Mapping the Tradeoffs: Timber Harvesting on Federal Land

Conversations continue to grow around efforts to increase domestic timber production. Like any proposed policy decision, pros and cons must be weighed to ensure that economies are supported but not at the detriment of ecosystems and critical environments. 

RTI experts conducted a preliminary analysis of the geo-spatial value of federal forest harvesting to aid in considering trade-offs and co-benefits. Our analysis sought to answer questions such as:

•  What does increased domestic timber production mean in practice?
• How much timber can federal forests provide—and are we equipped to harvest it?
• What might the environmental impacts be?

Using data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program 2024, we conducted a simplified assessment of potential timber supply from federal forests. Current available biomass from federal lands is estimated at 1,142 million cubic meters (Mm³). Based on mean annual increment calculations, we estimate that approximately 69 Mm³/year could be harvested without reducing the long-term forest stock.

Figure 1 maps the annual harvestable volume from federal lands, by county. To contextualize this, in 2024, the Forest Service reported that approximately 6.8 Mm³ were harvested and sold from federal forests. 

Figure 1. Estimated Annual Harvestable Timber Volume from Federal Forests by County (Mm³/year)

Realizing this potential depends not only on forest volume but also on local capacity. To assess this, we overlaid timber supply data with economic data (NAICS) on current infrastructure and workforce capacity in both wood products manufacturing and paper manufacturing.

This includes the number of relevant establishments and employment levels by county. Readiness was ranked from low to high by quartile depending on the aggregate number of current facilities and workforce across counties (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Capital and Labor Availability for Timber Harvesting by County 

By intersecting harvestable volume (Figure 1) with infrastructure and workforce availability (Figure 2), we identified regions best positioned to scale up timber production immediately—where both volume and infrastructure are available—assuming wood quality is consistent across areas and infrastructure capacity does not constrain operations (Figure 3). Under these assumptions, the total available volume decreases to 47 Mm3/year.

Some counties, especially in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), emerge as high-potential locations where existing mills and labor could rapidly support increased harvesting. Conversely, high-volume but low-capacity areas will need targeted investment in labor and physical capital.

Figure 3. Overlay of Timber Volume Potential and Infrastructure/Workforce Capacity by County

Figure 4 highlights areas where techno-economic potential overlaps with forests projected to be at risk from natural disturbances, based on an overlay of the combined results from Figure 3 with projected forest losses in 2030 from natural disturbances from Anderegg et al. 2022.

These results can help identify areas where strategic harvesting would reduce disturbance risks by removing excess biomass and fuel loads. For example, in the PNW, fuel removal from federal forests has high techno-economic potential and offers substantial benefits in terms of reducing the risk of natural disturbances. In contrast, although the Appalachian region also shows high techno-economic potential, the benefits of fuel removal for mitigating disturbance risks are comparatively lower.

Figure 4. Techno-Economic Timber Potential vs. Disturbance Risk (2030)

Historically, timber harvesting on federal lands has declined due to strengthened conservation efforts and protections for endangered species. Many natural and unmanaged forests offer critical ecosystem services that should be preserved.

To explore these trade-offs, we overlaid our timber potential map (Figure 3) with geographic data on endangered species habitats and presented in Figure 5. We classified areas into three endangerment status categories: areas without any threatened or endangered species territory were designated as “safe”; areas with threatened species territory were designated as “threatened”; and areas with endangered species territory were designated as “endangered.”

This spatial analysis identifies where increased harvesting may conflict with conservation goals, emphasizing the importance of careful planning and stakeholder engagement—particularly in parts of the PNW. In contrast, in the Rocky Mountain region, timber harvesting could occur on federal lands without endangered species designations. Nationally, an estimated 11.8 Mm³/yr could be sourced from federal forests in the U.S. without compromising threatened or endangered species habitats.

Figure 5. Timber Potential vs. Endangered Species Habitat Overlap

Our approach and study provided a very preliminary analysis of the geo-spatial value of federal forest harvesting by considering multiple trade-offs and co-benefits. While it offers an initial framework for identifying opportunity areas and potential conflicts, further research is needed to develop a more sophisticated and comprehensive assessment. Future work should incorporate dynamic ecological modeling, finer-scale habitat data, and more robust economic forecasting to support long-term planning.

Looking forward, this spatial analysis could be further enriched by integrating economic models that project timber demand and land use changes (e.g., Daigneault et al. 2022). By coupling supply-side data with demand-side scenarios, decision-makers can:

• Anticipate where future timber needs will emerge,
• Identify priority regions for infrastructure expansion, and
• Evaluate long-term trade-offs between timber production, conservation, and mitigation to natural disturbances.

Together, these tools can guide smarter, more adaptive forest policy—one that supports rural economies, protects critical ecosystems, and builds resilience in an era of growing environmental stress.

Learn more about work in applied economics and strategy.