In addition to the above tabulation data were secured on many tracts of land not used in the final comparison because of certain conditions surrounding them which made them not truly representative of forest range. These conditions were usually that the land occupied a stragetic location to the lessee's private range or public domain, controlled water, or had some other factor influencing the value beyond the mere value of the forage. The following tracts were so excluded: Throughout the national forests and in the immediate vicinity there are large numbers of tracts of land owned and used by the owner for grazing purposes. While it was known the carrying charges (including interest on investment and taxes) created an exceptional high value, it was felt these data should not be overlooked. The following illustrates some of the tracts so considered but not used for comparative purposes: After a careful consideration and analysis of the private land data it was found there were such wide fluctuations and variations in prices by localities for the same kind of land as to preclude the acceptance of strictly local values for forests. To have done so would have created far greater inequalities in fees between forests and individual ranges than even a flat rate system would have developed. It was therefore necessary to apply the data on a large regional basis. These regions were selected because of similar accessibility, transportation, market, and general range conditions prevailing throughout the area. They involve in some instances a group of forests, as for example, the Blue Mountains in Oregon; in others a whole State, like California; in still others a whole district, as in district 2 (Colorado, eastern Wyoming, western South Dakota, and Nebraska); and in some instances one forest, as illustrated in the attached table. By the application of the grading system and the equalization of high and low fees which naturally occurs in accepting the data for a comparatively large area, it is believed that more representative and fairer values are secured. It should be understood that the study of the private land data was carried through a period of years. This period depended entirely upon the reliability of data that could be secured for past years. The data do not in any case represent values for any one year, but in most cases the average for a 10year period has been selected. In some cases the study has been carried over a period of 15 years, as indicated in the attached chart. In order that the information secured on both private land and national forest range might be properly correlated, studied, and analyzed, conferences were again held with all supervisors and men in charge of the work. The reports submitted were reviewed at these conferences and an agreement reached on the basic private land data to be used, the comparative rating of ranges, etc. In addition thereto supplemental information was secured which materially strengthened the reports. It may therefore be said that the appraisal of the ranges has been done by the field men of the Forest Service and does not represent the work of any one man. In accordance with this general plan the basic private land fees are illustrated by the following: In order to secure a complete understanding of the character of ranges, both private and national forest, and the factors influencing their value, it was necessary to secure a full and complete report on each tract of private land and each national forest range. This report was prepared in accordance with the following outline: OUTLINE FOR REPORT ON RANGES I. Written discussion on 1. Forage: (a) Species-palatability, (b) average density, (c) seasonal use, (d) carrying capacity, (e) class of stock. 2. Water: (a) Amount, (b) distribution, (c) usability. 3. Topography: (a) Slope, altitude, and exposure; (b) factors influencing management. 4. Accessibility: (a) To market (foreign or local); (b) to demand (foreign or local); (c) means of access (rail, water, character of driveways, etc.). 5. Improvements: Projects constructed.-(a) Kind; (b) location (private or Government land); (c) by whom and when constructed (1) stockmen (names), (2) cooperation (Government and stockmen), (3) Government; (d) cost when constructed; (e) estimate present money value; (f) relation it bears to use of range. Projects to be constructed.-(a) Character of project; (b) location; (c) general plan of installation; (d) costs (1) labor, (2) material; (e) results expected. II. Map showing location, area, drainage, and topography. Also 1. Present and proposed allotment boundaries. 2. Present and proposed driveways. 3. Location of present and proposed improvements, such as (a) drift and division fences, (b) water development projects, (c) salting improvements, (d) poison areas, (e) stock handling facilities, (f) areas infested with rodents, (g) trails, (h) bridges. 4. Location over grazed areas. 5. Location poison areas. III. Factors increasing or decreasing value of range: 1. Forest Service restrictions: (a) On numbers; (b) on management; (c) closed areas (1) game, (2) public use, (3) watershed, (4) timber; (d) fire protection; (e) area of allotment; (f) number of permittees; (g) improvement construction and maintenance; (h) tenure of permit; (i) private land. 2. Poisonous plants. 3. Predatory animals. 4. Cost of handling stock. IV. Study of range values: 1. Secure following information on as many cases as possible: (a) Name of lessee or lessor; (b) acreage leased; (c) carrying capacity; (d) season used; (e) class of stock; (f) cost per head per month; (g) brief description of tract and discussion of factors influencing price; (h) same information as above on tracts under private ownership used for grazing; and (1) price paid per acre, (2) interest and taxes. 2. Checks on judgment: (a) Weights of livestock, (b) operating expenses, (c) market prices, (d) losses of livestock, (e) shrinkage in transit. The report in each case deals with what we consider the fundamental factors determining the character and usability of the range. As soon as the method of appraisal had been developed complete instructions were issued to the field force. These were amplified as the work progressed and methods of appraisal fully explained to all forest supervisors at a conference held in each district during the season of 1921. The plans for carrying the work through to completion were discussed with the field men and organization perfected. This consisted of placing the best qualified men from training, experience, and technical ability in charge of the work for each district. These men worked with the rangers and supervisors out in the field preparing sample reports, further explaining the methods, and correlating the data. In addition to this general plan men were also placed in charge of the work on each forest. As a result of this plan of organization it is believed the desired uniformity in the work has been secured. While as stated above the method adopted was applied to the smallest as well as the largest unit of range, the determination of units and the preparation of reports was left to the judgment of the men. These units represent in many cases individual range allotments, in others a group of a large number of similar ranges. In addition to these reports, a general report for the forest as a whole was prepared. METHOD OF COMPARING PRIVATE LAND WITH NATIONAL FOREST RANGE Having secured complete data on national forest and private land ranges, the next step in the work was applying a method of comparison. While the private land most comparable to national forest ranges was selected on the basis of the best judgment of forest officers, it was felt that a systematic plan of comparison would be the most reliable means of checking the judgment of forest officers, making due allowance for the varying factor, and providing for applying the rental value of private land to national forest range. The following system of grading each range, whether private or national forest, is an example of the scheme used in each district: FORAGE-ADAPTABILITY TO CLASS OF STOCK ALLOTTED NOTE.-Determine by study of arrangement of types and the composition of types per unit of use. NOTE.-Determine by dividing surface acreage of unit of use by number of stock allotted to it. This will be checked in district office by use of forage acre data. Grade D: Per cent 70 C and H, 3.25 to 4 acres per head per month_. S and G, 0.65 to 0.8 acre per head per month. Grade E: C and H, 4.25 to 5 acres per head per month. C and H, 5.25 to 7 acres per head per month. C and H, above 7 acres per head per month. S and G, above 1.4 acres per head per month. 7 to 10. Over 10 30 30 WATER C and H, 1 mile or less travel; well distributed; usable.... 100 S and G, 0.5 mile or less travel; well distributed; usable.. 100 C and H, between 1 and 2 miles' travel; fairly well distributed and 90 Grade B, good: S and G, between 0.5 and 1 mile travel; fairly well distributed and C and H, 3 to 4 miles' travel; fairly accessible and usable. Grade C, fair: S and G, 1.5 to 2.5 miles, travel; fairly accessible and usable Grade D, poor: C and H, 4 to 6 miles' travel_. 70 50 50 NOTE. This means actual travel in the case of sheep, and distances would be increased with arrangement of forage types and water which would permit sheep being grazed around to water. Succulence of the forage should also be considered. NOTE. Consider accessibility to wintering grounds as beginning at a point reasonably near to forest boundary and common, the majority of preference permittees using a given unit to use. Consider accessibility to market as beginning at the nearest practicable loading point used by the majority of permittees on a given unit of use. Grade A, drift to the range unattended__. Grade B, 1 to 2 days' drive over fairly good road or trail_. Grade C, 3 to 4 days' drive over fairly good road or trail.. Grade D, 5 to 7 days' drive___. Grade E, 8 to 10 days' drive_. Grade F, 10 to 15 days' drive___ Per cent 120 100 90 70 60 50 |