sion of Douglas-fir forest to grassland may 

 rate (2), because the decrease in carbon stored 

 in decay-resistant organisms will result in a 

 higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (COo) con- 

 tent. Seeding and related improvement of 

 depleted grasslands may rate fair (3) or good 

 (4) because dust content of the atmosphere 

 may be decreased. 



13. Environmental beauty^ — -esthetic impact 

 of a strategy upon the landscape. Beauty was 

 evaluated with respect to scenic appeal or to 

 the quality of spiritual appeal to solitude. 



14. Rare and endangered species — changes in 

 population for those species which are perma- 

 nent, summer, or winter residents in the 

 resource unit. For example, a strategy which 

 included prescribed burning in the white-red- 

 iack pine ecosystem may be rated excellent (5) 

 because it tends to create the nesting habitat 

 for the endangered Kirtland warbler. Converse- 

 ly, a strategy which includes conversion of this 

 ecosystem to grassland may be rated bad (1) 

 because it would decimate the nesting habitat 

 of the species. ° 



15. Non-game birds — diversity of habitat for 

 those species which are permanent, summer, or 

 winter residents in this resource unit. For ex- 

 ample, a strategy which reduced the number 

 of vegetation strata or tended to concentrate 

 the foliage in a single stratum would reduce 

 the diversity of bird species. Thus, converting 

 a climax stand of deciduous forest to grassland 

 would have a bad (1) effect. Introduction of 

 shrubs into Plains grasslands may have a good 

 (4) effect. 



16. Carnivores and raptors — animal num- 

 bers for those species which are permanent, 

 summer, or winter residents of the resource 

 unit. For example, strategies that include con- 

 trol of prey species may have a poor (2) effect; 

 strategies that perpetuate extensive manage- 

 ment of "wilderness" conditions may have a 

 good (4) or excellent (5) effect. 



17. Hunting — impact upon the number of 

 healthy game animals. For example, in the 

 Sagebrush ecosystem, a strategy that includes 

 mechanical control of sagebrush may have a 

 poor (2) or bad (1) effect upon hunting. Thin- 

 ning in the Douglas-fir ecosystem may have a 

 good (4) effect. 



18. Other outdoor recreation — an estimate 

 based upon visitor days per acre. 



19. Depressed area impact — economic impact 

 of a strategy upon the residents of an Econom- 

 ically Depressed Area.'' 



Qualitative factors from 1 through 5 were 

 assigned for this output. These factors are: 



1-bad, 2-poor, 3-fair, 4-good, and 5-excellent. 

 Their relationships are shown in the following 

 tabulation : 



Management 

 strategy 



Percent of ecosystem within 



economically depressed areas 



0-20 25-40 45-60 65-80 80-100 



No livestock (A) 



Some livestock (B) 



Extensive mngt. (C) _ 

 Intensive mngt. (D) _ 

 Maximize livestock (E) 

 Exploitative mngt. (X) 



^ See Appendix A for list by ecosystem. 

 " See Appendix A for percent area economically de- 

 pressed by ecosystem. 



20. Cultural heritage, resident — impact of a 

 treatment upon an established local tradition, 

 image of life, mores, institution or environ- 

 mental characteristic when viewed as affecting 

 residents of the local environment. Examples: 

 pinyon nut gathering, cattle round-up, trail 

 herding of sheep or cattle. Complete elimina- 

 tion of pinyon-juniper cover would wipe out 

 nut gathering which is important to Indian 

 tribes of the Southwest. This would rate (1) 

 whereas strategy A would encourage pinyon 

 cover and the associated nut gathering would 

 be expected to be good to excellent, and would 

 rate a (4) or (5). 



21. Cultural heritage, non-resident — impact 

 upon an established tradition, image of life, 

 mores, institution or environmental character- 

 istic when viewed as affecting a nonresident of 

 the environment under consideration. For ex- 

 ample, consider the Marlboro syndrome ( cow- 

 boy ing on the range), a heritage which the 

 non-resident looks forward to seeing on the 

 western range. A management strategy such as 

 no livestock (A) which eliminates this would 

 rate bad (1) ; a strategy such as intensive man- 

 agement (D) or especially maximizing livestock 

 production (E) may rate poor (2) or fair (3) ; 

 a strategy more in tune with the Marlboro pic- 

 ture such as some livestock (B) or extensive 

 management (C) may rate good (4) or excel- 

 lent (5). 



22. Flexibility for future management — ease 

 with which management direction can be al- 

 tered. Basically, multiple-use management pro- 

 vides for a high degree of flexibility for future 

 management. Single-use management, on the 

 other hand, usually results in just the opposite. 



Yields for each of the 22 resource outputs 

 were evaluated with regard to the response 

 expected after the mix of practices had taken 

 full effect and the influence had stabilized. 

 Hence, the yields represent the culmination of 

 output response from the application of the 

 strategies rather than representing average 

 yields. Such an approach was adopted since 

 the results of the study were intended for long- 

 term policy analysis. Underlying this is the 



16 



