pf.“ ’qi <.'.‘IIIrfj COST-EFFECTIVENESS 0F FEDERAL PROGRAM. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RELIEVING SOFIWOOD TIMBER SUPPLY PROBLEMS Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY THOMAS HOWARD ELLIS, JR. , 1976 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Cost-Effectiveness of Federal Program Opportunities for Relieving Softwood Timber Supply Problems presented by Thomas Howard Ellis, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. Forestry degree in Date July 15, 1976 0-7639 ,__A Analyses aggly bal anc ~- 5‘: of exPected . 3-3 annual ‘n a ,7 7 4.) a," mm Abstract COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR RELIEVING SOFTWOOD TIMBER SUPPLY PROBLEMS BY Thomas Howard Ellis, Jr. Analyses are made of opportunities for affecting future demand- supply balances for softwood timber supplies through three types of Federal programs: -§National forest reforestation and stand improvement, --Cost-sharing of reforestation and stand improvement on nonindustrial private forest lands, and --Technological research and development. Selected elements in these program areas are evaluated in terms of expected costs and likely impacts on annual timber growth, on annual harvest, or on annual timber product requirements. Methodology for timber program analysis is discussed. Criteria for ranking of opportunities are suggested, and techniques for evaluating benefits are described. Examined national forest timber management opportunities include "backlog" reforestation and timber stand improvment. Estimates of potential treatment acreages considered accessible and inaccessible, as of 1972, are compiled by forest type, site- productivity class, and administrative region. Treatment costs and yields are evaluated for each classification. Projections of effects on annual growth and on allowable harvest are estimated for various levels of funding. as are “at“ 793230: technlcal a: 3d $97810?! race of likc Conclu. of processi‘ supply prob the short r‘ investments computerize tizber sale national fo S‘dpplies so Private lam cOSt-effect Private lam @rovement Thomas Howard Ellis, Jr. Reforestation and stand improvement opportunities on non- industrial private land are evaluated in essentially the same way as are national forest opportunities. Technological opportunities evaluated involve research and/or technical assistance to forest industries in the following areas: --Genetic improvement of planting stock, --Control of Fomes annosus root rot, --Improved drying systems for linerboard manufacture, and --Computerized sawmill control. Calculations are made of likely costs, including Federal research and development and private investment costs. Projections are made of likely results in terms of timber growth or savings in annual timber requirements. Conclusions are that technological improvements in certain aspects of processing are the most immediate means of mitigating timber supply problems. The most effective of such Opportunities, in the short run, would be ones requiring relatively small capital investments on the part of forest industries. Development of computerized sawmill systems is ranked highest in these terms. Assuming that harvest regulation policy would allow increased timber sales immediately following silvicultural investment on national forests, such investments there would affect timber supplies sooner than reforestation programs for nonindustrial private lands. Stand improvement measures typically would be more cost-effective than reforestation. Reforestation on nonindustrial private lands should be more cost-effective for long-term improvement in timber supply, however, because these ownerships vaflzqu“. A“ u.v'uu~ boy‘s . O 0' T “a.” :7 S” .“P‘.‘ ‘ “Hw‘A .. irisrovements Thomas Howard Ellis, Jr. include large acreages of southern pine forest types where treatment costs are relatively low and land productivity high. All of the programs evaluated involve large uncertainties. Technical progress in research may be slower than anticipated and industry may be slow to adapt research findings to actual production. Yield estimates used for reforestation and stand improvement analyses appear conservative, but land—use changes may result in even lower cost-effectiveness than calculated. Uncertainties about land-use may be as great for national forests as for private lands. Principal recommendations are that: (1) Future policy decisions on national programs to increase timber supplies should recognize Opportunities for technological improvements as well as investments in silviculture; (2) The technological opportunities evaluated in this study should receive strong support; (3) Policymakers should note the potentially high cost- effectiveness of increased investment in nonindustrial private opportunities; (4) Measures should be taken to reduce the high costs of silvicultural treatments on national forests; (5) Changes in accounting practices should be considered, to allow increased investment in national forest silviculture without directly prOportional increases in overhead costs; and (6) The Forest Service should concentrate its increasingly large budget for silvicultural examinations on those administrative regimes and I is likely to Recome: Thomas Howard Ellis, Jr. regions and national forests where cost-effectiveness of treatment is likely to be high. Recommendations for further research also are given. q! COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR RELIEVING SOFTWOOD TIMBER SUPPLY PROBLEMS BY THOMAS HOWARD ELLIS, JR. A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Forestry 1976 m“ +' .ne au .5 “Q p F ..r: :tor of .— gme constant 7-9:}“35 great} :.,. ,. -, . "-ebt Sll‘JlC‘ t .3: analysis . verCC‘ “*5 SEES and ACKNOWLE DGEIVEENT S The author wishes to acknowledge the encouragement and assistance of many friends and associates within the Forest Service, U.S.D.A., and at Michigan State University. Dr. Adrian M. Gilbert, Director of Program and Policy Analysis for the Forest Service, gave constant support for the analysis which was done largely while I was a staff assistant to him. David Tackle and Charles A. Wellner helped greatly in develOpment of physical yield estimates for national forest silvicultural treatments and for genetic improvement of planting stock. RObert N. Stone gave much advice in establishing the framework for analysis. Thomas J. Mills, Marcus Goforth, and David J. Neebe helped overcome the computational difficulties Of handling the large data sets and complicated investment analyses involved. Professor Robert Marty, my major advisor, gave me my first introduction to public program evaluation and lent patient advice in the prepara- tion of the manuscript. Professor Robert S. Manthy also introduced the author to some basic concepts of resource program analysis, as well as of research planning. Mrs. Norma Jones volunteered many hours deciphering my handwriting and typing a first draft. Finally, I am.most deeply endebted to my wife, Judith, for many years of encouragement toward completing this work. ii 7A N . --- A." .6-" RATIO)" ’Q‘ t TABLE OF CONTENTS regs. LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem and Its Historical Setting . . . . . . 2 Framework for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. METHODOLOGY FOR TIMBER PROGRAM ANALYSIS. . . . . . . 9 Basic Concepts of Public Program Evaluation. . . . 11 Benefit-Cost Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Problems in Application Of Benefit-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Externalities and Secondary Benefits . . . . . . 15 Interest Rate Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Criteria for Ranking Program Opportunities . . . 17 Risk and Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Institutional Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 III. NATIONAL FOREST SILVICULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES. . . . . 26 Previous Reports of National Forest Backlog Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Extent of Treatment Opportunities. . . . . . . . 35 Treatment Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Allowable Cut Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Stumpage Prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Treatment Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Estimated Program Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . 46 iii Effect AC: rroble The Pres IV. REFORESTATION AND STAND IMPROVEMENT ON NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE OWNERSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experience in the Agricultural Conservation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Bank and ACP in the South . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness of Past Federal Programs for Afforestation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems Found in the ACP Program. . . . . . . . The Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Program Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS . . . . Tree Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fomes annosus Root Rot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expected Costs and Program Effects . . . . . . . Timber Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Possibilities Evaluated. . . . . . . . . Linerboard Drying Technique. . . . . . . . . . . Expected Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computerized Decisionmaking. . . . . . . . . . . Program Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ngram Effects. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv 52 52 53 55 55 58 59 64 66 67 71 71 73 75 79 80 80 81 83 85 86 87 Summary Effect Ef-ec1 Uncerta. Reconne: \-~-‘. - . . a, Mwn -- x A - _ .~._,._,-‘ ‘fi but ‘- “7- Mv-u II - ~ —.I_,.X B u 1357“"? "I.“ a. . -“U. '1 1 FR 6 U r‘ . >-‘ .1 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . Summary Comparisons of Program Effectiveness Effect on lOth-Year Harvest. . . . . . . . Effect on 30th-Year Harvest. . . . . . . . Effect on Softwood Sawtimber Growth. . . . Uncertainties in Silvicultural Investments . Uncertainties in Research Investments. . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A - TREATMENT YIELD COMPUTATIONS, NATIONAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - TREATMENT COSTS AND ACREAGES, NATIONAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C - TREATMENT OPPORTUNITY RANKINGS, NATIONAL FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX D - TREATMENT OPPORTUNITY RANKINGS, NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE . . . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 89 89 91 91 92 93 96 97 101 117 125 150 152 ll, IL 13, N Direct co stand . Calculate forest OCportu Schedule . and 5:3 Timber : Distribut GVEragE ownersh Treatment on noni SCUBdule OPPOItu sawtirt IPCreasa R \ Hy genetic genetiC genetic PrOjected control Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES National forest reforestation and stand improve- ment funding, 1960-1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National forest backlog treatment Opportunities . . . Basic treatment situations for backlog reforesta- tion and stand improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sawtimber stumpage prices for national forest timber sales, by administrative region and Species. Direct costs of national forest reforestation and stand improvement, all-Species averages . . . . . . Calculated ranking criteria for selected national forest reforestation and stand improvement opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schedule of national forest backlog reforestation and stand improvement recommended by staff or Timber Management Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of analyzed treatment opportunity averages on nonindustrial private forest ownerships, 1972. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatment situations investigated for reforestation on nonindustrial private ownerships . . . . . . . . Schedule of nonindustrial private reforestation opportunities designed to maximize softwood sawtimber growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Increases genetic Increases genetic Increases genetic Projected in yield anticipated for an accelerated program for the southern pines. . . . . . . in yield anticipated from an accelerated program for Douglas-fir . . . . . . . . . . in yield anticipated from an accelerated program for western pine. . . . . . . . . . costs of a program of Fomes annosus control in southern pine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Increases control ........................ in yield anticipated from a Fomes annosus program in southern pines . . . . . . . . . vi Page 27 36 38 43 45 47 50 6O 61 63 68 69 7O 76 77 l. ‘- O Anticipate program Reforesta: fir in :U Reforestat Prec mmerc all west and 6 an PIQCOITKTterC stands“ R"3gions Ralease cf afiflnov RElease of REfOIestat Precommerc Regions 3 ‘reCOmmerc Pine, E‘ . and Stem practice Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Al. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6. A7. A8. A9. A10. A11. B1. Approximate physical recovery efficiencies in various forest industrieS--197O . o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Projected cost increases for accelerated development of 3-direction-restraint techniques . . Anticipated effects of an accelerated research program in Z-direction restraint. . . . . . . . . . Projected effects of accelerated research and development of computerized sawmill systems . . . . Summary comparisons Of program costs and effects. . . Reforestation of all western types except Douglas- fir in Regions 5 and 6 and spruce-fir in Region 6 . Reforestation of part Of Region 1 backlog.. . . . . . Precommercial thinning of overstocked sapling stands- all western types except Douglas-fir in Regions 5 and 6 and spruce-fir in Region 6. . . . . . . . . . Precommercial thinning of overstocked pole timber stands--all western types except Douglas-fir in Regions 5 and 6 and spruce-fir in Region 6. . . . . Release of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine from aspen overstory--Region 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release Of spruce-fir from aspen overstory--Region 2. Reforestation of Douglas-fir in Regions 5 and 6 . . . Precommercial thinning or release of Douglas-fir in Regions 5 and 6 and spruce-fir in Region 6. . . . . Reforestation of longleaf-slash pine. . . . . . . . . Precommercial thinning or release of longleaf-slash Pine . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Precommercial thinning of loblolly-shortleaf pine . . Reforestation of loblolly-shortleaf pine. . . . . . . Estimated costs for backlog national forest reforestation and stand improvement, by administrative region, practice, type of cost, and species . . . . . . . . vii O 82 84 88 90 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 111 113 115 117 J. Rational forest RPS acce: by inc: per dci \ES acce< oy in: Honindus- areas, lncrea. areas, increa Table B2. C1. C2. C3. C4. C5. D1. D2. National forest backlog reforestation acreages by forest type, site, and administrative region. . . . . 123 NFS accessible backlog treatment Opportunities ranked by increase in sawtimber mean annual increment per dollar of total cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 NFS accessible backlog treatment Opportunities ranked by increase in allowable annual cut, 10th year, per dollar of total cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 NFS accessible backlog treatment opportunities ranked by increase in allowable annual cut, 30th year, per dollar Of total cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 NFS accessible backlog treatment opportunities ranked by increase in growing stock mean annual increment per dollar of total cost. . . . . . . . . . 14o NFS accessible backlog treatment Opportunities ranked by rate of return on direct cost. . . . . . . . . . . 145 Nonindustrial private treatment Opportunities, accessible areas, ranked by sawtimber mean annual increment increase per dollar of Federal cost . . . . . . . . . 150 Nonindustrial private treatment opportunities, accessible areas, ranked by growing stock mean annual increment increase per dollar of Federal cost . . . . . . . . . 151 viii future .ajd- 1. Expected sc with alte national stand in; cted : ternati forest be introvene 3. Cozparison through 2 national improverx LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Expected softwood sawtimber growth effects with alternative allocation criteria-- national forest backlog reforestation and stand improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2. Expected softwood allowable cut effects with alternative allocation criteria--national forest backlog reforestation and stand improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3. Comparison of softwood sawtimber growth maximization through nonindustrial private reforestation and national forest reforestation and stand improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 ix U mant re resources: The centre today is 1 shortest 1 decide to decisions resources little many pe o; sees more lik Titer invento studs of for 4 .. - . arm‘agplicatio n . .-ternat1ve 1y , usmg timber c “(ingress arfl t questions wit} “What SC for 1 “What k: meet The firs In this study 01‘ ”Ore, both expresSed co I . INTRODUCTION U Thant remarked on the impact of modern technology upon natural resources: The central stupendous truth about developed economies today is that they can have--in anything but the shortest run-the kind and scale of resources they decide to have...It is no longer resources that limit decisions. It is the decision that makes the resources;- While many people today might question U Thant's statement, it seems more likely to be true of timber than of most other resources. Timber inventories could be expanded through use of conventional methods of forestation and timber culture, or through development and application of improved methods for growing and protecting timber. Alternatively, new or improved techniques for harvesting and using timber could extend the usefulness of existing inventories. Congress and the Administration thus face two principal policy questions with regard to timber resources: --What economic and social objectives are desirable for American forests? --What kinds of federal programs and policies can best meet those objectives? The first question is too broad to be analyzed satisfactorily in this study. It suffices to note that, over the past 75 years or more, both Congress and successive administrations have expressed continuing interest in programs for increasing timber iQuoted in Alvin Toffler. 1970. Future Shock. Random.House, New York, p. 15. sugplies. Rece periods of a9.“ as evidenced b} fierefore, we I policymakers we will be adequat increases. Am that Congress : to provide suc‘: study is addreg P39913315 are 1; mitigating a p] scft‘OOd timbe} the Problem af‘ai Since its been deeply COI s:;;lies for t? Congress as ex N0 natiOn to improv, oundarie deOrable rnish a uSe and n United St 2 supplies. Recently that concern has been most pronounced during periods of apparent scarcity of softwood lumber and wood products, as evidenced by rapid inflation of lumber and plywood prices. Therefore, we may assume at least a partial answer is that public policymakers want increased assurance that softwood timber supplies will be adequate to meet future demand without dramatic price increases. And we may assume, on the basis of recent experience, that Congress is willing to appropriate substantial sums for programs to provide such assurance. Therefore, the question to which this study is addressed is that of alternative means--which kinds of programs are likely to be most costseffective for averting or mitigating a presumed trend of increasing economic scarcity of softwood timber? The Problem and Its Historical Setting Since its inception, the United States Forest Service has been deeply concerned with means of assuring adequate timber supplies for the Nation. This concern reflects the intent of Congress as expressed in the Organic Act of June 4, 1897: No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber fOr the use and necessities of citizens of the United States:— Long-term adequacy of domestic timber supplies has been a matter of great controversy from the 1800's until today. Whether there is indeed a serious threat of future timber scarcity or not, 3-30 Stat. 35, as supplemented; l6 U.S.C. 475. Congress has : expand growth there was a m4 national for e: 1973, a fores‘ was aot'norizec reqiired by '51 Act of 1974.2 i:- the appoint Elwood in Mar to the recomme of a President in September l The adven- gave emphasis sir-r mung in put ‘1' early eXanr Congress has shown considerable interest in programs designed to expand growth and harvest. For example, between 1965 and 1975 there was a more than threefold increase in appropriations for national forest reforestation and timber stand improvementra in 1973, a forestry incentives program for nonindustrial private land was authorized;2-and comprehensive planning and analysis was required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974.§- Executive attention to timber resources was expressed in the appointment of a Cabinet Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood in March, 1969, in President Nixon's June 1970 response to the recommendations of the Task Force,é-and in the appointment of a Presidential Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment in September 1971. The advent of PPBS (Planning-Programming-Budgeting System) gave emphasis to questions of cost-effectiveness and priority- setting in public forestry programs as in other government activities. An early example of analysis performed in response to PPBS was a study of national forest timber management OpportunitieSaZ The 2Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Appropriations, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., pt. 3, at 18 (1966), and 94th Cong., lst Sess., pt. 2, at 442 (1975). éAgriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 245; 16 U.S.C. 590h). éTPL 93-378; 88 Stat. 476). éStatement.by the President on findings and recommendations of the Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood, June 19, 1970. ‘ZMarty, RObert and Walker Newman. 1967. Opportunities for timber management intensification on the National Forests. USDA- Forest Service Planning-Programming-Budgeting System Special Study. Summarized in Jour. Forestry 67:482—484. Cffice of Hana“- avgzram ISSUES: as national fo: scope was reqoé road system: Analyze tl road prog: roads in 1 Forest tir Relate to these deme that are 1 1.“ even broader Year l974 budge of Increasing 1 PrOduction; Y«hat combj OVer the I increased ”Suing 3c Ana lyses Parall mdg udget Were I- H; o. timber and t Most analy 4 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) annually specified "Major Program Issues," under PPBS, which required analyses of selected programs. The Issues generally related to specific programs, such as national forest reforestation, but an analysis of unusually broad scope was requested, in 1970, with respect to the National Forest road system: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of an accelerated road program and the related up-grading of existing roads in relation to projected demands for National Forest timber, recreation, and other resources. Relate to and compare the opportunities for meeting these demands from areas already roaded and areas that are unroaded.— An even broader analysis was requested, in conjunction with fiscal year 1974 budgeting, in an Issue entitled: Cost-Effective Means of Increasing the Availability of Softwood for Lumber and Plywood Production: What combination of Federal decisions and programs over the next five fiscal years will maximize increased softwood sawtimber supply over the 9 ensuing 30 years from various levels of budget input?- Analyses paralleling those required by the Office of Management and Budget were requested by the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment (PAPTE) in 1972. Most analyses requested of the Forest Service have focused primarily on land management options. Relatively little analysis of research program opportunities in relation to timber supplies had been requested prior to passage of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974. The report of PAPTE contained §Excerpt from a letter from Robert Mayo, Director of OMB, to Clifford Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, February 12, 1970. 2Excerpt from a letter from George Shultz, Director of OMB, to Clifford Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture, October 21, 1971. discussions of :ractices tfier extlicit COITIP‘E or between lar about The prese thbmrdemand --Nationa refort releas vege precor “-Subsidiz Privat refore releas vegei Preconp ..TechnOlOg IQSearc tree reSearc] (a I‘Oc reSearcl Ia Pd; 5 discussions of possibilities for improvements in timber utilization practices through research and technical assistance programs. But explicit comparisons between different kinds of research programs or between land management programs and research programs were not made. The present study compares, in terms of expected effect on timber demand or supply, the following program options: --National Forest Silvicultural Opportunities reforestation, release of immature stands from competing, undesirable vegetation, precommercial thinning of immature stands; --Subsidized Silvicultural Investments on Nonindustrial Private Forest Lands reforestation, release of immature stands from competing, undesirable vegetation, precommercial thinning of immature stands; --Technologica1 Improvement research to speed the availability of genetically superior tree seed, research to develop control methods for Fomes annosus (a root rot), research on improved drying methods for producing linerboard (a paperboard material used in container manufacture), and research on computerization of sawmilling. A few 0 Avie-‘1" in I! ‘— l I- b it'll: ISPOI A probl :ould be cou itself or tn were used in ofresource 1 35': for 5‘ 5:35 a given Casidered i1 “Increg Sta: "Incree "REd'oct 6 A few other possibilities for similar programs were examined briefly, in preparation for this study, but were not included in this report due to lack of detailed information on likely costs and effects.19- Framework for Analysis A problem of increasing economic scarcity Of a natural resource could be countered by measures to increase supply of the resource itself or through changes in the efficiency with which the resource were used in some production process. Programs to improve efficiency of resource use could be considered either as measures to reduce demand for standing timber or as means of increasing supply of products from a given level of timber harvest. For the array of program options considered in this study, several different kinds of effects are explored: --Increase in expected mean-annual-increment of treated timber stands; --Increase in expected harvest volumes; --Reduction in annual growth losses due to insect or disease attack; and --Reduction in annual timber demand through efficiencies in harvesting, wood processing, or product design. For comparability, the effects of programs designed to reduce timber demand are calculated first in terms of product, then in terms of roundwood equivalent. For example, in 1970, softwood lgThe most Obvious means of enlarging timber supply in the next several decades would be increased harvest of Old-growth timber on national forests. It is precisely because the issue on national forest har- vesting rates and methods is so controversial and unlikely to be resolved soon that alternative programs are evaluated in this study. For COI’JE we: demanc terms of rou: sawmills rec< ingut in fin. rate would he for the 1970 Calcula‘ and effects 1 after progra: are calculat. 20 years. Estimat. ad infOrmal le1510ns Of and at the F The 109 has apPrOpr i investmnts tfififir have Suppl conSide Should be re P’idget PI‘OpO a reduCt in hams The net in RIOSt _ 7 For comparability, the effects of programs designed to reduce timber demand are calculated first in terms of product, then in terms of roundwood equivalent. For example, in 1970, softwood sawmills recovered about 45 percent of the cubic volume of log input in finished lumber. An improvement to a 50 percent recovery rate would have allowed a 10 percent reduction in sawlog requirements for the 1970 lumber output.-3i Calculations are based on an initial 5-year program with costs and effects projected to the ends of the first and third decades after program initiation. Both Federal and non-Federal costs are calculated for the initial 5 years, second 5 years, and succeeding 20 years. Estimates of costs and results are based upon interviews and informal reports submitted by staff assistants in various divisions of the U.S. Forest Service Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and at the Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. The logic of the study essentially is as follows. Congress has appropriated increasingly large sums of money for forestry investments over the past 10 years, reflecting its concern about timber supplies. The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture have considerable influence in deciding what mixture of programs should be recommended for inclusion in the President's annual budget proposal to Congress. The nature of the budgeting process llA minor savings in logging residues also would result, since a reduction in sawlog requirements would lead to a reduction in harvest-«including logging residue associated with harvest. The net effect on logging residues would be too small to matter, in most cases. is such that among ResearC budgets. Cha program also . of reforestat regions. Political large, precipi but gradual re feasible—eggs The analysis 1' PIquans avail effective in r in fundins all 8 is such that it would be possible for them to suggest changes among Research, National Forest, and State & Private Forestry budgets. Changes in budget allocations within any particular program also could be recommended to Congress, e.g. a redistribution of reforestation funding among National Forest administrative regions. Political constraints and administrative problems make large, precipitous changes in funding allocations very difficult; but gradual reallocations over a 5- or lO-year period would be feasible--especially if made in the programming of budget increases. The analysis in this study is designed to suggest.which kinds of programs available to the Forest Service are likely to be most cost- effective in relation to timber supply and should be emphasized in funding allocations. ’l'ne has Flaming‘PrC --speci -—I dent «Eva 1: --Concl Even though as surmised suggested by programs has years. The Renewable Re The Act reg; a detailed 1 these trends The Act pres Sii'ailar to t REViews either with II. METHODOLOGY FOR TIMBER PROGRAM ANALYSIS The basic approach to public program analysis under the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System has been: —-Specification of Objectives, --Identification of alternative means of meeting objectives, --Evaluation of alternatives, and --Conclusion as to preferred alternative. Even though the larger objectives of PPB may have been abandoned, as surmised by Schick,l£-or impossible of achievement, as suggested by Wild3VSka£3 the demand for analysis of Forest Service programs has increased, rather than diminished in the past several years. The most outstanding example is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (PL 93-378; 88 Stat. 476). The Act requires an assessment of resource demand andsupply trends, a detailed inventory and evaluation of opportunities for affecting these trends, and discussion of priorities for public investment. The Act presents a framework for program evaluation almost exactly similar to that required earlier in the USDA PPB Systemcifl Reviews of federal timber programs usually have been concerned either with short-term policies for immediate relief of on-going l~2-Allen Schick. 1973. A death in the bureaucracy: the demise of federal PPB. Public Administration Review. Vol. XXXIII, No. 2 pp. 146-156. léAaron.Wildavsky. 1969. Rescuing policy analysis frcm PPBS. Public Adminstration Review. Vol. XXIX, No. 2 pp. 189-202. l2A statement of objectives for the U.S.D.A. PPB System was given in Secretary's Memorandum No. 1589, Oct. 27, 1965, by Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture. 53995 in 1L1 possibilitie of one or mo evident in r recognition large effect has signific. evaluation. executive in flowed in co: it is the ef: economic grout \ £52Options ty; lumber a: timber sg imPOSitic requiring shipping! ltmber a: Robert Me Policy--1 SOftWOod June 19' the Openj cost Of I washirletc l ibis is not of timber cT‘sSumptic lS primar lO surges in lumber and plywood pricesié or with evaluation of possibilities for mitigating anticipated price rises over periods of one or more decades. The latter interest has been particularly evident in requests by OMB for timber analyses. In any case, recognition that Forest Service programs may have sufficiently large effects to alter price trends for timber and wood products has significant implications for methodology of timber program evaluation. Furthermore, the fact that congressional and executive interest in timber programs generally has ebbed and flowed in concert with lumber and plywood prices suggests that it is the effects of timber-related investments on national economic growth that are of greatest interestclé l§0ptions typically examined for relief of on-going surges in lumber and plywood prices have been increased funding for timber salvage and commercial thinnings on national forests, imposition of controls on log exports, amendment of laws requiring waterborne interstate commerce to use domestic shipping, and steps to alleviate boxcar shortages in lumber and plywood producing regions. See for example Robert Mayo's Memorandum for Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy--fundings and recommendations of Task Force on Softwood Lumber and Plywood, released by the White House, June 19, 1970. See also John T. Dunlop's statement at the opening of public hearings on lumber prices, April 4, 1973, cost of Living Council News, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. léThis is not to suggest that environmental and other aspects of timber programs are unimportant. Rather, it is an assumption that motivation for increased timber investment is primarily economic. involves 1 proper re.‘ especially are warrar assumtions Imarket fa justifiabl by which 3: social ben context 0 f BEHEIIt‘CO \ Benef and mHIP-air. of economic succinctly: Consic eXCEed used; utiliz Basic Corol that public 11 Basic Concepts of Public Program Evaluation Economic study of public expenditure programs principally involves two areas of inquiry. The first is consideration of the proper relationship between private enterprise and government, especially the identification of areas where public expenditures are warranted. Welfare economists have examined the theoretical assumtions of free market operation to specify instances of "market failure" under which government intervention would be justifiable. The second area of inquiry concerns the methods by'which public expenditures may be allocated so as to maximize social benefits. It is these methods, generally applied in the context of "benefit-cost analysis," which are of particular interest for the present study. Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefit-cost analysis essentially involves the quantification and comparison of expected program effects and costs, in pursuit of economic efficiency. Haveman defined economic efficiency succinctly: Considered most simply, economic efficiency is achieved when the value of what is produced by any set of resources exceeds by as much as possible the value of the resources used; or when the least valuable set of resources is utilized in producing any particular worthwhile outputc- Basic corollaries to the objective of economic efficiency are that public expenditures should not.be made unless resultant lzRobert H. Haveman. 1970. Public expenditure and policy analysis: an overview. In Public expenditure and policy analysis. ed. by RObert H. Haveman and Julius Margolis. Markham Publishing Co., Chicago, Ill. p. 7. benefits to that, for a ogportunitit possible soc Common of explicit dollar terms costs and re of benefit-c budgeting me firms. The 5’4 Capital firm Presume taxes, and t attivities t .3V9rnznent 5 Of SOCiety j its PrOgI would diSrEE calculations Althoug long his tory aD: a. . “ll‘atlon Conjmlczti 12 benefits to society were expected to equal or exceed costs and that, for a limited budget, the government should select the set opportunities for public programs expected to yield the maximum possible social gain. Common features of benefit-cost analysis are: compilation of explicit schedules of program costs and returns, valuation in dollar terms, and use of interest rates to discount or compound costs and returns to a common point in time. The techniques of benefit-cost analysis thus are essentially similar to capital budgeting methods developed for investment planning by business firms. The primary distinction between public program analysis and capital budgeting lies in the scope of evaluation. A private firm presumably attempts to maximize its own profits, after taxes, and thus may ignore costs or benefits associated with its activities but not accruing directly to the firm itself. A government agency, ostensibly attempting to maximize the welfare of society in general, should consider all significant effects of its programs. And, unlike the business firm, the agency would disregard taxes and other "transfers of income" in its calculations of program efficiency. Although the philosophy of benefit-cost analysis has a long history of development, refinements of technique and practical application have largely occurred since World War II--especially in conjunction with the P1anning-Programming-Budgeting System inaugurated agencies we Standards: Review of P Ltd Resour Office of M in conjunct Analys conceptual Emblems in ‘-lack ‘-Vari ‘-diff “exis “(Ides 13 inaugurated in the 1960's.l§- In 1962, guidelines for Federal agencies were provided in a Senate Document entitled "Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources."l2- Subsequently, instructions issued by the Office of Management and Budget and by individual departments in conjunction with program budgeting have guided agency analysts. Problems in Application of Benefit-Cost Analysis Analysts making benefit-cost evaluations have encountered many conceptual and practical problems. Some of the more common prOblems involve: --lack of useful estimates of project effects; --variations in scale of projects; --difficulty in valuing project benefits or disbenefits; --existence of "externalities" and "secondary benefits;" --questions as to the appropriate interest rate for discounting; --choice of criteria for ranking alternative projects; --risk and uncertainty; and —-institutional problems. Inadequate information on project effects is perhaps less serious for analysis of timber production opportunities than for many 19-A thorough review of the history, theory, and problems of benefit-cost analysis was made by A. R. Prest and R. Turvey. 1965. Cost-benefit analysis: a survey. The Economic Journal. VOl. LXXV (3001:683-735. l287th Cong., 2nd. Sess., Senate Document No. 97. other kinds c in the Case C trllY reliab] is made more m effE a reforestati might occur In occur without in controllir with and Wit:L For many for varying t projects, the vary from jus seedling, and degree of sit ‘ O the analyst 6 0f investment for the colle 361139, SLICh (f of OPPOr tun it S‘~ ‘ - tale timber 14 other kinds of programs, e.g., public health programs. But even in the case of silvicultural investments, it is difficult to get truly reliable estimates of physical yields. The difficulty is made more acute because the analyst desires to know the marginal effects of potential investments. Thus, in analyzing a reforestation opportunity, he must estimate not only what yields might occur with a given treatment, but also what yields might occur without the treatment. Similarly, in analyzing an investment in controlling a forest pest, he must estimate timber losses, with and without control efforts. For many projects, there are almost unlimited possibilities for varying the scale of investment. For example, in reforestation projects, the number of seedlings planted on a given acre may vary from just a few to more than a thousand. The quality of seedling, and thus seedling cost, may vary greatly, as may the degree of site preparation done in advance of planting. Ideally, the analyst desires to select the economically efficient level of investment within each program opportunity, as well as for the collective set of available opportunities. In a practical sense, such detailed analysis is nearly impossible when the set of opportunities is large and diverse--as is the case for broad- scale timber program analysis. Prices applicable to government programs with benefits not ordinarily available in competititve markets are difficult to derive. The problem is most acute for projects involving "intangible benefits" such as scenery. Even for timber programs, however, prices are a problem, because long investment periods are iI'lVOlVeC been erratic large effect uncertainty with two or method is cc to examine 1 alternative Externe dis‘CiIICJ'qusl'ie sPillovers ,' Production C mHSiderati( fish Pr0duc1 Pecuniary s; O! agenCies of pecuniar5 (2) the redl 15 are involved and trends in stumpage or wood product prices have been erratic. Furthermore, public timber programs may have large effects on these trends. Principal means of handling uncertainty as to price trends is to analyze program benefits with two or more separate price assumptions. Another common method is cost-effectiveness analysis, employed in this study, to examine the costs of achieving a desired effect through alternative means. Externalities and Secondary Benefits Externalities are indirect or "spillover" effects. McKean distinguished between "technological spillovers" and "pecuniary spillovers."32- Technological spillovers affect the physical production of goods or services outside the project under consideration. An example would be the reduction of anadramous fish production resulting from construction of a high dam. A pecuniary spillover is an effect on prices received by businesses or agencies outside the project. McKean discussed four types of pecuniary spillovers: (l) the bidding up of input prices; (2) the reduction of prices for substitute products; (3) the raising of prices for complementary products; and (4) the lowering of prices for the products of the project. While technological spillovers impose real costs or benefits on society and should be counted among project effects, pecuniary spillovers merely shift income distribution and should not enter the calculation 32Roland N. McKean. 1958. Efficiency in government through systems analysis. Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. of economic ‘ inportant d8 of a given P Seconda of secondary lead to seril of increased costs, loggi; made for inc 59-79 0f the : PTOject.2~l 1 an inCrease ; 16 of economic efficiency. Pecuniary spillovers, however, may be important determinants of the political and social feasibility of a given project. Secondary benefits are income effects which occur beyond the stage of delivery of the direct output of a project. An example would be an increase in sales of lumber manufacturers' due to an increase in national forest timber production. Inclusion of secondary benefits in economic efficiency calculations may lead to serious overcounting of benefits, as in the example of increased lumber sales--the value of which includes stumpage costs, logging costs, and manufacturing costs. A case may be made for inclusion of secondary benefits, however, if some of the resources involved would be unemployed without the projectazi- For example, it may be appropriate to consider an increase in sawmill labor income as a real benefit, if that labor were expected to remain unemployed without a particular national forest project. Interest Rate Problems Selection of the appropriate interest rate for analysis of public projects is a controversial subject. Some economists have argued that society has a longer time-horizon than a business firm and, therefore, should use lower interest rates in discounting future benefits of long-term projects. Others have argued that use of a lower interest rate for public projects biases investment away from more efficient private projects and thus reduces economic ElSee Roland N. McKean, op, cit. p. 158-160. grwth in th‘. discount rat! ralyst, the kmerest rate at Budget a: Cfiteria for K Many cr; investment 0: Present x investment :1 N GEt ore X 17 growth in the long-run. Baumol suggested, "...the correct discount rate for the evaluation of a government project is the percentage rate of return that the resources utilized would otherwise provide in the private sector.“2£' The problem lies in determining what that rate would be. For the government analyst, the problem is simplified: specific instructions on the interest rate to be used are issued by the Office of Management and Budget and, frequently, by his own agency. Criteria for Ranking_Program Opportunities Many criteria have been suggested fOr ranking alternative investment opportunities: Present worth.--The sum of all future returns from an investment discounted to the present. Net present worth.--Present worth minus the sum of discounted costs (including initial investment cost). Benefit-cost ratio.--Present worth divided by the sum of discounted costs. Internal rate of return.--The interest rate(s) which.would equate present worth and the sum of discounted costs, if used to discount both costs and returns. Composite internal rate of return.--A variant of internal rate of return in which an a_priori interest rate first is used to compound intermediate net benefits to the end of the project lifetime and to discount intermediate net costs to the present. ZaWilliam J. Baumol. 1970. On the discount rate for public projects. In Public expenditure and policy analysis. Ed. by Robert H. Haveman and Julius Margolis. 92, 225% p. 273-290. The composite would discount of costs. Equivaler discount rate. year for a pm discounted vai Net futu: of the projec Choice 0 funding avail only by the e or not OPPOI'L‘ interrelatior Proqram 09901 VariOus Seal: rates fol. di: maximizatiOn was adopted..3 internal rat achier maxi. arge enOUgh he sungcmstEd tor each Opp 23\ \Roland N 18 The composite internal rate is then that interest rate which would discount future value of benefits to equal present value of costs. Equivalent annual income.--Net present.worth multiplied by discount rate, i.e., the annual payment which, received each year for a period equal to the project lifetime, would have a discounted value the same as net present worth of the project. Net future worth.--Value of benefits, compounded to the end of the project lifetime, minus costs compounded similarly. Choice of criteria depends upon several factors: whether funding available for investment is a fixed amount or limited only by the economic worthiness of program opportunities; whether or not opporunities are mutually exclusive; the existence of interrelationships among opportunities; the extent to which program opportunities are limited or can be carried out at various scales; and the extent of agreement upon explicit interest rates for discounting or reinvestment. McKean recommended maximization of net present worth of whatever level of spending was adopted.£2- He noted that a selection of all projects with internal rates of return greater than a given discount rate would achieve maximum.net present worth if the investment budget were large enough to permit such a selection. If the budget were fixed, he suggested the proper procedure was to calculate net present for each opportunity at various discount rates, to find the £2Roland N. McKean, op, cit. mfiwtd present WC McKea investment :alculatio: then rankir benefit-cos projects wi projects wi! Agricul recomended silvicul turaj have noted st \ 24 “‘Many forest- intensity problem, 1' was sugges investment V01. 69, N 25.. . filmllarlh H. that net p: Potential 5 Value inde) ranking pro Macnlillan, imbert Mart ' guide for ex HOjects. [ 27 ‘See, fOr eXam: Decisions. ‘ 19 highest discount rate at which.all projects with positive net present worth.wou1d just exhaust the budget. McKean also remarked that proper ranking of alternative investment projects required a two—stage procedure: first, calculation of the Optimum level of investment in a given project, then ranking of alternative projects.2£- He opposed the use of benefit-cost ratios on the grounds that they tended to underrate projects with high future costs and returns as compared to projects with low future costs and returns;£§ Agriculture Handbook 304, widely used by the Forest Service, recommended use of internal rate of return for ranking silvicultural investment opportunities.2§- Various authorsaz have noted shortcomings of internal rate of return, principally: Zéfiany forestry investment opportunities can.be varied in intensity of treatment. A technique for handling this problem, in a fashion similar to that suggested by McKean, was suggested by Allen L. Lundgren. 1971. Ranking investment alternatives--a new look. Journal of Forestry, V01. 69, No. 9, pp. 568-573. EESimilarly, Harold Bierman, Jr., and Seymour Smidt suggested that net present worth was the best measure of profit potential and the benefit-cost ratio (called "present- value index by Bierman and Smidt) was unsuitable for ranking projects. See: The capital budgeting decision. Macmillan, New York, N.Y. 1971. EERObert Marty, Charles Rindt, and John Fedkiw. 1966. A guide for evaluating reforestation and stand improvement projects. U.S. Dept. Agric. Handbook 304. EZSee, for example, E. J. Mishan. 1971. Economics for Social Decisions. Praeger, New York, N.Y. --Possibi1 costs are inter initial investm returns than on «There is intermediate be. internal rate 0 --If alter of time period, from a ranking --If inter € 0; gross costs 20 --Possibility of multiple rates of return if periods of net costs are interspersed with periods of net returns, e.g., an initial investment is followed by one or more periods of net returns than one or more of net costs; --There is an implicit, but oft ignored, assumption that intermediate benefits from a project can be reinvested at the internal rate of return computed for the project; --If alternative projects differ in scale and in length of time period, ranking by internal rate of return may differ from a ranking by net present.worth; and --If internal rate of return.were calculated on the basis of gross costs and gross returns, the answer might be different than one calculated from net cash flows. Marty proposed use of composite internal rate of return as a solution to the first two problems mentioned above.2§- Teichrow, Robichek, and Montalbano suggested similar criterion for capital budgeting by private firms, but used a different algorithm for its calculation.22- In the present study, the principal objective is to compare cost-effectiveness of major program alternatives for affecting timber demand: supply balances. Thus, the primary criteria for comparison are anticipated supply or demand effects, in terms of timber harvest equivalents, per dollar of federal spending. 2§Robert Marty. 1970. The composite internal rate of return. Forest Service, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 276-279. £§Daniel Teichrow, Alexander A. Robichek, and Michael Montalbano. 1965. "Mathematical analysis of rates of return under certainty." Management Science. V01. 11, No. 3, pp. 395-403. Internal rate C cost-effective arograns. Res: of cost-effect: Fisk and Uncerf None of ti; would have a c: significantly 5 economic worth. PIEdictable var Measurable, .1 Silvicult; Causes, Such a; involve uncert; area of COMer; of a campground Another faCtor Yields must be empirical data. Yields Would be of marginal Eff The Problem is 21 Internal rate of return and benefitncost ratio are compared with cost-effectiveness ratios as ranking criteria for silvicultural programs. Research programs are evaluated entirely on the basis of cost-effectiveness. Risk and Uncertainty None of the program opportunities considered in this report would have a completely assured outcome. Yields may vary significantly from projections in both physical volume and economic worth. The problem involves both "risk"--quantifiable, predictable variation in possible outcomes-~and "uncertainty"—- unmeasurable, unpredictable variability in outcomesaég Silvicultural investments entail risks of loss to natural causes, such as fire, insects, drought, and storms. They also involve uncertainties as to future land management; e.g., an area of commercial forest land treated today may become a part of a campground or a proclaimed wilderness area tomorrow. Another factor of uncertainty is that estimates of treatment yields must be based heavily upon expert opinion rather than empirical data. It is especially difficult to estimate what yields would be in the absence of treatment. Therefore, calculations of marginal effects due to treatment may be quite erroneous. The problem is compounded by the practical necessity of aggregating highly variable treatment situations into a manageable set for analysis. Another element of uncertainty is the difficulty of identifying treatment opportunities correctly on the ground. 29Frank H. Knight. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Reprinted by Harper and Row, New York, N.Y. 1965. an even if 5 prices trends Researci large uncerte more elusive ina technica comercial s< Estimtes of application 1 possibility « obviate the . benefit-cost to large err asis analys Probabl is that note for making 9 Organiz less or does or other H of usir ”Any of the cmmentrate Knowledge ‘3: \ :1. ML, pp. ; 1965. r See als; Indllstr. 22 And even if everything else turned out as predicted, stumpage prices trends might be greatly different than assumed. Research projects by their very nature are subject to large uncertainties. Answers to technical problems may be more elusive than anticipated. Solutions which are feasible in a technical sense may not be economically feasible on a commercial scale or may be blocked by institutional problems. Estimates of rates of implementation and ultimate extent of application may be seriously in error. There is also the possibility of parallel or competing developments which may obviate the particular research project in question. Furthermore, benefit-cost analysis of forestry research programs is subject to large errors in estimation of forest products price trends, as is analysis of silvicultural opportunities. Probably the most common solution to problems of uncertainty is that noted by Knight, hiring people who have a reputation for making good guesses: Organized control of nature in a real sense depends less on the possibility of knowing nature than it does on the possibility of knowing the accuracy of other men's knowledge of nature, and their powers of using this knowledge:-— Many of the techniques used today for technology assessment concentrate on efficient methods of eliciting other men's knowledgecga Eld. ' pp. 285-286. 22See, for example, Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe. 1965. The rational manager, McGraw~Hill, New York, N.Y. See also Robert R. Dunford. 1974. Decisions, decisions. Industrial Research. July 1974. pp. 27-30. procedu: simple reduc lower discou: project is 51 that because increase in c' An opposing v toward govern even though t economic wort In analy Practice to r: account for a: core sophistic Simulating tre due to risks 0 Amt-her techni 33 ‘A COnCise SUI given in Jc‘ The treatme expenditng and JUliuS 34 \Clark Row, SOUthern pi tion. Tula apPrOach tr' described : decisions: 23 Procedures for treating risk and uncertainty range from simple reductions of project benefits to use of higher or lower discount rates depending upon the degree to which a project is subject to variable outcomes. It is commonly argued that because government undertakes so many investments, no increase in discount rate should be applied to risky projects. An opposing view is that such a procedure introduces a bias toward government and away from private investment opportunities, even though the latter may be equal in risk and superior in economic worthczz In analyses of silvicultural investments, it is common practice to reduce hypothetical yields by some percentage to account for anticipated losses to natural causes. Row proposed a more sophisticated procedure, using a stochastic model for simulating treatment effects and variation in rates of return due to risks of natural losses and wrong estimation of costs;22 Another technique is that of sensitivity analysis, examining «22A concise summary of various vieWpoints on this topic was given in Jack Hirshleifer and David L. Shapiro. 1970. The treatment of risk and uncertainty. In Public expenditure and policy analysis. Ed. by Robert H. Haveman and Julius Margolis. Markham Publishing Co., Chicago, 111., pp. 291-313. §£Clark Row. 1973. Probabilities of financial returns from southern pine timber growing. Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta- tion. Tulane University, New Orleans, La. A similar approach to investment decisions for private firms was described in Edgar A. Pessemier. 1966. New-product decisions: an anlystical approach. McGraw—Hill, New York, N.Y. he effects ' predicted ec The aPP cmural Yie to natural C over land ma is on com?” demand: sup? considered re outcomes can uncertainty a Institutional Perhaps is its potent goals which c Program budge Schultze--a n Criticisms of “the pr. actual decisi< “the efj a: . e an lnferic 0f n ' 24 the effects of changes in analytical assumptions upon predicted economic feasibilitycig The approach used in the present study is to reduce silvi- cultural yields explicitly to account for anticipated losses to natural causes. Deductions are not made for uncertainty over land management trends, etc. Since the major emphasis is on comparison of alternative policies for affecting timber demand: supply balances, uncertainties as to price trends are considered relatively unimportant. Uncertainties about research outcomes can only be discussed. No quantitative corrections for uncertainty are applied to anticipated research program effects. Institutional Problem Perhaps the least manageable problem in benefit—cost analysis is its potential incompatibility with political or bureaucratic goals which conflict with economic efficiency goals. Comparing program budgeting versus traditional budgetary procedure, Schultze--a proponent of the former--summarized the principal criticisms of PPB: --the problem-solving approach of PPB is not suited to the actual decision-making process; --the efficiency criteria of the problemrsolving approach are an inferior substitute for "...the more meaningful criteria of achieving consensus through adjustment of conflicting values."; and EEA computerized, investment analysis program for sensitivity analysis was described in Marcus J. Goforth and Thomas J. Mills. 1975. A financial return program for forestry investments including sensitivity of results to data errors. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Handbook 488. The abov' objectivl distingu Ano framemr decision makers t t0 prove outcome iIIStitut N01 25 --the analytical, quantitative approach.of PPB fails when applied to social and institutional problems.-23 The above criticisms of PPB are directed primarily toward the objectives and methods of efficiency maximization, the distinguishing features of benefit-cost analysis. Another widely recognized problem is that in establishing the framework for his study, the analyst often must make subjective judgements about program objectives and effects. Unless the terms of the analysis are made abundantly clear to, and accepted by the decisionmaker, the analyst may usurp the perogatives of the decisionmaker. Conversly, the analyst may be forced by decision- makers to introduce highly optimistic assumptions into his work to prove the worthiness of subject programs. Another likely outcome is that analyses casting doubt on projects which have institutional support may be buried in closed files and ignored. Despite these problems the demand for benefit-cost analysis is increasing, especially with respect to timber programs. Chapter I already has detailed the background of this trend. The rest of this study proceeds on the assumption that benefit- cost analysis is an aid in policy decisions--not a substitute for policymakers' judgement. EECharles L. Schultze. 1968. The politics and economics of public spending. The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C. The ill-.roveme purchaser Vandenbur from 1931 vnly for Service 3 to be do: Silv available under the III. NATIONAL FOREST SILVICULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES The principal source of funding for reforestation and stand improvement on the national forests has been money collected from purchasers of national forest timber. Authorized by the Knutson- Vandenburg (KhV) Act of 1930,32-these collections totaled $453,314,322 from 1931 through fiscal year 1974.-2g These funds may be used only for silvicultural treatments on timber sale areas. Forest Service policy has been to collect K-V funds primarily for work to be done within 3 years after timber harvestcza Silvicultural investments for which K—V funds are not available are financed annually through congressional appropriations, under the apprOpriation item, National Forest Protection and Management (P&M). P&M funds are spent largely for "backlog" reforestation and timber stand improvement. Backlog reforestation opportunities include areas denuded by natural causes, e.g., fires, without substantial timber salvage; old cutover areas not successfully reforested with whatever K—V funds may have been collected; and land which may have been nonstocked when added to national forest holdings. Backlog timber stand improvement includes opportunities for precommercial thinning or release of young stands from competition from unwanted vegetation. 2ZKnutson-‘Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930 (46 Stat. 527; 16 U.S.C. 576-576b) o §§U.S. Forest Service. 1974. Annual reforestation and timber stand improvement report—~fiscal year 1974. Letter from R. E. Worthington, Director of Timber Management, to Regional Foresters and Directors, Nov. 13, 1974. 32Collection and Use of Deposits for Sale Area Betterment, Forest Service Manual 2477, June 73, AMEND. 76. 26 Fiscal year Table 1.--Nationa1 Forest reforestation and stand improvement funding, 1960-1974 Appropriated funds (P&M) : Knutson-Vandenburg funds (KV) ------------------- Millions of dollars--------------------- 1960 : 2.6 : 11.8 1961 : 3.4 : 14.0 1962 : 10.3 : 12.5 1963 : 15.4 : 14.0 1964 15.7 : 16.1 1965 : 16.6 : 16.6 1966 : 17.2 : 17.8 1967 : 17.4 : 19.7 1968 : 15.6 : 21.1 1969 15.8 : 21.4 1970 : 16.0 25.1 1971 : 119.4 28.9 1972 : 330.8 30.6 1973 : 332.1 32.6 1974 : -83.3 : 37.2 Sources: Annual reforestation and timber stand improvement repots, Director of Timber Management, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., except as footnoted. lHearings on Department of Interior and Related Agencies. Appr0priations before the Senate Comm. on Appropriations, 93rd Cong., lst Sess., Pt. 3 at 2199 (1973). ZHearings on Dept. of the Interior and Related Agencies. Appropriations before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Appropriations, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Pt. 3 at 165 (1974). 33-Hearings on Dept. of the Interior and Related Agencies. ApprOpriations before the Senate Comm. on Appropriations, 94th Cong., lst Sess., Pt. 2 at 1202 (1974). vse f‘V inorovem Nut .wns ~: .‘~ .1 fl cw.“ S .2 w. .l . l .2 S e e l I l L 3 I 3. g u» .l 3 .1 I e O d .3. 9 D. .Q r C. a t O D. n/ C. J E 1..“ .3. To. M C T. .9. .1 8 W. W. .5. it o a I E 9 O a, .1 V; + . . . i Q; by: ‘ u . 1. r. e .3 r. .3 o. r. .I. 4..» n. 1 Q C I Am Q.U n D. Q» n m. m... .1 a .m. x. f m m. s m a m. t .. c ‘ s Y! a I .~ .‘ I § .1» a. a La. 3 S a I a. 0 .(u 3. O C S a. he a. . % huw\ 28 Use of P&M funding for reforestation and timber stand improvement rose from $2.6 million in 1960 to about $33 million in 1973 (Table l). Substantial increases in 1962 and 1963 appropriations probably were a sympathetic response to "A Development Program for the National Forest."£2- A much larger funding increase occurred in 1972, a time of national concern over lumber and plywood supplies. The point of interest for this study is that increasingly large appropriations for P&M reforestation and timber stand improvement are being made, with the principal objective being to increase timber supplies. Thus it is appropriate to examine the effectiveness of such funding in terms of likely timber supply impacts and in comparison with other kinds of opportunities for achieving similar inputs. Previous Reports of National Forest Backlog Opportunities The Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act of 1949 (16 U.S.C. 581; 581k) stated that national forest lands contained over 4 million acres of denuded and unsatisfactorily stocked timberlands and authorized a schedule of increasing appropriations, rising to $10 million for FY 1955. Congress did not appropriate the levels authorized, however. A 1952 survey indicated a total of 4,567,000 acres of "plantable area" on national forests. Plantable area was defined as: EQU.S. Forest Service. 1961. A development program for the national forests (hereinafter cited as 196erevelopment Program). Transmitted to Congress by John F. Kennedy, Sept. 21, 1961. Nonstoc land or establi practic within Economic des This a: aspects feasib The 196 acres of nor 3.8 million 13 years. "i o ..: - l~ 31.111011 a l'Jn’e‘rrange t ‘ ‘ o dcuble the 9 reported as Prior 1 at ‘ lOnal f0} TI: ese report cat - \4 W'nErship g: 29 Nonstocked or poorly stocked forest land or nonforest land on which, judged by 1952 conditons: (l) the establishment of forest tree cover is desirable and practical, and (2) regeneration will not occur naturally within a reasonable time. Economic desirability of treatment was not considered: This analysis does not attempt to incorporate business aspects, nor does it suggest that it .I economically feasible to plant all plantable area;—- The 1961 Development Program reported a total of 4.4 million acres of nonstocked and poorly stocked plantable areas, of which 3.8 million acres were recommended for treatment in the next 10 years. The Program also proposed other cultural treatment of 10 million acres of sapling and pole timber sized stands. The long-range timber goal was to increase annual sawtimber harvest to 21.1 billion board feet by the year 2000—-a level more than double the 9.6 billion board foot annual allowable cut reported as of January 1, 1961. Prior to 1966, the principal source of information on national forest treatment opportunities was Forest Survey reports. These reports included estimates of forest acreage by stand—size categories (sawtimber, poletimber, seedling and sapling, and nonstocked) for each timber type, site productivity class, ownership group, and county, state, or region. This information . . . . 2 still is prov1ded in current Forest Survey reports,é—-but for 4 . . . -lU.S. Forest SerVice. 1958. Timber resources for America's future. Forest Resource Report 14. pp. 276-286. 42 . . . -—6ee, for example, U.S. Forest SerVice. 1972. Forest Statistics for the United States, by State and Region, 1970. U.S. Dept. Agric. unnumbered publication. programing 1966. ” re 1 The initial potential j program-9- district Ia ‘nvestITle-"t was 0f no C A cos; intensifica of return a regimes of Spending fC mm mainter timber type findings of 'Iénagement 42 percent hla sustai than that < economic dc but acreage were rePOIN' ti fiber thg ‘jhbert J 1ntensi 30 programming purposes, estimates of treatment opportunities, after 1966, were based on the Forest Service Project Work Inventory (PWI). The initial PWI estimates were made, in 1966, on the basis of potential job opportunities in the event of massive public works programs. Each of the Forest Service's several hundred district rangers was asked to estimate the extent of various investment opportunities on his district. Economic feasibility was of no concern. A comprehensive study of national forest timber management intensification opportunities was concluded in 1967;32 Rates of return and timber yield additions were calculated for general regimes of management intensification, including increased spending for reforestation and stand improvement, road construction and maintenance, and timber sales administration. Each major timber type and geographic region was investigated. Major findings of the study were that investments in intensified management would yield 4 percent or larger rate of return on 42 percent of national forest timberland and, thus, would result in a sustainable annual harvest 2.2 billion cubic feet greater than that otherwise obtainable. Estimates were not made of economic desirability of single treatments, e.g., forestation, but acreages of reforestation and stand improvement Opportunities were reported, from the 1966 Project Work Inventory, for each timber type and region. Reforestation opportunities were estimated at 4,961,000 acres and release and thinning opportunities fl--3--Robert J. Marty. 1967. Opportunities for timber management intensification on the national forests. Unpublished review draft. Forest SerVice. U.S. Dept. Agric. at 9:267 was [EEK higher 1 by the I resultec Refores Ralease Thinnin Lufiber nationa by 1973 wOuld b 31 at 9,264,000. About 8.7 million acres of these treatment opportunities was reported for timber types and sites where a 4 percent or higher rate of return to management intensification was anticipated. The Project Work Inventory was updated in 1968, then adjusted by the Division of Timber Management. The following estimates resulted: . . . 44 Backlog National Forest Opportunities, 1968—— by Rate of Return to Timber Management Intensification 6 percent Treatment Class 0-6 percent and higher All ------------- Millions of acres----—---—------- Reforestation 2.5 2.3 4.8 Release 2.1 2.2 4.3 Thinning 7.4 1.7 9.1 12.0 6.2 18.2 In 1969, a working group of the Cabinet Task Force on Softwood Lumber reported that intensified management could increase national forest timber harvest by 7 billion board feet annually by 1978.22- It was estimated that the following backlog treatment would be necessary: reforestation, 3.4 million acres; release, 3.4 million acres; and precommercial thinning, 2.5 million acres. fléMemorandum from R. G. Florance, Acting Deputy Chief, to Chief of the Forest Service. 1310 Planning. Dec. 2, 1970. Rate of return classes refer to estimated return to general regimes of management intensification as reported by Marty. (See footnote 43.) 45 . . . . . . -U.S. Forest SerVice. 1969. POSSlbllltleS for meeting future demands for softwood timber in the United States. Unpublished report prepared for Working Group of the Cabinet Task Force on Lumber, revised Sept. 29, 1969. In 197E review of m the problem: existing prc and establi: 46 thereto.- of comprehe tonities re by regional and prepara Standsfl detailed st OPPOrtuniti than the ki budget incl as comPared In Se; ForeSt Re fc authOriZed IEfOI‘es tat- be aVailab: o 32 In 1970, the Chief of the Forest Service ordered an internal review of national forest timber management policies. One of the problems mentioned in the review report was inadequacy of existing procedures for identifying reforestation opportunities and establishing a priority system for allocating funding thereto.2é- A subsequent report, in 1972, recommended development of comprehensive systems for inventorying reforestation oppor- tunities regularly, issuance of standard instructions for use by regional staff in economic analysis and priority setting, and preparation of growth tables for projecting yield of managed stands.£z- Both reports stressed the importance of "inplace, detailed stand information," i.e., information on treatment opportunities based on field mapping and examination rather than the kind of data derived from forest survey plots. The FY 1973 budget included $2.3 million for silvicultural examinations-- as compared to $430,000 the previous year. In September 1972, Congress passed a Supplemental National Forest Reforestation Fund Act (P.L. 92-421, 86 Stat. 678) which authorized appropriations of up to $65 million per year for reforestation. Any moneys appropriated under the Act were to be available until expended, rather than limited to the year in which appropriated. This provision would have allowed greater flexibility in program planning and management than had been possible previously, but no funds were appropriated under 46 . -—U.S. Forest Service. 1971. National forests in a quality environment. U.S. Dept. Agric. unnumbered publication. 4 . . . . i—ZU.S. Forest SerVice. 1972. National forests in a quality environment--action plan. U.S. Dept. Agric. unnumbered publication. tothe pursuan Panel i Cf alts F1 nfimnF—J 33 this Act subsequently. The most important result was an increased effort by the Forest Service to develop information on backlog treatment opportunities and a related program plan in response to the Act's requirement for an annual report. The first report pursuant to this Act was made in 1974. A President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment was appointed in September 1971, to "...advise the President on matters associated with increasing the Nation's supply of timber to meet growing housing needs...."£§- Among other things, the Panel was to make recommendations regarding costs and benefits of alternative forest management programs. Its 1973 report included recommendations: 9. The Forest Service carry out an accelerated program of timber growing, stressing immediate regeneration, on national forests.... 10. The Federal Government maintain incentive programs to encourage private landowners to follow forest management programs...to increase future timber supplies.... w 17. A better method of more adequate and timely finance of forest management programs on all Federal lands is essential. Such a method must recognize the long-term nature of forestry and be based upon sound eczBomic concepts of intensive forest management; ...c- The Panel's report included an analysis by Marty of the economic effectiveness of general management intensification for major timber types in the United States.§2- 2§Press release by the Office of the White House, Press Secretary, Sept. 2, 1971, San Clemente, Calif. 22Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment. April 1973. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Egid. pp. 141-147. Durin the Forest uprovemen essentiallj Service: data, and l The fc Draft Envn apply alte for fiscal national fo acres of ba Stand impro‘ annual alloy U4" 109 ml The Present \ A major Opportunitie Work Invento access ib l e o; N ‘Comptro 1 1e: .- meet tlm 32 \U.S. Pores future—-11. 53 unnmbere \Id' PP. VI ~z 34 During 1973, the General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated the Forest Service's management of reforestation and timber stand improvement programs. GAO's reportéi-on the subject recommended essentially the same actions as those desired by the Forest Service: increased funding, development of "inplace" inventory data, and work on methods of establishing funding priorities. The following year, Forest Service planners circulated a Draft Environmental Program for the Future--A Long Term Forestry Planyéz- The Draft Program posed "low," "moderate," and "high" supply alternatives for programming various forestry activities for fiscal years 1975-79. The high supply alternative for national forest timber management would have included 1.5 million acres of backlog reforestation and 3.0 million acres of timber stand improvement.§2- These measures were expected to increase annual allowable cut by 3.8 billion board feet (International 1/4" log rule) by 1984. The Present Study A major problem in analyses of national forest treatment opportunities has been that neither Forest Survey nor Project Wbrk Inventory reports indicated which opportunities were currently accessible or soon to be. Another difficulty has been that some éiComptroller General of the United States. 1974. More intensive reforestation and lumber stand improvement programs could help meet timber demand. Feb. 14, 1974, report to Congress. 5 . . -2-U.S. Forest SerVice. 1974. EnVironmental program for the future-~A long term forestry plant (draft). U.S. Dept. Agric. unnumbered publication for public review. -5-3—Id. pp. v1-12, 13. acreages 1i been quite Zhe present considered maximum fee analysis ar -- Com; «Com; le 35 acreages listed as opportunities in the inventory may have been quite unlikely to respond satisfactorily to treatment. The present study is designed to evaluate those backlog acreages considered accessible and treatable at reasonable cost and the maximum feasible S-year investment program. Major steps in the analysis are: --Compilation of acreage estimates by administrative region, forest type group, and site productivity class; --Estimation of anticipated growth and harvest impacts on a per-acre basis for the various treatment costs and stumpage values; --Ranking Of opportunities by several criteria; and --Compilation Of estimated costs and effects for several levels Of total investment allocated as considered most desirable by staffmen in the Forest Service Division Of Timber Management. Extent Of Treatment Opportunities A summary Of estimated treatment acreages is shown in Table 2. Areas considered to be accessible for treatment in the next 5 years, without need of appropriated funding for road construction, total 2,177,000 acres of reforestation opportunities, 1,076,000 acres Of release opportunities, and 1,259,000 acres Of precommercial thinning Opportunities. Total acreages Of precommercial thinning and release Opportunities are estimated to be the same as indicated by previous estimates of the Division of Timber Management, but reforestation Opportunities appear substantially smaller in extent than expected in all regions other than the Rocky Mountains. CFLwUUCLLCIW TC“ GFrAvUCGrtrxfl u Privrxrt ( 1rd. ‘ I \ o N o o mouSEHumo moor/mum . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . . uCOEOOoCmZ MOSES. mo 20amfl>aaum0um=iumm kosum ucommudu Mucoflmmm "mmmwo unmfiummha EUAJHZSJHQL_._3 U...C:.r.:o3.u-a NuCHXUfiQ J IEMCM HSZOfldUZIloN GHQHQE 36 .muouco>cH xHOB poomoum mwma Eoum omummom mouosflummm .GOHuOSHumGOO Odom How mcflocsw ooumaumonmmm mo oooc usonufls mHmm> m uxos mop ca umoo OHQMCOmmmH um oonomou on OHOOO soars momma mm oocflmoo Ohms mommmuom oHnHmmooodm .m coflmom .suuoz «m coamom .susom no pom m mGOHmom ~ummou camaomm «o .m .N .H mdowmmm smsflmuasoz mxoom "msoaaom mm meflmoH o>Humnuchfleom amouom HchHumz condone maOHmOH Oflnmmumoowl a mom.m u mom.m " mm~.v " Hmuos . wmm " mmm ” me . aunoz. sem.a . sem.a " was ” renown moo.a . mao.a " mac " ummoo onmnommu masseuse Hmm.o “ Hmm.o " ome.m "mcnmueaoz sxoom“ Hanonmeeoomna mmm.~ . mmm.m “ omm.a " Hence " Hmm " Hmm . oom " annoz” ems “ ems " mos " eusomu nos . how ” ppm u ammoo cannons“ sam.a " qsm.a “ oom "maflmuasoz memos" mmmmflmm mma.a “ mmm.m . has.m " Hence . can “ wow “ mmm " eunoz" smm.a . Hmm " mam " encom. osm.a “ mam " mms . unmoo cannons" moH.H " mmo.a " mam "meannesoz sxoom. coflumummnommm I IIIIIIIII monom mo monomsone I: I" u OHQHmmmUUMGH UGO mflflmmmoom u HMfiOB u MmHoflummmovd u u . .moumsflumo mSOH>OHm uIlulllllllllllunlllunllu u ucmEommcmz houses mo cOHmH>HoumoumEHumo amoum Hammond” .lcOHmom ”mmMHO ucofiumoua u u H u mowuflsduhommo ucosumouu moaxomn ummHOw HocOHumZII.N magma some pr! such as but now conclus to be 9 by fore IEgion, TIE atme K 37 Main reasons for the reduced estimates are occurrence Of natural stocking since 1968, and more careful appraisal of areas with marginal levels of stocking. Another important factor is that some previously listed areas have become stocked with species, such as aspen and red alder, formerly considered noncommercial but now marketable. The 1972 estimates are not considered conclusive by the Division Of Timber Management, but are assumed to be gOOd enough for use in planning a 5-year program. Estimated acreages Of backlog reforestation Opportunities, by forest type group, site productivity class, administrative region, and geographic region, are shown in Appendix B. Treatment Yields Yields are estimated for each of 18 basic treatment situations (Table 3),§2-for several site productivity classes. Site productivity is defined as inherent capacity Of the land to grow crOps Of industrial wood, based on fully stocked natural stands and expressed in terms Of cubic feet per acre average annual growth. It refers only to main-stem growth, between a stump 1 foot high and a top 4.0 inches in diameter inside bark. Classes used are: 20-50, 50-85, 85-120, and 120+ cubic feet per acre per year. 54 . . . . -—Yie1d estimates for most treatment Situations were prepared by a team under the direction Of the author. Members were Charles A. Wellner, Clarence Brown, and David Tackle. Estimates for the red pine-eastern white pine type group are adapted from Robert J. Marty, 1967 (see footnote 43). Estimates for the loblolly pine-shortleaf pine type group were provided by R. N. Stone. :Ofiumzuflm NO OQXU ummHOK " Eamon uCOHHSU UCOEO 30144“. O Hmunwmwll o m» QHQQH. UCOEumOMu OOUMOHUCH COHUQUEUHOkOH WOHXUEQ .HCH WCOflUdldfiE UCSEDerHflmS—fi 5:383 Maggie—flu 3:6 38 Am do a mommy msflcdflru HMHOHOEEOOOHmu mdflccflsu HMHOMOEEOOOHm. msflccHSp HmHOHoEEooonu mGHHQMHm mom cowumnmmoum madm“ msflucmHm mam coflumummmnm muamu mcflucmam " ouoamsoo ocm coflumummonm ouflm" mcfluomHm " ouoameoo odd doaumummoum ouflmn xfie moflommm o>OHmEH on u mcflpcmHm Hmfluumm HO coaumumoomoh " Housumo ocm aoflumummoum ouflmn mafipdem " OUOHQEOO pom coflpmummonm ouflmu ucosumonu ooumoaqu mocmum mcflammm ooxooumuo>o moamum Honsflu oaom ooxooumum>o wooden msflammm omxooumno>o ooxooumdoz mooozoums Hoauomcfl mam gmsum ooxooumcoz moxooumdoz >Houomwmfiumm condom ooom newcomom .ooxOOUmcoz muouommmflummss ooHsOm ooom usmOMnom ~ooxooumooz ocmum ucmuuou mum Ga Hauloosumm can mlm can mlm CH Haulmmamsoo mum :H Hewloosumm ammoxo pom .oum can mum an unmnmmamsoo smooxo .mommp shoumo3 Ham mum Ga Hauloosumm umooxo cam .mum com mum SH Haulmmamsoa umooxm .mommu snowmos Had ocflm moans smoumMOIoon com mafia mmoauuosmlmaaoanoq ocflm rmmHmlmmoaosoq mum ca Hauloosumm one .oum can mum an unmummamsoo oOHDOm oomm auouomm Imflumm nuflz Hum CH momma Ham mum Ga sawloosumm umooxo mom .0 w m mcofloom Ga Hflmnmmamsoo pmooxo .momwu cuoumos Had soflumsufim HO Oman phenom ucoEm>OHmsfl ocmum Honsflp mam coaumumonomon moaxomn How meflumsuflm ucmfiumouu owmmmll.m wands COflumzuflm HO Omxu ummHOh uCOHHSU UCOEuoOHu GODOUHOCH A.O.u:00v m means 39 Am no N wmaav among HO mooozoums mcacoomoo xn mmmoammu smash HO mooozoums mcflcmommo mo ommoaomu swans HO mooosoums mascoommo an mmmoaomu swans moasoomoo an ommoaom" wuoumuo>o “ comma mo Hm>OEmH an ommoamm“ huoumuo>o “ dommm mo Hm>oson wn ommmaomu 9352?? HmHOHofieOOOHmu mdwsoflnu HmwommsEoooumu mswdcflsu HMHOHOEEOOOHmu pcofiumonu OOOMOfiocH " gonna HO mooozonms “ mcfluomSOo spas mocmum OQHHQMm" nmsun MO mooososms " osfluomsoo rues mocmum mCHHQMm" among HO moooaoums " mcfluomsoo Spas mosmum mafiammmu coflpauomsou “ snows spas mosmum mcflammm" muoum " luo>o cmmmm Sofia Hogan» Odom" whoum " |Ho>o ommmm spas Moose» Odom" ooxOOpmHo>ou ooxooumuo>on ooxooumno>on ocopm ucounso ocflm muflnz GhoumMOIoch omm memo mamaunoemusafloanoq ocflm Smmamlmmoamcoq mlm Ga HHMIOOSHQm UGO wlm ocm mum as mosmum haulmmamsoo Hewloosnmm mafia mmonooaom mom ocfim Odomomooq ocflm ouH£3 snoumMOIoaHm pom ocflm mmoauuonmlmaaoanoq wcwm smmHm womamsoq composuflm HO mama umouom A.o.ucoov m OHQMB In all and of yiel basis of CC or all of t planting, 1: and final 1' feet of nei and softwoc treatment 1 Resul‘ lower than \— Treatmen --------- thinning SQVe: p n; \Robe rt 40 In all cases, estimates are made of yields with treatment and Of yields without treatments. Yields are estimated on the basis Of complete regimes of management which might include any or all Of the following: site preparation, natural regeneration, planting, precommerical thinning, release, commercial thinning, and final harvest. Initial estimates are made in terms Of cubic feet Of net growth. Estimates are made separately for hardwood and softwood growth, since in some cases the primary intent of treatment would be to replace hardwood growth with softwood. Resulting estimates Of treatment response are generally lower than those used by Marty,§2-as illustrated below: Treatment : Forest type group :Site . Increase in mean annual :class:increment due to treatment : : :Reported by : Reported in : : : Marty : this study : : : Cu. ft. per acre per yr. Reforestation:Douglas-fir : l : 235 : 99 : : 2 : 164 : 62 :Longleaf-slash pine : l : 137 : 95 : : 2 : 112 : 78 Precommerical:Douglas—fir : l : 118 : 51 thinning : : 2 : 91 : 43 :Longleaf—slash pine : l : 34 : 26 : : 2 31 : 25 Several factors may explain the differences shown above. One is that the estimates for this study assume that the higher productivity sites ultimately would restock significantly, even EéRobert J. Marty. 1967. 92, cit. without a failure I The latte treatment Marty's e in the pr there is the respc earlier, 0f severe The for natic inventor? exists 0, lead to i (ACE) ca grOWth i \ Lg ago years. 0f nat as to framew eanrc and th forest an c Teegaz Jour. Rober,c Out Of 41 without artificial reforestation. Secondly, it is assumed that failure rates on the lower productivity sites would be large. The latter factor is considered especially important on backlog treatment areas as compared to the on-going, KV reforestation areas. Marty's estimates were for entire timber type acreages while those in the present study were specifically for backlog acres. Finally, there is a major deficiency in the availability of sound data on the responses Of many timber types to treatments. As mentioned earlier, there simply is not truly reliable data on the performance Of severely understocked or overstocked natural stands. Allowable Cut Effects The Forest Service typically establishes allowable cut limits for national forest units on the basis Of volume growth and inventory. When a substantial inventory Of overmature timber exists on a unit, investments which increase growth theoretically lead to an increase in allowable cut. This allowable cut effect (ACE) can occur as soon as the Service recognizes the increased growth in its inventory accounting systempéé EEA vigorous debate over ACE has been carried on for several years. Opponents of its use argue that the basic philosophy Of national forest harvest regulation policy is so illogical as to preclude ratiohal economic analysis within that policy framework. Proponents aver that the Forest Service does indeed enforce its harvest regulation policies, however indefensible, and therefore ACE exists and cash revenues from national forests will_be higher if funds are allocated on that premise than otherwise. The debate was summarized by Dennis E. Teegarden. 1973. The allowable cut effect: a comment. Jour. Forestry 71:224-226, and Dennis L. Schweitzer, Robert W. Sassaman, and Con H. Schallau. 1973. The allowable cut effect: a reply. Jour. Forestry 71:227. increm intern (I) (T h (5 I for me estinz Perioc Both 5 42 For the present study, estimates have been Obtained, from the Division Of Timber Management, Of the allowable cut effect anticipated 10 years after treatment and 30 years after treatment. Separate estimates are made for each forest type group and region. (See Appendix C.) For most western situations, the ACE is assumed to equal the increase in mean annual increment Of treated stands, in both tenth and thirtieth years. In some western cases and all eastern cases, inventories Of overmature timber are considered too low for full ACE to be taken in the tenth year. For many eastern situations, the expected thirtieth year ACE is projected to be only half or less Of the increase in mean annual increment, because Of the small proportion Of mature inventory. Allowable cut effects are not considered in calculation Of internal rates of return. Stumpage Prices Estimated stumpage prices are based on reported bid rates for national forest timber sales in 1971. Table 4 presents estimated values for 1971 and averages assumed for the investment period. The latter exclude increases due to general inflation. Both sets include KV receipts, but exclude credits for road construction and slash disposal. Commercial thinnings are valued at 75 percent Of the final harvest stumpage rates. For eastern situations, current pulpwood prices are assumed to be $0.08 per cubic foot for softwoods and $0.04 for hardwoods. NO values are assigned to pulpwood-sized trees in the West. Future prices Of softwood pulpwood are projected at $0.17 per cubic foot for softwoods and $0.10 per cubic foot for hardwoods. SGHUMXTH 7:1 FFJMIQH 3>1.~1.1.uuundefii. NS 3.0075,.“ Cat....m._.5.um HCS.:flu3..lel.V ONQQE unleaded HflfiEflJ Diaspora HECQfiUGC MCN 43 in no H omens mo u cm H II H II H II “ II H II H II " msflm Opens GHOMmMOIosHm pom mm H mm u II H II " II H II H II " II n osflm duonusom II " II " II H II H II " II " II " hm " muomacoo ooxflz II " II « om " mm u II H II " II u do " osflm ouH£3 snoummzlsoumq II H II H pm " om . am.mau am.ma " ma " om.am " mosnomInnm II H II N NH " ma " NH u II n ma u om.om u OGHQ OHOQmmUOA II n II n no u 0v u mm u mm u om.NN u hm " OCHQ Mmoumflcom II n II n no u 0v " mm " mm " om.mm " mm H HHMImMHmDOQ MmmOHmm mmosom mm u om " II H II " II " II “ II " II n mafia moans GHOHmMOIoch pom ma " mm H II " II " II " II n II n II “ ocflm cumzusom II " II " II H II « II n II H II n ma " mHoMflsoo omxflz II H II " oa “ ma u II " II H II « Hm “ mafia muH£3 snowmo3I£Oqu II " II u as u as " om.o " om.e " m “ om.m " mosnomInHm II " II n m u m u m " II n m u om.m " moan oaomomooq II H II " va “ om " NH u om « om.m “ ha u osflm omonoocom II n II " hm " ON u m u w u om.N u NH u HAMImmHmDOQ Mega mam» maozmqao IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIum on 2 Mom whoaHOQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu m u N. u 0 u m n V n M u N u H u GOflmom “ moaoomm ill) moaoomm ocm cosmos m>flumnpmflcflsoolwo .moamm gonad» ummHOm HMCOHumc How mmOflHm,ommm95um HonEHMBMmII.v magma '— AI?.UCODV V Qfiflflfi 44 Am mo m mamas .mOOHHm ommmEdum Ga omuooamon on on oosdmmo mH ommouosfl HOQEDH mo ucoonom om .ocfim oaomomooH How .mOOHHm HOQEOH CH ommouocfl mo ucoouom we showed on ooEdmmm who mafia oaomomooa umooxo mmfloomm Ham How woman mOflHm mommEdum .mooaum HOQEDH ca mmmonocfl pcoonom 0m :0 oommmm .Hoosflu £u3OHmIocooom How mmon> oooooou mo coauoEOmmm do momma mums oouuomou mo ucoouom mm on voodoou mum 0 com m mcoflomm ca ocfim mmonoocom can HAMImmamsoo How mmOflum pomp umooxo .ucosommcmz HOQEHB mo :OHmH>HQ o0fl>uom umouom ocu he oouhomou mm mOOHHm Huma How» Housmamuw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII um on 2 sum mumHHOQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII " mofiommm A.©.u:oov v canoe Sour 45 Table 5.--Direct costs Of national forest reforestation and stand improvement, .wwuuuall~8peciesaaverages Administrative: - Practice region : --------------------------------------------- :Reforestation: Release : Precommercial : : : thinning """"""" iI:I:I:::{3;II;;;';;;';;;222221222222: 1 : 44 : 16 : 29 2 : 72 : 21 : 36 3 : 63 : 19 : l3 4 : 69 2 27 : l3 5 : 67 : 14 : 29 6 : 64 : 35 : 13 8 : 58 : 21 : 16 9 : 48 : 19 : 19 Source: U.S. Forest Service, Division Of Timber Management, estimates for fiscal year 1972. Estima‘ materials: and of "oth activity bu are estimat the basis c Table firect c051 Typically , Ranki --Int --Ben r-Inc ‘-Inc Examples ( are Shown Hypo. are 00mm levels of Of Sawtim 1n SOfth sI\ \nother N Frog: eXPe: Wild] SPEcj Emerc 46 Treatment Costs Estimates are made Of "direct" costs—-those incurred for materials, labor, transportation, and immediate field supervision-- and Of "other" costs—-those not incurred directly in the treatment activity but charged to silvicultural program accounts.§Z- Costs are estimated for each national forest administrative region, on the basis Of fiscal year 1972 experience. Table 5 shows regional average figures for all species combined, direct costs only. More detailed estimates are shown in Appendix B. Typically, "other" costs are nearly as large as direct charges. Estimated Program Effects Rankings are made for each Of four criteria: --Internal rate of return (based on direct treatment costs). --Benefit-cost ratio (using 5 pct discount rate). --Increase in sawtimber mean-annual-increment. --Increase in allowable cut 10 years after treatment. Examples Of calculated criteria for several treatment Opportunities are shown in Table 6. Hypothetical investment schedules by region and treatment are compiled and estimates made of program effects, at several levels Of funding, in terms of increases in mean annual increment Of sawtimber and allowable cut. Figure 1 shows expected increases in softwood sawtimber mean annual increment, for various levels IEZMOther" costs include general supervision, planning, and programming expenses at all organization levels, part Of the expense of support services such as soil scientists and wildlife biologists, and a share of the expense Of work not specifically covered by an appropritation account, e.g., emergency rescues and public hearings. IvIU\m " MmmH u INIHiU< " ...H.<.Z “ Ouflm u QSOMO OATS umomom n :OwumhumflCflmex . uCOEuOOHB SOHUHZJJHCHJ‘LO USOEU>3Hifizfl Ufldum 1:1 :OfludumOHOMOH UGOMSH dezccquhz "JOUDOHOT I40.» OHMUUHHU mCfiQFZoH @0UGH30HEUII.O OHQQH. 47 .mumoo uoouflo do .ussoomflo unmouom m um .Oflumn umOOIUHmocmml a .mfimoo #UOHHC GO GHHHflwH MO Tub“. HMEOfiGHImI .umoo Hmuou mo HMHHOO Mom How» suoa ca uoommo poo oanBOaadm .umoo Hmuou mo HMHHOo Mom ommouocw uquOHOcHIHmS:GMIcmozm m.m . m.HH . a. . o.AH u m u u . m.m u n.ma " m. ” H.0H u H "scam smmHmImmoamsOH" m “ H.m " n.n " o. u m.m " m u u u mcHseHsu m.m " n.0a u n. " N.m " H u HHMImMHmsOQH o " HMHOHOEEOOOHA H.N . N.OH . m. . H.HH . m u u . m.m . m.HH . m. . s.~H . H .maHm ammHmImmmHmaoH. m . m.m . «.mH . o.H . m.h . m u u . H.m . m.oH . o.m . m.m . H . HHuImMHmsoo. m " ammonm s.H " n.m . H. . H.s . m u u . m.H . m.p . H. . a.w . H .meHo ammHqummHmcoa. m u m. . a.s . m. . o.m . m u u . o.H . o.m . m.o . o.m . H . “HMImmHmsoo. o . aoHumummnommm . you n m\uo so . w\um om . u u . OHumu u " «Incommo » u u sOHGOH « «O\m ".mmmH . mama . H.H.a.z " muHm . ozonm was» smooch . aoHumHumHeHeoa . unmeummne mowuflcounommo unoEo>0umEH oqmum Odo coauopmonowou amouom HMCOHuo: oouooaom How mfluouwuo mdflxcmu owumHsOHMUII.o magma A600 *— _ w M. \k INIHIK QNK V‘Qm /,200 — IKQ 000 e / .W>\Q\ Q I\\\<\ 800 >- k >\IV\A\IND\IU>\\ h I I l, h 0 0 O 0 0 0 6 4. 2 VN\V\<\\VMW\A\ \.\\ IV.W‘IN~..\.V>\\ /NCREASE /N MEAN ANNUAL /NC/?EMEN7' (M/LL/ONS OF BOARD FEE 7'} 48 4600 1,400 4200 /, 000 800 600 400 200 — 050 /00 l I | /50 200 250 300 350 FUNDING (M/LL/ON DOLLARS} Figure 1. Expected softwood sawtimber growth effects with alternative allocation criteria—-national forests. \kIwIVIK kaQU bxmw ,m;\OH muomwmo Hammond uucmEummHu xn coausoanumao mcflocdmucOHusoHHumwo msfiocsm Hmcoamomu masocdm coamflbflo ucosommqmz HOQEHB MO mmmum an poocoesooou ucosoboumsfl ocmum Odd coflumumouomou mOonmn amouom HmsOHum: mo oasoonomII.h magma 51 Of funding, with different allocation criteria used for scheduling treatments. It indicates little difference in effect between a schedule maximizing sawtimber growth and one based on internal rate Of return. Because high-growth-effect Opportunities in the East would have little immediate impact on allowable cut, funding allocation based entirely on allowable cut would yield less sawtimber growth than allocation based on internal rate Of return or allowable cut effects. Figure 2 compares alternative ranking criteria in terms Of 10th-year allowable cut effects. The Division Of Timber Management recommended an investment schedule (Table 7) which would allocate a much higher proportion Of funds to reforestation and less tO release or thinning, than would be suggested by any of the allocation criteria examined here. One reason is concern over fire hazard associated with precommercial thinning slash. Another is an ethical preference for re-establishing stands on nonstocked commercial forest land as compared to treatment Of overstocked stands. A further factor is a concern that a drastic change from current programming-- heavily weighted toward reforestation--would cause administrative inefficiencies associated with closing tree nurseries, moving personnel, etc. At a $300 million funding level, the program recommended by the Division should result in increases Of about 1.3 billion board feet Of softwood nontimber growth and 0.7 billion board feet Of annual allowable out (within 10 years after completion Of the program). IV. REFORESTATION AND STAND IMPROVEMENT ON NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE OWNERSHIPS Nonindustrial private forest ownerships, including farm and all other private holdings except forest industry, are the largest Opportunity for intensification Of forest management-- both in terms Of total acreage and potential for improvement. In 1970, these ownerships held 59 percent Of all commercial forest acreage in the United States and 64 percent of all nonstocked acreage.§§- In the East, where 91 percent of all nonindustrial private forest acreage was located, they included over 14 million acres Of nonstocked commercial forest; and the Forest Service estimated that these ownerships, in the East, were realizing lower proportions Of inherent timber growth potential than were forest industry or public holdings. Many authors have discussed the promise and problems Of programs to encourage nonindustrial private owners to invest in reforestation and stand improvement. Most have concentrated on surveys of landowner attitudes towards forestry and forestry programs; few have evaluated the effectiveness Of past public investment in private forestry. Problems typically cited are small average size of tract, lack Of technical knowledge, ignorance Of stumpage markets, and short planning horizons. Existing Programs Programs have been designed to encourage landowners to pOOl their tracts under management by forestry consultants; 220.3. Forest Service. 1973. The outlook for timber in the United States. Forest Resource Report NO. 20. 52 53 cooperative state and federal programs provide technical advice; reports Of stumpage prices and log prices are published in some states; and federal support Of state nurseries allows landowners tO buy seedlings at reduced cost. Subsidies to nonindustrial private landowners for reforestation and stand improvement were authorized by the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act Of 1934 and administered through the Agricultural Conservation Program, now titled the Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP). The Forestry Incentives Program, authorized by the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act Of 1973 (87 Stat. 245; 16 U.S.C. 590h.), would continue these subsidies 2?- Experience in the Agricultural Conservation Program Cost sharing is frequently considered to be the method Of public subsidy most likely to attract landowners to forestry programs. While the Forest Service presumably could have subsidized private landowners through Title IV Of the Agricultural Act Of 1956, nearly all cost sharing for forestry purposes, through 1972, was conducted by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Direct payments to farmers and ranchers engaging in afforestation were made through the Agricultural Conservation Program administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. In 1968, rates Of cost sharing were supposed to vary between 50 and 80 percent Of average planting EEA comprehensive listing Of Forestry Assistance Programs current in 1972 is given in U.S. Forest Service, 1972, Forestry Assistance Programs in Cooperation with State Forestry Agencies. Unnumbered publication issued November 1972. 54 costs.§2- Average planting cost within a state or subdivision thereof is established by the state ASC Committee. The average cost share rate for planting in the U.S. was $17.34 per acre in 1968. It ranged from a low of $6.50 per acre in Texas to a high Of $131.45 per acre in North Dakota. Federal regulations prohibited, in most instances, cost- share payment Of more than $2,500 per year to an individual farmer or rancher. Up to $10,000 could be paid for practices carried out under pooling agreements. These limits applied to total payments for all ACP practices. In actuality, payments for all practices averaged between $185 and $228 per assisted farm in the individual years 1960-68. In 1968, only 1.4 percent of all ACP cost-share funds went for practice A-7, Trees or Shrubs for Forestry Purposes. Cost shares Of $2.6 million were granted that year for planting of 148,000 acres on 20,000 farms.§£ The average planting supported by ACP was about 7-1/2 acres. Additionally, in 1968, 15,282 acres were planted tO prevent erosion. Total cost sharing for this practice was $834,266 and averaged $54.59 per acre. About 12,000 farms were involved in this practice. égAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1968. Cost sharing in state handbooks--1968 ACP. Unpublished staff paper. élAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1969. 1968 Agricultural Conservation Program accomplishments. Unnumbered report, page 58. 55 Soil Bank and ACP in the South The Southern Forest Resource Analysis Committee reported that 4.7 million acres Of forest planting in the South had been accomplished through ACP or Soil Bank through 1967.93- This amounted tO 31 percent Of all forest planting in that region. Plantings were eSpecially large during 1958-61, under the Soil Bank program. In the subsequent period, 1962-66, subsidized plantings still amounted to 634,000 acres in the South, at a total cost Of $6.5 million in ACP cost shares. Effectiveness of Past Federal Program for Afforestation Public programs for afforesting private lands have had three general objectives--increasing income Of poor rural landowners, soil and water conservation, and increasing the Nation's timber supply. The effectiveness Of these programs would depend largely on the following factors: (1) extent Of participation in the programs; (2) response Of different income groups; (3) productivity Of plantations; and (4) values Of stumpage and soil-water benefits. A number of studies have been devoted to items 1 and 2. Most studies have indicated that participation in CFM and ACP programs was strongly correlated with size Of ownership. EESOuthern Forest Resource Analysis Committee. 1969. The South's third forest--how it can meet future demands; a report Of the Southern Forest Resource Analysis Committee, New Orleans, La. 56 Muench studied participation of 2,492 North Carolina land- owners in public forestry programs.§2- He found that the most responsive owners were those who had relatively good educations, owned large forested acreages, and were business or professional people. He concluded: "If the goal Of any Of these programs is to redistribute income to the poor landowners or tenants, this goal is not being achieved, judging from the apparent asset position Of those who are participating. If soil and water conservation is the goal, the effectiveness Of forestry practices in ACP can be questioned. If increased timber production is the Objective, the programs can increase effectiveness by addressing their efforts to those owners shown tO be most responsive." . . . . 64 . . 65 Studies in Michigan—— and WisconSin——-found farmers the most interested group Of small landowners in forestry. Thus it appears likely that there are regional variations in the response Of different classes of landowners to public forestry programs. Little information is available on the timber yields from federally supported afforestation programs. While annual estimates Of acres planted are available for ACP programs, there is little published information on survival, length Of existence, or timber production from such plantations. These data are égJOhn Muench, Jr. 1975. Private forests and public programs in North Carolina. American Forestry Association (distributed by North Carolina Forestry Association, Raleigh, N.C.). éflJames G. Yoho, Lee M. James, and Dean Quinney. 1957. Private forest land ownership and management in the northern half of Michigan's lower peninsula. Tech. Bul. 261, Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. ééCharles F. Sutherland and Cal H. Tubbs. 1959. Influence Of ownership on forestry in small woodlands. Lake States For. Exp. Sta. Pap. NO. 77. 57 crucial to a reliable evaluation Of existing programs and to reasonably accurate projections of returns from proposed programs. Forest Survey data for South Carolina indicate that 77 percent Of the forest planting done through 1967 was identifiable in l968.§§- About 35 percent Of the planting done there was under ACP or the Conservation Reserve Soil Bank Program. Thus at least one-third Of the subsidized plantations were evident in 1968. This, of course, affords little information on the yield attri- butable to such plantations. Studies in New York State indicated that only two-thirds Of the acres planted on public and private lands were successful.éz- It seems logical to assume that planting on public lands and industrial lands would have been managed by professional foresters or forestry technicians. Thus the success rate for nonindustrial private ownerships probably would have been much lower than the aggreate two-thirds rate mentioned above. On the Yazoo—Little Tallahatchie Flood Prevention Project, where public subsidy resulted in 470,000 acres of planting in the years 1948 through 1968, about 10-20 percent Of the annual planting was rework. Survival of the FY 1969 planting averaged 79 percent as indicated by a check of 38 farms.§§- For earlier years, survival averaged about 70 percent. 22Herbert A. Knight and Joe P. McClure. 1969. South Carolina's timber, 1968. USDA Forest Service Resource Bul. SE-13. 6 . . . . -ZJOhn Fedkiw. 1959. Preliminary reView Of 60 years Of reforestation in New York State. State University College Of Forestry, Syracuse University, New York. 68 . -—U.S. Forest SerVice. 1969. The Yazoo Forester. Vol. 8, NO. 12, p. 2. 58 The Yazoo-Little Tallahatchie Project plantings generally were done under close supervision from the U.S. Forest Service. Although much Of the land involved was Of poor quality, the quality Of work probably was considerably better than would have been the case for most ACP planting, and plantation survival probably was better there than in most other cases when landowners did the planting themselves or hired local contractors. Problems Found in the ACP Program Past ACP programs, as a stimulus for timber supply, suffered a number Of handicaps. The amount of money allotted for tree planting for forestry purposes was determined locally and was generally low, averaging only 1.4 percent Of all ACP assistance in 1968. The average size Of plantings was small, thus planting costs were perhaps unnecessarily high. Manthy reported that the average size Of ACP planting in Pennsylvania, in 1965, was only 1.5 acres.§2- He suggested that such small plantings might lead to timber stands which were relatively expensive to log and thus might bring low stumpage prices--if they were harvested at all. In 1968, the 11 southern states averaged 12.8 acres per subsidized planting and only $11.30 per acre cost-share. The remaining states, as a group, averaged only 4.3 acres per subsidized planting and $26.20 per acre. Small plantings would have been less likely to be done by trained crews, less likely to be inSpected by skilled examiners, and thus more likely to be unsuccessful. 6 . . . ~2Robert S. Manthy. 1970. An investment guide for Cooperative Forest Management in Pennsylvania. USDA For. Serv. Res. 59 Because the cost-share rates were determined on a state-by- state basis, the amount Of money Spent within a single state for tree planting may not have been related to the economic desirability Of planting in that state. For example, the States Of Wisconsin and New York got a combined total of $512,000 in 1968, but planted only 18,000 acres. Thus 20 percent of all tree planting cost- share funds went for planting only 12 percent of total acreage, and that acreage was in states with relatively low-quality timberland. Furthermore, most Of the plantings in those states were quite small, averaging 3.4 acres in New York and 5.0 acres in Wisconsin. The Present Study The intent of the present study is to estimate the potential effectiveness Of cost-sharing payments to nonindustrial private forest owners, in comparison with other federal program opportunities for increasing softwood timber supplies. Estimates are made Of treatable acres, costs, and growth impacts for reforestation, release, and precommercial thinnings. Forest Survey staff at Forest Service experiment stations have provided estimates Of treatable acreages by timber type and site productivity class. They also have provided data on management regimes and yield similar tO that developed for national forests. Reforestation Opportunities totaling 11,796,000 acres are evaluated (Table 8). Data are available for only 232,000 acres Of release and 293,000 acres Of precommercial thinning Opportunities. General descriptions and cost estimates are shown in Table 9. Detailed listings Of treatment Opportunities ranked in order Of cost effectiveness are shown in Appendix B. 60 Table 8.--Distribution of analyzed treatment Opportunity acreages on nonindustrial private forest ownerships, 1972 Treatment class : Region : Acreage}- Reforestation : Pacific Coast : 12 : Rocky Mountains : -- : South : 8,989 : North : 2,795 Total : : 11,796 Release : Pacific Coast : -- : Rocky Mountains : -- : South : 112 : North : 120 Total : : 232 Precommercial : Pacific Coast : 6 thinning : Rocky Mountains : -- : South : 187 : North : -- Total : : 93 Source: Ad hoc reports by Forest Service experiment lThousands Of acres assumed tO be accessible to a cost-share stations. program. 61 Am mo a mommv ONme " omlm N OOOmv “I...00......IOOOGCOOOOOCOOOO0.00MWCGmpm QGHQ Hm-ngmc @mxosm “HHOOQH blow ONme “ 00.0 H ooomfi ".0...O...IOOIIOOGOOOOIOOOOOOOOCOH mwgum man-Hm'xdo m>fluommwou m'om om.mm " om.m " oo.mv u coaumucmHm mafia on uum>coou mocmum whoxoflnlxmo m>Huowmwou vlom oa.mm u ov.m " oo.mv ” unmam cam .mmum mpflm >>mwmu among ~owxooumcoz" muom ov.ma “ o¢.m " oo.om u .mmum muflm unwflq" ocmaummnom onooumcozu NIOm am.ma “ om.o " oo.mH " unmamu vamflmouu chH" anew mmfidem Emmoo .mADU Q72 .338sz mnbom ONoV¢ n 0000 u 000mm no.0on.on.00000006000000.0000...on Umxoopm wHHoom ~m6003©ng USMHmDu hlmm O¢oov n 0000 n OOom¢ no00.00.00OOQOOOOUQOOOIOOOOOOOIoou wmxoopm >HHOOQ nmqflm'xMOu ®|mm om.mm “ om.m " oo.m¢ “ coaumucmam mcflm on pum>couum©cmum mcflm amusum: cmxooum MHHoomu mlmm ov.ma u ov.m u oo.om " ucmHmoH cam .mmum muflm “soda" mCOHpmusmHm mcflm m>auomwmou vlmm oa.mm " ov.m " oo.mv u ucmHm cam .mmum mpflm >>mwmu nmsun rwmxooumcoz" mumm o¢.ma " ov.m " oo.om " ucmHm cam .mmum muflm" coma umwuom omxooumcoz" mtmm am.ma “ om.o " oo.ma " ucmfim“ camamouo mHuH" Humm 45301?“ 024 gad Bmmoxm mmB/NBw meemdmmmbom Illlllummom mom mHmHHooIIIIIIu u " mumsm u "unmEummuuu u u HmuoowmuUmHMHUOmmmn HmfiuflcH u ” "soaumoflm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu u u Iflucwoa mumoo u ucoaumwuu omumOflocH " mc0fium5uflm cam coammm « Enumuum wmwcmuwcso wum>fimm,amfluumsosflcoc co coflumummuomou How omummwumm>cfi mCOHuwsuwm ucmfiummnall.m oHQMB 62 Am 00 m mommv 00.00 . 00.0 . 00.00 u uflmnmmamsoo unmamu suflamsv muflm 00H: .ufluummamsoou mmuzm Emmzmfimoz UHmHoém 0H.HN " on.m ” oo.mm “mafia mmmauuocm Ho >HH0HQ0H panda" ooxooumcoz" omloz ov.mm " oh.m u oo.o¢ u Amcfim opfl£3 cuoummm Ho own " AQOHuHummEoo woo3UHmn " mmloz 00.00 . 0s.m . 00.00 . pagan 0cm .mmum muflm usmflqvu mfluufla guflz mmxooumcozvu «0-02 om.mm u oa.v “ oo.mn " Amman ouanz u Acowufluomaoo coozoumg " mloz 00.mm " 0H.v " 00.0a “ numummm Ho 00H unwam 0cm " mo mmmummc 0ca>~m> gufi3 " enoz om.mv " oa.v “ oo.hm " .uuw>coo Ho ~.mmmm muflm >>mmmvu omxooum >HHoom Ho @mxooumcozvu NIUZ mmemfim Admazmu mamoz 00.00 " 00.0 . 00.00 " «can mmmauuonm " u u u "no mHHpooH ucmHm cam .mwnm muflm" umwuom moxooumaozu mlmz 00.00 H 00.0 " 00.00 . mafia muons u u 0 u n " cuoummw no com on pum>coou nmdub Ho woozonmn m>auoomwou w mnmz 00.00 " 05.0 “ 00.mm . mafia mung; quoummm " u u u " Ho pom Madam cam .mmum oufim" ammuow ~Umxooumcoz" mlmz om.ma “ om.o “ oo.mH "mafia mmmauuonm Ho MHHOHQOH usmamu Unwamouo oHoH“ Humz mmemam Emfimggmoz IIIIIII mHom mom mumaaoollllllu " u mumcm “ uucmEummuu" " " Hammommuowumwoommdu HMHuHcH " u "cowumoflm IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I u u " Ifiucmofi mumoo " ucwfiummuu topmoflch " mcoflumsuflm paw coflmmm « Edumuum 10.280 m 30.2. 63 .ucmonmm m.o cosy mmmgl .muowmc0 pod wuflm Eoum coauoopoum ommmmnocfi cam .cofihoommcfl molzoaaom .mocmumflmmm HMUchomu ~mumoo uswfiummuu uowuofl mwwsaocfl umoo Hmuoel .cowuommmsfl mnlzoaaom v m cam mocummflmmm Havacnomu msam .umoo usmfipmwuu pomnfio mo ucmoumm mm m0 umoo Hmumomml m .gqumHUCA Hmscsm some mo mshwu :0 m0 suzonm Hmnfiwuzmmw 000 " 000.0 “ 00 u 00 u .m. u 000 n 000 03 n 02.0 n 00 u 00 u w. u 000 u 000 000 . 000.0 " 00 n 00 u w... u 000 u 000 000 " 000.0 a 00 u S u w. u 000 u 000 000 “ 000.0 . 00 u S u w. u 000 u 000 000 n 00 u 00 u 00 u H u 00 u 00 um so 22 "law on azuulllllnlumoo Hammoww mo usmouwml 0 II mcowHHHE wIIIIIIII ”Noun mcm3ouou Hmnaflu3mmw anoz "I nusom "#0000 OHMflommm .Mumoo m .Mnmoo muommmm guzonm poozumom u coausnfinumflo mcflocdm Hmcoflmwm u Hmuoa u Hmuowmm .mnu3oum umnEHuBmm woo3um0m muaEHxME ou omcmflmmo mmfluflcsuuommo cowumumonomou mum>fium,HMflHumdocwcoc mo masomnomll.oa magma 64 Cost estimates included treatment costs, direct technical assistance, and follow-up inspection. Where successive treatments are considered necessary for maintenance of the stand (e.g., fire protection), such costs are included. Estimated Program Effects Treatment opportunities are ranked in terms of board-foot softwood yield per dollar of Federal cost and board-foot softwood yield per dollar of total cost. Table 10 shows expected costs and effects for programs funded at several different levels. Only reforestation acreage is shown because the estimates related to precommercial thinning and stand improvement are considered unrealistic. Figure 3 compares softwood sawtimber growth increases, expected for different funding levels, for nonindustrial private ownerships as compared to national forests. The strong advantage indicated for private ownerships is due primarily to two factors-- the large acreages of inherently productive southern pine sites in private holdings and the much lower costs assumed for treating private lands rather than national forests. Costs for national forests include large expenses for general administration and planning which are not assumed to exist for private owners. 65 3'0” I I I I T 2,500 -- .N § I (MILLIONS OF BOARD FEET I INCREASE IN MEAN ANNUAL INCREME/VT 4500 - /.ooo -— 500 _ 0 I I I I I 0 50 l00 I50 200 250 300 FUND/N6 {MILL/0N DOLLARS) Figure 3. Comparison of softwood sawtimber growth maximization through nonindustrial private reforestation vs. national forest reforestation and stand improvement V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS Research and development of improved technology for growing, protecting, and/or utilizing timber is an alternative use of limited forestry program.budgets. For the present study, a few specific research opportunities have been selected for analysis. They have been chosen because they are assumed to have the following characteristics: --High probability of technical development within a decade; --High probability of commercial application soon after technical development; --An expectation of important impacts on timber demand or supply; and --Reasonab1e susceptibility to quantification. The opportunities examined are in three program categories: tree improvement, forest pest control, and timber utilization. The general outline followed in each case is as follows: I. Description of problem/opportunity: A. General nature B. Size C. Ownerships/institutions involved II. Technical solution: A. Description B. Susceptible areas, volumes, products, etc. C. Probable effectiveness D. Application costs 66 67 III. Program possibilities: A. Remaining research to be completed B. Method of getting technical solution into practice C. Likelihood of success for each class of owner/institution D. Timetable for implementation E. Likely additions to supply (defined in terms of growth, harvest, or product) IV. Program costs: A. Research costs B. Extension costs C. Federal cost-shares D. Application cost In each case, staff assistants in research division of the Forest Service have given their best estimates of incremental costs and effects of expanded research and development programs. The estimates shown in this chapter are for increases over program funding levels for fiscal year 1973. Tree Improvement Scientists in the Division of Timber Management Research have assisted the author in defining a potential expanded program of genetics research. Three Species or species groups are considered: southern pines, Douglas-fir, and western pines. Intensified efforts involved in the program would include develOpment of methods to stimulate increased flowering of seed orchard trees, improved techniques for grafting scions to root- stocks, better methods of controling cone and seed insects, and 68 Table ll.--Increases in yield anticipated from an acceleratedggenetic program . for the southern pines Period :Affected area : Yield : Cumulative increase :—— — -: increase— :in mean annual increment— :Annual: Total : z _ . : : : MM cu ft : MM bd ft :----M acres---: Pct : : 2nd 5 years: 294 : 1,470 : lO : 15 : 75 2nd decade : 784 : 7,840 : 15 : 133 : 665 3rd decade : 980 : 9,800 : 20 : 329 : 1,645 4th decade : 980 g 9,800 g 20 : 525 g 2,625 5th decade : 980 : 9,800 : 3O : 819 : 4,095 1 . . . . . . —Percent yield increase is in addition to percentages expected from current levels of effort. 2Calculated from a base yield of 100 cubic feet per acre per year for unimproved stock. 69 Table 12.--Increases in yield anticipated from an accelerated_genetic4program . for Douglas-fir Yield Cumulative increase Period :Affected area : increase-:in mean annual increment- : MM cu ft . MM bd ft ~—:-------:-----------:-- : :----M acres---: 322. : : 2nd 5 years: 33 : 165 : 7 : 2 : 10 2nd decade : 198 : 1,980 ° 7 : 23 : 115 3rd decade : 330 : 3,300 : 12 : 82 : 410 4th decade : 330 : 3,300 : 12 : 141 : 705 5th decade : 330 : 3,300 : 15 : 215 : 1,075 l . . . . . . -Percent yield increase is in addition to percentages expected from current levels of effort. ECalculated from a base yield of 150 cubic feet per acre per year for unimproved stock. 70 Table l3.--Increases ingyield anticipated from an accelerated genetic program ~~for western pine Period :Affected area : Yield : Cumulative increase :1 --: increase—-:in mean annual increment— :Annual: Total : : — —— : : : : MM cu ft : MM bd ft :----M acres-—-: Pct : : 2nd 5 years: 10 : 50 : 3 : 9- : 2' 3 3 2nd decade : 30 : 300 : 3 : '- : '— 3rd decade : 100 : 1,000 : 7 : 8 : 40 4th decade : 330 : 3,300 : 7 : 31 : 155 5th decade : 330 : 3,300 : 10 : 64 : 320 l . . . . . -Percent yield increase in addition to percentages expected from current levels of effort. ECalculated from a base yield of 100 cubic feet per acre per year for unimproved stock. 2-Less than 0.5 percent. 71 procedures for faster testing of parent trees to see if progeny retain desired characteristics. Expected Costs Funding required in addition to the current (FY 1973) budget is estimated to be as follows: Seed to Seed orchard seedling Period Research establishment production Total -------------- Millions of dollars------------ lst 5 years 2 l 2 5 2nd 5 years 3 2 6 11 2nd decade 3 2 4 9 3rd decade 2 2 4 8 Prggram Effects Tables 11, 12, and 13 display estimated yields for the program, in terms of mean-annual-increment of softwood plantations. For southern pines, it is estimated that about 10 percent of the nearly 1 million acres annually planted in 1970-71 was being done with genetically improved seedlings from seed orchards. It is assumed that mean annual increment (m.a.i.) of plantings from unimproved stock averaged 100 cubic feet per acre. It is further assumed that nearly all plantations, by the year 2000, would be made with improved seedlings, but that the degree of improvement would be higher under the accelerated program than otherwise. Thus, an incremental yield of 10 percent, in the 6-10th year of the program, rising to 30 percent in the third decade, is expected. On this basis, in the tenth year after initiation of the program, southern pine m.a.i. is expected to 72 be increased 15 million cubic feet (75 million board feet). By the 30th year, an increase of 329 million cubic feet (1,645 million board feet) should occur (Table 11). For Douglas-fir it is assumed that 40 percent of the 31 million acres of land in the Douglas-fir type would be planted with improved seedlings, by the end of the 5th decade of the program. Plantations from unimproved stock are assumed to average 150 cubic feet per acre mean annual increment. Projected mean annual increment of areas planted in the first 10 years would be 2 million cubic feet (10 million board feet) higher than otherwise anticipated. By the 30th year, 5,455,000 acres should have been planted with improved stock, with an expected mean annual increment 82 million cubic feet (410 million board feet) higher than expected for unimproved stock (Table 12). Yields for a western pine program are calculated on the assumption that at least 20 percent of the 42 million acres in these forest types ultimately might be planted with improved stock. Mean annual increment of plantations from unimproved stock on these sites is assumed to be 100 cubic feet per acre. Because relatively little work has been done in genetic improve- ment of western pines, as compared to southern pines and Douglas- fir, a slow rate of progress would be expected, even with an expanded program (Table 13). Mean annual increment of all areas planted with improved stock in the first 30 years of the program would be expected to be only 8 million cubic feet (40 million board feet) higher than for plantations of unimproved stock. .. 0.1.0. .l-fmrrvulrc..l 0P Nun-AV 73 Combined effects anticipated for all three species or species groups would be: Cumulative increase in mean annual increment Year_ MM cu ft MM bd ft 10th 17 85 20th 156 780 30th 419 2,095 40th 697 3,485 50th 1,098 5,490 Fomes annosus Root Rot Fomes annosus root rot has caused increasingly serious losses of planted pines in the United States during the past 25 years. Although not a significant problem in natural stands, this root rot was found in 59 percent of all loblolly pine plantations and 44 percent of all slash pine plantations examined during a 1960 south-wide survey. It is especially damaging in thinned stands and, therefore, is a major deterrent to intensive management of plantations for sawtimber production. The fungus enters freshly cut stumps left in thinning operations. Resulting tree mortality in the residual stands begins within 2-3 years after thinning and continues for long periods. Such stands often are decimated before they reach sawtimber size. Average losses in infected stands are estimated to be about 15 percent of the harvest yield otherwise expected. For typical loblolly pine sites managed primarily for sawtimber production, control of Fomes annosus is assumed to increase mean-annual-increment about 50 board feet per acre per year. 74 Past research has indicated three promising avenues of control: --Restricting thinning operations to the summer season in areas below 34° N. latitude; --Applying granular borax to freshly cut stump surfaces; and --Inoculating fresh stump surfaces with a competitive saprophyte, Peniophora gigantea. For areas below 34° N. latitude, Fomes annosus is not a serious problem in stands thinned during the summer. Stands thinned at other seasons or in areas above that latitude probably can be protected by borax or Peniophora applications. Trial applications of borax have proven 90-95 percent effective. Peniophora inoculations appear to be an especially desirable control methods since the saprophyte may provide long-term protection, and is suitable for application in areas where borax should not be applied. Considering climatic factors, it is estimated that roughly half of all thinned southern pine plantations might warrant treatment for Fomes annosus control. Assuming that half of all forest industry, all national forest, and one-fourth of all nonindustrial private southern pine plantations were thinned at age 15, the acreages shown below would be candidates for chemical or biological treatment during a 30—year period. These estimates were based on recorded plantings since 1960, assuming that planting in the period would continue at the 1970-72 levels. 75 Projected Acreages Suitable for Fomes Annosus Control Period Forest industry Other private National forest lst 5 years 500,000 300,000 50,000 2nd 5 years 500,000 150,000 60,000 2nd decade 1,500,000 300,000 240,000 3rd decade 1,500,000 300,000 250,000 Expected Costs and.Program Effects A modest amount of research remains to be done in the first 2 years of the assumed program: --Development of machine applications of chemical or biological agents as an integrated feature of harvesting equipment; and --Indentification of ecological factors governing suscepti- bility to the disease. First priority is evaluation of previously initiated pilot control studies and dissemination of research results. If mechanical applications were perfected, it seems likely that forest industries would adopt them rapidly. A modest subsidy might be necessary to institute the practice on nonindustrial private lands. The Federal government is assumed to bear all costs (roughly $2.50 per acre) on national forest lands and 50 percent of the cost on private lands. Projected costs for a complete program of research, extension, and application are shown in Table 14. Expected savings in mean annual increment are shown in Table 15. By the end of 30 years, enough area is assumed to have been treated to afford a 282 million board foot savings in mean annual increment. 76 .moc00 mum>00m Hwnuo co umoo mo ucmonmm om mwmm ucwadnm>om Hmumomm mcHESmm¢I 0 .om.mw mo mHom Mom umoo wwumfifiumw co Ummmmw 000.0 . 000.0 " 000 u 000 . 000.0 . u . .000000 000 000 . 000.0 . 000 u 000 . 000.0 . n . 000000 000 000 . 000.0 “ 000 u 000 . 000.0 " u . 0000» 0 000 000.0 " 000.0 . 000 u 000 . 000.0 " 000 u 000 n 0000» 0 000 I IIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIImHMHHOU mo monomsone I I u u " pmmHom " mum>00mu ahumdocflu " u u u HMGOHumz" ngpo 0 ummuom " u u u "I II n mogumflmmmu “moo u Mbmoo Hmumpom u umoo Hmuoa « mamoo COHHMOHHQQ¢ » HMOanomB u zoummmmmu ooanmm mafia cumnusom c0 Houucoo msmoccm deOh no Emumoum 0 mo mumoo pwuummonmll.va manna 77 Table 15.--Increases in yield anticipated from a Fomes annosus control program -|—x‘—v— .Iinvsouthernjpine Period : Cumulative savings in mean annual increment : Forest : _Othe; : N5tiona1--:- Total :~ industry : private : forest : """""" :""""""‘:ZIIIIJQQ'EZIIIIIIi- _ lst 5 years: 25 : 15 : 2 . 42 2nd 5 years: 50 : 23 . 5 - 78 2nd decade : 125 : 38 : l7 : 180 : 53 : 29 : 282 3rd decade : 200 iBased on medium site yields for thinned loblolly pine planta- tions as shown in Investor's Guide to Converting Southern Oak-Pine Types, by W. C. Anderson and S. Guttenberg, USDA Forest Service Res. Paper S0-72, 1971. Control is assumed to save 15 percent of all sawtimber yields after first thinning. 78 Table l6.--Approximate physical recovery efficiencies in various forest industries-—l970 . 1 : Recovery ratio- Sawmilling (dry, finished lumber) : Douglas-fir region : 45-50 Southern pine region : 35-45 Plywood manufacturing (dry, finished plywood) Douglas-fir region : 45-55 Southern pine region : 35-45 Hardboard : 82 Conventional particleboard : 84 Pulpingz- : Kraft : 42-54 Sulfite : 44-46 Groundwood : 90-95 lCalculated as a percent of ovendry weight of wood input. EYields for pulping ignore losses in debarking and chipping. Sources: Sawmilling, Douglas—fir region, adapted from S. E. Corder and T. L. Scroggins. 1972. Wood and bark residues in Oregon-- trends in their use. Oregon State Univ., Forest Res. Pap. ll; southern pine region, adapted from M. A. Taras, J. G. Schroeder, and D. R. Phillips. 1974. Predicted green lumber yields from the merchantable stem of loblolly pine. USDA Forest Service Research Pap. SE-121. Plywood, Douglas-fir region, adapted from S. E. Corder and T. L. Scroggins (Op Cit); southern pine region, adapted from David L. Williams and William C. Hopkins. 1969. Converting factors for southern pine products. Louisiana State Univ. Agricultural Experiment Sta. Bul. No. 626. Hardboard and particleboard, adapted from Peter Vajda. 1975. A comparative evaluation of the economics of wood-based panel industries. Paper presented at the FAQ World Consultation on Wood-Based Panels, New Dehli, Feb. 1975. Pulping, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. 79 Timber Utilization In 1970, about 55 percent of softwood growing stock volume harvested for industrial uses was recovered in products such as lumber, plywood, or woodpulp. Another 35 percent, in the form of manufacturing residues, was used for fuel or was disposed as waste, while about 10 percent was left on the ground as logging residues.22- Primary product recoveries, excluding byproducts, typically were lower than 55 percent (Table 16). Increased materials recovery efficiency in timber harvesting and wood products manufacture and use would affect national timber consumption in several ways. For a given level of total demand for forest products, an increase in harvesting efficiency (e.g., through reduction of breakage in tree felling) would decrease required total removals from growing stock inventory. Improved recovery of products from roundwood (e.g., through lessened trimming loss in sawmilling) would tend to decrease total log requirements and thus removals from inventory. New kinds of products, performing a specific function equally well but with less material weight or with lower quality raw material than required for conventional products, similarly could result in reduced total log requirements. Finally, improvements in engineering ngstimated recovery percentages are adapted from U.S. Forest Service. 1973. pp; cit. The 55 percent estimate includes recovery of woodpulp and other industrial products from lumber wood products manufacturing but ignores losses in secondary manufacturing (e.g., residue formation in conversion of lumber to furniture parts). The estimate of logging residue excludes stumps, tops, branches, and nongrowing-stock trees. Thus the foregoing figures overestimate product recovery and underestimate residue prOportions, in terms of total wood fiber harvest. 80 of structures or other end-use applications could reduce wood product, and hence log requirements. Program Possibilities Evaluated Estimates are made of likely costs and results of expansions in two projects: --New technique for drying linerboard; and --Computerized decisionmaking in sawmills Of the many Forest Service projects in this general area of timber utilization programs, these are ones considered to hold high promise for successful completion and implementation in the next 5 to 10 years. Work in these two projects is already underway, but at relatively low levels of funding. Linerboard Drying Technique In 1970, about 11.5 million tons of linerboard were produced in the United States.2i- Its manufacture consumed roughly 24 percent of all woodpulp produced that year and required approximately 1.3 billion cubic feet of roundwood. Most liner- board is made from unbleached kraft woodpulp of softwood origin, with about 54 percent recovery of wood fiber in the final product. Currently, most linerboard manufacturing processes involve drying a continuously moving mat of wet fibers, without pressure. To achieve the interfiber bonding necessary for a satisfactory linerboard, existing processes use woodpulp which has been beaten or refined. Wood fiber recovery is inversely proportional to the ZlLinerboard is the material normally used for the outer and interior walls of paperboard boxes. 81 extent of refining. The Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis., has proposed another technique for improving interfiber bonding and thereby lessening the required duration of refining. This technique (called "B-Direction Restraint") would involve drying the wet fiber mat under pressure. Advantages indicated for the Z-Direction Restraint would be: —-Use of less refined, higher yield pulp; --Capability for much greater use of hardwood pulp; and --Reduced energy requirements since removal of water by pressing takes less energy than removal by evaportation. Laboratory scientists consider it possible that the technique also would reduce water pollution problems. Expected Costs Work to date has been done with very small Specimens (called "hand sheets") which have been made essentially piece by piece. Major work required to develop the technique enough to assure industrial adOption would include the following: —-Design and testing of a laboratory-scale, continuous process; and --Construction and testing of prototype machinery. Additional funding would be required for a chemical engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a materials engineer during a 5-year period.12- Cost of laboratory-scale equipment is estimated at ZEWithin the 5-year period, employment for these people is expected to be the equivalent of 3.5 years for the chemical engineer, 4 years for the mechanical engineer, and 3 years for the materials engineer. 11L- 82 0.0 u 0.00 " m.0 ” 0 umHHHE unflumflxm :0 mHmMHG mo ucmeUMHmmm 0 u 0 u 0.m " 0 " mcflummu 0cm mHnEmmmm mcflnome mmwuouonm “ u u u mumooINMumsucH 0 u 0 u 0 u 00. u unmfimflswm 0 u 0 u 0 ” m0.0 u mummsflmcm coummmmn HMGOHuwopm u u u u mumoo Hmnmoom IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImumHHOU mo 0:000002 II IIIII" 000000 00m » mpmomw 0cm 0 mumwu m 00m 0 mHmmm m umH n 8000 mmswflcsomu ucwmuummulcofluomuflolm mo ucmEQOHm>mU vmumumamoom Mom mommmuoafi umoo cmuomflOHmII.hH manme 83 $100,000 and cost of building and testing the prototype machine is estimated to be $2 million (assumed to be borne by industry). The new system, once developed is not expected to be more expensive than current equipment when installed as part of a new mill. But conversion of existing mills to the new system is assumed to cost $250,000 each. Table 17 shows expected costs by time period. Program Effects With the new technique, it should be possible to use hardwood pulp with an effective yield of 65 percent, as compared to 54 percent yield for the pulp normally used. Only 20 percent of the furnish used in linerboard manufacture in 1970 is estimated to have been hardwood pulp. Without Z-Direction Restraint, by the year 2000, hardwood proportions should have risen to about 30 percent; but with the new technique, 85 percent of furnish by that year might be hardwood. Table 18 summarizes effects on pulpwood requirements. Rate of implementation is assumed to be slow until the technique has been proven in several commercial plants; then to increase rapidly. It is assumed that implementation would never exceed 80 percent of all linerboard production. In 1970, an estimated 8 billion board feet of softwood sawtimber was used in pulping. This was about 30 percent of all softwood pulpwood. Savings in softwood sawtimber shown in Table 18 are based on the assumption that 25 percent of the softwood pulpwood used in future years would be from sawtimber. On this basis, savings in softwood sawtimber removals are estimated to be 50 million board feet in 1985, rising to 2.7 billion board feet by the Year 2000. 84 .00000 000800300 8000 0800 00503 0003m00m 00030000 mo 0:0000m 00 0030 0000080000 :0 0000mw .050003000 300 000 0000» 0000000 mo 00 0000mm .>00>0000m000 .000030000 000 000030003 How 00 :0 00m 00 0m 0:0 0m 00 000000000 0003 000 .0000m 0000000 0m .0000000200 00 :00 H0@ m00m0003 mo 000 N0.0 co 0000mm =.0000000m00m 55000E= 0000 .m .0m .02 0Hom0m 00050000 000000 .m0000m 000000 000 00 000800 000 0000000 009 .Mbma .000>u0m 0m0Hom .m.0 :0 0000000m0m 00000 How 000000000 00 0000 0800 0:0 00 0000000000 000005000m 0000000000 0080000! 0 om©0NI u 0050HI 0 0mm! 0 om! « O n O u «0% 03 SE. . . . . quE.UmH .HQfiBmm “Mow GO Hommmm 000.0: . 000.0- . 000- n 00- u 0 u 0 ".M00 :0 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 000.0+ . 000+ 0 000+ . 00+ . 0 u 0 . mum :0 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 " u u u u “ 00080005000 0003masm no 00000m mH 0 0m 0 mm 0 Vb 0 mm 0 om 0 00m. . . . . . mUOOBUMOm GEM wDUHGSUmU UHO @CHmD m u 00 0 m0 u 0m 0 mm H 0m 0 000. . . . . . 00003000: 000 050000000 000 00000 00 u 00 0 0m " 0 u 0 u 0 u 000. . . . . . 00003000: 000 000005000 300 00000 n u u u u 0 050000000 30: £003 000000000m 0000000000 000.0 . 000.0 . 000.0 . 000.0 " 000.0 " 000.0 . 00 no 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 n 000003 an 000. . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 000.0 . 000 u 000 u 000 u 000 u 000 u 00 so 2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 u 00 n 000003 00 000. . . . . . . . . . . . . .00030000 M800000m 0300003 000080005000 0003m05m 000.00 . 000.00 . 000.00 . 000.00 . 000.00 . 000.00 “.M0cou 22 . . . . . . . . . . 0000000000 0000000000 000m mama . 000a . mmmd 0 000a . OhmH 000000000 000000000Im 00 E0Hm00mI00000000 00000000000 00 no 0000000 0000m0000cdll.mfl 0000B 85 Computerized Decisionmaking in Sawmills Sawmills typically have recovered about 40 to 50 percent of the wood fiber from softwood sawlogs in finished lumber (Table 16). The remainder essentially has been sawdust, planer shavings, slabs, and edgings. The majority of these residuals has been used for pulp or particleboard furnish or fuel, but significant quantities have remained unused, causing waste diSposal problems. Furthermore, pulp chips and other sawmill byproducts usually have been less valuable, on a dry-weight basis, than lumber. One means of increasing lumber recovery is through computer control of sawing. Lewis and Hallock showed that human error in positioning logs properly, with reSpect to saw blade, in the first cut (Opening face) could reduce lumber recovery as much as 27 percent.22- They proposed a computerized system.(§est Qpening Pace) to ensure optimum log positioning for sound, straight logs. Another means proposed for improving lumber recovery is Edge Gluing and Ripping (EGAR). As conceived by Forest Products Laboratory scientists, EGAR.would involve sawing logs into flitches (pieces as wide as the log). The flitches would be edged full width, dried, and then glued into panels. Panels then would be resawn to whatever widths were desired. The ZEDavid W. Lewis and Hiram Hallock. 1973. Using computers to increase lumber yield--Best Opening Face Program. Paper presented at the 4th Wood Machining Seminar, Dec. 4—6, 1973, Richmond, Calif. 86 system thus would avoid most of the losses normally caused in edging softwood dimension lumber into nominal widths. Yield of highest value in EGAR would require an electronic defect—sensing system for locating knots and other defects. Coupled with a computer-controlled rip saw, the system would allow resawing so as to minimize the downgrading effects of defects. Electronic scanning and defect sensing also would be an important element of BOF. Program Costs A combined program is proposed, involving BOF, EGAR, and improved defect-sensing techniques. Refinements to existing BOF procedures would include development of capability to sense and locate defects in logs, improvements in the system to allow adjustments for log taper and crook, and increased flexibility in specifying desired product dimensions. Relatively little work has been done on EGAR; pr0posed research would include further evaluation of yields, product testing, and development of an integrated defect-sensing and automated ripping system. Implementation costs for BOF and EGAR, once developed, are expected to be about $100,000 and $730,000 per mill, respectively. An integrated defect-sensing system for either BOF and EGAR is expected to cost $150,000 per mill. Expected costs for all elements combined would be as follows: 87 Technical Industry Research assistance investment ---------- Millions of dollars------—----- lst 5 years 4.7 0.8 7.5 2nd 5 years 0 .8 10.2 2nd decade 0 0 20.4 3rd decade 0 0 13.9 Industry costs are based on the numbers of mills assumed to be using BOF and EGAR techniques (Table 19). Program Effects It is assumed that improved BOF systems would be employed first in the largest mills. Within 5 years after start of the expanded program, it is estimated that 53 mills might have operational systems. Three EGAR mills are assumed to be in operation 5 years after initiation of the program. Yield increases of 10 percent for BOF and 15 percent for EGAR are anticipated. Table 19 shows expected trends in mill installations and product yields. By the 10th year, combined yield increases should be about 710 million board feet (lumber tally) per year. By the 30th year, this should rise to about 1,010 million board feet. These increases in lumber recovery would be equivalent to 780 million board feet and 1,110 million board feet savings in sawtimber harvest requirements, since about 10 percent of the harvest normally has been left as logging residue. 88 .mam>OEmH HmQEHu3mm CH mmcfl>mm Hmummnm unmouom OH m on ucoam>fl5qm on UHSOB >um>oomu HmnEDH ea ommmuocfl cm .mHommumcu «mswfimmn mcflmmoa on umoa on 0H503 umm>um£ HmnEHuzmm mo ucmonmm 0H umnu cowumfidmmm no woumasoamo mmGH>Mm umm>umz HmnEHu3mml m .mom usosuflz coauosooum mo ucmoumm ma mm popmHsono mmom Mom mommmuocfl oaofimm .mom DSOfiH3 GOHUODmuOHnm M0 #GwUme OH mm UmuMHDUHMO mom H0.“ mmmmeUGH @Hwflwum. OHH.H . oao.a . omH " ooo.a " on . com " oom.m . mam " om omo.a " omm . oqa . omm " ma " ovm . ooq.m “ «am " mm 0mm . . omm . oma . oom . ma " can “ oon.n “ mom " om 0mm . oam . ooa " omo ” ma “ can " ooa.h " oma " ma own . one . om . oov . m . omo “ oom.m " mHH " OH omv . ova " om " oma " m . omq . oo~.« . mm . m uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuo on 22uuunuuuunuuaununuu. “nunuuuuuuu on asunuuuuu“ " Hmflmwwmmmn ..... -------mmmwmflm-mmmw-----------M..om 3%..” Eu. mumm>um£ " >Ho>oowu u Imdwm nufls " coauosooum " mo u.lmom nufls "cofiuospoum " mo " Hmbfifluzmmu Henson " NmmmwuocH u Hmnfisq u HmbEdzu memoHUCH u Hmnfisq u HmQEdz“ uowmmm UoGHnEou m IIIIII IGOAMMMMmEoHQEM mmwMI m cofiumucmaoamefl mom Mummy mEmumzm Hawazmm UmNHHmusmEoo mo acmemon>wc can noumwmmu pmumumawoom mo muowwmo monoquHmll.mH magma VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to evaluate potential projects in several major categories of Forest Service programs. It has been predicted on the assumption that public policymakers desire increased assurance as to adequacy of softwood sawtimber supplies. Budget increases and legislation for national forest reforestation and stand improvement are taken as substantial evidence of this desire. It is argued that policymakers are particularly concerned with timber supply problems which might occur within the next 10 to 30 years and that the Forest Service has substantial influence over the allocation of funding among programs addressed to that concern. On this basis, evaluations have been made of the cost effectiveness of funding for backlog national forest reforestation and stand improvement, subsidies to nonindustrial private landowners for forestation, and spending for technological improvements in timber production and forest products manufacture. Summary Comparisons of Program Effectiveness Table 20 summarizes estimated softwood sawtimber effects and initial program costs for the various projects anlyzed. Comparisons among the projects are complicated because the cost estimates are not all on the same basis nor are the estimates of sawtimber effects. But a number of conclusions can be drawn. 89 9C) oo>ounud non .nucoauudauou unobudn uanaauzi- nu naoauusuou can nuuonau Hucoauda non uuooumo uau ennuxoa Oda.d . ooh . omosu . om . ............°o.......0... .0..........8COOOCUOOOO' .CCOCOOOC.0.oc..........~ .0..........ov.........O“ .COOOOOOOCOOOOOCOCOOOOOOO .COCCOOCOOOOOQOCOOOC0.0.“ 0.000....O’ConOOOOCOOOOO” 0.....0000000n000000000O. .00....COOCIO”...0......” vauuaaumoco. odd.“ . coo . owe.“ . con . 0mm . chm . ova . omm . ovo . one . oHv . own . o O can ow mam.“ oav cam." one.” con.~ omm.~ omm.a oma oov.~ oom.H omH.H omo.a cam 0mm .auqauu acumen» non nouoomxo uaoauuuaa Hanan: cues uonaauxnu vooxuuou vouaouonml umwu canon uo mcoaaflax udox nuon . mama nUOH u umm> nuom . ummu sued and ms mad ode.“ onv.« oom.~ com.” own.” omm oov.a oo~.~ omH.H omo.H ova 0mm . o.nm . n.mH . n.H~ 00H --~--- ‘0 h. “an“-.. C>C>C)C>C>C> . 0.0 . m.m . o . mdod . n.N . o.« u a . om . m o u u u ”00.0.0800...“ con ”...OCOOUOOOCOC om” “...OOCOGOOCCO. 0°" “OOOIOOOUOOOOON om” D.C....AJQOOOCON OOH “00.00.0000...“ om “0.0.0.0000...“ con “0.0.0.0”..000. om” “...OOOOUOOOOO~ CON ”...OCOOUOOCCO. omH ”..OOOOOMUCOCCDQ OOH . nouusaumoca. om .uusVacnuou coau-uaaaua «4: N H . ocaxo&:o«mwoup ponwuouamsou . ucwnHUmwu acauoouuvlw u HOHUflOO mSmOCCd MUEOW Amanda cumumoz “mafia cuonusom A uauummHmaoo . . Aucoauuucw amused cams .uonadukmu 0003uu0m wuaEaxma . cu vwnmwwmn manpmnumv . :OwumummuOmou oun>aum aduooum u:o&o>ou&&« monk . Howuumsoc«coc meauazmuumoo . . AucmEmuoca andccd cums .Hoguzmm voozuwom 0.36386 . ou oocmfimov oasoonomv . ucoEo>oumS« wanna van “coauaumououmu umwuou HacOHunz flUmOO muoowmo umw>uoz ” nooouuo nusouo a . noguo . m u ”mudwx mm uxmzu ammo» m and . mumoo amuovom muomumo 6cm mumoo Edumoum,voumefiumm mo mcomwummeoo muoficsmtu.o~ manna 91 Effect on 10th-Year Harvest First, as a means of affecting supply-demand balances within 10 years, development of computerized decisionmaking techniques for sawmills appears most cost-effective by far. For an estimated Federal cost of $5.5 million, a decrease in harvest requirements totaling 780 million board feet per year should result. To achieve a 780-million-board-foot increase in national forest allowable cut through reforestation and stand improvement, nearly $300 million would be required. Even if the yield from national forest treatments were twice as high as expected, and that from computerized decisionmaking only one-fifth the estimated amount, the latter project would appear more cost-effective. Projects other than the two mentioned above would be unlikely to affect softwood sawtimber harvests significantly within 10 years. Effect on 30th-Year Harvest Successful development of Z-direction restraint should be more cost effective than computerized sawmilling in reducing softwood timber harvest requirements. For a Federal expenditure of $1.15 million, the former project is expected to lead to a reduction of 2.7 billion board feet in the 30th year. Even considering the $19.5 million assumed to be required for industrial adoption in the first 30 years, this project would appear to have very high cost-effectiveness. 92 Computerized decisionmaking appears highly cost-effective in terms of 30th-year as well as 10th-year effects. Although requiring an estimated $52 million industry investment over the 30-year period, its impact per dollar Spent appears much higher than would be expected for silvicultural investments. Harvest effects have not been estimated, in this study, for cost-sharing on nonindustrial private lands. By the 30th year of the program, however, it seems likely that a large proportion of the expected increase in mean annual increment might be harvestable directly or through an indirect effect on forest industry planning. But it is not clear whether the 30th-year sawtimber harvest effect per dollar from nonindustrial private lands would be as great as that expected from allowable cut effects on national forests. Harvest impacts from Fomes annosus control and tree improvement probably would be noticeable by the 30th year, but the bulk of the increased growth probably would still be in stands of less than sawtimber size. Effect on Softwood Sawtimber Growth Tree improvement programs appear more cost-effective in terms of long-run growth improvement than all other programs evaluated. For a total cost of about $33 million, softwood sawtimber growth rates should be increased by nearly 200 million board feet at the end of 10 years and 2.1 billion board feet by the 30th year of an accelerated program. Even if the yield of the program were only one-tenth as great as expected, cost-effectiveness still would be high. 93 The Fomes annosus project also appears highly cost—effective in avoiding growth losses. Savings of 180 million board feet and 280 million board feet per year were anticipated for the 10th and 30th years, respectively. Total cost would be about 2.6 million in the first 5 years and $12 million in the next 25. Subsidies to nonindustrial private landowners should be more cost-effective in increasing softwood sawtimber growth than investments in backlog national forest treatments. This superiority is largely due to the relatively low costs and high site productivity typical of nonindustrial private ownerships. The large acreages of nonindustrial private ownership in southern pine timber types accentuate this advantage. Furthermore, the current level of investment in national forests is at a rate of more than $150 million per 5 years, while relatively little subsidy is being provided for nonindustrial private silviculture. The marginal effect of a given increase in spending appears much more cost-effective for the latter than for national forest investments. Uncertainties in Silvicultural Investments All of the projects evaluted in this study entail large uncertainties as to outcome. In analyses of silvicultural opportunities, principal uncertainties involve treatment-yield estimates, land-use changes, and budget allocation procedures. Treatment-yield estimation involves projections for both treated and untreated stands. Projection of yields for untreated stands is particularly difficult since there is little published data available as to the performance of seriously overstocked or understocked stands. The problem is exacerbated by the dearth 94 of information on the degree of over- or understocking typical of any class of backlog treatment areas. The analysis therefore relies on expert, subjective opinions. By comparison with previously reported estimates, the projections used in this study appear conservative. However, it is unlikely that more accurate estimates, if available, would alter the conclusion that subsidies to nonindustrial private landowners are potentially more cost effective than further increases in national forest funding in increasing growth rates. The advantages of low costs and relatively high site productivity typical of much nonindustrial private land would remain. Land-use changes could significantly reduce the effectiveness of silvicultural investments. It is by no means certain that the probability of such changes would be greater for nonindustrial private forests than for national forests. On both classes of ownerships, silvicultural investments could be lost or diminished in effectiveness, not only through withdrawals of land from timber production, but also through restrictions on harvesting for various reasons. For example, on national forests, some treated areas might ultimately be included in areas zoned as "sensitive" due to threat of watershed damage, or as habitat for "endangered" species of plants or animals, or as areas where aesthetic impacts of normal harvesting methods were intolerable. And continued fractionation of private holdings may split treated stands into units too small for economic harvesting. It frequently has been suggested that private landowners were becoming less and less willing to sell timber and that 95 many treated stands might be withheld from harvest. However, comparing stated intentions of landowners with actual practices, Stonezg-concluded: "Although small owners display indifference to timber production most of the time they are not indifferent to economic Opportunities to market ripe timber and react in a predictable way." He suggested further that changes in land tenure occurred often and that even if one owner planned to withhold his timber, the next one might well have different intentions. Fractionation of ownerships into smaller and smaller holdings appears a more significant problem, however. Between 1952 and 1970, farm ownerships drOpped about 42.5 million acres while other nonindustrial private ownerships increased about the same amountZ§--probab1y with a large increase in numbers of individual ownerships. It now appears unlikely that the 2.4 million acres of idle cropland included in potential treatment opportunities for nonindustrial private lands would indeed be available. Rising farm crop prices probably have preempted that land for farming instead. While this would eliminate 20 percent of the acreage evaluated for nonindustrial private lands, including some of the least cost, most productive planting sites, it still would not change the general comparison between national forests and nonindustrial private opportunities. léRobert N. Stone. 1970. A comparison of woodland owner intent with woodland practice in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota. ZEU.S. Forest Service. 1973 op. cit. p. 11. 96 Funding allocations would affect cost-effectiveness of programs significantly. As indicated in chapter 3, the allocation preferred by Forest Service staffmen would not maximize softwood sawtimber growth--for practical reasons. Further, the problem of identifying treatment opportunities properly in the field would be large for both national forest and private lands. And political factors in allocation of subsidies among states and among landowners well might result in less-than-optimal distribution of investment. Uncertainties in Research Investments There are significant, unquantifiable chances of error in calculations of research program effectiveness. The most important elements are rate of technical progress and rate of commercial adoption. The projects evaluated in this analysis have been selected, in part, because they have progressed far enough that technical success appeared relatively certain. Commercial adoption might be much slower than anticipated, especially for improved wood processing technology. Industrial adoption of the latter would depend largely on anticipated rates of return on investment in capital equipment. Although the estimated investment costs appear relatively small in relation to projected yields, explicit investment analyses would be needed to reduce uncertainty about industrial application. Another factor not quantified in these anlyses is the possibility that parallel developments in technology could lessen the impact of Forest Service research and development projects. It is highly likely that technological progress in 97 these areas will result from past and present Forest Service research efforts, without increased funding, or from other institutional or industry-financed research. Only a few of the many Forest Service research programs related to timber production are evaluated in this study. In fiscal year 1973, apprOpriations for Forest Service research amounted to about $59 million, including $12.8 million for Timber Management Research, $10.7 million for Forest Insect and Disease Research, and $9.4 million for Forest Products Utilization Research. It would not be fair to assume that all of the projects which could be funded with Research appropriations were more cost-effective than investments in silvicultural treatments. Recommendations On the basis of the analyses presented here, the following recommendations are made: (1) Future policy decisions on national programs to increase timber supply should recognize opportunities for technological improvements as well as investments in silviculture; (2) Tree improvement, Fomes annosus control, computerized decisionmaking, and B—direction restraint projects should be supported strongly, because of their expected high cost- effectiveness; (3) Policymakers should note the potentially high cost- effectiveness of increased public investment in nonindustrial private forest lands as compared to increases in present levels of spending for national forest backlog treatments; 98 (4) Forest Service administrators should take measures to reduce the high costs of national forest silvicultural treat- ments, especially reforestation; (5) Forest Service officials should consider changing current accounting practices to allow increased investment in silvicultural treatments without directly prOportional increases in overhead costs (these costs are the largest single factor reducing the apparent cost—effectiveness of national forest treatments); and (6) The Service should take steps to insure that the increasingly large amounts of money it spends on silvicultural examinations, to find treatment Opportunities, are concentrated in those administrative regions and national forests where cost- effectiveness of treatment is likely to be high. Conversely, it should spend little money searching for backlog treatment opportunities in those regions and forests where low stumpage prices, high treatment costs, and low site productivity combine to make such Opportunities poor public investments. Additionally, the following recommendations are made for further research: (1) The Forest Service should undertake a major effort to evaluate its timber-related research and technical assistance programs to identify the most cost-effective opportunities for affecting timber supply-demand balances; (2) The Service should place high priority on research aimed at reducing the high costs of silvicultural treatments; (3) A detailed set of treatment opportunity acreages and physical yield estimates should be established, using either the 99 ones presented in this study or those developed for previous analyses as an initial basis, and improving the estimates of both acreages and yields continuously as new information becomes available; and (4) The Service should evaluate various ways of insuring that subsidies for investment on nonindustrial private forest lands are allocated to the most cost-effective opportunities. Further research should be done to examine possible ways of organizing cost-sharing programs to increase cost-effectiveness: concentration of investment, as in the case of the Yazoo-Little Tallahatchie Project, Offers economies of scale in both treatment and subsequent timber management and should receive serious consideration. Finally, both adminstrators and economists should recognize the need for practical application of economic analysis in programming Forest Service budgets. Economists may quibble about the appropriate discount rate (should it be 5 percent or 10 percent or what?) and the theoretically most sound criterion for ranking projects (benefit—cost ratio, net present worth or internal rate of return or what?). Administrators and their staffmen rightly may feel that the analyst has ignored, or been unable to quantify, important benefits from forestry programs. The real Opportunity, however, is to use economic analysis in making marginal improvements in budget allocation and to identify major obstacles to improved cost-effectiveness of programs. The Forest Service should expect continued emphasis by the Office of Management and Budget on economic justification of Federal 100 programs. Increasing scrutiny of Forest Service programs by 'Congress and public interest groups may be expected as a result of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and recent reforms in congressional budgeting procedures. The Service should be prepared to demonstrate that it employs sound procedures in evaluating its programs, in its budget recommendations, and in its allocation of appropriated funds. In this regard, niceties of analysis are far less important than a consistent, demonstrable concern for reasonable levels of efficiency. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TREATMENT YIELD COMPUTATIONS, NATIONAL FORESTS lOl .mnamw» =HMEhoc: .mpcmum Hmudumc .ucmemuuca Hansen some ouumuummlu00wuowndu aw mmmHo >ufl>wuosooum ouwml H OH0.0 u0.3.0 "m~0.0 "mmo.o ucmEOMOCH Amanda cmmz om.a “ Om.on OO.H u Ov.m " O¢.o“ oo.~ " Om.m u om.o" OO.m u mm.v u mm. " Oh.v " mqudn Hmcwmu oma u Oma » u u n u u u u u Hm.0 " HN.0" 05.0 n " .cflnu .8500" 00 u 00 Bzmzeammfi AdHBHzH 0mPudn Hucwmu om " om u u u u u "HM.N u HN. u ONuNu u n u ”e.g....OU..ooon Oh u Om. u u u u u u u u "Hflofl u HO. u ONofln "coo-o..0mv..oo.u m0 «m0 " u u VO.H u VNoou omoo u u u u n u u no...oo.OmV.ooo.n 00 u 00 u n u u n " om.a " ONOu Om.H u mm.d n ma. " Om.a " ".......OO....." om u om n n u u u u n u u 0M.H u 0m.0" 00.H u . u .Cwnu .5800" on « 0n n u u u u u u u u u u " mmtom ".......Ov.....u 0N u 0N u u n u u u u u u u " "omdtmm u.......OU.....u ma a ma u u u u u u u u n u n u +0NH u.CH£u .EEouwumu OH H 0H « u u u n u u u u u u u Had u .umwuommm“ 0 u 0 fizmzedmme AduHHzH omaduHozH xBHz mZHUmm u x u I u u «t u n In" H u :1" II" " tuuluull u "Monawun u "umnswuu " ”uvnfiau" u uuwnEwu" " u u aauoauuonuou namm "dance «Monuon namm "Hove? “nonuou namm “Hanna uuwcuo" Izmm » mmmau “ u How» u “I In“ II" n .voum " u ucoa u mom . onion " mmaom " Omanmm u +ONH u ouam u ucmfiummhe “gumm>cHuvcmam mammao >uw>wuosooum ouwm >n came» oucunummaOOONauwndouooo.H nan mcdquHm muonEoo can Gawumummwum wwwm uucwfiumouu vouMUMOCH momma aonumn poxUOumcoz "venom ucwunnu mo coHumauumvo m scamom aw uwunoosumw can 0 new m mcoflmwm cw uwmummHmmda umooxw mmmhw cumumoz Had we nodumummquOMIt.H< wanna .102 .mpHmHm :Hmeuoc: .mncmum Hmudum: .ucofiouOCH Hansen some muumnummuuoowuowndo cH mmmHu muH>Huosnoum wuHml H 5H0.0 umN0.0 umm0.0 ”Nm0.0 ucmfiwuocw Hmsccm coax 0N.N ” 0m.0" 00.H u 0m.m u 0m.0u 00.m " mm.v u mm.0u 0m.v " 00.0 n 00.0" 00.0 n deBOB 0m.m u 0m.0n 00.m " 0m.m u 0m.0u 00.m " mh.m “ mm. " 0m.m " 0v.m " 0v. " 00.m " u umo>umc Hmch” OMH " OMH H u H H H "OHIH “ onion omlo H u u N "OOOOOOOUOICOOON om "om " u u u n u u u u 0v.H u 0v.0u 00.H " " .cwfiu .5800" 00 u 00 Bzmzedmme HdHBHzH omeéuHOzH Boothx mxHomm vv0.0 H050.0 "OHH.0 nmmH.0 ucmfiwuocH Hmsccm cmmz mm.m " mm.0u 05.0 « v0.5 " 0v.0" 0v.n " 00.0 n 0m.0u 0v.m u 0m.NHu 0m.0n 00.NH“ 044809 m0.m " m0. " 00.m " u u n u u n u n « u......oc......u 0mH “ 0NH u u u mm.v u N0. u om.v u u u u u u u u......Ov......n 00H u 00H u u u u u " no.0 u m0. n 00.0 n u u u " umm>umn Hmch" 00 u 00 a u . u mm.H u mH.0u 00.H u n u u u u u u......00......" mm H mm HN.~ " Hm.0u Oh.H “ u n n u u u u n n " .CHLu .5600" 00 u 00 u u u u n u u u u vm.h " v0. u 0m.h u u umm>u0£ Hmcflh" om u 00 u u u u u “ HM.N u HN. u 0N.N " u u " u......0©......u on n on u u u u u u u u " HN.N u H0. u 0N.N u u......ov......u mm u me u u u v0.H " vm.0u 00.0 n u u u u u " "......ov......" 00 u 00 u u u n u " mm.H u 0N0u 0m.H u m0.H " mH. " 0m.H n u......ov......" 0m " 0m u u u u u n u n " 0m.H u 0m.0u 00.H " u .cwsu .5500" On u 0m " u u u u u u u u u u u mmuom u......oo......u 0N " 0N u u u u . n u u u u u " “ONHlmm u......Ov......u mH “ mH u u u u n u u u u u u u +CNH u oCHfi oEOUfiHQ» OH H OH u u u u u u u u u u u “ HHm « .ummuowmm" 0 u 0 Bzmxemmme HdHBHzH 0macHu Ucmum MmmmHo qu>Huosvoum ouHm >n OHOHA ouomuummuuooMuoHndocooo.H HxHE mOHommm o>0umEH ou ocHucmHm HmHuumm HOV coHumuwcommu Hmudumc 0cm coHumummoum ouHm uucmEummuu Oouoowocn OHAMHHm>m mousom comm noun monuwn waooumcoz "Osman ucouufiu uo coHumHuuumo lmonomn H cowmmm mo muumm mo ccHumumOHOMOmau.~< mHnmb 103 .mOHoH> :Hneuoc= .mccmum HQMSum: .ucofiwuocH Hmnccm c005 ouomuummuuoounoHnso cH mmmHu >uw>Huuanoum ouwml 000.0 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 0m.m u 0m.0u 00.m 000.0 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 H 000.0 .050.0 .000.0 newsm0000 finance 0002 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 00.5 . 00.0. 00.0 . 00.0 . 0~.H. 00.0 . 000000 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . . . .......o0....... 00H . 00H . . . . . . 05.5 . 05.0. 00.5 . .......oo....... 00H . 000 . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . umw>uma H0000. 00 . 000 00.H . 00.0. 00.0 . . . . . . . .......oc....... 00 . 00H . . . 00.H . 00.0. 00.H . . . . .......oo....... 00 . 00 " 0m.H u 0m.0u 00.H u Bzmzedmme HdHBHZH QNBdUHQZH BDOmBHS mZHOMm .cwcu .saoo. 00 . 00 "000.0 "OVH.0 "00H.0 ucmewuocw Hmsccm cum: mH.m 0 0H. 0 00.0 00.H . 00.0. 00.0 Hquoauuunuou -300 00-0w v0.5 0 v0.0" 00.5 n 00.0 n 00.0” 00.0 " 00.NH" 00.0" 00.NH" 0A¢BOB . u u u . u n u " 0......00......" 00H “ mcH N0.v H mm. 0 0v.v u u u u n u u "......Ov......u 00 " mmH u u n 00.0 n 00. n 00.0 n n u u u umm>u0£ Hmchn 00 " mOH 00.H 0 0H. " 00.H “ u u u n u u u .Cng .6500“ mm u 00H 0 n u u u u v0.5 ” v0. 0 00.5 n “ umm>hmn HmcHh" 0h 0 mm 5 u “ 0N.N u on. u 00.N " n u u 0......00......n Om " m0 0 u u u u " HN.N 0 H0. u 0N.N u 0......00......u mm H 00 v0.H u vm.0" 00.0 n u u u u u u 0......00......” 0m 0 0h 0 u u u n n mm.H " mH. " 0m.H " 0......00......u ow u m0 0 u ” 00.H " 00.0" 00.H " u u " 0......00......u on 0 m0 0 u u u u u 0m.H n 00.0" 00.H " " .CHLU .EEOUu 0m » mv " u n u u u n u " mmlow 0......OUJ....." 0 " mv u u u u u u u " "ONHImm 0......00......u 0 u mm 0 u u u u u n u " +0NH u.cH£u .EEOomhmu 0 5 mm HZMXHaHuvuuum MammHo qu>wuosvoua 0000 an nHwH» muocohvauuoomoownsuuooo.H :Hnu Hawouoesouuum “unmaunuuu nouuuwuun mvcwum mcHHaun vmeOumum>0 ”vcaum.u:ouuau mo OOHunHuuuua 0 conmm CH unuousuQm 0cm 0 van m 0:00000 CH unummesoa uamuxw mwmwu cumumoa HHonumvcaumchHHacn cwaOucuo>o mo wchcwcu HuHuquEouwumnc.m< MHDqH ii 1. .f ..5 l. g: 23‘ 104 .mUHmH> =HmEuoc= .mccmum Hmuauma .ucoamuocH Hmdncm :mmE muomaummnuooonHnso CH mmMHo >u0>0uunvoum ¢uHmI 0 000.0 .000.0 .000.0 _ .000.0 000000000 000000 0002 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 00.5 . 00.0. 00.0 . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . 000000 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . . .......00....... 000 . 000 . . . . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . 05.5 . 05. . 00.5 . . 000>000 00000. 00 . 000 . . . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . . . . . . . .. ..... 00....... 00 . 000 u u u 0 u “ 0m.H 0 00.00 00.H u u 0 u 0......00......~ 00 n 00 0 u 0 0 u 0 n u " Om.H u 0m.0" 00.H u .flHnu .8500" 0H 0 00 020200000 0000020 000000020 0000003 020000 000.0 . .000.0 .000.0 .000.0 . 000000000 000000 0002 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.5 . 00.00. 00.0. 00.0 . 0008.0. 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . . . .......o0....... 000 . 000 . . . . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . 05.5 . 05. . 00.5 . . um0>u00 00000. 00 . 000 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . ...... 00....... 00 . 000 . . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . .......o0....... 00 . 000 u u u u n omoH u omoou OOoH u u u u u 05;“ uEOUu OM u CW 0 u u u u u u u u omoH u omoOn OOoH u u 00000 cove-0000" OH u 00 u u u n u u u u u u u HH‘ "0&5“ oEOUmen O u 0m BZMZB‘NKB HdHfiHZH DubduHQZH mBH3 mZHumm " 00035000 0 "HwflEHun " "Hwflfifluu u “anfiwuu 0 n u Hmuoa "00:00. I300 "Hmuoa .uwfiuou I300 “Hmuoe "umcuou I300 "Hmuoe "00:90“ I300 u mmnHo 0 0 Ham» 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII”IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" .0000 u " acmfi « 000 omlom 0 m0lom ” 0NHIm0 » +0NH 0 oun “ ucwfiumoue ”lum03cHuncmum MmmMHu >uH>HuuanOHQ wuHm hp cHoH> muumaumquooMIoHnsolooo.H ' :Hnu HmHouoEEoumum “unmauwwuu woumancH mucmum umnEHumHom voxooumuw>o "ocmum ucmuudu mo nOHumHuumwn 0 COAmmm CH HHwImosumm 0cm 0 000 m mconwm c0 unImmHmdoo unmoxw mumxw :000003 HHmIImvcmum uwnEHumHoa voxooumuo>o mo MchcHnu HmHoumEEoumHaII.0¢ «Hank 105 ON0.0 om.m » Om.m u .m0000> :Hmauoc= .mvcmum Hmudunc .ucmemuuca HMQGCM 0008 wuumuquIuOOMIU0nsu :0 mmmao >u0>0uuguoum Upwml h I H Hvo.o .vno.c .mmo.o ucmfiwuuu0 Amanda :00: 00.0. 00.0 . 05.0 . 05.0. 00.0 . 00.5 . 00.0. 00.0 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . 000000 00.0. 00.0 . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . . . .......on....... 000 . 000 . . . . . . . . 05.5 . 05.0. 00.5 . .......o0....... 000 . 000 . . . . . 00.0 . 00. . 00.0 . . . . . 000>000 00000. 00 . 000 . . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . . . . . . . .......o0....... 00 . 000 . . . . . 00.0 . 00.0. 00.0 . . . . .......o0....... 00 . 00 u u n u u u u u Om.a u Om.Ou OO.H u 0 .Cwnu .5500" mm u 00 0202000000 0.000020 80000020 0000003 020000 wmo.o .oe0.o .th.O ucmfiwuunw Husccm :00: mm.v “ mm.Ou OO.v . vo.h 0 v0.00 00.5 0 Om.m 0 Om.ou 00.0 0 Om.ma" Om.Ou OO.NHu mA¢BOB . mH.m n ma. 0 OO.m u 0 u u u 0 u u u " 0......00......u OOH u mva u u 0 No.v 0 mm. 0 ov.v u 0 u u u u " 0......06......u om " mNH " 0 0 u u " om.® " On. 0 00.0 0 0 u 0 0 um0>umn Hanan" OF 0 mOH " 0 0 mm.H u mfl.on Om.H " u n 0 u n 0 u .cficu .8500" mm “ OOH u u 0 u u 0 u 0 u wm.b 0 v0. 0 Om.b 0 u umo>kmn Hmcwm" On 0 mm ov.d u OV.On OO.H " u u " ON.N u ON.Ou OO.N 0 n u 0 0......00......u Om " mm 0 0 u u 0 u 0 u u HN.N " HO. 0 ON.N " 0......Ov......u mm 0 om u u " «O.H u ¢N.O. om.o 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0......ov......0 Om 0 m5 u n u u u u u u u mmIH u mHo u omoHu "0000000600000." 0? H mo 0 u n 0 u 0 Om.H “ Om.Ou OO.H n u u 0 0......00......0 On 0 mo 0 0 u u 0 0 u 0 " Om.H 0 Om.O" OO.H 0 u .cfinu .5500" ON 0 me 0 n u 0 . 0 0 0 u u u u u mmION 0......00......u O u mv " u n 0 u u u u 0 u u "ONHImm 0......00......" O 0 mm 0 0 n 0 u 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 +ONH 0.cH£u .Efioumhm" O 0 mm 82M28u0>0uusuoum mu0m ma U000> muomuuoquoouI00QDUIooo.0 0000000000 . ucofiuflmh 000.0303 >00umuo>o cwmmm "ncmum ucmuuao no :00umwuommo N c00mMmIIwHOum0w>o chmm 5000 wcwm.mmoumncom 0:0 mc0m1000mumv00 mo wmmmHmmII.m< manmb 106 .muamw> :HMEMOG: .mncmum Hmndumc ~ucmewuoca Hogans cums ouuanuomluoownofindu cw mmmao >uw>wuuavoum mufiml ovo.o mm.v mH.m ov.H HauOB "Hmo.o mm.v I'll "000.0 " mm.ou .¢ " n ma. m ov.ou oo.H " » uuwnfiwu" OmIom u om.h No.¢ mm.H vo.H .voo o 2.0" oo.v " ov m " ov.o" oo.m " u u ” queoa mH. ” oo.m " ON e “ om. " oo.v " u u " o~.ou oo.H " ow H “ o~.o" oo.H " u u . 962955 .EHSzH 8.568% .5053 mfiomm "qu.o “mnfl.o vo.o" oo.n " om.m " om.o" oo.m " am.mau om.ou oo.mH" mqumn Hmcwm" oh ” mod n .awnu .5500" mm H ooH u umm>umn Hanan" oh u mm "...OOCOQIOOCCC." on “ mm ”OIOOOCOUIOOCOOH mm ” om "OOOIUIOUCOOOO." om "mk| “00.0.00” ...... M O? " mo "OOOOCOOCOCOCUO" on H mm .cwzu .EEOU" 0m ” me "0.0.0.0”...OI." o " mv “0.0.0.0” ..... O" o H mm u.:H£u .anowum" o " mm " u Mac» n u u uch u mud n unusquHB “lumo>:Huvnmum Immm~u >ua>wuoau0um wuam >n caowx unvalumalu00unownaooooo.a a xuoumu0>o comma mammawm “ acmsummfl @3335 uucmum unanuao uo cowumwuummo N scamwmnuhuoumuo>o nwmmm Baum kuumoaumw mo wwwwammuu.m¢ wanna 107 .moam«> :HmEuocx .mocnum Hausum: .ucmfimuoca Hanccm cums muonuuomnuOOMIOfinsu ca mmoflu >uwkuusv0ua uuwmm oao.o uv3.0 ummo.o ummod unoaouucw Amanda :moz ON.H " u u u u u u u u u u u u......ov......u ONH u oma "can?“ u nooooooocaooooou OHH "OHH u u u u n Homomu u u n n u "cocoooovoooooou OOfl “OOH om.h “ u u " umm>umn Hmcwmu mm n ma szzhhfl£ HMCMhu mm u mo owOC" N n H H H H N N n u I “...COIOGOOOCOOH om N om " u u u u n . u u Ov.H “ u u u......OU......u m5 u mh O O F . . . nooo...00 ..... .u OF “ CF OF.H u u u u......00......n m0 u m® o . u u u nouocooovoooooou om u 00 OOoH u u u . n u OF.H u n u no..-..OU ...... n mm u mm u u “ OM.H u n u u u u u......OU......n Om Om 84" n u .0 so 0 0 no u oo.H u me N H "Oh-OH" " H "...OIOOQIOOOOOH mv I. O. u n O 0 v 0 F4 . u. ..... 00 ...... u 0v ov u . u . u Oh.H . “ .Gflzu .5500" mm u mm . u u u u u u u u " "...OU..u.GH£u .EEOUmeu ma " ma u u u u u u u u u u u " HH< u mafiucmHm can u u u . u u u u u u u u u u n .mmum mqun O n O 82m28cHuocmum MmmmHu >uw>wuono0um muwm >8 vaww> whomluwmquOMIownaotooc~a mcaucmaa can ceaumummoum wuwm ”unmaumwuu u¢udowucu mmwua onxomn vwaOumcoz "madam ucwuuso mo cowumauowua m can m wcowmom cw kuammamsoo no c0wumumwuowwmvn.h¢ wanna 108 630.3 gal—Mac: 393»- Anuau-c 5.8.3.35 353 508 ounfuofiboouuoanuo 5 =30 3.2502693 03.91 A .396 a 5.0 .306 “3H6 use-Duos ~35: :3: E . n u E u u . ov.m . u . odnd. u . 38A. . ONOfl” ” u M M u ” M M u M u “...OIOO‘OOOIOIM “O” u ON” a M ” omoflu M M u n N M W M “0.0.0.00000000” mm ” OH” . u n n u .oN.m » u u u n " u......ov......n no a con . . a n u . u u « om; . n . uguuao amends“ on n ma . n u u n u n . « oat—”u “ . “1:100:13” oo . ms ” n ”004" u u on!" u u u u n a n......oo......u mm a on a u u a u u u u «Chin» u u u.onoo.OU-ooouou om ”m0 u u u u u “ oo.~ u u u . u ” u......ov......u mv u om « u u u u u n u u om." a u u « .Snu .580» ov a mm gags gang anion—"9AM 88E: 28m Ono.o n«00.0 .Nvad wand pamfiwuofi dance; :38 om...” a n n 00.0 n u u 004.1 “ “ ONKHu u a nudge om.n . u u u u u u . n u u . u......ov......« no." u om.— . u "006 u u u u u u u u u .......oo......~ mm ” cad u u u n u ”00.“. u u n n u » u......ov......u mm "cod « n u n u u u n « oo.m u u u . 9'25! Hash“ om » no om.ou . u u u u u u u n u u ”......ou......u mm a om " n 0 I u M O” M O o¢OH M N “ “0.000.000.0000” om M mp . n n n n u OH.H » . u u u " u......oo......n mm u on u a «00:...» u n u ” u n n u u......ov....... on "me u . . u u u . u . Ohén u u ”......ov....... ov u no . n n u . ” Ont” ” u n n u a "......oc.....£ no " ow . u u 00.." u u u . u . owin u a . .......Ov......n 0v u mm a u a .u u non-H u u u u u a noon-ooOUoooooou MM u on u n u 004“ u u u « «on; u u ” ~......ov......u on u mv “ u u n . u 0o..." « n . u u » .......ov......u mu a co . u u u . n a a n as..." u u . u .923 .38“ on u mm . n u n . u u u u u u u a: “.593 .nlooouau o n mm 89529552. Sana 896MB E EB.“ . .2413” a Saga” » «M0853: u .uonfiuun . u . H308 33:00” 033 $308 «3330” I33 «A309 ”H058” I)“ 3309 .8230“ I‘m . luddo » . Hag . onto“ . mater. ” cudlmo . 3N." « ovum . uglouh. .Iuaoifisucdum u n u . u u u Imago huabwuoavoun cu.“- hn 30.3 ouualuoauuoouauwnaunooog A ao-SHon no. 0553:» Manual—Boon.— coflfiuomao in” :33 no. noxuounugo w Gama... 5 Hauuoosumn can w can m .333: 5 35533 .8333 .93». ash—Mao no ceaumuuuaoa Maul-dampen no oucoflou .5 mfigsu unaonofiaooouhundt 032. 109 .mvaowa sanfiuoc: .wvcmum auudum: .ucwewuocw Hwaccm came ouoo Hum uoom ownau ca mmmau huw>auosuoum ouwml u ”mmo.ouvvc.ou “ u u mHo.oummo.ou u Hb.o “mv.H umm.o umm.o Hmm.o nmv.o "om.o “oh.d "av.o ”MN.H "mm.o nmm.o " H u u UfimfiHUGfl Hflflgfl C002 umm>udn Hmcwun BZNZBdmmB AdHBHZH QHB‘UHQZH BDOSBH3 WZHOMm «ma.o "Hoa.o h~.m " "ma.m “ “Ha.m “ um~.HHu "m~.¢ " "no.“ " ma.m n "mo.H ” ”0H.v u ”om.m " umH.H ” "Nh.q u sp.H " . ”mm. " "NV.” " "om.H " "pm. " "av.” u mH.H " ”mm. " "mm.o " "vo.a " "mm. " “mm.o u mH.H " "0H.H " u n " ”mm.a " “mm.H ” u - n C C . C O O O O . O C O O . C . unmEmMUCw " queofi u umo>udn Hanan" "0......ocOOUOIO” “ "OOIOIOCOQIOOIOOH " " .aanu éEoun "..OU...u.......ov......u u..on...u.......oc......u "..OU...u .cudn .uomwum” Haflu ocfiucmam can u " u u n u u u u u u cOHuMHflmmHQ mum" fizmzkdmma AdHBHZH ONE‘UHQZH mBH3 NEHUmm .uuomn.v3nxu.uwomu.n3nmn.umomu.u3nmu.uuomu.n3nmn.uuomu.n3nmn.uuomu.n3n:u " H38. ” 350 H “353mm" 258. u .858 “Unfiuamm omflumm " +oma " mmoao “ " .uOHQ " 3.8 “ 95535. 0v on om 0v 0m 0m ON OH 0 Hum» acme uumm>cH u 0v H @556 G £602 on om ow om om ON 0A 0 ‘2 Immmao >ufl>wuosu0um wuwm >9 uaow> muumuumanuOOMIownaouooo.H a mcwucmam can newumummaum ouwm "usuaumouu nmumufincm monomn noxooumcoz uuamum ucouuso mo newumwuommo mafia xmmHmnmmemcoH mo cowumummuowmmau.m< «Ham? 110 .muawwa :HMEuoc= .mucdum Houdumc .ucofiuuocw Hansen anus whom Hum uoou Danna ca mmeu huwbwuonuoum wuwml H woo.cuoao.o ”ado.oummo.o ucwfiwuucw Amanda cmoz N~.o uNv.o n0.70 nh~.o umad “mH.o uhv.o "no.0 nv~.o "H®.o umN.o "mm.o " " um0>umn quahu 0v u 0v Hzmzedmmfi AdHBHzH QmBud£ HMSwm" 00 u 00 hm. " “Ha. u "we. " ">0.H " “Hm. " "mm. H " u.......ov......u om u om mm.o n "ma.o " "0.010 n ”we. " uvm. u “3.10 n " ".......O©......u 0v u 0v “ . u . u I . No.0 " "No.0 u n I n u u .cwzu .EEOUu Om u cm 0 u H H H N " N.OOOGIONOOCOOOOOUCIQCCCH OM "on o o u I n o o n n u o uoooovooutooooooovoooooou ON u ON n u u u u u u u u u u non-Omvcou IQHSQ oHUmmHfiu OH n OH u u u u n u u u u u u u add " OCHUCMaQ vcm " u u u n u n u u u u n u " "COwUMummmum muflm o u o Bzmzacancm0m omIom " mmIOm .MmmmHo >uw>fiuosuOum wufim >n oauwk quMIuwQIuOOMIUfiQQOIooo.H mcaucmHm can :oflumudamua wufim "ucwEummuu oOuMUHGCH monomn noxUOumcoz "Ucmum ucmuuuo mo cowumfluumwo “do.ucoovuu.m¢ manme lll. .mvamwh ramshac: .mvcmum Hanson: .ucuamuoaw amazed Gama anon umm poem ownau cw mmmao >ua>wuuavoum auwml H mvc.oummo.o ubmo.oumoa.o ucmfimuucfl Amanda cums mm.a “hm.m "Hm.o nmo.~ "mo.o umad "mm.a ”mm.m "v~.H "om.N umm.o “MH.H " umo>umn Hmcwmu mm " mq gadmme 3.35 8.2ng goxeuz maumm mmH.o “mmH.o ucmamuoqw Amanda cam: n~.m " oa.m "Ha.m u um~.HH" ”mm.m ” "mo.> u " mumsos ma.m " mo.fi . "0H.v u uom.m u "mH.H u "mn.v u " umm>umn Hmcfimu 00 u on hb.a H "mm. " ”mv.a u "mm.a " "hm. ” ”mv.H “ u.. ..... 00......" ov " om mH.H " “mm. ”3.0 “ "vo.H u "mm. " "3.0 u u ....... on ...... u on » ov mH.H " "mH.H “ I . "mm.a " "mm.a u n I . . “ .cwsu .5500" om " on N O u H u o o . "0.00”. O" O 0.... Con OOOOOO H ON M on u u o "0.006.." nag ouommkn OH u OH . u u u Had " Ammmmamu uov u u u . n u u .cwnu .anumumu o H OH Bzmzsdmma AdHBHZH QWEdUHQZH xBH3 HZHOWK .uuom“.n3vmu.uuomu.n3cmu.umomu.manxu.umomu.u3vmn.uuomn.u3vmu.uuomu.u3nmu " Hmuoa " uwnuo u uwnfiwuzmm ” Hmuoa uwcuo " uwnfiwu3wm " mmuao " ” you» n I 1 II: III" I ” .uoua » " ucwfi n «ma Omanmm " +o~H " wuwm u ucwfiumoua “Iumm>cHquMum .lwmmao >uw>auoanoum muwm mp ”How> wuoqumQIuOOMIansoIooo.H H Ammwwamu Nov mcflccwnu Hmwuuwafioooum mcooavudn mcwuwmsao cuw3 noxuoumum>o uucofiumouu woumuwccH "vamum uaouunu mo :oflumwuomoo mafia nmmamlummamcoH mo mmmonu ho mcfichnu HmfloumfifioowumIl.OH< magma 112 .muamw> gameuoc: .mocmum Hmnsumc .ucmemuocw Amanda :mwa muom uwm uoow ownso cw mmmHu xuw>auosuoum muflml a mao.onmmo.o uomo.o"mmo.o ucmeuUCw Hmsccn cam: mm.o "hm.o uom.o "no.0 um~.o u0m.o umoth "vm.a nomd "um.H "mv.o “00.0 n " umm>umc Hanan" mm " mv Bzmzemmmh AdHeHzH omeauHozH BDOmBHB mzHomm mvo.o "moa.o ucmeuoc« andccm cam: vm.m " u230 . u¢m.m u 0H m . mm.a . .mm.v . u quaba mm.~ " now. u "mm.a u "oh.m " "ms. " "mo.m " n " umm>umz Hmcfimu ow " on hm. " "Ha. u "we " "no.H " "aw. H "mm. H n ".......on......" 0v " om mm.o ” umad " uom.o " "mo. u “vm. " Hvm.o " ” ".......oc......u 0m " 0v 1 u n l u u I u .N®.O . "NQIO u u I u u n ICflSU IEOUH ON u OM u H 0 M H u 0 u M H HOOOOUOIHIOOOOOOOQIOOOOOH ON H om n . u u . u . . u u...0fl..u .Cudn .uommumu OH " OH H u u n " HH< “ Awmmmflmu uov " u u n u u u u n n u u u u n .cflnu .Efioumumn o u OH Bzmze " IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u I II n .voum u ucufi " mom omIcm " mmIom u mufim " unmaummua "Iumm>:H.ncmuw MmmmHo xuw>wu0960um muwm >9 Gama» muoqumquoouIUflDSUIooo.H Aommoamu uov weanedzu Hmwoumafioomua "unmEummuu woumuwvaH mu003vumz mcwummsoo nuflz uwxooumuw>o ”ncmum ucwuuso mo newumfiuommo Ergo”: {.02 ~38. 113 .muflmflm =Hmeuoc= .mncmum Hmuduma Iucwamuocfl Hmdccm cmmfi whom “mm ween canau cw mmmau huw>wuunvouw wufiml a vmo.o "mvo.o ucwfiwuucw Hmsucm mama mm.H "mm.m "on.o "mm.a "mm.o "05.0 ">0.H umo.m "mm.o "vm.m "Nb.o umm..o ” " umm>umn anewhu mm u we Bzmzecmme AshZH BBmUHQZH 939.553 NZHUME Hma.o "mHN.o ucmEmuucw Andean cam: mo.m " ”mo.m . “00.0 " "om.man "av.v “ "mv.m u “ quaoe I o~.m " ”vo.H " "mH.v u "ofl.n u "mv.H " umw.m " u " uwm>umg Hmcfim" ow " or N®.H " "mm. " "om.H ” "qv.m " "mv. u um¢.a ” " u.......oc......" ov " om mo.H “ "vm. " "3.0 " uH>.H u ”mm. u "ww.o u “ “.......ov......" om “ ov mH.H " "wH.H . u I " umw.H u umw.a " u I u u u .cwnu .5500“ ON u on H N O H M N H H u H MOOIOQOOHIIIOOIOOQOOO..." ON "on H O H I O O I I O O "IOOOUOI" OCH-”n Chommum" OH H ON u . u u u u u u u " H2 u Ammaawu HOV " u u . .CHLu .EEoomumu o " 0H Ezmzadmme Anunvcaum MmmmHo >ua>fiuoovoum wuwm an vawfi> muUMIHwQIuOOMIUHHQUIooo.H Awmmmamu HOV undeadnu HMfloumEEoomum ”ucmEummuu mmumufiocH Amvoo3cnmz ucfiummeou sufi3 uov coxUOumum>O "qcmum ucwuuso mo newuuwuumwu mangmmeuuonwLNmaoHnoH mo mcacuwcu HmfluquEoownmII.HH< mfiAMB £114 .mfia0w» :Hmauoc= .wccmuw Hmunumc .ucmemuocw Hansen cmwfi whom H09 uoou ownso cw mmmao >ua>wuoanoum ouwml H vHO.ouhNo.ou "vmo.oum¢o.o , ucwfiwuocfi HMDCCM cmmz mm.o Hwoé umm.o nmhd umm.o umm.o ”hm.o uomé umm.o umN.H u«To ”mm.o " " umm>umn Hmcwmu om “ om Bzmzemmme AtHBHzH QNBkd£ Hmchu om " on mm. u "Ha. u "vv. " “Hm. " umv. u "mp. " u ".......oo......u 0v " om me. H "mm. H umm.c u “ms. " “hm. u nmm.o u u u.......on......u on u 0v wm.o u nmm.o " u I " H00.0 n "00.0 n u I u n u .cwnu .EEOUH om " Om " u u u n u u u u u u u...OU..".......OU......u ON “ on u n u u n n n u u u " "...OU.." .cudn .Homwhmu OH u ON . u . . . u u u n u u Had u Ammmwamu how u n u n u u u u u n u u u u " .cwnu .EEouwumu o u 0H Bzmzafimma AdHBHZH omemuHozH xBH3 MSHOMM .umom".?omu.uuomu.Bumudmom"63E".uuom”.3©mu.tomn.3§u.uuomuésvx“ " u “ kuoe ” umcuo u quEHu3mm ” amuoe u uopuo " uwnawukmm " mmmHo " . uaw> u IIIIIIIIIII I. II “IIIII III I" .voum " u acme " mom omuom “ mwnom " mufim " acoaummue " Iumm>cHuvcmum Mmmwau >ud>wuusooua wuwm an camwh ouunIumquOOuIUMquIooo.H Ammmmamu uov mcwccfinu Hmfloumfifiouwum "unmeummuu vmumoflccH Amoooacumn ocaummeoo nu“: no“ coxuoumum>o "ccmum ucmuuso no :0wumwuummo A.U.uc00v II.HH¢ manmh 115 .moamfi> :Hmfiuoc= .mucmum amusum: .ucmfimuucw Hmsccm cmwfi anon “mm uoou cansu aw mmmau >uw>wuusnOum ouwml H mao.ou®mo.o nmNo.oummo.O ucmfimuocw Hmnccm cmoz an.o “mv.a Hmm.o umod umm.o "«.36 "004 “@020. ”mm.o nmv.a umv.o "no.0 " " umw>umn Hmcwm" 07 u oq BZHZBmmmB AdHEHZH omaduHDZH BDOSBHS NZHumm mNH.o “vma.o ucofimuucfl Hansen :00: wo.m " "@0.m " "00.0 " nom.NHu "av.v " "mv.m u " mAHmn amcwmu oh " on N0.H " ”mm. " nOm.H " uvv.m " "mG. " “mm.H u " u.......OU......n Om u Om wo.a " "cm. " uvm.o u "Ah.H " ”mm. " nom.o u u u.......ov......n ov u 0v mH.H » ”0H.H . u I u “mm.H u umwza " u I u u " .cwnu .EEOUu Om u on H u H H u H H u N M H HOOIOGUOHIOOI00006000000" om H om " n u n u u u u u u u u...OU..".......OU......" ON u ON u u u u u u u n u n ” "...Ofl..u .nufin .uummum" OH H OH " u n u u u n n n u u " aH< u mcwucmflm 0cm u u u u u u n u u n n n u u u .mqu wuwm" o u o Hzmze u IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuII II“ .voum u " ucoe " mom ONHImm u +ONH n GUfiw u UCQEQQN‘H. ”lumm>CH "023m MmmmHu >ufi>fiuosooum wufim >3 vawfl> «NonfquIuOOuIUwQSUIooo.H mcwucmam vcm coflumudawum wuwm “ucwfiumouu cmuMUwccu m6003©umc HoflumMCM can Lmsum "ocmum ucwuuao mo newuafiuumwo mafia unmauuozmI>HHoHnoH mo coflumumwu0mmmII.~H¢ wanna 116 .mvHoH> :HmEuocz .mncmum Houdumc .ucmfimnocH Hmaccm came ouom umm uoow oHnno cH mmmHu >uH>Huonvoum muHmI H woo.OHMHo.o u0Ho.ouHmo.o ucmfimuucH H :num cmwz mN.o "3.0 "2.0 "mm.o ”NH.o u5H6 umv.o umm.o "mm.o ummd "0m.o "hm.o u u umm>umn Hmuamu ow ” ov hzmxpmmme quBHzH ousauaozH Baothx Mwamm ovo.o "who.o ucwewuocH Hmmucm cmmx ~m.m “ umotH " umH.N " unm.m “ unh.H " "oo.m " " quaoa om.H u "hm. u umv.H " nHH.m " “mm. " umv.m " u “ umm>umn Hmch" on u on mm. H "HHI H ”vv. H ”Hm. ” "mHO H ”MN-O “ " ”...OOOOOQOOOCOI" 0m " om mv. " "mm. " "mm.o " umh. “ "hm. u umm.o " " u.......ov......u ow " ov mm.o " ummd u u I ” "oo.o u "ow.o u u I u u ” .aHnu .EEOU" om " cm H H H H n H M H u H H uOOOOCOOHOOOOOIOOVCOOOOO" om "om u n u n n u u u u u n uooaocoonQQoooooOMU-ooooon ON u ON u u u u u u u u u u u u...OmU..u ICED .NUWQEH OH H OH " u u u n . u u u u u u H2 " mfinucmHm 9.3 u u u u u u u u u u n u u n " .Qmum mudmn O u o umahmmme .HdHBHzH QMBdUHQzH mBHZ 8.3me .uuomu.n3vmu.uuomu.vzvmu.uuomu.nznm".uwom".vzvmu.uuomu.u3©mu.uwowu.n30mu " u " :38. u H230 " “3533 " H38 “ 850 .. “3538 u 820 u ” “do.” " IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"II IIIII u .UOuQ " ” pawn " mmm omION " m wlom u wuwm u ucwfiummhh. " IummbfiH " Ucmum ImmmHo >uH>Huonu0um wuHm >9 onH> mMUMIuwquooquHQDUIooo.H H mcHucmHm can coHumumawum ouHm uucmEumwuu woumUanH mooo3vhmn uoHummcH ”cm gmnum uncmum ucouhso no uoHuuHuumwo .ucooII mcfim‘mmmHuuoch>HHoHnoH mo coHumamouomomII.mH< anmb APPENDIX B TREATMENT COSTS AND ACREAGES, NATIONAL FORESTS 117 mm “ on " HmuouQSm u wm " mm ” umnuo “ mm " hm " uoouwo " vcflccwnu HawuumEEoomum Om “ mm u Honounnm " va " ma ” umxuo " ma “ ma " uomuflo " mmmmawm mm " mm " Hmuounsm ” mm ” «v " umxu. " vv " Cm ” uomuao " mmwuwcduuommo Ham Ham .GOwumumwuommu kuoa . mm " Hm .. “ H3033 " ma " vH u uwnuo ” 5H " ha " uuwuao “ ocwucmam amwuqu 0v n 0v " Hmuounflm u an " Hm " umguo “ mm " mm u uomuflu " cofiumummmum ouwm uaonufl3 vcflucmam muwaweou me " mv u Hmuounnm " Hm " cm " umxuo " mm . H mm " uumufln u >Hco COwumuwmmum mufim H onwmm nuuunlululllunlllwuom umm‘mumaaoounauuunnnntulu" " mg unwuxo mmwuwam Ham " ma " n max» mmwomom un umou ” umoo mo ncflxu mowuomum mmwuomm vcm .umou mo mmmw .muwuumum .cowwmu m>fiuMMUchflfifim an .ucmEm>ouQEw @cmum 6cm coflumumouowmu ammuou HmGOMumc oonomn now mumou ucmEumwuu cmumeummnl.Hm manmfi .118 vasonm umoo newumumwuomwu may .uumwoum mumuo>m :0 0:06 wn on mum .uoms mp mcwucmHm 0cm coaumnwamua muwm muwnx "maoz Nb mm on av am an MVH an Nb OHH mm mm Om ma ma " we H mm H mm H mm n ma " 5H " mma mu\ oso In H H mm mv mv mm om om 00H om om Oma me mm mm ha ma mwaxu Ham wwmuw>n umoo mm 50 mm vm av ON Hm Ova or on ONH cm 00 mm NH ma mu mh hm mm mm ma ma omH mm mm OOH 0m 0m 0v ON ON muum Mum mumfiaooccchIIIIUItlnu ho Hmuounsm umnuo uomuflo Hmuounsm umzuo uomuflo Hmuounsm uwzuo uumuflo Hmuoundm umcuo uowuflo flauounsm umsuo pounds N ZOHomm umoo mo Ucwx wcHCCHnu HafiuumEEoowum AwCMU®m3V mmmmawm mmwuflcsuuomao Ham flaw .cofiumummuOMmu Hmuoe mewucmam COwumummmum muflm muwuumua A.n.ucouvul.flm «Hawk 119 mN H “ MH " Hm u VN ” 5N u NMH H mm “ mo " mN ." NH " MH u mm " 5H u mH u NNH " mm " mm H Illlltluunlnluunlnwuom uumxmumHHoona mom%u HHm“ wwmum>< ” Hm vN hN nMH mo Hp OHH mm hm cuumH IRES " VN “ NH u NH “ 0v " NN " vN " NNH " mm " no u cN " NH u NH “ mm " 0H " NH " mHH " hm ” Ho « Nm " mH u 5H " H@ u ON " NM " nMH " ow “ Hh " Om " VH " 0H " mc u HN u NN " MMH " v0 " mm n ma u mh mN NH MH mu cN mN hNH Ho mm mm NH MH mN NH MH vm @N mN mMH mm on mN NH mm mH ON mHH hm Hm an no ma>u mmHummm >n umou .0 H3038 umsuo uomuao Hmuounsm umnuo uuwuHQ HmuOunsm uwnuo uumuHa v ZOHUMm Hmuounsw Hwnuo uumuHo Hmuounsm umguo uumufio Hauounpm umguo uumuflo m ZOHUNM umou .8 on? mmmmHmm ochanu HmHuumEEoomum mCHucmHm 0cm coHumummmum ouHm wmmonm mCHacHnu HmHoquEoomum ocHucmHm new :oHumumamum muHm moHuumum ..n.ucoovuu.Hm oHAmB 120 mN " " nu " 0m “ " vN " HmuOunsm u NH " u NH ” vH u " NH " uwnuo “ MH .u " NH " 0H " " NH " uomuHo " mmmmHmm no " co “ om " cm u we “ on " Hmuounzm “ Nm " mN " mm " mm “ Hm " vm " uwcuo " mm u Hm u Hm N Nv " mm " on " uumuHo " ochcHnu HmHuuwfiEouwnm MNH “ NHH “ MMH " mcH u mNH " MNH u HmuounSm " mm ” mm “ vw " me u mm H mm " uwnuo " v0 u Ho “ mo " vb u v0 " v0 " uomuHo “ wcHu:MHm new coHumumawua muHm w ZOHcmm mm “ tn: " Hm ” no n Ina " on “ Hmuounam " NN " unu " vm " Nm " an: " mN " umzuo u mN " nan " NN " mm 0 nun " Hm ” uomuHo " ochcHnu HmHoquEouwua wN " In: " mu u mm " II: " mH " HmuouQSm » NH " II: " NH " 0H " nun u NH " umcuo “ vH ” nun " MH " NH " as: " vH " uomuHo " wmmoHom mNH “ wNH " NNH H NMH u mNH " NNH " Hmuounsm " Ho u Ho " mm “ 00 u Hm u mm " uwcuo " be u no H mm " HN n no " no " uomuwo " mcHucmHm can :oHuouwmoum ouHm m onomm uuuuuuu nuulunlullnwuum nwu mumHHoonutIIIIIIIInIIIN ” mwgu HHm" nuumH " u u n u n 3322 n .85 u an H mm ” S u mm H u 00%» mmHuwmm ND umou u umoo mo vonu onuomum 19383 {.3 «38. 12]. Hm mH OH Hv ON HN M NHH vm mm Ilalvllnunnnnnnnluwuum Ham mumHHoollnu moahu HHM mmmum>¢ ”uwnuoumuwfizuvwm" 0N NH vH Hv ON HN NHH vm mm ON I. C VH Hv ON HN M VOH Om vm " mm H mH " Hv u ON ” HN m u NNH mm mcHw "NuoqugHNHHoHnoH xmo ” wN " 0N " NH " NH " vH u ¢H “ Hv “ Hv " oN " oN " HN ” HN " w u m u m u N u m u m " NHH ” NHH ” vm ” vm " mm H mm " cmMHm "mmmHuuosmummmHmcoa omhu mmHummm Np umou " Hmuounsm " uwsuo “ uomuHO " Hmuounsm " uwzuo " uowuHO u Hmuoundm u Hmnuo ” uomuHo " Hmuounam u HwnuO " uumuHO m onomm "umoo no naHx mCHCCHLu HmHoquEoomum mwmewm H.cusn .uov coHumummwum muHm OcHucmHm new coHumumawum oun ouwuumnm H.u.ucooOII.Hm oHnaB 122 mm u on " mm H on n u ” Hmuounsm u NH " NH “ NH " NH ” u " Hmnuo ” mH ." mH " mH " mH " u " uowuHa u mchcHnu HwHuquEOUoum mm " mm “ on “ mm u mm H mm “ Hmuounsm " NH " 0H “ mH u mH " mH " 0H u uwcuo " 0H " NH " ON u 0N " NH " NH " uomuHO u mmmmHmm No ” Nm “ Nm u Nm u NOH " Nm " HmuOunsm " vv ” Nv u Nv " Nv " mv ” on " umnuo u mv u Om “ Om " mv " mm " mv u uomuHo " mcHucmHm can coHumummwum wuHm m onwmm annulllnlnllulunlnwuum uwm‘mumHHOOIIIIOIIIIIIlIIII" " u n n LUHNQ" " u u mmmhu HHm" "mcHQ muH£3 ".zummnuwuoquuuHmv uHu" " mommm>¢ "umnuoncumummmaomm".onmx" .xmo " muvunm” u mmNu mmHummm Na umou "umoo mo Usflx" moHuomum A.U.ucoovll.Hm mHnt -123- .mmmHnmou :HmeH 0» nouommxo mmOmmuum mnom mmuaHocfil N .UHwHN Hmfiuoc HMmNIquIuOOMIoHnsu :H mmmmmHu NuH>Huunv0um ouHmm NNm " NON u OON « ONO.H“ ONH u OOH " HmN ” OmN » " AdBON H n H u II a II n II H II H II H II n OOION " M u M u II n ll u II n II n II n II n VQIOM u m n m u II n II n II n II. H II H II n @HHlmm u H u H a II H II n II n II H II H II " +ONH " Omaha chuo II n II " II n H H II H II H II n H u OVION u II H II u II n N " II " II H II n N " vaOm u II H II n II n mN “ II H II H II “ Om u OHHImO "OCHQ OUka cumumm3 II H II ” II n mm “ II n II H II H mm " +ONH " .LOMQH OH " OH H II n mN u VN « II n m H II n OVION u NH " NH " II " OOH " HN " II n ON " II ” ¢OIOm u N n N ” II ” ON " O H II n O u ¢H u OHHImO " II H II " II n NH " H H II H II n HH " +ONH " wcnm MHOQOOOOQ NN u NN ” II ” ON “ H u m " vm " H " OVION " N n m u N " OO " OH " O " ON " OH H vOIOm " O n m u v " OO u N n N u ON " Nv ” OHHImO “ OH H v n O u on u H " II N m “ mm » +ONH u wUSMQmIHHO NN ” ON " NH ” NNH " m " OOH " OH H H " OvION " vcH " NN u NN H HHH " OH " mm " HO " m " vOIOm " mO " NH " Nm ” Om " O u H u HN " ON " OHHImO “ - mN u N u NN " OH ” N “ II n H " OH u +ONH " wuHu amouwvcom HH " HH " II ” Nm ” HH " mH " O " ON " O¢ION " Nm . " mm H I- " NO " NH “ HH " m " om ” qmucm " OOH " vm “ NO “ OO " m u N n O " Om " OHHImO " mm " mH " vH ” on n H " II n I- H on " +omH " MAOImMHoaoo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IImmuom mo wccmmsCLNI II ”.MN\muom\.uu .20" HMUOUADM n u u HMUOUDHHM" u u u u u um QOU u u "Cunwugozu u u u u ImmmmHU u onmoma . O . m . .xoom . v . N . N . H.m H NquHuUDOOHQ H :oHuwu >2 mmOmwuom Oonumm " muHm " QSOHO wmxu ummuom coHowu w>HumuuchHEUm Ocm .muHm .meu umou0u MmImwmawuom coHumumwuomwu Oonomn ummuow HmcoHumuII.Nm mHnmN 124 Table B2.-~(cont'd.) Forest type group : Site : South : North : productivity : 8 : 9 : class : : : Cu. ft./acre/yr. : : Longleaf-slash pine : 120+ : -- : -- : 85-119 : 30 : : 50-84 : 35 : : 20-49 : 25 : Red pine, eastern white pine : 120+ : 50 : 16 : 85—119 : 9 : 36 : 50-84 : 5 : 116 : 20-49 : -- : 2 Oak, hickory : 120+ : 1 : -- : 85-119 : 7 : 1 : 50-84 : 47 : 2 : 20-49 : 8 : 2 Shortleaf, loblolly pine : 120+ : 11 : ~- : 85-119 : 49 : 1 : 50-84 : 412 - 60 : 20-49 : 11 : 6 Maple, beech, birch : 120+ : -- : 1 : 85-119 : -- : 5 : 50-84 : -- : 5 : 20-49 : -- - -- Spruce, fir : 120+ : -- : 7 : 85-119 : -- : 30 : 50-84 : -- : 52 ' 20-49 : ~- : 1 Other types : 120+ : 2 : -- : 85-119 : 16 : 6 : 50-84 : 71 : 49 - 20-49 : 32 : 8 TOTAL : : 821 : 406 APPENDIX C TREATMENT OPPORTUNITY RANKINGS, NATIONAL FORESTS 125 o.o—Nm« o.~NO:H o.o~oa— o.=m~n_ o.NN~N~ o.o~nH~ o.moomu o.omo~_ o.coo- o.o~omn o.oom- o.:oa- o.ooa- o.~o-_ o.~omuH o.OONo. o.m~ms o.no~N o.mo“N o.m~=o o.H~nn o.mamm o.moom o.mo~= o.NOHm o.NO~H o.~o~« o.omo— o.a~o~ 0.09“ xx» thoh o.momN o.oN~N o.:n~N o.oomo o.—oao o.mmao o.ooao o.aomo o.mm~o c.0010 o.aO~O c.0NHo o.-"o o.=mmm 0.3mma o.NONm o.oa~m o.mmmn c.0mmm o.oomm o.oo:~ o.~om~ o.-a~ o.~oom o.Nomu o.NomH o.cao o.amo o.-o o.mo xx” Numzno mpmou x<¢ooaa O>HN«JOxOu o.oommm o.aoumn o.~NHmN o.oamo~ o.ummo~ o.o-o~ o.NOOON o.NmmmN 0.“:ONN o.mao- o.N~wh~ o.NONH~ o.omo~m o.m¢na~ o.~mmu~ o.mooa~ o.oon«~ o.mmmo~ o.omao~ o.co~o~ o.ONaNH o.O~NNH o.~nwa~ o.mmm- o.Nmmn o.NmNO o.-mm o.momm e.gfimm 0.00"" aux: m» rhom mm‘uxqu o<¢ O>HN¢43xau o.oooo— o.=onod o.-~ou o.oao~u o.~mN~" o.OHo- o.NOaNH o.~ma~u o.omom~ o.NHo~— o.aoo1« o.m~m~H o.-nqfi o.mNa_u o.mNa~O o.oON~H o.No~o« o.o~ao o.-mo o.mo—o o.NoOO o.omOO o.o~ao o.oNao o.mmom o.ccom o.nom_ o.o~o. c.0Oo o.o«~ uuxx 1» than o.N~H~m o.~o°.m o.a~oom o.o=¢Na o.oaooa o.o_ooa o.amooa o.=m_oa o.oNNma o.oamma o.a~ama o.oomma o.-mma o.oNo~= o.oNo_a o.«~aoa o.nmeom o.ooomm o.NHOON o.fiaao~ o.moon~ o.moom~ o.~mm- o.coocu o.~NN=~ o.NNNa« o.~aoo o.NNNN o.OOoo o.oo- aux: 2pm .omo O‘thuhom oum‘mmozm o.om~um~ o.o~moa~ o.oNoma~ o.Oooo- o.m-mm~ o.nao-~ o._oo-~ o.«ooam~ o.mmom- o.~o°m- o..--~ o.nmoomm o.ommomm o.omomo~ o.omomo~ o.mmcmo~ o.oooom~ o.ao~ma_ o.oomaau o.o~o~m~ o.o:o~m~ c.3omwmg o.~H~No~ o.aa=mo o.aanm~ o.=amms e.gmona o.omm~a o.~oo~= o.moom umzz OOOIHN3HNHN Icgaxzo ILOOMMMQQNNMMMNNMMWNNHNNNNNNNNdN 0.0“ n.0H O.Na H.OH H.OH 0.0H “.0“ H.o~ o.Om o.o~ o.m~ O.mN N\uO Nmou.ho» a gun moou .muz~ zhxomu MMNNNMMNNMNNMNNMNNMV‘NNNNNNNNMM veranda—om«umuduuNNHNMuNNNNNNNNO‘M WHO-U OOJIJIO omuoooo an oauuoog no no omIonJ an an an an JacuzOJ NOJIJIN JNIO204 NOS-qu armIomm mnmImHu ma azwuoum NOOIJxm JOIOzOJ muuuzou cameos; NOJIJIN oonzOJ an an an azqumm NOJIJIN mmuuumm pmou 43 owxzN.oU\=unnuv<>Ou>a~oOco¢:Ot~N-NI~4:0«o<)o~ounnuimun MummHummnm—oumuuuuuM—omuwuuuv‘nrcwdudwnwuun N'UQWflflvafiflHNflUHann«GuruflHflflHNvfiflnflflflflHVfllM(UflHVnLflFflNfUflHflfll aamaaHu 00 mmmImuu ammIaHu OQOOOOJ usuaowm mamImHu 00 no mawImHu an 00 an 0&00004 no «0000 030-00: 00I0200 aamaquu an amunzou 000I4:m 00 an no 00 an moo-4r» an JOIOZOJ 00-0200 «00.000 H.O.Nzouu Hu OJO~500313u 0.00000 0.00000 0.050NN 0.0NON0 0.00000 0.0.0N0 0.000N0 0.00NNN 0.0005~ 0.00050 0.0555N 0.0055m 0.0005N 0.0005N 0.0005N 0.0005N 0.0005N 0.0005m 0..000~ 0..000~ 0.0000N 0.00000 0.000.N 0.000.~ 0.500.m 0.500.N 0..00.N 0..00.~ 0.00.0. 0.00.0. 0.0005. 0.0005. 0.0005. 0.0005. 0.0505. 0.0505. 0.0005. 0.0005. 0.0.00. 0.0.00. 0.00.0. 0.00.0. 0.0000. 0.0000. 0.0N00. 0.0N00. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.05m0 0.05N0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0050 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.05. 0.05. 0022 0022 a» 0500 05 250. 0000202. U44 O>H5<03z3u 0.00000 0.050NN 0.000N0 0.00N~0 0.0005N 0.0555N 0.0005N 0.0005N 0.0005N 0..000N 0.0000N 0.000.~ 0.5mm.m 0..00.~ 0.00.0. 0.0005. 0.0005. 0.05N5. 0.0005. 0.0.00. 0.0m.0. 0.0000. 0.0m00. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0.N0 0.00.0 0.0050 0.0000 0.05. 0022 15m .Oau 5mou 00505 00 «40000 awn 0..00.0. 0..-00. 0.0N500. 0.~0000. 0.~N~.0. 0.00000. 0..0000. 0.50000. 0.00000. 0.05000. 0.00500. 0..NON.. 0.0500.. 0.00m0.. 0.00500 0.0.000 0.0~0~0 0.0.0.0 0.00000 0.N0.05 0..00N5 0.050N5 0.00000 0.50000 0.0.000 0.N0m00 0.00050 0.00000 0.000.» 0.000. amt: «002.5200 00..20500 252000.220 00000002. 00.5000200 -000200 .240» :50. 0.500 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0..00 0.000 0.000 0.5m0 0.000 0.500 0..NN 0.0.0 0.0.0 0.00N 0.00m 0.00N 0.0mm 0.0mm 0.~0N 0.00. 0.~0. 0.50. 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.~ 00000 x «000 O>.5 o O. .00 .AJMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-‘v‘flddflrflflfldflfld 0.0... I UMVINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNuuuuuuufldudud NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMNMMNN “MNU‘V‘QQQQNF‘F‘OOOOOOOO‘QQDNMNOOOOO O QMNmmziSQGNdHOOOOOOOOQQQNNNOO££~O o < > a > r50m 5000.505 0 1mm moou qummuz. u<0 52min 50mm» ”fidNNNNNNNMdMMMMHNNM—OMM"HM'ONM~ w 5 H O 00 «00-0.0 00 000.200 «00.0.0 0000000 00 «00.0.0 00 00 200.200 «00.0.0 «00.0.0 00 00 0000000 00 00 000.200 00 «00-2.0 000.200 00 00.0000 00 00 00 «00.0.0 00 00 15°. OOHUOOO .500 000220 000020000 2. 0000002. >O Omx20a OmH5DzD5aoaao 5zwz5ooooooa~oGoon) 00mmmm=v=10unnammmmmmmmmaooocoooooooooo-oo NMv-‘NMNv-ONMMv.HwNNNMMMMMMMMNMMMuuHMrfldeNMM umNNNMuNMuo-oummmm«NdMNNNNMMNN'ONNMNv-OfldNNw‘ 5.0.5zou0 Nu oamuooa ammlanu an «00.«.« «a «00.200 an «.«.««0 «a «a 00 «00.«.« an «0«.2ou ««0.«.« «00-«.« «a «1 000000. 000000. «u«.2ou an «0 ««0.«.m «00.200 «00.«.m a«0.«.« o«0ooc. «00.200 «« «00.0.0 m40<5 40.0 0.00 0.0 0000 4500 0.00 0000 0.0 00.0 0000 .00 00.0 0000 00. «000 00. 0000 0.0 0500 0000 0.00 00. 000 00.0 0.00 0000 0.. 0.. 00. .00 00.0 0.0 .0. 00.0 0000 00.~ 00. 5.0 5.0 132 o.-omn« o.moommn o.om~onu e.gunomu o.n~cc~” o.~=om~" o.n_ma~— o.mwmu~« o.mm«o~u o.nmoonu o.~oam- e.goo="~ o.nm~a~" o.naam_fl o.~mom- o.¢o-~. o.m:mmod o.~m«~o« o.momoou o.~cmNOu o.oaa~o c.3nmoo o.smomo o.o-~e o.omo—o 0.0mmoo o.s~oom c.3mmao e.gonom o.mooon o.ao~om 0.0mmmo o.am~mm o.m~a~o o.mm~m~ o.mmmas c.3maah o.m~o~s o.mms”s o.oo~oo coochho o.ooomo o.~o~mo o.aoomo o.oomao o.omomo o.~oo«o o.mo~oo o.ma~oo o.onoom o.mmgnm o.man~m o.wom~m o.mn"~n o.s=osm e.gscsn o.cm~am o.oowmm o.aoo~m o.mmaoa o.mhoma o.-om= o.=-oa o.amaoa o.mmooa o.oomma o.mmama o.-nna o.mmoma o.s~om= o.~ca~a o.o"-a c.3mmga o.mommm o.mmnsm e.gfimfim o.omoom o.ooaom o.onooa“ o.annoaa o.ao~sad o.~oom=~ o.mowman 0.0mmma. o.msauau o.naoom— e.gmommfl o.«mmmmu e.gfionm" o.oaonm~ o.oohan~ c.a:m=m_ o.omo=m~ o.o—ommu o.oo~"mu o.=maom~ o.a~oomu c.ona-« o.ommm~H o.o-mmd o.mmmm~¢ o.mo~om— o.¢mno~u o.¢moo_a c.93mefi_ o.msnmafl o.nocm- o.m-o_~ o.mosm__ o.a~mn~— o.a-m_~ o.mmnd- o.moomo— o.mmo~o~ o.mmooou o.mamno o.oooco m.o~oou~ m.aamoMu m.“om~m« m.aNNomd m.mooomu m.ca~0m“ m.oou=nn m.~mo~mu m.m=o~ma m.mooom" m.mmoom_ m.aomnwu m.-os- m.aoqnmn m."=m~m_ m.asoswa m.~mmam~ m.ammmmn m.o~omm~ m.~moom~ m._”o-~ m."mmo- m.mw¢muu m.ommmfiu m.omom~_ m.odmmn— m.omm-¢ m.ooo-« m.m~n-. m.monoo~ m.so_oo~ m.oomso_ m.amhoog m.o~mmo_ n.n~a00« o.mmooo o.mmnoo o.mnhso o.oon~o o.=«oomu o.ammmm~ o.o~mmn¢ o.~ooma« o.nooma~ 0.0mmman o.o~aua~ o.m=oomu o.~momm_ o._mmmn~ o.”~o~m~ o.oacmMu o.oonam_ o.aamam~ o.oooam~ o.o~ommn o.oo“"m~ o.amaom~ o.=moom~ o.om=~mu o.omom~u o.om~mm~ o.mmmm- o.mouo- o.cmmo«_ o.m~oo«— o.mamm_~ o.m~.m~u o.mocm«« o.m_flo~« o.mo~m_. 0.3mmmww o.a~mm~« o.wmc~_~ o.noomo" o.mno~on o.nmooo~ o.maxmo o.oocmo o.aomons o.ooaams o.nsmo~s o.oaaomo e.gmnamo o.mm-mo o.uoo-o o.mooaoo o.monooo o.o-~mo e.gsmcmo c.5mcoao o.maom=o o.mmnoao o.~mmomo o.m-omo o.omn~mo e.gocamo o.o~mmmo o.omoooc o.“~mmom o._mscmm o._mmwcm o.oom-m o.oma=~m c.5ammsm o.~mnoom o.~mnmom o.m~amom o.om~omm o.ooo~mm o..o~omm o.oa=cam o.oo~mam c.35mmoa o.ma~aoa e.gmmmoa o.omoama o.moomma o.~c- o.on~m o.od«~ o.moom o.mmo~ o.fimo~ o.~oo~ o."mou o.woo. o.ooo~ o.omo~ o.-o— o.-o~ o.ooo~ o.moo— o.~oa~ o.oom« o.oom” o.:mc~ o.~om_ o."m~« o.o-~ o.mflsfi o.~cou o..~o~ o.moo" o.~mo~ o.nmo" o.amo~ o.”mo~ o.maofi o.com~ o.omm~ o.m~m” o.~om" o.m~m« o.-m~ 0.0mm“ o.~mm« 000‘ o FOO-O ooomaooco'ououorshrs o flHM—omm«ummfiuuufimwoummmwwwuanMHu-«aummnnwu N“IQ-*MMHN-flv‘MNNNNNN“NflMNNNNNNMMNNMMNfififiNM no «autumn axmuoma cog-41m mam-«Hm uo mo an an mamumuu an a; no mamumHm anmuauu an no ommuoog an omwuooq no an mmumzou mo no an an an an zamnmuu an an an «.0.»zouu Nu m4m«» unom mmom mmo «mm «mo «moo m~.o mooo «coo «mom mmom ~_a mom: mm”: room mmow omom xflom mmoo soc «mmm one ~om no”: who: muon moon maom «wm 000 «000 mom ufion hum 4m“: mmoo moo mmom 133 o.ao~on~ c.0mnswm o.oaoom~ o.~m«o- c.5ommum o.oomm- o.moodm~ o.oma.~m o.ona“- o.mmaom~ o.mnmo- o.~oom- o.~omo"~ o.mmmm,~ o.m~m«om o.o»moo~ o.m~moou o.aonoog o.omnmo— o.ammco. o.o~m~ou o.=ooao« o.omoaofl o.mmmmo« o.nhomo— o.umooou o.ooaom~ o.m=o~m« o.omsasw o.~fimmo~ o.no-o— o.moa~o~ o.~oocc¢ o.~ooom~ o.-mo=~ o.o=m=an 0.0mmm=~ e.ganoa» e.gwmoma o.saoo«~ o.-ua~— o.n~naun o.om.a- o.o=m-n o.mmm-~ o.saofiun o.~am-~ o.~um—ug o.mmmu.~ o.mooaflu o.anoo.~ o.oo_oo“ o.a~ano~ o.omo~o— o.ommflou o.mw~oo— o.n-oon o.~nmo0u o.mnooo. o.m”~oo o.~o=wo o.nommo 0.0mmso o.o~ooo o.oflmoo o.wommo o.ona«o o.ommoo o.oommw o.oooma o.ooo~c o.oam~o o.~omos o.~mnmh o.m”_ms c.mma- o.-o”> e.goaon o.~mmoo~ o.ooooo— o.o~mood o.oa~oo_ o.~mamo— o.onmmo“ o.nmumo~ o.fimm~o~ e.gmmuou o.oom~o~ o.omafiog o.moooo~ o.nm~oo« o.mooow~ o.u~omofl o.~osmmfi e.gomfiad o.ama~n~ o.oomocd o."»=c~« o.~o~a~« o.~mo~n« e.gooohfi o.mo—ch« o.n~an- o.n~m=»~ o.m-a- o.m—oo~u o.mhmmo~ o.mmnmo— o.omo~c" o.omomo~ o.mmmmo~ o.oamoc~ o.ommomu o.ommam~ o.omcmn“ o.oon~mu o.omh~m~ m.«onos« m.mo=ssu m.mo~s~fl m.anausa m.mmoo»~ m.owoosu m.omomhd m.mmomn— m.m~cmna m.mmmmsn m.mmfimnfl a.~osauu m.so"=h# m.~moa- m.n~oo~“ m._~moo~ m.o~mooa m.¢cmoo~ m.aooocfl m.ammmoa m.cancod m.co=~o~ m.ammfio" m.omnoo« m.oonmoa m.oommo" m.aooao" m.ooofiou m.ooomm" m.amomm" m.o~mmmd m.ohnmmd m.omomm« m.omcon" m.ammsafi m.oaoaa_ m.an==~ m.ansma. m.o~H~a~ o.o-ou~ o.mo~o«~ o.w~uo«~ o.m”oa- c.5mmmom o.am>mom o.oomoo~ o.omooo« c.0ncooa o.=mooo¢ o.=«moo~ o.omooon o.mmmmo~ o.mmmoou o.oamaou o.~=”ao. o.oooom~ c.0mmoma o.an-mfl o.oaoamu o.ommamn o.oomm¢— o.o~mmwa o.wommw~ o.mm>—w— o.cw.~m~ o.naoom~ o.mmoos— o.oocan« o.moooca o.acmoou o.aomoo¢ o.ooooc_ o.amooofi o.a-mo~ c.3mooo— o.:mcoo— c.3s5omg o.a~umn_ o.~moooo— 0.300000" o.oooooo o.a-moo o.oamaao o.o"oaao o.ofimo~o o.omoomo o.omoomo o.oacm~o o‘mmfimmo c.5mmmwo o.mm~—mo c.5oaomo o.—mm=oo o.oomnoo o.oooamm o.«mfiamm o.oamm~n o.m~=~om o.mm~_oo o.mmfiemm o.mommmn e.gaomnm o.comm=w o.caomao o.acmm=¢ c.00mnmm o.~ocsac o.omfloa~ o.=momos o.amomos 0.0mmooh o.ao~mos o.oomco~ e.goooms o.=amam~ o.o~>oa~ o.aowma~ o.moon o.adon o.ooon o.ooo~ o.moo~ o.~oom o.=~m~ o.oom~ o.oomm o.~0m~ o.ommm o.m=m~ o.~mm~ o.mmm~ o.ao~m o.ooom o.~oom o.~oo~ o.maom o.~mo~ o.omom c.5ocm o.moom o.oon~ o.omm~ c.o~mm o.~omm o.com~ o.soam o.wnm~ o.-m~ o.-m~ o.ammm o.-mm o.so- o.a~m~ c.3—mm o.mo~m o.~a«m O .0 O O O. O Viv-0M3 U‘NGQQQQQQQQQQOOO‘H 0 {0333333333333333 o \n o m. nuuuuuumm«co-0'0woo-ouwdquNNMMuudfiuudNNNMNMrow MMMMMNNNdQMMMMMMdMMNfifiNNQ3=1QfiacflfiJNMNNQQ ammomnm mao~ oamuooq mmo~ mag-41m azauomm 4m-uzog mQJuJIm Annexe; 4m.u204 um um oauoooq no mamua~u an no mQJaJIm JmaozoJ azm-owa mOJngm mamoauu an mamuaum mawuaum no mamomau mam-mum an mamsaau oawooog mwmwzou gmauzog anmuxuu go no an an oamuooa mo an n.o.hzouu Nu m4m4» "do 009 ”do mum oom mom com 0o: no: room ooom umom umow mwo can on» Nam ao~o maoo mmom pom «cm: a”: uoon umo~ 4ao~ «~o~ no" oom a~mo «can «oom mom mo: moo coon uaom 134 m.noommn m.1oommn o.o=o~mn o.naosam o.oonm=m o.maamam o.mmm1am o.m1o1an c.111mmm o.o~m~mm o.moo1~m c.1nms1m o.moms1m o.nom~1m o.ommm1m o.nm~m1m o.onqm1m c.11ma1m m.m1man~ m.amomom o.m~o~o~ o.mx1aom c.1mooo~ c.1mooo~ o.mmomm~ o.nomsm~ o.nommm~ o.ooh1mm c.1mo1mw o.on~1m~ o.~oo1n~ o.mmooa~ o.oommam o.nma1am o.n~oon~ o.mmmmm~ m.moaon1 m.1~ooh1 o.-nns1 o.~sooh1 0.1maas1 o.-oms1 c.511ms1 o.m1s-1 o.~ooo~1 o.mm=mo1 o.mmo~o1 o.mmmoo1 c.31moc1 o.a1ooo1 o.mooom1 c.31oom1 o.mm~om1 o.ommom1 m.nmawm1 m.o~onm1 o.moomM1 o.oo1mm1 o.ooa1m1 o.ooa1m1 c.5mmom1 c.1acom1 o.somsm1 o.~oohm1 c.1moom1 o.»-om1 o.maoom1 o.mo1am1 o.mmsm~1 c.1mn1m1 c.1moow1 c.1nmom1 o.oo~om~ o.oocmm~ o.oooom~ o.ooa1m~ 0.3mmna~ o.a=1=:m o.omnoa~ c.1nwmmm o.nmm~m~ o.m110m~ o.o1o=mm c.11owmm o.ahcmmm o.a~mmm~ o.oaommm o.oo0mmm o.~amnm~ o.m1mmmm o.mmo1- o.1~nc1m o.m~on1~ o.namm1~ o.on1o°m o.on10c~ o.oamxom o.oo-om o.on~mom o.oa1no~ o.o1omom o.omoaom o.mno:om o.~oo~o~ 0.1mmmom o.omc1om o.ama1om c.3311ow m.moooo1 m.noooo1 m.1mmon1 m.~mnom1 m.1mmoo1 m.hcmoc1 m.~nmom1 m.sonom1 m.aowon1 m.1:ooo1 m.mumnn1 o.mao1m1 o.1=ohm1 0.130101 o.~o-m1 m.aossm1 m.omosm1 m.~on~m1 m.-mmm1 m.~oonw1 m.ammas1 m.o1oam1 m.ooman1 m.momac1 m.1momc1 m.11cnm1 m.1m¢~o1 m.m~mmm1 m.1=m~m1 m.1mamm1 m.mmamm1 m.11o1m1 m.amm1m1 m.1moom1 m.mm~om1 m.m1oos1 o.-cm~n c.1m1n~n o.o=m-n o.oasm1m o.mmo11n o.m1amom 0.1mmacm o.~om~om c.1nooow o.~¢moo~. o.~aoom~ o.1mommm o.m1omm~ o.~1omm~ o.mmamm~ o.aoamm~ o.ao1~mm o.cmm1mm c.1mmmmm o.mm1mmm o.oho1mm o.oamoam o.amooam o.amooa~ o.mmomam o.maooa~ o.m~1mm~ o.anmamm o.ommomm o.=omxm~ o.mno~mm o.ooao- c.3mmomm o.mnao1m c.1coa1m c.1ann1m o.omo1~=1 o.o1soo=1 o.o~aooa1 o.o~mnma1 o.oam~1a1 c.11asom1 c.1oo1mn1 o.ao010m1 o.m~mmmm1 c.1111am1 o.moaoom1 o.om1mo~1 o.mmm~om1 o.mnmmo~1 o.omo1m~1 o.mowom~1 o.1mhon~1 o.ono01~1 o.om1ow11 o.mwhnm11 o.omm1m11 0.0001311 o.aonmm11 o.aommm11 o.momm111 o.wma1c11 o.m«omoo1 o.aommno1 o.o1mano1 o.a~aoao1 o.~a1mao1 o.oc111o1 c.0aco1o1 o.mmam1o1 o.m1o11o1 o.m=mo1o1 o.~1mq o.aom= o.mo=a o.mon= o.o=ma o.o-a o.a-a 0.501: c.3313 c.0013 o.ooom o.amom o.mmon o.mmon o.a1om o.m1om o.ooom c.1oom o.omnm o.o1mm o.ooam o.ooam o.1aam c.1aam o.oomm o.ommm o.om~m o.a1~m o.c1mm o.ao1n o.oo1m o.ma1m o.mm1m o.~o1n o.ooom o.owom .0. .0.-O Q. o. 1 c ooauqzm o. 1 a 1muo201 o. m m oauuooq o. m 1 oaNuQQJ 0. ~ m oawu901 0. ~ ~ 0&19001 0. ~ 1 oawooo1 1. 1 m «1110 1. 1 m mo1n1xw 1. 1 m “gm-omz 1. 1 ~ mzwooma 1. m a m01c1xm 1. m a 1muo201 1. N n mo1nqu 1. ~ a Jmnuzoq 1. 1 m Agusoma 1. 1 ~ azm-owz 1. 1 m mo1u1xm 1. 1 ~ m01.1zm 1. 1 1 301:11m 1. 1 m 1m.uzo1 1. 1 m 1mu0201 1. 1 1 1m-uzo1 N. m m azguomm m. m m m01n1:m m. m m azmuoum m. 1 1 azmuoma N. m n az1uomm ~. m m ma1u1xm m. m m 1m-wzo1 m. 1 1 nzmuomz m. 1 m cam.a1u ~. 1 n no N. 1 a no N. 1 a mqmua1u N. 1 a an 1.0.»zou1 ~u w4m11<1323u o.oaomn o.o~oo1 o.o~onn o.ommo1 o.ooamn o.omom1 o.mooan c.1a1m1 o.m~man o.o~o>1 o.oomam o.o1o~1 c.01oon o.oom=1 o.n1m- o.on~=1 o.smamm o.~m=o1 o.oomm~ o.ammo1 o.~n1wm o.-1o1 o.m~on~ o.oaoo o.omo- o.=omo o.cam1~ c.11sm o.omn1~ o.oo~m c.1om1m o.ooom o.moa1m o.cmom o.-a1m o.o~oc o.-mom o.a~nm o.a~o~1 o.ommo o.mo1m1 o.~omm o.0mm~1 o.monm o.onmm1 o.momm o.amom c.1101 0.0mm» a.mam o.mo~s o.coo o.moo1 o.oc~ o.mumm c.1mm o.oo11 o.o11 c.0011 o.o11 aux: uuxz a» xpon a» 1191 umcmzuz1 u<¢ ~>11<13z2u hmou Jakob no :41400 mum o.oaamn c.1oaoh1 o.m~a o.o~omn c.1hchs1 o.o1a o.ooamn o.m1ao11 o.m1a o.mooam o.am~=b1 o.oo= o.mhmam o.o=-s1 o.ooa o.oom=m o.oc=~11 o.oon c.01oom o.aaaom1 o.==n o.m1msw o.omsoa1 o.oom c.1camm o.~mmm~1 o.~m~ o.om~m~ o.o19~m1 o.o- c.1m1mm o.1om-1 o.-~ o.mmom~ o.m1m1~1 o.mmm o.o~om~ o.oooo~1 o.o1~ o.oao1m o.m~1m11 o.o1~ o.om11~ o.o~oa11 o.oom c.1om1m o.om~m11 o.oom o.moa1m o.moam11 o.mo~ o.~ma1~ o.~m1m11 o.=o~ o.~1oo~ o.mm~o11 o.oo1 o.a~os1 o.~mcoo c.1s1 o.mn1m1 o.o~noo o.ma1 o.omm~1 o.~m1co 0.011 o.oma~1 o.~m1oo o.o11 o.amom o.m1mow 0.10 0.03;» o.a~1mm 0.0m c.m91~ o.ommam o.mm o.mwos c.ao1am o.~m o.m=mm o.moom~ o.ma c.0011 o.moom o.n o.oo11 o.moom o.” uuz: mmzx mmzu< x x1m .omu mumz11z‘m «mm4 1411zm1oa t»:oao.2z< “>11 amm‘szZH m>1141szau o<1323u .z4m» z1on O O 0.... wa—NNNNNN NNANNN NOQQMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 00.00 N hmmnoommmmmmmmuaaaomno-noo O 0 NM“! 3. MMMNMNNNNNNNNMNNMNNNNNNNNNNNNN > a xpom pmou.ho» a mum moou umqwmuz1 u<4 1¢mm1 pzmxa “"Nde‘dd-‘v‘flNNMNN-idNNNNNNNNMMMM u p H m no no an an camnanm uuuwzou oamuQOJ an onuoOOJ mnmumnm mm mm mm Jmnozog Amuuzoq moquqxw :wumzou camooog JquZOJ mogugxw Ipo1 mm~uuam .13u 1m owxz1mc1 o.1o~m1 c.1sn11 o.oo~11 o.~oa11 o.mmm11 o.omm11 o.m=1o1 0.11101 o.-~o o.m1oo c.1ono o.hnmm o.~ao> o.mam~ o.o~an 0.00:» o.no~h o.mmoo o.somo o.om1oo o.~mo=o o.aoomo o.1~omo o.c~m1o o.mamoo o.mm1oo o.nmooo o.mmn~m o.smeom o.m=nms c.1mmns o.1omns o.mom- o.o1m1s o.om~mh o.o~1ms o.m000h o.moaos o.mnaos o.~aooo o.~o~om o.h~1om o.~momm o.oo~am o.mo~am o.mn~om o.o~oom c.3110: c.0010: o.momma o.~co== o.~mm1= o.om11u c.3000: o.muooa c.0mcam o.ooa~n o.ommom m.mm=~o m.mm11o m.somom mymonom m.~n1om m.~m~mm m.~mamm m.~sm~m m.am1om m.amooa m.amoma m.11n~= m.mom~a m.ooa»a m.mncoa m.aasma m.m=o~a m.-1oa m.~1ooa m.aaoon m.1momn m.1ONom m.ommom o.a1oom o.onoo~ o.ooco~ o.oocom o.om~om o.mm~r~ o.1~m~m o.1o-~ o.1o1a~ c.1o1am o.mo~m~ 0.3mmmm o.noanm o.m~onm o.omho~ o.o1ma1 o.~om~01 o.oo~1o1 0.13300 o.~o=oo o.mmcho o.o1-o o.mmmoo o.noooo o.oo~=o o.~oo~m o.mamns 0.1mmws o.1omon o.momss o.o1m~h o.om~ms o.w~1mn o.mooo~ o.ooaos o.mmaos o.~=ooo o.~o~on c.1m1om o.~momm o.ooham o.mo13m o.mmnom o.wnoom c.3510: o.oo~ma o.momma o.~ooa= o.~mm1a o.om11a o.=oooa o.mmooa o.cmmom o.ooa~m c.ow~cm c.1mahom o.m=ooom o.moh1oa o.omm1oa o.oamama o.omo1ma o.o1ho~a o.o-osa o.ooomc= c.1mmmma o.moomom o.m~oaom o.~mmaom o.ommmom o.~m1oom o.=mmaom o.mooaom o.mmn1mm o.o=m1nm o.oaoomm o.-ccom o.-vo- o.owomnm o.oaom- c.51omnm o.m~om- o.non1=~ o.noo~a~ o.m~1nm~ o.1moomm o.mocmm~ o.omao1m c.1oomow c.maw~om o.momoo~ c.11ooo1 o.mm=co1 o.bmonm1 o.omaom1 o.m~m1 o.s1n1 o.oom1 o.oo~1 o.mm~1 o.mmm1 o.m»~1 o.mo~1 o.oa~1 c.0111 o.m~11 o.a~11 o.m~11 c.1111 c.0011 o.~oo1 c.0001 o.o001 o.woo c.1eo o.o1m o.oes o.oc~ 0.1:» o.m=1 o.mas 0.190 o.moo o.moo o.mmo o.mmo o.~wm o.m~m o.o1m o.~1m c.11m o.ooa o.mm= 0.1m: “do-O mmmdfififivfld”Ho-0'0”“"nflflflufiflddfififldflfidflfiflddfld .0.... 0..... O. I... 0.. 0..... O .0. '0'. ”fiddd—Ofldfl 0‘ O. '0'.” .4 d O O I O I O O O F. OOOO‘O0‘0QQQQQNNNNOOOOGOOOQ‘J‘U‘WU‘U‘Q=733QQQmM NNN NNNNNMNNNMNNNMMNNNMMMNNNMHNMNMuNMMMuMo-ou MM-‘NNNNMMflv‘MMv-av-oMMMHMNMNvouNNNMH-‘NMNv-ouq'ou 0099000OQOQQNONNQOOQO~O~O~O~OWMIDW~O=73:) OQMQQOJ amunzou moqnqu 00404:» an an no mamlanu mmezou azuuoma mamquu mamnzum oauooog mmumzou an mwumzou amwnmum an Jmcuzoq enmuoog oauoooq xmmaauu mmuuzou camuoog mamuanu oamuooa n.o.hzouu no ~4o

uk<43t3u o.h~oom o.m~oo. o.nommn o.mdnon o.oommm o.~r~o~ o.mo~mn o._aoo~ o.m~mo~ o.moo~u o.h~—o~ o.moo~u o.maoo~ o.Mnm~— o.m~onm o.doam« 0.5«nmm o.moo- o.amn- o.-~u« c.5aonm 0.95“.” o.o==- o.omo~« o.nmm- o.~ao~n o.o~m~m o.oao- o.oo~om o.mmoo« o.~—mm~ o.oaooH o.o~o- o.n-o o.~mnnfi o.m-m o.~m~c~ o.m.~o o.onmw~ o.~moe o.nomm— o.m~mm o.oow°~ o.om- o.aoc0u o.~oo" o.sooo« o.omo~ 0.59:0" o.cmo" o.mmno o.omo" o.~man o.o~=~ o.-mm o.oao o.u«nm o.omo o.oo- o.od~ mus: aux: a» Iron a» rho“ umauaqu 044 m>-<43t3u o.=oomm o.o~«~m o.omcum o.oooom o.-oo= o.a-oa o.~acoa o.ofimoa o.a-oa e.gnmma o.a=mma o.oaoma o.ono=a 0.5003: 0.5mmaa o.oo~,a o.n~omm 0.3mmom o.ammom o.cflmam o._moom o.mamon c.0000" o.mmow« o.-an« o.oomo~ o.~oom~ o.oooo o.omoo o.oon~ uuzz th .ozo o.-noo~ o.wooom~ o.=~ooa~ o.mmn=a~ o.o~om- o.smgn- o.mmmom~ o.mhommm o.-~amm o._mm¢- c.5ohmnm 0.:«osflm o.mmo-m o.oo~hfl~ o.o~oa«m o.onmoo~ o.o~o=mu o.oomo~” o.oo~o~— o.moamo~ o.m=mmm~ o.om~om o.mnomn o.omomm o.mwo~w o.mmo«~ o.mocoo o.moo_= o.~oo«= o.ooom umzz ammzmkxqm 44H»2m»oa rhzomu.zz< awmquxuz~ m>apcqzzau o.nnm o.mwa o.o~a o.moa o.moa o.mo= o.oca o.com o.~on o.mmm o.~mm o.osm o.num o.~nm o.m~m o.:am o.o«m o.om~ o.omm o.ohm o.-m o.n~« o.o~— o.m~— o.=m~ o.oo" o.ao o.mm o.om o.» wwau< t «wz« m>Hb nagazau ”OOthO‘O‘MMMNv-‘OOO‘NOO‘J‘W‘DU‘V‘Q3:13:13“) \ [1.00:1=1MMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0.0“ ".0” o.m~ o.m~ nxum hmou.»o» a :uu uoou .uqu zhzoao MMMI’INNMNNNNMNNNNNMNNMNNNNNNMMN .0.-cum«amudN—NuuuNNMNNu-wNNNNNMMN 0)th oauu004 azmnoua mog.4:m an oumooog no no an mam-«Hm an an an gmuuzoq JmauzQJ meg-41m mumuzou oauooog JmquDJ @04n4xm an axmooum am am Jmsozoa nxmuoua mOJuJIm moJ-4xm 4m.ozoa azuuouu mogsgxm mmuumnm hwou 40 owxzqa mwuhazahmomao hzuxw m.amoma o.me~oo" o.mmanmm o.~o=H a.” ".5 m m an uflon o.am~o= o.mmdom c.0000» m.mooom o.m~moo o.“ofio~= o.m-« a.” 9.0 n « «amazou Nod e.gmomn o.omomu 0.0Hsmo «.mdsam o.mmomo o.«oo~ma o.m-" o.“ m.s m m mamuanu «am: o.o~onn o.~nomu o.ummmo m.mamam o.wmmao o.aumflma o.o-« o.” “.5 ~ m an sflw o.ao-m o.a~mm~ o.oomao o.omo=m o.m—mmo o.mm=oaa e.gmuu u." 0.5 m m axmooum moo o.o~mnm o.mam- o.oo0mo o.ooo«m o.~:=oo 0.5mmdma o.oo"" s.“ «.5 w m Jmuozog sow o.=mnmm o.~o-~ o.mommo e.gaomm o.mm~oo o.mmoomc o.ooo~ s.” s.o« m « oamuooq «so: o.mo~mn o.omN~« o.~«mmo o.ammmm o.moooo o.«~mo~= o.moo~ a." m.°~ n u ommUQQJ s.“ o.mo-m o.~moo~ o.oomom o.ammnm o.mm_o¢ o.~momc= o.omo~ s.“ 0.5 ~ m camumuu umom o.ooo~n o.onom~ o.onmon o.aaamm o.maoom o.mmm=oa o.mao_ a." o.o« ~ n no mane o.~oonm o.moom— o.mx»~m o.oao~m o.ommac o.mfimoom o.o«o~ a." ~.m ~ u no mam o.mao.n o.moamu o.a~m~n o.mmmdm o..m.am o.ommaom o.coo— o.” m..« m u an o.o~a«om o.o~w o." m.m ~ m mOJnJIw ouo o.somo~ o.mam~« o.ommoa o.omn~m o.~sman 0.3mmoan o.mmm o." m.o m n axmnomz moo o.~o«- o.momo« c.0005: o.oocom 0.5mmoc c.000afim o.m"~ o." m.o ~ ~ manna"; ‘oam o.~ow“~ o.mo~o, o.aomh= o.oomo~ e.gcomo o.mm«-m o.~«~ a.” m.c m ~ an adon o.~mo"~ o.anmo_ o.maho= o.oooo~ o.ooamo o.om~ofin o.mo~ a.” o.o w m aam-a~u mm~a o.odoflm o.~omo~ o.ohcoa o.mooo~ o.mmamo o.mooocm o.aos a.” m.m ~ m an ofl~ o.mo_- o.mom0n o.an¢ma o.~oomm o.flaoac o.momoom o.~oo o.~ m.o N a no man o.~ooom o.—dmo o.mmmm= o.~o~m~ o.mommo o.m“ooo~ o.o=o o.~ ~.o m n ma .um o.mo=o~ o.mmno o.mmam= e.gmomm o.moo«o o.~mmoom o.amo o.~ ~.o N m oawuoog ‘o~a o.uouo~ o.-=o o.mmoua o.u~o- o.m=ooc o.mamxm~ o.ouo o.~ ~.o m n no «om: o.amoo« o.ocmo o.moc,= e.gomum o.m~aoo o.o=m~om o.-o o.~ ~.o m n no Uson o.o~oo~ o.-m¢ o.maana o.--~ o.momoo o.mmmoo~ o.moo u.~ o.o m m an mono o.~a~n~ o.oo~o o.mnooa o.o~oom o.o-om o.-manm o.oom ~.~ 0.0 m m an «mma o.onmc" c.5ngo o.mwoo= o.~_mo~ o.oxmom o.n~x~cm o.mom «.N «.o m m «amount mmom o.ammwn o._~.o o.~nnaa o.na=o~ o.=«mom c.-nmn~ o.mom ~.~ 5.9 m ~ ammuzou on” 5.0.»zouu nu mqmqw 142 m.o-o~« m.aooo~" m.mm~mmu m.aoow- m.amNNNu m.~on-u m.mm~o"~ m.awow- n.m~mod~ m.ammm.~ m.oaomo~ m.amooo~ m.aomnOu m.~o~no~ m.mnooo" m.amomo m.m~moa m.-o~m m.aomhm m.aomso m.aomso m.mmm~m m.ooomn m.o—m~o m.o"~mh m.aoahs m.m~a~h m.mmmms m.mmm«~ m.o«m0h n.om~oo m.amdoo o.ommso o.oamso o.ooo~o o.ocooo o.mfiamo o.aomoo o.n~cmm m.aommo m.un~mo m.aoomo m.mmomo m.~oo=o m.m~o~o m.amdoo m.o~ooo m.aoomm m.aownm m.omo=m m.anuwm m.mmmmm m.aoomm m.awoom m.ooooa m.ooxaa m.m”uaa m.~m~n= m.~m~na m.anhma m.-mda m.mna_a m.mam—= m.awoom m.o“nmm m.okomm m.mhomn m.m~omm m.m~onm m.30mam m.ommam o.noomn o.omnmm o.oo~mm o.ooomn o.~oamm o.momo~ o.omom~ r5391! o.moomo« o.omsmon o.=ammo« o.oommo~ o.~5amo~ o.ooowna o.a~nam~ o.o~cama o.o~o~ma o.ommoaa o.nam=a_ o.~m_~=~ o.amofla~ o.ma~«aa c.5«osmu o.~moom« o.o~omm« o.oomoma o.on=m~u o.omamm~ o.oman- o.~hoo- o.o~no- o.omoa~— o.o~ma- o.oemm"" o.~—mm_~ o.m«oood o.-oood o.a-aoa o.coomo~ o.ooomo~ o.omm~o~ o.momoc« o.m-oo~ o.n~noo o.nmx~o o.o~ooo o.m0moo d.~omoOu ".3wuoo« «.maowOu “.ommmo~ ~.~a~mo« «.mmmmou «.asouo" ~.o-~ou «.omomou —.owmmo« ..oaoho «.mnmmo «.amomo «.mamao «.bflfioo fl.~md~w m.s-~m m.-oom m.~noon m.~mooh m.~mooh m.mmmas m.smoah m.~owm~ m.~womo m.aasso m.ooo~o m.ooo~o m.ommoo m.mmmmo m.apfino m.om~mo m.akmmo m.omfimo m.oommo m.ammmo m._~moo m.m~mmm m.o~omm o.oo~oo~ o.~aooo~ o.o°aoo~ o.nmmoo~ o.ooamo~ o.ao~oom o.moflsou o.aoooou o.am~aou o.=dm~o~ o.=~osmn o.oomom~ o.~o—aw~ o.o~mmo~ o.m=mosu o.mmm-” o.om-c« o.ooomo¢ o.o-ao« o.o~saod o.o-aofi o.~umomd o.o-om_ o.oomcm~ o.o~ommfl o.omommu o.~m~mm. o.mmfioa— o.~_mm=. o.a~oaa~ o.c=mma~ o.~omm:. o.mmaoa_ o.mmooa~ a.momom_ o.m_cmm~ o.moo~m~ o.~ocomu o.mom~m— o.~amooo o.om~ooo o.ooomoo o.aomsoo o.mmnmoo o.mommuo o.ommomo o.momm~o o.m~om«o o.mm-oo o.-momm o.omoooo o.mmoocm e.gommom o.o~omam o.m~codm o.=m~aop o.oamoms o.mocmah o.mommoh o.mommm~ o.mooom~ o.omummn o.=m«~m~ 0.3mmmm~ o.mmommh o.c=mmms o.o=aooo o.mm~ooo o.o"oomo o.cmaowo o.oamoxo e.gflomfio e.gomoso o.~¢m~oo e.goxaoo o.o~m~mo o.mmm_mo o.au~ooo 0.0mmm o.mmn~ o.omm~ o.mmm~ o.~um~ o.aomm o.m~a~ o.o~=~ o.o~am o.oonm e.gomm o.omm~ o.mmm~ o.mmm~ o.oamm o.amu~ o.m_~m o.mco~ o.-om o.~hom o.nso~ o.moou o.moo~ o.omo— o.moo~ o.oom~ o.som~ 0.505“ o.mmn~ o.mn~. o.mm- o.am~_ o.ma~« o.nm- o.mm- o.m-~ o.moo, o.=mo« o.monu 000‘ 0.0 OOFOOOQW~0~O~DQW~ONWWWIDQOm33333333333333333 “ddflwfiflfifluv-Ov-O'flv-Ov-ldv-QHU-O'ICHfififlflfiflflflddv‘ddflfl NO‘Q-‘NNONMNMOOQOMV‘NU‘BMNNNNU‘SO‘DQQNNHOQOOM “N“GIMMM'OM-Oo-ouMNMMMMMHMMMddMMMduv-OMMHHHHN" c-OMHNMNH'OQdflNNNv-‘NF’INNWQMNNNMNNflNNMNNNNV‘G“ mmaa3:3:7QQMMMMMMNNNNNN-‘udoooOOOOOOOOO no an oauuoog azmuomm meg-41m Jmsuzog ammnafim an mo mo an mam-mum an amunzou «Husaam mxmaowa an an Jmnozog Jmuozog an no aumomHu auunzou mamnamm mamuanm oaquOJ canoes; oaaooog amuwzou mQJsJIm mQJnJIm azuuowa ~.o.pzouv nu m40oom o.m~mm o.mumm o.oomm o.mamm o.~m~m o.am~m o.ommm e.gonm o.o¢«m o.mn~m e.godm o.oa~m o.o=_m o.am~m o.dmom o.moom o.m,o~ o.m=mm o.nmo~ o.m~m~ o.mo- o.on- o.m-m o.o~h~ o.m-~ o.~=- o.aon~ o.mo- o.m~o~ o.noom o.oacm o._aom o.mmo~ o.¢mo~ o.omom o.mxnm o.cmmm o o 0 o '03:!3MQMMMNQMMNNNNNNMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN acaomommonoummoohumocmoommhoomohmomoomao «anduo-admin«Nvac-0.4.4.4"unMMMudududuuunuumMM-nn No-OMoouuNn-OMQMMNNNNNuN—MMMNNNNNNMNNMMNdMM OOOQQQQQOQQQNBNNNNNN czwloma mDJIJIm mam-mum mamoamu mamumau on mo omu0004 amxpo azmlowa ammuaum an an camoQOJ no an amquou mOJuqu gmuuzoJ JmuuzOJ no to an manna"; no aamsaHm. an an an A.a.»zouu au ugm<> n~n mam «mo «moo mmao moon «soc «mom mmom mom: mm“: moon mmo~ omom ruoN mdo moo mooo soc «mmm oflo wow msoa mac: moon maom mo” coo mom mow _mm 000 «000 ”cm mom «was mmoo moo mmom 144 m.noommn m.aommmm m.aomfinm m.amnoan m.aoaman m.~.ooan m.aowsmm m.ammomn m.~monmn m.omoamm m.mmommn m.osammn m.ohmomm m.=o~omn m.aamm—m m.~m~a~n o.omnm_n o.a~ofi~m o.oa~oom o..~ocon o.oo-om o.ooomon o.mmmaom o.~o_oom o.oanom~ o.—moms~ o.sc~s- e.gdnnsw o.._x-~ o.~ooao~ o.omocm~ o.oommm~ o.ooonm~ o.oanam~ o.o=~om~ o.aoooa~ m.moao¢_ m.nmooo~ m.amomhn m.~nm-u m.akmohu m.samm- m.~moflhu m.-cosu m.mo~os. m.amcao. m.aaqoo_ m.mm=oo— m.omm~o~ m.m~"~ov m.-oom~ m.snmom~ o.mmamm~ o.cooxn_ o.~n~om« o.mdoom~ o.mosmm« o.mooam~ o.ahmama o.o~momu o.oo-an o.o~m~a~ o.m~no=— o.o-oa« o.mo°mm~ o.mooamn o.aoo~m— o.am~flm« o.wanom« o.s-o~a o.~ao-« o.-mo~u o.oo~om~ e.gooomm o.~o~mmm o.nn~nmm o.m=a~mm c.0mmomm o.ooomm~ o.omn=m~ o.o~ncmm o.mm~=m~ o.noo=m~ o.mommm~ o.~mommm o.-omm~ o.ooom=m o.oocoa~ o.o~m~a~ o.ocm~a~ o.omaoa~ o.o°moam o.omnma~ o.omcaam o.oxmaam o.o-oam o.ommwm~ c.030mmm o.mo~mam o.o:mmm~ o.momom~ o.mnoo~m o.mnmamm o.m-mmm o.m~m~m~ o.mmo_- c.mmso«~ o.ms~o- m.maooou m.ommowu m.amcmmu m.-~nad m.smo~m~ m.mmmnwfi m.amamm« m.oummo~ m.~mmmm~ m.mwomw« m.mamam~ m.aomam_ m.ammmou m.acomm~ m.-oo~_ m.m~ao~fi m.~omos_ m.~moo- m.~ao-~ m.-m-" m.~oo~h~ m.~=aos_ m.~oom~« m.~:mms— m.~oooo~ m.~o~mo~ m.amoaoq m.~ommo" m.mmm~o~ m.mscmm~ m.mommm_ m.mo~mm~ n.mnoan_ m.m~mmm« m.m-~m~ m.mo~omfl o.-=n~m o.mmmnmm o.mm=m~m o.omom~m o.o_~«mm o.~o-~m o._-ofim o.“o~o~m o.~n~m~m o.oommnm c.0mmmnm o.womnfln o.mmm-m o.mmu-m o.a-mflm o.~oom.m o.om"m~n o.oa:~_n o.oosofin o.ommonm o.oomoom o.oowoon o.ooooom o.ooonom o.ooomom o.o~o~om o.o~m~o~ o.o~ooo~ o.omoaom o.0mm~om o.oaocm~ o.o=omx~ o.omuom~ o.om~ccm o.omoaw~ o.oammm~ o.omon~au o.o”mo~a~ o.~o-oa~ o.mmnmoau o.m~=ao=a o.oao«oaa o.~mmama« o.oonmma« o.oammm:~ o.omafima~ o.mo~om=u o.~a¢¢aa~ o.~o~caa~ o.~o_o=a~ e.gawomad o.o~«omsd o.mmmmm=~ o.-ma~u« o.~amo~:~ o.-oo":a o.~omm_=n o.u~om.a~ o.~mn0«=« o.~omaom~ o.mnoanm~ c.50cmomd oom0300m~ o.~ofi~.nu o.mo~oam_ o.oommnm. o.moommn_ o.m“m—mma o.omsmfin_ o.mmmm~ma o.oommom_ o.oa=uom. o.-ma o.somn o.oha= o.moaa o.mmaa c.5moa o.moma o.n~ma o.o~ma o.~om= 0.5mm: o.nama o.mmma o.mmma o.moma o.oo~= 0.00": o.m-a 0.0m“: 0.3m“: o.~a_a e.gmfia o.~mua o.~ooa o.~mo= o.maom o.hmom o.ooom o.~>om o.-mm o.o~sm o.oosm o.oa~n c.5nbn o.~o~n o.aoom “'00-. NONNd—OdOOW-OO‘O9O9OOOFU‘ONOuu-nd3OCDOOOQN “HfldflddfiflndfiflfiflfldflfldflHfldfidfidfldflfiddflfi Nnnmmnmmmmammmmmmnnmaanaconoaaaaa3mm mmmnmnm no no mamuunu am «unsung oauo004 mOJsJIm an an oauuoog mo mamuaum an mo AmouzOJ anm.a~m an mam.a~m no mam-mam mum-«Hm an camnmnu oauooOJ mmufizou mamamwu no mo an an camoooJ no an no manna”; O .bzouu cu u4m~w no uxm pzmtn » zen» u>~h<43x2u u<4 m>~p~pagax3u u<43zau m»«a pm omxzono n.~nm~o m.oooom m.mommw m.oma~o m.amaoo momnono m.ammmo m.oma~o n.m—oho m.amkoo m.aswoo m.o~woo m.odooo o.mm~ao o.o~mom o.oarmm o.~om~m o.ooq~m o.aa~oa c.0000: o.o~mma o.oooma o.m~ona o.m«n~= o.oa-a o.mom~a o.ooo_= o.ahooa c.3500: o.ommoa o.monmm c.00mmm o.aooan o.o~man c.9sanm o.~moon o.oooom m.aomoa m.o«o~a m.aomma m..m~na m.omm~a m.aomua m.anmoa m.anaam m.am—am m.awomm m.m~amm m.o~mmm m.aommm m.aafimm m.aoomm o.ommmm o.oano~ o.mm-m o.oonm~ o.o~mm~ o.o~cn~ o.oo~m~ o.o=m- o.m~m- o.aoa—~ o.omo_m o.~mo- o.mmoo~ o.mx~om o.mo~om o.mouo~ o.mmmo~ o.aam~m o.aam>~ o.~oo- o.mmoh~ o.mo=o_ o.onam~ o.nmwa~ '4“ r. o.~amoo« c.5mxno o.~momo o.ahono o.aa«oo o.=1ooo 0.3mmon o.nmnam o.ma~mo o.m~fimm c.1moms o.omnmw o.ooumm o.moonc o.mamfim o.a~moh o.moaa~ o.onm~s c.0mooo o.ao~oo o.~smmo o.=~mmo o.amoom o.aommm o.oommm e.guomm o.-omn o.«mn~m e.gomfim o.aoc~m e.gomum o.aomom o.¢ocna o.ccmoa o._ma¢a o.mcmwa o.m-~= o.omoma o.om~ma . , £33..“ a NJ”.- a.~os~o a.~moom a.~noom a.awoom a.aomom a.oo~om a.¢ommn a.mhm=m =.oooam a.ooamm a.o«amm =.~ao~m =.wam~m a.afim~m a.onmfim a.no-m a.mam_m a.mc1oo a.m-ma =.~m0m= =.o~mma a.onmm= =.onomm =.oommm o.~ommm o.~omnn o.mflmnm 0.5—mam e.gomam o.m~mam o.m1mam o.commm o.omm~m 0.0mmmm o.ooa~m o.~om~m c.5womm o.ooo- o.oom- o.=onmau o.=mmma~ o.omc~=« o.ao—omn o.ao=mmu o.am«mm« o.aom~na o.aoowmd o._m~mmd o.nmnmmd c.1o~m- o.oo~«- o.ooa~mu o.mmoo~— o.momo~« o.am~m1« o.maom- o.oom«~« o.n-oo~ o.acoOo~ o.-mmo« o.=~omo~ o.=omco o.amoao 0.00020 o.“nm~o o.~c~mo o.—N-o o.-mom o.oa_oc o.oa—oo o.omoum o.~maoc o.~maom o.oaomh o.mmnc> o.ma~oh o.am"ms c.0u5as o.ommooo o.oo~ooo o.o~c1oo o.~omoao o.~mo~mo o.mmmmmo o.=ooo~o o.oamcmm o.omoumm o.ocmm~m o.oa-~m o.somm~m e.gohmsm o.am~”~m o.aoooom o.mm~«om o.-=oam o.s~monm o.mmaoom o.~ommom o.moomo= o.mmm«o= o.-oaoa 0.5—onus o.~an~a= o.nm1nma c.1ahmma oomoaomu o.—m:oma o.~ooo~a o.~coo«a o.omva1= o.omammm o.om:mmm o.~moonm o.oamo~m o.oomaom o.~mommm o.oo-mn o.snmd o.~m~u o.ma- c.9301 o.omo~ o.mmo“ o.bmm~ c.1naa o.~oa~ o.~=a~ o.m==~ o.amad o.mm=~ o..~=. c.0131 o.mc=~ o.omm“ o.o—n« o.o-— o.o~m~ o.mo~. o.mo~— o.ma_n o.oooa o.omo~ o.moo~ c.0001 o.amo~ o.mm0u o.smo~ o.~mo~ o.m«o~ o.woo o.¢oo o.mmo o.=mo o.a«o o.~oo o.omo .0....0... NNNNFOOO~0000oommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaa33: to... NN-n—oONOInMMNN-«uoa-mnssoooomammmmud-«oa‘onhh mommmafiovsoosmnanaanamnNMNN—o—o-‘uodnoooooo NMMNNMMHN«MHNNNNNMN«MMMHHMMNNAMMuNN-dumdi «Von—unrunac«awn—onuumtv—oacuunnHu-nnumruonwuunuunnru—ununwunrnvan am camoOOJ auxpo Jmuuzog an «u1uzou nzwaoua mam-cam moqnqu Jmaozog an auuuzou amuazou Jmuuzoq camooog mam-mum ma azunomm ma JmouZOJ am azmooum anuzog moguqzm an moqugzm an mo an .pzouu mu mqoc~m o.o~acfim o.ooc~dm o.ooo-m o.omoo~m o.ooom~m o.om~m~m o.oo=a~m o.omom~m o.s=ooom o.smmoom o.~aomom o.ncamom o.-~nom o.~fimmo~ o.~o-om e.gmmmom o.-omo~ o.~mo=o~ o.~omao~ o.mo~mom o.mmomom e.gomoom o.-o~om 0.0mmsmm o.omoomm o.on~oom o.ono-=~ o.o~mooaa o.om~moa~ e.gamooau o.ommmoa— o.ooomoau o.moomnad o.o~mama~ o.mm~ama— o.moo~maa o.~onomc_ o.~ma~a=« o.mocaaafi c.5uuaaafl o.~mmmma_ o.~oaoma_ o.~mmm«a~ o.no~_msu e.gmomflad o.ooaoom. e.gamwnm" o.nauorma o.o~amom~ o.=ommom_ o.aoo~0m_ o.¢ommmm~ o.oomomm~ o.o_coam« o.oomo=mu o.-oa=m_ o.~moomm~ o.ma«omm~ o.manmumn o.~oo~_n~ o.~aom~n~ o.o--m« o.~—m= o.—oma e.goaa o.\n=a o.mhaa o.cmaa c.0033 o.aoma o.omma o.msma o.moma o.mmm= o.m=ma o.hmma o.oam= e.gona o.oo~a o.~mma o.mo,a o.~o_= o.mco= o.nnoa o.c~om o.o~om o.moon o.maom o.mmom e.gmom o.omon o.m—on o.aomm o.momm o.~mmm o.o"mm o.oomm e.goon N. 000 0.... "d“"do‘v‘dfid NNNNNNNNNHM O “do-0'0“civic-Odd“Undo-0dr..."fifiwfiflfldfiddddfidflddfl MNMNMMIGMMMNNNNMMMMQMMQMQMMQQ63:!33033 no mamumnu camuooq mam.anu an mam-«Hm mo oauuooa mwuuzou an no mamumuu an oawoooa no no «amount an ma aqmsaam mo oauooog oauoooq onuoOOJ an 5.0.»zouu mu w4m~p<43zau c.aa¢ooa o.so~omm a.ooosom o.sm«~mm =.-~oom o.mo=~mm z.s«~oaw o.mom~na 3.5—mfidm o.mom«ma v.5".mmm o.moomom a.nmond~ e.gcnnom a.flasuom o.aa«m~m =.nmnmba 0.5mmsmm m.~a~=~" m.aaommm w.moo-« n.0mn~nm m.acNNmH m.aomm- o.mo~om~ n.0mnmwm m.-«am« n.50wcom o.~"mco m.so-m~ w.h~o~n m.ammaoa o.nwamh m.-aco c.5moah m.mmn~o m.acauo 0.50mmw w.omooo o.snm«w m.aamam m.-oom o.oomo~ o.ho~om w.~mawu m.om«m~ o.mm~m o.moma o.o~o~ o.mmom In in Adamouu Jakob hmou m>~r~» IdJDzau o.oo~ o.ood o.ooon o.ooo« o.ooo~ o.oo« o.ooa o.ooo o.ao o.oo 0.000 o.m~ o.m= o.com~ o.oom o.oou o.o~ o.m—n o.m~ 0.00“— o.ooo o.oa o.omo o.- o.co .mmu< I m omxz~aa 400440z00 0.00o000 o.ho~omm 0.000000 o.~ma~mn 0.000000 0.00m0mm =.mo0msm =.mm000m 0.000000 0.05m00m 0.0mooom 0.00000: 0.0m0_mn c.000m00 0.mmomam o.0commm 0.mn~»- 0.0m0000 0.0mws00 0.0N000N 0.0mm0m— 0.00moam 0.000000 0.00000m 0.000mm0 0.000~0m 0.0aomm0 0.0mm0ow 0.0mmwn0 0.000—0m c.0mflm00 o.m:mnmu c.0000m0 0.0mmmm_ o.m-00 c.0m0m0— o.m0moo c.0m0mo o.om~mo 0.00000 0.05000 0.00000 c.sm~o~ c.00mom 0.00000 0.0m0m~ 0.00m00 0.m00- 0.00om 0.0000 In :0 0000000 04000 0000 u>Hp«4:zau O“ 0” ON 0Q 0N .0 ON on .m .0" ON On .~ 0” 0N 03 ON UN on OM 0M .0 .m .md .m .Nn .n .cu .m .m« CM IN. .m .o .m .0— .m .0“ .m .0" on 0N .3 00a .m .0 .m .m .m .mm nxuu nxum xuohm mumutmh oszoao I2Hw nm omxzcz mHmm mogagxm 010.000 nzmuoax 030-00: axmuoma moguJIm 004:4Im 004.410 000-410 004-410 40.0204 40-0204 030.000 00 axmuomx moqogrm 000.410 40:0204 mogogxm 0303000 004.010 meg-4:0 000u4xm 000a4xm axmnoma «drowns-0.4040000“uu—onunuuuuudun—o «NMNIANMNMMnummmmmmmmmrflrfldm moon hzwzl h