to be lower than those on Federal land; but 

 closer examination showed that some element 

 of the practice had been left out such as labor, 

 equipment, costs, and interest. 



RESOURCE OUTPUTS 



Response of each of the 956 resource units 

 to the level of management represented by each 

 management strategy was predicted for each 

 of 22 resource outputs. This was done by the 

 teams that also developed the management 

 strategies. Although the strategies were not 

 designed principally to achieve outputs other 

 than livestock grazing, some have significant 

 impact upon the yield of other goods and ser- 

 vices. Nine of the 22 outputs were quantita- 

 tively measured. The remaining 13 were ex- 

 pressed using a qualitative rating system. 



The qualitative values, numbers 10 to 22, are 

 the most unique. The purpose of these esti- 

 mates was to summarize in a score the resource 

 unit's response to the impact of the strategies 

 for which quantitative measures were not read- 

 ily available. Perhaps the spirit of measure- 

 ment of these products can best be summed up 

 by a statement by S. S. Stevens (1958) : 



Measurement ... is more than the 

 pedantic pursuit of a decimal place. 

 Its vital and absorbing aspect emerges 

 most clearly when it becomes a ques- 

 tion of measuring something that has 

 never been measured. Or, better still, 

 something that has been held to be 

 unmeasurable. 



A numerical 5-point scale was used to measure 

 outputs number 10 to 22. The 5 points were: 



Excellent 5 

 Good 4 



Fair 3 



Poor 

 Bad 



The 22 resource outputs, listed below, varied 

 greatly in form, value, and measurement tech- 

 nique. For example, each of the grazing mea- 

 sures had difi'erent properties. Animal unit 

 months (AUM's) was the estimated rate to 

 which a particular strategy and resource unit 

 could be stocked with livestock. Herbage yields 

 were associated with the habitat created for 

 both livestock and game animals. Animal output 

 value was an extension of animal unit months 

 to reflect quality considerations associated with 

 different levels of livestock management. Thus, 

 while all three grazing measures were inter- 

 dependent, each had its own quality. 



Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are grazing measures; 

 numbers 4 to 9 are joint outputs; and numbers 

 10 to 22 are qualitative estimates. 



The list of resource outputs follows: 



1. Animal unit months — stocking rate of 



livestock intended for each management strat- 

 egy to the nearest 0.01 AUM. 



2. Herbage and browse — current year's pro- 

 duction of leafy or twig material in tons-per- 

 acre to the nearest 0.1 ton. 



3. Animal output value — dollar value per 

 acre of livestock production to the nearest 0.1 

 dollar. This value was obtained by multiplying 

 AUM per acre by the following factors for 

 each strategy: $6.50 for Strategy B, $8.00 for 

 Strategy C, $9.00 for Strategies D and E, and 

 $15.00 for Strategy X. Animal output value 

 reflects the expected gains in animal produc- 

 tivity and quality resulting from more inten- 

 sive management. It was recognized that this 

 value could vary depending upon the type of 

 operation (cow-calf, cow-yearling, buy-sell, 

 etc.). But in order to reflect inherent differences 

 in the land base rather than entrepreneur op- 

 tions, the gross value per animal unit month 

 for a typical cow-calf operation was used as 

 the norm. 



4. Employment — primary permanent em- 

 ployment generated by full use of the range- 

 associated outputs of the management strategy 

 expressed in man-hours per acre, per year, to 

 the nearest 0.01 man-hour. It was assumed 

 that existing allotment structure and ranching 

 enterprises remain intact, and that the imple- 

 mentation of management strategies would 

 increase or decrease the employment level to 

 that specified for this strategy outcome. It was 

 estimated that livestock production in the 

 Eastern ecosystems required an average of 

 0.6 man-hours per animal unit month and for 

 the Western ecosystems 0.9 man-hours per 

 AUM. 



5. Wood — net growth of merchantable wood 

 in cubic feet per acre per year. 



6. Water yield — yield of water in acre-feet 

 per acre per year to the nearest 0.1 acre-feet 

 for the yield expected under a management 

 strategy. 



7. Quality water — yield of water in acre-feet 

 per acre per year to the nearest 0.1 acre feet 

 which meets prescribed standards. 



8. Storm runoff — the amount of runoff ex- 

 pected for a 2-year 2-day storm for a given site 

 expressed in 0.1 inches per acre. 



9. Sediment — the sediment deposited in 

 stream channels in tons to the nearest 0.1 of a 

 ton per acre per year. 



10. Soil stability — changes expected in sur- 

 face soil movement. 



11. Soil quality — changes expected in fer- 

 tility, structure, or drainage of the soil. Ferti- 

 lization or drainage might be expected to rate 

 excellent (5). 



12. Air quality — carbon and particulate con- 

 tent of the atmosphere. For example, conver- 



15 



