CONCERNING SITE 



By Carlos G. Bates 

 Forest Examiner, Fremont Experiment Station 



The only final criterion of site quality is the current annual cubic- 

 foot increment of a fully stocked stand of the species under considera- 

 tion. 



Any other criterion of site quality is a compromise or makeshift 

 which, of course, may be justified under many circumstances. 



In talking about the increment criterion of site quality the writer is 

 distinctly not discussing makeshifts or temporary expedients, but 

 rather an actual standard of site qualities which, because it is exact 

 and contains the smallest possible element of human judgment, may 

 now begin to be and remain forever the standard of American for- 

 esters in all descriptive writing, in working ])lans, etc. It is believed 

 that the Forest Service and other agencies now possess abundant data 

 on the growth and increment of all- the more important American 

 species, so that the range of productiveness of each species could quite 

 certainly be determined and standards could be fixed which would 

 thenceforth mean the same thing to all. Suppose, for example, the in- 

 crements of white pine under all known conditions were found to run 

 from lo cubic feet per annum to 210 cubic feet. Then, assuming that 

 for the whole of North America it is desirable to recognize five de- 

 grees of productiveness of land, in terms of white pine, with those 

 limitations fixed, there could thereafter be no excuse for calling 100- 

 cubic-foot land anything but "White Pine Site Quality III," and 

 "White Pine Site Quality III,'" no matter by whom the expression 

 was used, or to what region it was referred, or to what topograjihic 

 position, would to each of us mean a site capable of producing from 

 90 to 130 cubic feet of white pine per acre per annum. 



The premise taken in the ojKMiing paragraph is fundamental. To 

 deny its truth is equivalent to denying that the primary aim of forestry 

 is timber production and the maximum of timber production. It 

 would be equivalent to saying that the value of land for purposes of 

 forestry is not determined by the productiveness of the land in terms 

 of timber. It would be equivalent to saying that the relative value of 



