ecosystems. Similar shifts in management 

 would occur within the other ecogroups, result- 

 ing in less land grazed. 



In each step of the analysis up to this point, 

 additional information and understanding of 

 the forest-range environment as a complex of 

 inputs, management, outputs, and values were 

 established. Shifting production according to 

 optimal solutions could reduce the Nation's cost 

 of achieving specified AUM outputs to between 

 one-half and one-fourth of the existing or 

 planned costs. At the same time these outputs 

 could be met from much less land than is now 

 being grazed. Major increases in grazing in 

 the East and South would be required to 

 achieve these efficiencies at most production 

 levels. 



If unconstrained least-cost programs were to 

 be implemented, grazing would be reduced on 

 some of the traditional range ecosystems. Fur- 

 thermore, increases in the Nation's livestock 

 production would not be shared proportionally 

 by all ownerships. The cheapest opportunities 

 to increase animal unit months are in the East- 

 ern and Southern ecosystems where there are 

 higher proportions of non-Federal land. On the 

 non-Federal land it is very important that ex- 

 ploitative management be eliminated because of 

 the large acreage involved. The problem is to 

 find a means to effect needed changes with mini- 

 mum impact on existing institutions and in- 

 vestors. 



ALTERNATIVE 19 



A least-cost constrained alternative 

 Minimum outputs required: 



320 million animal unit months of 



grazing. 

 20.5 billion cubic feet of wood growth. 

 780 million acre feet of water yielded. 

 706 million acre feet of quality water 

 yielded. 



Maximum outputs permitted: 



1,658 million tons of sediment. 

 Added constraints: 



Five percent per year limit on change 

 in grazing strategies. 



Strategy E prohibited on Federal lands 

 and on non-Federal forested ecosys- 

 tems. 



Conversion of lands not grazed in 1970 

 to be grazed in year 2000 limited to 

 50 percent of total acres. 



This alternative was the final one tested and 

 is described here in detail as representative of 

 the evaluation process. The constraints were 

 deliberately restrictive and to a large extent 

 prescribed the distribution of grazing. Included 

 in the specifications of this alternative was the 



meaningful information accumulated in the 

 evaluation of preceding alternatives. 



The constraints for this alternative specified 

 that wood groA\'th, water yield, and quality 

 water for the forest-range environment must 

 be equal to or greater than the quantity of 

 those outputs produced in the Resource Situa- 

 tion — 1970. Sediment output was specified to 

 be equal to or less than the quantity in 1970. 

 These outputs could, however, fluctuate by eco- 

 system and resource units. These constraints, 

 applied to important measures of environmen- 

 tal quality, were specified in this form to insure 

 that regardless of the grazing management 

 program selected, the national objective of pre- 

 venting deterioration of environmental quality 

 would be met. 



The prescribed constraints reflect the appli- 

 cation of judgment and knowledge external to 

 the model. (External to the model but internal 

 to the system. This system was not intended to 

 reduce the planning and management to black 

 box magic and requires review and applied 

 judgment.) Thus, the rate of change and 

 amount of grazing allowable in areas not 

 grazed in 1970 was limited on the basis of 

 judgment as to what was possible. This alter- 

 native had a prescribed 50 percent increase in 

 the number of animal unit months required, 

 320 million, and is representative of, and eval- 

 uated in terms of year 2000. 



Alternative 19 revealed only a minor adjust- 

 ment from the 835 million acres (70 percent of 

 total acres) grazed in 1970. Under Alternative 

 19, 789 million acres, or 66 percent would be 

 grazed (table 14). Ungrazed acreage would in- 

 crease from 367 million acres to 413 million 



Table 14. — Ungrazed and grazed acreage hy 



strategy hy ecogroup for total forest-range 



under Alternative 19 



(Million acres) 



[Totals may not add due to rounding] 





West- 



West- 





East- 





Item 



ern 



ern 



Great 



ern 



Total 





Range 



Forest 



Plains 



Forest 





Area ungrazed _ 



104.7 



83.3 



5.9 



218.6 



412.5 



Area grazed — 



313.8 



77.3 



223.0 



174.8 



789.1 



Area grazed by 













strategy 













Some live- 













stock (B) __ 



61.0 



32.6 



16.7 



45.4 



155.8 



Extensive 













manage- 













ment (C) — 



136.2 



31.0 



155.6 



36.7 



359.5 



Intensive 













manage- 













ment (D) __ 



75.5 



13.7 



26.6 



92.7 



208.6 



Maximize 













livestock 













(E) 



41.1 







24.1 







65.2 



Percent grazed _ 



75 



48 



97 



44 



66 



82 



