# An Analysis of the Timber Situation
in the United States: 1952 to 2050

Richard W. Haynes Technical Coordinator

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-560 February 2003

### Contributing
Authors Darius M. Adams is a professor at Oregon State University, Department of Forest Resources, Corvallis, OR 97331-5703. Ralph J. Alig is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Brett
J. Butler is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 11 Campus Blvd., Suite 200, Newtown Square, PA

19073. David J. Brooks is an analyst, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600

17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20508. At the time this manuscript was developed, he was a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. Irene Durbak is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1 Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398. Richard W. Haynes is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208. Peter J. Ince is a research forester, timber demand and technology assessment research, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1 Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398. David B. McKeever is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1 Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398. John R. Mills is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208. Kenneth E. Skog is project leader for the timber demand and technology assessment research unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1 Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison, WI 53726-2398. Xiaoping Zhou is a research
forester

, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.

### Abstract Haynes, Richard W., tech. coord. 2003. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 1952 to 2050. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-560. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 p.

For more than a century, national assessments of supply and demand trends for timber have helped shape perceptions of future commodity consumption and resource trends. These perceptions have guided forest policy. Since 1952, U.S. timber harvest has risen by nearly 67 percent, accompanied by growing timber inventories on both public and private lands, but there has been a decline in the critical private timberland base. The current assessment envisions forest products consumption rising 42 percent by 2050and marked shifts in the extent and location of domestic and imported supplies. Prospective shifts include a temporary near-term decline in U.S. roundwood harvest and an increase in the share of consumption from imports. In the longer term, U.S. timberharvest expands by 24 percent. As a result of steady improvement in growth and productivity on U.S. forest lands, this increased harvest is accommodated by continued expansion in inventory despite decreasing area in the private timberland base.

Keywords: RPA, assessments, timber, projections, supply, demand, management alternatives, resource trends.For more than a century, the United States has developed periodic national assessments of future supply and demand prospects for timber that have helped shape perceptions of resource trends and needs for new or modified forest policies. Since 1952, U.S. timber harvest has risen by nearly 67 percent, accompanied by growing timber inventories on both public and private lands but a decline in the critical private timberland base. Projections to 2050 in the fifth RPA timber assessment show the forest products sector continuing to change, with U.S. timber harvest expanding by an additional 24 percent to meet increased consumption needs. As a result of steady improvement in growth and productivity on U.S. forest lands, this harvest increment can be accommodated by continued expansion in inventory despite decreasing area in the private timberland base.

Projections to 2050 show the forest products sector changing and expanding to meet a 40-percent increase in U.S. consumption of forest products by 2050. The rate of increase is less than one-third the annual rate of increase over the last 33 years owing, in part, to declining use of paper and paperboard per dollar of gross domestic product, and projected relatively stable housing starts. Increasing consumption needs would be met by (1) an increase in U.S. timber harvest of 23 percent, (2) an increase in log, chip, and product imports of 85 percent, and (3) an increase in use of recovered paper of 85 percent. With a near-term economic recession, U.S. roundwood harvest is projected to decrease in the short term, then increase. The proportion of total roundwood needed for domestic product consumption that comes from domestic timber harvest decreases from 80 to 73 percent by 2050. The remainder is provided by harvest in other countries.Per capita U.S. wood and paper product consumption will remain just under threequarters of a ton per person per year while per capita U.S. timber harvest will decline. Consumption shifts toward pulp and paper products from a 27-percent share in 2000 to a 37-percent share by 2050, and the share of composites increases from 3 to 7 percent. Oriented strandboard (OSB) production displaces softwood plywood, further eroding the importance of solid wood products. Hardwood lumber production grows more slowly than softwood lumber production. Softwood lumber imports from Canada rise in the near term, and after 2015, softwood lumber production increasingly expands largely in the South and, to a limited degree, the Pacific Northwest. Pulp, paper, and paperboard production increases most in the South, mainly in the South-Central region.

Relatively stable forest product prices are expected over the next five decades. Softwood sawtimber prices are projected to increase over the next 50 years, but at a rate (0.6 percent per year) considerably below that of the past 50 years (1.9 percent per year). Market-based adjustments on private timberlands plus increased imports helpmeet expected increases in U.S. consumption. Despite generally rising prices, stumpage markets in the West will continue to be weak for small-diameter logs. Hardwood pulpwood prices will remain relatively low but will increase at the end of the projectionperiod with increasing limitations on availability of harvestable hardwoods on nonindustrial private timberlands in the South. Softwood pulpwood prices will remain at or below recent depressed levels, then rise at the end of the projection. Prices for softwood and hardwood lumber will increase at about the same pace as for sawtimber. The increaserate for softwood lumber is less than for the last 50 years. Prices for oriented strandboard increase faster than for softwood plywood but remain less than the softwood plywood price. Prices for nonstructural panels and for paper and paperboard remain relatively stable through 2050. 

### Executive Summary

The Fifth Resources Planning Act (RPA) Timber Assessment

HighlightsIn the period to 2050, annual U.S. timber harvest is projected to increase 24 percent to 22.4 billion cubic feet. Softwood harvest is projected to increase to 13.7 billion cubic feet and hardwoods to 8.8 billion cubic feet. In addition, the consumption of hardwood agrifiber grows to about 0.1 billion cubic feet. With lumber and plywood composing a decreasing share of total forest products output, virtually all of the projected increase in U.S. harvest is in nonsawtimber trees—trees used for OSB or paper and paperboard. The overall share of harvest from nonsawtimber will increase from 44 percent in 2000 to 66 percent by 2050. The share of total harvest from nonindustrial private land will increase from 61 to 63 percent. Softwood timber inventories will increase by 53 percent, mostly on public timberlands. Hardwood inventories, almost entirely in private forests, will increase by 27 percent. Inventory changes expected for softwoods are similar across regions, but there are differences for hardwoods for which there is a decrease in the South. Over the next 50 years, the species composition is projected to remain comparable to current conditions with the exception that in the South, upland hardwood acres decrease while planted pine acres increase. For the most part, age structure of forests will shift toward a greater proportion of acres in sawtimber with the exception of decreasing sawtimber acres for private hardwood timberland in the South and for private softwood timberland in the West, although in the West, the sawtimber proportion will
increase after 2020.

Most (80 percent in 1997) of timber harvest takes place in the Eastern United States. Most of the expected increase in harvest will come from managed stands primarily in the South. By 2050, about 60 percent of the softwood timber harvest from private timberlands will come from plantations (both in the South and the Pacific Northwest West) that occupy about 30 percent of the softwood timberland area and less than 20 percent of the total timberland area.

The proportion of the roundwood harvest consumed in the United States for wood pulp is expected to remain relatively constant at 30 percent; wood pulp capacity is projected to increase modestly by 26 percent after 2010 as paper recycling rates stabilize. Use of softwood pulpwood from pine plantations, and use of recycled fiber are expected to

increase.

Canada is expected to provide the primary source of imports (over 75 percent), but imports from other sources also are expected to increase. Canada will provide roughly 30 percent of U.S. softwood lumber consumption over the next 50 years, but imports from other countries (Eastern Europe, the Nordic countries, Southern Hemispherecountries) are expected to increase to 15 percent of U.S. softwood lumber consumption. Canada currently provides 80 percent of U.S. paper and paperboard imports, which amount to 14 percent of U.S. paper and paperboard consumption. Other countries provide imports for 3 percent of consumption. Canadian share of U.S. consumption will increase in the near term to 17 percent then decline to 12 percent by 2050. Other countries’ share will increase from 3 to 10 percent of consumption. Imports from Canada of paper and paperboard are projected to continue increasing; imports from Canada of printing and writing paper increase in the near term, then level off; and imports from Canada of newsprint decline. United States imports of printing and writing paper will come increasingly from Europe and Asia. Canadian exports of higher valued printing and writing paper will increase.

# Contents

Chapter 1: Overview

by Richard W. Haynes, David J. Brooks, David B. McKeever, and Kenneth E. Skog

1 Introduction

2 The Context

2 Forests as a Provider of Goods and Services

4 Forces Shaping Demand

4 Forces Shaping Supply

6 The Importance of the Forest Products Industries

7 Relations of the U.S. Forest Sector to the Rest of the World



### Chapter 2: Assumptions and Methods Used in Projections

by Darius M. Adams, Peter J. Ince, Ralph J. Alig, Brett J. Butler, John R. Mills, David J. Brooks, Richard W. Haynes, Kenneth E. Skog, and Xiaoping Zhou

10 Introduction

10 Macroeconomic Activity

13 Population and Labor Force

14 Productivity

14 Gross Domestic Product

15 Prices, Inflation, and Interest Rates

15 Housing

16 Assumptions for Pulp and Paper

17 Pulpwood Demand and Supply

19 Context for Trade Assumptions21 Fuelwood Demand Projections

22 Timber Supply Assumptions

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

26 Historical Trends in Timberland Area

27 Area Projections by Region

32 Management Intensity Classes

36 Allocation to Management Intensity Class

40 Adjustments for Timber Removed From Inventories

43 National Forest Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections

46 Other Public Harvest Levels

46 Projection Models Used in the Timber Assessment

47 The Timber Assessment Market Model

49 North American Pulp and Paper Model

52 The Aggregate Timberland Assessment System Timber Inventory Model

53 Timberland Area Change Model

54 Linkage Among Modeling of Area Changes, Timber Management Intensity, and Economic Timber Supplies



### Chapter 3: Timber Demand-Supply Relations: Base Projection

by Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, Peter J. Ince, Kenneth E. Skog, John R. Mills, and David B. McKeever

55 Introduction

56 Projected Consumption, Production, Trade, and Prices for Timber

Products

56 Solid Wood Products

73 Paper and Board

80 Prices of Forest Products

83 Shifts in U.S. Forest Products and Source Materials

97 The Stumpage Market

97 Softwoods

102 Hardwoods

105 Stumpage Prices

109 Trends in Timber Inventories

121 Selected Plantations

123 Projections of Canadian Harvest

### Chapter 4: Alternative Futures

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

126 Introduction

127 Changes in National Forest Harvest Level

137 Lower Canadian Harvest

138 Increased Nonindustrial Private Afforestation

140 Lower Housing Activity

141 Reduced Consumption of Paper and Paperboard—Intelligent Consumption

142 Discussion



### Chapter 5: Management Implications

by Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, Brett J. Butler, Ralph J. Alig, Kenneth E. Skog, John R. Mills, Peter J. Ince, David J. Brooks, and Xiaoping Zhou

145 Introduction

145 Softwood Stumpage Price Projections

146 Demand-Supply Basis for Limited Price Growth

146 Projections in Historical Context

148 Current Versus Past Assessment Projections

150 Forest Fragmentation

150 What is Forest Fragmentation?

150 What Causes Forest Fragmentation?

151 Results from the Current Timber Assessment

153 What Are the Critical Issues?

153 Sustainable Forest Management

154 Synthesis of National Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators

156 Regional Detail in Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators

164 Synthesis of Regional Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators

165 Synthesis of National Trends and Projections for Selected Indicators

165 Trends in Diversity and Structure

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

174 Western Forest Health and Small-Log Markets

174 Production Capacity

175 Scale of the Forest Health Problem

175 Can Small-Timber Sales Be Sold?176 Complex International Links

180 Disaggregating the Projections



### Chapter 6: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

by David J. Brooks, Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, and Kenneth E. Skog

187 Introduction

187 The Role of the RPA Timber Assessment

188 Markets and Forest Management

189 Highlights of the Projections

189 Trends in Consumption and Production of Forest Products

189 Price Growth

190 Changes in Harvest and Inventory

190 Forest Products Trade

191 Emergent Lessons

193 Implications for Policy and Management

193 Regional Distribution of Economic and Social Benefits and Ecological Change

193 Economic and Social Benefits of Noncommodity Objectives

194 Increasing Attention to Intersectoral Interaction

194 Adapting to Change

194 Glossary

205 Species List

207 Acknowledgments

208 Equivalents

208 References

220 Appendix1 

### Introduction This chapter provides context for the fifth RPA timber assessment (hereafter called the timber assessment). 2 For the past century, national assessments of supply anddemand trends for timber have helped shape perceptions of future commodity consumption and have guided discussions of the need for or the effectiveness of various forest policies. 3 The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976) formalized these analyses by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a renewable resource assessment every 10 years. The purpose of this assessment is to analyze the timber resource situation to provide indications of the future cost and availability of timberproducts to meet the Nation’s demands. The analysis also identifies developing resource situations, emerging policy issues, and opportunities that may stimulate both private and public investments.

We present the results of the fifth RPA timber assessment in six parts. Chapter 1 sets the context for the timber assessment. Chapter 2 describes the major demandand supply assumptions including a description of the models used to make the various projections. Chapter 3 describes the base projections for both the product and stumpage markets. Chapter 4 describes how the base projections would be modified ifwe considered selected alternative futures. Chapter 5 is a discussion of selected management implications. Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusions and broad implications. 

# Chapter 1: Overview 1

1 The authors for this chapter are Richard W. Haynes, David J. Brooks, David B. McKeever, and Kenneth E. Skog.

2 The past four timber assessments were the 1982 timber situation (USDA Forest Service 1982), the 1983 timber update (Haynes and Adams 1985), the 1989 timber assessment (Haynes 1990), and the 1993 RPA timber assessment update (Haynes et al. 1995). Hereafter these reports will be referred to by the year
such as the 1989 assessment.

3 Analysis of the demand and supply situation for timber has a history dating back to 1876 (see Haynes 1990). The structure, methods, and much of the historical base developed in earlier assessments, and particularly those immediately preceding, have been carried forward with
modifications and refinements.2 The map shown on page 254 shows the regions used in the timber assessment. Much of the information presented will be for four summary assessment regions (North, South, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Coast). Some of the projections and industry descriptions will be provided in subregion detail (Northeast, North Central, Southeast,South Central, Northern Rocky Mountains, Southern Rocky Mountains, Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest West (the west side of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington also called the Douglas-fir subregion) and Pacific Northwest East (the east side of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington, also called the ponderosa pine subregion). The RPA timber assessment regions correspond to USDA Forest Service regions in the East and aggregations of USDA Forest Service regions in the West. All dollar values for price and costs are given in constant dollars (1982 dollars 4 unless otherwise noted).

The context for the timber assessment is set by various factors including how society values forests as a provider of goods and services, the forces shaping demand and supply, the forest products industry, and the relations of the U.S. forest sector to the
rest of the world.

United States forests have always been seen as providers of multiple goods andservices. But wood itself remains one of the primary goods. Wood has been long valued for its beauty, utility, and role as an industrial commodity. 5 The wide availability ofwood has both increased its acceptance and led to widely dispersed processing facilities. There is also growing recognition that use of wood in place of alternative materials may yield environmental benefits. For example, by using wood in residential construction rather than nonrenewable structural materials such as steel, aluminum, concrete, brick, and plastics, less fossil fuel is consumed in the process. This results in emission of less carbon dioxide. For example, a 1-billion-board-foot increase in timber harvest that is manufactured into structural wood products and used to replace nonrenewable products decreases carbon dioxide emissions by about 7.5 million tons (2.0 million tons of carbon) (Koch 1992).

In the last decade, there has been an expanding awareness of the variety of ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions that are derived from forests. Table 1 (Haynesand Horne 1997) lists indicators of possible ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions. In this sense, “ecosystem goods” are defined as specific components of ecosystems, for example, minerals, timber, forage, mushrooms, huckleberries, salmon, grizzly bears, and grey wolves. “Ecosystem functions” are beneficial processes, suchas carbon storage and groundwater recharge. “Ecosystem conditions” refer to systemic, or integrated states people want to find on the land, such as old-growth forests, roadless areas, beautiful scenery, and healthy ecosystems. One difficulty is that today we may not recognize an output that may emerge in the future as having value. Twodecades ago, few would have identified the ability to store carbon as valuable ecosystem outputs. 

### The Context

Forests as a Provider of

Goods and Services

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

5 Forests serve a variety of uses and functions including scenic, subsistence, industrial, and as spiritual or cultural places (see Brooks 1993 for discussion of these uses at a global scale; see Haynes and Horne 1997 for a discussion at the ecoregion scale).3 For the most part, wood production and many of the goods and services listed in table 1 are produced jointly. This is especially the case when considering the highly dynamic nature of forested ecosystems. Whereas the timber assessment deals explicitly withtimber supply, inferences can be drawn for other goods and services based on perceptions of resource conditions.

Outputs have consumptive uses, nonconsumptive uses, or passive uses. Timber is an example of an ecosystem good with consumptive use value. Consumptive use values can exist for goods traded in markets and goods for which no market exists. Other ecosystem outputs with consumptive uses include minerals, mushrooms, berries, floral greens, wildlife (to hunt), and fish (to catch). People also are interested in nonconsumptive uses that do not reduce what remains for others to enjoy: hiking on trails, viewing scenery, or birdwatching. Still others benefit from passive uses that do not involve direct use. Examples of passive uses are option (knowing a naturalresource will be available for personal future use), existence (knowing a natural resource exists even when the likelihood of using it is small), bequest (knowing one’sgrandchildren will be able to enjoy a natural resource), and stewardship (knowing ecosystems are maintained in a healthy state) (Field 1994). Calls to maintain habitats and protect soils stem from complex motives, including the desire to ensure the availability of consumptive uses (hunting), nonconsumptive uses (birdwatching), and passive Table 1—Indicator variables for outputs from FS- and BLM-administered lands suitable for an ecosystem

market basket

Indicator variable

Carbon storage Ecosystem health Fire risk to life and property

Fish
Game

Minerals

Passive-use values:
Existence of salmon Existence of other threatened and endangered species
Existence of unroaded areas
Range

Recreation: Access (roads) Access to riparian areas
Science integrity Soil productivity Special forest and range products

Timber Visibility Water quality

Source: Haynes and Horne 1997.4 uses (maintaining soil productivity, which leaves productive ecosystems for future generations). Both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses can and do take place in a compatible fashion over time at broad spatial scales.

The U.S. demand for forest products is varied and large (about 1,800 pounds per person per year), and is shaped by economic forces and evolving consumer tastes. On the economic side, low prices for wood relative to other materials have made wood an attractive material for home and building construction, paper and packaging materials, and as an industrial commodity. The United States, though, is no longer the world’s lowest cost producer of wood or wood fiber products; competitiveness further complicated by a strong U.S. dollar has made U.S. products less competitive in worldmarkets and has caused increased imports of wood products to satisfy consumer demands. Because of the abundance and diversity of wood types, consumers value wood in a variety of uses. In addition, wood is the basis for many products ranging from resins to the ubiquitous array of paper products.

For much of the 20 th century, public attention focused on understanding the supply, demand, and prices for forest products and how they are influenced by changes in population, income, technologies, and resource conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the nature of these relations for softwood lumber. In the case of Douglas-fir lumber, real prices have nearly tripled since 1920, while consumption has about doubled, but percapita incomes have grown about fourfold between 1929 and 1999. For softwood lumber, at least, it appears that increases in income have offset the negative effects ofrising prices yielding growth in consumption. Changes in timber supply are also important in the near term. For example, reductions in Western timber harvest as part of the habitat conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina )
resulted in reduced overall softwood sawtimber harvest in the Pacific Coast States and lower supply and higher product prices. These higher prices, however, did not reduce the consumption of wood products much, as consumers with higher incomes were willing (and able) to pay the higher prices, and alternative sources of wood products rapidly became available, thus eventually lowering prices.

The supply of wood has been shaped by a changing array of forces influencing land use. In the past 200 years, these forces have included clearing land for agricultural uses while using the wood for products such as rails for fences and logs, and lumberfor homes and barns. After the Civil War, concerns arose about potential timber famines from rapid land clearing, rising industrial use of wood, and settlement of the West. In 1866, these concerns were addressed in the first study of forest conditions (Starr 1866) and by the development of several federal agencies that eventually evolved into the U.S. Forest Service. During the 1890s, domestic concerns about timber supply and the emergence of professionally trained (initially in Europe) foresters led to the first federal forestry efforts. In 1905, the U.S. Forest Service was moved to the U.S. Department of Agriculture where it quickly evolved as a land management agency relying on scientific approaches to meet a variety of societal goals.

Almost from the outset, the development of land management strategies has been based on an understanding of the relations between timber inventories, their attributes, land management objectives, and timber markets. Since World War II, much of the attention has been on the development of explicit forest regulation models (both area and volume approaches) and on the notion of timber availability as a function of an Forces Shaping Demand

Forces Shaping Supply5 Figure 1—Douglas-fir lumber prices, softwood lumber consumption, and disposable personal income,
1920–1999.6 The Importance of

the Forest Products
Industries array of stand and market attributes and conditions. In the past 25 years, the development of empirically explicit timber supply relations has evolved to explain the collective
behavior of timberland owners relative to economic conditions. Various state initiatives that have increased regulation of private timberlands have influenced the behavior oftimberland owners over the past 20 years (see Greene and Siegel 1994 for a discussion of the various state regulatory efforts).

In 1996, more than 18 billion cubic feet of roundwood timber products were harvested in the United States (Howard 2001). These products were valued at nearly $23 billion.Overall, roundwood timber was the second highest valued agricultural crop in the Nation (all timber harvest is regarded here as a “crop” whether or not the trees are grownin plantations). Only corn was higher at $25 billion. Roundwood timber products accounted for 17 percent of the value of all agricultural crops in 1996, which was unchanged from 1986. In 1986, however, timber was the highest valued crop in the United States (McKeever and Howard 1995). Its drop to second highest in 1996 was due largely to the variability in stumpage prices and regional shifts in harvest. In 1986, timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest accounted for 26 percent of total harvest, but 40 percent of total value. By 1996, volume harvested was just 15 percent of the total volume harvested, and 24 percent of the total value. Harvest in the South responded to declining Pacific Northwest harvest levels by increasing from 46 percent in 1986 to 59 percent of total harvest in 1996. Its value, however, increased by just 10 percentfrom 40 to 50 percent of total harvest value. Overall, the volume of U.S. timber harvested in 1996 was less than in 1986 and consisted of slightly lower valued products. The value of timber fell from 31 percent of all crops in the Pacific Northwest in 1986 (highest value) to just 21 percent in 1996 (second highest). In the South, timber was by far the single highest valued crop at $11 billion. Its value was more than twice that of cotton, the second-highest valued crop in the South. Timber was the fourth-highest valued crop in the North, and fifth-highest in the Rocky Mountain region in 1996, both unchanged from 1986.

The North American industrial classification system (NAICS) defines 21 major manufacturing sectors within the United States. In 1996, in terms of total value of industry shipments, paper manufacturing (NAICS 322) ranked 9 th at $153 billion, wood products manufacturing (NAICS 321) ranked 12 th at $98 billion, and furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS 337) ranked 18 th at $57 billion. Combined, these timber processing industries accounted for nearly 9 percent of all manufacturing shipments in 1996. Many areas throughout the country rely on timber harvesting and onprocessing and manufacturing of forest products for major support of local and regional economies. Many people depend on these industries for employment and income and for their contribution to the economic diversity of the communities in which they live. In 1996, employment by the timber processing industries totaled more than 1.8 million, about 10 percent of manufacturing employment. Wages and salaries paid to these employees totaled nearly $47 billion (constant 1992 dollars), more than 9percent of all manufacturing wages and salaries. Regionally, timber processing industries in the North and South were the single largest employing regions in 1996, with752,000 and 695,000 employees, respectively. Combined, the North and South regions accounted for 80 percent of all timber-processing industry employment and wages and salaries.7 A large and varied forest products sector has evolved within the United States to meet diverse demands. The conversion of standing timber into forest products requires ahigh level of specialized industrialization. It also requires the timber processing industries to respond to changes in consumer demand and in timber supply. The development of new products and processing technologies helps satisfy existing demands while creating new demands for wood products. New products and technologies useexisting wood and paper fiber more efficiently and create new uses for previously unused wood and paper fiber. Improvements in conversion of the forest resource are most apparent in product recovery where new technologies, use of wood residues,and increased recycling have increased the production of forest products from roundwood. Our consumption of wood products is ultimately determined by the mix of solid wood and paper products and the ability of the timber processing industries to convert roundwood and other fiber into usable wood products.

Forests in the United States account for about 6 percent of world forest cover (table 2). World forests cover just under 4 billion hectares (about 10 billion acres) of the Earth’s surface, about 30 percent of the land area. This includes all types of forests: closed and open natural forest, forest plantations, and other woodland. Shrub, scrub, and brushland cover about 1 billion additional hectares (about 2.5 billion acres).

Half of the world’s forests and 80 percent of the world’s population are in Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa (table 2). These are predominantly, although not exclusively, developing countries, and the forests are predominantly, although not exclusively, tropical. About one-fourth of the world’s forests, nearly half of the world’s tropical forests, and more than half of the world’s wet tropical forests (rain forest and moist lowland forest) are in Latin America. Nearly 58 percent of the world’s forests are in temperate zones; the boreal region in the temperate zone accounts for more than one-third of the
world’s forests.

Between 1990 and 2000, the area of forest worldwide declined by 2 percent; in 2000, forest cover (excluding other wooded land) was about 0.6 hectare (1.48 acres) percapita (Gardner-Outlaw and Engelman 1999). This is about one-third of the world forest endowment in the early 1900s. Cumulated across all regions, deforestation has occurred at rates estimated from 0.3 to 0.6 percent per year (11 million to 20 million hectares [27.2 million to 49.4 million acres] per year) in the past two decades, while the world population has grown at more than 1.5 percent per year. Increases in the area of temperate forests have been more than offset by reductions in tropical forest area. Lowland tropical forests account for most of the tropical forest area and tropical deforestation; however, the rate of deforestation is greatest in the dry tropical forest where population pressure and environmental stress are combined.

About two-thirds of the world’s forests are in some form of public ownership. Although slightly more than half of temperate forest is in public ownership, nearly all tropical forest is in public or communal ownership. The United States, Japan, and the Nordic countries have relatively higher proportions of private ownership than other developedcountries. Ownership patterns affect the mix of forest outputs and the type of management practices. Although public ownership is typically thought to best assure provision of nonmarket goods and intangible forest benefits, private management is recognized as efficiently providing commodity-based forest outputs. Relations of the U.S.
Forest Sector to the
Rest of the World8 About 3.5 percent of the world’s forests are plantation forests (Brown 2000). They are an important component of industrial timber production in the temperate zone and are a source of both industrial timber and nonindustrial products in the tropical zone. The plantation forest area increased nearly 40 percent in the past 15 years. Plantations are about 4 percent of the forest area of the temperate zone and less than 2 percent of the forest area of the tropical zone. Plantations are estimated to account for about 6 percent of the forest area of the United States.

Temperate zone plantations, predominantly coniferous species, are mostly managedfor industrial wood products. Many of these plantations are the consequence of reforestation rather than afforestation; that is, they generally do not expand existing forestarea. Afforestation of idle crop or grazing land (in the United States and United Kingdom, for example) is an exception. Native species account for the majority of the plantation area in most Northern Hemisphere, temperate zone countries. In the temperate zone of the Southern Hemisphere, most plantations are fast-growing, exotic specieswith a shorter production cycle than that of native species. In the past decade, production from exotic softwood plantations in New Zealand, Chile, and Australia has increased significantly; these plantations now account for about 3 percent of world coniferous industrial roundwood production—more than three times their share of coniferous forest area. By the year 2020, however, harvests from softwood plantationsin the Southern Hemisphere may be as much as four times current harvest. Worldwide, plantations are projected to account for more than 40 percent of world timber harvest by 2030 (ABARE 1999).

Three countries—India, Indonesia, and Brazil—account for 80 percent of plantations in the tropical zone plantations (Brown 2000). More than half of the plantations in the tropical zone were established for purposes other than production of timber; these include plantations for charcoal and erosion control, for example, and agroforestry Table 2—Population, population growth rate, and forest area in 2000, and average annual change in forest area 1990–2000, by geographic region

Population Forest area b

Annual growth Average annual Region Total a rate, 1995–2000 Total change, 1990–2000

Million

Millions Percent hectares Percent

Asia 3,634 1.4 548 -0.1
Africa 767 2.4 650 -.8 Europe c 729 0 1 039 .1
North and Central America: 478 1.6 549 -.1
United States d 276 .8 226 -.2
South America 341 1.5 886 -.4
Oceania 30 1.3 197 -.2 World 5,978 1.3 3 869 -.2

a Data for 1999.

b Data do not include “other wooded land.”

c Includes Russian Federation.

d United States is included in North and Central America data. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization 2001a.9plantations—joint production of trees and agricultural crops. Tree plantations established for annual crop production in the tropical zone (such as rubber, coconut, and oil palm) also have contributed to the supply of wood and wood products.

In the developed countries, including the United States (which has 0.8 hectare [1.98 acres] per capita of forests), forests are valued for a variety of goods and services that include production of industrial commodities and environmental services (such as maintaining biodiversity and sequestering carbon). In developing countries, forests arepredominantly a source of fuel and land for food production, although there is increasing recognition of the role of forests in providing local as well as regional and globalenvironmental services. Nevertheless, differences in basic needs and values contribute to the challenge of finding a basis for global agreements on management and use
of forests.

United States per capita wood consumption (72.8 cubic feet in 1999) (Howard 2001) is similar to other developed, wood-rich countries (e.g., Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Austria), about twice the average for all developed countries, and more than three times the world average for developing countries (see Brooks 1993). As in other wood-rich countries, consumption of timber in the United States is primarily (87 percent in 1999) in the form of industrial raw material.10 

### Introduction 

# Chapter 2: Assumptions and Methods Used in Projections 1

This chapter provides a summary of major economic assumptions used in this fifth timber assessment with a focus on changes in economic assumptions since the 1989 timber assessment and 1993 RPA timber assessment update, especially those that are important determinants of projected supply and demand for various forest products. These assumptions are key to understanding the results of the timber assessment as they are used as inputs to the model of the forest sector modeling system 2 that we used to develop projections (as described in a final section of this chapter).

In the following discussion, economic assumptions are grouped according to their relation to the demand (consumption) and supply (or production) aspects of the assessment. Demand assumptions include macroeconomic activity; pulp and paper, the context for trade; and fuelwood demand. Supply assumptions include land use, area of timberland, investment in land management by different owners, adjustments for timber removals, and harvest from public timberlands.

Projections of population and general economic activity are the foundations for our longrange projections on the demand side of forest product markets and for parts of the supply side as well (table 3). For example, aggregate measures of nationwide economic activity such as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) are central to projections of future demand for fiber products, such as paper and paperboard, that are widely used

1 The authors for this chapter are Darius M. Adams, Peter J. Ince, Ralph J. Alig, Brett J. Butler, John R. Mills, David J. Brooks, Richard W. Haynes, Kenneth E. Skog, and Xiaoping Zhou.

2 Forest sector models are characterized by a systems view of forestry’s biological and social processes. The importance of this systems view is that it can be used to explore the interactions between the biological development of forest resources and the attendant dynamics of the forest industry and timber markets over time, and under alternative futures and various forest management strategies. A basic premise is that we can specify various relations that describe (ormimic) biological and social (predominantly economic) processes. See Kallio et al. (1987) for further details. 

### Macroeconomic Activity11 Table 3—Population, gross domestic product, and disposable personal income in the United States, selected years, 1950–99, with projections to 2050

1950 152 1.7 1,419 8.7

1955 165 1.8 1,768 5.6 1,182 7.4 59.2 2.0 3.5

1960 181 2.1 1,971 2.2 1,377 2.4 60.0 1.9 .3

1970 194 1.3 2,874 0 2,413 3.1 61.2 2.6 -2.5

1980 227 1.0 3,776 -.5 2,644 -2.3 65.7 1.9 -2.4

1981 230 1.3 3,843 1.8 2,659 .6 65.4 1.6 .2

1982 232 1.0 3,760 -2.2 2,662 .1 65.3 1.4 -3.5

1983 234 .9 3,907 3.9 2,769 4.0 65.1 1.2 2.7

1984 236 .9 4,149 6.2 2,918 5.4 65.5 1.8 4.3

1985 238 .9 4,280 3.2 2,997 2.7 65.9 1.7 1.4

1986 240 .9 4,405 2.9 3,123 4.2 66.5 2.1 .8

1987 242 .9 4,540 3.1 3,206 2.6 66.9 1.7 1.3

1988 245 .9 4,719 3.9 3,340 4.2 67.1 1.5 2.4

1989 247 .9 4,838 2.5 3,462 3.7 67.5 1.8 .7

1990 249 .8 4,897 1.2 3,528 1.9 68.1 1.6 -.4

1991 252 1.4 4,868 -.6 3,518 -.3 67.6 .4 -1.0

1992 255 1.1 4,979 2.3 3,644 3.6 67.8 1.4 .9

1993 258 1.1 5,135 3.1 3,700 1.5 67.7 .8 2.2

1994 260 1.0 5,344 4.1 3,846 3.9 68.1 1.4 2.6

1995 263 1.0 5,513 3.2 3,954 2.8 68.1 1.0 2.2

1996 265 .9 5,710 3.6 4,064 2.8 68.3 1.2 2.3

1997 268 1.0 5,963 4.4 4,194 3.2 68.8 1.8 2.6

1998 270 .9 6,223 4.4 4,303 2.6 68.7 1.0 3.3

1999 273 .9 6,486 4.2 4,441 3.2 68.8 1.2 3.0

2010 298 .8 8,018 2.4 5,693 1.9 73.8 1.3 1.1

2020 323 .8 9,750 2.0 6,922 2.0 73.8 .9 1.1

2030 347 .7 1 1,671 1.8 8,266 1.4 74.0 .7 1.1

2040 370 .6 13,889 1.8 9,861 1.8 74.3 .6 1.1

2050 394 .6 16,569 1.8 11,781 1.8 75.7 .7 1.1 Year Population

Growth Gross domestic product

Growth Disposable personal income

Growth Labor force participation

rate Growth in
civilian
labor force Growth
rate of
U.S. labor

Billion 1987 Billion 1987

Millions Percent dollars a Percent dollars a Percent - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - -

a Unchained (see glossary, chain weighted) GDP (gross domestic product). Sources: GDP, labor force participation rate, labor force and productivity growth projections from U.S. Department of Agricultu re, Economic Research Service, Commercial Agriculture Division (see footnote 3). Population projections from Day 1996.12 across many sectors of the economy. Likewise, estimates of activity in construction, particularly new residential construction and residential upkeep and alteration, are critical determinants of demand for the solid wood industry.

The macroeconomic outlook underlying these projections is based in part on the U.S. Bureau of the Census 1996 middle series projection of the U.S. population (see Day 1996) and entails the following major developments: 3

• Labor force growth will decline owing to slower population growth. Labor force growth will average only 0.8 percent over the period 2000 to 2050 because of the sharp drop in population growth after the baby boom of 1946–66. Growth in the core population (ages 18 to 65) will fall below 1.0 percent to average 0.5 percent.

• Consumer price index (CPI) inflation will stabilize at about 3.0 percent per year owing to successful Federal Reserve (Fed) transition policy from deficit to balance in the federal budget and an absence of cost pressures (table 4).

• Long-term real interest rates will be lower because of shrinking federal debt relative to GDP and a higher savings rate from an aging population. Low inflation will reduce the risk premium on long-term bonds, and the term structure of interest rates will flatten somewhat (short-long gap of about 1 percent). Higher savings rates will increase the supply of loanable funds, as will the falling demand for financing the federal debt. The long-term interest rate will drop to 5.5 percent stimulating capital spending and allowing a return to long-term labor productivity growth rates of roughly 1.1 percent.

• Real GDP will grow at 2.0 percent per year on average.

Five related assumptions merit specific mention. First, employment will grow at the same rate as the labor force, and the labor force will grow somewhat faster than the core population, contributing to significant gains in GDP per capita. Business cycles are ignored, so there is no divergence between labor force and employment growth. Labor force growth that is faster than core population growth implies increases in labor force participation rates relative to the past. As noted at a later point, some of this will come through mandated older retirement ages and some through inducements of higher wages. Second, the federal budget will remain in balance, on average, with continued operation of automatic fiscal policy offsets to cyclical shifts and continued decline in federal debt. Third, freed of the need to accommodate shifting federal budget deficits, the Fed will concentrate on controlling inflation with fewer short-term movements in interest rates. Thus, a relatively stable long-term Fed policy is envisioned, and this will contribute to maintaining a relatively strong U.S. dollar, promoting further gains for wood product imports, and weak growth in U.S. exports. Fourth, real crude oil prices will rise at about 2 percent per year, a modest rate of increase that will be largely offset by likely gains in energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in sectors such as the pulp and paper industry. Between 1982 and 1998, real petroleum import prices in the United States declined by 3.4 percent per year on average (real domestic prices declined by nearly 6 percent per year). Recent price increases (beginning in 1999) are seen as part of a longer term effort by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to

3 The basic structure of the macroeconomic forecast was developed for the USDA Forest Service by the USDA Economic Research Service, Commercial Agricultural Division. On file with: Dave Darr, WO RVUR Staff, Forest Service, RP-C 4 th floor, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090. Street address
is 4 th floor RP-C, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA.13 Population and

Labor Force recover the loss in real petroleum prices over the past 20 years and to maintain values in the future. Mineral prices will rise at less than 2 percent and agricultural prices willcontinue to fall in real terms. Fifth, labor compensation will grow just at the rate of productivity. Despite a continuing tight labor market, wage and salary growth will remain noninflationary.

The growth rate of the U.S. adult population (ages 18 and older) rose steadily afterWorld War II with the emergence and aging of the “baby boomers.” It declined episodically over the past two decades as the boomer and post-boomer birth rate fell. In our projections, growth of the adult population declines to roughly 0.6 percent per year by 2040 and remains at that rate through 2050. 4 Despite a declining growth rate, the adult (18 and older) population will still increase by about 46 percent in absolute terms between 2000 and 2050 adding roughly 94 million people to the current adult population.

The core population (ages 18 to 65), a still more restrictive population measure, has significance because it is the pool (at present) from which most of the labor force is drawn. Growth of this group will decline from about 1 percent per year in recent years tonear zero by 2025 then rebound slowly. At the same time, the proportion of the population outside the core range, the so-called dependent population, will rise markedly in relative terms. For example, the population age 65 and older relative to the core, will rise from roughly 21 percent in recent years to near 37 percent at its projected peak in 2040. In absolute terms, the number of persons age 65+ will increase by some 44 million between 2000 and 2050, while the core population will grow by about 50 million.

4 This differs only modestly from projections in the 1989 assessment (the current projection is higher) and mostly in the longer term owing to slightly higher fecundity and immigration assumptions. Table 4—Inflation and interest rates

Long-term nominal
Year CPI inflation a PPI inflation a interest rate b

Percent

1970 5.7 3.7 6.6

1980 13.5 14.1 10.8

1990 5.4 3.7 8.7

1999 2.2 .9 6.1

2010 3.0 2.5 5.0

2020 3.0 2.5 5.0

2030 3.0 2.5 5.0

2040 3.0 2.5 5.0

2050 3.0 2.5 5.0

a Measured as growth in the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban workers. PPI = Producer price index (all industrial commodities).

b Yield on long-term government bonds of 10 or more years of maturity. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Commercial Agricultural Division (see footnote 3).14 Productivity These demographic trends imply declining growth in the labor force and, hence, thatlabor force participation will be a key issue in the long-term future. Labor force participation rose rapidly in the post-World War II period as women moved into the labor force in increasing numbers (see table 3). The projection envisions continued growth in labor force participation, with lengthening periods of working years (retirements beyond age 65), continued growth in female participation, and an increase in the currently static male participation rates (induced in part by rising compensation). The projected rate rises sharply until 2010, then slows in the remainder of the period to 2050. But even with these higher participation rates, growth in the civilian labor force and employment averages only 0.8 percent per year over the full projection (table 3). By the last twodecades of the projection, employment growth drops to about 0.6 to 0.7 percent annually, the lowest rate since the Depression.

Labor productivity growth depends on important aggregate supply variables such as the level, quality, and growth of capital stock. Capital stock includes plant and business equipment, human capital, and infrastructure such as schools, airports, railroads, and highways. Research and development and education are important factors contributing to productivity. A growing share of export in GDP has also been associated with periodsof high aggregate productivity growth. One explanation is that in periods with aboveaverage productivity growth rates in these sectors, the United States becomes increasingly competitive in world markets for manufactured and agricultural goods, which make up a large share of exports.

Our baseline economic and demographic assumptions, however, do not indicate the probability of above-average productivity growth in the decades ahead, and thus do not indicate the likelihood of significant expansion in U.S. exports or manufactured goods. Expansion of low-cost production capacity in other countries coupled with a strong U.S. dollar that appears unlikely to weaken significantly in the near future makes it appearunlikely at present that U.S. producers will regain competitive advantage in forest products trade any time soon, and thus we project further gains for product imports with little growth in product exports.

Average productivity growth of 1.1 percent is projected over the period to 2050 as indicated in table 3. This is consistent with historical performance and is roughly equal to the average growth of productivity since 1960. Of course, productivity growth has shown marked variation historically. During the 1960s, low real interest rates, tax cuts, and government spending boosted investment. By the 1970s, oil and commodity price shocks, inflation, rising real interest rates, increased expenditures on environmental protection, and a huge wave of inexperienced new workers (the boomers) coming into the labor force had combined to slow it. Tight money and the wave of merger activity in the 1980s acted to offset the otherwise positive effects of the period’s tax cuts, and productivity continued to lag. The projection, although lower than the halcyon days ofthe 1960s, is based on positive signs: low raw material input cost growth, likely expansion in personal savings rates as the population ages, and low overall inflation. The rate is no higher, on the other hand, because of the aging population (and loss of skilledworkers) and, accompanying an aging population, a shift away from durable goods toward services.

The rate of growth of GDP is the sum of growth rates of the labor force and laborproductivity. As shown in table 3, the labor force and productivity considerations discussed above lead to a projected average post-2000 real GDP growth rate of only 2.0 percent. This is lower than the 1989 assessment update (Haynes 1990) and 1993 Gross Domestic Product15assessment (Haynes et al. 1995) projections. It is also substantially below the postWorld War II average of 3.1 percent. The primary reason for the lower current projection is the slowdown in labor force growth. Despite marked increases in participation rates, labor force growth falls steadily in the projection. In this context, per capita GDP willcontinue to increase steadily, but maintaining aggregate GDP growth in the neighborhood of the post-World War II average would require productivity growth more than double our historical experience.

Viewed from a broader perspective, the demographic changes that bring an aging population and a slowing of labor force growth may have some profound influences on the structure of the U.S. economy. First, the personal savings rate is likely to rise. Second, the demand for services is likely to grow relative to the demand for consumer durables, again reflecting an aging population. The retiree is more likely to use a home-health care aid than to buy a new car. Third, household formation slows, and thus spending on durables stagnates. Fourth, until growth in the dependent population stabilizes (after2030), there will be strong pressure for government spending to grow. Should this happen, rising taxation could eat into wage gains and slow growth in disposable income.

The core rate of annual consumer price inflation is projected to be 3.0 percent, whereasproducer prices grow at 2.5 percent per year (table 4). This is a stable inflationary environment (partly why stronger investment and positive productivity growth are foreseen) because it means less uncertainty about the future for investors. The costs of loweringinflation below 3 percent, however, are considerable because of the high levels of consumer and business debt (the burden of the debt goes up sharply with big reductions in inflation). It is assumed that the Fed opts to stop inflation at 3 percent in the long run.

Real long-term interest rates are projected to average only 2.5 percent after 2010, or5 percent in nominal terms after adding inflation (2.5 percent) in the all-commodity producer price index (PPI). The long-run real Treasury bill rate (short-term interest rate) is expected to range near 1.5 percent (4.0 percent nominal). The 1-percent spread is, on average, narrower than that observed over the past 25 years, but consistent with the view that there will be a much lower government-debt-to-GDP ratio, lower inflationary expectations, and a relatively strong U.S. dollar.

Projections of housing starts and expenditures on residential upkeep and alterationderive from an analysis of household decisions on investment in housing stock. Households are seen as establishing some desired level of investment in housing (change in the value of the housing stock) in each period and the distribution of that investment between new housing or improvement (upkeep and alteration) of the existing stock. Investment in new housing is then translated into the number of new units built and theiraverage size (app. tables 27 and 28). In investment decisions, income at both the individual and household levels is critical as is the age class structure of the population. Income and age structure are also important in decisions on housing type, as are costs of construction, including costs of land. 5

The projection envisions continued high levels of all types of starts, reflecting in part,growth in the number of households (the rate of growth is declining, but the total increases by nearly two-thirds between 2000 and 2050 or some 71 million additional separate living units). The number of new households will average 1.4 million per year Prices, Inflation, and

Interest Rates

Housing

5 Details of the housing model and an analysis of housing forecasts are given in Montgomery 2001.16 over the next 50 years, while housing starts will average 1.9 million per year. This compares to 1.3 million new households and 1.8 million housing starts per year since 1963. The gap between housing starts and new households does not narrow in the future as might be expected for two reasons: (1) an aging, but healthy, retired population will be more likely to acquire second homes, and (2) the aging housing stock will require higher than historical replacements of existing units.

Most of the increase in housing starts relative to new households is likely to occur in single-family dwellings, also for two reasons: (1) decreasing proportion of young adults in the population will lead to less demand for multiple-family housing (apartments), and(2) increasing income will increase the likelihood that home ownership will be attainable. The upward shift in the single-family projection in 2010–15 derives from the housing of the “baby boom echo” (children of the boomers). The increase after 2030, in contrast, depends on growth in numbers of second homes and the replacement of older housing units in the stock.

For materials use in residential construction, a key determinant is the average size of units built, usually measured as the floor area per unit. Driven by income and household preferences, the average size of single-family homes has roughly doubled in the past 50 years. The average size of new housing units is projected to continue to increase as a result of increasing household income, but at slower than historical rates. Single-family units will increase from a recent average size of 2,190 to 2,590 square feet by 2050, multiple-family housing from 1,015 to 1,210 square feet, and mobile homes from 1,450 to 1,950 square feet.

Expenditures on residential upkeep and alteration experienced a major jump in the 1980s ( app. table 28). 6This spending is heavily dependent on income, age of household occupants (middle-aged householders spend more) and an array of interest rate, inflationary expectation, and taxation considerations. In the projection, continuedsteady income growth and an aging population drive residential upkeep and improvement spending to roughly 80 percent above its current levels by 2050. Although this is a substantial increase, it actually entails roughly constant expenditures per household until 2030 in amounts no larger than observed on average during the 1986–98 period. After 2030, expenditure per household begins to rise slowly, reflecting continued growth

in income.

Determinants of demand for paper and paperboard are highly diffuse in the U.S. economy and in international trade, because paper and paperboard commodities generally serve a broad range of consumer, industrial, and transportation end-use activities. Major end-use activities include transportation and protection of goods in commerce (shipping containers and packaging), communication and information storage (reading and writing), and health and sanitary purposes (tissue and sanitary paper products).Because these end-use activities are widely dispersed throughout the domestic economy, broad indicators of economic activity such as per capita GDP and populationserve adequately as general determinants of domestic demands for paper and paperboard. In this analysis, price-responsive domestic demand functions were estimated for all principal categories of paper and paperboard in the U.S. economy. Demand functions 

### Assumptions for Pulp and Paper

6 Expenditures are thought to have increased despite the change in reporting methods—which may have accounted for 15 to 20 percent of the upward shift (see Montgomery 2001).17 were estimated in relation to per capita U.S. GDP and U.S. population (Zhang 1995, Zhang and Buongiorno 1997). Domestic market substitution of plastics in packaging and electronics in communication were also taken into account via statistical analysis.

Markets were analyzed and projected for all paper products such as newsprint, printingand writing paper, tissue and sanitary paper, and packaging paper, as well as all paperboard products such as containerboard, bleached board, and recycled paperboard. Domestic demands differ among different commodities with respect to population and per capita GDP, with varying potential for product substitution by electronic media or plastics (Zhang 1995, Zhang and Buongiorno 1997).

Conventional and projected sources of pulpwood supply in the United States include pulpwood harvest and wood residues. Projected pulpwood supply includes pulpwood harvest on forest land (hardwood and softwood roundwood harvested on forests or forest plantations and delivered to mills in log or chip form), hardwood and softwood residuessuch as chips or slabs supplied as pulpwood to wood pulp mills from sawmills or plywood mills, and a small quantity of hardwood pulpwood supply from agrifiber plantations (wood from fiber crops such as hybrid poplars or cottonwoods grown on agriculturalland). Price-responsive pulpwood supply functions were estimated for roundwood pulpwood from private forest lands in each principal supply region of the Eastern UnitedStates (Northeast, North Central, Southeast, and South Central), with separate equations for hardwoods and softwoods, and for forest industry and nonindustrial private forest lands. Supply curves were shifted over time with a direct relation to projected timber inventory and by relations to projected interest rates and regional income. Noconstraints or other adjustments were applied to the pulpwood supply equations. Regional supplies of pulpwood in the form of wood residues were determined in the projections from projected regional levels of lumber and plywood production (which generate wood residue byproducts). Regional supplies of pulpwood from public forest lands and from timberland in the Western United States were determined by trend analysis.

Conventional and projected pulpwood demands include pulpwood receipts at U.S. pulp mills, roundwood pulpwood receipts at wood panel mills such as OSB (oriented strand board) mills, and pulpwood exports. In this analysis, all roundwood receipts at wood panel mills (such as OSB mills) are regarded as part of the total historical and projected “pulpwood” demand, but pulpwood does not include wood residue receipts at wood panel mills (such as particleboard mills). Nevertheless, the overall timber analysis does account for all wood panel production and all wood residue usage in the U.S. economy (including residues such as sawdust and planer shavings used at particleboard mills).

This timber assessment assumes a continuation of existing government policies such as those related to forest resources, paper recycling, trade, or environmental protection. The projected market equilibrium for pulpwood each year is obtained by maximizingtotal consumer and producer surplus of the North American pulp and paper sector, subject to production capacity and technology constraints, material balance, trade assumptions, and pulpwood demands for wood panel products (this is discussed in more detail in the projection models section). Production capacities of different manufacturingprocesses in pulp and paper are projected to evolve gradually over the multidecade projection period, with annual changes in regional capacity favoring the more efficient processes in a continuous response to evolving fiber markets. Pulpwood Demand and Supply18 Hardwood agrifiber supply —Growing short-rotation hardwood tree crops, such as fast-growing hybrid poplars or cottonwoods on agricultural lands for fiber products, has been developed commercially on a limited scale in the United States, with about 0.1 to 0.2 million acres of agricultural land planted in short-rotation woody crops in the 1990s (less than 0.1 percent of current U.S. cropland area). Hardwood agrifiber plantations on agricultural land have much higher potential productivity than natural hardwoods in forest stands, typically up to five or six times higher, but higher productivity comes at theexpense of higher costs. The “base case” analysis evaluated the potential of conventional nonirrigated short-rotation woody crop systems and assumed that hardwood agrifiber supply would have a potential to expand in the future if equilibrium prices for hardwood pulpwood remain high enough to justify the higher costs of agrifiber supply.

A key technical assumption about short-rotation woody crops in the base case outlook was that the biological productivity of such crops relative to productivity of the late1990s would increase by more than 50 percent in the North and West, and approximately double in the South over the next several decades, through improvements such as genetic engineering and better cultivation techniques. This assumption lowered the assumed competitive cost of delivered pulpwood chips from hardwood agrifiber in the projections, by more than 20 percent in the South for example, but as shown in the results, there was little projected expansion in the equilibrium supply of hardwood agrifiber (and not until late in the projection period when hardwood stumpage prices were projected to increase).

At current productivity for agricultural short-rotation woody crops, real prices required to cover the costs of hardwood agrifiber supply were estimated in this analysis to be about $50 per dry ton of clean chips delivered to roadside in the South, and slightly higher inthe North (in 1982 dollars, assuming onsite chipping and debarking). This reflects estimated costs and productivity known to be achievable with such crops based on conventional technology. In this analysis, it was assumed that these costs would be reduced in the future, for example to about $40 per dry ton of clean chips delivered to roadside in the South with an assumed doubling in biological productivity. Agricultural land rent, tree harvesting, and chip transportation costs were not assumed to be reduced by gains inbiological productivity, so the savings in delivered chip costs are not directly proportionate to increases in biological productivity. The productivity and cost data assume thatagrifiber crops are fertilized periodically and treated chemically to suppress weed competition early in the rotation (this is common practice in conventional poplar plantations, although chemical applications are much lower than in most other agricultural crops).The productivity and cost data assume that the woody crops will not be irrigated (although irrigation is used in a few highly productive plantations in the West and South, affording higher productivity and shorter rotations, but with higher costs per acre).

A review of estimated costs for other potential fiber supply sources, such as the production costs of nonwood agrifiber crops (kenaf, hemp, etc.) and delivered wood costs forimported hardwood pulpwood chips (e.g., from Latin America), indicated that such alternatives would cost more and are therefore less likely to be developed as alternative fiber supplies than domestic agricultural wood fiber crops. However, in any case, we also projected that hardwood pulpwood imports would increase in the projection period from less than 0.5 million cubic meters per year in recent years to around 2 million cubicmeters in 2050. Most of the projected increase is assumed to be plantation-grown hardwood pulpwood from Latin America, and most of the increase occurs after 2020 when growth in domestic hardwood pulpwood supplies are projected to become more limited because of declining hardwood timber inventories in the South. Despite the projected19 fourfold increase, U.S. imports of hardwood pulpwood chips remain less than 1 percentof total U.S. pulpwood supply throughout the projection period. Prospective phytosanitary restrictions may limit these imports to Canada or bordering states of Mexico.

Canada —In the baseline projections, pulpwood receipts at Canadian wood pulp mills were assumed to increase from levels characteristic of the past decade (100 to 110 million cubic meters per year) to reach a peak at 125 million cubic meters per year around 2010, and then gradually subside to a level just over 100 million cubic meters by 2050. Wood residues (primarily from Canadian lumber mills) are projected to remain the dominant element of pulpwood receipts at pulp mills in Canada (more than 60 percent). Thus, projected pulpwood supply trends in Canada largely follow projected trends in Canadian lumber production, with residue outputs adjusted gradually downward over time by assumed improvements in lumber recovery efficiency. Roundwood pulpwood harvest in Canada was projected to reach a peak at just over 40 million cubic meters per year around 2010, but then gradually recede back to recent harvest levels of around35 million cubic meters in 2050. Thus, Canada is projected to remain a significant element within the North American pulp and paper sector. With a strong U.S. dollar and relatively weak Canadian dollar, Canada is projected to remain the largest source of U.S. paper and paperboard imports, although Canadian paper and paperboard producers are not projected to gain dominant U.S. market shares in any major commodity area. With declining U.S. consumption of newsprint in the long run, relatively low production costs, and favorable exchange rates, Canadian producers are projected to increase production and export to the United States of printing and writing paper products and paperboard.

In addition, total U.S. exports of recovered paper increased from less than 1 million tons in the early 1970s to 10.6 million tons in the year 2000. Recovered paper exports are projected to continue increasing, to just over 20 million tons in 2050, as projected U.S. paper and paperboard capacity growth remains relatively subdued by increased product imports. Canada will import a large share of this projected increase in recovered paper exports for use in expanding Canadian paper and paperboard mills.

Trade in forest products has been an important dimension of the U.S. forest sector for more than 300 years. Timber was one of the first natural resources to be exploited in, and exported from, North America. Up to the early part of the 20 th century, the UnitedStates was a net exporter of forest products; after World War I, a combination of domestic economic growth and expansion of the forest industry in Canada produced a relatively rapid expansion of the forest products trade deficit, measured in both volume (roundwood equivalent) and value terms. In the past three decades, the forest products trade deficit has increased, but it has also been quite volatile, declining to near zero during U.S. recessions.

The United States currently relies on imports for about 20 percent of consumption; at the same time, exports account for about 12 percent of U.S. harvest. 7 The importanceof trade differs widely across regions of the country and among forest product commodities. For most of the past 50 years, softwood lumber, pulp, and paper (primarily newsprint), almost entirely from Canada, have dominated U.S. forest products imports. Until 

### Context for Trade Assumptions

7 Imports as a share of consumption, and exports as a share of production, based on the roundwood equivalent of all products
and raw material traded.20 relatively recently, softwood logs and lumber, produced primarily in the Pacific Northwest and going predominantly to Japan, have accounted for a significant share of U.S. forest product exports.

The trade outlook for the timber assessment includes assumptions 8that some longstanding trends, such as reliance on imports for an important component of growth in U.S. consumption and the importance of Canada as a source for U.S. product imports,

will continue. 9 However, the projections also reflect the expectation that there will be changes in the structure and pattern of U.S. forest products trade, based in part on the continuation of trends observed in the past decade or longer. Important changes include a large increase in imports of low-cost non-Canadian forest products, including softwoodlumber and hardwood pulp from Latin America and paper products from overseas producers; reductions in softwood log and lumber exports from the Pacific Northwest (most of which took place over 1990–99); generally decreasing hardwood product exports (in relative and absolute terms); and a continuing shift in the composition of trade towardvalue-added products. Tropical timber products are expected to continue to play a relatively small role in U.S. consumption.

Projected increases in the import share of paper and paperboard consumption followed by relative stability after 2010 reflect a baseline assumption of very little weakening in the exchange value of the U.S. dollar over the next decade followed by static exchange rates for the remainder of the projection period. The import share of total U.S. paper and paperboard consumption rose gradually from 12 percent in the 1970s to 14 percent in 1996, but then it increased much more rapidly to over 17 percent in 2000. It is projected to reach 21 percent in 2010, at which point the import share is projected to become relatively stable at 21 to 22 percent of consumption throughout the projection period. Thus the projections indicate that low-cost foreign producers of paper and paperboard will continue to expand their production capacity and exports to the United States in line with trends since the late 1990s, exploiting and maintaining competitive advantages afforded by the strong U.S. dollar.

The United States is projected to experience little growth in the export share of paperand paperboard production. The export share of total U.S. paper and paperboard production receded from a peak of just over 11 percent in 1997 to around 9 percent in 2000, and the export share of production is projected to remain in the range of 9 to 10 percent throughout most of the projection period with no significant depreciation in the value of the strong U.S. dollar.

A large share of projected expansion in the U.S. imports of paper and paperboard occurs over the next decade, in line with trends since the late 1990s, but after 2010imports are projected to increase more, in line with projected growth in domestic consumption. Total U.S. imports of paper and paperboard are projected to approximately double over the projection period (from around 17 million tons at present to 24 million tons in 2010 and 35 million tons in 2050). Although Canada is projected to remain the

8 The actual assumptions are shown on various tables in chapter 3.

9 Projections of U.S. trade with Canada are calculated as part of both timber assessment market model (TAMM) (for the solid wood sector) and North American pulp and paper model (NAPAP) (for the pulp and paper sector).21 dominant source of U.S. paper and paperboard imports, most of the projected increase in U.S. imports is assumed to derive from capacity expansion among other low-cost overseas producers in Latin America, Europe, and Asia.

World timber supplies are expected to be relatively abundant over most of the projection period, owing in part to more intensive resource management and the expansion of plantation area in both the temperate and tropical forest zones. Expansion of hardwood pulpwood supply (such as plantation-grown eucalyptus) and hardwood market pulpcapacity in Latin America and elsewhere is projected to contribute to a significant expansion in U.S. hardwood market pulp imports (from just over 2 million tons per year to over 7 million tons per year by 2050). The projected increase in hardwood market pulpimports will help offset declining hardwood pulpwood supply in the South owing to projected declines in hardwood timber inventory and availability. Expected timber resource availability, worldwide, is also consistent with increased availability of non-Canadian sources of forest products (such as softwood lumber and hardwood market pulp) in
U.S. markets.

Some of the trade-related changes are a consequence of domestic resources and polices; some are more directly attributable to broader trends in regional and global economies and the effects of these trends on the U.S. forest sector. For example, trade agreements and accompanying tariff reductions have contributed to world economic growth and to the importance of globalization and free trade for nearly all industrial sectors in most countries. Although the direct effect of tariff reductions on the volume of forest products trade, especially that of the United States, is small by most estimates, effects on both the composition and patterns of trade (trading partners) are somewhat greater. 10 Of much greater importance are the broad effects of market globalization and monetary exchange rates, which clearly have profound implications for U.S. trade in sectors such as pulp and paper.

National projections of roundwood used for fuel have been constructed in three steps. First, USDA Forest Service estimates of roundwood used for fuel in 1986 (Waddell et al. 1989) are linked by conversion factors to Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of total wood energy use in each sector—residential, industrial, commercial, and utility. Only a portion of wood energy in each sector comes from roundwood; mill residue and black liquor are excluded. Second, DOE projections of wood energy use to 2020, by sector, (USDE EIA 1997, reference case) are extended to 2050 by using GDP to project total energy use in each sector. Third, projections of roundwood use are made for each sector by multiplying the extended projections of wood energy use in each sector by the portion that is made from roundwood.

National projections of roundwood use for fuel are subdivided by region, and into hardwood or softwood, growing stock or other source by using Forest Service estimates (Powell et al. 1993, Smith et al. 2001, Waddell et al. 1989).

Roundwood use for fuelwood declined from 3.11 billion cubic feet in 1986 to 2.36 in 2000, but is projected to increase to 3.46 billion cubic feet by 2050 (app. table 29). Industrial, commercial, and utility use of roundwood for fuel is projected to increase steadily from 0.18 billion cubic feet in 1996 to 0.52 billion cubic feet in 2050 owing to increasing nonwood fuel prices for these sectors. Residential use is projected to 

### Fuelwood Demand Projections

10 For further discussion, see Bourke and Leitch (1998), Brooks et al. (2001), Tomberlin et al. (1998).22 decline, however, from 2.95 billion cubic feet in 1986 to 2.15 billion cubic feet in 2000 then slowly increase to 2.94 billion cubic feet in 2050. The average price for residential fuels is projected to decline through 2020.

The growing-stock portion of roundwood used for fuel is assumed to remain relatively constant over the projection period at 27 percent. The proportion of growing stock used for fuel that is hardwood is projected to decline from 77 percent in 1996 to 66 percent in

2050.

In the timber assessment, the supply of timber at any point is based on the contributions of four broad groups of timberland owners: national forest, other public, forest industry, and nonindustrial private. Timber harvest from the public landowners is assumed to be set by agency policy as discussed later in this section. Timber supplies from the two private landowners are modeled, in part, as functions of private timber inventorylevels and stumpage prices. The methods used to project timber supplies require assumptions relating to timberland area change, trends in future management investment, and the efficiency of harvest utilization. Finally, assumptions are required that define the relation between the volume of timber harvested for products and the volume of timber removed from the live growing stock in the forest.

Projections of timber supply and prices are sensitive to the assumptions made regarding future forest area (Alig et al. 1983). These assumptions include changes in area byownership, forest cover type, and site. Changes in the area of total timberland, ownerships, and forest cover types may not only impact prospective timber supplies, butsupplies of water, wildlife, forage, and outdoor recreation as well. Change in total timberland area is the net result of the conversion of timberland to nonforest and the shifting of nonforest to timberland by natural reversion or afforestation. Ownership changes in the timberland base may result in different land management objectives or new owners with different available resources to invest in forest management. Changes in the areas of forest types often reflect differences in land management objectives among owners, and indicate the differential influence of natural and human-caused management forces.

Projections of area changes for the timberland base were made for the North, South, Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, and the Pacific Coast regions. Within regions, projections were made for two private forest ownership classes—forest industry (FI), and nonindustrial private (NIPF). Public timberland projections were provided by public agencies. Consistent with the basic assumption of constant current policies in the base projection, the areas of public forest land were assumed to be fixed over the next 50years. The area projection methods and results are described in more detail in a supporting technical document (Alig et al., n.d.), and are summarized here.

Projecting changes in private land use —Forest area was projected in two steps: (1) shifts in major land uses and (2) changes in area by forest cover type. First, areachanges were projected for the major land uses (forestry, agriculture, urban or developed, and other) by region based on land use simulation models (e.g., Alig et al. 1999; Kline and Alig 2001; Mauldin et al. 1999a, 1999b; Plantinga et al. 1999). Changes inprivate timberland area are attributable primarily to two processes: shifts between agriculture and forestry, and permanent loss of forest area to development. For example, the rate of loss of timberland to developed uses depends on population growth and changes in the real income of individuals. Increasing populations raise the demand for land for residences and places to work and play. In general, as incomes increase, more Projected Area Changes

for Land Uses and Forest Management Cover Types 

### Timber Supply Assumptions23 land is used for living and recreation. Incomes from land enterprises, such as agriculture and forestry, also influence land use changes, and timber price projections from the

timber assessment are used in the land use models.

Area changes in timberland reflect the interaction of a number of forces. Timberlandconversion takes place as the result of land clearing for agriculture, highways, powerlines, and reservoirs, along with urban development. Public lands can be withdrawn for parks, wilderness, and other recreation uses. At the same time, public forest land can be reclassified as timberland, including cases when new surveys result in revised forest productivity estimates (Smith et al. 2001). Private forest lands that have been acquired
for second homes or recreation use contribute to the reduction in timberland. In some regions, additions to the timberland base from idle crop and pasture land have recently been increasing owing, in part, to changes in public dairy programs and other changes in agricultural institutions. Projecting area change requires the consideration of complex economic and social factors. Thus, a mixture of judgment and quantitative models was used to make projections of timberland area. 11

Although federal farm policy has played a major role in causing land to shift from forestry to agriculture, recent developments may eventually tend to reduce this impact. The passage of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR96)was designed to eliminate agricultural target prices and land retirement programs, except for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (Alig et al. 1998a). Prior to FAIR96, federal commodity policies contributed to maintaining total agricultural supply (stocks plus production) above the quantity that would clear the market at a price acceptable to both agricultural consumers and producers. Target prices provided production incentives in excess of market requirements, and government stock levels were managed with land retirement and demand enhancement programs. The absence of such programs would potentially improve forestry’s competitive position relative to agriculture in some cases (Alig et al. 1998a), especially for marginal agricultural lands in the Eastern UnitedStates. Annual adjustments in the last half of the 1990s, however, have resulted in significant amounts of traditional program payments to farmers, and any further adjustments are difficult to predict.

The amount of land used for agriculture has a great impact on the amount of timberland available. But even if recent farm legislation does improve the competitive position of forestry relative to agriculture in the decades ahead, it is not clear that large numbers of landowners will switch land uses or enterprises. Historically, most land has moved from agriculture to forestry via a passive route, where farm lands are simply abandoned and revert naturally to forests through processes of vegetation succession. It is true that major afforestation programs such as the Soil Bank of the late 1950s and later CRP resulted in substantial amounts of afforested agricultural land, but these programs have been episodic and largely unpredictable (e.g., Alig et al. 1980).

11 Major research studies by region that supported development of area projections by the AREACHANGE system were South—Adams et al. (1996a, 1996b); Ahn et al. (2001, 2002); Alig (1985), Alig et al. (1998a, 1998b, 2001), Hardie and Parks (1997); PNW—Kline and Alig (1998, 2001), Parks and Murray (1994); North—Plantinga et al. (1999). Relations from these studies were incorporated into a projection system similar to that described by Alig (1985). If aresearch-based equation for a particular land use was not available, projections of area changes in those cases were constructed from expert opinion or other studies (e.g., Alig et al., n.d.; Vesterby et al. 1994, based on the earlier approach of Alig et al. 1990).24 Agricultural productivity, agriculture exports, and prices of agricultural crops also influence land use changes (e.g., Alig et al. 1998a). Future agriculture commodity suppliesand effective prices, however, are likely to be more closely tied to total harvest (the product of yields times area) than has been the case in recent decades (Alig et al. 1998b). From the macroeconomic forecast, real agriculture prices are expected to continue todecline. Assumptions on the future rate of change in agricultural productivity and associated land incomes were derived from other USDA studies (e.g., Agricultural Outlook for the next 10 years, USDA ERS 2000).

Population changes are a major determinant of future timberland area (Alig and Healy 1987). The Bureau of the Census projects a 126 million increase in U.S. population by 2050 (USDC BOC 1997). The housing projections for the timber assessment estimate that this overall population increase will yield an additional 76 million households over the same period (Montgomery 2001). In the past, each additional household has consumedabout 1 acre of land. Thus, if the population forecast is realized, the implications for forestry may be a significant continued loss to urban or developed uses.

The available data show that forests made up more than one-third of rural land converted to urban or developed uses between 1982 and 1992 (USDA NRCS 2001). Americans continue to move to the South and West, with cities such as Atlanta, Georgia, growingmuch faster than the national average. In addition, some metropolitan areas are becoming denser in surrounding counties, with thinner central cores. The fastest growing onefifth of U.S. counties were primarily in the South (56 percent), and in coastal areas. TheSouth is seen by both the agricultural and forestry sectors as a region of potential expansion. Rapid population growth in the South, however, raises questions about the compatibility of continued growth in all land uses (Alig et al. 1998b).

Projecting area change in forest cover —The second step in projecting forest area is to develop projections by major forest cover classes. For example, in the South, thefive forest cover classes for which projections are prepared for forest industry and nonindustrial private forest timberlands are planted pine, naturally regenerated pine, oak-pine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods. Forest cover projections are made with Markov chain models (Alig and Wyant 1985; Butler and Alig, n.d.) that use timber harvest probabilities from the TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS (timber assessment market model/North America pulp and paper model/aggregate timberland assessment system) portion of the modeling system for harvest disturbances. For other disturbance categories, primary data sources were USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) periodic forest surveys, American Forest and Pulpwood Association (AF&PA) survey data, and a survey of State Foresters regarding nonindustrial private forest timber management tendencies documented by Moffat et al. (1998a, 1998b). Because projected timber harvests are one of the inputs in the forest cover projections, several iterations with other models in the TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS/AREACHANGE (timberland area change model) system were required (see fig. 2). Timber harvest probabilities were updated after a TAMM/NAPAP/ ATLAS run and fed to the forest cover modeling component. The forest cover projections were in turn fed back to the TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS component. This linkage reflected the relation between forest investment (e.g., establishment of additional pine plantations) and projected timber prices, where price changes might lead to shifts in timber harvest and subsequently a change in the mix of forest cover types regenerated after harvest.

Changes in area among forest cover types affect both the nature and volume of timberavailable from forests. For example, decreases in timber production can occur when commercial species are replaced by noncommercial species. Area change projections by25forest management type were based on assumptions about the probability that a particular acre will receive a certain type of management and the associated probabilities that an acre so managed will remain in the same forest type or will make the transition to other forest types (Butler and Alig, n.d.).

Forest cover dynamics can be influenced, in part, by the land use changes discussed above and by other human-caused disturbances. Afforestation, such as the conversion of an agricultural field to a conifer plantation, is one important example. Deforestation when land is converted from forest land to nonforest, such as converting a hardwood Figure 2—Bioeconomic modeling system for the timber assessment.26 Historical Trends in

Timberland Area area to a residential development, is another example of human-caused disturbances that can have significant influences on forest composition. The disturbances also can set back successional trends. Successional processes involving recruitment, growth, reproduction, and mortality are involved in determining interspecies and intraspecies competition and forest stand dynamics. Timber harvests are an important driving forcewith respect to changes in forest cover types (Butler and Alig, n.d.), and one of the external inputs in modeling forest cover changes was timber harvest probabilities taken from projections by the TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS modeling system described earlier.

The largest impact on forest cover dynamics in the United States in the recent past has been human influence (Butler and Alig, n.d.), especially changes in management objectives. In the last half of the 20 th century, application of intensive forestry in some cases has influenced the composition, structure, and ecological processes of forests.For example, plantations and clearcutting have replaced natural regeneration and selective harvesting on some sites in the United States. Intensive forestry has generally reduced rotation lengths, which increases the probability of more forest cover changes. At the same time, a countervailing trend is seen in expansion in the number of forested acres acquired by private owners for purposes other than timber production. This growth in nontimber objectives and the incorporation of forest lands into residential ownerships have reduced the likelihood of some acres being intensively managed.

Area of timberland in the United States steadily declined as the country was settled. From 1800 to 1930, timberland area declined by 300 to 350 million acres (Clawson1979). Some of the converted forest land was used for urban and infrastructure developments, but most was cleared for agriculture. These land use changes reflected federal policies of the time to transfer the original public domain to private hands to expand agricultural production. The net movement of land between forestry and agriculture has become far less marked with the elimination of the public domain, establishment of permanent federal forest reserves, conversion of most suitable nongovernment forest lands to some form of cropping or pasture, and dramatic improvements in agricultural productivity. Between 1945 and 1992, U.S. cropland area increased by about 2 percent, pastureland area decreased by 11 percent, forest land area decreased by 7 percent, and area in urban or developed uses increased by more than 285 percent (USDA ERS 1995).

Although the pre-1930 trends in intersectoral land shifts have moderated, rural land use remains mutable in the short term. Substantial acreages have shifted back and forthbetween uses. Over the last 40 years, an average of 1.8 million acres per year of cropland and the same area of pastureland have been transferred either into or out of the agriculture base, while 1.5 million acres per year have moved in and out of forestry (USDA ERS 1995). Between 1930 and the early 1960s, the area of timberland increased by about 50 million acres as the worked-out cotton lands in the South, cleared areas on hill farms in the East, and marginal farms in other regions reverted back to forests. By1963, the timberland area in the United States reached 515 million acres (table 5). During the 1960s, the upward trend in timberland area was reversed, and by the 1970s the rate of acreage loss began to accelerate. As a result, timberland area dropped to 486 million acres by 1987. Some reduction in timberland area was due to reclassification to wilderness, although the land still retained forests. However, the decadal rate of declinein timberland area lessened to about 2 percent, in part because of surplus crop production in the agricultural sector.27 Between 1987 and 1997, there was a net increase in U.S. timberland area of some 18 million acres. Approximately four-fifths of the area increase was on public timberlands, largely owing to reclassification (Smith et al. 2001). Private timberland area increasedabout 4 million acres, or 1 percent. During 5 years of this period, the CRP was operative, representing one of the Nation’s largest tree planting programs. Under the CRP, trees were planted on about 3 million acres of erodible and environmentally sensitiveland, primarily pine plantations in the South. In the North, excess capacity in the agriculture sector resulted in natural reversion of some former agricultural land to trees. At the same time, continued urbanization converted several million acres of forest land (USDA NRCS 2001).

The total area of U.S. timberland is projected to decrease about 3 percent between 1997 and 2050 (table 5). During the 1970s, a significant portion of the decline in forestarea resulted from conversion of forest to cropland, particularly on southern river bottoms and deltas as more resources flowed into the agriculture sector. However, after Area Projections by Region Table 5—Area of timberland in the United States by ownership and region, 1953–97, with projections to

2050

Historical Projections

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

Million acres
Forestland:

Region—

North 160.8 165.7 164.2 165.5 170.3 172.1 171.0 168.6 166.2 163.8
South 226.0 228.4 217.0 211.1 214.1 213.2 212.6 211.8 211.2 210.5 Rocky Mountains b 141.6 140.4 138.2 139.6 143.2 144.3 144.2 143.8 143.2 142.5 Pacific Coast 227.8 227.4 224.2 221.5 219.3 216.3 213.9 211.6 209.4 207.1

Total 756.2 761.9 743.6 737.8 747.0 745.9 741.7 735.9 729.9 723.8

Timberland:

Ownership—

Public 145.4 146.2 138.2 132.4 146.1 146.1 146.1 146.1 146.1 146.1 Forest industry 59.0 61.4 68.9 70.3 66.9 66.4 66.1 65.6 65.2 64.9
NIPF c 304.4 307.5 285.3 283.6 290.8 289.6 287.0 284.4 281.0 278.1

Total 508.9 515.1 492.4 486.3 503.8 502.1 499.2 496.0 492.2 489.0

Region—

North 154.3 156.6 153.4 154.4 159.4 159.4 157.9 155.6 153.1 151.0
South 204.5 208.7 199.6 197.3 201.1 200.3 199.6 199.3 198.6 197.8 Rocky Mountains b 66.6 66.9 60.2 61.1 71.0 71.4 71.3 71.2 71.0 70.9
Pacific Coast 83.4 82.9 79.1 73.5 72.2 71.0 70.3 69.9 69.6 69.3

Total 508.9 515.1 492.4 486.3 503.8 502.1 499.2 496.0 492.2 489.0

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

a Data were revised after the 1989 RPA tables were developed.

b The Great Plains are included in the Rocky Mountains.

c American Indian and Alaska Native lands 1953–2050 are now included in nonindustrial private forest (NIPF); in past reports they were shown in public lands. Source: Alig et al., n.d.; Smith et al. 2001; only private lands are modeled, and public timberland area is assumed to be const ant in the future.28 1997, reduction in forest land area will mainly result from conversion to other land uses such as reservoirs, urban expansion, highway and airport construction, and surface mining.

There is always uncertainty associated with projections of land use, and at present, the outlook for cropland seems especially uncertain. Part of the uncertainty associated with cropland projections is created by unknown technological developments, the social acceptability of these innovations (e.g., genetically modified food), and major changes in the agricultural policy environment (Alig et al. 1998b). With FAIR96 proposing to eliminate agricultural target prices and land retirement programs (except for the CRP) and reducing government-held agricultural stocks, U.S. agriculture has potentially been placed on a footing quite different from that of the last 60 years. Agricultural experts are
uncertain whether or not heavier reliance on market forces will lead to more fluctuationsin agricultural commodity prices (Alig et al. 1998b). The absence of both the land retirement programs and the need to maintain crop base acreage to access price support programs would enable agricultural producers to choose among all potential agricultural production enterprises. Future market prices may be much more dynamic as a result.

Tens of millions of acres of agricultural land, primarily in the South, are suitable for afforestation (Alig et al. 1998a). This includes more than 20 million acres of marginal cropland and pasture in the South, including highly erodible land that could yield higher rates of return to the owners if they planted pine (Alig et al. 1998a, USDA FS 1988). This land is distributed in fairly large acreages across most Southern States. Futurefluctuations in relative prices of agricultural and forestry commodities could lead to further cycles of shifts in these lands alternately from forestry to agriculture and back. However, because our baseline projections indicate relatively modest increases in timber stumpage prices (with flat to declining pulpwood stumpage prices for several decades) there is little gain in existing market incentives for afforestation of agricultural land in the private sector. Thus, although we project some expansion in the area of timber plantations, particularly in the South, the projections by no means approach
the limits of afforestation in the United States.

North —Projections for the North (table 5 and app. table 30) show a slow declining trend in timberland area. The total timberland area in the North drops from about 159 million acres in 1997 to 151 million acres in 2050. The percentage drop is largest in the Northeastern States where substantial relative increases in population and economic activity are expected. Development pressures on northern forests have prompted calls for changes in programs to conserve the northern forest (Northern Forest Lands Council 1994). In most of the other states the projected changes are small, and in some states the area of timberland is rising or essentially constant in the latter part of the period (Alig et al., n.d.).

Converted timberland area is projected to come largely from nonindustrial private forestlands, with a slight projected decrease in forest industry ownership. In the heavily forested state of Maine, private timberland area is projected to decline by almost 3 percent by 2050, while urban area increases by 56 percent (Plantinga et al. 1999). This is due in large part to a projected population increase of 16 percent by 2050. Timberland area in the Lake States is also projected to decline (Plantinga et al. 1999), as conversions to urban and developed uses dominate natural reversions from former agricultural land.

In 1997, maple-beech-birch and aspen-birch were the most abundant forest cover types on private timberlands in the Lake States, and maple-beech-birch and oak-hickory were the most abundant forest covers in the Northeast. Projected area changes for hardwood29 forest cover types in the North are largely based on a continuation of recent trends, whereas softwood cover types are projected to diverge somewhat from historical trends (Butler and Alig, n.d.).

South —Projections of changes in southern timberland area (table 5 and app. table 31) show a decline from about 201 million acres in 1997 to 198 million acres in 2050, with all the decline on private timberlands. Most of the projected net reduction is in the Southeast region, especially around large urban areas such as Atlanta, Georgia. Insome states, particularly in the east Gulf area, where substantial increases in population and economic activity are expected, the drop is also fairly large. In most of theother Southern States the projected changes are small and in the mid-South the aggregate area of timberland is projected to increase slightly (e.g., Ahn et al. 2001).

The projected net reduction in timberland area in the Southeast reflects the direct conversion of timberland to urban and developed uses and other timberland acres converted to replace cropland lost to urban and developed uses. A small reduction in crop area is projected, whereas urban and related uses rise by nearly 35 percent. Pasture and range area is projected to drop. The projected increase in timberland area in the South-Central region is due to conversion of agriculture land to forestry, given the assumption that real prices will fall for agricultural commodities. Further, possible reduction of agricultural subsidies and related programs, owing to the FAIR96 legislation already mentioned, could improve the competitive land use situation for forestry. This is especially true for the relatively large land base of the mid-South, where many acres are suitable for use in either agriculture or forestry.

Private owners control approximately 90 percent of the South’s timberland, and this is projected to continue. Area changes among the major groups of private owners have been substantial. Around 20 million acres in nonindustrial private forest ownership have
been converted to other uses or transferred to other owners since 1952. Most of thisarea reduction has occurred on farmer ownerships, and the trend is projected to continue.

Between 1987 and 1997, the area of forest industry timberland declined, while the area of nonindustrial private forest timberland increased. Some of that measured shift can be attributed to changes in corporate ownership and structure designed to eliminate surplus properties, monetize assets, or pay off acquisition debt. Other individual and corporate private owners have acquired many of the timberland acres that were once owned by farmers. The role of timberland investment organizations (TIMOs) and other corporate ownership is projected to increase in size. This is partly due to investment in southern pine timberland, 12 but it is uncertain how all of these corporate lands will be managed in the future (USDA FS 1988, Zinkhan 1993). In this analysis, we assume that these corporate lands will continue to be managed largely in support of industrial

12 A survey of TIMO’s ownership in the South by North Carolina State University researchers revealed that about 70 percent of their timberland is planted pine and that planned conversions to pine plantations will continue, although there is significant variation among TIMOs in level of timber management intensity. Total timberland holdings by TIMOs are still relatively low (less than 3 percent of total). Compared to forest industry and other private owners, however, they continue to display a strong growth potential (J. Siry, presentation at 2001 Southern Forest Economics Workers Conference, March 27–28, 2001, Atlanta, Georgia).30 forestry objectives as in the past, to produce efficient and expanded output of timber crops and primarily southern pine in the South. Individual owners, the other component of the nonindustrial private forest ownership group, are the largest ownership class. This
diverse set of owners holds over one-third of the Southern timberland base—almost four times as much as corporate owners. Unlike the corporate owners, individuals in thenonindustrial private forest owner group are projected to reduce their holdings of timberland in the future.

In 1997, forest industry owned about 37 million acres of timberland in the South, 5 million acres more than in 1953. Recent data suggest a slackening in the rate of timberland acquisition by forest industry and divestitures in some cases. Several factors seem to be operating that reduce the attractiveness of industrial ownership of timberland. These include cash flow and tax considerations, other investment opportunities andrefocusing of corporate priorities on areas of “core competency” (e.g., production facilities and product distribution as opposed to forest management), opportunities for leasing land or long-term harvesting rights, and the increased substitution of more-intensive forestry practices in place of land acquisition. It was assumed that the total Southern area in forest industry ownership will slowly decrease through 2050. Forest industry area is projected to decrease in the Southeast, which generally has higher opportunitycosts for timberland. Most future land acquisitions are expected to be in the SouthCentral region, which is projected to have a slight increase in forest industry area.

In 1997, the area of private timberlands of the Southern United States was dominated byupland hardwoods, followed by planted pine, natural pine, lowland hardwoods, and oakpine forest types (see fig. 3). Over the last 50 years, the largest area changes have been the substantial decrease in the area of natural pine and the increase in plantedpine area (Butler and Alig, n.d.). Consistent with this history, the largest projected percentage of change in net area is for planted pine (fig. 3). Planted pine area on private lands increased by more than 25 million acres between 1952 and 1997, more than a tenfold increase. The private area in pine plantations is projected to increase by about 14 million acres by 2050, approximately a 52-percent increase. More than half of theaddition of pine plantations would be on forest industry lands. With management intensification on these industrial lands, many harvested natural pine, mixed oak-pine, and hardwood stands are being artificially regenerated. Even with such projected change, hardwoods will continue to dominate the forested landscape of the South and will cover about one-half of the private timberland base in 2050. Naturally regenerated forests are projected to compose three-fourths of the Southern private timberland in 2050.

In contrast, the area of natural pine on private lands is projected to decrease by 15 percent over the projection period. Many exchanges occur between forest cover types owing to natural succession and management (e.g., regeneration method after harvest) (Butler and Alig, n.d.). Losses include an assumed continuation of trends in substantial hardwood encroachment after harvest of pine stands on nonindustrial private forest lands, which has been raised as an issue for several decades (e.g., Alig 1985, Knight 1973). Gains include reversions to timberland from abandoned agriculture land that seeds in as pine in some cases, and some transitions from oak-pine to natural pine

dominance in a stand.

The largest projected area decrease is for the upland hardwood type, with an 11-millionacre or 16-percent loss projected by 2050. The projection represents a change from long-term historical trends for the South (Butler and Alig, n.d.). A combination of factors underlies the projected reduction: conversion to nontimberland uses, conversion to pine31plantations, and transitions to other types including oak-pine. The projected rate of reduction in upland hardwood area slows as market incentives for conversion to pine plantations lessen with stable-to-falling softwood prices. Transitions between planted and naturally regenerated stands involve significant amounts of two-way flows, including substantial numbers of harvested pine plantations reverting to naturally regenerated forest types. Based on estimates provided by state forestry offices in the South, roughly 18 percent of upland hardwood timberland on nonindustrial private forest lands were assumed to be unavailable for timber harvest in the future (Moffat et al. 1998a, 1998b).

Rocky Mountains and Great Plains —Total timberland area in the Rocky Mountainsand Great Plains is projected to fall slightly from 71.0 million acres in 1997 to 70.9 million acres in 2050 (table 5 and app. table 32). The projected decrease is largely on the nonindustrial private forest ownership. Substantial areas of privately owned forests have been subdivided for home sites, particularly in the mountainous areas of Montana, Idaho, and Colorado. The projected net area changes reflect some initial gains fromagriculture that are later dominated by direct conversion of timberland to urban and developed uses and other acres converted to replace cropland lost to urban and developed uses. The area of cropland is projected to drop by several million acres, whereas area of urban and related uses increases. Pasture and range area is projected to have a downward long-term trend, especially later in the projection period when some CRP grasslands are converted to crop use. Only small relative changes in area of softwood and hardwood forest types are projected for this region by 2050.

Pacific Coast —Total timberland area in the Pacific Coast region is projected to fall from 72.2 million acres in 1997 to 69.3 million acres by 2050 (table 5 and app. table 33). As in the Rocky Mountains, most of the projected reduction is for the nonindustrial private forest ownership (Kline and Alig 2001). Much of the current timberland in the Pacific Coast region is located on lands where forestry has a comparative advantage or is a residual use owing to physiography, and projected changes are smaller than historical ones. The projected net area changes reflect direct conversion of timberland to urban and developed uses and other acres converted to replace cropland lost to urban and developed uses. Figure 3—Area of forest cover types on private timberlands in the South, 1995–2050.32 Currently, forest industry owns approximately 17 percent of the Pacific Coast timberland, up from the 13 percent share in 1953. This share is projected to change little by 2050. Around 4 million acres or 19 percent of the area in nonindustrial private forest ownership was converted to other uses or transferred to other owners between 1953 and 1977. Between 1977 and 1987, around 6 million acres of timberland were transferred from public ownership to nonindustrial private forest ownership in Alaska, resulting in an overall increase of over 4 million acres for the nonindustrial private forest class in the Pacific Coast region. Future area transfers between ownerships are expected to be much smaller, with total timberland area on the nonindustrial private forest ownership projected to drop 15 percent by 2050.

In 1997, the most extensive forest covers on private land were Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest West (PNWW) (see fig. 4), Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest East (PNWE), and mixed conifers and hardwoods in the Pacific Southwest(PSW). The most substantial cover type changes in the Pacific Coast region are projected to occur on forest industry lands, as more acres are planted to Douglas-fir. These changes are being spurred by the increased value of Douglas-fir. Conversely, hardwoodarea on this ownership is projected to decline. Projected timberland losses on nonindustrial private forest lands are distributed across all forest types.

Projections of timber growth and inventory were developed by using ATLAS. Theresource management assumptions in the assessment were updated in collaboration with American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the Southern Forest Resource Assessment Consortium (SOFAC). In the South, two landowner surveys were designed, one for forest industry owners who were members of AF&PA and a second torepresent nonindustrial private forest owner intentions, which was sent to state foresters. The forest industry surveys were compiled by AF&PA (1999), whereas the responses from the state foresters were compiled at North Carolina State University (Moffat et al. 1998a, 1998b; Siry 1998). A similar process was used in the West for forest industry lands. Western management information for nonindustrial private forest owners was derived from both surveys and recent related work such as the western Washington timber supply study (Adams et al. 1992). The results were translated into parameters for the ATLAS model and linked to the FIA inventories. Review meetings covered the development, distribution, and compilation of the surveys; models for yieldregimes that reflected pine plantation management options; land use and cover assumptions; programming enhancements of the ATLAS model; the conversion of survey results to ATLAS input parameters; and preliminary projections. This publication reflectsimplementation of the Southern assumptions; however, updates to inventories and management assumptions in the West are expected in future analysis.

Projecting growth requires a baseline forest inventory and forecasts of yields, which depend critically on assumptions about future management investment. In ATLAS, the form and extent of management investment are characterized by a set of managementintensity classes (MICs), each corresponding to a specific regime of silvicultural treatments. As described in a later section, parameters dictate stand development in termsof net growing-stock volume as the model simulates growth, harvesting, and regeneration. The MIC represents a regional average response for a particular forest type. These Management Intensity
Classes33 MICs are initially populated with a timberland inventory derived from FIA plots. 13 Another set of parameters moves area among MICs over time to simulate shifting investment preferences. For the timber assessment, ATLAS was expanded to represent up to 12 MICs for each forest type and site class combination in the major producing regions ofthe Pacific Northwest West and South. Treatments range from a low-investment custodial land management approach to very intensive higher cost approaches. In regions outside the Pacific Northwest West and South a single, “average” management regime is used. Through time, these MICs project inventory in the context of the demand for
wood fiber.

Pacific Northwest West —Management intensity classes were developed for the Douglas-fir and western hemlock forest types as stratified by three site productivity classes. Both forest industry and nonindustrial private owners were assumed to use the same practices; what varied was the amount of area each ownership managedunder the various regimes (as discussed later). Five regimes were developed to represent Douglas-fir management: MIC-1, custodial management; MIC-2, planting only; MIC-3, planting and precommercial thinning; MIC-4, planting with genetically improved stock, precommercial thinning, and fertilizing; and MIC-5, all of MIC-4 plus commercial thinning. Growth by treatment differed by site class, age class, initial stocking, and

13 The initial assignment of timberland acres to an MIC, including the management class considered unavailable for timber harvest, is an arbitrary process. Based on the ownership surveys we know what percentage, on a regional basis, of a particular forest condition should be in each MIC; however, the FIA field plot variables do not contain enough information to match the starting inventory to particular MICs. We therefore make the assumption that all acres within each owner, type, site, and age class stratification are equal in their availability for distribution to the representative set of MICs. From this common pool of timberland, we then assign area and volume to each MIC based on the desired target distribution. Figure 4—Area of forest cover types on private timberlands in the Pacific Northwest West, 1990–2050.34 density change parameters. Figure 5 shows a summary of the average projected volume by age for Douglas-fir on forest industry lands when we aggregate across site classes. It can be seen that available volume is reduced by commercial thinning at age 45, which is the first age class that allows final harvesting for industrial stands. Just two regimeswere developed for western hemlock: MIC-1, custodial management; and MIC-3, planting and precommercial thinning.

South— In the South, 10 management regimes were identified that represented forest management activities in aggregate across all Southern forests. There were differences between ownerships: the forest industry was assumed to use all 10 regimes, whereas the nonindustrial ownership used a subset. Three of these regimes represented the management of natural stands of softwoods and hardwoods, six were specific to stands of planted pine, and one regime represented timberland not available for harvest.

Planted pine

— This forest type received more attention than any other. For the planted pine type on forest industry timberland, five regimes were developed with and withoutthe option to apply commercial thinning, one was a short-rotation regime, and one regime was unavailable for harvest. All were then tailored to represent growth associatedwith three site productivity classes, which made a total of 36 planted pine MICs for industry owners. The basic plantation regimes were (1) planted traditional—representing stands previously established with regular planting stock and then thinned for stocking control and fertilized; (2) planted low—for newer plantations established with genetically improved planting stock, managed for mixed pulpwood and sawtimber, with no stocking control or fertilization; (3) planted medium—established with genetically improved stock,with stocking control or fertilization; (4) planted high—established with genetically improved stock and then more intensely managed by using both stocking control andfertilization; (5) planted high-plus—established with advanced genetics and using aggressive weed control and fertilization; and (6) short-rotation softwood regime—planted with advanced genetics, aggressive management, with a 15-year rotation. These six regimes were the same across the South except for commercial thinning (in the first five regimes), which was assumed to occur at slightly younger ages in the Southeast. In addition, the unavailable regime represented area not harvested because of operational constraints, environmental considerations, or aesthetic reasons. For the unavailable regime, yields from the planted-traditional (1) were used. Figure 6 shows the aggregate (combining regions and site classes) projected yields in terms of volume by age for the five nonthinned, planted pine regimes.

For consistency, the regimes developed for nonindustrial private forest owners were borrowed from the industrial classes. It was assumed that, on average, these owners are less interested in investment aimed at increasing fiber production than are the forest industry owners. The regimes were identified as low, medium, and high and assumed tohave the same yields developed for the industrial regimes (1), (2), and (3). Like the industrial regimes, each had a commercial thinning counterpart. The unavailable class was also present, represented by the low yield table.

Another difference between the assumptions for nonindustrial private forest and forestindustry lands in terms of growth and yield was the assignment of a lower regeneration stocking percentage to the nonindustrial private forest ownership. The Southern nonindustrial private forest ownership was modeled as two separate subowners; FIA categorizes these as farmer and other private, and miscellaneous corporate. The initial regeneration stocking percentages were tiered; because the miscellaneous corporate owner includes companies with objectives similar to industry, their productivity was35 Figure 6—Projected average planted pine yields (with no commercial thinning) on Southern forest industry lands, by age and management intensity class. Figure 5—Projected average Douglas-fir yields in the Pacific Northwest West on forest industry timberlands, by age and management intensity class.36 Allocation to Management Intensity Class assumed to fall between the traditional farmer and other private and the industry owners. Figure 7 shows the regional average planted-pine yields. It can be seen that these yields are slightly higher than comparable industry values; differences can be attributed to a greater proportion of nonindustrial private forest acres in high site classes, higher initial stocking (from older existing stands), and generally longer rotation ages that allow a greater proportion of acres to reach age 30.

In figure 8 we can see the effective difference management intensity has in terms of growth. From this perspective, the difference between ownerships is more obvious, and within a regime we can see the range dictated by site productivity class. Although both owners carry about 30 percent of their area in the high site class, the majority, between 65 and 70 percent, is in the medium class. As can be seen in the projected yields, industry can potentially improve production over a range that exceeds 100 percent whereas nonindustrial private forest options are more limited.

Southern natural pine, oak-pine, upland, and lowland hardwoods —Management regimes were also developed for the remaining four Southern forest types. In general,it was assumed that these forest types are naturally regenerated and receive less investment than planted pine. The MICs represent either a low, a high, or an unavailable regime, where low assumes no treatment and high includes investment to improvegrowth, such as precommercial thinning or fertilization. The only exception was a highplus regime developed for natural pine in the nonindustrial private forest ownership. As for the planted pine regimes, each regime included a commercial thinning or partialharvest option. The difference in yield between the low and high regimes ranged between 15 and 20 percent.

The MICs for forest industry were (1) uneven-age management, low intensity, selective harvest (partial cut); (3) custodial even-age management, natural regeneration with no treatments; (4) MIC-3 plus commercial thinning; (5) natural regeneration with some precommercial thinning, fertilization, or both; (6) MIC-5 plus commercial thinning; and (12) unavailable, (assuming MIC-3 yield). The nonindustrial private forest ownership included (1) low, even-age management; (2) low, uneven-age management; (3) high, even-age management; (4) high, uneven-age management; (5) high-plus, even-age management; (6) high-plus, uneven-age management; and (12) unavailable, (assuming MIC-1 yield). The high-plus classes, MIC-5 and MIC-6, were implemented for only the natural pine type.

As a projection proceeds, lands move in and out of the timberland base, various formsof harvest occur, growth is applied as forests advance in age, and land to be regenerated is allocated among the MICs. The future allocations differ by region, owner, forest type, and site class, but a general assumption is that over time, the private ownerswill increase the proportion of area under management. The models used for our projections do not have a formal price-feedback mechanism; that means the allocationschedule of regeneration by MIC is set ahead of time and not based on “real time” projected prices. There is an informal feedback where price projections are used to “fine tune” the allocation, such as reducing the rate of shift to the highest investment levels should stumpage prices be falling. As the projection progresses, this process shows us the results of today’s assumptions in terms of the way forests will be managed in
the future.37 Figure 8—Average annual growing-stock growth rates projected for nonthinned stands of Southern planted pine, by owner, management intensity, and site productivity class. Figure 7—Projected average planted pine yields (with no commercial thinning) on Southern nonindustrial lands, by age and management intensity class.38 Pacific Northwest West —The Douglas-fir and western hemlock forest types accountfor almost 90 percent of all forest industry softwood timberland and 82 percent of nonindustrial private forest softwood timberland in the Pacific Northwest West region. As theprojection proceeds, regeneration following harvest generally is at higher levels of investment. As illustrated in figure 9, over time this regeneration strategy shifts area out of the custodial class toward the higher investment to the right. By 2020, the biggest shifts have occurred; the area in the second-highest class has nearly doubled, accounting for over 40 percent of all softwood timberland in the forest industry ownership but just 15percent of nonindustrial private forest softwood acres. In the last 30 years of the projection, the distribution among forest industry owners holds constant, with only 13 percent of their Douglas-fir/western hemlock acres in custodial management, whereas slightly over half of the nonindustrial private forest acres remain there. The nonindustrial private forest ownership also experiences a slight reduction in the more intensive management classes by 2050. Considering the ownership as a whole, however, just 39 percent of all softwood acres were predicted to be under a form of management by 2050.

Not explicitly shown are area changes to the timberland base. The forest industry ownership is predicted to gain 18 percent in Douglas-fir acres and lose 14 percent of hemlock for a net increase of 480,000 acres by 2050, while the nonindustrial private forest ownership gains 163,000 acres, two-thirds of which are in the Douglas-fir forest type.

South —In the South, the planted pine forest type accounts for nearly 60 percent of forest industry softwood area at the start of the projection increasing to 75 percent (a shift of 7.6 million acres) by 2050. Although the nonindustrial private forest ownership begins the projection with nearly as many acres of planted pine as industry, natural pineand oak-pine make up over three-quarters of nonindustrial private forest softwood timberland. The nonindustrial private forest owners are predicted to shift 5.6 million acres to planted pine, and by 2050, still two-thirds of the acres will be in the other softwood types. As shown in figure 10, both owner types are projected to aggressively manage planted pine. For the forest industry ownership, investment moves most future stands into the high or high-plus levels of management (the largest share to high-plus with commercial thinning). This trend is in line with traditional industrial forestry objectives, to produce efficient and expanded output of timber crops, primarily southern pine. We assume that this objective will be maintained on forest industry lands despite projected periods of flat to declining pulpwood stumpage prices for several decades. Indeed, the projected market outcome reflects in large part the achievement of industrial forestryobjectives (abundant supplies of fiber resources for decades to come), but it also reflects impacts of projected trends on the demand side, including decelerating paper and paperboard demands, rising product imports, and a period of relatively stagnant pulp mill capacity over the next decade. As shown in figure 10, the shift in nonindustrial private forest planted pine is not as dramatic; the medium management intensity class holds steady, and the high class experiences a 150-percent increase in area (coming from the gain in planted pine acres). Although much smaller, the unavailable class also more than doubles in area. These are acres planted with pine for reasons other than timber production. Although management objectives for nonindustrial pine plantations may not necessarily be the same as objectives on forest industry lands, expansion of nonindustrial pine plantation area is promoted not only by market incentives but alsoby various state and federal forestry incentives, and by many local cooperative arrangements with industry.39 Figure 10—Southern planted pine acres projected by owner and management intensity class showing three points in time (all sites). Figure 9—Combined projection of Douglas-fir and western hemlock acres by management intensity class in the Pacific Northwest West region by two ownerships and three points in time (all sites).40 Shifts in management among the remaining forest types can be seen in figure 11, where forest industry carries a much smaller relative share of the timberland area. What alsocan be seen in figure 11 is the net loss of area that occurs in these forest types. Overall, the industrial stands, other than planted pine, lose 38 percent of their area by 2050(8.6 million acres). Most of this change is not a loss of timberland, but a shift, or conversion, to the management of pine. The greatest loss, or shift, takes place in the upland hardwood type, which shows a 59-percent reduction in area (3.4 million acres). The natural pine type is reduced by 35 percent (2 million acres). There is significant shifting within natural pine, however, as the area in the low-level-partial-cutting regime doubles. Shifting to higher intensity management does occur, but the movement out of these types masks the change. Although it is hard to see in the graph, the unavailable class for industry increases by about 500,000 acres.

The largest shift in management of the remaining forest types occurs on timberland in the nonindustrial private ownership. Although this ownership experiences a loss (orconversion) of 2.1 million acres of natural pine and 7.6 million acres of upland hardwoods, this is less than 8 percent of the area in types other than planted pine. The shift to managed stands outweighs the loss of area, as area managed under the highregime more than doubles. Of significance for this ownership is a 10-million acre increase in area of the unavailable class. Most of this increase is from the upland hardwood forest type, and it reflects the opinions of state foresters that in the future, a sizeable area would not be managed for timber production.

The link between the wood volume equivalent of all forest products produced and theactual volume of timber removed from timber inventories is established by a set of assumptions on the sources and disposition of harvest. The actual volume of timber removed from inventory is called “removals from growing stock,” as shown in the various summary tables in the appendix. Wood used to produce forest products comes from growing stock and nongrowing-stock sources. Additional volumes are removed from the forest as logging residues and “other” removals. The largest fraction of wood used in products comes from the portion of the timber inventory defined as growing stock: live trees of commercial species meeting minimum standards of quality and vigor that areat least 5 inches in breast-height diameter. The remainder comes from nongrowingstock sources, such as dead timber or trees harvested from nonforestland such as urban areas. Other removals include noncommercial thinnings, timber lost through changes in land use, and withdrawal of timberland for parks, wildernesses, and other nontimber uses. Timber removals from growing stock are computed by subtracting theremovals from nongrowing-stock sources from projected total timber harvest, then adding the other components of removals—logging residues and other removals. The data for these three adjustments are derived from the timber product output tables given in Powell et al. (1993), Smith et al. (2001), and Waddell et al. (1989).

Logging residues —Logging residues have always been an important component oftimber removals, although they have been declining during the past 50 years as a percentage of the total (table 6). These declines largely reflect the effects of rising stumpage prices that have made it economical to remove more of the lower quality material that previously was left as logging residues. Technological innovations such as in-woodschipping and rapid growth in the demand for wood in the pulp industry and for both residential and industrial fuelwood have also contributed to the increased utilization. Adjustments for
Timber Removed
From Inventories41 For the projection period, it has been assumed that logging residues from softwoods will decline slightly or remain constant as a percentage of product removals from growing stock (table 6). Logging residues from hardwoods decline more (table 6) reflecting thetrends of the past two decades. In general, the shift to the harvest of second- and thirdgrowth timber in the West and increased use of hardwoods for pulping and fuelwood are expected to contribute to the improved utilization as are anticipated improvements in felling and bucking practices. Projected declines reflect cases where there is intensified competition for wood fiber that results in increased use of smaller stems, chunks, andlow-quality stems for fuelwood and pulpwood. Increased tree-length logging and inwoods chipping of pulpwood and fuelwood also will reduce residual formation.

Other removals —The part of timber removals classified as other removals is composed of (1) losses from timber inventories resulting from the diversion of timberland to other uses such as crop or pasture land, roads, urban areas, parks and wilderness; and (2) timber removed in cultural operations such as noncommercial thinning. The
historical data on other removals are estimates of actual volumes for the indicated years (Powell et al. 1993, Smith et al. 2001, USDA FS 1982, Waddell et al. 1989).
These estimates do not include removals associated with the reclassification of timberland to wilderness or other reserved uses as they do not take place on a regular basisand do not involve timber harvesting. Projections of other removals are reflected indirectly in the assumptions about changes in land use and cover (see table 5 and the associated discussion) and assumptions in the inventory projection system about the proportion of harvest that comes from timberland projected to change land use.

Timber supplies from nongrowing-stock sources —Part of timber harvest comes from salvable dead trees, rough and rotten trees, tops and limbs, trees in urban areas, fence rows, and from forested lands other than timberland. The proportion of harvest Figure 11—Southern acres of natural pine, oak-pine, and hardwoods projected by owner and management intensity class showing three points in time (all sites).42 originating from softwood nongrowing-stock sources dropped between 1952 and 1976 (table 7). The hardwood supply showed a similar trend until the early 1970s. Timber product output from nongrowing-stock sources rose from 6.9 percent in 1976 to 9.3 percent in 1997 for softwoods, and from 14.0 percent in 1976 to 25.0 percent in 1997 for hardwoods. These changes are almost entirely explained by the rapid increase in the use of fuelwood in the late 1970s and early 1980s and the growing use of pulpwood

over the two decades.

There are regional trends that differ noticeably from the general U.S. trends. In the1950s, the old-growth forests on the Pacific Coast and in the Rocky Mountains contained large volumes of salvable dead timber leading to relatively higher levels of nongrowing-stock timber. During the 1980s, increasing use of lower quality materials for chips and fuelwood increased the proportion of softwood timber supplies coming from nongrowing-stock sources on the Pacific Coast. This trend is expected to remain high relative to that in the South. This is especially noticeable in the Rocky Mountains where nongrowing-stock sources provided 4.5 percent of the softwood supply in 1976, 11.9 percent by 1986, and 23.4 percent in 1997.

In the North, nongrowing-stock sources provided about 12.6 percent of the softwood timber supplies in 1976. This increased to 27.4 percent in 1986 and declined slightly in recent years. The proportion of softwood nongrowing-stock output in the South is low—5.0 percent in 1976 and 6.2 percent in 1997. In both cases, these proportions are projected to remain about constant over the next five decades. Table 6—Logging residues as a percentage of timber product removals from growing stock in the United States, by softwoods and hardwoods and region, 1952–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Percent
Softwoods:

North 11.5 11.0 10.8 11.0 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
South 6.6 6.3 6.9 5.9 6.7 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.7 Rocky Mountains 10.9 10.9 11.1 11.0 10.8 9.3 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7
Pacific Coast a 12.2 11.7 12.5 10.2 12.6 9.7 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.7

United States 9.8 9.6 10.0 8.4 9.0 7.5 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0

Hardwoods:

North 15.8 15.3 15.2 17.2 9.9 9.9 11.2 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7
South 25.9 24.4 22.6 16.6 15.6 13.6 13.7 12.3 11.2 10.2 9.1 8.0 Rocky Mountains ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) 25.0 19.7 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
Pacific Coast a 28.6 26.0 27.4 25.2 7.2 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

United States 22.2 20.7 19.7 17.1 13.2 12.0 12.4 11.6 10.9 10.2 9.6 9.0

a Includes Alaska.

b Hardwood timber harvests are too small for accurate estimation of logging residues. Source: Historical data: Powell et al. 1993, Smith et al. 2001, Waddell et al. 1989.43 National Forest Harvest Levels and Inventory Projections Table 7—Timber product output from nongrowing-stock sources as a percentage of timber supplies in the United States, by softwoods and hardwoods and region, 1952–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Ownership and region 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Percent
Softwoods:

North 13.3 12.6 12.6 12.6 27.4 26.7 22.8 23.3 23.8 24.2 24.6 25.0
South 8.4 8.7 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.3 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 Rocky Mountains 5.8 5.6 4.7 4.5 11.9 14.5 23.4 23.8 24.1 24.4 24.7 25.0
Pacific Coast a 12.4 11.6 8.9 8.6 17.4 17.2 9.2 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.0

United States 10.4 10.0 7.0 6.9 11.5 11.9 9.3 9.2 8.9 8.7 8.6 8.5

Hardwoods:

North 23.5 17.7 11.9 16.5 51.8 49.4 33.6 36.4 38.5 40.7 42.8 45.0
South 19.0 18.9 13.9 11.9 21.9 22.7 18.9 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8 20.0 Rocky Mountains ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) ( b ) 79.7 74.0 75.1 75.1 75.1 75.0 75.0 75.0
Pacific Coast a 14.3 11.5 6.1 11.3 46.2 52.8 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0

United States 20.9 18.5 13.9 14.0 38.5 37.5 25.0 25.7 26.7 28.1 29.5 30.8

a Includes Alaska.

b Hardwood timber harvests are too small for accurate estimations of output originating from nongrowing-stock sources. Source: Historical data: Powell et al. 1993, Smith et al. 2001, Waddell et al. 1989.

Hardwood forests contain large volumes of rough and rotten trees and tops and branches. Hardwoods also make up most of the urban forest, fence rows, and other similar sources of nongrowing-stock timber supplies. As a result, a substantial fraction of hardwood roundwood supplies, 25.0 percent in 1997, comes from nongrowing-stocksources. The increasing demand for fuelwood and improvements in techniques for harvesting and processing hardwood for pulp and paper that occurred in the early 1980s resulted in nongrowing stock being an important and, in most regions, a growing part of hardwood timber supplies.

Harvests from timberland within the national forests decreased in the 1990s as a result of changes in the goals for federal land management. Under the base case assumption of continuation of current policies, national forest harvest is projected to continue at these lower levels for the next five decades, representing expectations based on current Forest Service policy guidelines. Harvests do rise slightly in some regions reflectingactions to maintain forest health consistent with current regulations. Historical and projected levels of total national forest softwood harvest are shown in figure 12 and in appendix table 34; hardwood harvest is shown in appendix table 35.

Projected national forest softwood harvest in 2010 is less than one-fourth of the level assumed in the 1989 assessment projection (498 million cubic feet compared to 2,180million cubic feet) and is about 53 percent of the level assumed in the 1993 assessment. The 1989 assessment projected national forest softwood harvest of 2,315 millioncubic feet in 2040 compared to the current projection of 733 million cubic feet. The largest reductions in timber removals from 1989 and 1993 assessment projections are for the Rocky Mountains and West Coast regions.44 National forest inventory projections are shown in appendix tables 34 and 35. These projections were developed by using the ATLAS model (Mills and Kincaid 1992) in a manner similar to that used for private timberlands. The current projection applies three management regimes on national forest lands. The first allows regeneration removals (i.e., the stands will be final harvested over a range of ages); the second regime allows partial cutting; the third management regime places stands in a reserved status where they are not available for harvest. Most acres fall in the third regime.

Although the inventory change differs across regions, the total national forest inventory is projected to increase 70 percent for softwoods and 78 percent for hardwoods under the current projected removal levels. Both softwoods and hardwoods on the national forests are expected to increase sharply in all regions ranging from 39 to 93 percentfor softwoods, and 62 to 96 percent for hardwoods. As the inventory grows, more timberland area accumulates in older age classes. Figures 13A and 13B show the area distribution of national forest timberland by age classes for the entire United States and for the West. In 1997, 15 percent of the national forest timberlands had trees older than 150 years. This is expected to increase to 35 percent by 2050. Currently, about 20 percent of national forest timberland in the West has trees older than 150 years. This fraction is expected to double to 44 percent by 2050.

Mills and Zhou (2003) present alternative projections that explicitly consider the effects of large-scale mortality events, namely fire and outbreaks of insects and disease, oninventory when they occur both with and without harvest. Data were obtained from Forest Service records of regeneration needs (USDA FS 2002). In addition to fire, insect, and disease mortality, the data included area entering the nonstocked pool owing to regeneration failures. The rates of mortality and regeneration failures were calculated byregion for the latest 10-year period on record. (This includes the 2000 fire season addition of over 500,000 acres, one of the largest amounts in modern history). These occurrences were then projected to affect 140,000 acres of timberland each year. Figure 12—National forest softwood timber harvest comparing 1989, 1993, and current RPA timber assessments (excluding Alaska).45 Figure 13—National forest timberland area distribution by age. Western United States includes Pacific Northwest (excluding Alaska), Pacific Southwest, and Rocky Mountain regions.

The resulting inventories most affected reflect those with the greatest (recent) reported incidence of these disturbances, namely the softwood inventories in the West. By 2050, the Rocky Mountain North and Pacific Southwest inventories dropped 15 and 11 percent below the base, respectively. This was similar to the inventory projection made under the higher level of removals that was assumed in the 1989 assessment. In the Pacific Northwest, the softwood projection drops just 4 percent, reflecting lower fire losses, butmatching the outcome when the 1993 assessment removals were projected. The impacts were smaller in the remaining regions, and the results fall a little below the base and above the scenarios with higher harvests. The net result when explicitly considering fire over the 50-year projection is an 8-percent drop in softwood volume; however, the overall trend continues to show expanding inventories.

In terms of the age class distributions, these disturbances had the largest impact on the area projected in younger classes. By 2050, the change in the share of Western stands older than 150 dropped from 44 percent in the base to 40 percent, whereas that area supporting stands younger than 50 experienced a threefold increase, rising from 4 to 12 percent of the total distribution. For the younger classes this is nearly identicalto the distribution today (if the current “blip” in the 5-year age class is reduced). A detailed description of the national forest projection and analyses for other harvest scenarios can be found in Mills and Zhou (2003).46 “Other public” ownerships include a diverse collection of landowners, including the Department of Defense, many counties and states, and the Bureau of Land Management. Historical and projected harvest, net annual growth, and growing-stock inventories are shown in appendix table 36 for softwoods and appendix table 37 for hardwoods. Thehistorical data for 1952–97 are from the various timber resource summaries. The projections were developed by using the growth and harvest projections from the 1993 assessment (extended to 2050) extrapolating inventory by adding growth and subtracting removals in each period (the growth-drain identity).

Both softwood and hardwood inventories on other public lands are expected to continueto increase during the next five decades. The softwood inventories increase at a somewhat faster rate than do the hardwood inventories. The larger increases in softwood inventories reflect reductions in federal (non-Forest Service) and state harvests for many
of the same reasons that have led to harvest reductions on national forests. Toward theend of the projection period, the difference between harvest and growth narrows for hardwoods. Net growth especially for hardwoods is expected to drop as stands mature andgrowth rates drop. The largest drops in hardwood growth are already underway. Softwood growth continues to increase but at a diminishing rate.

Figure 2 shows the bioeconomic modeling framework used to develop the projections for the timber assessment. This framework has evolved over the past 25 years to fill needsfor greater geographic and product specificity in the projections. The framework consists of four submodels:

• The timber assessment market model (TAMM) embraces the solid wood products sector and also provides the linkage between product markets (solid wood and pulpwood) and the timber inventory.

• The North American pulp and paper model (NAPAP) is an economic model of the pulp, paper, and paperboard sector with detailed treatment of fiber supply (recycled, roundwood, and short-rotation woody crops) used to project pulpwood stumpage

markets.

• The aggregate timberland analysis system (ATLAS) is a biological modeling structure for projecting timber growth and inventory over time given timber harvest.

• The AREACHANGE model explains the shifting of timberland between forest and nonforest uses and among forest types.

The system shown in figure 2 is an example of a bioeconomic model, as it combines explanations of both biological and economic processes. Figure 2 also shows the major links between models. Harvest estimates lead to adjustments in timber inventories (and broad-scale vegetation conditions) given changes in forest growth and timberland loss and gain. The volume of available timber inventory is then fed back to both the solid wood and paper and board models as a major determinant of stumpage supply. The economic models are built on spatial equilibrium concepts that solve for simultaneous equilibrium in both regional product and stumpage markets.

The United States has a long history of using formal forest sector models to support national assessments of supply and demand trends for timber (see Haynes 1993 for a discussion of the evolution of forest sector models). The USDA Forest Service has been one of the chief sponsors of forest sector models in the United States. Starting in the 1950s, the Forest Service developed a forest sector model based on a trend analysis of future demands for forest products and the availability of timber resources 

### Projection Models Used in the Timber
Assessment Other Public Harvest

Levels47 as separate entities (USDA FS 1958, 1965, 1974, 1982). Policies and emerging trends were discussed in the context of the gap between the trajectories of the demands for forest products expressed in roundwood equivalents and the prospective availability of timber. In time, this approach became known as a gap analysis (or the gap model) and was applied in the United States as the primary forest sector model until the late 1970s. During the two decades that it was commonly used, gap analysis evolved to include methods for estimating the price trends that would be required to close the gap.

Much of the evolution of forest sector models beyond the gap approach was stimulated by changes in the ways in which timber policy issues are characterized, shifting from potential future quantity shortfalls toward a focus on future price trends and impacts. This shift occurred in the mid-1970s during a period of rapid changes in commodity prices and concern about the effectiveness of various policies in attaining desired price trajectories. Starting in 1977, the Forest Service undertook the development of a forestsector model designed to explicitly describe regional stumpage price behavior as required by the Resources Planning Act (RPA). The resulting model was called TAMM (Adams and Haynes 1980, 1996; Haynes and Adams 1985). It produced regional price trends in both product and factor (stumpage) markets that recognized simultaneous market interactions and differences in regional timber resources.

These models continue to provide useful policy-relevant information, especially in light ofthe ongoing discussions about resource sustainability. Many of these discussions revolve around notions of balancing timber demands and supplies with changes in resource conditions.

Since its inception in the late 1970s, TAMM has undergone a number of extensions and revisions designed to improve the realism of its projections and the utility of its output to resource analysts and policymakers. Details about the various input assumptions used in TAMM are described in the 1989 assessment (Haynes 1990), the 1993 assessment (Haynes et al. 1995), and model features in Adams and Haynes (1996).

The TAMM is a spatial model of the solid wood and timber inventory elements of the United States forest products sector and of softwood lumber and OSB production inCanada (Adams and Haynes 1980, 1996; Haynes and Adams 1985). The TAMM provides annual projections of volumes and prices in the solid wood products and sawtimber stumpage markets and estimates of total timber harvest and inventory by geographic region for periods of up to 50 years. Projections of fiber products are derived from the NAPAP model (Ince 1994), which is linked to TAMM through the quantities andprices of roundwood and residues. Endogenous trade flows in TAMM are limited to softwood lumber and OSB/waferboard shipments between the United States and Canada. All other flows, including sawlog imports and exports, are established externally.

Like many other spatial models, TAMM can be viewed as having a modular structure.

Product demands —There is one set of product demand relations for each of the major products modeled in TAMM: softwood lumber, softwood plywood, OSB/waferboard and hardwood lumber. These relations explicitly recognize the opportunities for substitutionbetween these classes of products and so are interdependent in product prices (contemporaneous price-based substitution).

The demand module for softwood solid wood products uses Spelter’s diffusion analysis of demands for U.S. softwood lumber, softwood plywood and OSB/waferboard (Spelter 1984, 1985, 1992). Spelter’s model considers the demand for each product category The Timber Assessment

Market Model48 separately in various end uses (several components of single-family home construction,residential upkeep and alteration, multifamily and mobile units, nonresidential construction, manufacturing, and shipping, a total of 18 uses in all). Hardwood lumber demand is disaggregated into eight end-use categories (furniture, millwork, flooring, ties, pallets, mining, containers and dunnage, and miscellaneous). Demand relations employ an“end-use factor” form and, as for softwoods, are dependent on prices of substitute materials in the current period. 14 In general, aggregate product demands have been foundto be inelastic with respect to changes in price in the short term. Sustained price increases, however, lead to various adjustments in consumption and act to increase effective demand elasticities twofold to threefold or more (depending on the end use) over a 5-year period.

Product supplies —In RPA timber assessment projections, it has been customary to treat trends in the technology of wood products processing and logging by means of specific scenarios of future technical developments and associated impacts on the useof the wood (log) input. Wood use efficiency in milling is represented by “product recovery factors”: product output-log input ratios (e.g., board-foot lumber tally output per cubic-foot log input). To explicitly incorporate these projections in the representations of product supply, the current solid wood products supply module assumes that product output is obtained in fixed proportions to log input (the product recovery factor linkage) but in variable proportions to all other factors, implying that logs are separable fromother inputs in production. Details of the derivation of relations in this module are described in Adams and Haynes (1996). These are econometric relations with parameters estimated by using historical time series data. Canadian supplies of softwood lumberand OSB/waferboard are explicitly represented in this module and are integral, pricesensitive elements. Estimated product supply elasticities with respect to product pricediffer markedly across regions and products. Although most are inelastic, many, including those for the largest producing regions, are close to unit elasticity.

Log demands —Given the assumptions of fixed log input-product output relations in TAMM, the derived demand for logs is simply the product of recovery factors times output. This same accounting allows the model to track residues generated in theproduction process and their disposition. Estimated residues generated in milling depend on projections of product recovery, size of logs processed, and the size mix ofproducts. Assumptions regarding future product recovery trends are described elsewhere in this timber assessment.

Log and timber supplies —The supply of wood to processing facilities is modeled as a mixture of price-sensitive relations, and exogenous flows describing the volumes oftimber available for immediate harvest and the volumes of logs delivered to mills. Harvests from public lands are set outside the projection model as a policy input. Private timber supply relations derive from explicit hypotheses of multiperiod harvest behaviorfor industrial and nonindustrial owners (Adams and Haynes 1996). The resulting relations link harvest to prices, inventory, interest rates, and, for nonindustrial private forestowners, income from nonforest sources. Price sensitivity for both softwood and hardwood supplies has been found to be low (inelastic) for all regions and owner groups.

14 See Adams et al. (1992) for a description of the end-use
factor form of demand relations. Estimated coefficients of the demand equations are illustrated in Adams and Haynes (1996).49 Timber harvest and inventories —The TAMM also includes a program module that provides linkage to the ATLAS timber inventory system (Mills and Kincaid 1992) for the solid wood, paper and board, and fuelwood models. Product volumes are aggregated,converted to amounts derived from live growing stock, and adjusted for additional removals owing to logging residues and cultural treatments. The operation of ATLAS is described in a later section. This module also allows estimation of timber harvest in Canada, although it does not attempt to model Canadian timber inventories. Canadian harvest estimates are derived from projected softwood lumber, paper and board, andOSB/waferboard production, with adjustments for hardwood lumber, nonstructural panels, miscellaneous products, and log trade, which are not explicitly modeled.

An updated and revised version of the NAPAP model was used in this analysis to develop projections of equilibrium supply, demand, and production levels for pulp, paper, and paperboard commodities along with projections of market equilibria for pulpwood and recovered paper supply and demand. The model structure and methodology are described in Zhang et al. (1996), and the current revised structure of the model was described more recently in Ince (1999).

The NAPAP model applies conventional regional market modeling techniques to compute annual market equilibria based on optimization of consumer and producer surplus in the pulp and paper sector (Ince 1999; Zhang et al. 1993, 1996). The model computes market equilibria over a 65-year period, extending historically from 1986 through the present and out to the year 2050. The overlap of model projections with 15 years of actual historical data allows for extensive testing and calibration of model performance (average errors between historical data and projected equilibrium product demands, pulpwood supply, and recycling rates over the historical period are less than 1 percent per year). Changes in regional production capacities for pulp and paper manufacturingprocesses, including shifts between virgin fiber and recycling technologies, are simulated in the model as economic responses to projected market conditions, and in turn, projected market equilibria are influenced by shifts in capacity and embodied changes in technology.

The introduction in the 1990s of somewhat more sophisticated economic modeling techniques based on market analysis and technology forecasting resulted in projections ofpulpwood market trends lower than those in previous timber assessments, largely because the NAPAP model accurately simulated the impact of increased paper recycling (Ince 1994, 1999). The total projected U.S. pulpwood supply and demand quantities in the current analysis are even lower than those of the 1993 assessment base scenario(Haynes et al. 1995, Ince 1994) because of the impact of the current economic recession in the pulp and paper sector and a revision to the trade outlook based on a strong U.S. dollar scenario. The ongoing economic downturn in the pulp and paper sector since 1999 rivals the last major multiyear economic downturn that occurred during theenergy crisis of the early 1970s, and the strong dollar has weakened U.S. trade competitiveness. Thus, the current baseline projections of pulpwood supply and demand are much lower than projections in earlier Forest Service assessments of the 1970s and 1980s (Haynes 1990; USDA FS 1982, 1988).

Whereas TAMM produces projections for solid wood industries and sawtimber markets,the NAPAP model produces projections for the pulp and paper industry, pulpwood markets, and recovered paper markets. The NAPAP model uses linear programming to solve for annual market and production equilibria. Equilibria are adjusted over time by endogenous changes in production capacity and exogenous changes in supply and North American Pulp and Paper Model50 In the NAPAP model, there are three demand regions (United States, Canada, and Other World). Separate United States and Canadian demand functions are included for each principal paper and paperboard grade. United States demands for paper and paperboard grades are elastic with respect to product price, per capita U.S. GDP,U.S. population, and price of capital. Equilibrium prices are derived endogenously within the model, whereas other independent variables are projected exogenously. UnitedStates demands for communication paper grades are elastic with respect to price indexes of television or radio and computers. Econometric analysis has shown that demands for communication paper grades and electronic media are complementary, and thus declining real prices for media such as computers exert a positive influence ondemand for paper (Zhang 1995). United States demands for packaging paper and paperboard grades are elastic with respect to a price index of plastic substitutes and the all-commodity PPI. Econometric analysis has shown that plastics are weak substitutes for paperboard grades, and prices of plastic substitutes are not expected to decline significantly (Zhang 1995). Canadian demands for paper and paperboard grades are elastic with respect to price and Canadian GDP. demand. The NAPAP model shows how markets for pulpwood and recovered paper areexpected to evolve in response to changing market conditions, including changing technology (shifts in production capacity embody shifts in technology). The model includesregional supply functions for pulpwood and recovered paper, and a detailed representation of regional production capacity and production volume for all principal grades of paper, paperboard, and market pulp produced in the United States and Canada. Themodel also includes demand functions for all end products, with separate demand functions for U.S. domestic demand, Canadian domestic demand, and demand for exports
outside of the United States and Canada.

The current NAPAP model is an extended and revised version of the original NAPAP model used in the 1993 assessment (Haynes et al. 1995, Ince 1994). Details of NAPAP model methods and results can be found in Ince (1994, 1999) and Zhang et al. (1996). NAPAP model methods are an application of the price endogenous linear programming system (PELPS), an economic modeling system developed primarily for modeling the pulp and paper sector over the past decade (Calmels et al. 1990, Gilless and Buongiorno 1985, Zhang et al. 1993).

In the NAPAP model, commodities in production and demand include the following:

Paper grades

Newsprint Uncoated free sheet paper Coated free sheet paper Uncoated groundwood

paper Coated groundwood paper Tissue and sanitary

paper products Specialty packaging

and industrial paper
Unbleached kraft

packaging paper Paper grade market pulps

Softwood kraft
Hardwood kraft Recycled
Chemithermalmechanical

pulp (CTMP) Paperboard grades

and other

Linerboard (unbleached

kraft and recycled) Corrugating medium

(semichemical and recycled) Solid bleached paperboard Recycled board (other

than corrugated boards) Dissolving pulp51 Projected growth rates in U.S. demands for most paper and paperboard commoditieswere also adjusted downward in the period from 2000 to 2005, to more accurately reflect the impact of the current economic recession in the pulp and paper sector. Although domestic GDP growth did not slip into a recession until the third quarter of 2001, U.S. paper and paperboard consumption has been receding from a recent peak of over 750 pounds per capita in 1999 to around 700 pounds per capita in 2001, and domestic paper and paperboard production has dropped by about 7 percent in that period. This is the most significant drop in consumption and production since the period of the energycrisis in the early 1970s. Thus, projections of U.S. demand in the NAPAP model incorporate a period of slow growth in the near term, with a full recovery to more normal expected rates of growth in demand after 2005.

There are eight pulpwood supply regions in the model (United States North Central, Northeast, South Central, Southeast, West, Canada East, Canada West, Other World), six production regions (United States North, South Central, Southeast, West, Canada East, Canada West), five recovered paper supply regions (United States North, South, West, Canada East, Canada West).

Pulpwood supplies for eastern U.S. supply regions include supplies from harvests on forest industry lands, harvests on nonindustrial private forest lands, harvests on publicforest lands, and wood residues supply (from sawmills and plywood mills), for both hardwoods and softwoods (eight distinct sources of pulpwood supply in each eastern U.S. region). Pulpwood supplies for United States West and both Canadian supply regionsinclude supplies from timber harvests and wood residues, for both hardwoods and softwoods (four distinct sources of pulpwood supply).

Pulpwood stumpage supply functions were estimated for pulpwood harvest from forest industry and nonindustrial private forest lands in eastern U.S. regions (separately forhardwoods and softwoods). Stumpage supply functions have unitary elasticity with respect to timber inventories projected by TAMM and ATLAS. Pulpwood supplies were estimated to have relatively low elasticity with respect to pulpwood stumpage price(less than 0.5 in most cases). Public forest pulpwood harvest quantities and total roundwood pulpwood harvest in the United States West are projected exogenously. Pulpwood residue supply quantities are determined by lumber and plywood production activities projected in the TAMM model. Canadian roundwood pulpwood supply equations are elastic with respect to delivered pulpwood price, sawtimber price, and labor wage rates in Canada (projected exogenously). Canadian pulpwood residue supply quantities areelastic with respect to delivered pulpwood price and Canadian lumber production activities; the latter are projected in TAMM.

In the NAPAP model, recovered paper supply is modeled for five categories of recoveredpaper including old newspapers, old corrugated containers, mixed paper, pulp substitutes, and high-grade deinked paper. For U.S. supply regions, recovered paper supplyconsists of two elements, “long-term contract” and “spot market” supply. Large quantities of recovered paper are collected and transferred to mills under long-term negotiatedcontract arrangements (particularly in the domestic sector). The remainder of the market is an open or “spot” market (particularly for exports). For purposes of estimating recovered paper supply, domestic supply volume was used as a proxy for long-term contract supply, and export supply volume was used as a proxy for spot market supply. Long-term contract supply quantity is modeled as unresponsive to price but increasing gradually over time in relation to consumption of paper and paperboard commodities (recovery is increasing but at a declining rate over time). Spot market supply is elastic52 with respect to price, landfill tipping fees, and consumption of paper and paperboard commodities. The total supplies of the various categories of recovered paper are each limited by assumed maximum feasible recovery rates.

Trade flows are modeled separately for all pulp, paper, paperboard, and fiber input commodities in which there have been significant trade volumes in the past decade. The market equilibria for U.S. pulp, paper, and paperboard imports from Canada are modeled endogenously by the NAPAP model, as influenced by regional production costs and currency exchange rate assumptions. Other significant trade flows (total exports from Canada to Other World, total U.S. exports, and total imports from Other World to theUnited States and Canada) are projected by using trend analysis with significant adjustments for the assumed impacts of global capacity expansion and currency exchange rate conditions. In particular, the current outlook for U.S. export of paper and paperboard is more pessimistic than in the past assessments because of the observed negativeimpacts of the strong dollar on U.S. competitiveness in recent years, weakened domestic capacity growth, and continued overseas capacity expansion.

The biological projection system, ATLAS, was developed to model timber inventories at multiple geographic scales. 15 Its function is to simulate growth, harvest, land use change, forest type change, and shifts in timber management for approximately 356 million acres of private timberland and 134 million acres of national forest timberland in the conterminous United States. At its most basic level, ATLAS uses an “even-age” model of the timber inventory. That is, it represents the inventory as a collection of age classes, and advances or adjusts these classes over time to simulate the growth and development of the forest. Original field inventory data relate to the stand level, whereas TAMM and ATLAS deal at the regional (multistate) level. Aggregating from the standlevel to the regional level combines a broad mix of conditions, and the even-age characterization used by ATLAS gives way, in effect, to a multiage model where age classes might alternatively be thought of as growth classes.

The inventory projections depend on the development of inputs under several assumptions regarding the stratification and aggregation of the basic timber resource data. These data are derived from approximately 180,000 permanent ground plots maintained by the FIA programs within the USDA Forest Service. For the timber assessment, the resource data are divided into nine timber supply regions (see map on page 254). Within each region, timberland was stratified by up to four ownerships, up to 10 forest types, and up to 18 age classes. Five-year age classes are used in the South and 10-year age classes for all other regions. Resource data in the South and the Pacific Northwest West were further stratified by 3 site productivity classes and up to 12 management intensity classes. In these regions, the most detailed set of attributes used to identify aunit of inventory would be region, owner, forest type, site productivity class, management intensity class, and age. Resource data for national forests were only stratified into three management classes.

Throughout the projection, each unit of area, or “cell,” can be identified by these attributes. Weighting is dependent on the area associated with each stratum. Given the flexible stratification scheme, cells can range in size from several thousand acres up to a million or more acres. The projection mechanism in ATLAS moves each aggregate The Aggregate
Timberland Assessment System Timber Inventory

Model

15 The ATLAS system evolved from earlier work by Beuter et al. (1976) and Tedder et al. (1987).53 cell along an independent yield trajectory. The yield estimation process projects cell volumes period by period in a fashion consistent with the inventory stand age classes. The yield tables and associated yield projection inputs required for the growth models were derived from timberland inventory plot data collected by the various USDA Forest Service FIA units (see Mills 1990), from cooperative research and consultation with private forest landowners, and from previous studies (the inventory data inputs are summarized in Mills 1989, 1993).

When stratified, the FIA private timberland data occupied 6,900 cells at the start of the projection. To avoid introducing unnecessary errors, the initial FIA plot values were not adjusted to a common starting point in time. The starting year represents roughly theaverage year the data were collected: 1995 in the South, and 1990 in the seven remaining U.S. regions. To reach 2050, the South was projected for eleven 5-year periods, and all other regions are projected for six 10-year periods. By the end of the projection, some proliferation of age and management groups had occurred and the inventory resource was distributed among 7,100 cells.

Cells can shift in growth, area, harvest, and management intensity. Although growth is simulated for each cell independent of all other cells, the amount of harvest or area change occurring in a particular cell will often depend on the cell’s “weight” relative toother cells. That is, the amount of harvest removed, or the amount of area lost, will depend on a cell’s relative available volume or relative area among a targeted group of

cells.

In each simulation period, inventory change is the result of growth, area change, and harvest. Periodic change in inventory volume is the sum of four components: net growth (+), volume lost owing to area loss (-), harvest (-), and volume gained owing to area gain (+). Net growth is the sum of growth (net of mortality) from all possible activities thatcould affect the inventory: normal inventory growth, plus growth on the volume harvested, plus growth on area gained, and growth on area lost.

Over time, an inventory cell can change management intensity classes, shift foresttypes, or be lost from the forest land base to nonforest uses. Forest type and management intensity changes are governed in part by externally developed scenarios of prospective future private management decisions, as described in an earlier section of this chapter. Management intensity changes are not endogenously sensitive to price or anyother market elements. A limited amount of market response was incorporated, however, by making judgmental adjustments to regimes during a sequence of successive projections. In previous versions of ATLAS, parameters directed shifts to occur from one management regime to another. Modifications made for the timber assessment changed the mechanism so now all final harvested acres are assigned to a common pool, from which regenerated acres are allocated among the entire set of management regimes. This is similar to a “model II” formulation describing even-age regeneration developed byJohnson and Scheurman (1977). Final-harvested acres can be regenerated to an alternate management regime or alternate forest type, remain nonstocked, or lost from the

timberland base.

The land area projection system, AREACHANGE, was developed to project land use and forest type changes at regional and national scales. The system was linked to the ATLAS and TAMM models in the 1989 assessment (Haynes 1990) and the study of “The South’s Fourth Forest” (USDA FS 1988). A projection by the system operates in two phases. In the first phase, area changes in major land uses are projected to provide Timberland Area Change Model54 Linkage Among Modeling of Area Changes, Timber Management Intensity,
and Economic Timber Supplies regional estimates of total timberland area by ownership. In the second phase, the system projects area changes for major forest types on each ownership. Price projections from other parts of the timber assessment modeling system are used as one of the inputs in the first phase of the projections, and projections of management intensity class changes from the ATLAS model are used as an input in the second phase (fig. 2).

For the first phase, econometric analyses of the determinants of land use by region (e.g., Ahn et al. 2002, Mauldin et al. 1999b, Plantinga et al. 1999) were used in developing simulation models to project regional area changes in timberland by private ownership (Alig et al., n.d.). Land use competition between forestry and other sectors ismodeled by using statistical relations between changes in timberland area and determinants such as population, per capita income, and income from land-based enterprises such as forestry or agriculture.

In the second phase, area changes for forest types on a particular ownership can result from four basic sets of activities: afforestation, deforestation, shifts among forest types on retained timberland, and ownership exchanges. In contrast to ecological processes, land use changes and disturbances can differ significantly by type of private ownership. Land use changes involving afforestation and deforestation affect forest type areas overtime. Deforestation is most often caused by conversion to other land uses. This contrasts to timber harvests as part of typical forestry activities, as timber harvests aremost often followed by regeneration back to forest. Land exchanges between ownerships are largely driven by financial, strategic, and other socioeconomic factors (Alig 1985).

Forest type transitions on timberland are based on data from remeasured FIA surveyplots. Projections of such area changes for major forest types take into account likelihood of final harvest and forest successional forces (Alig and Wyant 1985). Forest type transitions for an aggregate grouping of timberland (by a stratum representing a specific region and ownership) are conditional on three types of timber harvest—no harvest, final or clearcut harvest, and other harvest types. Projected harvest information is provided by the overall TAMM/NAPAP/ATLAS/AREACHANGE modeling system.

Solution of the integrated model system shown in figure 2 involves an iterative approach. Starting estimates of land use and forest cover from the AREACHANGE system are fed into the ATLAS model, which also embodies estimates of timber management intensity. The resulting impacts on forest growth are reflected in the biological process models,which adjust timber inventories. The adjusted physical measure of available timber inventories are used to shift timber stumpage supply curves in the economic models of timber supply embodied in the TAMM and NAPAP models. Price projections from thelatter models are then fed back to the AREACHANGE system, to account for the impacts of any altered timber harvest levels and timber prices on land use and forest cover projections. The revised land use and forest cover projections are input then into newATLAS runs, and so on. This iterative rerunning of models proceeds until there is a reasonable convergence of linked model outcomes.55 

### Introduction 

# Chapter 3: Timber Demand-Supply Relations: Base Projection 1

One of the primary objectives of the fifth RPA timber assessment is to provide a plausible baseline projection of future changes in the Nation’s demand for timber productsand in the domestic timber resource that supplies a substantial part of our timber requirements. These projections provide a means of identifying emerging opportunities inthe timber resource sector and a base for analyzing economic, social, and environmental implications of alternative policies and programs. The resource projections presented here are also of value as background for public discussion of individual and collectiveperceptions of the future of the forest resource—perceptions that ultimately will influence forest management decisions.

Projections in this timber assessment depend directly on the assumptions made about major determinants of demand and characteristics of the timber resource as described in the preceding chapter. The projections would change if these assumptions were modified. There is no intent to portray the baseline trends projected here as socially or economically desirable or undesirable. Indeed, the economic, social, and environmental implications of these trends may stimulate actions to either change or reinforce them.

This chapter presents the base projections of future market activity for both timber products and timber stumpage. The base projections assume that (1) population and general economic conditions in the United States, forest land area, private investment in forest management, and developments in wood processing technologies follow trends as described in chapter 2; and (2) public policies in the overall economy and policies regulating management on both private and public forest lands remain fixed inthe forms and structures observed in the late 1990s. Given this specific policy framework, the projections are considered to be a “most likely” future outlook under specificassumptions, but no claim is made that continuation of past policies is the recommended or, indeed, most likely policy future. Any effort to forecast change in policy

1 The authors for this chapter are Darius M. Adams, Richard W. Haynes, Peter J. Ince, Kenneth E. Skog, John R. Mills, and David
B. McKeever.56 would be inappropriate in a document designed to provide science-based information for policy decisionmaking. Thus, the base case provides only a datum against which to measure impacts of alternative assumptions on economic and policy developments.

Trends in production, consumption, trade, and prices are projected to differ somewhat across the diverse classes of timber products over the next five decades. Rising grossdomestic product (GDP) and personal income will play central and common roles, driving overall consumption up, although at a declining pace. Price-based substitution, asso often in the past, will continue to have a major impact on use trends as well. Underlying many of these prospective developments will be significant changes in the characteristics of timber supply. The trade outlook, which envisions continued expansion in U.S. product imports and only modest expansion in exports, reflects the assumption that current trade policies will continue and a relatively strong U.S. dollar will persist.

Solid wood products are an important raw material for the construction, manufacturing, and shipping segments of the U.S. economy. Nearly all new U.S. single-family houses and low-rise multifamily residential structures are framed with lumber and sheathed in wood panels. Large amounts of wood products are also used in the construction of new nonresidential buildings, and in the upkeep and improvement of existing structures. Solid wood is used extensively in a variety of manufactured products, and nearly all manufactured products are shipped on wooden pallets. Wood also provides a renewable energy source for industrial, commercial, and residential applications.

The use of wood in the United States has changed in many ways over the past decades. Changes include the substitution of nonwood materials for wood in existing applications and the development and adoption of new wood products to substitute for existing wood and nonwood products. Other changes in wood use can be attributed to statutory changes that favor one type of material over another and to shifts in consumer preferences for a particular type of product or material. This section gives an overview of the major uses of solid wood products, how market shares or product importance have varied, and recent consumption trends as background to the projections. The primary end uses considered are construction, manufacturing, shipping, and fuelwood.

Construction is the largest overall market for solid wood in the United States, andconsists of new residential building, residential upkeep and improvement, and nonresidential construction. In 1996, about 65 percent of all lumber, 86 percent of all structural panels, and 40 percent of all nonstructural panels were consumed in construction (fig. 14). This compares to 72, 85, and 62 percent, respectively, in 1986. Declines inthe percentages of all lumber and of all nonstructural panels that were used for construction between 1986 and 1996 were due to many factors. Two most notable were the continued substitution of nonwood for wood building products, and the substitution of engineered wood for lumber and nonstructural panels. Steel framing, vinyl siding, and metal cabinets and millwork continue to take market share away from lumber and nonstructural panels, and wood I-joists substitute for larger dimension lumber in floor and roof framing, laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and wood I-joists for window and door headers, and oriented strand board (OSB) for nonstructural panel sheathing.

New residential construction accounted for about 53 percent of all wood products used in construction in 1996. Nearly 19.8 billion board feet of lumber, 17.0 billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) of structural panels, and 3.9 billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) of nonstructural panels were consumed for new residential construction in 1996 (fig. 15). Single-family homes used 82 percent, multifamily homes 8 percent, and mobile homes 

### Projected Consumption, Production, Trade,
and Prices for Timber Products

Solid Wood Products57 Figure 14—Timber products used for construction as a percentage of total timber products consumption, by product.

Figure 15—Timber products used for new residential construction, by product.58 10 percent of these products. Percentage used for single-family houses remained unchanged from 1986. Multifamily houses decreased 5 percent, and mobile homes increased 5 percent from 1986.

Residential upkeep and improvements have become a much more important market for wood-based building products in recent years. Prior to 1986, this market was less than half as large as the new single-family residential construction market. Since 1986, it has grown to about 85 percent as much volume as the single-family market, and forsome products (such as softwood lumber) it has become the largest end use. Residential upkeep and improvements accounted for 36 percent of all wood products used inconstruction in 1996, about the same as in 1986. Nearly 15.4 billion board feet of lumber, 7.5 billion square feet of structural panels, and 3.2 billion square feet of nonstructural panels were consumed for residential upkeep and improvements in 1996 (fig. 16). The end of the 1990s has seen a slowdown in markets for wood-based products that are used in residential upkeep and improvement. This slowdown is expected to be reversed as the economy starts to recover.

Nonresidential construction accounted for about 11 percent of the wood used in construction in 1996, down about 1 percent from 1986. Nearly 4.1 billion board feet of lumber, 2.5 billion square feet of structural panels, and 1.2 billion square feet of nonstructural panels were consumed for new nonresidential construction in 1996 (fig. 17).

Manufacturing activities in the United States accounted for about 13 percent of the lumber, 10 percent of the structural panels, and 47 percent of the nonstructural panels consumed in 1996. Nearly 7.9 billion board feet of lumber, 3.2 billion square feet of structural panels, and 9.9 billion square feet of nonstructural panels were consumed in manufacturing in 1996 (fig. 18). Lumber consumption for manufacturing increased by nearly 30 percent between 1986 and 1996. Structural panels increased by about 80 percent and nonstructural panels by about 50 percent.

Packaging and shipping accounted for about 10 percent of the lumber, and 2 percent or less of all structural and nonstructural panels consumed in 1996. Just over 6.4 billion board feet of lumber, 0.5 billion square feet of structural panels, and 0.1 billion square feet of nonstructural panels were consumed for packaging and shipping in 1996 (fig. 19). The 388 million new pallets produced in 1996 required 5.8 billion board feet of lumber,more than 90 percent of all the lumber used for packaging and shipping. Recent advances in pallet repair, recovery, and design have resulted in a reduced rate of growth in the numbers of new pallets being built, and reduced amounts of lumber per pallet. In 1996, an estimated 180 million pallets were recovered by the pallet industry, 114 million more than in 1992. About 2.4 billion board feet of salvaged lumber was used to repair, rebuild, and manufacture the 150 million recycled pallets produced in 1996.

In 1996, wood energy consumption in the United States was nearly 2.5 quadrillion (10 15 ) British thermal units (Quad), or about 2.6 percent of the total 94.0 Quad consumed (fig. 20). About 23 percent of wood-derived fuel was roundwood, 38 percent was mill and other wood waste, and 39 percent was black liquor from pulping. These fuels were used for residential heating (24 percent), energy in the forest products and other industries (74 percent), and commercial buildings and electric power generation(2 percent). Currently, about 35 percent of roundwood fuel comes from timberland growing stock. The share of wood energy coming from roundwood increased sharply in the late 1970s through mid-1980s when fossil fuel prices rose sharply but has decreased in subsequent years with the drop in fossil fuel prices.59 Figure 16—Timber products used for residential upkeep and improvements, by product.

Figure 17—Timber products used for new nonresidential construction, by product.60 Figure 18—Timber products used for manufacturing.

Figure 19—Timber products used for packaging and shipping.

Lumber —Growing steadily from a recessionary low in 1991, U.S. lumber consumption reached 61.3 billion board feet in 1996 (see app. table 38) and an historical high of 68.3 billion board feet in 1999 (Howard 2001). These volumes are more than 50 percent higher than earlier peaks observed in the first half of the 20 th century, and the 1999 value exceeds the previous post-World War II peak set in 1987 at 57.4 billion board61 Figure 20—Wood energy use, by sector, 1955–98.

2 The 1993 RPA timber assessment update (Haynes et al. 1995) projected consumption of some 74.0 billion board feet by 2040. Higher consumption in the current projection derives from higherforecasts of housing activity and residential upkeep and improvement expenditures.

3 See Glossary for definitions of engineered wood products. feet. Lumber consumption is forecast to rise throughout the projection period (see app. table 38) reaching 77.3 billion board feet by 2040 2 and 83.0 billion board feet by 2050. On a per capita basis, consumption peaked in the 1980s, fell in the 1990s, and declines in the projection until 2040.

Engineered wood products 3 as substitutes for lumber are beginning to gain marketshare, particularly in construction applications. About 30 million cubic feet of structural composite lumber, primarily LVL, 236 million board feet of glulam timbers, and 445 million linear feet of wood I-joists were consumed in 1996 (fig. 21). These volumes of engineered wood products, when converted to their board foot equivalents, accounted for about 4 percent of all wood products used for framing in 1996. Use was greatest for new residential construction at about 6 percent, and least for residential upkeep and improvements at about 2 percent. Consumption of LVL and wood I-joists increased by 22 million cubic feet and 346 million linear feet, respectively, between 1986 and 1996. Glulam timber consumption fell by 94 million board feet during the same period. Overall, the use of each engineered wood product in construction is expected to increase steadily in the short term. Based on U.S. and Canadian production forecasts (Adair 2000), overall engineered wood products production is expected to increase by about 175 percent between 1996 and 2005. Nearly all this increased production will be used for construction applications. In the projections that follow, the volumes of engineered wood products are combined with those of their traditional substitutes in the various

end uses.62 Softwood lumber —The most dramatic historical trend in softwood lumber consumption has been its growth in residential upkeep and improvement applications (fig. 22). Use has increased both because of steadily rising expenditures on upkeep and improvement and because more softwood lumber is being used per dollar of expenditure. Use trendsin new housing, in contrast, are the result of a more complex set of shifts. In singlefamily homes (see panels A–E in fig. 23), lumber use per square foot of floor area fell from the 1950s through the 1960s as a result of substitution from softwood plywood and other materials, rose during the 1980s in the face of low relative lumber prices, andfell again sharply in the 1990s as lumber prices rose. Throughout this period, the average size of single-family homes continued to rise. This acted to offset the effects of Figure 21—Engineered wood products use, by type, 1980–98.

Figure 22—U.S. softwood lumber use by end-use category, with projections to 2050. Historical values
are estimates.63 declining lumber use per square foot of floor area so that use per dwelling unit actuallyrose from the 1970s through the late 1990s (panel C, fig. 23). Overall lumber consumption in single-family dwellings is the product of use per dwelling unit and the total number of single-family housing units started. The sensitivity of new housing starts to changes in interest rates adds further volatility to the lumber use total (see panels D and E in fig. 23).

Continuing the trends of the past decades, residential upkeep and improvement is the primary source of change in domestic softwood lumber consumption in the projections,exceeding use in new housing (fig. 22). As noted in the discussion of the macroeconomic outlook in the previous chapter, new housing starts are projected to decline and then recover to near recent levels over the next two decades. They rise strongly after 2030 owing to a surge in replacements and second home construction. Residential upkeep and improvement expenditures, in contrast, grow steadily with income. This difference is seen clearly in the softwood lumber use projections. Consumption in Figure 23—Components of U.S. softwood lumber use in single-family dwellings, with projections to 2050.64 nonhousing uses also rises over the projection. Driven by growth in GDP, lumber use in manufacturing, nonresidential construction, and “other” 4 categories rises slowly. Detailed tables of historical and projected lumber consumption, production, and trade are given in the appendix (see tables 38 through 40).

Aggregated across all uses, softwood lumber consumption rises steadily over the projection, reaching some 70 billion board feet by 2050, 15 billion board feet above the estimated 1999 peak (fig. 24). The mix of sources of this consumption, however, varies over time. In the first decade, domestic production remains roughly stable, as in thedecade of the 1990s, while imports continue to rise to fill the shortfall between production and consumption, reaching roughly 25 billion board feet by 2010. After 2010, both domestic production and imports expand to meet continued demand growth.

The origins of these shifts in domestic production lie at the resource level, as later sections of this chapter discuss in greater detail. Over the 2000–15 period some private timberland ownerships in the United States face limitations in merchantable volumes of

timber. These limitations lead to stable or reduced harvests. With the passage of time, young stands mature and inventory positions change. As a result, harvest on many of these ownerships will grow after 2010–15. Resource conditions overseas also contribute to increasing production and export to the U.S. market.

In Canada, opportunities for continued timber harvest expansion may be limited, despite differences between current harvest and nominal annual allowable cut (AAC) levels in some provinces. 5 Indeed, harvest restrictions had already been put in place in some areas of coastal and interior British Columbia in the early 1990s. As a consequence, limits have been placed on potential future sawtimber harvests across the Canadian regions in this analysis. In the British Columbia Coast region, sawtimber harvest can rise no higher than 1990 levels. In the Canadian Interior region, the upper bound was set at the peak level observed in 1992 (some 2.0 billion cubic feet per year) and heldthere until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the upper bound falls back to the lowest harvest level observed in the decade of the 1990s (roughly 1.75 billion cubic feet per year) and remains there for the rest of the projection. In the Canada East region, AACs are substantially higher than current harvests. In this instance, projected harvest is allowed to increase no more than 15 percent above approximate 1999 levels (to about 2.6 billion cubic feet per year), until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the bound falls back to roughly the average level observed during the 1990s (about 2.0 billion cubic feet per year). In the projections, these bounds become effective for all Canadian regions by 2005 and act to restrict all subsequent sawtimber, and hence lumber, output.

In 1996, the United States and Canada entered into the Canadian-United States Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) designed to restrict Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the United States through a structure of quotas and tariffs. The SLA expired in

4 The “other” category includes a sizable component of nonresidential upkeep and improvement and various other applicationsnot fully captured in the wood use accounting for the construction, manufacturing, and shipping groups.

5 See Canadian Forest Service, 1999. The AACs and recent harvest levels are reported in “Profiles Across the Nation” beginning on page 26. See also http://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ ppiab/sof/sof.html and the Compendium of Canadian Forestry
Statistics at http://nfdp.ccfm.org/framesinv_e.htm in section 2.65 6 Most of the exempted volume originated in provinces not covered under the SLA. Figure 24—U.S. consumption, production, imports, and exports of softwood lumber, with projections to
2050.

April 2001. In 2002, U.S. firms successfully petitioned the U.S. International Trade Commission; the Department of Commerce is to institute a duty as a result of a countervailing duty and antidumping investigation.

During the first 4 years of the SLA, softwood lumber imports from Canada rose from 17.3 billion board feet to 18.4 billion board feet owing primarily to growth in shipments from provinces not subject to duty. In the first quota year (April 1996 to March 1997), some 17.3 billion board feet were imported in total: 14.8 billion duty free (includes 0.1 billion of “bonus” volume), 1.0 billion subject to some duty, and 1.5 billion exempted. In the fourth quota year (April 1999 to March 2000), total imports were approximately 18.4 billion board feet: 14.8 billion board feet duty free, 0.9 billion board feet (about 5 percent of the total) subject to some duty, and 2.7 billion board feet exempted. 6 In the base projection, it was assumed that the outcome of the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade dispute
would result in an environment for U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade similar to that of the past decade. Therefore, we assumed that the same sources of import expansion would continue to be available, allowing Canadian imports to rise to 20.1 billion board feet by 2010 (about 10 percent higher than the quantity imported in calendar year 2000).

Figure 25 gives a detailed picture of softwood lumber imports as a percentage of U.S.consumption. The share for total imports has grown steadily over the past several decades. Most of this wood comes from Canada, but in recent years, imports from other regions, including Europe, South America, and Oceania (primarily New Zealand), have increased as well. In 1999, it is estimated that non-Canadian softwood lumber imports totaled nearly 0.9 billion board feet (about 1.6 percent of U.S. consumption). In the base projection, the share of these non-Canadian imports continues to rise to about 12.5 percent by 2020. In subsequent years (2021–50), they rise to roughly 15 percent of U.S. consumption reaching an annual volume of 10.5 billion board feet. Canada’sshare of U.S. consumption at its highest point in the projection (2005) reaches 36 percent then drops back to about 25 percent by 2050.66 An increasing contribution from non-Canadian sources is based on the expected strength of the U.S. market (including the U.S. dollar) relative to international markets, and resource conditions in regions that have emerged as competitive suppliers to theU.S. market. Expanding timber harvests and exports will depend on intensive management of native species (in Europe) and plantations of exotic species (in South America and Oceania). By 2050, the contribution to U.S. consumption of softwood lumber that is expected to come from Europe will require only a small portion (about 10 percent) of the current difference between net annual growth (increment) and harvest (fellings) of softwood growing stock on forests available for wood supply (UN ECE 2000). In South America, Asia, and Oceania, production from softwood plantations—currently more than 25 million acres, at least a third of which are in private ownership (FAO 2001b)—is thesource of raw material for expected increases in production and shipment to U.S. markets. The role of these plantations in meeting U.S. demand for softwood lumber is consistent with projected increases in world timber harvests (ABARE 1999).

Exports show no growth in figure 24, as the United States is assumed to remain one of the world’s high-cost softwood lumber producers. In addition, the strength of domestic markets, expanding softwood lumber production overseas, and increased competition in traditional U.S. markets all act to limit U.S. exports.

During the 2000–10 period, the base projection suggests that no U.S. region has the potential for significant softwood lumber supply expansion (fig. 26). In the Pacific Northwest West, lumber output rises in the long term, by nearly two-thirds betweenthe 1990s and 2050, but there is little prospect of significant near-term growth. Longterm expansion is based on (1) continued improvement in lumber recovery (more lumber per unit of log input); (2) maturation of second-growth timber on forest industry lands, which allows maintenance of industry harvests at or above the levels of the 1990s throughout the projection; (3) gradual growth in nonindustrial private harvestsback toward their peak levels in the late 1980s driven by more than a 20-percent expansion in their timber inventories; and (4) reallocation of log supplies from plywood to lumber as plywood output declines. Figure 25—Total and Canadian imports as shares of U.S. softwood lumber consumption, with projections to 2050.67 In the South, softwood lumber output is roughly constant during the first decade of the projection, then rises by one-third from 2015 to 2050. The next 10 to 15 years will see amajor departure from the rapidly rising output trends of the past 30 years. The underlying cause of this break in trend (as discussed in greater detail in the section on timber resources) is a limitation in merchantable timber on nonindustrial private forest lands in the South-Central region and on forest industry lands in the Southeast. In these cases, sawtimber harvest will either decline, or expand only very slowly, over the next 15 to 20 years to remain within the limits of available merchantable volume. After this period, however, timber growth expands sharply, and harvest will increase apace.

Hardwood lumber —With the advent of wide-scale pallet reuse, recycling, and repair, growth in new pallet production has slowed appreciably and with it the rate of growth in hardwood lumber production. In the late 1990s, hardwood lumber consumption averaged about 12.5 billion board feet per year, roughly one-fourth the level for softwoods. In the base projection, hardwood lumber output and consumption continue to grow, although at slower rates than observed over the last 30 years (fig. 27). Production rises by some1.4 billion board feet over the 2000–50 period. United States exports continue to outpace imports, with net export volumes projected to rise slightly in the next decade, then
stabilize at about 1.1 billion board feet.

Consumption growth in hardwood lumber is due to changes in several end uses (fig. 28):

• A modest increase in lumber use in pallets. The pallet projection calls for new pallet production to rise from about 420 million per year in the late 1990s to just under 500 million by 2030, then roughly stabilize. At the same time, however, hardwood lumber use per pallet continues to decline in line with recent trends to substitute various

nonlumber materials.

• Expanded use in flooring and millwork. This is driven largely by continued growth in residential upkeep and improvement expenditures. Figure 26—Softwood lumber production by U.S. region, with projections to 2050.68 • Growth in miscellaneous uses. In the case of hardwood lumber, this categoryincludes all construction applications except flooring and millwork, and made-athome and on-the-job products such as advertising and display structures.

• Hardwood lumber use in furniture and other applications declines slightly.

Over the past two decades, hardwood lumber output has expanded in all regions, withparticularly rapid growth in the North and the South-Central (fig. 29) regions. In the projections, output continues to rise in the North and Southeast but declines in the SouthCentral region. Limitations in Southern hardwood inventories and timber growth restrict options for future lumber production. Production in the North, in contrast, can rise more rapidly based on large and expanding hardwood inventories on nonindustrial private forest ownerships. Figure 27—U.S. production and consumption of hardwood lumber, with projections to 2050.

Figure 28—U.S. consumption of hardwood lumber by end-use category, with projections to
2050.69 Figure 29—U.S. hardwood and lumber production by region, with projections to 2050.

Structural panels —Consumption of structural panels (softwood plywood, OSB), reached 31.6 billion square feet in 1996 and some 34.4 billion square feet by 1999. 7 These levels represent substantial increases over consumption just one decade earlier(the 1999 level is 30 percent higher than consumption in 1989). The two product components of the structural panels group have not enjoyed comparable development, however. Decades ago, growth of softwood plywood consumption in the United States was based, in part, on substitution of plywood for lumber in various decking and sheathing applications in new housing construction. Since the late 1970s, plywood in turn has been replaced in key markets by OSB. As shown in figure 30, plywood consumption has shown no trend over the past 20 years, drifting up and down with movements in housing starts, while OSB consumption has grown to exceed plywood use. In the base projection, softwood plywood consumption declines slowly to just below 10 billion square feet. Oriented strand board consumption grows less rapidly in the future, as it approaches saturation levels in many end uses, but still reaches nearly 41 billion square feet by 2050.

Underlying the declining softwood plywood trend are downward adjustments in consumption across all end uses. By the late 1990s, softwood plywood use had decreased by more than half in all new housing applications compared to levels in the late 1970s. It had a comparable share loss in residential upkeep and improvement uses relative to levels in the late 1980s. For the future, OSB will continue to gain ground by replacing use of softwood plywood in housing applications. Use of OSB per square foot of floor area in new housing will continue to rise until about 2010. Consumption growth after2010 will derive primarily from residential upkeep and improvement, shipping, and manufacturing applications (fig. 31). In these uses, OSB will continue to replace softwood plywood and will capture all the future growth in structural panel consumption.

7 Detailed tables of historical data and projections are shown in appendix table 41.70 Softwood plywood production and capacity have fallen sharply in the Pacific NorthwestWest (fig. 32) since the late 1980s in the face of major reductions in public timber harvest and competition from OSB. This decline is expected to continue over the first decade of the projection, as this region remains the high-cost producer in North America. By 2010, Pacific Northwest West production will be concentrated primarily in specialty grades for domestic use and export. Modest levels of production will continue in the West in regions east of the Cascade Range. Output in the South will follow a trajectory similar to that in the West, with the largest losses in the next decade. 8 Figure 30—U.S. consumption of structural panel products, softwood plywood, and oriented strand board (OSB)/waferboard, with projections to 2050.

Figure 31—U.S. consumption of oriented strand board (OSB)/waferboard by end-use category, with projections
to 2050.

8 Production, consumption, and trade details for structural panels are given in appendix tables 46 and 47.71Domestic producers gain a larger share of the continued, if less rapid, growth in markets for OSB (fig. 33). In the United States, the North’s market share rises slowly at the expense of the South after 2010. Domestic regions (North and South) and imports from Canada split the U.S. market in nearly equal proportions by 2050.

Nonstructural panels —Nonstructural panel consumption, including hardwood plywood, insulating board, hardboard, and particleboard, rose to 21.0 billion square feet (3/8-inch basis) in 1996, virtually unchanged from 1986 (fig. 34). Record-high nonstructural panelconsumption was set in 1987 when 22.6 billion square feet were consumed. Particleboard (including medium density fiberboard [MDF]) was the most important nonstructural panel in 1996 accounting for 60 percent of total consumption. Hardwood plywoodand insulation board were second at 16 percent each, followed by hardboard at 8 percent. Net imports accounted for about 15 percent of nonstructural panel consumption in 1996, down from 30 percent in 1986, but equal to the net import contribution in 1976. Since 1996, however, imports of particleboard and MDF rose significantly, and by 2001 accounted once again for about one-fourth of U.S. particleboard and MDF consumption.

Projected total demand for nonstructural panels increases to 25.8 billion square feet in 2010 and 30.9 billion square feet by 2050. 9 Because the future outlook in major markets varies, as do prospective rates of market penetration and product substitution, different trends in demand are projected for the four products. Consumption of insulating board, whose major market is residential construction, is expected to decline in the face of continued competition from other materials. Hardwood plywood, used in manufacturing as well as construction, also declines slowly through 2050. Particleboard, in contrast, is expected to show continued growth, paralleling output in furniture, cabinetry, and underlayment in new single-family residences, its major end uses. Consumption of hardboard, used in siding, underlayment, paneling, and furniture, also continues to rise slowly. Figure 32—U.S. production of softwood plywood by region, with projections to 2050.

9 Production, consumption, and trade details for nonstructural panels are given in appendix table 48.72 Imports of hardwood plywood have been an important trade flow in the nonstructuralpanels group in the past, although surpassed in recent years by rising imports of particleboard and MDF. Currently, about two-thirds of all the hardwood plywood consumed in the United States is imported, chiefly from Indonesia. Imports from these and other sources rose rapidly until the late-1980s to 3.8 billion square feet. Since then, they have fallen into the 1.7 to 2.0 billion square feet range as consumer tastes and price base substitution have shifted consumption away from wood-based paneling. In the future, imports are expected to stabilize at about 1.7 billion square feet per year. Pushed byrising U.S. demand, particleboard imports, mostly from Canada, are expected to continue to rise, climbing 80 percent above recent levels. Imports of other panels and exports of all panel types are expected to change little from recent levels. Figure 33—U.S. oriented strand board (OSB)/waferboard production, consumption, and imports, with projections to 2050 (exports are negligible).

Figure 34—Nonstructural panel consumption by type of panel.73 Paper and Board Other industrial timber products —Various other industrial timber products are consumed in the United States, including poles; piling; posts; round mine timbers; hewn ties; bolts used for shingles, handles, and woodturnings; cooperage logs; chemical wood; and miscellaneous items. Total consumption of roundwood for these products amounted to an estimated 0.50 billion cubic feet in 1996, about equally split between hardwoods and softwoods. There has been no distinct trend in aggregate consumption of this category over the past several decades. Consumption dropped in the 1970s and 1980s but by 1996 returned to near the 1966 level of 0.56 billion cubic feet. The largest producing region is the North Central with more than 25 percent of the national output, predominantly in hardwoods. Projected U.S. consumption remains stable at about 0.52 billion cubic feet per year through 2050.

Overall, U.S. paper and paperboard consumption and production were generally increasing throughout the 20 th century, although the rate of increase has been gradually decelerating in recent decades. Since 1999, declining U.S. GDP growth and a recession in the overall manufacturing sector precipitated a significant drop in paper and paperboard consumption and production, the first multiyear decline since the “energy crisis” of the early 1970s. United States paper and paperboard purchases (excluding building paper) peaked at 103.4 million tons in 1999, but purchases dropped to an annual level less than 97 million tons in 2001 (AF&PA 2001). Thus, per capita consumption of paper and paperboard in the U.S. economy reached its historical peak at over 750 pounds per person in 1999 (excluding building paper), but consumption receded to only about 700 pounds per capita in 2001. Nevertheless, consumption still remains at historically high levels that had not been attained in the United States until the early 1990s. In 1960, per capita consumption was just less than 400 pounds, and in 1900, it was only about 60 pounds.

In recent decades, paperboard consumption increased more rapidly than paper consumption, a trend that is projected to continue, but growth is decelerating in both paper and paperboard demands. Paperboard consumption rose from 243 pounds per capita in 1980 (at 6.0 tons per million dollars of real GDP, in 1992 dollars) to its historical peak of 342 pounds per capita in 1999 (at 5.9 tons per million dollars of real GDP), a gain of about 40 percent in per capita consumption but a slight drop in consumption per unit of real GDP. With recent recessionary trends in the manufacturing sector, paperboard consumption fell to an annual rate of around 320 pounds per capita in 2001. Paperboard consumption is projected to recover from the current recession and then climb to 350 pounds per capita by 2010 and 418 pounds per capita by 2050.

Paper consumption (excluding paperboard and building paper) rose from 326 poundsper capita in 1980 (at 8.0 tons per million dollars of real GDP, in 1992 dollars) to its alltime historical peak of 419 pounds per capita in 1999 (at 7.3 tons per million dollars of real GDP), a gain of 28 percent in per capita consumption, but unlike paperboard, paper consumption declined more significantly relative to real GDP. Also, paper consumption suffered a more significant recessionary decline since 1999 (dropping to an annual rate of only about 380 pounds per capita in 2001). Paper consumption on a per capita basis is projected to recover but is not projected to reach the peak level of 1999 again in the decades ahead. Paper consumption is projected to climb back to an annual rate of 401 pounds per capita by 2010, to peak again at 414 pounds in 2030, and then decline gradually to 391 pounds in 2050.74 Demand trends differ greatly among individual paper products. Per capita U.S. newsprint consumption, for example, rose throughout much of the 20 th century but peaked at113 pounds in 1987 and then declined to 89 pounds per capita in 1996. Newsprint consumption picked up again in the late 1990s with the strong economy and strong newspaper advertising demands (to 96 pounds in 1999), but then newsprint consumption fell with receding economic growth to less than 90 pounds in 2001. Newsprint consumption on a per capita basis is projected to continue gradually receding, falling to 81 poundsby 2010 and only 43 pounds by 2050. The projected trend for newsprint reflects an assumption that newspaper consumption will continue yielding to gradual substitution byelectronic news and advertising media. Similarly, consumption of unbleached kraft paper is projected to gradually recede, reflecting continued substitution for paper by plastic bags, although not declining so rapidly as in the past two decades. On the other hand, per capita consumption of printing and writing paper continued to increase in recent decades, rising from 142 pounds in 1980 to 237 pounds in 1999, boosted bycomplementary demands for computer printers, office copiers, and print media. However, as with other paper and paperboard grades, consumption of printing and writing paper declined amid recessionary trends since 1999, dropping to an annual rate ofaround 220 pounds per capita in 2001. Printing and writing paper consumption is projected to recover in the next decade but then increase at a decelerating rate of growth,climbing back to 235 pounds per capita by 2010 and 263 pounds by 2030 before gradually receding to 255 pounds by 2050, with gradually declining consumption per unit ofGDP. Tissue, toweling, and sanitary paper products increased in per capita consumption from 38 pounds in 1980 to 51 pounds in 1999, and consumption is projected to gradually increase throughout the projection period, reaching 63 pounds per capita by 2050, with receding consumption per unit of GDP.

Among paperboard commodities, the growth trends are more consistently upward, particularly for containerboard (paperboard grades used to make corrugated boxes and shipping containers). Per capita consumption of containerboard climbed from 166 pounds in 1980 to the recent peak of 246 pounds in 1999 (an increase of 48 percent),while per capita consumption of all other categories of paperboard (other recycled paperboard and bleached paperboard) plus building paper rose from 89 to 101 poundsbetween 1980 and 1999 (an increase of 13 percent). With projected recovery and economic expansion in the base case, per capita containerboard consumption is projected to increase to 256 pounds in 2010 and 324 pounds in 2050, although consumption ofcontainerboard per unit of GDP is projected to gradually recede over the projection period. Other paperboard consumption is projected to remain at around 100 pounds per capita throughout the projection period.

Figure 35 illustrates the historical and projected trends in U.S. per capita consumption and consumption per million dollars of real GDP for paper and paperboard. Per capita consumption of paper and paperboard (excluding building paper) is projected to return to the recent peak level of 750 pounds by 2010 and then gradually climb to 809 pounds in 2050. The pronounced pattern of decelerating growth in demand observed in the latter
half of the 20 th century is projected to continue, with compound growth in per capita consumption averaging only about 0.2 percent per year from 2000 to 2050 (versus 1.7percent compound growth between 1960 and 1999). Consumption of paper and paperboard per million dollars of real GDP is projected to decline from around 13.2 tons in 1999 to around 7.7 tons in 2050. The base case analysis finds that projected shifts in fiber supply and prices exert only modest influences on equilibrium demand levels, asindicated by a flat projected trajectory for product price cycles despite increased consumption.75 On a total tonnage basis, U.S. consumption of primary paper and paperboard products (excluding building paper) recently declined from its all-time peak of 103 million tons in1999 to a level of around 97 million tons in 2001, a decline of about 6 percent, with demand weakened by recessionary trends in the overall economy. However, with growing population and projected economic growth, U.S. demand for paper and paperboard is projected to recover, and total consumption is projected to reach 112 million tons in 2010 and 159 million tons in 2050. The projected annual rate of growth in tonnage of paper consumed from 2000 to 2050 is 0.8 percent, less than one-third the average rate of growth from 1960 to 1999 (2.8 percent).

Total U.S. production of primary paper and paperboard products (including building paper) reached a record level of 98 million tons in 1999 (AF&PA 2000). Impacted by recessionary trends in the manufacturing sector and increased imports, U.S. paper and paperboard production fell since 1999 to an annual rate of about 91 million tons in 2001 (including building paper).

In general, U.S. paper and paperboard production levels are projected to increase at a pace that is considerably slower than projected increases in domestic consumption; as a consequence, the United States will depend on imports for an increasing share of consumption. As is the case with softwood lumber, this trade outlook is based on the assumption that current trade policies will continue and a relatively strong U.S. dollarwill persist. We also expect a continuation of other factors that contribute to the attractiveness of U.S. markets and weaken the relative competitiveness of U.S. exports. These other factors include the strength of the U.S. economy relative to that of other countries, and rates of capital investment and reinvestment in the United States that are low relative to those of competitors. The result is increasing imports and dampened prospects for exports. Figure 35—U.S. paper and paperboard consumption per capita and per million dollars of real gross domestic product (GDP) (in 1992 dollars).76 The base projection describes a future that is consistent with trends of the past decade: increased U.S. imports of pulp, paper, and paperboard, with growth in exports slower than the long-term historical trend. Domestic production is expected to supply the bulk of projected increases in domestic demands over the next 50 years, as in pastdecades. However, nearly one-third of the projected increase in U.S. paper and paperboard consumption will be met by expansion in imports. While production of paper and paperboard is projected to increase by 43 percent over the next 50 years reaching 135 million tons by 2050 (excluding building paper), imports of paper and paperboard are projected to double, reaching 35 million tons by 2050. Imports of hardwood market pulp also are expected to increase, as fast-growing eucalyptus plantations in the Southern Hemisphere provide the raw material for this product.

Canada is projected to remain the primary source for U.S. imports of most paper and paperboard commodities, but low-cost producers in other world regions are expected to account for most (about 70 percent) of the projected increase in U.S. imports. By 2050, about 45 percent of U.S. paper and paperboard imports are expected to originate inEurope, Asia, and South America, compared to about 20 percent in 2000. The raw material for these imports will come from intensely managed native forests (in Europe),from plantations of selected exotic species (in Asia and South America), and from recovered fiber (in Europe and Asia), some of which may be imported from the UnitedStates. Figure 36 illustrates historical and projected U.S. paper and paperboard production, consumption, and trade on a tonnage basis.

One important projected shift in U.S. fiber supply is the expected increase in softwood pulpwood supply that results from expanded plantations and intensified management. Softwood pulpwood supplies are projected to be more than adequate to meet projectedU.S. softwood fiber demands. Hardwood pulpwood supplies on the other hand, are projected to become more limited as landowners gradually reduce their propensity to harvest hardwoods on their timberlands. Consequently, hardwood market pulp production is projected to gradually decline as imports of hardwood market pulp (from Latin Americaand elsewhere) triple (from around 2 million tons to around 6 million tons per year). Conversely, production and exports of softwood market pulp are projected to increase. Export growth is projected to be modest, however, with exports increasing about 43 percent, to 5.4 million tons by 2050.

Pulpwood demand —In 2000, pulpwood receipts at U.S. wood pulp mills were 238 million green tons or approximately 7.3 billion cubic feet solid wood equivalent, downfrom a peak of 265 million green tons or 8.1 billion cubic feet in 1994, including roundwood and chips from forest harvest and wood residues (based on tonnage data for pulpwood receipts from the Forest Resources Association [2001], formerly AmericanPulpwood Association [1999], assuming 30.7 cubic feet per green ton). Pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills are projected to continue receding for several years and then gradually recover along with recovery in wood pulp production, reaching 8 billion cubic feet again just after 2020 and 9.3 billion cubic feet by 2050.

Roundwood pulpwood consumption at wood panel mills (such as OSB mills) was estimated to be nearly 0.6 billion cubic feet in 1996 and is projected to exceed 2 billion cubic feet in 2050. Total demand for pulpwood in the United States (including pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills and roundwood pulpwood consumption at wood panel mills) is projected to increase by 43 percent between 1996 and the end of the projection period (2050), with pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills increasing by 26 percent and roundwood pulpwood receipts at wood panels mills increasing by more than 28077percent. Thus, wood panel mills account for nearly half of the projected growth in pulpwood demand in the period between 1996 and 2050. United States pulpwood exports are projected to drop by over 40 percent between 1996 and 2050 as world supplies of pulpwood increase with expanded global development of fiber plantations. Table 8 shows historical estimates and projections of U.S. pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills and wood panel mills along with pulpwood exports and estimated roundwood pulpwood harvest on forest land in 1986 and 1996, and at decade intervals from 2010 to 2050.

The sluggish trends of the late 1990s in pulpwood demands at U.S. wood pulp mills are projected to continue into the next decade, impacted in part by the current economic recession. Slow wood pulp mill capacity expansion, some additional gains in paperrecycling, and limited growth in product exports will continue to dampen pulpwood demands at U.S. wood pulp mills, but toward 2010 and beyond, wood pulp production and pulpwood receipts at U.S. wood pulp mills are projected to increase. Most projected growth in pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills occurs in the South, which has been the leading U.S. region in pulpwood consumption for many years. Pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills in the South receded from the historical peak level of around 6.1 billion cubic feet in 1994 to 5.4 billion cubic feet in 2000. Pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills in the South are projected to be 5.2 billion cubic feet in 2010 and 8.1 billion cubic feet in2050. Pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills in the North are projected to gradually decline over the projection period, from 1.1 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 0.6 billion cubic feet in 2050, while pulpwood roundwood receipts at OSB and wood panel mills in the North are projected to increase. Pulpwood receipts at wood pulp mills in the West are projected to gradually recede from around 0.8 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 0.6 billion
cubic feet in 2050. Figure 36—U.S. paper and paperboard consumption, production, imports, and exports, historical and projected.78 Although increased U.S. production of paper and paperboard placed additional demandson fiber resources in recent decades, substantial gains were also made in paper recycling since the 1980s (fig. 37). Recycling contributed to a relatively constant (and recently subsiding) level of total pulpwood demand and pulpwood receipts at U.S. pulp mills. On the other hand, pulpwood supply to wood panel mills increased, mainly for OSB. Wood residue receipts at wood pulp mills have declined significantly over the past decade with increased production of wood products that generated fewer residues forpulping (such as OSB, for example) and with reductions in Western lumber and plywood production.

Pulpwood supply— Table 9 shows that the base case is characterized by expansion insoftwood roundwood pulpwood supply, decelerating growth in paper recovery for recycling, and limited growth in hardwood pulpwood and wood residue supplies. Expansion of softwood pulpwood harvest, primarily in the South, accounts for most of the projectedincrease in pulpwood supply in the long run. The future growth in supplies of wood residues will remain limited. Hardwood pulpwood harvest is projected to increase nationwide until 2030 and then level out as a function of available forest inventories. Softwoodpulpwood harvest is projected to steadily increase, facilitated by intensified forest management mainly in the South.

Paper recycling will dampen growth in pulpwood demands at U.S. wood pulp mills in the near term, but pulpwood demands in the long run are projected to increase as paper recovery and recycling rates level out (fig. 37). In the base case analysis, the paper recovery rate for recycling is projected to climb only gradually to 50 percent by 2010, and then remain at or around 50 percent through the projection period to 2050. The tonnage of paper and paperboard recovered for recycling in the United States has Table 8—Demands for pulpwood produced in the United States, including pulp mill receipts(roundwood and residues), wood panel mill receipts (roundwood pulpwood only), and pulpwood exports, along with sources of pulpwood supply, including forest harvest, residues, and agrifiber

a Pulpwood from agrifiber is harvested from agricultural land and not included in forest harvest. Source: Historical data: Derived from Ingram et al. 1999. Projections: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Historical Projections

Source 1986 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Million cubic feet

Demand:

Pulp mill receipts 7,473 7,446 6,712 7,660 8,481 8,894 9,345 Wood panel mill receipts 205 552 1,178 1,418 1,659 1,867 2,114 Pulpwood export 158 528 347 326 312 306 297

Supply:

Harvest from forest land 5,016 6,274 6,439 7,676 8,741 9,467 10,054 Wood residue pulpwood supply 2,821 2,237 1,797 1,726 1,707 1,589 1,599 Agrifiber harvests a 0 16 2 2 5 10 104

Total supply 7,837 8,527 8,238 9,404 10,453 11,067 11,75779 Table 9—U.S. wood fiber supply, historical and projected

Historical Projections

Type of fiber 1986 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Millions of short tons (pulpwood on dry weight basis)

Softwood pulpwood: 69.1 69.3 67.4 78.2 89.4 97.1 105.5

Roundwood harvest 39.2 46.2 50.9 63.1 74.6 83.9 92.3
Wood residues 29.9 23.1 16.5 15.1 14.8 13.2 13.2

Hardwood pulpwood: 38.4 50.5 49.0 55.1 59.2 60.1 59.6

Roundwood harvest 30.3 42.8 40.5 46.1 50.2 51.1 50.5
Wood residues 8.1 7.6 8.5 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1

Hardwood Agrifiber 0 .1 0 0 .1 .2 1.7

Total pulpwood 107.5 120.0 116.4 133.3 148.7 157.4 166.9

Recovered paper 22.5 43.1 55.8 63.0 69.8 74.9 79.7

Total 130.0 163.1 172.2 196.2 218.5 232.3 246.5 Figure 37—U.S. paper recovery rate, historical and projected. Recovery rate = (tons of paper and paperboard recycled / tons of paper and paperboard consumed) × 100.80 doubled since the mid-1980s, but growth in the recovery rate has slowed as industrycapacity expansion has slowed and as price volatility in recovered paper markets replaced the recycled fiber market glut of the early 1990s.

Pulpwood usage —Although wood panel production is boosting roundwood pulpwooddemand, total pulpwood usage is receding relative to paper and paperboard consumption and production, largely because of gains in paper recycling and rising imports of paper and paperboard. The total supply of pulpwood in the United States (roundwood and residue receipts at wood pulp mills, pulpwood exports, and roundwood pulpwood for wood panels) in dry weight per ton of paper and paperboard consumed in the United States receded from 1.38 tons in 1986 to 1.28 tons in 1996. This ratio is projected to decline to 1.04 in 2010, and then remain relatively constant to 2050. The ratio for total pulpwood use per ton of paper and paperboard produced in the United States (1.52 in 1986 and 1.33 in 1996) is projected to increase slightly in the future with the increasing supply of pulpwood used for wood panel production.

Figure 38 shows recent historical and projected trends for pulpwood usage, balancingU.S. supply and demand quantities by source and destination. Sources of supply include hardwood and softwood (roundwood forest harvest and wood residues) and hardwood agrifiber. Destinations include pulpwood receipts at domestic wood pulp mills (by far the largest category), roundwood pulpwood receipts at wood panel mills (such asOSB mills), and pulpwood exports. Receipts at wood panel mills are projected to increase several fold and account for nearly half of projected growth in pulpwood supplyand demand. Panel mills are projected to account for 14 percent of total pulpwood supply by 2010 and 18 percent by the end of the projection period in 2050. Hardwood agrifiber is projected to supply only a small fraction of total U.S. pulpwood supply, just1 percent by 2050. United States pulpwood exports are projected to decline with worldwide expansion of global fiber supply from wood fiber plantations.

All forest products and timber prices in this assessment are presented in deflated or real terms. That is, the effects of general, economy-wide inflation have been removed from the projections. This is accomplished by dividing the original, or nominal, price series by the all commodity producer price index (1982 = 100)—a general measure of prices at the wholesale level in the U.S. economy. 10

The base projection envisions only modest trend movements in long-term prices for all classes of products over the next five decades. Slow price growth reflects (1) limited growth in stumpage prices for many (although not all) classes of timber, (2) continuedimprovement in product recovery per unit of wood or fiber input, (3) continued substitution by the least costly sources of fiber in all product categories, (4) substitution between classes of wood and nonwood products by consumers, and (5) growth in importsof some major product classes augmenting total supply. Despite fairly substantial projected increases in the consumption of forest products in the United States, a combination of domestic and import supply expansion will act to offset much of the pressure forprice growth. For paper and paperboard products, this will mean that future prices remain at about the relatively high levels experienced in the recent past. In the solid wood sector, price behavior differs across products. Both softwood and hardwood lumber prices rise at about 0.6 percent per year measured over the period from the mid-1990s

10 Projections of general price inflation in the U.S. economy, including the producer price index, are discussed in chapter 2. Prices of Forest Products81 Figure 38—U.S. pulpwood supply by source and by destination, historical and projected.

to 2050 (table 10). The softwood price cycle centered roughly at 2020 is caused by reductions in Canadian imports prior to 2020 and gradual, compensating expansion in U.S. output and non-Canadian imports. In the face of strong competition from OSB and stable wood costs, softwood plywood prices also show limited upward trend (a 0.3-percent increase per year). The key aspect of the projections for these products, however, is that prices do not return to the lower levels experienced in the 1980s or earlier periods. Having shifted upward during the 1990s, they remain at these higher levels. Oriented strand board prices, in contrast, showed considerable volatility in the 1990sbut no major growth, and projected prices continue at the average of the past two decades with no upward shift (see table 10).

Solid wood products —Hardwood lumber prices rise through 2050 by roughly 30 percent above recent levels (fig. 39). The initial upward movement is driven by wood costs and ultimately by sawtimber stumpage prices, which rise in both the North and South.

Softwood lumber prices remain near levels of the 1990s in the first 10 years of the projection, then rise through two cycles by nearly 40 percent in the ensuing 40 years. Near-term stability is aided by steady housing activity and expansion in both Canadian and non-Canadian lumber imports. After 2010, our assumptions regarding limitations infuture Canadian sawtimber harvests act to constrain Canadian lumber output, and exports to the United States fall. Rising prices improve the profitability of production in the United States, augmenting domestic capacity and output (primarily in the Pacific Northwest West and South). They also attract further import growth from non-Canadiansources. At the same time, growth in U.S. wood costs is limited because of major increases in Southern softwood sawtimber supplies (as discussed in a later section) and continued improvement in recovery efficiency. Softwood plywood prices are about stable82 throughout the projection as a result of declining demand and continued recovery improvement. Prices for OSB do not rise because of limited growth in wood costs, particularly for softwood pulpwood in the South and hardwood pulpwood in the North.

Paper and board prices —Historical paper and paperboard prices have shown considerable volatility over the post-World War II period, rising and falling with cycles in the U.S. economy and in the extent of capacity utilization. There has been no long-term rising or falling trend in these prices, however, with average prices in the late 1960s veryclose to averages in the late 1990s (fig. 40). The absence of price trends, despite significant growth in output and consumption, reflects both major improvements in productivity and shifts to less costly fiber sources. These adaptations are expected to continue in the future supplemented by continued growth in imports. Projected paperboard pricesrecover to about the average of the past two decades by 2020 and remain stable thereafter. Paper prices remain near their late-1990s low. Table 10—Indices of deflated prices a for selected timber products in the United States, by softwoods and hardwoods, 1952–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections Product, unit, and species group 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Index of price per unit—1982 = 100 Lumber: (1,000 board feet)
Softwoods 100.0 88.3 95.4 126.2 108.2 107.9 161.8 146.0 170.3 166.1 187.2 198.8

Hardwoods 104.4 103.5 118.4 109.8 118.0 110.3 136.4 159.2 170.9 175.6 179.5 182.3

Structural panels: (1,000 square feet, 3/8-inch basis)

Plywood 172.0 118.9 109.2 143.7 109.2 103.7 137.5 151.5 150.3 147.1 154.1 157.4

Structural panels: (1,000 square feet, 7/16-inch basis)

OSB-waferboard b NA NA NA NA 112.5 94.2 83.6 115.6 112.4 113.7 117.8 123.1

Nonstructural panels: (1,000 square feet, 3/8-inch basis)

Plywood 193.8 176.8 153.6 110.8 98.4 89.3 90.8 88.0 87.2 86.5 85.7 85.0 Other panels c 151.5 166.3 119.2 93.2 105.4 94.0 107.0 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5

Paper and paperboard: d (metric tons)

Paper 93.2 102.8 105.1 104.2 106.8 108.9 112.8 98.1 99.4 98.6 98.2 100.1 Paperboard 130.4 121.1 107.6 1 12.9 106.3 111.8 113.5 114.6 117.5 115.0 115.0 117.2

NA = Not available.

a All price indexes deflated by the all-commodity producer price index.

b OSB historical prices updated.

c Hardboard, particleboard, and fiberboard products.

d 1991 prices updated. Source: Historical data from Producer Prices and Price Indices, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1958–96; Random Lengths 1998.83 Figure 39—Prices and price indexes for softwood lumber, softwood plywood, hardwood lumber, and oriented strand board (OSB)/waferboard, all deflated to 1982 values, with projections to 2050.

Figure 40—Real price indexes of U.S. paper and paperboard (1982 = 100), with projections to 2050.

The following section gives (1) an overview of trends in all forest products the UnitedStates consumes and exports and the materials used to make them (outputs and inputs), and (2) a more detailed view of trends in roundwood in U.S. forest products consumption, production, and trade. The first section expresses quantities in million tons of roundwood and products in order to compare solid wood and paper products. The second section expresses quantities in billions (10 9 ) of cubic feet of roundwood. Shifts in U.S Forest
Products and Source

Materials84 U.S. forest products outputs and inputs —Harvested roundwood is one of several raw materials required to meet U.S. forest product demands. United States consumption and export demands are satisfied by a combination of forest products produced in the United States for domestic use and for export, by wood used for energy, and by product imports. Source materials needed to meet these consumption and export demands

include:

• U.S. roundwood harvest

• Log, chip, and product imports

• Recovered paper

• Nonwood fillers in products.

The relation between product outputs (demands) and wood inputs (material sources) can be expressed as the following identity:

All outputs (demands) = U.S. production for domestic use + product exports + log and chip exports + wood energy consumption + forest products imports
= U.S. roundwood harvest + log and chip imports + forest product imports + recovered paper use + nonwood fillers in products = all inputs (material sources).

In 1998, the amount of all outputs (and inputs) was 349 million tons. This is projected to increase 36 percent to 476 million tons by 2050 (0.6 percent per year). This is much slower than the 1.7-percent-per-year increase rate between 1965 and 1998 (figs. 41 and 42). Of this 127-million-ton increase, 53 percent will come from increased U.S. roundwood harvest, 27 percent from increased imports, and 20 percent from increased recovered paper and fillers.

Over the course of the projection, significant changes are expected in the composition of the inputs (material sources) and outputs (demands):

• The mix of outputs will change—Import of products increases at a faster rate than production for domestic use, exports, and energy (fig. 41); and, for U.S. product production, paper production increases faster than lumber or composites production (fig. 43).

• The mix of inputs will change—Import of products will increase faster than recovered paper use or roundwood harvest; virtually all increase in roundwood harvest is for nonsawtimber uses (fig. 44); roundwood harvest from nonindustrial private forest land increases faster than that from industrial or public land; and roundwood harvest increases faster in the South than in the North or West (figs. 45a and 45b).

• Improvement in U.S. productivity in making products from roundwood will be limited by small increases in recycling rates and few improvements in wood residue use for products.85 Figure 41—U.S. production, export, and import of wood and forest products by category, 1965–98, with projections to 2050.

Figure 42—Material sources for U.S. forest product consumption and exports, 1965–98, with projections to 2050.86 Figure 43—U.S. production of forest products by category, 1965–98, with projections to 2050. Percentages are for solid wood; composites (OSB, plywood, and veneer); and pulp, paper, and paperboard as a percentage of total production.

Figure 44—Material sources of U.S. forest product consumption and exports by timber type, 1975–98, with projections to 2050. Percentages are for sawtimber and nonsawtimber as a percentage of roundwood supply.87 Figure 45a—Material sources of U.S. forest product consumption and exports by owner, 1975–98, with projections to 2050. Percentages are for sawtimber and nonsawtimber as a percentage of roundwood supply.

Figure 45b—Material sources of U.S. forest product consumption and exports by region, 1975–98, with projections to 2050. Percentages are for sawtimber and nonsawtimber as a percentage of roundwood supply.88 • United States consumption of products per capita will remain about constant while U.S. roundwood harvest per capita decreases primarily owing to increased imports and, to a lesser degree, increased use of recovered paper (fig. 46).

Outputs —Outputs include forest products produced in the United States (for domestic use and export), forest product imports, log and chip exports, and wood energy use(includes roundwood, mill residue, and pulp liquor). Between 1998 and 2050, it is projected that output needs will increasingly be met by imports. But the rate of increase in imports over the next 50 years is slower than for the last 50 years.

• Product imports are projected to increase from 14 to 17 percent of outputs.

• The U.S. production for domestic use declines from 50 to 48 percent.

• Products for export decrease from 6 to 5 percent.

• Export of logs and chips declines from 4 to 2 percent.

• Wood for energy remains about 28 percent (fig. 41).

Consumption of wood, paper, and paperboard products is projected to increase from 223 to 310 million tons (0.6 percent per year) between 1998 and 2050. (In comparison,
the United States consumed 138 million tons of steel and 113 million tons of cement in 1998.)

• Projected increase in product consumption is less than half the annual rate from

1965 to 1998.

• Product consumption came 78 percent from U.S. production in 1998; this share is projected to decline to 73 percent by 2050. The relative contribution of imports to consumption increases from 22 percent in 1998 to 27 percent in 2050 (fig. 42).

Total U.S. production (for domestic use and exports) is projected to increase 0.5 percent per year, from 174 million tons in 1998 to 227 million tons in 2050, whereas the increase rate was 1.5 percent per year over the prior 33 years.

• Total exports are projected to decline from 10 percent of production in 1998 to 8 percent in 2050 (fig. 41).

• The fastest growing component of production over the next 50 years is projected to be paper and paperboard (up 41 percent), followed by composite products (up 38 percent), and lumber and miscellaneous products (up 18 percent). However, paper and paperboard production will be declining temporarily in the next several years (fig. 43).

• The composition of production in 1998 was (1) paper and paperboard, 51 percent (54 percent by 2050), (2) lumber and miscellaneous products, 33 percent (30 percent in 2050), and (3) composites, 16 percent (16 percent in 2050). In 1965, these shares were 40 percent for paper, 49 percent for lumber, and 11 percent for composites.

• For lumber and miscellaneous products, softwood lumber accounts for most of the lumber increase over the next 50 years, from 35 to 42 million tons, while hardwood increases from 23 to 24 million tons. Composites increase from 29 to 40 million tons, with OSB accounting for much of the increase, from 7 to 17 million tons.89 Effect on inputs of increasing paper and paperboard and OSB share of output

— The increasing share of paper and paperboard and OSB production will increase theinput share for small trees and recovered paper. The amount of wood mill residue available to make paper per ton of paper produced will decline with the decreasing share of lumber and increased efficiency of lumber production.

Inputs —Inputs include U.S. roundwood harvest, log and chip imports, forest product imports, recovered paper use, and nonwood fillers in products. Between 1998 and 2050, the relative role of U.S. roundwood harvest is projected to decrease.

• Roundwood harvest decreases from 73 to 68 percent of all inputs.

• Log, chip, and product imports increase from 14 to 18 percent of inputs.

• Recovered paper continues to increase from 10 to 12 percent of inputs.

• Roundwood has decreased notably since 1965 when it provided 85 percent of inputs (fig. 42).

United States roundwood harvest is projected to increase from 256 to 323 million tons between 1998 and 2050 (0.4 percent per year).

• This increase rate is down from 1.2 percent per year over the prior 33 years.

• United States roundwood harvest for fuelwood increases in share from 14 percent in 1998 to 17 percent in 2050.

Import of logs and chips is projected to increase from 0.7 to 1.5 million tons between 1998 and 2050 (1.5 percent per year), up from a decrease of 2.7 percent per year over the prior 33 years. The share of roundwood from imports increases from 0.3 to 0.5 percent. Figure 46—U.S. roundwood harvest and wood or paper product consumption per capita.90 The U.S. roundwood harvest increase of 67 million tons between 1998 and 2050 will come from the following sources:

• Mostly from the South (78 percent), compared with 18 and 4 percent from the North and West, respectively.

• Mostly from nonindustrial private lands (75 percent), compared with 19 and 6 percent from industry land and public land, respectively.

• All from nonsawtimber (nonsawtimber increase is 104 percent of the total, and sawtimber decreases by 4 percent of the total).

• Mostly from softwoods (59 percent, compared with 41 percent for hardwoods).

Industrial wood productivity—United States production of wood, paper, and paperboard products per unit of roundwood input (industrial roundwood) increased 35 percent in the past 50 years, but the rate of increase is projected to slow to 3 percent over the next 50 years.

• Production per unit of roundwood input has increased from 19.4 pounds of product per cubic foot of wood input in 1950 to 26.2 pounds per cubic foot in 1998 and is projected to increase to 27.0 pounds per cubic foot in 2050.

• Productivity increased between 1950 and 1998 owing to increased use of wood mill residue for products, increased use of recovered paper, and increased product output per unit of fiber input.

• The rate of increase is projected to slow over the next 50 years because (1) wood mill residues are now largely used for products rather than being burned or discarded and a greater shift from fuel use to product use is not expected, and (2) there will be relatively little increase in the rate of use of recovered paper. A greater shift toward using residue for products rather than fuel would increase industrial product output per unit of industrial roundwood input.

• Future advances will rely on increases in recycling of paper and solid wood, use of alternative fibers, and increased product (or product performance, for example, in housing) per unit of fiber input.

U.S. product consumption and U.S. roundwood harvest per capita— Per capita consumption is projected to remain about constant while U.S. roundwood harvest per capita declines. Per capita consumption is projected to remain at about 1,565 pounds per year between 1998 and 2050, up from 1,243 pounds per year in 1965 (fig. 46).United States roundwood use per capita (U.S. harvest + log and chip imports) decreases from 1,900 pounds in 1998 to 1,650 pounds in 2050 (64 cubic feet and 56 cubicfeet, respectively), for a decrease of 0.3 percent per year, a reversal from a 0.2-percentper-year increase between 1965 and 1998 (fig. 46). Consumption per capita can remain constant with declining roundwood harvest per capita primarily because of increased product and log and chip imports, a limited increase of product exports, and limited improvements in U.S. product output per unit of roundwood input (fig. 46).

Total roundwood use for consumption, production, and trade— Figure 47 displaysestimates of total volume of timber harvest used to produce all forest products consumed in the United States (hardwood and softwood detail is shown in table 11). In this figure, the quantity of each class of product is converted to the equivalent volume of roundwood, derived from current harvest, that would be required for its manufacture.91 Figure 47—Timber harvest volumes required for U.S. production by category of product, with projections to 2050. SRWC is short-rotation wood crops for pulping.

The figure estimates “new” harvest from forests and from short-rotation woody cropsgrown on agricultural lands and does not include recovered wood and fiber. It does include the products consumed regardless of source, however, so roundwood that was used to make imports is part of the total. The roundwood that was used to make solid wood and paper imports is estimated by using U.S. conversion efficiencies.

In recent years, the United States has consumed close to 20 billion cubic feet of newly harvested wood per year for products made in the United States for domestic use and for products made in other countries and imported into the United States. (In addition, we harvest about 2.3 billion cubic feet of roundwood in the United States for exports.) Products made from sawlogs (lumber in its many forms) have traditionally been the largest component of roundwood consumption. They are also projected to remain amajor group in the future but with limited growth until after 2030. Nonsawtimber harvested for pulpwood or reconstituted panels is the second largest consumption categoryat present. In the projection, nonsawtimber for pulpwood and reconstituted panels continues to show strong growth, with the largest increases in softwood species. After 2030, short-rotation woody crops from agricultural lands will be used to a small degree as an additional source of fiber for paper and paperboard. The only product class forwhich production volume contracts is veneer logs, owing to the decline in use of softwood plywood. In sum, over the 50-year projection period, total timber harvest from all sources (domestic and other countries) for domestically consumed products rises to 27.5 billion cubic feet, 40 percent above current levels.

The role of trade —Figures 48 and 49 indicate the sources of harvested timber from domestic forests, forests in other countries, and nonforest short-rotation woody crops (details are shown in table 12). Imports contribute to consumption but do not representa draw on domestic forests. Exports are not part of domestic consumption but do require harvests from U.S. forests.92 Over the next 50 years, our projections suggest it is likely the United States will increase relative use of imported forest products versus U.S. roundwood harvest to meet U.S. consumption needs, although our projected consumption needs for 2040 are now estimated to be lower than we projected in 1993 (25.8 versus 26.5 billion cubic feet). The projected increase in imports relative to U.S. roundwood harvest is due, in part, to slower projected increase in available hardwood inventory and harvest in the South. Softwood harvest is projected to increase notably with increasing area and management intensity for plantations in the South leading to higher softwood harvest than shown in the 1993 assessment (16.8 versus 16.3 billion cubic feet) (Haynes et al. 1995). Table 11—Apparent roundwood consumption in the United States, by species group and product, 1952–96, with projections to 2050

Historical Projections

Species group and product 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Billion cubic feet, roundwood equivalent
Softwoods:

Sawlogs a 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.6 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.7 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.6 Veneer logs .2 .7 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 Pulpwood b 2.4 2.6 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.7 4.5 5.5 6.2 6.9 Reconstituted panels c 0 0 0 0 .1 .1 .2 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.1
SRWC d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Miscellaneous products e .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
Fuelwood .5 .2 .1 .1 .5 .5 .4 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8

Total softwoods 8.4 8.5 9.8 10.2 12.6 11.5 12.4 13.6 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.2

Hardwoods:

Sawlogs a 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 Veneer logs .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 .3 .3 .2 .2 .1 Pulpwood b .3 .7 1.1 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 Reconstituted panels c 0 0 0 0 .2 .3 .4 .4 .5 .5 .6 .7
SRWC d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 Miscellaneous products e .4 .2 .2 .1 .2 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
Fuelwood 1.5 .9 .4 .5 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6

Total hardwoods 3.5 3.1 3.4 3.4 6.9 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.3

All species:

Sawlogs a 6.1 5.8 6.5 7.0 8.8 7.8 9.1 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.4 10.8 Veneer logs .4 .9 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.3 .9 .8 .7 .7 .7 Pulpwood b 2.7 3.3 4.4 4.1 5.0 5.2 5.4 6.3 7.4 8.7 9.4 10.1 Reconstituted panels c 0 0 0 0 .3 .4 .6 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 SRWC (hardwood) d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 Miscellaneous products e .7 .5 .4 .4 .5 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5
Fuelwood 2.0 1.1 .5 .6 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.5

Total 11.9 11.6 13.2 13.6 19.6 18.3 19.7 21.2 22.6 24.3 25.8 27.5

a Includes log exports.

b Includes both pulpwood and the pulpwood equivalent of the net trade of chips, pulp, paper, and board.

c Includes roundwood used in oriented strand board and particleboard manufacture.

d SRWC = short-rotation woody crop; includes only hardwoods in agriculture lands.

e Includes cooperage logs, poles, piling, fence posts, round mine timbers, box bolts, shingle bolts, and other miscellaneous item s. Source: Historical data: Howard 2001, Ulrich 1989.93 Figure 48—U.S. harvest and roundwood equivalents of imports, exports, and total consumption of softwood timber, with projections to 2050. Estimates of new harvest only, excluding recycled wood
and fiber.

Figure 49—U.S. harvest and roundwood equivalents of imports, exports, and total consumption of hardwood timber, with projections to 2050. Estimates of new harvest only, excluding recycled wood
and fiber.94 Table 12—Apparent roundwood consumption, exports, imports, and harvests in the United States, by species group, 1952–96, with projections to 2050

Historical a Projections Species group and product 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Billion cubic feet
Softwoods:

Total consumption b 8.4 8.5 9.8 10.2 12.6 11.5 12.4 13.6 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.2 Exports .2 .4 .9 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 Imports 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.8 2.3 3.2 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.1
SRWC c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Harvest 7.3 7.2 9.2 9.5 11.1 10.9 10.5 9.7 10.8 11.8 12.7 13.7

Hardwoods:

Total consumption b 3.5 3.1 3.4 3.4 6.9 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.3 Export 0 .1 .1 .1 .3 .7 .9 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 Imports .1 .2 .4 .4 .6 .5 .7 .9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
SRWC c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1

Harvest 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.2 6.6 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.4 8.6 8.8

All species:

Total consumption b 11.9 11.6 13.2 13.6 19.6 18.3 19.7 21.2 22.6 24.3 25.8 27.5 Exports .2 .5 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 Imports 1.4 1.9 1.9 2.1 3.4 2.8 3.9 6.1 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2
SRWC c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1

Harvest 10.8 10.2 12.4 12.7 17.7 17.9 18.0 17.2 18.9 20.2 21.3 22.4

a Data are estimates of actual consumption and harvests; consequently, harvest data do not match similar data in table 13.

b Total demand for products converted to a roundwood equivalent basis.

c SRWC = short-rotation woody crop. Source: Historical data: Howard 2001, Ulrich 1989.

The portion of U.S. consumption met from U.S. harvest decreased from 89 to 80 percent between 1952 and 1997 and is projected to decrease to 73 percent in 2050 (table 12).

Net imports of products to the United States as a portion of all world industrial roundwood harvest outside the United States are projected to increase from 5 percent in 1996 to about 8 percent in 2050.

In order for more of the softwood and hardwood roundwood needs to be met from domestic harvest, prices for stumpage and resulting products would need to be higher.Price increases would need to be substantially higher for softwood products and moderately higher for hardwood products to cover roundwood needs with domestic harvest and a redirecting of roundwood from export production (table 12) to the domestic market.

Sources of harvest —The volumes in figures 48 and 49 are termed roundwood harvest and come from all parts of the forest: dead and live trees, trees that have defects from disease or mechanical damage and those that do not, and trees of any size and any species. In later parts of this timber assessment, as we examine the effects of harvest on the forest inventory, we must differentiate between these various sources of harvest within the forest. The major source is termed the growing stock portion of the forest inventory. The growing stock includes only live trees of commercial species meeting minimum standards of quality and vigor that are at least 5 inches breast height diameter95 (d.b.h.). This is a useful subgroup of the inventory to consider as it represents the live merchantable portion of the forest and in the near term will be the source of virtually allthe growth in the forest volume. The roundwood harvest thus comprises mostly growingstock and some nongrowing-stock volume.

At the same time, the volume cut for products is not the only volume cut from the growing stock. The total cut from growing stock is termed growing-stock removals andcomprises three parts: the growing-stock volume that is cut for products, plus the volume left on harvested sites in the form of logging slash and debris, plus the volume cut but not used for products as part of silvicultural activities or timberland clearing. Thus, dead and cull material is not included in growing-stock removals as it is not part of thegrowing stock, but dead and cull material may contribute to the total roundwood harvest. Figure 50 summarizes the relation between roundwood harvest and growing-stock

removals.

In recent years, the United States has consumed close to 18 billion cubic feet per year of newly harvested roundwood of all types and from all geographic sources. Productsmade from sawlogs (lumber in its many forms) have traditionally been the largest component of consumption and are also projected to remain a major group in the future but with limited growth until after 2030. Pulpwood harvested from forests and used to make paper and paperboard products is the second largest consumption category at present.In the projection, pulpwood use continues to show strong growth, with the largest increases in softwood species. Short-rotation woody crops from agricultural lands remain a minor additional source of fiber for paper and paperboard. The only product class forwhich production volume contracts is veneer logs, owing to the decline in use of softwood plywood. In sum, over the 50-year projection period, total timber harvest from all sources for all products rises to 27.5 billion cubic feet, 39 percent above current levels.

Figures 48 and 49 examine the sources of harvested timber from domestic forests, forests in other countries, and nonforest short-rotation woody crops (details are shown in table 12). Imports contribute to consumption but do not represent a draw on domestic forests. Exports are not part of domestic consumption but do require harvests from U.S. forests. Adjusting for these cross-border flows, figure 48 indicates that the United States is a major net importer of softwood products (consumption exceeds domestic harvest). Current consumption of some 12.4 billion cubic feet per year (table 12) requires 10.5billion cubic feet of harvest from domestic forests, more than 85 percent of consumption. By 2050, the absolute import-export gap will widen significantly, but domestic forests will still supply about 75 percent of softwood consumption. Total U.S. harvest of softwood timber in 2050 is projected at 13.7 billion cubic feet, an increase of about 3
billion cubic feet from 1996.

As shown in figure 49, the United States has been a modest net exporter of hardwood timber in the recent past, but exports fall below imports after 2010 in the projection. Total U.S. harvest of hardwood timber is projected to rise some 1.9 billion cubic feet between 1996 and 2050. Regional harvests of roundwood for softwood and hardwood are

summarized in table 13.

Average diameters of trees harvested on private timberlands are shown in table 14 for the four assessment regions. For the most part, the trend in the size of trees is about stable for hardwoods and slightly declining for softwoods. The declines for softwoods, although modest, reflect the growing importance of plantations in the Pacific Northwest
and the South.96 Figure 50—The relation between roundwood harvest and growing-stock removals.

Table 13—Timber harvests a from forest land in the contiguous states, by region, specified years 1952–96, with projections through 2050

Historical Projections

Item 1952 b 1962 b 1970 b 1976 b 1986 b 1991 1996 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Billion cubic feet
Softwoods:

Northeast 0.48 0.37 0.39 0.43 0.57 0.74 0.62 0.56 0.50 0.48 0.49 0.50
North Central c .17 .20 .17 .21 .23 .30 .33 .23 .26 .25 .26 .26
Southeast 1.65 1.40 1.67 1.70 2.23 2.26 2.63 3.00 3.66 4.08 4.15 4.23
South Central 1.21 1.16 2.01 2.26 2.68 3.21 3.48 3.28 3.64 4.29 5.02 5.63 Rocky Mountains— .47 .61 .81 .84 .97 1.08 .85 .72 .76 .79 .83 .86

North Rocky Mountains .31 .44 .57 .60 .66 .72 .57 .43 .44 .44 .46 .47 South Rocky Mountains .16 .17 .24 .24 .31 .36 .28 .29 .33 .35 .38 .39
Pacific Northwest d

— Pacific Northwest West e 1.85 2.01 2.50 2.66 3.00 2.48 1.73 1.52 1.59 1.59 1.56 1.59
Pacific Northwest East e .38 .50 .49 .53 .57 .61 .39 .30 .34 .38 .41 .44
Pacific Southwest f .68 .86 .87 .77 .75 .92 .66 .55 .60 .56 .57 .56

Total softwood 6.90 7.10 8.90 9.40 11.00 11.60 10.70 10.15 11.36 12.42 13.3014.07

Hardwoods:

Northeast .55 .55 .60 .59 1.50 1.70 1.42 1.36 1.60 1.88 2.04 2.22
North Central .98 .80 .83 .92 1.91 2.05 1.62 1.69 1.69 1.73 1.82 1.92
Southeast .77 .62 .70 .73 1.34 1.31 1.46 1.73 1.82 1.83 1.80 1.73
South Central 1.27 .96 .98 .96 1.56 1.65 2.45 2.87 2.88 2.88 2.90 2.92
West .03 .07 .10 .10 .29 .39 .55 .68 .65 .63 .62 .62

Total hardwood 3.60 3.00 3.20 3.30 6.60 7.10 7.50 8.34 8.65 8.95 9.18 9.40

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

a Harvest from all sources.

b Data are estimates of actual consumption or harvests and differ somewhat from the “trend” estimates shown in the preceding sect ion on timber supplies.

c Includes the Great Plains States: Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and eastern South Dakota.

d Excludes Alaska.

e Pacific Northwest West (western Oregon and western Washington) is also called the Douglas-fir subregion, and Pacific Northwest East (eastern Oregon and eastern Washington) is also called the ponderosa pine subregion.

f Excludes Hawaii. Sources: Historical data: 1952–91 from 1993 RPA timber assessment update (Haynes et al. 1995).97 Table 14—Average diameter a of timber harvested on private timberlands in the RPA timber assessment regions

Pacific C oast Rocky Mountains North South

Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Softwood

Inches

1976 — 27.5 — 16.9 13.3 11.3 13.7 13.1

1986 16.6 18.7 18.9 9.6 14.2 12.0 12.4 9.9

1990 16.5 17.4 17.5 9.5 13.6 12.0 12.1 10.7

1997 16.1 16.1 9.7 10.3 14.2 11.3 11.0 9.6

2010 16.4 15.6 10.5 10.4 13.2 11.4 11.5 8.7

2030 16.8 15.2 11.0 11.3 13.8 10.7 11.6 8.6

2050 17.0 14.6 10.7 11.6 14.3 11.4 11.1 8.7

a Diameter measured at breast height.

The stumpage market focuses on the interactions between timber harvested for use in products, the propensity of different landowners to respond to changes in stumpage prices, and changes in the growing-stock (trees over 5 inches d.b.h.) inventories.

Figure 51 contrasts removals from softwood growing stock by major U.S. regions. Projected removals in the South Central and Southeast continue to be the largest flows in the United States, rising from roughly 60 percent of softwood harvest in the late 1990s to nearly 70 percent by 2050. Over the next decade, however, softwood removals in the South-Central region decline, whereas those in the Southeast rise only in the last half of the decade. In the West and North, there are no dramatic projected changes in relative harvest levels. Harvest in the Pacific Northwest West, in the wake of major reductions inpublic harvests in the 1990s, is projected to stabilize. Components of harvest and underlying inventory developments in the three largest producing regions, Southeast, South Central, and Pacific Northwest West, are considered in the following sections.

South —In the Southeast, the limited growth in aggregate removals over the next decade shown in figure 51 results from partially offsetting movements in forest industry and nonindustrial private forest harvests, as illustrated in figure 52. In the projection, removals on forest industry lands drop below recent levels during the next decade to accommodate maturation of young stands. Rising softwood inventories on nonindustrial private forest lands enable a modest increase in nonindustrial private forest harvest. By 2010, forest industry inventory has increased enough to allow a resumption of harvest growth much like historical trends. Another cycle of this same sort occurs after 2030 with a decline in forest industry harvest and expansion in nonindustrial private forest cut.

Figure 53 shows the softwood growing-stock inventory volumes associated with the removals projected for the Southeast region. The slight decline in the inventory on forest industry lands in recent years is evident, whereas nonindustrial private forest inventoryhas recovered from a period of decline and begins an upward trend. Nonindustrial inventories rise between 2000 and 2040, indicating growth in excess of harvest, on average. After 2020, forest industry harvest and growth are in long-term balance, as indicated by the slowly oscillating inventory level. 

### The Stumpage
Market

Softwoods98 In the South-Central region (fig. 52), it is the nonindustrial private forest ownership that faces near-term harvest restrictions, departing from the rising harvest trend of the past 35 years. The duration of the departure in the South-Central nonindustrial private forestis longer than was the case for Southeast forest industry, because the inventory limitation is somewhat more significant. Projected harvest falls until 2015, recovering to near current levels after 2035. From that point, harvest increases at a pace similar to that observed in the past. For forest industry lands, harvests continue to rise essentially along historical trends until 2035.

Softwood growing-stock inventories for the South-Central region are shown in figure 53. Forest industry inventory rises through the projection, although at a reduced rate after 2030. On nonindustrial private forest lands, total inventory rises after 2000, but only Figure 51—Softwood growing-stock removals by U.S. region, with projections to 2050. Historical
values are estimates.

Figure 52—Southern softwood growing-stock removals by region and private owner, with projections to 2050. Historical values are estimates. NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.99 Figure 53—Southern softwood growing-stock inventory by region and private owner, with projections to 2050. Historical values are estimates. NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

the “available” portion of this inventory 11 can actually be harvested. The available inventory (see detailed definition in chapter 2) is the volume in stands old enough to have
sufficient merchantable timber to warrant a commercial harvest and that is not withheld from timber production. For South-Central nonindustrial private forest owners, continuing
harvest at the levels of the late 1990s into the next decade would exhaust available inventory by 2005. Thus, some harvest reduction is required.

This can be seen more clearly in figure 54. Both the base case harvest and available inventory volume are falling from 1995 to 2005. The horizontal line in the figure indicates the level of the harvest in 1995 held constant in subsequent years. If the harvest after 1995 were held constant at the 1995 level, rather than falling as in the base case, the available volume would decline along the curve in the figure labeled “available inventory with constant 1995 cut.” But by 2005, the constant 1995 harvest would exceed thisavailable volume. Because harvest cannot exceed the available volume, it must fall below the 1995 level for some period after 1995.

A partial explanation of the harvest movements for Southern owners can be found in anexamination of tree age-class distributions over time. As illustrated in figure 55 for softwood forest types, forest industry owners (combining South Central and Southeast) will realize a modest decline in the area with trees older than 30 years between 1995 and 2010. At the same time, they will experience a major expansion in area of the classes at or just above the age of minimum merchantability (about 20 to 25 years). This will provide the basis for major harvest expansion early in the projection. As illustrated by the curve for the year 2050, future age-class distributions will continue to yield large areas just passing the minimum merchantability threshold.

11 The available portion of the inventory is defined as that part of the inventory over the minimum merchantability and not assigned in the South to the reserve management class. (See the discussion on trends in timber inventory for an explanation of available inventories).100 Figure 54—Detail of South-Central nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) available growing-stock inventory under projected cut and cut held constant at 1995–1999 level. Historical data are
estimates.

Figure 55—Distribution of area by age class of Southern forest industry, softwood types only.

Southern nonindustrial private forest ownerships also experience a contraction in the area of older stands between 1995 and 2010. The expansion in younger classes above the age of minimum merchantability (which is 25 to 35 years for this owner group) is relatively modest, however. As illustrated in figure 56, large areas of younger stands do exist (note, for example, the peak at age 20 in the 2010 distribution), which have not yet reached merchantability. As a result, harvest is restricted in the near term on these ownerships but can expand markedly after 2010. In later years of the projection (such101as the 2050 curve in fig. 56), areas in older stands return to near 1995 levels, but overall, nonindustrial private forest softwood land area remains heavily concentrated in the younger classes.

Pacific Northwest West —In the Pacific Northwest West, forest industry harvest has declined steadily over the past three decades, as older stands of natural origin with high volumes per acre were converted to more intensively managed plantations. As shown in figure 57, this trend is not projected to continue beyond 2000. As large areas of young growth reach the age of minimum merchantability, growth will rise rapidly and harvest will stabilize. Nonindustrial owners face a similar inventory transition, and harvest is projected to grow slowly after 2005. On both forest industry and nonindustrial private forest ownerships, increments in harvest lag behind expansion in growth. As a result, Pacific Northwest West inventories are stable to rising through the projection. By 2050, projected inventories for both forest industry and nonindustrial private forest are more than 20 percent higher than current levels (fig. 58).

The age-class basis for stabilizing softwood harvest on forest industry ownerships in the Pacific Northwest West can be seen in figure 59. As was the case with the Southern age distributions, the Pacific Northwest West forest industry distribution has become more concentrated in the younger classes over the past several decades. This is the cause of the historical harvest decline, with falling volume available in the classes abovethe age of minimum merchantability (40 to 50 years in this region). As the 1990 distribution shifts to the right with time, however, larger areas will become available for harvest just at the minimum merchantability threshold. By 2010, the bulk of the inventory isrestricted to the classes below minimum harvest age with limited variation in the volumes in each class. By 2050, the distribution in ages 50 and younger has become still
more uniform. Figure 56—Distribution by age class of Southern nonindustrial private (NIPF), softwood types only.102 Figure 57—Pacific Northwest West softwood growing-stock removals by private ownership, with projections to 2050. Historical data are estimates.

Figure 58—Pacific Northwest West softwood growing-stock inventory by private ownership, with projections to 2050. Historical data are estimates.

Figure 60 shows removals of hardwood growing stock for the four major producing regions in the United States. 12 In the South, hardwood harvest has increased steadily over the past three decades as both sawtimber and pulpwood uses have grown. In the projection, harvest continues to rise, although at a reduced rate relative to the past. In the North, in contrast, growth in hardwood removals has slowed in recent years. Hardwoods

12 Hardwood removals from all Western regions combined are less than 0.3 billion cubic feet per year.103 Figure 59—Distribution of area by age class of Pacific Northwest forest industry, softwood types only.

Projected harvests show a resurgence of rapid growth in both the Northeast and NorthCentral regions. By 2050, hardwood removals in the Northeast are nearly 33 percent higher than current levels, while North-Central harvest is about 6 percent higher.

South —Figure 61 shows projected Southern hardwood removals by owner group. Harvest cycles but shows no trend on forest industry lands, while nonindustrial private forest owners will continue to increase harvest for some 30 years. The Southern hardwood inventory is large, but hardwood species have not been managed intensively even on Figure 60—Hardwood growing-stock removals in eastern regions, with projections to 2050. Historical
data are estimates.104 Figure 61—Eastern hardwood growing-stock removals by region and private owner, with projections to
2050. Historical data are estimates.

13 In 1997, hardwoods made up 64 percent of total Southern nonindustrial private forest growing-stock inventory, a volume 78 percent larger than the softwood component. On Southern forest industry lands, hardwoods accounted for only 40 percent of the total inventory. To tal nonindustrial private forest hardwood inventory was some 131.5 billion cubic feet, whereas softwood inventory was 89.1 billion cubic feet. Softwood growth as a percentage of inventory on forest industry lands was some 8.3 percent per year and 5.3 percent on nonindustrial private forest, whereas hardwood growth rates were 3.4 and 3.3 percent on forest industry and nonindustrial private forest, respectively. forest industry lands, and growth rates are relatively low. 13 At the same time, the base projection envisions continued conversion of some hardwood lands to softwood types and further loss of land to nonforest uses. Continued expansion of hardwood harvest on nonindustrial private forest lands eventually leads to harvest in excess of growth and declining inventories after 2010–15 as shown in figure 62.

North —Hardwood growth rates are no higher in the North than in the South, but harvests on forest industry and nonindustrial private forest lands there have been at or below growth for some time, and hardwood inventories have been stable or rising. In the base projection, driven by expansion in both sawtimber and pulpwood uses, harvests are expected to climb on nonindustrial private forest lands and to roughly stabilize on forest industry ownerships (fig. 61). Harvest will remain below growth on nonindustrial private forest, constrained by an array of forces. Owners are increasingly motivated by objectives other than timber harvest and revenue generation in managing their lands. This disinclination to harvest is related in part to fractionation of the land base, growing diversity of types of owners, and to the declining importance of timber harvest revenues in the income of forest landowners. As a result, nonindustrial private forest hardwood inventory will continue to rise (fig. 62). Industrial harvest will be at or just below growth, and inventory will rise slightly over the projection.105 Figure 62—Eastern hardwood growing-stock inventories by region and private owner, with projections
to 2050. Historical data are estimates.

Stumpage Prices The timber assessment tracks four stumpage price measures: softwood sawtimber, hardwood sawtimber, softwood pulpwood, and hardwood pulpwood. Like other price series in the timber assessment, these are deflated and expressed in constant 1982 dollars. Prices for sawtimber are for Scribner log scale, whereas those for pulpwood are

in cords.

Softwood sawtimber —Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices (table 15) in the United States have been highly volatile over the past three decades as illustrated in figure 63. This variability derives primarily from cycles in key end-use markets and shifts in timber supply acting either singly or in combination. The runup in prices to peaks in 1978–79 and the subsequent recessionary decline in the early 1980s provide an example of the former, whereas the large price runup and spike in 1993–94 arose both from a cyclical economic recovery and a sharp drop in public timber sales in the West. The historicalportion of figure 63 also reveals an array of transitory and permanent differences between regional prices. Prices in the South and Pacific Northwest West alternately converge and diverge as production cost, timber supply, and output conditions change in the regions. Since the mid-1990s, they have been converging once again, as the effects of declining public timber supply in the West are worked out through reductions in solid wood processing capacity in the West and growth in lumber output in the South. Pricesin the interior West and North have generally remained below those in the Pacific Northwest West and South owing to cost and product price differences.

In the projections, real softwood sawtimber prices in the South and Pacific Northwest West move around each other, as they have in the past, with a modest upward trend,
but do not return to the levels observed in the 1970s and 1980s. 14 Prices in the interior West rise about 25 percent above recent peak levels, then roughly stabilize after 2020.

14 Annual compound softwood stumpage price growth between levels in the late 1990s and 2050 is +0.2 percent in the Pacific Northwest West, +0.6 percent in the South, +0.4 percent in the North, and +1.0 percent in the interior West.106 Table 15—Deflated (1982) stumpage prices a in the contiguous United States, by region, 1952–97, with projections to 2050

Historical Proj ections

Region 1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Price (dollars) per thousand board feet, Scribner log rule
Sawtimber:

Softwoods—

North 89 62 53 51 37 57 108 94 104 114 125 136
South 130 82 120 142 119 109 228 294 305 299 311 316
Interior West b 47 31 55 95 64 96 108 156 184 176 180 182
Pacific Northwest West 55 63 104 155 99 224 299 280 291 279 305 339
Price (dollars) per thousand board feet, international 1/4-inch scal e Hardwoods—

North NA 62 70 75 110 110 214 210 218 223 229 238
South NA 32 45 49 43 58 86 92 107 149 181 201
Price (dollars) per cord Pulpwood:

Softwoods—

North 12 10 9 9 7 8 14 5 5 8 13 20
South NA 18 17 15 13 15 21 13 11 9 13 15
Hardwoods—

North 7 5 6 5 6 7 10 6 7 6 6 6
South NA 5 5 4 3 6 13 4 4 9 19 25

NA = Not available.

a All prices deflated by all-commodity producer price index.

b Interior West includes the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Southwest (California), and Pacific Northwest East (eastern Oregon and Wash ington). Sources: Historical data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Timber Cut and Sold reports on national forests (o n file at individual Forest Service regional offices); Regional price reporting services, Sendak 1994.

Figure 63—Softwood sawtimber stumpage prices in 1982 dollars per thousand board feet, Scribner log rule by major U.S. region, with projections to 2050.107 Prices in the North show a steady trend, as growing demand brings them in line with the West and South. In effect, stumpage prices in all regions shifted up in the 1990s and remain at these higher levels in the projections. At the same time, trend growth in softwood sawtimber prices is limited in the long term because expansion in demand islargely offset by growth in domestic supply, product substitution, increased product imports, and reduced exports. Under these conditions, U.S. private softwood growing-stock inventory will rise in aggregate by 30 percent from recent levels. Softwood inventories in 2050 for all private region-owner groups in the base projection are at least as large as inventories in the late 1990s. Part of this expansion is a reflection of reduced interest in timber harvest on the nonindustrial private forest component of ownership, including the reservation of a growing area of nonindustrial private forest timberland from harvest.

Hardwood sawtimber —Hardwood sawtimber prices are shown in figure 64. The past two decades have seen a dramatic separation in market sawtimber prices between North and South, as Northern private supply conditions have tightened and quality differences between the regions have widened. This price gap narrows in the projections. As noted in the previous discussion, long-term supply-side conditions are expected to be less liberal in the hardwood sawtimber market than is likely to be the case for softwoods, particularly in the South. As a result, even modest increases in sawtimber harvest will generate some growth in real sawtimber stumpage prices. 15In the North, price increases are relatively limited because of continued growth in Northern hardwood inventory and expanding stumpage supplies. Southern price growth is more rapid, in partbecause inventory on private ownerships declines slowly after 2010 and supply conditions become increasingly tight. By 2050, U.S. private hardwood growing-stock inventory rises in aggregate by 15 percent from recent levels. All private inventories in the North rise, offsetting reductions on all private owners in the South.

Softwood pulpwood —Softwood pulpwood prices in the South rose sharply duringthe late 1980s and into the 1990s (table 15) as all forms of softwood timber harvest expanded while timber inventory remained nearly stable. However, since 1997, real pulpwood stumpage prices for softwood in the South have collapsed, eliminating most of thegains in real prices that were observed in the period since the late 1980s. The base projections (fig. 65) suggest that real stumpage price levels of the mid-1990s will not beseen again throughout the projection period. By 2010, real stumpage prices for softwoods remain near to current levels (or levels typical of the late 1980s), then decline further by nearly 30 percent between 2015 and 2030, and then return to current (2001) levels by 2050. The downturn after 2010 reflects expanding timber growth and supply, as young stands mature on both industrial and nonindustrial private forest ownerships(see fig. 53). The increase after 2030 is a response to stabilizing inventories and tightening supply toward the end of the projection.

Prices have also grown in the North in the recent past, in response to shifting supply conditions on nonindustrial private forest lands where management objectives place less emphasis on timber harvest. In the projection, softwood pulpwood prices in theNorth follow a cycle roughly similar to that in the South, driven by cross-regional arbitrage in product prices and shifts in product output in response to wood costs. After 2030, the traditional North-South price gap disappears, and Northern prices finish the projection at levels somewhat above those of the South.

15 Annual compound hardwood stumpage price growth between levels of the late 1990s and 2050 is +0.2 percent in the North and +1.6 percent in the South.108 Figure 65—Real prices for Southern pulpwood stumpage, historical and projected (1986 dollars per cord). Figure 64—Hardwood sawtimber stumpage price for principal producing regions in 1982 dollars per thousand board feet, international 1/4-inch rule, with projections to 2050.109 Hardwood pulpwood —Hardwood pulpwood stumpage prices have also risen sharplyin the recent past, as greater proportions of hardwood are used in pulp and paper production (table 15), but hardwood stumpage prices in the South have generally fallen since 1997. Moving into the future, real stumpage prices for hardwood are projected to remain at or below current levels for several decades in the South. After 2030, Southern hardwood stumpage prices are projected to increase and rise above softwoods on a price-per-unit-volume basis. Prices in the North fall from recent high levels and remain at historical levels for the full projection, reflecting liberal supplies from nonindustrial private forest lands in the face of major expansion in inventories (see fig. 62).

Rising timber harvests expected in the future will influence the rates of growth and levels of timber inventories and, in turn, be affected by these changes. Projections of harvest, growth, and inventory for private timberlands are shown in appendix tables 42 to 45. Similar projections for public timberlands are shown in appendix tables 34 to 37. Summaries for all owners and all regions are given in tables 16 and 17. Changes in inventories seen in these tables are the net result of reductions, owing to harvests and net changes in the forest base, and increments from growth. Growth, in turn, depends on the age structure of the forest resource (young stands have higher growth rates thanolder stands) and assumptions regarding trends in forest management and investment. 16 For the United States as a whole, total softwood inventories are projected toincrease about 53 percent by 2050. This increase reflects the recent declines in harvests and stable growth on public timberlands, growth in excess of harvest on private timberlands, and slowing conversions of private forest land to other uses. Net softwood growth on private timberland increases after 2000 as a wave of young, rapidly growing stands moves upward through the inventory. The volume of U.S. hardwood inventories is also expected to increase, rising 28 percent by 2050. This increase will occur almost equally on public and private timberlands. Although overall hardwood growth is relatively stable, a major expansion in inventories in the North will offset a decline in the South.

The inventory volumes in tables 16 and 17 represent all inventories on timberlands and
do not include timber inventories on lands that have been withdrawn from timber harvest by statute or administrative regulation (e.g., wilderness areas, national parks). These inventory volumes do, however, include areas likely to be inaccessible or inoperable under current (and expected) regulations. In the South, forest industry owners and state foresters were asked to estimate the percentage of timberland available for production.The unavailable timberland would perhaps reflect urban pressures, environmental concerns, or other landowner intentions. Here, unavailable areas are assigned to a management class that recognized their status. 17 It should be noted that because this area is identified as timberland, unless specifically stated, all summaries of area, inventory volume, and growth include these attributes from the unavailable management class. 

### Trends in Timber Inventories

16 Projected shifts in management investment were discussed in chapter 2.

17 Note that the area change models account for some land shifts out of timber production with respect to primary land use. To reduce the likelihood of “double counting” the area moving out of timber production, the ATLAS management intensity shifts derived from the owner surveys were adjusted to reduce the area moving into the unavailable timberland class. Together, the
subtractions from the timberland base and shif ts to the ATLAS unavailable class would account for the total predicted change in availability represented by the landowner surveys.110Table 16—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and inventory in the United States, by region, 1952–97with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNorth:Softwoods—Removals 622 528 583 692 725 723 674 644 612 609 616 621Harvest 596 501 549 636 908 940 825 817 786 790 806 818Net annual growth 9721,212 1,336 1,558 1,288 1,214 1,175 1,199 1,158 1,108 1,058 1,017Inventory27,053 33,661 38,817 43,850 47,618 50,977 49,376 56,742 61,201 65,206 68,480 71,532Hardwoods—Removals1,279 1,391 1,722 1,801 1,982 2,029 2,088 2,135 2,306 2,364 2,449 2,544Harvest 1,381 1,329 1,465 1,502 3,190 3,684 2,713 3,070 3,341 3,639 3,869 4,113Net annual growth2,743 3,213 3,593 3,790 4,223 4,148 4,169 4,126 4,060 3,955 3,830 3,697Inventory76,695 94,627106,867 119,158 142,420 156,142 164,905195,597 212,565 226,549 238,029 247,573South:Softwoods—Removals3,122 2,823 3,674 4,437 5,740 5,840 6,481 5,921 6,972 7,966 8,537 9,206Harvest 3,036 2,707 3,527 4,251 5,317 5,282 6,157 5,703 6,743 7,722 8,299 8,954Net annual growth3,641 4,699 5,644 6,314 5,500 5,100 5,892 7,519 8,195 8,670 8,925 8,777Inventory60,462 75,087 89,156101,208 105,613 102,927 104,847 116,087 132,588 143,950 150,192 149,326Hardwoods—Removals2,731 2,832 2,344 2,241 2,958 3,086 3,630 4,247 4,581 4,848 4,954 4,921Harvest 1,933 1,662 1,840 1,707 2,931 2,914 3,366 4,588 4,700 4,700 4,684 4,650Net annual growth3,040 3,394 4,282 5,009 4,488 4,731 4,877 4,781 4,527 4,434 4,474 4,465Inventory88,008 98,985109,271 122,165 139,027 147,667 151,783 156,772 158,025 154,954 150,197 145,366Rocky Mountains:aSoftwoods—Removals 534 738 889 842 839 841 517 638 657 678 700 696Harvest 497 684 812 773 876 996 612 781 825 864 902 912Net annual growth1,101 1,256 1,446 1,594 1,956 1,985 2,026 2,251 2,094 1,921 1,796 1,696Inventory87,545 93,222 94,275 95,111100,298 101,487 114,682 133,311 148,578 162,265 174,359 185,255Hardwoods—Removals 34 24 24 21 17 40 27 44 48 52 55 56Harvest 10 13 12 4 30 14 44 92 98 103 110 113Net annual growth 87 97 117 136 168 167 434 190 158 162 163 153Inventory5,074 5,595 6,034 6,138 7,681 8,863 9,360 6,004 6,317 6,537 6,702 6,815111Pacific Coast:Softwoods—Removals3,484 3,514 4,039 4,024 4,057 3,460 2,451 2,431 2,537 2,502 2,681 2,847Harvest 3,393 3,429 3,805 3,850 4,189 3,765 2,507 2,548 2,667 2,633 2,811 2,991Net annual growth2,021 2,444 2,904 3,034 3,777 3,673 4,460 4,779 4,791 4,863 4,955 4,894Inventory256,729 247,785 237,754 226,787 199,382 194,502 214,937 242,846 265,975 289,549 314,360 335,975Hardwoods—Removals 43 77 115 125 115 142 118 340 314 290 271 257Harvest 37 62 87 102 145 264 172 525 491 460 436 425Net annual growth 304 389 485 486 681 604 597 643 645 638 638 643Inventory14,093 16,413 19,197 18,437 23,220 22,776 26,080 32,717 36,626 40,756 44,914 49,242United States:Softwoods—Removals7,762 7,603 9,185 9,995 11,362 10,864 10,123 9,633 10,778 11,756 12,534 13,371Harvest 7,522 7,321 8,695 9,510 11,289 10,983 10,101 9,848 11,021 12,009 12,818 13,674Net annual growth7,734 9,611 11,338 12,501 12,521 11,973 13,553 15,748 16,237 16,562 16,733 16,385Inventory431,789 449,755 460,002 466,956 452,911 449,893 483,842 548,985 608,342 660,970 707,392 742,088Hardwoods—Removals4,087 4,330 4,208 4,191 5,083 5,299 5,866 6,796 7,283 7,590 7,768 7,818Harvest 3,361 3,066 3,405 3,316 6,323 6,875 6,299 8,346 8,707 8,985 9,188 9,393Net annual growth6,175 7,095 8,478 9,423 9,561 9,650 10,086 9,740 9,389 9,190 9,106 8,959Inventory183,870 215,620 241,369 265,898 312,348 335,448 352,128 391,090 413,534 428,796 439,842 448,996Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of the trend level of harvests and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumption shown in some tables. Forthe projection years, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and 1962 are as ofDecember 31. Inventory data for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1986, 1991,and 1997 are as of January 1 offollowing year.aGreat Plains States are included in the Rocky Mountains for historical data. For projections, western South Dakota is in the Rocky Mountains, and eastern SouthDakota and other Great Plains States are in the North.Source: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001.Table 16—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and inventory in the United States, by region, 1952–97with projections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feet112Table 17—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and inventory in the United States, by ownership,1952–97, with projections to 2050Historical ProjectionsItem1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNational forest:Softwoods—Removals1,028 1,728 2,082 1,986 2,061 1,681 630 532 642 691 735 763Harvest 961 1,635 1,918 1,867 2,153 1,789 712 542 682 732 778 816Net annual growth1,664 1,999 2,367 2,468 2,783 2,747 3,431 3,941 3,682 3,364 3,107 2,874Inventory204,437 213,696 211,927 208,099 186,313 185,574 222,326 267,241 300,033 329,252 355,061 377,980Hardwoods—Removals 117 126 146 129 161 186 89 100 103 104 105 105Harvest 100 97 123 101 166 197 122 115 119 122 125 125Net annual growth 396 508 573 658 617 544 674 713 594 504 452 401Inventory13,556 17,207 19,721 21,567 25,107 25,641 30,087 36,722 42,322 46,667 50,317 53,463Other public:Softwoods—Removals 429 568 750 851 858 616 561 556 556 555 555 554Harvest 403 562 702 822 814 769 577 578 578 578 578 578Net annual growth 730 961 1,1131,191 1,371 1,130 1,208 1,279 1,333 1,366 1,398 1,431Inventory55,184 55,720 57,521 59,039 57,255 50,002 51,092 59,994 67,491 75,427 83,695 92,299Hardwoods—Removals 141 150 199 225 223 327 386 424 431 430 428 427Harvest 122 130 170 199 276 309 445 600 600 600 600 600Net annual growth 492 634 749 840 978 834 841 771 763 776 811 810Inventory16,417 20,621 23,894 26,365 31,256 32,857 36,645 41,861 45,261 48,654 52,300 56,133Forest industry:Softwoods—Removals2,765 2,301 3,084 3,615 4,213 4,114 3,683 3,905 4,774 5,376 5,273 5,247Harvest 2,796 2,289 2,896 3,417 4,221 4,134 3,623 3,986 4,812 5,366 5,247 5,223Net annual growth1,872 2,326 2,626 2,949 3,152 3,190 3,382 4,716 5,288 5,588 5,849 5,949Inventory77,439 76,094 75,433 74,526 72,753 70,957 66,261 68,126 76,552 81,438 86,041 92,986Hardwoods—Removals 525 663 570 600 8181,192 1,050 860 766 845 913 883Harvest 421 434 488 473 1,025 1,120 1,069 1,246 1,084 983 952 919Net annual growth 690 8301,070 1,222 1,130 1,099 986 1,020 960 920 907 895Inventory20,373 25,425 29,381 32,313 35,311 34,806 33,526 32,497 34,037 35,501 35,776 35,880113Table 17—Softwood and hardwood timber removals, harvest, growth, and inventory in the United States, by ownership,1952–97, with projections to 2050 (continued)Historical ProjectionsItem1952 1962 1970 1976 1986 1991 1997 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Million cubic feetNonindustrial private forest:Softwoods—Removals3,541 3,007 3,270 3,543 4,230 4,453 5,249 4,640 4,806 5,134 5,971 6,807Harvest 3,362 2,836 3,179 3,403 4,102 4,291 5,188 4,742 4,949 5,334 6,214 7,057Net annual growth3,468 4,325 5,232 5,893 5,214 4,906 5,532 5,812 5,934 6,244 6,378 6,130Inventory94,729104,245 115,121 125,292 136,590 143,360144,163 153,624 164,265 174,852 182,595 178,823Hardwoods—Removals3,305 3,392 3,293 3,237 3,881 3,594 4,341 5,413 5,983 6,211 6,322 6,403Harvest 2,718 2,405 2,624 2,543 4,856 5,249 4,663 6,385 6,904 7,281 7,511 7,750Net annual growth4,597 5,122 6,086 6,704 6,836 7,174 7,584 7,237 7,072 6,990 6,936 6,852Inventory133,524 152,367 168,373 185,653 220,674 242,144 251,870 280,009 291,913 297,974 301,449 303,521United States:Softwoods—Removals7,762 7,603 9,185 9,995 11,362 10,864 10,123 9,633 10,778 11,756 12,534 13,371Harvest 7,522 7,321 8,695 9,510 11,289 10,983 10,101 9,848 11,021 12,009 12,818 13,674Net annual growth7,734 9,611 11,338 12,501 12,521 11,973 13,553 15,748 16,237 16,562 16,733 16,385Inventory431,789 449,755 460,002 466,956 452,911 449,893 483,842 548,985 608,342 660,970 707,392 742,088Hardwoods—Removals4,087 4,330 4,208 4,191 5,083 5,299 5,866 6,796 7,283 7,590 7,768 7,818Harvest 3,361 3,066 3,405 3,316 6,323 6,875 6,299 8,346 8,707 8,985 9,188 9,393Net annual growth6,175 7,095 8,478 9,423 9,561 9,650 10,086 9,740 9,389 9,190 9,106 8,959Inventory183,870 215,620 241,369 265,898 312,348 335,448 352,128 391,090 413,534 428,796 439,842 448,996Note: Historical harvest data are estimates of harvest trends and differ somewhat from the estimates of actual consumption shown in some tables. For theprojection years, the data show the average volume that would be harvested given the assumptions of the study. Inventory data for 1952 and 1962 are as ofDecember 31. Inventory data for 1970 and the projection years are as of January 1. Inventory data shown under 1976, 1986, 1991,and 1997 are as of January 1 offollowing year.Source: For historical data, Powell et al. 1993; 1997 data from Smith et al. 2001.114 Only timber removals are restricted from this class. As shown in the following tabulation, the impact is more severe on nonindustrial private forest ownerships, especially in the Southeast because of their higher proportion of hardwoods associated with both riparian and urban areas. For the South, nearly 7 percent of the timberland area (12.3 million acres) was assigned this status in 1995. The proportion is expected to double during the next 50 years, representing a growth of unavailable inventory from initially 17 billion cubic feet to nearly 50 billion cubic feet by 2050 (63 percent is hardwood area and volume).

Unavailable areas

Region FI NIPF

Percent

Southeast 5.8 10.8
South Central 3.4 5.1

Trends in inventory differ markedly between ownerships and are compounded by land area changes. In most regions, inventories on forest industry timberlands increase after 2000, and by 2010 are projected to exceed current levels. In the Northeast, Northern Rocky Mountain, and Pacific Southwest regions, forest industry inventories drop for several decades before they recover. The recovery, however, is in response to timberremovals dropping by at least half, and in the case of the Pacific Southwest, forest industry softwood removals drop nearly 80 percent by 2050 (or 250 million cubic feet per year). For the United States as a whole, forest industry softwood inventories expand by about 40 percent (27 billion cubic feet), whereas nonindustrial private forest softwood inventories increase by 24 percent (35 billion cubic feet). This increase is largely fromSouthern inventories; not only do forest industry owners contribute to nearly threefourths and nonindustrial private forest owners to almost half of these increases, in doing so they are able to support rising removals. Figure 66 shows in greater detail theincrease in Southern private softwood inventory. The difference between total and available inventory is inventory that is too young to harvest (nonmerchantable) or inventorythat is considered unavailable for harvest. As shown, the available growing-stock inventory initially drops in response to relatively high removals; at the same time removalsare forced down, the results of past investments begin to push growth upward. As investment continues, we see a 40-year period where growth comfortably exceeds removals, allowing inventories to build. Near the end of the projection, removals catch up togrowth, having expanded 57 percent since 2005. Over this period, the softwood inventory has added 56 percent, and most importantly, the available inventory has grown by over 80 percent while the unavailable class more than triples. This downturn of inventory at the end of the projection appears to signal what likely is the start of another cycle, during which we would expect removals to drop and then rebound as in the early part of the projection.

Projected trends in hardwood inventories present a somewhat different picture (see tables 16 and 17). Although public inventories also rise, nearly all the gain on privateland is from nonindustrial private forest owners, in spite of a 48-percent increase in nonindustrial private forest removals. On a regional basis, the gains in inventory and removals are not evenly distributed. Removals in the North, representing a little less than one-third the U.S. total, rise about 22 percent, whereas the rise in hardwood inventory in the North accounts for about 86 percent of the U.S. gain. The Pacific Coast shows115 increased hardwood inventory, but removals there account for less than 5 percent of the national total, and they decline over the projection. The Rocky Mountain and Southern regions both experience rising hardwood removals and declines of inventory. Like the Pacific Coast, the Rocky Mountain region is dominated by softwoods; it produces less than 1 percent of all hardwood removals. The largest hardwood producing region, the South, produces almost two-thirds of the domestic supply.

After 2020, the decline in Southern hardwood inventories accelerates, dropping 8 percent in 30 years. In part, this results from increased removals, which rise 36 percent by2050. Coupled with harvesting, however, is a 12-percent loss of area supporting hardwoods, as many harvested acres are regenerated to softwood species (e.g., pine), whileothers are lost from the timberland base to agriculture, urban, or other uses. The nonindustrial private forest ownership is projected to lose the most hardwood area, 8 million acres, but this represents just 9 percent of nonindustrial private forest hardwood area. The areas of the two fiber categories by the two Southern landowner groups are:

Hardwood Softwood

Owner 1997 2050 1997 2050

Million acres

FI 11.8 6.7 25.2 29.6
NIPF 85.2 77.3 58.0 63.4

Industry loses about 5 million acres, but at 43 percent, this represents a relatively much larger change. For industry, almost all of that loss is not a loss of timberland, but an investment in softwood plantations. Figure 66—Components of the Southern softwood inventory projection for private timberlands.116 Figure 67 shows the projection for private hardwoods in the South. It is different than the softwood situation (fig. 66) in two ways. First, the unavailable class is relativelymuch larger for hardwoods, taking over a third of the difference between total and available inventory. This reflects the diversity of objectives among the Southern nonindustrial private forest ownership, which initially holds a dominant three-quarters of the Southerninventory and almost a third of all U.S. hardwood inventory. The second and most notable difference from softwoods is the projection of volume, and most importantly, available volume. Initially, the available hardwood volume is relatively much larger than removals, supporting room for an expansion of removals not seen for softwoods (fig. 66).Soon into the projection, however, removals do expand while growth declines, contributing to a situation where available volume plummets to about 45 percent of recent levels. By 2050, the area in the unavailable class has grown to represent 18 percent of theSouthern hardwood area for both forest industry and nonindustrial private forest ownerships, and available inventory is rapidly approaching removals.

Regional shares for total softwood and hardwood harvest are shown in table 18. The data indicate that future growth in harvest will be coming mostly from the East. In thelonger term, the Pacific Coast region continues to lose share of harvest in spite of modest increases in the Pacific Northwest West subregion. Finally, there is a modest shift between 1997 and 2050 substituting softwoods for hardwoods. This occurs primarily in pulpwood and in various reconstituted panel products.

Table 17 illustrates that nearly all the increase in timber harvest comes from nonindustrial private forest and forest industry ownerships. Supply from the national forests andfrom other public ownerships in all regions is determined by political and policy processes that are generally independent of market activity. These processes, and the harvests determined by them, are assumed to remain stable during the course of the base projection. Figure 67—Components of the Southern hardwood inventory projection for private timberlands.117 The ownership pattern of the increases in harvest differs between the hardwood and softwood sectors (table 17). The increase in softwood harvest is shared between the two types of private owners. Increases in hardwood harvest, on the other hand, are concentrated on the nonindustrial private forest ownership. This ownership held morethan 71 percent of 1997 hardwood inventory and accounted for 72 percent of the hardwood harvest. By 2050, nonindustrial private forest harvest share is expected to increase to 83 percent. This increase is largely the result of declining harvests from forest industry lands owing to conversion of hardwood forest types to softwood plantations.

The base projections will entail important structural changes in the Nation’s forest resources. Over the next five decades, the United States will continue to reduce its dependence on timber produced from the softwood forests of the Pacific Northwest, and harvest will increase on private forests in the South and to a lesser extent in the North. Pressures placed on forest owners in the West (both public and private) to maintain or increase nontimber outputs will be felt as increasing demands for harvest by owners and managers in the East. This will involve increased frequency and extent of harvestingdisturbances on lands in the East and shifts in management activities. In addition, because forested lands in the East are less densely stocked (lower volumes per acre) than those in the West, the production of a given increment in volume will require the harvest of a larger area than would be the case in the West.

The base projection also envisions a significant shift toward more intensive management on private lands in all regions. These management activities include controlling the species composition of forest stands, use of genetically improved seed or planting stock, efforts to manage stand density, and shortening the average harvest age. In the South, for example, shifts to more intensive management and an increase in the rate of harvest will combine to reduce the area of natural pine stands on industrial lands. In their place will be pine plantations, many of which will employ genetically improved tree stock. These plantation forests will have a more balanced or uniform age-class structure than existing forests in the region, and few stands will be allowed to reach the age ofthe stands of natural origin that they replace. The age-class distributions of these forests will be increasingly compressed into classes at or below the age of minimum merchantability. Table 18—Regional shares for total softwood and

hardwood harvest

Area and type 1991 1997 2010 2030 2050

Percentage of U.S. harvest Harvest region:

North 26 21 22 21 22
South 48 55 58 59 60 Rocky Mountains 4 4 5 4 4
Pacific Coast 23 19 16 15 14

Harvest type:

Hardwood 39 41 45 42 40
Softwood 61 59 55 58 60

Note: Data derived from table 16.118 The consequences of these shifts are evident in the changes expected in age-classstructures across all ownerships in the North and South. Figure 68 shows the ageclass structures for the North, progressive aging of especially the hardwood inventory, and the clear dominance of the nonindustrial private forest owners for both hardwoods and softwoods. It also shows that for the North, national forest lands play a slightly larger role in softwood inventories than for hardwoods. Figure 69 shows the age-class structure across all ownerships in the South. Because of the relative parity between growth and harvest, Southern inventory structures remain about the same over time except for an accumulation of hardwoods in the oldest age class (95 and older). The inventory structure for Southern softwoods reveals the concentration of forest industry lands in younger age classes (less than 25 years of age), whereas nonindustrial private forest lands are spread more evenly across a wider range of age classes. The inventory structure for Southern hardwoods reveals the same dominance of nonindustrial private
forest owners as seen in the North. Figure 68—Age-class distribution for all softwood and hardwood forest types on timberland area for the Northern United States, by ownership.119 The dependence of the hardwood sector on nonindustrial private forest lands (shown in both figs. 68 and 69) has important implications for timber supply, forest policy, and meeting criteria for sustainable forest management. The diversity of the nonindustrial private forest ownership and range of management goals complicate hardwood timbersupply making it less predictable. That same diversity complicates policy and regulatory efforts. Finally, the diversity of management objectives held by numerous landowners makes it difficult to assess criteria for sustainability or to deal with forest
certification.

In the West, the juxtaposition of large areas of public and private ownerships with radically different management regimes will produce forests with two distinct age structures. As illustrated in figure 70, there is a shift from the current roughly unimodal distribution of acres by age class to a bimodal distribution by 2050. This shift is the consequence of harvest reductions on public lands and increased harvests on more Figure 69—Age-class distribution for all softwood and hardwood forest types on timberland area for the Southern United States, by ownership.120 intensively managed private timberlands. By 2050, most of the young (less than 75 years old) timber is concentrated on private timberlands, there is a gap in midage stands (75 to 100 years old), and most public timberland is concentrated in age classes greater than 100 years with a significant part in ages 175 years and older. In the Pacific Northwest West, for example, there will be a gap by 2050 in the 70- to 100-year range. Most of the younger stands ( ≤ 60 years) will be on private land located typically at lower elevations, whereas older ( ≥ 100 years) stands will be on public land, typically in higher elevations and headwaters areas.

In recent years, the growth/harvest or growth/drain ratio has reemerged as one of many measures of the ability of a forested area to sustain harvest over time. An equivalent indicator, however, is the change in inventory, because a rising inventory corresponds toa growth/drain ratio greater than 1, a stable inventory to a ratio equal to 1, and a declining inventory to a ratio less than 1. Ratios of 1 or larger, i.e., stable or rising inventories, often are considered to be a minimum requirement of sustainable harvest. The difficulty with the growth/drain measure and other simple indexes is their application when a resource has multiple temporal, geographic, and quality dimensions. For example, in Figure 70—Age-class distribution for all forest types on timberland area for the Pacific Northwest West and Interior West, by ownership. Interior West data include the Rocky
Mountains and Pacific Northwest East.121 Selected Plantations the national base projections, both harvest and inventory increase between 1997 and2050, implying a growth/drain ratio greater than 1. But this aggregate assessment ignores potential variation in growth/drain ratios and resource conditions when examined at the regional, ownership, and forest-type levels; potential differences between quality categories such as sawlogs and pulpwood; and variations in growth/drain relations
within the time interval from 1997 to 2050.

Tables 16 and 17 indicate that the U.S. timber resource will be continuously changing across all these dimensions over the base projection. In the aggregate, inventories will rise, but in the process, some regions will experience falling inventories, some forest types will decline in extent and volume, some ownership inventories will fall, larger size material will accumulate on some ownerships and smaller material on others, and overtime these trends will not be uniform or steady in most cases. Whether or not this complex of divergent changes implies a sustainable outlook for the U.S. timber sector will require judgments about the relative importance of each of the various components and the incorporation of indicators of sustainability beyond simple inventory or growth/drain

trends.

We see a future where investments in forest management increase the reliance on plantations to meet fiber needs. The projections show that investments act to boost production efficiency by increasing the volume of wood produced while decreasing the time necessary to produce it. Although the establishment of planted and managed stands occurs within all regions, we account for plantations only in the regions where we havedeveloped the explicit management intensification models, for the production of softwood fiber.

In the timber assessment, we identified plantations on private lands as stands of treesin the Pacific Northwest and South that are regenerated under active management regimes. These are stands that receive an investment in growth-enhancing activities intended to increase wood production, activities such as the use of genetically superior seedlings 18 along with a combination of treatments such as site preparation, stocking control (precommercial thinning), and perhaps one or more applications of fertilizer. Inthe Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir subregion, these stands are composed of Douglasfir and western hemlock; in the South these are stands within the forest type named“planted pine.” We acknowledge that these estimates are conservative as we are ignoring plantations in other regions and investments in other forest types.

At the start of the projection, these softwood plantations account for roughly 23 percentof all forest industry timberland and just 4 percent of all nonindustrial private forest timberland. Looking just at the area occupied by softwood forest types (table 19), these plantations make up 36 and 12 percent of the initial forest industry and nonindustrial private forest timberlands. Many of these plantations are relatively new and support young forests; standing inventory volume therefore accounts for a disproportionate 21 and 7 percent share of total forest industry and nonindustrial private forest softwoodinventories. Softwood harvested from plantations (table 20) initially accounts for 19 percent of the total softwood volume harvested and 28 percent of the area harvested for softwoods. This indicates that initially, plantation yields on a per-acre basis are lower than yields on nonplantations. Two things account for this. First, the nonplantations are

18 We assume genetic improvements to be the results of tree breeding or hybridization, not genetic engineering.122 Table 19—Area and volume in managed softwood plantations as compared to the area of all private timberland and to timberland classified as a softwood forest type

Managed All private All softwood plantations timberland types

Year and owner Area Volume Area Area Volume

Million Million Million Million Million
acres cubic feet acres acres cubic feet

1990–95:

Forest industry 15.7 14,898 67.5 44.0 65,885 Nonindustrial private forest 12.6 10,303 288.4 104.5 132,661

Total 28.3 25,201 355.9 148.4 198,546

2050:

Forest industry 27.0 52,178 65.3 47.8 90,497 Nonindustrial private forest 18.8 28,347 280.6 103.9 168,282

Total 45.8 80,526 345.9 151.7 258,780

Table 20—Annual removals and area treated for harvesting, comparing selected plantations with total U.S. private timberland

Managed plantations U.S. totals a

Softwood Total Softwood

Area volume Area volume volume

Year and owner treated removed treated removed removed

Million Million Million
acres cubic feet acres Million cubic feet

1990–95:

Forest industry 0.77 919 2.47 5,148 4,097 Nonindustrial private forest .44 750 4.87 9,603 4,714

T

o t a l 1.21 1,669 7.34 14,751 8,881

2050:

Forest industry 1.88 4,327 2.56 6,063 5,201 Nonindustrial private forest 1.00 2,570 5.72 12,693 6,326

Total 2.88 6,898 8.28 18,756 11,527

a Excludes Alaska.123composed of a combination of older (higher volume) natural stands and older nonmanaged planted stands. And second, it reflects the commercial thinning aspect of plantation management where initially almost half the area treated was for commercial thinning.

Over the course of the projection, plantations become more effective producers of fiberand provide a larger share of the harvest. Several factors account for this apparent efficiency. First, by the end of the projection, the number of acres in plantations increased by over 60 percent. This happened by the replanting following harvest of natural standsand the enrollment of nonforest land into managed forests. Generally, older, slower growing stands are being replaced with stands subject to enhanced growth technologies.Second, within plantations there is an upward trend in investment in intensive management practices, so a greater share of the plantation area is producing faster growing trees. And third, time has allowed the plantations established early in the projection to mature, supporting higher volumes.

Generally, harvest follows available inventory, and as shown in figure 71, the plantationshare of softwood removals rises faster than total removals. The figure reflects the relatively large investments by the forest industry ownership as compared to nonindustrial private forest owners. In the final projection period, the area in plantations accounts for30 percent of the private timberland area in softwood forest types, while plantation harvest volume accounts for 60 percent of softwood removals from all private timberland— or 54 percent of all softwood removals when the public owners are included. By 2050,
the relation between the volume of harvest and area harvested has reversed itself such that the area of plantation harvest among the private softwood forest types is 57 percent of the total area harvested. In becoming the most efficient producers of softwood fiber, plantations have become the dominant source of domestic softwood supply among all ownerships.

Public lands in Canada’s provinces face an array of pressures to broaden the objectivesfor their management, to limit harvests to sustainable levels, and to provide land for native peoples. 19 As a result, AAC 20 has been falling in some provinces, and in the British Columbia Coast and Canadian Interior regions the actual or realized harvest has fallen as well (see footnote 5). This is, at present, a highly controversial issue in Canada, and the extent and timing of any future reductions in AAC and harvest are uncertain.

The base projection assumes that harvest restrictions will continue in western provincesand be enacted in eastern provinces within the next decade. In the projection, only softwood sawtimber is subject to specific limitations. Pulpwood harvest (which is more than 

### Projections of Canadian Harvest

19 For a discussion of these issues, see Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. 2000. The state of Canada’s forests 1999–2000. Ottawa, ON. See especially pages 52–75.

20 The allowable annual cut (AAC) is computed by provinces in Canada to specify the amount of timber that may be cut annually from provincial Crown lands. Each province computes its AACs differently. The AAC estimates shown in figure 72 were compiled by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS). They include estimates by CFS for federal and private lands (not included in the AACs for provincial Crown lands). The AACs for Ontario are quoted on an area basis and were converted by CFS to volumes. See http:// nfdp.ccfm.org/cp95/text_e/sect2e.htm for details of historical AAC data presented in figure 72 and further discussion of AAC computation.124 Figure 71—Periodic softwood removals projected by owner, managed plantations versus all other sources.

20 percent of the industrial harvest) and harvest for use in OSB production are not constrained. In the British Columbia Coast region, it is assumed that allowable softwood sawtimber harvest will continue its decline of the past decade and will rise no higher than 400 million cubic feet, approximately the level observed in 1997. In the Canadian Interior region, it was assumed that softwood sawtimber harvest between 2000 and 2010 will be allowed to rise no higher than the peak level observed in 1992 (some 2.0 billion cubic feet per year). From 2010 to 2020, this limit is reduced to the lowest harvest levelobserved in the decade of the 1990s (roughly 1.75 billion cubic feet per year) and remains there for the rest of the projection. In the Eastern Canadian region, where AACs are at present substantially higher than harvest, it was assumed that harvest would be allowed to increase no more than 15 percent above approximate 1999 levels (to about 2.6 billion cubic feet per year) in the period to 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the limit falls back to roughly the average level observed during the 1990s (about 2.0 billion cubic feet per year).

Figure 72 and table 21 show estimates of Canada’s industrial softwood harvest by sawtimber and pulpwood categories for the historical period 1970–96 and base case projections to 2050. Projected pulpwood harvest continues its slow, long-term declining trend.
Sawtimber harvest falls after 2010 as a result of the assumed restrictions noted above.125 Figure 72—Sawtimber, pulpwood, and total harvest in Canada, with projections to 2050 and total annual allowable cut for recent years. Source for historical data: Canadian Forest Service, National Forestry
Database.

Table 21—Projections of Canadian softwood harvest

Total

Year harvest Sawtimber Pulpwood AAC a

Million cubic feet

1970 3,816 2,225 1,591 NA

1980 4,927 3,331 1,596 NA

1986 5,577 3,861 1,716 5,898

1990 4,946 3,586 1,360 6,780

1997 5,383 4,462 921 6,145

2010 5,936 4,714 1,222 NA

2020 5,325 4,057 1,268 NA

2030 5,269 4,064 1,206 NA

2040 5,186 4,074 1,112 NA

2050 5,151 4,078 1,073 NA

NA = not available.

a AAC = annual allowable cut. Source: Historical data: National Forestry Database Program, Canadian Forest Service (1999).