the total area in the National Forest System. 

 Because the 1970 Timber Review was the most 

 up-to-date of the two, the adjustment to bring 

 the acreage to the official total area of the 

 National Forest System was made in the non- 

 forested ecosystems. 



Acreage data for other Federal lands were 

 taken from a wide variety of published and 

 nonpublished reports provided by various Fed- 

 eral agencies. These sources were: 



1. 1963 and 1964 Summaries of range con- 

 dition reports, Bur. Land Mgmt., U.S. 

 Dept. Int. 



2. Grazing capacity classes by vegetative 

 types (1970 data), Bur. Land. Mgmt, 

 U.S. Dept. Int. 



3. Public Land Statistics — 1949, Bur. Land 

 Mgmt., U.S. Dept. Int. 



4. Definitions of vegetation classification 

 (Form 10-430), Natl. Park Serv., U.S. 

 Dept. Int. 



5. Fire protection acreage summary. Acres 

 by State, by vegetation types, April 

 1970. Natl. Park Serv., U.S. Dept. Int. 



6. Statistics for forage study provided 

 Public Land Law Review Commission by 

 the Natl. Park Serv., Dec. 1967. 



7. Martin, R, 0. R. and Hanson, R. L. Res- 

 ervoirs in the United States. Geological 

 Survey Water-Supply Paper 1838. 1966. 



8. Land use inventory and production rec- 

 ord report 50-1: Part I — Ownership and 

 land use class of lands under Bur. Indian 

 Affairs jurisdiction; Part VI^ — Status of 

 conservation program, calendar year 

 1969. Bur. Indian Affairs, U.S. Dept. 

 Int. 



9. Acreage of range condition classes. Bur. 

 Indian Affairs, U.S. Dept. Int., May 1, 

 1970. 



10. National wildlife refuges: Summary of 

 farming, grazing, haying, and timber 

 programs, calendar year 1969, Bur. of 

 Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. 

 Int. 



11. Report of classification of refuge lands, 

 1965, Bur. of Sport Fisheries and Wild- 

 life, U.S. Dept. Int. 



12. 1968 List of National wildlife refuges, 

 Bur. of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

 U.S. Dept. Int. 



13. Annual report of lands under control of 

 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- 

 life, 1969, Bur. of Sport Fisheries and 

 Wildlife, U.S. Dept. Int. 



Data from these reports were cross-referenced 

 to the ecosystem using the same basic proce- 

 dure as for the National Forest System lands. 



However, determination of the rangelands 

 for the non-Federal lands presented a more 

 difficult problem. The Conservation Needs In- 

 ventory (CNI), which was the main source of 

 information, does not contain tabulations of 

 acreages by vegetation types, grazing capacity 

 classes, and condition classes per se (U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture 1971). Rangeland 

 and pasture acreages are tabulated by treat- 

 ment needs. Using the definitions in the CNI 

 handbook, the data were extrapolated into 

 broad vegetation types, and grazing capacity 

 and condition classes. The data were then fitted 

 into the ecosystems in the same manner as for 

 the Federal lands. To account for all acres of 

 forest-range, salt flats and playas were included 

 within Desert shrub and Desert grasslands 

 ecosystems to which they were proximate. Bar- 

 ren areas above treeline were included in the 

 Alpine ecosystem. 



MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 



To establish the link between range activities 

 and the resource and to solve the problem of 

 massive numbers of possible management op- 

 tions, six management strategies were defined 

 (fig. 4). Except for exploitative grazing (strat- 

 egy X), each of these strategies can be viewed 

 as a management objective. In strategies B 

 through D multiple-use is considered as a con- 

 straint on the degree that grazing could be 

 emphasized, while Strategy E was subject only 

 to the stewardship of land and water resources. 



The five strategies with management objec- 

 tives were: 



A. Environmental management without live- 

 stock. Livestock are excluded by fencing, rid- 

 ing, public education, and by incentive pay- 

 ments. The environment is protected from nat- 

 ural or other disasters, such as wildfires or 

 pest epidemics. Resource damage is corrected 

 to maintain a stewardship base. Costs for this 

 strategy are charged to other benefiting re- 

 source areas (watershed management and tim- 

 ber management) and to stewardship resource 

 areas (fire protection, pest control, and lands). 

 That is, no cost is charged to range under this 

 strategy. 



B. Environmental management with live- 

 stock. Livestock use is within the apparent 

 present capacity of the range environment. 

 Investments for range management are applied 

 only to the extent required to maintain the en- 

 vironment at a stewardship level in the pres- 

 ence of grazing. Investments for implementa- 

 tion may be very low for some resource classes. 

 Resource damage resulting from past use is 

 charged to benefiting or stewardship functions. 

 The goal for the strategy is to attain livestock 

 control. No attempt is made to achieve livestock 

 distribution. 



8 



