Tree Value Growth Rates Under Management for Tree Quality (Volume and grade value increase rates in this table are expected averages across a wide range of site indexes and growing conditions. See
papers referenced in Assumptions, below. If you think these rates are high, see the rates that US Forest Service researchers came up with for red oak and sugar maple
in the attached pages. Question: why weren't the results of their research widely publicized?)
|
SPECIES |
KD TREE |
TOTAL |
GRADE |
REAL MARKET |
MANAGEMENT, |
TOTAL NET |
DBH |
GRADE |
VOLUME |
VALUE |
VALUE |
TAXES, RISK |
VALUE |
| |
|
% Per Year |
% Per Year |
% Per Year |
% Per Year |
% Per Year |
Red Oak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
6 |
14 |
5 |
-5 |
20 |
14 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
-4 |
14 |
16 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
-2 |
10 |
18 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
-1 |
6 |
| |
Black Oak,
White Oak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
-3 |
12 |
14 |
3 |
5 |
21 |
3 |
-6 |
23 |
16 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
-3 |
11 |
18 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
-2 |
7 |
| |
Black Cherry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
5 |
20 |
8 |
-8 |
25 |
14 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
8 |
-5 |
17 |
16 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
-5 |
16 |
18 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
11 |
-4 |
13 |
| |
Sugar Maple |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
5 |
18 |
8 |
-6 |
25 |
14 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
8 |
-4 |
16 |
16 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
-4 |
17 |
18 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
11 |
-3 |
14 |
| |
White Ash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
-6 |
15 |
14 |
3 |
5 |
10 |
3 |
-6 |
12 |
16 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
-4 |
6 |
18 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
-4 |
4 |
| |
Black Birch,
Yellow Birch |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
5 |
16 |
9 |
-6 |
24 |
14 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
-3 |
13 |
16 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
8 |
-3 |
12 |
18 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
7 |
-3 |
10 |
| |
Red Maple, Beech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
-3 |
-2 |
1 |
14 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
-2 |
-3 |
9 |
16 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
-1 |
-2 |
5 |
18 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
-2 |
3 |
| |
White Pine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
8 |
17 |
-3 |
-4 |
18 |
14 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
-3 |
-2 |
9 |
16 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
-2 |
-2 |
7 |
18 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
-1 |
-1 |
6 |
| |
Red Pine |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
7 |
12 |
2 |
-6 |
15 |
14 |
3 |
6 |
8 |
2 |
-5 |
11 |
16 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
-4 |
7 |
18 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
-4 |
5 |
| |
Hemlock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
-4 |
5 |
14 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
-1 |
-5 |
11 |
16 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
-2 |
-4 |
4 |
18 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
-4 |
4 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSUMPTIONS:
|
Volume:
Trees are free to grow due to past thinnings. |
| |
See basal area growth rate table
; 30-40% added due to increases in merchantable height. |
Grade Value:
Trees meet the maximum grade specifications for their present diameters due to past thinnings. |
| |
See Grade Value Increase Rates paper. |
Real Market Value: Real stumpage prices follow the same trends as they did 1985-95 (shakey assumption). |
| |
See NPV Appraisal paper. See also Pennsylvania Woodlands Timber Market Report (click on Summary of Price Trend Percentages near the bottom of the page) and Price Trends for Standing Timber in the Lake States. There are no such data online for southern New England. |
Management, Taxes, Risk: Costs same as 1985-95, no new risk factors are introduced (shakey assumption). |
| |
Management costs and town taxes are 20% of annual value increase. |
| |
Risk assumes 0-2% annual non-salvaged losses, higher for species at higher risk of
insect/disease/storm damage. |
Karl Davies
March, 1999
|
