a comparison of dollar costs and grazing receipts affords a point at which to start an 

 evaluation; and if costs exceed receipts, or other dollar incomes, such a comparison 

 indicates the real cost of providing any intangible benefits. Total costs are a basic 

 consideration in any decision regarding provision of intangible benefits. 



It cannot be assumed that the tangible and intangible benefits associated with 

 the provision of grazing are worth, to the community or nation, the total cost measured 

 in dollars, physical consumption, or resource deterioration. Society has placed an 

 undetermined but not unlimited value on the provision of grazing and other resource 

 use and protection programs. In land management planning, it is inconsistent to con- 

 sider only the intangible benefits associated with grazing and ignore the actual costs 

 in dollars and resources. Actual costs must include the total values lost through 

 resource consumption or deterioration as well as dollar costs. Multiple use is a land 

 stewardship principle, not a license to provide a consumptive subsidy in order to get 

 a particular use at any price. 



This is not to say that grazing should be eliminated from the plans for watershed 

 management. The point is that land use has a cost and the real cost of any use should 

 be considered in the management of the area, and control of the land use should be 

 achieved before, not after, water projects are undertaken. To assume control will be 

 gained afterward is no guarantee of project success. Therefore, it makes no sense to 

 tolerate a kind and level of use that consumes or damages resources vital to the success 

 of a water project thought desirable for the well-being of society. If water projects 

 are vital enough to justify their high cost, any sediment not kept out of the reservoir 

 by the most judicious management must eventually be hauled out; an expensive alternative 

 at best. 



Establishing Priorities 



The Forest Service has always recognized the importance of prudent watershed 

 management. As previously stated, the guiding policy for watersheds damaged by fire or 

 past management practices has been to rehabilitate them as promptly as funds permit. 

 Because funds are always limited, priorities for treating watersheds must be established 

 and money available for a given watershed project must be carefully used. 



Because of the inherent variations in soil and ecological conditions on most water- 

 sheds, there are many ways in which rehabilitation goals can be realized. 



Opportunities for natural recovery are present on all watersheds and they should 

 always be given full consideration. The natural restoration of adequate vegetative 

 cover may require elimination of use and varying degrees of biological or physical 

 help. Later, some use may be tolerated on some areas. On other parts of the watershed, 

 conditions of soil and capacity to provide adequate vegetative cover may preclude any 

 direct use. The choice of more intensive and costly rehabilitation techniques such as 

 one of several forms of mechanical stabilization requires an equally serious and 

 thorough examination. 



The hydrologic situations (hydrologic types ^) encountered on a watershed must be 

 evaluated in terms of cost of treatment, probable treatment response, available funds 

 or the likelihood of obtaining adequate financing, land use constraints, and the basic 

 goals and objectives of managing and using the watershed. Land use should be tailored 

 to the effective operation of the watershed rather than tailoring the watershed manage- 

 ment and rehabilitation to the use of the land. 



^A hydrologic type or unit is an area which, considering soil, slope, and vegeta- 

 tion, will react similarly to a given amount of water in terms of runoff, erosion, 

 absorption, and so on. 



6 



