ND Department of Agriculture
Testimony

January 20, 2000

Larry Dawson
Northern Great Plains Planning
USDA Forest Service
125 North Main Street
Chadron, NE 69337

Dear Mr. Dawson:

I would like to thank the United States Forest Service for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan – Dakota Prairie Grasslands 1999 Revision.

I would also like to thank the Forest Service for responding positively to requests for extensions to the comment period time limit. The extensions have been very useful for the North Dakota Department of Agriculture and the agricultural community in developing comments on the proposed land and resource management plan.

Many agriculture organizations, ranchers, and affected local communities are currently conducting independent reviews of the Management Plan and are preparing comments. The comprehensive nature of this plan is requiring considerable time for review. I expect the Forest Service will receive numerous comments, many from outside of the states that have grassland planning units. I ask that special attention be given to the comments submitted from the impacted communities, industries, and individuals that make a living from activities directly related to the grasslands planning units discussed in the management plan.

I believe it is possible to develop a management plan that provides for a multi-use format without endangering the economic livelihood of North Dakota rural communities and the agriculture community that relies upon the Forest Service controlled grasslands.

The following are general recommendations I request the Forest Service to consider before totally reconsidering or finalizing the management plan:

• Special attention should be given to the comments submitted by the impacted communities, industries, and individuals that make a living from activities directly related to the grassland units discussed in the management plan.

• Limitations on fencing and future water development decrease the ability for ranchers to develop grazing systems. These proposed limitations should be reconsidered.
  
• Consideration should be given to grazing systems designed to enhance and stimulate plant biological processes as a means for managing healthy grassland ecosystems.
  
• Fire suppression needs greater emphasis in the management plan.

The Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that collaborative groups were organized to assist in developing alternatives. More specific emphasis should have been made to extract agriculture-specific input when developing the draft management plan.

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture was not consulted on a possible list of contacts that would serve to help represent agriculture users of the grasslands. Chapter 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement lists the document recipients. The North Dakota commissioner of agriculture and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture did not receive copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the proposed revised management plans. In fact, the

Wyoming Department of Agriculture is the only state department of agriculture listed that received the complete set of documents. Major agriculture groups, notably, the North Dakota Farmers Union and the North Dakota Farm Bureau were also not included.

At a minimum, the Service should have conducted multiple targeted agriculture-impact meetings in each county affected by the management plan. This would have ensured that the Forest Service would have received more initial input from the agriculture community on the development of the draft management plan.

The Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan 1999 Revision (page Preface – 9) states, "A thorough review of the management plan should be completed before initiating a management plan revision." This step is to be completed by an interdisciplinary team that follows a list of specific review steps.

No information is found within the document to indicate that the review steps were met in developing the management plan. No information is provided on how the current management plan is meeting current goals. No discussion is provided on what data was reviewed to meet this necessary requirement. Basically, the reviewer is left without a "snap shot" of the status of conditions in the grasslands. Reviewers are left wondering why the Forest Service is taking time to develop multiple alternatives when they do not know how the current management plan is working. This background information is necessary to begin a proper discussion of the condition of the nation’s grasslands. Absent this fundamental information, any reviewer’s serious attempt to critically review this plan is severely compromised.

I recommend a report be prepared that details the exact condition of the grassland tracts. The report should indicate how the present management plan is being implemented. Are goals being met? Reviewers want to know if the Forest Service is proposing changes to the current management plans because some current management plan activity is not being successfully implemented or is failing to meet desired objectives. Reviewers need to know the status of the current management plan.

North Dakota agriculture has been dealing with a continual series of natural disasters. Over the course of the last two years, we have found ourselves in a low-price driven economic disaster in virtually all agricultural sectors. The resulting impact is devastating the small rural communities that rely heavily on the agriculture economy. The recent downturn in the agriculture sector will have a profound effect on the larger urban communities.

One of the largest problems affecting producers in North Dakota is the sheer lack of profitability in agriculture. In 1998, family living expenses exceeded net farm income in North Dakota for the third year in a row (Attachment 1).

Our two largest agriculture industries – wheat and cattle – have brought in low and negative returns to producers for the past several years (Attachments 2 & 3). The average return per beef cow for the years 1995 through 1998 was $3.00.

The proposed Management Plan changes the way producers will have to manage grazing operations on the grasslands. Livestock sales account for a large percent of the market value of agricultural products sold in counties that are impacted by the plan. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, livestock sales averaged 50 percent of the market value of agricultural products sold in the selected counties, ranging individually from 18 to 77 percent (Attachments 4-12). Any impact on the ability of producers to graze livestock in the management areas will have an economic impact on the producers and the associated local communities.

Many producers are already feeling the impact of the lack of profitability. I encourage the Forest Service to review the financial impact the proposed plan will have on producers utilizing the targeted grasslands as their main or only source of income.

Rural communities and individuals benefit from the grasslands and will also be impacted by changes made to the current management plan. Economic and social impacts will result from any change in the current management plan.

North Dakota’s economy will be greatly impacted by the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative 3. In a report prepared for the Heritage Alliance of North Dakota (Regional Economic Effects of Proposed Revised Management Plans for the National Grasslands in North Dakota: A Summary - December 1999), the following economic impacts were identified when the effects of Alternative 3 were compared to the current management plan:

1. The estimated reduction in livestock grazing will be 36 to 48 percent on the Little Missouri National Grasslands and 64 to 70 percent on the Sheyenne National Grasslands.
2. Oil and gas exploration and extraction would be reduced from 681,540 to 53,920 acres. There would be "no surface occupancy" restrictions on 162,650 acres.
3. Recreational access (motorized travel) would be limited and restricted in many areas of the grasslands.

According to Leistritz and Bangsund (1999), reductions in livestock and energy sector sales in the Little Missouri National Grasslands and the Sheyenne National Grasslands would decrease gross business volume in the state by roughly $96 million annually. Leistritz and Bangsund characterize Alternative 3 as having "substantially negative economic consequences for North Dakota."

A very severe social impact will be the loss of direct and indirect jobs related to activities conducted in association with the grasslands. Leistritz and Bangsund (1999) estimate that direct employment associated with energy activities would decrease by 68.8 full-time equivalents per year. The study also indicates reductions in secondary employment were estimated to result in a

decrease of 777 to 869 full-time equivalent jobs. Impacts on employment will be concentrated in rural communities that desperately need positions that add to community viability.

Major Revision Topic - Livestock Grazing

Grazing is a permitted use on public grasslands. It has been an important part of the livestock agriculture sector for decades. Public land grazing makes a large contribution to the economic base in rural North Dakota.

Concerns have been raised regarding the method to be used for determining livestock grazing capacity on grassland units. The proposed departure from guaranteeing specific grazing levels by moving to a system that adjusts livestock carrying capacity according to Forest Service resource objective goals has been estimated by many to reduce grazing capacity substantially from current levels.

Public land grazing is concentrated in the western third of the state and in the southeastern corner of the state. Public grazing is concentrated in five western counties in North Dakota. Billings, Bowman, Golden Valley, McKenzie, and Slope made up 65 percent of all public grazing acres in 1991.

According to North Dakota State University Agricultural Economics Report No. 283, public land makes up 17 percent of grazing land in North Dakota. Public grazing lands in this report include all acres controlled by either state or federal government agencies; however, the Forest Service was by far the largest controller of public grazing acres. The Forest Service and the North Dakota State Land Department leased nearly 93 percent of all public grazing acres in 1991 (Bangsund and Leistritiz 1992).

Report No. 283 indicates public grazing land made up 14 percent of all available animal unit months (AUMs) in the state. Again, concentration of public AUMs is an issue. Public grazing land generated 35 percent or more of all AUMs in at least seven counties in North Dakota for 1991. Any impact to the allowable AUMs on Forest Service controlled grazing land will have a concentrated economic effect related to the concentration of the acres in a few counties in the state.

Bangsund and Leistritz calculated that the total direct economic impacts of public land grazing in North Dakota in 1991 were estimated to be $49.8 million, or $65 per AUM grazed. They also estimate the secondary impacts to be about $103.6 million, or $135 per AUM grazed, to the state’s economy. Bangsund and Leistritz calculated the following direct and secondary economic impacts of public land grazing in North Dakota:

We cannot fully assume these dollars apply to public grazing lands controlled by just the Forest Service. However, the Forest Service does control the largest block of public grazing land in North Dakota. Any decline in grazing AUMs will have an adverse economic impact on the surrounding rural communities and, indirectly, on the urban communities in North Dakota. Please see Attachment 13 for the summary report of NDSU Agricultural Economics Report No. 283.

Again, agricultural interest groups and the local communities are uneasy with the potential financial impact the plan will have on the agricultural sector. Leistritz and Bangsund (1999) estimate the proposed plan would reduce the overall countywide (i.e., across all federal, state, and private grazing lands) grazing capacity in the affected counties by 20 to 26 percent. This reduction will have a severe economic impact on individual ranchers, possibly driving many of them out of business due to the poor economics associated with ranching on the grasslands.

Major Revision Topic – Oil and Gas

The Industrial Commission has statutory authority to protect resources in North Dakota for oil and gas exploration and subsurface mining. Please see Attachments 14 and 15 for the submitted comments from the Geological Survey and the Oil and Gas Division. Comments and summary conclusions are included.

Impacts to the oil and gas sector are estimated to be as severe as the impacts to the agriculture sector. Conclusions drawn by the North Dakota Geological Survey indicate the agency has concerns with the possibility that substantial areas of "No-Surface Occupancy" will be unavailable to future oil and gas development. Findings by the Oil and Gas Division show

Alternative 3 will not lead to 111 more oil and gas jobs and a $3.1million increase in oil and gas revenue over the present management plan.

Leistritz and Bangsund (1999) indicate restrictions in the new management plan will result in 103 fewer wells being drilled during the 10-year span of the management plan and project a reduction in petroleum sector revenue of $26.5 million, a reduction of $24.5 million in secondary economic impacts, and a loss of about 388 secondary jobs.

Major Revision Topic - Plant and Animal Damage Control

Noxious weeds have a major impact on the economy of North Dakota. Besides the direct

damage to crops and forage, noxious weeds adversely affect rural and urban land values, tax revenues, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat. It is estimated leafy spurge alone infests almost one million acres of productive crop and grazing land in North Dakota. It costs farmers and ranchers an estimated $24 million annually in lost income. I encourage the Forest Service to put forth a concentrated effort to deal with the leafy spurge acreage infesting grassland units in North Dakota.

Noxious weeds and undesirable plants are an increasing concern in the grassland units. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that within the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, three districts have increasing populations of leafy spurge. The draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates leafy spurge levels on the Sheyenne National Grassland have increased from 5,000

acres in 1987 to 11,000 acres in 1995. The report also indicates there is some level of leafy spurge on 30,000 of the unit’s 70,000 acres. The 1996 scoping document for the development of the Sheyenne National Grassland’s leafy spurge control program characterizes the unit as "having a very serious leafy spurge problem."

According to NDSU Agricultural Economics Report No. 316, leafy spurge reduces carrying capacity for cattle by inhibiting normal herbage production from direct competition of the spurge plant and reduces available herbage, since cattle totally or partially avoid grazing infested range sites.

Report No. 316 indicates the following annual economic impact from leafy spurge infestations on land in North Dakota:

According to Report No. 316, the effect of leafy spurge infestations on wildland outputs result from the plant’s ability to displace existing vegetation. Leafy spurge expansion leads to a decline in native prairie plants. The reduction in plant diversity can substantially reduce wildlife habitat and may increase water runoff and soil erosion.

Table PAD-1 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement lists the noxious weed levels on the Dakota Prairie Units. The four identified units have a leafy spurge infestation level of 21,550 acres. More alarming, is the great possibility of many times that amount of acreage having some level of leafy spurge present. The total treatment level for the 21,550 acres is 5,750 acres. The treatment level must be accelerated in order to prevent the further spread of leafy spurge within the four Dakota Prairie Units.

Table PAD-6 of the draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates the percent of reduction in noxious weeds by alternative. Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 indicate a 15 percent reduction, and Alternatives 1-3-5 show no increase or no change in current direction. I would encourage development of a management plan that shows definite increase in noxious weed control.

I am encouraged by the grassland-wide direction standard that indicates consultation with state agencies will take place to deal with noxious weed problems. I also agree with the standard that allows only noxious weed-free products for feed or revegatation projects. The Forest Service is to be commended for their efforts in this regard. We all know that continued and increased diligence will be required.

I also request the Forest Service to develop management plans for all noxious weeds. Most of the draft management plan discusses leafy spurge. There needs to be management plans developed for the other noxious weeds, including musk and Canada thistle, spotted and Russian knapweed, and yellow starthistle. The Forest Service must also consider management plans for invasive weeds. Plans must be developed for detection and control of invasive weeds, such as, dalmation toadflax, hounds tongue, and common crupina. These invasive weeds are huge management problems in federally owned and managed lands in other states.

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to control and contain the spread of noxious weeds on and onto lands adjacent to National Forest System lands. Within this regulation, authority is given to conduct formal and informal cooperation with state agencies, local landowners, weed control boards, and others in the management and control of noxious weeds. I encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to increase efforts to meet with state and local noxious weed control officials to accelerate addressing weed problems.

Monitoring and control of invasive weed species should be conducted in the nature that is outlined in President Clinton’s Executive Order addressing the growing environmental and economic threat of invasive species. The Executive Order develops a Federal Interagency Invasive Species Council to work in cooperation of with states, tribes, scientific communities, agricultural organizations, conservation groups and other stakeholders. I encourage the federal government to partner with the states to develop management plans to address invasive species.

North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 63-01.1-13 (Attachment 16) addresses weed control on publicly owned land. The commissioner of agriculture is given the authority to arrange a satisfactory noxious weed and pest eradication or control program with all state and federal agencies owning, controlling, or having jurisdiction over and within the state. My office, through our noxious weed specialists, is always willing to assist in developing and implementing noxious weed control plans for all units in the state.

NDCC Chapter 64.63-01.1-13 (2) calls for federal agencies to develop a management program for controlling noxious weeds on land the agency controls. If the federal agency does not control or set up a management program to the satisfaction of the weed control authority, the weed control officer shall notify the agency. The agency is required to provide a report to the commissioner of agriculture and the county weed authorities describing methods used by the federal agency and showing cause why the federal agency is not controlling the noxious weeds. It is my hope that the Forest Service, the local county weed boards, and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture can work cooperatively to fully address noxious weed concerns in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.

Traditional weed control methods; such as, herbicides, grazing, and clipping, apparently are being used on the grassland units with varying degrees of success against leafy spurge. I encourage the Forest Service to work with the local county weed boards to integrate biological control in the fight against leafy spurge. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has established the North Dakota Biological Control Program to help control leafy spurge. I encourage the Forest Service to work with the program to establish insectary sites across the grasslands units. According to a map produced by the Theodore Roosevelt National Park Geographic Information System Laboratory, it appears the vast majority of the biological control sites are concentrated along waterways. I encourage the Forest Service to expand the biological control to universal coverage across all grassland units. The insectary sites can be used to breed more insects for eventual collection and further distribution throughout the units

Goats and sheep have long been used for weed control. Cattle do not utilize leafy spurge and generally avoid leafy spurge infested areas. Since herbicides can be cost prohibitive for use in controlling noxious weeds in large areas, goats and sheep can serve as an environmentally friendly alternative. I encourage the Forest Service to investigate using sheep and goats in areas where spraying herbicides would be harmful to the environment.

The use of fire as a weed control method should be carefully examined. Fire has proven to be counterproductive to noxious weed containment/control plans in some instances. Fire as a management tool must be closely examined for its effect on noxious weed control.

In order for the Forest Service to have success in the fight against noxious and invasive weeds, early detection and control of new and small infestations is necessary to prevent explosive infestations of weeds. Containment to prevent areas of infestation should be the minimal plan.

Prairie dog population control has become a closely monitored issue by agricultural and environmental communities. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the black-tailed prairie dog (BTPD) to determine whether the species should be proposed for listing as a threatened/endangered species.

The USFWS is acting in response to petitions filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation. According to USFWS, the occupied range of the prairie dog has declined by approximately 95 percent in the United States during the last century. Petitioners attributed the decline of the black-tailed prairie dog to many factors, including prairie dog control programs and the conversion of rangeland to cropland.

In a September 9, 1999, letter from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) to the USFWS (Attachment 17), NDGF outlines the following reasons why the black-tailed prairie dog should not be listed as an endangered species:

1. Prairie dogs are not genetically endangered.
2. Habitat decline is not documented in North Dakota. NDGF claims, until the petition was filed, that the population of BTPD was increasing. The most recent survey, completed in 1999 by Northern Prairie Research Center, documented approximately 30,000 acreas.   This indicates the population of BTPDs has nearly tripled in acreage int he past 25 years.

The Department of Agriculture was recently contacted by the USFWS to assist in an in-depth assessment of the extent to which prairie dogs have been and continue to be subjected to poisoning. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has statutory authority to register pesticides in North Dakota (NDCC 19-18-04). The Department will be working with pesticide registrants to calculate the amount of pesticide distributed in North Dakota to poison prairie dogs.

I highly recommend the Forest Service allow individual states the opportunity to manage prairie dog populations according to the needs of the state. North Dakota has formed a working group to begin to review the status of prairie dogs in the state. The working group is made up of government agencies, private groups, and individuals. The working group’s purpose is to develop a conservation plan for prairie dogs in North Dakota. Similar efforts are being conducted throughout the country.

The NDCC 63-01.02 definition of "pest" includes a prairie dog. NDCC 63-0.1-03 (3) gives authority to listed divisions of local government to carry out pest control programs, which includes, if authorized, prairie dog control programs.

The management plan should incorporate grasshopper management strategies as described by the National Grasshopper Management Board Position Paper (January 1998)(Attachment 18). This includes elements of preventative management involving adoption of grazing systems that create habitat conditions unfavorable to grasshopper population increases (Attachment 19). It also involves hotspot treatments to prevent large-scale outbreaks and management of outbreaks using recently developed strategies which are more economical and involve the application of lower quantities of pesticides (Attachment 20).

Local interests have raised questions about whether the Visual Obstruction Readings (VOR) show sampling variability, site variability, grazing patterns, pest infestations, or weather impacts. Questions have also been raised about whether the VOR is the proper method to determine rangeland health. Also, many ranchers indicate the high structure percentage, as outlined in

Alternative 3, is nearly impossible to obtain. Ranchers also feel that fencing is important in range management. Without the ability to cross fence, ranchers will have a difficult time managing grassland tracts to achieve outlined Forest Service goals.

The Forest Service needs to address the biological needs of plants in the grasslands. The current management plan should include beneficial effects to grass growth and development from defoliation by grazing. The current plan does not consider the use of grazing systems designed to enhance and stimulate plant biological processes as a means to achieve healthy grasslands ecosystems.

The proposed management plan indicates there will be an increase in the number of acres of prairie dog colonies that are protected from poisoning from the current level of 2,600 to 4,400-11,000 acres. A consistent sentiment throughout many North Dakota agriculture interest groups is that North Dakota’s population of BTPDs has been increasing, or at a minimum maintaining population levels. Many believe the state will become the protection zone for BTPDs because of our remaining populations. Tied to this issue is the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. Many ranchers and private landowners fear North Dakota will eventually be forced into becoming a reintroduction site for ferrets. With the reintroduction, many fear the implications of the Endangered Species Act far outweigh any regulatory impacts the management plan will have.

We feel North Dakota has done a good job in balancing the population of BTPDs. We would like the Forest Service to defer any action on this species to the proposed conservation plan that will be developed by interests within the state.

Many ranchers and private landowners fear access to grasslands will be limited by the amounts identified in the preferred Alternative 3:

Alternative 3 will greatly limit landowners and permittees access to grassland units by motorized vehicle. Many times in agriculture establishments, permittees need to access public lands with vehicles to conduct normal maintenance or conduct emergency repairs. Limiting access will have a great impact on ranchers and private landowners.

Many believe the areas taken out of use will have a great impact on the economic livelihood of rural communities.

We can accomplish a management plan which provides a multiple-use format, without endangering the economic livelihood of North Dakota rural communities and the agriculture community that relies upon the Forest Service grasslands. However, as the plan is currently written, the agriculture and petroleum sectors will be greatly impacted by the proposed management plan. The economic impact will be substantial on ranchers and rural communities concentrated around the grassland units. The economic impact will also affect tax collections needed to support local government functions necessary to the rural communities. The social impact of lost jobs will greatly impact the affected rural communities. These impacts will hurt areas of North Dakota already burdened with hardships due to adverse weather conditions and a sagging agriculture economy.

The current management plan should be left in place until all concerns identified by all groups are answered. Enough concern has been raised to indicate the Forest Service will need to completely revise the management plan.

If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Ken Junkert of my staff at 701-328-4764.

Thank you for consideration of my comments and recommendations.

Sincerely,

Roger Johnson
Commissioner of Agriculture

RJ:kj

CC: United States Senator Kent Conrad
United States Senator Byron Dorgan
Congressman Earl Pomeroy
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
Governor Edward T. Schafer
Dale Patten, HAND
North Dakota Farmers Union
North Dakota Farm Bureau
North Dakota Stockmen’s Association

G:\ken\grassland

Back to the Comments, Speeches and Testimony