ticipating in this study as to the actual direc- 

 tion land managers were heading under existing 

 policies. In a sense, the Now Policy alternative 

 represents the conventional wisdom of special- 

 ists in forest-range management and research. 

 The animal unit months and acres grazed 

 resulting from this particular combination of 

 strategies are shown in table 9. Of special 

 interest is the level of AUM outputs. The 462 

 million AUM's produced are greater than the 

 projected grazing requirement for year 2000 

 (fig. 42). This does not reflect mismanagement 

 or over-investment from a local viewpoint; it 

 may reflect misallocation and over-investment 

 from a national viewpoint. The potential of the 

 forest-range to produce AUM's as indicated by 

 this alternative is more than twice that pro- 

 duced in 1970. 



Table 9. — Area grazed, selected outputs and 



costs for Resource Situation-1970 



and Now Policy. 



Item 



Units 



Resource 

 Situation- 

 1970 



Now 

 Policy ' 



Area grazed 



AUMs 



Wood growth 



Water yield 



Quality water 



Sediment 



Total invest- 

 ment cost 



Cost per AUM _ 



Million acres 

 Million 

 Billion cubic feet 

 Million acre feet 

 Million acre feet 

 Million tons 



Million dollars 

 Dollars 



834.9 

 213.1 

 20.5 

 780.1 

 706.3 

 1,658.3 



858.2 

 4.03 



852.0 

 461.5 

 18.9 

 773.8 

 697.5 

 1,489.6 



1,960.4 

 4.25 



^ I ow Policy represents the predicted situation in 

 the y ?ar 2000 under 1970 policies. 



Under this alternative 852 million acres 

 would be grazed as compared to the 1970 acre- 

 age of 835 million acres. A reduction in wood 

 growth would result and a significant but 



NOW POLICY GOALS AND PROJECTED DEMAND 

 FOR ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS 



Projected demand 



Figure 42. 



favorable decrease in sediment would occur. 

 Water yield and quality water would not be 

 materially aflfected. While total annual invest- 

 ment costs would increase to $1,960 million, 

 cost per AUM would increase only 5 percent 

 over the 1970 cost of $4.03. 



It is possible to analyze single strategy appli- 

 cations of management from available infor- 

 mation. The total land available for grazing 

 was allocated entirely to each of the manage- 

 ment strategies, except for the standard re- 

 source constraints. It was not intended that 

 these alternatives represent a realistic possi- 

 bility, but rather that they would measure in a 

 general way the grazing potential and the 

 impact on costs, including environmental 

 quality. 



The first single management strategy tested 

 was Strategy A, no grazing on the forest-range 

 environment. A no-grazing policy would mean 

 that production from the 835 million acres 

 grazed in 1970 would be replaced by other 

 grazing sources and by other production pro- 

 cesses applied to the source, or by additional 

 grazing on improved and irrigated pastures on 

 cropland (table 10). 



The results of no grazing on the forest-range 

 environment would include the following 

 benefits: 



a. Herbage now used by livestock would be- 

 come available to wildlife, and larger 

 numbers of wildlife could be supported, 

 although the total herbage available 

 would decline. 



b. The yield of quality water would be im- 

 proved. 



Storm-runoff and sediment loads would 

 be significantly reduced. 

 In general, environmental quality would 

 be maintained or enhanced (table 58). 



The use of Strategy A (no livestock) would 

 directly and adversely affect thousands of farm- 

 ers and ranchers currently using the forest- 

 range. The public would be affected indirectly, 

 and probably adversely, through changes in 

 costs of livestock production. Adversely affected 

 would be those western rural communities that 

 depend heavily on the range livestock industry 

 for economic activity. (Secondary effects were 

 not evaluated in this study.) The tax base and 

 the means of community support would be 

 eroded. 



Obviously this option is not realistic. In- 

 centives that could force grazing off the private 

 lands do not exist. It is a possible option on 

 lands administered by Federal agencies, but it 

 has adverse effects that are in conflict with 

 governmental policies to improve rural life and 

 reduce population concentration in urban areas. 



Application of management levels B, C, D, 

 and E (some livestock, extensive management, 



c. 



d. 



73 



