IIMTRODUCTIOIM 



Because the Northern Region does not have 

 an effective way to control white pine blister 

 rust, a decision has been made to discontinue 

 regenerating new white pine stands until rust 

 resistant white pine planting stock is available 

 or an economical rust control method is 

 developed. The management problem is broad- 

 er, however, than the question of what 

 species to regenerate in place of white pine 

 during this interim period. The white pine 

 land' is largely stocked with timber, much of 

 which is white pine. Eventually, it is hoped, 

 the extensive research now underway will pro- 

 duce an effective rust control method. In the 

 meantime the question is what to do with 

 these stands and in what order; how to manage 

 them in the interim period when effective 

 control of blister rust is impossible. 



This report attempts to answer the question 

 by presenting a general method of approach 

 to the management alternatives. The principal 

 objective is to discuss some of the financial 

 aspects of timber management decision mak- 

 ing on public lands. This subject, though 

 basic to the management of stands on white 

 pine land, reaches beyond the problems of 

 white pine forests. 



The purpose of timber management plan- 

 ning on public land is, broadly speaking, 

 threefold: 



1. To produce, for a given planning period, 

 a specified flow of timber yields consistent 

 with both timber marketing and timber grow- 

 ing opportunities. 



2. To select the areas best suited for produc- 

 ing the yields specified and to manage the 



The term "white pine land" is used throughout 

 this paper to designate land now growing or suitable 

 for growing white pine. Such land is principally 

 in Oearwater, Coeur d'Alene, Colville, Kaniksu, 

 Kootenai, and St. Joe National Forests. 



selected areas in a way to achieve the most 

 desirable balance between timber growing, 

 recreation, watershed protection, and other 

 forest uses. 



3. To accomplish the timber growing ob- 

 jectives in the most economical manner pos- 

 sible. 



A consciousness of all three aims of plan- 

 ning is vital to sound policy making and pro- 

 gram development. For example, if a manager 

 were to establish a production goal without 

 considering rates of return possible from the 

 forest, he might find his goal and program to 

 be economically unrealistic. Again, if he se- 

 lected for management only those stands that 

 would individually produce the highest return 

 on the investment, thus achieving the objective 

 of economy, he might find it difficult if not 

 impossible to secure the concomitant objec- 

 tives of tlow of yields and good coordination 

 with other uses. 



This discussion is primarily concerned with 

 the financial ranking of stands for manage- 

 ment treatment. Common sense dictates that 

 all actions be considered in relation to the 

 specified management objective, that the areas 

 selected for timber growing be those where 

 the objectives can be achieved at least cost, 

 and then that the management action needed 

 be taken in the most efficient manner possible. 



Since timber management involves the ex- 

 penditure of either public or private money, it 

 is clearly desirable to choose from the available 

 stands and management measures those that 

 can accomplish the manager's objectives and 

 at the same time produce the greatest dollar 

 return on the investment. Estimations of rate 

 of return are therefore valuable aids, and will 

 be discussed in the following pages not as ends 

 in themselves, but as steps in management 

 decision making. 



1 



