Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118569148
label
Agriculture, US Department of - Forest Service (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118569148
contentType
document
title
Agriculture, US Department of - Forest Service (3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
94
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Agency Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118569148
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
04c3769032318f56
ocrText
[continued from previous Folden]
State
EIS Area
Worksheet 12
Page
District
Date
Resource Area
Preparer
ALLOTMENT RANKING AND RPS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Allotment
RECEPT
/ Statel one COST
Other Criteria
Area
Advisory
Fina
Name/No.
Explanation, Rationale,
Manager
Board
Rank
($000. Total Cost
12
REPRESENT
TROP &
Public
Added per AUM
Etc.
Rank
Rank
(Dis
Initial
Mgr.
RanchJo
Changes. in Management
Category
List and Rank all I's
Liet M'e* and continue
ranking or rank separately
List C's* and continue
ranking or rank separately
Encl. 3-18
Worksheet #2
Criteria for Ranking and Scheduling Rangeland Investments
Worksheet Column
Criteria and/or Information
#1
Allotment name or number.
#2*
Selective management category (M,I,C) from Worksheet #2.
#3
Estimated total cost of improvements.
#4*
Estimated benefit/cost ratio of the improvement package
for the allotment or group of allotments for which a
"plan" will be prepared. Use SageRam model.
#5*
Internal Rate of Return (percent) as calculated by
SageRam model.
#6*
Initial ranking (highest IROR first, etc.)
#7*
Extent to which a critical resource value(s) exists and
requires protection (E,H,M,L).* (Presence of threatened
or endangered species, deteriorating riparian areas,
fragile soils and/or severe erosion, public safety, and
health hazards are some examples.)
#8*
Existence of severe and/or controversial resource use
conflicts (E,H,M,L).**
#9
Percent of allotment in unsatisfactory range condition.
Application of this criterion requires that a determina-
tion be made as to whether the existing ecological site
condition is suited to the uses for which the area is to
be managed.
#10*
Actual percent reduction in livestock use proposed,
based on the difference between most recent 3-year average
of certified actual use and proposed initial stocking
level. Licensed use may be used if actual use is not
known.
#11*
Necessity of the proposed investments to maintain viabil-
ity of this range livestock operation. From another
viewpoint, what is the importance of the investment
package in preventing the operator from going out of a
business (H,M,L)?
#12*
Public controversy generated by the proposal to install
improvements (E,H,M,L).
#13*
Importance of improvements in achieving State/local
government or other agency coordination goals (H,M,L).
#14*
Undiscounted cost per additional AUM from SageRam print-
out. (Sum of costs for the 50 years divided by the sum
of additional AUM's over the same period.)
#15
Other criteria developed for the specific local planning
situation, other comments, etc. Also record any changes
made in Management Category. Changes are not required.
#16
Area manager's ranking based on assessment of Bureauwide
and local criteria.
#17
Ranking recommended by District Grazing Advisory Board.
#18
Final ranking assigned by District Manager.
*Required criteria; it the criteria does not apply, note with a zero (0).
**E = Extreme, H - High, M . Medium, L - Low
Encl. 3-19
State
Resource Area
Worksheet 13
Page
Discrict
Preparer
Mangeland Investment Ranking for FY 19 AWP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
District
District
Sta
Allotment
Advisory
Manager
DIr
Name or
Board
AWP Rank
atc
Number
TOESL COST
COSE "Year FIrst
B/C Ratio TROR
President ALIP RPS
FY Rank
///
Other Considerations
Rank,
AWF
etc.
Rar
Encl. 3-20
APPENDIX 1
Glossary of Terms
Benefit: The payments and/or economic value generated as a result of
pursuing a particular course of action. In the context of investment
analysis, services and other outputs are usually translated into dollar
amounts. The course of action is the proposal to incur the costs
associated with a rangeland investment (improvement) package.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: The ratio of the present worth of benefits divided by
the present worth of costs (both discounted to account for the time value
of money). Used primarily in public investment evaluations, the technique
helps to determine whether the economic benefits of an investment proposal
equals or exceeds economic costs.
Cost(s): The dollar amount of expenditures and value of nonpriced inputs
required to achieve a particular objective.
Costs, Total: All costs incured in the construction, operation, main-
tenance and repair of an investment package that accomplishes a specified
objective.
Cost-Effectiveness: (Sometimes called cost-utility analysis.) A
systematic examination and comparison of alternative courses of action
(least-cost investment proposals) that might be undertaken to achieve
differing but specified objectives. By identifying the costs associated
with achieving each objective, a relationship can be defined to help
decisionmakers select an "optimal" course of action. The technique is
generally used in public expenditure/investment situations in which no
objective way exists to evaluate a situation or when costs and benefits
cannot be stated in commensurable terms.
Internal Rate of Return: The discount or interest rate on an investment
that will make the present value of expected benefits equal to the present
value of the costs of implementing and maintaining the investment package
(improvements) over a period of time, generally 50 years.
Least-Cost: The least costly or expensive means of achieving a specific
objective.
Maintenance: Timely repair of an improvement in usable condition to
extend its useful life for the purpose intended. Such repair is performed
as needed and is less than half the cost of new construction.
Encl. 3-21
Operation: Routine use and function of an improvement, including those
costs necessary to keep an improvement functioning. Operation usually
refers to items such as energy costs, lubricants, and inspection costs
commonly associated with pumps, wells, pipelines, etc.
Opportunity Cost: The value of an opportunity foregone or the value of an
alternative action not taken.
Positive Economic Return: A return on an investment where the benefits
received exceed the costs.
Range Improvement: Any activity or program on or relating to the public
lands that is designed to improve production of forage, change vegetative
composition, control patterns of use, provide water, stabilize soil and
water conditions, and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. Range
improvements may be structural or nonstructural.
Structural Range Improvement: An improvement requiring placement
or construction in order to facilitate management or control
distribution and movement of grazing animals. Such improvements
may include, but are not limited to, fences, wells, troughs,
reservoirs, pipelines, and cattleguards.
Nonstructural Range Improvement: A practice or treatment which
improves rangeland condition and/or resource production for
multiple use. Such improvements may include, but are not limited
to, seedings; plant control through chemical, mechanical, biolo-
gical means, or prescribed burning; water spreaders; pitting,
chiseling, or contour furrowing.
Reconstruction: Rebuilding an improvement after it has been damaged or
has deteriorated to the point that repair constitutes more than half of
the cost of new construction.
SageRam Program: A BLM-developed computer program that adjusts or
discounts costs and benefits for the time value of money. It provides a
consistent basis for rangeland benefit-cost analyses and generates reports
that managers and potential contributors can use to determine the economic
feasibility of proposed investments in rangeland improvements. The
reports document assumptions made in investment analyses and provide
several measures of economic feasibility in addition to the B/C ratio.
Willingness-to-Pay: The value of a good or service as determined through
observation of market behavior between buyers and sellers or the economic
value inputed for nonmarket goods as derived through a system consistent
with the market mechanism.
"With or Without" Analysis: Analysis of the situation in the allotment
with the proposed improvements as compared to the situation in the
allotment without the improvements.
Encl. 3-22
Appendix 2--Private Grazing Land Lease Rates
Grazing Fees-base data used in computing annual
adjustment index. Monthly Rate (dollars) per head for
pasturing cattle on nonirrigated private
grazing land
11 West
N. Dak.
S. Dak. Neb.
Kansas Okla.
Tex.
Idaho
Wyo.
Colo. N. Mex. Ore. Mont. Ariz. Utah
Nev.
Wash.
Calif.
Year
1
States
1964
$1.84
$3.13
$3.75
$3.52
$2.76
$2.38
$3.33
$3.40
$3.51
$3.09
$3.15
$3.03
$2.86
$3.42
$4.28
$3.17
$4.02
1965
1.94
3.16
3.89
3.54
2.84
2.35
3.25
3.68
3.70
3.42
3.16
3.14
2.87
3.51
4.00
2.98
4.02
1966
2.09
3.34
4.20
3.85
3.14
2.43
3.40
3.70
3.93
3.53
3.51
3.31
2.38
3.50
4.06
3.26
4.08
1967
2.10
3.72
4.35
3.99
3.05
3.38
3.47
3.73
4.05
3.37
3.74
3.59
2.84
3.66
N/A
3.32
3.93
1968
2.37
3.80
4.50
4.15
3.15
2.71
3.48
3.95
4.03
3.43
3.04
3.00
3.10
3.53
4.43
3.63
3.71
1969
2.38
3.76
4.76
4.28
3.52
2.76
3.50
4.04
4.03
3.47
3.67
3.71
2.91
3.64
4.43
3.62
3.95
1970
2.58
4.16
4.89
4.46
3.50
2.79
3.71
4.28
4.03
3.62
3.70
3.87
3.44
3.78
4.76
3.66
4.44
1971
2.61
4.22
4.90
4.35
3.67
3.04
3.79
4.28
4.23
3.40
3.61
4.03
2.78
4.05
4.32
3.63
4.44
1972
2.76
4.41
5.12
4.55
3.80
3.19
3.99
4.45
4.45
3.92
3.80
4.32
2.52
4.34
3.94
3.53
4.52
1973
3.00
4.69
5.78
4.97
4.23
4.12
4.41
4.98
5.11
4.10
4.20
4.82
2.79
4.81
4.36
3.91
4.72
1974
4.13
5.79
7.16
6.40
5.11
4.14
5.43
5.81
5.51
4.41
5.29
6.87
3.21
5.51
5.41
5.36
6.78
1975
4.17
6.22
8.04
6.56
4.38
3.72
6.55
6.27
5.71
4.94
5.11
7.03
4.60
5.76
5.62
6.04
5.54
1976
4.39
6.41
9.61
12.86
4.62
3.96
6.14
7.07
6.26
5.15
5.18
7.38
5.63
6.04
7.50
5.81
6.99
1977
4.49
8.91
9.77
11.97
5.43
4.58
6.20
7.06
6.11
5.83
5.26
7.28
4.90
6.88
8.21
5.83
5.81
Year
2
3)
1978
5.56
9.21
10.23
9.11
5.67
4.27
6.43
8.09
7.26
5.94
6.64
7.79
3.42
5.73
4.10
6.67
8.07
1979
6.29
10.13
11.20
9.97
5.94
4.65
6.47
8.74
8.12
6.83
6.88
7.78
4.63
6.30
2.55
7.29
8.19
1980
$7,88
6.35
11.79
11.96
9.16
4.17
7.06
6.61
8.37
8.26
4.50
7.56
9.07
4.54
5.78
6.19
7.39
8.80
1981
8.83
8.69
11.97
13.81
9.06
5.88
6.78
8.20
7.93
8.20
6.98
7.54
9.40
5.60
7.24
6.29
8.18
10.48
Data from General Farm Questionnaire
²Data from June Enumerative Survey
Source: ESS-Econ; work sheets; reflects data as originally published and not rounded.
Will not agree with data published since 1975
3-23 Encl.
3) Data is currently published in December issue of Agricultural Prices by USDA, Statistical Reporting Service,
Crop Reporting Board, Washington, D.C. 20250. See: "Data Provided To Forest Service, USDA and Bureau of
Land Management, USDI, For Computation of Grazing Fees."
APPENDIX 3
Recreation Day Values for Use in Benefit/Cost
Analyses of Rangeland Investments*
Introduction
Responsible public administrators and successful business managers
understand and use information gathering and analysis procedures that
include:
(1) Identification of (rangeland) management or use
objectives;
(2) Consideration of alternative practices or improve-
ments (investments) that will achieve the desired
result;
(3) Comparison or evaluation of the alternative means
of achieving their objective; and
(4) A conscious decision to initiate or invest in those
actions or improvements that will most efficiently
accomplish their objective.
While some managers like to try new or interesting practices, nearly all
understand that their credibility and survival is dependent upon a
thoughtful analysis like that just described.
Since a substantial amount of outdoor recreation occurs on public lands or
involves the use of public resources and markets for such recreation do
not usually exist, it is difficult to establish accepted values or prices
for much wildlife related and other outdoor recreation. That society
values such recreational and environmental resources is seldom disputed.
This paper provides recreation related benefit values, as estimated by
individuals familiar with private market data and economic studies that
simulate market behavior. These values should be used in rangeland
investment analyses unless local data exists.
*The information presented here is summarized from a more comprehensive
report titled "Recreation Day Values for Use in Benefit-Cost Analysis of
Oregon's Allotment Management Plans," prepared by Hans Radke for the
Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management, in April 1982.
Encl. 3-24
Recommended Values
After reviewing existing studies and reports, a U.S. Forest Service (FS)
task force recommended that the values shown in Table 1 be used in
resource management planning on forests within each of their regions.
The values shown in Table 1 are values per activity day, which is the unit
of recreation use measurement commonly used by State and local wildlife
and recreation agencies. An activity day consists of a visit by an
individual to an area for hunting, fishing, camping, etc. during any
portion or all of a 24-hour day.
The typical number of hours spent, by activity, for each activity day is
shown in Table 2.
The FS and some other Federal agencies use a unit of recreation use
measurement called the Recreation Visitor Day (RVD). An RVD consists of
12 hours of recreation activity. The values shown in Table 3 represent
the estimated value of recreation per RVD, by activity, for each of the FS
regions.
The values in Tables 1 and 2 were derived from the same basic information.
To convert a value as shown in Table 1 to the value as shown in Table 3:
(1) find the value for the activity and region in Table 1 and (2) multiply
the value by the multiplier shown for the same activity and region (this
multiplier is the result of dividing the average hours per activity into
12). The result is the value per RVD.
Updating the values: Since the FS values were developed in 1978 for use
in their 1980 Resources Planning Act, they should be updated using the
consumer price index (CPI) (see current Survey of Business for CPI
values.)
State and District Office personnel will likely find it helpful to obtain
a copy of the complete report prepared by Radke (contact WO 222) for
examples of how State agency data can be used to calculate the average
hunter days/animal harvested value per animal harvested, etc.
Encl. 3-25
Appendix 3--Table 1. Average regional dollar values per activity day for wildlife and fish-dependent
recreation on National Forest System lands.
Forest Service Region*
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hunting:
Big Game
$10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
Waterfowl
$ 8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
Small Game
$ 8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
Upland Birds
$ 8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
Nature Study,
Wildlife (non-
game use)
$ 7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
7.25
Fishing:
Cold Water
$ 5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
Warm Water
$ 5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
Ice Fishing
$ 5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
Salt Water
(Anadromous
Sport Fishing)
$19.50
--
--
19.50
19.50
19.50
19.50
--
19.50
19.50
* Region 1
Wyoming
Region 4
Region 6
Source: U.S. Forest Service Memorandum
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Oregon
1920 and Management Planning
Montana
Nevada
Washington
"Unit Values to be Used in
Idaho
Encl. 3-26
Idaho
Forest Planning," February 24,
1981.
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Colorado
Arizona
California
Kansas
New Mexico
Nebraska
Appendix 3--Table 2. Average Regional Hours Per Activity Day (HAD) and Multiplers (HTP) to Transform Values Per
Activity Day to Values per RVD
Forest Service Region
Activity
Entry2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hunting:
HAD
6.0
5.0
7.3
7.1
6.0
7.6
7.0
6.8
6.8
Big Game
MTP
2.0
2.4
1.6
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
HAD
4.0
3.0
3.6
3
3.4
4.6
4.2
4.0
5.0
Waterfowl
MTP
3.0
4.0
3.3
4.0
3.5
2.6
2.9
3.0
2.4
HAD
4.0
4.0
3.9
4.3
3.5
3.8
4.6
4.4
3
Small Game
MTP
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.8
3.4
3.1
2.6
3.0
4.0
HAD
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.4
3.4
4.4
4.7
4.4
2.5'
Upland Birds
MTP
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.7
3.5
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.0
Nature Study,
Wildlife non-
game use)
HAD
3.0
3.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
MTP
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Fishing:
HAD
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.3
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.7
4.0
Cold Water
MTP
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.0
HAD
4.0
3.0
3.7
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.4
3.8
-
Warm Water
MTP
3.0
4.0
3.2
4.0
3.3
3.4
2.7
3.1
-
HAD
4.0
3.0
3
4.0
3.5
3
-
3.1
Ice Fishing
MTP
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.4
4.0
-
3.8
3
4.0
Salt Water
(Aadromous
HAD
4.0
-
-
4.2
5.0
4.1
-
4.2
5.0
Sport Fishing)
MTP
3.0
-
-
2.9
2.4
2.9
-
2.6
2.1
Derived from data included in 1530 (2800) letter to Directors of Recreation of various agencies from Director of Recreation
Management, 6/24/76. Activity duration factors (HAD) were revised 11/80 by the Division of Recreation
3-27 Encl.
Management.
2HTP - (12) - (HAD)
³Iₙ order to meet requirements that values only be established for activities requiring all or a substantial portion
of a 24-hour period, minimum average length of activity day must be 3.0 hours.
Source: "Defining Recreational Values Dependent on Wildlife and Fish to be used in Regional and Forest Lands and Resource
Management Planning, July 18, 1980. Report of a Wildlife and Fish Values Task Force Established by Director RPA (USDA).
Appendix 3--Table 3. Average Regional Dollar Valuea Per RVD for Wildlife and Fish-Dependent Recreation
to be Used in Comparing Forest Plan Alternatives
Forest Service Region*
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hunting:
Big Game
21.00
25.00
16.30
17.50
21.00
16.80
17.85
17.85
18.90
Waterfowl
24.00
32.00
26.40
32.00
28.00
20.80
23.20
24.00
19.20
Small Game
24.00
32.00
24.00
22.40
27.20
24.80
20.80
24.00
32.00
Upland Birds
24.00
32.00
24.80
21.60
28.00
21.00
20.80
21.60
24.00
Nature Study,
Wildlife non-
game use)
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
29.00
Fishing:
Cold Water
15.75
15.75
15.20
14.70
15.75
14.70
14.20
16.80
15.75
Warm Water
15.75
21.00
16.80
21.00
17.30
17.85
14.20
16.30
-
Ice Fishing
15.75
21.00
21.00
15.75
17.85
21.00
-
19.95
21.00
Salt Water
(Anadromous
Sport Fishing)
58.50
-
-
56.55
46.80
56.55
-
50.70
40.95
* Region 1
Wyoming
Region 4
Region 6
Source: "Defining Recreational Values Dependent on
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Oregon
Wildlife and Fish to be used in Regional
Montana
Nevada
Washington
and Forest Lands and Resource Management
Idaho
Idaho
Planning," July 18, 1980. Report of a
Wildlife and Fish Values Task Force
Encl. 3-28
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Established by Director RPA. U.S. Forest
Colorado
Arizona
California
Service
Kansas
New Mexico
Nebraska
Pinyon-Juniper Chaining: Pinyon Juniper (P-J) chaining is still an
accepted rangeland improvement technique and should be considered along
with other vegetation manipulation techniques when resource conditions and
planning considerations suggest that it is technically and environmentally
feasible. Application of the Bureau's investment analysis procedures will
help determine economic feasibility.
Proposed P-J chainings should be conducted in a timely manner, consistent
with rangeland improvement implementation schedules, as identified in
Range Program Summaries and AWP investment rankings.
Current policy emphasizes the sale and beneficial use of all woodland
products. However, if local market conditions such as distance from local
markets, availability of other free or less costly wood products (i.e.,
firewood, posts, poles, etc.) or a lack of interest in offered materials
exists, the authorized officer can decide to initiate the proposed
chaining. Proposed chainings should be scheduled with sufficient lead
time to evaluate whether wood products can be marketed and to allow time
for input from the other resource desciplines.
Prescribed Burning: Prescribed burning is an effective and accepted
technique for vegetation management. It has been used quite successfully
in some areas and appears to have the potential for wider use. It is
particularly effective in situations where vegetation--fuel conditions
meet certain criteria. Prescribed burning should follow similar planning
and analysis considerations as those described above. Investment analysis
procedures must be applied to proposed prescribed burns to ensure that the
most cost-effective technique is selected. Measures should be taken to
assure that the fire will be controlled and that property and life are
protected. Bureau Manual Section 9211.3 provides guidance on prescribed
burning.
Other Methods: Several other mechanical methods of vegetation management
exist and are being utilized with success. Sale and physical removal of
woodland products is desirable when market conditions permit. Questions
concerning the acceptability and effectiveness of alternative techniques
may be directed to the Division of Rangeland Resources (wo-222) at FTS
653-9210.
Occasionally, circumstances require that tests or trials of methods be
conducted to determine which method is most cost effective. When this is
the case, trial acreages should not exceed 1 percent of the total land
area in need of treatment. Exceptions may be necessary if a larger area
is needed to ensure valid test results. In all such trials, detailed cost
records shall be kept, and the effectiveness of the treatments shall be
monitored and recorded. Periodic monitoring of trial sites must continue
so that long-term effectiveness and impacts can be studied. A report
shall be submitted to the Director annually on the results and progress of
the trials. That report must include cost and effectiveness data and the
results of long-term monitoring of the site for impact assessment of
impacts.
Encl. 3-30
Bureau Manual Section 9222, Appendix 2, provides guidance for both pre-
and post-treatment analyses of test sites. Reasonable modifications of
report format and content may be made to fit the needs of specific
programs.
Encl. 3-31
TABLE 1
Allot. #
Date:
APPENDIX 5
RANGELAND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
EXISTING PROGRAM DATA
LOCATION DATA
(01)
State District
Resource Area
Allotment Name
Allot.
Prog.
Base
No.
Ident. Year
DATA PREPARED BY:
(02)
Range Conservationist
(03)
Last Name
Last Name
Title
(04)
Wildlife Biologist
(05)
Last Name
Last Name
Title
TOTAL ANN. MAINT.
STRUCTURAL PROJECTS
NUMBER
COST
% BLM
(06) Springs (No.)
(07) Reservoirs (No.)
(08) Wells (No.)
(09) Pipelines (Mi.)
(10) Fences (Mi.)
(11) Cattleguards (No.)
Other Projects
Unit
(12)
( )
(13)
( )
(14)
( )
LIFE
TOTAL REPLACEMENT
NUMBER OF UNITS BY AGE CLASS
NONSTRUCTURAL PROJECTS
SPAN
COST
% BLM
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-25
+25
(15) Mech. Control (Ac.)
(16) Chem. Control (Ac.)
(17) Burning (Ac.)
(18) Seeding (drill) (Ac.)
Other Projects
Unit
(19)
( )
(20)
( )
(21)
( )
Encl. 3-32
TABLE 1
Allot
RANGELAND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
PROGRAM BENEFITS
BASE
FIRST LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
FOURTH LEVEL
LIVESTOCK FORAGE
LEVEL
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
(22) Livestock AUMs
RECREATION USE
(23) Deer Hunting Days (HDs)
(24) Elk HDs
(25) Other Big Game HDs
(26) Waterfowl HDs
(27) Upland & Small Game HDs
(28) Warm Water Angler Days (ADs)
(29) Cold Water ADs
(30) Inland Anadromous ADs
(31) Devlpd. Site Rec. Days (RDs)
(32) Dispersed Use RDs
(33) Non-Game Wildlife RDs
SOIL/WATER BENEFITS
(34) Annual Maintenance Cost &
Losses due to Sedimentation
& Flooding from allotment
OTHER OUTPUTS
Output Type
Unit
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
% of Livestock AUMs available between
&
at the Final Level.
Date
Encl. 3-33
I
TABLE ,2
Allot. 1
Date:
RANGELAND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM DATA
LOCATION DATA
(01)
District
Resource Area
Allotment Name
Allot.
Prog.
Base
No.
Ident. Year
DATA PREPARED BY:
(02)
Range Conservationist
(03)
Last Name
Last Name
Title
(04)
Wildlife Biologist
(05)
Last Name
Last Name
Title
FIRST
NEW
CONSTRUCTION COST BY YEAR
ANN. MAINT.
STRUCTURAL PROJECTS
MAINT
UNITS
1
2
3
4
5
ZBLM
COST
ZBLM
(06) Springs (No.)
(07) Reservoirs (No.)
(08) Wells (No.)
(09) Pipeline (Mi.)
(10) Fences (Mi.)
(11) Cattleguards (No.)
Other Projects
Unit
(12)
( )
(13)
( )
(14)
( )
LIFE
NEW
CONSTRUCTION COST BY YEAR
REPLACEMENT
NONSTRUCTURAL PROJECTS
SPAN
UNITS
1
2
3
4
5
%BLM
COST
%BLM
(15) Mech. Control (Ac.)
(16) Chem. Control (Ac.)
(17) Burning (Ac.)
(18) Seeding (drill) (Ac.)
Other Projects
Unit
(19)
( )
(20)
( )
(21)
( )
(22) Permittee Costs:
Workdays
(23) BLM Costs:
Workdays
Encl. 3-34
TABLE 2
Allot. 1
RANGELAND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
PROGRAM BENEFITS
BASE
FIRST LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
FOURTH LEVEL
LIVESTOCK FORAGE
LEVEL
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
Units
Yr
(24) Livestock AUMs
RECREATION USE
(25) Deer Hunting Days (HDs)
(26) Elk HDs
(27) Other Big Game HDs
(28) Waterfowl HDs
(29) Upland & Small Game HDs
(30) Warm Water Angler Days (ADs)
(31) Cold Water ADs
(32) Inland Anadromous ADs
(33) Devlpd. Site Rec. Davs (RDs)
(34) Dispersed Use RDs
(35) Non-Game Wildlife RDs
SOIL/WATER BENEFITS
(36) Annual Maintenance Cost &
Losses due to Sedimentation
& Flooding from allotment
OTHER OUTPUTS
Output Type
Unit
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
% of Livestock AUMs available between
&
at the Final Level.
Date
Encl. 3-35
AGE TWO
ALLOTMENT NUMBER:XXXX
ALLOTMENT NAME:
ATA PREPARED BY:XXXXXXXXXXXX-RANGE CONS.
XXXXXXXXXXXX-WILDLIFE BIOL.
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM COST DATA
PROGRAM IDENT:XXXX
TRUCTURAL FIRST
ROJECTS
MAINT
NEW
CONSTRUCTION COST BY YEAR
ANN.MAINT.
(YRS)
UNITS
1
2
3
4
5
ZBLM
COST
ZBLM
PRINGS
XX
XXXXX NO
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
ESERVOIRS
XX
XXXXX NO
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
ELLS
XX
XXXXX NO
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
ENCES
XX
XXXXX MI
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
ATTLEGDS.
xx
XXXXX NO
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXXX YY
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXXX YY
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX YY XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXX $XXXXX XXX
ONSTRUCTURAL LIFE
ROJECTS
SPAN
NEW
CONSTRUCTION COST BY YEAR
REPLACEMENT
(YRS)
UNITS
1
2
3
4
5
ZBLM
COST
ZBLM
ECH. CTRL.
XX
XXXXX AC
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
HEM.CTRL.
XX
XXXXX AC
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
URNING
XX
XXXXX AC
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
EEDING
XX
XXXXX AC
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXXX YY
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXXX YY
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XX
XXXXX YY
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
$XXXXXX
XXX
ERMITTEE WORKDAYS: XXXDAYS
$XXXXX
BLM WORKDAYS: XXXDAYS
$XXXXX
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM BENEFIT DATA
NNUAL OUTPUTS
BASE FIRST LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL FOURTH LEVEL
LEVEL
UNITS
YR
UNITS
YR
UNITS YR
UNITS
YR
IVESTOCK AUMS
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
xx
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
EER HUNTING DAYS
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
LK (HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
)TH. BIG GAME(HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
JATERFOWL (HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
IPLANDISMALL GAME
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
ARM WATER (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
OLD WATER (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX xx
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
NLAND ANAD. (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
ISPERSE USE (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
DEVLPD SITE (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
IONGAME WLDF (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
SOIL&WATER LOSSES
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXXX-XXX
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
xx
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
XX% OF LIVESTOCK AUMS ARE AVAILABLE BETWEEN XX/XX & XX/XX AT THE FINAL LEVEL
nd of file - request executed 55 times
Encl. 3-36
old bctable1
PAGE ONE
RANGELAND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
DATE:XX/XX
TIME:XXXXX
STATE:XX
DISTRICT:XXXXXXXXXXXX
ALLOT NO:XXXX
PROGRAM IDENT:X
RESOURCE AREA:XXXXXXXXXXXX
ALLOT NAME:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BASE YEAR:X)
DATA PREPARED BY:XXXXXXXXXXXX-RANGE CONS.
XXXXXXXXXXXX-WILDLIFE BIOL.
EXISTING PROGRAM COST DATA
STRUCTURAL
PROJECTS
UNITS
TOTAL ANNUAL MAINT. COST
SPRINGS
XXXXX NO
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
RESERVOIR
XXXXX NO
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
WELLS
XXXXX NO
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
FENCES
XXXXX MI
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
CATTLEGDS.
XXXXX NO
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX YY
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX YY
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX YY
$XXXXX
XXXZBLM
NONSTRUCTURAL LIFE
PROJECTS
SPAN
TOTAL REPLACEMENT
NUMBER OF UNITS BY AGE GROUP
(YRS)
COST
ZBLM
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
MECH.CTRL.AC
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
CHEM.CTRL.AC
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
xx
BURNING
AC
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
SEEDING
AC
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXYY
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXYY
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXYY
XX
$XXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
EXISTING PROGRAM BENEFIT DATA
ANNUAL OUTPUTS
BASE
FIRST LEVEL
SECOND
LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
FOURTH
LE
LEVEL
UNITS
YR
UNITS
YR
UNITS YR
UNITS
Y
LIVESTOCK AUMS
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
DEER HUNTING DAYS
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
ELK (HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
OTH. BIG GAME(HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
WATERFOWL (HDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
UPLAND&SMALL GAME
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX X
WARM WATER (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
COLD WATER (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
X
INLAND ANAD. (ADs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
DISPERSE USE (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX
X
DEVLPD SITE (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
xx
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
NONGAME WLDF (RDs)
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXX XX
XXXXX X
SOIL:WATER LOSSES
$ XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX XX
$XXXXX
X
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$ XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
X
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$ XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
X
xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx
$XXXXX
$XXXXX
XX
$ XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
XX
$XXXXX
X
XXXZ OF LIVESTOCK AUMS ARE AVAILABLE BETWEEN XX/XX & XX/XX AT THE FINAL LEVEL
end of file - request executed 57 times
Encl. 3-37
1
-
STATE
OF
The State of Texas
THE
Office of State - Federal Relations
MEMO
October 26, 1982
Jim:
In a conversation with your secretary, I advised
her that I would be sending you the enclosed
information so that you would better understand
the issue at hand.
I would appreciate your calling and allowing
me to provide you with further details on the
matter.
Ken
Ken
Ken Jordan
Agriculture Coordinator
(202) 488-3927
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
STATE CAPITOL
GOVERNOR
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
October 21, 1982
The Honorable John R. Block
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20205
Dear Jack:
Central and West Texas ranch leaders have brought to my attention what they
perceive to be a major continuing problem revolving around efforts by the
U.S. Forest Service to obtain jurisdiction over the management and use of
privately owned range lands. These leaders working through the National
Cattlemen's Association have developed two proposed papers designed to
provide an understanding of the responsibilities of the Forest Service
vis-a-vis the Soil Conservation Service with respect to a definition of
range land and coordination of technical assistance programs and inventory
activities. These were presented to representatives of both agencies at a
meeting in Fort Worth last week. To me these appear to be very reasonable
proposals, and I am quite concerned that there appear to be objections from
the Forest Service and Assistant Secretary Crowell to acceptance of these
as policy of the Department.
I want to explain why private land owners object to having their range land
inventoried and classified by the Forest Service. By law, the Forest
Service is the federal agency responsible for managing National Forest
System lands. Because of that, the general public tends to confuse
privately owned land classified as forest with federal forest land; there-
fore, they have demanded that greater restraints and controls be placed on
uses of any land classified as forest. This concept is certainly embodied
in federal laws and regulations, and future legislation and federal regu-
lation could place even greater restraints on use of these lands.
Forest and range lands are separate kinds of lands and have different uses.
Because the lands we are concerned about are range lands and not forests,
they should be managed in different ways. Forest lands are subject to many
restrictions on management improvement which do not apply to range land.
As one example, herbicides that are valuable management tools on range
The Honorable John R. Block
Page 2
October 21, 1982
lands cannot be utilized on forest lands. The Forest Service and State
Forestry Agencies are given several responsibilities with regard to forest
land under the COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978. These condi-
tions do not apply to private range lands.
The Forest Service is basically a regulatory agency mandated by Congress to
manage National Forest Assistance lands. Private range land owners and
users prefer to receive voluntary technical assistance provided by
non-regulatory agencies at the land user's request as, for example, a
cooperative agreement with locally governed Soil and Water Conservation
Districts.
Principles of forest management and principles of range management are
different. Likewise, the objectives of managing these two distinctive kinds
of land are different. As recently as last week, I am told that Forest
Service personnel from the Washington office stated at Fort Worth that "one
of the reasons to classify range land as forest was to obtain more money
for state forestry agencies".
Jack, I hope you will look into this situation personally and provide for
programs and assignment of responsibilities in line with the basic
philosophy of the Reagan administration. The 1980 RPA Program Report, in
my opinion, is a direct contradiction of the administration's philosophy of
reducing the role of government and restricting the intrusion of federal
agencies into the management of privately owned land. As I stated earlier,
I believe that the National Cattlemen's Association recommendations are
appropriate and are workable.
I enclose copies of these recommendations, in case you have not vet been
given copies by your staff. I want to stress that while I am speaking for
Texas, this is clearly a national issue. Any of your officials who consider
this merely a Texas issue is in error, as the position of the National
Cattlemen's Association represents the consensus of the national organization.
Sincerely,
W.P. Clementy
William P. Clements, Jr.
Governor of Texas
ffm
Enclosures
CARE
SEXAS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR.
STATE CAPITOL
GOVERNOR
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
October 21, 1982
The Honorable John Crowell
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20205
Dear Mr. Crowell:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns about the continuing
problem of definition of forest and range lands and coordination of respon-
sibilities between the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service.
As you know, Texas has large areas of both forest and range land, almost
all of which is privately owned and managed. Our Central and West Texas
ranchers have been very concerned for a number of years over what they
perceive to be systematic efforts by the Forest Service to obtain control
over the way in which they manage their land. The two draft statements
proposed by the National Cattlemen's Association at the meeting with USDA
officials in Fort Worth on October 14, 1982 represent, I believe, a con-
structive effort to address and resolve the continuing concerns of our ranch
industry leadership. You indicated that you thought that they were being
unduly alarmist in their concerns and requested that I provide you with
background information to document our concern.
As far as I can determine, the Forest Service has persistently sought, at
least since 1973, to expand its authority to cover privately owned ranch
lands. The 1975 Draft RPA Program Report is our first documented evidence
of this effort. This was followed in 1976 by an interagency agreement
between the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service on coordina-
tion of range programs on non-federal forest lands and inventory activities
on forest and range lands.
Subsequently, in January 1977, the two agencies reached agreement on defi-
nition of forest and range lands. The Forest Service has interpreted this
to legitimize their efforts to assume responsibility for inventory and
classification of private range lands as forest lands.
In 1978, the State and Private Forestry Division Regional Office in Atlanta
prepared, published and widely distributed maps of western range lands
classifying large areas as forest lands.
The Honorable John Crowell
Page 2
October 21, 1982
The 1980 RPA Program Report contained numerous references to Forest Service
assistance to private land owners and direct involvement on privately owned
land.
In 1981 the State and Private Forestry Division published a document
containing an explicit strategy for expanding Forest Service assistance to
private land owners. Finally, the 1985 RPA alternative goal draft document
issued in early 1982 openly discusses proposed Forest Service activities on
private forest lands.
These actions taken together appear to represent a classic case of expansion
of authority and control by a federal regulatory agency. I hope that
this chronology will be helpful to you as you attempt to understand our
concerns.
While this is clearly a national issue, Governor Clements is seriously
concerned about the problem and would like a resolution of this issue as
soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jaris Jarvis E. Miller, E. Director miller
Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
ffm
DRAFT SECRETARY'S MEMORANDUM ON SANGE
1. PURPOSE
The Nation's range 1/ Insource Includes about half the land area in the
contiguous 48 States and large areas in Alaska and Hawaii. The USDA manages
more than 102 million acres ot federal range, and USDA programs influence
the use and management of other Federal and 114 million acres of nonfederal
rangeland. 2/
Ranges provide the principal source of forage for the cattle, sheep and just
operations on thousands of American farms and ranches.
In addition to supplying livestock forage, ranges provide 1 vast national
treasure of vegetation, minerals, water, recreation, said wildlife and fish,
ass wall as archeological, historical, and cultural amenities. As human pug-
ulations increase and demand for food and energy expand, the need for forage
and the other range resources will increase.
In recent years, the condition and productivity of the Nation's ranges have
improved through grazing amagement, seeding, weed and brush control, water
and erosion control. However, much work remains to be doce to
achieve acceptable ecological conditions and levels of productivity 35 7
basis to respond to current and future demands on the range resource.
This Memorandum sets forth Departmental policy relating to range resources
and coordination of range activities among agencies of the USDA and other
executive agencies, organization, and individuals. It 18 furtherance of
USDA responsibilities mandated by the legislation identified in paragraph 5.
Agencies of the Department of Agriculture affected by this Memorandum include
APHIS, ARS, ASCS, CSRS, ERS, ES, Faill, FS, OICO, SCS, AND SRS.
2. CANCELLATIONS
This Memorandum emcels and replaces Secretary's Memorandum No. 1999 dated
October 23, 1979, "Statement of Range Policy."
3. POLICY
It-is USDA policy to implement program to:
2. Improve and enhance range ecosystems.
1/ Range - Embraces rangelands and also many forest lands which support an
understory or periodic cover of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation amendable
to certain range management principles or practices.
2/ Rangeland 1 Land on which the native vegetation (clinax or natural potential)
is predeminantly grasses, grass-ilke plants, forbs or shrubs tuitable for
grating or browsing use. Rangelands include natural grassland, savannas, 2030
deserts, tundra, alpine plant communities, coastal marshes, wat readows and
increduced plant communities managed 11km rangeland,
Regewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 19 amended (PL 93-378) the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (PL 95-192) the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (PL 95-306); Subtitle 4 1
Bangeland Research of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981; the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (2L 93-514); and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579).
b. Tax NRE Committee will provide Departmentwide leadership and will
establish a Range Issuay Working Croup to help Emplement its range
responsibilities.
C. The NRE Committee will:
(L) Coordinate the range policies of affected USDA agencies.
(2) Provide a forum for formulating and assessing alternative range
policies and procedures better to serve the missions of the
various agencies within USDA and rhose of other executive agencies.
(3) Encourage and ***ist USDA agencies to develop lisison, as needed.
with other executive agencies, public interest organizations, and
professional societies.
(4) Coordinate with the Rangeland Research Board established by the
Secretary pursuant to Subtitle M of the Agriculture and Food Acc
of 1981 and assist the Secretary in carrying out the purpose of
this legislation.
(5) Provide the Secretary an annual status report of range issues under
consideration, opportunities for improvement, and progress toward
resolution.
d. Agency Complience
(1) Each agency of USDA will maintain its policies and program direction
in compliance with this Memorandum, Agency heads will assure that
current range program accivities are delinested and that range
programs of each agency are known to the NRK Committee.
(2) Rules, regulations, and other directives are to be written or
revised as necessary to comply with this Hemorandum.
b. Contribute to the social and economic well being of people and communi-
ties that depend OR range for their livelihoods.
C. Provide continuing research and technology development to increase range
conservation and range productivity.
d. Support local, State, national and international education and cooperation
designed to improve Tange condition and range producrivity.
f. Emphasize cooperation and coordination with Federal, State, local and
private organizations and institutions and individuals in planning and
executing range programs to benefit the Department's range constituency
and to prevent duplication and overlap of dutier in reaching interagency
goals affecting range.
E. Provide periodic inventories of the Nation's range resources that are
compatible among agencies, that are acceptable and beneficial to rangeland
users, that are based upon technically sound economic and ecological
principles, and ATG useful in improving range resources it the local,
State, and National levels.
g. Provide technical, managerial, and other assistance programs for range
owners, operators, and other users that will encourage application and
use of range practices that improve and enhance production of red meat,
and fiber.
be Administer the range resources of National Forest System lands 1a an
economically and ecologically sound mannet which will enhance and improve
range productivity.
4. ABBREVIATIONS
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
NRE
1 Natural Resources and Environment
FS
- Forest Service
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
APHIS - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
FmHA - Farmers Home Administration
ASCS - Agricultural Stablization and Conservation Service
ARS
- Agricultural Research Service
CSRS
- Cooperative State Research Service
ER5 - Economic Research Service
ES
- Extension Service
SRS
- Statistical Reporting Service
OICD - Office of International Cooperation and Development
5. RESPONSIBILITIES
a. Plans of scrion 10 implement the policies of this Memorandum will be
developed by affected agencies and will be subject to review by the NRE
Committee of the Secretary's Policy and Coordination Council. These plans
will be prepared in accordance with directions of the Foresc and Rangeland
Agreement for Coordination of Technical
Assistance Programs and Inventory Activities
United States Department of Agriculture
Foress Service-doil Conservation Service
I,
INTRODUCTION
The Forest Service (FS) and Soil Conservation Service ($CS) each have
long-standing scatutory and delegated authorities for programs and
activities on federal and nonfederal lands. It 1s essential that each
agency's rola and responsibilities in technical assistance programs
11 inventory activities on nonfederal Lands be defined, understood,
and followed to avoid duplication of effort and make effective
USA of manpower md monetary resources.
II. PURPOSE
This agreement is incended to promote harmonious working relations
between the two agencies at all lavels and CO clarify (1) technical
assistance responsibilicies for nonfederal land and (2) inventory
responsibilities on nonfederal land,
III. POLICY
SCS and F5 will cooperate fully within the scope of each agency's
auchorities in carrying out their respective programs on nonfederal
land.
FS and SCS will coordinate resource inventories to avoid overlap or
duplication of data collection activities. They will cooperate in
identification of data needs and will use data developed by each
other and by other agencies or groups as may be applicable to the
programs they administer.
IV. RESPONSIBILITIES
3. Technical Assistance
1. ses will provide direct technical assistance to landowners
and USDIS of nonfederal Land. Such assistance will normally
be provided through conservation districts as a part of SCS
responsibility for conservation plauning including assisting
landowners and users with land use/land treatment decisions.
2. FS will work indiractly with Imdewners and users of aca-
federal forest land through appropriate State and Federal
agencies, scasulement, and others in its cooperative forestry
programs.
2
3. SCS will cooperate with State forestry organizations to assure
that eimber management is fully integrated into conservation
plans developed with Landowers and users.
4, 75 and 303 will work with State lorestly organizations CD enhance
their inowledge of livesteck and wildlife forage potential and
Stazing opportunities 50 that they can reflace chese values in
thair timber managament recormendations.
5. FS will encourage appropriate State agencies to work closely
with SCS and conservation districts to help landowners make
full use of exiscing SCS technical assistance on nonfederal forest
land.
&. FS and SCS will work together and with other agencies and organi-
zations TO identify research needs for nonfederal land and to
interpret and disseminate research information to appropriate
USQTS.
B. Inventories
1 FS and SCS will work together on inventory programs for confaderal
Trad to identify data needs. avoid duplication of effort, and
assure that data collected by each agency are mutually usable.
2. SCS will be responsible for all resource inventory on nonfaderal
rangeland.
3. FS will be responsible for timber resource inventory On nonfederal
forest land. SC$ will be responsible for all other resource Quarria
inventory ou nonfederal forest land.
4. National Resource Inventory (SCS) and Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FS) personnel will seet regularly to assure coverage, avoid
duplication, develop common mathodology and standards, and broaden
opportunities for sharing of information.
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Both savannas and natural grasslands on which mesquita or other low
value trees have increased or invaded will be considered rangelands
unless the landowner or use: chooses to namage the land primarily
for wood products.
3. This agreement recognizes the policies sec forth in the following:
1. Memorandum of understanding of SCS, FS, and ERS pertaining to
comprehensive river basin planning, April 15, 1968.
2. USDA Interagency Agreement eq Forestry, February 1973.
V For purposes of this agreement, rangeland 1s considered to be land on which
the native vegetation (climax OT natural potential plant commities) is
predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs or shrubs suitable for gea-
zing or browsing use, Rangeland includes natural grassland, savannas, most
deserts, tundra, alpine plant comunities, coastal marshes, were meadows, and
introduced plant communities managed tike rangeland.
3
3. Joint memorandes of understanding of BLM, FS, and SCS pertaining
to coordinated resource planning, January 1975.
C. Cooperation with other agencies and organizations having easponsi-
bilities ar interests in activities covered by this agreement is
important.
3. Existing memoranda of understanding between conservation districts
and State forestry agencies are recognized and will be used to
further the purposes of this agreement.
E. Procedures for implementing this agreement say be developed locally
in consultation with officials of conservation districts and State
organizations.
F. Interagency reimbursement will =02 be required bus car to tais under
separate agreement as appropriate.
71. MCDIFICATION
This agreement shall remain in effect until canceled or modified by the
parties in writing. It may be amended or supplamented to include agreement
by other agencies or groups, as appropriate.
Chief
Date
Chief
Date
Soil Conservation Service
Forest Service