veloped as logical and reasonable approaches 

 that might help resolve critical policy questions 

 in range resource management. In addition, 

 some alternatives were designed for the pri- 

 mary purpose (as part of the learning process) 

 of providing measurement points for interpre- 

 tation of subsequent alternatives. Each alterna- 

 tive has an output and a set of specified limits. 

 In each case the investment cost is the mini- 

 mum necessary to achieve the output levels 

 specified. 



Elements of the alternatives to be discussed 

 are presented in the following: 



Identification Required output level 



(Million 

 AUM's) 

 Inventories : 



Resource Situation— 1970 213 



Conditions : 



An inventory of the situation in 1970 as 

 developed within FRES definitions. 



Now Policy 462 



A compilation of the existing 1970 plans 

 for development to year 2000 as estimated 

 by field professionals. 



Single strategy applications : 



Strategy A — No livestock 



Strategy B — Some livestock 184 



Strategy C — Extensive management 317 



Strategy D — Intensive management 566 



Strategy E — Maximize livestock 1,739 



Strategy X — Exploitative management None 



In each case the single management strat- 

 egy A, B, C, D, or E was applied to all 

 lands of the forest-range environment, 

 limited only by the biological maximums 

 and institutional minimums. (Strategy X 

 was not developed as an alternative be- 

 cause it is not a rational management 

 goal.) 



Efficiency applications : 



Least cost (unconstrained) : 

 Alternative 1 223 



A national alternative under a minimum 

 cost criterion without imposing addition- 

 al constraints except for the biological 

 maximums and institutional minimums. 



Alternative 20 320 



This alternative was identical in struc- 

 ture and constraints to Alternative 1 

 with the AUM requirement equal to the 

 AUM output of year 2000. 



Alternative 2 462 



A national alternative to achieve an 

 AUM output equal to the "Now Policy" 

 AUM output under a minimum cost 

 criterion without imposing additional 

 constraints. 

 Least cost (constrained) : 



Alternative 4 222 



A national alternative to achieve AUM 

 output under a minimum cost criterion 

 after imposing constraints on selected 

 ecosystems. These ecosystems with high 

 AUM production potential were con- 

 strained against significant AUM pro- 

 duction increases. 



Alternative 10 223 



Alternative 11 267 



Alternative 12 334 



Alternative 13 412 



Alternative 14 461 



National alternatives 10 through 14 

 were to achieve AUM targets, current 

 and projected, under the same set of con- 

 straints for each target. The constraints 

 continued those of Alternative number 4 

 and, in addition, required that all lands 

 grazed in Resource Situation — 1970 must 

 remain in grazing. Acres grazed could 

 increase but not decrease. 



Alternative 15 267 



Alternative 16 334 



Alternative 17 412 



National alternatives 15 through 17 

 were to achieve projected AUM targets 

 under the minimum cost criterion with 

 a set of special constraints. These con- 

 straints include the limits of Alternative 

 number 4 on eastern ecosystems and 

 prohibit selected changes in the intensity 

 of management. These constraints are 

 eased, as a reflection of time, between 15 

 and 16, and between 16 and 17. 



Alternative 19 320 



This national alternative for year 2000 

 represents an accumulation of the knowl- 

 edge and constraints acquired in evalu- 

 tion of previous alternatives. The con- 

 straints require a specified output of 

 wood, herbage, water yield, quality 

 water yield, and sediment. These levels 

 were established as equal to or greater 

 than the output levels in the Resource 

 Situation — 1970. Changes in grazing 

 were further limited to a 2 percent per 

 year change in the acreage of each man- 

 agement strategy on each resource unit 

 from the acreage on that resource unit 

 in 1970. Strategy E (maximize livestock 

 production) is prohibited on all Federal 

 lands and on all non-Federal lands in 

 forest ecosystems. All resource units not 

 having grazing in 1970 were limited in 

 year 2000 to an increase in grazing to 

 10 percent of total acreage in that re- 

 source unit. 



Area grazed, total investment costs, costs per 

 animal unit month and all outputs for the 

 Resource Situation-1970, and all alternatives 

 are shown in table 58. Selected information is 

 presented in text tables and figures accompany- 

 ing discussion of the alternatives. 



NOW POLICY AND SINGLE 

 STRATEGY APPLICATIONS 



The Now Policy alternative was constructed 

 from a series of estimates of management direc- 

 tion as of 1970. These estimates were made 

 by personnel acquainted with practices of the 

 Forest Service and other "owners." The dis- 

 tributions of management intensities used in 

 formulating the Now Policy were estimated at 

 the time the inventory was compiled. They 

 represent the judgment of the personnel par- 



72 



