Another shrub of the Southwest, jojoba, is used as a 

 commercial source of wax. More recently, research 

 has shown that jojoba wax can substitute for whale 

 oil, a finding of great importance since many whales 

 are classified as endangered and are protected under 

 terms of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.^2 

 Numerous range plants contain medicinal properties; 

 one, false hellebore, contains an alkaloid used as a 

 heart and arterial sedative. 



These recent developments could lead to conflict- 

 ing demands for rangeland areas in the future. Sound 

 planning must ensure that these uses will be compati- 

 ble with the many other uses of rangelands. 



Endangered and threatened plants. — The Endan- 

 gered Species Act of 1973 is the strongest legislation 

 yet enacted by Congress to protect endangered and 

 threatened animals and plants. As required by the 

 Act, the Smithsonian Institution reviewed the status 

 of plant species in the United States and reported to 

 the Secretary of the Interior that 3,187 species, sub- 

 species, and varieties needed protection. ^^ j^g Secre- 

 tary reduced the list of plants and in June 1976 pro- 

 posed that 1,783 plants be classified. By July 1, 1979, 

 only 19 of 1,783 proposed plants had been officially 

 classified by the Secretary as threatened or endan- 

 gered and are under protection of Federal law (table 

 5.7). 



Under the Endangered Species Act, Federal agen- 

 cies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or 

 carry out will not jeopardize the existence of those 

 species. Potentially, this may pose problems regard- 

 ing management of some rangelands. At this time, 

 however, conflicts between well-managed grazing and 

 endangered or threatened plants are considered to be 

 minor. None of the classified species has been so 

 categorized because of livestock grazing. However, 

 should any classified plants be jeopardized by graz- 

 ing, adequate steps must be taken to protect them. 



Management of the Range 



Management of the range varies greatly in the 

 United States. Climate, weather, topography, pro- 

 ductivity of the ecosystem, markets, goals, and finan- 

 cial positions of the operator — even tradition — all 

 bear importantly on the choice of operation and level 

 of management practiced. The complex interrelation- 

 ships and interactions among these factors provide an 

 almost infinite number of management situations. 



"93rd U.S. Congress. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

 Public Law 93-204. 1973. 



" Smithsonian Institution. Report on endangered and threat- 

 ened species of the United States. 200 p. 1974. 



Management levels defined. — To facilitate discus- 

 sions, the vast array of management situations has 

 been classified into five broad management levels: 



Land management without livestock (no livestock). 

 Livestock grazing is eliminated (except for use by 

 recreational pack and saddle stock), but the range is 

 protected from such natural catastrophes as wildfire 

 and insect epidemics. Any previous damage to the 

 resource is corrected to maintain a stewardship level 

 of management. Examples of areas managed at this 

 level are most national and State parks, many wildlife 

 refuges and wildernesses, and many research natural 

 areas. 



Land management with some livestock (some live- 

 stock). Goal is to control livestock numbers within 

 present capacity of the range, but little or no attempt 

 is made to achieve uniform distribution of livestock. 

 Range management investments are minimal and 

 only to the extent needed to maintain stewardship of 

 the range in the presence of grazing. Past resource 

 damage is corrected and resources are protected from 

 natural catastrophes. 



Extensive management of the range and livestock 

 (extensive management). Goal is to maintain full 

 plant vigor and to achieve full livestock utilization of 

 available forage. Goal is achieved through imple- 

 mentation of improved grazing systems and construc- 

 tion and installation of range improvements. Cultural 

 practices, such as seeding and fertilizing to improve 

 forage quality and quantity, are not used. 



Intensive management of range and livestock 

 (intensive management). Goal is to maximize produc- 

 tion and utilization of livestock forage consistent with 

 maintaining the range and its environment and to 

 provide for the multiple use of the range. All avail- 

 able technology and practices are considered and 

 used as they may be cost-efficient to improve live- 

 stock production, quality, and utilization. 



Land management with livestock production maxi- 

 mized (maximize livestock). Goal is to maximize 

 production of livestock while maintaining the soil 

 and water resources. Existing vegetation may be 

 replaced with better forage species. This level requires 

 large investments for construction and implementa- 

 tion of improvements, cultural practices, and animal 

 husbandry, but all practices used must be cost- 

 efficient. Multiple use of the resources is not a con- 

 straint. This management level generally does not 

 meet the legal management requirements for most 

 Federal lands. 



Maintenance of the soils and water resources is 

 required in all five management levels, but multiple- 

 use requirements apply only in some livestock, inten- 

 sive management, and extensive management levels. 



169 



