I've had several requests for an update on issues surrounding timberland investments and transactions to date for 2011 so I am posting a chart of the transactions of which I am aware. I will also make a comment or two on conservation easements and on who is
Showing posts with label silviculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silviculture. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, February 18, 2010
National Forest Timber Management: Problems and Solutions
Today's post is by a guest author who will expound upon my last post concerning the management of our National Forests. Mac McConnell is an "old time" forester who graduated from Penn State/Mont Alto back in 1943 (not a typo) and spent the next 30 years with the U.S.Forest Service, working in the southeast and specializing in timber management. Following his retirement, Mac got a couple of advanced degrees (Urban and Regional Planning and Sociology) and spent time with the Peace Corps in South America. As a consultant in Energy Biomass Management, he maintains his interest in Forest Service doings and considers himself a "constructive critic" of that organization. --Brian
This website’s recent comments on the drastic decline in National Forest (NF) timber harvesting over the past 30 years has raised a few eyebrows and prompted some of us to look at what’s happening in our own backyards. For those of you who missed that post, here’s the graphic showing the NF harvesting record.
My “home” forest, the Apalachicola NF, is the largest (576,000 ac.) of the three National Forests in Florida, and timber management problems are typical of those in the entire NF system. They include insufficient funding and manpower, endangered species concerns, excessive environmental studies, and over-detailed environmental assessments. Unlike many forests, they have a solid market for all products (including 2 operating biomass-fueled power plants), an extensive prescribed burning program (947,000 ac. in the past 10 years), and cordial relations with the environmental community. With these favorable conditions, you’d expect at least modest timber production. Not so! Here’s what happened during the ten year planning period that just ended.
This failure to perform has had many of the expected social and economic impacts: stressed local governments and schools, jobs lost, and families disrupted. Silvicultural impacts have been significant; timber stand mortality has increased and quality growth has decreased.
One unexpected environmental effect has been the decline of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. This bird requires open park-like stands of older pine trees. The imbalance of growth and harvesting shown in the previous graphic has resulted in increasing stand density and an estimated decrease of some 67,000 acres of high-quality habitat. Here’s what the record shows.
Other forests have had similar problems with endangered species and other valued wildlife. On The Ocala NF, failure to harvest has resulted in a 10,000 acre decrease in early successional habitat in the sand pine type. This habitat is critical to the nesting of the scrub jay, an endangered species found only in Florida and especially on the Ocala. In North Carolina, on the Pisgah and Nantahala NFs, ruffed grouse populations have declined as habitat has dwindled, (see graphic).
What to do? Here are some suggestions that could help solve the problem.
When all else fails:
In conclusion:
While conditions on the Apalachicola National Forest are representative of the National Forest System and the basic management principles involved are applicable nationwide, the adverse economic, social, and mortality (fire and insect) impacts of under-management on Western National Forests have been much greater than on those in the East.
For those wishing to research conditions on their local Forest, growth and mortality data for all National Forests are available on-line from the U.S.F.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Your local Forest Supervisor can provide information on planned and harvested volumes.
This post is a condensation of Timber Resource Management: A Look at the Record a presentation that can be downloaded here in Powerpoint format.
**************************
National Forest Timber Management Problems and Solutions
by
W.V. (Mac) McConnell, U.S. Forest Service Ret. (1943-’73)
My “home” forest, the Apalachicola NF, is the largest (576,000 ac.) of the three National Forests in Florida, and timber management problems are typical of those in the entire NF system. They include insufficient funding and manpower, endangered species concerns, excessive environmental studies, and over-detailed environmental assessments. Unlike many forests, they have a solid market for all products (including 2 operating biomass-fueled power plants), an extensive prescribed burning program (947,000 ac. in the past 10 years), and cordial relations with the environmental community. With these favorable conditions, you’d expect at least modest timber production. Not so! Here’s what happened during the ten year planning period that just ended.
This failure to perform has had many of the expected social and economic impacts: stressed local governments and schools, jobs lost, and families disrupted. Silvicultural impacts have been significant; timber stand mortality has increased and quality growth has decreased.
One unexpected environmental effect has been the decline of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. This bird requires open park-like stands of older pine trees. The imbalance of growth and harvesting shown in the previous graphic has resulted in increasing stand density and an estimated decrease of some 67,000 acres of high-quality habitat. Here’s what the record shows.
Other forests have had similar problems with endangered species and other valued wildlife. On The Ocala NF, failure to harvest has resulted in a 10,000 acre decrease in early successional habitat in the sand pine type. This habitat is critical to the nesting of the scrub jay, an endangered species found only in Florida and especially on the Ocala. In North Carolina, on the Pisgah and Nantahala NFs, ruffed grouse populations have declined as habitat has dwindled, (see graphic).
What to do? Here are some suggestions that could help solve the problem.
- Simplify Environmental Impact Statements (EAs). (probability of success - excellent)
- Outsource field work and writing of EAs and sale prep. (prob. - good to high)
- Reorder forest priorities and shift funds. (Prob. - unknown)
- Secure Congressional approval for NFs in Florida and other selected forests to test the feasibility of timber program self-financing as is now done on DOD land (Title 10, USC 2665.) (Prob. unknown)
- Secure adequate congressional funding. (prob. - zero to very low)
When all else fails:
- Transfer/sell manageable timber land to other federal, state, NGO, or private entities with restrictive covenants and convey the balance to the State or U.S. Park Service.
- In my opinion, the most promising long-term solution lies in the 4th bullet above: a system of self-financing for the timber sale program. Here are some Pro and Con arguments that have been advanced. Remember: These are arguments. They may or may not be factual. They may or may not be relevant.
- Will provide the means, not now available, for the U.S. Forest Service to follow Congressional direction for resource management as expressed in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and related legislation.
- Will help insure continued economic survival of N.F. dependent counties after the expiration, in the year 2011, of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
- Will create jobs and stimulate the economy.
- Will allow increased local participation in decision making through Resource Advisory Councils.
- Will provide an incentive for efficient management and will be budget neutral or positive.
- A trial run of the program on selected forests will allow an assessment of its impacts on the Federal budget and returns to the treasury, on the social and economic condition of counties, communities and forest industries, and on the quality of resource management.
- The concept is simple, easy to apply, and has been thoroughly tested on timberlands managed by the Department of Defense.
- Will reduce Congressional oversight over National Forest management and control over the expenditure of federal monies.
- Will result in negative “scoring” in returns to the treasury and in an increase in the public debt.
- Will encourage continued dependency of Forest Counties on the Federal Government and discourage self-sufficiency and problem-solving through private enterprise.
- Will promote unrestrained, irresponsible logging and massive resource damage.
- The concept is non-traditional to and untested by the Forest Service.
In conclusion:
While conditions on the Apalachicola National Forest are representative of the National Forest System and the basic management principles involved are applicable nationwide, the adverse economic, social, and mortality (fire and insect) impacts of under-management on Western National Forests have been much greater than on those in the East.
For those wishing to research conditions on their local Forest, growth and mortality data for all National Forests are available on-line from the U.S.F.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis program. Your local Forest Supervisor can provide information on planned and harvested volumes.
This post is a condensation of Timber Resource Management: A Look at the Record a presentation that can be downloaded here in Powerpoint format.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Valuing Timberland II
This is the second post on timberland valuation. If you missed the first post, which included an Overview plus a discussion on Disaggregation, you can read “Valuing Timberland I” here. Today’s post will focus primarily on productivity and how that fits into today’s appraisal systems which use discounted cash flow techniques to determine the value of timberland.
Productivity is key to determining the value of timberland. Some of the productivity is inherent to the land itself and some is a function of the intensity and effectiveness of the silviculture practiced on the tract.
First, let’s look at the inherent productivity of the land. Foresters measure that with a metric referred to as Site Index. Site Index (SI) refers to how tall a given species of tree can grow on that particular site in a specific number of years. Examples might be Loblolly Pine, base age 25 years, SI 60. Or Red Oak, base age 50, SI 60. Or Cottonwood, base age 10, SI 60. All of these are realistic examples and I have worked in stands with these exact site indices. The sites are not similar though. Note that all of the examples are “Site 60” land meaning all of those species will grow to sixty feet in height but it takes the cottonwood only 10 years, the loblolly pine takes 25 years and the oak takes 50. The land supporting these three site indices would also look very different. So SI defines the productivity for a particular species on that site. As a matter of interest, the SI 60 examples given for Loblolly (25 years) and Red Oak (50 years) are reasonable and quite common. The SI 60 (10 years) for cottonwood is actually a very poor site. Cottonwood on a good site can attain 100 or more feet in 10 years! Neither loblolly pine nor red oak could even survive on these sites due to the prolonged flooding during the growing season. The site determines the best species to plant or to favor with natural regeneration.
Let’s look at site productivity in more detail. In the late 60’s and early 70’s I was buying timberland in North Mississippi and West Tennessee. My counterparts (in other regions) and I were tasked with developing a new appraisal system based upon minimizing the cost to the pulp mill rather than the minimizing the bare land value. A key component to valuation is the objective of the owner and I was working for a pulp and paper company that owned land for the purpose of supplying its mills. And remember this, timberland valuation and fair market value are two different things!! That’s why there is always a high bidder! Under this type of a valuation model (delivered cost), it should be very clear that the more productive the land (i.e. the higher the SI), the more wood that would be grown and the lower the delivered cost per ton would be. In addition, there was already a significant acreage of 10 to 15 year old established loblolly pine plantations on private land in the area that had been established by the U.S. Forest Service Yazoo – Little Tallahatchie flood prevention project. Cattle prices were high and the plantations were being cut, cleared and put into pasture. In general, fair market value for timberland in the area was essentially the pulpwood value of these plantations (very low because of their age) plus bare land value.
Our appraisal system team created the details for a model which estimated a future cost per ton delivered to the mill. Obviously, the tracts with the lowest cost per ton were the tracts most desirable to the company. Bare land value was still there and served as a checkpoint against “fair market value” (FMV). The new method was very different from the old in that it represented the beginnings of a cash flow model and timberland productivity became a very important driver. The “Growing Cost” of the model was actually a future value of the cash flows and was very dependent on the productivity of the tract. The impact of the increase in growth alone between SI 60 and SI 70 for loblolly pine is about 30%. Jack it up to SI 80 and the gain is almost 60%! It’s pretty easy to see the significance of productivity gains on valuations dependent on the amount of timber that will be grown in any given amount of time. The “take home” point of the last couple of paragraphs is that the greater the inherent productivity of the land, the more positive the impact will be on an appraisal system employing a discounted cash flow model. And the greater the price that informed buyers will pay for it. We’ll discuss more about the pine plantations mentioned above a bit later. But first we must talk a little more about productivity that we can impact and something called yield tables.
The second factor addressing forest productivity is silviculture. Silviculture can be briefly defined as - the art, science, and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, growth, and quality of forest stands. Silviculture is to the forester what agriculture is to the farmer. It is a broad term encompassing preparation of the site, selection of the species to be planted, selecting the seed with the best genetic capabilities, fertilization, planting, density control, weed control and harvesting. Silvicultural systems employing artificial regeneration, planting or direct seeding, are more in line with agriculture but natural stands employ similar practices to obtain the desired species composition and density control too. The decision to employ a silvicultural system with a focus on natural regeneration versus plantation management has a huge impact on cash flow and profitability (and therefore valuation). Natural forest management regimes have less cash out and less cash in. Which system, natural or plantation, is best depends on the objectives and circumstances of the owner. So…, site quality refers to the natural productivity of the site whereas silvicultural activities are things that we can do to increase the productivity of the forest. At a cost.
To a degree, the current productivity may be what nature provided us (really it is more what past “managers” left us with rather than what nature provided us with). The existing forest type (a classification of forestland based on the species forming a plurality of live tree stocking) may be a 20 year old oak-pine stand or a 10 year-old loblolly pine plantation. The two have very different productivity potentials going forward. There could easily be a five-fold increase in productivity between the two forest types on similar sites. In some cases, the forest manager has the option of changing forest types through the process of harvesting, site preparation and planting. Greater productivity, greater cost.
Inherent in the example above is greater control of stand density or stocking through planting. Control of stand density is critical to maximizing productivity. So what is stand density? I don’t want to get into a forest mensuration short course here so just think of stocking as the combination of the number and size of trees that will provide optimum growth for a particular site. Stocking charts frequently classify stands as “understocked”, “well stocked” or “overstocked”. A “yield table”, mentioned earlier, combines the stocking level with Site Index to forecast what the yield of forest products will be at some future point. This tool is critical to determining the future productivity of the forest and to the timing necessary for the discounted cash flow analysis. For the purpose of explanation and understanding, I have created the super simple yield table below.
A “real” yield table can go on for pages with many different site indices, ages, stocking levels and products but this one will illustrate the points that I am trying to make. Note how the yield (in this case cords/acre at age 25 but could be MBF at age 20) changes with both stocking (trees/acre at Age 1) and site index. Using these variables we can forecast both volumes and cash flow at the time of harvest. And what if we plant genetically improved stock that increases growth that is the equivalent of a 10 point jump in SI? Or phosphorous fertilization on a P deficient soil? Silvicultural activities have a major impact on the yield but “in the old days” we were pretty well restricted to the yield tables and they served us quite well. Today, however, they have generally been replaced with much more sophisticated growth models which are not only capable of predicting growth based on stocking and SI, but on all of the silvicultural practices that impact those metrics.
I feel that I have rambled a little too much in some places and not been clear enough in others so let me summarize the key points.
Forest productivity, both inherent (SI) and developed (silvicultural activities) is probably the most important driver in the cash flow analysis of timberland. Tools are available to measure and project the volumes into the future. Yield tables for volume projection have been replaced by growth models. You can download and learn to use a loblolly growth and yield model from Mississippi State here (CUTOVER LOBLOLLY GYM). It allows you to manipulate the SI and stand density and to see the future output. It also allows you to assign values by product which we will discuss next time.
Timberland valuation and fair market value are two different things! Remember above when I talked about buying 10 to 15 year old established pine plantations? The FMV (based on comparable sales) was about $125/acre in 1970. We began paying $150 - $175/ acre and easily acquired a significant acreage of these plantations. The value that we were assigning was the future value discounted back to the current age as opposed to FMV. Ten years later we were harvesting $1000/acre worth of chip-n-saw from these sites. We recognized that the FMV was well under the actual value of the plantations and were able to capitalize on that. Some of the early TIMOs were able to do the exact same thing with pre-merchantable plantations on a much larger scale. Some of the early TIMOs saw the value in HBU lands and disaggregation and recognized that the sum of the parts was worth more than the whole. These values are now well recognized in a competitive market and the returns, as expected, are dropping. The lesson is that there is a good return to be had if you can recognize a difference between the real value and the FMV.
Location can be very important or fairly minor. In the case of a forest products company valuing timberland, distance to the mill can be critical (as is the case with an institutional investor committed to a fiber supply agreement requiring delivery!). Some states have real estate tax structures which have a significant impact on cash flow evaluations. But frequently, location has minimum bearing on valuations for an investor.
So much for the value of productivity. The next valuation post will focus on estimates of timber volumes and values, how we get them, and how we forecast them for future year’s cash flows. We will also take a quick look at the confidence you should place in them. --Brian
Productivity is key to determining the value of timberland. Some of the productivity is inherent to the land itself and some is a function of the intensity and effectiveness of the silviculture practiced on the tract.
First, let’s look at the inherent productivity of the land. Foresters measure that with a metric referred to as Site Index. Site Index (SI) refers to how tall a given species of tree can grow on that particular site in a specific number of years. Examples might be Loblolly Pine, base age 25 years, SI 60. Or Red Oak, base age 50, SI 60. Or Cottonwood, base age 10, SI 60. All of these are realistic examples and I have worked in stands with these exact site indices. The sites are not similar though. Note that all of the examples are “Site 60” land meaning all of those species will grow to sixty feet in height but it takes the cottonwood only 10 years, the loblolly pine takes 25 years and the oak takes 50. The land supporting these three site indices would also look very different. So SI defines the productivity for a particular species on that site. As a matter of interest, the SI 60 examples given for Loblolly (25 years) and Red Oak (50 years) are reasonable and quite common. The SI 60 (10 years) for cottonwood is actually a very poor site. Cottonwood on a good site can attain 100 or more feet in 10 years! Neither loblolly pine nor red oak could even survive on these sites due to the prolonged flooding during the growing season. The site determines the best species to plant or to favor with natural regeneration.
Let’s look at site productivity in more detail. In the late 60’s and early 70’s I was buying timberland in North Mississippi and West Tennessee. My counterparts (in other regions) and I were tasked with developing a new appraisal system based upon minimizing the cost to the pulp mill rather than the minimizing the bare land value. A key component to valuation is the objective of the owner and I was working for a pulp and paper company that owned land for the purpose of supplying its mills. And remember this, timberland valuation and fair market value are two different things!! That’s why there is always a high bidder! Under this type of a valuation model (delivered cost), it should be very clear that the more productive the land (i.e. the higher the SI), the more wood that would be grown and the lower the delivered cost per ton would be. In addition, there was already a significant acreage of 10 to 15 year old established loblolly pine plantations on private land in the area that had been established by the U.S. Forest Service Yazoo – Little Tallahatchie flood prevention project. Cattle prices were high and the plantations were being cut, cleared and put into pasture. In general, fair market value for timberland in the area was essentially the pulpwood value of these plantations (very low because of their age) plus bare land value.
Our appraisal system team created the details for a model which estimated a future cost per ton delivered to the mill. Obviously, the tracts with the lowest cost per ton were the tracts most desirable to the company. Bare land value was still there and served as a checkpoint against “fair market value” (FMV). The new method was very different from the old in that it represented the beginnings of a cash flow model and timberland productivity became a very important driver. The “Growing Cost” of the model was actually a future value of the cash flows and was very dependent on the productivity of the tract. The impact of the increase in growth alone between SI 60 and SI 70 for loblolly pine is about 30%. Jack it up to SI 80 and the gain is almost 60%! It’s pretty easy to see the significance of productivity gains on valuations dependent on the amount of timber that will be grown in any given amount of time. The “take home” point of the last couple of paragraphs is that the greater the inherent productivity of the land, the more positive the impact will be on an appraisal system employing a discounted cash flow model. And the greater the price that informed buyers will pay for it. We’ll discuss more about the pine plantations mentioned above a bit later. But first we must talk a little more about productivity that we can impact and something called yield tables.
The second factor addressing forest productivity is silviculture. Silviculture can be briefly defined as - the art, science, and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, growth, and quality of forest stands. Silviculture is to the forester what agriculture is to the farmer. It is a broad term encompassing preparation of the site, selection of the species to be planted, selecting the seed with the best genetic capabilities, fertilization, planting, density control, weed control and harvesting. Silvicultural systems employing artificial regeneration, planting or direct seeding, are more in line with agriculture but natural stands employ similar practices to obtain the desired species composition and density control too. The decision to employ a silvicultural system with a focus on natural regeneration versus plantation management has a huge impact on cash flow and profitability (and therefore valuation). Natural forest management regimes have less cash out and less cash in. Which system, natural or plantation, is best depends on the objectives and circumstances of the owner. So…, site quality refers to the natural productivity of the site whereas silvicultural activities are things that we can do to increase the productivity of the forest. At a cost.
To a degree, the current productivity may be what nature provided us (really it is more what past “managers” left us with rather than what nature provided us with). The existing forest type (a classification of forestland based on the species forming a plurality of live tree stocking) may be a 20 year old oak-pine stand or a 10 year-old loblolly pine plantation. The two have very different productivity potentials going forward. There could easily be a five-fold increase in productivity between the two forest types on similar sites. In some cases, the forest manager has the option of changing forest types through the process of harvesting, site preparation and planting. Greater productivity, greater cost.
Inherent in the example above is greater control of stand density or stocking through planting. Control of stand density is critical to maximizing productivity. So what is stand density? I don’t want to get into a forest mensuration short course here so just think of stocking as the combination of the number and size of trees that will provide optimum growth for a particular site. Stocking charts frequently classify stands as “understocked”, “well stocked” or “overstocked”. A “yield table”, mentioned earlier, combines the stocking level with Site Index to forecast what the yield of forest products will be at some future point. This tool is critical to determining the future productivity of the forest and to the timing necessary for the discounted cash flow analysis. For the purpose of explanation and understanding, I have created the super simple yield table below.
A “real” yield table can go on for pages with many different site indices, ages, stocking levels and products but this one will illustrate the points that I am trying to make. Note how the yield (in this case cords/acre at age 25 but could be MBF at age 20) changes with both stocking (trees/acre at Age 1) and site index. Using these variables we can forecast both volumes and cash flow at the time of harvest. And what if we plant genetically improved stock that increases growth that is the equivalent of a 10 point jump in SI? Or phosphorous fertilization on a P deficient soil? Silvicultural activities have a major impact on the yield but “in the old days” we were pretty well restricted to the yield tables and they served us quite well. Today, however, they have generally been replaced with much more sophisticated growth models which are not only capable of predicting growth based on stocking and SI, but on all of the silvicultural practices that impact those metrics.
I feel that I have rambled a little too much in some places and not been clear enough in others so let me summarize the key points.
Forest productivity, both inherent (SI) and developed (silvicultural activities) is probably the most important driver in the cash flow analysis of timberland. Tools are available to measure and project the volumes into the future. Yield tables for volume projection have been replaced by growth models. You can download and learn to use a loblolly growth and yield model from Mississippi State here (CUTOVER LOBLOLLY GYM). It allows you to manipulate the SI and stand density and to see the future output. It also allows you to assign values by product which we will discuss next time.
Timberland valuation and fair market value are two different things! Remember above when I talked about buying 10 to 15 year old established pine plantations? The FMV (based on comparable sales) was about $125/acre in 1970. We began paying $150 - $175/ acre and easily acquired a significant acreage of these plantations. The value that we were assigning was the future value discounted back to the current age as opposed to FMV. Ten years later we were harvesting $1000/acre worth of chip-n-saw from these sites. We recognized that the FMV was well under the actual value of the plantations and were able to capitalize on that. Some of the early TIMOs were able to do the exact same thing with pre-merchantable plantations on a much larger scale. Some of the early TIMOs saw the value in HBU lands and disaggregation and recognized that the sum of the parts was worth more than the whole. These values are now well recognized in a competitive market and the returns, as expected, are dropping. The lesson is that there is a good return to be had if you can recognize a difference between the real value and the FMV.
Location can be very important or fairly minor. In the case of a forest products company valuing timberland, distance to the mill can be critical (as is the case with an institutional investor committed to a fiber supply agreement requiring delivery!). Some states have real estate tax structures which have a significant impact on cash flow evaluations. But frequently, location has minimum bearing on valuations for an investor.
So much for the value of productivity. The next valuation post will focus on estimates of timber volumes and values, how we get them, and how we forecast them for future year’s cash flows. We will also take a quick look at the confidence you should place in them. --Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)