Revision Reporter
Custer National Forest - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest - Nebraska National Forest
July 1997
Volume 2, Number 3
Grazing Association, County Commissioners,
Forest Service Join Forces to Inventory Grasslands
B
y this time next year, people
near the Little Missouri
National Grassland in North
Dakota should know a good deal
more about their archeological and
vegetative resources.
Through a cooperative alliance,
the Forest Service, the McKenzie
County Grazing Association and the
McKenzie County Commission are
funneling additional monies into
inventories designed to locate and
describe archeological sites and the
condition and makeup of upland
vegetation and woody draws.
The inventories are being done
on the McKenzie Ranger District
located on the northern half of the
Little Missouri National Grassland.
The extra money is being generated from Conservation Practice
Program (CP Program) funds,
which come from the grazing fees
collected from grazing permittees.
Over the last couple decades, about
50 percent of these grazing fees
were sent to the U.S. Treasury,
while the other 50 percent were
pooled into the CP Program.
Twenty-five percent of the money
sent to the U.S. Treasury is returned
to counties to support such needs as
schools, roads and bridges. The 50
percent pooled into the CP Program
priate is largely determined by a
good understanding of the resources—including archeological
and upland and woody draw vegetation.
Petik and his colleagues need
that information to complete the
AMPs. So Petik suggested that 60,
not 50 percent of grazing fees be
funneled into the CP Program over
the next year. The extra dollars, he
reasoned, could be used to conduct
the inventory work, which in turn
supports the updating of AMPs.
However, the extra funds will
decrease the dollars returned to the
county.
Petik's proposal met with approval at the Forest Service Regional Office, the McKenzie County
Grazing Association, and, finally, the
McKenzie County Commissioners.
As Petik puts it, “It’s in
everybody’s interest to keep the
grasslands in good health. This
proposal gives permittees and the
grazing association an opportunity to
nized an additional need. He and
other district personnel are currently participate in the inventory and datacollection work. The information will
involved in updating allotment
management plans (AMPs). AMPs benefit everyone.”
This information will also be
are site-specific management plans
useful in revising the long-range
that direct appropriate use of the
management plans.
land and resources within a grazing
allotment. What is and isn’t approRevision Reporter 1
is used for conservation practices on
grazing allotments. Such practices
include fences and stock ponds.
But Gary Petik, range supervisor
for the McKenzie Ranger District of
the Custer National Forest, recog-
Potential Management Alternatives
T
he National Environmental Policy Act requires that alternative management approaches be examined so the
public and decision makers can compare the effects and trade-offs between management options. Here are
some themes we're considering for management alternatives.
Alternative 1 - (No Action) - Continuation of present management. Update current management plans with new data
where appropriate; reformat to new management areas, etc.
Alternative 2 - Emphasize commodity production, such as livestock grazing, mining, timber, within ecological capability,
sustainable production.
Alternative 3 - Natural management, maximize wilderness, research natural areas, special interest areas, wild and scenic
rivers, nonmotorized recreation; permitted livestock grazing reduced.
Alternative 4 - Aggressive restoration of native ecosystems through active management using an integrated ecosystem
management approach. Priority placed on rangeland, forest, aquatic health. Actions are designed to produce economic benefits
when practical.
Alternative 5 - Management emphasizes recreation opportunities and noncommodity services. Ecosystem conditions are
maintained or enhanced to provide for recreational objectives. Consumptive wildlife management, tourism, recreation opportunities emphasized.
The main components that change with each alternative is how the vegetation would look, the recreation opportunities offered, and the areas considered for special designations, such as wilderness, research natural areas, etc.
Please discuss these alternatives or your ideas for other alternatives with your local district ranger. We'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on management alternatives by September 1.
Northern Great Plains Planning
Revising Management Plans for the
following National Forest System Units
Custer National Forest Units
• Cedar River National Grassland
• Grand River National Grassland
• Little Missouri National Grassland
• Sheyenne National Grassland
Two More Events Coming Up
If you missed out on the other public events, you
still have two more opportunities.
Fort Pierre National Grassland invites you to
stop by on Wednesday, July 16, and visit
them at the Ramkota Inn, Lewis and Clark Room,
in Pierre, SD. The grassland staff and planning
team representatives will host an open house
from 11:30 am to 7 pm.
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Unit
• Thunder Basin National Grassland
Nebraska National Forest Units
• Charles E. Bessey Tree Nursery
• Buffalo Gap National Grassland
• Fort Pierre National Grassland
• Nebraska National Forest
• Oglala National Grassland
• Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest
2 Revision Reporter
Pine Ridge Ranger District will host a meeting
on Tuesday, July 22, at the Chadron Senior
Citizens Center at 251 Pine Street, Chadron, NE.
District Ranger Pat Irwin invites people to come
between 6-7 pm to view displays and maps and
discuss analysis results informally. Starting at 7
pm, the district staff and planning team representatives will give an overview/update on the planning analysis, followed by public discussions.
Focus on Users and Interests
Forest Service Uses Focused Group Interviews
to Further Understandings
M
any people are familiar with traditional public
involvement techniques used by the Forest
Service to keep people up on environmental
projects. Meetings and newsletters, such as the Revision Reporter, are commonly used methods. While the
information gathered through such methods is valuable to
decision makers, it often misses some people who may
be affected by decisions but may not have the time or
interest to follow Forest Service activities closely.
Forest Service managers are required by law to
consider the many trade-offs from various management
courses. This includes effects that may result on the
environment and society. Predicting social effects can
be difficult. There is usually an abundance of information
about vegetation, wildlife, water, soil, etc. because the
Forest Service is fortunate to have many people
schooled in these fields. However, people familiar with
social science are in shorter supply.
The Northern Great Plains planning team will be
using a method called focused group interviews, also
known as focus groups, to gain a better grasp on
possible effects on people. This is a commonly used
social science methodology.
The various interests have been grouped into major
user/interest segments. Professional moderators will
lead groups of half a dozen to a dozen people who share
some common use or interest through some thoughtful
discussion about their goals for the National Forests and
Grasslands and other related topics. You or someone
you know may be asked to be part of these discussions.
Each group will only meet once. No consensus of views
will be sought, only a clearer understanding through a
systematic, analytical approach. The major user/interest
segments we'll be interviewing include:
• industries and related support suppliers
agricultural production
oil, gas, minerals
wood products
• consumptive recreation (hunters, anglers, rock
collectors, etc.)
• nonconsumptive recreation (trail users, sightseers,
campers, etc.)
• conservation, preservation, environmental orientations
• wildlife advocacy/production
• government (local, state, federal)
• American Indian government
• adjacent landowners.
If you have questions about the process or would like
to participate, telephone Pam Gardner, 308-432-0300,
who will be coordinating the study.
Revision Reporter
3
Don't let time run out on
you.
July 31, 1997
Share your ideas, concerns, questions,
preferences, special places, favorite activities, and management options with the
Northern Great Plains Planning Team
USDA Forest Service
125 North Main Street
Chadron, NE 69337
(308) 432-0300
(308) 432-0343 (answering machine)
Dave Cawrse, Team Leader
Pam Gardner, Public Affairs Officer
4 Revision Reporter
Get CommentsIin
End of Public
Scoping
Northern Great
Plains Planning
Although this is the end of the official public scoping period, we
welcome your comments throughout the analysis process. We
would especially like to hear your ideas about possible management alternatives.