Relative forest land values

[pHredd9mm]

I grew up in Western Washington state (as the son of a gyppo logger) and am thinking about moving back there. I have been looking at 20-40 acre pieces of land from a long distance. Trying to figure out RELATIVE land values for similar pieces of land in same general geo area. For example assume four pieces of land, each 40 acres in size.

Property #1 has 50-75 year old douglas fir/hemlock growing on it. Average density and size. When I was growing up what my dad would have called average "second growth" timber.

Property #2 HAD the same timber on it, but was recently clear cut leaving the stumps in the ground and brush on site.

Property # 3 was logged 20 years ago and has 20 year old Douglas Firs on it which look like they were planted originally as Christmas trees, but were never harvested or thinned out in any manner. Thick growth, but needs to be thinned out to do anything with it.

Property #4 was logged some time back, old stumps still in the ground, but has 5-15 year old Doug Fir Christmas trees on it which were minimally maintained.

All of the properties border a county road, none of them have streams or rivers, all are at about 1000 feet elevation and all are relatively flat. No mud. No flooding. All are zoned agriculture/forestry use which allows 1 or 2 family homes plus agriculture out buildings. You can even assume they are adjacent pieces of property.

What I would use it for is irrelevant, other than it would be agriculture/forestry related (and perfectly legal).

I am having a tough time figuring out why/how land is valued or what some is really worth... other than what a seller wants to get out of it and what a buyer is willing to pay. But from a FORESTRY point of view, what are the RELATIVE values of these lands? Thanks.

[WDH]

The way it is done in the Forest Industry is to take an acre of land and project two timber rotations into the future looking at all the cash flows to establish the timber crop and all the income from future harvest based on growth projections.  Then, take the present value of this cash stream using whatever discount rate that you like.  Most use 6% after tax.  This value will be what you could afford to pay for the bare dirt (land value) for this use.  To value your options, you start with the bare land price and then add the current timber value.  Obviously, your option #1 is the most valuable because it has the highest merchantable timber value today, and option #2 has the lowest value because there is no timber value since it was clearcut.

So, set a bare land price, then figure the value of the current timber crop and add that to the bare land value to get your comparisons.

[pHredd9mm]

Thanks, that is kinda what I figured. But yet the clear cut land has the highest price. Go figure. Price will probably come down, all things equal.

[WDH]

Location, location, location.

[pHredd9mm]

They are basically all the same location... like I said, almost adjacent properties...

[Sprucegum]

It may be the land owners and realtors are not forest or timber oriented and consider those big trees an expense to get rid of before you can develope the property  ???