Table 19. — Recommended managem,ent strategies by resource unit for 



Loblolly-shortleaf ecosystem under Alternative 19 



(Thousand acres) 



[Parentheses indicate the cells that would receive the initial allocation of 



land under unconstrained least cost analysis.] 





Stand-size class 



Strategy 



Productivity class 



No 



livestock 



(A) 



Some 



livestock 



(B) 



Extensive 



mangt. 



(C) 



Intensive 



mangt. 



(D) 



Maximize 



livestock 



(E)^ 



I (High) 



Non-stocked 



3 



224 



375 



35 



1,522 



1,219 



63 



5,785 



1,120 



77 



1,692 



282 



5 

 (569) 

 (1,322) 

 23 

 (2,835) 

 (3,272) 

 125 

 16 

 2,416 

 192 

 9 

 399 



43 



174 



2 



324 



526 



7 



2,162 



350 



6 



479 



39 



(8) 



(801) 



(1,627) 



(62) 



(4,473) 



(4,302) 



(199) 

 (8,599) 

 (3,991) 



(277) 

 (2,300) 



(727) 







Seedling, sapling, and pole — 

 Sawtimber 



— 



II (Moderately high) 



Non-stocked 









Seedling, sapling, and pole 



Sawtimber 



— 



III (Moderately low) 



Non-stocked 









Seedling, sapling, and pole — 

 Sawtimber 



— 



IV (Low) 



Non-stocked 









Seedling, sapling, and pole 



Sawtimber 



— 









^ Maximizing for livestock production was prohibited by definition. 



ecosystem varied according to productivity 

 class and stand-size class (table 19). For the 

 resource units in the two highest productivity 

 classes, grazing management was divided be- 

 tween B and D Strategy levels. 



Loblolly-shortleaf resource units in the two 

 lower productivity levels were concentrated at 

 the Strategy D level. In these two latter pro- 

 ductivity classes, the largest area fell in the 

 seedling, sapling, and pole stand-size class. 



Allocation of the Loblolly-shortleaf pine eco- 

 system to grazing by ownership is of interest 

 (table 62). Intensive level management (Strat- 

 egy D) was recommended for all resource units 

 in non-Federal ownership, and all resource 

 units in moderately low and low productivity 

 classes in Federal ownership would be in some 

 livestock management, Strategy B. This differ- 

 ence between ownerships reflects the difference 

 between objectives and therefore the difference 

 in constraints placed on the Federal and non- 

 Federal lands. Maximized livestock manage- 

 ment (Strategy E) did not occur in this eco- 

 system because it was specifically excluded from 

 all forested ecosystems. 



Qtiantitative Outputs 



The constraints for Alternative 19 specified 

 that the national totals for all forest-range for 

 net annual wood growth, the annual water yield, 

 and the annual quality water yield would be 

 equal to or greater than the output quantity in 

 1970. Sediment was specified to be equal to or 

 less than the 1970 national level. These values 

 were free to fluctuate, however, within the fixed 

 national total. Alternative 19, therefore, caused 

 no change in wood growth and water yield 

 from the Resource Situation — 1970, while the 



yield of quality water increased (table 20). 

 At the same time sediment yield decreased ap- 

 preciably. A related reduction in storm runoff 

 was also apparent. This reduction was not 

 required, but it occurred because of the impact 

 of other specifications such as the elimination 

 of exploitative grazing. 



While these values were specified at the 

 national level, they were free to fluctuate by 

 ecosystem. By individual ecogroup the impact 

 on wood growth specified in Alternative 19 

 was generally minor. Annual water yield in- 

 creased slightly in the Western Range and 

 Great Plains ecogroups, while in the Western 

 Forest ecogroup it remained unchanged. The 

 Eastern Forest ecogroup had a small reduction 

 in water yield. 



Qualitative Outputs 



Quality water yield decreased in the Western 

 Range, GreoX Plains, and Western Forest eco- 

 groups, but increased sufficiently in the Eastern 

 Forest ecogroup to improve quality water yield 

 on a national basis. Most of the improvement 

 in quality water yielded in the Eastern Forest 

 ecogroup results from the elimination of exploi- 

 tative grazing. This elimination of exploitative 

 grazing in the Eastern Forest ecogroup is a 

 highly significant factor in the improvement of 

 all variables evaluated in this analysis. 



Storm runoff was generally unchanged be- 

 tween Alternative 19 and the Resource Situa- 

 tion — 1970 except for the Eastern Forest eco- 

 group where a significant improvement 

 occurred. While sediment decreased slightly in 

 the Western Range ecogroup, increased sedi- 

 ment occurred in the Western Forest and Great 

 Plains ecogroups. A major reduction in sedi- 



89 



