Mostly yes, the marginal buyer at that price is underwriting land, not trees. At $2,650 with $780 of merchantable timber you're paying roughly $1,870 an acre for bare dirt in a market where pure timber-productive land often trades well under that. That gap is the higher and better use expectation, whether that's recreational parcelization, rural residential frontage, or a solar or transmission option somewhere in the next fifteen years. If you don't believe the HBU story on this specific tract, you're overpaying for the timber alone and the 5.5 percent is real.
Your model is carrying two assumptions that decide the whole thing. The first is that final harvest lands in a stumpage market like today's. Sawtimber prices in the US South have been disconnected from strong lumber prices for years because of installed mill capacity relative to regional inventory, and if you're assuming any real-price recovery by year 13 you should show that separately and see what the return looks like without it. The second is the age distribution. Thirty percent of acres in older stands means seventy percent isn't paying you for a long time, and your thinning in year 4 may be cash-negative after logging costs in a soft pulpwood basin. Confirm the mill haul distance and who's actually buying pulp within 60 miles, because a closed mill turns your thinning into a silvicultural expense.
What you haven't raised is the use-value tax program. Those preferential assessments come with enrollment terms, and in many states converting or subdividing triggers rollback taxes for a lookback period, which is a direct hit to the HBU exit that justifies the price. That's state specific and sometimes county administered, so get the exact rollback formula in writing before you underwrite any parcelization. Also price your access. A tract with a single deeded easement across one neighbor is a different asset from one with county road frontage on two sides, both for logging cost and for the exit you're paying for.
