TIMBER RESOURCES FOR AMERICAS FUTURE 



In addition to the comments volunteered from 

 outside the Forest Service and those requested 

 from within Service, the Forest Service retained 

 three men of national reputation to review parts 

 or all of the preliminary report. These were: Dr. 

 John D. Black, Henry Lee Professor of Eco- 

 nomics, Emeritus, Harvard University; Dr. Sam- 

 uel T. Dana, Professor Emeritus of Forestry, and 

 Dean Emeritus, School of Natural Resources, 

 University of Michigan; and Dr. Arnold C. 

 Harberger, Associate Professor of Economics, 

 University of Chicago. 



The suggestions received were of great variety. 

 A few were major, most were minor, and there 

 were many duplications. All suggestions were 

 carefully considered and about 50 percent ac- 

 cepted. In addition, there were many other 

 changes made by the authors. The final report, 

 although following somewhat the same general 

 organizational pattern as the preliminary draft, is 

 substantially a different document in many 

 respects. 



In preparing the final report, no attempt was 

 made to bring the information presented in the 

 preliminary draft up to date. To do this would 

 have required new field surveys and would have 

 been impractical. In general, the time period 

 with which the report deals is 1952-53. There is 

 some variation in this depending upon the types 

 of data, and these are explained in the individual 

 sections. 



Collaboration 



The very significant assistance received by the 

 Forest Service from various sources has been men- 

 tioned already. Without such assistance, comple- 

 tion of the Timber Resource Review would not 

 have been practicable. 



The advice and counsel of the national advisor}- 

 group was of real value. Also of great value was 

 the basic information made available by State 

 agencies and forest industries on such items as 

 timber products output and forest fire experience. 

 Valuable time and effort were contributed by a 

 great many people in discussions throughout the 

 country, at meetings, and in other ways in coun- 

 seling during the planning phase of the Timber 

 Resource Review. Much was also contributed in 

 reviewing the preliminary report. 



In addition to such help, there have been tangi- 

 ble contributions to the field execution of certain 

 phases of the project, such as the field surveys in 

 utilization, in timber inventory, and in produc- 

 tivity of recently cut lands. Valued at more than 

 half a million dollars, these outside contributions 

 consisted roughly of 78 percent manpower,^ 13 

 percent facilities and equipment, and 9 percent 

 cash. Tliey came from the following sources: 



Valued a1 .$.500 i)pr inaii-niontli. 



Other 

 Forest Federal 



Tasks States industries ' agencies 2 Total 



Timber utiliza- 

 tion $18,900 $500 $100 $19,500 



Timber resource 



inventory 160,100 92,600 2,300 255,000 



Productivity of re- 

 c e n 1 1 y cut 

 lands 168,700 23,900 25,700 218,300 



Other tasks 3 6,800 5,800 12,600 



All tasks 354,500 117,000 33,900 505,400 



1 Including consulting and other privately employed 

 foresters. 



2 Including also a small amount of contributions not 

 elsewhere classified. 



3 Mainly forest protection and planting. 



The most significant contributions were made 

 b}^' State agencies and totaled 70 percent of all 

 assistance. State assistance was about equally 

 divided between the inventory and productivity 

 tasks, and was made by 65 State agencies in 37 

 States, including 36 State Departments of Forestry 

 or Conservation, Extension Services in 12 States, 

 2 State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 10 

 State-supported educational institutions, and 5 

 other State agencies. 



Forest industrj^ contributed about 25 percent 

 of total assistance. Industry's greatest contribu- 

 tion was to the inventor}^ phase, although signifi- 

 cant help also was made available in the produc- 

 tivity survey. A total of 149 forest industry 

 sources assisted in the Timber Resoui'ce Review, 

 of which 40 percent were lumber companies, 25 

 percent pulp and paper companies and the 

 balance about equally divided between other 

 wood-manufacturing companies and industry trade 

 associations, consulting and other privately em- 

 ployed foresters. Industry also gave the review 

 draft careful scrutiny and made numerous sugges- 

 tions. 



Principal assistance from other Federal agencies 

 was from the Bureau of Land Management, 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs, and National Park 

 Service, Department of the Interior; Soil Conserva- 

 tion Service, Department of Agriculture; and 

 Department of the Army. 



Not included in the above summary was the 

 cooperation extended by coimtless landowners in 

 permitting access to their properties in connection 

 with either the inventory or productivity field 

 surveys. With very few exceptions, such access 

 was wholeheartedly given. Also not included is 

 the time and effort spent by the many reviewers. 



It should be emphasized that the compilation of 

 data, their interpretation and the report prepara- 

 tion are that of tne Forest Service. Collaboration 

 on the Timber Resource Review in any way, eithei' 

 through service on one of the advisory groups, 

 through positive assistance as reflected in the 

 preceding talnilation, tlu-ougli review of the first 

 draft, or through merely giving access to one's 

 property or individual production records, in no 



