Official Department Position Papers

Public Lands A North Dakota Game and Fish Department Perspective 1999

This report addresses public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). These federal lands are being discussed because they are managed under the precepts of multiple use. The goal of this report is to provide the rationale, both legally and philosophically, for future management which is better for wildlife, multiple use, and the citizens of North Dakota. It is our sincere hope that a careful reading of this document will cause you to agree with our conclusions on appropriate public land multiple use management.

Overview

The United States contains a wide array of public lands, managed by many governmental entities - city, county, state, and federal. The principle land management entity in the West is the federal government. As one moves east the percentage of public lands in a state markedly drops off. As a region, the Great Plains, has far fewer public lands than the West. It also differs from the West in that many federal lands in the Great Plains consist of acquired lands. These are lands once owned by the federal government, passed into private ownership through various homesteading acts, and then later reacquired by the federal government. North and South Dakota have a modestly larger federal land base than the states in the southern and central plains (6 percent versus 2 percent). To a large degree this is accounted for by the greater prevalence of acquired lands in the northern plains.

In terms of overall acreage, approximately 89 percent of North Dakota is in private ownership, 8 percent is in public ownership, and 2 percent are tribal trust lands. Of the 8% in public ownership, 5.2% is owned in fee title by the federal government (this includes water acres such as Lake Sakakawea) and 2.3% is in state ownership (mostly state trust lands). With the possible exception of county owned roadsides, county, township, and city owned lands constitute a minute fraction of the total landscape.

The USFS which administers three National Grasslands in North Dakota, is the largest land management entity in the state. The largest National Grassland is the Little Missouri National Grassland in western North Dakota.

In North Dakota, as in most Plain's states, the National Grasslands largely consist of "submarginal" lands acquired in the 1930's and early 1940's. National Grasslands are held in permanent public ownership, and are managed as part of the National Forest System to meet the needs and interests of the American people. Laws that apply to the National Grasslands include the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. Insightful background on the laws, regulations, and policy governing administration of the National Grasslands is found in the recently released reference National Grasslands Management - A Primer (USDA Office of General Counsel 1997).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a far lesser acreage of public land in North Dakota. However as BLM lands are also managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, these are addressed in this report along with the National Grasslands.

Other federal agencies which administer land in North Dakota include the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service.

A more complete tally of the federal and state agencies that administer public land in North Dakota is included in the following tables.

Federal Lands in North Dakota

Agency	Acres (in 1000s)	% of All Federal Land	% of Entire State
U.S. Forest Service	1105	46	2
Federal Water (BOR and COE)	468	20	1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	459	19	1
Corps of Engineers (COE)	151	6	<1
National Park Service	73	3	<1
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)	69	3	<1
Bureau of Land Management	60	3	<1
Air Force	12	<1	<1
Miscellaneous Other	3	<1	<1
	Total 2400

State Lands in North Dakota

Agency	Acres (in 1000s)	% of All State Land	% of Entire State
State Land Department	712	68	2
Department of Transportation	199	19	<1
Game and Fish Department	78	7	<1
University System	21	2	<1
ND Forest Service	13	1	<1
National Guard	10	<1	<1
Parks and Recreation	10	<1	<1
Miscellaneous Other	6	<1	<1
	Total 1049

National Grasslands and Bureau of Land Management Land Facts

There are three National Grasslands in North Dakota, the Little Missouri National Grassland, the Sheyenne National Grassland, and the Cedar River National Grassland. These total approximately 1.1 million acres. All three and the Grand River National Grassland in South Dakota (which totals 154,000 acres) are administered by the USFS Dakota Prairie Grasslands Supervisor's Office based in Bismarck, North Dakota. This Office was established in the fall of 1998. The Bureau of Land Management administers about 60,000 acres in North Dakota. These consist largely of scattered tracts concentrated in two areas in western North Dakota.

• As public lands managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, National Grasslands and BLM lands are managed for the benefit and with the interests of all citizens in mind. Management is interdisciplinary and determined through extensive public input. Management must provide sufficient latitude to meet changing needs and conditions. In addition, management must extend consideration to all resources, not necessarily the combination of uses that give the greatest dollar return or greatest unit output or extends all uses to all parts of the land.
  
  
  • They are home to a diverse array of plant and animal life, including species that do not occur elsewhere in North Dakota or in only a few other locations.
  • Big Game - Bighorn sheep, Elk, Mule deer
  • Prairie chicken and Western Prairie Fringed Orchid - Sheyenne National Grasslands
  • Sage grouse
  • Rare or sensitive species and regional endemics such as Baird's Sparrow
• They present management opportunities which are not readily available on private lands.
  
  
  • Prairie dogs
  • Woody draws
  • Grassland cover - sharptail and other grassland bird species
  • Wilderness experience - cherished tradition enjoyed by hunters and others
  • A variety of recreational experiences such as trail riding, hiking, biking, etc.
• They provide for economic development and diversification -- for example it was recently estimated 40,000 visitor days to Little Missouri National Grasslands can be attributed to hunting and fishing.
  
  
• The Little Missouri National Grassland includes the largest block of grasslands and public land in North Dakota, a State where public lands are generally limited in extent and distribution.
  
  

• The Little Missouri National Grassland contains the largest scattering of State School Lands, which are frequently intermingled with federal lands.
  
  

• The Sheyenne National Grassland is situated in the tallgrass prairie zone. Tallgrass prairie habitat is among the most treasured in America.
  
  

Oil and gas development has played a substantive role on the Little Missouri National Grassland and BLM lands in recent decades. As this role is dynamic, careful thought must be given to restoring lands already having undergone oil and gas development. This thought should not only focus on restoration, but seek to maintain the integrity of the areas not committed to development such as roadless areas through creative problem solving measures such as that embodied in the recent mineral exchange legislation for Billings County or directional drilling.

With respect to livestock grazing, a historic influence on the North Dakota landscape, new approaches must be sought so that habitat conditions, such as those relating to grassland and woody draw structure, are enhanced and preserved. This means opening the door to considerations which have often seen only nominal attention in the past. The Northern Great Plains planning effort now underway is viewed as a major step in this regard. Multiple use management places great emphasis on integrated and interdisciplinary planning. The Northern Great Plains planning process is a key launch point for these endeavors. In reference to this planning and administration, it is necessary to undertake a range of technical activities over the next few years. These are identified in Appendix A.

The future vision for USFS and BLM lands as a whole should focus on maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of these lands. Such a focus is compatible with the basic legal framework that is in place for the National Grasslands and BLM lands and has been in place for many years. Maintenance and restoration should consider an array of characteristics including the structure, function, and composition of plant and animal communities.

Private livestock grazing on public lands has been a fact of life for more than a century. The history of this longstanding relationship is exemplified in terminology relating to public land, which is modified with adjectives such as "range" and "grazing." During the settlement era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the federal government enacted myriad laws and public policies designed to convert a good portion of the vast federal estate into private ownership. This private ownership of land, and the subsequent conversion and development of that land to commercial uses, fueled the economic fires of small towns and cities across the west. The results were positive for our growing, expanding nation.

For various reasons, large acreages of land remained in, or returned to, public ownership. Some of the land held such beauty or unique natural resources it was set aside in national parks, national monuments, wildlife sanctuaries, or nature preserves. Some of the land was reserved as national forests to improve and protect forests and water flows. Some of the land was less productive, or had little or no water, and was of little interest to settlers. While the land that remained in the public ownership may have had little lure for fee title conversion, its timber, grasslands and mineral resources were, and remain, of great interest to commodity groups who enter into business agreements with the federal government to utilize those resources for profit.

Lands owned by the citizens of the United States and managed in their interest have become an important resource for North Dakota and America. During earlier times, when it seemed as though the frontier would go on forever, and when every horizon held the promise of freedom, abundance and the American dream, citizens thought little of public land values. That is not true today. The public rightly regards their lands as important and shows concern over their well being. People come from across America to hunt, fish, hike, explore, photograph, or to simply stand in awe of scenic vistas and prairie horizons stretching farther than they dreamed possible.

As urban sprawl, development, and progress change our visionscape and our lives, public lands mean more to Americans than ever before. Their use and condition, the fair allocation of their space and their resources, and our hands-on involvement in their care and management are on the minds of the public, as they should be. These public lands, viewed from one perspective as lands no one wanted, are increasingly lands everyone wants. Management of public lands should not be handled as it was in days gone by. Times and values have changed.

Through decades of use, some in the public land livestock grazing industry have come to believe they have commodity rights in public land which supersede rights of the American public. Herein lies a major policy dilemma. This dilemma has caused introduction of legislation into the 104^th Congress and 105^th Congress which would change federal law to allow for livestock grazing to supersede other uses on public land.

Philosophy

In North Dakota, the National Grasslands are governed by a host of laws and policies which allow for a variety of land uses. Paramount in the intent of these laws and policies is the goal of caring for the land in a coordinated and harmonious fashion, ensuring that its condition does not deteriorate, and managing renewable surface resources to best meet changing conditions and needs of the American people. In understanding the direction charted under Multiple Use it is important to understand that no single use is presumed to dominate over all others; and that Multiple Use does not mean maximizing the number of uses on a piece of land or maximizing dollar returns or unit outputs. Under Multiple Use not all resources need to be used and some land will be used for less than all resources. Implementing multiple use on public land can be a challenging situation.

The Department's philosophy is that all uses of public lands must be compatible with public trust responsibilities. Condition of public land and its long-term health should drive every management decision. Multiple use is the law of the land and should be implemented. There are no rights of public land use, only privileges.

There is some confusion over the difference between use and condition. Condition is the state of the plant community and how it is influenced by everything from insects to big game. Use is what is done on or to plant communities on the land. Livestock grazing is one of many uses of public lands. Like other uses however, the distribution, frequency, and intensity of livestock grazing should ebb and flow with the needs of the land, rather than the other way around. This philosophy is clearly supported by laws, statements of Congressional intent, administrative policies, court decisions and, perhaps most importantly, by public opinion. Owners of the land (the public) have a fundamental right to determine, in as much as private landowners do, the condition of their land. In fairness, rules for use need to be clear and unambiguous. Given that, any prospective user, commodity or otherwise, can assess the rules and forego use if the rules are unacceptable to them.

With regard to livestock, the issue is not one of how to accommodate historic grazing levels everywhere on public land, but rather of how to delineate where, and at what intensity, grazing is a desirable, appropriate, and sustainable use of public land. Furthermore and very importantly the issue is also how to deal fairly with the needs of public lands ranchers and their families. As in any arrangement between landowner and tenant, the tenant has a reasonable expectation to be treated with respect and fairness, have lease or permit terms clearly identified and understood, have reasonable protection for business investments and in general be assured all business dealings are carried out with integrity. Similarly, all public land graziers have the responsibility to comply with terms and conditions of their grazing permits. Having established that basis, we also need to recognize that good range management does not automatically equate with good public land management. Part of the confusion comes from the perception that good range management will satisfy public trust responsibilities and meet the public's land management needs and values; this is not necessarily so. Standards of condition for public land on which grazing is a legitimate use may markedly differ from standards for private range.

Game and Fish Involvement

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department and federal management agencies charged with federal land management, primarily the USFS and BLM, share wildlife conservation duties on the National Grasslands. Federal agencies manage habitat and the Game and Fish Department manages wildlife. To fulfill statutory responsibilities and respective missions, we need to advocate, at a minimum, proper interpretation and application of public land management laws and regulations and effective public land management administration as it relates to wildlife habitats. Achieving those goals should result in healthy, diverse, self-perpetuating plant communities that are the wellspring of healthy, diverse, and self-perpetuating wildlife populations. We can accept nothing less than responsible public land management which reflects the public's best interest, resulting in diverse, productive, and sustainable habitats and the appropriate integration of multiple uses.

Legislative proposals in both the 104^th Congress and 105^th Congress addressing public lands and public land grazing issues would have had the effect of, under the most optimistic scenario, codifying what is current livestock management practices, legitimizing them as Multiple-Use management. That would be inconsistent with sound stewardship of public lands and with public wants and needs. As the agency with the responsibility to ensure vitality of fish and wildlife for our citizens, it is incumbent to point out this concern. Further, we believe we have an obligation to contribute to the solution by offering well thought out principles which are the basis of our advice on proposed laws and regulations dealing with public land management. Those principles follow:

I. Habitat Condition
The essence of proper management of North Dakota's or, for that matter, America's public land heritage is land condition or health. The public has certain expectations regarding condition of public lands. Many of these expectations have been expressed through a variety of federal laws and implementing regulations which identify specific public trust responsibilities of federal land management agencies.

Ecosystems should be functioning properly over the long term. Functioning condition allows for natural processes, such as water cycling, nutrient cycling, energy flow, soil building, and plant succession to occur in a manner that can be sustained over time. Properly functioning ecosystems are expected to be healthy. Ecosystems which are not healthy may be functioning, but are functioning at risk. The concept of ecosystem health must include basic ideas of species composition, diversity, and vigor and community structure, which in turn then support diverse wildlife populations. Maintenance of healthy and diverse ecosystems must provide for the needs of wildlife populations, including the needs of sensitive, threatened and endangered species on public lands. Of necessity, restoration and maintenance of habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species needs to be a fundamental building block of rangeland ecosystem health.

Public land management agencies must be able to recognize and define land conditions which meet, or fail to meet, the public's expectations described above for all planning units on public land. Land condition may be the result of past use, land form, soils, or a combination thereof. In some cases, condition or health of the land is such that some specific uses would be precluded. In other cases, the level or intensity of use would have to be adjusted to meet expectations.

The various uses allowed on public lands should not hinder the expectations described above and the associated public trust responsibilities of the federal land management agencies. Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, livestock grazing must occur in a manner consistent with the productivity of the land, and the sustained yield of renewable resources. Moreover, grazing does not need to take place on every acre of public land at the same time or same intensity.

At a minimum, lands should be identified as unsuitable for livestock grazing if any level of grazing will preclude the public lands from meeting expectations described above. In addition, there are other multiple use considerations which may not be compatible with grazing and would result in an unsuitable designation. Where livestock grazing is determined to be suitable, level, timing, frequency, duration and intensity of grazing must be such that it meets public expectations and public trust responsibilities.

An assessment of baseline conditions is essential for evaluating the health of the ecosystem. Establishing baseline conditions will allow the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to document land condition, identify management priorities, employ adaptive management to address problems and document progress toward meeting desired conditions. Standards which represent public expectations must be developed to determine if desired conditions (which must include public trust responsibilities) are being met. Monitoring techniques capable of measuring agreed upon standards and management techniques to achieve and maintain desired conditions need to be established.

Monitoring must occur on a regular basis to determine if the desired condition is being achieved. Type and intensity of monitoring will depend on budget and staff. Given current budget constraints, it may be difficult to implement quantitative monitoring. The grazing strategy being implemented should match the known monitoring capabilities and should not be more intensive than can be properly managed.

II. Resource Allocation
   Resource allocation deals with the fair and reasonable allocation of limited natural resources such as forage and water. But it also deals with the fair and reasonable opportunity to experience the process of human renewal available through association with pristine open space and quality outdoor experiences. The term "resource allocation" presupposes direct competition between domestic and wild animals for life needs. Our evaluation suggests that the connotation needs to be broadened to include the element of human use and enjoyment of the public land experience. Resource allocation is, in some ways, the very essence of the multiple use land management challenge.

Resource allocation begs the question of appropriate public policy on the relationship between wildlife and commodity livestock interests. Wildlife is owned by the public and managed on their behalf. Wildlife is not a "use" of the land. It is a "resource", like grass, trees and water, which springs from the land. Therefore, providing the life requisites for wildlife is not a "use". The principle on this issue comes from the belief that, since fish and wildlife are a resource held and conserved in public trust by the ND Game and Fish Department for the people, providing habitat which supports healthy, viable wildlife populations is a cornerstone to responsible public land management.

We do not, however, espouse the philosophy that wildlife numbers should be allowed to grow unchecked on public land without due consideration for either adjacent private land interests or proper balance with multiple uses, such as grazing. State fish and wildlife agency planning (i.e., the setting of big game herd population goals and objectives) and coordination of that planning with federal land management agencies plays a critical role in public land management. Public land permittees and other interests often bring up the question of how much wildlife (generally big game) is enough. Questions regarding anticipated wildlife population levels are often fair ones which can be answered in a straightforward manner within the context of ND Game and Fish Department planning.

The concept of allocating a specific number of AUMs to wildlife, most often proposed in the context of balancing them with grazing AUMs for private livestock (and often to be allocated after livestock have their share) implies that private livestock operators have a "right" to a certain number of AUMs, irrespective of wildlife needs. This further implies a scenario where wildlife numbers would need to be reduced to accommodate private livestock. We believe this approach to be contrary to all legal findings and management guidelines pertaining to public land. Given this we would resist attempts to reduce wildlife numbers solely in response to public land livestock grazing needs and attempts to allocate AUMs to wildlife on public land.

Conservation Use -- Resource allocation and Multiple Use also embody the concept of the right to not to utilize certain resources or voluntarily reduce use of those resources from historic levels (Note: AUMs are a use, not a resource). Nonuse or reduced use (collectively referred to as "conservation use") has been a point of contention.

With regard to grazing permits, livestock interests have supported the position that such permits should only be allocated to grazing associations and that under such permits, permit holders are obliged to graze livestock. We take the position that there should be a clear and definitive option to allow for "conservation use" permits. If, as now, grazing is predicated either on commensurate ownership of base property, then if an agency, organization, or individual assumes ownership of the base property or is otherwise qualified to hold a permit, that entity should have the option of electing to graze the allotment at a reduced level. In addition, federal management agencies should have the authority to rest an area for resource protection or other resource values, by either holding a permit in suspension, canceling a permit, attaching specific terms and conditions to a permit, or not issuing a permit.

Length of Permits -- We favor a position that rewards demonstrated good land stewardship with longer term permits (greater than 10 years) and puts those public land graziers with demonstrated poor stewardship "on notice" by restricting them to either annual permits or very short-term permits (i.e., not to exceed three years) on a probationary status. This approach would allow federal land management agencies, already alarmingly short of staff and budgets, to deal with grazing issues and focus their meager resources on improving problem situations while at the same time recognize and reward good land stewards. Inherent in this concept however, is the assumption that the definition of graziers be left to the responsible Federal management agency. A further, and perhaps more important component of our support for this concept, is that the ability of the appropriate federal management agency to enforce permit terms and conditions at any time should not be diminished.

III. Public Land Access
The need for the public to have reasonable access to their public lands would seem obvious. The fact is, reasonable access to some portions of public land is unavailable. A peculiar and somewhat ironic paradox exists relative to this issue. Virtually nowhere is a private individual denied reasonable access to his/her private land. Whether this entails crossing other private land or the public's land, it doesn't matter. However, the reciprocal situation is not always true. Public access across private lands to reach public land has been a longstanding and often contentious issue in western North Dakota.

There are two elements of concern to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the public. First, access and "reasonable" access are not the same and, admittedly, they are difficult to define. However, in badlands terrain, a couple of miles "as the crow flies" might be five or six miles through difficult or impassible terrain to a person on foot. While "easy" access cannot and should not be granted everywhere, limited access in rough country can be the same as no access to most of the public. Second, when private landowners fail to cooperate to provide public access to vast public land holdings so they can guide hunters or other public land users for substantial fees to utilize public land resources off limits to the public, a line of fairness is crossed that generally puts the public squarely at odds with the private land holder. This is even a more "bitter pill" because frequently the person blocking access is also the grazier of the same public land.

In general we support the use of public access tools that are most likely to result in cooperative access agreements between private landowners and public management agencies. We support using progressively more strident access methods only in cases where public land access is vital and the array of more conciliatory options has already been tried unsuccessfully. We encourage federal land management agencies to identify access issues during both broad scale planning efforts (i.e., land use plans), as well as at the detailed planning level, ensuring all options for obtaining public land access are considered during the planning process.

The Keystone Center's 1989 report on access to federal lands provides excellent discussion on the issue. We concur with and support its recommendations. The authors of the report recommended using a full array of tools both existing and evolving [emphasis ours]. In that regard, we believe that, in the most difficult access negotiations, utilizing access to public land across private land as a condition of a permit should be considered in addition to the Keystone Center report's list of options. This could involve a condition on a concession permit for private enterprise activities on public land, or it could involve a condition on a public land grazing permit. Federal management agencies may currently lack authority to attach this type of condition to a permit; that authority should be attained.

IV. Ownership
The Land -- The federal estate has been decreasing in size since 1802. It is well documented [see Statistical Abstracts] that the federal government owned far more land in 1850 than it does today (1.2 billion acres then, compared to 650 million acres now). A study by the General Accounting Office around 1995 revealed that land managed by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management has been reduced 11 percent (77 million acres) since the end of fiscal year 1964.

The Creative Act (A.K.A. the Forest Reserve Act) of 1891, which authorizes withdrawal of forest reserves, was among the first steps back from the policy of disposal. In 1964 Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC), which produced a 1970 report titled "One Third of the Nation's Land," which recommended that: "The policy of large-scale disposal of public lands . . . be revised and that future disposal should be of only those lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-Federal ownership, while retaining in Federal ownership those [lands] whose values must be preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed by all Americans..." The most profound result of PLLRC's report is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 which establishes a statutory federal policy of retaining public lands.

In response to legal challenges regarding ownership and management authority, federal courts have ruled consistently that the federal government has the only clear title to, and management authority over, federal public land in the public interest. This was stated recently in a March 1996 federal court ruling on claims by Nye County, Nevada, that local government should control federal land within the county borders. A more recent decision regarding these same fundamental issues was found in a 1999 ruling regarding claims by a New Mexico permittee asserting that as a ranch owner he held cattle-grazing rights which superceded the Forest Service's authority to manage public lands in the public's interest.

Our principles support current statutes, administrative policy, and court rulings that require retaining federal public lands in public ownership to maintain and improve quality of life for all Americans. We do, however, support land sales or trades in circumstances involving small, isolated tracts that are not of public benefit or are not manageable. We also encourage administrative flexibility that will facilitate land trades to "block-up" public land, solve public land access problems or solve other public land management problems, including those of private landowners adjacent to public land.

Improvements on the Land - Ownership of structures built on public land to benefit livestock grazing, commonly referred to as "improvements," has been a contentious issue. A livestock industry perspective is that allowing permittees to finance, build and own "improvements" on public land will increase their economic stability and enhance their land stewardship as a result of their private investment in that land. We strongly disagree with that perspective. We believe there are other ways to fairly meet public land rancher's needs that do not vest private property rights on public land.

Ideally, grazing related "improvements" (i.e. pipelines, water tanks, etc.) should be financed from federal grazing fee receipts. Regardless of funding, there should be no question of control or ownership. Private investment for improvements should be amortized over the normal life of the improvement. In practical business terms, range improvements on public land paid for by private dollars (not through grazing fees or CP funds) are amortized over their useful life and their value reflected in the price of base property associated with public land grazing permits. Should a managing agency retire a permit, the agency should pay the remaining unamortized value.

Our principle on "improvements" recognizes private investment on public land, but opposes any attempts to establish private property rights on public land.

Water Rights - We strongly support public ownership of water rights on public rangelands. For national forest lands the USFS has consistently obtained water rights for multiple purpose use including grazing. Water rights on federal lands should be acquired under appropriate state and federal law. However, because water on federal public lands, including public rangelands, is used for many purposes in addition to grazing, such as for fish and wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement, these water rights should be acquired in the name of the United States.

The federal land management agencies need the legal ability to provide water for enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. While we concur that there should be adequate process to reconcile competing uses of water on public lands, preempting federal ownership of water rights is fundamentally inconsistent with proper stewardship of these public lands. It must remain absolutely certain that federal agencies can hold water rights on federal lands, either exclusively or jointly with the state.

V. Administration
   Exploring effectiveness of federal public land administration and an in-depth review of the laws relating to public land management is clearly beyond the scope of our work. However, a number of very important administrative issues did arise during the public land grazing discussions during the 104^th and 105^th Congresses, and are almost certain to arise again at some time in the future. For that reason we need to carefully define and selectively address them. Examples of policy related administrative issues include, but are not limited to:

1. The proposal to remove the National Grasslands from Forest Service management, (which was subsequently modified to require creation of a new administrative entity within USDA to manage the grasslands), and

2. Attempts to redefine applicability of specific environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to public land management decisions.

Participation by state fish and wildlife agencies in public land management decisions needs to be consistently reaffirmed by congress and federal land management agencies both in law and policy. State fish and wildlife agencies are equal partners with federal land management agencies in resource management decisions affecting fish and wildlife on public lands. In some areas that shared management responsibility is apparent, while in others it is a point of contention among both federal management agency personnel and public land graziers.

In some cases federal management agencies cannot meet their legal mandates because of staff and budget shortages, and because of conflicting management priorities. There are ample examples of federal agency staff whose time is consumed by expanding commodity demands such as oil and gas development, leaving virtually no time to function proactively or deal with resource stewardship. We are further aware of cases where range conservationists transfer to their next assignment, never having seen all of their allotments "on the ground" before they transfer. This represents a management system designed to fail, and creates conflict among multiple use interests in the process.

The public's right to be directly involved in the management of their public lands is a critical component of sound public land management. This issue needs considerable attention as the amount and nature of public involvement, associated appeal rights, and legal remedies for both permittees and the general public are poorly understood and the source of much contention.

The role of grazing associations in public land management needs review. In many areas both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service work directly with individual graziers while in other areas grazing administration is brokered through grazing associations. Some management agreements directly or indirectly confer so much unchecked authority in grazing associations for issues like AUM allocation and administration, habitat monitoring and permit enforcement that the managing agency has undermined its own ability to manage public lands in the best interest of the American public.

And finally, the mistaken contention that the National Grasslands are not and never were intended to be multiple use public lands needs to be dealt with in some finality. Proponents of this position have succeeded in diverting attention from critical on-the-ground management issues for some time with their protracted debate. While this issue has been researched by the US Forest Service, the Congressional Research Service, state fish and wildlife agencies and, last but not least, organizations representing public land graziers, a sound basis for the position the National Grasslands are exempted from the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act or other contemporary conservation laws has yet to be demonstrated. Some of the public land management legislation introduced in the 104^th Congress attempted to modify law with regard to the National Grasslands to reflect this position; the legislation died without final action. Similar language to remove the National Grasslands from the National Forest System was introduced into the 105^th Congress. As public lands, there is a pressing need to get on with managing the National Grasslands, as such.

To Summarize

• Public lands should remain public, managed under contemporary conservation laws such as the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act.
• Paramount to managing the public lands is maintaining and enhancing public trust values, the health and productivity of the land and the diverse ecological attributes they support.
• Management of these lands should reflect the views and needs of all citizens and provide sufficient latitude for adjustments in land use to meet changing needs and conditions.
• Management of these lands must be undertaken in a planned, coordinated and harmonious fashion with consideration extended to all resources; not necessarily the combination of uses that gives the greatest dollar return or greatest unit output, extends all uses to all parts of the land; or use all resources.
• Reasonable access to public land should become a major priority over the next five years. A mix of management strategies including possible land exchanges and ownership consolidation should be considered.
• A roading plan should be developed over the next ten years which delineates the roads and trails which should remain and those to be reclaimed or closed.

As part of the incremental process of implementing a vision for the future, the laundry list of the environmental concerns that needs attention includes the following:

• Develop a clear consistent message to the citizens of North Dakota on the value of the National Grasslands, BLM lands, and values of multiple-use public lands in general.
• Improve the integrity of woody draw areas, particularly those undergoing or susceptible to deterioration.
• Management approaches relating to livestock and grazing systems must match these approaches with current administrative oversight and monitoring.
• Explore opportunities to improve riparian conditions including grassland and shrub land cover and meeting water quality standards, not just the riparian areas of the Little Missouri River but also the lesser tributary streams which cross public lands.
• Grassland attributes requiring more concerted effort and consideration than in the past include increasing grassland structure, emphasizing a diverse array of seral stages including increasing the extent and distribution of prairie dog communities on public land, and a greater emphasis on native species/plant community integrity.
• Contain the spread of noxious weed infestations with increasing emphasis on biological control mechanisms.
• Expand the use of rest and perpetuation of secondary range in public lands management decisions.

Citations and Other Miscellaneous Background Information
Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 1989. Statistical Abstract of North Dakota. The University of North Dakota Press. Grand Forks, ND.

Center of the American West. 1997. Atlas of the New West, edited by W.E. Riebsame. W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 192 pages.

Olson, E. 1997. National Grasslands Management - A Primer. USDA Office of General Counsel. November 1997. 49 pages plus extensive appendices.

Taylor, M.H. and R.J. Penn. 1942. Management of Public Land in North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin Number 312. 32 pages.

The Keystone Center. 1989. The Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on Access to Federal Lands Final Report. March 7, 1989. The Keystone Center, Keystone CO. 53 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. State and Federal Land Ownership in North Dakota. Unpublished mimeo prepared by the Bismarck Realty Office dated July 10, 1996. 2 pages.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision - Analysis of the Management Situation (Chapters 1-3 and Appendices) and other documents available for viewing. http://www.fed.us/ngp/docs.html

Appendix A: Specific technical pursuits relative to the National Grasslands needing action over the next few years. These technical pursuits are framed as objectives tasks and action items. proposed for the next three years.

• Objective: Have next Forest Plan contain measurable standards, objectives, and guidelines relating to wildlife and implemented by the USFS.
  

Task: Get commitment from USFS that standards, objectives and guidelines for wildlife will be in Forest Plan.

Action Item: State Department's clear desire to have clear, measurable and implementable standards, objectives, and guidelines.

Task: Refine the Management Indicator Species concept, and have it applied in the next Forest Plan.

Action Item: Aid in identifying primary variables, measuring strategy, and potential data needs for implementation of the MIS concept on an allotment or watershed e.g. landscape/regional basis.

• Objective: Affirm basic habitat goals of Department, refine into standards and have consistently applied.

Task: Refine current broad goals for Department relating to residual cover and woody draws on national grasslands using data compiled as part of planning process.

Current Broad Goal: Residual cover/grassland structure -- achieve the highest cover values in the largest possible patch sizes. Maintain existing areas that offer high residual cover, identify those that currently have the capacity to provide residual cover and amend management through appropriate avenues to garner additional cover.

Current Broad Goal: Self perpetuating hardwood draws, with a full diversity of size classes along draw bottoms.

• Objective: Have objective, defined, quantitative "drought" (or "flood") criteria developed in the Forest Plan for all in North Dakota grassland units where these issues have emerged as reoccurring concerns, so that decisions are no longer simply reactive, based on false optimism, or come too little too late or none at all. Also have contemporary livestock considerations such as the trend towards larger stock sizes specifically addressed in Forest Plan.

Task: Have criteria, objectives and guidelines in next Forest Plan.

Action Item: Continue to supply technical information and technical assistance to planning team relating to ecological variability in the northern plains.

Action Item: Formally request that data, definitions and guidelines be included in next Forest Plan.

• Objective: Address concerns regarding grassland administration.

Task: Assess resource implications of grazing agreements prior to their renewal. agreements and seek necessary refinements.

Task: Increase interdisciplinary planning and activities

Action Item: Discuss with USFS to strengthen interdisciplinary planning and address current shortfalls.

Action Item: Review CP Program to understand strengths and weaknesses, as it relates to resource management. Discuss with USFS. Identify best opportunity for enacting beneficial change if needed.

Task: Build upon appropriate collaborative efforts, in consort with other Department activities regarding public land.

Action Item: Identify most effective means of participating in ongoing planning efforts.

Action Item: Continue Department participation in collaborative work groups, as appropriate.

Task: See that existing forest plan is implemented to the maximum degree possible.

Action Item: Discuss Forest Plan with Supervisor's Office regarding possible areas of concurrence including limitations on new water developments in or near areas currently capable of providing residual cover or woody draws; fencing or some pilot breeching of particularly egregious stock ponds in woody draws; improvement of rangeland conditions in primary range (western ND); incremental increases in residual cover in Sheyenne; and a review of Sheyenne riparian status.

Task: Permit administration

Action Item: Raise concerns with USFS on permit compliance and record-keeping, fall tours, etc, thereby bringing more objectivity, accountability, and professionalism into process.

Task: Forest Plan implementation training.

Action Item: Seek Forest Plan implementation training for both Forest staff and Department personnel. Field personnel and Bismarck staff should be encouraged to come.

• Objective: Have decision-making with regards to Forest Plan and site specific planning based on real funding and man-power constraints. In both instances emphasize objective setting and monitoring. At same time continue efforts to increase funding for Grassland administration .

• Objective: Increase knowledge base on sensitive species and other values such as quality hunting.

Task: For sensitive species, compile information as it becomes available, disseminate through nongame program.

Task: Aid USFS in developing appropriate conservation strategies.

Task: Undertake literature review and hunter/wildlife enthusiast survey on quality hunting/quality outdoor participation.

• Objective: Increase public awareness of public lands, multiple use, grassland activities and enhance coordination across state lines with regards to wildlife concerns.

Task: Identify potential collaborative or parallel efforts with others such as South Dakota Game Fish and Parks. Explore is whether there is common ground in the northern great plains planning process.

Task: Identify opportunities for developing and disseminating information.

Action Item: Develop outlines for video's (perhaps) in short segments that then can be edited together on 1) multiple use; 2) national grasslands as public lands; 3) innovative public lands management coupling livestock management with attaining wildlife objectives.

Action Item: With assistance of I and E identify other opportunities for in-house development of outreach efforts.

Action Item: Increase outreach to outside interests including outdoors writers, columnists, etc. Public lands are an incredible asset to the citizens of the State and should be viewed in this light.

• Objective: Increase objective data collection on the National Grasslands.

Task: Collaborate on enhancing monitoring efforts and methodologies. Continue woody draw monitoring efforts. Secure additional residual cover data efforts.

• Objective: Investigate public access, land consolidation, land exchange opportunities.

• Objective: Undertake a closer examination of roading issues.
  

For more information on this paper contact Alexis Duxbury, natural resources biologist, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 100 N. Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, ND 58501-5095, (701) 328-6348

Top

Back