society of american foresters western forester · policy decisions involving multi-resource...

BY DARIUS M. ADAMS

As I have alwaysreminded students inmy forest economicsclasses, economicsisn’t about “money.”Economic analysis asit’s applied in forestryfocuses on how peo-ple and institutions make decisions inenvironments where resources arescarce and trade-offs among resourcevalues must be made.

Sometimes policy decisions relatelargely to marketable goods and serv-ices, such as public or private forestowners considering the extent andtiming of selling logs into regionalmarkets. In these instances economistsmight employ well-tested tools such assupply and demand analysis to evalu-ate alternatives. In other cases, trade-offs can involve marketable goods onone hand against other services andoutcomes that do not have markets orreadily available prices. The policydebate over reducing federal timberharvest to enhance the likelihood ofspotted owl survival in the early 1990sprovides a notable example. In suchcases economists must often devisenovel means to model and quantifyvalue trade-offs. The primary aim inanalysis of all these questions, howev-er, is to provide information to decisionmakers to facilitate their decisionprocess. Economic analyses attempt tocharacterize gains and losses, benefitsand costs, and who wins and who losesfrom a policy decision using measures

consonant with the decision maker’svalues.

The past few decades have seen asteady growth in application of eco-nomic analysis to forest policy prob-lems and a significant increase in thescope and complexity of the methodsused. Evaluations that were once onlydiscussed in theoretical terms or con-ducted in highly simplified and aggre-gated form are now readily accessibleto a broad range of owners and fre-quently applied. Two major types offorest policy problems, timber man-agement decisions and policies thatinvolve multiple and conflictingresource uses, provide useful examplesof these changes.

Examples of trends ineconomic analysis

When I started my first job as aneconomist in the late 1960s, evenagedstand-level decisions on rotation ageand other silvicultural practices werecommonly made by extrapolation fromresponses measured in fixed silvicul-tural experiments. Stocking and mark-ing guides for selection harvesting sys-tems east of the Cascades were derivedin a similar fashion, though from amuch smaller set of experiments.These field studies were commonlyestablished by public agencies and uni-versities assuming management objec-tives that may or may not have coin-

Forest Economics and Policy Decisionsin the PNW: Retrospective and Outlook

S O C I E T Y O F A M E R I C A N F O R E S T E R S

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)

October/November/December 2019 Oregon • Washington State • Alaska Societies Volume 64 • Number 4

Western Forester

In This Issue: Forest Economics

PHOTO COURTESY OF LONE ROCK TIMBER

Applications of economic analysis in forestry aim to help managers makebetter land stewardship decisions for their specific ownership objects.

cided with those of any user. At the forest level, scheduling har-

vests was commonly limited to esti-mates of aggregate volumes by periodwithout identifying specific stands orareas and often with highly simplifiedassumptions about desired future for-est structure such as the classic “fullregulation.” In many cases theseapproaches were dictated as much byinsufficiently detailed inventory data asby lack of analytic methods. And at theregional level, projections of potentialfuture timber supplies were based oncrude projections of future yields, sim-ple and highly aggregated inventory,and harvest decision models basedlargely on assumptions (or artificial tar-gets such as “even-flow”) rather thananalysis of actual historical decisionbehavior.

In current practice, silviculturaldecisions can be tailored to individualinventory units (stands, etc.) usingmethods that optimize thinnings and

other treatments for the owner’s objec-tives and values. Forest-level schedul-ing and management decisions can be

based on detailed temporal and spatialmodels that may also be integratedwith physical features to allow opti-mization of infrastructural and logisti-cal decisions as well. Stand actions areoften derived from forest harvestschedules to ensure consistency withoverarching enterprise goals.

In today’s approaches, long-termforest structures are shaped byintertemporal optimization of ownerobjectives and need not be imposed tofacilitate the scheduling method (suchas requiring some form of regulation).Even selection harvesting systems canbe modeled and optimized in detail,yielding marking guides tailored to anowner’s actual stands. And at theregional level, it is now possible tomodel resource actions at the invento-ry plot level, track harvest shipmentsfrom plots to mills over the transportgrid, and estimate potential productoutput from log harvest by mill.Current capabilities even allow simula-tion of the development of new prod-ucts to assess their feasibility andimpact on the forest resource andexisting industries.

2 WESTERN FORESTER ◆ OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019

Next Issue: Editor’s Choice

Forest Economicsand Policy Decisionsin the PNW(CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE)

Western ForesterSociety of American Foresters

4033 S.W. Canyon Rd. • Portland, OR 97221 • 503-224-8046www.nwoffice.forestry.org/northwest-office/western-forester-archive

Editor: Lori Rasor, [email protected] Forester is published four times a year by the Oregon, Washington State,

and Alaska Societies’ SAF Northwest Office

State Society Chairs

Oregon: Meghan Tuttle, 971-273-2461,[email protected]

Washington State: Jenny Knoth, Ph.D.,360-460-2613, [email protected]

Alaska: John Yarie, CF, 907-474-5650,[email protected]

Northwest SAF Board Members

District 1: Tom Hanson, Forestry andArboriculture Consultant, ArborInfo LLC,206-300-9711, [email protected];www.ArborInfo.com

District 2: Mike Cloughesy, Oregon ForestResources Institute, 503-329-1014,[email protected]

Anyone is at liberty to make fair use of the material in this publication. To reprint or make multiple reproduc-tions, permission must be obtained from the editor. Proper notice of copyright and credit to the WesternForester must appear on all copies made. Permission is granted to quote from the Western Forester if thecustomary acknowledgement accompanies the quote.

Other than general editing, the articles appearing in this publication have not been peer reviewed for techni-cal accuracy. The individual authors are primarily responsible for the content and opinions expressed herein.

Please send change of address to:Society of American Foresters, 10100 Laureate Way, Bethesda, MD 20814

[email protected]

SOURCE: UPDATED FROM ADAMS, D. M. AND G. S. LATTA. 2007. TIMBER TRENDS ON PRIVATE LANDS INWESTERN OREGON AND WASHINGTON: A NEW LOOK. WESTERN JOURNAL OF APPLIED FORESTRY 22(1):8-14.

Examples of projections of regional private timber harvest in westernOregon and Washington from seven past studies by date of publication withactual historical cut, 1965-2016.

Policy decisions involving multi-resource trade-offs (e.g., timber,wildlife, types of recreation, visualamenities, water quality, or housingand infrastructural developments)have occasioned major controversiesin the Pacific Northwest. Decisionanalysis is highly complex because ofmodeling and measurement problemsacross the various resources and con-flicting views about the relative impor-tance of resource values.

Examples include design of wildlifereserve or refuge areas involving limita-tions on timber harvest and infrastruc-ture, wildlife corridors to allow habitatconnectivity with associated exclusionof development or other land usechanges, and allocation of reservedlands to alternative types of recreationactivities (e.g., motorized or non-motorized). Past analyses have oftentaken the form of scenario compar-isons in which a limited number ofdecision options are evaluated across arange of resource value measures.Expert panels have frequently beenused to identify alternatives and also toselect the “best” option based on per-sonal knowledge of physical trade-offsand subjective weightings of conflict-ing use values.

In recent years economists anddecision analysts have developedmethods to aid in the identification ofalternatives in these cases. Newapproaches allow the structuring ofalternatives such that land allocationsyield the highest output of one set ofcompeting values for a given (restrict-ed) set of competing outputs. These aretermed “efficient” alternatives.Selecting among them still requiressome subjective weighting of alterna-tive values. But decision makers knowthat each option yields the greatestoutput of any specific resource valuegiven the restricted output levels of theothers. Indeed, this knowledge alone isoften sufficient to identify use alloca-tions that allow expansion in a subsetof values with no reduction in otherssimply by eliminating inefficient man-agement actions.

Drivers of past change

The dramatic changes illustrated inthe timber management and multi-

WESTERN FORESTER ◆ OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019 3

SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM IM E, DM ADAMS, GS LATTA. 2010. THE IMPACTS OF CHANGES INFEDERAL TIMBER HARVEST ON FOREST CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN

WESTERN OREGON. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH 40: 1710-1723.

This graph depicts estimated recent average timber harvest and forestcarbon sequestration on all lands in western Oregon (single point) and thesimulated trade-off curve between timber harvest and carbon sequestrationIF harvest on federal lands was expanded to Northwest Forest Planvolumes. The curve is obtained by optimally constraining private harvest inthe region at various levels.

SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM NALLE, DJ, CA MONTGOMERY, JL ARTHUR, NH SCHUMAKER, AND S POLASKY. 2004.MODELING JOINT PRODUCTION OF WILDLIFE AND TIMBER IN FORESTS. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT 48(3): 997-1017.

Simulated trade-off between great horned owl population and presentvalue of net future timber harvests on all lands in west-central OregonCascades using a 150-year look-ahead period. Trade-offs obtained byoptimally constraining timber harvest from all owners at various levels.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

resource trade-off examples describedabove were driven by four majortrends. Most important has been theimprovement in resource inventorydata on all ownerships, particularly useof remeasured plot systems, more plotsto reduce sampling error, and moredetailed stem and stand measure-ments. Better inventories allow use ofmore sophisticated tree growth modelscalibrated to the owner’s specificstands and more detailed estimates oftree and stand qualities for both timberand non-timber values. More plotmeasurements and the advent of GIStechnologies also facilitated the addi-tion of spatial detail to inventories andexplicit recognition of location-dependent processes (such as trans-portation) in economic studies.

Economic analysis of forest policydecisions is wholly dependent onknowledge of the response of natural

systems to management actions. Thusimprovements in tree growth and otherbiophysical models have allowedexpansion in the scope and detail ofeconomic studies. For example, move-ment from earlier age and site-depend-ent yield tables to individual tree mod-els with explicit inter-tree competitionprovided a basis for more useful analy-sis of intermediate stand treatmentssuch as thinning. With more detailedstand and vegetation data supplement-ed by spatial characteristics, it has alsobeen possible to replace crude habitatsuitability indexes with species occur-rence, and even species populationmodels in estimating wildlife impacts.

More inventory data, inclusion ofthe spatial dimension, and betterbiophysical models have allowedanalysts to approach more realistic(i.e., detailed) decision problems withmuch larger computational burdens.

Steady improvements in computercapacity and speed have made simula-tion or solution of these problems fea-sible. Analytical software—such as har-vest scheduling programs, linear pro-gramming and other optimizationcodes, and generic system simulationprograms—with large solution capaci-ties is now widely available in commer-cial form. For example, closed formoptimization problems entailing mil-lions of activities and hundreds ofthousands of constraints are readilyaccommodated with many commercialprograms and can be run on a laptopPC.

Economic theory and modelinghave also evolved to permit more flexi-ble approaches to depict the behaviorof economic agents in markets andresource use decisions. For example,early studies of markets or timber sup-ply commonly represented private


owners’ harvest decisions by means ofsimple fixed rules (e.g., harvest somefraction of trees over a certain age ordiameter) or using crude and largely adhoc price-sensitive supply equations(e.g., cut is a function solely of priceand inventory). With expanded theory,better inventory, and more market datait is now possible to statistically esti-mate behaviorally consistent privatetimber harvest relations. And wherethis is not feasible, private utility maxi-mizing behavior can be simulated frombasic components of prices, costs, dis-count rate, and growth characteristicsof the inventory. In effect we canmimic the harvesting decisions thatwould result if private owners behavedexactly as our theories suggest, includ-ing the recognition of side constraints(such as amenity or other non-mone-tary values derived from older stands).

Outlook and challenges

Looking to the future, I believe thattechnical inventory advances (such asLIDAR measurements within stands,improved GIS software, and moreextensive and detailed use of satelliteimagery to extrapolate fixed inventorymeasurements) will continue to allowimprovements in economic analysis.Studies will have still greater detail andproduce results more apt to decisionmakers’ specific circumstances.Computer capabilities and access(such as cloud computing) will

improve apace to accommodate theincreased computational burden.

The stage is also set, I think, to seesome early applications of machinelearning to forestry decision problems,fueled by the growing number anddetail of stand and forest databases.Some examples might include: use ofclassification algorithms developedfrom existing databases to “grade” logsby tree in stands surveyed with emerg-ing LIDAR methods; fire suppressiondecision support based on weather,fuels, topographic, and spatial firedetails; and improved biophysicalmodels of wildlife species occurrenceand populations based on vegetation,disturbance history, and climate out-look.

My comments to this point wereintended to paint a broad picture oftrends in methods of economic analy-sis available to aid forest policy deci-sions. There are, of course, wide differ-ences in the extent to which these

methods and improvements have actu-ally been employed by various forestowners.

Generally, larger private owner-ships have been aggressive and earlyadopters while smaller private ownershave been much more variable inaccess and use. Applications in publicownerships have varied markedlyover time, ostensibly as their specificmixes of values and objectives havechanged. In all cases, however, bothknowledge of available decision aidsand the extent of foresters’ basic skillsin forest policy analysis represent keybarriers to access. ◆

Darius M. Adams is professor emeritus,Department of Forest Engineering,Resources and Management, College ofForestry, Oregon State University,Corvallis. An SAF member, he can bereached at 541-207-7614 [email protected].


Seedling Nursery Since 1974

“Serving Many of the Reforestation Needs of the World From This Location Since 1889”

We bring experience with owners that care about their product and customers.

Approximately 10 million seedlings in annual production1 container site (plugs), 2 bareroot/transplant sites (p+1, 1+1)

Contract growing and spec seedlings for forestry and Christmas tree production

LET US GROW YOUR SEEDLINGSDavid Gerdes Mike Gerdes

[email protected]

FORESTERS • NURSERYMAN • SEEDSMAN

SILVASEED COMPANYP.O. Box 118 • Roy, WA 98580 • (253) 843-2246

Connecting Forest Landowners withSeedlings, Services and Contractors

DISCOVER Our Interactive Websitewww.forestseedlingnetwork.com

BUY/SELL SEEDLINGS • FIND VENDOR SERVICES & CONTRACTORS • VALUABLE RESOURCES

Restore ourfederal forests

to restore ourrural communities

Join us @HealthyForests.Org

BY MARK RASMUSSEN

hen I tell folks Iam a forest

economist, theyimmediately assumethat I am in the busi-ness of trackingprices, markets,employment, pro-duction, shipments, etc. Certainly, thereis some of that, and I am always a suck-er for a great graph that tells a story.

But economics is more than justtables and charts; economics is thescience of how people make decisions.In a market, prices give the signalabout how we value one thing relativeto another. But in the realm of forestry,there are many outputs that don’t haveprices, or where the price signals arenot clear, or the prices are so distant inthe future they are based more on faiththan on analysis. And given the natureof a forest, there is always tensionbetween the short term and the longterm. That’s where being a forest econ-omist becomes interesting.

As a consultant, I usually think of aconsulting assignment as helping aclient answer a set of questions. Hereare a few of the more interestingquestions we have worked on in thelast year:

Forest Planning: How should wemanage this forest to best meet someset of short- and long-term objec-tives? What would happen to this for-est if we changed some of our past

policies and decisions? What can wedo to make this forest more resilient,and what would that cost?

Biomass: What role can biofuelplay in financing forest restoration?What policies, investments, or subsi-dies would be required to increase theamount of forest biomass delivered toa network of biomass power plants?Would any of that make a significantdifference in efforts to improve foresthealth?

Carbon: Under what conditionswould I consider selling carbon cred-its? What would be the impact of pro-posed carbon legislation?

Forest Restoration/Resiliency:What kind of effort is needed to makea large-scale difference in foresthealth and resiliency? What could wedo with the material being removed?Is the existing milling infrastructuresufficient, or would we need moremills? Where would those mills goand how would they be designed?

Family Forest Legacy: How can afamily forest be passed from one gener-ation to another? How can the nextgeneration organize itself to be success-ful timberland owners and managers?

Family Forest Partition: Howshould we split the deceased’s forestinto equal parcels for sale? (This is myleast favorite kind of project and whywe work hard on the Family ForestLegacy effort.)

Future Forest Products: Whatkinds of logs will our clients needfrom the next rotation? How shouldwe manage the forest to produce

those products? What would a goodhedging strategy look like, and howmuch would it cost?

Public Forest Management: Whatset of goods and services could wederive from this forest? What are thefinancial impacts of decisions tofocus public forest management onconservation objectives? How can weensure that future revenues are suffi-cient to cover management costs?

Trust Land Management: How cana fiduciary manage this forest so thatboth current and future beneficiarieshave the same opportunities? Whichlong-term commitments meet the“prudent person” standard requiredby trust law?

Regulatory Impacts: What are thelikely impacts of regulatory changesand/or proposed legislation?

Fire Damages: What is the value ofthe resources lost in a fire?

Trade: Do foreign competitorsenjoy benefit from forest policies andpractices of their governments? Whatare the impacts of trade policies andactions?

Appraisal: What is the value of thisparticular property? What valuesmight other bidders contemplate?

Due Diligence: What should I knowabout this property before bidding onit? Can I rely on the inventory? Whatdo the markets look like? What is thelikely supply to the local mills?

Taxes: How much of my annualgain can be taxed as a capital gain?What is the value of this propertywhen the owner passed away?

Education/Outreach: How can Ipossibly describe how interesting it isto be a forest economist?

I am one in a long line of foresteconomists at Mason, Bruce & Girard,and we’ve been helping people answerthese kinds of questions for decades. Itis interesting work, and I hope that inthe long run, we are helping peoplemake better natural resource manage-ment decisions. If you would like to talkabout a career in forest economics, giveme a call at 503-224-3445. ◆

Mark Rasmussen is a forest economistand principal at Mason, Bruce, andGirard in Portland, Ore. An SAF mem-ber, Mark can be reached at 503-224-3445 or [email protected].


A Year in the Life...

W

BY CLARK S. BINKLEY

nstitutionalinvestors now own

timberland worth atleast $50 billion.Many foresters nowwork directly orindirectly for thoseinvestors, or maybeyour personal 401K plan includestimberland investments, so you mightbe interested in understanding theirmotivations for making and holdingthese investments.

Let’s start by defining “institutionalinvestors.” These are organizations thatinvest on behalf of others. Examplesinclude pension-plan sponsors thatinvest on behalf of plan participants;university endowments that invest onbehalf of university students and facul-ty; insurance companies that invest onbehalf of insurance reserves or annuityholders; and family offices that investon behalf of family members.

Such entities generally seek to gen-erate regular returns to offset recurringobligations to those for whom theyinvest. The returns could be in theform of actual cash distributions orincreases in the underlying capitalvalue of their portfolio of assets. Twokey points follow from this: (1) volatili-ty in returns increases the risk that theinstitution cannot meet its obligations;and (2) volatility is measured acrosstheir entire portfolios, not just on anasset-by-asset basis.

The benefits of diversification

With this background, let’s answerthe question posed in the title:Diversification. This might seem likean unlikely answer because timber-land offers other benefits—organicgrowth, inflation protection, and low-but-stable returns, to name a few.

Diversification has been said to bethe only free lunch in investing. If aninvestor seeks to avoid return volatility,diversification is a “free” way to do so.As noted above, institutions desire toavoid return volatility.

Consider two portfolios of $100each with two possible assets, both

with the same expected long-termreturn. Portfolio A is concentrated with$100 in a single asset that increases$10 every even year and falls in valueby $10 every odd year. This portfoliowould have $10 (or 10%) of annualvolatility. Portfolio B consists of invest-ments of $50 in each of two assets.These both have annual volatility of $5(the same 10%), but one rises in evenyears and falls in odd years, and theother vice versa. Portfolio B has novolatility with exactly the same long-term return as Portfolio A. This is thepower of portfolio diversification. Ininvestment parlance, the risk-adjustedreturn has increased as a result of thediversification. In our example, thereturns of the two assets in Portfolio Bare perfectly negatively correlated, butthe same principle applies as long asthe returns are not perfectly positivelycorrelated.

Following the logic of diversifica-tion, the Employment RetirementIncome Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)required private-sector pension plansto diversify out of their traditionalreliance on bonds alone as a means ofprotecting pension pay outs. The firstmoves were into publicly tradedstocks, then real estate, and finally, inthe early 1980s, timberland.

Many have studied the correlationof timberland returns with those of

other assets available to institutions—corporate and government bonds,large capitalization US stocks, foreignequities, real estate, and oil and gaspartnerships, for example. The precisefindings depend on how the timber-land returns are measured and whichasset is examined. But timberlandreturns generally have low positive orsmall negative correlations with theseother assets. This means that evensmall doses of timberland in a largemixed asset portfolio can providemeaningful diversification benefits.Indeed, unconstrained portfolio opti-mization models based on historicalreturns will load far more timberlandinto most portfolios than there is tim-berland to acquire!

Institutional investment intimberland

There is a bit of dispute within theindustry as to who was “first” to organ-ize institutional investment in timber-land, but three organizations havecredible claims: Hancock TimberResource Group, Forest InvestmentAssociates, and Resource InvestmentAssociates (evolved into Global ForestPartners). The former grew out of theagricultural lending group at the JohnHancock Life Insurance Company; the


Why Do Institutions Invest in Timberland?

I

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

Land Management | Real Estate Services | Wildlife ManagementRecreational Leases | Technical and Data Services

Anyone can see the beauty.Our specialty is helping preserve your legacy.

Chehalis 360.740.3757 • Kirkland 425.820.3420

americanforestmanagement.com


second out of the trust division of FirstNational Bank of Atlanta; and the thirdas an independent investment advisorygroup. From early beginnings in the USSouth, there are now over 20 timber-land investment management organi-zations (TIMOs) investing on behalf ofinstitutions on all continents exceptAntarctica (where there were oncetrees, albeit only fossilized ones now).

TIMOs manage “private equity”timberland. “Private” refers to the factthat the timberland assets are directlyheld and not regularly traded in publicsecurities markets. Institutions canalso access timberland by holdingshares in publicly traded timberland-intensive companies generally organ-ized as Real Estate Investment Trusts(REITs). These include Weyerhaeuser,Rayonier, Potlatch-Deltic, andCatchmark in the US, and Acadian inCanada. These investments can bemade directly, via exchange-tradedfunds (WOOD), or through the activelymanaged timberland mutual fund runby Pictet Asset Management.

Although the underlying asset—timberland—is similar in public andprivate equity ownership, there are dif-ferences. Specifically, the publicly trad-ed companies generally include man-ufacturing assets and are “marked to

market” with daily pricing on stockexchanges. Manufacturing adds thevolatility of forest products markets tothat of timberland. Daily valuationsubjects publicly traded companies tothe vicissitudes of such macro-eco-nomic factors as trade policy andchanges in expectations related toFederal Reserve moves, among others.Both give rise to additional volatilitythat does not exist (or, is not meas-ured) in private markets.

As shown in Figure 1, private-equitytimberland grew rather quickly in the1990s through the Global FinancialCrisis (GFC) starting in 2009. Two fac-tors drove the growth. The first wasthe disintegration of the forest prod-ucts industry in the US, and to asmaller extent, in Canada andWestern Europe. Public companies inthe US are required to report underUS “generally accepted accountingprinciples” (US GAAP). At the time,US GAAP consistently understatedtimberland returns— those rules“depleted” timber as it was harvested,writing down the asset value, but notrecording the increased value of theasset as it grew. In contrast, institu-tional investors regularly measure“total returns”: cash flow plus changein asset value. This mismatch in valu-ation metrics provided an opportuni-ty for institutions to acquire timber-

land from integrated companies witha value increase for both.

The second factor was a series ofchanges in the US tax code thatallowed timber and timberland toescape corporate taxation as long ascertain stringent requirements weremet. For example, only a small fractionof the company’s assets could be inactivities other than timberland itself.These changes forced companies suchas Weyerhaeuser to sell their valuablepulp and paper assets and focus ontimberland as a way to maximizereturns to shareholders. These “taxefficient” structures also benefittedprivate equity investors.

Along with the changes in the US,investors became more comfortablewith investments outside the US andmoved into Australia, New Zealand,Chile, Brazil and even to frontiermarkets of Laos, Malaysia, andMozambique.

What about the future ofinstitutional investment intimberland?

The National Council of Real EstateInvestment Fiduciaries (NCREIF)Timberland Property Index measuresreturns from individual timberlandproperties held by institutions. The fig-ures are self-reported and reflect achanging mix of assets. It is not an“investable index” like the S&P 500,

SOURCE: TIMBERLINK, UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, HNRG; COURTESY OF HNRG

Figure 1. Equity Investment in Timberland Investment, 1990-2018. Thisfigure shows the development of equity ownership of timberland, bothpublic and private.

Tom [email protected]

206 300 9711www.arborinfo.com

Providing information about trees and forests

SAVETHEDATE

but it is generally accepted as the bestavailable measure for timberlandreturns in the US.

In the 1980s and early 1990s tim-berland returns were quite high. Twofactors drove these high returns. In theearly 1990s, protective measures forthe endangered northern spotted owlrapidly reduced federal timber supply.These unanticipated supply reduc-tions pushed up timber prices, provid-ing windfall gains for early investors.In addition, in the early phase of disin-tegration, timberland asset marketswere relatively inefficient, with buyersand sellers just beginning to under-stand each others’ valuation metricsand processes.

But, as more capital pressed againsta relatively fixed base of investable tim-berland, asset values moved up andreturns moved down. The after effectsof the GFC kept timber prices low,especially in the South. Housing starts,a key demand driver for timber, havenot yet returned to trend levels, adecade after their collapse in 2009. As aresult of persistent weakness in returns,some early timberland investors arereducing their exposure to the assetclass. For example, the California PublicEmployees Retirement System(CalPERS), one of the earliest institu-tional investors in timberland, hascompletely exited. Harvard Universityhas pulled back significantly as well.

The emerging recognition that treesoffer a “natural climate solution” offerssome positive news for timberland

investors. Plants are the only provenand scalable technology for actuallyremoving heat-trapping carbon diox-ide from the atmosphere. Amongplants, trees are uniquely positioned tobe an effective part of a “net zero” car-bon economy: trees not only removethe carbon dioxide from the atmos-phere, but also store it, possibly forquite a long time. The carbon can bestored in the tree itself, and the treescan be converted into long-livedbuilding products that avoid the emis-sions associated with carbon dioxide-intensive alternatives concrete or steel.While controversial, there can be posi-

tive climate benefits if the residuals areconverted to heat and power, offset-ting the use of fossil fuels.

US and broadly global strategies forreaching Paris Climate Agreement tar-gets rely heavily on afforestation, refor-estation, and improved forest manage-ment to achieve their goals. Such poli-cy measures as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems support thesestrategies. If implemented, substantialnew timberland investment opportu-nities could become available to insti-tutions. Already the California carbonmarket provides meaningful incremen-tal returns to timberland ownership,albeit on a small scale with somewhatidiosyncratic rules. Hundreds of bil-lions of dollars of new investments arerequired to achieve the Paris Agree-ment goals, and the private sector islikely to be the main source of thiscapital. The good news for timberlandinvestors is that returns from carbon-offset investments appear to offer stillmore diversification benefits from tim-berland investments. ◆

Clark S. Binkley is managing director,International Forestry InvestmentAssociates, LLC, in Portland, Ore. AnSAF member, he can be reached at 617-816-4902 or [email protected] thanks Gwen Busby, director ofEconomics Research at GreenWoodResources, for contributions to thisarticle.


SOURCE: GREENWOOD RESOURCES

Figure 2. US Timberland Returns, 1987-2018. This figure shows timberlandreturns as measured by NCREIF Timberland Property Index.

BY KENT WHEILER

he US-Chinatrade war has

taken a heavy toll onAmerican farmersand the wood prod-ucts industry.Through August2019, US exports oflogs and lumber to China are downnearly one billion dollars ($940 mil-lion). Softwood lumber export vol-umes to China are down 63%, soft-wood logs down 38%, hardwood lum-ber down 40%, and hardwood logsdown 35%. The impact has been apainful blow for the US industry andwill have long-term implications.

Overcutting in China throughoutmuch of the 20th century led to gradu-ally declining domestic harvests andfinally a total ban in 2017 on commer-cial harvests from natural forests. A

growing economy, rising incomes,booming housing market, and a thriv-ing furniture industry led to Chinabecoming the world’s largest importerof wood products. Exports to Chinawere particularly important for USproducers recovering from the 2008-2009 recession, especially hardwoodlumber mills. In the years followingthe recession, US hardwood lumberexports to China grew five-fold, withChina eventually taking one-fourth ofall graded hardwood produced inAmerica.

Storm clouds began gathering inearly 2018 as the US imposed tariffs onsolar panels, washing machines, steel,and aluminum. China retaliated withtariffs of 15-25% on $3 billion of USgoods, but not lumber or logs. Anotherround of tariff increases and tit-for-tatretaliation during the summer of 2018continued to spare wood products.But in September, the US imposed a10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese

imports, scheduled to increase to 25%on January 1. China retaliated with 5-10% tariffs on $60 billion of US imports,this time including logs and lumber.The January 1 increase was delayedtwice but went into effect on May 10,2019. China retaliated on June 1,increasing tariffs to 10-25% on $60 bil-lion of US imports, including most USlog and lumber products.

The impact has been huge, with USlog and lumber suppliers losing nearlyone billion dollars in sales to China inthe first eight months of 2019. To putthis in perspective, the sales lost arenearly equal (96%) to a total loss of allUS log and lumber exports to Mexico,Japan, Vietnam, and Western Europecombined over the same period. Thereis simply no other market or combina-tion of markets that can absorb thelost volume.

Of course, this collapse in demandhas had a negative effect on prices in allmarkets. At the end of August, prices inWashington state for Douglas-fir #2sawlogs were down 19% from the prioryear. Alder sawlog prices are down30%. Hardwood Review Weekly’s GreenPrice Index for hardwood lumber isdown 20% and the Kiln Dried Indexhas dropped 17%. Mills are losing bothvolume and value.

Short-term fluctuations in volumecan often be managed, but long-termloss of market share is difficult torecapture. China is turning to Europe,Russia, Africa, and Southeast Asia forsupply. While China has increasedaverage tariffs on US goods to over20%, average tariffs on the rest of theworld have dropped from 8% to 6%. Asnoted earlier, US softwood logs toChina are down 38% August year-to-date, but China’s total imports fromaround the world are up 3%. Likewise,American softwood lumber is down63% but China’s total imports are up16%. China’s total imports of hard-wood logs and lumber are down 20%through August but have droppednearly twice as much from the US.

The loss in market share is especial-ly unfortunate because the nature ofconsumption in China has changedsignificantly over the past 20 years.The American Hardwood ExportCouncil estimates that in 2000, 85% ofUS hardwoods sent to China were re-exported as furniture and other value-


Casualty of the Trade War

T

added products back to the US orother global markets. Now it is nearlythe opposite, with 80% of incoming UShardwoods staying in China and con-sumed domestically.

The change in supply channels alsohas negative environmental implica-tions because many of the growingsources of supply in Russia, Africa, andS.E. Asia are not diligent about sus-tainable harvesting.

Certainly, there are real problemswith some economic practices inChina, including industrial subsidiesand other support of state-ownedenterprises, insufficient intellectualproperty protection, and forced tech-nology transfer. But consider thesepoints:

• For many years the forest prod-ucts industry has had a trade surpluswith China. To solve barriers faced byother industries, is it fair or wise topenalize businesses that have alreadydeveloped profitable and net positivesupply chains to China? Is it fair todamage their business in order toimprove access for others?

• Tariffs are paid by the importer ofrecord. Who ultimately pays dependson market conditions and alternativesfor supply. If the supplier does notreduce prices, the importer musteither cut their margin or raise prices,and then consumers ultimately pay.When consumers pay, it is a regressiveform of taxation. Current researchoverwhelmingly indicates that US con-sumers are bearing the bulk of theincreased tariff burden.

• Tariffs are a negligible source ofrevenue for the US government. In fis-cal year 2019, total customs duties willbe about $70 billion, representing 2%of federal tax revenue. And theincrease in duties from the trade warhas been largely offset by the $28 bil-lion in relief given to US farmers—relief that was not shared with the for-est products industry.

• A trade deficit is not itself evi-dence of trade barriers, nor is it truethat “fair” trade will result in balancedtrade. The US has often run a tradedeficit during times of economicexpansion, including over the pastdecade of economic growth anddeclining unemployment. Rather, thefundamental cause of a trade deficit isan imbalance between a country’s sav-ings and investment rates. The USconsumes more than we produce.Private and public debt are growing.Money flowing out to pay for importsflows back in as investment or financ-ing of the national debt. To reduce thetrade deficit, Americans must savemore and spend less. Otherwise, the

trade imbalance merely shifts to othercountries.

Threatening and implementingwholesale tariffs to force myriadchanges, often unrelated to the prod-ucts being taxed, is wreaking havoc onthe global trading system and manyUS companies and farmers, includingthe forest products industry. The asso-ciated uncertainty retards investmentand depresses economic growth. Toeffectively change Chinese govern-ment and business practices we needto work within the global trade systemthe US created and in cooperationwith our allies. Let’s fight for fair trade,but let’s do so in an organized fair waythat does not punish our industriesthat have already accomplished whatwe want for everyone. ◆

Kent Wheiler, Ph.D., is an associate pro-fessor in the School of Environmentaland Forest Sciences at the University ofWashington, and director of the Centerfor International Trade in ForestProducts (CINTRAFOR). He can bereached at [email protected].


We provide practical solutions for wildlifeand other natural resource management.

Our goal is to provide you with the highestlevel of service and the most effective

solution to any natural resource concern.

[email protected] • 503-680-7939

WE SPECIALIZE IN:• Developing wildlife programs for

forest certification including SFI and American Tree Farm System

• Wildlife Surveys• GIS Services

BY GWENLYN M. BUSBY ANDAUSTIN HIMES, CF

he value offorests to

society cannot beoverstated. In addi-tion to providing asource of timber,food and fuel, wedepend on forestsfor ecologicalservices like air andwater purification,nutrient cycling,and climate regula-tion, as well as asource of culturaland social benefits.However, for over acentury, forest econ-omists have focused almost exclusivelyon commercial timber as the primarysource of value. The more recent devel-opment of markets for ecosystem serv-ices and an improved understanding ofthe complex linkages between forestmanagement and ecosystem serviceshave enabled the formal inclusion ofnon-timber values into standard eco-nomic models. Using this broader lens,forest economics provides fundamen-tal insight into how ecosystems andcommercial timber can be jointly man-aged in ways that positively impactsforests and communities.

People have long recognized thevalue of the natural world to humansociety, but only in recent decades hasthe term “ecosystem services” beenused to describe these benefits.

Gretchen Daily’s 1997 book, NaturesServices is credited for elevatingecosystem services to the global stageand setting the groundwork for theadoption of the term in the 2005United Nations commissioned report,the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA). The MEA is the most widelyused reference for ecosystem serviceswhich are defined as, “the benefitspeople obtain from ecosystems.” Anunderlying assumption of ecosystemservices is that the benefits peoplevalue and receive from nature flowfrom healthy, intact ecosystems.

A critical element of managingforests for environmental and socialbenefits in addition to timber is themonetization of ecosystem service val-

ues. Such monetization has come to beknown as “Payments for EcosystemServices” (PES). PES provide financialreturns for forest management activi-ties that produce quantifiable ecosys-tem service values. In the US, voluntaryand regulatory compliance markets forecosystem services exist with demandfrom both public and private entities.The largest ecosystem service marketsin the US are wetland mitigation bank-ing credits, carbon offsets, conservationeasements, hunting leases, and waterquality/quantity credits.

In the Pacific Northwest, there aremany examples of different forestowners and stakeholders benefitingfrom PES.

Carbon Offset Credits. The City of


Incorporating Payments for Ecosystem Servicesinto Western Forest Management

T

FIGURE ADAPTED FROM HAINES-YOUNG AND POTSCHIN, 2010

Figure 1. The biophysical structures and process that make up forestecosystems support functions, like slowing the movement of water off ahillside. Those functions in turn provide goods and services, like floodprotection, and those services benefit people by reducing the risk of adamaging flood. People in turn value those benefits and may be willing topay for those services directly or exert pressure on the ecosystem toincrease or maintain the flow of services, i.e. via change in land management.In some cases, policy or other interventions may be necessary to protectecosystems’ flow of benefits to people. Because the benefits people receiveflow from ecosystems, many payments for ecosystem services go toward theprotection and improvement of an ecosystem (e.g., conservation easements)which sometimes have more easily defined property rights than the actualecosystem services, e.g., aesthetic and spiritual value or protection againstunpredictable events like floods.

Gwenlyn Busby

Austin Himes

www.greencrow.com

Certifiably Proudof the Washington

Tree Farm Program

Norm MichaelsForestry LLC

Forest management tomeet your goals

• Management Plans • Reforestation• Timber inventory • Timber cruising

Over 40 years managing forests inOregon and Washington

[email protected]

Astoria, Oregon, generated $1.8 millionin net revenue for selling carbon creditsfrom its forest within the municipalwatershed. The credits were sold inthe voluntary market in 2015 to TheClimate Trust and the city is on track toraising an additional $1 million worth ofcarbon credits in 2020. The sale of car-bon credits provided the city with rev-enue while meeting their watershed pro-tection goals. In the California compli-ance market, more than 14 million forestcarbon offset credits have been issued tothe Confederated Tribes of the ColvilleReservation on their Washington Statelands. Green Diamond, a private timber-land management company, has alsosold forest carbon offset credits in theCalifornia compliance market throughimproved forest management on600,000 acres in southern Oregon.

Hunting Leases. Recreationalecosystem services like hunting canprovide forest owners a source of rev-enue without impacting commercialtimber value. Timberland owners havebeen selling hunting leases fordecades in the Eastern and SouthernUS and now the trend is growing in thePacific Northwest. According to thecompany website, Weyerhaeuser isselling recreational access permits formany of its commercial timber prop-erties in Oregon and Washington.Non-motorized access is $75-$100 perannual permit while motorized accessthat includes keys to locked gatesranges from $225-$395 for an annualpermit. With potentially thousands ofvisitors per year to some of their prop-erties, permits have the potential togenerate millions in annual revenuefor the company. The company is also

offering exclusive leases to someparcels in Oregon for about $100 peracre per year.

Conservation. Working forest con-servation easements restrict develop-ment rights and ensure sustainableforest practices, often with minimalimpact on management. Easementsmay be purchased by a public agency,a private individual, or a nonprofitorganization.

The Nature Conservancy alone haspurchased land or easements on mil-lions of acres across the Western US.Competitive grant funding from the USForest Service Community Forests andthe Forest Legacy programs has beenawarded for fee simple acquisitions oftimberland and easements from pri-vate timberland owners in support ofworking forests that prioritize ecosys-tem services in addition to commercialtimber. For example, in 2018, the Trustfor Public Land and Washington State’sDepartment of Natural Resources pur-chased a 7,391-acre conservation ease-ment on the Olympic Peninsula fromGreen Diamond to protect water quali-ty, wildlife habitat, and recreationopportunities alongside continuedcommercial timber production. Theconservation easement was purchasedfor $6.6 million with funding from theUSDA Forest Service Forest LegacyProgram. Conservation easement salescan be an important source of revenuefor forestland owners and provide amechanism for other stakeholders tosecure ecosystem service values.

Incorporating ecosystem servicevalues into forest management deci-sions may improve financial, environ-mental, and community outcomes, as

the examples above demonstrate.However, ecosystem service marketsare not a panacea. Unlike pure privategoods, ecosystem services have publicgood qualities and are, to varyingdegrees, non-excludable (it is costly orimpossible to exclude others from con-suming the good) and non-rivalrous(when one person consumes the good,there is not less for others to consume),adding complexity to markets. Further,pricing some ecosystem services (e.g.,spiritual value of sacred forests) isinfeasible or may be undesirable.

Another challenge is the potentiallyhigh social and economic cost ofestablishing ecosystem service mar-kets. For example, establishing regula-tory carbon markets can be politicallycontroversial, as we saw in Oregonwith HB 2020, and comes with a regu-latory burden—however, there is anexpansive literature on the ability ofmarket-based programs to achieveenvironmental targets more efficientlythan through government regulation.

Finally, participation in ecosystemservice markets may be cost-prohibi-tive for small landowners.

Despite these challenges, paymentsfor ecosystem services through volun-tary and compliance markets provideforest owners with an additionalsource of revenue, increasing the eco-nomic value of the forest and incen-tivizing the protection of environmen-tal and social benefits. In the future,society’s demand for ecosystem servic-es from forests is likely to increase anddiversify. Thus, as ecosystem servicemarkets continue to develop anddemand for these services grows, theirimportance as a revenue source is like-ly to increase. While the provision ofecosystem services may not be the pri-mary objective for many forest owners,they do have the potential to add valueto timberland assets, improve thesocial license to operate, and ultimate-ly lead to better environmental out-comes across the landscape. ◆

Gwenlyn M. Busby, PhD, is director,Economic Research, and Austin Himes,CF, is area manager, Boardman, bothfor GreenWood Resources. Austin is anSAF member. They can be reached [email protected] [email protected].


PES vehicle Examples Estimated AnnualUS Market Size

Tradable Permits Carbon offsets $133 million1

Wetland mitigation banking $3.5 billion2

Water quality trading $93 million3

Access Leases Hunting leases $400 million4

Easements Conservation easements 235,000 acres5

Table 1. The total annual market for ecosystem service in the US likelyexceeds $3.5 billion. These services are an increasingly important source ofincome for forest owners and their significance is likely to increase withgrowing demand for the diverse ecosystem services forests provide.

SOURCES: 12017 TOTAL INCLUDES $93 MILLION COMPLIANCE MARKET AND $40 MILLION VOLUNTARY MARKET(CLIMATE TRUST AND CA ARB); 22016 TOTAL (FOREST TRENDS); 32015 TOTAL (FOREST TRENDS);

42005 TOTAL (MERCER ET AL. 2011); 5TOTAL AREA IN 2018 (NATIONAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT DATABASE).

BY JOEL SWANTON

t’s been a crazytwo years for the

Pacific Northwest(PNW) log market.Beginning in4Q2017, prices fordomestic and exportDouglas-fir logs inthe region rose steadily before theyspiked in 2Q2018 to their highest lev-els since Forest2Market began report-ing them via our Delivered Wood RawMaterial Price Benchmark for theNorthwest US and Southwest Canada.Prices for Hemlock/Fir logs also fol-lowed the same trajectory, though theydemonstrated less volatility at lowerprice points.

Log and lumber prices can oftenresult in a significant disconnect inregional markets, and the PNWdemonstrated this very dynamic dur-ing 1Q and 2Q2018: North Americanlumber prices peaked in tandem withlog prices in 2Q2018 and, despite spec-ulation that prices would remain highdue to supply constraints, lumberprices corrected course and plungedfor five straight months before hitting afloor in December 2018. The sharp cor-rection was detrimental to many pro-ducers in the PNW and especially toBritish Columbia (BC), who wereforced to curtail production or shutteroperations altogether over the last year.

We’re now nearing the mid-point of4Q2019 and the log/lumber relation-ship is vastly different than it was atthis time last year. Are PNW producersfinally seeing some light at the end ofthe tunnel?

Log prices

In December 2017, the weightedaverage price for delivered domesticDoug-fir logs was $833/MBF. Thoseprices—along with export prices—rosesteadily before peaking at $904/MBFin June, at which time they began aprecipitous decline. A year later inDecember 2018, export pricesdiverged significantly from the down-ward slide of domestic prices andjumped nearly $30/MBF, or roughly4%. Since then, export log prices have

maintained a markedly higher pricecompared to domestic logs, suggestingsome degree of domestic market soft-ness. In fact, export logs have remainedvirtually flat since May 2019 whiledomestic logs have dropped roughly7%. See Figure 1.

As shown in Figure 2, in December2017, the weighted average price fordelivered domestic Hem/Fir logs was$688/MBF and export prices were$737/MBF—a difference of nearly$50/MBF. Unlike Doug-fir, prices forboth products began retreating in1Q2018 and they have trended down-ward ever since. A year later inDecember 2018, export and domesticprices were only $9/MBF apart. Since

then, export Hem/Fir log prices havetracked just slightly higher thandomestic logs and the current pricedisparity is roughly $18/MBF.

Lumber prices

To get a picture of lumber price per-formance compared to log price per-formance, we analyzed benchmarksoftwood lumber products usingMadison’s Lumber Reporter data forNorth America: Doug Fir GreenStd&Btr 2x4, Hem/Fir KD InlandStd&Btr 2x4, and WSPF KD #2&Btr 2x4.Prices for all three products havetracked very similarly since December2017, so we averaged and indexedthem along with Doug and Hem/Fir


PHOTO COURTESY OF FOREST2MARKETDouglas-fir logs on the mill scales.

Market Trends Affecting the PNW Forest Industry

I

Figure 1.

prices to get a fair, but broad, repre-sentation of lumber price perform-ance compared to log price perform-ance in the PNW. (It’s important tonote that Figure 3 illustrates a totalchange in price as a percentage, not achange in actual dollars.)

As evidenced in Figure 3, lumberprices have declined at a much greaterrate than log prices on a percentagebasis since June 2018. However, whilelumber prices have demonstratedsome degree of volatility over the lastyear, notice the trend reversal thattook place in July 2019. For the firsttime in over a year, lumber pricesexceeded log prices in the PNW, andthe trend seems to be holding. This iswelcomed news for producers in thePNW, as log prices appear to be stabi-lizing at the same time, which providesan opportunity to improve marginsafter 18 challenging months.

Near-term outlook

Despite wild volatility and record-high log pricing during most of 2018, arebalancing of the log/lumber markethas largely taken place. There are fourkey dynamics to watch as we wrap upa transitional year and progress into1Q2020.

1. Domestic log price decreases orincreases are a delayed reaction to theextreme volatility of the lumber mar-ket. While lumber prices have exceed-ed log prices for three straight monthson our index, we are approaching theslower homebuilding season and Idon’t suspect a significant disparitybetween supply and demand fordomestic logs; these metrics shouldtrack much more closely in the nearterm. Inventory building in 1Q2020may provide some lift to the domesticlog market; however, I don’t foreseeDoug fir prices exceeding the$700/MBF mark or Hem/Fir pricesexceeding the $560/MBF mark in 1Q.

2. The global trade and tariff situa-tion has resulted in shifting trade flowsin the log and lumber markets. As werecently noted, the US hardwood mar-ket has been hammered by Chinesetariffs, which has flooded the domesticmarket with inventory and drivenprices down. Since July 2018, hard-wood lumber exports to China aredown $615 million compared to theprevious year, which is an average of

$154 million per quarter.3. The US PNW and BC were fortu-

nate to experience a far less severe fireseason in 2019 compared to 2018. Thisallowed log production and flow tosawmills to remain steady, stabilizingboth supply and price.

4. Disappointing US housing startshave failed to really ignite a run onlumber that would drive market pricessignificantly higher. However, signifi-cant sawmill capacity reductions in BCare affecting lumber supply to the USmarket. Even with soft increases indemand, this should put upward pres-sure on lumber prices.

As domestic log prices continue to

stabilize and lumber prices creep incre-mentally higher, the regional sawmillingindustry is treading carefully and watch-ing the very tepid housing market close-ly. Constant analysis of current marketprices and market intelligence will beimperative to minimizing costs andmaintaining profitability in a highlyfluid and volatile market, especially asmills begin to build their inventoriesduring 1Q2020. ◆

Joel Swanton is regional sales manager–Western North America, Forest2Market,based in Kennewick,Wash. An SAFmember, he can be reached at [email protected].


Figure 2.

Figure 3.

BY TAMARA CUSHING

never thought I’dbe willingly sitting

in a courtroom formultiple days com-pletely engrossed.Yet, I’ve found myselfgiddy with excite-ment and ready toget back in there! I moved to Oregonfrom South Carolina, and a forestrymatter would not have made it to thecourtroom in the south. This was achance to witness an interpretation offorest policy. This is the trial that hasbeen anticipated since shortly after Iarrived in Corvallis in 2014. As it hasbeen in the newspaper regularly since2016, I’ve used this with my OSUforestry students as a current eventbecause the results will matter. Theresults may change the way state forestlands are managed in Oregon. Some ofyou likely know pieces of the story. Forthose who don’t, let me bring you up tospeed about this high-stakes lawsuitpitting counties against the stateforestry agency. Be aware, I am not alawyer, and I have done my best topresent this very complicated matter ina way that is digestible.

During the Depression, many pri-vate owners did not have the ability topay the property tax on their land andso abandoned it. This resulted in thecounties owning property, but still notreceiving the much-needed tax money.In 1941, the Forest Acquisition Act pro-vided an arrangement by which coun-ties could deed tax-forfeited forestlandto the Oregon Department of Forestry(ODF). The department would managethese lands and split revenues fromthese lands with the counties. Initially,only a few thousand acres were trans-ferred, but ultimately over 700,000 acreswere transferred to ODF.

Nobody is arguing any of that infor-mation about ownership. This is aclass-action lawsuit involving 14 coun-ties and over 100 taxing districts inOregon (note that Clatsop Countyopted out of the class-action suit). Thecounties that receive revenues fromharvests conducted on these lands con-tend that more timber could have beenharvested and thus more revenuereturned to them. One of the issues inthis lawsuit is over three words:Greatest Permanent Value (GPV). Thepower of three little words in an agree-ment. So, let’s return to when the landwas deeded to the state in the 1930s,’40s and ’50s. Within the Forest

Acquisition Act (1941) is the followinglanguage: “manage the lands acquiredpursuant to ORS 530.010 to 530.040 soas to secure the greatest permanentvalue of those lands to the state.” Whilethe agreement included the words“greatest permanent value,” it did notdefine what value was based on. Thecounties are arguing that GPV, whenthe agreement was initiated, meantgenerating timber revenue as the pri-mary goal. The state maintains thatsocial, economic, and environmentalgoals must be balanced, and revenuefrom timber was never the primaryfocus of GPV.

So why has this just now come up ifthe land was deeded in the 1940s and1950s? In the late 1990s, the OregonBoard of Forestry adopted a definitionof GPV via an administrative rule thatprovided for a balance of social, eco-nomic, and environmental benefits tothe people of Oregon across the land-scape. A new forest management planwas adopted in 1998 that provided formultiple values to forest management.The counties contend that since 1998the state was not producing an amountof revenue from timber that was at thelevel the forest could produce if timberwas the primary objective. The countiesare arguing that the Department ofForestry has breached the contract withthem since they are not managing forGPV as defined by the original agree-ment. The period of the breach is from1998 until current day.

Unfortunately, time has passed andorganizational knowledge has beenlost—nobody involved in the draftingof the 1941 document is still with us.This means we don’t know what GPVmeant in 1941 when the agreementcommenced and are left to interpretthat language today. Both parties arepresenting their respective interpreta-tions. The counties presented informa-tion to support a definition of primarygoal of timber revenues. The state pre-sented information to support a defini-tion of a broad suite of forest resourcevalues. For the counties to prevail, theywill need to demonstrate that GPVmeant timber revenue in 1941 and thatthe state deviated from that definition.The state needs to provide informationto show that the definition of GPVmeant multiple resource values, andpossibly that the GPV rule written in


Forestry on State Lands in OregonTakes Center Stage in Court

I

Case Update: Jury Favors Counties

Editor’s note: While the Western Forester was in its proofing stage, the jurydecision on this case was made. What follows is an update from author TamaraCushing.

After nearly a month of listening to testimony from experts on timber valua-tion, harvest scheduling, growth and yield, and wildlife habitat, as well as hearingfrom county commissioners and Oregon Department of Forestry leaders, a juryhanded down a verdict for the counties.

Earlier the judge had ruled that one of the counties (Klamath) was to beexcluded, leaving 13 counties and over a hundred taxing districts in the lawsuit.The jury awarded a total of $1.1 billion in past and future damages. The futuredamages assume that the state will continue to manage as they have been. Thestate will now determine how to approach next steps, which will most likelyinclude an appeal.

While there has been much coverage by the press over this case, I recom-mend reading accounts from the Albany Democrat Herald. Their reporter sat inthe courtroom every day and presented the most balanced accounts of whatoccurred in the courtroom.

1998 was neither a deviation nor unac-ceptable to the counties.

The challenging part of this lawsuitfor me is acknowledging what a foresteror resource manager would view asgood stewardship of the resource whilejudging compliance with a contractmade many years ago with the coun-ties. This is a jury trial. If the jurydecides the state has not upheld theagreement, then a decision will bemade about damages to be awarded tothe counties. The counties have askedfor $1.4 billion to compensate for pastand future harvest levels that differ

from the current management harvestlevels.

At the time of this writing, the juryhas heard about the history of stateforestlands in Oregon, growth and yieldmodels, harvest scheduling, clearcutsversus thinnings, timber sale logistics,economics of timber sales, and timbervaluation, among other topics. Frommy standpoint, I see 14 jurors, twocounty commissioners, a reporter, andat least half a dozen legal staff plus onejudge who are learning about forestry.

On the first day of the trial a picture ofGifford Pinchot was shown on thescreen as the expert testified aboutwhat conservation meant in the earlypart of the 1900s.

The educator in me is excited tohave a room of voters who are learningjust how complex forest managementcan be. They are hearing that forestryinvolves science and that forestersaren’t just cutting all of the trees.However, this lawsuit is costing bothparties a lot of money and time (expect-ed to be a three-week trial andundoubtedly the outcome will beappealed). Regardless of the outcome,there will be potentially far-reachingimplications. The management of ourstate forestlands will either continue onits current path of balancing allresource values or it will change toreflect a timber revenue priority. So,while there will be a verdict and one ofthe parties will be deemed the “winner”it may be years before we see the ulti-mate outcome of this trial. ◆

Tamara Cushing, a forest economist, isStarker Chair of Private and FamilyForestry at Oregon State University inCorvallis. She also serves as SAF vicepresident. She can be reached at [email protected]. The viewsexpressed in this article are hers alone,with acknowledgement that she is not alawyer.


PHOTO COURTESY OF TAMARA CUSHING

A 1.4 billion class action lawsuit is being played out in Linn CountyCircuit Court.

FAIRWEATHERBIOMETRICS, LLC

Consulting services inforest biometricsand applied statistics

Stephen E. Fairweather, PH.D., ACF

[email protected]


2020 PNW SAF Forestry Leadership ConferenceJanuary 31-February 1, 2020—Communication: Telling Your Story!

Forestry and natural resources professionals and students from the Pacific Northwest are invited to participate in the 2020 LeadershipConference on January 31 and February 1, at The Heathman Lodge in Vancouver, Washington. Participants will gain insights through leadershiplessons from experienced leaders and learn effective communication skills.

DAY 1—FRIDAY, JANUARY 319:00 am Registration and Networking (Continental breakfast provided) 9:30 Introductions and opening remarks—Wes Tracy,

WSSAF Chair9:45 Keynote Address: The Language of Leadership—

Koshare Eagle, Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources10:45 Break 11:00 The Language of Leadership (continued)—Koshare EagleNoon Lunch (provided) with Leadership Lessons from Paul Davis,

Vice President, Weyerhaeuser Western Timberlands1:00 pm Negotiations—Gordon Gibbs, Gibbs Consulting1:45 Interactive Session—Listening Skills2:15 Networking Break2:45 Working with the Press—Andrea Watts, Associate Editor,

The Forestry Source, SAF and Jennifer Mengarelli,Farm Girl Marketing

3:45 Marketing Yourself—Andrea Watts and Jennifer Mengarelli5:00-6:00 Leadership Icebreaker—Student-led activity6:00 Dinner (provided)—Keynote: Different Leadership Styles—

Speaker TBD

DAY 2—SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17:00 am Networking (Continental breakfast provided)8:00 am Address from the SAF President—Tamara Cushing,

SAF President9:00 Intergenerational SAF Member Panel—TBD

10:00 Concurrent Sessions:• SAF Advocacy: Using SAF Policy Statements in

Communications—TBD• Preparing for an Interview—TBD

11:30 Closing Comments: Leadership Action Items for 2020 and 2020 SAF Calendar—WSSAF, OSAF, AKSAF Leadership

Noon Lunch (provided) and closing icebreaker1:00 Concurrent State Executive Committee Meetings

DRAFT SCHEDULE

The Heathman Lodge, 7801 NE Greenwood Drive, Vancouver, WA, isa rustic hotel featuring 182 guest rooms and a Northwest mountainlodge setting. The group rate is $148 plus tax for single or doubleoccupancy, and $10 for additional persons. Group rates are honoredfor Thursday, January 30 and Friday, January 31. To make a reservationcall 360-254-3100 by January 10, 2020 and mention “SAF LeadershipConference”to receive the group rate. https://www.heathmanlodge.com/

The registration fee for professional members is $160/person,$200/person for non-members, and $50/person for students.A late fee of $25 will be charged after January 8. Register online athttps://bit.ly/2T5JW0D or fill out and mail the form below.

Program: Wes Tracy, [email protected]: Melinda Olson, 503-224-8046, [email protected]

4.0 Category 1 and 5.5 Category 2 hours are available.

LODGING

REGISTRATION

QUESTIONS?

SAF CFE HOURS

REGISTRATION FORM – 2020 SAF PNW Leadership ConferenceJanuary 31 & February 1, 2020—Heathman Lodge • Registration includes all materials, Friday lunch & dinner, and Saturday lunch.

Name SAF Chapter

Address City/State/ZIP

Email Day Phone

List any special dietary needs

$ $160/person: SAF Member Conference Registration by January 8

$ $200/person: Non-Member Conference Registration by January 8

$ $50/person: SAF Student Conference Registration (no late fee required)

$ $25/person: Late Fee after January 8

$ TOTAL ENCLOSED

METHOD OF PAYMENT IF MAILING REGISTRATIONCheck (enclosed) Credit Card (Visa/MasterCard)

Card Number:

Expiration Date: Sec. Code:

Make checks payable to: Washington State SAF

Register online at https://bit.ly/2T5JW0D or complete registration form and mail to: PNW SAF Leadership Conference,SAF Northwest Office, 4033 SW Canyon Rd., Portland, OR 97221. Visa and MasterCard accepted. Checks payable to

Washington State SAF. Contact Melinda Olson, SAF Northwest Office, 503-224-8046, [email protected], with questions.Full agenda at www.forestry.org.


2020 Western Region COFESeminar, Jan. 9, Best Western BoulderFalls Inn, Lebanon, OR. Contact: WFCA.

Washington State SAF LegislativeReception, Jan. 16, Hands on Children’sMuseum, Olympia, Wash. Contact: WesTracy, [email protected].

7th Annual Mapping the CourseConference, Jan. 23, Heathman Lodge,Vancouver, WA. Contact: WFCA.

Basic Road Design Workshop,Jan. 28-31, Corvallis, OR. Contact: FEI.

Pacific Northwest SAF LeadershipConference, Jan. 31-Feb. 1, HeathmanLodge, Vancouver, WA. Contact: MelindaOlson, 503-224-8046, [email protected]. See page 18.

Oregon Chapter of the WildlifeSociety Annual Meeting, Feb. 5-7,Eugene, OR. Contact: ortws.org/2019-annual-meeting.

82nd Annual Oregon LoggingConference, Feb. 20-22, Eugene, OR.Contact: oregonloggingconference.com/.

Cable Logging Workshop, Feb. 25-28,Corvallis, OR. Contact: FEI.

Forest Health in Oregon 2020:State of the State, Feb. 26-27,LaSells Center, Corvallis, OR. Contact:Shannon Murray, [email protected].

Cable Logging Workshop, Mar. 17-20, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Contact: FEI.

OSU Variable Probability SamplingWorkshop, Mar. 23-27, LaSells StewartCenter, Corvallis, OR. Contact: blogs.ore-gonstate.edu/variableprobability/.

Environmental Forensics—SiteCharacterization and Remediation,Mar. 24-25, Tukwila, WA. Contact: NWETC.

NWSA 91st annual meeting,Mar. 24-27, Eugene, OR. Contact:www.northwestscience.org.

International Mass TimberConference, Mar. 24-26, Portland, OR.Contact: www.masstimberconference.com/.

Washington State SAF annualmeeting, April 6-8, Leavenworth, WA.Contact: Andy Perleberg, [email protected].

Fundamentals and Best Practicesfor Forest Inventories, April 9,Springfield, OR. Contact: WFCA.

Oregon SAF annual meeting,April 15-16, Keizer, OR. Contact: JulieWoodward, [email protected].

Collaborative Negotiations andConflict Management forEnvironmental Professionals,May 6-7, Portland, OR. Contact: NWETC.

2020 SAF National Convention,Oct. 28-Nov. 1, Providence, Rhode Island.Contact: www.eforester.org/SAFConvention.

Calendar of Events

Contact InformationFEI: Forest Engineering Incorporated,3895 NW Lincoln Ave., Corvallis, OR97330, 541-754-7558, [email protected], www.forestengineer.com.

NWETC: Northwest EnvironmentalTraining Center, 1445 NW Mall St., Suite4, Issaquah, WA 98027, 425-270-3274,nwetc.org.

WFCA: Western Forestry andConservation Association, 4033 SWCanyon Rd., Portland, OR 97221, 503-226-4562, [email protected],www.westernforestry.org.

Send calendar items to the editor [email protected].

Appraisals & Consulting• Harvest Level Projections• Due Diligence• Timberland Sales• Loan Analysis & Monitoring• Wood Supply Studies• Software Support

GIS Mapping & Analyses• Mill, Public, & Large Landowner Locations• Custom Maps & GIS Data• Overlay process, View & Watershed Analysis• 3D Mapping

Cruising & Inventory• Foresters are Highly Trained with Current

Technology• Tract, Stand, & Log Volume, Stocking, &

Statistics Analysis• Reforestation• Database Development

Seminars & Training• Continuing Education Credit• ArcPad in 1 day• Professional Timber Cruising• SuperACE• Individual or Group Training Available

Beaverton, Oregon

www.atterbury.com • 503-646-5393ATTERBURY CONSULTANTS, INC.

“Professional State-of-the-Art Forestry“

Software & Products• Timber Cruising–SuperACE & Pocket SuperEASY• ESRI & MapSmart• Forestry Tools, Rangefinders, BAF Devices, Data Collectors & GPS Units

Steve Woodard1929-2019

Steve Woodard, 90, passed away inCottage Grove, Ore., in September. Hiscommitment to family, forest manage-ment, and education was evident through-out his life.

Steve was born and raised in CottageGrove, surrounded by extended family whoworked in the timber industry. At age 17,he quit high school to join the Army andserve during WWII. He was stationed inAlaska and helped with the construction ofthe base and airfield at Fort Richardson.After returning home, he married HelenLionberger and together they raised fourdaughters. Steve worked in the woods as achoker setter, faller, and scaler before hedecided that he wanted to become aforester, and in 1959, he moved his familyto Corvallis to attend Oregon StateUniversity.

Steve earned his B.S. in forest manage-ment at OSU in 1963, followed by a mas-ter’s degree in forest science. As a graduatestudent, he was hired to advise undergrad-uate forestry students and teach classes inforest mensuration and protection. Heformed many life-long friendships withstudents and faculty at OSU.

After six years as an instructor andresearcher at the College of Forestry, hebecame a district forester for the IndustrialForestry Association. His job includedbeing a liaison for many timber companiesand mills in western Oregon as well asoverseeing the tree farm program in west-ern Oregon.

In 1971, with all his daughters graduat-ed and on their own, Steve and Helenmoved back to Cottage Grove. He boughthis grandfather’s 200-acre tree farm fromhis siblings and Weyerhaeuser, consolidat-

ing ownership for the first time since theearly 1950s. The two of them settled intothe historic log cabin on the tree farm andbegan remodeling and improving thecabin and actively managing the forest.They both loved the location and lifestyle.

Steve made another job change in early1973 as Lane County Extension foresteruntil 1991 when he retired. He servedforestland owners by teaching classes, con-ducting field trips, talking with serviceclubs, organizing tours, promoting outdoorteaching opportunities for students, andwriting instructional publications. If therewas a way to help people learn how tomanage their forestland to meet theirgoals, he did it, often with the help of themany contacts he had with the forestrycommunity in Oregon.

Shortly after the birth of their fifthgrandchild in 1985, Steve’s beloved wifeHelen passed away. She would have beenproud of his accomplishment in 2004when he was selected as the Oregon TreeFarmer of the Year.

Steve had an ongoing interest inforestry in other parts of the world. He wel-comed tour groups from many parts of theworld, showing them forests, mills andforestry programs in Oregon. His six-month sabbatical was in Saltillo, Mexico,working with a college of forestry. Bothbefore and after retirement, he helpedorganize and lead many tour groups fromOregon to other countries to learn abouttheir forests and management. His secondwife, Bettie, was with him during much ofhis international travel.

Steve was a member and Fellow of theSociety of American Foresters and heserved as Oregon SAF chair and EmeraldChapter chair. He was an active member ofOregon Small Woodlands Association anda member of numerous other forestryorganizations that are dedicated to thestewardship of forests, forest research, orforestry education. He served as a directoron many boards over the years, includingOregon Forest Resources Institute, KeepOregon Green, and Eastern Lane FireProtective Association.

His impact as a teacher and mentor inforestry started early in his life and lastedthroughout his lifetime. His generosity andlove of learning was infectious, shared andappreciated by the hundreds of people that

he worked with over many decades. Steve’sfinal gift to science and education was atthe time of his death by making a “wholebody donation” to OHSU.

Survivors include daughter Patty ofCarnation, Wash.; Brenda of Drain, Ore.;Shelly of Houston, Texas; and five grand-children as well as his wife Bettie, CottageGrove, Ore., and her three children and hereight grandchildren.

Bob Schramek1932-2019

Robert Wayne Schramek passed awaypeacefully on August 26, 2019, in PortTownsend, surrounded by family.

On October 12, 1932, Bob was born inMinneapolis, Minnesota, to Frank Jamesand Clara Schramek.

Bob was a creative child, with a naturaltalent of drawing, sculpting, carving, andpainting. In Minnesota, outdoor sportsrule. He learned to ski, ice skate, snowshoeand ski jump in the local city parks. Thefamily was full of dedicated sport hunters,so Bob learned to duck hunt early. Later,the hunting expanded to deer in northernMinnesota. However, fishing was his pas-sion. He learned to tie his own flies, buildhis own canoe, and paint many pictures ofnature.

Bob carried this love of nature hiswhole life. Bob graduated from theUniversity of Minnesota in 1954 with adegree in forestry and started his careerwith the United States Forest Service.

Bob came to the Olympic NationalForest in 1954 and was stationed Quilcene.At that time, Bob met and married DorothyPreston in 1955, and they experienced 64years of marriage.

With his career as a forester, the familymoved from Quilcene to eastern Oregon,to Elllensburg, to McKenzie River, Oregon,to southwestern Virginia, and thenColorado and California. Bob retired in1986 and moved to Eugene, Ore., and thento Port Townsend in 1990.

Robert was a member of the MasonicLodge for over 50 years. He belonged to theSociety of American Foresters and wasactive in the Puget Sound Chapter.

Bob is survived by his wife, Dorothy;three daughters; five grandchildren; andtwo great-grandchildren. ◆


We Remember

FOREST RESOURCES TECHNOLOGYSAF Accredited • http://cocc.edu/programs/forestry

Ron Boldenow, Ph.D., C.F., ForestryRebecca Franklin, Ph.D., DendrochronologyBret Michalski, M.S., Wildlife Science

E-mail: [email protected] (541) 383-7756

CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE Bend, Oregon

LORENZFORESTRYCHUCK LORENZ, CF 1770

Forest Management Planning &Operations, Inventory, Valuation

for over 40 years

[email protected]

360-951-0117

he Forest Health in Oregon: Stateof the State 2020 conference will

be held February 26-27 at the LaSellsStewart Center on the campus ofOregon State University. This biennialconference and scientific update is agreat opportunity to hear fromresearchers and members of theforestry community about the currentcondition of Oregon’s forests, foresthealth trends, challenges, currentresearch, and silvicultural solutions.Geared to foresters, forest managers,woodland owners, students, policy-makers, and others with an interest inforest health, the conference will pro-vide a blend of current informationand practical applications.

On the first day of the conference,participants will hear from speakersabout trends in tree mortality relatedto drought, weather, and climate; howinsects and disease are affectingforests in Oregon; and connectionsbetween biodiversity and forest health.

On the second day, the morningwill feature a new session on collabo-ratives, partnerships, and social con-nections to forest health. Participantswill also hear from researchers andpractitioners about silviculture andforest operations implications whenmanaging for forest health. The after-noon session will focus on fire inOregon, including discussion of firerefugia and pre- and post-fire dynam-

ics in both dry and moist forest types.The conference will close with a syn-thesis of current trends and the futureof forest health in Oregon.

Questions related to the programcan be directed to Dave Shaw, OSUCollege of Forestry, [email protected].

Visit the conference website atwww.forestry.oregonstate.edu/cpe forregistration and additional informa-tion. ◆


Forest Health Conference Slated for February

T

Editor’s Note: To keep SAF membersinformed of state society policy activities,Policy Scoreboard is a regular feature in theWestern Forester. The intent is to provide abrief explanation of the policy activity—youare encouraged to follow up with the listedcontact person for detailed information.

Three Initiative PetitionsRejected…But..On September 24,Oregon Secretary of State Bev Clarnorejected Initiative Petitions 35, 36, and37 for failure to comply with the OregonBallot Measure “single subject require-ment.” All three of these measureswould have placed significant restric-tions on active forest management inOregon. Measure 35, the most compre-hensive of the measures would have:1) established 100 ft harvest buffers onfish bearing streams and 50 ft bufferson most other waterways; 2) estab-lished a 500-foot buffer for forest aerialapplications from any water of the stateon forestland; 3) required notificationto Oregon Department of Forestry offorestland pesticide applications 14-21

days prior to an application; 4) requiredapproval of written plans before har-vesting on locations classified as land-slide hazards; 5) restricted voting rightsof Board of Forestry members whoderive a significant portion of theirincome directly from companies sub-ject to the Forest Practices Act; and 6)reallocated 2/3 of OFRIs revenues to firesuppression. The petitioners areappealing the Secretary’s decision andconcurrently are reworking their peti-tions to be compliant with the decision,so we can expect to see these issuescovered in new initiative petitions inthe 2020 general election.The Healthy Forests and WildfireReduction Plan. A group of forestersand forest landowners have submitted apackage of initiatives for the November2020 election that are intended to pro-tect the rights of landowners to activelymanage their forestlands. Called theHealthy Forests and Wildfire ReductionPlan, these initiative petitions: requiresforest management be guided by peer-reviewed science; add forestry expertsto Oregon’s State Board of Forestry; andcompensates property owners whengovernment activities unfairly destroyor devalue their property.

Judge Overturns Lincoln CountyOregon Aerial Application Ban.On September 23, Lincoln CountyCircuit Court Judge Sheryl Bachartissued a decision invalidating the aerialherbicide spray ban passed by LincolnCounty voters in May 2017. The basis ofthe judge’s decision is that the OregonState Pesticide Control Act preemptscounty ordinances with respect to her-bicide use. Presumably this decisionwill affect bans being considered inother Oregon counties.

Contact: Mark Buckbee, OregonSAF Policy Committee co-chair,[email protected]. ◆


Policy Scoreboard

You won’t want to miss the 2020 SAF state annual meetings!Both the Washington State and Oregon meetingswill feature informative presentations, field trips,and opportunities for networking. Mark yourcalendar today! Information will be posted onwww.forestry.org as it becomes available.

Washington State SAF—April 6-8 • Leavenworth, WAHosted by the Mid-Columbia Chapter

Oregon SAF—April 15-16 • Keizer, ORKeizer Community Center • Hosted by the Capitol Chapter

FORESTR 4ESTMGR

HOPKINS FORESTRYForest Managers performing herbicideapplication, young stand management,

harvest management, contract compliance,inventories, and forestry/natural

resources education

Dick & Paula Hopkins360-492-5441

[email protected]

lections for national and somestate officers occurred in the fall

of 2019, with newlyelected officers start-ing their roles in2020. Here are theresults.

In Oregon SAF,Jeremy Felty, aforester for theOregon SmallWoodlandsAssociation andOregon Tree FarmSystem, was electedchair-elect. KatieNichols was electeddelegate-at-large;she is a forest engi-neering operationsassistant at LoneRock TimberManagement. Bothhave significant SAFexperience at thechapter level. JeffGrogan, a foresterfor Weyerhaeuser,will serve as chairin 2020, and MeghanTuttle, also ofWeyerhaeuser,moves into the pastchair position.Members also votedon and approvedtwo position state-ments, titled “ActiveManagement toAchieve andMaintain HealthyForests” and“Landslides onForest Lands.”

In WashingtonState, Wes Tracy, aWeyerhaeuserforester, moves intothe chair positionfor 2020 and JennyKnoth moves topast-chair. An elec-tion of a chair-electwill take place soon.

Alaska SAF offi-

Buckbee Electedto SAF Board

E

Katie Nichols

Wes Tracy

Jenny Knoth

Jeff Grogan

Meghan Tuttle

Jeremy Felty

BY JEREMY DOUSE, CF

he NorthwestOffice of the

Society of AmericanForesters is lookingfor a new manager/editor to work withSAF members andleadership in thisthree-state partnership between theOregon, Washington State, and AlaskaSocieties. This contract, half-timeposition is needed to run operations,develop and maintain budgets, pro-vide continuity and support to volun-teers, assist with conference manage-ment, and produce and edit theWestern Forester publication four timesa year.

The current manager/editor, LoriRasor, has accepted a new position.She is taking a position with thenational SAF office and will continueto work with state and regional soci-eties on a number of different pro-grams. She has done an outstandingjob for us and we wish her well in hernew position working at the nationallevel.

This position is an exciting oppor-tunity for someone interested in man-aging nonprofit organizations, hasexperience with forestry and naturalresources in the Northwest, is a self-starter, and knows how to managebudgets. This person will make con-tacts and collaborate with other organ-izations around the Northwest andnationally, and will identify key issuesand themes while working with sub-ject matter experts on developingquarterly issues of the WesternForester.

The ideal candidate will be an SAFmember that is knowledgeable ofopportunities and challenges currentlyfacing SAF; however, this is not arequirement and all candidates will beconsidered. We are also looking forsomeone that can work independentlyand develop a vision for this three-state partnership, motivate volunteers,promote membership in SAF, anddevelop new ways to generate rev-enue. Ideally, the candidate wouldhave experience editing naturalresources-related newsletters or publi-cations.

In the Northwest, SAF has goals ofgrowing this organization, influencing

policy makers on forestry issues, andeducating the public about active for-est management and issues facingforests in the Northwest. The managerwill administer programs that willaccomplish these goals and will workclosely with the SAF Northwest OfficeCommittee and other sub-committeesthat help manage this organization.

Historically this position has beenstationed in the Portland area, but weare opening it up to anyone who hashome office capabilities in the three-state area of Oregon, Washington, orAlaska that is qualified and can meetthe scope of service.

If this sounds like you, or someoneyou know, please review the RFP atwww.forestry.org and respond by 5:00p.m. January 15, 2020. Any questionsabout the RFP may be directed to LoriRasor at [email protected] or 503-224-8046. ◆

Jeremy Douse, CF, is a forester for theAlaska Division of Forestry inFairbanks, and serves as chair of theSAF Northwest Committee for 2019.He can be reached at [email protected].

cers serve two-yearterms. John Yarie willserve his secondyear as chair, withEd Morgan servingas chair-elect.

On a nationallevel, TamaraCushing, a foresteconomics professorat Oregon StateUniversity, will serveas SAF president in2020. John McNultymoves into theimmediate past presi-dent slot. Henry“Gene” Kodama ofSummerville, SouthCarolina, was elected vice president for2020.

In addition, four new board mem-bers were also elected to three-yearterms on the SAF Board: Mark Buckbee

of Roseburg, Ore.,replaces MikeCloughesy in District2; Tara Bal, Houghton,Michigan, District 5;Anne Jewell,Mechanicsville,Virginia, District 8;and William “Buddy”Stalnaker, Nacog-doches, Texas,District 11.

The member ref-erendum to add ayoung professionalrepresentative to theSAF Board ofDirectors passed.This new non-vot-ing board position will begin in 2021.

SAF’s Board of Directors providesleadership and direction to SAF toensure the achievement of its missionto advance the science, technology,

education, and prac-tice of forestry.Included among theBoard’s duties arereviewing annualand long-rangebudget projections;serving as a commu-nications linkamong the mem-bers of their votingdistrict; reviewingSAF national officeprograms as theyrelate to the mission,representing SAF tothe public, and eval-uating the CEO’sperformance.

For a directory of the currentboard, visit https://tinyurl.com/SAFBoard2019.

Congratulations to all. ◆


SAF Northwest Office Seeking New Manager and Editor

T

Mark Buckbee

Tara Bal

Anne Jewell

Buddy Stalnaker

John Yarie

Gene Kodama

SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERSWestern Forester4033 S.W. Canyon RoadPortland, Oregon 97221

PRINTED ONRECYCLED PAPER

Non-Profit Org.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPORTLAND, ORPERMIT NO. 16

society of american foresters western forester · policy decisions involving multi-resource...

Documents