64 



Paee 5 of 5 



Notes For TSPIRS Analvsis 



Col. 1. TSPIRS Total Losses For 5 vears with Regional Office. Washington 

 Office Prorated & 25% Costs counted. From TSPIRS, No adjustments. 



Col. 2. TSPIRS Averages for 5 vears. 1988-1992 from above. 



Col. 3 Average gain or loss per thousand board feet cut ( MBF ) . 



Col. 4 Average gain or loss per acre cut. 



Col. 5 Average Cut in thousand board feet (MBF). 5 Years. Source: TSPIRS. 



Col. 6 Average Acres Cut per vear. Source TSPIRS. 



Col. 7 



Col. 8 Per MBF equivalent of Column 7, 



Col. 9 ASR Rating. This is a count of the 42 Forests that for the 5 vears 

 earmarked over 100% of their timber receipts. Note the poor match 

 with the TSPIRS claims for "profit". No Forest earmarking over 

 100% of timber receipts could actuallv even break-even. 



Col. 10 "Rating" Svstem. (1) "F-". Forests that lose money under TSPIRS 

 and have a negative ASR Balance. (2) "F". Forests with TSPIRS 

 losses over -S200 per acre logged. (3) "C", Forests with TSPIRS 

 losses between -$100 and -$200 per acre logged. (4)"B", Forests 

 with losses from -$1 to -$99 per acre logeed. (5) "A", Forests 

 with profits from +S1 per acre to +$5,500 per acre. 



Col. 11 Forests numbered 1 to 120 with "BC" signifying those that would 

 be rated "below-cost" under the proposed Forest Service rule. Note 

 the irrational scattering of "below-cost" Forests created bv the 

 Forest Service proposal. 



Note * - 93/94 combines the Tahoe and Tahoe Management Unit because the ASR 

 reports do not separate. 



* In TSPIRS the Forest Service fails to include monev received from &l C 

 timber it manages in the Western Oregon counties and its 50% pavments to 

 the counties. It is includes in mv "ASR" cash earmarking analysis. 



Robert E Wolf. 3245 Bowen Road. St. Leonard Md . 20685-2411. (410-586-17671 

 April 16. 1993, (rev). I tspnot e . doc I 



