Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

x

1
5
i
i
:
2
aa ‘ Toes
y : = : ' ;
7 = i
: ‘|
i
‘ r
a ' .
5 an ‘
“7 f
a)
é A
% :
; i
' i
f
i
1
7
' :
: Pas s mn
i: ons - ‘ Pet
3 = tie
1 a |
- ’ J 0.
e : oi
- i ~ Ge
A 7 7

ale ts ae RPA Assessment of the Forest
wo Nira and Rangeland Situation
Forest Service in the United States, 1989

Forest ; oe
Resource > A DAVE. oes
: Report No. 26 WO, Pisin! EO aa ee Coes

Se REV. es REV. ee

eeonoee U ye

seein

Forest Service Regions
and Assessment Regions

Pe v Rocky Mountains

Pacific Northwest

IN OH

Pacific Southwest Region — + Eastern Region

S00Rg

Southern Region
Las \

United States
Department of

uy Agriculture

Forest Service
Washington, DC

FRR-26

October 1989

RPA Assessment of the Forest
and Rangeland Situation
in the United States, 1989

Foreword

The Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)
gives the Forest Service an
opportunity to assess the
future of the Nation’s natural
resources.

This 1989 Assessment is the
third done since 1974. Its
findings are straightforward
and not surprising when
viewed against the backdrop
of the past 5 decades. During
this time, the U.S. population
increased over 90 percent,
and the gross national
product more than tripled.
Although the economy was
affected by World War Il,
recession, and inflation, the
long-term trend was
continued growth. The U.S.
population and economy will

continue to grow in the future.

This in turn will increase
demands for renewable
natural resources, creating
investment opportunities on
both private and public lands.

A significant feature of the
renewable resource base in
the United States has been
its resilience to use and
responsiveness to
management. Today,
America’s renewable

resource base is meeting the
demands of over 100 million
more people than it supplied
just 5 decades ago. More
intensive use of the
renewable resource base in
the future will require
continued management for
multiple uses. But all
projections suggest that the
opportunitites for increased
productivity with balanced
attention to all resources will
continue to be available.

All of us would like to make
the quality of life in the United
States even better than it is
today. Our renewable
resources are the building
blocks for the quality of life in
America. We can maintain
and increase the productivity
and quality of the renewable
resource base.

This Assessment document
identifies opportunities but
does not choose among
them. It provides the factual
basis to formulate possible
renewable resource
management programs for
the future, including the 1990
RPA Recommended
Program.

Fob li

F. Dale Robertson
Chief

Preface

The Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (RPA),
P.L. 93-378, 88 Stat. 475, as
amended, directed the
Secretary of Agriculture to
prepare a Renewable
Resources Assessment by
December 31, 1975, with an
update in 1979 and each 10th
year thereafter. This
Assessment is to include “an
analysis of present and
anticipated uses, demand for,
and supply of the renewable
resources of forest, range,
and other associated lands
with consideration of the
international resource
situation, and an emphasis of
pertinent supply, demand and
price relationship trends” (sec.
3.(a)).

The 1989 RPA Assessment is
the third prepared in response
to the RPA legislation. It is
composed of 12 documents.
This one—the summary
Assessment document—
presents an overview of
analyses of the present
situation and the outlook for
the land base, outdoor
recreation and wilderness,
wildlife and fish, forest-range
grazing, minerals, timber, and
water. Complete analyses for
each of these resources are
contained in seven supporting

technical documents. There
are also technical documents
presenting information on
interactions among the
various resources, the basic
assumptions for the
Assessment, a description of
Forest Service programs, and
the evolving use and
management of the Nation’s
forests, grasslands, croplands,
and related resources.

The Forest Service has been
carrying out resource analyses
in the United States for over a
century. Congressional
interest was first expressed in
the Appropriations Act of
August 15, 1876, which
provided $2,000 for the
employment of an expert to
study and report on forest
conditions. Between that time
and 1974, Forest Service
analysts prepared a number of
assessments of the timber
resource situation
intermittently in response to
emerging issues and
perceived needs for better
resource information. The
1974 RPA legislation
established a periodic
reporting requirement and
broadened the resource
coverage from timber alone to
all renewable resources from
forest and range lands.

Contents

Page
MVS! SOU sess ies cesses ns soe se cascececenedounccncvess Tet A Aha ete eee adaceaeeets 1
Basic Assumptions About Future Determinants of Demand
ANGE SUD DIY Gireecetecassattscs cecssccsssnatwecec¢sesesuatiecc docsasssenweccessectsnetecdsescdasssmncds 2
FAO UI ei OM peine nena memeran treet hace eter eeecnne ety cet cecadaaseean ove -eeleisemaaicadncanbeabaavasss 2
ECONOMICVACIIVItyzaMG) INC ONG etececectecacressssss.deserneestAuekevcedesncctvecenewae cess 2
Technological and Institutional Change ................2....::::eeeeeeeeeetseeeeeeeeees 3
EMENOVAC OSS eet eee rete as enna e ne anu chaudanasstnaneehccnsneosasanals. 3
Capital Availability and) INVEStMEMNIS) <ccccssecacstseesesssaveee-oveescccseedsceceseenneese 3
The Resource Base—lts Size and Ownership .............::ccccscssssssssseees 4
Forest, Rangeland, and Water Areas ...............ccccceeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeneeeees 4
Ownership of Forest and Range Lands and Wate?’.............::::::cceeeeeeeees 4
Productivity of Forest and Range Lands and Water ..................::0eeeeeees 5
ATA VaGL SAIPAN SAS reser es wi arse ce ce cocoate emiadicinsaonpranbouGeneutiadeanninc nde 7
Timber Demand-Supply—The Outlook ...............cccccceeeeseeeeeeseeeeeeseeees 8
WHO OKE@ WSMV era ane es cesar ee oes clean net a mt cake et acreaanoweuadiwmntenateneontl 8
Trends in Timber Use and Projected Demands .................:::cececeeeeeeeees 8
MN MliMO CARES OUNC CM reacts s.ci tes eses eho colons tte uaa eaaan msec wa cisuedsaeeet ic
Projected trends im Miimben SUD PleS 25.222 22s eere cc coceenca does caaleustevccececetuts 13
Timber Demand-Supply Compa rriSons ...................ccccccccccecccneeeeeeenseeesens 14
Water Demand-Supply—The Outlook .................::::sseseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 15
@uwtlOckwOvenviews see weaves. sencran nee wantin. eC ete, ee 15
TNERWiate ri RCSOURCE ass. tuecter: foeect seeaen. Genneiadaag eases eae MIS uae ease 16
ihe: Demane Situation for Water. ox cccseccccecoces docs ccedeceasseencsesectoiacocccoes: ins
Trends in Water Use and Projected Demands ...............cceceeeeeeeneeees We
lihermoelectnic: Stearn: COOlimGicrdens::ceccentenssenteccecanaesee odes goisstisreeseocoses 18
NIG) AUTO INE chem cree cece Moma te anc eeneeuen .euaaa aan se euamnene meee an. Reem naaeacies 19
@ilneraWiaterallS CSc eee ere e cece nec te cere ee ease tina oy nates waaua Shun abrapaneataee iKS,
Sumimearyaot Water Demamdsi25 sx ceccgseccceseent scecdecccasssein Moeemewiieee en. 20
NVC te SUI OIES Se teaie toes metrenncee cs ce tea cnsecatainae Binns aie uaNeN oe clh Ay Mice Ue a, malin 20
Water Demand-Supply CompantSOMS:<iecsecsssssetesyreceeceeeeeceecsetencseccneseeemes 20
Range Forage Demand—Supply—The Outlook ............:ccccccssssessseeees 20
WOUUOOK OVenViCWirnce. te cnestecrmnaeee etn Recetterie.tme ty. e tae eincnarevneiratckneatans 20
ihe Range: ROKnaGe RESOUNCE ececnccnedanecsanteseeeetss aac teee cece sseccuautteveccabns 20
lmtenmationallra Ge! iss cet bees ice aces rere et, Be eal saa ree 22
U.S. Consumption and Demand for Meat .................cccccceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 22
PROJS CTS CHIEOKAGES: SUP lar y-nrvancmaicrcctccasameradensaeeases suslicantensaiatulesdaeSeasies 23
Range Forage Demand-Supply Comparisons ...........::ccccceeeeeeeeeee 24

Outdoor Recreation Demand-Supply—The Outlook ...............::00008 25

RO AO asa cadenectewecsyecaduced valeas oat astseeegee oe aseca eae basen cacedevebercecnans 25
SPINS FRC SUNS egos ceeees reece sank rc tenan ved ducontnte ones puter nace eno ca cinta 25
FB etl here oct cert cesutaBicann pectvantvetea tattig te became aa tw tecouanmeuemengnacuneeteceudt 29
PeEGelal Lams: ane VALET vc ececetdcticanciaiiinss Geivdatanngoshseaseaachenanabiensueateenaseoies 26
tare INS ANG WW ALON secs et ce ctesnceneen rst ace toes eesvecssaddecsceeninne seeeeeaed 27
Local Government Recreation Opportunities ................ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees ZY
Trends in Participation in Outdoor Recreation ..............cccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Zi
PYOJECHONS Of FUTUFE PANMICID ALON ssdicccce ee cnsesnntsasaciecetcecesdsecessertelwenoaes 29
Outdoor Recreation Demand-Supply Comparisons. ...............c060c0cceceeeee 30
Wilderness Demand-Supply—The Outlook ............:cccccececceceeeeeeeeeeees 30
DUO OK OVE VIC Wes cassie esecenaeepeveeececetecinesagsdecenecccassceriatveevuemceaaeseinas 30
pM (ole (prelctsw 2\ | 27s (ca eMeemeimen Merete nae ANCE C ORE rT ev NON Oe aan See Tt eee eet 30
MS IS OS pees seca a crecia nectar Siete ce cabvadieedes lads 31
Wildlife and Fish Demand-Supply—The Outlook ..............eeeseeeeeeeees 32
OUTIOOK OVEN VIEW visdeccsicicseisreasorncensranddentectdcooonebsdedesnndesprasanaidedibdneteouniates 32
CORISKE TON FIN SS se sudencusrngayrren ses dane cauteedupceacatuseccnuseck eveepeasnneeeanaide 32
Current Status and Recent Historical Trends in Habitat .................2. 2
Trends in Wildlife and Fish Population, Use, and Harvests ................. 34
Uiniciie Ole OF PUDDING LAGS xc ccsecsisanczasacsimnyacsnseceuebuapcpdatenduccevenbesencecatee: 36
Projected Inventories and Uses of Wildlife and Fish... 36
Projected POPUlaIONS GNC PANVESIS ciee tics crccaccnunsonstundntenattawanccesteenete: 37
Projections of Wildlife and Fish Recreation .............ceccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ees of
Wildlife and Fish Demand-Supply Comparisons ..............:::0:sseeeeeeeeeeeees 38
Minerals Demand-Supply—The Outlook ..............::::::ssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 39
UM OOK IV GIVIGW ses optiencessitoiin sa nacteseniadacdntiacciuinscasuteuineinlanisansscadsdesdedanetiee 39
Trends in Minerals Use and Projected Demands .................:::::::eeeee 40
The Minerals: SUPPIY SMUAUON <cc.cccsciccevecncest ta ssvencecdecdcadedastaierseussewssecanas 4
Minerals Demand-Supply Comparisons ..............:c:ccccesesceeeceeeeesseeeneeees 4
USS gas sae Seco saca ect eas ecteavarnaeeppetheea aces asaetaedeien)exeesbucdenseeceseeseecsedeaecees 42
FE MIN scat aeues ee ccresercart bot pesaccpteutaseesectassiacea ed tcceee Sppastpaiiainiaeceei eden: 42
DSSEH DUOR OF PUNICS esse ses seca cecuvazk vive cate hina vevbcroseoesMixdeswxesdesdianaannconagate 42
FBS Sy ans pee dette sess eh cay neat eae a edie canara et nee ep eee ec cakas 43

Social, Economic, and Environmental Implications of

Projected Demand-Supply Comparisons and Opportunities for
FESPONGING 10 TEIN sircsitccee sacs vertsccsetenectroemeeanecdtsnnctiiasecnncersceioune 4a
RNG NG ie panic icastieeaonne asad seustovic esa ee ge eocehuaeedauaekouca sen wun nsomseoubuneaunesecnmaanes 44

FAM GCM OAC ee eee teeta ceed sets sedate losuee sists isatnindensatue vuweudaunntslonss 47
@UltGOOMReCKCAllO Mmm ete eee corer cee c ee coecc ear loitistesocnsctanuaccaos 48
Vile eelinGl plas Inmeereee ener meee ene on rae aa eet ee a at 49
NUIT Kiel Smear terre tenes aera Vee eee re Wn 8S oe oo scuernamebuenGee de 50
RESOURCE HIMOTACTI OMS ete eta c ance tavern eens crete esac srescteasaads 52

Encouraging Renewable Resource Management in a Market

EEC OIMOINI oes cce ace ccccccct reece cri aceesieue se searie ass snaacunsedaccececaccacuecseedecwucseestiens 52
Implications of the Assessment for Resource Managemenrt.......... 54
HIROMI denne eeteenre cern cen hore fects an ca-cartensstiwcecedsamabave sasnatonautoayacantalivs 55
\IVALC reer eee ace ate tr ea coer a ae Sechcta rete had tan uate tad cbcausdeaise ler cschesseane Sie)
FCLNCIS) [POC Sacsecccaach see dnamee eeeechee raced ease Ranier renee Ree enen een te 56
@wiG OOmReECSHEAU OMe ere ee oe cies caessccseneseis cede conveesesiesesdnbesavscnssaestiodse’ 56
NAT R AGI SIiNerreretere toed ccence escent anseteiate rar eects sc ecaluintuacdees ow
Wine Well Siretee rete eet eens ear eee den sar ezetad atc cericepinonsunneead Sap eeahadtehsianceds 58
IMLS RATIO Mal(COOPOTAPOM c.f ilincissstrcs -ncastusiecsduthecesdeadsuetiavedinseledercauas 58
Resource Protection and Administrative Support Implications

HOMMIMOM ONC SIG SEIN CO te He cece haces trans seta siaes satandvenus.o-ccranarbscesanmenltanscages 58
Policy Considerations for the Forest Service .................:::sscccsssseees 59
BDO ere ere cere reser cer tdee coat catacncuassasatatetecneuccousctadadadatisseanconcce tohueate 61

”

The Setting

Since the 1979 RPA Assessment, the
Forest Service has completed new
analyses of supply and demand for all
of the renewable resources and the land
base. The basic data on timber
inventory have been updated to 1986
from 1976. The analyses that rely on
annual time-series data now include
another decade of observations. During
this decade, population, incomes, and
economic activity expanded, leading to
increased consumption or use of nearly
all products of forest and range lands
and the associated inland waters. We
expect population and the economy to
continue to grow in the future, which
will induce greater use and production
from the renewable forest and
rangeland resource. More intensive use
will increase the value of these
resources.

Demands and supplies of renewable
resources are dynamic. Consumers of
these resources accommodate the
changing nature of resource supplies in
various ways, including adoption of
technologies that change the ways
renewable resource outputs are used.
Supplies of renewable resource outputs
change in response to use,
management, and withdrawals.
Resource owners and managers
respond to the changing demands by
varying the amount and character of
resource supplies. For example, over
the past 3 decades, evolving legislation
has provided direction to managers of
national forests and thus influenced
supplies of renewable resource outputs
from these lands. Private landowners
sometimes respond to increased
demands by charging fees for access to
renewable resources that they
traditionally provided for free. In other
instances, they deny or limit public
access to the resources. But the record
of the past decades has demonstrated
the resiliency of the U.S. renewable
resource base and documented that it is
possible to improve the quality and

quantity of natural resources, even as
they are put to beneficial uses. In the
future, as in the past, accommodations
will be made between demands and
supplies through policy actions and
management to influence the amount,
quality, and value of renewable
resource Outputs and conditions.

It is the purpose of this Assessment
document to summarize the present
condition and the prospective demand
and supply outlook for the Nation’s
renewable resources and to identify the
implications of these likely future
trends for renewable resource
management, production, and
conditions.

Some of the key assumptions and
findings from the 1979 RPA
Assessment have been updated to
reflect new data and expectations about
the future:

1. Recycling of paper and paperboard
will become more important as a
source of fiber in the United States, just
as it has already in Japan and parts of

Europe (fig. 1). We currently have a
recycling rate of 25 percent, compared
to 51 percent in Japan and 47 percent
in the European Economic Community.
In the Assessment, we assume that the
U.S. recycling rate will reach 31
percent by 2040.

2. Consumption of water will lessen as
irrigation for agriculture is reduced in
the West, but demands for high-quality
water, such as for drinking, will
continue to grow with the western
population.

3. Annual per capita consumption of
beef, veal, lamb, and mutton is
assumed to remain constant to the year
2040 at 110 Ib (carcass weight). (In the
1979 RPA Assessment, it was assumed
to increase significantly.) Productivity
of private rangeland is assumed to
increase because of the consensus view
that landowners will implement
currently available technologies.

4. Demands for outdoor recreation will
generally continue to grow with
population growth. An increasing share

Figure 1—Recycling of paper and paperboard is expected to increase.

of the outdoor recreation demand will
be accounted for by recreationists
taking shorter trips close to home.

5. The number of people participating
in nonconsumptive wildlife recreation,
in both warm and cold water fishing
and in migratory bird hunting, is
expected to rise over the next 5
decades.

6. In general, domestic demand for
metallic minerals and precious metals
will continue to increase, but demand
for any given metallic mineral is likely
to be highly variable and dependent on
technology and the evolution of end-
use markets.

7. Changes in global climate can
significantly affect the productivity,
health, and diversity of forest and range
ecosystems.

Population (millions)
350

300

250

Basic Assumptions About
Future Determinants of
Demand and Supply

In the future, as in the past, demands
and supplies of renewable resource
products will be determined largely by
growth in population, income, and
economic activity; technological and
institutional changes; energy costs;
capital availability; and levels of
private and public investments in
forest, range, and water management,
utilization, and research.

Population

In the past 5 decades, the population of
the United States increased by over 100
million people, to some 242 million in
1986, the base year for demand and
supply analyses (fig. 2, app. table 1).
Projections by the Wharton
Econometrics Forecasting Associates
using Bureau of the Census
assumptions about future population

Population —_
Ls

200

150

100

50

0
1925 1940 1955

1970 1985 2000

Figure 2—United States population and gross national product, 1929-86, with projections to 2040.

to

demographics indicate that population
will continue to grow, to about 333
million in 2040. The population
assumptions are the middle series
projections developed by the Bureau of
the Census, except that net immigration
is assumed to be 750,000 people per
year rather than the 450,000-person
assumption used in the middle series.
This adjustment in the immigration
assumption is to account for net illegal
immigration.

Economic Activity and Income

Economic activity, as measured by the
official gross national product in
constant dollars (1982 dollars net of
inflation and deflation), increased more
than fivefold in the past 5 decades and
reached $3.7 trillion in 1986. In this
period, there have been major

GNP (§ trillion 1982)
20

15

10

2015 2030 2045

recessions, a world war, and other
major shocks to the U.S. economy. In
each case, the national economy has
recovered, and it is expected to
continue to do so in the future. The
basic forces for longrun economic
growth will continue. Wharton
Econometrics projections indicate that
the gross national product will reach
$15.6 trillion in 2040, over four times
its level in 1986. Associated disposable
personal income rises to $9.6 trillion,
over a threefold increase. Per capita
disposable income will increase over
2.5 times, to $28,790.

The assumptions about population,
gross national product, and disposable
personal income suggest a future with
many more people with greater
purchasing power—a future with
strong growth in demand continuing
the historical trend.

Technological and
Institutional Change

Past changes in demands and supplies
have reflected the interactions and
direct influences of institutional and
technological changes. We assume that
the stream of institutional and
technological changes will continue
and that the effects of these changes on
demands and supplies of renewable
resources will be similar to those that
have taken place and are included in
the historical data base used in making
the projections. For some products and/
or processes, however, we identified
possible future technological changes
and made specific allowances for them
in projections (fig. 3).

Institutional changes that lead to the
reservation of forests and rangelands
for designated uses such as wilderness,
parks, and wildlife refuges have
occurred for a long time. This
development is specifically taken into

Figure 3—Allowances have been made for
expected future changes in technology.

account in the projections of forest and
rangeland areas. Assumptions on
important technological changes
affecting product yields and other uses
of the renewable resources are
specified in the individual resource
Assessment documents as appropriate.

Energy Costs

The apparent consensus view of the
long-term outlook for energy costs can
be confusing because of the weakness
of energy prices in the 1980's.
Projections of the U.S. Department of
Energy reflect the consensus view of
the long-term outlook. These
projections show world crude oil prices
increasing from $12.22 per barrel in
1986 to $50 per barrel in 2020. Prices
are in 1982 dollars net of inflation or
deflation. The price of $50 is assumed
to be high enough to stimulate
development of alternative energy
sources with implications for the
demand for timber and timber
products, especially fuelwood. Thus
energy prices are assumed constant
from 2020 through 2040. Rising energy
prices have been taken into account in

projecting demands and supplies for
those products.

Capital Availability and
Investments

Capital availability has occasionally
been raised as an issue in making
judgments about the likelihood that
future output levels will be realized.
Over the years, various analyses have
supported the assumption that capital
would not be a limiting factor for
future production levels. Wharton
Econometrics projections of growth in
gross national product indicate a
growing economy with capital
generation. Therefore, we assume that
capital will not be a limiting factor for
projected outputs of products from
forest and range lands and associated
waters.

Future supplies will be determined in
large measure by management intensity
(the level of investment in forest and
range lands and associated water
resources). Assumptions about future
management intensities vary by
resource and are discussed as part of
the supply outlook for each resource. In
general, however, demand and supply
projections are strongly influenced by
the past historical trend of their basic
determinants and reflect the effects of
past public programs for assistance.

The Resource Base—Its
Size and Ownership

Forest, Rangeland, and Water
Areas

Some 1.7 billion acres (about 66
percent of the Nation’s total area) are
classified as forest or rangeland or are
covered with water (fig. 4, app. table
2). A little less than half of this

Figure 4—Forests, rangelands, and water cover
two-thirds of the Nation's total area.

territory is currently classified as
rangeland. This is land on which the
native vegetation (climax or natural
potential plant communities) is

predominantly grasses, grasslike plants,

forbs, or shrubs suitable for domestic
livestock or wildlife grazing or
browsing use. It includes natural
grasslands, savannas, most deserts,
shrublands, tundra, alpine plant
communities, coastal marshes, wet
meadows, and introduced plant
communities managed like rangelands.
Most of the rangeland is found from
the Pacific coast east to include the
Great Plains, and in Alaska. Most of
the land east of the Great Plains is
forested or managed in such a way as
to preclude its classification as
rangeland.

Almost half of the 1.7 billion acres is

also classified as forest and transition
land—land that is at least 10 percent
stocked with trees, or formerly had
such cover, and not developed for other
purposes. The two-thirds of the forest
land (482 million acres) that can grow
more than 20 cubic feet of industrial
wood per acre per year is called
timberland. In 1986, about 90 percent
of the timber harvested came from this
area.

Nearly three-quarters of the timberland
is in the eastern half of the country.
Most of the timberland in the West is
located in the Pacific Coast States and
in Montana, Idaho, and Colorado.

The Nation’s forests and rangelands are
underlain by extensive mineral
resources. The greatest concentrations
occur in the Western Overthrust Belt,
the Northern Great Plains, and the
Appalachian region.

The rest of the area of the United
States, about 5 percent or 109 million
acres, 1s covered by water. A little over
half of this area is in lakes (exclusive of
the Great Lakes), ponds, and
waterways. The rest is in the Great
Lakes and coastal waters such as bays,
sounds, and straits.

Ownership of Forest and
Range Lands and Water

Forest Land and Rangeland—Same
41 percent of the Nation’s rangeland is
in Federal ownership (fig. 5, app. table
3). Most of this 1s in the arid and
semiarid lands of the Southwest and
the tundra, shrub, and muskeg-bog
lands of interior Alaska. The rangeland
in private ownership is concentrated in
the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains
States.

A little more than one-third of the
Nation’s forest land is in Federal

ownership. These lands are
concentrated in the Rocky Mountains
and Pacific Coast States. Their wood
volume is mostly timber that has never
been harvested, and they contain a
large part of the Nation’s softwood
timber inventory. Some of the high-
elevation forests also have great scenic
beauty and contribute in important
ways to meeting the demand for
outdoor recreation.

About three-fourths of the Nation’s
privately owned forest land is in the
eastern part of the country. Much of
this area has good soils and other
conditions favorable for growing trees
and is close to the largest markets for
timber products. These private forests
are likewise closest to the most highly
populated areas of the country and
provide opportunities for many kinds
of outdoor recreation.

Water—Ownership of inland water is
difficult to define because the concept
of ownership and access to water can
vary by State with private, State, and
Federal rights at stake. Water resource
laws can originate from several
sources, such as Federal and State
constitutions and acts of Congress and
State legislatures interpreted by the
courts and issued by various Federal
and State agencies in the form of
administrative laws.

In the United States, there are two
general doctrines in water law—the
appropriation and the riparian. The law
of appropriation, which is generally
associated with the West, has two basic
tenets: (1) a water right can be acquired
by the party diverting the water from
the water course and applying it to a
beneficial use and (2) in accordance
with the date of acquisition, an earlier
acquired water right will have priority
over other, later acquired water rights.

Forest Land

Non-Federal

Federal

Figure 5—Percentage of forest and range land by ownership.

Generally, in the East, the law of
riparian rights entitles adjacent riparian
landowners to reasonable use of
streamflow in competition with those
who divert the stream for economic
uses. The major thrust of the riparian
law has been to protect private rather
than public rights.

Access rights for recreational use of
water are also complex. In general,
trespass laws apply to land adjoining
water, and private owners can deny
access. Once access has been achieved,
however, water can generally be used
for recreation despite the existence of
adjacent, posted land.

Thus, well over one-half of the
Nation’s forest and range land is in
private ownership, and rights to water
use are predominantly in the hands of
the private sector. The dominant
ownership of resources by the private
sector is reflected in the analyses of
demands and supplies presented later in
this Assessment.

Productivity of Forest and
Range Lands and Water

The productivity (output per acre or
other measure of input) of forest and
range lands varies widely as a result of
differences in climate, soils, elevation,
and latitude. Over the years, public and
private forestry activities have
demonstrated that the land is
responsive to management and that
productivity and resource quality can
be increased through management. For
example, one measure of
productivity—an index of softwood
growing stock growth per unit of
inventory—has been increasing over
the past several decades (fig. 6, app.
table 3). This same measure for
hardwoods has been declining because
we are harvesting only half the growth
(fig. 7, app. table 4). By any measure,
the biological potential exists to
increase the output of all renewable
resource products. New technology or
the wider use of existing technology

Range Land

Federal

Non-Federal

from research is another source of
higher productivity. The economic
efficiency of any investment depends
on the specifics of costs and revenues.
Costs and revenues associated with
investments are not generally
considered explicitly in this
Assessment document, but they are
considered in the development of the
1990 RPA Program.

Water yields from forest and range
lands can be improved by various
management practices. Water quality
can be improved, and flooding and soil
erosion and the associated
sedimentation of streams can be
restrained.

Forest and range lands in the United
States provide forage and browse for
over 70 million cattle, 8 million sheep,
55,000 wild horses and burros, 20
million deer, 400,000 elk, 600,000
antelope, and many other grazing
animals. Vegetation management

Growth Index (1977 = 100)
120

100

80

60

40

20

1952

1962

1970

Figure 6—Softwood growth inventory index, all owners, 1952-87.

practices can enhance the production of
forage and browse for these animals
while protecting fragile soils and
watersheds. For example, range forage
productivity is assumed to rise 0.7
percent per year on private lands.

The 1.7 billion acres of forest and
range lands and water have a large but
unmeasured capacity to supply
opportunities for picnicking, camping,
hiking, skiing, hunting and fishing,
wildlife observation, canoeing,
swimming, and most other kinds of
outdoor recreation far in excess of
present use.

Forest and range lands and water also
have the potential to foster diversity
and increased numbers of most species

of wildlife, including those of
recreational and commercial
importance and endangered or
threatened species.

Finally, the known mineral resources
on these lands are substantial, and there
are undoubtedly reserves yet to be
discovered. Thus, there exists the
physical potential to increase the
productivity of the minerals resource.
Productivity in the case of minerals 1s
difficult to define but could be
improved by the application of
technologies that enhance discovery
and by the facilitation of exploratory
work.

If it occurs, global climate change can
cause major changes in the

1977

1987

productivity, health, and diversity of
forest and range ecosystems with
associated impacts on other renewable
resources. How the productivity and
health of forest and range ecosystems
will change in response to stress
associated with changing physical and
chemical climate components will be a
major scientific and policy issue in the
coming decades (fig. 8).

In summary, the Nation’s forest and
range lands and water have the
physical capacity to produce much
larger quantities of renewable resource
products and support much higher
levels of use. A primary objective of
this Assessment is to identify
opportunities for management of the
renewable resource base. These

Growth Index (1977 = 100)
120

100

80

60

20

Figure 8—Research is needed to determine the
potential effects of global climate change on the
productivity of forest and range land. Apparatus
such as this open-top chamber are used in
climate research.

opportunities may lead to increases in
the quantity and/or quality of the use of
the resources.

Trends in Areas

In recent years, the area of forest and
range land has been declining as these
lands have been converted to other
uses. The water area has been
increasing due to the construction of
ponds and lakes (reservoirs). The total
output of products from forest and

range lands is likely to be affected in
the future by changes in area.

These trends in forest and rangeland
areas will be influenced somewhat by
the Food Security Act of 1985, which
established the Conservation Reserve
Program and offered incentives for
landowners to enroll acreages of highly
erodible cropland for conversion to
grass or forest land. The law intends
that landowners enroll not less than 40
million nor more than 45 million acres
in the program. To the extent
practicable, not less than one-eighth of
the acreage placed in the conservation
reserve shall be devoted to trees. In
part because of this program, we
project the area of rangeland to
increase from today’s 770 million acres
to 820 million acres.

Although the Conservation Reserve
Program should add several million
acres to the forest land base, an even
larger area of existing forest land is
expected to be converted to other uses.
The net loss is expected to be about 28
million acres by 2040, mainly in the
South and Pacific coast regions. Much
of the loss in forest land is due to
conversions associated with roads and
urban space utilized by a growing
population.

Timber Demand—
Supply—The Outlook

Outlook Overview

e Demands for all of the major timber
products are expected to increase over
the next 5 decades.

e Total demands for hardwoods from
the domestic timber resource are
expected to increase 79 percent, and for
softwoods, 35 percent.

e Changes in technology that affect
product recovery from roundwood and
increased recycling of paper and
paperboard are reflected in projections.

e Harvest on forest industry lands is
projected to increase 31 percent, to 7.2
billion cubic feet in 2040, reflecting the
assumption that these lands will be
managed intensively in the future.

e Harvest on other private lands is
projected to increase 70 percent, to
15.6 billion cubic feet in 2040.

e For national forests, harvest levels
are assumed to reach the sum of
harvests for the final forest plans and
the preferred alternatives where plans
are not yet final by 2000 and to follow
these plans after 2000, reaching 2.4
billion cubic feet in 2040 compared
with 2.0 billion cubic feet in recent
years.

e Supplies from other public lands are
assumed relatively constant at recent
harvest levels (1.35 billion cubic feet).

e Supplies will meet demands in the
U.S. market, but prices will be higher.

e If global climate or other changes in
the natural environment were to cause
extensive reductions in timber growth,
this would have major impacts on the
domestic situation, with the effects
building over time.

Trends in Timber Use and
Projected Demands

Between 1950 and 1980, there was a
slight upward trend in lumber
consumption, punctuated by well-
defined short-term fluctuations (fig. 9).
Demand for lumber follows cycles in
new housing starts and other general
measures of the economy. For
example, the severe recession of the
early 1980’s caused a decline in
housing that forced a drop in lumber
demand. This was followed in the mid-
1980°s by record consumption brought
on by reduced interest rates that
stimulated both new housing and repair
and remodeling of existing structures.
Demand for softwood plywood rose
rapidly through the decades of the
1950°s and 1960’s, reaching a peak in
the early 1970’s (fig. 10). Much of this
growth was due to the substitution of
plywood for lumber in many end uses.
By the 1970°s, opportunities for this
substitution had largely been captured,
and demand for plywood began to
follow housing cycles, much as for
lumber.

The late 1970’s and 1980’s were years
of major changes in the plywood and
structural panel industries. Fiber-based
structural panels began to make
significant inroads into markets for
solid softwood plywood. These fiber-
based panels have now been accepted
in the marketplace and should have
major influences on the species and
quality of roundwood needed in the
structural panel industry. The new
panels can be made from almost any
species of wood, with the preference
being soft hardwoods such as aspen.
After the recession of the early 1980’s,
consumption of structural panels
reached record levels in response to the
strong markets of the mid-1980’s.
Future growth in demand for structural
panels is expected to be strongest for
the new fiber-based panels until 2010,

Billion board feet
100

80

60

40

20

0

1950 1960 1970

1980

1990 2000

Figure 9—Lumber consumption, 1950—86, with projections to 2040.

when consumption of softwood
plywood also begins to rise.

Consumption of wood in the
manufacture of pulp, paper, and
paperboard grew rapidly in the decades
following World War II (fig. 11). This
growth in demand was in response to
rapid growth in the economy, which
stimulated consumption of packaging
and other pulp-based products. Much
of the increase in consumption of wood
fiber during the 1960’s and 1970’s
came from the byproducts of lumber
and plywood manufacture. In recent
years, the use of hardwood roundwood
has increased, and this is expected to
continue in the future. In the 1970's,
demand for pulp, paper, and
paperboard became more susceptible to

economic cycles. By the mid-1980’s,
however, consumption was again at
record levels.

The oil-price shocks of the 1970's
caused many structural shifts in the
U.S. economy. The major impact on
timber demand in the United States
was the reversal of a long decline in the
use of fuelwood (fig. 12). Rising costs
for oil and natural gas stimulated both
commercial and noncommercial
demand for wood as fuel. These
structural shifts involved new
investments in technology and
equipment that are not easily reversed.
As a result, consumption of fuelwood
continued to increase in the 1980's
despite sharp declines in crude oil
prices. Although there has been a

2010

wood

2020 2030 2040

respite in energy price rises in the
1980's, these prices will probably
increase significantly after the turn of
the century, with the result that
fuelwood demand is expected to
continue to grow over the long term.
Demand may be dampened by
concerns over the effect of
woodburning on air quality and by the
increasing cost of insurance for homes
burning wood.

The longrun demands for all major
timber products are projected to go up
over the next 5 decades. The projection
methodology used takes into account
the effects of supplies of products and
projects market equilibrium measures
of demand and supply. Consumption
levels for pulpwood and fuelwood rise

Billion square feet (%-inch basis)
50

40

30

20

10

1950 1960 1970

Other types*

Softwood plywood

*Includes oriented strand board and waferboard.

Figure 10—Structural panel consumption. 1950-86, with projections to 2040.

faster than for lumber and plywood.
The product mix of future demands
will influence the way the Nation’s
forests are managed in the coming
decades (fig. 13). Consumption levels
have been presented in the standard
measurement units for the various
products—board feet for lumber,
square feet for plywood, and cords for
pulpwood and fuelwood. In table 1,
these are converted to cubic feet
roundwood equivalent—the volume of
roundwood needed from the Nation’s

forests to produce the various products.

Table 1—Roundwood supplies from
U.S. timber resources, by softwoods
and hardwoods, specified years,
1952-86, with projections to 2040

10

1980 1990 2000

Year Total Sottwoods Hardwoods
Billion cubic feet,

roundwood equivalent
1952 9.5 6.9 2.6
1962 9.6 7.1 2.5
1970 11.5 8.7 2.8
1976 125 9.5 3.0
1986 18.0 11.7 6.3

Projections

2000 20.5 12.1 8.4
2010 23.9 13.4 10.5
2020 25.6 14.5 11.1
2030 26.6 15.3 11.3
2040 27.1 15.8 11.3

Note: Does not include fuelwood from sources
other than growing stock.

2010

2020 2030 2040

Consumption of softwoods continues
to grow through the projection period,
reflecting a growing economy and
repair and remodeling of an aging
housing inventory. Also, experts
believe that, over time, new houses will
be bigger, consuming more lumber and
structural panels than today’s new
homes. By 2010, softwood timber
consumption will be about 1.2 times
consumption in 1986 and in 2040, 1.3
times.

Projected consumption of hardwood
timber in 2010 will be some 1.7 times
consumption in 1986 and in 2040, 1.8
times, largely due to the rising
demands of a growing economy.
Demands for pulpwood, fuelwood, and

Million cords
200

175

150

125

100

75

50

1950 1960 1970

1980

1990 2000

Figure 11—Pulpwood consumption, 1950-86, with projections to 2040.

pallets in particular are expected to
increase.

Imports of timber products have been
rising and have supplied important
parts of the Nation’s woodpulp,
newsprint, and softwood lumber. Net
imports (imports minus exports),
however, are expected to decrease from
current levels of about 2 billion to 1.6
billion cubic feet by 2040. Much of the
decrease is in the later decades of the
projection period. Most imports
originate from Canada. The 1980’s
were characterized by several trade
disputes with Canada centered on
softwood lumber, western redcedar
shakes and shingles, and softwood
plywood. Similar disagreements have
characterized this bilateral trade

relationship in earlier decades of the
20th century. It is assumed that the
current issues will be resolved over
time and that future imports from
Canada will be determined largely by
U.S. demand and the extent and
competitiveness of Canada’s timber
resource. Canada’s longrun supply
potential is currently unknown, but
many experts feel that historical rates
of growth in harvest volume cannot
continue in the future. This consensus
is reflected in projections of softwood
lumber imports from Canada, which
stabilize after the turn of the century.

Exports of timber products have also
been going up. The outlook for exports
varies by product, however. Because of
assumed offsetting trends among

2010

Plant byproducts

2020

2030 2040

various products, annual export
volumes are projected to increase from
2.0 billion cubic feet currently to 2.5
billion cubic feet by the turn of the
century and stay at this level through
the projection period.

The volume of imports of logs into the
United States has generally been small
over the years and has not been a major
trade or domestic issue. Beginning in
the 1960’s and continuing today,
however, the export of softwood logs
has at various times been a national
issue. These exports originate mainly
in Washington and Oregon and affect
roundwood prices and the structure of
the timber industries in that part of the
country. The existing prohibition on
roundwood exports from Federal lands

11

Billion cubic feet
3

Hardwoods

1952 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Figure 12—Roundwood fuelwood from growing stock, selected years, 1952-86, with projections
to 2040.

Figure 13—Technology is changing the way the timber resource is utilized. Aspen is now being

used for structural panels.

12

in the West has been in effect since
1974 and is assumed to continue.
Currently, there are no restrictions on
exports from State and private lands,
and none are assumed in the future. If
restrictions were to be placed on State
lands in the West, there would be
major effects in local roundwood
markets but not much effect on the
overall demand-supply situation. The
volumes of log exports from State
lands are relatively small compared
with total U.S. log supply.

It is apparent from the above trends
that domestic forest lands must supply
most of the higher demands projected
for the future.

The Timber Resource

The Nation’s timberlands contain some
831 billion cubic feet of roundwood
(app. table 5); 91 percent of this is in
growing stock (live, sound trees suited
for roundwood products) and the
remaining 9 percent is in rotten, cull,
and salvable dead trees. Some of the
latter may be suitable for lumber and
veneer, but most is usable only for
pulp, fuel, and other products where
there are no significant log quality
requirements. |

Timber inventories rise when net
annual growth (total growth less
mortality) is greater than the volumes
removed by timber harvesting,
clearing, or changing land use (timber
removals). The growth-removals

' There are additional and large volumes of fiber
in treetops, limbs, and bark; in trees under 5
inches in diameter at breast height; and in trees
on forest land other than timberland. These
volumes, also found in fence rows and in urban
areas, are usable for fuel, pulp, and other
products where there are no significant log
quality requirements. Much of the fuelwood now
being used for domestic heating comes from
these sources.

balance for the United States is positive
for all species (1.37), for softwoods
(1.13), and for hardwoods (1.90). The
ratios in the North are very high,
indicating continued substantial
increases in growing stock volume.
The softwood ratio for the South is
declining and approaching 1.00. The
growth-removals ratio in the Rocky
Mountains exceeds 2.00, and for the
Pacific coast, it is 1.07.

The Rocky Mountain region has had a
growth—-removal balance greater than
1.00 for a long time, but inventories
have increased slowly because many of
the stands are old, mortality is high,
and thus net annual growth is low.

Projected Trends in Timber
Supplies

The outlook for timber supplies
depends on the trend in area of
timberland, current level of inventories,
stumpage prices, growth and removals,
institutional constraints on timber
harvest rates, and investments in forest
management.

The area of timberland has been
declining consistently for the past
couple of decades in the South and
Pacific coast regions (fig. 14). Because
recent increases in the North and
Rocky Mountain regions are believed
to be temporary, we assume that
timberland area will decline in all
regions over the coming decades. By
2040, the loss in area 1s expected to be
some 21 million acres for the country
as a whole.

The current growth—removal balances
for timber show that the hardwood
forests and eastern softwood forests
can support additional harvests.
However, these balances will change,
and future harvests, particularly in the
decades beyond 2000, could vary over

a wide range. Nonetheless, assuming
that timberland owners continue to
respond as they have in the past to
price and inventory changes and
manage their timber stands as
projected, timber harvests will be
increased substantially in most regions.
Total projected softwood roundwood
harvests rise from 11.7 billion cubic
feet in 1986 to 15.8 billion cubic feet in
2040, an increase of 35 percent.
Projected hardwood harvests increase
by 79 percent, rising from 6.3 billion
cubic feet in 1986 to 11.3 billion in
2040. The largest increases will be in
the South.

Assumptions about future management
intensities vary by ownership. Forest
industry lands in the South and western
Washington and Oregon are assumed
to be managed intensively to the point
where all economic opportunities for
management are captured. The
projection of intensified management
of forest industry lands has important
implications for expectations of future
harvests on private lands in western
Oregon and Washington and the South.
In western Oregon and Washington,
previous projections of harvests using
assumptions of lower management
intensity on the industry portion of
private lands indicated that current
harvest levels could not be maintained
for the private ownership category. If
industry-owned lands are managed
intensively in the future, current total
private harvest of about 1.6 billion
cubic feet could be maintained and
possibly increase as second-growth
timber reaches merchantable size after
2010. Research is currently underway
to assess the potential of this second
growth to be the base for expanded
timber harvests in the future. In part
because of unexplained growth
declines on natural pine stands in the
South, harvest volumes are near or
exceed net annual growth in some
areas. After the turn of the century,

Million acres
250°

200 |

150

Pacific Coast
100

50
Rky Mt./Great Plains

0
1952 1970

Figure 14—Area of timberland by region, 1952-87,

timber from intensively managed
plantations forms the basis for
expansion of harvests from current
levels of some 5 billion cubic feet to
over 6.5 billion cubic feet.

Management on private lands other
than industry-owned lands is assumed
to continue as reflected in the latest
inventory remeasurements. Harvests
from these lands have generally
increased over the past decade, leading
to increased landowner interest in
regeneration of harvested softwood
stands. Management reflects the
influence of current government and
industry programs, market incentives,
and increasing stumpage prices.

Harvests from national forest lands are
assumed to gradually change over time

14

oe

1987 2000

with projections to 2040.

and equal the sum of preferred
alternatives in forest plans by 2000.
Beyond 2000, harvests are assumed to
follow the forest plans. Harvest on
other public lands is assumed to remain
constant at recent levels.

Timber Demand-Supply
Comparisons

The projected demand-supply situation
implies rising prices for timber. In the
U.S. economy, demand and supply for
market commodities are equated
through price adjustments and the
workings of the market. When demand
increases faster than supply, price
brings the two together by reducing
demand and inducing supply increases.
This type of situation has existed for

2020 2040

lumber at least since the early 1800's
(fig. 15). Although there have been
long periods when the price of lumber
did not increase relative to the general
price level, the trend over the long term
has continued upward.

In general, it is expected that the price
of softwood roundwood will follow the
historic trend and continue to increase
throughout the projection period, an
indicator that demand pressures are
rising faster than supply responses. For
example, in the South, the real price for
softwood sawtimber measured net of
inflation or deflation is expected to go
up an average rate of 1.03 percent a
year during the coming decades. For
western Oregon and western
Washington, the price increase is
projected to be 1.14 percent.

The price outlook for the bulk of the
hardwood timber—the smaller sized
timber of common species—is for
lower prices than for softwood timber.
However, after 2000, as hardwood
inventories begin to show substantial
declines in response to increased
removals, stumpage prices are expected
to rise.

During recent decades, there have been
demand pressures on high-quality
preferred hardwood species such as
select white and red oak, walnut, hard
maple, and black cherry. The resulting
stumpage price increases led to the
development of substitutes such as
plastic overlays for furniture. Although
analyses of the past decade have been
mixed as to continuation of price rises,

Index (1967 = 100)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1805 1855

it is assumed that prices for preferred
species will rise in the future because
of strong demands for these species.
Rising stumpage prices will be
reflected in prices of timber products.
For example, softwood lumber prices
measured in real terms increase at
annual rates of about 0.5 percent over
the projection period.

1905

Figure 15—Relative producer price index for lumber, 1805-1985.

Water Demand-Supply—
The Outlook

Outlook Overview

e Water demands will increase
significantly in the years ahead.

e Limits on water supplies will force
reallocation of available supplies
among users, especially in some parts
of the West.

e Reallocation of supplies will
generally be from uses such as
irrigation (where quality is not an
overriding concern) to municipal use
(where quality can be all important).

e Markets may facilitate reallocation

of water use, but management of some
watersheds, especially on public lands,
may become more important from the

1955 1985

standpoint of both water quantity and
quality.

e Surface-water quality has been a
concern for much of this century.
Legislation in the early 1970’s targeted
point sources of pollution. The private
sector's response and strict
enforcement of the laws have reduced
point sources of pollution and created a
real success story—up to 90 percent of
our inland surface waters are now
fishable and swimmable.

e Various nonpoint sources of
pollution are the principal sources of
residual problems where surface waters
do not meet designated use standards.
Ground-water quality concerns could
engender significant changes in
agricultural practices. Also, water
management policies may create
situations Where uses are not
compatible, such as management of
water levels in reservoirs without
regard to effects on fish and wildlife.

e With regard to fish and wildlife, it is
estimated that about 80 percent of the
Nation's flowing waters have
opportunities to improve water
quantity, water quality, fish habitat, or
composition of the fish community.
However, it is also estimated that some
two-thirds of U.S. streams have habitat
adequate for sports fish.

e In general, water quality has
improved significantly in the last
decade, and continued monitoring and
enforcement of laws and regulations
should make it even better.

e Average annual flood damages are
expected to increase in the future
mainly due to increased development
and rising property values on flood
plains.

16

The Water Resource

The water resource may be viewed as
moving in a never-ending cycle. Rain
or other precipitation soaks into the soil
or runs off the land: water is used or
stored in reservoirs or aquifers; it
evaporates or is transpired by
vegetation and becomes rain again. The
quality of the resource at each stage in
the hydrologic cycle is important in
assessing the status of the water
resource.

The quantity of freshwater in rivers and
streams is largely a function of the
amount of precipitation falling on
watersheds. Average annual
precipitation ranges from a few tenths
of an inch in some desert watersheds of
the Southwest to nearly 400 inches in
some Hawaiian watersheds. About
two-thirds of the precipitation that falls
either evaporates directly or is taken up
by plants and transpired back to the
atmosphere. The remaining third either
runs over the soil surface to streams or
percolates into the soil and moves
through the soil profile to streams via
flows of ground water. There is much
variation around the country in the
percentage of water that actually ends
up as part of the Nation’s usable water
resource. Climate, vegetative cover,
topography, and soil type all influence
the type and amount of runoff that
occurs 1n each geographic area.

The renewable water supply of the
coterminous United States amounts to
about 1.4 trillion gallons per day. The
available supply is not likely to change
much in the future, but there is much
uncertainty in trying to estimate short-
term supplies because of droughts,
major storms, and other natural
phenomena.

The volume of ground water in storage
in the upper half-mile of the Earth’s
crust within the coterminous United
States has been estimated to be 55
quadrillion gallons. Not all of this
water is suitable for human uses. The
recharge to the ground-water system is
1 trillion gallons per day. The total
ground water withdrawn in 1985
represented about 24 percent of the
total freshwater withdrawals in the
United States. The ground-water
resource situation varies around the
country, depending, for example, on
the extent of irrigation and changes in
ground-water quality.

Reservoirs provide a means to store
water when plentiful and use it when
needed. At present, there are 2,654
reservoirs and controlled natural lakes
having capacities of 5,000 acre-feet
(1.63 billion gallons) or more in the
United States and Puerto Rico. They
have a combined storage capacity of
480 million acre-feet (156.4 trillion
gallons). In addition, there are at least
50,000 smaller reservoirs with
capacities in the range of 500 to 5,000
acre-feet and about 2 million farm
ponds used for storage. There remain
about 750 million acre-feet (244 trillion
gallons) of potential storage in the
continental United States where
building dams is feasible from an
engineering perspective. Most of the
cost-effective sites have been
developed, however, and the Nation’s
reservoir capacity may be gradually
approaching the limit of economically
viable development.

The quality of water in many major
streams has improved markedly over
the past two decades. Laws mandating
pollution abatement have worked, and
major point sources of pollution are
being brought under control. Experts

Figure 16—Now that many point sources of pollution are under control, nonpoint sources have
become relatively more important as contributors to residual pollution of inland surface waters.
(Photo courtesy of USDA Soil Conservation Service.)

believe that further significant
improvements in water quality from
this type of control will be expensive
and difficult to achieve.

With achievement of control of many
point sources of pollution, nonpoint
sources have become relatively more
important as contributors to residual
pollution of inland surface waters (fig.
16). Nonpoint sources of pollution
include land disturbance and
management activities on the land.
Relatively minor changes in the
environment caused by nonpoint
sources of pollution can have major
impacts on the composition of fish and
wildlife populations in local situations.

The Demand Situation for
Water

Three types of water use must be
considered in any assessment of the
water situation: withdrawal use (water
removed from a stream or aquifer),
consumptive use (that part of water
withdrawals that is not returned to a

stream or aquifer for reuse), and
instream use (for navigation,
hydroelectric power generation,
recreation, and fish and wildlife
habitat).

The growth of the United States as an
industrialized nation has been closely
tied to the use of water. Water was the
source of transportation, food, and
power for use in industry. The
development of the steam engine in the
early 1800’s freed industries from
dependence on water power, and the
Industrial Revolution was well on its
way. From colonial days to the
beginning of the 20th century, demand
for drinking water and water for waste
disposal increased the most rapidly. By
then, civilization had tainted most
coastal waters and many inland
streams. Water-related diseases were
common. Destructive floods often
occurred as flood control structures
were not yet built.

During the next 75 years, the Nation
came a long way in the management of
its water resource. By the early 1970's,

it became clear that while previous
policies and actions solved many
volume-related water problems, much
remained to be done about problems of
water quality. Legislation was passed
with the intent of significant
improvement in the quality of the
Nation’s waters. Coincidentally, the
water-quality-related legislation
resulted in a major shift in the
relationships among population, gross
national product, and water
withdrawals. Water conservation and
recycling became more attractive under
the new legislation, and it had the
effect of retarding the growth in
demand for withdrawals and
consumption.

Trends in Water Use and
Projected Demands

In 1985, total freshwater withdrawals
in the United States totaled some 344
billion gallons per day—84 billion
from ground water, 259 billion from
surface water, and 0.6 billion from
waste water. Consumption in 1985
totaled 94 billion gallons per day, or 27
percent of withdrawals and less than 7
percent of daily precipitation (app.
table 6-8).

Data from the U.S. Geological Survey
indicate that total water withdrawals in
the United States increased 59 percent
between 1960 and 1985 and
consumption, 53 percent (fig. 17).
These totals mask significant
differences in withdrawal and
consumption among geographic
regions and uses (app. tables 6-8).
Between 1960 and 1985, withdrawals
in the South and Rocky Mountains rose
89 and 76 percent, respectively, as
compared with increases of 40 percent
in the North and 32 percent on the
Pacific coast.

17

Billion gallons
600

500

400

300

200

1960 1970 1980

Withdrawals

Ze

1990 2000 2010

Figure 17—Total freshwater consumption and withdrawals, 1960-85. with projections to 2040.

Because the North is more heavily
industrialized than other parts of the
country, it showed the largest
percentage increases in consumption of
water between 1960 and 1985 (132
percent). Increases were much smaller
for the South (68 percent), the Pacific
coast (49 percent), and the Rocky
Mountains (37 percent). The U.S. and
regional totals for withdrawals and
consumption also mask significant
differences among the major categories
of water use: thermoelectric steam
cooling, irrigation, municipal central
supplies, industrial self-supplies,
domestic self-supplies, and livestock
watering. Projections of water demands
were made for these six categories by
Assessment region (see frontispiece)
and form the basis for the following
presentation of projected demands.

The projections of water withdrawals
to 2040 are estimates of future demand
levels if recent trends in demand for
water continue.

Thermoelectric Steam Cooling

With thermoelectric power, the
principal method of generating
electricity 1s to convert water into
steam and then use steam pressure to
propel a generator’s turbine. Most of
the new electrical generating capacity
in the United States in the past 15 years
has been based on coal and nuclear
fuel. The Northeast relies primarily
upon nuclear and oil-fired units, and
the Pacific coast, on natural gas and
hydropower. All other regions depend
mainly on coal as a source of energy.
Consumption of water is only a
fraction of withdrawals for
thermoelectric steam cooling. The
primary concern over water quality 1s
the heating of water prior to discharge
back to the source—a concern that has
largely been alleviated through cooling
towers and other means.

The oil-price shocks of the 1970’s
caused many structural shifts in energy

Consumption

2020 2030 2040

consumption that have lowered the
relationship between electricity
demand and gross national product.
More efficient motors, better electricity
generation and transmission
technologies, and other conservation
measures have contributed to an
expected slowing in the rate of increase
of future demands for electricity. There
is also potential for increased imports
of hydro-based electricity from
Canada. This outlook does not mean
reduced needs for water for
thermoelectric power generation—t
means a slowing in the growth in
demand in the short term. After the
turn of the century, it is expected that
relatively large increases in generating
capacity will be necessary (fig. 18). By
2040, withdrawals for thermoelectric
cooling are projected to be 228.3
billion gallons per day, with
consumption amounting to only 6
percent of withdrawals. Most of the
added capacity is assumed to be in the
North and South.

Figure 18—Thermoelectric cooling is expected to be the most important source of demand for
water withdrawals. (Photo courtesy of USDA Soil Conservation Service.)

Irrigation

Irrigation—the act of applying water to
land to promote the growth of
vegetation—covers a multitude of uses
from watering agricultural crops to golf
courses to home lawns and gardens.
Irrigation water comes from wells,
surface sources on the site, and surface
sources provided by offsite suppliers
such as irrigation districts and ditch
companies. Irrigation withdrawals in
1985 totaled 142.5 billion gallons per
day, with 40 percent originating from
wells and 60 percent from surface
sources. Three of every four gallons
from surface sources are provided by
offsite suppliers. Irrigators in the Great
Plains rely most heavily on ground-
water withdrawals; those in other parts
of the Rocky Mountain and Pacific
coast regions rely most heavily on off-
farm suppliers.

Because both wells and onfarm
surface-water sources must be pumped
to deliver water to crops, the energy
expenses of irrigating farmland can be
large and have a major impact on the

extent of irrigation. During the past
decade of high energy prices, for
example, irrigated farmland acreage
fell by 11 percent. Decreased export
demands and lower commodity prices
also contributed to reduced use of
irrigation for agriculture.

About half of the withdrawals for
irrigation are consumed. Irrigation is
the largest consumptive user by far,
accounting for 73.8 billion gallons per
day—79 percent of the total
consumption of water for all uses (fig.
19). Thus, of all the uses, the outlook
for water used as irrigation will have
the most influence on the overall
demand-supply outlook for water.

Irrigation water usage is projected to
grow at a much slower rate over the
next 50 years than over the previous 25
years. Irrigation is expected to remain
important, however, in all regions
except the North. The primary reasons
for expecting this slowdown are higher
pumping costs and the potential of
technology for conserving water used

in irrigation. The expected increases in
energy costs in the future will increase
pumping costs, thereby reducing the
returns per acre from irrigation and
forcing some acreage into dry-land
crop production. Competition from
higher value uses and lack of additional
water supplies will also be important in
raising irrigation costs. Increased water
costs may provide market incentives
for adoption of existing water-saving
technologies such as drip or trickle
irrigation systems.

Other Water Uses

The remaining water uses are
municipal central supplies, industrial
self-supplies, domestic self-supplies,
and livestock watering.2 In total, they
accounted for 16.7 percent of
consumption and 20.6 percent of
withdrawals in 1985. Each of these
uses 1s expected to grow in the future,
and by 2040, they collectively account
for 19.6 percent of consumption and
23.7 percent of withdrawals.

Trends and projections in withdrawals
and consumption for each of the other
uses are In appendix tables 6 and 8.

? The term “municipal central supplies” refers to
water withdrawn by public or private water-
supply utilities that distribute treated water
through a network of pipes to household,
commercial, and industrial users. Self-supplied
industrial water use is defined in this Assessment
as water withdrawn and consumed by industries
for their own use, other than cooling
thermoelectric power plants. Water for domestic
self-supplies includes water for household
consumption, drinking water for livestock and
other uses such as dairy sanitation, evaporation
from stock-watering ponds, cleaning, and waste
disposal. Livestock watering includes water
provided for drinking by livestock and water
used to maintain sanitary living conditions for
livestock.

19

Summary of Water Demands

Projected withdrawal demands increase
for all the major end uses of water. By
2040, thermoelectric steam cooling is
projected to have the largest
withdrawals, followed by irrigation.
These two uses account for about
three-quarters of water demand in
2040. There will be large increases in
demands for both ground-water and
surface-water withdrawals.

Total demands for freshwater
withdrawals are expected to increase in
all regions. The largest percentage
increase in demand between 1985 and
2040 is for the North, and the smallest
percentage increase is for the Rocky
Mountain region.

Water Supplies

Precipitation in the form of rain, snow,
sleet, and hail is the source of both
surface and ground water. Various
management practices can affect local
supplies, but the Nation’s annual
supply of water is beyond direct
control and depends on the forces of
nature.

Water Demand-Supply
Comparisons

It is apparent that precipitation
provides enough surface and ground
water (1.4 trillion gallons a day) to
meet present and prospective
withdrawals (some 500 billion gallons
a day by 2040). By 2040, water
consumption still amounts to only 10
percent of precipitation. There are,
however, serious imbalances caused by
the geographic, seasonal, and annual
variations in supplies.

Water-quantity problems exist in the
Rio Grande, upper and lower Colorado,

20

Great Basin, and California water
resource regions.

The water supply situation in some
areas—such as the High Plains, which
extends from central Texas and eastern
New Mexico north into eastern
Colorado, Kansas, and southern
Nebraska—is being affected by
ground-water mining. As a result of
ground-water mining and rising energy
costs, the use of ground water for
irrigation over substantial areas may
become uneconomic during the next 2
decades or so. Demand-—supply
situations in arid parts of the
Southwestern United States are
stimulating studies of ways to develop
water markets. Such markets are
mostly lacking under current
institutional arrangements.

Most of the Nation’s water shortages
are caused by annual and seasonal
variations in precipitation and water
flows. Variations caused by unusual
storms bring about another major
problem—flooding. Flooding occurs in
all parts of the United States. Flood
damages are greatest in coastal and
southern California, in a broad range
extending up the Mississippi River
drainage, and in another broad area
extending up the Atlantic coast from
South Carolina to Maine.

Water quality will continue to be a
concern under the projected

demand-supply situation. For example,

nonpoint sources of pollution are
especially important for fish habitat
and the composition of the fish
community. These concerns will
continue to be reflected in public
policies aimed at management of water
quality.

Range Forage Demand-
Supply—The Outlook

Outlook Overview

e Per capita consumption of beef, veal,
lamb, and mutton 1s projected to
remain near current levels during the
coming decades.

e Thus, future demand will grow in
line with the growth in the total U.S.
population.

e After taking into account imports
and exports, total demand on the
domestic range forage resource 1s
expected to increase 54 percent by
2040.

e Forage from public lands accounts
for less than 10 percent of total forage
consumption.

e Management of Forest Service
rangelands will be oriented to
vegetation management, with multiple
uses as the desired output mix.

e [tis assumed that forage production
on private lands will become more
productive over time.

e Thus, much of the current and
prospective range forage supply
situation depends on private lands.

e Total supply of range forage is
expected to increase 52 percent by
2040, with most of the increase coming
from private lands.

e Multiple-use management of
rangelands will be necessary to
accommodate domestic livestock,
wildlife, recreation, and other uses of
rangeland.

The Range Forage Resource
The range forage resource consists of

grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, and
shrubs associated with rangeland and

some forest ecosystems. Management
of the range resource affects a number
of resource outputs, including forage
production, water yields and quality,
wildlife and fish populations, and the
suitability of the land for various kinds
of outdoor recreation (fig. 20). In
addition, managers of public rangeland
must keep in mind provisions of the
Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act
of 1971 and the Endangered Species
Act of 1973. The range forage
assessment in this document
concentrates on the forage resource that
comes from rangelands.

The demand for range forage for use in
feeding domestic livestock competes
with the use of forests and rangelands
for wildlife, watershed protection,
recreation, and other outputs. The
forage demand for domestic livestock
is derived from consumers’ demands
for livestock outputs such as meat,
hides, tallow, and other products
produced from grazing animals. Thus
the demand for forage will be affected
by factors such as changes in

Figure 20—Range management affects not only
forage production but also water yields and
quality, wildlife and fish populations, and the
suitability of the land for various kinds of
outdoor recreation.

Figure 19—Irrigation is expected to be the most important consumptive use of water. (Photo
courtesy of USDA Soil Conservation Service.)

technology producing feed
substitutions or feed mixtures, and the
demand for meat. We therefore
analyzed the demand for forage as
being derived from the demand for
livestock and meat production.
Projections of the forage demand for
wildlife are derived from wildlife
population projections presented in the
demand-—supply outlook for wildlife
and fish.

The reliance of livestock operations on
grazed forages varies by type of
animal. Dairy cattle and horses use
small amounts of grazed forage, but 61
percent of the annual feed requirements
for beef cattle and some 90 percent of
the feed requirements for sheep and
goats are supplied by grazed forages.
Wild herbivores obtain nearly all their
feed needs from grazed forages. The 17
coterminous Western States support
about 85 percent of the Nation’s sheep
inventory, and sheep production in this
region is heavily dependent on grazing.

Forage produced on the lands managed
by the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management amounts to about 7
percent of the total forage consumed by
domestic livestock in the United States
(app. table 9). Forage produced on
private lands represents 88 percent of
the total grazed forages produced, and
crop residue, the remaining 5 percent.

The relative importance of public
grazing lands as a source of forage for
beef cattle and sheep varies around the
country. Public grazing land
contributes more than 50 percent of the
total feed mix in the Pacific Northwest.
In all other regions, private lands
provide most of the forage needed for
beef cattle and sheep. Seasonal
availability of even a small percentage
of the total feed mix on public lands is
critical in maintaining livestock
operations or viability of wildlife
herds, however.

Since 1930, cattle numbers have had
cyclical movements up and down (fig.
21). Sheep numbers that peaked in
1942 at 56 million head have dropped
to 10.3 million head. Domestic
livestock grazing on National Forest
System lands has remained fairly
constant since 1953. Domestic
livestock grazing on Bureau of Land
Management lands has declined as a
result of reductions in stocking rates on
some allotments and a transfer of
BLM-administered lands to other
agencies. Permitted grazing on
National Forest System lands has
declined in the Southwestern,
Northern, and Eastern Regions. It has
increased in the Pacific Southwest and
Pacific Northwest Regions and shown
no discernible long-term trend in the
Southern Region.

Millions
120

100
====== Sheep and Goats

amm==s Horses

1840

1860

1880

International Trade

The rapid expansion in worldwide meat
production in the 1970’s has slowed in
the 1980’s. The total world meat output
that enters international trade is
approximately 7 percent of world
production. Available information
suggests that future international meat
trade will not expand greatly. Many
developing countries are moving
toward self-sufficiency in poultry and
pork. Beef imports into the United
States have amounted to about 8
percent of consumption since 1970,
and exports, less than | percent of
production until recently. There is little
basis for expecting major changes in
the trade situation. Therefore, future
demand for meat in the United States
will be primarily a function of
domestic demands.

1900 1920

Figure 21—Number of livestock on farms in the United States, for selected years, 1840-1982.

1940

U.S. Consumption and
Demand for Meat

Beef consumption in the United States
increased steadily after World War IT
and reached a peak of 91.7 Ib (edible
weight) per capita in 1976 (fig. 22).
Consumption then declined to a low of
76.5 pounds in 1980 and has remained
below 80 pounds since then. Per capita
consumption of lamb has declined from
4.8 Ib in 1960 to 1.4 Ib in 1986. Per
capita consumption of other meat
products, especially poultry, and fish
has increased.

The cause for the past sluggish
behavior in the beef market is uncertain
despite extensive study of the situation.
Possible reasons for the recent pattern
of beef consumption include changes in
consumer spending patterns, the lower
relative prices of poultry and other beef
substitutes, concerns over the role of
meat in the daily diet, and the
innovative products being made from

Pounds
200

150

100

=== Beef and veal
=== Poultry

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, 1986.

Figure 22—Per capita meat consumption in the United States, by edible weight, 1965-85.

beef substitutes. The beef industry is
working on marketing and product
development that may stimulate beef
consumption. Other studies and expert
opinion on future consumption suggest
that per capita demand for meat will be
steady or slowly rise. For the purposes
of this assessment, per capita demands
for beef, veal, lamb, and mutton are
assumed to remain constant and, in
total, amount to 110 Ib (carcass weight)
per person. This is a departure from the
1979 RPA Assessment, which
projected per capita consumption of
148 lb by 2030, and reflects trends of
the past decade. Thus, total U.S.
demand for beef, veal, lamb, and
mutton is expected to increase in line
with population growth.

Projections to 2040 indicate a 56-
percent increase 1n beef and veal
production compared with 1985 levels.
Lamb and mutton production are
expected to remain near 1985 levels.

The 56-percent increase in derived
demand is higher than the 38-percent
increase in U.S. population in part
because imports are expected to decline
as compared with 1985.

We derived estimates of grazed forage
consumption from the projections for
production of beef, veal, mutton, and
lamb. By 2040, total forage
consumption for cattle and sheep is
expected to be nearly 660 million
animal unit-months (the amount of
forage required for a 1,000-pound cow,
or the equivalent, for | month),
compared with 431 million in 1985.

Projected Forage Supply

The forage to be supplied in the future
depends on both the area of rangeland
and production per unit area. It is
assumed that cropland placed in the
Conservation Reserve Program will

remain in permanent cover and not be
returned to crop production. After
taking account of the effects of this
program, we project that rangeland
area will increase some 5 percent by
2040.

Through the implementation of
existing technology, productivity of
private rangeland is assumed to
increase ().7 percent per year for the
1987-2040 period. Some 150
technologies have been identified as
potentially increasing the future
productivity of agriculture and
livestock production. These do not
include genetic engineering of animals
but do include genetic engineering of
the plants used for forage. They also
include further application of
traditional management practices such
as fencing. We assume that market and
other incentives will lead to the
adoption of these technologies. Under
these assumptions, by 2040, forage

production per acre is expected to
increase 47 percent compared with
1985 levels. Forage cutputs on
National Forest System lands are
expected to increase slightly, from 9.8
million to 10.3 million animal unit-
months. The percentage increase in
forage output on National Forest
System lands is lower than for private
lands. This reflects the Forest Service’s
future emphasis on vegetation
management for multiple uses such as
recreation and improved riparian
jnabitat and water quality.

Indexed values
160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1985 1990 1995 2000

Range Forage
Demand-Supply Comparisons

The derived demand for forage is
expected to increase 54 percent above
the demand in 1985 by the year 2040
(fig. 23). This demand represents the
demand for all sources of grazed
forages, including the demand for
forages from range and forest lands.
The combination of increased
rangeland area (5 percent) and
productivity increase (47 percent)
would lead to a 52-percent increase in

Demand

2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 23—Forage demand and supply projections to 2040.

supply by 2040. Forage supplies
approximately equal demands under
these assumptions.

Based on projected population
estimates for the Western United
States, we project that wild herbivores
will need 19 percent more forage in
2000 than they did in 1985. Since
forage supplies were projected to
approximate the forage demand for
livestock, wildlife forage needs may
require attention through range
enhancement.

2025 2030 2035 2040

Outdoor Recreation
Demand-Supply—The
Outlook

Outlook Overview

e The number of people participating
in recreation is expected to increase
across all recreational activities during
the next 5 decades.

e The percentage of the total
population participating in recreation
has stabilized in recent years, as has the
per capita allocation of leisure time to
recreational pursuits.

e Thus, total demand for recreation
would grow at least in line with
population growth if this pattern
continues in the future.

e In addition, real per capita income is
projected to more than double by 2040.
This extra income will contribute to
differential rates of growth in
recreational activities. For example,
demands for snow-related recreation
are expected to grow at a faster rate
than for most land- and water-based
activities, but the latter activities will
continue to dominate total recreation
patterns.

e If the public and private sectors
continue to provide and expand
opportunities at rates comparable to
recent trends, the projected increases in
supplies will meet most of the
projected increases in demands.

e The effect of continuing to close
more private lands to public access is
evident in the projected shortfall in
land- and snow-based opportunities
near roaded, partially developed sites.

e To meet these shortfalls, fees,
especially for recreational use of
private land, will become more
important in the recreational supply
picture in the future. Most of the
increase in demand will be near
existing population centers, which are

generally far away from the bulk of the
Federal lands located in the West.

e National forests and other public
lands in the North, South, and Pacific
coast region are expected to become
relatively more important for all forms
of recreation if access remains
generally unrestricted and free.

e Rather than national trends affecting
all regions alike, the differential rates
of growth in activities indicate that
specific regions and areas of the
country will be affected in different
ways by the expected growth in
recreation. For example, growth in
demand for downhill skiing has
obvious implications for areas of the
country with the unique terrain needed
for this activity.

The Resource Base

Although most forest and range lands
and water are suitable for some forms
of outdoor recreation, relatively little
acreage 1s managed for recreation that
involves large capital investments and
intensive use. Parks, reservoirs, and
picnic areas account for a large
proportion of the area that is managed
for intensive use. Most of these areas
are administered by the U.S.
Department of the Interior’s National
Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and park agencies of State
and local governments.

Most of the outdoor recreation
activities that involve capital-intensive,
convenience-oriented facilities and
high-density use areas (such as
recreational vehicle parks, marinas, and
swimming pools) are on private lands
with privately owned facilities. Most of
America’s major ski areas are located
on public lands but built and managed
by private firms. In contrast, most of

the dispersed recreational activities that
require little in the way of convenience
facilities are provided publicly on
public lands, particularly those
managed by the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, mainly
in the West, and lands managed by the
States in the East. Most of the public
lands managed by these agencies are
also used for multiple purposes,
including the production of timber,
water, forage, and wildlife. The
distinction between the types of
activities provided on public and
private lands is not exact: all types of
recreation occur on both public and
private lands. There are, however,
some notable differences important in
considering the recreational resource
situation in the United States.

Private lands are generally more
intensively roaded than public lands.
Thus, they can provide fewer remote
recreation opportunities than public
lands. Over 350 million acres of public
recreation lands, or about 55 percent of
the total, are estimated to be more than
one-half mile from roads and thus
provide backcountry opportunities.
Only about 27 million acres of private
rural lands, or about 2 percent of their
total, are that remote.

Private Lands

Recreational opportunities on private
lands depend in part on the land cover
and in part on access to the land. About
95 percent of the privately owned rural
land in the contiguous 48 States 1s
classed as nonindustrial private and
held by an estimated 14.1 million
owners. These lands are owned for a
variety of purposes including crop
production, grazing, timber production,
and especially “country living” and
hobby farming. Increasingly, people
own land for recreational purposes.

tO
N

About one-third of this 1.2 billion acres
is in each of the three land-use
categories of forest, range/pasture, and
crops/hay.

Of the estimated 1.2 billion acres of
land in nonindustrial private ownership
in the contiguous United States, about
23 percent is open for public use free,
on payment of a daily fee, or through
lease. Much of this open land is in the
East and in the Rocky Mountain/Great
Plains regions. Some activities tend to
be permitted and some, forbidden. For
example, hunting, birdwatching, and
hiking are usually allowed, but off-road
driving, camping, and target shooting
are generally not permitted. In part
because of liability problems, access to
the remaining private land is restricted.
About 58 million acres are completely
closed to recreation. Over 318 million
acres are open for the exclusive use of
the owners and their immediate
families. We estimate that access to
579 million acres, or 45 percent of the
private land base, is open to people
personally acquainted with the owner.
Thus, despite lability problems, most
of the private land is used for some
form of recreational activity. Access to
the general public is becoming more
limited, however. Over the past 10
years, the percentage of private lands
open to the public for recreation has
dropped from 29 to 23 percent.

About 4 percent (47 million acres) of
nonindustrial lands are leased for
recreational use at an annual average
fee of $2.97 per acre. About two-thirds
of this leased area is in the South. The
proportion of landowners reporting a
leasing arrangement has grown from 2
percent in 1977 to 7 percent in 1987.
The principal reasons for leasing
include paying land taxes,
supplementary income, and protection
of the land. Hunting leases are the most
common type.

There are many different types of
commercial enterprises associated with
outdoor recreation and wilderness.
They include guides and outfitters,
equipment rental firms such as boat
rentals, private campgrounds, bed and
breakfast operations, marinas, and
skiing facilities.

The number of campgrounds on private
lands in the United States decreased |
percent between 1978 and 1987. This
decline was due to the closing of
smaller, marginal operations with low
economic returns. Even though the
number of campgrounds has decreased
slightly, their size has been increasing.
The average number of sites per
campground grew 32 percent between
1977 and 1987. Now, there are nearly
1.3 million campsites in private
campgrounds nationwide.
Approximately 55 percent of all
campgrounds are privately owned.
They account for over 70 percent of
total capacity and 97 percent of full-
hookup sites. Over 70 percent of
private campgrounds and campsites are
in the eastern half of the country, close
to population concentrations.

Nonprofit recreational organizations
provide access to resources and
recreation settings and organize
activities and trips that might otherwise
be unavailable to their individual
members. Membership in nonprofit
organizations has grown rapidly. These
organizations have special concerns
over resource protection, access and
multiple use of lands, and recognition
of the rights of individuals.

Federal Lands and Water

The Federal recreation land base has
many parts and dimensions. It is
administered by seven different
agencies, each having its own

legislative authority and its own
recreation objectives, standards, and
programs.

About 690 million acres of Federal
lands are available for access to various
types of recreational activities.
Primarily, these lands provide
undeveloped—remote or roaded—
partially developed recreational
opportunities. Even though these
Federal lands account for over one-
third of the Nation’s recreational space,
they accommodate only about 13
percent of outdoor recreation
participation. The largest proportion of
Federal recreation land is in the West.
and relatively remote from population
concentrations except for cities on the
west coast and in the Pacific
Southwest.

There are about 5,000 campgrounds on
Federal lands in the United States. The
Forest Service manages 70 percent of
them, and the Corps of Engineers, 17
percent. About two-thirds of the
Federal campgrounds are in the Rocky
Mountain and Pacific coast regions,
where less than one-fifth of the U.S.
population lives. In general, Federal
campgrounds have fewer amenities and
are smaller than private campgrounds.

Federal agencies operate over 63,000
picnic areas. There are also over
144,000 miles of roads and 160,000
miles of trails on lands managed by
these agencies. Federal agencies
provide a variety of water-based
recreational opportunities. For
example, there are 7,178 miles of rivers
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
system with management responsibility
allocated primarily among the Forest
Service, the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service. Boat ramps,
swimming areas, and beaches are also
found on Federal lands. A number of

these are in the 31 National Recreation
Areas in the contiguous 48 States and
Alaska. These specially designated
areas cover over 6 million acres, of
which more than 90 percent is
managed by public agencies. Some of
the areas are especially important to
urban residents because they are close
to major cities, such as New York, Los
Angeles, Atlanta, and Cleveland.

In the wintertime, roads, trails and
other resources that serve different
recreational purposes during the rest of
the year are used for cross-country
skiing, snowmobiling, and winter
camping. Over 240 million acres of
Federal lands receive at least 16 inches
of snowfall each year and thus are
suitable for winter sports. Most
downhill ski areas and almost 60
percent of hourly lift capacity are on
national forests, mainly in the Rocky
Mountain and Pacific coast regions.

State Lands and Water

There are some 52.6 million acres of
State land available for access to
recreational uses. Of this total, 50
percent is managed by State forest
agencies, 19 percent by State park
agencies, and 31 percent by fish and
game agencies. States manage nearly a
full range of recreation opportunities
across these three agencies, including
wilderness areas, developed camping,
and various water-based activities.

Local Government Recreation
Opportunities

Outdoor recreation provided by local
governments includes most types of
opportunities. The emphasis of local
government is partially developed and
developed site opportunities, unlike
that of Federal or State Governments.
The average local park and recreation

agency manages about 160 acres,
nationwide totaling 2.2 million acres.
About one-quarter of this acreage is
partially developed and mostly natural.
Typical municipal or county
departments provide several
playgrounds, athletic fields, tennis and
basketball courts, swimming pools, and
often a golf course or fitness trail.
Nationwide, these local departments
also provide an estimated 65,000 acres
of lakes and about 30,000 miles of
various types of trails.

Of all public recreation lands, local
sites are distributed most like the
largely urban U.S. population (fig. 24).
Because local facilities are closest to
people’s homes and thus are most
easily accessible, the approximately 2.2
million acres of local government
recreation and natural lands and waters
receive the most intensive use.
Although data are fragmentary, we
estimate that local governments
provide over one-half of all U.S.
outdoor recreation use.

Trends in Participation
in Outdoor Recreation

Typically, realized demand—defined
as actual participation in outdoor
recreation—is used to describe demand
trends. Participation has two
dimensions—number of participant
occasions and proportion of the
population or number of people who
participate.

The choice to participate in any
recreational activity depends on many
factors, such as cost, time required, and
the physical demands of the activity.
As one or more of these factor becomes
limiting, people may choose a
substitute compatible with their
circumstances. Both the number of
people who participate in an activity
and the frequency and duration of their
participation are key factors in
attempting to assess longrun demands
for various recreational activities.
Together, these factors determine the
total number of recreational trips the
public consumes and the number of
visits to public lands.

Figure 24—Local recreation sites are distributed most like the largely urban U.S. population.

One of the most important changes to
occur in outdoor recreation
participation in the last few years has
been a shift from taking a few, long
vacations to taking shorter but more
numerous weekend and long weekend
trips (fig. 25). This shift has had
several major consequences. First, the
number of trips or occasions taken to
participate in activities has risen
relative to the percentage of the
population participating and to total
hours spent recreating. Second, this
shift has made recreation opportunities
close to home a much more important
component of recreation supply.

About 89 percent of the American
public participates in outdoor
recreation at least once during any
given year. Over the past 20 years, the
number of participants in most
activities has grown, sometimes more
rapidly than the U.S. population.
Growth has been partly due to
increases in frequency of participation,

caused by a succession of progressively
more active generations, and partly due
to increased numbers of people in the
population base. In general, over the
past 2 decades, the more physically
demanding outdoor pursuits have
gained in popularity. As a result, they

have shown the fastest percentage
growth in numbers of participants.
Percentage growth of participants in
other, less physical activities such as
picnicking and sightseeing still account
for most of the Nation’s recreation (fig.

oh LS ROL ee es

Figure 26—Traditional recreation activities will continue to account for most of the Nation’s

recreation.

Figure 25—More people are recreating by taking shorter trips close to home.

28

Besides American recreationists, the
activities of foreign visitors to this
country also affect our economy and
recreation resources. Information is
limited on outdoor recreation
opportunities for foreign visitors to the
United States. However, these visitors
are known to comprise a significant
market segment for internationally
famous attractions such as the Grand
Canyon and Yellowstone National
Parks. Foreign visitation may increase
in the future, but it is likely to be
cyclical and dependent on the value of
the U.S. dollar relative to other
currencies.

There are other indicators of trends in
recreation participation. For example,
the total number of visits to Federal
recreation areas has generally
increased, although there have been
reductions in the rate of growth and, in
some instances, in total time spent

recreating at Federal areas.
Increasingly, people are lodging at
commercial accommodations near the
more removed Federal areas, and they
are day visiting close-to-home Federal
areas more frequently than in the past.

Other recreation demand indicators
include expenditures for selected

equipment, licenses, and transportation.

When viewed in constant dollars,
spending for “big ticket” items, such as
boats and recreational vehicles, has
declined while spending on sporting
goods and bicycles has grown by 20
percent since 1977.

Participation styles vary with both the
recreation activity and the
characteristics of the individual. Some
activities, such as walking for pleasure,
are enjoyed often by a broad spectrum
of society. Others, such as hunting, are

Category
Land

Wilderness/remote
Nonmotor near roads
Motorized

Developed sites

Water

Wilderness/remote
Nonmotor near roads

Motorized
Developed sites

Snow and Ice

Undeveloped
Developed

Index (1984 = 100)

enjoyed primarily by a small
percentage of adult males for just a few
days each year. Age, disability, race,
education, and income are the personal
characteristics most strongly related to
the outdoor recreation participation
choices of Americans.

Projections of
Future Participation

Projections of likely future recreation
participation show expected increases
across all recreational activities,
including simple activities such as
picnicking, day hiking, and sightseeing
that can be enjoyed close to home (fig.
27 and app. table 10). Demand 1s also
projected to increase for more
expensive, time-consuming, and
adventuresome activities, such as
downhill skiing, canoeing, kayaking,

Figure 27—Projected indexes of outdoor recreation demand by category, 2000 and 2040.

and backpacking, as well as for
convenient, active recreational pursuits
that contribute to physical fitness,
including running, jogging, swimming,
walking, hiking, and bicycling (fig.
28).

Demands for snow-related recreation
are expected to grow at a faster rate
than for most land- and water-based
activities. However, the present
numbers of trips taken for land and
water recreation are so large that even a
very small percentage growth in one of
these types of recreation will mean
several million more trips and
participants each year, much greater
numbers than for snow-based
recreation.

2000
C5 2040

300 400 500

Figure 28—Demands for adventuresome
activities are expected to increase.

Outdoor Recreation
Demand-Supply Comparisons

If the public and private sectors
continue to provide opportunities and
to increase them at rates comparable to
recent trends, the projected changes in
supplies will meet most of the
projected increases in demands. For
others, where the number of
recreational trips Americans would
prefer to take exceeds the expected
supply of opportunities for trips,
demands will be brought into balance
through increased fees, higher densities
of use, or rationing. In general, demand
pressures are projected to be greatest
for dispersed land-based activities,
such as day hiking and backpacking,
and dispersed snow-based activities,
such as cross-country skiing. For other
activities, continuing past trends in
resources means that sufficient growth
will occur in resources to allow
Americans to take as many activity-
specific recreational trips as they

choose. These activities include
developed camping, downhill skiing,
picnicking, swimming, and motor
boating.

Of the situations where recreation
demand exceeds supply, some are tied
to specific changes occurring in
resource availability. For example, the
effect of continuing to close more
private lands to public access is clearly
evident in the projected shortfalls of
land- and snow-based opportunities
near roads. Lack of access to private
land opportunities will tend to add to
use pressures on public lands and the
remaining open private lands,
especially in the East. For some
particular activities, substantial
shortfalls are expected: backpacking,
day hiking, cross-country skiing,
wildlife observation, and horseback
riding.

Wilderness
Demand-Supply—The
Outlook

Outlook Overview

e About 89 million acres are currently
in the National Wilderness
Preservation System.

e About | of every 6 acres in the
National Forest System is designated as
“wilderness.”

e Wilderness use accounts for less
than | percent of all outdoor recreation.

e Total time spent in wilderness areas
has been relatively stable in recent
years.

e Wilderness areas contribute to
maintenance of species diversity and
protection of habitat for threatened and
endangered species; and they are in
other ways important unrelated to
onsite recreation.

e Major future growth of the National
Wilderness Preservation System is not
expected.

Wilderness Areas

The National Wilderness Preservation
System is composed of lands dedicated
by the Congress to the preservation of
their scenic and natural characteristics
(fig. 29). About 89 million acres
currently are in this system, and more
acreage has been proposed. About 56
million of these acres are in Alaska.
The National Park Service manages 37
million acres of wilderness, almost all
in Alaska. The Fish and Wildlife
Service manages 19.3 million acres,
and the Bureau of Land Management,
369,000 acres. The Forest Service
manages about 32 million acres of
wilderness. Thus, about | of every 6
acres in the National Forest System is
designated as wilderness.

Figure 29—Congress has dedicated some 89 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation

System.

State agencies manage over 2.6 million
acres of State-designated wilderness.

More than 88 percent is on State forest
lands of the Northeast; most of the rest

is in State parks along the Pacific coast.

Local governments and private
organizations, such as the Nature
Conservancy, currently manage over
1.3 million acres of protected natural

areas. Over 40 percent of these acres
are in the Northeast; about 30 percent

more are in the Southeast.

In addition to formally protected
wilderness, there remains extensive
land acreage (over 300 million acres)
under Federal and State jurisdictions.
These lands provide primitive,
dispersed recreational experiences
similar to those that can be enjoyed in
designated wilderness.

Major future growth of the National

Wilderness Preservation System is not
expected. Preservation of natural areas
by State and local governments and by
private sector organizations, however,

appears to be growing. Total acreage
will be small, however.

Wilderness Uses

The number of visits to national forest
wilderness areas grew rapidly in the
1960' and 1970's. More recently,
growth in wilderness visits has slowed
to about 4.5 percent per year, and some
declines have recently occurred in
specific areas. Much of the increase
over the past 10 years was due to
additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System on National Forest
System lands and not growth of
visitation per area. After rising quickly
during the 1970's, overnight use of
national park backcountry, which
includes designated wilderness, entered
a period of decline about 1980. These
trends are indicative of the shift from
the less frequent, multiple-day trips of
the past to the shorter, more frequent
trips of the 1980’s. More trips to
wilderness areas now are for day use,

rather than for overnight and multiday
visits. In addition, total time spent in
wilderness areas has been relatively
stable in recent years. Wilderness use
accounts for 5 percent of national forest
recreation use and less than | percent
of all outdoor recreation.

Onsite recreation is only one of the
ways in which wilderness resources are
important. Some people value knowing
that wilderness exists, whether or not
they personally make a visit. Also,
maintenance of species diversity,
protection of habitat for threatened and
endangered species, and preservation
of social and spiritual values are ways
that the wilderness resource is
important. Wilderness areas also serve
a number of scientific and research
needs, especially for studying
undisturbed natural processes. Some
areas also support commercial uses
such as mining, grazing, and
subsistence living, and many are
important for watershed protection.

Wiidlife and Fish
Demand-Supply—The
Outlook

Outlook Overview

e As land use intensifies on private
lands, the National Forest System and
other public lands will become more
important for their unique wildlife and
fish habitats, and especially significant
for the some 166 threatened and
endangered species found on national
forests.

e Big- and small-game hunting are
expected to decline slowly but steadily
in the next 5 decades.

e Migratory-bird hunting will also
decline somewhat to 2000 before it
rises again.

e Increases in supply of opportunities
for cold-water fishing, migratory-bird
hunting, big-game hunting, and small-
game hunting could lead to somewhat
higher demand trends for these wildlife
and fish recreation activities.

e Increases in nonconsumptive uses
will grow about twice as fast as
population to 2000, while warm- and
cold-water fishing will increase about
the same as population growth. Rates
of growth will accelerate slightly after
2000.

e Analysis of participation rates for
wildlife recreation opportunities
indicates that national forests and other
public lands are expected to become
relatively more important for big- and
small-game hunting and cold-water
fishing if access remains generally
unrestricted and free.

e Hunting in designated areas for a
fee, especially on private lands is
expected to become more important in
the future and increase the pressure on
public lands.

Ww
ho

Context for Analysis

Wildlife and fish are integral parts of
all environments—from pristine
wilderness to urban settings. The
values associated with wildlife and fish
have broadened from the utilitarian
views held by early subsistence and
market hunters. Wildlife and fish
populations are now recognized as
barometers of the health and diversity
of ecosystems, providing important
social, environmental, and economic
benefits to society as a whole. This is
reflected in the passage of laws
intended to ensure protection and bring
about management of this resource, in
the membership increases enjoyed by
wildlife and fish interest groups, and in
public interest in policies and programs
affecting wildlife and fish.

The supply of wildlife and fish is a
function of the quality and quantity of
habitat, animal and fish populations,
and investment in management. The
demand for fish and wildlife is a
function of the number of people
actively using fish and wildlife
resources, their preferences, and their
willingness to allocate time and dollars
to hunting and fishing. Thus, the
demand-supply outlook for wildlife
and fish is described in terms of
habitat, population levels, numbers of
users, and harvest levels.

Current Status and Recent
Historical Trends in Habitat

Viable populations of fish and wildlife
require appropriate habitat—
availability of food, cover, and water.
There are many different ways to
measure and classify habitat. The most
straightforward for wildlife that lives
on land is habitat by land cover and
how the land is used—whether it is
forest, range, or cropland.

Forest Land—tThe plant cover on
forest land is diverse and varied around
the country. For example, 73 percent of
all U.S. vegetation types are
represented on National Forest System
lands. Because of this diversity, it 1s
estimated that at least 90 percent of the
total bird, amphibian, and fish species
and at least 80 percent of the mammal
and reptile species can be found on
forested lands.

Over time, the forest cover on any area
changes, either naturally or through
human actions. Changes in forest
cover, trends in forest successional
stages, and trends in the size, shape,
and spatial distribution of different
habitats affect the health and diversity
of fish and wildlife populations.

Maintaining the diversity of wildlife or
fish species that are potential
inhabitants of any forest ecosystem
type requires not only that all
successional stages of forest vegetation
be represented but also that important
structural characteristics within plant
communities be maintained. Many
species are benefited by a mosaic of
forest conditions; other species require
large tracts of homogeneous forest.

Over time, the area of forest land has
declined in the North and South and
stayed about the same in the West, but
there have been changes in the forest
cover on some of these lands.

Rangeland—Rangeland cover
supports a wide diversity of wildlife
and fish species. For example, 84
percent of the mammal species found
in the United States are associated with
rangeland ecosystems during some part
of the year. In addition, 38 percent of
the Nation’s fish species and 58
percent of its amphibious species occur
on rangelands despite the dry climates

that usually characterize these
environments.

As with forest lands, natural and
human-caused changes in rangeland
habitats can affect fish and wildlife
diversity. For example, grazing by
domestic livestock affects the amount
and type of forage left for wildlife, and
it affects riparian habitat for fish. In
total over recent decades, there have
been minor declines in the area of
rangeland.

Wetlands—Wetlands are at the
transition between land and water
areas. Of existing wetland habitats, 74
percent are under private ownerships
with the remaining acreage distributed
among Federal, State, and local
jurisdictions (fig. 30). Wetlands are
among the most productive of
ecological systems. This inherent
productivity sustains nearly one-third
of the Nation’s threatened and
endangered species, provides nursery
and spawning grounds for 60 to 90
percent of U.S. commercial fish
catches, provides breeding and

wintering grounds for millions of
waterfowl and shore birds, and
supports numerous other species of
birds, mammals and reptiles. Wetlands
are used for commercial fishing and
trapping, nonconsumptive recreation
and study, waterfowl hunting,
recreational fishing, and other
activities.

Because of their inherent productivity,
some wetlands have been drained and
used for various types of commodity
production. Conversions to these other
uses have contributed to a net decline
in the area of wetlands from an original
area exceeding 200 million acres to
about 100 million acres today.

Local, State, and Federal agencies have
been promoting wetland conservation
and restoration programs. For example,
the Food Security Act of 1985 has
greatly reduced the incentive for some
wetland conversion by making
ineligible for price supports and other
publicly provided benefits any person
who produces an agricultural

Figure 30—Wetlands are among the most productive ecological systems.

commodity on wetland converted after
passage of the legislation.

Flowing Waters and Associated
Impoundments—The condition of
flowing waters and associated
impoundments affects the wildlife and
fisheries resource. About 80 percent of
the Nation’s flowing waters have
problems with fish habitat, or
composition of the fish community
related to water quantity or quality.
Water quality is affected by turbidity,
high temperature, nutrient surplus,
toxic substances, and dissolved
oxygen. Some of these problems result
from soil and vegetative manipulation
associated with agriculture, forestry,
and other human activities.

Agricultural Lands—Because of the
large areas involved, agricultural
cropping significantly affects fish and
wildlife populations. Across the
country, land used for crops declined
between the late 1940’s and early
1970’s but increased through the early
1980’s. Changes in farming practices
associated with increased cropping
adversely affect wildlife populations.
For example, the continuation of
fencerow-to-fencerow farming would
eliminate in the affected areas much of
the nesting, feeding, and winter cover
that wildlife need for survival. One
way to make farming practices
consistent with wildlife habitat is to
make farmers aware that wildlife can
be managed as a crop capable of
generating income. In this way, the
marketplace could provide incentives
for making provisions for wildlife
habitat a normal part of agricultural
cropping. Conversion of surplus
cropland to permanent cover under the
Conservation Reserve Program should
improve habitat conditions for some
species in some regions.

Trends in Wildlife and Fish
Population, Use, and Harvests

Nongame Wildlife—Nongame
wildlife is typically not hunted for
sport, food, or profit, and comprises the
majority of the 3,000 vertebrate
wildlife and fish species around the
country. Information on population
levels of nongame fish and wildlife is
limited. The most detailed surveys—
for various bird species—indicate that
species associated with wetland habitat
are the most likely to decline in
number. Increases in forest
fragmentation will also contribute to
declines in populations of some forest-
dwelling birds. Other bird populations
can be cited as increasing in number,
however.

Nonconsumptive Uses—
Nonconsumptive uses of wildlife and
fish are those that do not result in the
death or attempted death of individual
animals. Available information shows
that this use of fish and wildlife has
increased greatly over the past 2
decades. For example, the percentage
of people 16 years of age and older
who participated in some form of
nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation increased from 55 percent in
1980 to 74 percent in 1985.

Migratory Game Birds—Migratory
game birds include waterfowl—ducks,
geese, and swans—and webless
migratory species such as woodcock
and mourning doves. In total, the
country’s duck population declined
from 44 million birds in the early
1970’s to about 30 million birds in the
mid-1980's. This decline is attributed
to deterioration in the quantity and
quality of wetland area.

Although there are exceptions for
individual species, goose populations
have increased significantly over the
past 20 years. Wintering populations of

34

geese have risen from 2.6 million in
1966 to 5.6 million in 1985. Remote
breeding areas free from disturbance,
management of cropland as a food
source, and introduction of geese into
suitable nesting areas have all
contributed to the population increase.

Annual populations of swans have
ranged between 72,000 and 148,000
since the 1960°s. Woodcock breeding
populations have been relatively stable
throughout the range of the species in
the last 20 years, although there is
concern over recent declines in the
eastern subpopulation. The population
of breeding mourning doves has
declined.

Migratory Game-Bird Hunters and
Harvests—The number of duck and
goose hunters has declined steadily in
all three of the Nation’s primary
flyways (fig. 31). Although reasons for
the decline are not known, lack of land
accessibility and crowded hunting

Figure 31—The number of duck and goose
hunters has declined steadily in all three of the
Nation’s primary flyways.

conditions probably are contributing
factors. Data are fragmentary on the
number of hunters of woodcock and
mourning doves, but the total number
of hunters of these species has
probably been declining.

The harvest of ducks has shown a
mixed trend over the past 20 years,
reaching a peak of 16 million in 1971.
The number of geese harvested has
shown an increasing trend since 1965.
It has been estimated that the harvest of
woodcock and mourning doves has
declined over time.

Big Game—Big game includes large
mammals and wild turkey. Most big-
game populations are now more secure,
more widely distributed, and more
abundant than they were at the turn of
the century (fig. 32). Over time,
enactment of protective legislation and
management and extensive State and
Federal habitat restoration programs
have contributed to the recovery of

Figure 32—Most big-game populations are now
more secure, more widely distributed, and more
abundant than they were at the turn of the

century.

many big-game species. However, the
need for shortened and limited-entry
hunting seasons has affected the quality
of hunting opportunities and increased
wildlife management costs.

Deer and wild turkey are the two most
common big-game species hunted.
Over 95 percent of all big-game
hunters pursued deer, and over 12
percent hunted turkey in recent years.
Nationwide, the population of these
two species has more than doubled
from 1965 to 1985.

Regional trends in big-game
populations have also been upward. In
the North, this includes white-tailed
deer, black bear, and wild turkey. The
two most important big-game species
in the South are white-tailed deer and
wild turkey. Over the past 20 years,
populations of both species have
increased across the South. The West
has a greater diversity of big-game
animals than the East. Species include
deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep,
and moose. Harvest regulations, habitat
management, and transplanting
programs have all contributed to
increased populations during the past
decade or so. An exception is a decline
in mule deer populations on the Pacific
coast from 1965 through 1980, which
is attributed to a decline in habitat
quality.

Big-Game Hunters and Harvests—
Trends in the number of big-game
hunters are influenced by harvest
regulations, the cost of hunting, and
changes in people’s preferences over
time. Although the actual number of
big-game hunters has increased over
time, there has been a declining
national rate of participation in this
sport. The decline has been attributed
in part to decreasing land accessibility,
a declining rural population, and
crowded hunting areas. The actual
number of big-game hunters has

increased in all regions of the country
except the Pacific coast, where it has
declined.

Deer and turkey harvests have been
rising in the North and South. Although
there are exceptions, such as deer on
the Pacific coast, harvest numbers have
been increasing for big-game species in
the West.

Small Game—Grouse, squirrels,
rabbits, quail, and pheasant are
generally considered to be small game.
Small-game numbers are strongly
influenced by habitat. Animals such as
pheasants, quail, and rabbits, which are
dependent on agriculture-related
habitat, have shown a decline in
numbers. Populations of animals such
as grouse and squirrels are associated
with forest cover and have remained
stable or increased slightly.

Small-Game Hunters and
Harvests—Until recently, the number
of small-game hunters has represented
a large percentage of the U.S.
population. Since 1975, the number of
small-game hunters relative to the U.S.
population has declined slightly. The
number of small-game hunters has
been declining in all regions since
1980, with the greatest declines
occurring in the North and South.
Reasons for the decline include lack of
access to land, crowded hunting areas,
and lack of game.

For small game, there is generally a
high degree of correlation between
population size and number of small
game harvested. Thus, the harvest has
declined for animals dependent on
agriculture-related habitat. Pheasant
and quail harvests have declined by
about 50 percent since 1965. The
harvest of species associated with
forested habitats has increased or
shown mixed trends.

Fish—Although fish are found in all
types of water around the country, few
data are available on their distribution
and populations. The best available
estimates are that 79 percent of the
Nation’s streams contain fish. The
diversity and abundance of fish species
depend on the quality of habitat. The
remaining 21 percent support no fish
largely due to lack of water in
intermittent streams.

A portion of this decreased streamflow
is due to water diversions and
watershed conditions resulting from
historic land management practices.
This has resulted in the enactment of
protective State legislation and the
development of cooperative projects
among resource management agencies,
landowners, and water users to restore
and enhance watersheds and stream
habitats in many locations.

Number of People Who Fish and
Fish Harvests—Fishing is one of the
most popular outdoor recreation
activities, exceeded only by walking
and swimming. The number of people
who fish for fun has been increasing
over the last 20 years, although the
trend varies by type of fishing (fig. 33).
Freshwater fishing accounts for 86
percent of the total number of people
fishing, and this percentage has been
increasing over time. There has been a
steady increase in the number of people
who fish commercially for all species
during the past 20 years. In part, this
has been due to increased demands for
fish as food.

There are few data available on
recreational fish harvests. Of the fish
harvested commercially, salmon is by
far the most important. After dropping
to about 200 million Ib in the early
1970’s, the annual catch of salmon
increased to a high of around 730
million Ib in 1985.

Figure 33—The number of people who fish for fun has been increasing.

Threatened and Endangered
Species—A series of laws passed in
the late 1960’s and early 1970’s had
major effects on the management of
some species of wildlife and fish. The
most significant was the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.

There are 565 animal species listed as
being threatened or endangered. Some,
such as the alligator and peregrine
falcon, have made spectacular

comebacks under legislative protection.

Others, such as the California condor
and black-footed ferret, have not
recovered despite extraordinary
attempts to save the species. Habitat
changes contribute to changes in
wildlife and fish populations.
Improvement of our understanding of
habitat needs and the location of all
threatened and endangered species
would facilitate management of these
species.

36

Unique Role of Public Lands

Public land ownerships collectively
constitute a huge area. The stability of
public ownerships in terms of area and
management philosophy and the
diversity of habitats found on them
give them unique status in evaluating
the future outlook for fish and wildlife
supplies. For example, much of
America’s elk and cold-water fishing
habitat is found on public lands.

Although public land ownerships are
concentrated in the West, they exist in
all parts of the country. On these lands,
various Federal, State, and local laws
mandate that the conservation and
enhancement of wildlife and fish and
their habitats be given consideration in
land management.

As land use intensifies on private
ownerships in response to increased
demands for commodity goods, the
quantity and quality of habitat provided
on public lands will become relatively

more important for maintaining the
health and diversity of wildlife and fish
populations and recreational
opportunities associated with them.

Of federally managed land units, the
National Forest System is unique
because of the extent and diversity of
the wildlife and fish resources on its
lands. This uniqueness is measured in
terms of wildlife and fish habitats and
the number and variety of wildlife and
fish species found on National Forest
System lands. For example, national
forests contain approximately 128,000
miles of streams, 2.2 million acres of
lakes, 16,500 miles of coastline, and
more than half of the Nation’s big-
game habitat. These aquatic and
terrestrial habitats support over 3,000
species of wildlife and fish. Some 50
percent of the trout streams are on the
national forests, as is 50 percent of the
spawning and rearing habitat for
salmon and steelhead trout in the
Pacific Northwest and California.

The Forest Service has habitat
management responsibility for
approximately 31 percent of the
Nation’s threatened and endangered
plant and animal species. Present
numbers of listed species occurring on
National Forest System lands are
expected to increase as habitat loss
continues on other lands, new species
are listed, and new information on
species distributions becomes
available.

Projected Inventories and
Uses of Wildlife and Fish

The future availability of fish and
wildlife depends on the availability and
quality of habitat (fig. 34). Nationwide,
it is expected that rangeland area will
increase somewhat over the coming
decades and that the acreage of forest
land will decline. The area of land used

Figure 34—The future availability of fish and wildlife will depend on the availability and quality
of habitat.

for crops will probably decline over the
coming decades, but this outlook could
change depending on the world food
situation and the future for use of
fertilizers and pesticides. Surplus
agriculture production was the driving
force behind the Conservation Reserve
Program of 1985. Much of the acreage
of erosion-prone cropland converted
under this program will go into grass
cover, with beneficial effects for
certain species of wildlife. Most of the
wildlife and fish benefits from the
Conservation Reserve Program will be
in the Rocky Mountain and Great
Plains regions.

In general, it appears that any future
changes in habitat as measured by land
cover will occur slowly, except for
areas affected by the Conservation
Reserve Program. As timberland is
harvested over time, there will be some
changes in the type of forest cover,
however.

If, as projected, the number of hunters
declines, more of the operating budgets

of State management agencies will
have to come from public
appropriations, user fees will have to
increase, or other innovative
management structures will have to be
developed if current programs are to be
maintained or increased.

Projected Populations and
Harvests

State wildlife and fish agencies
estimated future wildlife population
and harvest numbers with
consideration of historical population
trends, likely future changes in land
use, and proposed wildlife-
management practices. About future
big-game populations and harvests,
these agencies are optimistic. They
expect stable or increasing numbers of
animals for most species in all regions
of the country.

State agency projections of small-game
populations and harvests are less
optimistic. Historical declines in

populations and harvests of bobwhite
quail and other grassland-dependent
species are expected to continue. The
historical decline in the pheasant
population in most regions is expected
to be offset somewhat by habitat
improvements as a result of set-asides
for the Conservation Reserve Program.

Projections of big-game populations on
national forests generally show stable
or increasing populations with the
exception of the black-tailed deer in the
Pacific coast region.

Projections of Wildlife and
Fish Recreation

We based projections of numbers of
participants in wildlife and fish
recreation on various assumptions
about factors affecting supply and
demand. Nonconsumptive activities,
warm- and cold-water fishing, and
migratory-bird hunting are expected to
experience increases in the number of
participants over the next 5 decades
(fig. 35). Nonconsumptive recreation
and cold-water fishing show the largest
percentage gains. The number of
persons participating in big-game
hunting and small-game hunting is
expected to decline. More people are
expected to be involved in migratory-
bird hunting, however. Hunting in
designated areas for a fee is expected to
become more important in the future.

Comparison of projected participation
rates for recreational activities across
ownerships shows that national forests
are expected to become relatively more
important in providing opportunities
for hunting. This 1s especially true in
the West, where, historically, the
harvest of big-game species has come
almost exclusively from Federal
ownerships.

Use indexed to 1980
300

250
200
150
100 =——

50

1990

2000

==<=<= Cold-water Fishing

=== Migratory-bird Hunting

=== = Nonconsumptive Use

2010 2020

== == Big-game Hunting
=== Warm-water Fishing
== — Small-game Hunting

Figure 35—Projected participation in major wildlife- and fish-associated recreational activities.

We estimate that some 68 percent of all
hunting is done on private land. Thus,
access to private lands will continue to
be a critical factor in evaluating future
demands and supplies of wildlife,
especially in the East, where much of
the privately owned land is located.

Wildlife and Fish
Demand-Supply Comparisons

The number of people who hunt and
fish is determined in part by the
availability of wildlife and fish habitats
and populations. There are no reliable
estimates of supply variables for use in
comparing fish and wildlife supplies
with demands. Demand and supply
together determine consumption, which
is measured by numbers of hunting
trips, animals harvested, or other
means. Because it is so difficult to
separate demand and supply in
analysis, it is difficult to interpret
demand-supply projections. For

38

example, the demand for hunting might
decrease because there are fewer
animals to hunt.

To test these demand and supply
interrelationships, we examined future
consumption under conditions of
increased supply. This examination
indicated that the biggest potential gap
between demand and supply is for
cold-water fishing, followed by
migratory-bird hunting, big-game
hunting, and small-game hunting. For
these activities, increases in supply
would lead to increases in
consumption.

The big increases in demands for
nonconsumptive uses and all forms of
fishing imply that constraints on the
use of the public lands and increased
access fees may be necessary to match
the capabilities of the resource with the
desires of the Nation’s people. This
may create some investment
opportunities on private land (fig. 36).

2030 2040

Although demands for most forms of
hunting are not expected to increase,
there will still be millions of people
who want to hunt in the future.
Management of the fish and wildlife
resource to provide this experience will
be especially challenging because of
the competing demands that will be
placed on the forest and range resource
by a growing and affluent citizenry.

Figure 36—The big increase in demand for fishing may create some investment opportunities on
private lands.

Minerals Demand—-
Supply—The Outlook

Outlook Overview

For the purposes of this Assessment,
minerals’ are grouped into three
categories: (1) energy minerals—oil,
natural gas, coal, geothermal steam,
and uranium; (2) metallic minerals—
copper, lead, molybdenum, gems, gold,
and silver; and (3) industrial minerals
and mineral materials—phosphate
rock, limestone, and sand and gravel.
These categories include most of the
minerals that are of special significance
to the U.S. economy.

e Although the United States is a
mineral-rich Nation, it imports
significant quantities of some minerals,
especially petroleum.

e Demands for energy minerals will
increase, with domestic energy
production and energy prices
dependent on foreign competition and
technological developments in minerals
exploration and recovery.

e Overall, there will be no quantitative
shortage of any energy materials
worldwide, although the price of oil is
expected to increase significantly after
the turn of the century.

e In general, domestic demand for
metallic minerals and precious metals
will continue to increase, but demand
for any given metallic mineral is likely
to be highly variable and dependent on
technology developments and the
evolution of end-use markets.

e The United States has supplies of
many metallic minerals and precious
metals sufficient to accommodate

To simplify the discussion further, this report
frequently uses the term “mineral” when actually
talking about the constituent elements of
minerals. For example, iron is referred to in this
report as a mineral when, in actuality, it is an
element found in many minerals such as

hematite, bornite, ete.

domestic demand through 2040. For
some minerals that the United States
imports, availability of supplies will be
influenced by the politics and the
stability of the government of the
producing country as well as the
physical availability of the resource.

e Demands for minerals materials and
construction are likely to follow trends
in population growth and gross national
product, but with agricultural use
dependent on technology and demands
for agricultural commodities.

e The domestic supply of minerals
materials used in construction
historically has been in equilibrium
with demand. No national quantitative
shortage 1s anticipated, but local
shortfalls may occur.

Trends in Minerals Use and
Projected Demands

The United States is among the world’s
leaders in the consumption of many
important minerals. With only 5.8
percent of the world’s population,
America consumes more than 30
percent of the natural gas, 26 percent of
the petroleum, 27 percent of the silver,
and more than 21 percent of the lead
and copper.

The historical trends in U.S.
consumption vary among the three
classes of minerals.

Total consumption of energy in the
United States has increased steadily
since World War II, but the pattern
varies among petroleum, natural gas,
and coal. Coal consumption has
increased sharply in recent years while
consumption of the other two energy
minerals has declined.

Demands for metallic and industrial
minerals and mineral materials have

40

varied from metal to metal. In general.
consumption of metallic minerals rises
and falls in consonance with domestic
and worldwide economic prosperity
and recessions, and periods of relative
peace and military conflict. This
happens because metals contribute
many of the primary materials for
consumer products like cars and homes
and for military weapons systems.

Demands for industrial minerals and
mineral materials have been dependent
on the fortunes of specific industries
such as steel, agriculture, and
construction. Thus, trends in
consumption have tended to be
cyclical.

Although the United States relies on
significant importation of some
minerals, especially petroleum, the
Nation gets most of its coal and many
other individual minerals from
domestic sources.

Given the anticipated growth in the
U.S. economy and population, it is
reasonable to expect that demand for

GET

energy minerals will grow in the future
(fig. 37). Exactly how much it will
increase 1s uncertain—rising prices for
energy would stimulate conservation
and the development of alternative
energy sources.

As with energy minerals, the general
demand for metallic minerals has been
linked to population growth, gross
national product, and disposable
income. The vigor of the domestic
durable-goods manufacturing sector
and communications and defense
industries has a bearing on the
domestic demand for metallic minerals.
The use of gold and silver largely will
be influenced by the world supply and
price of these precious metals.
Although we expect the demand for
metallic minerals to rise, it 1s
impossible to anticipate technologies
that may have a profound influence on
consumption of individual minerals.

The chemical and industrial sector is
the biggest user of lime, the commodity
produced from limestone, and we
expect the demand for this mineral to

Figure 37—Growing demands for energy minerals should stimulate domestic production.

increase in line with the growth of
these industries. Demands for
phosphate rock are tied largely to the
fate of U.S. and world agricultural
production, which will increase in total,
with production in any one country
dependent on economic factors and
government policies. We expect
demand for sand and gravel to increase
in line with the demand for
construction.

The Minerals Supply Situation

The Nation is rich in many of the
minerals it requires. In 1986, the
United States was among the top three
mineral-producing nations worldwide
for 33 of 87 important minerals. It has
significant known reserves of many
mineral commodities, including some
that are imported. Various types of
minerals can be found in many parts of
the country. Most of the coal reserves
are under forest lands in the
Appalachian region and rangelands in
the northern Great Plains. Most of the
metallic minerals occur under forest
and range lands in the Rocky Mountain
region.

There is little information on the
quantities of minerals in public and
private ownership. While significant
amounts of minerals are believed to lie
beneath Federal lands, these lands
account for a relatively small
proportion of total domestic minerals
production, indicating that large
amounts of minerals are in private
ownership.

On National Forest System lands, the
greatest potential for minerals activity
is likely to be in coal, oil and gas,
phosphate, molybdenum, and certain
precious metals.

All of the areas in Federal ownership
are subject to some mitigation

requirements to protect surface
resources where mining occurs. Some
of the forest and range land in this
ownership has been withdrawn
specifically to protect against land-
disturbing activities, which include
minerals exploration and development.
Other, much larger, areas have been
reserved (dedicated) for particular
public purposes or uses (parks,
wilderness, etc.) and may not be
available for producing minerals,
timber, or range forage.

It is difficult to generalize about
management investment and its effects
on minerals outputs because minerals
must be “discovered.” However,
management investment can affect
exploration and subsequent monitoring
of development.

Minerals are traded in world markets to
a far greater degree than other forest
and rangeland resources. Thus,
domestic reserves are only one possible
source of the minerals required to
satisfy the Nation’s needs. For most
minerals the United States requires,
there appear to be adequate supplies
worldwide available to anyone with the
money to buy them. Although there are
abundant supplies of metallic minerals
worldwide, their cost and security of
supply raise questions about their
stable and long-term availability. The
market for many minerals is global in
scope and extremely complex, and for
some minerals there are frequent
periods of shortages or oversupply. A
number of minerals critical to the U.S.
economy or important for national
defense are controlled by unstable or
unfriendly governments or are
vulnerable to disruption by regional
conflict.

Recycling is another source of supply.
In the case of a few minerals, recycled
material is an important domestic
source. For example, there is no

significant domestic source for tin, yet
in 1986, about 20 percent of the 45.7
million metric tons consumed came
from recycled material. Recycling is
affected by the cost of recycling
relative to the purchase of new
supplies. This margin has gone through
business cycles over time, and the
boom-and-bust nature of the recycling
business has impeded additional reuse
of mineral products.

Minerals Demand-Supply
Comparisons

Demand-supply comparisons for
minerals suggest that there is not likely
to be any lack of physical availability
of the various minerals used in the
United States. History, however, tells
us that the future demand-—supply
situation for many minerals will be
dynamic, with many short-term
fluctuations in prices and other
measures of the market. For example,
we expect that the demand for metallic
minerals will increase moderately
overall, but new technologies will
stimulate demand for some minerals
and reduce consumption of others.
Overall, there will be no physical
shortage of any energy minerals,
although the price of oil is expected to
increase significantly. Price will
influence the effective supply of oil,
natural gas, oil shale, and tar sands, as
rising prices stimulate exploration and
development. The outlook for supplies
of natural gas is relatively bright.

The United States has supplies of many
metallic minerals and precious metals
sufficient to accommodate domestic
demand through 2040. However, the
United States does not have supplies of
some metallic minerals of economic
and strategic importance. For those
minerals present in the United States,
the cost of foreign supplies compared
with the cost of domestic production

4]

largely determines how much of the
demand is met by domestic sources.

Because of their relatively low value
per unit of weight and bulk, mineral
materials used for construction are
typically mined near where they are to
be used. The Nation has sufficient
supplies of mineral materials, although
there are local areas where mineral
materials used in construction, such as
sand and gravel and rock aggregate, do
not occur or occur only in limited
amounts.

Futures

Background

Projections of longrun demands and
supplies are strongly influenced by
prevailing shortrun conditions. The
1980's have been a turbulent time as
measured by fiscal and monetary
policies around the world and other
indicators of the macroeconomic
situation. The basic assumptions for
this Assessment, however, are
consistent with historical conditions,
and the assumptions are generally
consistent with long-held national
goals of continued economic growth
and increasing income. The future may
be different from that described in the
basic assumptions. In recognition of
this uncertainty, the Assessment
analysis presents the results of five
alternative futures. These futures differ
from the Assessment projection in key
assumptions about the future. The
following descriptions highlight key
points in each of the futures.

The base Assessment projection is to
be interpreted as the most likely given
the associated explicit and implicit
assumptions about variables that
determine demand and supply. Key
assumptions relate to management
intensities on private lands, future
outputs from national forests, and
domestic and foreign demands for the
various renewable resources. Projection
results for other futures are compared
with the base Assessment projections
of consumption and other key measures
of the renewable resource base. The
five alternative futures are basically
timber-oriented simply because data
and analytic capabilities in other
resource areas are not sufficiently
advanced to differentiate meaningfully
among alternative futures.

Description of Futures

Alternative future number | can be
described as increased productivity
of sawmill processing. It is the base
Assessment projection modified by
increasing lumber and product yields in
the Pacific coast and Rocky Mountain
regions so that they match changes
projected for the South.

Alternative future number 2 can be
described as high exports of timber
products. It is the base Assessment
projection modified by increasing the
projected exports of lumber, plywood,
and pulpwood (including pulpwood
and the pulpwood equivalent of pulp,
paper, and board) by 20 percent in
2000, 40 percent in 2010, 60 percent in
2020, 80 percent in 2030, and 100
percent in 2040.

Alternative future number 3 can be
described as reduced tree growth. It
is the base Assessment projection
modified by reducing the net annual
growth on timberland in the North and
South shown in the empirical yield
tables used in developing the
Assessment projections. Hardwood
growth is adjusted downward 5 percent
and softwood growth, 10 percent.
Growth reductions already observed in
local situations have generally been
less than 10 percent (fig. 38). Except in
isolated areas in California, growth
reductions have not been a major
phenomenon in the Rocky Mountain
and Pacific coast regions.

Alternative future number 4 can be
described as surplus crop and
pastureland (fig. 39). It is the base
Assessment projection modified by
assuming that all surplus crop and
pastureland projected in the review
draft of the Second Resources
Conservation Act Appraisal (prepared
by the USDA Soil Conservation

Figure 38—Growth reductions already observed, such as for red spruce, have generally been less

than 10 percent.

Figure 39—There may be more surplus cropland in the future, and that could lead to more
abandoned farmland.

Service) reverts to natural cover with a
10-year timelag. It is recognized by
both the Forest Service and the Soil
Conservation Service that the time
required to reach climax vegetation

varies considerably by area and could
take over 100 years. The purpose of
this future is to examine the possible
effects of early reversion of surplus
crop and pastureland to natural cover.

Alternative future number 5 can be
described as the recycling future. It is
the base Assessment projection
modified by increasing the use of
recyclable paper in the production of
paper and board, reaching a utilization
rate of 39 percent in 2040, compared
with 31 percent assumed in the
Assessment projection. From 25
percent in 1987, the utilization rate is
increased to 27 percent in 2000, to 30
percent in 2010, to 34 percent in 2020,
and to 37 percent in 2030. Lack of
landfill space is now or soon will be a
major problem in some areas,
especially in the East. Publicly
mandated recycling of paper and
paperboard and the economics of
disposal versus recycling may lead to
significant recycling of these materials.
The purpose of this future is to
demonstrate the potential effects of
increased recycling on the forestry
sector.

Effects

In general, the various futures had only
marginal effects on the demand—supply
outlook at the national level. The
effects that did occur for each future
were in the expected directions. The
high productivity future (future number
1) leads to a more competitive
sawmilling industry with associated
decreases 1n softwood lumber imports
from Canada and increased domestic
production. There were marginal
decreases in prices for softwood
stumpage and lumber. Higher exports
(future number 2) tend to raise
stumpage and lumber prices and
increase imports from Canada.
Reduced tree growth (future number 3)
causes stumpage and lumber prices to
increase, but the effects occur
gradually over time, in part because of
the availability of existing timber
inventories. Much of the surplus

43

cropland (future number 4) identified
in the Second Resources Conservation
Act Appraisal is in the Great Plains,
where range is the natural cover. Some
acreage in the South would go into
forest cover, but not enough to change
the national demand—supply outlook.

The recycling future (number 5) leads
to decreased softwood stumpage prices
in the South. Much of the expansion of
pulp capacity projected in the
Assessment 1s expected to be in this
region. Recycled paper and paperboard
materials substitute for pulpwood
otherwise destined for papermaking.
Softwood lumber prices also decrease
because of the lower overall demand
for wood.

Although increased recycling could
affect the national demand—supply
outlook, there are a number of
logistical and technical problems to be
resolved before significant increases in
recycling can occur. For example, it is
difficult to remove from paper the ink
used in laser printers. As the waste
disposal problem becomes more
severe, however, these problems may
be resolved.

Social, Economic, and
Environmental Implications of
Projected Demand-Supply
Comparisons and
Opportunities for Responding
to Them

Continuing population and economic
growth in the United States implies
growing demands for all renewable
resources. The projected expansion of
private and public resource investments
and supporting research will expand
supplies of all renewable resources.
Equilibrium will be established
between demands and supplies for each
renewable resource in the future as it
has been in the past. Social, economic,

44

and environmental implications flow
from the equilibrium levels of
renewable resource outputs and the
ways that equilibriums are established.

There are opportunities for investment
in and management of the Nation’s
renewable resources so as to increase
supplies. Increases in supplies would
affect the equilibrium between supply
and demand and thereby affect the
social, economic, and environmental
implications of the projected
demand-supply situations for the
various renewable resources. These
opportunities exist on both public and
private lands, but the distribution of
opportunities across ownerships can
vary by renewable resource. Increases
in supplies in response to demand
growth will increase national economic
welfare. Increased supplies, however,
would benefit some sectors of the
economy at the expense of other
sectors. The appropriate mix of Forest
Service activities to influence supplies
of renewable resources is considered in
the RPA Program.

Timber

Implications—It seems clear that real
timber prices (net of inflation or
deflation) will continue to rise in the
future under a wide range of plausible
demand and supply situations. These
market signals will lead to shifts in
how wood is used and how it is grown.
Rising prices will increase the value of
the timber resource regardless of
ownership.

The equilibrating mechanism of rising
prices has obvious but differing effects
on consumers and producers of timber
products. Rising prices for lumber, for
example, would have a marginal effect
on the cost of a house, influencing
some people to reconsider decisions
about the type and size of housing they

could afford (fig. 40). Rising incomes
will offset somewhat the influence of
rising prices, however. Owners of
timberland, on the other hand, may
invest more money into land
management because their real wealth
will increase as prices increase and
investment opportunities become more
attractive.

In the long run, consumers use less of a
product that costs more in real terms.
When lumber, plywood, and pulp
become costlier, the markets for
competing materials will improve at
the timber industry’s expense. Higher
prices may also provide market signals
that lead to economizing in the way
that Americans use wood and to
changes in building practices that
minimize wood use.

Exports of most timber products are
determined largely by the capability of
U.S. producers to compete on a price
basis with producers in other countries.
Consequently, rising real prices will
also constrain the country’s export
potential and affect the balance-of-
payments situation.

As stumpage and timber product prices
rise relative to other materials, use of
substitute products, such as concrete,
steel, aluminum, and plastic, will
increase above the levels that otherwise
would have prevailed. Widespread
substitution will cause changes in the
types of environmental impacts
associated with use of renewable
resources. Changes in the use of
building materials will lead to
adjustments of various types in some
local economies. For example, some
sawmills may close, and new sources
of sand and gravel may have to be
found and developed.

Opportunities—There are three major
ways to increase supplies in response
to rising demands for timber: (1)

Figure 40—Rising prices for lumber will affect the cost of housing.

extending supplies through improved
utilization, (2) increasing harvests from
the existing timber resource, and (3)
increasing net annual growth.

Timber supplies can be extended by:
—Increasing the useful life of wood
products by preservative treatments,
improving designs of new structures,
and renovating and maintaining
existing structures rather than replacing
them. —Improving efficiency in
harvesting, milling, construction, and
manufacturing. —Utilizing unused
wood materials such as logging
residues; treetops and limbs; rough,
rotten, and salvable dead trees; trees in
urban areas, fencerows, and low-
productivity forest areas; and urban
wood wastes. —Increased recycling of
paper and paperboard (fig. 41).

Harvests from the existing timber
resource can be increased by: —
Increasing softwood and hardwood
timber harvests on forests in the East.
—Accelerating harvests on national
forests in Washington, Oregon,
northern California, northern Idaho,

and western Montana that have large
inventories of old-growth softwood
timber.

Sustaining increased harvests on the
national forests in the West and on the
forest lands in the East beyond a few

decades will require investments in
regeneration and more-intensive
management to increase net annual
growth, especially for control of fire,
insects, disease, and weeds.

Net annual timber growth can be
increased by: —Regenerating
nonstocked and poorly stocked
timberlands, harvesting and
regenerating mature stands, and
converting existing stands to more
desired species (fig. 42). —Applying
intensive timber management practices
such as species and spacing regulation,
fertilization, and use of genetically
improved trees. —Using management
and harvesting practices to prevent or
reduce losses caused by natural
mortality (suppression), undesirable
vegetation, wildfire, insects, diseases,
and poor logging practices.

Water

Implications—Most of the effects
associated with prospective increases
in demands will fall directly on

Figure 41—Timber supplies can be extended by increased recycling of paper.

»

INTERNATIONAL

Figure 42—Net annual growth can be increased
by harvesting and regenerating mature stands.

agriculture, but there are implications
for all users of water, especially fish
and wildlife. Unlike most other kinds
of water withdrawals, irrigation 1s a
large consumer of water. In some
places, such as the areas on the High
Plains of Texas and adjoining States
where ground-water mining occurs,
water production costs will rise and the
water for crop and pastureland
irrigation will become less economic.
That will induce some shifts to dryland
farming or range grazing. In most other
water resource regions where
expanding water demands pressure
existing supplies, such as California
and upper and lower Colorado, more
and more of the available water is
likely to go to the higher value uses
such as domestic and manufacturing.

The changes in agriculture will also
contribute to changes in land use
around the country, with economic
adjustments to local communities and
established industries. For example,
movement of more agriculture into the
lower Mississippi Valley would add
further pressure on the wetlands
resource.

46

Irrigation based on surface water from
streams and impoundments has
implications for both fish and wildlife
habitat (fig. 43). Meeting the demands
projected for water use in irrigation
implies that additional streamflows will
be drawn down to the point where they
can no longer support preferred species
of fish or some species of water-
dependent wildlife.

The expected increases in population
and economic growth for the United
States carry with them the expansion of
possible sources of water pollution.
However, enforcement of national
water quality goals should alleviate the
potential for new sources of pollution.
Increases in America’s population will
also add pressures for development of
floodplains.

Opportunities—There are
opportunities in local areas on forest
and range lands to increase and extend
water supplies, ameliorate the effects of
flooding, and improve water quality.
Depending on the local situation, these
opportunities can be achieved by:

—TImproving vegetation management
to enhance the natural recharge of
surface and ground water, to reduce
evaporation and transpiration losses,
and to change the timing of waterflows.
—TImproving protection of watersheds
from wildfire.

—RMaintaining wetlands.

In addition,

Water supplies can be increased by:
—Expanding and improving reservoirs
to increase storage, regulate flows, and
reduce evaporation.

—Improving snow management.

Water supplies can be extended by:

—Improving conservation, including
more reuse.

Expected increases in flood damage
can be limited by:

—Controlling floatable debris, such as
logging residues.

—Increasing use of structures to
control waterflows, providing that

Figure 43—The Snake River, on the border between Idaho and Oregon, provides both irrigation
and recreation.

further floodplain development can be
restricted.

—Strengthening enforcement and
restrictions against development of
flood plains.

—Expanding land-treatment programs
to improve watershed conditions.

Water quality can be improved by:
—Reducing contamination from rural
septic systems.

—Reducing leaks from underground
storage tanks.

—In the use of pesticides and
fertilizers, improving techniques that
reduce quantities to efficient levels and
also inhibit transport into ground or
surface water (fig. 44).

—Improving timber harvesting and
road building practices.

—TIncreasing reclamation of mine sites
to reduce erosion and acid flows from
abandoned mines.

—Rehabilitating deteriorated
watershed conditions.

Range Forage

Implications—Comparisons of future
range forage supply and demand
indicate that demands will be met
through more-intensive management
(higher investments per acre) of private
rangeland, the management of wild and
domestic grazers and browsers, and
coordinated planning across all
resources. Private rangeland will be
managed more intensively only if the
profit motive justifies doing so.

The expected growth in total demand
for beef, veal, mutton, and lamb will
lead to more-intensive management of
the private range resource. At the same
time, the rangeland resource is
expected to become more important as
a source of recreation and for other
uses. Multiple-use management will
become more important as a way to
resolve conflicts in resource use as
management of the range resource
intensifies.

The expected small increase in output
of forage from public lands, coupled

Figure 44—Water quality can be improved by spraying nonchemical pesticides such as the
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) sprayed here to control the gypsy moth in Pennsylvania.

with the projected large increases in
total demand for meat, means that there
will be structural changes for some
producers in the livestock industry (fig.
45). Some livestock operations will
have to use other than public lands to
obtain forage for all seasons of the
year. This is not possible in some parts
of the country and could lead to shifts
away from public lands, causing
economic and social changes in the
way of life for some families and
individuals in the predominantly rural
livestock industry. For example,
ranching operations may not be viable
unless fees are charged for other uses
of the rangeland such as for hunting or
recreation.

Opportunities—The opportunities for
management of the range forage
resource relate to range vegetation
management, management of grazers
and browsers, resolving social issues,
and more effective planning for
multiple demands on rangelands.

Range vegetation management 1s the
management of vegetation for a mix of
resource outputs, including herbaceous
and shrub forage for domestic and wild
animals, water quality and quantity, air
quality, open space, genetic material,
recreational use, plant diversity,
community stability, and scenic quality
(fig. 46).

Opportunities for range vegetation
management include:

—TIncreasing the seasonal availability
of forages by interseeding of species,
converting part of the grazing land to
other forage species, or adjusting the
mix of animal species.

—Integrating range forage
management more fully with the
management of forest and range lands
for other renewable resources,
especially for wildlife and fish and
water In riparian zones.

47

Figure 45—Leasing of rangeland for recreation may become more common in the future as a way
for ranch owners to diversify operations. (Photo courtesy of Colorado State University.)

Figure 46—Range managers seek to produce a mix of resource outputs, including forage for
domestic and wild animals, water quality and quantity, air quality, open space, recreation, plant
diversity, community stability, and scenic quality.

—Developing biological controls for —Increasing the use of multiple-

noxious weeds. species grazing management so as to

—Restoration of rangeland currently in take full advantage of forage

deteriorated condition. capabilities and improve range
vegetation.

Opportunities for management of —Increasing the use of livestock as a

grazers and browsers include: vegetative-management tool to meet

48

resource objectives for forage, timber,
wildlife, and recreation.

—Predator control.

—TIncreasing domestic livestock
reproduction and forage utilization
efficiency.

Opportunities for responding
effectively to social issues include:
—TIncreasing communication between
land managers and the public to
promote understanding of how proper
livestock grazing practices contribute
to soil productivity and water quality,
the protection of watersheds,
improvement of wildlife habitat,
survival of threatened and endangered
plants and animals, ecological
diversity, and forage production for
domestic and wild herbivores.

Opportunities for more effective
planning include:

—Increasing multiresource planning
across ownerships, public agencies,
and resources.

—Developing an understanding of
biological and ecological concepts
applicable to multiple-use management
of rangelands.

Outdoor Recreation

Implications—Most of the projected
increases in demands for outdoor
recreation on forest and range lands
and inland waters can be met. It is
difficult to quantify the social,
economic, and environmental
implications of the projected demand-
supply situation, however. The
projected situation varies somewhat by
activity. For some activities, more-
intensive use of available resources
may lead to less satisfying experiences
for some people, but in general, rising
incomes will give consumers more
freedom in choosing among activities
(fig. 47). As total demand grows for
most activities, it will also lead to

KAS ea) URE TAT hee:

Figure 47—Rising incomes will give consumers more freedom in choosing among activities, but

time available for recreation will affect their choices.

increased values for recreation
resources to the point that private
landowners may provide additional
recreational opportunities on a fee
basis. This is obviously beneficial to
resource owners, but may be
considered undesirable by some people
who have become accustomed to and
prefer free access. At the margin, some
people may be denied access to some
recreation simply because they do not
choose to pay the fee.

Outdoor recreation and wilderness have
important social significance to many
Americans. Individuals, groups,
communities, regions, and the Nation
as a whole are affected to varying
degrees by recreation and wilderness
demand and supply. Providing
preferred recreation opportunities to
some segments of American society,
including the elderly, less educated,
some racial minorities, the
economically disadvantaged, and those
living in central cities, will be an
important challenge in the future.

Some recreational and wilderness uses
are compatible, but others are not.
Thus, growth in recreational demands
could lead to situations requiring
management of competing uses of the
forest and rangeland resource in some
local areas. For example, some
recreational activities are not
compatible with wildlife and fish.
Increased use of forests will place
added stress on trees and could
intensify forest pest problems,
especially near population centers.

The growth in demand for recreational
activities implies expenditures for
equipment, guide services, travel—all
of the items necessary to make the
experiences enjoyable. Supply—demand
imbalances that constrain the growth of
recreation will limit both the growth of
these expenditures and the growth of
local economies dependent on
recreation-related industries.

Opportunities—The major ways of
increasing supplies include:

—Rehabilitating deteriorating sites and
adequately maintaining existing
facilities.

—Expanding activities concerned with
visitor information services, including
field interpretive and educational
services that match recreationists with
the recreational opportunities in a
particular area.

—Improving coordination and
encouraging partnerships among
private groups, nonprofit organizations,
and public agencies so as to deliver
recreational opportunities more
efficiently.

—Developing stable sources of
revenue to cover costs of providing
recreational opportunities, for example,
user fees for recreational use on private
and public lands.

—Constructing additional facilities
such as trails, campgrounds, picnic
areas, boat ramps, and other sites.
—TImproving the coordination and
integration of outdoor recreation uses
with other uses.

—TImproving access to forest and range
land and inland water suitable for
outdoor recreation, including private
lands.

Wildlife and Fish

Implications—W ildlife and fish are
critical parts of nature. Society’s
concerns and values for fish and
wildlife are evident in various laws and
regulations that have been passed to
protect the resource. The social,
economic, and environmental
implications of increasing demands on
the fish and wildlife resource are hard
to quantify, however. Employment and
income implications have important
consequences in fishing communities
in areas where other opportunities are
limited, such as coastal Alaska.

49

Rising values for the fisheries resource
are also creating investment
opportunities in the private sector. For
example, aquaculture and commercial
fish growing have become important
businesses over the past decade.

There are also cultural, societal,
psychological, and physiological
values associated with the fish and
wildlife resource. These range from
concerns of Native Americans for
subsistence and religious values to the
rest and relaxation resulting from
experiences with fish and wildlife.

Comparisons of future supplies and
demands suggest that recreation
centered on fish and wildlife in some
areas may become crowded to the point
where access to the resource will have
to be limited. For example, in some
places, lotteries are held to determine
who gets the opportunity to hunt big
game. Owners of large private parcels
increasingly limit public access by
charging user fees or restricting their
properties to the use of members of
hunting or fishing clubs. This is
another situation where the market
provides investment opportunities for
resource owners, but at the margin,
some people may be denied recreation
opportunities because they cannot or do
not choose to pay the access fee. Rising
incomes will give consumers more
options, however, for choosing among
activities.

Future pressures on wildlife and fish
habitats are likely to be especially
significant for some endangered and
threatened species. Any extinction of
species diminishes the Nation’s natural
biological heritage and future options
for study and genetic diversity.

Opportunities—Management
opportunities for increasing the
quantity and/or quality of the resource
relate in one way or another to habitat,

50

wildlife and fish populations, users,
and planning.

Opportunities for management of
habitat include:

—TImproving wildlife and fish habitats
by increasing food supplies and
suitable habitat cover, improving water
quality, and increasing the size,
diversity, and distribution of habitat
areas (fig. 48).

Figure 48—Seeding roadsides and leaving them
unmowed over the summer can increase cover
suitable for pheasant and other game birds.

—Controlling land and water pollution,
especially the use of pesticides, which
can adversely affect wildlife and fish
species.

—Expanding wetlands nesting habitats
through fee purchase of key tracts and
easements in the United States and
Canada, and preserving and enhancing
migration and wintering habitats.
—TIncreasing efforts to define, protect,
improve, and augment critical habitats
of endangered and threatened species
and the important habitat of other

species being adversely affected by
changes in management or use.
—Removing barriers to fish migration.

Opportunities for direct management of
wildlife and fish populations include:
—Preventing habitat deterioration by
control of fish and wildlife populations.
—Reintroduction of species that have
been displaced in areas where suitable
habitats exist or are developed.
—TIncreasing the numbers and
capabilities of fish hatcheries.
—Controlling or removing pest or
competing species.

Opportunities for user and people
management include:

—Increasing access to private lands by
promoting activities that would assist
landowners in establishing wildlife and
fish-related businesses.

—Increasing the use of management
options that better distribute users to
wildlife and fish populations.
—Further educating the public about
the role of wildlife and fish
management and finding the means of
financing It.

Opportunities for planning include:
—Increasing interagency coordination
among the many agencies responsible
for management of habitat, wildlife and
fish populations, and hunting and
fishing.

—Integrating more fully wildlife and
fish needs in the management of forest
and range lands for other renewable
resources, especially timber and range
forage.

—Continuing, through research, to
improve the information base to
manage the wildlife and fish resource
effectively.

Minerals

Implications—The expected increases
in demands for minerals can be met in

three ways: through increasing imports,
increasing domestic production, and
stepping up the country’s efforts in
conservation, recycling, and use of
renewable resources. In the past, the
Nation has responded in all three ways
to changes in demands. For example,
oil and manganese are imported; the
United States is self-sufficient in
molybdenum and minerals used for
construction; large amounts of lead are
recycled. Each response to increased
demand has its advantages and
disadvantages, and under each,
different sectors of the economy and
regions of the country are affected in
different ways economically, socially,
and environmentally. For example, the
foreign manipulation of petroleum
markets and subsequent high oil prices
caused hardship in the Northeastern
United States but benefited the U.S. oil
industry and oil-producing States.

Increased imports of minerals to meet
demands aggravates the Nation’s
balance-of-payments deficit. Reliance
on imports also limits the Nation’s
options in setting national priorities and
goals. If imports reduce prices, they
also tend to disrupt local communities
through closure of mines. While
imports may be beneficial to the United
States from the standpoint of reduced
environmental impact, imports often
originate in developing countries,
where environmental controls are
lacking. Disruption of the environment
is of general concern to the world
community of nations.

Increased domestic production of
minerals benefits the Nation’s balance
of payments and in general exerts
favorable economic impacts on local
communities and on the national
economy. Along with such benefits,
there are also social, economic, and
environmental implications associated
with increased mining activity. The
severity of potential environmental

impact depends on the type of land and
the mineral being mined, mining
methods, the adequacy of laws and
their enforcement, and the policies of
the mining company involved. Mining
can change the landscape, water
quantity and quality, fish and wildlife
habitat, air quality, and in some cases
the health of workers and people living
near the mine.

Conservation, recycling, and
substitution of renewable resources for
nonrenewable minerals generally have
favorable environmental impacts.
Though employment opportunities
would be reduced in regions where
minerals are found, employment
opportunities in other parts of the
country and other sectors of the
economy would increase. Historically,
the U.S. populace has not been oriented
toward recycling or conservation
measures except under very adverse
conditions, such as in the gasoline
shortages of the 1970's. The use of
renewable resources can be expected to
increase in situations where economics
justify substituting them for
nonrenewable resources and where

doing so does not adversely affect the
typical American lifestyle.

Opportunities—There are a number of
opportunities to accommodate the
projected increase in the Nation’s
demands for minerals of all kinds over
the next 50 years. They include:
—Increasing domestic production by
improving the business climate,
encouraging minerals production on
private lands, facilitating minerals
development on Federal lands, and by
improving information on domestic
minerals location, quantity, and quality.
—Increasing imports through tax and
trade measures and bilateral
agreements with foreign nations.
—Extending supplies through more
efficient recovery in mining and
processing, more efficient use in
manufacturing and consumption, and
recycling.

—Substituting nonmineral materials
for minerals and abundant minerals for
scarce ones.

—TImproving, through research, the
basic information for more effectively
mitigating environmental effects of
mining (fig. 49).

Figure 49—Research can help managers mitigate the environmental effects of mining.

Sil

Resource Interactions

Resource interactions have been the
topic of much study and analysis since
the passage of the Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974.
Although an obvious result of resource
management, resource interactions are
difficult to estimate for any large
geographic area because they tend to be
site specific and complex.

Findings of this Assessment indicate
that resource interactions will likely
increase in the future as demands grow
for all of the outputs of the forest and
rangeland resource base. Although
many interactions are positive or
neutral in net effects, there are some
negative ones that can constrain
increases in supplies, especially when
management of one resource exceeds
the limit of tolerance and resilience of
another. For example, roads necessary
for timber production provide access
for recreationists but may increase
sedimentation if not properly contained
through management practices to
reduce or avoid erosion.

Research in the South demonstrates
that land use and timber management
can alter land cover in ways that
change habitats for many wildlife and
fish species, water quality, and range
forage output. At the present time,
these research results are available only
for the South, primarily because of lack
of data regarding land-base
descriptions and projections. This is the
first time that changes in the forage,
wildlife and fish, and water resources
have been quantitatively linked to
changes in timber volumes and land
areas.

The national forest plans provide
another source of information about
resource interactions. Analyses of these

Nn
bo

data indicate that current levels of
national forest outputs for timber,
range, recreation, water, and wildlife
and fish can be produced throughout
the next 50 years at current levels of
cost, with two exceptions: California,
and to a lesser degree, the South.
Increases of any of these outputs on
national forests in any of the regions
over time would require increased
investment and operating funds.

The analyses also indicate that if all
outputs were to be increased
simultaneously to approach
Assessment demand projections, water
quantity and wildlife habitat would
tend to be negatively affected in the
northern, eastern, and Rocky Mountain
regions. Within the range of
alternatives generated in the forest
planning effort, it does not appear
feasible for the National Forest System
to maintain a constant proportion of all
demands projected in this Assessment.
To meet even part of the increase in
demands simultaneously would
generate substantial increases in both
investments and operating costs. If
these funds were to be made available,
however, environmental impacts
associated with increased outputs could
largely be mitigated.

Encouraging Renewable
Resource Management in
a Market Economy

Just as there are many kinds of
management and research opportunities
to increase and extend the supply and
to increase the quality of nearly all
renewable resource products, there are
also important obstacles to realization
of these opportunities. Some are
economic, some relate to lack of
information, and some are based on
existing policies and legislation. These
obstacles must be recognized and
managed if a greater proportion of the
full potential of the forest and
rangeland and inland-waters resources
is to be realized.

To bring about changes in the supplies
of goods and services, the U.S.
economy relies largely on a system of
markets and prices. For example, we
expect that the market system will
bring forth some adjustments in
minerals and in management of
industry-owned timberland and private
rangeland. Also, private-sector
landowners may respond to market
signals by creating opportunities for
some forms of recreation. For some
uses of renewable resources, however,
the key to increasing supplies
sufficiently and maintaining the quality
of resource outputs is to facilitate
improvements in the workings of
markets. Another option is to have
public market intervention when the
market does not work well, as in the
case of market externalities such as
water pollution.

There are four major reasons why
supplies of some resources are not fully
responsive to market forces: (1)
management philosophies and
priorities for public lands, (2) the broad
societal nature of some resource-
program outputs, (3) the lack of market
prices for some resource products and
uses, and (4) inadequate knowledge of
resource-production opportunities.

The fish and wildlife resource is an
example of why markets and current
institutional arrangements do not
respond well to changes in demands
and supplies. Here as in many other
countries, wildlife and fish are
considered public property even though
it is difficult or impossible to control
their movement across property and
jurisdictional lines, including
international boundaries. Most changes
in supplies of fish and wildlife depend
upon publicly financed programs.
Thus, levels of supplies and supply
responses to public demands tend to be
based upon political rather than
market-driven decisions.

The general lack of market prices for
access to and use of fish and wildlife,
water, wilderness, and many forms of
outdoor recreation opportunities results
from the broad societal nature of the
benefits. It is also due in part to the
mobile nature and public ownership of
the resource. Thus far, despite
considerable research, it has been
difficult to develop market prices for
scenic beauty, water quality per se,
songbirds, or the enjoyment associated
with nature walks (fig. 50).

Some tangible products of forest and
range lands, especially timber and
livestock forage, do have established
markets and prices. But the market
response for these goods (particularly
timber) is affected indirectly by
inadequate knowledge about the
resource-management opportunities
and the failure of capital markets to
recognize fully the present net value of
future resource outputs. Private owners,
who control nearly three-quarters of the
timberland and about one-half of the
rangeland, are greatly affected by these
markets.

Various studies have shown that the
millions of America’s private owners
of timberland have widely diverse

Figure 50—It has been difficult to develop market prices for nontangibles like the scenic beauty of
this view from the Appalachian Trail in Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains.

ownership objectives and attitudes,
limited knowledge of existing
management opportunities, and varying
willingness and capacity to make
investments that could increase timber
growth. Ownership tenures are
typically short, and most owners are in
the older age groups. Thus, for timber,
where the time between investments
and harvest is long, there is the
likelihood that direct benefits, such as
income from timber sales, will not
accrue to many current owners. There
is also substantial public ownership of
forest and range lands, and
management decisions made by public
institutions are only indirectly related
to changes in market prices.

The same kinds of considerations—
different owner characteristics,

objectives, and attitudes; lack of
knowledge of existing technology; lack
of capital; and varying willingness to
make changes—also constrain
improvements in utilizing timber and
timber products.

The factors that affect investments in
management and utilization programs
also affect investments in research on
renewable resources. The broad
societal nature of the benefits, the lack
of conventional markets and market
prices for research knowledge, and the
large numbers and characteristics of the
owners of forest and range lands
effectively cause research in the private
sector to be limited to that of a few
large industrial ownerships. Even this
private-sector investment has declined
in recent years. Thus, most of the

research on renewable resources is
now, as in the past, carried on by
public research agencies and publicly
supported educational institutions (fig.

51).

Over time, markets change and have
the effect cf redefining opportunities.

’
3
4
|
3
3
:
a
5
3
a
=
=
=
3
4
i

S88 S - BABA S

For example, higher prices will signal
private landowners to invest more in
renewable resources. To be effective,
public and private activities that
attempt to influence markets in order to
capture opportunities will have to be
sensitive to changes in markets.

Figure 51—Most of the research on renewable resources is now, as in the past. carried on by public

research agencies and publicly supported educational institutions.

Nn
f

Implications of the
Assessment for Resource
Management

The numerous opportunities to expand
renewable resource supplies have
implications for both public and private
programs and activities that affect
resource management. This section of
the Assessment presents a general
discussion of these implications
without reference to laws, regulations,
and policies that define responsibilities
for action. The implications for Forest
Service programs will be developed in
the 1990 RPA Program. In general,
identification of an opportunity also
defines an implication for resource
management. Thus, the implications of
the Assessment for resource
management derive from the
opportunities that have been identified.

Renewable resources can be managed
in any number of ways so as to change
the demand-supply outlook in ways
that benefit society. Some management
practices yield quick results, and some
take years or even decades to achieve
the desired change in the outlook. The
reason that the Assessment projections
are long term—S0 years—is to
determine the circumstances for market
equilibriums likely to evolve from a
continuation of trends in resource
management and use. These
circumstances may then have
implications for the 1990 RPA
Recommended Program.

We project that future demands for
some renewable resource products may
be above the levels that would be
supplied with projected management,
research, and assistance investments.
As in the past, demands will equal
supplies in the future, however. This
implies that for situations where
demands are projected to exceed
supplies, mechanisms will develop for
equilibrating demands and supplies.
For example, in the case of timber, it
will mean higher prices; for water, it
may mean changes in land use; and for

recreation, it may mean higher and
wider use of access fees or lower
quality recreational experiences if
preferred opportunities are not
available or affordable. Through
appropriate public and private actions,
the Nation can make choices about the
costs and associated benefits of
opportunities to adjust the supplies of
resource Outputs to meet projected
demands at levels desired by society.

Timber

Timber management and utilization
decisions can influence the rate of
increase in timber prices. One option to
keep future timber prices down is to
increase timber supplies. This could be
achieved by accelerating harvests of
softwoods on the national forests in
Washington, Oregon, northern
California, northern Idaho, and western
Montana. Both softwood and hardwood
timber supplies can be expanded by
increasing harvests on the private
timberlands in the South and North,
and by improving the utilization of
timber and wood resources.

Acceleration of harvests on the national
forests would require (1) building roads
into old-growth timberlands; (2)
protecting the environment and
mitigating unacceptable adverse effects
on wildlife, outdoor recreation, and
other uses of the managed timberlands;
and (3) establishing and caring for
replacement stands.

Sustained higher harvest levels on
private timberlands in the South and
North would also benefit from
technical assistance and financial
incentives to nonindustrial private
landowners to assure that productive
stands are regenerated and maintained
(fig. 52). The improved management
would include appropriate control of
forest insects and diseases as well.

Figure 52—One intent of education and technical and financial incentives to nonindustrial private
landowners is to assure that productive stands are regenerated and maintained.

While improved utilization provides
some options, especially in the short
run, increased net annual growth offers
the only practical means of meeting the
longrun projected demands for
softwoods and hardwoods at lower
prices.

Research can lead to the extending of
timber supplies. It can generate major
improvements in utilization, primarily
by reducing the costs and increasing
the efficiency of utilizing currently
unused wood materials, of construction
and manufacturing, and of the design
and maintenance of products and
structures.

As they have in the past, forest-
products markets will continue to
change in the future. Therefore,
research emphases will evolve over
time. For example, much of the growth
in roundwood consumption in the
future will be for pulp and other fiber-
based products. Research can develop
technologies that will enable pulp
manufacturers to use all species in the

existing timber inventory for pulp
manufacture. There are associated
implications for the changes in the
direction of forest management
research as well.

Water

Both water quantity and quality are
expected to be important in water-short
areas of the West. Restoration and
protection of watersheds on the
appropriate public lands and
cooperative assistance in watershed
planning and land treatment measures
on private lands can reduce flooding
while maintaining water quality. The
yield, timing, and quality of waterflows
can be improved by research that leads
to (1) better methods of managing
forest and range lands to stabilize soils
and constrain erosion and
sedimentation, (2) rehabilitation of
mined and other disturbed areas, and
(3) minimization of the pollution
associated with the use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides.

Nn
Nn

Continuation of past trends in irrigation
will lead to competition for water from
instream flows. Drawdown of water for
irrigation will adversely affect fish and
many forms of wildlife. Research could

improve measures of valuation for
water, fish, and wildlife so that
policymakers can come to reasoned
decisions about the allocation of water
use in the best interests of society.

Range Forage
Much of the increase in forage needed

to meet demands will come from
private lands, and these lands will be

managed more intensively. Research to
improve systems of range management

and develop lower cost, more efficient
methods of improving ranges can lead
to increased forage production on all
ownerships.

The primary resource management
implication of the range forage
assessment is for technical assistance
that could lead to the following results
on private lands: (1) rehabilitation of
range by seeding desirable species and
controlling undesirable plants and
shrubs, (2) construction of needed
livestock control and handling
facilities, such as fences (fig. 53),

(3) development of additional water
supplies, (4) improvement of grazing
systems and livestock management
practices, and (5) decreased erosion.
Responses of private landowners to
markets may lead to some of these
results even in the absence of publicly
provided assistance.

We project that supplies of range
forage from national forests will
increase little in the future, and
therefore there will not be increases in
seasonal supplies of feed for domestic
animals. Research could develop
feeding systems that take care of
increased numbers of animals in

56

Figure 53—Increased fencing is associated with higher productivity of private rangeland.

traditional ranching areas without
reliance on increased seasonal forage
from national forests.

Outdoor Recreation

The Assessment analyses of outdoor
recreation show that demands for most
recreation activities are expected to
grow, but the rates of growth differ by
activity (fig. 54). We project that
recreationists’ primary future demand
will be for opportunities near where
they live. Therefore, recreation sites
near population centers will receive
most of the pressure arising out of
these increased demands (fig. 55). The
Assessment also shows that demands
for some activities, such as dispersed
recreation, can be met primarily
through changes in management
emphasis. Other demands, such as
downhill skiing, can be met only
through costly investments. Because of
differential rates of growth in demand,
management activities and investments
for recreation must be reviewed and

targeted over time to keep them
responsive to the needs of the Nation’s
populace.

To be responsive to the changing
demands for the different kinds of

Figure 54—Consumer preferences for
recreation change over time. Cross-country
skiing is an increasingly popular activity.

Figure 55—Most of the Federal recreation areas are in the West, but most of the people are in the
East.

recreation opportunities, we could
develop procedures for monitoring to
determine the types of activities desired
by the public. In the development of
this Assessment, we found that
standards and definitions for
recreational data are not available.
Different public agencies have different
and sometimes conflicting definitions
for the same measure of recreation
demand and/or supply. The Department
of Agriculture could provide the
leadership in developing the needed
standards in cooperation with other
agencies.

We could also provide more and better
visitor information services to
encourage dispersal of recreationists’
demands and to increase customer
satisfaction. This information can
direct visitors to underutilized areas
and facilities. Closely related to the
need for visitor information itself is the
opportunity for interagency and
private-sector cooperation in providing

it. Through cooperative efforts of the
various public and private providers,
visitors would be able to find at one
stop information about all of the
recreational facilities in a local area.

The lands near population centers will
bear a major share of the expected
increases in demand for recreation.
Publicly provided facilities and private
investments to take advantage of
opportunities will undoubtedly be
affected by the geographic pattern of
growth in demand.

Research designed to develop practical,
lower cost ways of constructing,
restoring, and maintaining facilities or
minimizing the adverse impacts of use
can further contribute to meeting the
public’s demands for outdoor
recreation.

Private lands can also provide greatly
increased recreation opportunities to
the public, especially near population

centers. Informing private landowners
about the income potential and related
social value of their lands for public
recreation as well as management
strategies and liability risks could result
in increased access to private lands for
recreation. Research could be
developed to describe for State
legislatures and other regulatory bodies
the deleterious effect that existing
liability law has on the use of private
lands for recreation.

Multiple-use guidelines would improve
coordinated management of both
recreation and nonrecreation use of
wilderness areas. Preservation of
critical wildlife, fish and plant habitats,
watershed protection, gene pool
preservation, scientific uses, human
development and spiritual growth,
education, and preservation of
representative ecosystems are all uses
that would benefit from management
direction such as that provided for
recreation on public lands.

Wildlife and Fish

Access to private lands will be further
restricted in the future, either through
outright prohibition or through user
fees, thereby shifting demands to
public lands. The implication is that on
public lands, it will become
increasingly important for managers to
integrate wildlife and fish objectives
fully into management and protection
activities for other resources, and
especially those for timber, forage, and
minerals. Access to public and private
lands will also become increasingly
important, with user fees probably
becoming much more important in
determining access.

As land use intensifies on private lands,
National Forest System and other
public lands will become more
important for their unique wildlife and
fish habitats. The fact that

approximately 330 threatened and
endangered species are found on
national forests clearly demonstrates
the importance of these habitats.

Minerals

Major opportunities exist to increase
minerals production from private forest
and range lands. A large proportion of
current minerals production now
occurs on private land, and there is
evidence that major deposits lie
beneath private lands in the eastern part
of the country. Even if private lands
provide the bulk of minerals produced
domestically, there is likely to be
increased minerals exploration and
extraction on Federal lands, including
those in the National Forest System.
Geologically, the national forests
contain some of the host rocks most
favorable for minerals deposits, and the
forests are currently important sources
of molybdenum, gold, lead, silver,
copper, and phosphate.

For energy minerals, rising prices are
likely to result in increased exploration
for and development of oil, gas, coal,
and geothermal resources. Especially
for metallic minerals, volatile world
markets determine prices, and demands
for exploration for these minerals on
national forests and other lands will be
episodic. Where construction minerals
such as crushed rock, sand, and gravel
exist on national forests near expanding
population centers, demand for these
minerals will intensify.

In summary, we can expect an
increasing interest in minerals of all
kinds on National Forest System lands,
with associated implications for
planning and research on methods of
exploring for and extracting minerals
with minimum impacts on surface
resources and maintenance of
environmental quality.

58

International Cooperation

The United States contains only a small
part of the world’s forests and
rangelands and renewable resources. It
depends upon other countries for
important shares of its mineral and
timber supplies. At the same time,
other countries depend upon the United
States for supplies of timber products.
Some species of wildlife and fish that
are commercially or recreationally
important spend part of their lives in
other countries or international waters.
The world’s outdoor recreational
opportunities and global environment
are shared by everyone, and everyone
loses or gains as these resources and
the environment change. For example,
global climate change would affect all
people. As a partner in these shared
resources, the United States should
consider ways to support improved
management and use of all forest and
range lands and renewable resources
and protection for the natural
environment. Such support would
facilitate sustainable development and
trade in renewable resources based on
environmentally sound conservation

policy.

Resource Protection and
Administrative Support
Implications for the Forest
Service

The expected increases in population
and associated economic activity in the
United States have implications for
resource protection and administrative
support on all lands. If renewable
resource inventories and supplies
increase in response to future demands,
there will also be increased demands
for the protection of: (1) the soil from
erosion and loss of long-term
productivity; (2) timber and forage
resources from fire, insects, diseases
and other pests; and (3) water from
nonpoint source pollution.

On National Forest System lands,
increased numbers of visitors will
expect protection from crime. A crime-
related issue that increased
significantly in the past decade is the
use of National Forest System lands to
produce and process marijuana and
other controlled substances. In 1986,
for example, 800,000 acres were
considered unsafe for the public or
Forest Service employees to enter.
Major efforts have been undertaken to
remove this hazard from our national
forests.

The decentralized management of the
Forest Service and the wide geographic
distribution of our 852 administrative
units over 46 States and Puerto Rico
require the use of more than 21 million
square feet of space in approximately
11,200 buildings and support facilities.
Maintenance of existing facilities will
be a growing challenge, especially for
those facilities and natural areas
popular with recreationists. Any
expansion of resource outputs and use
would lead to demands for additional
warehouses, offices, laboratories, and
associated facilities whose expense
must be written off as overhead.
Increasingly sophisticated research in
the biological sciences will require
expensive materials and equipment.
The state of the art for information
processing will continue to evolve, so
our computers and telecommunications
equipment will need continual
updating.

The Forest Development Road System
provides the principal access to
National Forest System lands in
accordance with decisions reached in
the land management planning process.
The system serves all resource
management activities. Expansion of
most resource programs would lead to
additional roads and increased
maintenance for existing ones.

Policy Considerations for
the Forest Service

This 1989 Assessment of the Nation’s
renewable resources forms the factual
foundation for the 1990 RPA
Recommended Program for the Forest
Service. The RPA Program planning
effort, rather than the Assessment, is
the proper place to address the
recommended Forest Service program.
The Assessment, however, is a useful
place to point out the types of policy
considerations that flow from the
Assessment findings and that will be
addressed in the Program.

The Assessment projects a future of
increased demands for most resources
and a considerable capability to
increase resource supplies. Many of the
resource management and investment
opportunities identified in this
Assessment can be accomplished
within existing laws and existing public
policies that apply to the administration
of the Forest Service. Some
opportunities are beyond existing
policies and programs. Other
opportunities are more appropriate for
the private sector or are responsibilities
of State and local governments or are
within the program bounds of other
public agencies, such as the Soil
Conservation Service. Laws and
policies relating to renewable resources
have evolved over time in response to
changes in society’s resource demands
and changing attitudes toward the
management of renewable resources.
Forest Service programs have in turn
evolved in response to those changes in
laws and societal needs. As the
projected renewable resource demands
unfold in the future and as Forest
Service programs continue to evolve to
tap the resource supply opportunities
more effectively, a number of policy
considerations will surface.

Many of these are policy
considerations that have arisen in the
past, and current answers to them have

been developed. Such policy
considerations must be revisited in the
context of the projected future that the
Assessment depicts. Even though the
current policy direction may be
reaffirmed for the future, to keep the
agency’s programs vital, management
must periodically reassess them in the
context of projected resource trends.

There are a number of different ways to
formulate the type of policy
considerations that flow from the
Assessment. Although not exhaustive,
the following policy considerations
capture many of the most important
dimensions of Assessment findings and
implications.

What objective should the Forest
Service have in the production of
resources on nonindustrial private
lands?

Private nonindustrial forests cover a
greater area than all public and
industry-owned forests combined. The
Assessment projects that the
nonindustrial private lands will supply
much of the timber and other forest
resources in the future and that the
owners of these lands can significantly
increase resource supplies. But their
ability to do so is limited by market
and other barriers, including
landowners’ potential liability for acts
that occur on their property. Only a
relatively small proportion of
nonindustrial private landowners
employ professional forestry
assistance. This indicates that many
such owners do not use research-based
knowledge that is now available to
improve the productivity of their
woodlands.

Current Forest Service policies aimed
at private nonindustrial forests are
designed to:

—Provide technical and financial

assistance to the States for protecting
forests from wildfire, disease, and
insects; and

—Support the States in providing
technical and financial assistance to
landowners, mainly aimed at timber
production.

The Assessment identifies the
Opportunity and demand for increased
production of timber from
nonindustrial private lands. It also,
however, identifies growing demands
for other outputs, including various
forms of recreation in the Eastern
United States. Public forest lands
cannot meet all of the increased
demands. A key policy to be evaluated
is the extent to which the Forest
Service, in cooperation with other
public agencies, should encourage uses
other than timber production on
nonindustrial private lands. Existing
policies such as fire protection do
benefit all uses of the forest and
rangeland base, but direct assistance
programs often are targeted only at
landowners’ timber resources.

What balance of multiple-use
management will be applied to the
national forests?

The Forest Service 1s required by law
to manage the national forests for
multiple uses and has done so for
decades. There have been conflicts
among constituents who favor
particular exclusive uses or particular
multiple-use balances. Many of these
multiple-resource demands can be met
through the compatibility possible from
multiple-use management.

Lands vary in their productivity for
specific renewable resource outputs,
and demands are concentrated on lands
that have the characteristics desired by
users. One view of multiple-use
management sees it as providing for

the same general mix of uses across
most acres. An alternative view of
multiple use encourages managers to
concentrate on producing specific
outputs from only the lands most
capable of such production.

Current Forest Service policy hes
between these two interpretations. It
provides a resource balance that
maximizes net public benefits and
responds to public issues and
protecting environmental quality. As
the Assessment projections of supply
and demand come to pass in the future,
the particular resource balance that
maximizes net public benefits will
change over time.

Options for application of multiple-use
management to national forests include
a resource blend narrower or broader
than the current one of providing
access to all resources. Under current
policy, this choice will be influenced
by changes in relative values among
resources and in public preferences and
issues that influence national forest-
based resource planning updates or
induce a revision of existing plans. Any
change in the resource output mix on
national forests would almost certainly
lead to changes in the demands placed
on private and other public forest lands.
Thus, in addition to the question of
future balance among the various
resources on national forests, the
relative capability and productivity of
resource use on the national forests and
on private and other public lands
should be considered comparatively in
the development of a national forest
program.

Should the Forest Service move to
increased reliance on the
marketplace for allocation of
renewable resources from national
forests?

60

One option for meeting the changing
level and composition of resource
demands is to institute policy
adjustments that would place greater
reliance on the marketplace for goods
and services from forests and
rangelands. For example, this would
help ration the use of these lands for
recreation and similar uses that now are
often free. At issue is the loss of a
tradition of open access to public lands
for some resources.

How should the relative priorities
emphasis of Forest Service research
programs be adjusted to respond
effectively to the information and
technology opportunities associated
with increasing resource demands
and supply opportunities?

The Assessment identifies many
opportunities for research in increasing
the quantity and quality of renewable
resource outputs. Currently, Forest
Service research addresses a very broad
array of topics and provides results to
meet local and regional scientific needs
as Well as results related to long-term,
multifaceted natural resource issues. In
the United States, the Forest Service is
uniquely qualified to address a variety
of needs because of its national scope,
continuity, and multifunctional
scientific staff. Any change in the
current focus of the Forest Service
research program would have
significant implications for funding and
the role of other natural resource
research institutions.

What should the Forest Service do in
our long-term resource planning to
consider the threat of global climate
change?

Global climate change could
significantly affect the forests and
range forage resources of the United

States and have associated impacts on
other renewable resources. The
Department of Agriculture and the
Forest Service are closely monitoring
the reports of the carefully documented
increase in levels of the “greenhouse”
gases—chlorofluorocarbons, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
others in the atmosphere. These gases
can contribute to climatic change.
Human activities contribute to greater
levels of these gases in the atmosphere
as well as natural sources. Management
efforts such as energy efficiency,
emission control, conservation of
irrigation water, reforestation,
protection of forests from fire, and
management of national forests for
vigorous growth of young trees can and
do contribute to lessening the rate of
accumulation of these gases in the
atmosphere (fig. 56).

Figure 56—Management of forests for vigorous

growth of young trees contributes to lessening
the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere.

The Forest Service is faced with
assessing the potential impact of
possible future climate changes and
differentiating them from the separate
impact of local air pollution. Further,
since existing forests were produced
under different environmental
conditions than today’s, even without
any future climate change, tomorrow’s
forests could be quite different. Thus,
the Forest Service is confronted with
great complexity and the challenge of
developing appropriate data bases and
models. Such models must be based on
sound data, much of which ts lacking.
When they are available, they can
provide reliable information for
deciding what to do in many different
forest ecosystems and locations and
under various conditions that involve a
wide range of external variables
besides the greenhouse gases.

The foregoing and other policy
considerations will be reviewed in the
determination of a recommended RPA
Program.

Epilog

Renewable natural resources will
always be important to the economic
welfare and quality of life for the
citizens of the United States and the
world. The Assessment has pointed out
the many opportunities Americans
have to use these resources to improve
the public’s economic welfare and
quality of life. The Nation has made a
great deal of progress over the past
several decades in production of
resources and enhancement of
productivity. Past performance clearly
indicates that U.S. resources are
resilient and renewable and responsive
to management. Their resilience and
renewability account for the
management opportunities we have
today to increase their products and
uses as well as their contribution to the
environment.

As our Nation continues to grow in the
coming decades, Americans’
perspectives on natural resources will
change in terms of problems,
opportunities, and the appropriate mix
of management inputs to manage the
country’s renewable resources. This is
why periodic assessment of the
renewable resource situation is so
important in providing the factual basis
for the 1990 RPA Recommended
Program.

Pesticide Precautionary
Statement

This publication mentions the use of pesticides
in one figure caption. The text does not contain
recommendations for their use, nor does it imply
that the uses discussed in the figure caption have
been registered. All uses of pesticides must be
registered by appropriate State and/or Federal
agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to
humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and
fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or
applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively
and carefully. Follow recommended practices
for the disposal of surplus pesticides and
pesticide containers.

61

Appendix table 1—Population, gross national product, and disposable personal income in the United States,

2000
2010
2020
2030
2040

— = not available.

' Data for 1929, 1933, and 1940 exclude Alaska and Hawaii. Data for 1929-86 are as of July I.

Sources:

Millions

121.8
12537

132.1
139.9
152.3
165.9
180.7
194.3
205.1

216.0
218.0
220.2

222.6

Population!

Annual
rate of
change,

percent

Billion
1982
dollars

Gross national
product

Annual
rate of
change,

percent

709.6 =
498.5 -8.4
772.9 7.9
1,354.8 -1.9
1,203.7 8.5
1,494.9 5.6
1,665.3 2.2
2,087.6 5.8
2,416.2 -0.3
2,695.0 -1.3
2,826.7 4.9
2,958.6 47
3,115.2 5.3
3,192.4 25
3,187.1 -.2
3,248.8 1.9
3,166.0 -2.5
3279.1 3.6
3,501.4 6.8
3,618.7 3.4
3,721.7 2.8
Projections

5,402 2.8
7,031 2.6
9.166 2.8
11,957 2.7
15,627 21

Disposable
personal income

Per capita disposable

personal income

Annual

Annual

Billion rate of rate of

1982 change, 1982 change,

dollars percent dollars percent
498.6 —- 4,091 —
370.8 -7.3 2,950 -7.8
530.7 62 4,017 5.4
739.5 -1.3 5,285 -2.4
791.8 8.0 5,220 6.2
944.5 5.6 5.714 3.8
1,091.1 22 6,036 0.1
1,365.7 5.8 7,027 4.5
1,668.1 4.3 8,134 3.1
1,931.7 1.9 8,944 9
2,001.0 3.6 9,175 2.6
2,066.6 3.3 9381 22
2,167.4 4.9 9,735 3.8
2,212.6 2.1 9,829 1.0
2,214.3 0.1 9,722 -1.1
2,248.6 1.5 9,769 5
2,261.5 6 9,725 -.5
2,331.9 3.1 9,930 2.1
2,469.8 5.9 10,419 4.9
2,542.8 3.0 10,625 2.0
2,640.9 3:9 10,929 2.9
3,827 2.4 13,920 1.6
4,922 23 16,730 1.6
6,136 2.4 19,660 1.8
7,660 2.2 23,530 1.9
9,599 2.3 28,790 2

Historical data: Council of Economic Advisers. 1987 Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Projections: The Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates group special report to the Forest Service. (Copy on file with the USDA Forest Service,

Washington, DC.)

Appendix table 2—Land and water areas in the United States, by region and class of land and water'

Class of North- North South- South Rocky Great Pacific
land and water Total east Central east Central Mountain Plains Coast’ Alaska

1,000 acres

Land
Non-Federal
Rangeland?’ 441,466 16 238 4,192 111,365 168,407 74,080 335212 49,956
Transition land* 35,603 3,601 1,021 989 934 17,876 86 1,167 9,929
Forest land? 443,307 78,110 67,686 78,270 105,936 28,624 3,018 39.862 41,801
Other land® 689,627 41,083 205,448 52,102 153,808 64,086 110,82 443,697 18,586
Total 1,575,980 122,810 274,392 135,553 372,043 278,987 188,008 117,938 120,272
Federal
Rangeland 328,887 — 172 197 — 167,411 3,500 34,828 122,779
Forest land 252,394 2,569 9,852 9,054 8,931 90,697 1,211 52,765 77,315
Other land 63,504 1,028 1,802 1,571 4,460 9.812 1,209 2,105 41,517
Total 644,785 3,597 11,826 10,822 13,391 267,920 5,920 89,698 241,611
All land
Rangeland 770,353 16 410 4,389 111,365 335,818 77,580 68,040 1722735
Transition land 35,603 3,601 1,021 989 934 17,876 86 1,167 9,929
Forest land 695,701 80,679 77,538 87,324 114,867 119,321 4,229 92,627 109,116
Other land 753,131 42,111 207,249 53,673 158,268 73,892 112,033 45,802 60,103
Total land 2,254,788 126,407 286,218 146,375 385,434 546,907 193,928 207,636 361,883
Water
Inland water
Large area’ 51,318 4,422 6,735 7,185 9.182 5,164 2,412 3,309 12,909
Small area* 9,863 761 752 1,398 1,960 610 428 504 3,450
Other Water’ 47.642 6,541 35.879 2,196 1,417 -- -- 1,609 --
Total water 108,823 11,724 43,366 10,779 12,559 5,774 2,840 5,422 16,359
Total land and water 2,363,611 138,131 329 584 157,154 397,993 552,681 196,768 213,058 378,242

— = not available.
'Data for forest land, rangeland, and other land as of 1982; data on inland water as of 1980; data on other water as of 1970.
* Includes Hawaii.

‘Land on which the climax vegetation (potential natural plant community) is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs,

or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing.It includes natural grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, tundra,

and certain forbs, and shrub communities.It also includes areas seeded to native or adapted introduced species that are managed
like native vegetation.

*Land that meets the definition of forest land based on cover characteristics but that carries as the predominant vegetation

grasses or forage plants used for grazing. The Soil Conservation Service has classified and reported most of these lands as
rangeland; the Forest Service has classified and reported these lands as forest land. In most instances these lands are noncommercial
timberland ecosystems such as pinyon-juniper, chaparral, and post oak.Transition land is an interim category used in this report

to classify part of the area in such ecosystems.Work is underway in the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service to resolve
classification differences and show all such land as rangeland or forest land in future reports.Some of the area in noncommercial
timberland ecosystems is classified as forest or rangeland in this report.

*Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest use. The minimum
area for classification of forest land is | acre and must be at least 100 feet wide.Forest land is distinguished from rangeland in transition vegetation types if the
tree canopy cover exceeds 10 percent.Forest lands include cutover areas temporarily unstocked as well as young stands and plantations established for forestry
purposes which do not yet have 10 percent crown cover.

* Includes crop and pasture land and other land.Cropland is defined as land used for the production of adapted crops for harvest, alone or in rotation with grasses
and legumes.Adapted crops include row crops, small grain crops. hay crops. nursery crops, orchard and vineyard crops, and other similar specialty crops. Pasture
land is defined as land used primarily for the production of adapted, introduced, or native forage plants for livestock grazing.Pastureland may consist of single
species in a pure stand, grass mixture, or a grass-legume mixture. Cultural treatment in the form of fertilization, weed control, reseeding, or renovation is
usually a part of pasture management in addition to grazing management. Native pasture is included in pastureland in these land area statistics. Other land is
defined as a category of land cover and land use that includes farmsteads, other land in farms, strip mines, quarries, gravel pits, borrow pits, permanent snow and
ice, small built-up areas, and all other land that does not fit into any other land cover or land-use category.

’ Lakes and ponds at least 40 acres in size; waterways 1/8 mile or more in width.
‘Lakes and ponds between 2 and 40 acres in size: waterways less than 1/8 mile in width.

* Includes Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coastal waters: Chesapeake and Delaware Bays: Long Island and Puget Sounds: New York Harbor; Straits of Juan de Fuca
and Georgia: and the Great Lakes.Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

Sources: Forest land: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1977. Forest statistics of the United States, except that forest land ownership in
Alaska updated through 1987 by the USDA Forest Service for the Federal and nonfederal ownerships. Rangeland: USDA Forest Service estimates based on data
supplied by the USDA Soil Conservation Service: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Park
Service: and U.S. Department of Defense. Inland water: USDA Soil Conservation Service (preliminary data).All other land and water: U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970. Area measurement reports. GE-20, No. 1. 22 p.

64

Appendix table 3—Indexes of softwood timber growth, inventory, and acreage in

the United States, by ownership, specified years, 1952—87

(1977 = 100)

Index of —

Ownership Growth per Growth per
and year Growth Inventory Acreage acre inventory
National forest
1952 67 98 107 63 69
1962 81 103 109 74 79
1970 96 102 107 90 94
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 109 90 96 113 121
Other public
1952 62 98 105 59 67
1962 82 97 100 82 86
1970 94 99 100 94 96
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 117 94 9] 128 123
Forest industry
1952 65 104 87 75 63
1962 81 103 89 91 79
1970 9] 101 97 94 90
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 112 97 102 110 115
Other private
1952 59 76 106 55 78
1962 74 83 109 67 89
1970 89 92 104 86 97
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 93 109 99 94 85
All owners
1952 62 93 103 60 67
1962 78 97 105 74 80
1970 91 99 103 89 93
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 103 97 98 105 106

65

Appendix table 4—Indexes of hardwood timber growth, inventory, and acreage in
the United States, by ownership, specified years, 1952—87

(1977 = 100)
Index of —
Ownership Growth per Growth per
and year Growth Inventory Acreage acre inventory
National forest
1952 61 64 107 57 96
1962 78 81 109 72 97
1970 88 90 107 82 98
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 95 117 96 99 81
Other public
1952 59 60 105 57 97
1962 76 77 100 76 99
1970 90 89 100 90 101
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 116 117 9] 127 100,
Forest industry
1952 5] 63 87 66 92
1962 69 78 89 77 88
1970 88 84 97 90 98
1977 100 100 100. 100 100
1987 95 108 102 93 88
Other private
1952 69 73 106 65 96
1962 77 82 109 71 94
1970 92 9] 104 89 101
1977 100 100 100 100 100
1987 103 118 99 105 88
All owners
1952 66 70 103 64 96
1962 76 81 105 72 94
1970 9] 90 103 88 101
1977 100 100 100 100. 100
1987 103 117 98 105 88

66

Appendix table 5—Net volume of timber on timberland in the United States, by

region, class of timber, and softwoods and hardwoods, January 1, 1987

Class of timber

Growing stock
Softwoods
Hardwoods

Total
Live cull trees
Softwoods
Hardwoods
Total
Sound dead trees
Softwoods
Hardwoods
Total
All timber
Softwoods

Hardwoods

Total

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

North!

47.4
139.6

186.9

3.

17.6

20.7

51.4
158.4

209.8

South?

Rocky
Mountain°

Coast

Pacific
4

Billion cubic feet

100.3
desl

108.0

' Includes the Northeast and North Central.

* Includes the Southeast and South Central.

3 Includes the Great Plains.

4 Includes Alaska and Hawaii.

Appendix table 6—Total freshwater withdrawals in the United States, specified years, 1960-85, by water use and source, with

projections of demand to 2040

Projections

Water use and source 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
So Million gallons per day
Thermoelectric steam cooling
Ground water 920 1,100 1,400 1,400 1,600 610 700 700 690 680 680
Surface water 73,100 90,500 118,300 129,600 146,800 129,790 156,700 174,500 192,200 209,900 227,600
Total 74,000 91,600 119,800 131,000 148,400 130,400 157,400 175,200 192,900 210,600 228,300
Irrigation
Ground water 30,400 41,600 45,250 57,100 61,200 56,300 55,600 58,300 60.900 62,650 64,200
Surface water 54,000 74,400 81,700 85.000 90,400 85,800 86,600 92,900 99,100 104,210 109,100
Wastewater 560 500 370 370 280 450 290 260 200 200 200
Total 4,900 116,500 127,300 142,500 151,900 142,500 142,500 151,500 160,200 167,100 173,400
Municipal central supplies
Ground water 6,300 8,100 9,500 10.800 11,700 14,600 20,100 24,100 28,200 31,600 = 33,700
Surface water 14,200 15,700 17,900 18,800 22,300 21,900 30,500 34,600 38,500 41,640 43,500
Total 20,500 23,800 27,400 29,600 34,000 36,500 50,600 58,700 66,700 =72,300 ~=—-77,100
Industrial self-supplies
Ground water 6,000 6,800 8,000 9,700 10.300 6,100 5,600 6,400 7,340 8.310 9.340
Surface water 27,200 29,700 31,200 28,600 28,700 20,200 21,700 23,600 25.420 27,220 = 28,960
Wastewater 70 140 150 170 190 150 300 400 420 470 500
Total 33,300 36,600 39,300 38,500 39,200 26,450 27,600 30,400 33.200 = 36,000 38,800
Domestic self-supplies
Ground water 1,840 2,200 2,500 2,670 3,260 3,250 4,300 4.800 5,250 5.600 5.800
Surface water 160 120 120 130 180 60 80 60 40 30 30
Total 2,000 2,320 2,620 2,800 3,340 3,320 4,380 4,860 5,290 5,630 5,830
Livestock watering
Ground water 825 1,000 1,070 1,250 1,200 3,020 1,500 1,600 1,690 1,750 1,780
Surface water 675 740 800 900 970 1,450 1,180 1,260 1,330 1,380 1,410
Total 1,500 1,740 1,870 2,150 2,170 4.470 2,680 2,860 3,020 3,130 3,190
All water use
Ground water 46,285 60,800 67,720 82,920 89,260 83,880 87,800 95,900 104,070 110,590 115,500
Surface water 169,335 211,160 250,020 263,030 289,350 259,210 296,760 326,920 356,590 384,380 410,600
Wastewater 630 640 520 540 470 600 590 660 620 670 700
Total withdrawals 216,200 272,400 318,300 346,600 379,000 343.700 385,200 423,600 461,300 494,800 526,600

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

Source: Data for 1960-85 from U.S. Geological Survey circulars except for 1985 data for irrigation. These are from the Soil
Conservation Service, modified by additional nonagricultural irrigation use. Projections are Forest Service estimates based

upon trends in the historical data.

68

Appendix table 7—Total freshwater withdrawals in the United States, specified years, 1960-85, by region and water source,
with projection of consumption to 2040

Projections
Region and water Source 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Million gallons per day
North!
Ground water 5,625 7,130 8,750 8,920 9,930 9,395 12,060 13,840 15,670 17,225 18,365
Surface water 70,735 92,000 107,355 106,975 110,050 97,785 117,110 130,450 143,600 156,350 — 168,450
wastewater 80 125 130 155 190 105 250 310 25 B15 415
Total 76,440 99,255 116,235 116,050 120,170 107,285 129,420 144,600 159,595 173,950 187,230
South?
Ground water 15,570 21,820 19,165 23,650 24,040 24,520 25,795 28,280 30,790 32,830 34,390
Surface water 34,635 42,765 57,415 68,265 83,295 70,440 = 82,360 = 91,450 100,400 = =109,050 117,300
Wastewater 30 5 20 B 70 175 100 110 100 105 105
Total 50,235 64,590 76,600 91,980 107,405 95,155 108,255 119,840 131,290 141,985 151,795
Rocky Mountain’
Ground water 12,690 15,920 18,675 27,920 31,140 29,190 27,515 29,220 30,890 32,125 33,120
Surface water 36,420 47,420 52,740 53,380 59,745 57,520 = 61,475 66,320. 71,075 75,100 8,850
Wastewater 90 125 170 155 35 55 70 75 65 60 60
Total 49,200 63,465 = 71,585 81,454 90,920 86,765 89,060 95,615 102,030 107,285 — 112,030
Pacific Coast?
Ground water 13,400 15,930 21,130 22,430 24,150 20,790 22,430 24,560 26,720 28,410 29,625
Surface water 27,545 28,975 32,510 34,410 36,260 =33,450 = 35,815 = 38,700 = 41,525 43,880 46,000
Wastewater 430 385 200 170 175 260 165 165 135 130 120
Total 41,375 45,290 = 53,840 57,010 60,585 54,500 58,410 63,425 68,380 72,420 75,745
All regions
Ground watear 46,285 60,800 67,720 82,920 89,260 83,800 = 87,800 = 95,900 104,070 110,590 115,500
Surface water 169,335 211,160 250,020 263,030 =289,350 =-259,210 = 296,760 = 326,920 356,590 384,380 410,600
Wastewater 630 640 520 540 470 600 590 660 620 670 700
Total withdrawals 346,600 379,000 461,300 494,800 526,600

216,200

272,400

318,300

343,700 385,200

423,600

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

'Includes the Northeast and North Central.

*Includes the Southeast and South Central.

*Includes the Great Plains.

‘Includes Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: Data for 1960-85 from U.S. Geological Survey circulars. except for 1985 data for irrigation. These are from the Soil Conservation Service, modified

by additional nonagricultural irrigation use. Projections are Forest Service estimates based upon trends in the historial data.

69

Appendix table 8—Total freshwater consumption in the United States, specified years, 1960-85, by region and use, with
projections of consumption to 2040

Projections

Region and water use 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Million gallons per day

North!
Domestic self-supplies 427 517 513 356 594 595 482 494 504 511 S15
Industrial self-supplies 1.045 1,351 1,187 L177 1,247 1.656 2,790 3,155 3,523 3,891 4,262
Irrigation 233 398 460 613 1,278 1,187 1,417 1,481 1,543 1,592 1,637
Livestock watering 603 628 614 689 623 650 643 680 711 733 746
Municipal central supplies 1,329 1,735 1.881 1.749 1,615 1.618 2,339 2,575 2,783 2,931 3,016
Thermoelectric steam cooling 53 87 106 630 1,294 2,865 5,457 6,539 7379 8,483 9,829
Total 3,691 4.717 4,762 S215 6.651 8,571 13,124 14,924 16,443 18.142 20,005
South
Domestic self-supplies 519 798 721 661 842 843 732 750 766 777 783
Industrial self-supplies 1,524 1,581 2,220 2,075 2,781 1,702 2,378 2,690 3,003 3,317 3,633
Irrigation 9.143 14,913 12,646 17,564 16,356 14,701 17,550 18,349 19.116 19,717 20,278
Livestock watering 416 472 540 680 769 992 925 977 1,022 1,054 1,073
Municipal central supplies 1,139 1,301 1,612 2,323 2,172 2,176 3,140 3,464 3,742 3,942 4,056
Thermoelectric steam cooling 96 228 568 1,061 1,536 1,089 1,739 2,083 2,351 2,703 3,132
Total 12,837 19,294 18.307 924,364 24.455) 21,503, 26,464 28,312 29,999 31,509 = 32,954
Rocky Mountains*
Domestic self-supplies 120 136 161 188 293 253 211 216 221 224 226
Industrial self-supplies 157 248 378 601 625 409 503 569 635 701 768
Irrigation 24,073 30,491 34.755 34,999 36,242, 31.689 37,836 = 39,558 41,212 42,508 43,717
Livestock watering 315 439 476 498 430 524 533 563 589 607 618
Municipal central supplies 495 584 756 857 1,303 1,305 1,883 2,077 2,244 2,364 2,432
Thermoelectric steam cooling 48 83 126 207 369 303 482 578 652 750 869
Total 25,208 = 31,981 36,651 37,350 39,260 =—34.494 441.449 43,561 45,553 47,154 48,631
Pacific Coast*
Domestic self-supplies 151 117 261 244 253 253 249 255 261 264 267
Industrial self-supplies 249 181 306 332 364 409 1,044 1,180 1,318 1,456 1,594
Irrigation 18.576 20,095 25,608 26.745 29,243 26.211 30,695 32,091 33.433 34,484 35,465
Livestock watering 103 82 82 84 80 207 211 223 233 240 244
Municipal central supplies 508 1,517 1,675 1,737 2,006 2,010 2,901 3,199 3,457 3,641 3,746
Thermoelectric steam cooling 27 18 24 40 42 96 86 103 117 134 155
Total 19.614 22,010 27,957 29.182 31,987 29,186 35.185 37,052 38.817 40,220 41,472
Total consumption 61,350 78,002 87,677 96,111 102,353) 93,755 116,222) 123,850 ~—-:130,812 137,025 143,062

Note: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
' Includes the Northeast and North Central.

? Includes the Southeast and South Central.

* Includes the Great Plains.

* Includes Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: Data for 1960-85 from U.S. Geological Survey circulars. Projections are Forest Service estimates based upon trends in the historical
data.

70

Appendix table 9—Consumption of grazed forages in the United States by type of grazing and livestock and region, on an

animal unit-month (AUM) basis, 1985

Type of livestock

Percent

Deeded non-
and region Total Irrigated Public grazing
ae 1,000 1,000 1,000
AUM's AUM'’s Percent AUM'’s
Beef cattle
North! 70,044.2 66,118.6 94.4 —
South? 181,571.0 167,137.3 92.1 6,603.2
Rocky Mountain* 131,735.0 104,056.0 79.0 15,901.0
Pacific Coast* 28,739.0 22,047.0 76.7 1,659.0
Total 412,089.9 359,359.1 87.2 24,162.9
Sheep
North! 3,120.4 2,184.3 70.0 —
South? 4,041.5 4,041.5 100.0 =a
Rocky Mountain? 9,063.0 3,207.0 35.4 4,654.6
Pacific Coast* 2,848.0 1,308.0 45.9 649.0
Total 19,072.9 10,742.2 56.3 5,303.6

Irrigated grazing

1,000
AUM's

Percent

Crop residue

1,000
AUM'’s

3,925.6
7,029.5
7,885.6
1,170.0

20,010.6

Percent

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

— = not available.

' Includes the Northeast and North Central.

> Includes the Southeast and South Central.

3 Includes the Great Plains.

4 Includes Alaska and Hawaii.

71

Appendix table 10—Medium-level indexes of future consumption of outdoor
recreation trips in the United States, projections to 2040

Activity

Land
Developed camping
Picnicking
Sightseeing
Family gatherings
Pleasure driving
Visiting historic sites
Attending events
Visiting museums
Off-road driving
Biking
Running/jogging
Walking
Cutting firewood
Collecting berries
Visiting prehistoric sites
Photography
Day hiking
Horseback riding
Nature study
Backpacking
Primitive camping
Wildlife observation

Water
Pool swimming
Sunbathing

Motorized boating
Water skiing
Rafting/tubing
Canoeing/kayaking
Other boating/rowing
Stream/lake swimming

Snow
Downhill skiing
Cross-country skiing

(1987 = 100)
Projections
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
115 130 143 157 167
106 113 119 128 134
128 143 160 181 203
124 145 168 192 210
126 140 156 175 197
130 147 167 193 220
114 126 139 152 162
119 135 152 171 184
106 112 118 124 129
126 149 174 201 220
137 170 206 243 270
114 127 141 156 166
121 131 143 159 176
128 143 161 184 208
142 165 191 222 255
112 123 135 150 160
122 143 164 188 205
132 158 184 208 226
113 125 138 153 163
136 167 202 238 265
114 127 139 153 162
124 145 168 190 207
124 143 162 182 196
116 129 142 154 161
111 120 129 138 145
115 127 139 151 160
125 156 192 246 287
117 132 148 167 180
113 125 138 151 161
107 113 120 128 133
164 230 310 399 469
193

145