assumption that the small variation involved 

 in time of culmination, together with the long- 

 range policy horizon, would not significantly 

 change the results studied. 



Resource responses were estimated from the 

 best available information. Grazing values had 

 the most backup information in terms of team 

 members' experience and research information. 

 Output values from wood were derived from 

 research information developed over the years 

 and from periodic inventories by the U.S. 

 Forest Service. Hydrologic outputs were diffi- 

 cult to determine. These values should be con- 

 sidered indexes rather than absolute values. 

 These data are, however, relevant to available 

 statistics. Published information on past and 

 present outputs in the form of generalized 

 maps and reports were used to provide the base 

 data. In addition, reports of field investigations 

 including River Basin studies were used for 

 extrapolating data from broad areas such as 

 Water Resources Council Regions to the re- 

 source units. 



Grazing production values were generally 

 determined first. For some ecosystems, bench 

 marks were established from long-term animal- 

 unit-month production data. But for others, 

 little or no data were available. Here produc- 

 tion estimates were calculated from herbage 

 yields reported in research publications and 

 adjusted based on management experience of 

 the working groups. The other quantitative 

 values were then estimated. If no expert for 

 these values was represented in the working 

 group, other experts were called upon. Once 

 the quantitative estimates were developed for 

 an ecosystem, the values were reviewed by the 

 total team. 



The qualitative values for the ecosystems, 

 which are actually indexes expressing the 

 effects of the management strategies, were 

 determined with the assistance of team mem- 

 bers who were experts for the qualitative fac- 

 tors: a wildlife biologist assisted in determin- 

 ing the qualitative values pertaining to habitat 

 for rare species, non-game birds, carnivores 

 and raptors, and hunting; a hydrologist assisted 

 where water was involved, and soil scientists 

 did the same for soil. Considerable discussion 

 by team members usually accompanied the de- 

 velopment of the value. This made it possible 

 to ascertain and review the reasoning process 

 used in developing the values. If different view- 

 points were encountered, consideration was 

 given to all views and a consensus arrived at 

 for the various outputs. These values were 

 then recorded (fig. 7) and the data processed 

 for analysis. 



The data were ready for analysis upon the 

 development and definition of the resource 

 units, the cost structure and the recording of 



acreages for the management practices for the 

 various management strategies. The first order 

 of discussion after developing the measurement 

 procedures and recording the data was the 

 development of the data base. This was done 

 before determining demands and alternative 

 mixtures of management strategies for resource 

 uses. The resource situation as of 1970 was 

 used as the data base. This assumption was 

 necessary in order to provide an inventory of 

 the existing forest-range resource. 



SUMMARY 



The Forest-Range Task Force wanted to 

 ]3lace the traditional emphasis on range for 

 livestock use, but also wanted to explore the 

 interrelationships among livestock use and 

 range as a source of multiple goods and ser- 

 vices. Investigation of this type required an 

 analysis of the relationship of management and 

 treatment options to the quantity, quality, and 

 mix of outputs within, as well as between, 

 various types of land resources. It was recog- 

 nized that measurement of the "total" system 

 was far beyond the scope of known techniques. 

 An almost infinite array of resource-output 

 combinations and management options existed. 

 Consequently, to study the forest-range system, 

 it was necessary to establish a uniform frame- 

 work of land inventory, management, strategy, 

 and output responses suitable for all sectors 

 and within the bounds of computational pro- 

 cedures. 



The system developed permitted the use of 

 the existing land base and resource output in- 

 formation. The first step was to establish land 

 areas called resource units. Each resource unit 

 was classified according to 34 ecosystems, 4 

 productivity classes, 3 condition classes, and 

 3 types of ownership. Next, to link range man- 

 agement activities and outputs with land base, 

 five management strategies of increasing man- 

 agement intensity for grazing were designed 

 for each resource unit. Each of these consisted 

 of a mix of conventional range management 

 practices that would attain the desired man- 

 agement level when fully implemented. A sixth 

 strategy — exploitative management, was recog- 

 nized. 



Although the strategies were designed prin- 

 cipally to achieve targets for outputs of live- 

 stock grazing, they do have an impact upon the 

 yields of other goods and services. In order to 

 evaluate these impacts, yields of 22 outputs 

 associated with each management strategy 

 were included in the inventory. Animal unit 

 months of grazing was the primary output. 

 The other values were considered as joint out- 

 puts obtained from range management options; 

 they varied greatly in form, value, and mea- 



17 



