Ask a forester

The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires forest landowners to replant after harvest. A landowner must establish the next generation of trees soon after a harvest. The trees must be planted within two years, and they must be evenly distributed and free to grow (free from competing vegetation) within six years. This is a higher standard than simply replanting seedlings.

The OFPA has evolved since it was first passed in 1971 as the nation’s first comprehensive set of laws and rules governing forest practices. The state legislature has amended the act 20 times over the succeeding four decades, and the Oregon Board of Forestry has modified the administrative rules and regulations dozens of times to meet the law’s requirements. The act will continue to be revised in response to both science and experience.

Each state is unique, so it’s an oversimplification to say that any state’s laws are weaker or less effective than those of its neighbors. What works for Oregon are strong forest protection laws, land-use laws that protect agricultural and forestland, and a voluntary program that encourages private landowners to go above and beyond the law to protect watersheds and fish habitat.

The Oregon Department of Forestry is responsible for enforcing the Forest Practices Act and helping landowners achieve the intent of the act, which is to ensure the continuous growing and harvesting of timber while protecting water, fish and wildlife, and human safety. Field advice provided by ODF’s stewardship foresters throughout the planning, engineering, harvesting and reforesting phases helps landowners do things the right way instead of just meeting the minimum statutory requirements. Past monitoring shows that landowner compliance with Oregon law is very high.

Oregon’s nationally recognized system of land-use laws has proven its effectiveness at preserving agricultural land and forestland, protecting these lands from development by the state’s expanding cities.

Oregon has a unique cost-sharing program for landowners who undertake voluntary watershed and fish habitat improvements through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. Local watershed councils, made up of interested local people who work collaboratively with landowners, can target, prioritize and achieve watershed improvements that would not otherwise be required by law.

Oregon is the second-most forested state, second only to Alaska, so it stands to reason that our forests would produce abundant harvests. Even so, timber harvest has fallen significantly in recent years, due primarily to a decrease of harvest on federal forestland, which accounts for 60% of Oregon’s forest base. 

In recent years, because of the decrease in federal forestland harvest and the recession that has slowed new home building, timber harvest levels have been roughly one-third of those in the late 1980s. Over the past 20 years, harvest has been about half of what it was during the peak period. Despite all of the removals, harvest has never exceeded yearly forest growth.

Harvest volume from private lands has remained consistent over the past 50 years or more. Currently, large private landowners produce close to 75% of all harvest in Oregon. On the other hand, harvest from federally managed lands has dropped to extremely low levels.

Forest density throughout the state is at an all-time high. Forests, especially federally managed lands, now contain many more trees per acre than historic norms. This overcrowding from a lack of forest management leads to more dead and dying trees. Impacts to forest health vary, but generally, dense forests are at higher risk of extreme fire.

Landowners plant a variety of species, but favor trees that grow best in their region. Oregon has 13 separate forest types. Some are dominated by western larch, some by ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine or hemlock/Sitka spruce. Douglas-fir dominated forests surround the interior western valleys, where most Oregonians live. Landowners who grow trees for timber prefer this high-value species; however, long-ago they learned that Douglas-fir is not suitable in all locations.

Other planted species include western redcedar and valley pine. Red alder dominates streamside zones and places where soils remain wet. Douglas-fir is the natural dominant species that, if left to seed itself after fire or other disturbances, would form near-pure stands over about 80% of the landscape of interior western valleys. 

Periodically, exporting whole logs becomes a hot topic in Oregon. In recent years, companies have exported, mainly to China, an increasing number of logs from private lands. It is illegal to export logs from state or federal lands.

The current cycle of log exports coincides with a stagnant domestic economy, where demand for lumber is at an all-time low. In the meantime, China’s economy has been growing. There, buyers use timber mainly for building concrete forms. They prefer to saw the logs to their own specifications using inexpensive Chinese labor.

The export cycle ebbs and flows, and there have been long periods when few logs were exported. In the future, Oregon manufacturers may have opportunities to process timber into higher value products such as doors, windows and engineered structural components for export. However, markets can change rapidly. It would be a hardship for small and large private landowners if domestic markets were depressed and they were barred from selling some logs in export markets where prices are attractive. The export market employs many loggers, truckers, dock workers and foresters.

Oregon’s high-tech sector some time ago passed the state’s forest sector in terms of wealth created by selling products to domestic and international markets. However, despite a down economy and a shrinking timber harvest from public lands, the forest products sector continues to be the largest driver of Oregon’s rural economy. A weakened forest sector in rural Oregon acts as a drag on urban Oregon because of the many linkages between Oregon’s larger cities and smaller towns.

The forest products sector is needed to help maintain healthy forests. Without foresters, scientists, loggers, truckers and others, as well as the mills to process timber, we would not have the infrastructure to provide the forest products we use every day or to sustain forest health and fire resiliency.

Recreation, tourism and forest products manufacturing are compatible uses of our forests. However, recreation and tourism tend to be seasonal and produce fewer family-wage jobs. Forest management, milling and manufacturing produce steadier work and the largest portion of Oregon’s high-quality rural jobs. Direct forest sector jobs pay, on average, more than $44,000 per year, somewhat higher than the average Oregon wage, and most come with benefits. Those jobs also drive important secondary jobs in rural communities. Often, the forest sector jobs underpin economic health in Oregon’s small cities and towns, which in turn helps Oregon’s urban economy.

Oregon’s forestland landscape is nearly 30.5 million acres, nearly half of the state’s landmass. About 60% of these forests are managed by the federal government in public ownership. About 19% are owned by large private landowners and managed primarily for timber production. Another 15% are smaller tracts, less than 5,000 acres, owned mostly by families and individuals. Families have diverse management objectives, but many depend on these lands for intermittent income. The state, counties and towns own another 4%. Two percent is under tribal ownership.

There is no single problem with federally managed forestlands, although there is general agreement that passively managed federal forestlands east of the Cascades and in the interior southwest have a set of readily identifiable problems that could be addressed using active forest management.

These so-called dry-side forests have grown denser and therefore present ever-greater fire risk during hot, dry periods. Due to effective fire suppression and other past management practices, many of these forests are at risk for insects, disease and uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Historically, lightning-sparked fires typically would have removed competing understory trees and brush as often as every five years. Left unchecked, the biomass competes with the larger, dominant tree species for scarce water and nutrients.

Today, there are millions of acres of overstocked, stressed trees in dry-side forests that could be thinned by removing surplus biomass and saw logs where appropriate. Thereafter, prescribed fire where safe and appropriate could maintain these forests in a more natural, fire-resilient state and with a more natural appearance.

Mountain pine beetles occur naturally in dry-side forests. They have become infamous for their attacks on lodgepole pine stands throughout western North America. The natural cycle for lodgepole pine is to grow in dense stands until trees are about 100 years old, when they are killed by mountain pine beetles and then burn up in large fires that start new stands. Currently, because of past fire suppression, mountain pine beetles are killing a large supply of overly mature lodgepole. The beetles are also causing more death among ponderosa pine than has been usual. As the trees are attacked and die, they provide the fuel for hotter, more destructive fires.

While there are some downsides to excluding fire from some forest stands, Oregon prides itself on a long and successful fire protection program. Landowners work cooperatively with government agencies to keep fires small to protect watershed health and air quality, as well as homes and human life.

For more than 100 years, woody residuals from harvesting and milling trees into forest products have been used to produce heat and generate electricity. The biomass plants conform to stringent boiler standards to ensure that their emissions meet current air quality standards. Demand for energy will continue to increase. Innovative utilization of Oregon’s abundant forests, similar to steps countries in Scandinavia and Europe have taken, may provide opportunities to meet some of this demand.

Debate about removing biomass as part of treatments to restore forest health and fire resiliency has prompted questions as to whether forest biomass is carbon neutral. Most scientists regard forest biomass as carbon neutral because it is part of a continuous cycle of CO₂ absorption and release. The release of CO₂ from fossil fuels, by contrast, cannot be absorbed on anything less than a geologic timescale.

Dead, decaying trees are themselves sources of atmospheric carbon. And so is forest fire that destroys forests and releases large amounts of carbon in short bursts, and then even more as killed trees decay or burn again.

Removing biomass, including small to medium-size trees, to restore sickly forests and using it to produce renewable energy can displace some fossil fuel use and offset carbon emissions from those sources.

As with many forest issues, there are at least two sides to this issue.

Oregon’s forests are dense and packed with carbon-rich wood. Over the past 100 years, we have attacked forest fire with such vigor that forests have expanded and the overall density of these stands has increased, sometimes manyfold. Leading up to the 20th century, some of the most accessible forests in Oregon were severely burned over or visibly recovering from past fire. The historic record shows that there were large patches of very dense old-growth forest that stored lots of carbon, but there were also many forests recovering from stand-replacing fire.

Managing forests primarily to store carbon might benefit some wildlife species but would devastate others. Managing for ever-denser stands of wood also promotes conditions that could lead to uncharacteristically severe fire during periods of hot, dry weather. Managing forests for health and fire resiliency as well as for the forest products we use every day is a sensible approach. About half of the wood in various forest products is carbon, and it will be stored for the life of the product. Above all, keeping forests as forests allows for continued clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and a level of stable-to-increasing carbon storage.

Since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1973, forest roads have been regulated as non-point sources of pollution. Changes over time to forest practices acts and best management practices have proven effective in keeping up with emerging science on how best to control runoff from logging roads. Changing roads’ classifications from non-point to point sources would be costly for states to administer and would likely generate no more environmental benefit than the current system of laws, regulations and best management practices. Further, a point-source system would leave private forestland owners open to citizen lawsuits, putting a further damper on private forest ownership and timber production.

Regulating runoff from forest roads as point-source pollution overturns decades of laws and rule-making that have already brought significant and continuous improvements to forest streams, fish and wildlife habitat, and water resources.

Systematic regulation of runoff from forest roads under the Oregon Forest Practices Act over the past 40 years has moved thousands of miles of roads away from streams and closed thousands more. Today, timber is harvested using cables that hoist it above the ground and moved to hilltops where improved road systems move it out. The impact from roads has been lessened in other significant ways, too.

Some roads cannot be moved, so other regulations have been developed, including:

• Engineered systems are required to ensure that water from road surfaces drains away from streams.
• It is never acceptable to drain water from roads directly into streams.
• Road surfaces must be engineered and hardened to lessen impacts from trucking.
• Roads typically are closed to traffic when not in use and may be decommissioned and replanted if they are no longer needed.
• Roads are closed during extreme wet weather to reduce siltation.
• Landowners have improved thousands of stream crossings by installing appropriate-sized culverts or constructing bridges.

Oregon’s Forest Practices Act recognizes that making real and permanent improvements to forest roads is a continuing process that demands tremendous investment over time. Therefore, the law requires that these improvements be made as roads are needed in areas where future timber harvest is planned.

A clearcut is an area of forestland where most standing trees are logged in a single operation and few trees remain after harvest. Forested buffers are left around streams and lakes, and the area is then replanted within two years of harvest. Clearcutting is a controversial method of tree harvesting because of its visual effect on the landscape.

In western Oregon, clearcutting can be the most appropriate harvesting method for certain tree species. For example, clearcutting is often used in Douglas-fir forests because new Douglas-fir seedlings need direct sunlight to grow quickly. In eastern Oregon, the most common tree species are more shade tolerant, and therefore, clearcutting is not a preferred harvest method.

Douglas-fir is ecologically adapted to disturbances such as intense fire and windstorms. In Oregon’s Douglas-fir growing region, nearly 80% of the landscape would eventually self-seed as nearly pure stands of Douglas-fir with some western redcedar, red alder and a small variety of other trees. Douglas-fir seedlings do not grow well in the shade. Clearcutting is used to mimic the ecology of stand-replacement fire or other disturbance so that new stands can grow. Because a clearcut receives more sunlight, not only do Douglas-fir seedlings thrive but so do sun-loving shrubs, herbs and grasses that provide forage for grazing animals such as deer and elk.

Clearcutting Cons:

• Appearance. Until the newly planted trees “green up” a hillside, a clearcut is not considered visually appealing.
• Habitat disturbance. Clearcutting alters the habitat where the trees once stood, and the forest’s inhabitants are displaced into different areas.
• Increased stream flow (both a pro and a con). Clearcuts allow more water to enter a stream system through subsurface flows because the water is not being taken up and released by trees, a process called evapotranspiration. Increased stream flow can lead to increased riparian erosion during high-water occurrences. On the other hand, increased flow during low-flow periods helps cool streams and provides better habitat for fish and other aquatic life.

Clearcutting Pros:

• Full-sun conditions. Wide-open spaces allow the most sun for species that require full-sun conditions to thrive. These conditions also create quality wildlife habitat for species such as deer and elk and some songbirds that prefer shrubby young forests.
• Economy of harvest. Clearcutting represents the most efficient and economical method of harvesting a large group of trees.
• Fewer disturbances to the forest floor. By entering a forest stand once, instead of multiple times for repeated harvests, the landowner minimizes disturbance to forest soils.

Clearcutting Regulations Under Oregon Law:

• Clearcuts must be replanted within 2 years.
• Clearcuts may not exceed 120 acres in size.
• Forested buffers must be left along streams, lakes and wetlands.
• Adjacent units may not be clearcut until seedlings are well established and free to grow.
• Landowners must provide forested buffers when the unit is next to a scenic highway.
• Landowners must leave two standing live or dead trees and two down logs per acre as wildlife habitat.

Some people hold the persistent belief that you can have forest products or wildlife habitat, but not both. Others believe that managing forests for older characteristics is universally best for wildlife. Neither of these is strictly true, and both may reflect a bias that forests, if left alone, come naturally to an ideal state that is best for all wildlife.

Science has shown that even unmanaged forests change, sometimes dramatically. A changing forest landscape provides good habitat for different species over time. For example, older forests provide essential habitat for species such as the northern spotted owl because it is home to their prey, including red tree voles, flying squirrels and wood rats. Older forest habitat may provide a refuge for elk or deer but would provide little for their daily dietary needs, whereas a nearby clearcut or similar opening may provide plenty of nutritious forage.

Clearcuts managed under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, which requires forest landowners to replant, and retain live trees, snags and down wood, can provide excellent habitat for both common and rare species. Landowners whose primary purpose is timber production can manage clearcuts and nearby wooded areas to provide excellent wildlife habitat for a broad range of species.

Herbicides are used by forest landowners in Oregon to control unwanted vegetation and invasive weeds that would otherwise defeat young trees. In the Coast Range, they may be used two or three times during a forest’s growing cycle because of conditions that favor aggressive brush. In the Cascade Range, they may be used once or twice or perhaps not at all. Slower-growing forest stands in eastern Oregon often receive no treatment. Herbicide applications are expensive; therefore, landowners limit their use. In a long cycle of growing trees that may last from 50 to 70 years or longer, herbicides are generally used only at the beginning of the growth cycle and then not again except to control weeds along roads.

Herbicides used in forestry are similar to products available to homeowners at local garden shops. Forest landowners are responsible for between 3% and 4% of all pesticides used each year in the state. Every herbicide registered for forest use has been tested and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Most products are not harmful to humans or animals unless drunk in concentrated form.

State rules governing pesticide use require “no-spray” buffers around streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands. The rules prohibit applying or allowing herbicides into bodies of water. Those who apply them are licensed applicators who have been trained in their lawful use. 

Thanks for your question. This is an interesting one. There are two scenic highway programs in Oregon.

1. The Oregon Scenic Byway Program - is managed by Oregon Department of Transportation in association with the National Highway Administration. This is mainly to identify highways that tourists would like to drive. The McKenzie Pass – Santiam Pass Scenic Byway is one of these and has been since 1997. There is no formal regulation of private land within this corridor as far as I can tell. The management plan developed by the Forest Service only governs land in the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests which is most of the land along this route. As far as I can tell, there is no special regulation of private forest land along the route other than the Oregon Forest Practices Rules.

2. Designated Scenic Highways – is a designation in the Oregon Forest Practices Rules that specifies the logging buffer on designated highways. I have attached a PDF of a couple pages from our Oregon’s Forest Protection Laws: An Illustrated Manual that describes this program. As you can see from the list in the first paragraph, Oregon Highway 126 is designated as a scenic highway, but Oregon Highway 242 is not. I believe that this is because most of the land along Highway 242 is National Forest land and the Oregon Forest Practices Rules only apply to private and state land.

So, I believe that there are no required logging buffers along Highway 242, except for areas that are within the Riparian Management Area of a river or stream. These buffers are up to 100’ on both sides of a large fish bearing river like the McKenzie, down to only 50’ along a small fish bearing stream.

I would also recommend that you contact your local Stewardship Forester with the Oregon Department of Forestry. These are the folks who enforce and help interpret the Oregon Forest Practices Rules and other regulations that apply to private forestland in Oregon. The McKenzie River area is included in the East Lane District of ODF. The office is at 3150 Main Street in Springfield. The phone number is 541-726-3588.

If you would like a copy of the Oregon’s Forest Protection Laws: An Illustrated Manual, let me know and I can send you one. You can also download a PDF file of the entire manual from the OFRI publications page at: http://oregonforests.org/content/ofri-resources. This publication and all other OFRI publications are available at no charge.

This is a great question. I know of three basic ways to find forest land available for purchase.

1. Use a local or regional realtor. Most local areas in Oregon with much forestland have a realtor or two who specializes in forestland and rural acreages. You can usually find who by going to the website of your local Multiple Listing Service and see who lists rural acreages. There is also a regional realtor called Realty Marketing / Northwest (www.rmnw-auctions.com) that specializes in forested acreages. Many of these are lands that are owned by timber companies that want to sell them for various reasons.

2. Use a local consulting forester. Most consulting foresters do a lot of timber cruising and many do forestland appraisal. Because of this they often know which properties in their area are coming up for sale, but may not yet be listed with a realtor. Some consulting foresters also are real estate brokers. A list of consulting foresters is available from the Association of Consulting Foresters at: www.acf-foresters.org/ The Society of American Foresters has a Certified Forester Program. Many of the Certified Foresters are consulting foresters. The list of Certified Foresters is available at: http://www.safnet.org/certifiedforester/index.cfm

3. Use the local forest landowners network. Most forest landowners are very knowledgeable about who in their area is selling or buying land. A good group to network with is the Oregon Small Woodlands Association. With 20 county-based chapters and over 1,500 members there are great opportunities for networking. A list of OSWA chapters and officers is available at: www.oswa.org

Both of these situations are part of the natural cycle. When stands become overcrowded some trees die, while others are attacked by defoliating insects and others are attacked by bark beetles. The natural cycle of lodgepole pine (one of the most common trees in the high Cascades) is to seed in after a forest fire, grow slowly in very dense stands, grow even slower as they reach 100 years old, be killed by bark beetles, eventually be burnt up by a wildfire, and then start the cycle over with a new stand of seedlings.

In many areas, projects are planned to salvage dead trees and thin out live trees to improve their health. However, some areas along the McKenzie Pass Highway (242) are within the Three Sisters Wilderness to the south and the Mount Washington Wilderness to the north. In these designated wilderness areas, no logging is allowed. This includes thinning and salvage of dead trees. In these areas the foresters only option is to prepare for the inevitable wildfire. This is a real threat this time of year, when high temperatures, low humidity and dry east winds converge to take advantage of any spark or stray lightning bolt.

To add local-expert clarification to your question, I am copying Kevin Moran. Kevin is Timber Stand Improvement forester on the McKenzie River Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest. Kevin is intimately familiar with the dead tree situation on McKenzie Pass and has been leading projects on the district to salvage dead trees and thin live ones to improve forest health and reduce the risk of wildfire.

I hope my answer is helpful and I hope that Kevin is able to provide additional clarifying information.

Thanks for asking a forester!

The percentage of water in a tree can vary quite a bit depending on species of tree, part of the tree in question, season of the year, time of day, health of the tree and whether it is living or dead.

Percentage of water is generally expressed as Moisture Content on a dry-weight basis.

Moisture Content, % =

                    weight of water in sample X 100
         _______________________________________

                      oven dry weight of sample

...OR...

Moisture Content, % =

          weight of sample with moisture – oven dry weight of sample X 100
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     oven dry weight of sample

Moisture Content of leaves, needles and twigs varies from over 150% in the spring and early summer when water is plentiful to <25% during the dry part of the summer. Moisture in needle and leaves has been used as a measure of the drought-induced stress that plants are under this time of year. Leaves and needles go from a high moisture content in the early morning to a lower content later in the day. This is called diurnal variation and is driven by solar radiation and relative humidity of the atmosphere. Plants that are under intense drought stress, do not recover the moisture content of their leaves overnight, so early morning or pre-dawn moisture contents are very low.

Moisture Content of wood varies by species of tree, health of tree and whether sapwood or heart wood. Green wood of live trees in the forest is usually thought of being about 100% moisture content. Thus a chunk of fresh cut wood would have ½ of its green weight made up of water and ½ made up of wood.

However, a study of lodgepole pine in British Columbia by R.W. Reid published in Forestry Chronicle, showed a steep moisture gradient from about 160 % for the outer sapwood nearest the bark to 30 % in the heartwood in the center of the tree. This makes perfect sense when you understand that the sapwood’s function is to conduct water from the roots to the leaves or needles, while the heartwood’s function is to provide stability.

The same study showed the moisture content of outer sapwood of healthy lodgepole pines varied from 85-165% and that attack by mountain pine beetle causes the sapwood moisture content to drop to as low as 16% because of the blockage of vessels in the sapwood by blue-stain fungi.

Standing dead trees can have moisture content in their wood as low as 20-30%. This is really dry, especially when you consider that air dried lumber ends up at about 20% moisture content, while kiln dried lumber ends up with about 10% moisture content.

Finally, there are moisture meters that can instantly estimate the amount of moisture in a given piece of wood. These function by sticking two needle-like probes in a piece of wood and measuring the electrical conductance between them. Higher moisture content has higher conductance because water conducts electricity much better than wood does. These meters can be calibrated to give fairly accurate moisture contents.

So Jeff, the answer to your question, like many forestry questions, is “it depends and it varies.” However, it is commonly said that green wood has around 100% moisture content and this is probably a fair generalization, considering all of the variables.
Thanks for asking a forester.