Managing Michigan’s
State-owned Forests:
Harvest Levels, Market Trends
and Revenue Realities
Ellen Holste and Brad Garmon
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Note: This report was revised and republished on May 1, 2013. The
updated version contains corrected data on timber harvest levels from
Michigan’s national forests, which were incorrect when they were initially
supplied to MEC. It also clarifies several minor points.
Authors
Ellen Holste, M.S. in Forestry and PhD Candidate in Forestry
Michigan State University
Brad Garmon, Director of Conservation and Emerging Issues
Michigan Environmental Council
The authors would thank Doug Heym, Larry Leefers, and David Neumann
for their advice and data.
A special thanks to Larry Pedersen for all his invaluable information and
guidance and to Marvin Roberson for his insights, review and comments,
and inspiration to create this report.
About the Michigan Environmental Council
Michigan Environmental Council, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, is a
coalition of more than 60 organizations created in 1980 to lead Michigan’s
environmental movement to achieve positive change through the public
policy process. MEC combines deep environmental policy expertise with
close connections to key state and federal decision makers to rally broad
and powerful alliances in support of reforms. With our member groups
and partners in the environmental, public health and faith communities,
MEC works to ensure that Michigan families will always enjoy healthy
waters, clean beaches, beautiful landscapes and vibrant communities.
For More Information
Brad Garmon, Director of Conservation and Emerging Issues
Michigan Environmental Council
602 W. Ionia Street
Lansing, MI 48933
517-487-9539
www.environmentalcouncil.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
PART 1: THE MICHIGAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................... 4
Michigan Publically Owned Forestland ....................................................................................................... 4
Michigan DNR Forest Management ............................................................................................................ 10
Types of Timberland in Michigan ................................................................................................................. 13
PART 2: TRENDS AND DRIVERS OF PUBLIC FOREST POLICY:
DEMAND, MARKETS AND TIMBER PRODUCTS ............................................................................................. 20
Timber Demand .................................................................................................................................................. 20
Michigan Timber Employment ...................................................................................................................... 27
Michigan Timber Sales, Harvests, and Revenue...................................................................................... 31
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 40
List of Figures
Figure 1. Michigan DNR Ownership Map
Figure 2.
Michigan State Forest Map with Forest Resource Division Districts and Management Units.
Figure 3.
Current Forest Types for State Forest Land
Figure 4.
Most Common Forest Types by Timber Sales in 2010
Figure 5.
Michigan DNR Sales by Acres for the Five Most Common Timber Forest Types
Figure 6.
Lumber Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
Figure 7.
Household and Office Furniture Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
Figure 8.
Wood-based Transportation Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
Figure 9.
Paper Manufacturing Revenue from 2004 to 2013
Figure 10. Demand for Paper Product Manufacturing Linked to Online Services
Figure 11. Timber Industry-Related Jobs in Michigan
Figure 12. Comparison of Michigan and National Average Percent Decrease in Timber Jobs from 1998
to 2010
Figure 13. Total Number of Timber Proprietors in Michigan from 1998 to 2010
Figures 14A & 14B. Decrease in Timber Sector Jobs between 1998 and 2010
Figure 15. Comparing the Percent Decrease in Timber Jobs between States with 17,000 – 19,000
Acres of Timberland
Figure 16. Acreage of State Forest Timber Sales from 1940 to 2010
Figure 17. Volume of State Forest Timber Sales in Cords from 1940 to 2010
Figure 18. State Forest Timber Sales and Harvests in Acres from 2002 to 2012
Figure 19. State Forest Timber Sales and Harvest in Cords from 2002 to 2012
Figure 20. Michigan's Three National Forests' Approximate Sawtimber and Pulpwood Volumes
Sold from 2008 to 2012
Figure 21. Michigan DNR State Forest Timber Revenue from 2002 to 2012
Figure 22. DNR State Forest Pulpwood and Sawlog Revenue from 1986 to 2010 in percent
Figure 23. Michigan's Three National Forests' Revenue from Sawlog and Pulpwood Sales from
2008 to 2012
Figure 24. Percent Sawlog and Pulpwood Revenue from Michigan’s Three National Forests
from 2008 to 2012
Figure 25. Comparison of Timber Volumes Sold between Michigan and Minnesota from 2001 to 2010
List of Tables
Table 1.
Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of State-owned Forestland
Table 2.
Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of State-owned Timberland
Table 3.
Top Ten States by the Total Amount (in acres) of Public-owned Timberland including
Federal-, State-, and Local-owned
Table 4.
Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of Total Timberland
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines the role of timber harvesting in Michigan’s publicly owned forests
to provide policymakers and stakeholders with a better understanding of the dynamics
of forestry as it relates to recent public policy initiatives affecting forest management
practices in the Great Lakes State.
Among the key findings:
• Over the last half century, and even during the recent recession, timber
harvests and sales from state-owned land have generally increased. Current
rates of timber cutting from state-owned lands are significantly higher than
comparable federal lands and similar to private lands.
• The vast majority of the 4.6 million acres of state-owned land is open to
selective timber harvests. A relatively small percentage is off-limits to harvests
due to policy considerations (e.g., state campgrounds). Most of the state land is
actively managed for timber harvesting with the cooperation of the logging
industry and has been for decades.
• The current rate of harvest from Michigan’s state forests is at, or very near,
maximum sustainable levels. Studies citing high growth-over-harvest rates in a
push to cut more wood from state-owned lands do not accurately account for
numerous factors which limit harvestable timber.
• Market forces, including the recession, housing crisis and lower-priced timber
from overseas competitors, are a larger driver of changes in volume and
character of timber harvests on state lands than either policy or regulatory
changes.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 1
INTRODUCTION
Michigan’s state-owned forest system, amounting to nearly four million acres, is larger than any
other state-owned system in the U.S. In addition to the recreational, tourism and indirect
economic benefits we derive from this natural resource, it also supports more than 13,000 timber
and wood products jobs and more than 2,200 companies all across the state.
Over the last 65 years, sales of state forest timber have increased. The last five years alone have
seen Michigan’s State Forest systems earn about 65 percent more revenue per year compared to
the three national forests in the state.
Even so, pressure to cut more remains high. As cited in Bridge Magazine in 2012, proponents of
increasing harvests on state forests added language in the 2012 fiscal year Department of Natural
Resource (DNR) budget demanding the agency “permit a 50 percent increase in commercial
timber harvesting in state forests” and give commercial loggers “access to 79,000 acres of state
forests this year, up from an average of 53,000 acres that were harvested annually over the past
two decades, according to state data.”
Can the state forest system sustain such increases? What would the impact be on forest health, on
recreational values, and on the aesthetics of the rich “up north” landscape? Perhaps as important,
what are the true drivers of timber trends? What are the economics underlying Michigan DNR’s
prescriptions and harvest levels? And what effect would very abrupt changes—a proposed 50
percent harvest increase, for example—in scientifically based management practices have on
Michigan’s public lands?
In 2007, the Michigan Environmental Council worked with partners at the National Wildlife
Federation and researchers from several Michigan universities to research timberland ownership
changes in the Upper Peninsula. That report, “Large-tract Forestland Ownership Change: Land
Use, Conservation and Prosperity in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula,” provided much-needed data
and context about the scale and potential implications of transitions of private timberland
ownership. Its observations and more than 20 recommendations largely remain as relevant today
as they were six years ago.
This report attempts to provide a similar service to policymakers and stakeholders interested in
the role of state-owned, public forests in Michigan. State forest management and state land
policy issues are taking center stage in state policy discussions in an unprecedented way. This
paper is intended to inform and provide additional context for those policy discussions.
Our research suggests that forest product markets both nationally and internationally are sending
largely unacknowledged shockwaves throughout the wood products industry, reshaping wood
markets and, over time, becoming manifest in the kinds of trees and the age of the forests in our
landscapes.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 2
Overall, the forest products industry is shrinking—e.g., paper, like many things, becomes
cheaper every day to make in China. Since 1998, the number of timber industry jobs in Michigan
has decreased by about 40 percent and the number of different proprietors by 18 percent. Those
numbers largely mirror nationwide timber job declines; nationally, wood products manufacturing
jobs have declined 36 percent, 45.5 percent in sawmill and paper mill jobs, and 29.6 percent in
jobs growing and harvesting timber.
Over the last ten years, these market forces have also begun to change the composition of timber
sales, and therefore our state forests. In Michigan, more northern hardwood acres were sold and
aspen acres declined; the acreage of red pine sales doubled and surpassed aspen sales. Twenty
years ago, pulpwood made up about 70 percent of state revenue from timber sales, while sawlogs
comprised the other 30 percent. But with declines in aspen pulpwood and increases in hardwood
sales, these numbers have been converging over the past 15 years.
Such changes can be more clearly seen by looking at revenue from the three national forests in
Michigan. Compared to state forests, sawlogs harvested from national forests tend to comprise a
similar proportion by volume but make up a slightly larger proportion of harvest revenue,
suggesting that the national forests may be selectively selling wood products that earn higher
revenue per unit.
Michigan’s forests, then, are not just the product of natural processes, or even political or policy
demands, but are influenced and impacted by factors like the U.S. housing market crash, the
global recession and international trade, contraction and consolidation of firms and companies,
and even trends in technology and tastes for consumer goods. These large-scale factors are
reflected in a shrinking and challenged forest products industry in Michigan, which in turn sends
ripples of change across the landscape of Michigan’s state forests.
These are the facts, trends and issues that decision-makers and stakeholders need to consider as
discussions of harvest rates and job proposals in the timber industry move forward. We hope the
information compiled here is helpful to that endeavor.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 3
PART 1: THE MICHIGAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Michigan Publically Owned Forestland
Nationally, Michigan ranks 22nd in total land area with 36.3 million acres, and more than half is
covered in forests1. The State of Michigan owns approximately 4.59 million acres of land, and
the vast majority (3,838,145 acres) is under the management of the DNR Forest Resources
Division. This is the portion of state-owned land managed primarily for timber products with
many benefits for wildlife, camping, hunting, and other outdoor recreational activities2. The
DNR Parks and Recreation Division, by comparison, only manages 351,715, while the Wildlife
Division manages 359,602 acres. The majority of DNR land is located in the Upper Peninsula
and northern Lower Peninsula (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Michigan DNR Ownership Map
Source: Michigan DNR http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-31154-285534--,00.html
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 4
The DNR manages its forest lands for timber production, new tree growth, wildlife habitat and a
wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities such as wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, hiking,
cross country skiing, mountain biking, backpacking, horseback riding, and camping3.
State Forests
Altogether, the State of Michigan owns approximately 4 million total acres that are forested. The
federal government holds 3 million acres, and private landowners own about 12 million acres4.
Although the majority of forests in Michigan are owned by private non-industrial landowners,
the DNR is the largest single forest landowner.
The DNR manages the state forest system through four Forest Resource Division districts in
Michigan, all located in the northern two-thirds of the state. These forests make up the largest
state forest system in the nation and approximately 87 percent of all DNR lands5. Michigan’s
forest resource districts are further divided into 16 forest management units which administer
activities in these forests (Baraga, Crystal Falls, Gwinn, Escanaba, Newberry, Sault St. Marie,
Shingleton, Cadillac, Gladwin, Roscommon, Southern, Traverse City, Atlanta, Gaylord,
Grayling, and Pigeon River Country) (Figure 2).
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 5
Figure 2. Michigan State Forest Map with Forest Resource Division Districts and Management
Units.
Source: Michigan DNR http://www.michigan.gov/images/dnr/FMU_Map_384466_7.png
State forests can be divided into two types: forestland and/or timberland. According to the
USDA Forest Service, forestland is land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any
size6. Nationally, Michigan ranks first in state-owned forestland (Table 1)7.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 6
Table 1. Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of State-owned Forestland
Rank (by State‐owned Forestland)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Federal‐
owned State‐owned Forestland Forestland (in acres)
State
(in acres)
Michigan
4,165,809
2,702,021
New York
4,102,274
15,605
Minnesota
3,878,943
2,643,362
Pennsylvania 3,806,553
496,387
Florida
2,899,778
1,180,196
Washington
2,490,306
8,482,238
New Mexico
2,265,430
7,742,962
Arizona
1,589,596
7,693,811
Utah
1,485,393
6,299,150
Idaho
1,227,429
16,155,635
Total Forestland (in acres)
20,127,049
18,966,415
17,370,394
16,781,960
17,460,963
22,435,028
24,839,375
18,642,969
18,135,127
21,447,733
State Land Area (in acres)
36,354,445
30,216,826
50,950,451
28,682,630
34,513,165
42,588,198
77,667,539
72,726,125
52,571,936
52,958,214
% State‐
owned by Total State Forestland
20.70
21.63
22.33
22.68
16.61
11.10
9.12
8.53
8.19
5.72
% State‐
owned by Total Land Area
11.46
13.58
7.61
13.27
8.40
5.85
2.92
2.19
2.83
2.32
% Federal‐ % Federal‐
owned by owned by Total State Total Land Area
Forestland
13.42
7.43
0.08
0.05
15.22
5.19
2.96
1.73
6.76
3.42
37.81
19.92
31.17
9.97
41.27
10.58
34.73
11.98
75.33
30.51
Source: USDA Forest Service FIA database
But not all trees in forestland are available and suitable to use as commercial products.
According to the USDA Forest Service, timberland is a specific type of forestland that produces
or is capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre of commercial wood annually and has not been
reserved for other management purposes (such as wildlife habitat or conservation land related to
sustainable forest certification processes)8.
Of Michigan’s 4 million acres of forestland, 97 percent also is considered timberland, ranking
Michigan first in the nation in state-owned timberland as well (Table 2) but eighth in publicowned timberland (including federal, state, and local) (Table 3)9.
Table 2. Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of State-owned Timberland
% State‐
Federal‐
State Land owned by Total owned State‐owned Rank (by Total State Area (in Timberland Timberland Timberland State‐owned Timberland
acres)
(in acres)
(in acres)
(in acres)
Timberland)
State
1
Michigan
4,049,834
2,544,173
19,462,573 36,354,445
20.81
2
Minnesota
3,683,398
1,841,155
15,928,971 50,950,451
23.12
3
Pennsylvania 3,408,120
480,935
16,241,095 28,682,630
20.98
4
Florida
2,427,341
1,128,462
15,916,253 34,513,165
15.25
5
Washington
2,325,897
5,928,064
18,080,795 42,588,198
12.86
6
New York
1,152,262
15,605
15,919,668 30,216,826
7.24
7
Wisconsin
1,118,684
1,382,183
16,726,250 34,758,464
6.69
8
Idaho
1,116,072
12,210,340
16,771,660 52,958,214
6.65
9
Alaska
891,390
3,921,331
6,333,462 366,048,806
14.07
10
Oregon
879,653
11,583,859
24,116,566 61,437,946
3.65
% Federal‐ % Federal‐
% State‐
owned by owned by owned by Total Land Total State Total Land Area
Timberland
Area
11.14
13.07
7.00
7.23
11.56
3.61
11.88
2.96
1.68
7.03
7.09
3.27
5.46
32.79
13.92
3.81
0.10
0.05
3.22
8.26
3.98
2.11
72.80
23.06
0.24
61.91
1.07
1.43
48.03
18.85
Source: USDA Forest Service FIA database
The timberland classification does not take into account all the constraints that state-owned
timberlands encounter. For example, state-owned forests are managed for multiple purposes,
from timber to recreation. This signifies that these other activities are taken into account when
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 7
considering how to manage the forests. So what might be the best plan for timber management
may not be ideal for wildlife habitat or hunting. These factors do not similarly constrain timber
management on privately owned timberland.
Table 3. Top Ten States by the Total Amount (in acres) of Public-owned Timberland including
Federal-, State-, and Local-owned
Rank (by Public‐
owned Timberland)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Federal‐
Total Public‐
owned State‐owned Local‐owned owned Timberland Timberland Timberland Timberland (in acres)
(in acres)
(in acres)
(in acres)
State
Idaho
13,326,412
12,210,340
1,116,072
‐‐‐
Montana
12,982,309
12,189,945
781,600
10,764
Oregon
12,597,753
11,583,859
879,653
134,241
California
9,298,664
9,137,269
106,246
55,149
Washington
8,606,042
5,928,064
2,325,897
352,081
Minnesota
8,173,651
1,841,155
3,683,398
2,649,098
Colorado
7,940,423
7,597,011
278,411
65,001
Michigan
6,996,316
2,544,173
4,049,834
402,309
Alaska
4,875,581
3,921,331
891,390
62,860
Wisconsin
4,806,195
1,382,183
1,118,684
2,305,328
Total Timberland (in acres)
16,771,660
19,628,391
24,116,566
16,990,599
18,080,795
15,928,971
10,936,915
19,462,573
6,333,462
16,726,250
% Public‐
% Public‐
State Land owned by owned by Total State Total Land Area (in Area
Timberland
acres)
52,958,214
79.46
25.16
93,153,555
66.14
13.94
61,437,946
52.24
20.50
99,813,978
54.73
9.32
42,588,198
47.60
20.21
50,950,451
51.31
16.04
66,379,219
72.60
11.96
36,354,445
35.95
19.24
366,048,806
76.98
1.33
34,758,464
28.73
13.83
Source: USDA Forest Service FIA database
State Park and Recreation Areas
Michigan’s State Parks and Recreation division manages about 100 properties covering almost
350,000 acres—a fraction of the 4.6 million acres of state-owned land10—and was recently given
management authority for state forest campgrounds. Even though this acreage includes many
forested sections, the DNR manages most of these areas mainly for recreational purposes such as
hunting, fishing, and camping, not primarily for timber production.
The majority of state and recreation areas (63 percent) are located in the northern two-thirds of
the state. The largest is the 55,000 acre Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, the most
extensive stand of old growth northern hardwood forest in North America west of the
Adirondack Mountains. The smallest properties may include a single lake or historic site. These
parks and recreation areas offer recreation opportunities for more than 22 million visitors each
year and play an important role in the state’s tourism industry11. A 1997 study showed that
visitors to state parks and recreation areas spent about $464 million per year12.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 8
Lake of the Clouds Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park.
Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FullLakeOfTheClouds.JPG
State Game Areas
Michigan’s state game system includes 66 state game areas, six wildlife areas, and four wildlife
research areas that encompass more than 365,000 acres and are mainly found in the southern
third of the state (83 percent), where most of Michigan’s population resides13. Like the state park
and recreation areas, the state game areas include many forested areas that are not managed for
timber production but instead for wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing.
Many of the state game and wildlife areas are located in Michigan forests, home to many wildlife
species. The DNR manages and protects 400 species of game and nongame birds, mammals and
their habitats, along with more than 70 state game and wildlife areas.
Nationally, Michigan ranks third in licensed hunters (over 750,000), contributing over $1 billion
annually to the economy14. Michigan also offers many fishing opportunities with over 11,000
inland lakes and 36,000 miles of rivers and streams15. Michigan owns more freshwater shoreline
than any other state (over 3,000 miles) and more total shoreline than any other state except for
Alaska16. More than 1.5 million people fish Michigan waters (ranking fifth in the nation in
number of anglers) and contribute $2 billion annually to the state’s economy17.
Public-Private Partnership: Commercial and Qualified Forestland
As of 2012, about 2.2 million acres of privately owned forestland were enrolled in Michigan’s
Commercial Forest (CF) program (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of
1994, Part 511)18. The CF program provides a property tax reduction to timber companies and
other private landowners who maintain and manage forests for long-term timber production in
exchange for allowing public access in their forests for hunting and fishing. Under the CF
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 9
program, landowners can register land (a minimum of 40 acres) as commercial forest which is
subjected to a specific tax of $1.25 per acre rather than the standard ad valorem property tax.
The State of Michigan annually pays an additional $1.25 per acre to the county on behalf of the
landowner.
Last year, about $2.7 million was paid by the State of Michigan to counties for CF program
parcels. Fifty-eight counties in Michigan have forested acres enrolled in the CF program,
approximately 98 percent of which are located in the Upper Peninsula.
Like the CF program, the Commercial Qualified Forest Property (QFP) program’s (General
Property Tax Act, amended with Public Acts 378, 379, and 380) purpose is to encourage private
landowners to maintain and manage forests for timber production. This program does not require
public access to their lands. Enrollment exempts landowners from some school operating taxes19.
In addition, the QFP programs have a lower minimum land requirement (minimum 20 acres,
maximum 320) of contiguous forests, but landowners must have forest management plans
certified by a third-party certifying organization. The State of Michigan limits the amount of
land eligible for the QFP tax exemption to 1.2 million acres.
Michigan DNR Forest Management
DNR Forest Planning
The DNR uses a three-level planning structure to guide decisions about forestry activities in state
forests, and relies on contracts with private industry to carry out prescribed “treatments,” or
timber harvest activities that are developed through the planning process. The DNR State Forest
planning happens at three levels:
•
•
•
Michigan State Forest Management Plan. This is a strategic-level planning document,
last updated in 2008, that contains goals and objectives for all resource uses and values
related to state forestlands. The length and complexity of the strategy reflects the
challenges of managing forests for multiple benefits, achieving and maintaining
sustainable forest certification and integrating ecosystem management.
Regional State Forest Management Plans (for the Western Upper Peninsula, Eastern
Upper Peninsula and Northern Lower Peninsula). Drafts of these operational-level
planning documents were put out for a public review period in early 2013, with final
approval by the DNR director expected by November 30, 2013. Each Regional State
Forest Management Plan is organized into Management Areas (MAs)—groupings of
roughly 30 forest compartments in each region that range in size from approximately
17,000 to 105,000 acres. When finalized, the Regional State Forest Management Plans
will provide “specific projections of harvest levels (in acres) for the major and minor
cover types in each MA over the following 10-year compartment review cycle.”
Compartment reviews. Tactical-level planning happens when DNR personnel evaluate
and conduct inventories of one-tenth of the State Forest each year, looking specifically at
the age, health, quality and quantity of trees and other vegetation. The compartment
review process also provides an opportunity for staff to look at cross-cutting issues
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 10
related to wildlife and fisheries, minerals, archeological sites, recreational use, wildfire
potential and other social dimensions of the area.
Treatment Proposals
The ultimate result of the DNR planning and review process is a proposed “treatment” for state
forest lands. Treatment prescriptions are commonly selective timber harvests, clear cuts,
replanting, and related management activities. The process of prescribing treatments occurs at
the compartment review level but should ideally be driven by the strategic and operational-level
plans. (There is some concern that the current Regional State Forest Management Plans draft
more closely resembles compilations of the compartment review prescriptions and harvests
rather than guiding strategic documents.)
The treatment proposals ultimately dictate which state forest timber is eventually offered for sale.
Timber sales on state forest land, according to the DNR, are for the purpose of “harvesting
mature and over mature trees, responding to past or predicted insect and disease outbreaks,
salvaging fire-damaged trees, enhancing wildlife habitat and improving health of forest trees.”20
Maturity in this context can mean either “financial” or “biologic” maturity, and the distinction
has direct impacts on the treatments prescribed by the DNR. Financial and biological maturities
are dependent upon many factors including species type, site, stand history, current conditions,
and landowner objectives. As defined by Mills and Callahan21, financial maturity is the point in
the life of the tree or stand at which the expected increase in value is less than the financial return
if the tree or stand was sold and the cash value was invested elsewhere. Conversely, biological
maturity of the tree or stand occurs when the tree or stand achieves maximum merchantable
volume. In general, faster growing trees tend to reach financial and biological maturity sooner
than slower growing trees, but the age of the tree (or time) to financial maturity generally occurs
before biological maturity. Financial maturity imposes economic and business management
values on the timber production process, which is typically absent from biological maturity
evaluations.
During the process of developing the desired treatments, the DNR checks to make sure it fits
within the goals and limitations of other DNR management plans and guidance documents (such
as recreational, wildlife, Special Conservation Area plans, etc.), check for potential rare species,
or issues (such as historic structures or archaeological sites, etc). Input can also be gathered from
the public, interested associations, advisory groups and wildlife and fisheries management
professionals.
Timber Sale Contracts and Bids
Once a treatment plan is finalized (and specific boundaries and/or trees often marked by DNR
staff or contracted timber cruisers) through the compartment review process, the DNR staff
issues a permit or contract for an outside entity to bid for the opportunity to harvest the
designated timber.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 11
Information about the proposed treatment is contained in a prospectus, which outlines the
minimum bid, unique issues of the treatment site, operation parameters, and other pertinent
information relevant to the potential purchaser of the standing timber (the “stumpage”)
anticipated to be harvested through the treatment.
The prospectus is posted on the DNR web page (interested parties can also be put on a mailing
list) and offered for sale through a bid process. The winning bidder commits to undertake the
prescribed treatment under a State Forest Timber Sale Contract. DNR staff conducts field
inspections during the timber harvest verifying that the contracting agent completed the desired
activities and followed the planned and approved prescriptions. Current versions of the General
Conditions and Requirements can be viewed on the DNR website22.
Timber production in the Upper Peninsula; Photo: Hugh McDiarmid
Products Sold
There are four timber product classes sold by the DNR based on tree size (height and diameter),
quality, and species: sawlogs, pulpwood, poles, and bolts23,24,25.
•
•
Sawlogs are trees large enough (9”+ in diameter at breast height (DBH)) to be sawed into
boards. Typically sawlogs are the most financially valuable part of the tree and used for
lumber. Palletwood, a specific type of sawlog, is lower-quality hardwood timber not
suitable for lumber but still usable as slats for pallet-making.
Pulpwood are trees that are too small (4-9” DBH) or poor in quality to be sold as
sawlogs. These trees are chipped into small pieces and used to manufacture paper,
hardboard, or various types of structural board. Pulpwood can be the byproducts of
sawlogs, also known as woodchips, and can be used as a biomass solid fuel for providing
heat or raising steam for generating electricity.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 12
•
•
Poles are small trees below sawlog size (4-9” DBH) but suitable for power poles or for
simple building work.
Bolts are trees at least 8 feet in length.
An additional product class not currently sold by the Michigan DNR is veneer. Veneer timber
uses larger trees (16”+ DBH) that are cut into continuous sheets of thin wood and used for
manufacturing plywood and furniture.
Timber also is also classified as either hardwood or softwood. Hardwood comes from
broadleaved trees such as oak, maple or birch and is typically used for construction, flooring and
furniture. Softwood originates from coniferous trees such as pine, cedar, and fir and is used for
furniture and millwork (building materials that are ready-made such as doors, window casing,
baseboards, and moldings).
Timber volume is measured in standardized units such as board feet, cords, or tons26. Large
timber (such as sawlogs) generally are measured in “thousand board feet” (mbf), with one board
foot equal to a 1x12x1 board. Chipped wood (such as pulpwood) use cords and tons to express
timber volume. A standard cord is a stack of wood that measures 4’x4’x8’ (or 128 cubic feet)
while a ton is 2,000 pounds of raw wood and bark. In Michigan, a well-stocked acre of northern
hardwoods have the equivalent of 30-40 cords27.
Types of Timberland in Michigan
The role of state forests is not static; they change as societal needs change. In Michigan, state
forests have been shaped by human demands. The demand for particular forest products has
driven forestry practices and harvest schedules and changed Michigan forests from softwood
sawlogs and firewood to high quality veneer logs and wood fiber.
Prior to European settlement, Michigan’s forests were dominated by a mixture of conifer and
hardwood forests, particularly hardwoods such as sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, and oak, and
softwoods such as pine, hemlock, spruce and fir28. In the current timber landscape, hardwoods
make up about 70 percent of all Michigan forests. There are eight primary forest types: aspen,
northern hardwoods, jack pine, cedar, red pine, lowland conifer, oak, and lowland deciduous
(Figure 3).
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 13
Figure 3.. Current Fo
orest Types for
f State Forrest Land
Other < 2 percent
p
are all species with less than 2 perrcent of the tottal forest cover area.
Source: 2012 Michigan DNR inventory data
Over the past 25 yearrs29, five forrest types havve accountedd for more thhan 90 perceent of
Michigann’s state foreest timber saales: aspen, northern
n
harddwoods, red pine, jack pine,
p
and oakk
(Figure 4).
4 No otherr forest type averaged moore than 2.5 percent of tiimber sales in
i the last fiffteen
years, wiith the excep
ption of whitte pine, but it only adds 1.5-3
1
percennt to total salles. Althouggh
lowland forest
f
types comprise off 25 percent of forested acres,
a
they only contribuute to 4 perceent
of timberr sales.
Figure 4.. Most Common Forest Types by Timber Sales in 2010
Other < 1 percent are all species witth less than 1 percent
p
of totaal sales (Paper Birch, Cedar, Swamp
S
Hardw
woods,
Sp
pruce Fir, Hem
mlock, Lowland
d Poplar, Mixed
d Swamp Conifers, Tamarackk, and Black Sp
pruce).
Source: Unpublished
U
2010 Michigan DNR inventory data
Managing Michigan’s State-owne
ed Forests | 14
In the past decade, the total acres of Michigan state forest timber sales leveled off, and the
composition of these sales changed (Figure 5). More northern hardwood acres were sold while
aspen acres declined, resulting in the loss of some volume of sales since aspen stands tend to
comprise of more cords per acre than hardwoods30 . The acreage of red pine sales doubled and
surpassed aspen sales even though the acreage of aspen sales also increased. Conversely, jack
pine sales decreased.
An important point to note is that given the increases in aspen and red pine forest types, volumes
harvested should increase more than the rate of acreage sold. Because these five forest types
account for the majority of all timber sales, we will focus on these types since they have the
greatest impact on overall timber sales.
Figure 5. Michigan DNR Sales by Acres for the Five Most Common Timber Forest Types
State Forest Sales by Forest Type
18,000
16,000
14,000
Acres
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Aspen
Jack Pine
Year
Upland Hardwoods
Oak
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
4,000
Red Pine
Source: Unpublished 2010 Michigan DNR inventory data
Aspen
Aspen is the largest cover type in Michigan’s state forests with about 860,000 acres31. Aspen
was originally considered a “weedy” species and a minor forest cover type until regeneration of
the forests began and specific markets and management strategies were developed in the 1950’s
to accommodate the high acreages of early successional aspen on the landscape. Aspen cover
consists of nine species: trembling and big tooth aspen, white birch, oak, northern white cedar,
white spruce, balsam fir, and jack pine. Aspen stands have been managed for wood products as
well as habitat for white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, woodcock, snowshoe hare, beaver, goldenwinger warbler, and pileated woodpeckers.
Aspen wood is soft but strong and is typically harvested as pulp, lumber, hardboard, and
insulation board32. Aspen also is used for making paper, matches and boards for saunas. Aspen
forests have been in a “trough” for the over a decade, with fewer acres of prime commercial
timber harvest age (45-65 years old)33. As highlighted by Pedersen et al. in their unpublished
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 15
2011 timber harvest trends report, most of the accessible older-age aspen has already been cut,
and physical constraints limiting timber operations on the remaining acres mean the rest of this
age class might not ever be harvested. But overall, harvest of aspen is generally on the rise,
increasing from an average of 8,000 acres per year between 2000 and 2006 up to an average of
11,000 acres in the five following years. Pedersen et al. project that aspen harvests will continue
to increase as we emerge from the “trough” of recent years, perhaps rising to a level of 14,000
acres per year, and they could conceivably remain that high for 30 to 40 years34.
Quaking aspen; Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuakiesSEP2005.JPG
Northern Hardwoods
There are about 500,000 northern hardwood acres on state-owned Michigan lands35. Northern
hardwoods have always been a dominate cover type in Michigan’s forests. Northern hardwoods
are typically dominated by sugar maple, red maple, American beech, and yellow birch, but
basswood, white ash, cherry, northern red oak, trembling and big tooth aspen, red maple,
hemlock, white pine, and white spruce are also present. Northern hardwoods represent a late
successional stage of forest development and tend to be unevenly-aged in Michigan. According
to Pedersen et al.’s unpublished 2011 timber harvest trends report, northern hardwoods are
typically handled through selective harvests, with careful selection and marking of individual
trees for cutting. This class of trees may yield lower volumes than other species, but can provide
substantial economic returns because of the higher market demand for these hardwoods36. These
stands also provide habitat for about 113 wildlife species including the ovenbird, American
marten, red-shouldered hawk, northern goshawk, black-throated blue warbler, wood thrush, and
black bear.
Hardwoods are important in construction, flooring, furniture making, boat building, and musical
instruments37. Northern hardwoods make up a large portion of timber harvests due to their high
value as sawlogs. Pedersen et al.’s unpublished 2011 timber harvest trends report suggests that
Northern hardwoods became the forest type with the highest total acreage harvested from state
land around the year 2000, surpassing aspen. They credit an improving market for pulpwood
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 16
from hardwood species and the rapid decline in commercial age aspen38. Northern hardwood
timber harvests are expected to stay fairly stable in the next few decades.
Northern Hardwood Forest; Photo: http://www.nhdfl.org/
Red Pine
Michigan’s state forests are comprised of about 260,000 acres of red pines39. About half of
Michigan’s original forest cover was dominated by pines, much of which was cut in the early
1900’s. The majority of red pines are of plantation origin planted by the Civilian Conservation
Corps in the 1930’s and intensive planting programs in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Most red pines
are between 40-60 years old, which corresponds to the planting periods. Almost 80 percent of
red pine harvests are due to thinning which occurs every 20-30 years depending on site quality
and stand condition, rather than stand regeneration harvests. Final (or regeneration) harvests
usually occur at age 60-90 years old.
Due to its relatively high strength and straightness, red pine is harvested for many structural uses
including poles, posts, cabin logs, construction products, house siding, framing, and furniture40.
It is also useful as pulp for making paper. Data from Pedersen et al. point to a solid market for
red pine. The financial returns begin to decline with very large trees, and appear to be highest for
trees measuring 14-16 inches in diameter41. The high volume of red pine harvests should
continue for the next few decades (30+ years) at levels close to 14,000 acres but then begin to
level off as the planted trees of the 1930-50’s are harvested.
Jack Pine
There are about 335,000 acres of jack pine in Michigan’s state forests42. Jack pines stands can
be of planted or natural origin, with natural stands commonly found with other deciduous species
or as a minor component of aspen stands. Once established, jack pines are usually not managed
until the final harvest. Jack pine budworm, a native caterpillar than feeds on jack pine needles, is
a serious threat to older age stands of jack pine, but typically causes less damage to younger
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 17
trees. The high mortality resulting from this pest in older stands has driven the state to harvest
high levels for older jack pine43. Jack pine stands also are important for several plants and
animals of conservation concern such as the Kirtland’s warbler. Management considerations for
jack pine must balance commercial forest demands and higher value fiber outputs versus
managing shorter rotations for Kirtland’s warbler habitat needs.
Jack pine is an important timber species and produces pulpwood, lumber for construction,
telephone poles, fence posts, mine timbers and railroad ties as well as Christmas trees44. Due to
its multiple uses, jack pine harvest has remained high and steady. Since recent levels of harvest
cannot be maintained due to the distribution of age classes, jack pine harvests are expected to
decline in the coming years45. There are still some over-mature stands (70+ age range) that can
be harvested for a few more years, but the primary age classes for harvesting in the next 3+
decades have less than 30,000 acres of jack pines each. Planted Kirtland warblers’ jack pine
stands will reach their planned harvest age of 40 in about 10 to 20 years, but harvest volumes and
value are difficult to predict due to the high density of trees per acre.
Oak
About 210,000 acres of oaks make up Michigan’s state forests46. Oak forests contain several
species of oak (red, white, black and/or northern pin) as well as hickory, white pine, red pine,
jack pine, or aspen species. Historically, oak was a minor tree species in many forest
communities but intensive logging associated with European settlement expanded the occurrence
of oak forest types to its present-day dominance. Many oak stands in Michigan are heavily
skewed toward the older age-classes; about 65 percent of state-owned oak stands are between 70100 years old, with 30 percent concentrated in the 80-90 year old age class. Oak seedling
regeneration can be difficult since it is often outcompeted by more shade-tolerant species, which
could affect future timber harvests. According to Pedersen et al.’s unpublished 2011 timber
harvest trends report, there are more acres of young oak trees than older oaks. Looking at 10-year
intervals of age, the state forests currently hold more acres of oak trees that are less than 10 years
old than any in other 10-year interval (i.e., 10-19, 20-29, etc.) in the state47. Oak also is
important as habitat for many wildlife species, particularly black bear, elk, white-tailed deer,
wild turkey, and ruffed grouse.
Oak wood is heavy, hard, strong, and durable and an important source for furniture, veneer,
paneling, and flooring48. Timber predictions regarding future oak harvests are difficult to
forecast because management of these stands are heavily influence by wildlife and regeneration
concerns. oak harvests are likely to decline as the number49.
White Pine
Michigan’s state forests include about 81,000 acres of white pine50. White pine forest type is
the sixth-highest selling timber in Michigan, but only 660-1,800 acres have been sold annually
within the last decade compared to 4,900-7,300 acres of oak (the fifth-highest selling forest cover
type)51.
White pine is a classic case of how the timber industry can shape Michigan’s forests. In the 19th
century, white pine was a major component of Michigan’s forests, but as a result of construction
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 18
demand and extensive harvesting, white pine forests were greatly reduced. Today, white pine is
a minor component in the forest understory of other cover types but is emerging into the
overstory in many oak forest types, gradually becoming more dominant again. Generally, white
pine is a major component of late successional forests.
White pine wood is lightweight, very strong, and valuable softwood because it has few knots or
scars from lower branches. It also is very durable, holding its shape without warping, swelling,
shrinking, or splitting. White pine is commonly used for paneling, floors, furniture, and other
construction52.
U.P. forestland. Photo: Brad Garmon
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 19
PART 2: TRENDS AND DRIVERS OF
PUBLIC FOREST POLICY: DEMAND,
MARKETS AND TIMBER PRODUCTS
Timber Demand
In Michigan, the most important products that timber-based companies provide are lumber,
furniture, wood-based transportation products, and paper53. Any changes in demand from the
lumber and wood product industries influence the sale of timber. When industry and consumer
demand rises, demand for timber also increases, improving pricing conditions as well as
employment prospects.
Thus, in order to determine a reasonable level of timber harvests in Michigan, we also need to
understand the demand for timber and wood products.
U.S. demand for timber products is closely tied to the performance of the housing market,
consumer and business preferences for furniture and paper-based products, growth of the
economy, and trends in international trade54,55,56,57,58. For example, the price of sawmilled
lumber has been volatile in recent years due to fluctuations in the housing market59. During the
recession, many of these factors caused downstream industries that use timber products to
decline, resulting in timber revenue declines. The Producer Price Index, calculated by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, measures average price changes received by U.S. producers for their
products (such as lumber, paper, etc.) and captures price movements which are often used as
indicators of economic growth for particular goods60.
The next four sections will examine the demand for timber through the housing market, wood
furniture market, wood transportation market, and paper market. We also will address whether
the recession of the last five to six years created a market depression and less demand for timber,
as well as the outlook for the timber market in the future.
Lumber and the Housing Market
Seventy-five percent of the timber companies in Michigan provide lumber. Demand for
sawmills and wood manufacturing is highly dependent upon the level of activity in the
residential construction sector and housing market fluctuations61. About 45 percent of all lumber
is used in home building. Remodeling activities also are major drivers of lumber demand, since
remodeling projects require lumber for construction and flooring manufacturing. In general, new
home construction is dependent upon consumer demand and the number and cost of houses
available for sale.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 20
According to IBISWorld Industry Reports62, earlier in the past decade, demand for residential
construction escalated due to low interest rates and favorable lending criteria. But in 2006,
demand for newly constructed houses began to fade as many homeowners defaulted on their
loans and there was an oversupply of houses. New home construction dropped about 35 percent
in both 2008 and 2009, resulting in some of the worst declines since the 1930s. As the housing
market collapse spread to other financial markets, tighter lending standards and layoffs in other
sectors occurred, leaving homeowners with less income and incentive to pursue remodeling and
home improvement projects. As a result, investment in home improvement projects fell. Since
lumber and sawmill production is dependent on the construction sector, the decline in the
number of new home constructions and renovations resulted in reduced lumber prices, lower
sales volumes, and reduced revenue during the recession (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Lumber Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
40,000
35,000
$ (in millions)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
Year
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
0
Source: IBISWorld Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
New home sales are increasing again, with the sales of new homes at a seasonally adjusted
annual rate of 411,000 (for 2013) according to IBISWorld Reports63; however, compared with
the long-term (1963-2010) “normal” rate of 678,000 sales per year, they are still quite low. Low
housing prices and mortgage rates, along with rising rental prices, are leading to greater demand
for new home construction. One sign of a strengthening housing market is that the inventory of
new homes for sale is very low and the inventory of existing homes for sale has dropped to a
level not seen since 2001.
However, to increase the need for new home construction and consequently increase the need for
more lumber, the inventory of existing and new homes for sale needs to be reduced. The large
numbers of foreclosed homes are likely to constrain new home growth for a few more years until
the excess supply of existing homes are more fully absorbed.
Along with improved housing sales, investment in remodeling activity is projected to grow
during the next few years. Remodeling activity will be aided by increasing per capita income and
rising home prices, which will motivate consumers to invest more in their homes.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 21
Other factors that may affect the growth of the lumber industry are competition from imports and
substitute building materials. When imports are more competitively priced relative to domestic
timber supply, demand and prices for U.S. timber usually fall. Historically, Canada has been a
significant source of lumber for the U.S. market, particularly for the new home construction
market, supplying an estimated 35 percent of the lumber in the U.S.64. However, the outbreak of
the mountain pine beetle in British Columbia has significantly reduced Canada’s timber supply.
Consequently, Canadian timber is expected to increase in price and reduce the U.S.’s main
competitor for lumber sales, thus resulting in higher revenue for U.S. lumber. The rising use of
substitute building materials (such as recycling plastic lumber) also has reduced wood usage in
prefabricated buildings, flooring and kitchens. This trend is mainly motivated by environmental
concerns and price-based competition and may become a bigger threat to lumber demand in the
future.
Furniture Market
In Michigan, 22 percent of timber companies produce wood furniture65. Like lumber, the
household furniture industry also is dependent upon the housing market. Since home furniture is
often purchased when households move, a rise in home sales corresponds to increasing demand
for household furniture. On the other hand, the office furniture industry relies on corporate profit
and employment. As businesses earn more profit, more workers are hired, more office space is
leased, and the demand for office furniture rises.
According to IBISWorld Reports, the household furniture market also is highly responsive to
changes in household disposable income66; during periods of low disposable income, consumers
generally delay purchases of new furniture or opt to repair existing furniture. So as home sales
stopped and disposable income declined in 2007, household furniture demands declined. From
2007 to 2012, household furniture revenue decreased at a rate of 6 percent per year (to $23.1
billion) (Figure 7).
Office furniture demand also fell during the recession as the number of businesses declined,
creating a surplus of used office furniture in the market. As a result, businesses with tight
budgets used secondhand furniture rather than buying new. The growing popularity of
secondhand office furniture reduced demand for newly manufactured office furniture, causing
revenue to dive by 26 percent in 2009. 67
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 22
Figure 7. Household and Office Furniture Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
40,000
35,000
$ (in millions)
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Home Furniture
Year
Office Furniture
Sources: ISISWorld Industry Report 33712-Household furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
and Report 33721-Office furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
Household wood furniture revenue is expected to increase in the future due to rises in disposable
income, consumer confidence, and new and existing home sales according to IBISWorld
Reports68. Household furniture revenue is predicted to rise 1 percent in 2013 (to $23.3 billion).
Office furniture revenue also is expected to increase with increases in the number of businesses
and corporate profits and declines in the unemployment rate69. Office furniture revenue is
predicted to grow 4 percent in 2013 (to $21.5 billion).
However, the overall industry is not expected to experience growth over the long run and will
continue to face challenges over coming years. Competition with imports will ultimately impede
long-term growth prospects, causing the industry to continue to decline. An increase in furniture
manufacturing in countries like China and Vietnam has led to greater furniture competition70.
Because these countries have lower labor and overhead costs, they can offer lower prices on
comparable products, diminishing domestic demand for U.S.-made products. While their quality
is often lower, these furnishings have become increasingly popular because of their lower prices
and extensive varieties, thus reducing U.S. wood furniture revenue. Additionally, with greater
lumber demand in the housing market, wood prices will increase, thus driving up the cost of
producing furniture and reducing revenue.
Wood-based Transportation Market
Wood-based transportation products are supplied by approximately 22 percent of timber
companies in Michigan71. Wood product transportation includes wood pallets, wood boxes,
wood skids, and other wood containers used to store and transport goods produced by
automotive and aircraft manufacturers, fruit and vegetable producers, wholesalers and retailers.
In the U.S., about 90-95 percent of pallets are made of wood72.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 23
According to IBISWorld Reports73, the demand for wood transportation products is dependent
upon manufacturing activity in the U.S. When demand for manufactured products and food
production rises, sales of wood transportation products also rises. When manufacturing activity is
slow, the demand for these wood products decreases. In particular, motor vehicle and aircraft
manufacturing is a significant determinant of wood transportation product demand. For
example, during the recession, automobile manufacturing sales declined by 37 percent and
aircraft manufacturing fell 3.4 percent in 2009. As a result, demand for wood-based
transportation products decreased. Wood transportation product demand also is influenced by
sawmill prices. Nearly 40 percent of all hardwood produced is used for making containers and
pallets.
Demand for wood transportation products declined during the recession according to IBISWorld
Reports74. In 2007, profit margins averaged 4 percent of revenue, but in 2012, it was estimated
at 3 percent (Figure 8). In the next few years, revenue is expected to increase at a rate of 3
percent per year (to $7.5 billion). The wood transportation industry will continue to recover due
to rising manufacturing activity in the U.S.
Figure 8. Wood-based Transportation Manufacturing Revenue from 2003 to 2013
9,000
8,000
$ (millions)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
0
Year
Source: ISISWorld Industry Report 32192-Wood Pallets & Skids Production in the U.S.
Nevertheless, the industry will face many challenges over the next few years. Rising
manufacturing activity in countries like China, Brazil, Mexico, India and Indonesia will continue
to displace domestic wood transportation products. Likewise, as the residential construction
sector recovers, wood transportation products will increasingly compete for timber, thus
increasing costs. The industry also will contend with rising competition from substitute
materials. Common substitutes for wood in pallets and containers include plastic, metal,
fiberglass, and corrugated or solid fiberboard. Corrugated and plastic pallets are “safer” ways to
ship, because they do not include the common problems associated with wood pallets (such as
pest outbreaks, nails and splinters) and are lightweight.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 24
Currently, wood pallets are cheaper than both corrugated and plastic pallets ($40 or $15.75,
respectively, vs. $8 for wood). However, with more regulations placed on wood-based
packaging materials such as heat-treating and fumigation for pest outbreaks and concerns about
bacteria and chemicals contaminating its food-based contents, the cost of wood pallets may
surpass its competitors and decrease production. Finally, demand for recycled pallets will likely
continue to increase because of environmental concerns, which will reduce demand for newly
manufactured pallets, and in turn, decrease timber demand.
Paper Market
Paper products are supplied by about 10 percent of Michigan’s timber companies75. In the last
few years, the paper industry has been challenged by multiple factors, resulting in decreased
revenue (Figure 9). Rising input prices, such as price of chemicals and wood pulp, have grown
at a faster rate than the price of paper, such that during the recession wood pulp prices grew at an
average annual rate of 3 percent while paper prices increased only 1 percent.76.
Once the world’s largest producer of paper, the U.S. was overtaken by China in 200877. Now
U.S. producers face strong competition from more cost-effective Chinese producers. For
example, U.S. paper production accounted for only 19 percent of global production in 2011,
decreasing from 27 percent in 2000, while Chinese production increased from about 11 percent
in 2000 to 25 percent in 2011.
Figure 9. Paper Manufacturing Revenue from 2004 to 2013
70,000
$ (in millions)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
Year
Source: ISISWorld Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
Over the next few years, revenue for the paper industry is expected to continue declining and
will continue to face challenges. Although demand for paper products may recover in the short
term as the economy recovers, paper demand is expected to remain below pre-recession levels
according to IBISWorld Reports78. Growing consumer preference for electronic-based
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 25
communication and document archival will continue to reduce paper consumption and the
industry’s revenue (Figure 10). Newspaper sales also have declined due to years of competition
from the Internet.
Figure 10. Demand for Paper Product Manufacturing Linked to Online Services
Source: ISISWorld Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
Furthermore, due to environmental concerns, paper recycling also has become more popular in
the marketplace; in 2011, approximately 57 percent of all printing paper consumed in the U.S.
was recycled79. Although this does not necessarily affect the paper industry itself, it does have
significant implications for pulpwood demand and timber harvests. As the demand for paper
products decline, demand for wood chips from pulp manufacturers also will decrease, reducing
the demand for pulpwood.
Future of the timber market: Is there a demand for more timber?
The recession influenced many of the industries downstream from the timber industry, which in
turn affected the demand for timber products. However, many industries are expected to recover
following the recession. The housing market is expected to increase sales which will increase
lumber demand, and renewed manufacturing activity will improve palletwood demands from the
wood-based transportation industry.
Another factor that will probably aid the U.S. timber product industry in the coming years is
mountain beetle outbreaks in Canada. The reduction in Canada’s timber supply by the mountain
pine beetle will create a greater demand for domestic timber and less competition from the U.S.’s
most significant competitor (typically accounting for about 90 percent of timber imports).
Yet some industries may continue declining in the future. Rising import competition in the
furniture market will decrease some lumber demand, and environmental awareness and
electronic communication will decrease pulpwood demand. Finally, other wood product
industries may become more important in the next few years. Although the demand for
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 26
pulpwood may decreease for papeer manufactuuring, pulpw
wood also is used
u
in biofuuel productioon.
With the recent push
h for alternatiive and renewable fuels through poliicy-based inncentive
programss, timber-bassed biofuels may continuue to drive some level off pulpwood demand.
Michiigan Tim
mber Em
mploym
ment
In 2010, Michigan raanked eighthh in state poppulation withh 9.8 millionn people, a 0.6 percent
decrease from the 20
000 U.S. census data80. Just
J under haalf of Michiggan’s populaation (4.3 miillion
people) is employed. Due to the range of reccreational acctivities offerred by state forests, overr
4,000 Miichigan jobs (about 14 percent of tottal jobs) are dependent on
o travel/tourrism81. In 20004,
travelers in Michigan
n spent abouut $17.5 billioon, with 72 percent
p
of trravel spent on
o leisure/touurism
82
purposes focused on outdoor recrreation .
The timbber industry itself
i
provides 0.7 percennt of all empployment in Michigan (~
~22,500
833
employeees), which iss similar to the national percentage
p
. Jobs pertaaining to woood product
manufactturing emplo
oy approxim
mately 13,0000 people, thee growing annd harvestingg of trees 1,6600
people, and
a sawmill and paper mills
m 8,000 peeople84 (Figuure 11).
Figure 11
1. Timber Industry-Relatted Jobs in Michigan
M
Source: U.S.
U Departmen
nt of Commercce 2012 data and Headwaterrs Economics toolkit
t
Accordinng to the Micchigan DNR
R, these jobs are divided among 2,226 companiess in Michigaan.
One quarrter is located in the Uppper Peninsulaa, another quuarter in the northern Loower Peninsuula,
and the rest in the sou
uthern Loweer Peninsula as of Marchh 201385.
Most tim
mber-based co
ompanies prrovide multipple productss or services.. Seventy-fivve percent off all
timber coompanies in Michigan foocus on loggging lumber wood,
w
22 peercent producce furniture and
fixtures or
o wood-based transportation produccts such as pallets
p
or conntainers for transporting
t
Managing Michigan’s State-owne
ed Forests | 27
goods, 10 percent supply paper and allied products, 2 percent provide forest services or
manufacturing, and 1 percent offer construction, boats and trailers, or durable goods/wholesale
trade86. Transportation services, retail furniture stores, lumber and building material dealers, and
forest nursery products and services are provided by less than 1 percent of timber companies in
Michigan.
Since 1998, the number of timber industry jobs in Michigan has decreased by about 40 percent
(Figure 12) and the number of proprietors by 18 percent (Figure 13)87. This decline in Michigan
jobs mirror nationwide timber job declines, which also have decreased by almost 40 percent in
the last decade (Figure 12)88.
Figure 12. Comparison of Michigan and National Average Percent Decrease in Timber Jobs
from 1998 to 2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
Percent difference from 1998 baseline
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Year
Michigan
U.S.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2012 data and Headwaters Economics toolkit
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 28
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1998
Total number of proprietors
Figure 13. Total Number of Timber Proprietors in Michigan from 1998 to 2010
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2012 data and Headwaters Economics toolkit
In Michigan, this decrease resulted in a 41.5 percent loss of wood products manufacturing jobs, a
43.4 percent loss in sawmill and paper mill jobs, and a 35.1 percent loss of growing and
harvesting employment, for a total of approximately 24,600 Michigan jobs lost between1998 to
2010 (Figure 14A)89. Michigan timber employment losses have mirrored national trends.
Nationally, the loss was 36 percent for wood products manufacturing jobs, 45.5 percent in
sawmill and paper mill jobs, and 29.6 percent in growing and harvesting employment (Figure
14B)90.
Figures 14A & 14B. Decrease in Timber Sector Jobs between 1998 and 2010
25,000
(A) Michigan Jobs in Timber Sectors
(B) U.S. Jobs in Timber Sectors
700,000
20,000
600,000
500,000
15,000
400,000
10,000
300,000
5,000
200,000
100,000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Jobs
800,000
Year
Growing & Harvesting
Sawmills & Paper Mills
Wood Products Manufacturing
Year
Growing & Harvesting
Sawmills & Paper Mills
Wood Products Manufacturing
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2012 data and Headwaters Economics toolkit
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 29
States with comparable amounts of total timberland (which includes about 17,000 to 19,000
acres of total timberland in state, national, and private ownerships; Table 4) employ analogous or
fewer people than Michigan. The exceptions are Montana, which employs fewer people but has a
higher percentage due to an overall lower population, and North Carolina which employs 72
percent more people. All those states also have experienced timber industry job losses in the last
15 years (Figure 15)91.
Table 4. Top Ten States by the Amount (in acres) of Total Timberland
Rank (by Total Timberland)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Federal State‐owned Total State
Timberland Timberland Timberland (in acres)
(in acres)
(in acres)
Georgia
24,351,795
425,681
668,890
Oregon
24,116,566
879,653
11,583,859
Alabama
22,800,385
315,572
708,671
Montana
19,628,391
781,600
12,189,945
Mississippi
19,494,552
221,880
1,324,824
Michigan
19,462,573
4,049,834
2,544,173
Arkansas
18,543,322
441,812
2,375,709
Washington
18,080,795
2,325,897
5,928,064
North Carolina 18,077,329
655,961
1,179,840
Maine
17,191,846
642,547
51,449
Number of Timber Jobs
35,706
33,183
30,988
3,439
16,361
22,491
22,251
26,437
38,773
13,675
Timber Job Percentage of Total Jobs (%)
1.08
2.46
1.98
1.02
1.85
0.68
2.30
1.14
1.20
2.84
Source: USDA Forest Service FIA database
Figure 15. Comparing the Percent Decrease in Timber Jobs between States with 17,000 –
19,000 Acres of Timberland
120
80
60
40
20
Michigan
U.S.
Mississippi
Montana
Arkansas
Washington
North Carolina
Maine
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Year
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0
1998
Percent difference from
1998 baseline
100
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2012 data and Headwaters Economics toolkit
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 30
Michigan Timber Sales, Harvests, and Revenue
Over the last 65 years, Michigan state forest timber sales have increased (Figure 16). The
amount of timber sold usually is a good indicator of the amount of timber that entered the
market. Although there is variability among the years, the number of acres sold increased by
about 10,000 per decade, indicating a higher demand for timber over time (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Acreage of State Forest Timber Sales from 1940 to 2010
MI State Forest Acres Sold
70,000
60,000
Acres
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
Source: Unpublished DNR inventory data and Unpublished
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report
Harvested values also can be either in acres or a standardized volume measurement and reflects
the total cut during the year based on sale completion reports. Harvested timber volumes also
have generally doubled over the past 30 years from about 450,000 to 900,000 cords (Figure 17).
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 31
Figure 17. Volume of State Forest Timber Sales in Cords from 1940 to 2010
MI State Forest Volume Sold (cords)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
Cords
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year
Source: Unpublished DNR inventory data and Unpublished
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report
However, state forests’ trends toward higher aspen and red pine harvest (which is comprised of
more cords harvested per acre than average) have increased recent timber harvests, which are not
reflected in the acreage data (Figure 15). On occasion the amount of timber sold does not
correspond to the amount of timber harvested; the lag may be the product of timber harvesters
waiting for the market to improve (i.e., waiting for a better price).
How Much Timber has Michigan Sold and Harvested in the Last Decade?
Over the last 10 years, harvested timber volumes have fluctuated between about 40,000 to
60,000 acres per year and about 600,000 to 900,000 cords per year (ten year average of 770,000
per year) (Figure 18). In general, the number of acres and cords sold increased in the last decade
(Figures 18, 19).
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 32
Figure 18. State Forest Timber Sales and Harvests in Acres from 2002 to 2012
65,000
60,000
Acres
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
30,000
Fiscal Year
Sold Sales
Harvested
Sold Trendline
Harvested Trendline
Source: Unpublished Michigan DNR inventory data.
Although the amount of acres harvested stayed fairly consistent the last decade, the total
harvested in cords increased which points to more aspen and red pine contributions (Figures 18,
19). However in the last two years, there appears to be a downward trend in harvested acres and
cords even though the sales increased. This signifies that although the timber was sold, it has not
been harvested yet, potentially due to decreases in timber demand.
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
950,000
900,000
850,000
800,000
750,000
700,000
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
2002
Cords
Figure 19. State Forest Timber Sales and Harvest in Cords from 2002 to 2012
Fiscal Year
Sold Sales
Harvested
Sold Trendline
Harvested Trendline
Source: Unpublished Michigan DNR inventory data.
Good national comparisons to Michigan’s state forests are Michigan’s three national forests:
Hiawatha, Huron-Manistee, and Ottawa. With similar forest types as those on state forest lands,
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 33
these three national forests provide a good representation of harvests on the federal forest scene
since the recession.
Figure 20.
Michigan's Three National Forests' Approximate Sawtimber and Pulpwood Volumes Sold from
2008 to 2012
350000
300000
Cords
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2008
Hiawatha
Total
2009
2010
Fiscal Year
Huron‐Manistee
Total Trend 2011
2012
Ottawa
(Calculated from 1mbf = 2 cords) Source: USFS Unpublished data.
In the last five years, total sawtimber and pulpwood volumes sold from Michigan’s national
forests have increased very slightly(Figure 20). These volumes are far below the total sold in
Michigan’s state forests (about 66 percent less volume sold) from 2008 to 2012 (Figure 19), but
Michigan’s national forests also only occupy approximately 60 percent of the timberland that
state-owned forests occupy.
Some may argue that low levels of timber harvested on national forests may be due to
differences in forest management policies, in which timber production has not been a major
federal priority. Thus, private ownership might be a better comparison. According to FIA data92,
undifferentiated private ownership (including both commercial and family landowners) removed
approximately 75 percent more timber per year from 2000 to 200993.
But we must keep in mind that private landowners also hold 70 percent more timberland in
Michigan than state forests, so it would make sense that more land would yield greater harvests.
In addition, timber availability is not simply a matter of removals. The FIA forest inventory
statistics traditionally use the term “removals” rather than “harvests,” but some tree removals
may not actually be used for wood products. Nevertheless, the FIA data would suggest that
Michigan state forests are harvesting at similar per acreage levels as private landownership.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 34
But What Does This Mean for the Revenue Brought into the State?
Michigan state forests have earned about $30-40 million in revenue in the last 10 years from
timber harvested and sold (Figure 21). Twenty years ago, pulpwood made up about 70 percent
and sawlogs the other 30 percent of revenue, but with declines in aspen pulpwood and increases
in hardwood sales, these numbers have been converging over the past 15 years (Figure 22). In
the last decade, sawlogs have accounted for approximately 40-50 percent of the revenue, while
pulpwood made up the other 50-60 percent (Figure 22).
Figure 21. Michigan DNR State Forest Timber Revenue from 2002 to 2012
Sale Values (in millions)
$40 $30 $20 $10 2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
$0 Fiscal Year
Source: Unpublished Michigan DNR inventory data
Figure 22. DNR State Forest Pulpwood and Sawlog Revenue from 1986 to 2010 in percent
Product Percent of Total SF Timber Sale Value FY 1986-2011
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Sawlogs
20%
Pulpwood
10%
0%
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
Fiscal Year
Source: Unpublished DNR timber sale data and
Unpublished 2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 35
Compared to Michigan’s national forests in the last five years, state forests have earned about 65
percent more revenue per year (Figures 21, 23), which corresponds to the percentage of higher
harvests on state forests. Both state and national forests have seen revenue increases during the
recession.Similar to state forests, revenue from sawlogs from national forests was between 45-60
percent of the total while pulpwood revenue made up the other 45-60 percent (Figure 24), yet
sawlog revenue made up a slightly larger portion of total revenue for the three national forests
than state forests.
Figure 23. Michigan's Three National Forests' Revenue from Sawlog and Pulpwood Sales from
2008 to 2012
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fiscal Year
Hiawatha
Total
Huron‐Manistee
Total Trend Ottawa
Source: USFS Unpublished data
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 36
Figure 24. Percent Sawlog and Pulpwood Revenue from Michigan’s Three National Forests
from 2008 to 2012
70
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2008
2009
Total sawlogs
2010
2011
2012
Total pulpwood
Source: USFS Unpublished data
Comparison of Michigan State Forests to Other Lake States
Minnesota’s state forests are similar to Michigan’s state forests in size, forest type, and climate.
Wisconsin’s state forests also are similar to Michigan state forests in terms of forest type and
climate, but their forests are much smaller (1.1 million acres of timberland).
The Minnesota DNR sold about 700,000 to 900,000 cords of timber per year (with one spike in
2008), which is comparable to Michigan’s timber sales (Figure 25), and generates about $20
million in revenue94. Over the same period, the Michigan DNR sold about 600,000 to 900,000
cords of timber per year, with revenues of $30-40 million per year (Figures 19, 21).
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 37
Figure 25. Comparison of Timber Volumes Sold between Michigan and Minnesota from 2001
to 2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Cord
1200000
1100000
1000000
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
Year
Minnesota
Michigan
Source: SCS Re-certification of Minnesota DNR Lands 2010 and Unpublished Michigan DNR inventory data
Although Michigan state forests’ timber sales cannot be directly compared to Wisconsin’s state
forests due its smaller acreage, trends in product volumes and values still can be made.
Compared to Minnesota and Wisconsin, Michigan sawlog volume makes up a greater percentage
(almost 10 percent compared to 5 percent in Minnesota and Wisconsin) of Michigan’s harvests
and accounts for approximately 45 percent of the timber revenue (compared to 10 percent of the
revenue in Minnesota and Wisconsin)95. The reason behind this difference is that Michigan
tends to have more northern hardwood and red pine forest types than Minnesota and Wisconsin,
which also is the main reason why Michigan state forests earn almost twice as much revenue as
Minnesota even though both states have similar timberland acreage.
Is This Amount of Timber Sold and Harvested Sustainable for the Future?
Pederson et al make a convincing case that of the approximately 4 million acres of Michigan
timberland, less than 2.5 million acres may be viewed as a “working forest” in terms of timber
management96. Three categories of state forest acres are generally unavailable for timber
harvests and should not be considered timberland: non-forested lands, severely restricted areas,
and lowland forests.
•
•
Non-forested state forest acres account for about 650,000 acres and include areas such as
rock, water, marsh, grass, and brush lands. They are important to other management
areas such as wildlife habitat and recreation, but they are not timberland. Subtracting
650,000 acres from 4 million acres reduces the amount of Michigan timberland to
approximately 3.35 million acres.
Another 365,000 acres of forested land are severely restricted or constrained and cannot
be managed as timberland. These areas include military lease lands (such as Camp
Grayling’s 100,000 acres), roads, motorized trails, utility rights of way, oil and gas wells,
sand and gravel mining pits, campgrounds, and other special designations areas such as
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 38
•
riparian areas and water access sites. Although individually the amount of land is
minuscule, collectively they reduce timberland acres by about 10 percent. Subtracting
365,000 acres from 3.35 million acres reduces the amount of Michigan timberland to
about 2.9 million acres.
The remaining acres of state forests are largely comprised of tax reverted lands, which
essentially means that the lands were unproductive and unwanted. Approximately
850,000 acres of the remaining state forests lands contain lowland forested acres, where
there is limited harvest activity because of constraints such as operability problems
(rutting and sedimentation), wildlife habitat concerns, tree regeneration problems, and
lower timber demand due to the types of trees on these lands. Thus, a majority of
lowland forested acres (about 650,000 acres) are not managed for timber due to these
constraints. So, subtracting 650,000 acres from 2.9 million acres equals the 2.3 million
of “working forest” acres of timberland in Michigan that can be managed for timber.
A common and accepted way of estimating sustainable timber yield is to compare annual
harvests and annual growth. This process involves describing acres by forest type and
multiplying them by their growth rates. The most current growth per acres per year estimate for
state-owned forests (according to the current FIA 2009 data) in the northern two-thirds of
Michigan is approximately 27.15 ft3/acre/year, while net growth rate on the “working forest” is
estimated to be slightly higher at about 29 ft3/acre/year (or about 0.36 cords/acre/year) to account
for deducting the slower growing forest types that were deducted from the “working forest”
acreage97. (Note, growth rates on privately-owned forest lands are on average about 20 percent
higher.)
If the less than 2.5 million “working forest” acres are multiplied by the net growth rate of 0.36
cords/acre/year, the estimated current maximum sustainable timber harvest level is about
840,000 cords per year in Michigan. This estimate is near to the ten year period average of
770,000 cords per year from 2002 to 2012 (Figure 19), indicating that current levels of state
forest timber harvests are very close to the maximum sustainable harvest volume.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 39
CONCLUSIONS
The evolution of our state forest management continues today. New tensions are arising as more
demands are placed on the same set of forests: sustainability, recreation, aesthetics and
community “sense of place” are added to traditional demands for stumpage and timber products.
These demands will continue to create controversy and inspire debate about proper harvest levels
on state forest lands and challenge our processes for maintaining sustainable forest certification
and supporting the forest products industry. As policymakers and stakeholders contemplate tools
and strategies to support and improve the forest-related economy in Michigan, our research
suggests the following issues deserve more careful consideration:
•
Timber harvests and sales from state forest lands have increased over the last halfcentury, even during the recent recession, and are at or nearing maximum sustainable
harvest levels. Current state forest harvest rates are comparable to harvest rates on private
land, and much higher than harvest rates in Michigan’s national forests.
•
Michigan state forests earn almost twice as much revenue as Minnesota state forests on a
similar-sized land base. This is because in Michigan we have more northern hardwood
and red pine sawlog volume and they make up a greater percentage of harvests and help
account for approximately 45 percent of the timber revenue (compared to 10 percent
revenue in Minnesota and Wisconsin).
•
Studies which cite high growth-over-harvest rates do not accurately account for
numerous factors which limit harvestable timber. Of the approximately 4 million acres of
Michigan timberland, less than 2.5 million acres may realistically be viewed as a
“working forest” in terms of timber management because much of these lands are either
not forest at all (marsh, grass, and brush, for example), are not accessible (military lease
lands, roads, campgrounds), or are lowland forested acres that are limited by physical
issues or offer only lower market-demand trees.
•
Michigan’s state forests are influenced and impacted by factors like the U.S. housing
market crash, the global recession and international trade, and even trends in technology
and tastes for consumer goods. Market forces—including the recession, housing slump
and competition from overseas—are larger drivers of the character and volume of
Michigan’s timber harvests than either policy or regulatory activities.
•
Overall, the Michigan forest products industry is shrinking, but our numbers largely
mirror nationwide timber job declines. These changes are not unlike other globally
influenced industries, with large-scale corporate consolidations and contractions,
adoption of cost-cutting strategies and market responses occurring relatively quickly and
on a large scale.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 40
In the face of such change, there remains one point of common agreement: after a century of
careful reforestation, investment and stewardship, Michigan is blessed with abundant forest
resources. Michigan deserves a broad-based forest resource economy that provides timber for
human use while diversifying the range of services and good the forest provides us. Our public
lands will—if effectively managed, restored, enhanced and promoted—continue to be key tools
in rebuilding our state’s economic vibrancy.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 41
ENDNOTE REFERENCES
1
“List of U.S. States and Territories by area.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 15
March 2013. Wikimedia Foundation. Accessed March 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area
2“
DNR Managed Lands.” Michigan DNR. Updated 8 October 2012. Accessed March 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-31154-285534--,00.html
3
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the stewardship of Michigan's natural
resources and for the provision of outdoor recreational opportunities.” Michigan DNR. Accessed
March 2013. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366-30397--,00.html
4
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. “Data and Tools: Forest
Inventory Data Online (FIDO).” Updated 26 February 2013. Forestry Inventory and Analysis
National Program. Accessed March 2013. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/
5
“List of Michigan State Forests” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 20 March 2013.
Wikimedia Foundation. Accessed March 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michigan_state_forests
6
Nelson, M.D., and J. Vissage. 2005. Mapping Forest Inventory and Analysis Forest Land Use:
Timberland, Reserved Forest Land, and Other Forest Land. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium.
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo077/gtr_wo077_185.pdf
7
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. “Data and Tools: Forest
Inventory Data Online (FIDO).” Updated 26 February 2013. Forestry Inventory and Analysis
National Program. Accessed March 2013. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/
8
Nelson, M.D., and J. Vissage. 2005.
9
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Database.
10 “
DNR Managed Lands.” Michigan DNR and Michigan SCORP Team. 2008-12 Michigan
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. October 1, 2007. Department of Natural
Resources.
11
Michigan SCORP Team. 2008-12 Michigan State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
12
“The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the stewardship of Michigan's natural
resources and for the provision of outdoor recreational opportunities.” Michigan DNR. Accessed
March 2013. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366-30397--,00.html
13
Michigan SCORP Team. 2008-12 Michigan State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
14
“Economic Impact: Natural Resources Boost Michigan’s Economy.” Michigan DNR.
Accessed March 2013. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366-121641--,00.html
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 42
15
Michigan SCORP Team. 2008-12 Michigan State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
16
“List of U.S. States and Territories by area.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
17
“Economic Impact: Natural Resources Boost Michigan’s Economy.” Michigan DNR.
18
“Commercial Forest Program.” Michigan DNR. Accessed April 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366_34947-34016--,00.html
19
“Qualified Forest Property.” Michigan DNR. Accessed April 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505_34240-164332--,00.html
20
“Commercial Timber Sales.” Michigan DNR. Accessed April 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10368_22594---,00.html.
21
Mills, W.L. and J.C. Callahan. 1981. Financial maturity: a guide to when trees should be
harvested. Purdue Cooperative Extension Service, FNR-91.
22 “
Commercial Timber Sales.” Michigan DNR.
23
“Stumpage Price Reports.” Michigan DNR. Accessed March 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10368_22594-81536--,00.html
24 “
Product Standards and Cruising Manual.” 2010. Michigan DNR.
http://www.midnr.com/publications/pdfs/forestslandwater/TimberSalePilot/ReferenceDocs/IC40
57ProductStandardsandCruisingManual.pdf
25
“Understanding Timber as a Commodity.” South Carolina Forestry Commission. Accessed
March 2013. http://www.state.sc.us/forest/lecom.htm
26
Beckwith, J.R. 1997. Timber Sale Volumes, Weights, and Prices. University of Georgia
School of Forest Extension Publication.
http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/warnell/service/library/index.php3?docID=333
27
Michigan Forests Forever. “Michigan Forests Forever Teacher’s Guide: Forest Facts.”
Michigan State University Extension. Accessed March 2013. http://mff.dsisd.net/Facts.htm
28
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula. Accessed March 2013.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505_62551-284917--,00.html,
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505_62551-284918--,00.html,
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505_62551-284919--,00.html
29
Michigan DNR. Unpublished Inventory Data. 2010.
30
Michigan DNR. Unpublished Inventory Data. 2010.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 43
31
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
32
“Aspen.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 21 March 2013. Wikimedia
Foundation. Accessed March 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen.
33
“2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report: An Update on State Forest
Timber Management and Issues Influencing Future Levels of Prepared Timber Sales.” Prepared
by Dr. Larry Pedersen and David Price. Submitted to Chief Lynne Boyd, Forest Management
Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished; draft dated October 13,
2011; p. 31.
34
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 32.
35
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
36
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 33.
37
“Hardwood.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 21 March 2013. Wikimedia
Foundation. Accessed March 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwood
38
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 33.
39
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
40
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Plant Guide: Red Pine.
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_pire.pdf
41
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 28.
42
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
43
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 30.
44
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Plant Guide: Jack Pine.
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_piba2.pdf
45
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 30.
46
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
47
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 26.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 44
48
“Oak.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 10 April 2013. Wikimedia Foundation.
Accessed April 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak
49
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 27.
50
Michigan DNR. State Regional Forest Management Plans for the Western Upper Peninsula,
Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Northern Lower Peninsula.
51
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p.35.
52
“Pinus strobes.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Updated 22 March 2013. Wikimedia
Foundation. Accessed April 2013.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_strobus
53
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Product/Service Category.”
Michigan DNR. Updated March 2013. Accessed March 2013.
http://www.michigandnr.com/wood/graph.asp?ID=4
54
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S. Updated
January 2013. Accessed March 2013.
http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/default.aspx?entid=383
55
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33712-Household furniture manufacturing in the U.S. Updated
November 2012. Accessed March 2013.
http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/default.aspx?entid=862
56
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33721-Office furniture manufacturing in the U.S. Updated
December 2012. Accessed March 2013.
http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/default.aspx?entid=870
57
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32192-Wood Pallets & Skids Production in the U.S. Updated
January 2013. Accessed March 2013.
http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/default.aspx?entid=398
58
IBISWorld. Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S. Updated March 2013. Accessed
March 2013. http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/default.aspx?entid=406
59
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
60
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Databases & Tools: Series Reports WPU08 (Lumber and
Wood Products), WPU1212 (Wood Household Furniture), WPU1221 (Wood Office Furniture),
WPU0841 (Wood pallets and pallet containers), WPU0842 (Wood Boxes), and WPU09 (Pulp,
Paper and Allied Products)” Accessed March 2013. http://www.bls.gov/data/
61
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
62
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 45
63
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
64
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32111-Sawmills and Wood Production in the U.S.
65
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Product/Service Category.”
Michigan DNR.
66
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33712-Household furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
67
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33721-Office furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33712-Household furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
68
69
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33721-Office furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
70
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33712-Household furniture manufacturing in the U.S. and
IBISWorld. Industry Report 33721-Office furniture manufacturing in the U.S.
71
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Product/Service Category.”
Michigan DNR.
72
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32192-Wood Pallets & Skids Production in the U.S.
73
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32192-Wood Pallets & Skids Production in the U.S.
74
IBISWorld. Industry Report 32192-Wood Pallets & Skids Production in the U.S.
75
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Product/Service Category.”
Michigan DNR.
76
IBISWorld. Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
77
IBISWorld. Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
78
IBISWorld. Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
79
IBISWorld. Industry Report 322122-Paper Mills in the U.S.
80
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” 2013.
http://headwaterseconomics.org/ and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Census Bureau,
County Business Patterns, Washington D.C.
81
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012.
82
Michigan SCORP Team. 2008-12 Michigan State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
83
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012.
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 46
84
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012.
85
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Region.” Michigan DNR.
Updated March 2013. Accessed March 2013. http://www.michigandnr.com/wood/graph.asp
86
“Michigan Forest Products Industry: Number of Companies per Product/Service Category.”
Michigan DNR. Updated March 2013. Accessed March 2013.
http://www.michigandnr.com/wood/graph.asp?ID=4
87
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012.
88
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012.
89
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012
90
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012
91
Headwaters Economics. “Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit.” and U.S.
Department of Commerce. 2012
92
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. “Data and Tools: Forest
Inventory Data Online (FIDO).” Updated 26 February 2013. Forestry Inventory and Analysis
National Program. Accessed March 2013. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/
93
Potter-Witter, K., and GC Shivan. 2011. Michigan Timber Available to Harvest.
http://fbis.mtu.edu/caveats.pdf
94
Minnesota DNR. 2010. SCS Forest Management and Stump-to-forest gate chain-of-custody
certification evaluation report.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/certification/audit_reports/fsc/fsc_surveillanceauditreport_20
10.pdf.
95
Michigan DNR. Unpublished Inventory Data. 2010.
96
2011 Michigan State Forest Timber Harvest Trends Report, p. 3.
97
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. “Data and Tools: Forest
Inventory Data Online (FIDO).”
Managing Michigan’s State-owned Forests | 47