RPA) Assessment, the U.S. Forest Assessment System 

uses global projections of climate, technology, population, and 

economic variables to drive the simulation of changes in land 

uses, forest uses, and forest conditions at a very fine spatial 

scale, producing subregional and other fine scale analyses. 

Specific RPA scenarios define the variables that drive the 

forecasts, linking national economic and climate changes 

to the worldviews of international climate assessments. The 

Futures Project tiers directly to the 2010 RPA Assessment 

(USDA Forest Service, in press), developing more specific 

implications for the South within the context of the scientific 

literature for a subset of the RPA scenarios. 

Perhaps the only absolute truth about any forecast is that 

it will be an inaccurate description of future reality to one 

degree or another and that it is improbable that the best, i.e., 

the most accurate, forecast can be identified ahead of time. 

As a result, forecasters generally hedge their expectations of 

future conditions by including a range of plausible futures. 

That approach addresses an inherent shortcoming of thorough 

technical analysis: the risk of generating precise forecasts of 

the wrong future. 

We considered a large number of scenarios based on the 2010 

RPA Assessment analysis (USDA Forest Service 2012; USDA 

Forest Service, in press) and public input, and then narrowed 

the scenarios to a half dozen that capture the broad range of 

future conditions and address key meta-issues (chapter 2). 

We call these scenarios Cornerstone Futures, which describe 

six combinations of climate, economic, population, and 

forest products sector projections. Our assumption was 

that unfolding events will be captured by a future that is 

close to one of the Cornerstone Futures. The validity of this 

assumption, however, will only be revealed by the course of 

future events. Another benefit of evaluating a range of futures 

is determining which resource implications vary by scenario 

and which are invariant. 

DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ

^ƵďƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

DĞƚĂͲ/ƐƐƵĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

Figure 3—The three phases of the Southern Forest Futures Project.
5

Table 1. Outline of the Southern Forest Futures technical report (Wear and Greis, in press)

Chapter

Number Title Author(s)

1 Design of the Southern Forest Futures Project David N. Wear and John G. Greis 

2 Constructing alternative futures David N. Wear, Robert Huggett, and John G. Greis 

3 Climate change Steven McNulty, Jennifer Moore Meyers, Peter Caldwell, 

and Ge Sun

4 Forecasts of land uses David N. Wear

5 Forecasts of forest conditions Robert Huggett, David N. Wear, Ruhong Li, John Coulston, 

and Shan Liu

6 Forest ownership dynamics of southern forests Brett J. Butler and David N. Wear

7 Outdoor recreation in a shifting societal landscape H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz, and Shela H. Mou

8 Outdoor recreation in the South: 

Projections 2010 to 2060

J.M. Bowker, Ashley Askew, H. Ken Cordell, 

and John C. Bergstrom

9 Timber products markets David N. Wear, Jeffrey Prestemon, Robert Huggett, 

and Douglas Carter

10 Forest biomass-based energy Janaki R.R. Alavalapati, Pankaj Lal, Andres Susaeta, 

Robert C. Abt, and David N. Wear

11 Effect of taxes and financial incentives 

on family-owned forest land John L. Greene, Thomas J. Straka, and Tamara L. Cushing

12 Employment and income trends and projections 

for forest-based sectors in the U.S. South Karen L. Abt

13 Forests and water

Graeme Lockaby, Chelsea Nagy, James M. Vose, 

Chelcy R. Ford, Ge Sun, Steve McNulty, Pete Caldwell, 

Erika Cohen, and Jennifer Moore Meyers

14 Wildlife and forest communities Margaret Trani Griep and Beverly Collins

15

The invasion of southern forests by nonnative 

plants: current and future occupation with impacts, 

management strategies, and mitigation approaches 

James H. Miller, Dawn Lemke, and John Coulston

16 Insect and disease pests of southern forests Donald A. Duerr and Paul A. Mistretta

17 Fire John A. Stanturf and Scott L. Goodrick 
6

Mid-South

Coastal Plain

Piedmont

Coastal Plain

Appalachian-Cumberland

Mississippi 

AV

Middle Gulf western

Middle Gulf

eastern

High Plains Cross Timbers

Southern Gulf

Eastern

 Atlantic

Western Gulf

Florida

Peninsular

Interior Low 

Plateau

Holocene

 Deposits

Northern

 Atlantic

OzarkOuachita Highlands

West Texas Basin

 and Range

Blue Ridge

Central

Appalachian

Piedmont

Deltaic Plain

Southern

Appalachian

Piedmont

Cumberland Plateau and Mountain

Northern Ridge and Valley

Piedmont Ridge, 

Valley and Plateau

Southern Ridge and Valley

Figure 4—Subregions and sections for analysis in the Southern Forest Futures Project.
7

The U.S. Forest Assessment System

The U.S. Forest Assessment System is a set of computer models designed to forecast alternative futures for the Nation’s forests. 

As a forward-looking adjunct to the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program of the Forest Service, it was implemented 

by Forest Service research and development staff to take full advantage of the FIA’s newly established continuous inventory 

process; as additional inventory panels are completed, the panels can augment and improve the information content of these 

models. The FIA program provides nationwide monitoring through repeated inventories that provide consistency over time and 

a high level of detail. The U.S. Forest Assessment System accounts for changes driven by multiple vectors, including biological, 

physical, and human factors. Its models address the influence of changing climate, market-driven timber harvesting, and land 

use changes, along with changes resulting from the natural succession of forest conditions.

Figure 5 shows a general schematic of this modeling system. The first column describes the input of data beginning with 

internally consistent combinations of social, economic, and technology forecasts defined as scenarios. The scenarios are 

linked to various general circulation models (climate models) to provide climate forecasts consistent with each scenario. 

FIA data define the starting conditions for all forested plots. The second column provides a general picture of the modeling 

framework. Future forest conditions are driven by biological dynamics—such as growth and mortality—that are affected 

by climate factors. Models of forest dynamics were developed from matched FIA forest inventories in each State. The 

third column represents the interplay of human choices about allocations among land uses, disposal of forest land, timber 

harvesting, and forest management also affect changes in forests; these projections are consistent with the flow of forest 

products and land use changes. Effects on several other ecosystem services, including water and biodiversity, can also be 

derived from the forecasted changes in forest conditions and land uses (column 4). These and other modeling results are 

used to evaluate the various meta-issues of the Futures Project.

The U.S. Forest Assessment System uses an empirical approach wherever possible, thereby anchoring forecasts of future 

behavior on patterns observed in the past. For example, land use models describe urbanization relationships observed in the 

1990s; forecasts are consistent with the institutional arrangements of that specific historical period and would not reflect 

changes in policy affecting land use since the 1990s. Likewise, harvest choice models reflect historical behavior, although 

these models derive from more recent data.

tŽŽĚ

WƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

&ŽƌĞƐƚ

/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

>ĂŶĚhƐĞ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

tĂƚĞƌ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ

ƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

dĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ^ĞƌǀĞƌ

ůŝŵĂƚĞĂƚĂ

^ĞƌǀĞƌ

&ŽƌĞƐƚ

/ŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJĂƚĂ

^ĞƌǀĞƌ

h^&ŽƌĞƐƚ

WƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ

DŽĚĞů

&ŽƌĞƐƚLJŶĂŵŝĐƐ

DŽĚĞů

ůů>ĂŶĚhƐĞ

DŽĚĞů

tŝůĚůŝĨĞ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

ĂƌďŽŶ

WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ

^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ DŽĚĞůƐ &ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐŽĨĨŽƌĞƐƚ

ƵƐĞƐĂŶĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐŽĨ

ĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

Figure 5—Schematic of the U.S. Forest Assessment System (Wear and others, in press).
8

The Cornerstone Futures

The Southern Forest Futures Project developed six 

Cornerstone Futures (labeled A to F) to describe the factors 

likely to drive changes in southern forests. As the label 

indicates, we selected the Cornerstone Futures to represent 

the range of findings from a much broader set of possibilities 

based on a combination of county-level population/income 

and climate projections from the 2010 RPA Assessment, 

assumptions about future timber scarcity, and assumptions 

about tree planting rates (chapter 2). 

County-level forecasts of population and income, variables 

critical to the Cornerstone Futures, were projected in the 

2010 RPA Assessment within the context of two global 

perspectives on socioeconomic change (downscaled 

descriptions of demographic change and economic growth 

used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

to construct global forecasts of climate changes and their 

implications), the first yielding about a 40 percent growth 

in overall population from 2010 to 2060, and the second 

yielding a higher rate of 60 percent (USDA Forest Service 

2012). The projections vary by county, with the populations 

of some counties growing substantially and others shrinking.

Timber price futures either describe increasing or decreasing scarcity with an orderly progression of real prices: either 

increasing or decreasing in real terms at 1 percent per year from a base in 2005 through 2060. We also hold the real returns 

to agricultural land uses constant throughout the forecasts for all Cornerstone Futures (chapters 2 and 4). 

Each of the population/income projections embedded in these Cornerstone Futures is linked to a worldwide emissions 

storyline that drives alternative climate forecasts using various models. The 2010 RPA Assessment provides three climate 

projections driven by the population/economic projections and downscaled to the county level. Forecast variables include 

changes in temperature, precipitation, and derived potential evapotranspiration. We selected one climate forecast for each of 

the Cornerstone Futures in a way that incorporated a full range of climate projections. These are taken from three different 

downscaled climate models—MIROC, CSIRO, and Hadley—used by the 2010 RPA Assessment (chapters 2 and 3).

In figure 6, the six Cornerstone Futures are displayed in a diagram that emphasizes their key variables. Cornerstones A 

through D are defined by the matrix formed by intersecting low and high population and income forecasts with increasing 

and decreasing timber price futures as described above: 

Cornerstone A: High population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates

Cornerstone B: High population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates

Cornerstone C: Low population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates

Cornerstone D: Low population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates

These four Cornerstones use what we label baseline rates of tree planting following a harvest based on future planting 

forecasts derived from FIA-observed planting frequencies for harvested plots between the latest two surveys for each State 

and major forest type. Because this was a period of rapid expansion in planted pine, perhaps associated with displacement 

of harvesting from the Western United States, we set baseline rates at 50 percent of the observed frequencies. Cornerstones 

E and F depart from these four, with Cornerstone E augmenting planting rates by 50 percent for Cornerstone A, where 

economic growth is strong and timber markets are expanding; and Cornerstone F decreasing planting rates by 50 percent for 

Cornerstone D, where economic growth is reduced and timber markets are declining. Forecasts for the Cornerstone Futures 

provide the foundation for exploring the potential implications for the meta-issues explored by the Futures Project.

DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ

ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ

ŚŝŐŚŝŶĐŽŵĞ

ŐƌŽǁƚŚ;ƐƚŽƌLJůŝŶĞ

ϭͿ

>ŽǁƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ

ĂŶĚůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ

ŐƌŽǁƚŚ;ƐƚŽƌLJůŝŶĞ

ϮͿ

,ŝŐŚƚŝŵďĞƌƉƌŝĐĞƐ ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;D/ZK'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;^/ZK'DͿ

>ŽǁƚŝŵďĞƌƉƌŝĐĞƐ ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;^/ZK'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;,ĂĚůĞLJ'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ͕

ǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ

ƌĂƚĞƐͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ&

;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ͕

ǁŝƚŚůŽǁƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ

ƌĂƚĞƐͿ

Figure 6—The six Cornerstone Futures defined by permutations of two 

2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment/Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change storylines (USDA Forest Service 2012) and 

two timber price futures (see chapter 2 of the technical report of the 

Southern Forest Futures Project); and then extended by evaluating 

increased and decreased forest planting rates.
9

Forest -- 0 - .20

.21 - .40

.41 - .60

.61 - .80

.81 - 1.0

Figure 7—Proportion of counties in forestland use, based on land use data from the 1997 National Resource Inventory (USDA 2009; see also chapter 4 of the 

technical report of the Southern Forest Futures Project).

Forecasts provide practical insights only when they are 

examined in the light of specific issues and historical changes. 

The meta-issues provided specific questions to be addressed 

using the forecasts along with other available information. 

For some meta-issues, e.g., water (chapter 13) or fire (chapter 

17), additional models helped translate forest forecasts into 

specific implications for ecosystem services. For other metaissues, e.g., taxes (chapter 11) or ownership (chapter 6), a more 

qualitative approach linked the analysis of meta-issues to 

forecasts. But for each meta-issue, the analysis started with a 

thorough synthesis of historical trends, the current situation, 

and the scientific literature on the topic.

This summary report draws from the 17 chapters of the 

Southern Forest Futures Project technical report (Wear and 

Greis, in press) to isolate findings of most critical consequence 

for management and policy decision making. Each chapter 

provides its own assessment of key findings with respect to 

specific forecasts and the meta-issues, and each chapter has 

undergone a rigorous peer review. The findings described here 

offer a high-level synthesis of findings from multiple chapters 

of the technical report and attempt to draw out the potential 

causative links and the chains of impacts that the future might 

hold for the forests of the South.

THE FOREST LANDSCAPE OF THE

SOUTHERN UNITED STATES

The South, defined in this report as the 13 States from Texas 

to Virginia, is a heavily forested region with forest densities 

reaching more than 80 percent in several areas (fig. 7). 

The area of forest uses generally exceeds 40 percent of the 

landscape area with exceptions generally occurring outside 

the forest-grassland biome boundary in western Texas and 

Oklahoma and in areas where agricultural uses dominate—in 

particular, the Mississippi Valley, the lower half of Peninsular 

Florida, and parts of Kentucky and Tennessee. Otherwise, as 

shown in figure 7, urban uses substantially replace forest uses 

at the multi-county scale in only a few areas, including Atlanta 

and Charlotte, NC. Total forest area has been relatively stable 

since the 1970s, but this stability reflects offsetting trends: 

forests have been converted to urban uses at about the same 

rate that agricultural lands have been converted to forest uses.
10

Forest Types and Distribution

Southern forests are highly diverse, ranging from upland 

oak-hickory forests to lowland gum-cypress swamps, 

from naturally regenerated old growth pines to intensively 

managed pine plantations, and from high elevation sprucefir to coastal mangrove and live oak forests. Figure 8 

displays the distribution of four highly aggregated forest 

types across the region. Upland hardwoods dominate 

in areas north of the Piedmont and Coastal Plains from 

northern Alabama to Kentucky, in northern Arkansas, 

and throughout the western halves of Virginia and North 

Carolina. Pines dominate throughout the Coastal Plain 

from Virginia to Florida along the Atlantic Coast, and 

from Florida to Texas along the Gulf of Mexico. Lowland 

hardwoods are concentrated in the lower Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley and in the Okeefenokee and Great 

Dismal swamps but are widely distributed in ribbon-like 

configurations along the rivers of the Coastal Plain 

and Piedmont. 

Figure 8 also demonstrates the comingling of forest types, 

with upland hardwoods and pine types intermixed in a broad 

zone between the pine-dominated Coastal Plain and the 

hardwood-dominated mountains. Microclimate and other 

site conditions create a wide variety of growing conditions 

which in turn determine which of a wide variety of species 

assemblages will occupy any site. 

Hardwood types occupy 55 percent of southern forest land, 

and pines occupy 34 percent (fig. 9). The remaining 11 percent 

contains an oak-pine mixture that represents a blending of 

species often at early stages of stand development.

Forest Production and Products

Landowners have harvested timber from southern forests for 

more than 300 years since European settlement, and most 

forests have been harvested multiple times. When examining 

changes prior to the mid-19th century, it is difficult to separate 

the impact of land clearing by settlers from other commercial 

harvesting in the region (Williams 1989). Although export 

markets were active throughout the United States (and in 

the South, especially for naval stores), land clearing and 

local consumption of cleared material likely dominated. 

Commercial harvesting to support settlements in less forested 

areas—such as the prairie areas of the Midwest and the urban 

centers throughout the Nation—and export markets grew 

rapidly beginning in the second half of the 19th century. 

Large-scale commercial harvesting in the South commenced 

in the 1880s as the timber inventories of the Lake States 

declined, and peaked in the 1920s (Williams 1989).

The South’s timber harvesting expanded faster than the Nation’s 

from the 1950s to 1990s (fig. 10), more than doubling as new 

technologies developed, national policies changed, and private 

Management type 2010

pine

mixed

upland hardwood

non-stocked

lowland hardwood

Figure 8—Forest area by broad forest management type in the Southern United States, 2010. “Mixed” refers to the oak-pine forest management type.
11

landowners invested in timber production (chapter 9). This 

expansion was fueled by a technology-driven shift toward 

outdoor use of treated southern pine lumber along with growth 

in paper manufacturing during the 1970s and 1980s, and 

sustained through the 1990s by harvest reductions from public 

lands in the West (chapter 9). New production technologies also 

shifted demand from larger to smaller diameter trees, with the 

shift from plywood to oriented strand board perhaps being the 

best example (chapter 9). The increased comparative advantage 

for southern forests, combined with declining western forest 

timber production shifted the region’s share of national timber 

production from 40 percent in 1952 to nearly 60 percent in 1996 

(figs. 10 and 11). U.S. timber production peaked in the late 1990s, 

after which a combination of factors leveled and then decreased 

total output through 2007—harvesting in 2007 was about 91 

percent of 1996 levels. Historic declines in the construction 

sector since 2008 have depressed timber production levels even 

further. Even so, since 1986, if the South were compared with 

any other country, none would produce more timber than this 

region of the United States. The wood-related sectors of the 

South’s economy contributed more than 1 million jobs and more 

than $51 billion of employee compensation in 2009 (chapter 12).

0	
  

2000	
  

4000	
  

6000	
  

8000	
  

10000	
  

12000	
  

1953	
   1958	
   1963	
   1968	
   1973	
   1978	
   1983	
   1988	
   1993	
   1998	
   2003	
   2008	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So.wood	
  saw3mber	
   So.wood	
  pulpwood	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
   Other	
  

Figure 10—Roundwood production in the Southern United States, all products, 1953–2008.Sources: USDA Forest Service timber product output reports 

as defined in Wear and others (2007).

Planted	
  	
  

pine;	
  	
  

0.19	
  

Natural	
  	
  

pine;	
  	
  

0.15	
  

Oak-­‐pine;	
  	
  

0.11	
  

Upland	
  	
  

hardwood;	
  	
  

0.39	
  

Lowland	
  	
  

hardwood;	
  	
  

0.16	
  

Figure 9—Distribution of forests in the Southern United States by broad forest management types, 2010.
12

Expanding demand for timber in the South encouraged forest 

landowners to increase their investments in timber production 

thereby expanding timber supply (chapter 5). The area of 

planted pine has grown strongly over the past 50 years, from 

nearly none in 1952 to about 39 million acres (or 19 percent 

of forests) by 2010, with a near doubling of planted pine 

acres from 1990 to 2010 alone (fig. 12). In the Coastal Plain, 

27 percent of forests are now classified as planted pine type. 

The area of planted pine continued to expand even after the 

market peaked in 1998 and harvesting began to decline. This 

expansion, combined with increased productivity from genetic 

and silvicultural improvements, means the forests of the South 

are positioned to produce even more timber than they did at 

the market peak. Although the planting of pines occurs to 

some extent throughout the region, the vast majority of pine 

plantations are located in the Coastal Plain.

The formation of public policies also has played a role in the 

development of the private timber investments in the South. 

Federal Government assistance to private landowners dates 

to the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, which fostered StateFederal cooperation in several areas of forest protection and 

management (Steen 1976). Since then, a variety of Federal 

and State programs have supported wildland fire protection 

programs as well as technical advice for landowners in 

conjunction with cost sharing for forest establishment, 

regeneration, and silvicultural treatments. Cost-share 

programs for planting, such as the Soil Bank and 

Conservation Reserve Programs, have motivated substantial 

afforestation on nonindustrial forest ownerships (Lee and 

others 1992). Fire protection represents perhaps the most 

visible and significant form of assistance, reducing the risk of 

catastrophic forest losses and thereby improving the odds of 

realizing a profitable return on investments. This type of risk 

mitigation undoubtedly encouraged tree planting and active 

forest management, and has played an important role in the 

expansion of forest production since the 1940s.

Not all policies encourage forest ownership and investment. 

Federal and State taxes reduce pre-tax values of familyowned forest land in the South. Property taxes can produce 

relative disadvantages to holding forest land and contribute to 

conversion of some forest land in States with higher property 

tax rates. Likewise, estate taxes can encourage forest land 

sales and timber harvesting to cover the cost of such taxes 

under some circumstances (chapter 11).

From the 1960s to the 1990s, the period when timber 

harvesting more than doubled, the biomass in southern 

forests also grew steadily, reflecting high growth rates 

(fig. 13). From the 1950s to 2010, growth exceeded total 

removals, increasing the hardwood biomass inventory by 

80 percent and the softwood biomass inventory by 60 percent 

(chapter 5). While growth still exceeds removals, the reservoir 

of southern biomass and the stores of carbon it represents have 

begun to level off.

Figure 11—Timber harvest in the United States by region. Source: USDA Forest Service timber product output reports as defined in Wear and others (2007).

0	
  

2000	
  

4000	
  

6000	
  

8000	
  

10000	
  

12000	
  

1952	
   1962	
   1976	
   1986	
   1991	
   1996	
   2002	
   2007	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

North	
  

South	
  

Pacific	
  

Rockies	
  
13

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

1950	
   1960	
   1970	
   1980	
   1990	
   2000	
   2010	
  

Million	
  acres	
  

Planted	
  pine	
   Natural	
  pine	
   Oak–pine	
   Upland	
  hardwood	
   Lowland	
  hardwood	
  

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

120	
  

140	
  

160	
  

180	
  

1963	
   1977	
   1987	
   1997	
   2007	
   2010	
  

Billion	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So-wood	
  

Hardwood	
  

Figure 12—Historical trends in forest area by broad management type, 1952–2010.

Figure 13—Trends in standing biomass measured as volume of growing stock inventory. Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis surveys as summarized 

by Smith and others (2001, 2004, 2009).
14

Forest Ecology and Services 

The diversity of forest settings in the South supports a diverse 

biota and contains 1,027 native terrestrial vertebrates (fig. 14): 

178 amphibians, 504 birds, 158 mammals, and 187 reptiles. 

Species richness is highest in the Mid-South (815) and Coastal 

Plain (691), reflecting both the large area of these subregions 

and the diversity of habitats within them (chapter 14). The 

geography of this diversity varies by taxa. Amphibians flourish 

in portions of the Piedmont and Appalachian-Cumberland 

highlands and across the Coastal Plain. Bird diversity is highest 

in the coastal and wetlands forests along the Atlantic Ocean 

and Gulf of Mexico, mammal diversity is highest in the MidSouth and Appalachian-Cumberland highlands, and reptile 

diversity is highest in forests farthest south. 

The long history of intensive land use has changed the habitat 

structure of many southern forests. The near elimination of 

once-dominant longleaf pine ecosystems was perhaps the 

greatest ecosystem alteration resulting from intensive forest 

management and land use conversion in the South. Because 

of losses in this and several other upland and wetland forest 

ecosystems, southern species considered to be of conservation 

concern now include 152 terrestrial vertebrates, 81 of which 

are federally listed; and more than 900 plants, 141 of which 

are federally listed (figs. 15 and 16). Species of conservation 

concern include those that have a Global Conservation Status 

Rank of “vulnerable (G3),” “imperiled (G2),” or “critically 

imperiled (G1)” as described in chapter 14. The proportion of 

these species at risk varies among taxonomic groups (fig. 16): 

45 percent of imperiled vertebrate species are amphibians, 

followed by reptiles (24 percent), mammals (16 percent), and 

birds (15 percent). The Coastal Plain (64) and Mid-South (55) 

lead in the numbers of imperiled vertebrate species (fig. 15), 

followed by the Appalachian-Cumberland highlands (31), 

Piedmont (29), and Mississippi Alluvial Valley (9).

The recent influx of nonnative invasive plants, insects, and 

diseases has been an unwelcome addition to southern forests. 

Of the most important invasive insects and diseases affecting 

southern forests, several have been established in the last 

10 years (chapter 16), e.g., emerald ash borer and laurel wilt 

have been introduced only recently and are spreading rapidly 

throughout the range of their host species. 

Of the 380-plus recognized nonnative plants in southern forests 

and grasslands, 53 are rated high-to-medium risk for natural 

communities (chapter 15). These plants often out-compete 

native species and alter species composition of forests, resulting 

in impacts to forest productivity, diversity, and wildlife habitat 

Number of Species

295 - 328

Boundaries

Subregions

0 50 100 200 300

Miles

States

Counties

329 - 362

363 - 396

397 - 430

431 - 467

Figure 14—County-level counts of native terrestrial vertebrate species in the Southern United States. Source: NatureServe 2011.
15

that can be exceedingly difficult to manage, especially when 

multiple species are involved. As a group, their distribution is 

southwide, though occurrence and concentration of individual 

species within subregions is variable (fig. 17). 

Strong population growth and associated urbanization has 

increased demand for water and challenged water availability 

in several areas, especially in the Piedmont, throughout Florida, 

and in much of Texas (fig. 18). Conversion of forests to urban 

and other land uses has resulted in a loss of natural buffering, 

increasing water pollution loads, elevating peak flows, and 

reducing base flows in affected watersheds. The consequences 

are more frequent and more severe flooding, lower stream flows 

during drought conditions, and water quality that is degraded—

sometimes to the point of threatening public health. Although 

the degree of adverse hydrologic responses to urbanization 

differs across subregions, the link between conversion of forest 

land to urban uses and degraded water quality in affected 

watersheds is well documented (chapter 13).

To recap, forests dominate much of the South’s landscape and 

play a critical role in the lives and livelihoods of the region’s 

populace. Forest types and the species they support are 

highly diverse, reflecting a range of biophysical conditions. 

The South leads the United States in timber production, 

and intensive management has expanded the productivity 

of its pine forests. Southern forests also provide a variety of 

ecosystem services including clean water, biodiversity, and 

carbon storage. Although timber inventory has increased 

over the past 2 decades as a result of management, there are 

indications that increases may have come at a cost to some 

ecosystem services. Diverse values and dynamic forest 

conditions combined with high uncertainty about the future 

give rise to the questions that have been the focus of the 

Southern Forest Futures Project.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE SOUTHERN 

FOREST FUTURES PROJECT

Each of the chapters that comprise the Southern Forest Futures 

Project technical report represents a full review of its respective 

topic and contains a list of key findings (Wear and Greis, in 

press). The 10 key findings presented here are not a compilation 

or ranking of those from the individual chapters. Instead they 

represent a synthesis, with each drawing from the Cornerstone 

Futures and an analysis of one or more of the meta-issue 

chapters to highlight the most important conclusions from the 

project as a whole.

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

0 50 100 200 300

Miles

States

Counties

1 - 3

4 - 6

7- 9

10 - 15

Figure 15—County-level counts for terrestrial vertebrate species of conservation concern in the Southern United States. Source: NatureServe 2011.
16

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
  

Amphibians	
  

Birds	
  

Mammals	
  

Rep:les	
  	
  

20	
  

5	
  

4	
  

3	
  

24	
  

2	
  

5	
  

14	
  

22	
  

11	
  

13	
  

19	
  

Number of Species 

 A. Terrestrial Vertebrates 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 

181 306 455 

Number of Species 

B. Vascular Plants 

Critically Imperiled (G1) Imperiled (G2) Vulnerable (G3) Figure 16—Number of species of conservation concern (the sum of vulnerable, imperiled, and critically imperiled species) in the 

Southern United States for (A) terrestrial vertebrates and (B) vascular plants. Source: NatureServe 2011.
17

Figure 18—Water supply stress index (defined by the Water Supply Stress Index or WaSSI and calculated by dividing water supply into water demand) under 

baseline (1995–2005) conditions. Darker colors indicate higher levels of stress (see chapter 13 of the technical report of the Southern Forest Futures Project).

<0.11

0.11 to 0.20

0.21 to 0.40

0.41 to 0.60

0.61 to 0.80

WaSSI

0.81 to 1.00

>1.00

Figure 17—Percentage of forested survey plots in which one to four nonnative invasive plant species were reported in the Mid-South, Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley, Coastal Plain, Appalachian-Cumberland highlands, and Piedmont. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis databases.
18

1. A combination of four primary factors will 

interact to reshape the South’s forests.

No single dominant force of change will affect the forests 

of the South. Rather, a combination of socioeconomic and 

biophysical factors will reshape the forests of the South, 

and their interaction may well amplify the direct effects. 

Forest futures will most strongly depend on combinations 

and interactions of the effects of four key factors: population 

growth, climate change, fiber markets, and invasive insect, 

disease, and plant species.

Population growth—By 2060, the South’s human 

population is forecasted to increase by 40–60 percent 

(fig. 19). Figure 20 shows population density forecasts for 

the South under Cornerstone Futures A and B (60 percent). 

The Piedmont, with the greatest population density in 2006, 

is forecasted to grow the most over the projection period. By 

2060, population density in the Coastal Plain would be as high 

as current densities in the Piedmont. However, several areas 

are forecasted to experience population declines—including 

parts of the High Plains in Texas and Oklahoma, much of the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley, and parts of southern Alabama 

and Mississippi—so population growth is accompanied by 

redistribution. This redistribution would focus growth in urban 

areas resulting in declines in forest cover, increases in demand 

for ecosystem services, and restrictions that complicate the 

ability to manage forests for the full spectrum of uses.

Figure 20—Projection of population change (change in people per square mile) for Cornerstone Futures A and B; counties in green have 

forecasted population losses.

0	
  

20,000	
  

40,000	
  

60,000	
  

80,000	
  

100,000	
  

120,000	
  

140,000	
  

160,000	
  

180,000	
  

2006	
   2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
  

Thousand	
  people	
  

A	
  

B	
  

C	
  

D	
  

Figure 19—Projections of population in the Southern United States for Cornerstone Futures A and B and Cornerstone Futures C and D.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2010. 
19

Climate change—Forecasts from the climate models used 

by the Cornerstone Futures consistently indicate a warmer 

future, with average annual temperatures increasing 2.5 to 

3.5 °C by 2060 (fig. 21). Precipitation forecasts are much 

more variable across the models, generally ranging between 

historical levels and levels that are somewhat lower with high 

spatial variability across the South (fig. 22). The regional 

averages are not as informative as forecasts for specific 

subregions (fig. 23); at the subregion level, there is a higher 

degree of uncertainty for some places like Florida and western 

Texas, but more consistency in others such as the drier 

conditions predicted for Arkansas and Oklahoma. Concerns 

about climate change over the next 50 years are focused on the 

margins of forest distributions in the South. In places where 

water availability is a limiting factor, fire and other forest 

disturbances may accelerate change in species composition 

and forest extent (chapters 5 and 17). More frequent and 

severe droughts coupled with increased demand from growing 

populations would stress water supply in parts of the region 

(chapter 13). Climate change could alter the spread of some 

invasives (chapters 15 and 16) and cause a rise in sea level, 

with associated impacts on coastal forests (chapter 13). 

Timber markets—The South contains the most intensively 

managed forests in the United States. Over the last 50 years 

timber production more than doubled and the area of planted 

pine grew from virtually nonexistent to 39 million acres, or 

about 19 percent of forests (chapter 9). Forest landowners have 

shown a strong propensity to convert naturally regenerated 

forests to planted pines after harvesting, especially in the 

Coastal Plain, an investment response that is strongly linked 

to the condition of forest product markets. For example, with 

a forecast of timber harvesting (fig. 24) driven by a return to 

2006 demand relationships, harvesting increases as a result 

of supply growth, which in turn is readily accommodated 

by the increased area of planted pine since the 1990s (the 

area of planted pine essentially doubled between 1990 and 

2010). Future timber markets could affect the forests of the 

South in two important ways. First, strong timber markets 

encourage retaining forests rather than converting them to 

700	
  

800	
  

900	
  

1000	
  

1100	
  

1200	
  

1300	
  

1400	
  

2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
   2070	
   2080	
   2090	
  

Average	
  annual	
  precipita/on	
  (mm)	
  

Cornerstone	
  A	
  (MIROC3.2	
  +	
  A1B)	
   Cornerstone	
  B	
  (CSIROMK3.5	
  +	
  A1B)	
  

Cornerstone	
  C	
  (CSIROMK2	
  +	
  B2)	
   Cornerstone	
  D	
  (HadCM3	
  +	
  B2)	
  

Figure 21—Predicted annual air temperature (2010, 2020, 2040, 2060, and 2090) for the Southern United States as forecasted by four Cornerstones Futures 

(A–D), each of which represents a general circulation model paired with one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing low-population/high-economic 

growth, high energy use, and B2 representing moderate growth and use. Source: IPCC 2007.

12	
  

14	
  

16	
  

18	
  

20	
  

22	
  

2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
   2070	
   2080	
   2090	
  

Average	
  annual	
  temperature	
  (C)	
  

Cornerstone	
  A	
  (MIROC3.2	
  +	
  A1B)	
   Cornerstone	
  B	
  (CSIROMK3.5	
  +	
  A1B)	
  

Cornerstone	
  C	
  (CSIROMK2	
  +	
  B2)	
   Cornerstone	
  D	
  (HadCM3	
  +	
  B2)	
  

Figure 22—Predicted annual precipitation (2010, 2020, 2040, 2060, and 2090) for the Southern United States as forecasted by four Cornerstones Futures 

(A through D), each of which represents a general circulation model paired with one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing low-population/higheconomic growth, high energy use, and B2 representing moderate growth and use. Source: IPCC 2007.
20

other land uses, so high timber prices can help delay or even 

reverse forest losses in areas where forest management is still 

feasible. Secondly, strong timber markets encourage continued 

investment in forest management, and forecasts suggest that 

the area of planted pine could increase from the current 

19 percent to between 24 and 36 percent by 2060. Strong 

growth in market demand could result from the emergence of 

markets for bioenergy, but appears less likely to emerge from 

markets for traditional forest products. As a result, timber 

market growth would likely be centered on small diameter 

pines with strong market interactions between paper and 

bioenergy industries (chapter 10).

Invasive species—New nonnative insects, diseases, and 

pest complexes are emerging across the South with significant 

implications expected for several tree species (chapter 16), 

such as hemlock (Tsuga spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.) 

and redbay (Persea borbonia). The rate of introduction 

and spread for several invasive plant species (chapter 

15) has accelerated over the past decade (fig. 25). Some 

species have almost immediate and acute impacts on stand 

composition, diversity, and productivity; an example is the 

quick spreading and fire-adapted cogongrass (Imperata 

cylindrical), which effectively precludes forest regeneration 

in affected forests. Other species, such as tree-of-heaven 

(Alianthus altissima), act on a slower time frame and only 

gradually displace native species. Either type—or in some 

cases, both types—of invasion of forested ecosystems can 

imply long-term changes in plant and animal assemblages, 

displacement of wildlife, and changes in forest productivity 

for various goods and services. Although additional invasion 

of southern forests by nonnatives is essentially certain, 

their rate of spread, extent of damage, and the ultimate 

implications for forest conditions make them the least certain 

of the factors affecting forests (chapter 15).

Interactions of factors—It is the combination and 

interaction of these four dominant forces that will shape 

the southern forests of the future. For this reason, it is 

important to evaluate their impacts in concert, e.g., through 

the integrated modeling approaches adopted for the Futures 

Project. Indeed, to evaluate one set of drivers in isolation from 

all the others would lead to incomplete and perhaps erroneous 

conclusions.

2. Urbanization is forecasted to result in 

forest losses, increased carbon emissions, 

and stress on other forest resources.

Land use forecasts for all Cornerstone Futures indicate a 

decrease in forest area, a qualitative change from the trends 

of the previous 30 years. Net forest losses reflect a shift in the 

complex of dynamics that have historically offset each other 

to yield little change in total forest area in the South. Looking 

to the future, strong urbanization rates continue in response 

A

Change in Percipitation

2010 – 50

MIROC32 A1B

B

Change in Percipitation

2010 – 50

CSIROMK35 A1B

C

Change in Percipitation

2010 – 50

CSIROMK2 B2

D

Change in Percipitation

2010 – 50

HADMC3 B2

Figure 23—Change in precipitation (percent) from 2010 to 2050 by 

Cornerstone Future (A through D); Cornerstone Future E has the same 

climate as A and Cornerstone Future F has the same climate as D.

n -24% – -21% n -20% – -11% n -10% – -1% n 0% – -9% 

n 10% – -19% n 20% – -29% n 30% – -51%
21

-­‐1000	
  

1000	
  

3000	
  

5000	
  

7000	
  

9000	
  

11000	
  

13000	
  

15000	
  

1977	
   1987	
   1996	
   2006	
   2015	
   2025	
   2035	
   2045	
   2055	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So/wood	
  saw4mber	
   So/wood	
  pulpwood	
   Hardwood	
  saw4mber	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
  

Figure 24—Forecasts of timber harvest quantities assuming constant demand for timber and land uses/economic growth associated with Cornerstone 

Futures A (high population/income growth with increasing timber prices) and B (high population/income growth with decreasing timber prices).

percent

0 – 4

Subregions

Counties

4.1 – 11

11.1 –20

20.1 –31

31.1 – 43

43.1 – 58

58.1 – 100

Figure 25—Percent of survey plots within a county occupied by one to four invasive plants. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and 

Analysis databases.
22

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03 

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Forest -

Figure 27—Forecasted change in the proportion of counties in forest land use for Cornerstone Future B (high population/income growth with decreasing 

timber prices).

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Urban -

Figure 26—Forecasted change in the proportion of counties in urban land use for Cornerstone Futures A and B (high population/income growth).
23

to growth in population numbers as well as in household 

income. However, transitions from agriculture to forest uses, 

which had offset losses from urbanization in the past, are not 

forecasted to continue. This dynamic depends on agricultural 

markets, however, and unanticipated declines in the returns 

to crop production could ameliorate forest losses by shifting 

urbanization more toward agricultural lands.

From the base year of 1997 to 2060, an additional 30 to 

43 million acres of southern rural lands are forecasted to 

be converted into urban uses (fig. 26). Total forest losses 

are forecasted to range from 11 million to 23 million acres, 

depending on the rate of population growth and the future of 

timber markets—low population growth with strong timber 

markets would yield the smallest losses (fig. 27). At 7–13 percent 

of current forest area, these losses would still equal nearly all 

the forests in Kentucky or South Carolina at the low end of the 

range, and nearly all the forests in Georgia or Alabama at the high 

end.

Because losses coincide with expanding urban centers, the 

heaviest forest losses would be in the Piedmont (as much as 

22 percent) and Peninsular Florida (more than 30 percent). 

Low rates of forest losses are also forecasted for many other 

areas of the South where forecasted population change is 

moderate but where urbanization responds to expected 

general gains in personal income. Empirical land use models 

indicate that land development rates are positively influenced 

by income—even without population growth, a region can 

experience some land development if income increases.

The impact of urbanization on forests goes beyond loss of 

forest area. The functional value of forests in providing 

wildlife habitat, for example, would decline through 

fragmentation and an increased presence of humans in forest 

settings (chapter 14). This comingling of urban and forest 

uses in the wildland-urban interface affects a number of other 

functional aspects—such as water quality protection (chapter 13) 

-­‐25,000	
  

-­‐20,000	
  

-­‐15,000	
  

-­‐10,000	
  

-­‐5,000	
  

0	
  

2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
  

Change	
  in	
  area	
  (thousand	
  acres)	
  

A	
  

B	
  

C	
  

D	
  

Figure 28—Change in area of forest land uses for the South from 1997 to 2060 under four Cornerstone Futures: (A) large urbanization gains with increasing 

timber prices, (B) large urbanization gains with decreasing timber prices, (C) moderate urbanization gains with increasing timber prices, and (D) moderate 

urbanization gains with decreasing timber prices.

Figure 29—Change in forest area by southern subregion from1997 to 2060, expressed in percent, based on an expectation of large urbanization gains with 

decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B).

-­‐0.25	
  

-­‐0.2	
  

-­‐0.15	
  

-­‐0.1	
  

-­‐0.05	
  

0	
  

2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
  

Change	
  in	
  area	
  (percent)	
  

Appalachian-­‐Cumberland	
   Coastal	
  Plain	
  

Mid-­‐South	
   Mississippi	
  Alluvial	
  Valley	
  
24

and carbon storage (chapter 5)—as well as the ability to use 

fire to manage forests for a range of goals (chapter 17).

These forecasts of forest losses (figs. 28 and 29) differ from the 

no-net-loss forecast reported in the 2002 assessment (Wear and 

Greis 2002b). Although the pattern of urbanization remains 

consistent—largely due to the importance of population 

forecasts in determining future urban development—the range 

of forecasts is somewhat narrower here, and our updated forecast 

for the longer time period anticipates a minimum 7 percent net 

loss over the next 50 years.

The loss of forest area provides only a small impact on timber 

markets, since urbanizing areas are not usually near areas that 

are intensively managed for timber. Loss of forest area does 

however, reduce the amount of carbon stored in forests. Under 

most futures considered, the carbon fixed in the South’s forests 

and their soils reaches a maximum between 2020 and 2030 

and then declines through 2060 (fig. 30). Futures with stronger 

timber markets yield somewhat more forest carbon but fail 

to completely offset the carbon losses dominated by land use 

changes. A decrease in forest carbon stocks represents a reversal 

of a long-term trend of carbon accumulation—according to 

Heath and others (2011), the stock of forest carbon in the United 

States increased by about 7 percent from 1990 to 2008. While 

not all losses of forest carbon are emitted to the atmosphere, the 

potential decline in forest carbon storage would be a challenge 

for carbon mitigation policies, presenting a dynamic baseline 

where a first-order policy objective might be to stabilize rather 

than expand forest carbon stocks. 

Figure 30—Total forest carbon stock (million tons of carbon), 2010–60, by Cornerstone Future.

Land Use Changes in the South, 

Findings from Chapter 4

• Between 30 million and 43 million acres of land in the 

South are forecasted to be developed into urban uses 

by 2060, from a base of 30 million acres in 1997.

• The South is forecasted to lose between 11 million and 

23 million acres (7 and 13 percent, respectively) of 

forests from 1997 to 2060. All subregions are expected 

to lose at least some acreage; nearly all of this area 

would be converted to urban uses.

• Strong timber markets can ameliorate forest losses 

somewhat, by shifting urbanization to agricultural 

lands.

• Among the five subregions of the South, the Piedmont 

is forecasted to lose the greatest proportion of its 

forest area, possibly as much as 21 percent by 2060. 

The Mid-South and Mississippi Alluvial Valley are 

forecasted to lose the least (between 8 and 9 percent).

• Among the 21 sections that make up the subregions of 

the South, Peninsular Florida is forecasted to lose the 

most forest land (34 percent). All sections within the 

Piedmont region are forecasted to lose at least 

19 percent.
25

3. Southern forests could sustain higher 

timber production levels, but demand is 

the limiting factor and demand growth is 

uncertain.

Market forecasts for wood products—coupled with land use, 

climate, and demographic changes—suggest that southern 

forests could satisfy growth in wood products demand, even 

the high rates of growth observed in the early 1990s. Moderate 

demand growth would apply little upward pressure on the 

prices for most southern timber products because of ongoing 

supply growth.

As softwood timber supply rose from 2000 to 2010, demand 

for timber products fell, leading to reduced production levels 

and prices (figs. 31 and 32). These supply gains had derived 

from investments in planted pine that continued long after 

demand for timber products peaked in 1998. Demand declined 

first in pulp and paper manufacturing as per capita U.S. 

consumption of paper products trended downward; demand 

for solid wood products remained strong through 2007 but 

then fell dramatically in 2008 with the unprecedented decline 

in the construction industry. In 2009, housing starts totaled 

only 554,000, compared to lows that had not fallen below a 

million units since 1959.

Forecast models show the sector able to meet substantial new 

demands with little upward pressure on prices (fig. 33). A 

return to the peak harvest levels of the late 1990s would not 

cause a return to the 1990s peak prices because of expanded 

forest inventories and supply (fig. 33). Productive capacity has 

expanded especially strongly in the southeastern Coastal Plain 

where most pine plantations are located. A substantial structural 

shift in demand, for example, caused by demands for forest 

bioenergy feedstocks, would be necessary to increase softwood 

prices to the historical highs of the late 1990s (figs. 34 and 35). In 

contrast, hardwood prices could rebound more quickly because 

direct investment in their production has not occurred and their 

inventories are forecasted to be reduced by land use changes.

The 2002 assessment (Wear and Greis 2002a) emphasized the 

orderly progression of timber markets in the region. Timber 

scarcity concerns dominated earlier assessments, and, indeed, 

scarcity was a consistent mantra of forest policy throughout 

most of the 20th century. But strong forest investment 

indicates that private forest investors have anticipated and 

responded to perceived scarcity in spite of the long maturation 

of such investments. To the extent that expectations about the 

future are correct, timber supply should continue to respond 

in ways that anticipate future demand. The recent history 

of strong expansionary investment coupled with sustained 

declines in demand indicates that private investors may 

have “overshot” in the past decade, raising questions about 

a potential for eventual disinvestment if additional demand 

growth does not materialize.

0	
  

2000	
  

4000	
  

6000	
  

8000	
  

10000	
  

12000	
  

1952	
   1957	
   1962	
   1967	
   1972	
   1977	
   1982	
   1987	
   1991	
   1996	
   2001	
   2006	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

H.	
  Other	
   H.	
  Fuelwood	
  

H.	
  Veneer	
   H.	
  Pulpwood	
  

H.	
  Sawlogs	
   S.	
  Other	
  

S.	
  Fuelwood	
   S.	
  Veneer	
  

S.	
  Pulpwood	
   S.	
  Sawlogs	
  

Figure 31—Roundwood harvests in the Southern United States by product, 

1952–2006, various years. Source: based on various USDA Forest Service 

timber product output reports as defined in Wear and others (2007). (H refers 

to hardwoods, and S refers to softwoods.)

0	
  

50	
  

100	
  

150	
  

200	
  

250	
  

300	
  

350	
  

400	
  

450	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

1970	
   1980	
   1990	
   2000	
   2010	
  

Pulpwood	
  prices	
  ($/cord)	
  

Saw$mber	
  price	
  ($/mbf)	
  

So.wood	
  pulpwood	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
  

So.wood	
  saw8mber	
   Hardwood	
  saw8mber	
  

Figure32—Real stumpage prices in the Southern United States by product, 

1977–2008. Source: Database of prices constructed from Timber Mart-South 

quarterly price reports (e.g., Timber Mart-South 2008) and deflated by the 

Consumer Price Index deflator.
26

-­‐1000	
  

1000	
  

3000	
  

5000	
  

7000	
  

9000	
  

11000	
  

13000	
  

15000	
  

1977	
   1987	
   1996	
   2006	
   2015	
   2025	
   2035	
   2045	
   2055	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So/wood	
  saw4mber	
   So/wood	
  pulpwood	
  

Hardwood	
  saw4mber	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
  

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 

$/mbf (softwood sawtimber) 

$/cord (pulpwood products) 

S Pulp H Pulp S Saw H Saw 

Figure 33—Forecasts of standing timber harvest quantities and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming a constant timber demand and Cornerstone A 

economic scenario.

-­‐1000	
  

1000	
  

3000	
  

5000	
  

7000	
  

9000	
  

11000	
  

13000	
  

15000	
  

1977	
   1987	
   1996	
   2006	
   2015	
   2025	
   2035	
   2045	
   2055	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So/wood	
  saw4mber	
   So/wood	
  pulpwood	
  

Hardwood	
  saw4mber	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
  

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 

$/cord (pulpwood products) 

$/mbf (sofwood sawtimber) 

S Pulp H Pulp S Saw H Saw 

Figure34—Forecasts of timber production and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming an expanding timber demand and Cornerstone A economic scenario.

-­‐1000	
  

1000	
  

3000	
  

5000	
  

7000	
  

9000	
  

11000	
  

13000	
  

15000	
  

1977	
   1987	
   1996	
   2006	
   2015	
   2025	
   2035	
   2045	
   2055	
  

Million	
  cubic	
  feet	
  

So/wood	
  saw4mber	
   So/wood	
  pulpwood	
  

Hardwood	
  saw4mber	
   Hardwood	
  pulpwood	
  

0	
  

50	
  

100	
  

150	
  

200	
  

250	
  

300	
  

350	
  

400	
  

450	
  

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

1960	
   1980	
   2000	
   2020	
   2040	
   2060	
  

$/cord	
  (pulpwood	
  products)	
  

$/mbf	
  (sofwood	
  saw-mber)	
  

S	
  Pulp	
   H	
  Pulp	
   S	
  Saw	
   H	
  Saw	
  

Figure 35—Forecasts of timber production and real timber prices (2009=100) assuming an expanding timber demand and productivity growth supply scenario.
27

The question of great relevance to an assessment that addresses 

multiple resource values is not solely how much harvesting 

will increase or decrease but where those changes are most 

likely to be concentrated. Forecasts of the Cornerstone Futures 

indicate that, consistent with history, increased harvesting is 

likely to be concentrated at the “intensive margin” rather than 

at the “extensive margin”, i.e., more intensive management 

and expansion would take place in the pine plantations of the 

southeastern Coastal Plain where production and production 

growth has been focused for decades. 

Even at high levels, timber harvesting is not forecast to 

substantially reduce total standing biomass in the region’s 

forests. High prices encourage more harvesting but 

simultaneously encourage retention of forest land uses on private 

lands and investment in reforestation and other management 

treatments (chapter 5). The historical accumulation of biomass 

in southern forests would, however, reach a zenith over the 

forecast period and begin to decline after about 2030 for several 

Cornerstone Futures (fig. 36). Under none of the forecasts would 

biomass decline below current levels.

Figure 36—Total forest biomass measured as growing stock volume (million 

cubic feet) for the Southern United States, 2010–60, by Cornerstone Futures.

Markets for Southern Timber Products, Findings from Chapter 9

• Although timber production in the South more than doubled from the 1960s to the late 1990s, output levels have 

declined over the last 10 years, signaling structural changes in timber markets.

• As demand receded, investment in softwood production continued to expand, leading to increased supply for softwoods, 

especially softwood pulpwood. The net result was a substantial reduction in softwood pulpwood prices.

• Forecasts of timber markets show an increasing supply of softwood timber, especially softwood pulpwood, as new 

plantations mature and additional plantations accumulate across the South; softwood pulpwood supply increases 

throughout the next 40 years, and softwood sawtimber supply increases over the next decade and then stabilizes.

• Forecasts of hardwood supply indicate a gradual contraction as urbanization shrinks inventories.

•If timber product demand remains at 2006 levels, total timber production is forecasted to increase by about 25 percent over 

the next 50 years, with a 50-percent price decrease for softwood pulpwood and little change in price for softwood sawtimber 

and hardwood pulpwood. 

•If timber product demand returns to the growth levels of the 1980s and 1990s, total timber production is forecasted to 

increase by about 40 percent over the next 50 years, with the greatest gains in softwood pulpwood output; softwood 

pulpwood prices would stabilize at 2006 levels, and softwood-sawtimber and hardwood-pulpwood prices would increase 

by slightly less than 1 percent per year. 

•If timber product demand increases and planted pine forests become more productive, total timber production is 

forecasted to increase by about 70 percent, with production of softwood pulpwood more than tripling; price stabilizes for 

softwood sawtimber, decreases less than 1 percent per year for softwood pulpwood, and increases less than 1 percent per 

year for hardwood pulpwood.

• Forecasts indicate that the region’s timber supply could expand if moderate rates of future forest investments are added 

to investments in forests made over the past 20 years. Forecasts for 2055 show that annual production of softwood 

pulpwood could increase beyond 2006 levels by an additional 2.4 billion to 3.7 billion cubic feet (36.6 million to 57.9 

million green tons) without substantial price effects.

• Without an expansion in timber demand, the private forest landowners would be expected to eventually experience a 

strong shift away from forest management as investment returns diminish to the point where continued investments 

could not be justified.
28

4. Bioenergy futures could bring demands 

that are large enough to trigger changes 

in forest conditions, management, and 

markets.

The most likely source of new demand growth for timber 

is bioenergy, depending on policy actions which are highly 

uncertain. Demand for paper products trended downward since 

the late 1990s and a precipitous decline in solid wood product 

demand followed the 2007 housing-related recession. Although 

our forecasts are long run and, therefore do not predict the 

timing of the wood products industry’s recovery from the 2007 

recession, a gradual return to solid wood product demand at 

levels comparable to long run averages is likely. 

Energy forecasts under various policy scenarios (chapter 10) 

show wood use for bioenergy starting with and then quickly 

exhausting harvest residuals and other available wood waste 

(fig. 37). As a result, bioenergy demand would lead to additional 

harvesting of raw material, especially softwood pulpwood. This 

new demand could offset and even exceed the declining demand 

for softwood pulpwood for pulp and paper manufacturing. The 

question of critical importance here is how the total demand for 

forest products would compare to historical levels.

Forest product market forecasts (chapter 9) indicate that 

markets could accommodate about a 40-percent expansion 

in harvesting by 2060 at current levels of forest productivity 

and a 70-percent expansion with moderate forest productivity 

growth assumptions. However, forecasts of wood use for 

bioenergy linked to U.S. Department of Energy projections 

suggests a 54- to 113-percent expansion of harvesting levels 

over current levels by 2050 (chapter 10). Especially at the 

higher levels, this would likely result in some structural 

changes for timber growing and wood utilization. 

By their nature, structural changes in a market are difficult 

to predict, mostly because they depend on myriad factors 

that influence choices by landowners and producers. Our 

forecasts indicate that bioenergy uses would strongly favor 

softwood pulpwood, and this would provide strong incentive 

for expanding the area of planted pine in the South (fig. 38). 

Under strong demand forecasts, planted pine could expand 

by as much as 28 million acres, from 39 million acres in 2010 

to about 67 million acres in 2060, or from 19 to 34 percent 

of the region’s forests (chapter 5), an expansion that mostly 

would come from conversions of natural pine forests after 

harvesting. Additionally, price incentives would likely lead 

to higher rates of productivity growth as landowners invest 

in more intensive management. Conservative estimates of 

growth potential indicate a capacity to substantially increase 

the total output of softwood products (chapters 9 and 10)—

enough to accommodate the bioenergy forecasts.

Other less certain structural changes also need to be considered. 

One is how energy producers would respond if timber scarcity 

increased, perhaps by turning away from wood and substituting 

switchgrass or other cellulosic feedstocks. Additionally, 

agricultural land could be converted to short-rotation woody 

crops using such species as cottonwood (Populus deltoides), 

non-native poplars (Populus spp.), eucalypts (Eucalyptus spp.), or 

other fast-growing species. 

A 54- to 113-percent increase in harvesting would lead 

to important changes in southern forests. Our analysis of 

bioenergy futures (chapter 10) indicates that satisfying 

the highest level of predicted potential demand for woody 

biomass would require a combination of plantation growth, 

productivity enhancement, and short rotation woody crops 

on agricultural lands. Harvesting and management at this 

level could accelerate wildlife-habitat losses (chapter 14) and 

exacerbate water stress (chapter 13). The focus on softwood 

pulpwood for bioenergy uses means that most of these 

harvests and their impacts would be concentrated in the 

Coastal Plain. The potential for structural changes and for 

changes in a variety of ecosystem services indicates needs for 

monitoring and careful management planning as this sector 

develops in the South (chapter 10).

The future of demand is not the only bioenergy uncertainty. 

Energy forecasts are based on uncertain price futures for fossil 

fuels, and they anticipate developments of new technologies 

even though the use of cellulose in transportation fuels is not 

yet commercially viable. In addition, many forecasts assume 

the extension of current policy and the implementation of 

future policy, clearly an unknown trajectory.

Figure 37—Woody biomass demand for energy in the South under low-, 

medium-, and high-consumption scenarios; with demand from traditional 

forest industry and availability from urban wood waste, 2010–50.

0	
  

50	
  

100	
  

150	
  

200	
  

250	
  

300	
  

350	
  

2010	
  2012	
  2014	
  2016	
  2018	
  2020	
  2022	
  2024	
  2026	
  2028	
  2030	
  2032	
  2034	
  2036	
  2038	
  2040	
  2042	
  2044	
  2046	
  2048	
  2050	
  

Million	
  green	
  tons	
  

Year	
  

Low-­‐consump4on	
  scenario	
   Medium-­‐consump4on	
  scenario	
  

High-­‐consump4on	
  scenario	
   Urban	
  wood	
  waste	
  

Forest	
  	
  product	
  industry	
  
29

Bioenergy Markets, Findings from Chapter 10

• Harvesting woody biomass for use as bioenergy is forecasted to range from 170 million to 336 million green tons by 2050, an 

increase of 54 to 113 percent over current levels.

• Consumption forecasts for forest biomass-based energy, which are based on Energy Information Administration 

projections, have a high level of uncertainty given the interplay between public policies and the supply and investment 

decisions of forest landowners.

•It is unlikely that the biomass requirement for energy would be met through harvest residues and urban wood waste alone. 

As consumption increases, harvested timber (especially pine pulpwood) would quickly become the preferred feedstock. 

• The emergence of a new woody biomass based energy market would potentially lead to price increases for merchantable 

timber, resulting in increased returns for forest landowners.

• While woody biomass harvest is expected to increase with higher prices, forest inventories would not necessarily decline 

because of increased plantations of fast growing species, afforestation of agricultural or pasturelands, and intensive 

management of forest land. 

• Because it would allow more output per acre of forest land and dampen potential price increases, forest productivity is a 

key variable in market futures. 

• The impacts that increased use of woody biomass for energy would have on the forest products industry could be 

mitigated by improved productivity through forest management and/or by increased output from currently unmanaged 

forests. 

• Price volatility associated with increased use of woody biomass for energy is expected to be higher for pulpwood than for 

sawtimber.

• The impacts of wood based energy markets tend to be lower for sawtimber industries, although markets for all products 

would be affected at the highest levels of projected demand.

• Different types of wood based energy conversion technologies occupy different places on the cost feasibility spectrum. 

Combined heat and power, co-firing for electricity, and pellet technologies are commercially viable and have good 

prospects in the future. Biochemical and thermochemical technologies used to produce liquid fuels from woody biomass 

are not yet commercially viable.

• Current research does not suggest which woody species and what traits would likely be most successful for energy 

production. The future of conversion technologies is uncertain.

•In the absence of government support, research, pilot projects, and incentives for production and commercialization of 

woody bioenergy markets are unlikely to develop. 

• Forecasted levels of woody biomass harvests could lead to a reduction of stand productivity, deterioration of biodiversity, 

depletion of soil fertility, and a decline in water quality. 

• Although research provides some guidelines for the design of management to protect various forest ecosystem services, 

forest sustainability benchmarks for bioenergy are not well defined and existing certification systems have few relevant 

standards.

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

1950	
   1970	
   1990	
   2010	
   2030	
   2050	
  

Planted	
  pine	
   Natural	
  pine	
   Oak–pine	
  

Upland	
  hardwood	
   Lowland	
  hardwood	
  

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

1950	
   1970	
   1990	
   2010	
   2030	
   2050	
  

Planted	
  pine	
   Natural	
  pine	
   Oak–pine	
  

Upland	
  hardwood	
   Lowland	
  hardwood	
  

Figure 38—Forecasted forest area by forest management type, 2010–60, for (A) Cornerstone E, which is characterized by high urbanization, high timber prices, 

and higher planting rates; and (B) Cornerstone F, which is characterized by low urbanization, low timber prices, and lower planting rates.

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

1950	
   1970	
   1990	
   2010	
   2030	
   2050	
  

Planted	
  pine	
   Natural	
  pine	
   Oak–pine	
  

Upland	
  hardwood	
   Lowland	
  hardwood	
  

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

1950	
   1970	
   1990	
   2010	
   2030	
   2050	
  

Planted	
  pine	
   Natural	
  pine	
   Oak–pine	
  

Upland	
  hardwood	
   Lowland	
  hardwood	
  
30

5. A combination of factors has the 

potential to decrease water availability and 

degrade quality. Forest conservation and 

management can help to mitigate these 

effects.

The interacting effects of climate change, population 

growth, intensive forest management practices, and 

land use change are expected to increase water stress in 

several areas of the South. Increases in water demand 

from expanding populations and decreased supply coupled 

with changes in land use and climate could result in more 

frequent water shortages and degraded water quality in 

affected watersheds. Certain elements of our forecasts 

are uncertain, especially future precipitation, but the full 

range of forecasts raises concerns about water in the South 

and strengthens the link between forests and the future 

availability and quality of water.

The conversion of forests to urban uses has particularly 

significant impacts on water flow and availability. It increases 

impervious surface and decreases infiltration of rainfall, 

which in turn increases the amount and changes the timing 

of runoff. As a result, storms generate larger peak flows and 

reach them more quickly. The slow release of water common 

in forested watersheds is short-circuited, exacerbating low 

flows between storms and interfering with groundwater 

recharge. Though timber harvesting can contribute to 

these conditions, if the scale of harvesting is large relative 

to watershed size, these effects are much more limited in 

magnitude and duration. 

Urbanization is forecasted to be focused in certain parts of 

the South, especially the Piedmont, coastal areas, and parts of 

the Appalachians. Increased urban land use forecasted for the 

Appalachians and Piedmont could have far-reaching effects, 

with hydrologic and water quality impacts accumulating and 

exacerbating similar effects in downstream Coastal Plain 

watersheds (fig. 39). 

The impacts of reduced shallow ground water recharge may 

be especially important in small Coastal Plain watersheds. 

It is in these areas where intensive forest management is 

most commonly practiced—and where planted pine is most 

concentrated. Forecasted intensification of forest management 

would increase evapotranspiration and reduce the amount of 

water available for streamflow. The intensity of these effects 

depends on a number of variables, including tree species, level 

of planting and silvicultural treatments, and percentage of 

watershed affected.

Figure 39—Projected increases (shown as percentage of change) in urban cover in three major river basins of the Southern United States 

from 1997 to 2060 under Cornerstone Future A (high population/income growth with increasing timber prices).

0 – 30%

30% – 50%

50% – 100%

> 100%

Percent change in urban cover

for selecr river basins 1997 – 2060

Roanoke

Santee

Altamaha
31

In addition, coastal watersheds could be further affected 

by forecasted sea-level rise on about 5,000 miles of highly 

vulnerable southern coastline. Saltwater intrusion of 

groundwater and increased salinity of near-coast waters are 

the likely direct results of sea-level rise, with cascading effects 

on associated forests and wildlife habitat.

On average, water supply model projections for the South 

indicate that by 2050 the combination of population growth 

and land-use change will increase water stress by 10 percent, 

but that effects will vary across the region (figs. 40 and 41). 

Forecasts of future water stress also vary across climate 

forecasts, for example, with Cornerstone A yielding strongly 

elevated levels of water supply stress across much of the South 

(fig. 42). Hot spots for future water stress include much of 

Oklahoma, central to eastern Texas, southern Florida, and 

many watersheds along the Gulf of Mexico.

Although somewhat influenced by natural geographic 

processes and past land use, water quality in urbanizing 

watersheds will also be affected by what happens to forests 

within them. High rates of forest losses from conversion to 

developed uses can be expected to degrade water quality, 

with water-borne pollution from the new land uses potentially 

affecting human health. The loss of buffering or filtering 

provided by riparian and floodplain forests is especially 

important. Impacts on water quality begin at relatively 

low levels of imperviousness in a watershed and increase 

rapidly as imperviousness increases. Skillful management 

and retention of forest cover in the development process can 

mitigate some of these negative effects.

Figure 40—Average monthly water supply stress (defined by the Water 

Supply Stress Index or WaSSI and calculated by dividing water supply into 

water demand) among all Natural Resource Conservation Service Watershed 

Boundary Dataset Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds (HUCs) in the South 

under historic and four future climate scenarios.

Figure 41—Projected average river flows among the 674 Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Watershed Boundary Dataset 8-digit Hydrologic Unit 

Code watersheds (HUCs) in the Southern United States South under four 

future climate scenarios.
32

Figure 42—Percent change in water supply stress due to climate change (defined by the Water Supply Stress Index (WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water 

supply into water demand) by 2050 under four Cornerstone Futures.

< -20

-20 to -10

-10 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 200

Percent change in WaSSI

>200

Forests and Water, Findings from Chapter 13

• Forest conversion to agriculture or urban use consistently increases discharge, peak flow, and velocity of streams. 

Subregional differences in hydrologic responses to urbanization are substantial. 

• Sediment, harmful chemicals, pathogens, and other substances often become more concentrated after forest conversion. 

If the conversion is to an urban use, the resulting additional increases in discharge and concentrations will produce even 

higher loads. 

• Although physiographic characteristics such as slope and soil texture play key roles in hydrologic and sediment responses 

to land use conversion, land use (rather than natural geographic processes) is the primary driver of water chemistry 

responses. 

• Conversion of forest land to urban uses may decrease the supply of water available for human consumption and increase 

potential threats to human health. 

•Increases in urbanization by 2060 in the Appalachians, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain would increase imperviousness and 

would further reduce hydrologic stability and water quality in the headwaters of several major river basins and in small 

watersheds along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

• On average, water-supply model projections for the South indicate that by 2050 the combination of population growth and 

land-use change will increase water stress by 10 percent. 

• Water stress will likely increase significantly by 2050 under all climate change projections, largely because higher 

temperatures would result in more water loss by evapotranspiration but also because precipitation would decrease in some 

areas. 

• Approximately 5,000 miles of southern coastline are highly vulnerable to sea-level rise.
33

6. Invasive species create a great but 

uncertain potential for ecological changes 

and economic loss.

Threats from a number of key invasive insects and diseases 

have grown substantially over the past 10 years, portending 

extensive losses for several tree species in the South. 

Nonnative invasive plants are a less dramatic but perhaps 

more insidious and pervasive force of change, with one or 

more nonnative invasive plants infesting about 19 million 

acres or 9 percent of the region’s forests (chapter 15). Climate 

change could encourage spread and spread dynamics for 

known invaders, increasing the area of infestation to about 27 

million acres over the next 50 years. Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica) alone is projected to occupy 13.5 million 

acres. However, projections of spread dynamics are highly 

variable across the climate projections (chapter 15). Suitable 

but as yet unoccupied habitats are much more extensive than 

occupied ones for most nonnative plants.

Among the important invasive insects, diseases, and pest 

complexes, several are likely to have severe impacts on tree 

species (chapter 16). Laurel wilt (Raffaelea lauricola) is 

decimating the redbay (Persea bourbonis) population of the 

southern Coastal Plan and spreading rapidly through its host 

range (fig. 43). Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) will 

likely kill most southern hemlocks over the next 50 years (fig. 44). 

Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) will likely kill much 

of the green ash with especially high levels of mortality in 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Butternut canker (Sirococcus 

clavigignenti-juglandacearam) is eliminating the butternut 

(Juglans cinerea L.) population—largely found in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highlands. Sudden oak death 

(Phytophthora ramorum), currently striking the forests of 

California and Oregon, is expected to gain a foothold in 

eastern oak forests (fig. 45). 

The effects of climate change on these pests are largely 

unclear, except to the extent that their host ranges may shift. 

In the process, changes in species mixes would have uncertain 

consequences for invasives. Climate change could further 

stress remnant populations such as red spruce (Picea rubens) 

at high elevations and exacerbate pest dynamics in these 

ecosystems, increasing infestations of balsam woolly adelgid 

(Adelges piceae) and butternut canker.

Of the 380-plus recognized nonnative plants in southern forests 

and grasslands, 53 are rated high-to-medium risk for natural 

communities, and 31 are identified as threats to the conservation 

of native ecosystems (chapter 15). Especially troublesome are 

tallowtree (Triadica sebifera) (fig. 46), tree-of-heaven, and 

Chinaberrytree (Melia azedarach) among the trees; privet 

(Ligustrum spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), and lespedeza (Lespedeza 

spp.), among the shrubs; Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

2045

2025

2040

2020

2035

2030

2006

2010

2015

2015

2010

2020

Spread contour

Redbay and sassafras 

Redbay 

Figure 43—Probable spread of laurel wilt disease (Raffaelea lauricola) from 2006 to 2040, based on the current rate of spread and known distribution 

of the redbay (Persea bourbonis) host (Koch and Smith 2008).
34

Eastern hemlock range (in county)

Infested county

Uninfested county

Figure 44—County-level distribution of established hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) (Adelges tsugae) populations, as reported by State forest health 

officials in 2009; populations are not distributed evenly in infested counties. Source: USDA Forest Service 2010.

Relative SOD Risk - 2009 (revised)

High

Moderate

Low

Figure 45—Predicted climatic suitability for establishing sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) in the conterminous 

United States based on an ecoclimatic index excluding environmental stresses (Venette and Cohen 2006).
35

Figure 46—Tallowtree (Triadica sebifera): potential for occupation into 2060 under (1) status quo assumption that current trends will continue; 

(2) maximal warming and drying conditions, Cornerstones A and E; (3) moderate warming and minimal drying conditions, Cornerstone C; 

(4) minimal warming with increased rainfall, Cornerstone B; and (5) cooling and drying conditions, Cornerstones D and F.

Scenario C Scenarios D & F

Scenarios A & E Scenario B

Current Potential

Logistic AUC: 0.90, Omission Rate: 0.11

MaxEnt AUC: 0.93, Omission Rate: 0.06

Potential of Invasion

Forested Non Foreseted

High potential

Moderate potential

Low potential

High potential

Moderate potential

Low potential
36

japonica), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum), and 

kudzu (Pueraria thunbergiana), among the vines; and Nepalese 

browntop (Microstegium vimineum, fig. 47), tall fescue 

(Schedonorus phoenix), and cogongrass, among the grasses. 

Among growth forms, vines have the greatest coverage at 11 

million acres, followed by shrubs at 4.9 million acres, grasses at 

1.8 million acres, and trees at 1.2 million acres.

Most plants escaping into southern forests have been 

imported, hybridized, sold, and planted for yard and garden 

beautification, soil stabilization, wildlife habitat enhancement, 

and livestock production. New escapes are now most often 

associated with nonnative plants marketed by garden centers 

as ornamentals.

Plant invasions hold several consequences for forest conditions, 

management, and benefits to society. Where infestations 

are dense, nonnative plants can limit or stop productive land 

management. At a minimum, they increase the costs of various 

management activities, especially for forest regeneration. 

Perhaps the best example is cogongrass, which can form dense 

mats that exclude forest regeneration and is expensive to treat. 

Other impacts may be less immediate. As native species are 

displaced, nonnatives alter (generally reduce) the diversity 

and quality of wildlife habitats and can change soil chemistry. 

Nonnative plants present a threat to biodiversity that is second 

only to complete habitat destruction (chapter 14), but the specific 

effects on native flora are yet to be fully understood.

Except where invasive plants impact commercial operations, 

for example, in intensive forestry and agriculture, it is 

questionable whether private landowners will have the 

resources or motivation to effectively curb establishment and 

spread through individual actions.

Figure 47—Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum): the actual 

current proportion of survey plots (line), (1) status quo assumption that 

current trends will continue; (2) maximal warming and drying conditions, 

Cornerstones A and E; (3) moderate warming and minimal drying 

conditions, Cornerstone C; (4) minimal warming with increased rainfall, 

Cornerstone B; and (5) cooling and drying conditions, Cornerstones D and 

F at high (agreement of both models) and moderate (predicted by one model) 

probability. 

Invasive Species Impacts, Findings 

from Chapters 15 and 16

• “New” nonnative invasive insects and diseases will 

have serious impacts on southern forests over the next 

50 years. Some species such as emerald ash borer and 

laurel wilt are expanding rapidly; they threaten the 

ecological viability of their hosts throughout large 

areas of the South. 

• Given the trend in introductions of nonnative 

insects and plant pathogens over the last 100 

years, we can expect additional introductions of 

previously undocumented pests that will have serious 

consequences for some native forest plant species.

• Very few indisputable projections can be made about 

the effects of climate change on native or naturalized 

pests. Although climate-change-induced host 

abundance is expected to increase the activity of some 

pests, others may become less active with warmer 

temperatures despite relatively similar levels of host 

availability.

• The scientific literature and the body of expert 

opinion are inconclusive in predicting the effects of 

climate change on many pests’ activity levels, often 

even lacking historic trend data. However, based 

on anecdotal reports from professionals and in the 

absence of other data, it is likely that pest activity 

levels over the next 50 years will be similar to the past 

50 years with respect to impact on preferred hosts.

• A significant source of uncertainty in projecting pest 

impacts is the adequacy of prevention and suppression 

methods: how effective are existing methods, 

compared with those that might be available in the 

future; how willing and able are land managers or 

landowners to adopt management/control methods; 

how much funding is available compared to the 

amount needed for implementation.

• Under the influence of climate warming host plants, 

pests, and pest complexes are expected to migrate 

northward and to higher elevations. Because migration 

rates differ among the affected species, migrating 

plants are expected to form new associations, which 

would have additional effects on the pests, their 

host populations, and the interactions among them. 

Unexpected pests very likely would become important, 

while some that are currently active would be less 

severe in their new habitats. As host plants “migrate” 

to the north, an increase in the incidence of decline 

syndrome of plants in their previous range is expected.
37

7. An extended fire season combined with 

obstacles to prescribed burning would 

increase wildfire-related hazards.

Wildfire potential is likely to increase over the next 50 years in 

response to forecasted reductions in precipitation and climate 

driven changes in growing seasons. Both spring and autumn 

wildfire seasons, when the weather is dry and conditions are 

conducive for fires to ignite and spread (figs. 48 and 49), are 

forecasted to increase in duration, especially in the Coastal 

Plain (chapter 17). Major wildfire events, such as the 2007 

Okefenokee wildfires that burned more than 600,000 acres, 

are also likely to occur more often. The extreme fire season 

in west and central Texas during 2011 which occurred after 

the analysis for the Futures Project was completed, provides 

another recent example. Forecasts of fire potential vary across 

the Cornerstone Futures, indicating uncertainty about the 

magnitude of these changes. However, any increase in fire 

potential combined with urban development and expansion in 

the wildland-urban interface would magnify the importance 

of wildfire prevention and control to southern residents.

Extended fire seasons increase the importance of effective 

fire management in the South, but several obstacles may 

increasingly impede the practice of prescribed burning, the 

most widely used management tool in the region. Prescribed 

burning serves multiple functions in southern forests. It 

is used extensively in the pine forests of the Coastal Plain 

and Piedmont (more than 8 million acres per year) where 

numerous plant and wildlife species depend on periodic 

fire for competition control, reproduction, and sustained 

health. It is likewise being reintroduced in certain parts of 

the Appalachian and Ozark Mountains to improve habitat 

for fire-dependent species in those ecosystems. Throughout 

the region, it reduces fuel loads and decreases the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires. 

Climate forecasts indicate that the “window” for safe prescribed 

burning may be reduced, shortening the length of time during 

the year when conditions are acceptable for the practice. 

Prescribed burning is more complicated and risky in the 

wildland-urban interface, and this area is forecasted to expand 

throughout much of the region, especially in coastal areas, 

the Piedmont, and Appalachian Mountains—areas where 

prescribed fire is particularly beneficial. Institutional issues may 

also reduce the capacity to conduct prescribed burning. Stricter 

air-quality regulations anticipated in coming years could 

further limit opportunities for prescribed burning. Ongoing 

loss of fire management capacity among many States in the 

South may further limit opportunities to implement effective 

prescribed burning. The number of State forestry agency fire 

personnel declined 24 percent between 2004 and 2010. In 

summary, hazards of reduced prescribed burning are numerous 

and significant for human life and property as well as for the 

sustainability of numerous vegetation and wildlife species.

• Although not expected to be a significant problem in 

the next 50 years, the migration of lower elevation 

plants to higher elevations could ultimately eliminate 

or at least severely restrict the host ranges of current 

high elevation plant associations. Pests that act on a 

restricted host base, such as the balsam woolly adelgid 

and butternut canker, could become far more significant 

ecologically in areas of relict host populations.

• The invasion process is accelerated by greater 

forest disturbance, fragmentation, parcelization, 

urbanization needed to accommodate and support an 

increasing human population, and climate warming. 

Approximately 9 percent of southern forests or about 

19 million acres are currently occupied by one or more 

of the 300 nonnative plants in the region. 

• The annual spread of nonnative plants in southern 

forests is conservatively estimated at 145 thousand 

forested acres, accelerated by a warming climate 

and by increasing numbers of forest disturbances 

that accommodate and support growing human 

populations. 

• Given the current occupation and spread of nonnative 

plants and the increasingly common infestations by 

multiple species, eradication appears only probable on 

specific lands unless awareness and strategic programs 

are greatly enhanced. 

• Model projections show that high-threat nonnative 

plants have not yet reached their potential range 

or density limits within the region under current 

conditions. A predicted warming climate would permit 

northward range extensions for some, while range 

extensions can be restricted by a simultaneous drier 

climate. Losses in forest production, recreation, and 

wildlife habitat would have quality-of-life implications 

for future generations that would continue to be 

exacerbated if not mitigated.

• Limiting the degree of occupation and impact depends 

on the development of adaptive management programs 

and actions that are coordinated across political 

boundaries and engage all ownerships. Piecemeal 

and splintered actions by agencies and ownerships, 

if continued, cannot stop the destructive impacts of 

infestations by nonnative species.

• Public awareness campaigns, cooperative spread 

abatement networks, collaborative programs of 

detection and eradication, dedicated research and 

extension programs, and employment of new land 

restoration options have been found to slow the spread 

of nonnative plants and prevent them from destroying 

critical habitats.
38

Figure 48—Seasonal view of fire potential for current conditions for (A) January, (B) April, (C) July, and (D) October for Cornerstone B. Brown (blue) areas 

depict areas with positive (negative) PDI. White areas reflect a PDI near zero indicating a balance between evapotranspiration and precipitation. Color intensity 

relates to the magnitude of departure from this balanced state.

Figure 49—Change in seasonal fire potential in 50 years for (A) January, (B) April, (C) July, and (D) October for Cornerstone B. Brown areas depict areas with 

positive PDI. Blue areas depict areas with negative PDI. White areas reflect a PDI near zero indicating a balance between evapotranspiration and precipitation. 

Color intensity relates to the magnitude of departure from this balanced state.
39

8. Private owners continue to control 

forest futures, but ownership patterns are 

becoming less stable.

Private owners hold more than 86 percent of forests in the 

South and produce nearly all of the forest investment and 

timber harvesting in the region (fig. 50). Private ownership is 

diverse with roughly a third in corporate ownership and the 

remainder held by more than 3 million families or individuals. 

Forest ownership has changed and is forecasted to change 

more in the future. Over the past decade, the forest products 

industry sold or transferred much of its land holdings to 

timber and land investment interests (chapter 6). Commercial 

forests, once anchoring the largest contiguous blocks of forest 

cover in the South, now have a more fractured ownership and 

are less stable than in the past. Family forest owners are also 

subject to new dynamic forces that encourage parcelization 

and fragmentation (fig. 51).

Forecasts indicate a loss of 11–23 million acres of private forest 

land in the South by 2060. With expanded urbanization growing 

outward from city centers, we expect an increased fragmentation 

of remaining forest holdings. Ongoing parcelization, which 

often takes place when estates are transferred (chapter 11) from 

one generation to the next (especially in urbanizing areas where 

property values and taxes are increasing), will likely continue 

to alter forest management in the South. In particular, areas 

of concentrated urbanization could begin to see reductions in 

timber harvesting and planting in small inoperable holdings, 

and reductions in prescribed burning because of health and 

Family	
  

58	
  percent	
  

Other	
  private	
  

29	
  percent	
  

Federal	
  

9	
  percent	
  

State	
  

3	
  percent	
  

Local	
  

1	
  percent	
  

Figure 50—Distribution of forest ownership in the Southern United States, 

2006.

Figure 51—Percent of family forests by total area and number of owners in 

each of nine size classifications for the Southern United States, 2006.

Fire in the Southern Landscape, 

Findings from Chapter 17 

• Climate forecasts indicate that the South’s spring and 

fall wildfire seasons will be extended. 

• Major wildfire events, such as the 2007 Okefenokee 

wildfires, 2008 Evans Road Fire in eastern North 

Carolina, and recent west Texas fire seasons, are also 

likely to occur more often. Such events currently occur 

once every 50 years; however, they could be more 

frequent in a warmer/drier climate. 

• Land use change will have the most immediate effects 

on fuels and wildland fire management by constraining 

prescribed burning and increasing suppression 

complexity and cost. 

• Air quality issues will likely increase restrictions on 

prescribed burning over large areas, not just in the 

wildland-urban interface. 

• Potential health and safety concerns, in addition to 

air quality restrictions, will add to the regulatory 

constraints on use of prescribed burning. 

• Fuels buildups combined with more intense wildfires 

under a warmer, drier climate could severely degrade 

fire-dependent communities that often support one or 

more threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. 

•In addition to increasing the severity of wildfire 

events, the drier conditions and increased variability 

in precipitation that are associated with climate change 

could hamper successful forest regeneration and cause 

shifts in vegetation types over time.

0	
  

5000	
  

10000	
  

15000	
  

20000	
  

25000	
  

30000	
  

1-­‐9	
  

10-­‐19	
  20-­‐49	
  50-­‐99	
  

100-­‐199	
  200-­‐499	
  500-­‐999	
  

1,000-­‐4,999	
  

5,000+	
  

Percent	
  of	
  total	
  

Size	
  of	
  forest	
  holdings	
  (acres)	
  

Area	
  

Owners	
  
40

Figure 52—Corporate forest ownership for forest products industry (also known as vertically integrated timber products companies), timber 

investment management organizations (TIMO), real estate investment trusts (REIT), and other corporate in 1998, 2003, and 2008.

0	
  

5,000,000	
  

10,000,000	
  

15,000,000	
  

20,000,000	
  

25,000,000	
  

Industry	
   TIMO	
   REIT	
   Other	
  

Acres	
  

2008	
  

2003	
  

1998	
  

-­‐3,500,000	
  

-­‐3,000,000	
  

-­‐2,500,000	
  

-­‐2,000,000	
  

-­‐1,500,000	
  

-­‐1,000,000	
  

-­‐500,000	
  

0	
  

ALABAMA	
  

ARKANSAS	
  

FLORIDA	
  

GEORGIA	
  

KENTUCKY	
  

LOUISIANA	
  

MISSISSIPPI	
  

NORTH	
  CAROLINA	
  

OKLAHOMA	
  

SOUTH	
  CAROLINA	
  

TENNESSEE	
  

TEXAS	
  

VIRGINIA	
  

Change	
  in	
  area	
  (acres)	
  

Figure 53—Decline in forest products industry ownership by State, 1998 to 2008.
41

safety concerns and regulatory restrictions. Habitat for forest 

interior-dependent species and wildlife travel corridors could 

be fractured and surface water quality impaired as forests are 

replaced by developed uses. 

The divestiture of forest lands by the forest products industry 

from 1998 to 2010 is the most substantial transition in forest 

ownership of the last century (fig. 52). This divestiture substantially 

altered the ownership and objective structure of the corporate 

ownership group as much of the land shifted to timber investment 

management organizations and real estate investment trusts. A 

number of economic factors likely influenced the decisions of forest 

products companies to sell their land (figs. 52 and 53). An analysis 

of these factors suggests that the transition from large block 

industry ownership to a more spatially varied and fragmented 

ownership is irreversible in the foreseeable future.

As a result of large land transfers from the forest products 

industry to timber investment management organizations, 

corporate owned forest land is now a more liquid asset that is 

expected to trade more frequently in the future, and the size of 

individual holdings will likely continue to decline. While the 

industry land base had been a stable and predictable component 

of the southern landscape, the “new” class of corporate forest 

lands may be less stable and more changeable with possible 

implications for water quality, sensitive plant and animal 

communities, recreation availability, and other nontimber values. 

The economic forces that led to forest ownership by a new 

group of investors could cause rapid shifts in ownership in the 

future. For example, if commodity prices continue to decline 

beyond the 50 percent reduction in softwood pulpwood prices 

since 1998 (chapter 4), the resulting reduction in the profitability 

of timberland management would likely drive away investors. 

Conversely, policy driven increases in biomass demand for 

energy production could reverse recent downward trends 

(chapter 10). 

Over the past 2 decades, ownership dynamics have largely 

occurred within the corporate or family ownerships but 

not between them. Our analyses of anticipated changes are 

consistent with this history. Structural changes in ownership—

transferring land among major groups—might be possible, but 

these changes would have far reaching effects. For example, 

increasing scarcity of recreation opportunities and concern 

for other quality-of-life aspects of forests could lead to public 

acquisition of private forest land, especially at State and local 

levels. A substantial decline in timberland profitability could lead 

to a shift in ownership from corporate to family forest owners. 

These are both within the realm of plausibility but have not yet 

been observed to any great degree.

Ownership Dynamics of Southern 

Forests, Findings from Chapter 6

• Private landowners hold 86 percent of the forest area in 

the South; two-thirds of private forest land is held by 

families or individuals.

• Fifty-nine percent of private owners hold fewer than 

9 acres of forest land, but 60 percent of privately 

owned forests are in holdings of 100 acres or more.

• Two-thirds of family forest land is owned by people 

who have harvested and sold trees from their land. 

Assuming that commercial owners have harvested 

timber, then in all, about 8 of every 10 acres of private 

forest land in the South is owned by individuals or 

organizations that have commercially harvested their 

timber.

• The average size of family forest holdings is 29 acres. 

Ongoing parcelization and fragmentation through 

estate disposal and urbanization will likely continue to 

alter forest management in the South.

• The forest products industry divested about three 

quarters of its timberland holdings from 1998 to 2008, 

the largest ownership transition in the last century. 

The largest gain in ownership was realized by timber 

investment management organizations and real estate 

investment trusts.

• Forest products industry divestitures were likely 

driven by a combination of factors including 

mergers, alleviation of timber-scarcity concerns, new 

technologies for reducing the cost of fiber acquisition, 

and desire to reduce tax burdens.

• As a result of the transfer of holdings from the forest 

products industry to timber investment management 

organizations and real estate investment trusts, forest 

land held by corporations is now a more liquid asset 

class and would likely trade more frequently in the 

future. Corporate forest holdings will likely continue 

to decline in size.

• Although the forest products industry land base 

was long perceived to be a stable and predictable 

component of the forest landscape in the South, 

corporate lands may become less stable and more 

changeable with implications for both timber and 

nontimber values (such as water quality, sensitive plant 

and animal communities, and recreation availability).

•Increased liquidity of forest assets argues for 

increased monitoring of ownership changes and of 

forest land transaction values to better understand the 

conservation implications of economic trends.
42

9. Threats to species of conservation 

concern are widespread but are especially 

concentrated in the Coastal Plain and 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregions.

Urbanization, forest management, climate change, and 

invasive species combine to further impact several species 

of conservation concern in the South, many of which are 

found in the Coastal Plain and Appalachian-Cumberland 

subregions. Coastal Plain forests are especially vulnerable to 

loss of biodiversity and imperiled species as a result of rising 

sea levels, intensifying management, spreading invasive 

species, and urbanization (figs. 54 and 55). This region is one 

of the focal areas for urbanization and would be the primary 

locale for any expansion in pine plantations. The AppalachianCumberland subregion also supports a large number of 

threatened plants and imperiled vertebrates (especially 

amphibians).

The current distribution of plant and animal diversity in the 

South reflects a broad range of habitats and a long history 

of land uses. The geography of species richness varies by 

taxa. Amphibians flourish in portions of the Piedmont and 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregions and across the Coastal 

Plain. Bird richness is highest along the coast and wetlands 

of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, mammal richness 

is highest in the Mid-South and Appalachian-Cumberland 

subregion, and reptile diversity richness is highest in areas 

across the southern portion of the region (fig. 56).

Habitat isolation sometimes gives rise to pockets of high 

endemism. The legacy of the South’s land use history is 

an unusually large number of endangered and otherwise 

imperiled plant and animal species. Ongoing land use change 

and forest fragmentation coupled with climate change 

continue to threaten the habitats for many imperiled species. 

Although all subregions of the South contain species at 

risk, vertebrate and plant diversity and endangerment are 

especially high in the Coastal Plain. Hot spots of vertebrate 

species of conservation concern include the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts, Peninsular Florida, and Southern Gulf. Hot spot areas 

for plants of concern include the Apalachicola area of the 

Southern Gulf Coast, Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of 

Lake Okeechobee in Peninsular Florida, and coastal counties 

of North Carolina in the Atlantic Coastal Plain (fig. 54). 

Several forces of change acting on habitat quality are 

forecasted to also be concentrated in coastal areas, in many 

cases where high levels of urbanization are expected. The vast 

majority of intensively managed forests are located in this 

region, as is nearly all forecasted growth in pine plantations. 

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

0 50 100 200 300

Miles

States

Counties

1 - 3

4 - 6

7 - 9

10 - 19

Figure 54—County-level counts for Federal status vascular plant species in the Southern United States (NatureServe 2011).
43

Climate changes are forecasted to cause sea level rise, extend 

fire seasons, and increase the frequency of large fire events 

throughout the Coastal Plain.

The combination of imperiled species and forces of change 

defines the Coastal Plain as a critical hot spot and Florida 

as a special concern (fig. 56). Urban development could 

threaten coastal species along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf 

of Mexico and within the Florida Peninsula, which serves as 

stopover habitat in the Atlantic Flyway and nesting habitat 

for imperiled sea turtles. The flora of inland ecosystems is 

threatened by changing fire regimes. Projected inundation 

of mangrove and coastal live oak forests from sea-level rise 

would reduce habitat for several taxa. In addition, the Coastal 

Plain contains most of the South’s highly valued longleaf 

pine (Pinus palustris); its area could be reduced by both 

urbanization and management-driven transition of forest 

types, challenging ongoing restoration efforts.

The Appalachian-Cumberland highlands contain a high 

percentage of bats, salamanders, and concentrations of sensitive 

plant species that are of conservation concern. The central 

Tennessee basin, adjacent escarpment, and highland rim around 

Nashville support plants of limestone glades, prairie-like areas, 

and forests. The South also contains threatened high elevation 

spruce-fir forests in the Southern Appalachians.

In eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, forest 

loss, increased recreational use, residential development 

near Knoxville and Asheville, and possibly climate warming 

threaten to reduce the rich biodiversity of the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Even though large public land 

holdings (Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Blue Ridge 

Parkway, and Nantahala, Pisgah, and Cherokee National 

Forests) buffer and protect these habitats, residential 

development and growing recreational use threaten plant 

species. Warmer air temperatures, changes in precipitation 

or fire regime, and increases in competition from offsite 

plants may threaten species of high elevation habitats. The 

Blue Ridge supports 53 species of salamanders, 15 of which 

are imperiled or vulnerable. Any loss of habitat connectivity 

would make migration difficult for these species.

Forecasted changes in the Interior Low Plateau of central 

Kentucky and Tennessee threaten bats and plants that are 

associated with limestone glades. Urban development in the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains could imperil the diversity 

of salamanders. Growing recreational use on public lands 

(chapter 8) may add additional pressure on rare communities, 

and climate change threatens species endemic to high 

elevation areas.

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

0 50 100 200 300

Miles

States

Counties

1 - 3

4 - 6

7 - 9

10 - 19

Figure 55—County-level counts for Federal status terrestrial vertebrate species in the Southern United States (NatureServe 2011).
44

Figure 56—County-level counts for species of conservation concern by taxa in the Southern United States. (NatureServe 2011)

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 - 3

4 - 5

6 - 7

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 

3

4 - 5

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2

3

4

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1 - 2

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 - 3

4 - 5

6 - 7

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 

3

4 - 5

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2

3

4

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1 - 2

s

ions

es

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 

3

4 - 5

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2

3

4

ndaries

Subregions

States

Counties

ndaries

Subregions

States

Counties

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

2 - 3

4 - 5

6 - 7

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

Number of Species

No Data

Boundaries

Subregions

States

Counties

1 - 2
45

Wildlife and Forest Communities, Findings from Chapter 14

• The South has 1,076 native terrestrial vertebrates: 179 amphibians, 525 birds, 176 mammals, and 196 reptiles. 

Species richness is highest in the Mid-South (856) and Coastal Plain (733), reflecting both their large area and 

the diversity of habitats within them. 

• The geography of species richness varies by taxa. Amphibians flourish in portions of the Piedmont and 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregions and across the Coastal Plain. Bird richness is highest along the coast 

and wetlands of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, mammal richness is highest in the Mid-South and 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregions, and reptile diversity is highest in forests farthest south.

• The South has 142 terrestrial vertebrate species considered to be of conservation concern, 77 of which are 

federally listed; and more than 900 plant species, 141 of which are federally listed. Threats to biodiversity are 

region-wide.

• The proportion of species at risk varies among taxonomic groups: 46 percent of imperiled vertebrate species 

are amphibians, followed by reptiles (25 percent), mammals (16 percent), and birds (13 percent). The Coastal 

Plain (64) and Mid-South (55) lead in the numbers of imperiled vertebrate species, followed by the AppalachianCumberland (31), Piedmont (29), and Mississippi Alluvial Valley (9) subregions. 

• Hot spots of vertebrate species of conservation concern include the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico 

coasts, Peninsular Florida, and Southern Gulf. Emerging areas of concern include sections within the 

Appalachian-Cumberland subregion (Blue Ridge, Southern Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountain, Interior Low Plateau) and Mid-South subregion (Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, West Texas Basin 

and Ridge, and Cross Timbers).

• Hot spot areas for plants of concern are Big Bend National Park, the Apalachicola area on the Gulf of Mexico, 

Lake Wales Ridge and the area south of Lake Okeechobee in Peninsular Florida, and coastal counties of 

North Carolina in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The Appalachian-Cumberland subregion also contain plants 

identified by States as species of concern.

• Species of conservation concern are imperiled by habitat alteration, isolation, invasive species, environmental 

pollutants, commercial development, and human disturbance and exploitation. Conditions predicted by the 

forecasts would magnify these stressors. Each species varies in its vulnerability to forecasted threats, and 

these threats vary by subregion. Key areas of concern arise where hot spots of vulnerable species coincide 

with forecasted stressors. 

• There are 614 species that are presumed extirpated from selected States in the South; 64 are terrestrial 

vertebrates and 550 are vascular plants. Over half of the terrestrial vertebrates were added to this list in the 

last decade. Factors contributing to their demise include urban growth, industrial development, incompatible 

agricultural practices, degradation of wetlands, alteration of natural hydrological conditions, pesticide 

contamination, natural and human-caused disturbance, and destruction of locally unique habitats such as 

prairie-like areas. 

• Mid-South: Forest loss and urban growth in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands threaten concentrations of plant and 

animal species. Urban development along southern borders of Texas and Louisiana in the Cross Timbers and 

Western Gulf sections could impact a large number of reptiles and birds. 

• Appalachian-Cumberland: Forecasted changes in the Interior Low Plateau of central Kentucky and Tennessee 

threaten bats and plants associated with limestone glades. Urban development in the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains could imperil the diversity of salamanders. Recreational use may add additional pressure on rare 

communities, and climate change threatens species endemic to high elevation areas. 

• Piedmont: Substantial urban growth and forest loss could degrade the diversity of amphibians, mammals, and 

plants, although species in inaccessible sites (such as rock outcrops) may be less at risk. Management on public 

land may become difficult due to the population pressure in surrounding counties. Species in areas transitional to 

other subregions may also be threatened by climate change.

(continued)
46

(continued) Wildlife and Forest Communities, Findings from Chapter 14

• Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Urban growth forecasts for the Deltaic Plain could degrade the richness of 

shorebirds and waterfowl in the wetlands of the Mississippi Flyway as well as habitat for the Louisiana black 

bear. Sea level rise could inundate the coastal habitat inhabited by numerous species.

• Coastal Plain: Urban development could threaten species along both coasts and within the Florida Peninsula, which 

serves as stopover habitat in the Atlantic Flyway and nesting habitat for imperiled sea turtles. The flora of inland 

ecosystems is threatened by changing fire regimes. Projected inundation of mangrove and coastal live oak forests 

from sea level rise would reduce habitat for several taxa. 

• High elevation forests: Spruce-fir forests in the Southern Appalachian Mountains are subject to air pollution, 

acid deposition, and natural disturbances. Climate warming and further housing development may result in 

the loss of endemic species or changes in species ranges.

• Upland hardwood forests: Declines are predicted to be 14 percent throughout the region under forecasts of 

high levels of urbanization and low timber prices. Predicted northward shifts in species distributions could 

threaten forest interior species and reassemble forest types, including the widely distributed oak-hickory 

forest. 

• Longleaf pine forests: Portions of the Coastal Plain are expected to lose acreage under forecasts of high 

urbanization and high timber prices, while south-central Florida and northwestern Alabama are predicted to 

gain acreage of this forest type. 

• Early successional forests: Under the forecast of high urbanization and high timber prices, the greatest losses 

are expected in the Northern Ridge and Valley section of the Appalachian-Cumberland, southern Florida and 

associated Keys, and scattered locations in coastal Virginia and North Carolina. Gains are expected in the 

Ridge and Valley of eastern Tennessee, Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, Apalachicola area of Florida, 

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands, and adjacent northern area of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

• Climate change is an additional source of stress on terrestrial species and ecosystems. Projections of 

temperature increase and variability in precipitation patterns may change the future distribution of many 

species, influencing seasonal movement, recruitment, and mortality. Species may move into the habitats of 

others, creating new assemblages; climate-induced changes in phenology would affect the availability of 

resources for nesting and feeding. 

• Species at risk from climate change include those with restricted geographic ranges, patchy distributions, 

and those that occur at the margins of their ranges. Other characteristics include limited dispersal ability, low 

genetic diversity, affinity to aquatic habitats, narrow physiological tolerance, and late maturation.

• Communities at high elevations, grassland communities, and wetland ecosystems may be particularly susceptible 

to climate change. Species whose ranges are limited to coastal areas will be vulnerable to projected changes in sea 

level. Sea level rise may inundate barrier islands, coastal wetlands, and marshes of the Coastal Plain, as well as 

areas along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

• The forecasts pose challenges on how best to implement future conservation and management strategies. 

New tools and approaches to managing uncertainty (such as scenario planning, sensitivity analysis, or 

ecological risk analysis) may become routine. 

•Integrating climate science into management planning will be important, accompanied by monitoring 

strategies that identify patterns in disturbance, phenology, and range shifts. As future impacts occur across 

large areas, the appropriate decision making level may shift to include landscape or regional scales; temporal 

scales may be longer than typically considered.

• An understanding of the relationship between the forecasts and the geographic pattern of species occurrence 

would improve planning efforts. The implications for the conservation of southern species are significant: in the 

midst of a growing region, the provision of biological diversity will become a critical conservation issue. 
47

10. Increasing populations would increase 

demand for forest based recreation while 

the availability of land to meet these needs 

is forecasted to decline.

Recreation demand has evolved over time (chapter 7) and is 

forecasted to increase and change through 2060 (chapter 8). 

At the same time, forest area declines while the small 

portion of public forest area (less than 15 percent of all forest 

land) remains stable. The result is a decline in recreation 

opportunities and an increase in recreation congestion, with 

the potential for conflict among user groups.

By 2060, the number of southern adults participating in each 

of 10 popular outdoor recreation activities is projected to 

increase. The activity with the smallest growth in participation 

is hunting (8–25 percent). The activity projected to grow the 

most is day hiking (70–113 percent). Southern national forest 

recreation visits are projected to increase across all site types: 

federally designated wilderness areas (38–72 percent), day use 

developed sites (35–70 percent), overnight use developed sites 

(30–64 percent), and general forest areas (22–55 percent).

By 2060, acres of southern forest and rangeland per recreation 

participant is expected to decline by up to 50 percent across 

the various activities as the number of participants increases 

and forest area decreases. Hiking would be the most affected 

activity, and hunting would be the least affected.

Generally speaking, the number of projected participants 

and days of participation are expected to increase at a rate 

near or somewhat below regional population growth (fig. 57). 

For a few activities—e.g., developed site use, hiking, and 

birding—participant numbers as well as days of participation 

are projected to grow faster than regional population growth. 

Other activities typically associated with higher income—e.g., 

horseback riding on trails, motorized water use, and nonmotorized water use—are forecasted to grow faster than 

the population if higher income levels are realized (as in 

Cornerstone Futures A and B). Otherwise, they will likely 

grow at rates slightly lower than population.

Density of use of national forest area is expected to rise by 

22–55 percent as participants increasingly substitute national 

forests for private forest and rangelands that have been reduced 

by urban development. Because general forest area recreation 

use—including hunting, motorized off-road use, and horseback 

riding on trails—requires more space per user for high-quality 

(and safe) experiences, the projected increase in use density 

would be particularly challenging to national forest managers. 

Conflicts due to congestion may increase not only within 

activities (such as motorized off-road users running into each 

other figuratively and literally), but also across activities (with 

motorized off-road users disturbing game sought by hunters 

and degrading the hunting experience). 

Across all activities and venues, private and public, there 

is strong evidence to suggest that the number of southern 

outdoor recreation participants and their annual days of use are 

expected to grow over the next 5 decades, putting increasing 

pressure on existing infrastructure (both built and natural) and 

thus stressing the recreation-carrying capacity of forest and 

rangeland resources (fig. 58). It may sometimes be possible 

to relieve congestion by investing in and building more 

infrastructure, such as hiking trails on public lands. Private land 

owners may also help to meet increased demand by building 

recreation infrastructure. Southern markets for hunting and 

other consumptive recreational activities on private lands have 

historically been fairly large and may grow further. Owners of 

remaining private land may also be able to serve the increased 

demand for non-consumptive recreational activities by investing 

in infrastructure traditionally provided by public lands (such as 

hiking trails and bird-watching facilities). Returns to recreation 

investments could provide another revenue stream to private 

forest owners, thereby increasing the retention of forest cover on 

private lands in the South.

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

2000	
   2008	
  

Days	
  (billions)	
  

Par/cipants	
  (millions)	
  

Number	
  who	
  par4cipate	
   Number	
  of	
  ac4vity	
  days	
  

(A)	
  

11.3%	
  

41.0%	
  

Figure 57—Growth in number of people and number of activity days in 

60 outdoor recreation activities in the Southern United States, 2000–08.
48

Mid-South

AppalachianCumberland Piedmont

Coastal

Plain Mississippi

Alluvial

Plain

Acres per capita of Federal or State park land area

0.01 to 0.070.071 to 1.461.461 to 18.31Greater than 18.31

Figure 58—Acres per capita of Federal and State land area within a 75-mile recreation day trip of each U.S. county, 2008. Sources: USDA Forest Service 2008; USDI NPS 2008; USDI BLM 2008; Tennessee Valley Authority 2008; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2006; National Association of State Park Directors 2009.
49

Recreation in a Shifting Societal Landscape, Findings from Chapters 7 and 8

• The South grew considerably faster (32.5 percent) in population in the 18 years from 1990 to 2008 than 

the Nation as a whole (22.2 percent). The region has just over half of the Nation’s non-Hispanic African 

American population (18.9 million) and is a close second to the Rocky Mountains in the size and growth rate 

of the American Indian population. Since 1990, the South (heavily influenced by Texas and Florida) passed 

the Pacific Coast (strongly influenced by California) in Hispanic population to lead the Nation, with growth 

also especially high in North Carolina and Georgia.

• The highest growth in density of population (persons per square mile) occurred down the Piedmont and 

Southern Appalachian Mountains from North Carolina to Alabama, along the coasts of Florida, and around 

the major cities of Texas. Some of this growth was substantial and exceeded the U.S. Census Bureau 

definition of an urban area, 500 persons per square mile. In areas like eastern Texas, higher concentrations of 

people in places near public lands and bodies of water are likely to put increasing pressures on these limited 

resources.

• With moderate growth, total population in the United States is projected to exceed 447 million people by 

2060, an increase of more than 47 percent. Projected growth for the South is expected to be nearly 60 percent. 

The Atlantic States area of the South ranks second among its nine U.S. counterparts, with a 68-percent 

forecasted increase in population, followed by the Pacific Northwest with 63 percent. Of the 13 Southern 

States, Florida, Virginia, and Texas are projected to grow faster than the southwide rate of 59 percent. 

• One overriding recreation trend seems clear—what people now choose to do for outdoor recreation is 

different from choices made by and available to previous generations. Fishing and hunting, often considered 

widely popular and among the more “traditional” of outdoor activities, are still somewhat popular but are 

being replaced by other activities such as wildlife or bird watching and photography.

• Of the most popular activities in the South (having over 30 million participants), the top six slots were 

occupied by walking for pleasure, family gatherings outdoors, gardening or landscaping, viewing/

photographing natural scenery, sightseeing, and visiting outdoor nature centers. Other popular growth 

activities include driving for pleasure, viewing/photographing flowers and trees, viewing/photographing 

wildlife (besides birds and fish), swimming in an outdoor pool, and picnicking. Activities oriented toward 

viewing and photographing nature (scenery, flowers/trees, and wildlife) have been among the fastest growing 

in popularity.

• Less than 5 percent of Federal land, about 30.5 million acres, is in the South, 44 percent of which is managed 

by the Forest Service. More than 92 percent of Federal land is located in the Western United States. 

• Federal acreage changes very little over time, but population changes greatly. In the South, Federal acres per 

1,000 persons declined slightly faster than the national rate, with a 15.4-percent decrease in acres per 1,000 

people since 1995.

• Federal and State-park land area in the South is expected to remain relatively constant over time. Currently, 

5 percent of the total area is Federal or State park land, less than 0.3 acres per person, by 2060 expected to 

decrease to 0.17 acres, about 63 percent of the 2008 level. Because of population growth, the projected decline 

is greater for the South than the Nation.

• Total non-Federal forest land area is expected to change with continuing conversions from forests and 

farmlands to cities and suburbs. Currently, more than 30 percent of total land area in the South is non-Federal 

forest, or 1.66 acres per person. By 2060, non-Federal forest is predicted to decline to 0.95 acres per person, 

or 57 percent of the 2010 level. The projected decline is greater for the South than the Nation because of 

population growth and increased development.
50

CONCLUSIONS

This report summarizes the findings of the Southern Forest 

Futures Project, an effort to anticipate the future and to 

analyze what the interaction of future changes might mean 

for the South’s forests and the valuable services they provide. 

In so doing, we explore a labyrinth of driving factors, forest 

outcomes, and human implications to sketch out how the 

landscape of the South might change in the future. This 

report distills the 17 chapters of the Southern Forest Futures 

Project technical report (Wear and Greis, in press) into 10 key 

findings. 

First and foremost is the complexity of southern forest 

futures. Multiple factors will interact to define changes in 

forest conditions and benefit flows so that any assessment 

focused on only one of these factors could be misleading. 

The Cornerstone Futures provide one way to jointly examine 

these multiple forces in a coherent fashion. Jointly determined 

projections of population, economic, and climate are derived 

from internally consistent worldviews or storylines linked to 

the 2010 RPA Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change analyses (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

A large number of potential futures were reduced to the six 

Cornerstone Futures to capture a representative range of 

future conditions and to construct a comprehensive analytical 

approach for addressing the meta-issues. The range of futures 

also illustrates uncertainty regarding the future and highlights 

the key variables affecting future forest conditions.

The key findings developed for this summary report 

synthesize findings from individual chapters in the technical 

report but discuss only a portion of the detailed results so 

that we could highlight what we believe is the most important 

information for managers and policy analysts. Keyed to the 

individual chapters of the technical report, this discussion of 

key findings also provides links to our more detailed findings. 

All 10 key findings provide insights into the mechanisms and 

relative magnitudes of changes anticipated for the region. 

Taken as a whole, they emphasize the role and the influence of 

private landownership in the South in determining future forest 

conditions. Influenced by markets and by values of alternative 

land and forest uses, the South’s forests have evolved rapidly 

over the past half-century and could change just as rapidly over 

the next 50 years. In general, socioeconomic factors rather than 

climate factors dominate forest futures in the early stages of our 

forecasts. But the time frames of these forces of change vary, 

and it is useful to think about how impacts could play out over 

the short, medium, and long runs.

Short-run changes, defined here as the next 10 years, are 

dominated by the ongoing expansion of the South’s population 

and economy. Urbanization and loss of forests and other rural 

land will likely continue to reshape landscape conditions. 

Populations are expected to grow and consolidate around 

cities, expanding the wildland-urban interface while reducing 

populations in some of the most rural areas. Increasing returns 

to forest ownership, including timber products but also returns 

from other ecosystem services encourages retention of forests 

and would mitigate forest losses. Ownership changes within 

the commercial and family forest classes may accelerate in 

the short-run and are expected to be especially sensitive to 

market futures. The growth of the wildland-urban interface 

will likely bring changes and constraints in forest management, 

with local ordinances and health and safety concerns further 

restricting the use of prescribed burning to manage fuel loads. 

Fuel accumulates rapidly in southern forests and wildland fire 

impacts may increase in the short-run, especially with a growing 

concentration of human infrastructure in forest settings.

Medium-run changes, defined here as 10 to 20 years, involve 

a continuation of the short-run changes identified above, but 

they are compounded by other factors. Projections of demand 

for bioenergy feedstocks, although driven by uncertainties 

such as the development of new technologies and State and 

Federal policies, could begin to accelerate beginning in the 

2020s. Our analysis indicates that, if guided by markets, 

strong demand growth for fiber could lead to intensified forest 

management focused on the Coastal Plain. This, along with 

urbanization would cause alterations to habitats, especially 

for amphibians, with cumulative effects beginning to emerge. 

Impacts on water availability and quality are also forecasted to 

intensify beginning in the 2020s. These effects on ecosystem 

services could feed back to constrain management options in 

the region and affect the trajectory of investments.

Within the long-run timeframe, defined here as more than 

30 years, climate change effects become more prominent 

and accumulate toward the end of our 50-year time frame. 

All climate projections used in the Futures Project (based 

on four different climate models downscaled for the 2010 

RPA Assessment) predict increasing temperatures through 

2060, but they differ in their predictions of precipitation—as 

do more specific location-based forecasts of precipitation. 

Impacts on water, wildlife, and nonnative plant species emerge 

during this timeframe but are manifest differently depending 

on the specific climate projection. For most climate futures, 

invasive plant impacts are forecasted to become a growing 

source of ecological change and economic impact in the longrun time frame. Water stress accumulates, especially in the 

Piedmont, Coastal Plain, and parts of the Mid-South, mainly 

in response to increased demands associated with growing 

populations and land use changes. Wildlife impacts in the 

Coastal Plain become further compounded by changes in 

precipitation in some situations and by sea-level rise impacts 

on coastal forests.

The forecasts across Cornerstone Futures illustrate the 

important mechanisms of change in forests. The biggest 

losses in forest area would be under Cornerstone B with 

high population/income growth projections but lower timber 

prices. The smallest would be under Cornerstone C with low 

population/income projections but high timber prices. Our 
51

results indicate that urbanization affects forest area but can 

be offset by market futures that place higher values on forest 

uses. This logic extends to any other source of forest values, 

including payments for nontimber forest products and crucial 

ecosystem services. Often cited examples are watershed 

protection, sequestration of atmospheric carbon, and habitat 

protection. While not yet reaching a large proportion of the 

South’s forests, these types of compensation programs are 

beginning to emerge, and our findings suggest that they could 

be effective in encouraging the retention of forest cover. Land 

use models also indicate that urbanization rates strongly 

depend on income as well as population so that the intensity 

of development for a given level of population is variable and 

could be altered by policy.

Our scope does not include prescriptions for policymaking, yet 

policy is an important factor in the forecasts. The empirical 

models and future forecasts are based on existing policy across 

several domains, and an important assumption of the forecasts 

is that the future develops without change to the policy setting. 

Land use forecasts do not account for any change in land use 

policies or conservation initiatives and harvest forecasts extend 

decision models based on current patterns of forest ownership 

and harvest responses. Although Cornerstone Futures contain 

alternative demand forecasts for timber products, these are 

not explicitly linked to policy futures. The unfolding of future 

demand will clearly depend on myriad policies including those 

affecting trade, domestic taxes, and perhaps most directly, 

policies designed to encourage bioenergy production—

these last include Federal and State incentive programs and 

renewable portfolio standards. Subsequent assessments could 

benefit from drawing more direct linkages between these 

policies and future demand.

All forecasts of the future are likely to be wrong to one degree 

or another. Those addressed by the Futures Project were 

intended to represent a plausible range of future conditions. 

They were designed to examine what could happen given a 

reasonable range of future conditions, and therefore involve 

some element of judgment. Accordingly, they need to be 

examined in light of uncertainty derived from various sources, 

one of which is our limited knowledge about the modeled 

systems, i.e., the limits of current scientific knowledge. 

Models are only as complete and accurate as the science 

upon which they are based, and completing this effort has 

uncovered many knowledge limits, which are discussed in the 

individual chapters of the technical report.

Another area of uncertainty derives from the structure of the 

Cornerstone Futures that organize the analysis and includes 

assumptions about population growth and other variables that 

were used to frame each Cornerstone. Additionally, structural 

changes in institutions could result in very different outcomes. 

For example, energy or climate policies could alter the 

demands placed on forests for producing bioenergy or storing 

carbon, in turn altering landowner choices. Further analyses 

of new and different possible futures will be warranted as 

conditions and knowledge change. This will remain an active 

area of research (see Wear and others 2012 for analysis of 

forest conditions across a broader range of scenarios). 

Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring the 

changes that take place in the South. We now have a welldeveloped and ongoing forest inventory system to monitor 

forest conditions and uses. Southern forest assessments have 

long depended on these data. The U.S. Forest Assessment 

System used for the Futures Project and the 2010 RPA 

Assessment could not have been built without the inventory 

data; indeed, the maturation and usefulness of regional and 

national forecasting will depend on a steady updating of these 

core data. Our key findings indicate that forest inventories 

will remain critical tools for monitoring changes, but also 

that monitoring certain socioeconomic elements—including 

land use dynamics, investment, and land transactions—is also 

needed. Forecasts highlight areas where changes might be 

concentrated in the short-to-medium runs and therefore where 

intensified monitoring activities might be useful. The findings 

also highlight the need for new and continuously measured 

land use data that effectively monitor changes that are driven 

by urbanization.

Recognizing that knowledge is never perfect nor complete, we 

have highlighted critical uncertainties that defined the limits 

of our ability to draw conclusions about causes or impacts. 

In addition to public policy drivers and their critical but 

unknowable implications for future demand are the population 

and income assumptions that dominate our forecasts—these 

could benefit from population dynamics models that better 

account for alternative economic development assumptions 

and human responses to climate variables. The effects of 

climate change on the spatial patterns of forests are being 

studied; new insights into these mechanisms of change will 

need to be coupled with better fine-scale predictions to reduce 

uncertainty about future forests. Forecasts of future impacts 

on plant and animal species of conservation concern currently 

link species presence to patterns of urbanization and intensive 

forest management. Future assessments would benefit 

from more direct links between habitat conditions and the 

functional needs of individual species or species groups. 

Although most of the substantial impacts of our projections 

will take some years to play out, the changes that lead to these 

impacts are already at work. Populations have grown, forest 

management has changed, and new invasive species have 

been introduced over the past decade. Today’s management 

and policy will affect their outcomes. Throughout the Futures 

Project, we have not prescribed management decisions or how 

to best form policy in response to anticipated changes. Instead, 

our findings provide an information foundation for others to 

evaluate management and policy alternatives in light of possible 

futures. The ultimate measure of our success will be the extent 

to which these findings are used for such analysis.
52

LITERATURE CITED

Heath, L.S.; Smith, J.E.; Skog, K.E. [and others]. 2011. Managed forest 

carbon estimates for the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory, 1990–2008. 

Journal of Forestry 109(3): 167-173.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC 

fourth assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). http://www.ipcc.

ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm. [Date 

accessed: July 7, 2010].

Koch, F.H.; Smith, W.D. 2008. Spatio-temporal analysis of Xyleborus 

glabratus (Coleoptera: Circulionidae: Scolytinae) invasion in Eastern U.S. 

forests. Environmental Entomology. 37: 442–452.

Lee, K.J.; Kaiser, H.F.; Alig, R.J. 1992. Substitution of public for private 

funding in planting southern pine. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 

16(2): 204-208.

National Association of State Park Directors. 2009. Annual information 

exchange for the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. Unpublished 

report. Available from North Carolina State University. Department of 

Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, Jordan Hall 5107, Box 7106, 

Raleigh, NC 27697-7106. Yu-Fai Leung, Principal Investigator.

Smith, W.B.; Vissage, J.S.; Darr, D.R.; Sheffield, R.M. 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. 190 p.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Vissage, J.S.; Pugh, S.A. 2004. Forest resources 

of the United States, 2002. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station. 137 p.

Smith, W. Brad; Miles, Patrick D.; Perry, Charles H.; Pugh, Scott A.

2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Washington Office. 336 p.

Steen, Harold K. 1976. The U.S. Forest Service: A history. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington Press. 356 pp.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2008. Recreation resources inventory 

database. Available from the Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902.

Timber Mart-South. 2008. Timber Mart-South: The journal of southern 

timber prices. Vol. 33. No. 4. Center for Forest Business, The Warnell 

School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. 52 p. 

NatureServe. 2011. An online encyclopedia of life [Database]. 2010. Version 

7.1. Association for Biodiversity Information. http://www.natureserve.org/

explorer/. [Date accessed: May 3, 2011].

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Value to the nation: recreation 

fast facts. http://www.corpsresults.us/recreation/recfastfacts.asp. [Date 

accessed: April 1, 2009].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2008. Land areas 

report as of September 30, 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/. [Date 

accessed: February 9, 2009].

USDA Forest Service. 1988. The South’s fourth forest: alternatives for the 

future. Forest Resource Report no. 24. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office. 512 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Hemlock woolly adelgid [home page]. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Area. Various pages. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/eab/. [Date 

accessed: July 7, 2010].

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Future scenarios: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS- 272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

USDA Forest Service. [In press]. Future of America’s forests and 

rangelands: 2010 Resources Planning Act assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

WO-XX. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. XX p. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. 

Summary report: 2007 national resources inventory. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics 

and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 123 pages. http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS//stelprdb1041379.pdf. 

[Date accessed: January 24, 2012].

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 2008. Public land statistics 2008. http://www.blm.gov/public_

land_statistics/pls08/index.htm. [Date accessed: June 23, 2009].

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2008. Listing of acreage by State and 

county as of 12/31/2008. http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/acreagemenu.

cfm. [Date accessed: February 26, 2009]. 

Venette, R.C.; Cohen, S.D. 2006. Potential climate suitability for 

establishment of Phytophthora ramorum within the contiguous United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management. 231: 18–26.

Wear, David N.; Carter, Douglas R.; Prestemon, Jeffrey. 2007. The U.S. 

South’s timber sector in 2005: a prospective analysis of recent change. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-99. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 29 p. 

Wear, David N.; Huggett, R.; Li, Perryman, B.; Liu, S. [In press]. 

Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future 

scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-xxx. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. xx p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002a. The southern forest resource 

assessment: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 635 pp.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002b. The southern forest resource assessment: 

summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

103 pp.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. [In press.] The southern forest futures 

project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-xx. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

xxx pp.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The southern forest futures 

project: what the public told us. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-115. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 17 p.

Wear, David N.; Huggett, R.; Li, R.; Perryman, B.; Liu, S. 2012. 

Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future 

scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-xxx. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. xx p.

Wheeler, P.R. 1970. The South’s third forest. The Journal of Forestry March, 

1970: 142-146.

Williams, Michael. 1989. Americans and their forests: a historical 

geography. New York: Cambridge University Press. 599 p.
53

APPENDIX: OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS 

FROM THE TECHNICAL REPORT OF THE

SOUTHERN FOREST FUTURES PROJECT 

This appendix contains summaries of most of the chapters that 

comprise the Southern Forest Futures Project technical report 

(Wear and Greis, in press). Chapters 1 and 2, which focus on 

design and methods, are not summarized here.

Chapter 3: Climate Change Summary 

Steve McNulty, Jennifer Moore Myers, Peter Caldwell, 

and Ge Sun

The authors summarize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change predictions for climate that were chosen for use in 

the Southern Forest Futures Project. They also discuss the 

climate models and Special Report Emissions Scenarios used 

in the Futures Project. All were downscaled to the southern 

regional level for analysis and discussion. The authors describe 

forecasted climates under each future, focusing on temperature 

and precipitation changes by decade. Differences among the 

futures are identified. Finally, conclusions are presented about the 

South’s forecasted climate, including some of the implications of 

forecasted changes. 

Chapter 4: Forecasts of Land Uses

David N. Wear

Factors driving land use change are discussed and those used in 

the models employed in this chapter are identified. The land use 

models employed were developed by the author for use in the 

2010 RPA Assessment, and were customized for the South. The 

author uses data and information from the National Resource 

Inventory (USDA NRCS 2009) to describe current land uses 

in the South and their distribution among the five subregions 

addressed in the Southern Forest Futures Project. Forecasts of 

land use change are provided for 2020, 2040, and 2060, with 

2010 serving as the base year. Analysis is provided for multiple 

land uses, including forest, cropland, pasture, rangeland, 

and urban uses. Forecasted conditions for each of the five 

subregions of the South are provided, as well as total forecasted 

changes for the South from the present to 2060.

Chapter 5: Forecasts of Forest Conditions 

Robert Huggett, David N. Wear, Ruhong Li, John Coulston, 

and Shan Liu

U.S. Forest Assessment System models are used to forecast 

forest conditions to 2060. Multiple potential sets of conditions, or 

futures, are modeled and analyzed. These futures reflect different 

biological, physical, and human factors that drive forest change. 

Forest inventory plot data are forecasted using these interacting 

models, and results are generated for each plot and then aggregated 

to reveal expected changes at larger scales. Carbon estimates are 

derived from inventory data, and climate change forecasts are taken 

from the 2010 RPA climate database. Forecasted decadal changes in 

forest area, forest types, management types, age class distributions, 

and other aspects are provided for multiple futures and discussed 

both by subregion and for the region as a whole. Causal drivers of 

change are described. 

Chapter 6: Forest Ownership Dynamics of Southern 

Forests

Brett J. Butler and David N. Wear

The authors use many sources of information and data to describe 

recent trends in forest ownership in the South, including changes 

in forest industry, timber investment management organizations, 

real estate investment trusts, other corporations, and family 

forests. Forces that drove recent changes are described. Using 

data from the U.S. Forest Service National Woodland Owners 

Survey and other forest inventory data, the authors discuss 

ownership types, management objectives, and likely management 

preferences. Potential futures are examined based on forecasted 

land use change, probable management styles of owner groups, 

and demographic characteristics of the South’s forest owners. 

Chapter 7: Outdoor Recreation in a Shifting 

Societal Landscape 

H. Ken Cordell, Carter J. Betz, and Shela H. Mou

The authors describe trends and forecasts of population, 

demographic makeup, recreation participation, and recreation 

resources available in the South. Population and demographic 

trends and projections are based on census data and forecasts 

of climate change consistent with the 2010 RPA Assessment. 

Available outdoor recreation resources are described. 

Comparisons of the South with other regions are also provided.

Chapter 8: Outdoor Recreation 

J.M. Bowker, Ashley Askew, H. Ken Cordell, and 

John C. Bergstrom

The authors use statistical models, estimates, and projections to 

forecast demand for numerous types of forest-based recreation 

in the South, out to 2060. Estimates are provided for multiple 

activities for several forecasts developed by the Southern Forest 

Futures Project. Information is also provided for southern 

national forest recreation demand, by recreation site type. 

Chapter 9: Markets 

David N. Wear, Jeffrey Prestemon, Robert Huggett, 

and Douglas Carter

The authors use historical records from multiple sources to 

describe how timber markets have changed historically until the 

present, including the factors that have affected those trends. 

Inventory data are used to describe trends in forest inventory and 

production, helping to explain how timber demand, supply, and 

prices have interacted and are likely to interact into the future. A 

variety of models are used to forecast future markets for every 

decade out to 2060: supply, demand, prices, and inventories for 

several projections of demand; economic conditions; and forest 

productivity. Import and export factors are addressed. The 

potential effects of an emerging wood bioenergy demand on 

prices and inventories are discussed. 

Chapter 10: Forest Biomass-Based Energy

Janaki R. R. Alavalapati, Pankaj Lal, Andres Susaeta, 

Robert C. Abt, and David N. Wear

The authors use literature sources to describe the current status 

and to address technology development, bioenergy policies, and 

sustainability issues. The Sub-Regional Timber Supply model 

serves as the primary tool to assess the effects of wood-based 
54

bioenergy industry on future prices, harvests, and inventories 

of four wood product categories—softwood non-sawtimber, 

softwood sawtimber, hardwood non-sawtimber, and hardwood 

sawtimber, as well as effects on existing forest industry. Several 

scenarios are presented along with anticipated effects of each. 

Chapter 11: Effect of Taxes and Incentives on 

Family-Owned Forest Land

John L. Greene, Thomas J. Straka, and Tamara L. Cushing

The authors use questionnaires, price reports, literature searches, 

and personal contacts to examine a variety of tax-related 

questions. Awareness by landowners and effects of Federal and 

State tax codes on family forest owners are evaluated. Current 

and potential estate and gift tax effects are discussed, as is the 

influence of the tax code on conservation easements and other 

forestry. Some details are provided on specific tax provisions 

(as of 2010). Survey results of landowner awareness and recent 

estate related transactions are discussed. A list of conservation 

programs available to private landowners is included, along with 

a brief description and tax implications for each. 

Chapter 12: Employment and Income Trends and 

Projections for Forest-Based Sectors in the U.S. South 

Karen L. Abt

The author use down-scaled data from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and other models to 

address the contributions of jobs, income, and the forest products 

sector to the regional economy. Historical trends are presented, as 

are forecasts for the logging, wood products, and manufacturing 

sectors, and interactions of all contributing factors are discussed. 

Expected changes in forest-based recreation jobs and income 

are also projected. All forecasts are limited to a single decade. 

A discussion of potential economic effects of an emerging wood 

bioenergy industry is provided. Specific methods and data 

sources are included.

Chapter 13: Forests and Water 

Graeme Lockaby, Chelsea Nagy, James M. Vose, Chelcey R. Ford, 

Ge Sun, Steve McNulty, Pete Caldwell, Erika Cohen, and 

Jennifer Moore Myers

A literature review synthesis describes the relationship between 

forest cover and stream flow and water quality. The consequences 

of forest conversion to agriculture and urban uses are reported for 

the various subregions of the South. A water accounting model 

is used to forecast changes in water availability given expected 

demand and changes in climate. Specific methods and data 

sources are included.

Chapter 14: Wildlife and Forest Communities 

Margaret Trani Griep and Beverly Collins

The authors present an analysis of geographic patterns of plant 

and wildlife diversity and species at risk. They also provide an 

evaluation of the potential impacts of forecasted climate change 

and urbanization in the region. Data and their analysis are 

presented for the South as a whole and by subregion. The analysis 

uses global data provided by the NatureServe Program and also 

uses State-level data provided by the State Natural Heritage 

Program. Maps depict patterns of species diversity and rarity. 

Spatial and tabular forecasts of urban growth, forest loss, and 

climate change are used in conjunction with the species maps to 

identify areas of particular concern. Specific methods and data 

sources are included.

Chapter 15: The Invasion of Southern Forests by 

Nonnative Plants: Current and Future Occupation, 

with Impacts, Management Strategies, and Mitigation 

Approaches 

James H. Miller, Dawn Lemke, and John Coulston 

The authors use multiple data sources to provide information 

on nonnative plants that have invaded forests and natural areas, 

as well as pastures, open spaces, and wetlands in the South. 

They describe principles of invasion, spread, prevention, 

and eradication. The invasive plants data set from the Forest 

Inventory and Analysis Program of the Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, is analyzed for 33 regional 

invasive species and 20 species particular to Florida. Current 

occupation by State, counties, and subregions is analyzed. 

Predictive modeling for five species of particular concern 

(Japanese climbing fern, non-native roses, silktree, tallow tree, 

and Nepalese browntop) is performed. Maps of occupation and 

expected spread are included. 

Chapter 16: Invasive Pests—Insects and Diseases

Donald A. Duerr and Paul A. Mistretta

The authors consult literature and professional entomologists 

and pathologists to describe the threats posed by 30 of the most 

significant insects, diseases, and insect/disease complexes in 

the South. Changes in climate, land use, and forest conditions 

provided in the Southern Forest Futures Project forecasts serve 

as the basis for projecting expected spread and severity of pest 

damage. A description of each pest, forest species affected, and 

expected degree of spread and damage by each is included.

Chapter 17: Fire

John A. Stanturf and Scott L. Goodrick

The authors briefly discuss the importance of prescribed fire in 

maintaining healthy forests in the South and relate forecasted 

changes in climate and land use to the future use of prescribed 

burning. The Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment serves as 

a source of information on current fire patterns in the South. 

Models that indicate wildfire potential are described, as are 

forecasted changes in them for 2010 to 2060. Patterns of change 

are summarized for each group of assumptions developed for 

the Southern Forest Futures Project. Forecasts are provided 

for the South as a whole as well as for subregions. A variety of 

expected constraints on prescribed burning are discussed, as are 

the important implications of such constraints. Urbanization, 

changing demographic characteristics, air quality issues, 

and liability concerns are cited as limiting factors for future 

prescribed burning. 
Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-168. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 54 p. 

The Southern Forest Futures Project provides a science-based “futuring” 

analysis of the forests of the 13 States of the Southeastern United States. With 

findings organized in a set of scenarios and using a combination of computer 

models and science synthesis, the authors of the Southern Forest Futures 

Project examine a variety of possible futures that could shape forests and the 

many ecosystem services and values that forests provide. The science findings 

and modeling results could inform management and policy analysis of the 

South’s forests. In this summary report, the authors distill detailed results from 

the Southern Forest Futures Project technical report and provide a set of key 

findings and implications.

Keywords: Forest conservation, futuring, integrated assessment, Southern 

Forest Futures Project, sustainability.

You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us.

Number of copies is limited to two per person.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback 

or go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval
The Forest Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle 

of multiple use management of the Nation’s 

forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through 

forestry research, cooperation with the States 

and private forest owners, and management of 

the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as 

directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (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 to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.