C. Extensive management of environment 

 and livestock. Management systems and tech- 

 niques, including fencing and water develop- 

 ments, are applied as needed to obtain relative- 

 ly uniform livestock distribution and plant use, 

 and to maintain plant vigor. Management seeks 

 full utilization of the animal unit months 

 available for livestock grazing. No attempt is 

 made to maximize livestock forage production 

 by cultural practices such as seeding. 



D. Intensive management of environment 

 and livestock. All available technology for 

 range and livestock management is considered. 

 Management seeks to maximize livestock forage 

 production consistent with constraints of main- 

 taining the environment and providing for 

 multiple use. Existing vegetation may be 

 replaced through improvement in growing con- 

 ditions. Structures may be installed to accom- 

 modate complex livestock management systems 

 and practices. Advanced livestock management 

 practices are commonplace. 



E. Environmental management with live- 

 stock production maximized. Stewardship of 

 soil and water are required. Timber may be 

 completely removed. Multiple use is not a con- 

 straint. 



Management at an exploitative level (Strat- 

 egy X), the sixth strategy, was included in 

 order to inventory the existing activities, to 

 estimate the extent of exploitative management, 

 and to evaluate the consequences of applying 

 this type of treatment to the resource. Ex- 

 ploitative grazing use was defined as grazing in 

 a manner that depletes the soil or vegetation 

 and violates the principle of sustained yield. 

 Attainment of this strategy was not a manage- 

 ment goal. 



Using the basic definitions of the manage- 

 ment strategies, packages of range manage- 

 ment practices were assembled for each of the 

 956 resource units which when applied should 

 result in attainment of the management goal 

 for the strategy level. 



Four types of information were assembled 

 for each resource unit. This was needed in 

 order to develop a data base along with acreage 

 limitation caused by physical and biological 

 factors and legal limitations. The four types 

 of information were: 



1. Now situation — the proportion of land 

 that was being managed under each strategy 

 as of 1970. 



2. Now policy — commitments or plans as of 

 1970 to change the strategy mix on each 

 resource unit by the year 2000. 



3. Maximum limit — the maximum proportion 

 of a given resource unit to which a given 

 management strategy can be applied when 

 considering only physical and biological con- 

 straints. 



4. Minimum limit — the least amount of land 

 that can be managed in a given strategy 

 because of laws, institutions, or policy com- 

 mitments. 



Collection of data for each strategy involved 

 two teams made up of personnel from each 

 National Forest System Region, Research Ex- 

 periment Station, and State and Private For- 

 estry Area of the Forest Service, U.S. Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture. One team of 30 members 

 handled most of the Great Plains and West 

 ecosystems; the other, comprised of 20 mem- 

 bers, handled the Northeast and Southeast. 

 Team members represented a broad range of 

 scientific disciplines including range science, 

 forestry, ecology, hydrology, soils, watershed, 

 landscape architecture, recreation, resource 

 economics, and wildlife management. 



Leaders of each team established working 

 groups, based on knowledge about specific eco- 

 systems, their management, physical and bio- 

 logical features, and level of development. Each 

 team developed values for one ecosystem and 

 discussed the general concepts that were used. 

 Time priorities were established for each 

 ecosystem based on potential range values. For 

 instance, in the Western Forest ecosystems, the 

 highest priority was placed on Ponderosa Pine 

 and the lowest was assigned to Redwood. 



Each working group was structured differ- 

 ently. In the West, for example, the forest eco- 

 system group worked as a unit while the range 

 ecosvstem group was subdivided based on spe- 

 cial knowledge of team members. But the struc- 

 ture of these groups was flexible and was 

 changed while values were being developed in 

 order to make best use of each member's 

 experience or area of skill. Thus, team mem- 

 bers worked on problem areas where they 

 were competent and could provide expertise. 



As the study progressed, an effort was made 

 to coordinate development of the ecosystem 

 values. After the values were developed for 

 each ecosystem, results were organized and 

 presented for review by the entire team. This 

 provided an opportunity to adjust the values 

 using the experience of all members. Group 

 leaders met frequently to evaluate general con- 

 cepts and to insure uniformity between work- 

 ing groups. 



In developing the actual management strat- 

 egies, the work groups selected a set of range 

 management practices needed to implement 

 the five strategies in each resource unit. To 

 accomplish this the group members first iden- 

 tified typical management areas used in the 

 resource units and their geographic location. 

 Management areas varied in size from 5 acres 

 in Mountain meadows to 10,000 acres in Desert 

 shrub. These areas provided bench marks from 

 which to work. 



9 



