sparse, and it would be more difficult to get a 

 fire to burn; the cost, therefore, would be 

 about the same on most ecosystems regard- 

 less of productivity class. 



8. Debris Disposal. — The cost of debris 

 disposal is related directly to density of 

 stand, age class, or soil conditions. 



Debris disposal in all timber types is 

 higher than for brush disposal in other eco- 

 systems because of the larger amount of 

 debris, which in some cases include logging 

 slash. 



9. Undesirable Forb Control. — The major- 

 ity of the undesirable forb control would 

 consist of spot treatment of small areas to 

 control poisonous plants and noxious weeds. 

 A great deal of this work would be done by 

 hand or with vehicle-mounted sprayers. This 

 would increase the cost of treatment above 

 that given for chemical brush control. Cost 

 figures vary between ecosystems, primarily 

 due to accessibility and the cost of chemicals 

 needed to control certain plant species. 



10. Mechanical Soil Treatment. — The cost 

 of mechanical soil treatment varies with pro- 

 ductivity class and ecosystem, depending on 

 soil type and terrain. Rocky sites or soils of 

 fine texture would increase the cost of me- 

 chanical soil treatment. Where mechanical 

 soil treatment is used to prepare seedbeds, a 

 more thorough job would have to be done 

 on the lower productivity sites, thus increas- 

 ing the cost. 



11. Seeding. — Seeding costs vary by eco- 

 system, productivity class, and in some in- 

 stances between condition classes. The lower 

 productivity classes with less precipitation 

 in a more severe site would require a better 

 job of seeding and may require higher priced 

 seed or different seeding rates. An example 

 would be in a high productivity class where 

 broadcast seeding could be used, compared 

 to a low productivity class where drilling on 

 a prepared seedbed would be required. Costs 

 between ecosystems vary primarily due to 

 cost of seed which varies with availability of 

 species. Seeding costs were derived through 

 weighted averages of practices used in the 

 different areas. 



12. Prescribed Burn for Forage Improve- 

 ment. — The higher productivity classes have 

 more vegetation and require more firelines 

 and equipment. The less productive sites, be- 

 cause of more scattered vegetation, would be 

 more difficult to burn. These are offsetting 

 costs; therefore, the same cost figures were 

 used for all productivity and condition classes 

 for most of the ecosystems. The cost figure 

 is the weighted average of projects for which 

 recent cost data were available. 



13. Rodent Control. — The use of poison 



baits has been the most widely used method 

 of controlling rodents. For most ecosystems 

 the cost of this practice did not vary between 

 productivity classes or condition classes. 

 Most of the cost information for this practice 

 was derived from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service. 



14. Insect and Disease Control. — There is 

 very little information at the present time 

 concerning range plant diseases. Plant physi- 

 ologists have not identified the diseases or 

 assessed their effects upon range plant wel- 

 fare. There is good information, however, on 

 rangeland insects which was obtained from 

 the Agricultural Research Service. The Task 

 Force used an average cost figure for the 

 control of grasshoppers and grass bugs on 

 National Forest Systems lands. It was de- 

 cided that productivity class or condition 

 class would have little bearing on the cost 

 of this practice for the different ecosystems. 



15. Small Water Developments. — The cost 

 figures on this item are weighted averages 

 of different types of water developments for 

 the different regions in the particular eco- 

 system for which cost data were being de- 

 rived. The advance in cost from the high 

 productivity to the low productivity classes 

 in the different ecosystems is caused by dif- 

 ferences in precipitation, soil, and availabil- 

 ity of water. This same rationale would hold 

 for the different ecosystems: the more arid 

 the ecosystem, the more elaborate and larger 

 the water systems needed. In the less pro- 

 ductive sites, water sources would be more 

 scarce, precipitation lower; therefore, in 

 establishing such systems as trick tanks, a 

 large apron and stronger capacity would be 

 needed. Condition classes would have no ef- 

 fect on development costs. Costs for this 

 practice also include annual repair and main- 

 tenance expenditure. 



16. Large Water Developments. — The 

 same rationale used in Item 15, Small Water 

 Developments, would hold true for the large 

 water developments. Actual field cost data 

 were used for water developments. It was 

 found that all cost data for larger water 

 developments were very similar. Costs for 

 this practice also include annual repair and 

 maintenance expenditure. 



17. Fences. — Considerable cost data were 

 available for determining the fencing costs 

 for the different ecosystems. Cost figures for 

 fence construction are weighted averages for 

 the fences constructed in the particular eco- 

 system for the different regions represented 

 in the ecosystem. The rationale for increas- 

 ing the costs of fence construction in the 

 lower productivity classes is mainly due to 

 differences in soil conditions and topography. 

 In the lower productivity classes, soils gen- 



108 



