sources. With each solution that came from the 

 system, qualitative estimates of amenities were 

 computed to evaluate changes in environmental 

 quality. While these environmental values have 

 little meaning in an absolute sense, they pro- 

 vide measures of changes in the environment 

 that are associated with alternative levels of 

 range output. 



Hence, outputs as specified for use in the 

 system are not fixed or finite, but are rather a 

 series of estimates of output values for grazing 

 alone; or they are constrained by other product 

 values to simulate alternative management pol- 

 icies as specified by the user of the system. One 

 test with one answer would have little, if any, 

 value. The real value of the model is the analy- 

 sis of change which results from alternate 

 levels of output. In this sense the solutions are 

 used as learning devices to help sharpen human 

 policy judgment rather than to serve as answers 

 in themselves. 



Operational Techniques 



Each alternative solution showed how forest- 

 range resources should be allocated at least cost 

 to produce a specified quantity of animal unit 

 months of grazing. Different alternatives were 

 constructed in order to identify resource units 

 most likely to participate in future forest-range 

 production. Each alternative specified the size 

 of the animal-unit-month output, and several 

 restricted the magnitude of shifts allowed in 

 area grazed, as well as the rate of investment 

 and disinvestment permitted in range manage- 

 ment. 



Basic data was translated to relate to a par- 

 ticular set of issues in order to determine how 

 various policy alternatives compared in reach- 

 ing objectives. A series of alternatives was 

 tested and each alternative was built on the in- 

 formation developed from the last one. In this 

 way knowledge was acquired as to how the 

 system operates with respect to issues (fig. 41) . 



This preparation permitted discussion of pol- 

 icy alternatives for the production of animal 

 unit months from a national point of view. The 

 resource class by management strategy mix 

 associated with alternative policies, together 

 with physical and dollar costs and resource out- 

 puts was evaluated for impacts of policies. 



To handle biological and other constraints 

 against the application of management strate- 

 gies, two base limits were established. "Maxi- 

 mum" was used to indicate the best estimate 

 of the greatest proportion of a resource unit to 

 which a given management strategy could be 

 applied, considering biological and physical 

 capabilities of the site. To handle non-biological 

 and non-physical constraints, another baseline 

 was used. "Minimum" indicated the best esti- 

 mate of the least amount of land in a resource 

 unit that could be managed under a given man- 



agement strategy when considering laws, insti- 

 tutions, or policy commitments. 



Each of the alternatives considered was 

 constrained by the amount of land resource 

 available and by the level of the target in 

 animal unit months specified for that alterna- 

 tive. In addition, other biological or institution- 

 al constraints were applied to each alternative 

 at the ecosystem and/or resource unit level. 



The intent of these specific constraints was: 



1. To eliminate use of a management strat- 

 egy from an ecosystem when it is un- 

 acceptable because of biological limits, 

 law, or long-term policies. 



2. To eliminate use of a management strat- 

 egy from an ecosystem because of known 

 social or economic factors but which are 

 not included elsewhere in the analysis. 



3. To eliminate use of a management strat- 

 egy in an ecosystem when such manage- 

 ment seriously deteriorates the qualita- 

 tive variables. 



4. To permit a reflection of time as a factor 

 in the amount of change between produc- 

 tion areas or between management 

 strategies. 



5. To require the use of an ecosystem or 

 management strategy because of biologi- 

 cal or political limitations. 



6. To impose a given set of conditions and 

 thus permit analysis of the effect of that 

 set of conditions on the residual. 



The data were not tested for sensitivity and 

 the impacts on each of the resource units 

 were not examined. The absence of such testing 

 and knowledge of detail limits the interpreta- 

 tion of the analysis. The analytical viewpoint 

 is limited to broad objectives of policy from a 

 national viewpoint. 



Operational Assumptions 



1. Production of animal unit months from 

 the 1.2 billion-acre forest-range environment 

 will be 256 million in 1980, 320 million in 2000, 

 and 394 million in 2020. 



2. Economic forces are primary determi- 

 nants of location of additional forage produc- 

 tion. Difference in investment cost per animal 

 unit month is a valid measure of the proba- 

 bility of a given ecosystem being used in a 

 particular manner. 



3. Use of Strategy E (management for 

 maximizing livestock production) is not com- 

 patible with the legal obligation of the Federal 

 agencies to establish multiple-use management 

 and is not considered as an option on Federal 

 lands. 



4. There are practical limits as to how much 

 forest land can be cleared annually, and the 

 value of timber production from these lands is 

 not fully recognized in the analysis. Therefore, 



6T 



