Public Scoping Comments

Summary

March 1998

BACKGROUND

The Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision is a combined planning effort to revise land and resource management plans for lands under Forest Service administration in the states of Nebraska and North Dakota, and some in South Dakota and northeast Wyoming. These lands are managed by the Custer, Medicine Bow/Routt, and Nebraska National Forests. The National Forest System lands specifically involved include:

Custer National Forest Units:

Cedar River National Grassland

Grand River National Grassland

Little Missouri National Grassland

Sheyenne National Grassland

Medicine Bow/Routt National Forest Unit:

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Nebraska National Forest Units:

Buffalo Gap National Grassland

Fort Pierre National Grassland

Oglala National Grassland

Nebraska National Forest

Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest

Charles E. Bessey Tree Nursery

The Forest Service administrative units involved in this management plan revision effort encompass about 2.9 million acres within prairie ecosystems. Generally, they are solitary public land units widely scattered in four states. The Forest Service has chosen to look at these public land units together with the goal of having a better sense for these lands within the context of the surrounding landscapes.

The first land and resource management plans for these public lands were developed in the 1980s, under the direction of the National Forest Management Act, passed by the US Congress in 1976. The management plans are important policy guides that set a vision and course for public land management. Recognizing that conditions change over time, Congress also instructed that these plans be revised every 10-15 years. At these revision points, direction can be modified to incorporate new knowledge, changed conditions, and current public views.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Forest Service considers the public's understanding and direct involvement critical to the success of the management plan revision process. Involving the public in the revision has been occurring on an ongoing, open, and equitable basis. Public outreach efforts began well before any formal planning announcements. Forest Service employees began meeting with people both individually and in groups in 1995 to discuss the planning strategy and the need to revise the management plans.

Mailing lists from the three forests and their district offices were consolidated in the fall of 1995. In January 1996, the Forest Service mailed the introductory issue of the Revision Reporter planning update to the combined mailing list. The publication discussed the planning revision strategy and the need to revise the management plans, and asked for the public's input. Between February and May of 1996, the Forest Service hosted a series of public events. Most were open houses at which the Forest Service encouraged the public to meet with employees to discuss their interests. Forest Service personnel recorded comments if offered or invited people to send in their comments. These early public contacts helped refine the major revision topics.

On February 26, 1997, formal public involvement was initiated with an announcement (Notice of Intent) in the Federal Register of the Forest Service's intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in conjunction with the revision of the management plans. In March, a special edition of the Revision Reporter was mailed out to the mailing list asking people to help define the scope of the analysis and identify related public issues. The newsletter included a comment form for the public's convenience. A news release requesting public participation was also sent to a regional media list. Again, the Forest Service hosted a series of public events across the four-state area. In addition, Forest Service personnel made many contacts, briefings, and presentations. This formal phase for public comments, called "scoping," was open until July 31, 1997.

This summary includes public comments received from the early public outreach efforts starting in 1995 to those received in response to the formal request for public scoping comments announced in February 1997.

CONTENT ANALYSIS PROCESS

Content analysis is an objective method of compiling, categorizing, and organizing public comments. It is an in-depth analysis of both qualitative and quantitative results. Content analysis is not a vote-counting process. Every comment is considered equally. Opinions, feelings, and preferences are all read and analyzed. Each issue is important to the decision maker, regardless of the numbers received. Descriptive words, such as "the majority, most, several, some, a few," are used only to indicate the intensity of response to a particular topic or subtopic. For instance, when a statement begins "most commentors stated. . ." it is referring only to the commentors who addressed that particular subject.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

About 3,150 comment documents were recorded or received in response to public scoping. These comment documents included letters, comment forms, meeting notes, telephone messages, electronic messages, form letters, and petitions. Of the total comment documents, 65 percent were form letters. (See section on FORM LETTERS for more information.) The origin of the responses for the five-state assessment area is shown in the following table:

Origin of Responses

Montana 2 percent

Nebraska 10 percent

North Dakota 8 percent

South Dakota 16 percent

Wyoming 4 percent

Other 60 percent

Individual statements within the comment documents were delineated into the major revision topics and other topics. These topic areas contain groupings of responses with common themes, ideas, or concerns. Most topics are further broken down into subtopics.

MAJOR REVISION TOPICS

______________________________

TOPIC: Community and Lifestyle Relationships

Affected Lifestyles

Many commentors stated that livestock ranching is an important component of their lifestyle, and has been, in some cases, for several generations in their families. Some respondents asked that their way of live be safeguarded so their children would have opportunities similar to those they had experienced. Some people stressed the contribution of livestock grazing to local communities and businesses. The Forest Service was encouraged to keep personnel in communities near the public lands and make decisions locally. Some commentors suggested that expanding recreation opportunities on public lands might provide additional jobs and improve the quality of life for local citizens.

Economic Viability

Respondents stressed the contributions of livestock grazing to local economic viability. The Forest Service was encouraged to explore the relationships of these public lands to local economies and to use accurate data for economic effects and benefits. It was requested that management plan decisions should result in a stable and diverse economic base. The Forest Service was also asked to develop rural economic partnerships. Some people stated that recreation and tourism could be an economic boost to their businesses if promoted.

Public Finances - County Revenues and Payments in Lieu of Taxes

Comments found here discussed the economic efficiency of public land management and the loss of property taxes to local tax rolls because of federal ownership. The merits of livestock grazing, energy development and tourism were discussed as revenue sources.

Valuing Natural Resources

Many arguments were presented regarding the importance of one management approach or emphasis over another. Many people suggested that these lands should benefit all Americans. Some people stated that Forest Service management favors extractive industries, such as grazing, energy development, and logging. Some commentors asked that natural resource protection and nonconsumptive uses be given stronger consideration in Forest Service management to benefit more Americans.

______________________________

TOPIC: Livestock Grazing

Grazing in Principle

Many comments on this topic favored a continued program of livestock grazing. Some comments referred to the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act as the foundation for their position. Other comments were concerned about grazing levels that compromise other resource values, such as wildlife habitat and recreation settings. Some people thought it came down to a fairness issue. In their view, livestock grazing is a dominate use and other uses are not given equal consideration on the National Forest System lands. Some commentors proposed management practices to reduce negative livestock grazing effects.

Grazing Suitability/Capacity

Comments urged either increases or decreases in livestock grazing levels. Some comments addressed specific grazing management practices, such as grazing warm-season grasses or woody draws.

Desired Future Condition

Many commentors debated the benefits or negative effects of livestock grazing on rangeland health. Some people asked how healthy rangeland is defined and determined. Other people offered their own definition.

Grazing Capacity

Comments under this topic discussed grazing levels both in principle and specific terms. Some respondents recommended stocking livestock at less than full capacity to allow some management flexibility. In some cases, commentors encouraged maintaining the current levels. Other people thought the Forest Service was overly conservative in determining grazing capacity. The calculation methods for grazing capacity were also questioned.

Grazing Systems

Most comments supported grazing systems that rest pastures to some degree. Some people believe too much rest can lead to old, dead grass that isn't good for cattle or wildlife. Some comments suggested that rested pastures can increase grassland diversity. A few respondents also observed that all pastures are not the same, and grazing systems should be based on site-specific conditions.

Grazing Developments

Some people wrote that fences and other artificial structures on the grassland diminish recreation experiences and alter wildlife habitat. Some comments stated that fence gates are difficult to open, and cattle guards might be an improvement over gates. Fencing was endorsed as a way to protect sensitive areas. It was suggested that structural improvements should be designed to benefit wildlife or minimize negative impacts, and wells can help distribute cattle. Plastic water pipe was proposed as a more efficient way to move water. There were also comments regarding specific sites and situations.

______________________________

TOPIC: Oil, Gas, and Minerals

It was suggested that if the nation is to remain sovereign it must mine its minerals rather than depend on foreign sources. Commentors also discussed their environmental concerns with mineral production. Most comments wanted more protective measures in environmentally sensitive areas. Some people suggested that roadless areas and important wildlife and recreation areas should not be leased. Some respondents stated that current oil and gas stipulations are almost too burdensome to make it worth pursuing development.

______________________________

TOPIC: Plant and Animal Control

Noxious Weeds

While most people agreed that noxious weeds are a problem, the suggestions for specific species and treatments varied. Some people encouraged biological treatments, and others wanted all methods considered. There was some concern about indiscriminate and widespread use of pesticides and herbicides. Buck thorn, leafy spurge, brome, Canada thistle, and spotted knapweed were among problem species mentioned.

Prairie Dogs

Two divergent themes emerged from comments--control prairie dogs and stop killing prairie dogs. Some people suggested that prairie dogs and livestock grazing can be compatible. Some people contend that the chemical agents used to poison prairie dogs are carried on through the system and can poison other nontargeted animals. Other commentors were concerned about negative effects on species associated with prairie dogs. Prairie dogs expand rapidly, reported some respondents, and these agricultural pests spread out onto private land.

Predators

Some people think that no predator control should occur. Some commentors proposed restoring native predators. It was suggested that predator control may be needed for the survival of some rare species. The Forest Service was also urged to consider all practices that would control predators. Some respondents offered their ideas on methods to control predators.

______________________________

TOPIC: Rangeland and Forest Health

Biodiversity

There were many philosophical views expressed on this topic. In general, numerous comments encouraged protection and restoration of native biological communities. More specific comments questioned the definition of biodiversity, made the points that species come and go naturally over time, and human activities should be considered in developing a carrying capacity for wildlife. A few commentors thought game species management should be addressed as a separate topic, rather than be included in this topic.

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Most comments encouraged restoration and preservation of habitats for threatened, endangered, sensitive, and rare species. Among species mentioned were prairie chickens, grouse, prairie dogs, swift fox, mountain plover, burrowing owls, ferruginous hawks, black-footed ferrets, wolves, western prairie-fringed orchids, bison, bats, birds, and butterflies. Other commentors stated that the government overreacts to endangered species concerns. Some people commented that species listings lead to limits on grazing, energy development and recreation activities.

Management Indicator Species

There were many questions about how management indicator species are selected and used. Prairie dogs and game animals were suggested as management indicator species.

General Wildlife and Fisheries

Some commentors encouraged the Forest Service to protect wildlife habitats. Some commentors reported that wildlife populations have increased, and populations of some species may have exceeded the land's carrying capacity. Some respondents stated that livestock operators and ranches should be recognized for the contributions they make to wildlife habitat.

Forest and Grassland Health

Commentors requested that native plant species and communities be restored and protected. There is concern over the influence of nonnative plant species and noxious weeds. The effects of practices, such as burning, haying, and grazing, on vegetation were discussed.

Prairie Dogs

Most comments were in support of prairie dogs and the ecosystems associated with them. Respondents often described prairie dogs as a "keystone" species, influencing the success of other species, such as the black-footed ferret. Opportunity for recreational shooting was also offered as a reason for maintaining prairie dog colonies. Most comments requested protection and expansion of prairie dog colonies. The Forest Service was requested to restore prairie dog towns until they occupy 5-20 percent of their suitable habitat on the national grasslands.

A few comments did question the value of prairie dogs and complained about prairie dogs moving off the public land on to adjacent lands. Some people believe the Forest Service doesn't have accurate data on prairie dogs and are underestimating the current populations. (Comments on prairie dog control are under the Plant and Animal Control topic.)

Fire Management

Most comments supported the use of controlled or prescribed fire as a way to improve vegetation conditions. Some people questioned the benefits of using fire, such as in woody draws or in areas prone to erosion. There was also concern about the fire risk in tall grass.

Forest Management

Most comments discussed management of the tree plantations near Halsey, Nebraska. The comments generally expressed appreciation for the Sandhills' forest and asked the Forest Service to take measures to ensure the forest's continued existence. A few other comments discussed cedar encroachment on the Great Plains, logging practices, or advocated or opposed timber harvest on Nebraska's Pine Ridge or Wyoming's Thunder Basin National Grassland.

Bison

Many respondents asked that bison be restored to the Northern Great Plains. Some people see bison as a symbol of American Indian heritage and as a positive natural biological contributor better suited to prairie ecosystems than are cattle. To promote their request for bison, some respondents asked the Forest Service to provide incentives to grazing permittees to switch from grazing cattle to bison.

Birds

Commentors requested that management consider the habitat needs of prairie chickens, grouse, burrowing owls, wild turkeys, and songbirds. A few commentors questioned the habitat requirements of bird species.

______________________________

TOPIC: Recreation and Travel Management

Recreation Use and Values

Many people expressed appreciation for the recreation opportunities offered on the national grasslands and forests and encouraged more consideration for recreation users. Some commentors requested recreation investments, such as campgrounds, picnic sites, trails, interpretive stations, signs, brochures, and accessible gates. Other commentors value the primitive nature of these public lands and discouraged additional developments. The conflicts and concerns associated with increasing public recreation use were evident in many comments. Some respondents think that the Forest Service puts recreation second to grazing in their management priorities. Some people commented that putting grazing ahead of recreation is the correct management approach. Other people insist recreation and grazing are compatible and neither should succeed at the expense of the other.

Motorized Use

Two themes surfaced in these comments. Many people maintained that the need to address the negative effects of uncontrolled off-road travel surpass the rights of people to pursue those activities. Many of the same people promote more control and enforcement of restrictions. Off highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts emphasized that the national grasslands and forests are among the few, if not the only, places for them to ride. OHV organizations believe they encourage responsible riding and request that the Forest Service work with them to address off-road travel issues. They suggested separating their activities to specific trails and areas to reduce impacts to other recreation users. Some people would entertain the idea of a user fee if it would ensure continued opportunities. Other comments under this topic discussed specific sites and situations.

Non-motorized Use

Most comments assigned under this topic requested a system of non-motorized trails. Other requests included hiker- and horseback-friendly trails with appropriate gates through fences.

Hunting and Fishing

Several subjects were addressed under this topic. Some hunting comments concerned wildlife habitat requirements; some discussed access for hunters; some addressed hunter trespass on private land. There were comments that both endorsed and opposed prairie dog recreational shooting. Some people think the number of hunters is reducing the hunting experience. Walk-in hunting areas was proposed as a method of improving hunting experiences for some. Interest was also expressed in creating or renovating ponds and improving stream and river segments to enhance sport fishing.

Access - Roads

Some commentors requested no additional road construction; some requested more road maintenance; a few people requested either more access or less access during hunting season. The desire for public access to public lands where that access may be difficult because of a lack of rights-of-way was also expressed.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Commentors asked for diverse recreation settings so people can pursue a variety of experiences and activities.

Landscape and Visual Resources

The comments on this topic supported a system of visual standards, preferably simple.

____________________________

TOPIC: Special Area Designations

Roadless/Wilderness Areas

Many comments requested roadless areas be recommended to Congress for Wilderness or that roadless areas be protected in some fashion to maintain their undeveloped character. Specific proposals were made in some comments. A few commentors wanted no additional Wilderness or wanted motorized access maintained or expanded. The question was asked how Wilderness designation could affect county road rights-of-way if a county chose to assert that right in the future.

Research Natural Areas/Special Interest Areas

Comments either supported or opposed these special area designations. People had questions about management direction for these areas and how particular activities could be affected

Wild and Scenic Rivers

While there was some support for Wild and Scenic River designations in principle and for the Little Missouri River specifically, most comments opposed designations for the Little Missouri River in North Dakota and the Middle Loup River in Nebraska. There were also questions about the effects and implications of federal designation and concern over infringement on private property rights.

OTHER TOPICS

TOPIC: Fossils

Many views were expressed on this topic. Some people believe only scientific collection should be allowed; others think amateurs should be permitted to collect. Some commentors insist commercial collecting should be granted. A commentor offered that if the fossils were naturally uncovered and not dug, they should be available to amateur collectors.

TOPIC: Land Use

Land Exchanges

Most people who addressed this topic favored land exchanges. Among the reasons stated--land exchanges can consolidate small, isolated public tracts, making it easier for the public to distinguish private from public lands. Some people also stated land exchanges improve hunting opportunities, prairie dog management, and overall management efficiency.

Private Property Rights

Foremost among the comments was the concern over infringement of private property rights related to Wild and Scenic River designation. As expressed in the comments, condemnation of private land should not be considered. It was suggested that if purchases are made, they should involve only willing sellers. There were also concerns over public trespass on private land.

TOPIC: Heritage Resources, Treaty Rights, Tribal Relations

Most commentors encouraged the preservation and interpretation of cultural and historical sites. It is believed by some that Forest Service analyses lean heavily on society's economic aspect and ignore the history of the Great Plains.

Comments on treaty rights discussed water rights and access to the national grasslands. Commentors also encouraged American Indian Tribe involvement in Forest Service management and decisions for the national grasslands and forests. It was suggested that tribal colleges are in a good position to advance concerns and develop solutions for tribal issues. Also, bison reintroduction was offered as a way to bring Northern Plains people together.

TOPIC: Planning and Regulations

Planning Principles

Many different subjects fell under this topic. Some comments offered support for commercial activities. Some people requested little or no change in management. Some people implied their desired management emphasis was more virtuous because it would not benefit them financially. The debate over local interests versus national interests carried through some comments. Multiple use was advocated as a management principle by many. Some respondents promoted their particular use or interest--whether commercial enterprises or biological concerns. Flexible, site-specific management practices were suggested by some people.

Place-Based Planning

Generally, the theme of discussions under this topic was over local control and interests and the American public's interest in National Forest System lands. Those advocating local control believe their knowledge and experience puts them in a better position to manage the land or to provide input to decision makers on management. Other comments emphasized that national resources belong to all Americans.

Scope of Assessment and Planning Area

Most commentors supported broader views and considerations in national grassland and forest management. They favored examining relationships across landscapes without considering ownership or administration.

Collaborative Efforts

Most comments encouraged involvement by their organization or agency and offered their assistance. Respondents asked that their input and knowledge be respected and considered.

Ecological Significance of Assessment

Generally, there was support for protection of rare habitats, species, and opportunities offered by these public lands. Some people stressed the long-term nature of management, asking that short-sighted interests not lead to decisions with long-term negative effects.

Public Involvement

There were many varied comments under this topic. Some people simply asked to be included on the mailing list. Others complemented the Forest Service on certain public involvement events. Some people complained they were overlooked or not aware of public involvement opportunities. Some commentors requested private meetings with the planning team. The public nature of national grassland and forest management was pointed out in some comments. Some commentors felt local residents should have a greater influence on management decisions.

Alternatives

Most commentors offered their opinions on the preliminary alternatives. Some people questioned the need for change in the current management. Some suggested their philosophical views on management emphases. Some people asked for more detail on the alternatives. The Forest Service was encouraged to build bison grazing options into the management alternatives.

TOPIC: Water Resources

Water Quality and Yield

Comments under this topic were concerned with the quality of water needed for a variety of uses. Respondents discussed the sources of pollution and some requested that these issues be dealt with in management direction. It was suggested that fall haying might be more beneficial than grazing and less of a sediment generator.

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Most respondents requested that riparian areas be protected. Some commentors cited livestock grazing as a source of concern for riparian conditions and suggested methods to reduce impacts. Other commentors asked the Forest Service what measures were planned to protect riparian areas. The comments on wetlands asked that important wetlands be identified and protected.

LEGISLATIVE TOPICS

These are topics that are outside the scope of the decisions to be made within the revised management plans and would require Congressional action.

TOPIC: Federal Land Divestiture

Some commentors would prefer that national grasslands and forests be sold to improve the tax base in affected counties. Other respondents believe that the public lands provide experiences and opportunities not found on private land and should remain in federal ownership. The Standing Rock Sioux Indian Tribe expressed their desire to acquire the Grand River National Grassland.

TOPIC: Fees

Recreation Fees

Some commentors promoted recreation-user fees for the reasons of either ensuring the continued availability of the public lands for their activity or correcting a perceived inequity among those who benefit from the public lands, whether commodity users or recreationists.

Grazing Fees

Many commentors asked for increases in grazing fees. The perception reflected in the comments is that the current grazing fee is below market value, and Forest Service livestock permittees are being subsidized by taxpayers through federal programs. The suggestion was made to open permits to a bidding system.

FORM LETTERS

This section describes the comments from the seven separate form letters received from public scoping. Each number represents a different form letter. There were a total of 2,045 form letters, which represented 65 percent of the total responses.

Form Letter 1 - (1,657 received)

Content:

I would like to see the following issues covered in the Grassland Management Plans revisions:

1. The Forest Service must protect roadless areas and recommend to Congress that they be designated wilderness.

2. The Forest Service should implement better management practices for livestock, including protecting riparian areas and woody draws. The Forest Service should promote voluntary incentives for ranchers to switch to grazing bison rather than cattle and study the different effects of bison and cattle grazing on the grassland ecosystem.

3. The Forest Service should better protect the prairie ecosystem and its increasingly rare animal communities such as prairie dog towns and prairie chicken and grouse habitat.

4. The Forest Service must develop a system of non-motorized recreation trails on our National Grasslands. In addition, the current lack of developed campgrounds and picnic grounds on the Grasslands inhibits recreational use.

5. The Forest Service needs to protect environmentally sensitive areas from oil and gas leasing. Roadless areas, important wildlife habitat, and important recreational areas should not be leased.

Form Letter 2 - (19 received)

Content:

Re: Analysis of the Little Missouri River as required by the Wild & Scenic River Act of 1968.

The Little Missouri River is designated a State Scenic River (NDCC 61-29-01); they protect it to maintain the scenic, historic, and recreational qualities of the river and its tributary streams.

I am opposed to inclusion of any part of the Little Missouri River into the Federal Wild and Scenic River System. I am in favor of a "no designation" alternative.

Form Letter 3 - (92 received)

Content:

The National Grasslands management direction needs to change in the following ways:

1. Recommend roadless areas be designated as wilderness.

2. Promote voluntary incentives for switching to grazing bison.

3. Protect the keystone prairie species such as prairie dogs.

4. End lethal predator and pest controls.

5. Develop a system of non-motorized recreation trails.

6. End the current classification of bison as "exotic" animals.

7. Allow Indian tribes to graze bison on their allotments.

8. Protect sensitive areas from oil and gas leasing.

Form Letter 4 - (109 received)

Content:

Please provide for wildlife and biodiversity in the Plan Revision:

1. Require at least 20% of suitable area be in prairie dog colonies. Require that some of the prairie dog colonies be managed for watch able wildlife and biodiversity by restricting hunting of prairie dogs in these areas.

2. Require at least 20% of suitable area be in grass/for of the highest seral stage.

3. Require at least 20% of suitable areas have adequate residual cover for wildlife needs.

4. Insure the recovery of riparian, wooded draws and wetland areas. Improve maintenance of water quality and prevention of erosion.

5. Insure diversity of grassland plant and animal species. Protect species at risk: including those on state as well as federal lists.

6. Promote the reintroduction of bison as livestock and/or wildlife.

7. Designate special botanical areas and recommend research natural areas.

8. Provide for the judicious use of prescribed burns to simulate the effects of large prairie fires.

Please provide for recreation and biodiversity in the Plan Revision:

1. Give us more hiking trails, campgrounds, picnic grounds and nature study/watch able wildlife areas.

2. Recommend additional wilderness areas and wild and scenic river areas.

3. Protect visual quality (scenery).

Form Letter 5 (10 received)

Content:

I wish to participate in the Grasslands Management Revision for the Northern Great Plains grasslands. Please add my name to the interest list. Also, please send me the March 1997 issue of the Revision Reporter, which solicits comments for the scoping stage of the revision process.

The management direction I wish to encourage is large-scale bison restoration, for the ecological and economic well-being of the grasslands. Bring back the buffalo!

Form Letter 6 - (116 received)

Content:

I wish to participate in the Management Plan Revision for the Northern Great Plains National Grassland. Please add my name to the interest list, and send me the Revision Reporter at the address given below.

Bison restoration is the management alternative I wish to encourage because of its potential for positive environmental, economic, and social outcomes on the Northern Great Plains.

As my contribution to the scoping phase of the revision process, I am asking you to explore a prudently gradual large-scale bison restoration as a separate policy alternative. Including planning for tribal people to assert appropriate leadership in the bison restoration.

Form Letter 7 - (42 received)

Content:

Restoration of native prairie ecosystems is inconceivable without restoration of bison. Grazing bison, rather than cattle, should be the key "technology change" in management direction on the Grasslands. Bison are the central element affecting all grasslands issues, including rangeland health, biodiversity, and recreation.

Please add my name to the "interest list" for the Grasslands Management Revisions.

PETITIONS

Two types of petitions were received. The contents of the petitions are displayed below, along with the total number of attached signatures.

Petition 1 - (43 signatures)

Content:

WE, the undersigned respectfully request that you use management alternative #2, which is:

Emphasize commodity production such as livestock grazing, mining, timber, within ecological capability [for] sustainable productions,

whereas:

This alternatives is the only one which comes close to the Bankhead Jones Act:

whereas:

This is the custom and culture of the area which pays at least 70% of the taxes to keep our community, schools, and county operating.

The wildlife does not pay any taxes but the cow and sheep do: which is our livelihood!!

whereas:

This is what you should be managing for anyway: which is custom and culture.

Petition 2 - (835 signatures)

Content:

We, the undersigned, wish to encourage large-scale bison restoration as a management direction for the Northern Great Plains National Grasslands. We feel that bison restoration has significant potential to benefit both the LAND and the PEOPLE who call the Northern Great Plains their home -- tribal, town, and ranch people alike. Please explore large-scale bison restoration as a discreet policy alternative in the impact statement you prepare as part of the management review process. Include planning for tribal people to assert appropriate leadership in the bison restoration.

Petition 3 - (21 signatures)

Content:

We, the undersigned members of the Pioneer Coop. Grazing District, request the Northern Great Plains Planning Team to use alternative 2 as the potential theme for the future use of the national grasslands that are within the boundaries of the Pioneer Grazing District.

We ask that the proposed Management Plan Revision be basically the same as the 6.G. plan contained in the 1984 Neb. National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This is the plan we now operate by and it is most evident that the pastures and game are in good condition.