United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-584

December 2003

The 1930s Survey of

Forest Resources in

Washington and Oregon
Constance A. Harrington is a research forester, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

3625 93rd Ave. SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193.

Compiler
The 1930s Survey of Forest Resources in Washington

and Oregon

Constance A. Harrington, Compiler

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-584

December 2003
Harrington, Constance A., comp. 2003. The 1930s survey of forest resources in

Washington and Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-584. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p.

[plus CD-ROM].

Forest resources in Washington and Oregon were surveyed in the early 1930s by

employees of the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station (the original name of the

current Pacific Northwest Research Station). This was the first of many periodic forest

surveys conducted nationwide by the USDA Forest Service. Many publications and

maps were produced from the Washington and Oregon 1930s survey data. Forest cover

maps created from that data (at an original scale of 1:253,440) have recently become

available in digital formats, but little documentation was provided with the electronic

files, and the older publications are not readily available to most users. This report provides a brief overview of the survey and reprints excerpts from, or complete versions of,

early publications that dealt with the planning, conduct, or results from the survey. A list

of county-level maps, prepared at a scale of 1:63,360, that have been located is also

included. A companion CD-ROM includes (1) the overview of the survey and the early

publications in PDF format, (2) a link to the free Adobe Acrobat® Reader to enable

users to read the PDF files, (3) the forest type maps in several geographic information

system (GIS) or graphics formats (ArcViewshape files, ArcExplorer project files,

and .jpg, a graphics file format), and (4) a copy of ArcExplorer(to view and print the

ArcExplorer files).

Keywords: Forest inventory, forest survey, 1930s, forest cover, forest type maps,

Washington, Oregon, Douglas-fir region, ponderosa pine region.

Abstract
1 Introduction

1 Background

2 Survey Procedures

2 Early Survey Results

3 Main Survey Results

4 Quarter-State Maps and Available Map Formats

5 County Maps and Reports

8 Acknowledgments

8 Metric Equivalents

8 References

Appendix A: Excerpts From Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest Research

Notes Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 18 (by R.W. Cowlin or author unknown)

Appendix B: Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest Research Notes No. 13

(by H.J. Andrews and R.W. Cowlin)

Appendix C: Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest Research Notes No. 25

(by R.W. Cowlin and F.L. Moravets)

Appendix D: Selected Portions of Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir Region. Misc.

Publ. 389 (by H.J. Andrews and R.W. Cowlin)

Appendix E: Selected Pages From Fifty Years of Forest Research in the Pacific

Northwest (by T.T. Munger)

Appendix F: Selected Pages From Early Forestry Research: A History of the Pacific

Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, 1925-1975 (by Ivan Doig)

Appendix G: Selected Portions From Federal Forest Research in the Pacific

Northwest: The Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Appendix H: Description of Map Files From 1930s PNW Forest Survey (by R. Jordan)

Contents
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
1

Maps created from the first large-scale forest survey of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) in

the early 1930s have recently become available in digital formats. Many people are unaware of this survey or have expressed interest in learning more about the methods used

in the survey and the categories displayed on the maps. This report contains a brief overview of the survey; report appendixes include excerpts from, or complete copies of, old

publications that dealt with the planning, conduct, or results from the survey. Most of the

older publications have not been available for many years except in a few regional or

national libraries. A companion CD-ROM is included that contains the text of this report

(including the appendixes) in portable document format (PDF) format, the forest type

maps in several formats (ArcViewTM shape files, ArcExplorerTM project files, and .jpg, a

graphics file format), and a copy of ArcExplorerTM (to view and print the ArcExplorerTM

files).1

 The electronic version of this document contains hyper-links to the other documents and files present on the CD-ROM; thus, clicking on a citation with a blue font will

take you directly to that document.

The 1928 McSweeney-McNary Forestry Research Act (P.L. 70-466, 45 Stat. 699-702)

authorized creation of a forestry research program and, among other items, directed the

Secretary of Agriculture to “make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the nation’s forest resources.” The Secretary of Agriculture, William M. Jardine,

directed the Forest Service to conduct the survey (Andrews and Cowlin 1940 [app. D]2).

Early in 1929, Thornton T. Munger, then Station Director of the Pacific Northwest Forest

Experiment Station3 went to Washington, DC, to discuss this new project. The decision

was made to begin the nationwide survey with the Douglas-fir region (Doig 1977 [app. F])

and shortly thereafter, to expand the survey to the other forested lands of Oregon and

Washington. By late 1929, several foresters or economists had been hired for the survey

(Cowlin 1988 [app. G]; USDA FS 1929a, 1929b [app. A] ), and by 1930, the survey of the

forest resources of Washington and Oregon was well underway (Cowlin 1988 [app. G],

Munger 1955 [app. E]). The survey included an inventory of forest conditions on all ownerships in the region as well as estimates of forest growth; depletion from cutting, fire, or

pests; and estimates of merchantable products.

Between 1930 and 1936, many people were hired to work on the PNW survey, including

several foresters, economists, and mensurationists who became very well known in the

region and elsewhere. The survey was initially directed by Horace J. Andrews;4 others

involved in the early survey included Warren H. Bolles, Philip A. Briegleb,5 Edward D.

Buell, Robert W. Cowlin, James W. Girard, A.W. Hodgman, Herman M. Johnson, Paul D.

Kemp, Charles W. Kline, W.V.S. Litchfield, Donald N. Mathews, Walter H. Meyer, Floyd

L. Moravets, W.E. Pelto, Percy N. Pratt, W.E. Sankela, Francis X. Shumacher, R.W.

Taylor, William J. Wakeman, C.H. Willison, Jr., and Harry M. Wolfe (Andrews and

Introduction

Background

1 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for

reader information and does not imply endorsement by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or

service.

2

 The appendixies are in chronological order of their

original publication date.

3 The Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station was

later renamed the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station, and then the Pacific Northwest

Research Station (current name).

4

 Andrews was later Regional Forester for the Pacific

Northwest Region. His contributions to forestry

research were acknowledged by having the H.J.

Andrews Experimental Forest named after him.

5

 Both Cowlin and Briegleb later served as Directors

of the Pacific Northwest Research Station.
2

Cowlin 1940, Cowlin 1988 [app. G], Cowlin and others 1942, Doig 1977 [app. F]). In

those 6 years, all the forested portions of the two states were surveyed (33,000,000

acres or 13 360 000 ha). At that time, it was probably the largest survey in the world to

be done at such an intensive scale (Munger 1955 [app. E]). More information on the

history of the survey is available as part of both previously published and unpublished

histories of the PNW Research Station (Cowlin 1988 [app. G], Doig 1977 [app. F]).

The inventory methods, sources of data, data compilation techniques, and analysis

methods are described in the greatest detail in the appendix of Andrews and Cowlin

(1940 [app. D]) for the Douglas-fir region of western Oregon and Washington, and in the

appendix of Cowlin and others (1942) for the ponderosa pine region of eastern Oregon

and Washington. The forest-cover and land-use types used in the survey were reported

along with early results in Andrews and Cowlin (1934, 1940 [app. B and D]) and in USDA

FS (1936a [app. A]). In brief, forest surveys for the Douglas-fir region6

 used three basic

procedures depending on the information available and the land ownership. The national

forests were cruised by using “the intensive reconnaissance methods...[which consisted

of] mapping areas that are uniform as to type conditions and estimating the average

volume per acre for each of these type areas.” The initial type mapping was done from

both field work and office analysis by using aerial photographs.7

 Approximately 30 percent of the land outside the national forests had recently been covered by intensive

cruises (land owned by private timber companies, county cruises made for taxation purposes, cruises of state-owned land, Oregon and California Railroad revested grant lands,

and Indian reservations); these lands were “adjustment cruised” to “adjust these data to

survey standards.” The remaining areas were type mapped (by driving roads and walking

trails, using data from county records, and locating viewpoints to determine type boundaries) and then cruised to determine age class, species composition, stocking, and

volume. Additional surveys were done for cutover or recently burned areas. Many “computers” (that is, people to summarize the data) were employed during the winter to summarize the data collected during the summer field season. (Andrews and Cowlin 1940,

Munger 1955).

The first year’s progress on the survey was reported in January 1931 by Cowlin (1931a

[app. A]). In that year, information was compiled on over 13 million acres (5.3 million ha)

of private and public land (this included cruises from over 3 million acres (1.2 million ha)

supplied by private companies). At the end of the first year, the gathering of field data

for the inventory phase was about 40 percent complete. This progress report states:

“Through the cooperation of the State agencies an entirely new base map of both States

is being prepared to use in presenting the forest types in colors. The Oregon map is

about one-half complete.” This was the first mention of the maps that were one of the

major products of the early survey.

In August 1931 (USDA FS 1931, app. A), it was reported that “Good progress is being

made in all phases of the field work. On the national forests field work is over 50 per cent

complete...with twenty-one men on this work this summer. Six men, one to a county,

are type mapping, and eight men are adjustment cruising on the lands outside the national forests.” By December 1931, generalized type maps had been prepared for six

counties in Oregon and Washington, and statistics were presented on the number of

Survey Procedures

Early Survey Results

6 The forest-cover and land-use types in the survey

of the ponderosa pine region were similar but slightly

modified based on local conditions (USDA FS 1936a).

7 Aerial photography was used for the areas where it

was available, but many forest areas had not been

photographed at the time of the survey. (See Cowlin

1988 [app. G] for more details on the early use of

photography.)
3

acres in each county by broad land or forest type (Cowlin 1931b [app. A]). Conclusions

were drawn on the relative economic importance of forest land in each county; these

were based on the percentages of land in cultivated versus forest land.

In May 1933, the stocking classification of areas logged from 1920 to 1923 was reported for seven counties in Washington (Cowlin 1933 [app. A]). “These data do indicate

very definitely that the lands clean cut in the past decade are in a condition far from

satisfactory.”

In July 1934, the first major product of the forest survey was issued–Forest Research

Notes No. 13, Forest Resources of the Douglas Fir Region: A Summary of the Forest

Inventory of Western Oregon and Western Washington (Andrews and Cowlin 1934 [app.

B]). This 23-page note described the inventory process in fairly general terms, defined

the forest cover types used in the inventory, and presented the results in 12 tables (2

general ones for the region and 5 for each state). The note described the map data in

this way: “In addition, forest type maps of several different scales, showing the character

of the forest cover, either have been or are being prepared. These maps consist of 1⁄2-

inch-to-the-mile [1-cm-to-1267-m] generalized type maps of each county and 1-inch-tothe-mile [1-cm-to-634-m] detailed type maps of each county and each national forest in

the region. The former have been prepared; the latter are nearly complete. Since these

maps are hand-colored, they are not available for free distribution but may be copied or

consulted at the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station in Portland. Within a year,

colored type maps of the region, scale 1⁄4-inch-to-the-mile [1-cm-to-2534-m], will be lithographed and made available for public distribution.”

In March 1936, the “News Items” section in Forest Research Notes No. 11 (USDA FS

1936b [app. A]) indicated that the first quarter-state map (for northwest Oregon) was

available “for the nominal charge of $1.00 per sheet.” The 1⁄4-inch-to-the-mile [1:253,440]

map showed “in colors the 26 most important forest cover types.” Other news items

indicated that forest statistics for all counties west of the Cascades had been prepared

and distributed “some months ago” and that similar sets of statistics were available or

would shortly be available for the eastern counties. The note also indicated that county

forest type maps (1-inch-to-the-mile [1:63,360]) “showing in detail all the type data as

mapped in the field” had been prepared. “Hundreds of these maps are now in use by

lumber companies, pulp companies, and various public agencies. Uncolored blue-line

print copies may be obtained from the Station for the cost of blueprinting.”

Many other products were produced from the data collected in the early survey. For the

Douglas-fir region, these include information on pulpwood resources (Andrews and

others 1935), growth (Meyer and others 1936), and timber volumes and acres by timber

types on the national forests in Washington and Oregon (Cowlin and others 1937). In

1940, much of this information, plus other results from the survey, was formally published

as Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir Region (Andrews and Cowlin 1940; portions of

this publication are reprinted in app. D).

In February 1938, the first major publication from the ponderosa pine region was

issued—Forest Research Notes No. 25, Forest Statistics for Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington (Cowlin and Moravets 1938 [app. C]). This 26-page note presented inventory results for Oregon and Washington east of the summit of the Cascade Range.

Results were portrayed in eight tables and two figures. A note on the distribution of sawtimber volume in the ponderosa pine region followed shortly (Briegleb and Dunford 1939),

and in 1942, Forest Resources of the Ponderosa Pine Region of Washington and

Oregon (Cowlin and others 1942) was issued, which summarized the survey results for

eastern Washington and Oregon.

Main Survey Results
4

Publications were prepared for each state: Forest Resources of Washington (Cowlin and

Moravets 1940) and Forest Resources of Oregon (Oregon State Board of Forestry and

USDA FS 1942). These were shorter versions of the reports prepared for the Douglas-fir

and ponderosa pine regions but covered the portion of both forested regions present in

each state.

As mentioned above, the maps from the 1930s survey were distributed in several forms,

including eight maps showing the distribution of forest cover by major species or species

group and merchantability class. Each of the eight maps covered one quarter of Washington or Oregon. These “quarter-state” maps were 62 in wide by 38 in (Washington) or

44 in tall (Oregon) [156 by 97 or 111 cm tall] and beautifully colored. Information printed

on the maps indicated the base maps had been prepared in the office of the Regional

Forester, Portland, Oregon, and that the maps had been printed by the U.S. Geological

Survey. (See Cowlin 1988 [app. G] for more details on map production).

The quarter-state maps were widely used for many years, but for most purposes they

were eventually superceded by more recent surveys. In the early 1990s, it became evident that these maps could be very valuable for their documentation of the forest conditions in the early part of the 20th century. Other early surveys had been done, including

those done prior to 1905 by the General Land Office (GLO) of the Department of the Interior (Bourdo 1956, Galatowitsch 1990), early surveys of the forest reserves and other

forest lands by the U.S. Geological Survey (Gannett 1902a, 1902b; Leiberg 1900), and

the “intensive reconnaissance” activities of the national forests begun in 1908 (Munger

1955). In general, these early surveys were limited in scope or area covered (the GLO

survey was restricted to potentially farmable land and the reconnaissance survey to national forests only), they generally recorded less detail on forest conditions than the 1930

survey, or they used map attributes based on commercial factors (such as timber volume) rather than biological characteristics (species groups, forest types, etc.).

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program of the Pacific Northwest Research Station

realized the value in the old quarter-state maps and digitized them so they could be used

in geographic information system (GIS) analyses and for other types of displays. These

maps have been available electronically as ArcViewTM shape files for several years, but

their distribution to clients has been fairly limited, and supplemental information on the

underlying data was not provided with the maps.

These maps are now available on the companion CD-ROM in three file formats: .shp,

.aep, and .jpg. The first format (.shp) is an ArcViewTM shape file for importing into GIS.

Both the forest cover information and a county boundary file are included in shape files

(additional information on the shape files is available in app. G). The second format—

.aep—is included so the information can be viewed in ArcExplorerTM. ArcExplorerTM is a

free program that allows the files to be viewed without importing them into other GIS

programs such as ArcViewTM or ArcGISTM. ArcExplorerTM enables the user to use some

GIS-software features such as displaying attributes of features, measuring distances,

querying a theme, changing labels or colors, or zooming (instructions for installing

ArcExplorerTM are included on the CD). The third format is a .jpg file; this type of file format can be opened by many file viewers or imported into a word processing or graphics

program for printing or use as a graphics image. (Note, .jpg files lose resolution through

repeated compressions, so if you create a new version of the project by zooming in

or resizing, be sure to choose a compression option that will retain as much of the

original file’s resolution as possible.) The .aep and .jpg files are available in two versions—a “cover-size” file, which displays size classes for all forest cover types, and a

“cover-type” file, which displays information only by forest cover type (has many fewer

polygons).

Quarter-State Maps

and Available Map

Formats
5

As mentioned above, 1-inch-to-the-mile (1:63,360) county maps showing the forest cover

types from the 1930 survey were prepared as the surveys were completed for each

county. The quarter-state maps for each portion of the state were published the year after

the county maps were completed for each area. The county maps showed forest cover

by tree size class, stocking in three classes, and age in 10-year classes for secondgrowth stands. The maps also delineated recent cutover and burned areas, indicated if

burned areas had been cut, and if cutover or burned areas had been restocked. Also

mapped were noncommercial rocky or swampy areas (with the forest type indicated),

and nonforest land types (agricultural and nonagricultural). Owing to their larger scale,

they included greater detail than was possible on the quarter-state maps. The maps

were prepared for blueprinting machines, which did not take negatives over 42 in wide

(108 cm); depending on the size and shape of the county, one to four maps were prepared (USDA FS 1935).

A February 1935 report (USDA FS 1935) on the status of the county maps indicated: “On

request the Survey will furnish its negatives to any [Portland, OR] blueprinting firm and

they will bill the party desiring the maps for the cost of blueprinting. As of December

1934 the code price for making blue line prints is 8 cents per square foot up to 50 square

feet. Additional square footage over 51 feet is priced at 7 cents per square foot.” The

report included a table indicating the square footage in each map sheet.

The county map sheets were uncolored to keep the costs down. The uncolored maps

contained all the same information “since all the type boundaries and type numbers are

shown on the blue line prints.” It was recognized, however, that colored maps are “much

more useful...inasmuch as each different type then stands out and a picture of the timber situation in a county or portion of a county can be obtained at a glance.” The survey

provided printed legends to use with the county maps. The color-coded numbers for

Dixon, Eagle, or Castell colored pencils were provided with the legend so that map users

could hand color the maps with the same color scheme used in the quarter-state maps.

Instructions were provided on how to fix the wax pencil color to the maps to result in a

more even color that would not rub off when the maps were handled (USDA FS 1935).

Unfortunately only a few of the county-level maps are currently available in a digital format (table 1) and, in fact, I have not yet been able to locate original copies of several

of the county maps (table 2). The counties not listed in either table 1 or 2 are ones for

which the county maps have been located but not yet digitized. If anyone has paper

copies of maps for the counties listed in table 2 or electronic versions of maps from

counties other than those listed in table 1 and you would be willing to share, please

contact me (at the address inside the front cover of this report) or Dale Weyermann

at the address below. It would be very valuable to have all the county maps available

digitally as they would provide more detail for watershed analysis and other midscale

purposes.

Dale Weyermann

PNW Forest Inventory and Analysis Program

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Phone number: 503-808-2042

E-mail: dweyermann@fs.fed.us

County Maps and

Reports
6

Table 1—Counties in Oregon and Washington

with 1930 county-level forest survey maps

available digitally

State County Year of mapa

Oregon Grant 1936

Malheur 1935

Morrow 1936

Umatilla (north) 1936

Union (north) 1936

Wallowa 1936

Washington Asotin 1935

Chelan 1935

Clallam 1939

Columbia 1935

Ferry 1936

Garfield 1935

Island 1932

Pend Oreille 1936

Spokane 1936

Stevens 1938

Walla Walla 1935

a

 Some county maps were reissued, so maps may exist with

more than one date. This date corresponds to date on the map

that was digitized.
7

Table 2—Counties in Oregon and Washington for which we have not located the

1930 county-level forest survey maps

State County Comments

Oregon Columbia

Coos

Douglas North sheet has been located.

Gilliam Very small area forested.

Harney Central sheet has been located.

Hood River

Josephine

Klamath

Lane

Linn

Umatilla North sheet has been located.

Union North sheet has been located.

Wheeler

Yamhill

Washington Chelan Central and South sheets have been located.

Cowlitz

Jefferson Northeast and West sheets have been located.

Kittitas

Klickitat

Lewis

Lincoln

Pacific

Yakima North sheet has been located.

Note: Counties with no forest shown on quarter-state map are Sherman in Oregon, and Adams, Benton,

Franklin, and Grant in Washington; county maps were presumably not prepared for these counties.
8

Thanks to Dale Weyermann, Pacific Northwest Research Station, for sharing the digitized files from the quarter-state maps; to Rick Jordan, Olympic National Forest, for

making the map files available in several formats and for suggesting the inclusion of the

ArcExplorerTM software on the CD-ROM; to David Powell, Umatilla National Forest, for

providing detailed information on the survey in the ponderosa pine region; to Grace

Douglass for scanning or retyping the old research notes and reports; and to Robert

McGaughey for providing the interface program for the CD-ROM.

If you know: Multiply by: To find:

Acres (ac) 0.405 Hectares (ha)

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters (cm)

Miles (mi) 1609 Meters (m)

Andrews, H.J.; Cowlin, R.W. 1934. Forest resources of the Douglas-fir region: a

summary of the forest inventory of western Oregon and western Washington. Forest Research Notes No. 13. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.

Andrews, H.J.; Cowlin, R.W. 1940. Forest resources of the Douglas-fir region. Misc.

Publ. 389. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 169 p.

[plus 4 maps].

Andrews, H.J.; Cowlin, R.W.; Moravets, F.L.; Meyer, W.H. 1935. Pulpwood resources

of western Oregon and western Washington (from inventory and growth phase of forest

survey). Forest Research Notes No. 17. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 22 p.

Bourdo, E.A., Jr. 1956. A review of the General Land Office survey and of its use in

quantitative studies of former forests. Ecology. 37: 754-768.

Briegleb, P.A.; Dunford, E.G. 1939. Volume distribution in saw-timber types of the

ponderosa pine region. Forest Research Notes No. 28. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 17 p.

Cowlin, R.W. 1931a. The year’s progress in the forest survey of the Douglas fir region.

In: Forest Research Notes No. 5. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 5-6.

Cowlin, R.W. 1931b. Type areas in selected Oregon and Washington counties. In:

Forest Research Notes No. 8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 1-2.

Cowlin, R.W. 1933. The stocking classification of lands logged in 1920 to 1923 as

shown by the forest survey. In: Forest Research Notes No. 11. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station: 6.

Cowlin, R.W. 1988. Federal forest research in the Pacific Northwest: the Pacific Northwest Research Station. 244 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 3625 SW 93rd Avenue, Olympia, WA 98512-9193.

Cowlin, R.W.; Briegleb, P.A.; Moravets, F.L. 1942. Forest resources of the ponderosa

pine region of Washington and Oregon. Misc. Publ. 490. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 99 p.

Acknowledgments

Metric Equivalents

References
9

Cowlin, R.W.; Moravets, F.L. 1938. Forest statistics for eastern Oregon and eastern

Washington (from inventory phase of forest survey). Forest Research Notes No. 25.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 28 p.

Cowlin, R.W.; Moravets, F.L. 1940. Forest resources of Washington. Olympia, WA:

Washington Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation and Development. 44 p.

Cowlin, R.W.; Moravets, F.L.; Forest Survey Staff. 1937. Timber volume and type

acreage on the national forests of the North Pacific Region (from the inventory phase

of the forest survey). Forest Research Notes No. 22. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 17 p.

Doig, I. 1977. Counting the trees. In: Early forestry research: a history of the Pacific

Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station, 1925-1975. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 10-14.

Galatowitsch, S.M. 1990. Using the original land survey notes to reconstruct presettlement landscapes in the American West. Great Basin Naturalist. 50: 181-191.

Gannett, H. 1902a. The forests of Oregon. Professional Pap. No. 4, Series H, Forestry

1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 36 p.

Gannett, H. 1902b. The forests of Washington: a revision of estimates. Professional

Pap. No. 5, Series H, Forestry 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Geological Survey. 38 p.

Leiberg, J. 1900. Cascade Range Forest Reserve, Oregon, from township 28 south to

township 37 south, inclusive, together with the Ashland Forest Reserve and adjacent

forest regions from township 28 south to township 41 south, inclusive, and from range

2 west to range 14 east, Willamette Meridian, inclusive. In: Twenty-first annual report

of the U.S. Geological Survey, Part V, Forest Reserves. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. [Pages unknown].

Meyer, W.H.; Briegleb, P.A.; Forest Survey Staff. 1936. Forest growth in the Douglas

fir region (a report on the growth phase of the forest survey). Forest Research Notes

No. 20. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 28 p.

Munger, T.T. 1955. Fifty years of forest research in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon

Historical Quarterly. LVI(3): 226-247.

Oregon State Board of Forestry; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1943. Forest resources of Oregon. Corvallis, OR: School of Forestry, Oregon State

College; Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 62 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1929a. Station news items. In:

Forest Research Notes No. 2. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 6

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1929b. Station news items. In:

Forest Research Notes No. 3. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station: 10-11.
10

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1931. Status of the inventory phase

of the forest survey of the Douglas-fir region. In: Forest Research Notes No. 7.

Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 9.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1935. Forest survey–Oregon

and Washington; description and status of detailed one-inch-to-mile type maps.

Unnumbered typescript report. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station. 16 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1936a. The forest survey of eastern

Oregon and Washington; explanatory text to accompany forest statistics for each

county. Unnumbered typescript report. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 8 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1936b. News items. In: Forest

Research Notes No. 18. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station: 11.
11

Appendix A: Excerpts From Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest

Research Notes Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 18

(by R.W. Cowlin or author unknown)

Appendix A - 1
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1929. Station news items. In: Forest Research Notes

No. 3. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 10-11.

STATION NEWS ITEMS

Several technical men are being added to the Station’s force to conduct the Forest Resource Survey authorized by the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act, for which $30,000 is available to start this economic study in the Douglas fir region of Oregon and Washington. Already the following have been engaged:

Associate Forest Economist R.W. Cowlin, Junior Forester F. L. Moravets, and Junior Forester P. A. Briegleb.

Appendix A - 2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1929. Station news items. In: Forest Research Notes

No. 2. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 6.

STATION NEWS ITEMS

The national survey of forest resources and requirements, authorized by the McSweeney-McNary Act and

for which Congress has now made an initial appropriation, will be begun in the Pacific Northwest this summer.

This will be a systematic and adequate effort to find out exactly the amount and character of the present timber supplies and the present requirements for forest products and to forecast the probable future supplies and

requirements.
Cowlin, R.W. 1931. The year’s progress in the forest survey of the Douglas fir region. In: Forest Research

Notes No. 5. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 5-6.

THE YEAR’S PROGRESS IN THE FOREST SURVEY OF THE

DOUGLAS FIR REGION

A review of the first year’s work of the Forest Survey in the Douglas fir region indicates a satisfactory rate

of progress. Information on over 8,250,000 acres of private and public land other than national forest, and

approximately 5,000,000 acres of national forest land has been obtained. Reducing these figures to a percentage basis shows that the gathering of field data on the inventory phase of this project is about 40 percent

complete.

Timber cruises covering over 3,000,000 acres of privately owned timberland have been secured from private owners and this phase of the work is practically completed. About 1,000,000 acres of the O and C

revested land grant cruises have been transcribed. The condition of over 200,000 acres of land logged before

1920 has been determined from reports and maps of private operators. Approximately 1,000,000 acres of

cutover land, burned areas, second growth stands, and farm land have been mapped in place by field examiners. Some 966,000 acres of mixed farm and forest land in the Willamette Valley have been covered by strip

surveys using strips spaced three miles apart in order to get a statistical expression of the amount and character of woodland within the so-called agricultural zone. Approximately 63,000 acres of cut-over land have

been covered by a strip survey using strips spaced two miles apart. The location of about 2,000,000 acres of

land logged since 1920 has been fixed and recorded, but no attempt will be made by the Survey to determine

the present unstable cover condition of these lands.

The work of adjusting the private and county cruise records by field examination for the purpose of bringing these estimates to a common standard has commenced and four counties have been completed. Work

is now under way in three additional counties. The four counties completed involved the actual cruising of

11,000 acres with a 10 per cent cruise. In addition some studies of the utilization practice of private logging

operators in the area check cruised were made. This work has been very much facilitated by the substantial

help of the Forestry Department in both States.

Through the cooperation of State agencies an entirely new base map of both States is being prepared to

use in presenting the forest types in colors. The Oregon map is about one-half completed.

All estimate assembly and type mapping is completed for the following counties in Oregon: Benton, Columbia, Clatsop, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, Yamhill, and Washington, and work is underway in Coos and Linn

Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz and Lewis Counties, Washington. Check cruising is completed in Clatsop and

Appendix A - 3
Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz, Wahkiakum and Lewis Counties, Washington and underway in Coos

and Yamhill Counties, Oregon and Pacific County, Washington.

Compilation of adjusted timber volumes and type areas has been started for Columbia County and a technique has been developed for tabulating the field data for final presentation.

The fieldwork of the Survey on the national forest is about 46 per cent complete. The following table shows

the status of the fieldwork on the individual forests:

Mt. Baker 30 per cent complete

Snoqualmie Work not started

Rainier 100 per cent complete

Olympic 33-1/3 per cent complete

Columbia 53 per cent complete

Mt. Hood 32 per cent complete

Santiam Work not started

Cascade 56 per cent complete

Siuslaw 5 per cent complete

Umpqua 60 per cent complete

Siskiyou 100 per cent complete

Crater 55 per cent complete

The above concerns only the inventory phase of this project. Work has been hardly begun on the other less

time-consuming phases of this comprehensive economic study, namely, the growth phase, the depletion phase,

and the requirements for forest products.

Appendix A - 4
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1931. Status of the inventory phase of the forest survey of

the Douglas fir region. In: Forest Research Notes No. 7. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station: 9.

Status of the Inventory Phase of the Forest Survey of the Douglas Fir Region

Practically all available private and other cruise records have been transcribed, except for about one month’s

work copying O and C cruises. Good progress is being made in all phases of the field work. On the national

forests field work is over 50 per cent complete; two forests, the Siskiyou and Rainier, are complete and work

is in progress on the other ten west side forests with twenty-one men on this work this summer.

Six men, one to a county, are type mapping and eight men are adjustment cruising on the lands outside

the national forests. The following table shows the status of this work:

Appendix A - 5

Status of Field Work on Forest Survey Timber Inventory

on Other Than National Forests

Oregon Washington

Type Mapping Adjustment Cruising Type Mapping Adjustment Cruising

County Comp. In prog. Comp. In prog. County Comp. In prog. Comp. In prog.

Benton X - - - Cowlitz X - X -

Clatsop X - X - Grays Harbor - X - X

Columbia X - X - Lewis X - X -

Coos - X X - Pacific - X X -

Lincoln X - - Wahkiakum - X X -

Linn X - X - Whatcom - X - -

Marion X - - -

Multnomah X - - -

Polk X - - -

Tillamook X - - X

Yamhill X - X -

X – indicates status Comp. = completed In prog. = In progress ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○
Cowlin, R.W. 1931. Type areas in selected Oregon and Washington counties. In: Forest Research Notes

No. 8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment

Station: 1-2.

TYPE AREAS IN SELECTED OREGON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES

In connection with the forest survey of the Douglas fir region, a number of generalized type maps for several counties in Oregon and Washington have been prepared recently for use by the Agricultural Experiment

Stations, who will assist in estimating the acreages likely to be withdrawn from forest areas for agricultural use

within the next three decades. In the following table the broad type areas of six selected counties are given,

showing some interesting conditions and variations.

Type Areas in Acres for Six Oregon and Washington Counties

Oregon Counties Washington Counties

Benton Clatsop Columbia Clark Cowlitz Wahkiakum

Cultivated and pasture 206,618 30,992 84,400 238,303 85,599 17,395

Merch. timber over 20” d.b.h. 121,528 265,540 72,619 22,114 287,789 48,257

Second growth under 20” d.b.h. 70,803 100,414 119,232 37,127 225,804 65,456

Deforested burn 17,613 3,697 1,862 67,230 17,710 632

Nonrestocking cut over 6,725 30,218 19,761 23,613 13,124

Cut over since 1920 17,481 95,802 99,735 13,471 73,792 19,668

Hardwood 1,277 7,187 14,555 2,657 5,165 6,143

*Nonforest land 5,000 15,083 1,059 9,617 18,448 205

Total 440,320 525,440 423,680 405,760 737,920 170,880

*Includes barrens, brush, swamps, cities, industrial sites, etc.

The dependence of some counties upon the forests for their economic existence is evident upon inspection of the above table. Clatsop and Columbia Counties in Oregon and Cowlitz and Wahkiakum Counties in

Washington all show less than 20 per cent of their area at present converted to agricultural use; by far the

greatest area is in some sort of forest cover. It is reasonable to assume that in these four counties future conversion of forest land to farm land will be of little consequence, and that the economic future of these counties

is dependent upon the continued productivity of their forest areas. On the other hand, Benton County in Oregon

Appendix A - 6
Cowlin, R.W. 1933. The stocking classification of lands logged in 1920 to 1923 as shown by the forest survey.

In: Forest Research Notes No. 11. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station: 6.

THE STOCKING CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS LOGGED IN 1920 TO 1923

AS SHOWN BY THE FOREST SURVEY

Field work on the inventory phase of the forest survey of the Douglas fir region is practically completed

and compilation of the data is progressing rapidly. Statistics of timber volumes by species and ownership

classes and cover type areas by ownership classes will be available for most of the 38 counties in this region

sometime this fall.

In addition to timber volumes and type areas, interesting items of collateral information are being collected. For example, one of the types recognized by the Survey, “recent cut overs” was defined as lands clean

cut since January, 1920. In order to obtain a statistical expression of the restocking condition on that portion

of these areas which has been cut the longest, it was decided to make a linear survey, using the stocked

quadrat method, of the areas logged from 1920 to 1923 inclusive. Transects were spaced at two-mile intervals

and at one-chain intervals on these lines a set of four 13.2-foot quadrats was examined and each square recorded as stocked or nonstocked upon finding or failing to find one well-established, coniferous seedling

within the confines of the square.

In seven counties in northwestern Washington 137 miles of strip line have been run and 43,856 quadrats

examined. In analyzing these data, four-chain units or 16 quadrats were used and each four-chain interval was

classified as either well stocked (70-100 per cent stocked) if 12-16 squares were stocked, medium stocked

(40-70 per cent stocked) if 7-11 squares were stocked, poorly stocked (10-40 per cent stocked) if 2-6 squares

were stocked, or nonstocked (0-10 per cent stocked) if 0-1 of squares were stocked. Six of the counties examined—King, Mason, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom—are in the Puget Sound region and are

grouped together. The other county, Grays Harbor, which contains much of this type of land and has a different geographical situation, is listed separately. The following table gives the results of the analysis:

Number of Four-chain Units by Classes of Stocking

Good Medium Poor Non

No. Per No. Per No. Per No. Per

Degree of Stocking units cent units cent units cent units cent

Puget Sound Counties 278 13.8 338 16.7 583 29.0 816 40.5

Grays Harbor l00 13.8 147 20.1 208 28.7 271 37.4

Total 378 13.8 485 17.7 791 28.9 1087 39.6

Results for individual counties of the Puget Sound group deviate somewhat from the average of the group,

and it is probably partly coincidental that the Grays Harbor and Puget Sound results should agree so closely.

These data do indicate very definitely that the lands clean cut in the past decade are in a condition far from

satisfactory.

Appendix A - 7
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1936. News items. In: Forest Research Notes No. 18.

Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Experiment Station: 11.

NEWS ITEMS

Lithographed Colored Type Map Available. One of the products of the Forest Survey of Oregon and Washington will be a 1⁄4-inch-to-the-mile map showing in colors the 26 most important forest cover types. Each

quarter of each State will be printed on a separate sheet. Copies are being distributed to the public for the

nominal charge of $1.00 per sheet ($1.10 if by mail). The first of these sheets, namely, for the northwest quarter of Oregon, is now available and may be had by sending postal money order or certified check, made out to

Treasurer of the United States, to the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station, 424 U.S. Court House,

Portland, Oreg.

Forest Statistics By Counties. Field work on the Forest Survey having been completed in eastern Washington, and in eastern Oregon, except the Blue Mountains, office compilation of the volume of timber by species and of the areas of the several types is progressing rapidly. A set of tables giving in detail the forest

inventory of Klamath County, Oregon, has already been distributed in mimeograph form, and within the next

two months it is expected that similar sets of statistics will be available for Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes, and

Lake Counties, Oreg., and for Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima, and Klickitat Counties, Wash.

Statistics for all counties west of the Cascades were prepared and distributed some months ago.

County Forest Type Maps Available. Copies of 1-inch-to-the-mile forest type maps showing in detail all

the type data as mapped in the field have been prepared for all the above-mentioned counties and also for all

counties west of the Cascades in both States. Hundreds of these maps are now in use by lumber companies, pulp companies, and various public agencies. Uncolored blue-line print copies may be obtained from

the Station for the cost of blueprinting.

Appendix A - 8
Appendix B: Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest

Research Notes No. 13. (by H.J. Andrews and R.W. Cowlin)

Appendix B - 1
Andrews, H.J.; Cowlin, R.W. 1934. Forest resources of the Douglas fir region: a summary of the forest inventory of western Oregon and western Washington. Forest Research Notes No. 13. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION

A SUMMARY OF THE FOREST INVENTORY OF WESTERN OREGON

AND WESTERN WASHINGTON

Made in Connection with the Forest Survey,

H.J. Andrews, in Charge, and Robert W. Cowlin, Assistant in Charge

CONTENTS

Page

No.

1

Introduction 1

Discussion of Tables 1

Explanation of Methods and Terms 5

Definitions of Forest Cover Types 7

Tables for Oregon

1. Volume of Timber by Species and Ownership Class

2. Area in Acres of all Forest Cover Types

3. Area in Acres of Generalized Forest Types

4. Area of Certain Immature Coniferous Forest Types

5. Area of Forest Land by Site Quality Classes

Tables for Washington

1. Volume of Timber by Species and Ownership Class

2. Area in Acres of all Forest Cover Types

3. Area in Acres of Generalized Forest Types

4. Area of Certain Immature Coniferous Forest Types

5. Area of Forest Land by Site Quality Classes

1 This is a re-creation of the document. Page numbers in this document do not

match those above on the original document. The page numbers on this page

correspond to the location of the heading in this document.

Appendix B - 2
FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION

Introduction

The Douglas fir region of Oregon and Washington, consisting of that part of the two states west of the

summit of the Cascade Range, has a total land area of 35,127,449 acres, of which 29,001,910 acres, or 82

percent, is classed as forest land. This 29 million acres supports a timber stand of over 546 billion board feet,

placing this region foremost as a source of timber. Due to this preeminence in forest resources, the Douglas

fir region was selected as the beginning point of a nation-wide forest survey authorized by Congress in 1928.

This project consists of a complete and detailed investigation of the Nation’s forest capital and includes

four phases: (1) an inventory of the existing timber resources by timber volume and type area; (2) a study of

the depletion of the Nation’s forests by logging and through loss by fire, insects, disease and other causes;

(3) a determination of the amount and rate of current and potential growth on forest areas; and (4) a study of

the present and prospective requirements of the Nation for forest products. A critical analysis of these and

related economic data will be made which will supply the factual foundation necessary for orderly and sound

use of the forest land resources, either nationally, regionally or locally, by public and private agencies.

The Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station was designated to conduct the Forest Survey of Washington and Oregon; work commenced in the Douglas fir region in 1930, is now practically completed and the

results of the inventory phase are available. The comprehensive methods employed in this project make possible detailed map and statistical information concerning the forest resources of the region. For each of the

thirty-eight counties in the region a set of statistics, consisting of five tables and three graphs and containing

in condensed form the essential basic facts relating to timber volumes and type areas, have been prepared

and a limited edition mimeographed and distributed recently to many public and private agencies in the region. Additional statistics and textual analysis of the inventory, of growth and of depletion, will be prepared

soon for eleven forest units each consisting of two or more counties, and will be published as soon as completed.

In addition, forest type maps of several different scales, showing the character of the forest cover, either

have been or are being prepared. These maps consist of 1⁄2-inch-to-the-mile generalized type maps of each

county and 1-inch-to-the-mile detailed type maps of each county and each national forest in the region. The

former have been prepared; the latter are nearly complete. Since these maps are hand-colored, they are not

available for free distribution but may be copied or consulted at the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station in Portland. Within a year, colored type maps of the region, scale 1⁄4-inch-to-the-mile, will be lithographed

and made available for public distribution.

The data relating to volume of timber and acreage of forest cover types contained in the above-mentioned

sets of county statistics have been assembled by states and a series of 5 tables prepared for each of the two

states. These summary tables are presented herewith and some of their more significant data explained and

discussed in the following pages. Explanation of the methods and terms used and definition of the types immediately precede the tables.

Discussion of Tables

Table 1 lists the volume of sawtimber by species and ownership classes in thousands of feet board measure, log scale, for the western portion of the two states. In this region volume was recorded for 25 coniferous

species and 12 broadleaf species with the more important species further segregated into broad size and age

classes; for example, Douglas fir is divided into four classes, western hemlock into two classes, and Sitka

spruce and ponderosa pine likewise. On the contrary, certain species of similar dendrological and structural

characteristics were combined; for example, noble fir and Shasta fir. Living trees only were included in the

volume estimates except in the case of western red cedar and Port Orford cedar. Volume was recorded for

dead trees of these two species but was segregated from the volume in living trees.

Appendix B - 3 1
The most significant fact derived from table 1 is the total volume for the region, 546 billion board feet; approximately 301 billion feet, or 55 percent, being found in Oregon and 245 billion feet, or 45 percent, in Washington. Coniferous species preponderate; over 542 billion feet, or 99 percent of the total volume is in conifers and only 4 billion feet,

or 1 percent, in hardwood species. As is to be expected, Douglas fir is the principal species, comprising over 77 percent of the stand in Oregon, about 40 percent in Washington and about 60 percent for the region as a whole. Of this

species there is approximately 232 billion feet in Oregon, 99 billion feet in Washington, or a total of 331 billion feet.

Western hemlock ranks next to Douglas fir with over 104 billion feet, or 19 percent of the regional total. Of this, nearly

80 percent, or about 80 billion feet, is in Washington contrasted to 24 billion feet in Oregon. Other important species

in the region arranged according to their respective volumes are silver fir, western red cedar, Sitka spruce, noble and

Shasta fir, mountain hemlock, and ponderosa and Jeffrey pine. Over a billion feet of Port Orford cedar was found. This

species, the most valuable of all local conifers, is confined to southwestern Oregon. Here, too, is found redwood, the

northern limit of its range extending a few miles into the extreme southwestern corner of Oregon. However, only 57

million feet was recorded for this species.

Slightly over half of the 4 billion feet of hardwoods is in red alder trees; bigleaf maple, tan oak, black cottonwood,

and madrone follow in the order listed.

Recent estimates (page 174, vol. 1, of “A National Plan for American Forestry”, the so-called Copeland Report)

place the total sawtimber volume of continental United States, Alaska excluded, at 1,668 billion board feet, lumber

tally. The figure for western Oregon and Washington of 546 billion feet is log scale and would be increased about 15

percent if reckoned on a lumber tally basis. This would amount to 628 billion feet, indicating that this region contains

about 38 percent, or well over one third of the Nation’s sawtimber volume. In view of these facts, any proposal or action leading to planned management of the country’s forests must give careful consideration to the extent and character of the forest resources of this region containing as it does the “back log” of the Nation’s existing sawtimber supply.

Equally important as the quantity of the sawtimber volume is the character of its ownership. Recent economic

developments have focused attention on the subject of forest land ownership and for this reason the segregation of

both type and volume data by ownership classes is of particular importance. The following table shows the quantities

and proportion of standing timber in the Douglas fir region for broad ownership classes.

Sawtimber Volume by Ownership Classes

Western Oregon Western Washington Total

Million Per- Million Per- Million Perfeet B.M. cent feet B.M. cent feet B.M. cent

Private 137,043 46 123,678 50 260,721 48

National Forest 112,599 37 88,488 36 201,087 37

Other Public and Indian 51,151 17 33,089 14 84,240 15

Total 300,793 100 245,255 100 546,048 100

The ownership pattern in its broad aspects is practically identical between the two states. About half the timber in

each state is privately owned and slightly over a third is in national forest ownership, the remainder being other public

and Indian ownership. Of the 51,151 million board feet in the latter class in Oregon, 45,874 million feet, or practically

90 percent, is Revested Land Grants, consisting of the O. and C. and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands revested in

the federal government. There are no revested lands in western Washington; 23,154 million feet of the 33,089 million

feet in other public and Indian ownership is owned by the State of Washington.

Of the 201,087 million feet in national forest ownership in the region, 5,899 million feet is reserved from cutting,

either for protection or recreation. The bulk of this volume is in Oregon in the Bull Run Watershed, the recreational

areas around Mt. Hood, and the Mt. Jefferson Primitive Area.

2 Appendix B - 4
Table 2 gives the area in acres of all forest cover types by ownership classes for the two states separately. This table contains a mass of data and careful study will yield much valuable information. Over half of

the 35 million acres in the region is in private ownership; slightly less than one third is in national forest ownership; the remainder being other classes of public and Indian ownership.

Of the 29 million acres of forest land in the region, 15 million acres, or over half, is now in Douglas fir type

and the bulk of the 4 million odd acres shown as recent cutover, deforested burn or nonrestocked cutover was

previously Douglas fir type. Collectively, the five Douglas fir types roughly follow about the same ratio of ownership as the total land area; one half private, one third national forest, and the remainder other public and

Indian. Individually, a different relationship exists between the several Douglas fir types as illustrated by the

following table.

Comparative Areas of Douglas Fir Types in Western Oregon and Washington

Private National Forest Other Public Total

and Indian

Thousand Per- Thousand Per- Thousand Per- Thousand PerType acres cent acres cent acres cent acres cent

Douglas fir over 40" DBH 2,157 26.3 651 14.4 491 19.2 3,299 21.5

Douglas fir old growth,

20-40" DBH 921 11.2 1,963 43.3 681 26.6 3,565 23.3

Douglas fir young growth,

20-40" DBH 1,425 17.4 730 16.1 486 19.0 2,641 17.3

Douglas fir, 6-20" DBH 2,416 29.4 624 13.8 652 25.4 3,692 24.1

Douglas fir, 0-6" DBH 1,291 15.7 568 12.4 252 9.8 2,111 13.8

Total 8,210 100.0 4,536 100.0 2,562 100.0 15,308 100.0

Although much of the large old growth has been cut there still remains over 3 million acres in the region,

over 65 percent of which is in private ownership. One of the most striking facts in the above table is the heavy

concentration of the old growth Douglas fir of the 20 to 40-inch type in national forest ownership and the scarcity of this type in private ownership. This type occurs principally in locations where the growing conditions

aren’t as favorable as those occupied by the old growth type over 40 inches in diameter, the higher altitudes

and poorer soils for example. On the national forests, due partly to lack of cutting, there is a relatively small

area of younger types as contrasted with privately owned lands. Nearly 70 percent of the youngest type is in

Washington (Table 2, Oregon and Washington), evidence of the heavier cutting in this state.

The third pair of tables lists the area of generalized forest types by ownership classes for each state, condensing the information in table 2. Table 3 separates the young growth types occurring on old burns from

those on cutover lands. In Washington there are about 3,500,000 acres of young growth, slightly over half of

which is found on cutover land and the remainder on old burns. Oregon has about the same total area but over

three quarters of it is on old burns with the remaining quarter on cutover. The obvious deduction, considering

also the disparity in acreage of deforested burn between the two states (Type 37, Table 2), is that Oregon has

had a worse fire history than Washington. Another noteworthy fact is the heavy preponderance in Oregon of

types ranging from 6 to 20 inches DBH as contrasted with Washington where the area of second growth from

6 to 20 inches DBH is only slightly greater than that from 0 to 6 inches DBH. More detailed information concerning the young growth types can be found in the next set of tables (Table 4).

Since January 1920, twice as much acreage of timberland has been logged in Washington as in Oregon;

indicative of the accelerated rate of logging in Washington. Sample strip surveys show that much of this “recent cutover” land is either nonrestocked or poorly stocked with young trees, and owing largely to recurring

fires, in an unstable condition. There are about 2,160,000 acres of this type in the two states, and adding to it

the 2,200,000 acres of deforested burns and older nonstocked cutover, makes a total acreage of 4,360,000

acres of idle forest land in the Douglas fir region of Oregon and Washington. Some idea of the magnitude of

this area can be obtained by comparing it with the total agricultural area in the region, which is about

4,670,000 acres, or only a few hundred thousand acres larger than the idle forest land acreage.

Appendix B - 5 3
Table 4, area of certain immature coniferous forest types, segregates the types under 20 inches in diameter (the bulk of the immature coniferous types), into 10-year age classes and three degrees of stocking as

defined on page 9 [6]. In these two tables all ownership classes are combined. Comparing the data contained in the two tables, a striking dissimilarity in the distribution of age classes between the two states is

observed. In Oregon the largest acreage occurs in the 40-year age class, followed closely by the 30-year age

class, with the 10-year, 20-year, 50-year and 60-year age classes following in that order and the last four

named having nearly the same acreage. The obvious assumption is that the 10 and 20-year age classes

should lead, since it has only been in the last two decades that logging has been on a large-scale basis in

Oregon. These data refute this assumption, but this apparent anomaly can be explained by the fact that the

acreage of nonrestocked cutover (Type 35, Table 2, Oregon) accounts for much of the area logged prior to

1920, and all lands logged since 1920 are thrown into one category and not classified (Type 36, Table 2, Oregon). Some of the latter class of lands are reproducing and if classified would swell the total of the 10-year

age class. In spite of this, the large acreage of the 30, 40, 50 and 60-year age classes is a significant fact

that merits further analysis. Referring to tables 2 and 3 for Oregon, it appears that the stands making up

these classes largely occur on old burns and not on cutover areas. It is interesting to note that the period of

establishment of these stands (1870-1900) is coincidental with the era of intensive land settlement and the

development of rail transportation that followed the Civil War. However, the apparent dearth of the 80, 90 and

100-year classes can be attributed partly to the exclusion of types 8 and 14 from table 4, which contain some

acreage in these age classes.

The distribution by degrees of stocking is in the aggregate practically identical in the two states, with

Washington having a slightly higher percentage of well stocked stands and slightly less medium stocked

area compared to Oregon; the comparative percentages being for Oregon, well stocked 38 percent, medium

stocked 49 percent, and poorly stocked 13 percent; for Washington, well stocked 44 percent, medium

stocked 42 percent, poorly stocked 14 percent.

The distribution by age classes in Washington varies widely from that in Oregon, the ten-year age class

having over twice the acreage of any other class and forming nearly one third of the total. The 30 and 20-year

classes, nearly equal in acreage, are next in order, followed by the 40-year class not far behind in acreage.

The other classes are considerably less and taper off to the older classes as do the Oregon data. The majority of the acreage in the 10-year age class is cutover land. The Washington data are more easily explained

than the Oregon and reflect the steady increase in cutting through the decades.

Table 5, the final pair of tables in this series, gives the area of forest land by site quality classes for

Oregon and for Washington. As explained in a footnote in the tables, site quality denotes the forest productive capacity of an area and is a reflection of the composite effect of all climatic and soil conditions. In general, the two states are very similar in productive capacity and although Washington has a very slightly higher

percentage of the two best sites, Site I and Site II, the average weighted site for the western portion of the two

states is practically the same, both centering around Site III with Washington about a tenth of a site class

higher than Oregon.

Washington has considerable more subalpine forest areas than Oregon, owing to the lowering of the altitudinal limits of tree growth to the northward and also to the more rocky, rugged character of the mountainous

areas. Western Oregon shows a higher percentage of nonforest land than western Washington, which is accounted for by the fact that Oregon has more than twice the amount of agricultural land. However, both states

have a high percentage of forest land, 80 percent of western Oregon and 85 percent of western Washington

being forest land of some description, and about 75 percent of the western part of each state being commercial coniferous forest land. These few figures emphasize the importance of the forest resource in the economy

of this region.

Summarizing, this series of tables contains the fundamental information concerning the extent, condition

and character of the forest resources of the Douglas fir region. These data, and those later to be made available on growth and depletion will furnish much of the foundation for state-wide plans and policies of forest land

use. Used in conjunction with the regional type maps soon to be printed, they will give a complete picture of

the forest resources of this timber region. As data from other regions become available, they can be used in

4 Appendix B - 6
determining and studying the policies and problems that transcend regions and become nation-wide in character. The county tables recently published coupled with the county type maps, both detailed and generalized, allow the localization of the data for specific reference and study of local problems.

Only a few of the interesting facts and comparisons that can be obtained from these tables have been

recited in the preceding pages; they are intended to be suggestive, not final. The data contained in previous

publications, this report, and companion reports to be published later, have great possibilities for use by the

many public and private agencies and individuals concerned with forests and their products.

Robert W. Cowlin

EXPLANATION OF METHODS AND TERMS

SOURCES OF DATA - In this project all existing information on the distribution of forest types and estimates of volume of timber, as well as existing maps and timber estimates of public agencies, including

county cruises, was used as far as possible. Timber estimates of private lands were furnished by the owners,

with the condition that they be published only in combination with the cruises of other owners and for large

areas. This cooperation of timber owners was a very material aid to the project. Estimates obtained in this

manner were thoroughly checked in the field by a corps of timber experts who determined adjustment factors

by which to raise or lower these estimates to the standard adopted by the forest survey. Some 165,000 acres

in western Oregon and western Washington were intensively check-cruised to adjust the cruise on areas for

which usable data existed. Volumes of merchantable timber outside the boundaries of the national forests

were obtained largely by this method. Inside the boundaries of the national forests sufficiently detailed volume

and type data were available for only a small proportion of the merchantable timber area.

Where no usable data existed, either inside or outside the national forests, the field personnel carried on

type mapping and estimating, thus giving a complete coverage of the forest area of the region. Where there

were large blocks of farm land sprinkled with forest areas too small to map in place, the field examiner ran

strips at stated intervals to arrive at a statistical evaluation of the proportion of the several forest types in the

farm area and the timber volume thereon.

TIMBER ESTIMATING STANDARDS - The timber estimates in the following tables are expressed in

board feet, log scale, according to the Scribner rule. All survey cruising, whether for adjustment purposes or

for areas not covered by existing estimates, was done to include all trees of the following minimum specifications: all coniferous trees which would make one 32-foot log 12 inches in diameter inside bark at the small

end and all hardwood trees which would make one 8-foot log 10 inches in diameter inside bark at the small

end.

Allowance has been made in these estimates for decay, defects, and such breakage as is inevitable in

logging. In other words, the estimates are for the net volume usable in saw timber operations practicing intensive utilization. The standards of utilization employed in the survey are probably slightly more intensive for the

more valuable species and considerably so for the less valuable species than the average utilization practice

of the present day sawtimber operator, owing largely to the inclusion of trees down to 16 inches DBH.

Differences between present estimates and previous estimates do not necessarily indicate increases or

decreases in the volume of known timber in the region. Such differences may be due largely to differences in

standards between the present and previous cruises and to variation in the completeness of the cruise. The

present estimates cover all forest trees of the above specifications, outside of municipalities, whether in small

farm woodlots or in extensive forest areas.

The estimates as herein given make no distinction with regard to accessibility or availability to market,

although it is recognized that in certain localities some of the timber is utterly remote and some readily accessible. Neither is there any differentiation by classes of forest products, the whole volume above the stated

limits being expressed in board feet of sawtimber. In the statistical and textual analyses of the units larger

than a county, these further subdivisions of the estimates will be considered.

Appendix B - 7 5
OWNERSHIP CLASSES - The volume of timber and the acreage of forest types have been compiled by

ownership classes from the best public records available. It is of course recognized that ownership is constantly changing. The totals of each ownership class will in many cases not coincide with statistics from

other sources; nor in fact will the total area of the region always agree with hitherto accepted total areas. The

statistics herein presented are believed to be the most accurate obtainable at the date of record. The following

ownership classes were used:

Private - all privately owned forest property, including farm woodlots.

State, available for cutting - includes any state owned forest property which is not reserved from cutting.

State, reserved from cutting - includes parks, National Guard camp grounds, etc.

County - includes forest property deeded to the county. Tax delinquent land not deeded to the county is

classified as “private”.

Municipal - includes all municipally owned forest property outside the platted limits of municipalities, such as

city watershed, etc.

Indian - includes both tribal and trust allotments.

Revested land grants - includes O and C and other land grants which have reverted to federal ownership,

whether classified as “timber”, “agricultural”, or “power withdrawals”.

Federal other than national forest, Indian and revested land grants - includes national parks, military reservations,

vacant lands not revested, and miscellaneous.

National forest, available for cutting.

National forest, reserved from cutting.

The term “reserved from cutting” as applied to state or national forest land denotes that the area, because

of statute, proclamation, or policy, is not available for cutting, the land usually being officially dedicated to

park, watershed or other uses to the exclusion of timber cutting. The term “available for cutting”, in contrast to

the above, means that there is no legal or formal prohibition on timber cutting; this does not necessarily imply

that lands so classified now carry timber suitable for cutting or any timber at all.

AGE CLASSES AND DEGREES OF STOCKING - In addition to typing according to composition and

size, the important immature forest types—those where most of the dominant trees are under 20 inches in

diameter (or 24 inches in the case of cedar and spruce)—were classified according to age in 10-year classes

and according to their density in three degrees of stocking. The age and stocking classification for these immature stands is shown in table 4. If a forest of seedlings, saplings, or small “second growth” is dense

enough to cover 70 to 100 percent of the area (as measured by the stocked-quadrat method), it is classified

as “well stocked”; if 40 to 70 percent is covered, it is called “medium stocked”; if 10 to 40 percent, it is “poorly

stocked”. Areas that show less than 10 percent stocked are considered as “nonrestocking”.

The type “recent cutover” (No. 36) makes no distinction between stocked and nonstocked land, because

it was not practicable to classify and type map the degree of regeneration on land cut so recently as 1920

and later. However, some of the areas cut between 1920 and 1923 (inclusive) have been examined and a statistical expression of their degree of stocking obtained, which will be used in the description and analyses of

the forest units.

TREE SPECIES - Timber estimates have been kept separately for all the tree species that usually reach

sawtimber size and character. The absence of volume estimates for any species in table 1 does not necessarily mean that the species does not occur in the state in question; a species may be present but not have

been found in significant quantity or in trees of commercial size, or it may be confined to the noncommercial

types. This is particularly true of such species as yew and the hardwoods that often do not attain sawtimber

specifications. The common names employed by the Forest Service (U.S.D.A. Misc. Cir. 92) have been used

throughout.

DEFINITION OF TERMS - The abbreviation “DBH” signifies the diameter at breast height (41⁄2 feet above

ground) outside the bark.

6 Appendix B - 8
In describing Douglas fir timber the terms “old growth” and “second growth” should be regarded as relative

descriptive terms to distinguish the older, more mature timber from the younger and more rapidly growing

timber. There is no sharp line of demarcation between the two. Likewise the terms “large” and “small” are relative and are used to divide the large, older Sitka spruce, hemlock, etc., from the smaller and younger timber of

these types of species.

DEFINITION OF FOREST COVER TYPES

The forest cover types recognized by the forest survey in the Douglas fir region of western Oregon and

western Washington are defined below. Not all of these thirty-eight types are found in any one county.

Nonforest Types

BARRENS: an area too rocky, too deficient in soil, or too exposed to support a vegetative cover of either trees, shrubs, or herbs.

GRASS, SAGEBRUSH, AND BRUSH: areas whose principal present vegetation is

either grass, herbs, brush, shrubs, or sagebrush (where not part of operating farm

units).

CITIES, TOWNS, AND UNMEANDERED WATER SURFACE.

CULTIVATED: an area cleared and/or cultivated for agricultural use, including pasture.

STUMP PASTURE: logged-off or burned-off land, part of operating farm units, now

chiefly devoted to grazing and from which the stumps or snags have not been removed.

Usually some attempt has been made to propagate forage plants by seeding or repeated burning.

WOODLAND TYPES

4. OAK-MADRONE: a forest composed of approximately 60 percent or more of any species of oaks

(including tan oak) or madrone or any combination of these. No separation of age classes.

5. JUNIPER: a forest composed of 80 percent or more of any species of juniper.

5 1⁄2. PONDEROSA PINE WOODLAND: areas in which ponderosa pine predominates, with the trees

scattered, either singly or in clumps, forming a very thin stand—individual trees may or may not be of

merchantable size and form.

TIMBERLAND TYPES

DOUGLAS FIR: a forest containing approximately 60 percent or more by volume of Douglas fir—

the characteristic forest west of the Cascades. The type will be divided into size classes as

follows:

6. DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE OLD GROWTH: forests where the major part of the volume is in trees over 40

inches DBH.

7. DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL OLD GROWTH: forests where the major part of the volume is in trees 20 to 40

inches DBH.

8. DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE SECOND GROWTH: forests where the majority of the volume is in trees 20 to

40 inches DBH. Young growth, coarse grained timber that will cut only a small percent of the upper

grades of lumber.

9. DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL SECOND GROWTH: forests in which most of the volume is in trees 6 to 20

inches DBH.

{

2.

3.{

Appendix B - 9 7
10. DOUGLAS FIR, SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: forests in which most of the trees are 6 inches and

under in diameter.

SITKA SPRUCE: a forest containing 50 percent or more by volume of Sitka spruce, rarely in

pure stands, usually in mixture with Douglas fir, western hemlock, or western red cedar. Three size

classes will be recognized:

11. SITKA SPRUCE, LARGE: forests of sawtimber size in which most of the volume is in trees over 24

inches DBH.

12. SITKA SPRUCE, SMALL: forests in which most of the volume is in trees from 6 to 24 inches DBH.

13. SITKA SPRUCE, SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: forests in which most of the dominant trees are under

6 inches DBH.

WESTERN HEMLOCK: a forest in which 50 percent or more of the volume is western hemlock

with a variable amount of Douglas fir, western red cedar, silver fir, and Sitka spruce. Three size

classes will be recognized:

14. WESTERN HEMLOCK, LARGE: a forest of sawtimber size in which most of the volume is in trees over

20 inches DBH.

15. WESTERN HEMLOCK, SMALL: forests in which most of the volume is in trees from 6 to 20 inches

DBH.

16. WESTERN HEMLOCK, SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: forests in which most of the dominant trees are

under 6 inches DBH.

17. WESTERN RED CEDAR, LARGE: a forest of sawtimber size containing approximately 40 percent or

more by volume of western red cedar, in which most of the volume is in trees over 24 inches DBH.

18. PORT ORFORD CEDAR, LARGE: forests of sawtimber size in which 20 percent or more of the volume

is in Port Orford cedar trees over 30 inches DBH with a variable amount of Douglas fir, white fir, Sitka

spruce, western red cedar and hardwoods.

19. CEDAR, SMALL: forests where small or immature western red cedar 24 inches DBH or under or Port

Orford cedar 30 inches DBH or under together or either one of them comprise 40 percent or more of the

dominant stand by volume. May include considerable western hemlock or Sitka spruce.

PONDEROSA PINE: a forest containing approximately 50 percent or more by volume of

ponderosa pine, sugar pine, or Jeffrey pine, or all of them in combination. This type is divided into

three size classes:

20. PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: forests where the predominating trees are over about 22 inches DBH (over

about 150 or 200 years old) so-called “yellow pine”, and where no material amount of the stand has ever

been cut.

20a. SUGAR PINE, LARGE: a forest containing 20 percent or more by volume of sugar pine, never in pure

stands, usually in mixture with Douglas fir, ponderosa pine or white fir in which most of the volume is in

trees over 22 inches DBH. This type was mapped only outside the boundaries of national forests.

21. PONDEROSA PINE, SMALL: forests where the majority of the trees are under about 22 inches in

diameter (under 150 or 200 years of age, so-called bull pine) either on old burns or on areas which have

been selectively cut, and where the volume in trees 12 inches and over is ordinarily at least 1,000 bd. ft.

per acre.

22. PONDEROSA PINE, SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS, AND POLES: forests on old burns or heavily cut

logged-off land where the majority of the trees are under 12 inches in diameter and the stand of larger

trees, if any, amounts to less than 1,000 bd. ft. of sawtimber per acre.

FIR-MT. HEMLOCK: Forests, characteristic of the upper slopes of the Cascade Range, the Coast

Mountains in Oregon and the Olympics in Washington, in which either noble fir, silver fir, Shasta

red fir, or mountain hemlock, or any combination of these species comprise at least 50 percent of

the volume of the stand. Two size classes will be recognized:

8 Appendix B - 10
23. FIR-MT. HEMLOCK, LARGE: forests where a majority of the dominant trees are 16 inches in diameter

or larger and physically suitable for sawtimber. (Mature stands not suitable for sawtimber will ordinarily

be included in the subalpine type.)

24. FIR-MT. HEMLOCK, SMALL: forests where most of the dominant trees are under 16 inches in diameter,

usually young trees on old burns or cuttings.

LODGEPOLE PINE: A forest containing at least 50 percent by volume of lodgepole or knobcone

pine, often almost pure. This type will be divided into two size classes:

25. LODGEPOLE PINE, LARGE: forests where 50 percent or more of the dominant trees are 12 inches or

over in diameter.

26. LODGEPOLE PINE, SMALL: forests in which less than 50 percent of the dominant trees are as large

as 12 inches in diameter.

WHITE FIR-LARCH-DOUGLAS FIR: A mixed forest limited to the range of western larch

consisting of western larch, white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine in which

ponderosa pine constitutes not more than 40 percent of the stand. The composition of this type

varies greatly. Prevalent on the north and other cool slopes within the ponderosa pine zone. Two

size classes will be recognized:

27. WHITE FIR-LARCH-DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE: forest where the majority of the volume is in dominant

trees about 20 inches and over DBH (over about 150 years old).

28. WHITE FIR-LARCH-DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL: forests where the majority of the dominant trees are

under about 20 inches DBH (under about 150 years old).

WHITE FIR: usually a mixed forest found in the range of ponderosa pine and sugar pine, consisting

of 50 percent or more of Abies grandis or concolor.

29. WHITE FIR, LARGE: forests where most of the dominant trees are over about 20 inches DBH (over

about 150 years old).

30. WHITE FIR, SMALL: forests where most of the dominant trees are under about 20 inches DBH (under

about 150 years old).

31. HARDWOOD: a forest in which alder, maple, ash, cottonwood, myrtle, etc., predominate; pure or in

mixture (does not include any oaks or madrone).

32. REDWOOD: a forest containing approximately 80 percent or more of redwood, usually with some

Douglas fir, madrone, tan oak and other, small hardwoods.

33. SUBALPINE: forests at upper limits of tree growth, and usually unmerchantable because of poor form

and small size. Its principal components, besides alpine fir, are mountain hemlock, Shasta red fir,

lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, western white pine, and alpine larch.

35. NONRESTOCKED CUTOVERS: clean-cut areas cut prior to 1920 which are not restocking and which

are not put to other use.

36. RECENT CUTOVERS: clean-cut areas cut since January 1920, regardless of the status of regeneration.

37. DEFORESTED BURNS: lands not cut over on which the stand has been killed by fire, and which are not

satisfactorily restocking. (Areas not restocking have less than 10 percent of the 13.2' x 13.2' squares

stocked).

38. NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKY AREAS: areas within the range of commercial timber and below the limits

of the subalpine type which are too rocky, too steep, or too sterile to produce a stand of commercial

size, density, and quality. The timber may consist of any species, but is not, and is not likely to be,

of commercial value because of difficult logging conditions, low quality, poor form, and low volume.

Ordinarily the stand will average under 5,000 to 10,000 board feet per acre. No volume should be

recorded for this type. This type does not include the upper portion of valleys or the higher slopes of

potentially loggable timber now inaccessible.

Appendix B - 11 9
Appendix B - 12

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE OREGON 1

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 1. VOLUME OF TIMBER BY SPECIES FOR EACH OWNERSHIP CLASS IN THOUSANDS OF BOARD FEET, LOG SCALE, SCRIBNER RULE

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Sur- Species Private State, available State, County Municipal Indian, Revested Federal, other National National Total

vey ownership for cutting reserved from tribal and trust land grants than nat. for., forest, forest,Sym- cutting allotments 0 & C etc. Indian and available reserved

bol revested land for cutting from

grants cutting

DA Old growth Douglas fir, trees over 40” DBH 54,719,796 79,654 12,509 697,977 135,835 89,715 15,813,388 318,519 16,168,510 1,852,489 89,888,392DB Old growth Douglas fir, trees 20-40” DBH 22,156,727 61,494 8,283 416,159 37,044 14,880 11,028,765 181,963 46,967,359 525,685 81,398,359DC Second growth Douglas fir, trees 20-40” DBH 22,920,380 233,738 4,619 534,848 29,103 82,004 9,740,758 290,368 15,128,517 72,319 49,036,654DD Second growth Douglas fir, trees 16-20” DBH 6,735,260 229,799 7,692 204,682 19,463 26,190 2,290,758 214,074 1,767,069 3,300 11,498,287SA Large Sitka spruce, trees over 24” DBH 4,100,641 14,703 7,152 71,027 3,552 6,352 50 89,013 328,081 - 4,620,571SB Small Sitka spruce, trees 16-24” DBH 278,861 411 360 10,671 171 1,137 - 7,552 37,146 - 336,309ES Engelmann spruce, trees over 16” DBH 3,856 - - - - - - - 147,892 37,247 188,995HA Large western hemlock, trees over 20” DBH 12,519,005 12,830 12,753 216,926 35,716 15,354 1,135,426 198,532 6,858,196 927,455 21,932,193HB Small western hemlock, trees 16-20” DBH 1,348,012 1,037 680 29,558 5,565 5,600 125,398 22,083 964,346 152,718 2,654,997MH Mountain hemlock, trees over 16” DBH 18,960 - - 1,253 - - 130 - 3,707,663 268,931 3,996,937C Western red cedar, live, trees over 16” DBH 2,484,669 4,092 2,249 37,375 3,604 6,465 518,088 19,161 1,235,671 255,819 4,567,193PC Port Orford cedar, live, trees over 16” DBH 789,379 1,628 265 5,893 160 1,367 186,061 1,593 187,602 100 1,174,048YC Alaska cedar, live, trees over 16” DBH 120 - - - - - - - 11,692 399 12,211IC Incense cedar, trees over 16” DBH 758,685 520 10 23,429 600 816 458,408 6,309 539,106 5 1,787,888KC Dead cedar, trees over 16” DBH 44,333 7 - 890 - - 10,230 591 38,280 1,441 95,772KPC Port Orford cedar, dead, trees over 16” DBH 22,208 - - 40 - - 1,956 - 640 - 24,844YA Large ponderosa (&Jeffrey) pine, trees over 22” DBH 1,613,502 7,938 98 77,921 5,979 - 1,749,522 57,603 879,826 1,129 4,393,518YB Small ponderosa (& Jeffrey) pine, trees 12-22” DBH 194,913 1,350 7 15,479 816 - 144,272 12,026 76,702 - 445,565SP Sugar pine, trees over 12” DBH 1,001,391 4,285 25 42,917 632 30 1,066,086 23,221 1,414,467 40 3,553,094W Western white (& whitebark) pine, trees over 16” DBH 85,072 - - 236 12 - 18,043 - 1,178,725 39,716 1,321,804LP Lodgepole (& knobcone) pine, trees over 16” DBH 3,235 - 150 10 - - - - 69,446 2,740 75,581WF White fir and lowland white fir, trees over 16” DBH 1,567,540 5,395 96 26,513 1,923 2,069 1,016,476 8,270 2,874,961 14,844 5,518,087NF Noble and Shasta fir, trees over 16” DBH 1,057,893 - - 12,895 - 1 179,430 758 4,279,170 387,229 5,917,376A Silver fir, trees over 16” DBH 1,044,333 2,725 7,725 12,425 1,087 - 2,103 9,788 1,543,477 417,588 3,041,251AF Alpine fir, trees over 16” DBH 200 - - - - - - - 34,348 30,893 65,441WL Western larch, trees over 16” DBH 643 - - 10 - - - 165 81,916 17,428 100,162R Redwood, trees over 16” DBH 15,980 - - - - - - - 41,400 - 57,380RA Red alder, trees over 12” DBH 635,336 10,733 193 35,657 523 1,467 102,605 22,090 683,369 4,370 1,496,343OO Oregon white oak, trees over 12” DBH 69,965 680 3 1,214 61 130 9,469 2,292 4,507 - 88,321CO California black oak, trees over 12” DBH 35,969 446 - 1,076 71 80 13,008 1,546 11,439 63,635CLO Canyon live oak, trees over 12” DBH 530 120 - - - - 15 - 2,679 - 3,344TO Tan oak, trees over 12” DBH 135,985 625 255 3,827 - 1,380 1,630 5,292 290,471 - 439,465BC Black cottonwood (and aspen), trees over 12” DBH 93,175 - - 4,314 20 - 20 163 4,771 4,196 106,659OM Bigleaf maple, trees over 12” DBH 341,879 1,122 128 5,424 601 174 122,088 2,700 13,831 378 486,325MAD Madrone, trees over 12” DBH 134,470 986 12 5,443 3 26 98,015 2,196 5,741 - 247,127ASH Oregon ash, trees over 12” DBH 29,756 - - 27 3 I 1,033 27 4 - 30,851MY California laurel, trees over 12” DBH 41,822 418 25 1,004 20 105 14,347 547 475 - 58,763CH Chinquapin, trees over 12” DBH 37,541 280 2 1,339 4 60 26,611 512 503 - 66,852

Total 137,042,022 677,016 65,291 2,498,459 282,568 255,638 45,874,189 1,498,954 107,579,998 5,018,459 300,792,594

10
Appendix B - 13

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE OREGON 2

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 2. AREA IN ACRES OF ALL FOREST COVER TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASSES

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Sur- Definition of types Private State, State, County Municipal Indian, Revested land Federal, National National Totalvey ownership available reserved tribal and grants other than forest, forest,type for from trust O & C etc. nat. for., available reservedno. cutting cutting allotments Indian and for from

revested cutting cutting

land grants

2 Nonforest land other than agricultural 254,384 1,542 110 8,289 3,650 305 39,105 24,534 87,941 26,617 446,4773 Agricultural: cultivated, and cleared pastures on

operated farms 3,217,628 2,848 210 13,691 1,252 2,363 11,990 3,612 1,637 - 3,255,231

4 Oak-madrone: a forest containing over 60% oaks

or madrone 222,303 1,253 55 6,396 840 360 46,231 15,962 67,896 - 361,296

5 1⁄2 Ponderosa pine woodland: scattered and largely

unmerchantable stands of ponderosa pine on

unfavorable sites 21,835 15 - 3,852 175 - 21,370 7,162 - - 54,409DOUGLAS FIR: a forest containing over 60% Douglas fir

6 Douglas fir, large old growth, over 40” DBH 1,257,219 1,430, 480 20,957 2,355 4,275 313,545 9,917 378,001 32,908 2,021,0877 Douglas fir, small old growth, 20-40” DBH 785,585 4,174 625 31,595 2,463 520 589,924 18,266 1,700,343 9,404 3,142,8998 Douglas fir, large second growth: 20-40” DBH 984,779 12,882 80 34,541 1,570 3,960 339,305 21,620 510,323 1,719 1,910,7799 Douglas fir, small second growth, 6-20” DBH 1,349,736 64,749 1,725 68,845 4,285 3,370 243,400 95,122 374,016 19,210 2,224,45810 Douglas fir, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 372,645 1,522 205 19,883 1,325 185 57,781 15,689 262,246 33,502 764,983

SITKA SPRUCE: a forest containing over 50% Sitka spruce

11 Sitka spruce, large, over 24” DBH 78,182 537 145 2,191 80 85 - 2,848 7,449 - 91,51712 Sitka spruce, small, 6-24” DBH 28,264 30 90 2,062 40 360 - 523 2,194 - 33,56313 Sitka spruce, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 9,200 - - 585 10 5 - 31 881 - 10,712

WESTERN HEMLOCK: a forest containing over 50%western hemlock

14 Western hemlock, large, over 20” DBH 192,467 165 160 8,707 855 685 4,325 5,226 114,797 13,492 340,87915 Western hemlock, small, 6-20” DBH 75,058 145 - 6,895 655 - 545 5,503 10,418 2,451 101,67016 Western hemlock, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 23,974 - - 5,204 160 - 520 700 855 270 31,68317 Western red cedar, large: a forest containing over 40%

western red cedar, and over 24” DBH 8,028 - - 214 110 340 515 25 1,460 1,912 12,604

18 Port Orford cedar, large: a forest containing 20%

Port Orford cedar, and over 30” DBH 27,365 115 - 100 - - 5,575 5 5,520 - 38,680

19 Cedar, small: a forest containing 40% or more of either

western red or Port Orford cedar, and under 24” or 30”

DBH respectively 5,929 60 80 220 - - 65 - 494 - 6,848PONDEROSA PINE: a forest containing over 50% ponderosa pine

20 Ponderosa pine, large, over 22” DBH 92,567 1,511 40 6,483 169 - 100,474 7,193 80,086 - 288,523

20A Sugar pine, large: a forest of 20% or more sugar pine,

over 22” DBH, mapped only outside national forests 51,238 - - 5,865 - - 36,260 4,390 - - 97,753

21 Ponderosa pine, small, 12-22” DBH 42,161 135 - 5,232 130 - 17,521 2,868 10,272 - 78,319

22 Ponderosa pine, seedlings, saplings, and poles,

0-12” DBH 88,625 868 - 10,565 736 - 36,515 8,382 7,475 - 153,166

FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK: a forest containing over 50% ofeither noble, silver, or Shasta fir and/or mountain hemlock

23 Fir-mountain hemlock, large, over 16” DBH 26,974 - 505 762 - - 8,036 205 530,366 49,163 616,01124 Fir-mountain hemlock, small, under 16” DBH 6,048 - - 520 100 - 3,519 365 80,291 29,769 120,612

LODGEPOLE PINE: a forest containing over 50% lodgepole pine

25 Lodgepole pine, large, over 12” DBH 1,305 - - - - 15 - 25 1,596 - 2,94126 Lodgepole pine, small, under 12” DBH 26,057 90 150 1,454 30 - 332 1,487 210,037 3,691 243,328

WHITE FIR-LARCH-DOUGLAS FIR: a mixed forest of westernlarch, white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, or lodgepolepine

27 White fir-larch-Douglas fir, large, over 20” DBH 55 - - - - - - 60 15,529 7,033 22,67728 White fir-larch-Douglas fir, small, under 20” DBH 2,165 - - 220 - - - - 12,794 5,811 20,990

WHITE FIR: a forest containing over 50% white fir

29 White fir, large, over 20” DBH 19,338 145 - 690 - - 16,201 475 30,719 - 67,56830 White fir, small, under 20” DBH 5,392 - - 80 - - 3,807 230 3,895 - 13,40431 Hardwoods: alder, maple, ash, and/or cottonwood

predominating 264,503 7,882 20 21,932 400 972 12,869 10,496 80,686 339 400,099

32 Redwood: a forest containing over 80% redwood 440 - - - - - 120 - 1,057 - 1,61733 Subalpine: unmerchantable forests at upper limits

of tree growth 1,837 - - 595 - - 2,460 330 50,910 14,889 70,991

35 Old cutovers, not restocked: clear cut prior to 1920 118,793 265 - 8,096 1,595 - 6,990 55 3,904 - 139,69836 Recent cutovers: clear cut since January 1920 582,580 3,087 1,370 34,021 2,470 686 70,598 7,102 17,082 46 719,04237 Deforested burns: any nonrestocked burn, not cut over 505,072 5,623 270 67,922 215 1,230 168,892 40,080 373,318 6,228 1,168,85038 Noncommercial rocky areas 6,716 795 490 667 - - 7,168 729 180,819 5,412 202,796

Total 10,756,447 111,868 6,810 399,331 25,670 19,716 2,165,928 311,217 5,217,307 263,866 19,278,160

11
Appendix B - 14

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE OREGON 3

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 3. AREA IN ACRES OF GENERALIZED FOREST TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASSES

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Private State, State, County Municipal Indian, Revested Federal, National National

ownership available reserved tribal and land other than forest, forest,

Definition of types for from trust grants nat. for., available reserved

cutting cutting allotments O & C etc. Indian and for from

revested cutting cutting

land grants

Nonforest land type

survey types 2 and 3 3,472,012 4,390 320 21,980 4,902 2,668 51,095 28,146 89,578 26,617 3,701,708

Hardwoods: alder, maple, ash, and/or cottonwood predominating

survey type 31 264,503 7,882 20 21,932 400 972 12,869 10,496 80,686 339 400,099

Coniferous timber types over about 20” DBH

survey types, 51⁄2 , 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 29, and 32 3,544,282 20,974 2,035 115,517 7,777 9,865 1,433,585 75,177 3,375,650 115,631 8,700,493

Coniferous timber types from 6-20”, 24” or 12-22” DBH

survey types 9, 12, 15, and 21 on cutover areas 319,360 1,473 155 15,304 1,070 90 8,645 1,879 - - 347,976

on old burns 1,175,894 63,631 1,660 67,730 4,040 3,640 252,821 102,137 396,900 21,661 2,090,114Total 1,495,254 65,104 1,815 83,034 5,110 3,730 261,466 104,016 396,900 21,661 2,438,090

Coniferous timber types from 0-6” or 12” DBH

survey types 10,13, 16, and 22 on cutover areas 275,075 820 15 15,905 751 15 8,329 960 18,580 1,458 321,908

on old burns 219,369 1,570 190 20,332 1,480 175 86,487 23,842 252,877 32,314 638,636Total 494,444 2,390 205 36,237 2,231 190 94,816 24,802 271,457 33,772 960,544

Coniferous timber types from 0-16”, 20” or 24” DBH

survey types 19, 24, 28, and 30 on cutover areas 4,778 15 - 145 - - 80 - 527 445 5,990

on old burns 14,721 - 80 895 100 - 7,311 595 96,947 35,135 155,784Total 19,499 15 80 1,040 100 - 7,391 595 97,474 35,580 161,774

Noncommercial types

survey types 4, 25, 26, 33, and 38 260,008 2,138 695 9,552 870 375 58,226 20,748 511,258 23,992 887,862

Recent cutovers: clear cut since January 1920

survey type 36 582,580 3,087 1,370 34,021 2,470 686 70,598 7,102 17,082 46 719,042

Old cutovers nonrestocked, and deforested burns

survey types 35 and 37 623,865 5,888 270 76,018 1,810 1,230 175,882 40,135 377,222 6,228 1,308,548

Total 10,756,447 111,868 6,810 399,331 25,670 19,716 2,165,928 311,217 5,217,307 263,866 19,278,160

TOTAL

12
Appendix B - 15

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 4. AREA OF CERTAIN IMMATURE CONIFEROUS FOREST TYPES SUBDIVIDED INTO AGE AND STOCKING CLASSES

TYPE NUMBER AND NAME

10 13 16 9 12 15 19 24 28 30 22 21

Age Degree of

class stocking

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

10 Good 112,051 325 6,288 - - - 45 10,932 - 1,323 135 - 131,099

Year Medium 214,874 2,566 14,207 - - - 953 8,728 1,091 301 1,898 - 244,618

Poor 115,761 2,899 2,200 - - - 465 1,630 - 422 1,029 - 124,406

Total 442,686 5,790 22,695 - - - 1,463 21,290 2,046 3,062 - 500,123

20 Good 136,936 550 5,403 27,222 976 8,154 55 32,028 2,406 340 2,731 - 216,801

Year Medium 115,244 3,465 1,735 52,852 2,105 3,501 325 20,706 4,014 345 9,930 - 214,222

Poor 25,152 130 - 17,022 - 45 425 1,738 1,230 85 5,341 54 51,222

Total 277,332 4,145 7,138 97,096 3,081 11,700 805 54,472 7,650 770 18,002 54 482,245

30 Good 35,725 65 1,690 183,015 2,709 28,804 265 16,242 5,195 245 2,840 130 276,915

Year Medium 5,556 712 160 235,370 4,100 11,077 165 10,624 1,234 820 18,729 357 288,905

Poor 2,005 - - 48,133 50 1,655 35 80 - - 5,331 - 57,289

Total 43,286 777 1,850 466,518 6,859 41,536 466 26,946 6,419 1,065 26,900 487 623,109

40 Good 1,418 - - 212,445 5,134 18,694 920 3,962 1,397 58 12,357 1,217 257,602

Year Medium - - - 268,280 4,208 3,240 284 77 - 1,672 46,520 2,434 326,715

Poor - - - 63,860 130 31 65 - - 69 13,288 2,896 80,339

Total 1,418 - - 544,585 9,472 21,965 1,269 4,039 1,397 1,799 72,165 6,547 664,656

50 Good 261 - - 181,524 333 6,261 400 5,062 4,393 245 2,164 1,948 202,591

Year Medium - - - 198,756 210 2,511 635 775 - 1,470 4,294 3,597 212,248

Poor - - - 48,635 - 96 340 - - 540 3,395 2,043 55,049

Total 261 - - 428,915 543 8,868 1,375 5,837 4,393 2,255 9,853 7,588 469,888

60 Good - - - 110,472 5,939 4,155 - 335 40 1,320 4,923 3,351 130,535

Year Medium - - - 206,140 5,693 4,471 135 - - 1,323 14,989 24,279 257,030

Poor - - - 40,359 525 630 35 288 - - 2,822 12,290 56,949

Total - - - 356,971 12,157 9,256 170 623 40 2,643 22,734 39,920 444,514

70 Good - - - 105,261 - 145 - 317 - 330 - 1,175 107,228

Year Medium - - - 154,802 25 350 35 - - 140 - 10,217 165,569

Poor - - - 14,349 170 1,370 - - - 135 - 5,230 21,254

Total - - 274,412 195 1,865 35 317 - 605 - 16,622 294,051

80 Good - - - 9,765 35 233 - - - - 240 1,627 11,900

Year Medium - - - 16,462 921 120 - 3,902 - 480 80 2,463 24,428

Poor - - - 5,113 - - - - - - 130 1,016 6,259

Total - - - 31,340 956 353 - 3,902 - 480 450 5,106 42,587

90 Good - - - 21,321 - - - 282 - - - 255 21,858

Year Medium - - - 2,878 300 - - - - - - 640 3,818

Poor - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total - - - 24,199 300 - - 282 - - - 895 25,676

100 Good - - - 422 - 4,260 494 467 - 416 - - 6,059

Year Medium - - - - - 1,867 771 2,437 - 1,325 - - 6,400

and Poor - - - - - - - - - - - 1,100 1,100

over Total - - - 422 - 6,127 1,265 2,904 - 1,741 - 1,100 13,559

Total Good 286,391 940 13,381 851,447 15,126 70,706 2,179 69,627 13,421 4,277 25,390 9,703 1,362,588

All Medium 335,674 6,743 16,102 135,540 17,562 27,137 3,304 47,249 6,339 7,876 96,440 43,987 1,743,953

ages Poor 142,918 3,029 2,200 237,471 875 3,827 1,365 3,736 1,230 1,251 31,336 24,629 453,867

Total 764,983 10,712 31,683 2,224,458 33,563 101,670 6,848 120,612 20,990 13,404 153,166 78,319 3,560,408

Total 764,983 10,712 31,683 2,224,458 33,563 101,670 6,848 120,612 20,990 13,404 153,166 78,319 3,560,408

Note – In addition to the immature types recognized above there are other types in which net growth is taking place, but which were

not subdivided into age and stocking classes.

Total

Douglas firseedlings & saplings0”-6” DBH

Sitka spruce seedlings& saplings 0”-6” DBH

Western hemlockseedlings & saplings0”-6” DBH

Douglas fir smallsecond growth6”-20” DBH

Sitka sprucesecond growth6”-24” DBH

Western hemlocksecond growth6”-20” DBH

Cedarsmall0”-24” DBH

Fir-mt. hemlocksmall0”-16” DBH

White fir-larchDouglas fir small0”-20” DBHWhite firsmall0”-20” DBH

Ponderosa pineseedlings & saplings0”-12” DBH

Ponderosa pinesmall12”-22” DBH

OREGON 4

13
OREGON 5

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 5. AREA OF FOREST LAND BY SITE QUALITY CLASSES

Percent

Site classification Percent of of Percent

Site commercial total of total

quality Area in acres coniferous forest area of

Type of land class forest land land region

I 179,008 1.2 1.1 0.9

II 3,371,259 23.5 21.6 17.5

III 6,555,012 45.6 42.2 33.9

IV 2,851,214 19.9 18.3 14.8

V 658,724 4.6 4.2 3.4

I 23,602 0.2 0.2 0.I

II 159,781 1.1 1.0 0.8

III 377,186 2.6 2.4 2.0

IV 169,111 1.2 1.1 0.9

V 14,657 0.I 0.1 0.1

VI 2,217

Total coniferous forest sites (commercial) 14,361,771 100.0

Lodgepole pine land 246,269 1.6 1.3

Noncommercial rocky areas 202,796 1.3 1.1

Subalpine forest areas 70,991 0.5 0.4

Oak-madrone land 361,296 2.3 1.9

Hardwood land 327,449 2.1 1.7

Pine woodland 6,510

 Total 1,215,311

Total forest land in region 15,577,082 100.0

Nonforest land 3,701,078 3,701,078 19.2

Total area of region 19,278,160 19,278,160 100.0

Note - The term “site quality” denotes the forest productive capacity of an area and is a reflection of the composite effect of all climatic and

soil conditions.

The term “site quality” followed by roman numerals I to V for Douglas fir and I to VI for ponderosa pine designates the relative productive

capacity, “site quality I” being the best and “site quality V” for Douglas fir and VI for ponderosa pine the poorest site qualities recognized. The

height of the trees at a given age is used as a standard of classification.

The site quality classification designed for the Douglas fir type has been employed for that and all other types in the region except

ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine, oak-madrone, hardwoods and noncommercial rocky areas. The ponderosa pine classification has

been used for ponderosa pine types except for pine woodland. There has been no differentiation into site quality classes for lodgepole pine,

subalpine, oak-madrone, hardwoods, noncommercial rocky areas and pine woodland.

Ponderosa pine

classification

Douglas fir

classification Coniferous forest land

exclusive of lodgepole

type, subalpine, noncommercial

rocky areas

and pine woodland

14 Appendix B - 16
Appendix B - 17

WASHINGTON 1

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE I. VOLUME OF TIMBER BY SPECIES FOR EACH OWNERSHIP CLASS

IN THOUSANDS OF BOARD FEET, LOG SCALE, SCRIBNER RULE

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Sur- Species Private State, State, County Municipal Indian, Federal, National National National

vey ownership available reserved tribal and other than forest, forest, forest, Totalsym- for from trust nat. for., available reserved statebol cutting cutting allotments Indian and for from cutting selection

revested land cutting

grants

DA Old growth Douglas fir, trees over 40" DBH 35,506,212 4,697,191 29,495 129,998 106,908 165,733 690,165 13,155,154 59,900 19,592 54,560,348DB Old growth Douglas fir, trees 20-40'’ DBH 9,040,762 1,197,598 4,634 58,347 209,901 16,204 51,183 9,334,205 38,251 851 19,951,936DC Second growth Douglas fir, trees 20-40" DBH 11,350,148 l, 300,199 30,568 166,500 2,359 25,531 114,984 6,111,042 8,800 639 19,170, 770DD Second growth Douglas fir, trees 16-20” DBH 4,248,512 510,589 6,929 105,093 7,183 16,923 33,317 790,955 - 212 5,719,713SA Large Sitka spruce, trees over 24” DBH 3,833,498 737,413 3,049 27,610 5,215 455,614 18,452 1,090,l53 36,980 156 6,208,145SB Small Sitka spruce, trees 16-24" DBH 423,447 30,611 480 4,760 48 54,553 1,055 5,677 - - 520,631ES Engelmann spruce, trees over 16” DBH 63 - - - - - - 33,946 - - 34,009HA Large western hemlock, trees over 20" DBH 32,821,398 7,469,248 8,034 396,302 342,869 1,370,412 1,109,911 25,894,509 286,685 20,081 69,719,449HB Small western hemlock, trees 16-20” DBH 5,442,272 1,025,605 1,767 82,648 10,503 117,253 141,131 3,397,064 32,679 2,231 10,253,153MH Mountain hemlock, trees over 16" DBH 182,698 20,675 - 170 210 - 47,325 1,123,837 17,397 1,080 1,393,392C Western red cedar, live, trees over 16" DBH 10,441,536 2,334,980 6,409 133,721 62,275 1,176,830 114,777 5,724,556 83,342 13,654 20,092,080YC Alaska cedar, live, trees over 16" DBH 89,589 5,207 - 164 126 - 60,130 371,006 7,887 1,388 535,497KC Dead cedar, trees over 16" DBH 378,716 118,812 - 3,626 2,234 197,858 285 262,713 2,525 2,219 968,988YA Large ponderosa pine, trees over 22” DBH - - - - - - - 98,415 - - 98,415YB Small ponderosa pine, trees 12-22" DBH - - - - - - 2,320 - - - 2,320W Western white (& white bark) pine, trees over 16" DBH 238,851 97,019 - 3,348 15,128 28,001 72,122 1,031,859 10,957 452 1,497,737LP Lodgepole pine, trees over 16” DBH 845 - - - - - 2 4,870 - - 5,717WF White fir and lowland white fir, trees over 16" DBH 672,282 55,186 196 391 - 4,819 600 131,330 536 - 865,340NF Noble fir, trees over 16" DBH 1,024,798 179,603 - 2,557 59,702 - 123,228 1,368,718 600 - 2,759,206A Silver fir, trees over 16" DBH 7,231,644 3,147,993: 2,843 111,378 272,552 446,919 871,703 17,492,394 291,919 13,869 29,893,214AF Alpine fir, trees over 16" DBH 11,504 - - 51 - - 4,732 17,229 - - 33,516WL Western (and alpine) larch, trees over 16" DBH - - - - - - - 26,515 - - 26,515RA Red alder, trees over 12" DBH 423,441 43,260 528 7,534 378 51,385 649 25,512 933 83 553,704BC Black cottonwood (and aspen), trees over 12” DBH 97,365 4,527 50 1,688 6 4,514 2,900 31,576 500 - 143,126OM Bigleaf maple, trees over 12” DBH 207,971 22,998 139 1,591 243 4,846 737 7,332 274 188 246,319ASH Oregon ash, trees over 12" DBH 11,048 298 - 3 - - 255 - - - 11,604WPB Western paper birch, trees over 12" DBH - - - - - - - 202 - - 202

Total 123,678,600 23,059,012 95,121 1,237,480 1,097,840 4,137,396 3,461,963 87,530,774 880,165 76,695 245,255,046

15
Appendix B - 18

WASHINGTON 2

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 2. AREA IN ACRES OF ALL FOREST COVER TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASSES

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Sur- Private State, State, County Municipal Indian, Federal, National National National

vey Definition of types ownership available reserved tribal and other than forest, forest, forest, Totaltype for from trust nat. for., available reserved state

no. cutting cutting allotment Indian and for from selection

revested cutting cutting

land grants

2 Nonforest land other than agricultural 292,546 12,345 470 1,590 6,560 3,815 77,303 472,996 136,672 4,270 1,008,567

3 Agricultural: cultivated, and cleared pastures on

operated farms 1,393,849 9,450 1,670 3,466 494 3,468 2,625 242 - - 1,415,264

4 Oak-madrone: a forest containing over 60%

oaks or madrone 2,398 - - 5 - - 600 - - - 3,003DOUGLAS FIR: a forest containing over 60% Douglas fir 

6 Douglas fir, large old growth, over 40” DBH 900,225 114,067 938 4,318 2,909 3,555 12,232 237,674 2,094 280 1,278,2927 Douglas fir, small old growth, 20-40” DBH 136,046 18,377 85 4,367 4,507 285 5,680 252,583 474 - 422,4048 Douglas fir, large second growth: 20-40“ DBH 440,632 45,032 1,105 10,790 85 3,892 11,050 218,214 - - 730,8009 Douglas fir, small second growth, 6-20” DBH 1,066,517 62,828 3,244 52,302 4,279 12,233 35,621 229,907 883 - 1,467,81410 Douglas fir, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 918,628 59,751 320 51,391 24,466 5,248 13,838 269,792 2,111 - 1,345,545

SITKA SPRUCE: a forest containing over 50% Sitka spruce

11 Sitka spruce, large, over 24” DBH 57,420 9,972 255 340 80 9,678 1,029 18,899 599 - 98,27212 Sitka spruce, small, 6-24” DBH 12,943 496 - 453 - 25 80 30 - - 14,02713 Sitka spruce, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 990 315 - - - - - - - - 1,305

WESTERN HEMLOCK: a forest containing over 50%western hemlock

14 Western hemlock, large, over 20” DBH 783,644 212,575 215 13,790 9,957 50,856 20,773 799,096 14,184 1,210 1,906,30015 Western hemlock, small, 6-20” DBH 209,370 13,785 - 7,160 3,770 1,005 2,230 27,018 - - 264,33816 Western hemlock, seedlings and saplings, 0-6” DBH 155,809 27,378 70 9,658 1,845 605 275 15,690 272 - 211,602

Western red cedar, large: a forest containingover 40% western red cedar

17 Western red cedar, large, over 24” DBH 184,535 49,370 45 3,690 700 62,196 300 74,202 620 475 376,13319 Western red cedar, small, under 24” DBH 17,439 430 235 640 30 - - 150 - - 18,924

PONDEROSA PINE: a forest containing over50% ponderosa pine

20 Ponderosa pine, large, over 22” DBH - - - - - - - 4,946 - - 4,94621 Ponderosa pine, small, 12-22” DBH - - - - - - 780 - - - 780

FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK: a forest containing

over 50% of either noble, silver, or Shastafir and/or mountain hemlock

23 Fir-mountain hemlock, large, over 16” DBH 179,506 65,993 - 2,335 8,744 5,510 49,751 658,073 20,290 390 990,59224 Fir-mountain hemlock, small, under 16” DBH 16,811 - - 260 - - 1,987 133,076 1,127 - 153,261

LODGEPOLE PINE: a forest containing over 50%

lodgepole pine

25 Lodgepole pine, large, over 12” DBH 165 - - - - - - - - - 16526 Lodgepole pine, small, under 12” DBH 6,998 940 295 20 - - 25 18,285 67 - 26,630

WHITE FIR-LARCH-DOUGLAS FIR: a mixed forest of westernlarch, white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, orlodgepole pine

27 White fir-larch-Douglas fir, large, over 20” DBH - - - - - - - 14,874 - - 14,87428 White fir-larch-Douglas fir, small, under 20” DBH - - - - - - - 9,922 - - 9,922

WHITE FIR: a forest containing over 50% white fir

29 White fir, large, over 20” DBH 3,060 1,480 - - - 90 - 74 - - 4,70430 White fir, small, under 20” DBH 1,553 - - 25 - - - - - - 1,57831 Hardwoods: alder, maple, ash, and/or cottonwood

predominating 319,645 8,155 165 5,390 2,363 9,768 1,374 5,773 535 - 353,168

33 Subalpine: unmerchantable forests at upper limits

of tree growth 65,634 7,396 - 776 289 - 71,791 821,164 123,201 1,640 1,091,891

35 Old cutovers, not restocked: clear cut prior to 1920 457,450 24,315 110 16,586 10,424 11,445 3,825 1,662 - - 525,81736 Recent cutovers: clear cut since January 1920 1,241,635 90,934 30 38,449 5,136 26,762 1,043 37,007 - - 1,440,99637 Deforested burns: any nonrestocked burn, not cut over 121,414 24,665 160 27,990 10 - 24,713 161,693 5,171 - 365,81638 Noncommercial rocky areas 69,012 5,297 2,470 1,907 536 40,212 8,655 160,739 12,246 485 301,559

Total 9,055,874 865,346 11,882 257,698 87,184 250,648 347,580 4,643,781 320,546 8,750 15,849,289

16
Appendix B - 19

WASHINGTON 3

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 3. AREA IN ACRES OF GENERALIZED FOREST TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASSES

PUBLIC OWNERSHIPS

Private, State, State, County Municipal Indian tribal Federal, National National National

ownership available reserved and other than forest, forest, forest

Definition of types for from trust nat. for., available reserved state

cutting cutting allotments Indian and for from selection

revested cutting cutting

 land grants

Nonforest land type,

survey types 2 and 3 1,686,395 21,795 2,140 5,056 7,054 7,283 79,928 473,238 136,672 4,270 2,423,831

Hardwoods: alder, maple, ash, and/or cottonwood predominating

survey type 31 319,645 8,155 165 5,390 2,363 9,768 1,374 5,773 535 - 353,168

Coniferous timber types over about 20” DBH

survey types, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, and 29 2,685,068 516,866 2,643 39,630 26,982 136,062 100,815 2,278,635 38,261 2,355 5,827,317

Coniferous timber types from 6-20”, 24” or 12-22” DBH

survey types 9, 12, 15, and 21 on cutover areas 701,058 21,518 914 24,475 7,194 10,160 5,728 - - - 771,047

on old burns 588,572 55,591 2,330 35,440 855 3,103 32,983 256,955 883 - 976,712Total 1,289,630 77,109 3,244 59,915 8,049 13,263 38,711 256,955 883 - 1,747,759

Coniferous timber types from 0-6” or 12” DBH

survey types 10, 13, 16, and 22 on cutover areas 915,569 52,244 320 50,520 25,876 5,543 8,905 6,887 20 - 1,065,884

on old burns 159,858 35,200 70 10,529 435 310 5,208 278,595 2,363 - 492,569Total 1,075,427 87,444 390 61,049 26,311 5,853 14,113 285,482 2,383 - 1,558,452

Coniferous timber types from 0-16”, 20” or 24” DBH

survey types 19, 24, 28, and 30 on cutover areas 15,685 340 235 550 - - - 232 - - 17,042

on old burns 19,318 90 - 375 30 - 1,987 142,916 1,127 - 165,843Total 35,003 430 235 925 30 - 1,987 143,148 1,127 - 182,885

Noncommercial types

survey types 4, 25, 26, 33, and 38 144,207 13,633 2,765 2,708 825 40,212 81,071 1,000,188 135,514 2,125 1,423,248

Recent cutovers: clear cut since January 1920

survey type 36 1,241,635 90,934 30 38,449 5,136 26,762 1,043 37,007 - - 1,440,996

Old cutovers nonrestocked, and deforested burns

survey types 35 and 37 578,864 48,980 270 44,576 10,434 11,445 28,538 163,355 5,171 - 891,633

Total 9,055,874 865,346 11,882 257,698 87,184 250,648 347,580 4,643,781 320,546 8,750 15,849,289

Total

17
WASHINGTON 4

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 4. AREA OF CERTAIN IMMATURE CONIFEROUS FOREST TYPES SUBDIVIDED INTO AGE AND

STOCKING CLASSES

TYPE NUMBER AND NAME

10 13 16 9 12 15 19 24 28 30

Age Degree of

class stocking

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

10 Good 280,189 335 122,274 - - - 2,655 402 - - 405,855

Year Medium 371,776 115 43,559 - - - 1,690 5,158 - - 422,298

Poor 247,761 855 19,011 - - - 5,607 32,443 - - 305,677

Total 899,726 1,305 184,844 - - - 9,952 38,003 - - 1,133,830

20 Good 154,275 - 10,240 33,706 - 6,150 2,865 13,135 - - 220,371

Year Medium 168,526 - 8,736 35,850 245 5,767 1,3592 5,352 - - 245,835

Poor 38,290 - 725 7,595 - 275 350 7,372 - - 54,607

Total 61,091 - 19,701 77,151 245 12,192 4,574 45,859 - - 520,813

30 Good 45,352 - 3,307 165,889 2,445 31,557 490 9,368 444 691 259,543

Year Medium 35,546 - 900 149,879 1,070 32,938 355 5,317 2,864 - 228,889

Poor 3,270 - - 24,682 220 2,670 190 3,225 - - 34,257

Total 84,168 - 4,207 340,450 3,735 67,165 1,035 17,910 3,328 691 522,689

40 Good 280 - 1,269 182,900 2,455 32,507 1,462 10,136 - 75 231,084

Year Medium 129 - 400 156,273 1,060 25,066 570 1,940 - - 185,438

Poor - - - 21,600 135 2,262 125 1,812 - - 25,934

Total 409 - 1,669 360,773 3,650 59,835 2,157 13,888 - 75 442,456

50 Good - - 412 95,822 145 10,250 165 2,326 2,832 80 112,032

Year Medium 151 - 145 74,697 105 9,081 385 150 - - 84,714

Poor - - - 14,536 110 856 230 85 - - 15,817

Total 151 - 557 185,055 360 20,187 780 2,561 2,832 80 212,563

60 Good - - 40 95,972 125 10,845 - 834 3,762 - 111,578

Year Medium - - - 106,237 235 12,315 124 6,769 - - 125,680

Poor - - 365 18,031 730 2,159 - 617 - 21,902

Total - - 405 220,240 1,090 25,319 124 8,220 3,762 - 259,160

70 Good - - 50 85,343 - 21,051 - 6,683 - 370 113,497

Year Medium - - 169 43,999 - 13,530 - - - - 57,698

Poor - - - 10,475 - 3,805 - - - - 14,280

Total - - 219 139,817 - 38,386 - 6,683 - 370 185,475

80 Good - - - 33,231 875 5,236 173 8,367 - - 47,882

Year Medium - - - 40,965 360 7,095 50 943 - 266 49,679

Poor - - - 15,362 3,192 3,112 29 - - - 21,695

Total - - - 89,558 4,427 15,443 252 9,310 - 266 119,256

90 Good - - - 3,485 - 785 - - - - 4,270

Year Medium - - - 15,892 - 1,135 - - - - 17,027

Poor - - - 1,210 - 210 - - - 96 1,516

Total - - - 20,587 - 2,130 - - - 96 22,813

100 Good - - - 9,680 - 1,470 - 500 - - 11,650

Year Medium - - - 19,136 480 21,268 50 10,327 - - 51,261

and Poor - - - 5,367 40 943 - - - - 6,350

over Total - - - 34,183 520 23,681 50 10,827 - - 69,261

Total Good 480,096 335 137,592 706,028 6,045 119,851 7,810 51,751 7,038 1,216 1,517,762

All Medium 576,128 115 53,909 642,928 3,555 128,195 4,583 55,9562 2,884 266 1,468,519

ages Poor 289,321 855 20,101 118,858 4,427 16,292 6,531 45,554 - 96 502,035

Total 1,345,545 1,305 211,602 1,467,814 14,027 264,338 18,924 153,261 9,922 1,578 3,488,316

Total 1,345,545 1,305 211,602 1,467,814 14,027 264,338 18,924 153,261 9,922 1,578 3,488,316

Note – In addition to the immature types recognized above there are other types in which net growth is taking place, but which were not subdivided

into age and stocking classes.

Appendix B - 20

Douglas firseedlings & saplings0”-6” DBH

Sitka spruce seedlings& saplings 0”- 6” DBH

Western hemlockseedlings & saplings0”- 6” DBH

Douglas fir smallsecond growth6”-20” DBH

Sitka sprucesecond growth6”-24” DBH

Western hemlocksecond growth6”-20” DBH

Cedarssmall0”-24” DBH

Fir-mt. hemlocksmall0”-16” DBH

White fir-larchDouglas fir small0”-20” DBH

White firsmall0”-20” DBH

Total

18
WASHINGTON 5

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 5. AREA OF FOREST LAND BY SITE QUALITY CLASSES

Site classification

Site Percent of Percent of Percent of

 quality Area in acres commercial total total

class coniferous forest area of

Type of land forest land land region

I 320,292 2.8 2.4 2.0

II 3,794,999 32.6 28.3 23.9

III 4,542,091 39.0 33.9 28.7

IV 2,567,905 22.0 19.1 16.2

V 423,755 3.6 3.2 2.7

Total coniferous forest sites (commercial) 11,649,042 100.0 

Lodgepole pine land 26,795 0.2 0.2

Noncommercial rocky areas 301,559 2.2 1.9

Subalpine forest areas 1,091,891 8.1 6.9

Oak-madrone land 3,003

Hardwood land 353,168 2.6 2.2

Total 1,776,416

Total forest land in region 13,425,458 100.0

Nonforest land 2,423,831 2,423,831 15.3

Total area of region 15,849,289 15,849,289 100.0

Note - The term “site quality” denotes the forest productive capacity of an area and is a reflection of the composite effect of all climatic

and soil conditions.

The term “site quality” followed by roman numerals I to V designates the relative productive capacity, “site quality I” being the best and

“site quality V” the poorest site quality recognized. The height of the trees at a given age is used as a standard of classification.

The site quality classification designed for the Douglas fir type has been employed for that and all other types in the region except

lodgepole pine, subalpine, oak-madrone, hardwoods and noncommercial rocky areas, for which there has been no differentiation into site

quality classes.

Coniferous forest land

exclusive of lodgepole

type, subalpine,

noncommercial rocky areas

and pine woodland

Appendix B - 21 19
Appendix C: Pacific Northwest Experiment Station Forest

Research Notes No. 25 (by R.W. Cowlin and F.L. Moravets)

Appendix C - 1
Publication of the

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station

Thornton T. Munger, Director

Forest Survey Staff

H. J. Andrews, In Charge

R. W. Cowlin, Assistant

W. H. Bolles

P. A. Briegleb

E. D. Buell

P. D. Kemp

C. W. Kline

F. L. Moravets

P. N. Pratt

W. J. Wakeman

Appendix C - 2
Contents

Figure 1. Forested area east of Cascade Range in Oregon

and Washington.

Foreword.

Introduction.

Saw-timber volume.

Forest land.

Productive capacity of forest land.

Explanation of methods and terms.

Plate 1. Forest types.

2. Forest types.

Table 1. Volume of saw timber, by species and by ownership

class, for eastern Oregon.

2. Area, in acres, of all forest cover types, by

ownership class, for eastern Oregon.

3. Area, in acres, of generalized forest types, by

ownership class, for eastern Oregon.

4. Area of forest land, by site quality, for eastern

Oregon.

5. Volume of saw timber, by species and by ownership

class, for eastern Washington.

6. Area, in acres, of all forest cover types, by

ownership class, for eastern Washington.

7. Area, in acres, of generalized forest types, by

ownership class, for eastern Washington.

8. Area of forest land, by site quality, for eastern

Washington.

Figure 2. Saw-timber volume by species and by ownership class.

3. Ownership of forest land.

4. Distribution of forest land by generalized types,

all ownership classes.

Appendix C - 3
Appendix C - 4
FOREWORD

The forest survey, a Nation-wide project authorized by Congress in 1928, consists of a complete and

detailed investigation of the country’s present and future forest resources in five major parts: (1) an inventory of

the country’s existing forest resources in terms of areas occupied by forest-cover types and of timber volumes,

by species, in board feet and cubic feet, and a study of conditions on cut-over and on burned forest lands; (2) a

study of the depletion of the forests through cutting and through loss from fire, insects, disease, and other

causes; (3) a determination of the current and potential growth on forest areas; (4) an investigation of present

and prospective requirements of the United States for forest products; and (5) an analysis and correlation with

other economic data of the findings of these studies in order to make available to public and private agencies

the basic facts and guiding principles necessary to formulate and execute rational plans, national, regional,

and local, for orderly, sound management and use of forest resources.

The Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station was designated to conduct the forest survey

of Oregon and Washington. Field work was commenced in the Douglas fir region of western Oregon and western Washington in 1930 and completed in 1933. In 1934 field work was commenced in eastern Oregon and

eastern Washington and completed late in 1936. Previous publications on the survey by this station include

forest statistics for each of the forested counties in Oregon and Washington except Stevens, Pend Oreille,

and Spokane Counties, Washington; Forest Research Notes No. 13, Forest Resources of the Douglas Fir

Region, No. 17, Pulpwood Resources of Western Oregon and Western Washington, No. 20, Forest Growth

in the Douglas Fir Region, and No. 22, Timber Volume and Type Acreage on the National Forests of the North

Pacific Region. In addition, lithographed 1⁄4-inch-to-the-mile maps showing in colors the principal forest cover

types for all Oregon and Washington and 1-inch-to-the-mile detailed type maps for each forested county have

been prepared. Spokane, Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties in northeastern Washington are in the territory

assigned to the Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula, Montana, and the

forest inventory of these counties, including publication of county reports, was made by the survey staff of that

station.

Appendix C - 5
FOREST RESOURCES OF EASTERN OREGON AND EASTERN WASHINGTON

By R. W. Cowlin and F. L. Moravets1/

INTRODUCTION

Oregon and Washington are divided by the Cascade Range into two geographic regions, which vary

greatly in character of forest cover. Forest conditions in the region west of the summit, the Douglas fir region,

were described in previous publications of the forest survey. This report presents basic forest inventory data for

that part of the two States2/ east of the Cascade Range (fig. 1). The combined area of eastern Oregon and

eastern Washington is 67 million acres, amounting to roughly two-thirds the total area of the two States. In

western Oregon and western Washington more than 80 percent of the area is forest land and the larger part of

the land now classified as agricultural was originally forested; only above timber line in the Cascade Range and

Olympic Mountains is tree growth limited by climatic conditions. In eastern Oregon and eastern Washington

meager precipitation limits tree growth over extensive areas and only about 35 percent of the total area is forest

land. The treeless area consists of river valleys, plateaus, deserts, rolling hills, and in southeastern Oregon

scattered buttes and mountains. One extensive mountain range in southeastern Oregon, the Steens Mountain,

is practically nonforested.

The principal industry of eastern Oregon and eastern Washington is agriculture and the Bureau of the

Census report for 1930 shows nearly 24 million acres in farms, which lacks only about a million acres of equaling the forest land area. The principal agricultural products are wheat, livestock, hay, apples, dairy products,

and potatoes. Of the total farm area 8.5 million acres was classified as crop land, 14 million acres as pasture

land, and 200 thousand acres as woodland not pastured. Approximately 2 million acres of the pasture land

was also classified as woodland.

1/ IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR FOREST SURVEY STAFF, THE FOLLOWING WERE EMPLOYED UNDER

EMERGENCY CONSERVATION WORK FUNDS, ON THE FIELD WORK, MAP PREPARATION, AND OFFICE

COMPILATION: G. N. ALLMAN, GLENN BAILEY, MARION BECQUET, R. W. COX, R. H. EDDY, N. R. EDMONDSON,

E. A. ERICKSON, GRACE FREDRICKSEN, G. W. FROST, F. HARLESS, V. HARLESS, A. W. HODGMAN, L. W.

HUNTINGTON, W. IRWIN, G. H. JACKSON, CLAUDE KERR, M. J. LAURIDSEN, W. V. LITCHFIELD, D. L. LYNCH,

H. E. MILLER, W. E. PLETO, R. W. TAYLOR, A. D. THRANE, L. E. TUCKER, W. E. SANKELA, C. S. SMITH,

H. M. WOLFE, AND J. WOOD.

2/ ALL THAT PORTION OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON EAST OF THE SUMMIT OF THE CASCADE RANGE,

INCLUDING KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BUT EXCLUDING HOOD RIVER AND JACKSON COUNTIES,

OREGON.

Appendix C - 6
Grazing is not restricted to pasture land and large areas of forest land not classified as woodland pasture are

used to range stock, particularly during the summer.

The forest industries rank next to agriculture among the basic industries. Out of a total (1930) population

in this region of 634 thousand persons 260 thousand were gainfully employed. Approximately 32 percent of the

gainful workers were employed in agriculture and 8 percent in the forest industries.

In addition to furnishing raw material for industry, fuel for domestic use, and forage for stock, forests contribute to economic enterprise in this region by providing recreation facilities and favorably influencing stream

flow. Although dry farming predominates, the irrigated areas are the most productive and the source of water

supply for all these areas is in the forest zone.

According to the Bureau of the Census the area of irrigated land in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington was 1.3 million acres in 1929, which is about 15 percent of the total crop land. The value of land and buildings of irrigated farms was 42 percent of the value of land and buildings of all farms in 1930. In the heavily

forested counties the value and acreage of irrigated farms is very much greater in proportion to the value and

acreage of all farms than in the nonforested and lightly forested counties.

During the 12-year period from 1925-36, inclusive, lumber production in this region averaged 1,435 million

board feet annually. It is significant to note that the only year during this period when production dropped below

a billion board feet was 1932, in the depth of the depression. The strength of the industry was shown by the

quick recovery from this low, and in 1935 production climbed to a billion and a half feet and in 1936 it reached

1,857 million feet exceeding 1929 production, the previous high year of the period, by 33 million feet.

A brief discussion of the statistical data follows: Explanation of the methods and terms used immediately precedes the tables.

Saw-Timber Volume

The volume of saw timber by species and ownership is given for eastern Oregon in table 1 and for eastern

Washington in table 5 and is shown graphically for the two States combined in figure 2. In all, 18 conifers and

3 hardwoods were considered to have saw-timber volume. Owing to the similarity of dendrological and structural characteristics white fir was combined with lowland white fir and Shasta red fir with noble fir.

Appendix C - 7
Eastern Oregon and eastern Washington combined have a total timber volume of 132 billion board feet.

Ponderosa pine is the most important species and forms more than 50 percent of the stand on 11.6 million

acres, which amounts to 47 percent of the total forest land in the region. This species is the most widely distributed conifer in the United States and occurs commonly throughout the forest portions of the western United

States. It ranks second to Douglas fir in saw-timber volume among the Nation’s commercial timber species.

This region has 83 billion board feet, log scale, of ponderosa pine saw-timber which is approximately 36 percent of the national total volume of this valuable species. During the period 1925-36, inclusive, 82 percent of

the lumber cut in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington was ponderosa pine.

Eastern Oregon has a total timber volume of 87.7 billion board feet, of which 75 percent, 65.4 billion

board feet, is ponderosa pine and 9 percent, 7.8 billion board feet, is Douglas fir. Eastern Washington has a

total timber volume of 44.5 billion board feet, only about half as much as eastern Oregon. In this State ponderosa pine forms 40 percent of the total with 17.9 billion board feet and Douglas fir amounts to 27 percent with

11.9 billion board feet.

Approximately 30 percent of the saw-timber volume in this region is privately owned compared to nearly

50 percent in the Douglas fir region. Indian ownership3/ is much more important here, amounting to 15 percent

of the total volume. The national forests have 42 percent of the total volume and the remaining 13 percent is in

other forms of public ownership.

The situation is slightly different with respect to ponderosa pine volume, 34 percent is privately owned, 18

percent is owned by Indians, and 43 percent is on the national forests, leaving very little in other public ownership.

In addition to the species for which saw-timber volume was shown in the tables, cordwood volume was

estimated for western juniper, Oregon white oak, and mountain mahogany trees 4 inches or more in diameter 1

foot above the ground. In eastern Oregon there were 3,564 thousand cords of juniper, 40 thousand cords of

white oak, and 27 thousand cords of mountain mahogany; in eastern Washington there were 92 thousand

cords of white oak and a very small amount of juniper. These species are chiefly valuable for fuel and fence

posts. Cordwood volume was also estimated for aspen, northern black cottonwood, and red alder trees less

than saw-timber size, amounting to 30 thousand, 23 thousand, and 1 thousand cords, respectively, in the two

States combined.

3/ LANDS OWNED BY INDIANS, EITHER TRIBAL LANDS OR TRUST ALLOTMENTS, ARE MANAGED BY THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS FEDERAL LAND.

Appendix C - 8
Forest Land

The area of all cover types by ownership class is given in table 2 for eastern Oregon and table 6 for eastern Washington.

Of the combined total of 24,729,995 acres of forest land in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington, 45

percent is in national forest ownership, 32 percent is privately owned, 11 percent is in Indian ownership, and the

remaining 12 percent is in the various public ownership classes other than national forest. Figure 3 shows

graphically the ownership of forest land.

A little more than a third of eastern Oregon is forested. As shown in figure 1, the forest land in this

portion of the State occurs in two separate zones.4/ One zone parallels the Cascade Range, extending from the

Columbia River on the north to the California line on the south and eastward from the summit of the Range a

distance of from 20 to 115 miles. Ponderosa pine types predominate in this zone, except in a narrow belt along

the summit occupied by fir-mountain hemlock, lodgepole pine, upper-slope mixture, and subalpine types. The

pure ponderosa pine type, large, type 20.5, occupies approximately a third of the total area of the zone and the

other mature and immature ponderosa pine types occupy most of the remainder of the area. Ponderosa pine in

this zone reaches good development and is of good quality; stands usually average from 8 to 15 M board feet

per acre, and on the best sites greatly exceed these figures.

The other zone in eastern Oregon lies in the northeastern portion of the State and occupies the main

range and spurs of the Blue Mountains and the Wallowa Mountains. Ponderosa pine types, pure or nearly so

in composition, occur throughout nearly all of the southern half of this zone. In the northern half the upper-slope

mixture and lodgepole pine types predominate on much of the area. Here the ponderosa pine types are limited

principally to the lower slopes. There is a considerable acreage of subalpine type and barren land along the

higher ridges and slopes of the Wallowa Mountains.

In the central part of the State and lying between the two areas of forest land is the juniper woodland

zone. Although western juniper is found throughout most of eastern Oregon, it is here that it reaches its best

development and forms almost continuous stands.

4/ FOREST TYPES ARE SHOWN IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL ON THE INCH-TO-THE-MILE COUNTY MAPS AND

1⁄4 -INCH LITHOGRAPHED STATE MAPS. COPIES OF THESE MAPS MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE PACIFIC

NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION.

Appendix C - 9
About two-fifths of eastern Washington is forested and, as in eastern Oregon, there are two large forest

zones. One lying along the Cascade Range reaches eastward from the summit a distance of from 20 to 50

miles and consists of two quite distinct parallel belts of forest land. One belt adjacent to the summit of the

Cascade Range, and occupying the higher slopes and ridges, is composed of fir-mountain hemlock, Douglas

fir, upper-slope mixture, lodgepole pine, barren, and subalpine types. Although much of the timber in this belt

is of value principally for watershed protection, some good timber is found in the Douglas fir types, particularly

in Kittitas and Klickitat Counties. The other belt occupying the lower slopes and extending down to the “dry”

timber line is composed of ponderosa pine types. The best timber in this belt is found in southwestern Yakima

and northwestern Klickitat Counties where ponderosa pine forms excellent stands of high-quality timber.

The second zone in eastern Washington is located in the northeastern part of the State and is dominated by the Colville Mountains. It may be considered an extension of the Inland Empire forest region of Idaho

and Montana. Ponderosa pine types predominate in the southern half of the zone, while the majority of the

area in the northern half is occupied by upper-slope mixture types composed of various combinations of western larch, Douglas fir, white pine, and lodgepole pine.

In addition to the two large forest zones in eastern Washington, there is a forested area of a few hundred thousand acres in the southeastern corner of the State. This area is an extension of the Blue Mountain

forested area of northeastern Oregon and is about equally divided among the ponderosa pine, upper-slope mixture, and subalpine types.

The generalized types by ownership class for eastern Oregon are shown in table 3 and for eastern

Washington in table 7. The distribution of generalized types for both States combined is shown graphically

in figure 4. Ponderosa pine types of saw-timber size occupy more than half of the forested area in eastern

Oregon and more than a third in eastern Washington. In the two States combined there is more than 10 million

acres of ponderosa pine saw timber. Other coniferous saw-timber types, not including lodgepole pine, total 3.3

million acres. Of the second-growth types less than saw-timber size, ponderosa pine types occupy 1.9 million

acres and other coniferous types 1.8 million acres. The area of ponderosa pine saw timber is more than 5

times that of ponderosa pine second growth, a highly significant fact. Lodgepole pine types which are of little

commercial value occupy 2.2 million acres; a slightly larger area was classified as noncommercial forest land.

In the two States deforested cut-over and burned areas amount to only 534 thousand acres. Considering the

adaptability of ponderosa pine stands to selective cutting, the large acreage of saw-timber types, the comparatively small area of idle commercial forest land, the stability of ownership, and the secondary income obtainable from grazing, the possibilities of region-wide sustained yield are very encouraging.

Productive Capacity of Forest Land

Tables 4 and 8 give the area of forest land by site quality classes for eastern Oregon and eastern

Washington, respectively. The “Site Quality” of a forest area is its relative productive capacity, determined by

climatic, soil, topographic, and other factors. The index of site quality is the average height of the dominant

stand at the age of 100 years. Six site quality classes are recognized for ponderosa pine and five for Douglas

fir, class I being in each case the highest. In the survey the ponderosa pine classification was used for the

pure ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine mixture, and white fir and lowland white fir types; the Douglas fir classification was used for the Douglas fir, upper-slope mixture, and fir-mountain hemlock types.

The deforested areas, cut-over land and burns, were classified on the basis of the original type. Approximately 151,000 acres of lodgepole pine types, occurring on areas formerly occupied by either ponderosa

pine or upper-slope mixture types, was classified as to site, but the remainder of the area of lodgepole pine

types was not classified. Likewise no classification was given to the juniper, noncommercial rocky, subalpine,

oak, and hardwood types, all of which are of little or no value for timber production.

The forest land occupied by the types given the ponderosa pine site classification in eastern Oregon

average higher in productive capacity than those in eastern Washington. Approximately 77 percent of the area

so classified in eastern Oregon is of Site Class IV or better, whereas in eastern Washington 67 percent is of

Site Class IV or better. The reverse is true of the forest lands occupied by the types given the Douglas fir classification; eastern Washington has a greater percentage of its area of such lands in Site Class IV or better than

has eastern Oregon.

Appendix C - 10
EXPLANATION OF METHODS AND TERMS

SOURCES OF DATA – IN THE SURVEY OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON USE WAS MADE, SO FAR AS

POSSIBLE, OF ALL EXISTING INFORMATION ON DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST TYPES AND ALL AVAILABLE

ESTIMATES OF TIMBER VOLUME, INCLUDING COUNTY CRUISES AND MAPS AND TIMBER ESTIMATES MADE BY

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES. TIMBER ESTIMATES OF PRIVATE LANDS WERE FURNISHED BY THE OWNERS

WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD BE PUBLISHED ONLY IN COMBINATION WITH CRUISES OF

OTHER OWNERS AND FOR LARGE AREAS. THIS COOPERATION OF TIMBER OWNERS WAS A VERY MATERIAL

AID TO THE PROJECT. TIMBER EXPERTS THOROUGHLY CHECKED IN THE FIELD SUCH EXISTING ESTIMATES

AS WERE AVAILABLE AND DETERMINED ADJUSTMENT FACTORS BY WHICH TO RECONCILE THEM TO THE

STANDARD ADOPTED BY THE FOREST SURVEY. SOME 113,000 ACRES IN EASTERN OREGON AND EASTERN

WASHINGTON WERE INTENSIVELY CRUISED TO ADJUST THE CRUISE ON AREAS FOR WHICH THERE WERE

EXISTING USABLE DATA. THE SURVEY FIELD PERSONNEL MADE TYPE MAPS AND TIMBER ESTIMATES OF ALL

FOREST AREAS IN THE REGION FOR WHICH NO USABLE DATA EXISTED.

TIMBER ESTIMATING STANDARDS – THE TIMBER ESTIMATES, SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING

TABLES WERE MADE IN BOARD FEET, LOG SCALE, SCRIBNER RULE. ALL CRUISING, WHETHER FOR

ADJUSTMENT PURPOSES OR FOR AREAS NOT COVERED BY EXISTING ESTIMATES, WAS SO DONE AS TO

INCLUDE ALL LIVING CONIFEROUS TREES (EXCEPT JUNIPER) THAT WOULD MAKE AT LEAST ONE 16-FOOT

LOG 3 INCHES IN DIAMETER INSIDE BARK AT THE SMALL END AND ALL HARDWOOD TREES THAT WOULD

MAKE AT LEAST ONE 8-FOOT LOG 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER INSIDE BARK AT THE SMALL END.

ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THESE ESTIMATES FOR DECAY, DEFECTS, AND SUCH BREAKAGE AS

IS INEVITABLE IN EXPLOITATION; IN OTHER WORDS, THE ESTIMATES ARE FOR NET VOLUME USABLE IN SAWTIMBER OPERATIONS PRACTICING INTENSIVE UTILIZATION. THE STANDARDS OF UTILIZATION EMPLOYED IN

THE SURVEY ARE PROBABLY SLIGHTLY MORE INTENSIVE FOR THE MORE VALUABLE SPECIES AND

CONSIDERABLY SO FOR THE LESS VALUABLE SPECIES THAN THOSE OBSERVED BY THE AVERAGE PRESENTDAY SAW-TIMBER OPERATOR, OWING LARGELY TO THE INCLUSION OF TREES AS SMALL AS 12 INCHES D.B.H.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRESENT AND PREVIOUS ESTIMATES DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE

INCREASES OR DECREASES IN VOLUME OF TIMBER. SUCH DIFFERENCES MAY BE DUE IN LARGE MEASURE

TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRESENT AND PREVIOUS CRUISES IN STANDARDS AND IN

COMPLETENESS. THE PRESENT ESTIMATES COVER ALL FOREST TREES OF THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS

OUTSIDE OF MUNICIPALITIES, WHETHER IN SMALL FARM WOODS OR ON EXTENSIVE FOREST AREAS.

THE ESTIMATES HEREIN GIVEN MAKE NO DISTINCTION WITH REGARD TO ACCESSIBILITY OR

AVAILABILITY TO MARKET, ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT SOME OF THE TIMBER IS READILY ACCESSIBLE

AND SOME UTTERLY REMOTE. NEITHER DO THEY DIFFERENTIATE AMONG CLASSES OF FOREST PRODUCTS,

THE WHOLE VOLUME ABOVE THE STATED LIMITS BEING EXPESSED IN BOARD FEET OF SAW TIMBER.

OWNERSHIP CLASSES – TIMBER VOLUME AND FOREST-TYPE ACREAGES HAVE BEEN COMPILED BY

OWNERSHIP CLASSES. INFORMATION ON OWNERSHIP WAS TAKEN FROM THE BEST PUBLIC RECORDS

AVAILABLE. IT IS OF COURSE RECOGNIZED THAT OWNERSHIP IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING. THE TOTALS FOR

OWNERSHIP CLASSES WILL IN MANY CASES NOT COINCIDE WITH STATISTICS FROM OTHER SOURCES; NOR

IN FACT WILL FIGURES FOR TOTAL AREA OF THE STATES ALWAYS AGREE WITH FIGURES HITHERTO

ACCEPTED. THE FOLLOWING OWNERSHIP CLASSES WERE CONSIDERED:

PRIVATE. ALL PRIVATELY OWNED FOREST PROPERTY, INCLUDING FARM WOODS.

STATE, AVAILABLE FOR CONVERSION. INCLUDES ANY STATE-OWNED FOREST

PROPERTY NOT RESERVED FROM CUTTING.

STATE, RESERVED FOR ANY PURPOSE. INCLUDES STATE-OWNED FOREST PROPERTY

USED FOR PARKS, NATIONAL-GUARD CAMPGROUNDS, ETC.

COUNTY. INCLUDES FOREST PROPERTY DEEDED TO THE COUNTY. TAX-DELINQUENT

LAND NOT DEEDED TO THE COUNTY IS CLASSIFIED AS “PRIVATE.”

MUNICIPAL. INCLUDES ALL MUNICIPALLY OWNED FOREST PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE

PLATTED LIMITS OF MUNICIPALITIES, SUCH AS CITY WATERSHEDS.

INDIAN. INCLUDES BOTH TRIBAL LANDS AND TRUST ALLOTMENTS.

REVESTED LAND GRANTS. INCLUDES O AND C AND OTHER LAND GRANTS THAT HAVE

REVERTED TO FEDERAL OWNERSHIP, WHETHER CLASSIFIED AS “TIMBER”,

“AGRICULTURAL”, OR “POWER WITHDRAWALS.”

Appendix C - 11
FEDERAL OTHER THAN NATIONAL FORESTS AND REVESTED LAND GRANTS, AVAILABLE

FOR CUTTING. INCLUDES PUBLIC DOMAIN, ETC.

FEDERAL OTHER THAN NATIONAL FORESTS AND REVESTED LAND GRANTS, RESERVED

FROM CUTTING. INCLUDES NATIONAL PARKS, WILD-LIFE REFUGES, MILITARY RESERVATIONS,

ETC.

NATIONAL FOREST, AVAILABLE FOR CUTTING.

NATIONAL FOREST, RESERVED FROM CUTTING.

RAILROAD SELECTION PENDING. FEDERAL LANDS DESIGNATED FOR SELECTION

AS RAILROAD GRANTS BUT NOT YET DEEDED.

THE TERM “RESERVED FROM CUTTING” AS APPLIED TO STATE LAND AND TO NATIONAL-FOREST OR

OTHER FEDERAL LAND DENOTES THAT THE TIMBER IS UNAVAILABLE FOR CUTTING BECAUSE OF STATUTE,

PROCLAMATION, OR POLICY, THE LAND USUALLY BEING OFFICIALLY DEDICATED TO PARK, WATERSHED OR

OTHER USES TO THE EXCLUSION OF TIMBER CUTTING. THE TERM “AVAILABLE FOR CUTTING”, IN CONTRAST

TO THE ABOVE, MEANS THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL OR FORMAL PROHIBITION ON TIMBER CUTTING.

AGE CLASSES AND DEGREE OF STOCKING – IN ADDITION TO TYPE MAPPING ACCORDING TO

COMPOSITION AND SIZE, THE EVEN-AGED IMMATURE FOREST STANDS, THOSE IN WHICH MOST OF THE

DOMINANT TREES ARE UNDER 22 INCHES IN DIAMETER, WERE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO AGE IN 10-YEAR

CLASSES AND ACCORDING TO THEIR DENSITY IN THREE DEGREES OF STOCKING. IF A FOREST OF

SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS, OR SMALL “SECOND GROWTH” IS DENSE ENOUGH TO COVER 70 TO 100 PERCENT

OF THE AREA (AS MEASURED BY THE STOCKED-QUADRAT METHOD), IT IS CLASSIFIED AS “WELL STOCKED”; IF

40 TO 69 PERCENT IS COVERED, IT IS CALLED “MEDIUM STOCKED”; IF 10 TO 39 PERCENT, IT IS “POORLY

STOCKED.” AREAS LESS THAN 10 PERCENT STOCKED ARE CONSIDERED AS “NONRESTOCKING.” IF UNEVEN

AGED THE STANDS WERE CLASSIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THE STOCKING OF POLES AND REPRODUCTION

COMBINED.

TREE SPECIES – THE TIMBER ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN KEPT SEPARATELY FOR ALL THE TREE SPECIES

THAT USUALLY REACH SAW-TIMBER SIZE AND CHARACTER. THE ABSENCE OF VOLUME ESTIMATES FOR ANY

SPECIES IN TABLES 1 AND 5 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE SPECIES DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE

STATE IN QUESTION; A SPECIES MAY BE PRESENT BUT NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND IN SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OR

IN TREES OF COMMERCIAL SIZE, OR IT MAY BE CONFINED TO THE NONCOMMERCIAL TYPES. THIS IS

PARTICULARLY TRUE OF SUCH SPECIES AS JUNIPER AND THE HARDWOODS THAT OFTEN DO NOT ATTAIN

SAW-TIMBER SPECIFICATIONS. THE COMMON NAMES EMPLOYED BY THE FOREST SERVICE (U.S.D.A. MISC.

CIR. 02) HAVE BEEN USED THROUGHOUT.

DEFINITION OF TERMS – THE ABBREVIATION “DBH” SIGNIFIES THE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (4 1⁄2

FEET ABOVE GROUND) OUTSIDE THE BARK.

IN DESCRIBING DOUGLAS FIR TIMBER THE TERMS “OLD GROWTH” AND “SECOND GROWTH” SHOULD

BE REGARDED AS RELATIVE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS TO DISTINGUISH THE OLDER, MORE MATURE TIMBER

FROM THE YOUNGER AND MORE RAPID GROWING TIMBER. THERE IS NO SHARP LINE OF DEMARCATION

BETWEEN THE TWO. LIKEWISE THE TERMS “LARGE” AND “SMALL” APPLIED TO OTHER SPECIES ARE

RELATIVE.

DEFINITIONS OF TYPES

THE FOREST COVER AND LAND USE TYPES RECOGNIZED BY THE FOREST SURVEY OF EASTERN

OREGON AND EASTERN WASHINGTON ARE DEFINED BELOW. NOT ALL OF THESE TYPES OCCUR IN ANY ONE

STATE.

NONFOREST LAND TYPES

1. BARRENS: AREAS TOO ROCKY, OR TOO SOILLESS, OR TOO EXPOSED TO SUPPORT A REAL VEGETATIVE

COVER OF EITHER TREES, SHRUBS, HERBS, OR GRASS. ALSO INCLUDES CITIES, TOWNS, AND

UNMEANDERED WATER SURFACE.

2. CULTIVATED, GRASS, GRASS SWAMP, SAGEBRUSH, OR BRUSH: INCLUDES AREAS NOW IN

AGRICULTURAL USE OR LYING FALLOW AND AREAS WHOSE PRINCIPAL PRESENT VEGETATION IS

EITHER GRASS, SAGEBRUSH, OR BRUSH, INCLUDING MARSHY, SWAMPY AREAS NOT CONSIDERED

LAKES. DOES NOT INCLUDE “FOREST LAND”, I.E., LAND WHICH FROM ALL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN

Appendix C - 12
FORESTED IN RECENT DECADES. NO DIFFERENTIATION IS MADE BETWEEN CULTIVATED LAND,

NATURAL PASTURES, AND RANGE LANDS.

WOODLAND TYPES

4. OAK: A STAND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OR MORE OF ONE OR MORE SPECIES OF

OAK. NO SEPARATION OF AGE CLASSES.

JUNIPER: A STAND COMPOSED PRINCIPALLY OF JUNIPER, OFTEN WITH MORE OR LESS MOUNTAIN

MAHOGANY. LAND WHERE THE TREES ARE SO SCATTERED THAT THEY OCCUPY LESS THAN ABOUT 5

PERCENT OF THE GROUND SURFACE IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS JUNIPER WOODLAND.

5A. DENSE JUNIPER: A STAND IN WHICH THE JUNIPER TREES ARE SO LARGE OR NUMEROUS THAT THEY

OCCUPY 10 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE LAND AREA.

5B. SCATTERED JUNIPER: A STAND IN WHICH THE JUNIPER TREES ARE SO SMALL OR SCATTERED THAT

THEY OCCUPY LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA, ALTHOUGH ABOUT 5 PERCENT OR MORE.

51⁄2. PONDEROSA PINE WOODLAND: AN AREA WITH SOLITARY TREES, OR GROUPS OF TREES TOO SMALL

TO MAP SEPARATELY, IN WHICH MATURE PONDEROSA PINE IS THE PREDOMINATING TREE. A

BORDERLINE ZONE, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE FRINGES OF THE DESERT AND OF THE BREAKS

BETWEEN TIMBERED PLATEAUS AND TREELESS CANYONS, WHERE THE AREA OF GRASS OR

SAGEBRUSH MAY BE AS GREAT OR GREATER THAN THE AREA OF TIMBER. THIS TYPE USUALLY

MERGES AT ITS UPPER BOUNDARY WITH TIMBERLAND TYPES AND AT ITS LOWER LIMIT WITH OPEN

LAND. FOR THE ZONE AS A WHOLE THE VOLUME PER ACRE IS ORDINARILY LESS THAN 3,000 FEET.

THE TREES ARE NOT NECESSARILY NONCOMMERCIAL. IMMATURE TYPES ARE NOT INCLUDED.

TIMBERLAND TYPES

DOUGLAS FIR: FORESTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OR MORE, BY VOLUME, OF

DOUGLAS FIR. THE FOLLOWING SIZE CLASSES ARE RECOGNIZED:

6. DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE OLD GROWTH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES MORE

THAN 40 INCHES IN DBH.

7. DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL OLD GROWTH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 22 TO 40

INCHES IN DBH.

8. DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE SECOND GROWTH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 22

TO 40 INCHES IN DBH. COARSE-GRAINED TIMBER THAT WILL CUT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE

UPPER GRADES OF LUMBER.

9A. DOUGLAS FIR, 12-20 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 12 TO 20

INCHES IN DBH.

9B. DOUGLAS FIR, 6-10 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE FROM 6

TO 10 INCHES IN DBH.

10. DOUGLAS FIR, LESS THAN 6 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE

LESS THAN 6 INCHES IN DBH.

WESTERN RED CEDAR: FORESTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 40 PERCENT OR MORE, BY VOLUME,

OF WESTERN RED CEDAR. LARGELY CONFINED TO SWAMPS AND STREAM MARGINS ON THE

NATIONAL FORESTS OF EASTERN WASHINGTON.

17. WESTERN RED CEDAR, MORE THAN 24 INCHES DBH: FORESTS OF SAW-TIMBER SIZE IN WHICH MOST

OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES MORE THAN 24 INCHES IN DBH.

19A. WESTERN RED CEDAR, 12-24 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES

FROM 12 TO 24 INCHES IN DBH.

19B. WESTERN RED CEDAR, LESS THAN 12 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT

TREES ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN DBH.

PONDEROSA PINE: FORESTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 50 PERCENT OR MORE, BY VOLUME, OF

PONDEROSA PINE, SUGAR PINE, OR JEFFREY PINE, OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES,

Appendix C - 13
EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH SUGAR PINE IS THE KEY TREE, IN WHICH THE STANDS ARE CONTINUOUS IN

CONTRAST TO THE MORE OPEN PONDEROSA PINE WOODLAND TYPE. THREE SIZE CLASSES ARE

RECOGNIZED.

20. PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FORESTS IN WHICH THE DOMINANT STAND AVERAGES MORE THAN 22

INCHES IN DBH, SO-CALLED “YELLOW PINE” (MORE THAN ABOUT 150 OR 200 YEARS OLD), NO

MATERIAL PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN CUT. INCLUDES OCCASIONAL STANDS OF MATURE OR

OVERMATURE PONDEROSA PINE THAT AVERAGE SMALLER THAN 22 INCHES IN DBH.

20.5 PURE PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FORESTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 80 PERCENT OR MORE, BY

VOLUME, OF PONDEROSA PINE OR JEFFREY PINE.

20A. PONDEROSA PINE-SUGAR PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: FORESTS WITH MORE THAN 50 PERCENT

PONDEROSA PINE, BY VOLUME, AND 20 PERCENT OR MORE OF SUGAR PINE, IN WHICH MOST OF THE

VOLUME IS IN TREES MORE THAN 22 INCHES IN DBH.

20B. SUGAR PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: FORESTS CONTAINING 20 PERCENT OR MORE, BY VOLUME, OF SUGAR

PINE AND LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF PONDEROSA PINE, USUALLY IN MIXTURE WITH DOUGLAS FIR,

PONDEROSA PINE, OR WHITE FIR, IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES MORE THAN 22

INCHES IN DBH.

21. PONDEROSA PINE, SMALL: EITHER (A) SELECTIVELY CUT STANDS OF ANY AGE IN WHICH THE VOLUME

OF PONDEROSA PINE TREES 12” OR MORE IN DBH IS 1,000 BOARD FEET OR MORE PER ACRE, OR (B)

IMMATURE STANDS, SO-CALLED “BULL PINE” (LESS THAN 150 TO 200 YEARS OLD), OF 1,000 BOARD

FEET OR MORE PER ACRE, USUALLY WITH THE GREATER PART OF VOLUME IN PONDEROSA PINE

TREES FROM 12 TO 22 INCHES IN DBH BUT INCLUDING THE OCCASIONAL IMMATURE STANDS IN

WHICH THE TREES EXCEED 22 INCHES IN DBH.

22. PONDEROSA PINE, SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS, AND POLES: FORESTS ON OLD BURNS OR HEAVILY CUTOVER LAND IN WHICH MOST OF THE TREES ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN DBH AND THE STAND OF

SAW TIMBER, IF ANY, AMOUNTS TO LESS THAN 1,000 BOARD FEET PER ACRE.

FIR-HEMLOCK: FORESTS IN WHICH EITHER NOBLE FIR, SILVER FIR, ALPINE FIR, SHASTA RED FIR,

WHITE FIR, MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK (OR, OCCASIONALLY, WESTERN HEMLOCK), OR ANY COMBINATION OF

THESE SPECIES COMPOSES AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE VOLUME OF THE STAND. THIS TYPE IS

CHARACTERISTIC OF THE UPPER SLOPES OF THE CASCADE RANGE. TWO SIZE CLASSES ARE

RECOGNIZED.

23. FIR-HEMLOCK, LARGE: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 12 INCHES OR MORE

IN DBH AND PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR SAWLOGS. (MATURE STANDS NOT SUITABLE FOR SAWLOGS

ARE ORDINARILY INCLUDED IN THE SUBALPINE TYPE.)

24. FIR-HEMLOCK, SMALL: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE LESS THAN 12

INCHES IN DBH, USUALLY YOUNG TREES ON OLD BURNS.

LODGEPOLE PINE: FORESTS CONTAINING AT LEAST 50 PERCENT, BY VOLUME, OF LODGEPOLE PINE,

OFTEN ALMOST PURE. THREE SIZE CLASSES ARE RECOGNIZED.

25. LODGEPOLE PINE, 12 INCHES ARE LARGER DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE

DOMINANT TREES ARE 12 INCHES OR MORE IN DBH.

26. LODGEPOLE PINE, 6-10 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE FROM

6 TO 10 INCHES IN DBH.

26A. LODGEPOLE PINE, LESS THAN 6 INCHES DBH: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES

ARE LESS THAN 6 INCHES IN DBH.

PINE MIXTURE: MIXED FORESTS OF WHICH PONDEROSA PINE CONSTITUTES ABOUT 20 TO 50

PERCENT, BY VOLUME, WITH A VARIABLE QUANTITY OF WESTERN LARCH, WHITE FIR, DOUGLAS FIR,

LODGEPOLE PINE, WHITE PINE, OR OTHER SPECIES OR OF ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES.

CHARACTERISTIC OF NORTH SLOPES AND COOLER BASINS. TWO SIZE CLASSES ARE RECOGNIZED.

27. PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 12 INCHES OR MORE

IN DBH AND IN WHICH NO MATERIAL QUANTITY OF CUTTING HAS BEEN DONE.

Appendix C - 14
28. PINE MIXTURE, SMALL: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE LESS THAN 12

INCHES IN DBH.

UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE: MIXED FORESTS ORDINARILY ABOVE THE PONDEROSA PINE ZONE, NEVER

CONTAINING MORE THAN A NEGLIGIBLE QUANTITY OF THAT SPECIES. CHARACTERISTIC OF THE

COLDER, MOISTER SITES. CONTAINS VARIABLE PROPORTIONS OF LARCH, WHITE FIR, ALPINE FIR,

DOUGLAS FIR, ENGELMANN SPRUCE, LODGEPOLE PINE, WHITE PINE, AND OCCASIONALLY OTHER

SPECIES. WHERE ENGELMANN SPRUCE, WHITE PINE, OR LARCH FORMS 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF

THE STAND, BY VOLUME, MAPPED AS A SEPARATE SUBTYPE AND DESIGNATED BY ADDING SPECIES

SYMBOL TO TYPE NUMBER, E.G., 27.5 ES. TWO SIZE CLASSES ARE RECOGNIZED.

27.5 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, LARGE: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 12 INCHES

OR MORE IN DBH.

28.5 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, SMALL: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE LESS THAN

12 INCHES IN DBH.

WHITE FIR: FORESTS CONTAINING 50 PERCENT OR MORE, BY VOLUME, OF ABIES GRANDIS OR

A. CONCOLOR. USUALLY OCCUR WITHIN THE RANGE OF PONDEROSA PINE.

29. WHITE FIR, LARGE: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE VOLUME IS IN TREES 12 INCHES OR MORE IN

DBH (MORE THAN ABOUT 150 YEARS OLD).

30. WHITE FIR, SMALL: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE DOMINANT TREES ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN

DBH (UNDER ABOUT 150 YEARS OLD).

HARDWOOD: FORESTS IN WHICH MAPLE, ASPEN, COTTONWOOD, ETC. PREDOMINATE; PURE OR IN

MIXTURE. (DOES NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OAK WOODLAND.)

31. HARDWOOD: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE TREES ARE LESS THAN 12 INCHES IN DBH.

31.5 HARDWOOD: FORESTS IN WHICH MOST OF THE TREES ARE 12 INCHES OR MORE IN DBH.

33. SUBALPINE: FORESTS AT UPPER LIMITS OF TREE GROWTH, USUALLY UNMERCHANTABLE BECAUSE

OF POOR FORM AND SMALL SIZE. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ARE ALPINE FIR, MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK,

SHASTA RED FIR, LODGEPOLE PINE, WHITEBARK PINE, WESTERN WHITE PINE, AND ALPINE LARCH.

USUALLY INTERSPERSED WITH MEADOWS AND GLADES. NO VOLUME IS RECORDED FOR THIS TYPE.

NONRESTOCKED CUTOVER: LOGGED AREAS THAT HAVE NOT SATISFACTORILY RESTOCKED (ARE

LESS THAN 10 PERCENT STOCKED) OR THAT DO NOT SUPPORT A RESIDUAL STAND OF 1,000 BOARD

FEET PER ACRE, AND THAT ARE NOT PUT TO OTHER USE.

35A. AREAS CUT SINCE BEGINNING OF 1920.

35B. AREAS AS CUT BEFORE 1920.

37. DEFORESTED BURNS: LANDS NOT CUT OVER ON WHICH THE STAND HAS BEEN KILLED BY FIRE, AND

THAT HAVE NOT RESTOCKED. THE REMAINING GREEN TIMBER, IF ANY, IS NOT LOGGABLE. AREAS

DEFORESTED BY INSECTS ARE DESIGNATED BY 37B; AREAS DEFORESTED BY WIND THROW ARE

DESIGNATED BY 37W.

38. NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKYAREAS: AREAS WITHIN THE RANGE OF COMMERCIAL TIMBER BELOW THE

LIMITS OF THE SUBALPINE TYPE THAT ARE TOO ROCKY, TOO STEEP, OR TOO STERILE TO PRODUCE A

STAND OF COMMERCIAL SIZE, DENSITY, AND QUALITY. THE TIMBER MAY BE OF ANY SPECIES; IT IS NOT,

AND IS NOT LIKELY TO BE, OF COMMERCIAL VALUE, BECAUSE OF DIFFICULT LOGGING CONDITIONS,

LOW QUALITY, POOR FORM, AND LOW VOLUME. ORDINARILY THE STAND AVERAGES LESS THAN 5,000

BOARD FEET PER ACRE UNLESS OF PONDEROSA PINE, IN WHICH CASE IT AVERAGES LESS THAN 2,000

BOARD FEET PER ACRE. NO VOLUME IS RECORDED FOR THIS TYPE. THIS TYPE DOES NOT INCLUDE

UPPER PORTIONS OF VALLEYS OR HIGHER SLOPES THAT ARE NOW INACCESSIBLE BUT ARE

POTENTIALLY LOGGABLE.

Appendix C - 15
Appendix C - 16
Appendix C - 17
Appendix C - 18

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 1.—VOLUME OF SAW TIMBER,1/ BY SPECIES AND BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

THOUSANDS OF BOARD FEET, LOG SCALE, SCRIBNER RULE

FEDERAL

SUR- INDIAN, REVESTED PUBLIC

V E Y AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND O. AND C. DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

SYM- SPECIES PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST LAND AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

BOL CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENTS GRANT FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING2/ CUTTING CUTTING

Y PONDEROSA PINE 23,230,582 129,534 320 286,086 7,601 9,670,196 143,410 636,193 150,317 168,248 30,839,716 172,820 65,435,023S P SUGAR PINE 386,047 5,810 179,793 34,838 260 492 128,660 629 736,529W WESTERN WHITE PINE 13,379 208 35 10,464 7,050 14 6,629 297,571 24,408 359,758LP LODGEPOLE PINE 79,431 1,301 787 4 6,464 450 2,749 20 30,834 538,890 30,288 691,218DF DOUGLAS FIR 1,853,267 18,933 37,862 7,398 534,605 60,973 40,101 4,197 5,117,666 92,704 7,767,706C WESTERN RED CEDAR 128 57 5,238 3 5,426YC ALASKA CEDAR 8 434 442IC INCENSE CEDAR 120,305 1,125 299 47,353 972 689 552 49,640 651 221,586H WESTERN HEMLOCK 696 6,624 5,070 208,285 4,502 225,177MH MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK 7,080 1,925 92,473 166,722 1,282,452 164,629 1,715,281WF WHITE AND LOWLAND WHITE FIR 1,563,545 11,292 19,082 3,902 417,337 45,012 13,778 58 22,078 3,149,452 61,842 5,307,378NF NOBLE AND SHASTA RED FIR 73,375 47,682 69,029 3,330 198,590 735,612 123,058 1,250,676A SILVER FIR 591 13,546 16,750 30,887AF ALPINE FIR 11,158 116 665 947 9 147,899 8,212 169,006WL WESTERN LARCH 615,257 4,095 22,947 1,547 23,631 16,481 2,465,525 30,658 3,180,141E S ENGELMANN SPRUCE 70,964 480 1,633 834 12,119 1,592 97 448,135 29,076 564,930BC NORTHERN BLACK COTTONWOOD 11,516 10 15 15 2,952 146 2,317 16,971ASP ASPEN 1,715 40 1,755

TOTAL 28,038,453 172,788 320 370,787 21,966 11,053,288 361,734 715,342 150,395 603,509 45,431,078 760,230 87,679,890

1/ TREES 12 INCHES AND MORE IN D.B.H. 2/ CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK

STATE NATIONAL FOREST
Appendix C - 19

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 2.—AREA, IN ACRES, OF ALL FOREST COVER TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

STATE FEDERAL

SUR- INDIAN, REVESTED PUBLIC NATIONAL FOREST

VEY AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND O. AND C. DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

TYPE TYPE DEFINITION PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST LAND AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

NO. CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENTS GRANT FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING1/ CUTTING CUTTING

WOODLAND:

4 OAK: FOREST CONTAINING 60% OR MORE OF OAK 28,880 1,990 1,040 545 400 1,215 2,125 36,1955A DENSE JUNIPER: JUNIPER (OR MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY) FOREST OCCUPYING 10% OR MORE OF THE AREA 127,110 8,270 40 30,830 50 1,000 247,065 4,775 419,1405B SCATTERED JUNIPER: JUNIPER (OR MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY) FOREST OCCUPYING 5 TO 10% OF THE AREA 438,210 30,005 70 47,410 210 17,870 520 521,210 155 61,340 1,117,0005 1⁄2 PONDEROSA PINE WOODLAND: SCATTERED STANDS OF PONDEROSA PINE ON UNFAVORABLE SITES 192,720 4,480 20 6,740 70 48,675 1,480 56,265 295 174,800 485,545

PONDEROSA PINE: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF PONDEROSA PINE

20 PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 50 TO 80% OF PONDEROSA PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 232,130 1,800 5,755 115 79,725 6,085 7,220 1,505 508,515 3,710 846,64020.5 PURE PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 80% OR MORE OF PONDEROSA PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 1,773,320 11,120 50 26,760 395 588,900 4,505 71,770 11,300 5,645 2,289,795 9,605 4,793,165

20A PONDEROSA PINE-SUGAR PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF PONDEROSA PINE AND

20% OR MORE OF SUGAR PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 11,745 9,750 875 7,760 30,130

21 PONDEROSA PINE, SMALL: 12 TO 22” D.B.H. 257,485 2,055 35 8,910 150,455 435 8,325 1,110 260 250,750 195 680,01522 PONDEROSA PINE SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS, AND POLES: LESS THAN 12" D.B.H. 519,610 4,615 10 11,305 860 4,050 4,050 15,765 185 100 231,705 260 792,560

PINE MIXTURE: MIXED FOREST CONTAINING 20 TO 50% OF PONDEROSA PINE

20B SUGAR PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 20% OR MORE OF SUGAR PINE AND LESS THAN 50% OF

PONDEROSA PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 23,555 625 190 4,595 25 6,665 35,655

27 PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 107,695 810 2,985 630 22,565 3,825 3,205 1,480 302,210 4,215 449,62028 PINE MIXTURE, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 97,865 1,180 1,635 535 6,905 1,695 36,605 575 146,995

DOUGLAS FIR: FOREST CONTAINING 60% OR MORE OF DOUGLAS FIR

6 DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE OLD GROWTH: MORE THAN 40” D.B.H. 775 30 595 3,095 1,210 5,7057 DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL OLD GROWTH: 22 TO 40” D.B.H. 9,340 230 6,260 3,720 55 65 38,580 1,860 60,1108 DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE SECOND GROWTH: 22 TO 40” D.B.H. 5,460 160 190 10,910 190 16,9109A DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE POLES: 12 TO 20” D.B.H. 4,325 100 65 100 140 28,895 35 33,6609B DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL POLES: 6 TO 10" D.B.H. 6,610 145 90 120 1,140 27,940 100 36,14510 DOUGLAS FIR SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: LESS THAN 6” D.B.H. 3,725 5 295 20 55 40 2,980 7,120

WESTERN RED CEDAR: FOREST CONTAINING 40% OR MORE OF WESTERN RED CEDAR

17 WESTERN RED CEDAR, LARGE: 24” OR MORE D.B.H. 180 180

FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF NOBLE FIR, SHASTA RED FIR, SILVER FIR,

ALPINE FIR, OR MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, OR OF ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES

23 FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 5,070 275 13,440 5,470 215 43,710 239,195 42,780 350,15524 FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 165 6,225 900 105 1,010 18,585 3,010 30,000

UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE: MIXED FOREST OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF WESTERN LARCH, DOUGLAS FIR, ENGELMANN

SPRUCE, THE BALSAM FIRS, MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, LODGEPOLE PINE, WESTERN WHITE PINE, AND OCCASIONALLY

OTHER SPECIES

271⁄2 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 107,650 965 4,325 640 5,195 72,330 608,990 7,925 808,020281⁄2 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 74,720 385 1,065 185 10,170 1,335 147,585 10,075 245,520

WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR

29 WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 23,180 195 810 1,590 1,195 500 675 75,960 255 104,36030 WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 1,140 150 45 45 2,075 3,455

LODGEPOLE PINE: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF LODGEPOLE PINE

25 LODGEPOLE PINE, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 3,530 160 235 165 4,795 48,075 595 57,55526 LOOGEPOLE PINE, MEDIUM: 6 TO 10" D.B.H. 187,560 1,905 6,550 80 160,985 1,905 53,115 30 45,005 840,700 27,065 1,324,90026A LODGEPOLE PINE, SMALL: LESS THAN 6” D.B.H. 34,660 210 1,260 40 22,685 4,795 3,010 167,360 7,065 241,085

HARDWOODS: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF HARDWOODS

31.5 HARDWOODS, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 5,945 10 755 135 20 6,86531 HARDWOODS, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 5,935 55 30 35 2,750 5 5,270 14,08033 SUBALPINE: FOREST AT UPPER LIMITS OF TREE GROWTH, USUALLY UNMERCHANTABLE 10,105 175 140 12,015 3,740 24,435 229,445 135,300 415,355

NONRESTOCKED CUTOVER: LOGGED AREA NOT SATISFACTORILY RESTOCKED AND NOT CARRYING A RESIDUAL STAND

OF 1 M OR MORE PER ACRE

35A CUT SINCE BEGINNING OF 1920 46,150 280 1,210 50 2,380 795 6,620 40 57,52535B CUT BEFORE 1920 6,105 25 175 1,465 7,770

DEFORESTED AREA: NONRESTOCKED AREA DEFORESTED OTHERWISE THAN BY CUTTING

37 DEFORESTED BURN 19,505 360 1,400 9,410 1,985 6,060 1,115 40,740 2,550 83,12537B AREA ON WHICH STAND WAS KILLED BY INSECTS 150 115 130 640 1,03538 NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKY AREA 40,895 2,385 1,375 125 2,050 2,555 35,375 1,145 242,140 13,955 342,000

TOTAL FOREST TYPES 4,413,025 73,975 225 162,845 4,620 1,181,745 47,495 1,117,080 13,080 134,145 6,664,490 272,570 14,085,295

1,1B, NONFOREST LAND: CULTIVATED, GRASS, SAGEBRUSH, BARRENS, URBAN AREAS, AND UNMEANDERED WATER

and 2 SURFACES 26,743,105 ACRES OF NONFOREST LAND UNCLASSIFIED BY OWNERSHIP 2,090 1,088,805 53,405 2/27,887,405

TOTAL 15,170 7,753,295 325,975 41,972,700

1/ Crater Lake National Park and Upper Klamath Wildlife Refuge. 2/ For four counties, and for national forests in all counties, data on area of nonforest land were obtained in the forest survey. For nonforest land outside national forests in the other counties totals were computed by

subtracting forest-survey area figures from county area figures issued by the Bureau of the Census.
Appendix C - 20

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 3.—AREA, IN ACRES, OF GENERALIZED FOREST TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

FEDERAL

STATE INDIAN, REVESTED PUBLIC NATIONAL FOREST

AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND O. AND C. DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

TYPE DEFINITION PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST LAND AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENTS GRANT FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING1/ CUTTING CUTTING

WOODLAND: OAK AND JUNIPER

SURVEY TYPES 4, 5A, AND 5B 594,200 40,265 110 79,280 805 18,870 920 769,490 155 68,240 1,572,335

HARDWOODS: COTTONWOOD, ASPEN, AND RED ALDER

SURVEY TYPES 31 AND 31.5 11,880 65 30 790 2,885 5 5,290 20,945

PONDEROSA PINE AND SUGAR PINE 12” OR MORE D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPES 51⁄2 , 20, 20.5, 20A ,20B, 21 AND 27 2,598,650 20,890 105 51,150 1,210 900,260 21,800 146,785 12,705 8,995 3,540,495 17,725 7,320,770

ON CUTOVER AREAS 560,135 4,385 10 10,960 680 3,210 4,040 9,275 171,440 15 764,150ON OLD BURNS 57,340 1,410 1,980 715 7,790 10 8,185 185 100 96,870 820 175,405TOTAL 617,475 5,795 10 12,940 1,395 11,000 4,050 17,460 185 100 268,310 835 939,555

CONIFERS 12" OR MORE D.B.H. OTHER THAN PONDEROSA PINE,

SUGAR PINE, AND LODGEPOLE PINESURVEY TYPES 6, 7, 8, 9A, 17, 23, 27 1⁄2, AND 29 155,800 1,290 5,865 640 26,585 10,980 73,430 44,450 1,005,805 54,255 1,379,100

ON CUTOVER AREAS 60,100 225 940 60 835 20 6,765 68,945ON OLD BURNS 26,260 305 370 185 16,750 920 1,845 1,075 192,400 13,185 253,295TOTAL 86,360 530 1,310 185 16,810 920 2,680 1,095 199,165 13,185 322,240

LODGEPOLE PINE 12” OR MORE D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPE 25 3,530 160 235 165 4,795 48,075 595 57,555

LODGEPOLE PINE LESS THAN 12” D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPES 26 AND 26A 222,220 2,115 7,810 120 183,670 1,905 57,910 30 48,015 1,008,060 34,130 1,565,985

NONCOMMERCIAL AREAS

SURVEY TYPES 33 AND 38 51,000 2,385 1,550 265 14,065 2,555 39,115 25,580 471,585 149,255 757,355

NONRESTOCKED CUT-OVER AREAS, DEFORESTED BURNS, AND AREAS ON

WHICH STANDS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY INSECTS

SURVEY TYPES 35A, 35B, 37, AND 37B 71,910 640 2,750 9,460 4,365 7,160 1,115 49,465 2,590 149,455

TOTAL FOREST TYPES 4,413,025 73,975 225 162,845 4,620 1,181,745 47,495 1,117,080 13,080 134,145 6,664,490 272,570 14,085,295

NONFOREST LAND

SURVEY TYPES 1, 1B, AND 2 26,743,105 ACRES OF NONFOREST LAND UNCLASSIFIED BY OWNERSHIP 2,090 1,088,805 53,405 2/ 27,387,405

TOTAL 15,170 7,753,295 325,975 41,972,700

1/ Crater Lake National Park and Upper Klamath Wildlife Refuge. 2/ For four counties, and for national forests in all counties, data on area of nonforest land were obtained in the forest survey. For nonforest land outside national forests in the other

counties, totals were computed by subtracting forest-survey area figures from county area figures issued by the Bureau of the Census.

PONDEROSA PINE AND SUGAR PINE LESS THAN

12” D.B.H.SURVEY TYPES 22 AND 28

CONIFERS LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. OTHER THAN

PONDEROSA PINE, SUGAR PINE, AND LODOEPOLE PINE

SURVEY TYPES 9B, 10, 24, 28 1⁄2 , AND 30
FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF OREGON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 4.-AREA OF FOREST LAND, BY SITE QUALITY

SITE CLASSIFICATION AREA IN PERCENTAGE OF—

COMMERCIAL TOTAL

TYPE 1/ SITE QUALITY AREA IN CONIFEROUS FOREST TOTAL

CLASS ACRES FOREST LAND AREA

LAND

II 8,913 0.1 0.1

III 504,928 5.0 3.6 1.2

IV 5,987,808 58.9 42.5 14.3

V 1,787,921 17.5 12.7 4.3

VI 136,477 1.3 0.9 0.3

TOTAL 8,426,047 82.8 59.8 20.1

III 35,245 0.3 0.3 0.1

IV 283,543 2.8 2.0 0.7

V 1,433,520 14.1 10.2 3.4

TOTAL 1,752,308 17.2 12.5 4.2

TOTAL COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS 10,178,355 100.0 72.3 24.3

LODGEPOLE PINE2/ 1,554,860 11.0 3.7

JUNIPER AND MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY 1,537,455 10.9 3.7

NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKY 342,030 2.4 0.8

SUBALPINE 415,455 3.0 1.0

OAK 36,195 0.3

HARDWOOD 20,945 0.1 0.1

TOTAL OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS 3,906,940 27.7 9.3

ALL FOREST TYPES 14,085,295 100.0 33.6

NONFOREST TYPES 3/27,887,405 66.4

GRAND TOTAL 41,972,700 100.0

1/ DEFORESTED AREAS, TYPES 35A, 35B, 37, AND 37B, WERE CLASSIFIED AS TO SITE ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL TYPE.

2/ EXCLUDES 72,420 ACRES OF LODGEPOLE PINE TYPES CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS.

3/ FOR FOUR COUNTIES, AND FOR NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALL COUNTIES, DATA ON AREA OF NONFOREST LAND WERE OBTAINED IN THE FOREST SURVEY. FOR NONFOREST LAND

OUTSIDE NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE OTHER COUNTIES, TOTALS WERE COMPUTED BY SUBTRACTING FOREST-SURVEY AREA FIGURES FROM COUNTY AREA FIGURES ISSUED BY

THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.

DOUGLAS

FIR

COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS

PONDEROSA

PINE

Appendix C - 21
Appendix C - 22

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 5.—VOLUME OF SAW TIMBER, 1/ BY SPECIES AND BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

THOUSANDS OF BOARD FEET, LOG SCALE, SCRIBNER RULE

STATE FEDERAL

SUR- INDIAN, PUBLIC NATIONAL FOREST

VEY AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

SYM- SPECIES PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

BOL CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENTS FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING2/ CUTTING CUTTING

Y PONDEROSA PINE 5,282,183 1,640,338 11 197,275 141 5,500,946 186,578 194,956 2,433 4,820,401 106,998 17, 932,260W WESTERN WHITE PINE 405,902 32,348 150 5,826 37,534 4,349 31,994 482,153 34,450 1,034,706LP LODGEPOLE PINE 79,325 23,936 4,094 26,635 5,630 10,866 250,981 74,282 475,749DF DOUGLAS FIR 3,439,150 777,011 18 244,713 1,512,128 187,748 262,014 190 5,197,042 307,187 11,927,201C WESTERN RED CEDAR 92,295 4,108 7 1,914 13,269 1,476 18,055 296,641 12,044 439,809YC ALASKA CEDAR 204 89 827 1,902 23,258 3,255 29,535H WESTERN HEMLOCK 323,035 10,041 27 5,920 762 2,658 66,468 634,092 80,801 1,123,804MH MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK 78,424 2,459 115,379 102,186 665,663 58,115 1,022,226WF WHITE AND LOWLAND WHITE FIR 391,229 49,657 81 4,674 198,809 4,401 26, 269 492,052 30,362 1,197,534NF NOBLE FIR 11,525 888 6,140 17,042 35 35,630A SILVER FIR 373,986 9,063 80 45 217,574 1,615,648 259,385 2,475,781AF ALPINE FIR 27,334 5,790 114,227 5 20,757 254,098 107,025 529,236WL WESTERN LARCH 1,063,719 314,652 18 134,356 688,346 152,581 46,714 2,021,221 83,757 4,505,364ES ENGELMANN SPRUCE 81,288 42,635 4,521 83,912 1,527 38,973 955,337 671,247 1,879,440RA RED ALDER 76 25 101OM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 16 21BC NORTHERN BLACK COTTONWOOD 32,164 737 47 11,332 330 745 15,910 2,396 63,661ASP ASPEN 577 90 667

TOTAL 11,682,421 2,913,752 312 603,420 141 8,304,106 547,353 1,045,613 2,623 17,741,645 1,831,339 44,672,725

1/ Trees 12 inches and more in d.b.h. 2/ Fort George Wright, Spokane County
Appendix C - 23

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 6.—AREA, IN ACRES, OF ALL FOREST COVER TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

STATE FEDERAL

NATIONAL FOREST

SUR- INDIAN, PUBLIC

VEY AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

SYM- TYPE DEFINITION PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

BOL CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENTS FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING1/ CUTTING CUTTING

WOODLAND:

4 OAK: FOREST CONTAINING 80% OR MORE OF OAK 21,990 1,280 1,025 4,055 1,835 30,1855B SCATTERED JUNIPER: JUNIPER (OR MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY) FOREST OCCUPYING 5 TO 10% OF THE AREA 185 60 24551⁄2 PONDEROSA PINE WOODLAND: SCATTERED STANDS OF PONDEROSA PINE ON UNFAVORABLE SITES 143,730 22,095 6,525 25 87,440 24,200 665 49,910 60 334,650

PONDEROSA PINE: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF PONDEROSA PINE

20 PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 50 TO 80% OF PONDEROSA PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 153,950 45,975 9,685 241,040 9,715 12,650 224,860 7,875 705,75020.5 PURE PONDEROSA PINE, LARGE: FOREST CONTAINING 80% OR MORE OF PONDEROSA PINE, MORE THAN 22” D.B.H. 354,225 128,165 7,885 10 424,695 12,715 12,970 321,580 2,715 1,264,96021 PONDEROSA PINE, SMALL: 12 TO 22” D.B.H. 600,180 59,710 39,215 60 182,180 16,255 340 2,230 64,355 110 964,63522 PONDEROSA PINE SEEDLINGS, SAPLINGS, AND POLES: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 560,075 42,420 42,445 85 49,100 15,685 385 455 22,415 150 733,215

PINE MIXTURE: MIXED FOREST CONTAINING 20 TO 50% CF PONDEROSA PINE

27 PINE MIXTURE, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B H. 108,610 18,880 9,270 117,150 6,185 4,930 154,015 6,160 425,20028 PINE MIXTURE, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 154,010 12,665 14,520 24,460 6,775 740 22,000 130 235,300

DOUGLAS FIR: FOREST CONTAINING 60% OR MORE OF DOUGLAS FIR

6 DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE OLD GROWTH: MORE THAN 40” D.B.H. 330 100 470 90 9907 DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL OLD GROWTH: 22 TO 40” D.B.H. 84,255 19,640 4,560 14,840 4,830 8,570 159,965 9,305 305,9658 DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE SECOND GROWTH: 22 TO 40” D.B.H 53,320 19,205 8,710 16,985 6,925 2,405 49,810 600 157,9609A DOUGLAS FIR, LARGE POLES: 12 TO 20” D.B.H. 32,410 3,580 6,230 4,255 3,065 1,455 65,475 305 116,7759B DOUGLAS FIR, SMALL POLES: 6 TO 10” D.B.H. 35,785 4,110 3,380 2,000 6,630 2,605 51,465 385 106,36010 DOUGLAS FIR SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: LESS THAN 6” D.B.H. 33,860 6,320 5,055 1,065 4,700 2,560 24,380 1,130 79,070

WESTERN RED CEDAR: FOREST CONTAINING 40% OR MORE OF WESTERN RED CEDAR

17 WESTERN RED CEDAR, LARGE: MORE THAN 24” D.B.H. 2,415 50 290 10 125 10,595 210 13,69519A WESTERN RED CEDAR POLES: 12 TO 24” D.B.H. 1,155 175 125 1,785 3,24019B WESTERN RED CEDAR SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: LESS THAN 12" D.B.H. 440 105 130 650 1,325

FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF NOBLE FIR, SHASTA RED FIR, SILVER FIR,

ALPINE FIR, OR MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, OR OF ANY COMBINATION OF THESE SPECIES

23 FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 35,680 1,105 17,475 25,035 163,660 18,065 261,02024 FIR-MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 11,980 65 5,430 6,260 46,715 3,860 74,310

UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE: MIXED FOREST OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF WESTERN LARCH, DOUGLAS FIR,

ENGELMANN SPRUCE, THE BALSAM FIRS, MOUNTAIN HEMIOCK, LODGEPOLE PINE, WESTERN WHITE PINE,AND OCCASIONALLY OTHER SPECIES

271⁄2 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, LARGE: LESS THAN 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 189,510 55,845 15 23,045 104,695 25,580 14,540 511,170 86,730 1,011,130281⁄2 UPPER-SLOPE MIXTURE, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 455,635 52,610 805 102,970 62,585 80,600 7,845 406,260 22,255 1,191,565

WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR

29 WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 3,730 5 65 1,895 50 450 8,650 30 14,87530 WHITE FIR OR LOWLAND WHITE FIR, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 1,890 880 380 60 690 3,900

LODGEPOLE PINE: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF LODGEPOLE PINE

25 LODGEPOLE PINE, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 4,095 1,715 15 3,825 330 715 14,960 3,500 29,15526 LODGEPOLE PINE, MEDIUM: 6 TO 10” D.B.H. 21,275 36,060 1,450 23,010 2,420 1,885 181,765 20,095 287,96026A LODGEPOLE PINE, SMALL: LESS THAN 6” D.B.H. 54,110 13,070 160 7,865 28,945 4,260 1,370 146,900 37,590 294,270

HARDWOODS: FOREST CONTAINING 50% OR MORE OF HARDWOODS

31.5 HARDWOODS, LARGE: 12” OR MORE D.B.H. 8,300 70 15 2,445 115 25 835 11,80531 HARDWOODS, SMALL: LESS THAN 12” D.B.H. 5,300 215 15 1,050 10 75 645 7,31033 SUBALPINE: FOREST AT UPPER LIMITS OF TREE GROWTH, USUALLY UNMERCHANTABLE 36,105 10,160 700 945 14,320 4,040 49,940 567,850 181,405 865,465

NONRESTOCKED CUTOVER: LOGGED AREA NOT SATISFACTORILY RESTOCKED ANO NOT CARRYING A RESIDUAL STAND

OF 1 M OR MORE PER ACRE

35A CUT SINCE BEGINNING OF 1920 67,220 9,935 14,620 1,170 5,435 195 7,370 105,94535B CUT BEFORE 1920 31,935 1,140 3,905 55 345 220 37,600

DEFORESTED AREA: NONRESTOCKED AREA DEFORESTED OTHERWISE THAN BY CUTTING

37 DEFORESTED BURN 75,700 16,635 26,380 17,655 31,145 4,045 64,320 5,205 241,08538 NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKY AREA 89,340 34,070 7,500 35 62,380 35,670 27,805 419,640 51,345 727,785

TOTAL FOREST TYPES 3,432,730 617,910 1,680 347,780 215 1,516,490 309,840 190,685 2,685 3,765,380 459,305 10,644,700

1,1B, NONFOREST LAND: CULTIVATED, GRASS, SAGEBRUSH, BARRENS, URBAN AREAS, AND UNMEANDERED WATER

AND 2 SURFACES 16,096,930 ACRES OF NONFOREST LAND UNCLASSIFIED BY OWNERSHIP 277,495 95,545 16,469,970

TOTAL 4,042,875 554,850 27,114,670

1/ FORT GEORGE WRIGHT, SPOKANE COUNTY.
Appendix C - 24

FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 7. —AREA, IN ACRES, OF GENERALIZED FOREST TYPES, BY OWNERSHIP CLASS

STATE FEDERAL

NATIONAL FOREST

INDIAN, PUBLIC

AVAILABLE RESERVED TRIBAL AND DOMAIN, RAILROAD RESERVED AVAILABLE RESERVED

TYPE DEFINITION PRIVATE FOR FROM COUNTY MUNICIPAL TRUST AVAILABLE SELECTION FROM FOR FROM TOTAL

CUTTING CUTTING ALLOTMENT FOR CUTTING PENDING CUTTING1/ CUTTING CUTTING

WOODLAND: OAK AND JUNIPER

SURVEY TYPES 4 AND 5B 22,175 1,340 1,025 4,055 1,835 30,430

HARDWOODS: COTTONWOOD, RED ALDER, AND ASPEN

SURVEY TYPES 31 AND 31.5 13,600 285 30 3,495 125 100 1,480 19,115

PONDEROSA PINE 12" OR MORE D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPES 51⁄2 , 20, 20.5, 21, AND 27 1,360,695 274,825 72,580 95 1,052,505 69,070 31,555 2,230 814,720 16,920 3,695,195

ON CUTOVER AREAS 585,900 43,750 45,355 85 44,330 12,875 300 455 18,815 110 751,975ON OLD BURNS 128,185 11,335 11,610 29,230 9,585 825 25,600 170 216,540TOTAL 714,085 55,085 56,965 85 73,560 22,460 1,125 455 44,415 280 968,515

CONIFERS 12" OR MORE IN D.B.H. OTHER THAN PONDEROSA

PINE AND LODGEPOLE PINE

SURVEY TYPES 6, 7, 8, 9A, 17, 19A, 23, 271⁄2 , AND 29 402,805 99,605 15 42,610 160,435 40,585 52,680 971,815 115,335 1,885,885

ON CUTOVER AREAS 259,545 23,995 40,045 1,985 14,085 23,065 362,720ON OLD BURNS 280,045 39,990 805 71,845 69,095 78,035 19,270 506,860 27,630 1,093,575TOTAL 539,590 63,985 805 111,890 71,080 92,120 19,270 529,925 27,630 1,456,295

LODGEPOLE PINE 12" OR MORE IN D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPE 25 4,095 1,715 15 3,825 330 715 14,960 3,500 29,155

LODGEPOLE PINE LESS THAN 12” D.B.H.

SURVEY TYPES 26 AND 26A 75,385 49,130 160 9,315 51,955 6,680 3,255 328,665 57,685 582,230

NONCOMMERCIAL AREAS

SURVEY TYPES 33 AND 38 125,445 44,230 700 8,445 35 76,700 39,710 77,745 987,490 232,750 1,593,250

NONRESTOCKED CUT-OVER AREAS AND DEFORESTED BURNS

SURVEY TYPES 35A, 35B, AND 37 174,855 27,710 44,905 18,880 36,925 4,240 71,910 5,205 384,630

TOTAL FOREST TYPES 3,432,730 617,910 1,680 347,780 215 1,516,490 309,840 190,685 2,685 3,765,380 459,305 10,644,700

NONFOREST LAND

SURVEY TYPES 1, 18, AND 2 16,096,930 ACRES OF NONFOREST LAND UNCLASSIFIED BY OWNERSHIP CLASS 277,495 95,545 16,469,970

TOTAL 4,042,875 554,850 27,114,670

1/ Fort George Wright, Spokane County.

PONDEROSA PINE LESS THAN 12" D.B.H.SURVEY TYPES 22 AND 28

CONIFERS LESS THAN 12" D.B.H. OTHER THAN

PONDEROSA PINE AND LODGEPOLE PINE

SURVEY TYPES 9B, 10, 19B, 24, 281⁄2 , AND 30
FOREST STATISTICS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EAST OF THE CASCADE RANGE

FROM INVENTORY PHASE OF FOREST SURVEY

TABLE 8–AREA OF FOREST LAND, BY SITE QUALITY

SITE CLASSIFICATION AREA IN PERCENTAGE OF—

COMMERCIAL TOTAL

TYPE 1/ SITE QUALITY AREA IN CONIFEROUS FOREST TOTAL

CLASS ACRES FOREST LAND AREA

LAND

I 560

II 32,220 0.4 0.3 0.1

III 493,095 5.8 4.6 1.8

IV 2,677,420 31.7 25.1 9.9

V 1,436,140 17.0 13.5 5.3

VI 134,570 1.6 1.3 0.5

TOTAL 4,774,005 56.5 44.8 17.6

II 320

III 125,160 1.5 1.2 0.5

IV 1,323,685 15.7 12.4 4.9

V 2,221,765 26.3 20.9 8.2

TOTAL 3,670,930 43.5 34.5 13.6

TOTAL COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS 8,444,935 100.0 79.3 31.2

LODGEPOLE PINE2/ 546,905 5.1 2.0

JUNIPER 245

NONCOMMERCIAL ROCKY 727,785 6.9 2.7

SUBALPINE 875,530 8.2 3.2

OAK 30,185 0.3 0.1

HARDWOOD 19,115 0.2 0.1

TOTAL OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS 2,199,765 20.7 8.1

ALL FOREST TYPES 10,644,700 100.0 39.3

NONFOREST TYPES 3/16,469,970 60.7

GRAND TOTAL 27,114,670 100.0

1/ DEFORESTED AREAS, TYPES 35A, 35B, AND 37, WERE CLASSIFIED AS TO SITE ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL TYPE. 2/ EXCLUDES 78,830 ACRES OF LODGEPOLE PINE TYPES CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS. 3/ FOR FERRY COUNTY, AND FOR NATIONAL FORESTS IN ALL COUNTIES, DATA ON AREA OF NONFOREST

LAND WERE OBTAINED IN THE FOREST SURVEY. FOR NONFOREST LAND OUTSIDE NATIONAL FORESTS

IN THE OTHER COUNTIES, TOTALS WERE COMPUTED BY SUBTRACTING FOREST-SURVEY AREA FIGURES

FROM COUNTY AREA FIGURES ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.

PONDEROSA

PINE

COMMERCIAL CONIFEROUS

DOUGLAS

FIR

Appendix C - 25
Appendix C - 26
Appendix C - 27
Appendix D: Selected portions of Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir

Region. Misc. Publ. 389 (by H.J. Andrews and R.W. Cowlin)

Appendix D - 1
FOREST SURVEY STAFF

Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station

H. J. ANDREWS, IN CHARGE 1930-38

R. W. COWLIN, IN CHARGE 1938-

W. H. BOLLES N. MATTHEWS

P. A. BRIEGLEB W. H. MEYER

E. D. BUELL F. L. MORAVETS

H. M. JOHNSON P. N. PRATT

P. D. KEMP W. J. WAKEMAN

C. W. KLINE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In publishing the results of the Forest Survey in the Douglas-fir region

credit must be given to the efficient service of temporary and assigned

field personnel both of the experiment station and of the North Pacific

Region of the Forest Service. Valuable cooperation of numerous other

individuals and agencies included assistance and advice from the State

forestry departments and agricultural experiment stations of Oregon and

Washington, and the helpful cooperation of the forest protective organizations, commercial cruising firms, and the West Coast Lumbermen’s

Association. F. P. Keen, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine,

contributed data on depletion by insects. J. W. Girard, Forest Service,

Washington, D. C., developed the procedure used in adjusting timber

cruises. As station director, Thornton T. Munger gave leadership throughout the history of the project and directed the preparation of the report.

Appendix D - 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION NO. 389 WASHINGTON, D. C., DECEMBER 1940

Forest Resources

of the Douglas-Fir Region

by H. J. ANDREWS and

R. W. COWLIN, senior forest economists

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • WASHINGTON - 1940

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, WASHINGTON, D.C., PRICE 50 CENTS

Appendix D - 3
The Forest Survey

EFFECTIVE rehabilitation and constructive management of this country’s forest resources require not only

protection against neglect and destruction but, with equal urgency, provision for permanent and wise

use. Intelligent forest land use planning must be based upon reliable facts as to location, area, and condition of

existing and prospective forest land, supply of timber and other forest products, forest depletion and forest growth, and

production and consumption of forest products. This necessity for dependable and comprehensive data is now being

translated into action through the provisions of the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928, authorizing a

Nationwide forest survey. The Forest Service was directed by the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct the survey.

The fivefold purpose of the Forest Survey is: (1) To make an inventory of the extent and condition of forest lands and

of the present supply of timber and other forest products on these lands; (2) to ascertain the rate at which this supply is

being increased through growth, and the potential growth on forest areas; (3) to determine

the extent of depletion of the forests through cutting and through loss from fire, insects, disease, wind throw,

and other causes; (4) to determine the present consumption and the probable future trend in requirements for timber and

other forest products; and (5) to analyze and correlate these findings with other economic data, as

an aid in the formulation of private and public policies for most effective and rational use of land suitable for forest

production.

These investigations are conducted in each forest region of the United States by the regional forest experiment

station of the Forest Service. In Oregon and Washington they are conducted by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station, with headquarters at Portland, Oreg.

It is planned to publish the results of this investigation, as they become available, in a series of reports applying to

large forest areas such as districts, regions, and States. It is expected that the information presented in these reports for

large geographic units will facilitate more intensive studies of small areas.

(II) Appendix D - 4
Page

Survey findings in brief ----------------------------------------- 1

The Douglas-fir region ------------------------------------------ 3

Major phases of survey----------------------------------------- 5

Methods and specifications ----------------------------------- 7

Standards of measurement ---------------------------------- 7

Species and size classification ------------------------------ 7

Type definitions and type mapping ------------------------ 8

Nonforest types-------------------------------------------- 8

Woodland types ------------------------------------------- 9

Timberland types ------------------------------------------ 9

Miscellaneous types ------------------------------------ 10

Classifications ----------------------------------------------- 10

Ownership classes--------------------------------------- 10

Other classifications ------------------------------------- 11

Forest inventory ----------------------------------------------- 13

Types and areas --------------------------------------------- 14

Nonforest land ------------------------------------------- 18

Conifer sawlog types ------------------------------------ 19

Conifer types less than sawlog size ------------------- 22

Deforested lands----------------------------------------- 25

Woodland and noncommercial forests ---------------- 26

Hardwood forests---------------------------------------- 26

Forest site quality ---------------------------------------- 28

Timber volume ---------------------------------------------- 28

Saw-timber volume --------------------------------------- 29

Economic availability ------------------------------------ 35

Cubic volume --------------------------------------------- 37

Ownership of forest resources ---------------------------- 38

Private ownership ---------------------------------------- 38

National-forest ownership ------------------------------ 38

State ownership ------------------------------------------ 40

County ownership --------------------------------------- 41

Municipal ownership ------------------------------------ 41

Indian ownership ---------------------------------------- 41

Revested grant lands ------------------------------------ 41

Other Federal lands -------------------------------------- 42

Depletion ------------------------------------------------------- 43

Cutting depletion ------------------------------------------- 43

Sawlog production--------------------------------------- 45

Page

Depletion—Continued.

Cutting depletion—Continued.

Forest fuel wood ----------------------------------------- 46

Forest pulpwood ----------------------------------------- 47

Other minor timber products --------------------------- 49

Fire depletion ------------------------------------------------ 49

Depletion from other causes ------------------------------ 51

Assumed future depletion --------------------------------- 52

Forest growth -------------------------------------------------- 54

Kinds of growth calculation made ------------------------ 55

Current annual growth ------------------------------------- 56

Realizable mean annual growth --------------------------- 58

Results of computation --------------------------------- 58

Interpretation of results--------------------------------- 60

Potential annual growth ------------------------------------ 60

Comparison of current, realizable, and

potential growth -------------------------------------- 62

Trends in future forest increment------------------------- 62

If present forest practice continues ------------------- 62

If forest practice becomes more

intensive ----------------------------------------------- 63

If selective cutting is widely employed --------------- 64

Summary ----------------------------------------------------- 65

Forest protection ---------------------------------------------- 66

Protection on Federal lands ------------------------------- 66

Protection on State, county, and private

lands ---------------------------------------------------- 67

Future hazard conditions ---------------------------------- 68

Land use -------------------------------------------------------- 70

Agriculture -------------------------------------------------- 70

Present use of land for agriculture --------------------- 70

Trends in agricultural land use ------------------------- 72

Relation of agriculture to forests ---------------------- 72

Forest land use ---------------------------------------------- 74

Status of cut-over land ------------------------------------- 74

Timber production --------------------------------------- 74

Production of commodities other

than timber --------------------------------------------- 75

Contents

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 5 (III)
Page

Land use–Continued

Status of cut-over land—Continued.

Soil and watershed protection ------------------------- 75

Recreation ------------------------------------------------ 76

Wildlife production and use ---------------------------- 77 

Grazing ---------------------------------------------------- 77

Forest problem areas ------------------------------------ 80

Forest industries ----------------------------------------------- 81

Conditions in the industries------------------------------- 81

Development --------------------------------------------- 81

Integration ------------------------------------------------ 82

Investments ---------------------------------------------- 82

Labor ------------------------------------------------------ 82

Production ------------------------------------------------ 83

Markets---------------------------------------------------- 83

Logging ------------------------------------------------------ 85

Types of organization ----------------------------------- 85

Methods -------------------------------------------------- 86

Transportation ------------------------------------------- 87

Lumber manufacture ---------------------------------------- 88

Sawmills --------------------------------------------------- 89

Transportation and markets ---------------------------- 91

Sawmill byproducts-------------------------------------- 92

Other wood-using industries------------------------------ 93

Pulp and paper manufacture ---------------------------- 93

Shingle manufacture ------------------------------------- 94

Veneer and plywood manufacture --------------------- 96

Wood preserving ---------------------------------------- 96

Secondary wood-using industries --------------------- 96

Future timber supplies in relation to industrial

development -------------------------------------------- 97

Major forest districts --------------------------------------- 97

Puget Sound district ------------------------------------- 98

Grays Harbor—Willapa Bay district ------------------- 99

Columbia River district ---------------------------------- 99

Willamette River district ------------------------------- 100

Oregon coast district ----------------------------------- 100

South Oregon district ---------------------------------- 100

Future depletion and inventories ------------------------ 101

Sawlogs -------------------------------------------------- 104

Pulpwood ------------------------------------------------ 109

Plywood -------------------------------------------------- 112

Poles and piling ----------------------------------------- 112

Fuel ------------------------------------------------------- 113

Hardwoods ---------------------------------------------- 114

Forest-land management problems ------------------------- 115

Uses of forest land other than for timber

production --------------------------------------------- 115

Future agricultural expansion ------------------------- 115

Forage production -------------------------------------- 115

Recreation ----------------------------------------------- 116

Page

Forest-land management problems—Con.

Uses of forest land—Continued.

Wildlife ----------------------------------------------- 119

Sustained-yield forest management --------------------- 119

Forest-land ownership ------------------------------------ 122

Stable ownership essential to continuous

production management ---------------------------- 122

Factors influencing liquidation of

private ownership ------------------------------------ 126

Areas favorable for private ownership --------------- 130

Current trend to county ownership------------------- 130

Integration of public lands and policies

desirable ---------------------------------------------- 132

Public-acquisition programs--------------------------- 133

A regional forest program ----------------------------------- 135

Future situation if present trends

continue ----------------------------------------------- 136

Stabilizing forest-land ownership ------------------------ 136

Public acquisition of forest land ---------------------- 137

Public regulation of forest-land use --------------------- 139

Methods of cutting ------------------------------------- 139

Slash disposal ------------------------------------------- 139

Sustained yield ------------------------------------------ 139

Restriction of cutting ----------------------------------- 139

Forest protection ------------------------------------------ 139

Reforestation of denuded lands ------------------------- 140

Forest research --------------------------------------------- 140

Forestry extension and forestry 

education --------------------------------------------- 141

The public responsibility --------------------------------- 141

Management of public forest land -------------------- 141

Improvements ------------------------------------------- 141

Legislation ----------------------------------------------- 142

The private owners’ responsibility ---------------------- 142

Control of overproduction ----------------------------- 142

Logging practice ---------------------------------------- 142

Utilization of minor species---------------------------- 142

Manufacturing practice -------------------------------- 142

Industrial expansion. ----------------------------------- 143

Road development -------------------------------------- 143

Sustained-yield management -------------------------- 143

Conclusions ------------------------------------------------ 144

Literature cited ------------------------------------------------ 145

Appendix------------------------------------------------------- 146

Inventory methods and sources ------------------------- 146

Depletion-study methods and sources ----------------- 148

Periodic saw-timber growth ------------------------------ 150

Method of computing realizable mean

annual growth ------------------------------------------- 150

Supplemental tables --------------------------------------- 152

(IV) Appendix D - 6
Survey Findings in Brief

THE highest service that forests of the Douglas-fir region can render is in support and stabilization of

communities dependent on them. Included are, not only the people and investments in forest

industries, but also those in farms, stores, banks, garages, schools, transportation, and various industries. Forests

support in one way or another about half the population of the region. To redeem this enormous responsibility for service,

forests must furnish a permanent annual harvest of material equal at least to present production. This will require sustained-yield forest practice, including acceptance of the responsibilities of permanent ownership.

The major problem therefore is to bring about promptly the adoption of a system of managing old-growth and

second-growth forests for the continuous production of high-quality material while there is yet sufficient growing stock

to do so without calamitous dislocation of people and industry.

A factual resume of the findings of the Forest Survey, as presented in detail in subsequent pages of this publication,

is as follows: 1

1. The forest is an integral part of the farm economy of the Douglas-fir region. Forests furnish fuel, fence posts, and

other products essential to farm management and rural life. Forest products are important crops to many farmers. Forest

industries afford part-time employment to many farmers and support, directly and indirectly, approximately half the

population of the region.

2. The Douglas-fir region produces 30 percent of the lumber, 90 percent of the shingles, and 23 percent of the wood

pulp produced in the United States, depending chiefly upon outside markets.

3. The major forest problem in the Douglas-fir region is the necessity for instituting a system of managing old-growth

forests for continuous production. This means that clear cutting over vast areas, which has resulted in large areas of

nonstocked cut-over land, must be halted.

4. The Douglas-fir region has 29 million acres of forest land, amounting to 82.6 percent of its total land area. Of this,

26.1 million acres, or 90 percent, was classified in the forest survey as commercial conifer.

5. Conifer types of saw-timber size occupy more than 14.5 million acres, of which 11.6 million is old growth and 2.9

million second growth. Second-growth conifer types less than saw-timber size occupy

7 million acres. Deforested burns, old nonrestocked cut-overs, and recent cut-overs total 4.4 million acres.

1

 Forest survey progress releases on the Douglas-fir region issued by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station

previous to the publication of this major report are: (1) Forest statistics in separate form for Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor,

Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and

Whatcom Counties, Wash., and for Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine,

Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon. 1934. [Mimeographed.] (2)

Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir Region. Forest Res. Notes No. l3. 1934. [Mimeographed.] (3) Pulpwood Resources of Western

Oregon and Western Washington. Forest Res. Notes No. 17. 1935. [Mimeographed.] (4) Forest Growth in the Douglas-Fir Region.

Forest Res. Notes No. 20. 1936. [Mimeographed.] (5) Timber Volume and Type Acreage on the National Forests of the North Pacific

Region. Forest Res. Notes No. 22. 1937. [Mimeographed.] (6) Detailed forest type maps of each of the above listed 38 counties.

Scale 1 inch equals 1 mile. Blue line print form. 1934. (7) State type maps—Douglas-fir region covered by four sheets, NW

Washington, SW Washington, NW Oregon, SW Oregon. Scale 1⁄4 inch = 1 mile. 1936. [Lithographed.] The Pacific Northwest Station

has also cooperated with the State of Washington in the following recent publication: Cowlin, R. M. [W.], and Morets [Moravets],

F. L., Forest Resources of Washington. Wash. Dept. of Conserv. and Development, Olympia. 44 pp., illus.

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 7 1
6. More than 3 million acres of forest land in the Douglas-fir region was cut over prior to 1920 and in 1933 had not been

put to other use; of this total, in 1933, 28 percent was well stocked with second-growth trees, 36 percent was medium

stocked, 15 percent was poorly stocked, and 21 percent was nonstocked. In the period 1920-33 more than 2 million acres

was cut over, of which at the end of the period 12 percent was well stocked with reproduction, 17 percent was medium

stocked, 29 percent was poorly stocked, and 42 percent was nonstocked. Of the total area of cut-over land in the region,

50 percent is satisfactorily restocked and 50 percent is either nonstocked or only poorly stocked.

7. The region’s saw-timber stand totals 546 billion board feet, log scale, all but 4 billion of which is conifers. Douglasfir, the leading species, totals 331 billion feet, and is followed by western hemlock with 105 billion board feet. Other

important species are western redcedar, Sitka spruce, and silver fir.

8. It was estimated that only a little more than half the saw-timber volume could profitably be logged under the

conditions that prevailed during the period 1925-29.

9. The regional total of cubic volume in trees 6 inches and larger in breast-height diameter is 129 billion cubic feet;

species eminently suitable for pulp manufacture make up 39 billion cubic feet, or 30 percent.

10. More than 53 percent of the commercial forest land and approximately 48 percent of the saw-timber volume in the

Douglas-fir region are privately owned, and 30 percent of the commercial forest land and 37 percent of the saw-timber

volume are within the national forests. The remaining 17 percent of the land and 15 percent of the volume are in other forms

of public ownership or owned by Indians.

11. Current annual depletion of saw timber from all causes is estimated to total about 8.3 billion board feet, of which

7.9 billion board feet is cutting depletion.

12. Sawlog production in the Douglas-fir region during 1925—33 averaged 7.4 billion board feet, of which 5.4 billion

feet was Douglas-fir, 1 billion feet western hemlock, 0.6 billion feet western redcedar, 0.3 Sitka spruce, and 0.1 billion other

species.

13. Current losses of saw timber by fire, excluding catastrophes such as the Tillamook fire of 1933, amount to a quarter

of a billion board feet annually. The area burned over annually averages more than 250,000 acres, including large areas of

second growth. Killing of second growth seriously endangers future saw-timber supplies.

14. Current annual growth in the Douglas-fir region totals approximately 2.4 billion board feet. Potential annual

growth under intensive forest practice is approximately 8.2 billion board feet.

15. The supply of old-growth Douglas-fir within economically feasible transportation distance of the Puget Sound

and Grays Harbor districts will be practically exhausted within two decades if the present rate of depletion continues.

16. The supply of pulp timber is sufficient to maintain the existing rate of wood-pulp production indefinitely if

reasonable forest practice is observed and if the volume of pulp species used in lumber manufacture is not increased.

17. In order to stabilize economic life in this region sustained-yield forest management should be instituted as soon

as possible. The ultimate sustained-yield capacity of the region under reasonably intensive forest management is estimated at 8 billion board feet per year; during the transition period, under optimum conditions, a cut of about 6 1⁄2 billion per

year is allowable.

18. In the Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Columbia River districts the annual cuts allowable under a sustained-yield

budget were exceeded during 1933, a year of comparatively low production. Progressive overcutting of the southern

districts will bring about conditions similar to those in the north.

19. Most of the forest land that should be used for continuous production could, through concerted action by

industry and government, be put under sustained-yield management within 25 to 50 years.

20. With an enlarging acreage of cut-over land and a growing use of the forests by the public for recreation, the

Douglas-fir region is facing an increasingly difficult problem of forest-fire protection.

2 Appendix D - 8
The Douglas-Fir Region

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 9

THE Douglas-fir region, which includes those parts

of Oregon and Washington west of the

summit of the Cascade Range, was selected as the place

to begin the Nation-wide forest survey (fig. 2). Extending 480

miles from north to south and varying in width from 100 to

about 150 miles, this region has an area of more than 35 million

acres, of which 29 million acres, or 83 percent, is forest land. Its

long littoral exposure subjects most of it to humid westerly

winds; its climate is characterized by equable temperatures,

except in the high mountains, and moderate to heavy precipitation. Climatic conditions are particularly favorable to conifer

forest growth, and the region is noted for the luxuriance and

density of its forest vegetation.

The forests of this region are almost exclusively conifer,

and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia) is the predominating

tree, forming 60 percent or more of the stand on more than half

the forest land (fig. 1). Important species commonly associated with Douglas-fir are western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce

(Picea sitchensis), Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), and noble

fir (A. nobilis). Exceptions to the predominance of Douglas-fir

are found in the forests on the cool, humid western slopes of

the Coast Ranges and the Olympic Mountains known as the

fog belt, where western hemlock and Sitka spruce are the outstanding species and Douglas-fir is occasionally entirely lacking. Again, on the higher slopes of the Cascade Range and the

Olympic Mountains and occasionally on those of the Coast

Ranges, the stands are made up principally of western hemlock, Pacific silver fir, noble fir, mountain hemlock (Tsuga

mertensiana), and western white pine (Pinus monticola). Latitudinally also, toward the cooler, northern extreme of the region, Douglas-fir forms a smaller percentage of the stand,

western hemlock and other species increasing in frequency;

F325601

FIGURE 1.—Saw-timber stand of old-growth Douglas-fir near the

Columbia River in western Washington averaging more than 40 inches

in diameter and having a gross volume of about 125,000 board feet per

acre. The trees in the picture measure from 5 to 6 feet in diameter.

and on the dry exposures of the interior valleys and foothills

of southern Oregon Douglas-fir gives way to ponderosa pine

(P. ponderosa).

3
FIGURE 2.—Map of Oregon and Washington showing Douglas-fir region, national forests, parks, monuments, and principal cities.

4 Appendix D - 10
Major Phases of Survey

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 11

THE major phases of the Douglas-fir survey were

four—the inventory phase, the study of forest

depletion, estimates of forest growth, and a determination of present and future timber requirements. An analysis of

this information for the purpose of developing principles and

policies to make the forests contribute most in services regionally and nationally leads inevitably into a consideration

of land use planning, future supplies of timber in relation to

industrial development and requirements, and forest management. Although the requirements phase is discussed here only

for the region, the subject is much broader than this; it is

planned to integrate it with similar information from other regions for publication later as a report on forest-products requirements for the whole country.

The inventory phase of the forest survey was undertaken

first in the spring of 1930. Its principal purposes were to obtain:

1. Volume of the present timber stands, by species and by

ownership class.

2. Areas of the several types, by ownership class.

3. Areas of the immature-conifer types by age class and

degree of stocking.

4. Maps showing location of each of the forest types.

5. A classification of timber stands according to economic

availability for logging.

6. A classification of forest area according to site

quality.

The existence of considerable information, particularly on

the merchantable timber areas which comprise about half of

the 29 million acres in the Douglas-fir region, made it practicable to rely on checking and compiling the information already available from public or private cruises, maps, and reports.

This was supplemented with field examinations of all remaining areas.

The work of the inventory phase was conducted in four

steps: (1) Collection of all existing information, (2) checking

and adjusting to a common standard all usable existing timber

estimates, (3) field examination of areas not covered by usable

information, (4) compilation of data collected. 2

The immediate object of the depletion phase of the forest

survey was to determine the quantity and kind of timber annually removed by cutting or killed by fire, wind throw, insects,

disease, and all other causes; in short, the extent and character of the drain on the forest capital. The ultimate object was to

obtain data needed for an analysis that would determine the

trends of depletion and growth, present and potential, and the

net result of the two trends.

Depletion as considered in this study does not include

ordinary endemic losses due to such causes as diseases, surface fires, wind throw, and insects. Such normal losses have

been allowed for in the construction of the yield tables used in

calculating growth. Depletion as here considered involves only

timber killed or removed by logging, by fires that kill entire

stands, by windstorms of major intensity, and by insect epidemics.

To estimate the rate and quantity of current and potential

growth in the forests of this region would be simple if rates of

growth were constant for all conditions. Instead, they vary

among individual trees according to species, age, and dominance; among individual forest stands according to type, site,

average age, and stocking; and among aggregates of stands

according to the growth characteristics of individual stands.

Stands more than 160 years of age were considered as a whole

to have no present net growth. Although some stands above

this age are increasing in merchantable volume, others are

actually losing in merchantable volume; thus in these older

2

 The organization of the field work and the detailed

procedure involved in each of these four steps are described in the

Appendix, p. 146.

5
stands losses due to mortality and to decay approximately

balance growth. Stands not more than 160 years of age were

classed as growing stands. For all these stands growth computations were made.

Four conceptions of rate of growth were considered: Current annual growth, realizable mean annual growth, potential

annual growth, and periodic growth. These terms as used in

this report are defined as follows:

Current annual growth is the volume increase that took

place in 1933.

Realizable mean annual growth is (1) mean annual growth

from 1933 to 2032 of existing stands, or to dates earlier than

2032 for those areas which it is assumed will be depleted before that date, plus (2) mean annual growth on portions of

areas now deforested or to be deforested that presumably will

restock before 1952. These calculations were made for each of

the three decades from 1933 to 1962.

Potential annual growth is the average quantity of timber

that can be grown annually if all the commercial conifer forest

land produces 75 percent of full capacity.

Periodic growth is growth within a given period—in this

study, 10 years. It was estimated for each of the three decades

from 1933 to 1962. On the basis of these estimates and of

assumptions as to future depletion, future inventories at 10-

year intervals during that period were estimated.

The requirements phase of the forest survey consisted of

a determination of present and prospective requirements for

wood products of the Douglas-fir region. Estimates of the

quantities of these products needed in the future cannot be

made solely on the basis of needs within the region. Interchange of products between regions necessitates determination of future requirements on a national basis.

Obviously, this region with its enormous forest resources

and comparatively sparse population can supply its requirements for practically all kinds of forest products indefinitely.

The only wood products consumed in this region that must be

imported are small amounts of hardwood material such as flooring and interior finish, and articles manufactured of woods not

grown in this region, such as certain kinds of furniture and

implement handles. The principal sources of these items are

eastern and southern United States, the Philippine Islands,

South America, and Central America.

6 Appendix D - 12
Methods and Specifications

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 13

Standards of Measurement

I

T WAS necessary to fix standards of measurement

of the volume of standing timber, so that estimates

would be stable and could be correlated with estimates for

other regions and adjusted to meet changing economic conditions. Standards were defined that conformed as far as practical with generally accepted concepts of utilization practices

appropriate to current conditions. Inventory, growth, and depletion data are given in board feet, log scale in the body of this

report. Lumber-tally equivalents are found in the appendix.

Timber-volume estimates were made in board feet, log

scale, according to the Scribner Decimal C rule, and in cubic

feet. The board-foot estimates included only the stems of living trees that would make at least one log meeting the following specifications: Conifers other than ponderosa pine and

sugar pine, 32 feet long, 12 inches in diameter inside bark at

the small end; ponderosa pine and sugar pine, 16 feet long, 10

inches in diameter inside bark at the small end; hardwoods, 8

feet long, 10 inches in diameter inside bark at the small end.

Practically, this amounts to making the minimum specification

for conifers other than these two pines the 16-inch diameter

class (15.1 to 17.0 inches d. b. h.)3

 and that for ponderosa pine,

sugar pine, and hardwoods the 12-inch diameter class (11.1 to

13.0 inches d. b. h.)

Allowance was made in the volume estimates for decay,

defects, and such breakage as is inevitable in logging. In other

words, the estimates are for the net volume usable in sawtimber operations under good utilization practices.

Probably the standards of utilization employed in the survey estimates are slightly more intensive for the more valuable

species, and considerably so for the less valuable species,

than the average utilization standards of present-day sawtimber operators, owing chieftly to the inclusion of trees as

small as 16-inches diameter class.

Cubic-foot volume was computed for the sound wood of

stems only, from stump to 4-inch tip inside bark, limb wood

and bark excluded, of all trees of or above the 6-inch (5.1 to 7.0

inches) diameter class.

The estimates cover all timber areas, including farm woods,

outside the platted limits of municipalities.

In order to obtain satisfactory estimates of volume of

standing timber it was necessary to have for each of the commercial saw-timber species an accurate volume table that could

be applied throughout the region. Investigation and check of

the existing tables showed that some of them could be used as

they were and others could be made usable by adjustment and

extension to include larger trees, but that for some species

new tables would have to be made. Volume tables used for the

principal species are described in the appendix.

Species and Tree-Size Classification

An estimate of total volume of living timber was made and

recorded separately for every species that usually attains sawtimber size and character and that was present in commercial

types in quantity measurable according to survey standards.

Also, an estimate of total volume of dead timber was made and

recorded for Port Orford white-cedar (Chamaecyparis

lawsoniana), western redcedar, and Alaska yellow-cedar (C.

nootkatensis). (Owing to their durability and resistance to

decay, dead trees of these species have commercial value and 3

 “D. b. h.” signifies diameter at breast height (4 1⁄2 feet above

average ground level) outside bark.

7
are logged.) In some cases, separate estimates were made for

certain size and age classes of timber of a single species; in

some, estimates were combined for pairs of species having

similar dendrological and structural characteristics.

Species that usually do not attain saw-timber size in the

Douglas-fir region include Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) and

some hardwoods.

Table 1 lists the species (21),4

 classes, and diameter ranges

for which volume was recorded, with the symbols adopted for

convenience in referring to them. As applied to Douglas-fir

here and elsewhere in this report, “old growth” and “second

growth” are relative terms distinguishing between the older

timber and the younger, more rapid-growing timber. Likewise,

“large” and “small” are used here as relative terms distinguishing between larger and smaller timber of a given type or species.

Type Definitions and Type Mapping

In primitive forests of the Douglas-fir region certain fairly

definite major species associations and innumerable minor

associations may be observed. Fire, cutting, and land settlement have added to the complexity of forest-cover conditions,

and consequently to the difficulty of defining types. Each

forest type recognized in this survey had to have some significance in forest management. Types had to be within practical

limits in number, and type definitions had to be such that types

could be determined from office records, such as timber cruises,

and could easily be recognized in the field and indicated on

field maps. A type scheme that had already been adopted by

the Forest Service for intensive surveys partly fulfilled the

requirements. On this foundation a scheme was finally evolved

that stood the test of 4 years’ field use with few changes.

The forest-cover and land-use types recognized in the

forest survey of the Douglas-fir region5 follow:

Nonforest Types

No. 2. Nonforest land other than agricultural, including

(1) barren areas too rocky, deficient in soil, or exposed to support a cover of either trees, shrubs, or herbs;

4

 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited,

p.145. 5

 Numbers preceding types relate to series of types listed for

the entire Northwest.

TABLE 1.—Species and diameter classes for which volume as

recorded

CONIFERS

BreastName and class Symbol height

diameter

range

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia): Inches

Large old growth ----------------------------------- DA 40+

Small old growth ----------------------------------- DB 22-40

Large second growth ------------------------------ DC 22-40

Small second growth ------------------------------ DD 18-20

Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis):

Large -------------------------------------------------- SA 24+

Small -------------------------------------------------- SB 16-24

Engelmann spruce (P. engelmannii) ------------- ES 16+

Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla):

Large -------------------------------------------------- HA 20+

Small -------------------------------------------------- HB 16-20

Mountain hemlock (T. mertensiana) ------------- MH 16+

Western redcedar (Thuja plicata): ----------------

Live --------------------------------------------------- C 16+

Dead -------------------------------------------------- KC 16+

Port Orford white-cedar (Chamaecyparis

lawsoniana):

Live --------------------------------------------------- P C 16+

Dead -------------------------------------------------- KPC 16+

Alaska yellow-cedar (C. nootkatensis): ----------

Live --------------------------------------------------- YC 16+

California incense-cedar (Libocedrus

decurrens) --------------------------------------------- I C 16+

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and 

Jeffrey pine (P. jeffreyi):

Large -------------------------------------------------- YA 22+

Small -------------------------------------------------- YB 12-22

Sugar pine (P. lambertiana) ------------------------ SP 12+

Western white pine (P. monticola) and

whitebark pine (P albicaulis) -------------------- W 16+

Lodgepole pine (P. contorta latifolia), shore

pine (P. contorta), and knobcone pine

(P. attenuata) ---------------------------------------- LP 16+

White fir (Abies concolor) and grand fir

(A. grandis)------------------------------------------- WF 16+

Noble fir (A. nobilis) and Shasta red fir

(A. magnifica shastensis) ------------------------- NF 16+

Pacific silver fir (A. amabilis) --------------------- A 16+

Alpine fir (A. lasiocarpa) --------------------------- AF 16+

Western larch (Larix occidentalis) and

alpine larch (L. lyallii) ----------------------------- W L 16+

Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) ----------------- R 16+

BROADLEAF TREES

Red alder (Alnus rubra)------------------------------ RA 12+

Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) ---------- OO 12+

Canyon live oak (Q. chrysolepis) ----------------- CLO 12+

California black oak (Q. keIloggii) --------------- CO 12+

Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflora)------------------ TO 12+

Northern black cottonwood (Populus

trichocarpa hastata) and quaking aspen

(P. tremuloides) ------------------------------------- BC 12+

Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) ------------- O M 12+

Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) ------------- MAD 12+

Oregon ash (Fraxinus oregona) ------------------- ASH 12+

California laurel (Umbellularia californica) ---- MY 12+

Golden chinquapin (Castanopsis

chrysophylla)----------------------------------------- CH 12+

Western paper birch (Betula papyrifera

occidentalis) and northwestern paperbirch

(B. papyrifera subcordata) ----------------------- WPB 12+

8 Appendix D - 14
(2) grass, sagebrush, and brush areas on which the principal

present vegetation is either grass, herbs, brush, shrubs, or

sagebrush; and (3) cities, towns, and unmeandered water surfaces.6

No. 3. Agricultural land, including (1) areas cleared or

cultivated for agricultural use, including pasture; and (2) stump

pasture, logged-off or burned-off land from which stumps or

snags have not been removed, now part of an operating farm

unit and devoted chiefly to grazing. Usually, on such an area

some attempt has been made to propagate forage plants by

seeding or repeated burning.

Woodland Types

No. 4. Oak-madrone woodland, consisting of approximately 60 percent or more of any species of oaks (including

tanoak) or madrone or any combination of these.

No. 51⁄2. Ponderosa pine woodland, in which ponderosa

pine predominates and on which the trees are scattered, singly or in clumps, and form a very thin stand. Individual trees

may or may not be of merchantable size and form.

Timberland Types

Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Douglas fir: A forest containing

approximately 60 percent or more, by volume, of Douglasfir—the characteristic forest west of the summit of the Cascade Range. The five Douglas-fir types, differentiated by the

sizes into which most of the volume falls, are (6) large old

growth, 42 inches d. b. h. and more; (7) small old growth, 22 to

40 inches; (8) large second growth, 22 to 40 inches (coarsegrained timber yielding only a small percentage of the upper

grades of lumber); (9) small second growth, 6 to 20 inches; (10)

seedlings and saplings, mostly less than 6 inches.

Nos. 11, 12, and 13. Sitka spruce: A forest containing 50

percent or more, by volume, of Sitka spruce, rarely in pure

stands, usually in mixture with Douglas-fir, western hemlock,

and western redcedar. The three Sitka spruce types are (11)

large, 26 inches d. b. h. and more; (12) small, 6 to 24 inches; (13)

seedlings and saplings, mostly less than 6 inches.

Nos. 14, 15, and 16. Western hemlock: A forest containing

50 percent or more, by volume, of western hemlock with varying quantities of Douglas-fir, western redcedar, Pacific silver

6

 Bodies of water that have not been surveyed by the

General Land Office and that consequently are included in the

official totals of land area.

fir, and Sitka spruce. The three western hemlock types are (14)

large, 20 inches d. b. h. and more; (15) small, 6 to 20 inches; (16)

seedlings and saplings, mostly less than 6 inches.

No. 17. Western redcedar, large: A forest containing approximately 40 percent or more, by volume, of western redcedar,

in which most of the volume is in trees more than 24 inches

d. b. h.

No. 18. Port Orford white-cedar, large: A forest in which 20

percent or more of the volume is in Port Orford white-cedar

trees more than 30 inches d. b. h., with varying quantities of

Douglas-fir white fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, Sitka

spruce, and hardwoods.

No. 19. “Cedar,” small: A forest in which western redcedar

24 inches or less in d. b. h. or Port Orford white-cedar 30 inches

d. b. h. or less, or both, compose 40 percent or more, by volume, of the dominant stand, with some or considerable quantities of western hemlock, Sitka spruce, or Douglas-fir, or of

two or all three of these species.

Nos. 20, 20A, 21, and 22. Ponderosa and sugar pine. The

four types are (20) large ponderosa pine, in which the predominating trees are the so-called yellow pine, about 22 inches

d. b. h. or more (about 150 or 200 years old or older), in which

no material part of the stand has been cut; (20A) large sugar

pine, containing 20 percent or more, by volume of sugar pine,

never in pure stands, usually in mixture with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or white fir, in which most of the volume is in trees

22 inches d. b. h. or more. (This type was mapped only outside

the boundaries of national forests.) (21) Small ponderosa pine

in which most of the trees are less than about 22 inches in

diameter (less than 150 or 200 years old), either on an old burn

or on an area that has been selectively cut, and in which the

volume in trees 12 inches d. b. h. or more is ordinarily at least

1,000 board feet per acre; (22) ponderosa pine seedlings, saplings, and poles, on an old burn or on heavily cut-over land,

most of the trees being less than 12 inches d. b. h. and the

stand of larger trees, if any, amounting to less than 1,000 board

feet of saw timber per acre.

Nos. 23 and 24. Fir-mountain hemlock: The two fir-mountain hemlock types are (23) large, in which most of the dominant trees are 16 inches d. b. h. or more and of saw-timber

character (mature stands not of this character are ordinarily

included in the subalpine type); (24) small, most dominants

less than 16 inches d. b. h., usually a young stand on an old

burn.

Appendix D - 15 9
Nos. 25 and 26. Lodgepole pine: A forest containing at

least 50 percent, by volume, of lodgepole pine or knobcone

pine, often pure. The two types are determined by the size of

50 percent or more of the dominant trees: (25) Large, 12 inches

d. b. h. and more; (26) small, less than 12 inches.

Nos. 27 and 28. White fir-larch-Douglas-fir: A mixed forest

of greatly varied composition, consisting of two or more of the

five species western larch, white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa

pine, and lodgepole pine, in which ponderosa pine constitutes not more than 40 percent of the stand; limited to the

range of western larch and prevalent on north and other cool

slopes within the ponderosa pine zone. The two types are

determined by the size of the trees representing most of the

volume: (27) Large, 20 inches d. b. h. and more; (28) small, less

than 20 inches.

Nos. 29 and 30. White fir: Usually a mixed forest within

the range of ponderosa pine and sugarpine, containing 50

percent or more, by volume, of grand fir or white fir. The two

types are determined by the size of most of the dominant trees:

(29) Large, more than 20 inches d. b. h. or 150 years in age; (30)

small, less than 20 inches or 150 years.

No. 31. Hardwood: A hardwood forest, either pure or mixed,

consisting predominately of one or more species other than

oaks or madrone.

No. 32. Redwood: A forest containing approximately 80

percent or more, by volume, of redwood, usually with some

Douglas-fir and some Pacific madrone, tanoak, and other hardwoods.

No. 33. Subalpine: A forest at the upper limits of tree

growth, usually unmerchantable because of poor form and

small size, the principal components being alpine fir, mountain

hemlock, Shasta red fir, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, western white pine, and alpine larch.

Miscellaneous Types

No. 34. This number was used as a prefix to type numbers

to denote areas clean cut prior to 1920 or selectively cut at any

time.

No. 35. Nonrestocked cut-over: An area cleancut prior to

1920 on which less than 10 percent of the 13.2-foot squares are

stocked, not put to other than forest use.

No. 36. Recent cut-over: An area clean-cut since the beginning of 1920, regardless of the status of regeneration.

No. 37. Deforested burn: Land not cut over on which the

stand has been killed by fire and that is less than 10 percent

restocked.

No. 38. Noncommercial rocky: An area of any species of

timber within the range of commercial timber and below the

range of the subalpine type that is too rocky, too steep, or too

sterile to produce a stand of commercial size, density, and

quality; ordinarily the stand averages less than 5,000 board

feet per acre.

The scale decided on for type mapping was 1 inch to the

mile. A larger scale would have led to excessive detail and

made the cost more than was contemplated; a smaller one

would not have provided sufficient space for the field examiner to record data of the desired completeness. Obviously,

areas only a few acres in extent could not be mapped on the

adopted scale. It was decided that all 40-acre or larger areas of

commercial forest land—that is, land now bearing or capable

of producing forests of commercial character—and agricultural land should be mapped, but that for non-commercialforest land, barrens, etc., the minimum should be several

hundred acres. Hardwood types, owing to their infrequent

occurrence, usually as “shoestrings” along creek and river

bottoms, were mapped if occupying areas as large as 20 acres.

These limits are fixed not absolutely but merely as a guide. In

all cases the field examiner was allowed to exercise his judgment. If he could conveniently map a farm or a patch of conifer

timber as small as 20 or 30 acres without slowing down the

work he was at liberty to do so; if he was mapping an area low

in values and difficult of access he was allowed to generalize

more than if mapping an area of high values and easy access.

Classifications

Ownership Classes

Separation of forest type and volume data according to

ownership was considered particularly important because of

the high timber values involved and the large quantities of

timberland in various classes of public ownership. Its usefulness has been emphasized by economic developments since

10 Appendix D - 16
purposes. The term “available for cutting” means that there

was no legal or formal prohibition on timber cutting; it does

not imply the presence of timber ready for cutting or, in fact, of

any timber at all.

National-forest areas designated as State selection areas

are lands in the north Puget Sound unit that have been designated for exchange with the State of Washington in order to

enable the State to consolidate scattered land holdings.

Other Classifications

For convenience and facility of analysis and discussion, the region was arbitrarily divided into 11 units (figs. 3

and 4). So far as was practical, the units were compact areas

homogeneous as to economic influences and industrial

FIGURE 3—Map of Western Washington showing survey units,

counties, and important drainages.

the inception of this project. The subject of forest-land ownership is being carefully studied by economists, foresters, legislators, public officials, and the lumber industry. The breakdown

in private forest-land ownership (22) is a cause of particular

concern and the subject of many studies.

Ownership statistics were taken from the best public

records available. It is recognized that ownership is constantly

changing and that the totals given for individual ownership

classes probably fail in many cases to coincide with statistics

from other sources. Both forest land and intermingled nonforest

land were classified as to ownership. No distinctions were

attempted as to the ownership of large bodies of agricultural

land; they were all arbitrarily classified as privately owned. As

applied to forest land, the ownership classification was as

follows:

Private. All privately owned forest property, including farm

woods.

State, available for cutting.

State, reserved from cutting.

County. Forest property deeded to the county. (Taxdelinquent land not deeded to the county is classified as

private.)

Municipal. Includes all municipally owned forest

property outside the platted limits of municipalities.

Indian. Includes both tribal lands and trust allotments.

Revested land grant. Includes Oregon & California

Railroad and other land grants that have reverted to

Federal ownership whether classified as timber, agricultural, or power withdrawals.

Federal other than national forest and revested land

grant. Includes national parks, military

reservations, unappropriated public domain and miscellaneous.

National forest, available for cutting.

National forest, reserved from cutting.

National forest, State selection.

The term “reserved from cutting” as applied to

State or national-forest land denotes areas unavailable for cutting because of statute, proclamation, or

policy. Most land so classed had been officially dedicated to watershed protection, to recreational use, or as

national-forest primitive areas on which primitive conditions are to be maintained so far as possible for recreational

Appendix D - 17 11
conditions. In most cases unit boundaries were made to

coincide with county lines, so that data could be assembled

by counties. It was impossible to establish absolutely selfcontained units.

Saw timber was ranked in three classes

according to economic availability. Class 1

includes timber that according to estimate

could profitably be logged under the production and marketing conditions that prevailed during the period 1925-29; class II,

timber that under those conditions could

be logged at a loss of not more than $5 per

1,000 board feet; and class III, all other

timber.

In order to calculate growth and volume of immature conifer stands, most of

these stands were classified according to

age, in 10-year classes, and according to

density, in three degrees of stocking. If an

area were 70- to 100-percent covered, according to the stocked-quadrat method of

measurement (explained in the appendix),

it was classified as well stocked; if 40 to 69

percent, medium stocked; if 10 to 39 percent, poorly stocked; and if less than 10

percent, nonstocked.

The term “site quality” denotes the

forest-productive capacity of an area, determined by the composite effect of all climatic and soil conditions. Site-quality

classifications based on height of dominant and codominant trees at a given age

have been adopted for the Douglas-fir type

and the ponderosa pine type.

The classification for Douglas-fir consists of five classes and that for ponderosa pine of six classes; in each case, the

highest class is designated I. The Douglasfir classification was employed for all forest-cover types in the region except

ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine,

oak-madrone, hardwood, and noncommercial rocky. The ponderosa pine classification was used for all ponderosa pine types

except woodland. Land occupied by the

other types listed was not classified by site

quality.

Appendix D - 18

FIGURE 4—Map of western Oregon showing survey units, counties, and

important drainages

12
Pages 13-144 not included

Appendix D - 19
(1) BEAL, J. A., KIMMEY,J. W., AND RAPRAEGER, E. F. 1935.

DETERIORATION OF FIRE-KILLED DOUGLAS FIR.

TIMBERMAN 37(2): 13-17, ILLUS.

(2) BOYCE, J. S.1932. DECAY AND OTHER LOSSES IN

DOUGLAS FIR IN WESTERN OREGON AND

WASHINGTON. U. S. DEPT. AGR. TECH. BUL. 286, 60 PP.,

ILLUS.

(3) BURRIER, A. S.1935. LAND USE PROBLEMS IN OREGON, AND

ABRIDGED REPORT. OREG. STATE PLANNING BD. 64 PP., ILLUS.

(4) FAIRCHILD, FRED ROGERS, AND ASSOCIATES. 1935. FOREST

TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES. U. S. DEPT. AGR.

MISC. PUB. 218, 681 PP., ILLUS.

(5) FERGUSON, JOHN W. 1935. TWENTY-FIFTH ANNUAL

REPORT OF THE STATE FORESTER OF THE STATE

OF OREGON. 86 PP., ILLUS. SALEM, OREG.

(6) HALL, R. CLIFFORD 1935. THE FOREST-TAX PROBLEM

AND ITS SOLUTION SUMMARIZED. U. S. DEPT. AGR.

CIR. 358, 18 PP.

(7) HODGSON, ALLEN H. 1929. LOGGING WASTE IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR REGION. WEST COAST LUMBERMAN 56

AND 57 (SUP.), 40 PP., ILLUS.

(8) ————1931. THE PRESENT UTILIZATION OF

SAWMILL WASTE IN THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION.

TIMBERMAN 32.(9-12), ILLUS.

(9) INGRAM, DOUGLAS C. 1931. VEGETATIVE CHANGES AND

GRAZING USE ON DOUGLAS FIR CUTOVER LAND.

JOUR. AGR. RES. 43: 387-417, ILLUS.

(10) JOHNSON, HERMAN M., HANZLIK, EDWARD J., AND GIBBONS,

WILLIAM H. 1926. RED ALDER OF THE PACIFIC

NORTHWEST: ITS UTILIZATION, WITH NOTES ON

GROWTH AND MANAGEMENT. U. S. DEPT. AGR. BUL.

1437,46 PP., ILLUS.

(11) JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREST CONSERVATION.1937. FOREST

PRACTICE HANDBOOK 31 PP., ILLUS. WEST COAST

LUMBERMEN ASSOC. SEATTLE.

(12) MCARDLE, RICHARD E., AND MEYER, WALTER H. 1930. THE

YIELD OF DOUGLAS FIR IN THE PACIFIC

NORTHWEST. U. S. DEPT. AGR. TECH. BUL. 201, 64 PP.,

ILLUS.

Literature Cited

(13) MEYER, WALTER H. 1937. YIELD OF EVEN-AGED STANDS

OF SITKA SPRUCE AND WESTERN HEMLOCK

 U. S. DEPT. AGR. TECH. BUL. 544, 86 PP., ILLUS.

(14) ————1938. YIELD OF EVEN-AGED STANDS OF

PONDEROSA PINE. U. S. DEPT. AGR. TECH. BUL. 630,

60 PP., ILLUS.

(15) ————1930. A STUDY OF THE RELATION

BETWEEN ACTUAL AND NORMAL YIELDS OF

IMMATURE DOUGLAS FIR FORESTS. JOUR. AGR. RES.

41: 635-665, ILLUS.

(16) MUNGER, THORNTON T. 1927. TIMBER GROWING AND

LOGGING PRACTICE IN THE DOUGLAS FIR

REGION. U. S. DEPT. AGR. BUL. 1493, 42 PP. ILLUS.

(17) MUNNS, E. N. AND BROWN, R. M. 1925. VOLUME TABLE

FOR THE IMPORTANT TIMBER TREES OF THE

UNITED STATES: I. WESTERN SPECIES. U. S. DEPT.

AGR. UNNUM. PUB. 159 PP.

(18) OREGON SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TIMBER TAXATION APPOINTED BY

THE GOVERNOR. 1937. OREGON TIMBER TAXATION

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TOWARD

THEIR SOLUTION. 40 PP., ILLUS. SALEM, OREG.

(19) OREGON STATE TAX COMMISSION. 1937. THIRTEENTH

BIENNIAL REPORT.

(20) SHEPARD, H. B. 1937. FOREST FIRE INSURANCE IN

THE PACIFIC COAST STATES. U. S. DEPT. AGR. TECH.

BUL. 551, 168 PP., ILLUS.

(21) SUDWORTH, GEORGE B. 1927. CHECK LIST OF THE

FOREST TREES OF THE UNITED STATES: THEIR

NAMES AND RANGES. U. S. DEPT. AGR. MISC. CIRC. 92,

295 PP.

(22) UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE. 1933. A NATIONAL PLAN

FOR AMERICAN FORESTY. [U. S.] CONG. 73D, 1ST

SESS., S. DOC. 12, 2 V., ILLUS.

(23) WASHINGTON STATE TAX COMMISSION. 1936. SIXTH BIENNIAL

REPORT.

(24) WEST COAST LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATION.1937. WEST COAST

LUMBER FACTS. 25 PP., ILLUS. SEATTLE, WASH.

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

Appendix D - 20 145
Inventory Methods and Sources

Volume Tables

Several existing Douglas-fir volume tables had given satisfactory results for certain localities, but comparison with

measurements of felled timber showed that they could not be

used regionally. Accordingly, a form-class table was developed and checked against measured volume of 1.6 million board

feet of felled and bucked timber in different sections of the

region. In nearly every instance this table checked within 0.5

percent of the actual measurements, and in no case did it deviate more than 2.6 percent.

A western hemlock volume table was constructed in the

same way, and was proved to be accurate. For western redcedar

a volume table made on the Quinault Indian Reservation by

Henry B. Steer, then of the United States Indian Service, was

used. For Sitka spruce, table 80 of Volume Tables for the Important Timber Trees of the United States: Part I, Western

Species (17), was accepted after adjustment to a 12-inch top

diameter. Table 79 from the same publication was adopted for

silver fir and white fir, after it had been adjusted to a 12-inch

top diameter and extended to include trees as large as 70 inches

in diameter.

Table 77 in the publication just mentioned, prepared by R.

H. Weidman in 1917, was accepted for noble fir. A table made

by Henry B. Steer on the Quinault Indian Reservation was

used for western white pine. A form-class table was constructed

for ponderosa pine. A table for use in estimating red alder was

prepared on the basis of an existing table (10) made by Griffin

and Wilcox. The second-growth cottonwood table (table 11)

in Volume Tables for the Important Timber Trees of the United

States: Part III, Eastern Hardwoods, was found to be suitable

for other hardwoods.

Organization of Field Work

More than 40 percent of the region’s total forest-land area

is within the boundaries of national forests. This portion, 84

percent of which is in Federal ownership, includes the most

mountainous, rugged, and inaccessible lands of the region.

When this work was started, national forests either wholly or

chiefly within the Douglas-fir region numbered 12; since then,

without any significant change in total area, the number has

been reduced by consolidations to 10. These national forests

now range in gross area from about 700,000 to 1,850,000 acres

each, averaging approximately 1,200,000 acres.

A greater part of the national-forest lands than of the

other lands had to be covered by field examination. The procedure followed on them was influenced not only by the ruggedness of the many mountain areas but also by scarcity of roads

and shortness of field season. It was decided that the work on

national-forest areas that had not been intensively cruised

should be an intensive reconnaissance. Men familiar with the

national forests of the region were selected from the local forest organizations to do this work.

For lands outside the national forests a permanent organization of 5 type mappers and 3 check cruisers was formed.

This was augmented by field assistants during the field season and computers during the winter months. In peak periods

as many as 40 or 50 men were employed on the survey of these

lands.

Collection of Existing Information

The sources of information already in existence for national-forest areas included intensive timber cruises covering

about 15 percent of their total records of an extensive reconnaissance made in 1909-10 and amended in 1922, of examinations of cut-over land, of planting reconnaissance work, of

land-exchange examinations, of appraisals, of settlement cases,

of trespass cases, and of fire damage; aerial and panoramic

photographs; and miscellaneous other records. Of the land

outside national forests about 30 percent had been covered

by intensive cruises. Collecting information on areas outside

national forests involved investigation of the records of all

counties and consultations with lumbermen, public officials,

foresters and engineers in private employ, and many other

persons. The principal sources of information found were private timber cruises in the hands of timber owners or their

agents, county cruises made for taxation purposes, and cruises

of State-owned lands, Oregon & California Railroad revested

grant lands, and Indian reservations. In cases in which county

cruises were sufficiently complete and appeared to be reliable

enough to use, no attempt was made to collect private cruises.

Private timberland owners contributed materially to the

success of this undertaking. With very few exceptions and

reservations they tendered the use of their cruise data, which

in the aggregate are estimated to have cost them more than a

million dollars. Each cooperator was assured that private

cruises given would be kept in strict confidence and that cruise

data from private sources would be made public only in such

combinations as would safeguard their confidential character.

It was emphasized also that the type maps would not indicate

density of stand for the mature types.

Field Procedure

The intensive reconnaissance method applied on national

forests consists in mapping areas that are uniform as to type

conditions and estimating the average volume per acre for

each of these type areas. Type boundaries were determined

by working along trails, roads, and ridges, by using high points

Appendix

FOREST RESOURCES OF THE DOUGLAS-FIR REGION

146 Appendix D - 21
for lookouts, and by running random strips, and were placed

directly on base maps. For each saw-timber-type area, estimates of average volume per acre were made ocularly and

were checked by use of data taken on a number of well-distributed sample plots. Sample plots were either quarter-acre circles

(58.9-feet radius) or 1-acre strips (66 by 660 feet). For all trees

of saw-timber size on these plots species, height, and diameter

were recorded and volume was computed. For second-growth

areas, that is, areas occupied by stands less than about 150

years of age, average age of timber and average stocking were

recorded. At frequent Intervals site observations were taken

and recorded; the age of the stand was determined with an

increment borer, average height of the dominant and codominant trees was determined with an Abney level, and site values were read from a curve of height over age. In determining

site only Douglas-fir trees were measured where the Douglasfir classification was used, and only ponderosa pines were

measured where the ponderosa-pine classification was used.

In the Cascade Range, the Siskiyou Mountains, and the

Olympic Mountains, because of the distinctness of the topography it was possible to determine type boundaries largely

by observation from vantage points. On the Siuslaw National

Forest, in the Coast Range, mapping was seriously impeded

by numerous small canyons and short ridges with no definite

topographical pattern, by luxuriant brush and tree cover, and

by poor weather. Here aerial photography was used as an

adjunct to ground work. Oblique rather than vertical pictures

were taken, because of lower cost and greater ease of orientation.

For areas outside national-forest boundaries the first step

in preparing type maps was to record the collected type data

on transparent vellum plats fitted over base maps. Each type

mapper visited the county seat in search of additional information and familiarized himself with the county in a general

way by driving over the roads. Having selected an area on

which to begin work, he mapped as much as he could from the

roads and trails. Picking points that would give the best view

of the country and using as a control the roads, streams, and

other features on the base map and the type areas already

entered on the vellum from office records, he oriented himself

with a compass and mapped all that could be seen. Each type

area was viewed from several vantage points to determine its

exterior boundaries. In this region of dense cover and irregular, often rugged topography, once under forest cover it is

difficult to see out, and great care was necessary to avoid

overlooking any small farms, pasture lands, burns, or small

second-growth areas. On areas of mixed types it was customary to map the smaller type areas first, thus fixing the boundaries of the larger types.

For areas not covered by existing data, which were principally second-growth areas, land cut over prior to 1920, burns,

woodland areas, farm woods, agricultural lands, grassland,

brush areas, and barrens, the field examiner located, and

sketched on the map, the boundaries of each type. For second-growth areas, he determined also the age class of the

timber, its species composition, and the degree of stocking.

For areas occupied by merchantable timber he estimated the

board-foot content of the stand by species. For all coniferous

types except lodgepole pine, noncommercial rocky, and subalpine, he made site determinations at frequent intervals.

Several large agricultural areas contain scattered forests

and woods that are too small to be shown on the type map but

that in the aggregate constitute a forest resource too large to

be ignored. These agricultural areas are fairly well defined; an

example is the Willamette Valley of Oregon. To get a statistical

expression of the extent and character of their forest stands,

they were covered by a linear survey. Type and volume data

were taken on transects at intervals of 3 miles or less.

Lands shown by county and private records to have been

clear cut since the beginning of 1920 (type 36) were not classified in the field but were examined in the field to verify that

they had been clear cut. These areas cannot satisfactorily be

classified as to restocking, because of the periodicity of adequate seed crops, the practice of slash burning, high fire

hazard, and the nature of logging practice in the region. However, a statistical expression was obtained of the condition of

those logged prior to the period of general seed-crop failure

that began in 1924. A linear survey was made of the areas

logged in 1920–23, transects being spaced 2 miles apart or at

the rate of 1 mile of strip for every 1,280 acres. At 1-chain

intervals on these transects four 13.2-foot quadrats were examined, and each of these was classified as stocked or

nonstocked according to whether it contained one well-established seedling (the stocked-quadrat method).

The site map was made on a skeleton vellum overlay map

of the county, scale one-half inch to the mile. All the site determinations made were plotted on the map and by interpolation

site-class boundary lines were sketched in. This of course,

gave only a generalized picture, but by referring to topographic

features and using his knowledge of the country the field examiner was able to make a sufficiently accurate map for an area

as large as a county. The site maps were intended to show not

the site class of specific small areas but the area of each site

class in the county.

The final field job was “adjustment cruising” of contributed cruise data. It was impossible to adjust these data to

survey standards without resorting to field work because (1)

specifications were often incomplete or lacking and (2) errors

made by cruisers might have caused considerable inconsistency in a given cruise. The adjustment cruising consisted in

cruising well-distributed sample areas according to the specifications adopted for the forest survey and comparing the

results with the original cruise data. The size chosen for the

individual sample was 160 acres.

Volume was recorded for quarter-acre circular plots at

2-1/2-chain intervals, or for 16 such plots on each 40-acre tract;

Appendix D - 22 147
in other words, a 10-percent cruise was made. The circularplot system was admirably adapted to the purpose, and

speeded up the work. Locations of all doubtful line trees were

determined with a tape, all trees apparently more than 60 inches

d. b. h. were measured for diameter, and a considerable percentage of the smaller trees were measured. Heights were measured with the Abney level and by taping a number of windfalls

each day. Deductions for breakage and defect were calculated

for each 40-acre tract. These deductions were carefully

checked, for each tract cruised, by examining felled and bucked

timber on neighboring logging operations and by interviewing superintendents, foremen, check scalers, and managers of

logging operations in the vicinity.

Per-acre volume of the hardwood stands, usually not included in commercial cruises in the region, had been determined by the type mappers, but information was lacking as to

the volume of the hardwood timber occurring as an understory in mature coniferous forests. As a part of the adjustment-cruising project, therefore, data on this hardwood

understory were collected.

Each check cruiser compiled his data currently and made

frequent comparisons with the original cruise until he was

satisfied that the results were consistent and that reliable adjustment factors could be computed. Usually 3 to 4 percent of

the area included in the original cruise was check cruised.

Compilation of Data

In many counties a year or more elapsed between the

completion of the original field work and the beginning of

compilation. In such cases the status of areas logged and

burned in the intervening period had to be investigated. This

involved a check of cutting and fire records, and in some cases

additional field mapping.

Before type acreages could be computed it was necessary to determine the exact land area of each township, each

county, and each national forest. General Land Office plats

were used for townships for which they were available.

Areas of unsurveyed townships were determined by

planimetering the most accurate maps available.

Information as to ownership was obtained from county

records for county-owned and municipal lands, State records

for State-owned lands, Department of Interior records for national-park, Indian, and revested grant lands and for unappropriated public domain, and Forest Service records for

national forests. All land not shown by public records to be

public property was considered private.

Acreage for each of the various types and for divisions of

some types by age class and degree of stocking was determined for each section and for each ownership class from the

field maps. For each national forest this was done by compartment, block, and working circle and also by county. Acreage

was determined by use of the planimeter or by counting

squares.

Site-class acreages were compiled for each county and

national forest from site maps by planimetering. Percentages

of total acreage in each site class represented were determined

for each township in the same manner, for use in computing

volume of second-growth stands.

Volume data for national forest areas were compiled by

applying to type areas the stand-per-acre values determined

in the field. Volumes were compiled by compartment and were

summarized by block and finally by working circle.

For areas outside national forests, the adjustment factors

determined by check cruising were applied to the volume figures taken from existing cruise records and the corrected totals, recorded by section, township, and county. Volumes for

areas of merchantable timber, including hardwoods, not covered by previous cruises were compiled by applying to each

area the figure for stand per acre shown by the type map.

Commercial cruises had omitted a large majority of the second-growth stands in which the average breast-height diameter was below a standard ranging, according to species, from

20 to 24 inches. For uncruised second-growth stands in which

the trees averaged 16 inches d. b. h. or more, volumes were

obtained from tables adapted from the Douglas-fir yield tables

(12). Volume data for second-growth areas were segregated

from the others.

Depletion-Study Methods and Sources

Cutting Depletion

The data taken on depletion by cutting covered the material removed not only as sawlogs but also as so-called minor

timber products. The records used included only wood material actually taken out of the woods, omitting sound material

left by operators on the ground as nonutilizable. This sound

unused material entered the study only when future depletion

was being estimated. Its quantity had been accurately determined in a previous study (7).

The study of annual log depletion was based on the 9-

year period 1925–33 because more and better data were available for this period than for any other. It is true that in this

period sawlog production reached a peak that it may never

reach again, but the period included some years of extremely

low production; all things considered, the data are believed to

be representative.

The log-production data used were taken from several

sources but principally from the biennial lumber- and log-production censuses of Oregon and Washington for the years

1925, 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1933 taken by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in cooperation with

the Bureau of the Census. Sawlog production as reported by

the independent loggers and logger-manufacturers was used

in preference to lumber, lath, shingle, veneer, and pulpwood

148 Appendix D - 23
production because in this way the material could be traced to

its sources and classified by county and unit. Data for 1926,

1928, 1930, and 1932 were obtained partly from records of the

Portland, Oreg., regional office of the Forest Service and partly

by interviewing officials of timber companies and lumber associations and other individuals having personal knowledge

of lumber operations.

A check of the sawlog data was made by comparing the

sum of the county totals with a regional total obtained by

combining census and other official figures. The differences

found were 3.7 percent for western Washington, 2.1 percent

for western Oregon, and 1.9 percent for the region as a whole.

The errors for survey-unit totals were estimated to be well

within ± 5 percent.

The study of depletion for minor forest products had to

be based on 1930 production alone, as data for previous or

subsequent years were either missing or too incomplete for

satisfactory use. The basic data were obtained through field

investigations and by means of questionnaires circulated to

producers and consumers. Information of satisfactory accuracy was obtained by this method for all items except round

and split fence posts. Since posts are produced in small quantities and by many individuals, largely by farmers for their own

use, it was impossible to canvass the field thoroughly. A figure was obtained by adding to the output reported by the

large-scale commercial operators an estimate of annual farm

requirements.

Fire Depletion

The study of depletion of the forest capital by fire was

much more complex than the study of depletion by cutting.

The two sources of information available were Forest Service reports covering burned area on the national forests and

State foresters’ reports covering burned area on all other forest lands. The data were summarized by survey unit, those for

national forests being treated separately from those for all

other lands.

The basic data used for the analysis of depletion by fire

on the national forests were the reports of all class C fires

(fires 10 acres or more in area) on the national forests of the

region in the 10-year period 1924-33. Site and type before fire

were determined by superimposing on the forest-survey site

and type maps the outlines of the areas reported to have been

covered by the fires. Each fire was classified and the essential

data regarding area, location, type, site, and volume were separately recorded. These were compiled by county and summarized by unit. A field check was made of about 25 percent of the

total area reported to have been covered by class C fires, and

from the data thus obtained correction factors for both area

and volume were computed. No blanket deduction was made

for salvage. In the few cases in which material was known to

have been salvaged this material was deducted from the loss.

When the 10-year totals of area burned and timber killed had

been adjusted, they were converted to average annual-loss

rates.

Reports made to the State foresters on individual fires in

the region in the 5-year period 1926-30, which had been analyzed in connection with the forest fire insurance study (20)

recently made by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, formed the basic data used in computing

fire-depletion rates for land other than national forests. Supplementary reports on nearly all the fires covering 50 acres or

more were obtained from the fire wardens, and checked in the

field, for all counties except San Juan and Island in Washington and Hood River, Jackson, and Josephine in Oregon. The

areas covered by the supplementary fire reports were classified as to site and type by reference to the forest-survey site

and type maps, and the volume loss estimated. These data

were recorded by county and the totals combined by forestsurvey unit. The data were then compared with the State foresters’ published reports of total area burned in the same period

in the same group of counties and were adjusted to them.

They were next converted to an annual loss rate. This procedure automatically included Island, San Juan, and Hood River

Counties. Jackson and Josephine Counties were covered by a

separate analysis of individual fire reports to the State foresters for the period 1926-32. Finally, annual loss rates were calculated for the entire region by survey unit. Salvage rates for

lands outside the national forests were computed on the basis

of data obtained in the forest fire insurance study, and were

applied to volume-loss totals.

Future Depletion

No specific formula could be evolved for making estimates

of future depletion from cutting. The economic forces that

could influence the situation are many and complex. The

Douglas-fir region is farther removed than any other forest

region of the United States from the large markets of the Midwestern and Eastern States. What quantities of lumber will be

shipped from it will depend somewhat on the extent to which

the other forest regions can fulfill the requirements of the

country’s heavily populated sections. On the other hand this

region is favorably situated in relation to Asia, Africa, and the

antipodes, the world’s largest undeveloped markets for softwoods. The depletion estimates are pure assumptions, based

on careful analysis of cutting records and of current trends in

lumbering, not only regional but national, and all other known

influences.

Future depletion from fire, while not subject to so many

dynamic economic forces as cutting, was equally difficult of

prediction.

Appendix D - 24 149
Pages 150-169 and bound maps not included

Appendix D - 25
92

Appendix E: Selected pages from Fifty Years of Forest Research in the

Pacific Northwest (by T.T. Munger)

Appendix E - 1
93

The following section is from pages 237-239 in Munger, Thornton T. 1955. Fifty years of forest research in

the Pacific Northwest. Oregon Historical Quarterly. LVI(3): 226-247.

One of the major projects of the Forest Experiment Station since 1930 has been a survey of the forest

resources of Oregon and Washington.4 The survey included not only an inventory of forest resources of all ownerships, but an estimate of forest growth, both actual and potential, a survey of depletion from cutting, fire and

pests, and of the prospective requirements for wood products. Such an extensive project had never been undertaken before, and the techniques later adopted elsewhere were initiated here.

The Forest Survey was directed from the start by the late Horace J. Andrews, who was succeeded in

1938 by Robert W. Cowlin. Between 1930 and 1936 the Forest Survey completed coverage of all the forested

portions of Oregon and Washington—some 33,000,000 acres. It was then probably the largest forest acreage

in the world ever to be cruised and type-mapped so intensively. When the project was at its height the annual

expenditure was $150,000 to $200,000, including emergency relief funds, and excluding valued help from various segments of the industries, from timberland owners, the states and other cooperators, whose data contributed greatly to the completeness and economy of the project.

No sooner was the last county completed than the need for revision of the inventory of the first counties was necessary, particularly where there had been rapid cutting or holocausts. So it has been a continuing

project to keep the forest resource data up to date. Survey results have been circulated through maps, statistics, texts and other methods. They have been the bases for all broad-scale planning for sustained-yield units

on and off the national forest. The Survey has given an economic foundation for the planning of public services

and of transportation and the development of forest management plans. Merged with the data from other forest

regions, the Survey furnishes conclusions which make possible national planning to balance the timber budget

of production and consumption.

During the depression of the thirties, when regular appropriations were cut to the bone, the Experiment

Station benefited greatly from the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and the

Emergency Relief Administration. Some experimental forests had a side camp of twenty-five CCC boys available for station projects. Other persons were employed under various relief programs, both in the field and in

the office. New residences and office buildings were built at Wind River, Cascade Head, Pringle Falls, Port

Orford Cedar, and Blue Mountain experimental forests, as were roads, trails and bridges. During the early

phases of this emergency work, certain technical activities, particularly on the Forest Survey, were greatly

accelerated by the personnel supplied from relief rolls. At one time twenty-eight ERA computers, clerks, and

map colorists were employed in the Portland office.

4

The 1930 Forest Survey was not the first attempt to inventory the woods. Prior to 1905 when the General Land

Office of the Department of the Interior still had charge of the “forest reserves” a number of highly competent forest

explorers under the Division of Forestry, USDA, made reconnaissances in the vast Oregon and Washington forest

reserves that were notable for the scope and keenness of their observation. Soon after the establishment of the

district office in 1908, an “extensive reconnaissance” was made of every national forest. The work was done by a local

technical assistant cruising and mapping in a year or two, the million or so acres assigned to him. Concurrently, of

course, a great deal of “intensive reconnaissance” was done by detailed cruising and mapping methods. This has

now been extended to cover most of the commercial timbered areas in the national forests.

Appendix E - 2 237
94

Appendix F: Selected pages from Early Forestry Research:

a History of the Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Experiment Station,

1925-1975 (by Ivan Doig)

Appendix F - 1
Doig, Ivan. 1977. Counting the trees. In: Early forestry research: a history of the Pacific Northwest Forest & Range

Experiment Station, 1925-1975. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experiment Station: 10-14.

COUNTING THE TREES

The Arkansas day of ‘can see to cain’t see’ was in effect much of the time.-Thornton T. Munger, June 1931,

describing field work during the Lewis County phase of the

Forestry Survey

Appendix F - 2

Early in 1929, Munger went to Washington, D.C., to

discuss an ambitious new project prescribed in Section 9

of the McSweeney-McNary Act. This was to conduct a

long-needed inventory of American timber resources—both

private and public—an accounting of the timber stands

left after many generations of logging. The nationwide

Forest Survey began with the Douglas-fir region west of

the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

The Douglas-fir country was no capricious choice.

Although totaling only about 30 million acres of forest land,

a fraction of the national total, the region was known to

have a major share of the nation’s remaining volume of

sawable timber. Much of it was in old-growth stands, and

many of those were within the boundaries of National

Forests.

Even as plans for the Forest Survey were being

shaped, the Pacific Northwest lumber industry was suffering economic heaves and staggers. The slackening of

the postwar boom of the Twenties meant a decline in lumber sales and a sag in lumber prices. Now, with the onset

of the Depression, lumber production plummeted. In the

Douglas-fir region which was the focus of the Forest Survey, lumber production dropped from about 10 billion board

feet in 1929 to 7.5 billion board feet the next year.

Economic woes threatened the cooperation which the

Station needed to conduct the Forest Survey. Hardpressed timberland owners were leery that making public

the timber volume data on their holdings would inspire tax

officials to boost assessed valuations. Eventually, the

Station agreed that all private timber cruise data would be

kept confidential and compilations would not be released

in any form that would disclose the timber holdings of any

single private owner.

Once that rift with the lumbermen had been smoothed

over, plans for the Forest Survey forged ahead. Early in

January 1930, Horace J. “Hoss” Andrews, a forester who

had directed a forest land and economic survey for the

state of Michigan, was brought in as senior forest economist and director of the project. The same week,

Christopher M. Granger, who had been District Forester,

was appointed national director of the Forest Survey and

moved his office to the Station. Walter H. Meyer was the

Station’s resident authority on statistical methods, and

he was given responsibility for the methods of predicting

forest growth. Donald N. Matthews came from the Umpqua

National Forest to head the teams gathering field information on National Forest lands. Robert W. Cowlin, a young

forest economist with a background in the California redwood country, was put in charge of assembling data on

timberlands outside the National Forests. Foresters were

added to take the measurements in the woods. Among

them was Jim Girard, a lanky woodsman out of Appalachia, who had the knack of glancing at a stand of trees

and estimating its timber volume with uncanny accuracy.

10
A beautiful stand of Douglas-fir in Skamania County, Washington (1936).

Appendix F - 3 11
The Forest Survey was well underway in 1930. Munger

reported that private timber cruise records “continue to be

gathered in at the rate of about one-half million acres a

month,” while the estimable Girard coached survey teams

in his skills of “ocular estimation.”

But if the Station’s major project was prospering, its

personnel were not. The effects of the Depression began

to wash over the Station early in 1931. Munger was instructed to hold up the expenditure of a portion of appropriated funds during the next 2 fiscal years. Promotions,

hirings, and travel were restricted. Salaries, never very

substantial in the Forest Service (junior foresters with

college degrees were being hired for about $2000 a year),

now stood frozen year after year. Then in July 1932, annual vacations were scrapped and the “Hoover holiday”

was instituted—2 days off each month without pay.

For all that, a belt-tightened job was better than no

job. Philip A. Briegleb, a researcher who joined the staff

just before the rapid slide into the Depression in late 1929,

recalled the reassurance of even a diminished paycheck:

“In those years, an assignment in the Forest Service was

a pretty good looking asset.”

While the Depression years meant lean pay, they also

proved to be an era of expansion for Federal forestry. Out

of the New Deal flowed funds and personnel made available by the new emergency agencies. The CCC (Civilian

Conservation Corps) channeled plentiful manpower into

the forests. Munger remembered the labors of the CCC

These CCC boys, with the foreman and cook, spent the summer of 1934 thinning plots at the Pringle Falls

Experimental Forest near Bend, Oregon.

Appendix F - 4

youths: “They did a lot of development work, including

building residences and office buildings at several places,”

plus “a substantial amount” of work at the five new Experimental Forests under the Station’s administration.

ECW (Emergency Civil Works) funds financed the rehiring of temporary workers who had been laid off in the

budget crunch and the hiring of field assistants and scientific aides to help with the Forest Survey and other Station projects.

Even before that transfusion, a study of fire loss was

carried out by experienced timber cruisers and graduate

foresters left short of employment by the Depression. Late

in 1933, more funds and people were made available to

the Station from the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery

Agency) and CWA (Civil Works Administration). By the

new year, these accounted for some 50 more people on

the Station work force.

In the midst of the hectic year of growth, the Station

moved to new quarters in the Federal Courthouse in Portland. It was the Wind River exodus of 1924 writ much

larger—workers grappling furniture, scientific equipment,

and shelves of books into panel sedans. As promptly as

the move was made, the new quarters were outgrown by

the influx of staffers. Two large jury rooms of the U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals were borrowed for the overflow—

only to be promptly taken back by an irate judge who

discovered a fresh cigarette burn on an oak desk.

12
While the Station headquarters crammed in its new

personnel and projects, the field work on its biggest research program—the Forest Survey of the Douglas-fir region—was nearing completion. The survey had taken an

unexpected turn in late 1930, when Forest Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., decided that the estimateand-compile method being used by the Station crews

should be tested against what was called the line-plot

method. Lewis County, Washington, one of the larger units

of the Douglas-fir region, was chosen as a test area.

Across some 1 million acres, linear swaths of timber were

singled out at 3-mile intervals. Crews then measured timber volume on quarter-acre plots at regular intervals within

the forested strips.

Cowlin, who had charge of the line-plot survey experiment, calculated that 960 man-days were spent in the

woods. “The 8-hour day was unheard of,” he recalled, “for

in some instances it would take several hours or more to

reach the line in the morning and a like amount of time or

more to reach the camp, night lodging place, or automobile at the end of the day.” He remembered rewarding

moments out in the big trees. Francis X. Schumacher, a

visiting scientist from the Washington, D.C., headquarters, profited nicely from the Survey crew in a weekend

poker game at Chehalis. But on Monday, Cowlin and a

cohort evened the score with bets on tree diameters before they were measured. “Schu had a tendency to underestimate the large old-growth Douglas-fir,” Cowlin

reported.

The Lewis County measurements were finished in June

1931, and computations were begun to compare the two

methods of survey. They were found to be fairly close in

results, with the line-plot method proving a bit more precise in revealing stands of hardwood within the coniferous

forests, the compilation method more flexible for use in

varied terrains and expanses. The decision was made

to continue the compilation method, not only for the

Douglas-fir region but also for the ponderosa pine survey

to be carried out east of the Cascades.

By the end of 1932, the inventory of National Forest

lands in the Douglas-fir country was completed. What

remained to be done on the privately held timber stands

and in compilation and evaluation was hastened by the

supervisory abilities of “Hoss” Andrews, something of an

artist at evading red tape. In 1934, the compilations and

measurement of timber stands were translated into colorcoded maps. Late in 1935, fieldwork was completed in

the ponderosa pine region. Within about another year, the

final Forest Survey report for the Douglas-fir region was

completed.

Appendix F- 5

The Forest Survey was the Station’s major research

achievement in this era, but other milestones can be

counted as well:

• This was the period when Experimental Forests were

authorized and established, one in the Douglas-fir

groves of the Wind River Valley, another in the western

yellow pine country near Pringle Falls on the upper

Deschutes River. The Experimental Forests made it

possible to study various forest types in their natural

state and to document their response to resource

management practices.

• Aerial photography was contracted for by the Forest

Survey staff, chiefly to see whether it could be used on

the most inaccessible back country of the Siuslaw

National Forest in southwestern Oregon. The results

were promising, but the method too costly. The

extensive use of aerial photography awaited more

sophisticated equipment and film.

• When the Tillamook fire destroyed a vast swath of oldgrowth timber in northwestern Oregon in August 1933,

Leo Isaac and fellow researcher George Meagher

followed up with a study of regeneration in burned-over

areas. Their findings, which pointed out erosion hazards

in the steep Pacific Coast area, made front-page

headlines in the Portland newspapers. The IsaacMeagher report was perhaps the most widely noticed

of the many publications which came from the Station

in these years.

Points of conflict between researchers also began to

show up in the Depression era. In March 1934, researcher

Axel J. F. Brandstrom presented findings on a system

called economic selective logging. The Brandstrom formula called for cutting the highest value trees and leaving

the rest to grow into a future timber crop — a sharp break

with the prevalent practice of clearcutting entire areas.

Brandstrom’s idea set off a dispute within the Station that

went to the highest echelons of the Forest Service.

In 1936, Brandstrom and Burt P. Kirkland, a well-known

Northwest forester then serving in the Washington, D.C.,

office of the Forest Service, prepared a report titled

“Selective Timber Management in the Douglas Fir Region.”

Munger and Isaac objected to many points in the manuscript, particularly what they saw as wholesale conversion to partial cutting in the old-growth Douglas-fir forests.

This, they argued, would lead to timber stands of uneven

age, which would favor shade-tolerant species of less

commercial value than Douglas-fir. Kirkland and

Brandstrom held the view that selective logging was efficient and economical, particularly with the advent of logging tractors and trucks which they said were more flexible

than the old system of railroad spur and cable logging.

13
This was an early round in the complex battle over

clearcutting. Munger was especially perturbed — although

he termed it merely “muffled disapproval” — that Regional

Forester C. J. Buck was determined to make selective

cutting the policy on National Forest timberlands in the

Northwest. Over Munger’s protests, the disputed report

was published with a foreword by Chief Forester Ferdinand

A. Silcox which called the Brandstrom-Kirkland proposals “thought provoking, original, and constructive.” Selective cutting did become the regional policy for several

years, until the pendulum of economics swung in favor of

clearcutting once again.

One achievement of these years was long overdue —

the Station’s first laboratory. A small building was rented

in southeast Portland, renovated, and some basic equipment installed. It was at best a modest start: a staff member of the time points out that the miniature laboratory, “if

it could be so dignified,” was shared with other federal

scientists doing research on forest insects.

This era has a selection of endings. One was the

waning, by early 1938, of New Deal programs and money

which had fueled much of the Station’s research. Another

was the completion of the Douglas-fir Forest Survey, a

landmark effort in evaluating our timber resources. Another occurred on July 1, 1938, when Thornton Munger

stepped down as Director and took on the job of heading

up forest management research at the Station.

14 Appendix F - 6
Federal Forest Research in the Pacific

Northwest

The Pacific Northwest Research Station

Robert W. Cowlin

October 1988

Appendix G: Selected Portions From Federal Forest Research in the

Pacific Northwest: The Pacific Northwest Research Station.

(by Robert W. Cowlin)

Appendix G - 1
The following section contains paragraphs relevant to the 1930s forest survey from pages 29 – 100 in

Cowlin, Robert W. 1988. Federal forest research in the Pacific Northwest: the Pacific Northwest Research Station. 244 p. Unpublished document distributed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station.Note, footnote numbers correspond with those in the original document.

from page 29-30

Overshadowing all these accomplishments was the enactment by Congress of the McSweeney-McNary Act of

May 22, 1928. This was and remains the most important Federal legislation related to forest research. It contains 10 sections which provided the basic framework for the organization of regional Forest Experiment Stations and named and described the following broad fields of study in separate sections: “forest diseases; forest

insects; forest animals, birds, and wildlife; forest fire weather; forest range and watershed; forest products;

forest survey; and forest reforestation and economic studies.” Annual amounts were authorized for each of the

eight fields of study and an overall ceiling was placed on the original forest survey. These amounts seemed

generous at the time, particularly when compared with the amounts previously appropriated. As time passed,

they proved inadequate and the basic act was amended and supplemented a number of times. However, it still

stands as an example of prescient and progressive forest legislation.10 Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon

was behind this legislation in Congress. At the time, he was in his second term and the acknowledged national

leader of forest legislation. Other Oregon and Washington senators and congressmen have followed in his footsteps as leaders in forest legislation.

Actual appropriations were not made under the McSweeney-McNary Act until the fiscal year commencing July

1, 1929. In anticipation of funds forthcoming for the forest survey under Section 9 of the Act, Munger went to

Washington in January 1929 to review plans for the forest survey with Washington Office research personnel.

Prior to this time, the nature of the proposed forest inventory had been discussed with the Advisory Council and

the Investigative Committee. Both of these groups strongly supported Munger’s belief that a forest type map

was an essential part of such a project. An allotment of $30,000 for the forest survey was made effective July 1,

1929. This doubled the financial funding for the Station. Staffing commenced immediately with the appointment

of Philip A. Briegleb from the junior forester rolls on July 1. Briegleb was detailed to Wind River to work on

projects there until the forest survey plans could be finalized. On November 5 of that year, Robert W. Cowlin

was appointed as an associated forest economist and Floyd L. Moravets was transferred from District 6 as a

junior forester to serve on this project, and Edith A. Parmeter was appointed October 14 as junior clerk to complete the staffing for that year. The remainder of the year this group reviewed literature, defined forest types,

investigated sources of information, and commenced preparing working plans under the direct supervision of

Director Munger. It was planned to divide the forest survey into four phases, which were: the timber inventory,

forest growth phase, forest depletion, and the requirements for forest products. This was in accord with the

language of Section 9 of the McSweeney-McNary Act. The Douglas-fir region, the area west of the Cascade

Range summit in Oregon and Washington, was selected from all other forest regions of the country as the

starting point for this important new project. Since this project was to be extended to other forest regions in

future years, considerable attention was directed to the plans and procedures developed and executed here.

Furthermore, this region, despite the fact that it contained only about 30 million acres of commercial forest

land, was known to have a major share of the Nation’s remaining sawtimber volume, most of it in old-growth

stands. Since the National Forests contained a large part of the forestland acreage and timber volume, there

were prospects that the historical trends of forest resource depletion in the Lake States, East, and South might

10 “A National Program of Forest Research,” published in 1926 by the American Tree

Association for the Society of American Foresters, furnished a “blueprint” for this

legislation. It was prepared by Earle H. Clapp as a special report of a special committee

on forest research of the Washington Section of the Society of American Foresters.

Other members of the committee were R. C. Hall and A. B. Hastings. However, many

other foresters, entomologists, plant pathologists, and wood technologists contributed

to it. It made an analysis of the forest problems of this country and research needed to

solve these problems. It went into great detail of the kinds of research needed, its

complexities and interrelationships. The report described existing agencies—private,

public, educational, and institutional—and current programs and discussed agency

needs and responsibilities. It drew certain conclusions and made suggestions for an

organic act for forest research in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Appendix G - 2
from page 30 to 31

be averted here. Also, the private lands of this region were generally located in the areas of higher productivity,

and there were indications of interest in holding timberlands for continuous timber production by some owners.

One of the factors arousing this interest was the passage of “the reforestation land tax bill” by the Oregon Legislature in March 1929.11 The Fairchild study definitely had some influence in awakening public awareness of

the adverse effect of current property tax laws and practices upon private forest-land ownership and management.

The sudden collapse of common stock prices on the New York Stock Exchange signaled the beginning of an

economic depression that was to endure nearly a decade and that was to result in numerous radical changes

in the Nation’s economic and social structures and political institutions. Forest resource management, the forest industries, and forest research programs were influenced in a number of ways by the economic forces at

work and by Governmental actions.

For several years before 1929, lumber production nationally had been declining. In the Douglas-fir region, volume of lumber production had remained practically stationary from 1926 to 1929. There were signs that the

postwar boom of the twenties had run its course. Lumber prices were weakening under slackening demand.

Many timber companies were financially overextended with burdensome debt charges on bonded indebtedness. Installed capacity was greatly in excess of that needed to supply national demand. Lumber production

nationally declined from 37 billion board feet in 1929 to 26 billion feet in 1930, and the bottom was not in sight.

During the same 1-year period, production in the Douglas-fir region dropped from about 10 billion board feet to

7.5 billion board feet. Since the timber industries were by far the leading manufacturing industry in the Pacific

Northwest, the impact on this region’s economy was severe.

With this stage setting, a strengthening of the economic aspects of forestry in the Station’s research program

commenced in 1930. The funds allotted to the forest survey more than doubled and other new projects of an

economic nature were planned.

On January 6, 1930, Horace J. Andrews was appointed senior forest economist to provide the leadership of the

forest survey project. On the same day, Donald N. Matthews was transferred from the Umpqua National Forest

of District 6 to assist on the survey. “Hoss” Andrews was particularly well qualified for this position. A graduate

of the School of Forestry, University of Michigan, he was Director of the forest land and economic survey of the

Michigan State Conservation Department in 1924 and 1925. Following this period, he was Chief Fire Warden

and in charge of the State of Michigan Division of Lands until he left to join the Station.

January 1, 1930, District Forester Christopher M. Granger was appointed as Head Forest Economist to be the

national director of the forest survey, and later in the month moved his office from District 6 headquarters to the

Lewis Building in the Experiment Station suite. With the principal staffing of the survey group completed, the

working plan could be developed and fieldwork commenced. A “Digest of the Tentative Working Plan” was prepared for presentation to the Forest Research Council and mailed to members on February 14, a week before

the scheduled annual meeting.

Exploration of existing information that might be used in the survey had disclosed that private and public timber

cruises were in existence covering practically all the stands of mature commercial timber on lands other than

the National Forests and National Parks. From these records, forest type and tentative timber volume could be

determined in the office. Field crews type mapped the remaining area, consisting principally of cutover lands,

deforested burns, and second-growth stands, by traversing roads, trails, and logging railroads and occupying

vantage points. Occasional patches of remnant old-growth forests not covered by records were assigned sawtimber volumes by ocular estimation by the type mapper. Records of areas cut over by date of logging and area

of recent deforested burns were available in a number of sources such as State Foresters’ offices, fire protection associations, county assessors, and timber owners.

11 This law provided the landowner with the option of having cutover land suitable for

reforestation classified and withdrawn from ordinary operation of property taxation.

The classified lands would pay 5 cents per acre annually and a harvest tax when the

merchantable crop was cut.

Appendix G - 3
from page 31-32

In contrast, the National Forest timberlands were only partly covered by intensive surveys, and these were

commonly made in areas where timber sale programs were active. Accordingly, a somewhat different procedure

was employed on the National Forests than was used on private lands, although the basic objectives and forest

type and timber volume specifications were identical, assuring that the data would be additive. On all lands,

each unit of commercial forest land was classified by forest type, site or productivity class, and ownership

class, and was assigned a sawtimber volume value for each species if of merchantable quantity. Secondgrowth stands were classified by 10-year age class and three degrees of stocking; from these data, board-foot

and cubic-foot volume could be determined by applying the appropriate yield table. Deforested burns and nonrestocked cutover lands were classified as such with the exception of lands cut over within 10 years of the date

of the survey which were designated as “recent cutovers.” The reasoning was that since Douglas-fir, the principal species, did not produce adequate seed crops each year, no immediate judgment could be made on restocking. At this time, practically all timber harvested was by clearcutting with defective trees12 left standing

which furnished a seed source.

Noncommercial forest lands were classified by ownership class only. Forest lands withdrawn from cutting by

statute, such as national parks and primitive areas, were designated as reserved and although timber volume

values were assigned to such lands, they were declared unavailable for cutting.

Each National Forest was divided into working circles and compartments. The county was the basic area unit

used for lands of other ownership, and forest type and timber volume data were gathered and compiled by

township and section. The smallest area unit recognized in classifying by land use, forest type, or ownership

was 40 acres. This survey procedure, commonly called the “compilation method,” was a contrast to forest survey methods used in European countries such as Sweden and Finland where linear-plot surveys had been

made on a national scale. This system consisted of measured plots of a fixed area at certain distances along

lines at spaced intervals. Sampling accuracy of the resulting timber volume and forest type or land use area

could be determined for large political units such as provinces. On the other hand, the compilation method was

not susceptible of accuracy determination and specification by statistical analysis. However, since the region’s

forest area was to be completely covered by the survey, it was reasoned there would be no sampling error as

far as area values were concerned. Obviously, there could be personal errors and bias on the part of field

crews, which was also true of surveys by any other method. The fact that forest type maps and localized area

and volume data could be obtained by the compilation method outweighed other considerations in the judgment

of the Director and survey leaders and this method was adopted. The linear survey system could only yield

schematic type maps and generalized area and volume data at the intensity permitted by funds available for

the project.

At the annual meeting of the Forest Research Council in February 1930, plans for conducting the forest survey

were presented. An entire afternoon was devoted to discussion of the methods to be used, timber volume and

area specifications, and how the information was to be released to the public upon completion of the survey.

Some members advocated compilation of the data by large watersheds rather than by county. Generally, those

advocating this position represented private timberland owners who feared that release of timber volume data by

county would prompt taxing officials to increase assessed valuations of private forest land and timber.

During World War I, corporation Federal income tax rates increased tremendously. This required a great expansion of Federal auditing of returns of timber owners, including the valuation they placed upon their timber holdings.13 The owners were directed to evaluate their timber by quantity, character, and value as of March 1, 1913.

Some owners chose to provide the forest survey with this information instead of more recent data. And, too,

some private owners, particularly nonoperating owners, had only rough estimates of their timber holdings.

12 These trees were culled owing to a high incidence of decay in the lower trunk as a

general rule. Such trees were not genetically inferior to the trees that had been

harvested.

13 In 1919, David T. Mason was appointed to organize and head the timber valuation

section of the Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Appendix G - 4
from page 32 to 33

The specifications for merchantable timber volume adopted as a regional standard for the survey were generally

more rigid than those used in commercial private cruises and in cruises used by the counties for tax assessments. At that time, practically all the county cruises were made by commercial timber cruising firms under

contract. Specifications and degrees of statistical reliability of the county cruises varied. Cruises made recently

of private timber likewise varied, although generally they were more uniform than the county cruises. However,

it was reported that there were substantial differences in timber volume if they were “buying” or “selling”

cruises. Practically all the cruises, both county and private, underestimated the volume of the minor species,

and in some cases ignored it completely. Timber volume was rarely estimated for the hardwoods, which often

occurred as an understory in the conifer old-growth stands or in pure hardwood stands along the river bottoms

and other favorable sites.

Obviously, the survey would have to adjust the timber volume data collected from the timber owners and the

counties. In nearly all cases, this would mean an increase in total merchantable timber volume for the particular area of forest land covered. Some council member suggested using private cruises only as a sample to

adjust county cruises. One member voiced the opinion that release of timber volume estimates by counties

might cause county officials to have recruises made. Chairman Chapman suggested that the Station collect

the data and decide later how it would be released. Other council members pointed out the advantage of having

these data by county in planning forest resource development and management. It was pointed out that other

economic data were available by county units. However, the Station agreed that all private timber cruise data

used would be kept confidential and that it would not be released in any form that would disclose the timber

holdings of a single private owner, and that the unit area of release would be the subject of future discussion

and decision. Moreover, the Station agreed to qualify the timber volume data released by explicitly defining the

standards used which exceeded current commercial practice and therefore was not necessarily economically

available. The question of classifying private forest land and timber by accessibility zones was raised and discussed. The British Columbia Forest Service was also conducting a forest survey of the province at this time.

Mr. F. D. Mulholland, who was directing this survey, was present and described their system which classified

timber volume on the basis of two classes of economic availability.

Granger, Munger, Andrews, and Cowlin attended a meeting of the Forestry Committee of the West Coast

Lumbermen’s Association to present the plans for the forest survey and discuss them with committee members. The meeting was called by Colonel Greeley14 who had resigned as Chief of the Forest Service in 192815 to

become executive head of the association. The “Colonel,” as he was respectfully and affectionately known by

foresters and timber men, undoubtedly had considerable influence in the high degree of cooperation which the

Station obtained from the timber industry in launching the forest survey. His influence was also a positive factor

in support of many other Station programs and in gaining the endorsement of the association for the Station

generally.

A detailed work plan and fieldwork instructions for the forest survey were completed during the early part of

1930. The first step was location and investigation of sources of information. Lists of large private timberland

owners and approximate acreage owned were compiled from several sources. Sources of base map information were located and collection of maps of each county on a 1-mile-to-the-inch scale commenced for use in

field type mapping of lands other than National Forests. The Forest Service District Office of Maps and Surveys

had on file maps for each of the National Forests. With financial aid from State forestry departments of Oregon

and Washington, work was commenced upon compiling the most recent cartographic data to draft new base

maps of the two States on a 1/4-inch-to-the-mile scale.

14 Following World War I, Greeley was commonly referred to by his military title.

15 He was succeeded by Major R. Y. Stuart.

Appendix G - 5
from page 33 and 34

The actual fieldwork of the survey was divided into two sections. Donald N. Matthews was placed in charge of

the National Forest section. One or two men from the staff of each National Forest in the Douglas-fir region was

assigned to the project. For areas not covered by intensive surveys made for timber sale preparation or land

classification and exchange purposes, a field examination was made which consisted of a type map and a

timber volume estimate. This was described as an “intensive application of an extensive reconnaissance”16

(a use of words which might cause a semanticist to wince). About 1920, an extensive reconnaissance of the

National Forests in the District had been made and timber volume estimated and compiled. This provided a

starting point for the detailed forest survey.

Supervision of the office work and fieldwork on lands other than the National Forests was assigned to Cowlin.

Timberland owners were contacted and asked for use of their timberland information. County assessor offices

were visited and the job of collecting timber cruise work commenced before mid-1930. Washington County, on

the outskirts of Portland, was selected as the first county to be covered, and Briegleb was assigned to it after a

brief field training period conducted by Andrews with Cowlin, Matthews, Briegleb, and Moravets to test procedures. Other field tests were made with Munger and Granger as participants to settle final plans for the work. A

field school in estimation of defect in Douglas-fir was conducted by Dr. Boyce17 in early fall for members of the

survey staff on the Cascade National Forest near Westfir, Oreg.

With additional funds in sight for fiscal year 1931, three additional men18 were selected and transferred from

other Forest Service Districts shortly before June 30. These men were young professional foresters. Each was

assigned a county to work under Cowlin’s supervision after a training session. Moravets, who had done a large

part of the data collecting process, was also assigned a county.

For convenience in the field and facility in compilation and interpretation of the forest survey inventory, growth,

and depletion data, the Douglas-fir region was divided into 11 subregional geographic units. With one exception, each of these units contained two or more counties. Generally, one field man was assigned one of these

subregions or units as they were called. As funds permitted, they were provided with field assistants.

It was evident that the problem of adjusting the timber estimates on private lands to a common standard called

for special expertise. With this need in mind, James W. Girard19 was added to the forest survey staff July 1 as

a senior logging engineer. Jim Girard had worked for the Forest Service in other Districts as log scaler, timberman, and logging engineer, and had also worked in the timber industry in similar capacities. He was more or

less self-educated, but had not only acquired a wealth of practical woods experience, but had also grasped the

fundamentals of forestry by observation and association with professionals. He had an unusual faculty for judging timber volumes by ocular estimation and applying this information to large areas by extensive observation.

In the years to come, after working in all parts of this country and some foreign countries examining large

tracts of timber, he became a legendary figure among timbermen, if anyone merits this description.

16 An extensive reconnaissance had been made of all Pacific Northwest National

Forest lands in 1920-23 to provide timber volume data for the Capper Report.

17 Dr. John S. Boyce transferred from the Bureau of Plant Industry March 1, 1928, to

become Director of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service,

Amherst, Mass. One year later, he resigned to become the first Professor of Forest

Pathology at the School of Forestry, Yale University. In 1923, “Decay and Other Losses

in Western Oregon and Washington,” U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin 280, 60 pp., illus., was

published under his authorship.

18 Edward D. Buell, Warren H. Bolles, and Paul D. Kemp.

19 Girard also participated in the Westfir training session with Dr. Boyce.

Appendix G - 6
from pages 34 and 36

Gerard worked out plans for adjusting the timber cruises used by the forest survey and described the qualifications for the personnel to do this work. The Civil Service Commission, upon representation by the Forest

Service, agreed to hold a special examination for a position called “timber expert.” It was classified as the

equivalent in grade to an associate forester, or P-3 as it was known in the vernacular of the Civil Service.

In the fall of 1930, three timber experts were appointed from the roll established by the examination, which

was unassembled. They were Charles W. Kline, William J. Wakeman, and Percy N. Pratt. The first two

named were forest school graduates, qualified logging engineers, and with a background of employment in

the timber industry. Pratt was a member of a Portland timber cruising firm, Pearson and Grady, and had

many years of practical experience.

Work on all parts of the inventory phase of the forest survey could now proceed full steam ahead with the

opening of the field season in 1931.

The forest insurance study also got underway in 1930 with the transfer of Harold B. Shepard, senior forest

economist from the Washington Office of the Forest Service, on July 1. Work commenced in the Douglas-fir

region, and it was planned to extend its application to other forest regions, depending upon the findings of

this study, which was the first systematic study of this subject undertaken in this country.

The effects of the Great Depression began to influence Station activities early in 1931. The Station was ordered to withhold expenditure of a portion of appropriated funds during fiscal years 1931 and 1932. In addition, restrictions were placed on promotions, filling of vacancies, and travel. At this time, there was no

provision for automatic periodic salary step increases within a Civil Service grade. As a result, salaries of

appointed clerical and professional employees were at a stationary or reduced level for a number of years.

In July 1932, annual leave was canceled and the “Hoover Holiday,” which consisted of 2 days off each

month without pay was instituted. Despite these draconian measures, morale of Station personnel remained

high; work output did not suffer as many employees did not exercise their rights to the “day off.” A moderating condition was the cost of living which did not increase and for some items of necessity decreased in

cost.

With the funds available, the forest survey was able to step up its activities and recruit half a dozen or more

temporary field assistants, either experienced timber cruisers or graduate foresters who could not find other

employment. These men were principally used for the job of adjusting private and county timber cruises;

some of them served as compassmen for the permanent staff of “timber experts,” and others of greater experience worked in the same capacity as the staff cruisers after a short training period in survey techniques

and standards.

Late in 1930, G. H. Lentz of the Southern Forest Experiment Station, which was scheduled to initiate the

forest survey in the Southern forest regions, spent some time in Portland reviewing Pacific Northwest methods and problems. He also reviewed with Granger and Girard forest conditions in his area as they related to

survey methodology. Lack of existing timber volume information in county (or parish in Louisiana) records and

in possession of the many small owners precluded adoption of the compilation method as used in the Pacific

Northwest. The more favorable topography and uniformity of stands, absence of areas of high-volume, oldgrowth forests compared with the Douglas-fir region, and the vast total area of forest land were factors that

favored the linear method of survey, and the conclusion was reached to use that method in the South.

This action revived the question of using the linear method in the Douglas-fir region in the minds of Washington Office personnel and Granger. Consequently, it was decided to make a comparative test of the two systems in this region. Lewis County, Washington, one of the larger counties in the region, was selected as the

area to be used and work plans were made for the fieldwork. This county extended from the crest of the Cascade Range on the east to the Coast Ranges on the west and included a variety of forest conditions and

topography. That portion of the county within the National Forest boundaries was not included since the survey method used for the National Forests was not susceptible to comparison. There was no other choice of

method for such forest lands with the funds available because of the rugged nature of the terrain, short field

seasons, and relatively poor accessibility.

Appendix G - 7
from pages 36 and 37

The test area consisted of 40 townships, approximately 1 million acres, extending from the National Forests21

on the east to the county boundary on the west. Linear strips were spaced at 3-mile intervals across the

county in an east-west direction. Timber volume was estimated on quarter-acre circular plots at 10-chain (660

feet) intervals. Forest type changes were recorded whenever intersected by the strip; however, no length of strip

less than approximately 2 chains was considered. Fieldwork was started in January 1931 with a crew consisting of Briegleb, Pratt, and Fire Warden George Herger who was assigned by State Forester Joy of Washington

to help on the project. This crew, working in the more accessible part of the county’s mixed farm and forest

land, tested the techniques. A final working plan based on this crew’s experiences was prepared. Fortunately,

the winter, although unusually rainy, was not cold, and there was little snow in the low-lying hills of the

Chehalis River valley. Later in the year, other crews were added until practically the entire forest survey crews

working on the private lands, and some from the National Forests, were in Lewis County. Some crews were

composed of three men, and in the more accessible country two-man crews could be used. All in all, 16 men

(not including overhead personnel) were employed on the Lewis County strip survey for 960 man-days in the

field, and 900 of these days were spent on the line regardless of weather. Packers, horse and human, were

needed in some locations, and line camps could seldom be occupied more than one night. The 8-hour day was

unheard of, for in some instances it would take several hours or more to reach the line in the morning and a

like amount of time or more to reach the camp, night lodging place, or automobile at the end of the day. In a

few cases, crews “bundled” up for the night on the line. Wherever roads permitted, automobiles were used to

reach the vicinity of the fieldwork location. Review and transcription of field records was done at night usually,

although in a few locations where several crews were quartered in a small-town hotel, it was rumored that

penny-ante poker games were an occasional diversion.

Girard spent considerable time in Lewis County after he returned from the South about the first of April. He

worked with Kline who was doing the cruising for adjustment of the county and private cruises used in the compilation method. He also spent a few days with some of the crews on the strip survey. Andrews and Girard took

over field responsibility for several miles of strip in rough country near the end of the job, spending overnight

camping on the line. They claimed a record for ground covered in the allotted time. Director Munger spent a

day with one of the strip crews and another day with Girard and Kline on the adjustment cruising.

Buell was responsible for the type mapping portion of the compilation method survey of Lewis County. Working

all through the winter on this job, he completed his assignment in April. Cowlin spent considerable time with

Buell, and Andrews and Cowlin both worked with the strip crews, visiting each of them together or separately at

least once during the course of the work and usually spending 2 days with each crew.

F. X. Schumacher,22 then on the staff of the Washington Office as a mensurationist, visited the project for several days and was out on the line with Cowlin and the crew headed by Moravets for a strenuous time in rough

country. “Schu,” as he was known to many, had been successful in a poker game over the weekend at a hotel

where a group of the men were staying in Chehalis, the county seat of Lewis County. The next day proved to

be “blue” Monday for him as Moravets and Cowlin evened the score by wagering on tree diameters before they

were taped. Schu had a tendency to underestimate the large old-growth Douglas-fir.

All of the fieldwork in Lewis County was completed the last half of June. Under Cowlin’s supervision, office

computations had been organized on a current basis as field records were available. Buell finished computation

of the forest type and timber volume data gathered by the compilation method in June for all of Lewis County

with a separate summary for the 40-township test area.

21 An isolated block of National Forest land called the Mineral Addition was included in

the test area.

22 Francis X. Schumacher was a member of the faculties of the University of California

and Duke University teaching forest mensuration. He published many articles on growth

and yield of California conifers and sampling methods and a text and reference book

with Donald Bruce entitled “Forest Mensuration,” McGraw-Hill, New York and London,

1933. 360 pp., illus.

Appendix G - 8
from pages 37 and 38

Upon completion of the strip survey and computation of the data for the test area in July, Meyer analyzed the

sampling errors of the various areas by statistical analysis. It soon became apparent that a reasonable sampling error could be obtained for broad groups of data only. Innumerable combinations of forest type area, site

class, stand class, timber volume by species and ownership could be made, but a valid comparison of the two

methods could only be made for major items for unit areas as small as a million acres.23 The comparison

showed that for areas of major forest types the two methods were reasonably close, particularly in consideration of the unavoidable differences in field definition of types. The strip method picks up small openings of

hardwoods, brush, waters, etc., too small in extent to map in place.

Sawtimber volume estimates by the two methods were reasonably close with the exception of hardwoods. This

pointed the way for a refinement in the compilation method to allow for hardwood volume occurring as an understory in the conifer types and for small stringers along stream courses.

Forest site data for the area by the two methods were very close.

Growth estimates which had been calculated by Meyer were in a reasonable range for the two methods for

both total board-foot and cubic-foot volumes, but varied widely for components of ownership and species.

Clapp and Granger came to Portland to participate in the discussion of this test of methods. The decision was

made to continue the compilation method, not only for the Douglas-fir region but also for the ponderosa pine

region of the Pacific Northwest. The forest survey of the Northern Rocky Mountain region was scheduled to

start soon and the compilation method was adopted for that area.

Considerable detail has been accorded this episode in the nationwide forest survey, since it was a unique

project in forest research and was precedent setting in treatment of forest resource data. One distinction that

bears emphasis is that the size of the unit area for release of forest resource information was not a controlling

factor in the compilation method of making surveys as it was in the linear method.

Future sophistications in statistical analysis, data processing, sampling techniques, and aerial survey techniques altered the situation. However, events of the next two decades proved the usefulness of having localized

forest resource data for the Pacific Northwest region, a keystone in studies of the Nation’s forest resource

situation and development of programs of national and regional scope.

Aerial photography in making forest surveys was still in an experimental stage of development at this time. It

had been used to some extent in eastern Canada, and the British Columbia forest survey group was studying

its use. The latter organization was using amphibious planes extensively to transport men and supplies to

interior inaccessible portions of the province. In 1927, Lage Wernstedt,24 attached to the Region 6 Division of

Maps and Surveys, photographed rugged portions of the Mount Baker National Forest from the air, using oblique shots. The film used at that time produced photos that were fuzzy and did not give clear distinction of the

forest cover.

Early in 1931, Andrews, Cowlin, and Briegleb made a field study of the usability of a series of vertical aerial

photographs taken by Fairchild Airways transecting a township of mixed forest and farm land in Clackamas

County, Oregon. Fairchild Airways was a pioneer in promoting the use of aerial photographs in many forms of

land use examination. Andrews, Cowlin, and Matthews also studied the use of aerial obliques taken by Lage

Wernstedt of another area. Later in the year, Wernstedt photographed a considerable portion of the Siuslaw

23 A number of counties in the Douglas-fir region were less than a million acres in total

land area.

24 Lage Wernstedt, a Swedish born and educated forester, had an absorbing interest

in aerial photography. Later in his career, he was on the supervisor’s staff of the Mount

Baker National Forest as an assistant forester and continued his aerial photography

work.

Appendix G - 9
from pages 38, 42 and 43

National Forest in the Coast Ranges of western Oregon. These mountains, although not rising to high altitudes, were greatly dissected by stream courses and ridges. Forest types, although predominately Douglas-fir

except near the coast where western hemlock and Sitka spruce dominated, were interspersed with hardwoods,

usually red alder (Alnus rubra), and open areas of bracken fern and grass. Age classes of the conifers were

mixed. Passable roads were infrequent and vantage points where the field crews could overlook large areas

were scarce, owing to the topography and density of vegetation. In this situation, the aerial oblique photos

served as a feasible and useful adjunct to field type mapping.

Results of the comparison and study of the application of both vertical and oblique photos led to the conclusion

by the forest survey staff that although there was a great potential use of forest aerial photography, it could only

be used in this survey in a limited manner. With funds available, original vertical photography was prohibitive,

and with a few exceptions the less expensive oblique photographs were also too costly. There were few or no

aerial photographs taken for other agencies available, as was the case in later years. Sensitive types of film

and sophisticated photo interpretation techniques and accessory equipment had not been developed, although

it was probable that considerable research in this field was being initiated and conducted by the military agencies even at this early time.

Granger was with the forest survey staff most of July and part of August reviewing the results of the Lewis

County comparison of methods, National Forest inventories, and the plans for the growth and depletion phase

of the survey. With Andrews, Girard, and Matthews, he spent a week in the field on the Umpqua National Forest. The object of this trip was to devise and test a technique for checking the type maps and timber volume

estimates to assure a reasonable degree of accuracy. Later in the year and in 1932, Girard and crews of the

Station’s timber experts (check cruisers) applied the technique to all the National Forests in the Douglas-fir

region. Melvin Bradner of the Northern Rocky Mountain Station came to Portland near the end of July to review

all phases of the forest survey with Granger and members of the local forest survey. The forest survey of the

Northern Rocky Mountain region was to be initiated soon under Bradner’s direction, and the plan was to use

essentially the same methods that were being used in the Pacific Northwest. Bradner and Granger also made

a field trip to join Kemp who was type mapping Tillamook County, Oreg., and see firsthand the techniques employed.

Early in August, Assistant Chief Clapp came to Portland and participated in the final review of the Lewis County

test and decision to continue using the compilation method of forest surveys. Clapp and Granger, with Munger,

Andrews, and others of the forest survey staff, tested the “stocked quadrat” method,29 adopted by the survey,

of judging degree of reproduction stocking of cutover lands and deforested burns on a nearby logged-over area.

Fieldwork on the forest survey of the Douglas-fir region neared completion in 1932. The inventory of the National Forest lands was completed during the year and Matthews was transferred to the Station’s fire research

project. A type map of the Rainier National Park was made by Frank Brockman of the National Park Service,

based on fieldwork done the previous year. An estimate of the sawtimber volume of the park was made by

Girard during an extensive reconnaissance in the summer of 1931. Although the park and certain other lands,

such as the national monuments, were reserved and not subject to commercial cutting, they were included

in the forest survey to present complete coverage of the forest resources. Forest resource information on the

reserved lands was so designated in forest survey public reports and maps.

29 This method was first developed by I.T. Haig and refined by the forest survey. It was

used extensively in this and other western forest regions for forest surveys of all

kinds.

Appendix G - 10
from pages 43 and 44

Base maps on a quarter-inch-to-the-mile scale were completed for the western halves of Oregon and Washington. Each individual map covered a quarter of a State in order to keep the map to a convenient size for use on

table or wall. The compilation and tracings were done by the Region 6 office of Maps and Surveys31 with the

help of many outside agencies and people, including financial cooperation of the States of Oregon and Washington and Region 6 of the Forest Service. Lewis A. (Tam) McArthur, vice president of the Pacific Power & Light

Co., Portland, Oreg., gave generously of his time, and carefully checked for accuracy the cartography of each

map before the final tracing. “Tam” McArthur was an authority on Northwest geography and author of “Oregon

Geographic Names” and many articles on this subject. His knowledge was encyclopedic.

The completed tracings were sent to Washington, D. C., for lithography in 1932. Although the maps were made

primarily as a vehicle for superimposition of forest type delineation by color, they were useful simply as base

maps. Nothing of this sort was previously available. Accordingly, an edition of the maps with geographic features in black and blue ink was ordered for public distribution. The half-inch-to-the-mile, hand-colored county

maps which the Station was making were in demand. These were made available in blue-line prints to users for

duplication and hand-coloring at their own expense. The many requests for these maps confirmed the Station’s

decision to make type mapping a required part of the forest survey methodology. It also gave the Station a

measure of the prospective demand for the final quarter-inch-to-the-mile, colored, lithographed type maps of the

two States.

March 10, 1932, the U.S. Senate agreed to Senate Resolution 175, introduced by Senator Royal S. Copeland

of New York, which authorized and directed the Secretary of Agriculture to make a comprehensive report on the

Nation’s forest resources and attendant problems. The Forest Service had been anticipating this action and

work had been underway in revising timber volume estimates and other resource data for a year or more. Passage of the resolution quickened this work. In the Pacific Northwest, compilation of the forest survey inventory

data had been completed for some areas in the Douglas-fir region which were useful in adjusting previous estimates of timber volume and forest-land areas and condition. Other Station projects contributed valuable data.

Munger, Meyer, Wilson, Brandstrom, and Cowlin devoted much time in late summer assembling data for the

“Copeland” study. In September 1932, Brandstrom went to Madison, Wis., to collaborate with Kirkland on

preparation and report writing on the subject of private forestry for inclusion in the report. Director Munger left

October 1 for Washington, D.C., to stay until mid-December on other phases of the Copeland study.

Matthews’ first assignment in his new position was the completion of the fire depletion phase of the forest survey of the Douglas-fir region. This work was closely interrelated with the fire damage studies and the forest fire

insurance project. The latter study was in a finishing stage and was awaiting availability of the forest survey

inventory totals for the preparation of the final report for the Douglas-fir region. At the same time, Shepard was

completing plans for extending the insurance study to the pine region of eastern Oregon and Washington.

Fieldwork there was commenced in early summer and extended through most of the fall.

Early in 1932, a conference was held in Portland on the “requirements” phase of the forest survey, directed by

F. J. Hallauer of the Washington Office who was conducting this work on a national basis. The purpose of the

requirements phase was “to determine the present consumption and the probable future trends in requirements

for timber and other forest products.” A study of such a scope and character did not lend itself to separate regional studies, and the task of the various regional forest survey groups was to determine and provide information on relevant local practices and conditions for integration and analysis at the national level. Attendants at

the conference included Melvin Bradner of Northern Rocky Mountain Station and Carey Hill of the California

Station in addition to local Forest Survey and Products men. Following the conference, Lodewick spent a good

part of the year in analyzing past consumption of lumber for single-family dwellings and garages in the Pacific

Northwest. He learned that a revamping of the working plan and field procedures for the sake of simplicity was

needed before extending the study to other uses of wood products and commencing similar studies in other

parts of the country.

31 Victor H. Flach, in charge of this office, was a major factor in the success of this

project.

Appendix G - 11
from pages 47 and 48

The fiscal situation was a “mixed bag” in 1933. Effective April 1, salaries of all regular Federal employees were

reduced 15 percent. This salary cut was restored in three equal installments on March 16 and July 1, 1934,

and April 1, 1935, and the savings impounded. To make matters worse, allotment of regular appropriated funds

was reduced with the net effect that at the end of fiscal year 1934, the Station received about $51,500, or 60

percent less than the previous fiscal year. It was necessary to terminate all temporary employees and practice

strict economies in travel, supplies, etc. The fiscal situation changed suddenly with the enactment of legislation providing funds for civil work programs to give jobs to the jobless and to prime the pump for recovery of the

private sector of the economy.

President Roosevelt’s interest in conservation of the country’s natural resources directed a substantial part of

these measures to forestry programs on public lands including research. This was also the “year of the alphabet,” and appellations attached to the various programs and acts were commonly shortened to key letters.

The ECW37 legislation and programs were first, and in May 1933 funds were made available indirectly to the

Station under this authority. The CCC38 camps and personnel were a part of this general program. Three men,

all experienced foresters,39 were made ECW foremen and assigned to work under C. W. Kline’s supervision

to make detailed topographic maps and timber volume estimates of the Wind River and Pringle Falls Experimental Forests. Crews of CCC enrollees40 from nearby camps were assigned to assist these three men, later

increased to six. The Wind River project was practically completed, but the Pringle Falls project languished

because the local CCC camp was discontinued. However, basic land survey was completed, facilitating later

mapping and timber estimating work.

Later in the year, direct allotment of ECW funds was made to the Station, permitting the reemployment of temporary workers laid off and the employment of additional temporary field assistants and scientific aides who

assisted in the large volume of computational work that had accumulated on the forest survey, other forest economic projects, fire and silvicultural projects, and mensuration studies.

In October and November, funds and people were made available to the Station under additional Federal legislation supplementing the ECW Act. These were known as Impnira41 and CWA42 funds. This greatly bolstered all

research activities of the Station, although it created many additional administrative problems, including budgetary accounting and personnel management. June Wertz and the capable regular clerical force coped with the

problem, freeing professional people to carry on research with a minimum of disruption.

The NIRA funds were principally used to finance the forest survey and skilled people could be selected. However, some anomalous and difficult personnel situations developed. For example, six former field assistants

were reemployed as NIRA technicians, qualified as junior foresters. Under regulations imposed by the NRA

administration, their pay scale was fixed at $2,600 per annum. At the same time, junior foresters under regular

appointment, including some with more than 4 years of service, were still being paid $2,000 per annum, the

entrance salary less the 15-percent cut. Naturally, there were gripes mixed with bewilderment at the ways of

bureaucracy, but the work went on and the quality of research did not suffer.

37 Emergency Civil Works; authorized by the Unemployment Relief Act of March 31,

1933.

38 Civilian Conservation Corps, also authorized by the above Act.

39 W. E. Griffee, C. V. Zaayer, and Lloyd H. De Groote. Later, Griffee and Zaayer joined

the staff of the Western Pine Association. Bill Griffee became its secretary-manager in

1959 and remained in that post until the Western Wood Products Association was

formed through consolidation with the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association.

40 Occasionally, forest school students were located among enrollees. Other enrollees

developed an interest in forestry from work in the Corps and later studied forestry at

the college level.

41 The National Recovery Act (NRA, the Blue Eagle Act) of June 16, 1933. The

administering body was the National Industrial Recovery Agency, NIRA.

42 The Civil Works Administration.

Appendix G - 12
from pages 48 thru 53

Progress on the forest survey speeded up with the additional field and office staff. Fieldwork on the Douglas-fir

region inventory was completed. The working plan for the inventory of the ponderosa pine region was revised

and tested in the field early in 1933. In this region, the same man was responsible for the work on all lands in a

county, regardless of ownership. There were no separate crews for the National Forests. By midsummer, work

was well started in central Oregon.

Compilation of the basic inventory data for the Douglas-fir region was completed and preparation of statistical

reports commenced. A supply of the 1/4-inch-to-the-mile lithograph base maps was received and distributed to

cooperators. The hand-colored generalized 1/2-inch-to-the-mile type maps covering each of the 38 counties in

the Douglas-fir region were proving useful to many agencies. Interest in land use planning was developing at

State and local government levels. Requests were being received for special compilation of forest resource

information in analyzing justification for public works programs such as river and harbor improvements.

Fiscal arrangements continued to be an important factor in conducting an orderly and balanced research program at the Station during 1934. Administration of the emergency funds was becoming more complex with

frequent changes in rules and regulations concerning use of the funds and personnel employable under the

several programs. June Wertz became very competent in the intricacies of the financial situation and successfully kept the Station financing and budgetary records in order. The CWA program was terminated April 26,

1934; however, April 1 an ECW allotment of funds to the Station permitted transfer of most of the people to

ECW financing.

Some research programs were better adapted by nature of the work to use emergency money and people than

others, although in the long run, all or nearly all of the Station’s active studies received some benefits. The

forest survey in particular and the other economic programs to considerable extent profited by the emergency

work funds and people. Andrews, an able administrator and an innovative researcher uninhibited by bureaucratic red tape, grasped the opportunity to speed the progress of the survey and enlarge the scope of its coverage in the form of reports, type maps, and special studies. He also gave the Director strong support and

assistance in managing the Station’s budget problems. Others of the survey regular staff likewise had strong

supervisory talents. The new public domain project and related land use planning activities were also able to

use CWA crews effectively, gathering tax delinquency data at county seats and transferring the data to county

maps. This work was done in cooperation with the Washington State Agricultural Experiment Stations, starting

late in 1933 and continuing through the first half of 1934.

Completion of the fieldwork and computation of the forest survey inventory data cleared the decks for publication of results. There was no longer any noticeable objection to release of timber volume data by counties.

Attitudes of the timber industry had changed materially, probably partly as a consequence of the existing economic conditions and partly as a realization that such basic forest resource data were needed by private and

public agencies alike to plan courses of action to restore the forest-based economy of the Pacific Northwest to

a healthy condition.

Acting Assistant Chief Marsh46 of the Washington Office was in Portland for several weeks and devoted a major

part of his time to the forest survey. The scope of the final regional report for the Douglas-fir region was discussed in a conference with Munger, Andrews, and Cowlin. Later, Marsh and Cowlin discussed an outline of the

proposed report in detail. The latter completed a draft of the introductory chapter of the report giving scope,

methodology, and specifications by the summer’s end. In the general conference, it was decided to present

complete inventory, growth, and depletion data for each of the 11 units or regions.47 It was also decided to issue

as a Station mimeographed publication, a minireport for each of these units. Near the end of the year, when

final growth and depletion data were available, Cowlin completed a draft of the report for the North Puget Sound

unit.

46 Earle H. Clapp was made Associate Chief of the Forest Service about this time,

leaving the position of Assistant Chief in charge of Research.

47 The matter of nomenclature becomes confusing as the term “region” is popularly

used in describing varying areas. That is the reason the forest survey adopted the term

“units” to apply to groups of counties in the Douglas-fir region having homogeneity.

Appendix G - 13
from pages 53 through 56

By late summer, Johnson and Lodewick of the Products group completed the cutting depletion estimates and

Matthews the fire depletion estimates, and projections of future forest depletion or drain (as some writers call

it) were made. This provided the basis for Meyer to complete forest survey growth projections for the Douglas-fir

region and the 11 units.

Lodewick continued to gather information for the requirements phase of the survey, expanding the work to rural

and industrial usage and needs. Survey of farm needs was done in cooperation with the State colleges of agriculture.

The forest survey program of map production moved into a final stage in 1934. Half-inch-to-the-mile generalized

and 1-inch-to-the-mile detailed type maps had been completed for each county in the Douglas-fir region. Arrangements had been made for making these maps available to prospective users in blue-line print form at their

own expense by making vandyke negatives and lending them to commercial blueprinting companies. The Station provided a mimeographed forest type legend and instructions for coloring. Many public and private users,

including a number of timber companies, took advantage of this service.

The forest survey’s 48 detailed types for the Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine regions were consolidated into 25

types for presentation on the quarter-inch-to-the-mile type maps. The four western quarters of the two States

included all of the Douglas-fir region and extreme western part of the ponderosa pine region. The crest of the

Cascade Range forms the boundary dividing the two forest regions and is also the eastern boundary of all

counties in the Douglas-fir region, except Skamania County, Washington, and Hood River and Jackson Counties, Oregon. The first two named border the Columbia River and extend a comparatively short distance east of

the Cascades. Jackson County borders California on the south where the Cascade Range crest is indistinct. In

this county’s extreme eastern part, forest types are dominated by ponderosa pine.

Fieldwork in the portion of the ponderosa pine region appearing on maps of the west half was completed in

1934. In December of that year, George T. Wilkinson of the U.S. Geological Survey, an authority on lithography

and engraving, spent 10 days in Portland with the survey staff advising on procedures in preparing maps for

color lithography. Color combinations and patterns were selected with his help and a legend was decided upon.

Soon after, draftsmen started work preparing the copy which would be furnished the Geological Survey in

Washington, D.C., for lithography.

Forest survey fieldwork moved ahead in the ponderosa pine region during the summer and fall. After the crews

returned in November, Moravets directed half a dozen NIRA and ECW workers gathering advance data – ownership data, timber cruises, maps, and aerial photos48 in preparation for completing fieldwork of the inventory

phase of the survey during the next field season.

In August of 1934, Miss Jean Kerr, an assistant editor of the Washington Office of the Forest Service, was

moved to Portland for an indefinite detail. The Station had several major publications in office report form and

others in the offing. Previously, publications for printing by the Government Printing Office and certain other

major publications planned for other outlets received final editing in the Washington Office. This procedure

was laborious and time consuming, involving considerable exchange of correspondence or an author’s trip to

Washington, D.C., or occasionally both.

The forest survey completed all fieldwork in the ponderosa pine region late in 1935. In the office, work was progressing on the compilation of inventory, growth, and depletion data gathered in previous years, so that results

could be released promptly. Experience in the Douglas-fir region had shown that use of this information was

increasing greatly in planning activities, in programs to restore stability in the timber industry, in public works

programs, and in the other Station economic studies. There was a lively interest by some midwestern and

eastern financial institutions in effecting a merger of companies in the Douglas-fir region to bring financially

weak companies under stronger ownership. Responsible leaders in the industry were advocating Federal Government acquisition of large blocks of old-growth Douglas-fir that were not operable under current conditions

and which were a heavy burden on the owners.

48 Wernstedt had taken aerial photos of portions of the National Forests recently and

some photos were becoming available from other sources. These photos were a

valuable adjunct to the field men.

Appendix G - 14
from pages 56, 57, and 64

From the beginning of the forest survey, industry members of the Advisory Council had suggested that the sawtimber inventory be classified or qualified in some way to show that much of it was not operable under current

conditions and, in fact, a considerable portion could not be exploited commercially for many years. After the

survey had been in progress for several years, the survey staff developed a classification and plan for rating

inventory board-foot regional totals by three classes of economic availability. Two ownership classes were

recognized. National Forest and “all other” (the great majority, private ownership), and three species groups,

Douglas-fir, pulp species, and all other species. Girard assisted by Kline and Wakeman in collaboration with

Bruce E. Hoffman51 of the Regional Office, did the classifying.

In December 1935, the Station published a mimeographed report on the pulpwood situation in the Pacific

Northwest, based upon forest survey findings.54

Experience on the growth and yield studies, other mensurational and silvicultural studies, the mill-scale studies, and the forest survey disclosed the need for more expertise in modern techniques of statistical analysis

and experimental design such as Dr. Meyer possessed. The Washington Office Branch of Research was initiating an in-Service training program at this time to fill this gap which was prevalent at the field stations.

Briegleb was selected to attend the forest measurements training session held in Washington in December

1935. This anticipated the resignation of Dr. W. H. Meyer, effective January 1, 1936, to join the faculty of the

College of Forestry, University of Washington. This was the beginning of a long and distinguished career by

Meyer in forest education at the universities of Washington and Yale.

With fieldwork on all phases of the forest survey completed during 1936, the staff could put in full time on report

writing, map preparation, and answering the numerous inquiries for special information regarding the forest-land

and timber resources. The success of the county report program for the Douglas-fir region prompted the writing

of similar reports for forested counties of the pine region. Staff members in charge of the fieldwork for a county

were also assigned the report writing job.

Supplies of the lithographed 1/4-inch-to-the-mile colored type maps were received for three of the quarter-State

maps for Washington and two for Oregon. The remaining three quarter-State maps were still in process by the

lithographer at year end. These maps were the first of the kind ever done on such a large scale in this country.

Copies were distributed free of charge to cooperators, public and quasi-public agencies, and put on sale to

others desiring copies. A nominal charge of $1 a copy was made to narrow the demand to legitimate requests.

Funds received were returned to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

Findings of the growth phase of the forest survey were analyzed and published June 1, 1936, in mimeographed

form as Station Forest Research Notes No. 20. “Forest Growth in the Douglas-fir Region,” by W. H. Meyer,

P. A. Briegleb, and the forest survey staff. Four kinds of growth calculation were made and presented in estimates of board-foot (Scribner) and cubic-foot volumes. These were (1) current annual growth; (2) realizable

mean annual growth, an approximation of the growth that will actually occur in the future under forest practice

prevailing in the past;61 (3) potential annual growth, the average annual growth that could be obtained on the

whole of the region’s commercial forest land under intensive forest practice; and (4) periodic growth, the estimated growth in a 10-year period.

51 Hoffman, logging engineer, Timber Management, Region 6, was detailed to the Station

for several months to work on this project. He had extensive knowledge of conditions

on the National Forests and other lands.

54 Pulpwood Resources of Western Oregon and Western Washington. Forest

Research Notes No. 17. Mimeo. Dec. 10, 1935. H. J. Andrews, R. W. Cowlin, F. L

Moravets, and W. H. Meyer.

61 Realizable growth was a new concept developed by Dr. W. H. Meyer. R. D. Garver,

who replaced Granger as national head of the forest survey, and Dan S. A. Dana, on

leave from the University of Michigan and currently a consultant to the Washington

Office Division of Economics, visited the Station the fall of 1936 to review the forest

survey reporting program and other activities. Garver questioned the realizable growth

concept. Fortunately, Meyer was present to explain it in detail. Dana, a keen and

perceptive scholar, grasped the concept at once and joined the survey staff in

convincing Garver that it was a valid and useful growth calculation.

Appendix G - 15
from pages 64, 65, and 67

Throughout 1936, Andrews and Cowlin were giving major attention to writing the final forest survey report for the

Douglas-fir region. Since this was the first regional report of its kind to be undertaken by the Forest Service,

there were many questions of policy and procedure to be resolved. Earlier report on the extent and condition of

the Nation’s forest resource by broad forest regions did not have the benefit of comprehensive and authoritative

information and the burden it placed upon the analyst. Early in the year, drafts of several of the beginning chapters and a sample of the 11 regional unit reports which had been prepared by various members of the staff were

sent to the Washington Office for preliminary review. It was the original intent to issue these unit reports in conjunction with the regional report as a publication of the Government Printing Office. It was decided that for the

sake of brevity and speed in publication, the unit reports would be issued as Station mimeographs for local

audiences. It was agreed that a greatly condensed statement be included in the final regional report, describing

special features and conditions in six major districts of the region formed by combinations of the 11 units. It

was also decided that the regional report itself should be made as brief as possible. A large part of Miss Jean

Kerr’s time was spent in editing forest survey reports. Other Station authors were also in line for her attentions.

It was evident that professional editing was a full-time need at the Station, and Miss Kerr’s detail to the Station

was prolonged.

Several personnel changes of 1936 were noted earlier. In addition, Pratt, the last of three original timber experts

to remain on the staff, transferred on July 1 to the Northern Rocky Mountain Station where the forest survey

staff was being enlarged. As the nature of the forest survey program was changing with completion of the fieldwork, staff changes were appropriate.

Losses of personnel were sustained, too, during [1937]. Paul D. Kemp, associate forester, was transferred to

the forest survey project at the Northern Rocky Mountain Station on March 31. At this time, Region 1 and the

Northern Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station had responsibility for Stevens, Pend Oreille, and Spokane

Counties in extreme northeastern Washington. This condition necessitated close coordination of forest survey

specifications and procedures between the two Stations in order to have uniform State statistical totals and

type maps. Bradner and DeJarnette of the Northern Rocky Mountain Station had made a number of trips to this

region and knew Pacific Northwest Station procedures and personnel well.

During 1937, the final report of the forest survey for the Douglas-fir region was completed and sent to the

Regional Office for review before forwarding to Washington for approval and publication. Editing was done in

Portland by Jean Kerr.

Work commenced on keeping the survey current during the summer in Clatsop County, Oreg., and Grays Harbor County, Wash. The original survey of these two counties was done in 1931 and 1932. Heavy cutting had

taken place in the comparatively short time that had elapsed, significantly altering the forest resource. The

McSweeney-McNary Act as amended provided authority and funds for keeping the survey current. In the Pacific

Northwest, the interval between periodic surveys could be varied to meet the situation in a particular county, a

shorter period in counties where depletion was heavy and a longer period in counties where changes were not

as severe. Work in Grays Harbor and Clatsop Counties furnished experience for perfecting survey techniques in

both field and office work. Fieldwork in Grays Harbor was completed in December 1937 in spite of a record

monthly rainfall of 26 inches.

County reports for each of the forested counties in the ponderosa pine region were completed and released in

1937. These reports gave the basic forest inventory data.

Briegleb was devoting a large part of his time in 1937 to completing the growth phase of the forest survey of the

pine region in addition to many other current mensurational studies. Many complex computational problems

appeared. Alinement charts for estimating in various pine types were constructed. In the fall, Briegleb spent

several days in Missoula with the Northern Rocky Mountain staff discussing correlation of growth techniques

between the two regions.

Appendix G - 16
from pages 74 through 76

Andrews spent the month of May in the Washington Office, ostensibly to discuss final review of the forest survey Douglas-fir regional report and other Station matters. There is no doubt his career prospects in Forest Research and elsewhere in the Forest Service was a subject of discussion. Many at the Station and elsewhere in

the Pacific Northwest assumed that he would succeed Munger, since he had handled a difficult situation as

Acting Director for a year or more very well and had previously demonstrated his capabilities as a forest research administrator and scholar as regional head of the forest survey and participant in related land economic

studies and programs. “Hoss” Andrews was direct and candid with his associates in the Forest Service and the

forest industries. He believed in getting at the heart of a problem and had no time for technical verbiage. He

was not hesitant to state his position with equivocation, and if he disagreed with a Forest Service policy or

decision in which he was involved or had knowledge, he would speak out spelling out his reasons. It may be

that these characteristics obscured his abilities to analyze a forest problem and to seek all the pertinent facts

before reaching a conclusion. There were reports that Andrews was being considered for the position of Associate Regional Forester in an eastern forest region since he had extensive previous experience with the State of

Michigan and other Middle Western States.67

In many respects, this change of commands marked the passing of an era in the history of Forest Service

research in the Pacific Northwest. Prior to 1924, research was organized as a rule on the basis of individual

projects conducted by silviculturists or other biologists or by engineers doing forest products work. These men

worked with considerable latitude and freedom from close direct supervision and gave almost exclusive attention to work on their projects. When the Experiment Stations were established in the early 1920’s, the skeleton

of an organized research system was created. The first directors were selected largely on their proven ability

as research project scientists, and with small research staffs the administrative burden was comparatively

light, leaving time and opportunities for personal research. As funds increased and the scope of the study program widened and personnel increased in number, the situation changed. By the mid-1930’s, administrative

duties were occupying nearly all of the directors’ time. Meetings, conferences, seminars, and a steady stream

of professional visitors from abroad and this country seeking information on research methods and findings,

usually people of a professional stature that demanded a director’s personal attention, preempted a considerable amount of time. The Washington Office of the Forest Service was starting to exercise stricter controls and

making field inspections of study program conduct. More of the directors’ time had to be given to public relations activities and personal contacts to gain legislative support for the Stations’ work. At least, that appeared

to be the situation here when Munger, who found this type of responsibility burdensome and in some cases

downright unpleasant, decided to return to a position where he could be more intimately connected with the

actual research work.

When Andrews left, Robert W. Cowlin was placed in his position as Chief of the Division of Forest Survey. The

last of the 1/4-inch quarter-State colored lithographed type maps, that of northeastern Washington, was completed and the supply received for public distribution. This quarter-State had been held up to include type mapping of the three Washington counties that were part of the Northern Rocky Mountain Station territory, and also

because of a poor color run on the proof copies. The report writing phase for the pine region was well along.

Forest inventory statistical reports were issued for each county. The final comprehensive report for the Douglasfir region was received for revision after Washington Office review, corrections made, and the manuscript returned for publication by the Government Printing Office. Requests for special compilations and analyses of

forest survey data had reached such proportions that one man was occupied nearly full time performing this

service. Among the special jobs, there were two in 1938 that were highly important. One was a special compilation of timber inventory, depletion, and growth statistical data for use in the Northern Pacific Railroad Co.

controverted lands case. Owing to its Servicewide importance, this work took precedence over all other activities of the survey for 2 months. The other was preparation of forest-land and timber statistics covering the

Pacific Northwest for inclusion in a national report to a joint congressional committee created by Senate

67 The writer has good reason to believe Andrews understood he was going to be

offered a position in National Forest Administration involving a grade promotion upon his

return from Washington. However, no positive offer was made during the summer of

1938.

Appendix G - 17
from pages 76, 81, and 82

Concurrent Resolution, adopted June 13, 1938, to study the forest situation in the United States. Although this

study was not of the dimensions of the Copeland Report, it did present authoritative statistics on the forest

resource, making use of forest survey data which were now available for the most important timber-producing

region in the country.

Completion of the initial forest survey of the Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine regions made available reliable and

detailed information on the forest inventory, rate of depletion by cutting and fire, and rate of growth by forestland ownership class localized for areas as small as a county. Less was known concerning endemic losses of

timber volume and growth potential from insects, disease, and windthrow. However, records of losses from epidemics and catastrophes, such as the Olympic blowdown, were reasonably reliable. Need for greater attention

to these problems was recognized but would have to wait for increased funds for manpower and physical facilities.

With the forest survey information at hand, problems in forest management and protection, forest products

utilization, and forest economics could be put in perspective and quantified. Completion of the forest fire insurance study by Shepard was a one-time thing which could be put on the reference shelf for other people and

agencies to use when economic and political conditions were appropriate. The forest taxation studies by

Wilson and DeVries, although of longer life and more pertinent than the insurance study, were soon to reach

the stage where action agencies and legislatures should take over and free the forest economics research staff

to tackle many other pressing problems.

Availability of the wealth of forest survey localized information on the forest resource was timely and indispensable for the various depression-born agencies active in land use planning at the county, State, and regional

level. It was also essential to cost-benefit analyses in planning public works such as development of hydroelectric power-generating facilities, river and harbor improvements, flood control measures, and extension of overland and water transportation systems. Timber companies and supporting industries, including banks and

investment companies, were other users and beneficiaries of these data in industrial planning.

No new study programs were undertaken during 1939 and no major publications were completed or published.

Because of restriction from a tighter fiscal situation and rising costs, it was a time for settling down and getting

into gear after the changes in command. With the economic recovery process underway after the 1938 recession,1

 emergency funds were being either phased out or reduced. Allotment of regular funds remained at about

the same level as the previous year with two exceptions: funds for the forest survey were reduced about onethird and the money was diverted to other Stations where this work was being initiated or accelerated. This was

anticipated as the reinventory work in this region was of lower priority. On the other hand, flood control funds

were sharply increased over the amounts received previously. In view of this increase, Raymond H. Chapler

was appointed as Senior Forester in Charge of Flood Control Surveys in the middle of the year. Chapler was

secretary-manager of the Oregon Forest Fire Association for a number of years prior to joining the Station.

However, he had been in National Forest Administration in earlier years. About the same time, Junior Forester

Dunford transferred to the Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station where he started a career in watershed

management research that was to bring him back to this Station years later.

Appendix G - 18

1 Under the aegis of Roosevelt’s administration, deficit spending was used to solve the

Depression’s economic problems. In 1938, Roosevelt balanced the Federal budget and the

economy faltered, and the term “recession” was added to the economist’s vocabulary. In 1939,

financing of recovery jobs was renewed, although the Station’s research program was not

noticeably benefited.
from pages 86 and 88

The forest survey staff completed a draft of a comprehensive report on the forest resources of the ponderosa

pine region of Oregon and Washington in the fall of 1939 for review prior to publication. The corresponding report for the Douglas-fir region was moving slowly through the publication channels. Reinventory of the Douglasfir region was moving ahead; one of the counties completed was Snohomish County, Wash. Availability of

up-to-date information proved useful to the fire control case study of that county. Among a number of special

studies completed by the forest survey staff during the year was supplying information to the Washington State

Planning Council and the Regional Office for use in studies of a proposal for a Cascade Mountains National

Park.7 This proposal originated with the National Park Service and its more militant supporters. The North Cascades proposal was reported to be a part of a greater plan to establish a series of national parks surrounding

each of the snow-capped peaks of the Cascade Range from the Canadian border to the California line; each of

these parks was to be connected by a strip of park land along the crest of the Range. Some of the more ambitious of the proposal’s advocates suggested it might be extended along the Sierra Nevada in California. The

Washington State Planning Council staff considered this proposal and requested the forest resource analysis

by the Station. The Council recommended against the park proposal, urging that the land remain in National

Forest.8

By 1940, serious attention was being given nationwide to taking stock of the strength of our national defense

position. In the Pacific Northwest, plans were made to analyze the role of forest and range land resources and

plan for their effective use in the defense program.

Nearly every year since the Station was established, visitors from this region, other forest regions in the United

States, and from abroad came to Portland to learn of the Station’s work in the office and field. The year 1940

had its usual quota or more, including a number of foreign visitors. Ordinarily, this would not appear unusual,

but in view of the European political climate, a few drew special attention. Dr. Adelbert Ebner, a German forester, spent some time in the Pacific Northwest, ostensibly representing the German Library of Information11

in New York City, which was reputed to be a part of the Nazi propaganda organization. He showed an unusual

interest in the forest survey type maps of Oregon and Washington and requested copies. Acting upon instructions, the Station told him they would be mailed to him at New York. His request was sent on to the Washington Office for action there. Another cloak and dagger event was the appearance of two Finnish foresters whose

names and actions seemed to arouse suspicion that their background was more German than Finnish. They

left Portland to travel leisurely down the Oregon coast for California by private auto, reportedly under surveillance of the FBI, who occupied neighboring offices to the Station on the fourth floor of the Federal Courthouse

in Portland.

Appendix G - 19

7 In 1937, the Director of the U.S. National Park Service appointed a committee to

investigate the park potential of the North Cascades. Frank A. Kittridge, regional director

of the Park Service, headquartered in San Francisco, was active in this effort.

8 The Olympic National Park was established by President Roosevelt under the Act of

June 29, 1938, containing the lion’s share of the Mount Olympus Primitive Area, which

had been established on the Olympic National Forest in 1935. The Act of June 29, 1938,

also authorized the President to make additions to the park from adjoining National

Forest lands. By proclamation, President Roosevelt made additions to the park on

January 2, 1940, and May 29, 1943.

11 Recalled from memory of the author and confirmed by P.A. Briegleb.
From pages 92 and 100

The forest survey section continued the reinventory program of the Douglas-fir region at the rate of about six

counties a year. County statistical reports were being issued and distributed within about 6 months’ time after

completion of the fieldwork.

The year 1940 was a big one for major forest survey publications. “Forest Resources of the Douglas-Fir

Region,” U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 389, by Andrews and Cowlin, was published in December of that year. This was

the first of the comprehensive regional reports issued by the nationwide forest survey. A State report, “Forest

Resources of Washington,” by Cowlin and Moravets, was printed and distributed by the Division of Forestry,

Washington Department of Natural Resources. Briegleb’s “Forest Growth in the Ponderosa Pine Region of

Oregon and Washington” was issued June 1940 as the Station’s Forest Survey Report No. 78. It was issued

as a multigraphed paper to expedite dissemination of this information, which was very timely in view of the

public concern for the future growth prospects to supply the pine timber industry in this region. This was to be

followed by a comprehensive regional report. The manuscript, entitled “The Ponderosa Pine Region of Oregon

and Washington,” by Cowlin, Briegleb, and Moravets, was in final form and was transmitted late in the year to

the Washington Office for review and approval for printing. However, this report was fated to be edited in

Washington, and a year or two was required to respond to editorial questions and changes, galley proof and

page proof review, and making necessary corrections. From the time since the forest survey was initiated, the

Station had followed a policy of using technical journals, trade journals, public addresses, and the press to

distribute information on survey methodology, preliminary findings, and selected items of current interest. This

policy and internal Forest Service use of forest survey data and conclusions drawn from them gave wide currency to up-to-date information on the forest resources of the Pacific Northwest.

Late in the year [1942], U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 490, “Forest Resources of the Ponderosa Pine Region of Washington and Oregon,” by Cowlin, Briegleb, and Moravets, was printed by the G.P.O. However, copies for public

distribution were not received until early 1943. This completed the set of two comprehensive regional reports

giving the results of the initial forest survey of the Pacific Northwest forest resources.

Appendix G - 20
Appendix H: Description of Map Files

From 1930s PNW Forest Survey

by Rick Jordan1

1

 Rick Jordan is a geographic information system analyst, Olympic National Forest, 1835

Black Lake Blvd. SW, Suite A, Olympia, WA 98512.

Appendix H - 1
General Information

The 1930s Forest Survey geographic information system (GIS) data are included in CoverSizeCl.shp, an ArcView shape

file. Counties.shp, an ArcView shape file displaying county boundaries for the states of Washington and Oregon, also is

included to assist users to more easily identify the location of data of interest. The following provides some information

on the use of these data.

GIS Projection Notes

Both Counties.shp and CoverSizeCl.shp have the following properties:

Horizontal coordinate system is UTM; Zone 10 north; NAD 27

ArcExplorer Projects

Two project files are included on the disk to facilitate displaying the data in ArcExplorer:

CoverSize.aep displays forest cover data by tree species and size class.

CoverType.aep displays forest cover data by tree species.

For users who wish to install ArcExplorer to view the forest survey map data, an ArcExplorer distribution file is included

on the CD-ROM. To install ArcExplorer, exit other applications, navigate to the ArcExpInstall directory on the CD-ROM

and double-click ae2setup.exe. Follow the on-screen directions to install ArcExplorer. You will have to reboot your

computer as part of the installation process. For users not familiar with ArcExplorer, a very good users guide is

copied to disk as part of the install process. The users guide “Using ArcExplorer” is in the file ArcExplorer.pdf in

the ArcExplorer2.0 directory (if you accepted the default options when you installed ArcExplorer, this file will be in

C:\Program Files\ESRI\ArcExplorer2.0).

To view the files in ArcExplorer, double click on one of the two project files (files with .aep extension). Loading one of

these files can initially take 10 minutes, so be patient. Once the file is loaded, other commands (such as zooming or

querying the data) are executed fairly quickly.

ArcView Projects

One ArcView project file is included on the disk to allow ArcView users to view CoverSizeCl.shp and Counties.shp.

CoverSize.apr contains two views of the data.

The Cover Type view displays vegetation species information. The Cover Type and Size Class view displays vegetation data by species and size class.

Graphics Display of Forest Survey data

For users who do not wish to use either ArcExplorer or ArcView, two graphics files are included on the CD-ROM.

CoverSize.jpg displays the Cover Type and Size Class view from ArcView as a JPEG image.

CoverType.jpg displays the Cover Type view from ArcView as a JPEG image.

Note: jpeg files lose resolution through repeated compressions, so if you create a new version of the project (zoomed

in or resized) be sure to choose a compression option that will retain as much of the original file’s resolution as possible. You should retain a copy of the original file for future use.

Appendix H - 2
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood,

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300