Purpose and Need
for
Northern Great Plains
Management Plans Revisions
CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST
Cedar River National Grassland
Grand River National Grassland
Little Missouri National Grassland
Sheyenne National Grassland
MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST
Thunder Basin National Grassland
NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST
Bessey Ranger District
Charles E. Bessey Tree Nursery
Buffalo Gap National Grassland
Fort Pierre National Grassland
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest
Pine Ridge Ranger District
Oglala National Grassland
May 23, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revisions is a combined planning effort of the four
National Grasslands managed by the Custer National Forest, the Thunder Basin National
Grassland managed by the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, and the five National Forest and
Grassland units managed by the Nebraska National Forest. These National Forest System lands
are currently managed under the long-range direction contained in their Land and Resource
Management Plans (hereafter referred to as Management Plans).
This document describes the purpose and need to revise the Management Plans for these National
Forest and Grassland units and establishes the need for change. It includes the following
information:
• Background on the planning area and planning units;
• Regulatory basis and managerial reasons for planning;
• Planning principles that guide Management Plan revision; and,
NGP Purpose and Need
1
• Process used to define the need for change and major revision topics.
The purpose of revising the Management Plans is to develop and implement a scientifically
sound, ecosystem-management strategy for these National Forest System lands. The strategy will
enable these lands to move from current conditions to more ecologically sustainable and socially
desirable future conditions, leaving options available to future generations.
The decisions to be made will provide an ecological context to the Management Plans and will
help clarify the relationship of management activities to the capability of ecosystems, develop
realistic expectations for the production of goods and services, sustain ecosystems by ensuring
their health, diversity, and productivity, and integrate ecological, economic, and social factors in
order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment to meet current and future needs.
II. THE PLANNING AREA
These Forest Service administrative units encompass nearly three million acres, widely scattered
over four states within the Northern Great Plains (see Figure 1). The planning area encompasses
250 million acres of the Northern Great Plains within the states of Montana, Wyoming, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
Although these public lands are only two percent of the Northern Great Plains, they are important
to people for the products and opportunities they provide. Though they are small and unique units
within the Northern Great Plains, they incur demands for livestock grazing, recreation, oil, gas, and
mineral production, and are recognized as significant contributors to the livelihoods and lifestyles of
citizens. They are also recognized as an important ecological resource and as significant
contributors to wildlife habitat and biological diversity.
A. Economic and Social Importance
Commodity and amenity benefits from the public lands within the Northern Great Plains
planning area have contributed to the social systems and economic base of many neighboring
communities. Management decisions determine the public land uses and resource availability
from those lands. In resource-based economies, these decisions can perpetuate or disrupt the
public land/community interdependence.
These ten units provide many features and benefits to communities and states within the
planning area. These benefits include:
• Forage to graze 1 million AUMs annually
• 1,152 producing oil wells on 1.1 million leased acres
• 5 coal mines, including the Nation’s largest
• 400,000 Recreation Visitor Days annually
2
NGP Purpose and Need
• 3-3.5 million tree seedlings produced annually
• $40 million annually to the Federal Treasury
• $2.4 million returns to counties annually.
Assuming a 20 to 1 ratio of indirect to direct monetary benefits, these units provide about $800
million annually to the economies of local communities.
B.
Ecological Significance
The Great Plains, once the continent’s largest ecosystem and the one most characteristic of
the United States, is considered by some the most changed and fragmented. These National
Forest and Grassland units are important components of the remaining native prairie
vegetation. Based on recent surveys, less than one-half percent of true tall grass prairie, 34
percent of mixed grass prairie, and 26 percent of short grass prairie still exist in native
vegetation. Much of the remaining grasslands are being invaded by exotic vegetation.
The greatest number of USDA sensitive plants are located on the Sheyenne National
Grassland, a portion of which is in the tall grass prairie. The Sheyenne National Grassland is
the only National Grassland within the tall grass prairie ecosystem.
These ten units are also ecologically significant. They provide habitat for many game and nongame animals, threatened and endangered species, and many breeding birds. Currently, 13
grassland species are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and another 5 species are
candidates for federal listing. These units provide habitat also for the black-tailed prairie dog
and its associate species, many of which are in decline.
Grassland bird species have shown steeper declines than any other group of species. Of the
435 bird species breeding in the U.S., 330 have been documented to breed on the Great Plains.
Declines of 14 to 91 percent of species have occurred. These grassland units provide
valuable habitat to many of these species of birds.
The status on other groups of species is generally unknown; however, it is suspected that
prairie fish and herptiles, as groups, are also experiencing steep declines. In addition, most
declining butterflies on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists are located in tall
grass prairie.
Black-footed ferrets have recently been reintroduced in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland
area, and another reintroduction site on the Thunder Basin National Grassland is being
studied. These remnants of native prairie vegetation also contain many species of rare or
endangered plants such as the western prairie-fringed orchid and blowout penstemon.
NGP Purpose and Need
3
III. BASIS AND REASONS FOR PLANNING
Long-range planning is not only done because it is required by law, but also because it is a prudent
management action. The following sections discuss the regulatory basis and managerial reasons
for revising the Management Plans.
A. Regulatory Basis for Planning
Congress recognized that public desires and demands for products and services, and physical,
biological and social environments change through time. The National Forest Management
Act, passed by Congress in 1976, requires that the Management Plans be reviewed and, in
most cases, revised every 10-15 years to respond to changed conditions. The current
Management Plans for these National Forest System lands were approved on the dates shown
below. All three Management Plans are approaching their revision timeframes.
• Custer National Forest - June 10, 1987
• Thunder Basin National Grassland - November 20, 1985
• Nebraska National Forest - December 14, 1984
Federal regulations contain direction on the general requirements for the planning process (36
CFR 219.12 a) and the role that monitoring and evaluation plays in the revision process (219.12
k). Although new 36 CFR 219 regulations are being considered, the revision process will
follow the existing regulations until new regulations are adopted.
B. Managerial Reasons for Planning
The reasons for planning aren’t just because a law requires it, but because it is an important
thing for land managers to do. The need for revision of current Management Plans comes out
of nearly a decade or more of experience in implementing the current Plans. Monitoring and
evaluation of implementation has helped us identify management concerns, new issues, new
information, and better ways to achieve goals and objectives to meet public desires. The need
for revision also comes from our understanding of new public issues, desires, and expectations
for public land and resource management. Revision will help us better address the issues and
demands of people today.
We must be able to articulate our intentions, measure our progress, and document the results.
In this manner, we justify our public trust, operate more efficiently, and become more effective
in our management of public resources on public lands. We live in a changing society that
expects more and more from public agencies and holds us accountable to meet those
expectations. Planning helps us identify and meet public expectations in a more systematic
fashion.
Through Management Plan updates, such as the Northern Great Plains Management Plans
Revisions, managers can determine whether the present management course is valid and will
produce sustainable flows of goods and services from sustainable ecosystems. Planning helps
ensure Forest Service managers are responsive to the American people.
4
NGP Purpose and Need
IV. PLANNNING PRINCIPLES
Ecosystem management is the operating framework within which Management Plan revision will
be conducted. Simply stated, ecosystem management means the integration of ecological,
economic, and social factors in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment to
best meet current and future needs.
The Forest Service Chief’s Course to the Future describes the management context and helps
focus our priorities to provide sustainable benefits to the American people. The priorities that will
provide a framework for actions in the Management Plan revisions are:
• Protect ecosystems
• Restore deteriorated ecosystems
• Provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems
• Ensure organizational effectiveness
Approaches and methods to help achieve those priorities are discussed below:
A.
“Place-based” Community Approach
Use of “place-based” planning concepts and focusing analysis at the landscape level are the
most effective and efficient ways to engage the public, develop durable agreements,
collaborate with others, and address legal requirements and issues.
We recognize some people may be concerned this combined effort could reduce local input to
local issues. We understand that concern and will ensure our local managers work with the
communities affected by our planning. The Management Plans will be flexible and responsive
to local needs. A Communication Strategy has been developed to meet the revision effort’s
involvement, information, and education needs. Up front public involvement is emphasized in
this plan.
B. Integration of Ecosystem Principles
Integration of Ecosystem Principles means understanding:
• Ecosystems are constantly changing;
• Humans are part of and have influenced ecosystems;
• Ecosystems must be viewed from a variety of scales, from the very large to the very
small; and
• Ecosystems must be viewed over a long time period.
Because ecosystems cross land ownerships, jurisdictions, and administrative boundaries, the
NGP Purpose and Need
5
National Forest and Grassland planners will be looking beyond their administrative boundaries.
Ecosystems must be viewed from a variety of scales. A “big-picture” look will help us
understand how these public lands fit within the context of the larger area and also meet the
requirements of the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and
Endangered Species Act.
Also, because ecosystems are constantly changing, ecosystems must be viewed over a long
time period. Assessments will include both the large and fine scale information necessary to
make informed decisions on existing conditions, desired conditions, status, trends, processes,
and on environmental impacts and cumulative effects.
Information and data are integrated and maintained in a “corporate environment.” An
Information Needs Assessment was conducted to determine both the large- and fine-scale
information and analysis needs. A Geographic Information System is being developed to assist
managers in decision making. This system is a cooperative effort with other agencies.
C. Collaborative Efforts Between Three Forests and Two
Regions
Some things have changed since the existing Management Plans were developed. Forest and
grassland managers are, more than ever, looking beyond their administrative boundaries to
ecological processes that influence and are influenced by their management.
In addition, the 1990s have brought budget declines. This reflects the American public’s
increasing concern over the nation’s budget deficit. No federal program or agency is immune
from budget scrutiny. Federal land managers are challenged to be good land stewards with
even greater economic efficiency. The times are right for innovation in federal land
management.
This combined planning approach will enable managers to view the character and capability of
these public lands within the context of the Great Plains ecosystem. This coordinated effort
will reduce costly duplication that would occur with three separate processes, promote the
sharing of information, expertise, and solutions, and address the similarities of the prairie
ecosystem within these units.
The Forest Supervisors for the Custer, Medicine Bow-Routt, and Nebraska National Forests
and Regional Foresters for Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and Northern Region ,
which include these administrative units, have agreed this is a sound and responsible strategy,
and have documented this in a Charter and Intra-agency Agreement. A Board of Directors
has been formed, consisting of the three Forest Supervisors, two Regional Planning Directors,
and the Northern Great Plains Planning Team Leader. A Work Plan has been developed to
guide the revision effort over the next four years.
D. Collaborative Efforts Through Partnerships
An Interagency Agreement has been developed for the “Sharing of Information and
Coordination of Ecosystem Assessment Efforts in the Northern Great Plains.” This
agreement includes:
6
NGP Purpose and Need
USDA Forest Service
USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDI National Park Service
USDI Natural Resources Conservation Service
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs
USDI Geological Survey
USDI National Biological Service
US DOD Corps of Engineers
USDI Bureau of Reclamation
The Environmental Protection Agency is also participating. State agencies are being asked to
help in the assessment and revision process. Key state agency departments include: Game
and Fish, Lands, Parks, Recreation, Tourism, Natural Resources, Forestry, Agriculture.
We are also participating in the Western Governors’ Association Great Plains Partnership. A
key goal of this partnership is to facilitate information sharing between all people interested in
Great Plains resources.
E. Collaborative Efforts With Researchers and Scientists
The Management Plan revisions will expand collaboration between researchers, scientists, and
practitioners to better integrate science into agency decisions, applications, and practices. The
Board of Directors has designated a Forest Service researcher, Dan Uresk, as a key contact.
Controversial areas in the revision process will be elevated for critical reviews by the research
community. Many of the researchers we will be coordinating with are from the land grant
universities of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska.
We will also be coordinating with other agencies and non-governmental organizations. This
includes the Center for Grassland Studies at the University of Nebraska, the National
Biological Service’s Grasslands Initiative, the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s
Natural Resource Assessment for the Northern Great Plains, and the Forest Service’s Center
for Great Plains Ecosystem Research.
V. PROCESS USED TO IDENTIFY THE NEED TO CHANGE THE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Many sources were used to identify the need for change. After a list of issues/topic areas were
generated from those sources, the topics were evaluated and sorted into categories. The sources,
sorting process, and categories are described below:
A. Sources of Information
The need to change the current Management Plans came from the following sources:
NGP Purpose and Need
7
• Experiences in implementing the Management Plans and working with the public;
• Public involvement in implementing projects;
• Need for Management Plan amendments as a result of implementing projects;
• Monitoring the effects of implementation;
• Understanding cumulative effects from implementing projects;
• Issues raised in appeals and litigation;
• Knowledge gained from research on prairie ecosystems;
• Discussions with employees;
• Coordination and input from other federal agencies, state agencies, and partners;
• Public feedback on values for these National Forest and Grassland units;
• Results of assessments will also be a source of new information to refine or further define
revision topics;
• Changes in management philosophy for National Forest System lands.
B. Process Used to Assign Topics to Categories
Criteria were developed by the revision interdisciplinary team to group topics into several
categories. The categories and criteria are described below:
1. Criteria for Major Revision Topics
This category includes topics for which changes in resource conditions, technical knowledge,
data improvement or public opinion of National Forest and Grassland resource management
have created a need for change in the Management Plans. Changes generally are important
enough to affect large areas, change the mix of goods and services produced, and involve
choices in management direction where there is no public consensus on the best course of
action.
2. Criteria for Other Revision Topics
Several topics were identified that need to be addressed in Management Plan revision but do
not meet the criteria for major revision topics. In general, these items represent inadequate or
out-of-date Management Plan direction. These items would not require any significant
amendments to the Management Plans, and they can best be addressed by rewriting and
updating the direction during the revision process.
3. Criteria for Research Topics
Research topics are those areas of concern where additional information and knowledge would
8
NGP Purpose and Need
improve management decisions. The research topics will be clarified and included in the
Management Plan revision for referral and action by the Forest Service Research branch or
other research organizations.
4. Criteria for Legislative Topics
These include topics where Congressional action or Executive Order is required to address the
issue or concern. An example would be grazing fee changes.
5. Criteria for Topics for Other Governmental Agencies
These are topics where another agency or governmental body has jurisdiction required to
address the issue or concern. An example would be re-introduction of native wildlife species.
Topics will be discussed and referred to the appropriate agency for consideration.
C. Assignment of Topics to Categories
The topics identified to date within each category are listed below:
Major Revision Topics
Biological Diversity
Community and Lifestyle Relationships
Livestock Grazing
Oil and Gas Leasing
Plant and Animal Control
Recreation and Travel Management
Special Area Designations
Other Revision Topics
Fire Management
Fossils
Heritage Resources
Land Ownership Adjustment and Access
Water Resource Management
Research Topics
These topics will be developed.
Legislative Topics
Grazing Fee Levels
Recreation User Fees
Sale or Administration of National Grasslands
Transfer of Cedar River and Grand River National Grasslands to Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe
Topics for Other Governmental Agencies
Predator Control
Reintroduction of Threatened and Endangered Species
Transfer of Shadehill Reservoir
NGP Purpose and Need
9
VI. THE NEED TO CHANGE
A. What We Have Learned In The Last Decade
Nearly a decade or more has lapsed since the current Management Plans were approved.
Implementation of these Plans have shown us the need for changes in management direction
for some resources or programs on these ten grassland units. Several sources have led us to
believe we have a need to change our current Management Plans through revision. In brief,
these sources include:
New issues and changing public values identified through public interaction;
New information and knowledge gained through scientific research and effectiveness
monitoring;
Management concerns derived through implementation experience; and
A decade of experience in implementing current Management Plans has provided
insight into relationships between prairie vegetation and other resources and better
ways of accomplishing desired outcomes.
In addition to public views about how these lands should be managed, a significant change in
the information and scientific understanding of these ecosystems has occurred. Some of this
new information is a product of research, other information has resulted from changes in
technology that allow us to look at larger areas and understand the context and importance of
the lands we manage. Scientific understanding of grassland/prairie ecosystems has also seen
marked changes during the last decades. Much of the research that served as the foundation
reflected in a commodity production emphasis. Ecosystem-based research produced over
the last decade is changing our understanding of these ecosystems and the importance of
public lands in the Northern Great Plains.
This changing foundation was the stimulus for the Western Governors’ Association’s forum
on the Great Plains, the Great Plains Partnership, and their collective desire to avoid
protracted legal battles over issues faced in other parts of the country over resource uses and
their effects on wildlife and fish. The “frontier spirit/sense of community” evidenced by the
Governors allowed them to forge some common ground related to management issues in the
Northern Great Plains. First, they recognized the importance of this ecosystem and it current
status in terms of representation of “native prairie.”
Over a decade of experience in implementing these plans has also identified some areas that
should be changed in our Plans and others that need reinforcement. We have identified new
management concerns that come from gaining new information. We have identified better
ways of accomplishing desired conditions. Monitoring reports for each of the National
Forests administering Grassland units all identify changes that should be made in the
Management Plans.
Appeals and litigation of resource decisions implementing the Plans are also an important
source of information. While the overall number of appeals in proportion to resource
decisions is low, there has been a marked increase in appeal and litigation activity. This
10
NGP Purpose and Need
increase, in some part, reflects a change in constituencies that are interested in National
Grassland management and the resources of the Grasslands. Since the early to mid-1980s,
the prairie ecosystem has developed some new constituencies who are requesting a different
focus for management of the National Forests and Grasslands of the Great Plains. They are
asking that we address some different issues and uses in revising our Management Plans.
B. What We Do With This Information
Adaptive management is an active management response. We monitor where we’ve been
and where we are going in light of organizational goals or the needs expressed by constituents.
We are undertaking Management Plan revision to apply adaptive management by providing
direction that will:
• Provide goods and services to people,
• Involve people and communities, and
• Sustain ecosystem functions.
Congress understood that resource conditions and human values change over time—public
issues, demand for products and services, and our understanding of physical, biological and
social environments change through time. Congress believed that planning helps us define
desired conditions and set a course to achieve those conditions.
It is easy to agree that we want to continue to provide a flow of goods and services from
National Forests and Grasslands, we want to involve people and communities in the management of their public lands, and we want to sustain ecosystem function into the future. Through
this Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision effort, we want to ensure all three.
We must adjust our long-term direction in response to new information, technology, and
demands. We revise and update Management Plans to restore and sustain ecosystems, and
to identify stable, long-term resource outputs to benefit people.
This joint planning process will be a holistic approach to addressing these issues and changed
conditions on an ecosystem basis.
VII. THE MAJOR REVISION TOPICS
Based on the information sources identified earlier, we have determined that the combined effect
of the needed changes demand immediate attention through Management Plan revision. The
major revision topics described below influenced our decision to revise the Management Plans.
A. Biological Diversity
1. Planning Question
NGP Purpose and Need
11
What management goals, direction, and prescriptions will best attain desired biological
diversity in an ecosystem context?
2. Background
Biological diversity is defined as the full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems,
plant and animal communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual
organisms interact with one another and with their environments.
Public interest for maintaining the biological integrity and diversity of these public lands has
grown substantially over the last decade. Biodiversity has surfaced as an issue in preliminary
discussions and environmental analyses conducted in recent years. The scientific community,
supported by published research, has emphasized the importance of biodiversity conservation.
The Council on Environmental Quality recommends incorporation of the issue of biodiversity
conservation in environmental analyses.
The existing Management Plans do not cover fully all biological diversity elements, especially
for the National Grasslands. New and revised management guidance and direction are needed
that address scales of diversity and ecological processes (structure, function and pattern).
New information on rare species has also been gathered. As mentioned earlier, 13 species are
federally listed and 5 are candidate for federal listing under the new proposed rules of the US
Fish and Wildlife Service. The 13 listed species include: Black-footed ferret, Whooping crane,
Gray wolf, Peregrine falcon, Piping plover, Least tern, Pallid sturgeon, American burying
beetle, Eskimo curlew, Bald eagle, Blowout penstemon, Western prairie-fringed orchid, and
Eastern prairie-fringed orchid. South Dakota and Nebraska list another 20 species under state
laws. The Nature Conservancy maintains a list of 50 to 60 species of concern in the Northern
Great Plains. Some of these same species are among the 86 listed by the USDA Forest
Service as sensitive species.
Prairie dogs are a keystone grassland herbivore, and are a sensitive species in some areas of
the Great Plains. They now exist in about 2 percent of their historic range. Many associate
species—ferret, swift fox, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover—are endangered, threatened, or
experiencing significant declines.
The status of breeding birds in the United States is gaining interest. Of the 435 bird species
breeding in the U.S., 330 have been documented to breed on the Great Plains. Great declines
in some species from 14-91 percent result from two conditions: 1) loss of critical habitats for
breeding and wintering, and 2) hybridization from forestation of the Great Plains, which now
bridges the great barrier between eastern and western birds. Birding has become a very
important recreation opportunity on the National Grasslands, and the public wants us to
manage these grasslands to sustain bird species populations.
Biodiversity conservation encompasses management for threatened, endangered and sensitive
species, and management indicators, as well as many additional considerations, including
habitat for game species. Current and potential habitat conditions for these species will be
assessed and desired habitat conditions defined. The information contained in State Fish and
12
NGP Purpose and Need
Wildlife plans will be considered in defining desired habitat conditions.
Biological diversity will be described as a desired vegetation mosaic expressed in terms of
desired processes, vegetation composition, structure, and pattern on each National Forest and
Grassland unit for each ecosection within the planning area. Identifying, collecting, and
analyzing information will be done by ecological units. The native diversity has undergone
changes from land-use and agricultural practices. Also, invasions of noxious and exotic plants
are reducing or eliminating native plant species.
Two scales of data will be collected— broad scale (section level and greater) and landscape
scale (within National Forest System boundaries and at the subsection level or lower). Finer
scale standards and guidelines will likely be needed for some threatened, endangered, or
sensitive plant and animal species.
B. Community and Lifestyle Relationships
1. Planning Questions
How may communities and people and their lifestyles and land-use patterns be affected
by Management Plan revision?
How do communities and people and their lifestyles affect uses and management of these
public lands?
How can National Forest and National Grassland management decisions maintain or
enhance economic viability of communities?
2. Background
Commodity and amenity benefits from the public lands within the Northern Great Plains
planning area have contributed to the social systems and economic base of many neighboring
communities. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment and the
relationship of people to that environment.
Management decisions determine the public land uses and resource availability from those
lands. In resource-based economies, these decisions can perpetuate or disrupt the public land
and community and lifestyle relationships. Communities with more diverse economies may be
better able to cope with change, even though some economic sectors may be strained as
change is absorbed. The capacity to handle change without major hardships or disruptions to
social groups or institutions is an important component of community and lifestyle relations.
Many of the counties of the Northern Great Plains continue to show declines in population and
employment. The National Forests and Grasslands have a role in sustaining or diversifying
these economies.
NGP Purpose and Need
13
Economic effects in affected communities can include changes in local employment, income
for local government, payments in lieu of tax revenues, operating expenses for local
government services.
C. Livestock Grazing
1. Planning Questions
How will the management of the vegetation resources affect the availability of forage
for permitted livestock?
How many acres are suitable for grazing?
What grazing level and strategies will meet desired conditions?
2. Background
Livestock grazing on National Forest System lands is a permitted and traditional use on these
public lands. However, this use must be balanced with multiple-use objectives, such as flora
and fauna diversity, soil and water protection, wildlife food and habitat, outdoor recreation, and
other resource values dependent on rangeland vegetation. The public continues to have
interest in what levels of permitted grazing and other uses are appropriate for these publicly
owned grassland areas.
The planning area is being inventoried to describe the current mix of vegetation and to
determine ecological units based on landtypes and geographic areas. Once desired vegetative
conditions are established, then Management Plan direction can be developed to describe the
desired condition of ecological units and determine resultant allowable grazing levels. In
accordance with CFR 219.20, the suitability and potential capability of National Forests and
Grasslands to produce forage for grazing animals and habitat for management indicator species
will be determined.
Grazing use may fluctuate annually, depending on the amount of moisture received and desired
conditions of ecological units. Drought management guidelines will be proposed for some
alternatives analyzed in the environmental impact statement.
Allocation of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) is currently based on 1,000 lb. cows. Genetic
improvements in cattle have increased cattle size to as large as 1600 lbs. The larger cows
undoubtedly require more forage to sustain them. Utilization appears to have increased, while
the methodology used to determine AUMs has not changed. Appropriate methods for
calculating grazing allocations will be examined in the revision process.
Few of the planning units now have secondary range. This type of range, which occurs in
larger pastures with few water developments and low utilization, is desirable for upland habitat
and for recreationists who desire large unfenced areas of grassland.
Forest Service managers have expressed concern on the reduced flexibility of sustaining
grazing when disturbances occur. Concepts such as swing pastures, rest areas, and use of
14
NGP Purpose and Need
yearlings give managers flexibility to sustain grazing when drought or fire reduces forage. This
flexibility requires that some areas be rested each year. Currently, only one of the ten planning
units has a guideline that requires a percentage of acres to be rested. Standards will be
examined that could give managers increased flexibility in meeting desired conditions.
D. Oil and Gas Leasing
1. Planning Questions
Which National Forests or National Grasslands are administratively available for oil
and gas leasing?
What specific lease stipulations will apply to those lands determined to be
administratively available for leasing?
Are existing lease decisions and stipulations consistent with the revised Management
Plans?
2. Background
In 1987, Congress passed the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, which
expanded the Secretary of Agriculture’s role in the leasing decision process. Within the
National Forest System, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to identify the lands for
which leases can be sold and to determine appropriate stipulations to protect surface
resources. Regulations to implement this Act were developed by the Forest Service and
became effective April 20, 1990 (36 CFR, Part 228, 100 et.seq.).
Leasing analyses in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 228.102(c) have been
completed for about 1.7 million acres of the planning area, including the Little Missouri, Cedar
River, Thunder Basin National Grasslands and the west half of the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland. The existing leasing decisions will be reviewed in light of new information
generated as a result of information from the Northern Great Plains assessment and other
sources since the leasing decisions were made (e.g. newly listed threatened and endangered
species, rare ecosystem elements or habitats). The new information may result in changes to
leasing availability decisions and/or lease requirements/stipulations.
The remaining 1.2 million acres of the planning area (Sheyenne, Grand River, Fort Pierre,
Oglala National Grasslands, the rest of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and Nebraska and
Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests) will be examined in this analysis. Management Plan
revision is a logical time to complete the leasing analyses for these remaining areas.
Because a lease conveys the right to develop the oil and gas resource, there is an implied right
(unless no surface occupancy is required) to allow construction of facilities needed for oil and
gas development (roads, pipelines, power lines and well pads).
E. Plant and Animal Control
NGP Purpose and Need
15
1. Planning Questions
How should noxious weeds, exotic plants, rodents, and other animals be controlled or
managed on National Forests and Grasslands?
Are existing predator management plans and environmental analyses adequate and
consistent with the revised Management Plans?
What standards are needed to control problem insects and consider effects on other
resources and sensitive species and economic efficiency?
2. Background
Under certain conditions, some plant and animal species can cause unacceptable economic
and/or environmental effects. Sometimes management activities on National Forest System
lands include control of noxious or exotic plants, insects, predators, and rodents. Control is a
cooperative effort involving the Forest Service, local and state government, and other federal
regulatory agencies.
Prairie dog management on National Forests and Grasslands continues to generate public
interest. Although prairie dog communities are major contributors to biological diversity on
National Grasslands, adjoining landowners often view prairie dogs as potentially damaging to
private land values and their agricultural production. Many livestock grazing permittees are
also concerned about the loss of forage on National Grasslands to prairie dogs. Other people
interested in prairie dogs include recreational shooters, watchable wildlife enthusiasts, and
environmental interests.
Invasions of noxious and exotic plants are reducing or eliminating native plant species. Current
Management Plans direct managers to treat noxious and exotic species on a priority basis.
Control is emphasized on newly infested areas, priority areas, and minor infestations.
Research is needed to develop effective control methods.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has primary responsibility for providing technical
assistance and coordinating programs on predator control, range insect pests, such as
grasshoppers, biocontrol of noxious weeds, and animal damage control. Forest Health
Protection is responsible for providing technical assistance and coordinating and funding
suppression programs for forest insect and disease pests.
A recently issued policy on animal damage (primarily predator) outlines a cooperative
approach between the Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The
Forest Service has revised their manual direction to elaborate on the Master Memorandum of
Understanding signed by both agencies. During Management Plan revision, the following
actions should be accomplished:
Address these changes in manual direction and accurately portray the roles, procedures and
responsibilities of both agencies;
16
NGP Purpose and Need
Determine whether existing National Forest/Grassland predator control plans and
environmental analyses are adequate; and,
Develop management direction to protect resources and users during animal damage
control activities.
F. Recreation and Travel Management
1. Planning Question
What range, mix, emphasis of recreation opportunities, challenges and travel should be
provided for a variety of uses, while ensuring resource protection?
2. Background
The demand for recreational opportunities on public lands in the prairie ecosystem is increasing
dramatically. Contributing factors are: 1) national grasslands have been recognized for
hunting opportunities; 2) the public has increased appreciation for the beauty of the prairie; 3)
more people are taking short vacations to the closest public lands; and 4) there has been a loss
of solitude in mountain areas. The public is asking us to address recreational uses and values
on our Great Plains grassland areas. Results from customer surveys will help determine public
expectations for recreation opportunities.
Recreation uses and interests vary widely across the planning area. Some recreational
activities, such as mountain biking and use of all-terrain vehicles, have increased in popularity
since the Management Plans were written. Current recreation use exceeds the levels
anticipated in the existing Management Plans. The increased recreation use highlights the
importance and value of these National Forests and Grasslands in filling recreational, esthetic
and spiritual needs.
Monitoring information on the Nebraska National Forest indicates that, while users are
satisfied with their recreation experiences, some want more developed facilities at specific
sites, improved roads for recreational traffic, and more site and area information and signing.
Travel management has emerged as a recognizable issue on these grassland units.
Topography and vegetation make it possible for all terrain vehicles to drive just about
anywhere. While there are few designated “roads” in some areas, portions of the grasslands
are well traveled. Recreationists are asking us to address road or area restrictions to address
resource impacts and recreational desires for solitude.
Big game hunting is also popular. Hunting opportunities, such as upland bird hunting, is a major
dispersed recreational activity on many of these public lands. Many game species depend on
sufficient vegetative cover following livestock grazing season. This concern is not fully
addressed in the existing Management Plans.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum designations were not determined for all units in the last
planning process. Only the Thunder Basin National Grassland has current visual quality
objectives. In addition, the present visual quality system is being replaced by the Scenery
NGP Purpose and Need
17
Management System (SMS). During revision, this new system will be applied and landscape
character goals and scenic condition objectives will be determined for management areas.
The Forest Service is implementing meaningful measures to ensure recreation visitors have
high quality service. Meaningful measures standards are not now incorporated into the
Management Plans, and revision is a logical time to incorporate these standards.
User preferences vary widely over available recreational opportunities. Travel management is
often an important element in recreation experiences. Some users desire primitive recreation
experiences with restricted motorized travel. Some recreationists rely on motorized access for
their experiences, such as all-terrain vehicle users. Because recreation use on these public
lands has increased over the last decade, the potential for conflicts has also increased. The
appropriateness of motorized travel as it complements or conflicts with specific recreation
settings and associated experiences will be examined and determined in Management Plan
revision.
G. Special Area Designations
1. Planning Questions
Which, if any, roadless areas should be recommended for wilderness designation?
How should roadless areas not recommended for wilderness designation be managed?
Which rivers on the planning units are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System?
Which, if any, eligible rivers are suitable and should be recommended for inclusion into
the System?
How should eligible rivers not recommended for inclusion be managed?
What, if any, special interest areas may be needed for their contributions to furthering
knowledge about natural systems or other objectives?
2. Background
The Northern Great Plains National Forest and Grassland units include many unique and
outstanding combinations of physical and biological resources, and areas of social interest.
These are collectively referred to as “special areas.” Special areas interest has been shown
by both Forest Service employees, other agencies, and the public.
Special area designations may include wildernesses, wild and scenic rivers, cultural and historic
sites, research natural areas, geologic and paleontologic sites, rare habitats, botanical areas,
prairie dog colonies, Black-footed Ferret habitat, wetland conservation areas, unique ecological
communities, and areas of biodiversity richness. These special areas may influence land
allocation and management.
18
NGP Purpose and Need
Maintaining grassland roadless areas and developing grassland wilderness areas has become
important to some people. Within the last few years, two grassland wilderness bills have been
proposed for national grassland areas in South Dakota and North Dakota. Likewise, interest
for Research Natural Areas (RNAs) in the grassland ecosystem has increased since the
planning effort. Some would like to see the Forest Service preserve some of these areas of
native prairie vegetation on public lands in the RNA program.
Special areas already designated in the planning area include three research natural areas, one
wilderness, one national recreation area, one experimental forest, one purchase unit, and one
prairie dog management area.
Regarding roadless areas, the Forest Service is required (36 CFR 219.17) to evaluate all
roadless areas for potential wilderness designation during the Management Plan revision
process. This analysis will produce an inventory of roadless areas meeting minimum criteria
for wilderness according to the 1964 Wilderness Act or 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act, as
appropriate. Actual wilderness designation is a Congressional responsibility; the Forest Service
can only make recommendations.
The purpose and authority for study of wild and scenic rivers are in the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act of October 1, 1968, as amended. The process for evaluation and recommendation for
designation can be found in Chapter 8, FSH 1909.12, and Department of the Interior and
Department of Agriculture National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines
for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Areas. All rivers recommended by
Congress for study identified in the National Park Service-Nationwide River Inventory or
identified as a potential wild and scenic river by a National Forest will be examined.
The current Custer National Forest Management Plan (1987) identified the Little Missouri
River (Little Missouri National Grassland) on the Nationwide River Inventory. A suitability
study for this river has not been completed. The suitability study will be done as part of
Management Plan revision.
Other special areas may be desired for their contributions to furthering knowledge about
natural systems, interpretive/educational opportunities, or other objectives.
NGP Purpose and Need
19